 Good evening, everyone. It is 734 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 24th, 2021. I'd like to call this meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont here. Patrick Handlin. Nice to see Pat there. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. See you. Stephen Revillac. Here. We'll just see you and Shanna Rourke is not with us this evening. Assisting for the town of Arlington, Rick Valerelli is on. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Vincent Lee. Good evening. And Kelly Linema. Here. See you as well. And our technical consultant for comprehensive permits, Paul Haverty. Here. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Good to see you. Okay, so this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. And into law on June 16, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirements to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. They meet remotely so long a reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video webinar via the Zoom webinar application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the post agenda. So moving on to the business portion of the meeting. Item number two on the agenda. This is the approval of meeting minutes. We have two sets of minutes. We have the meeting minutes from May 18, 2021, and the minutes from May 25, 2021. I know we had also posted the minute, the minutes from May 13, but we had approved those at the previous hearing. I had seen that Mr. Revlak had submitted comments on the proposed minutes. Were there other comments that board members would like to make on the minutes from either May 18 or May 25. One of the comments I had was that where we reference beta group, our peer review consultant, all four letters and beta should be capitalized, as opposed to just the first letter so. Rick, if you could include that administratively that would be great. I think we already did Mr. Chairman. Perfect. So with that in mind. I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 18 as amended. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Mills. We have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Revlak. Going down the list. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. DuPont's may I make a motion? A second. Thank you. Mr. Moят. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Special last discussion or work is not present Mr. Revlak. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Those minutes are approved as amended. Yeah, I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 25th as amended. So moved. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. That's an aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Thank you. Mr. O'Rourke is not present. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Dammit. Mr. Ford. Aye. And chair votes aye. So those are approved. Next. So it moves us on to the next portion of our meeting. Public hearing ground rules for comprehensive permit decision deliberations. Turning to the comprehensive permit for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. At its July 26th, 2021 public hearing, the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40 day period for the board to consider and render a decision. Tonight's discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the board's peer review consultants or the public. For this reason, tonight's meeting is being conducted using the webinar platform, which allows the board to limit who may participate in the discussion. On behalf of the board, I appreciate everyone's understanding. The board will begin its discussion using the draft decision available on the ZVA's website for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. The board will proceed from page one through the draft decision discussing proposed revisions. At the end of tonight's meeting, the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting to continuous deliberations. Under state regulations, the board must issue a decision by September 4th or request an extension from the applicant to further continuous deliberations. So this is the draft that's currently available on the website. And just sort of, so going down to the development in conversations that we've had in the past with the applicant, there isn't a specific development name apart from the address. So Paul, I don't know if we should just take this line out or if we should just fill in as 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Take the line out. Take the line out. Okay. There's a bit of background if there's room in the environment if they don't mind muting, that would be great. So under the procedural history, I think we were okay. I know there was some question about the actual number of structures because just sort of depending on how you count the buildings, but I believe the numbers that are being represented here are correct. Unless there's anyone from the board who has a section of them. And then the only change I was gonna recommend is in the third line, under numbers proposed, make that a past tense. We still have a bit of background noise. I don't know where that's originating from, but if somebody mute that out, that'd be great. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. On this first paragraph, I hope that this first paragraph isn't necessarily going to be set a keynote for the rest of the evening, but I have two questions. One is, has to do with the definition of the word application. On various occasions later on in the document, we'll talk about the original application and small letters. And it's a little bit unclear whether application is intended to mean that thing that was filed on December 1st, 2020, which would be the original application or whether it's that thing that has been sort of revised and has developed over time and is the thing that is the project that is sort of defined later in section A. And I guess we either should make that, we should make that clear. I think that the intent is probably that the application is not what was done on December 1st, 2020, but the application that is now before us will all of the changes that have taken place. But I wonder if Mr. Haverty can explain that. If in fact that's the right rule, we should just make sure that we've always used the word application as a defined term later on, consistent with whatever we decide it means at this point. Mr. Chairman, I think that we can change this to actually to specifically identify the revised project. Okay. So to use that as the tag for that, I would need to see specifically which provisions Mr. Hanlon is talking about to address whether or not that should be the application or the revised application. I think we can define it here and use it appropriately. Okay. So the second thing I have in this paragraph, I just delete the word, the definition of the project here. And the reason is that I've forgotten B2 or B4. We also have another definition of the word project and we really ought to have only one. And the one that we have later on is more formal and precise than this one is. Go ahead and cross that out. And then going down the page here, we mentioned the date of the initial hearing, but we don't include the subsequent dates. Are those things we should include, Mr. Havity? We can. Do we need to? There's no requirements. Okay. That's a board field because we could say that the final hearing we held was July 26th. So we could just reference that date that the board held hearings concluding on July 26th. And another thing would close the public hearing on July 26th, 2021. Okay. See if I can try to track down where we're getting the noise from here. Now it's gone. Does anybody on the board have a specific opinion about how we handle that? Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. I'm in agreement with Mr. Havity. It seems to me that it's useful to say the date on which we close the public hearing because other dates are related to that. I don't think that it's of any particular value to stick in the specific dates or even the number of other public hearings we had. So I would, in the interest of time, not do that. Okay, agree. Paragraph three, obviously we would just pull that over the three over sort of lines with the numbers above it. And then four, as we identify the property by what is surrounding it, do we want to include anything specific about the access at this stage that the site can be accessed from Estus' Avenue, Quinn Road, Rider Street? Is that, should that be included in the description of the property? Or, Mr. Chair? I mean, we do have an item 29 on page seven does include information about property access. It doesn't mention Quinn Road, which it probably should. Okay. But I think for to bring it up earlier, it might be okay to say access to the site is provided, as in described in item nine, or not nine. 29. Whatever number it was. I think you said 29. 29, yes, 29. Anything else on page one? Being not a move fully onto page two. Here I would, so this is where we have this confusion. So we say, initially we had six structures. We should bring that S back. For reference comprising whatever, but that's okay, because that is the old number. Aff bookends provide various materials. Under five, should we include that? Because we talk specifically about structures and we talk about pavement, but we don't talk about the two, the Milbrook or Riderbrook. Wasn't sure if that should be added as a line, where they feature so prominently on this. Mr. Mills has a thumbs up. Go ahead and add that in. Item six, item seven, pretty straightforward. Mr. Chairman, I have something on item six. This is Hanlon. I would propose amending item six by adding a second sentence that says, the applicant also engaged in productive discussions with residents of Rider and Beck streets in order to address concerns advanced by the residents. There will be several suggestions I will make along this line, but in terms of the discussions we've had over the last year or so, the people who lived on Rider and Beck were protagonists here. And I think in this particular paragraph, it's useful to point out that the applicant took them seriously and engaged in productive discussions with them. But they may not literally be in butters because they live across the street, but I think that the overall, the opinion should reflect their concern and their participation in the proceedings over the period of time that they have loyally followed us through every twist and turn of the proceeding. Very well taken. Can you repeat the language you wanted to add? Yes, the sentence would read the applicant also engaged in productive discussions with residents of Rider and Beck streets in order to address concerns advanced by the residents period. The only adjustment I would make to that is it's Rider street and Beck road. Good point. Do you have a lot to share? Mr. Havardy first, please. No, I just said I got that I'm all set. Okay, going back one item to five, if we're going to reference Milbrook or talk about Milbrook at that point, it might, may I suggest a forward reference to item 16 where we talk about all the resource areas. Good to do that. Chairman. Mr. Dubon. So in item five, and I guess this relates going back to the top where we're saying that the project consists of three structures. Is that correct? I don't see it in front of me, but that's what it is. So the existing property, I believe, has six structures on it. Right. And I'm just wondering for clarification, would you mind just going back up to where it identifies the number of structures involved in the, so subsequently reduce the size in three structures. So it just sort of begs a question as I'm reading that when you say that the property consists of six structures. So how would we, can we clarify sort of the disparity? So I think the six, so the six is the number of structures on the site presently. Yes. And then the original proposal was to come back with four structures because there was a sort of a linking structure between the larger apartment buildings and the preserved pump house. Right. That structure was removed in the final program which brought us to three structures. So I'm just wondering though, so is there a way that down in five we can refer to the fate of the other three structures which are not included? I think we can add a sentence that states the applicant proposes to reduce the number of structures on the property to three structures. Exactly. That'd be great. Thank you. Any other comments through number seven? Number eight, the only change I would recommend I know that the applicant had a utility consultant who was hired as a part of their team. I think we would, I would like to add them. I think we just need to ask the applicant to provide the name and any title for that person so that they can be added to that list. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I think that given the way in which the hearings actually preceded it, that it would be useful to include Mr. St. Clair. Okay. And so I would just include at the appropriate spot, I happen to have it at the end, although it can be put anywhere. He's obviously one of the key figures here. Daniel St. Clair comma project executive of applicant. This is the way Mr. St. Clair is described in the original application. You got that, Mr. Havity? I have Daniel St. Clair right now, and I'll go back to the original application and get to Mr. St. Clair. Okay. And I know Ms. O'Connor's on the call, so I will just ask her if she can provide that contact information offline. Make sure we get that correct. Chairman, you know, as you know, that there's a document in the original application that includes the project team. Yep. And it's a useful place to go to get the sort of information. Oh, thank you. And then in number nine, I would just add after the reference to Greg Lucas, P-E-P-T-O-E, we would also add Tyler DeRoyder, P-E-P-T-O-E, who took over from Mr. Lucas when he left the firm. What was his last name? It's DeRoyder. So it's D-E, both lower case, and then capital R-U-I-T-E-R. And he has the same association as Mr. Lucas. And then I want to ask the board if we should include the town's transportation planner in our list of town staff. I have no objections. Okay. That looks good. All right, so if we can add Daniel as well. Just to ask with line of mouth if she can provide the spelling of his last name. Yes, that is A-M is in Michael, S-T-U-T-Z. And his title is Senior Transportation Planner. Great, thank you. Is there any other town staff who are missing during none? Then during number 10, we referenced we've had significant input. As Mr. Hanlon had mentioned before, there was a local residents group of residents from Ryder Street and Beck Road who had composite information that had put together some submittals to the board on behalf of their community. And I wasn't sure if we should include a specific reference to that as we had, as was recommended earlier. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I had thought to do that in the second line after the word persons, including the parenthetical, including residents of nearby Ryder Street and Beck Road, and then it continues throughout the hearing process. Do you have that, Mr. Havity? I do. Perfect, thank you. Any other questions or comments through paragraph 10? Seeing none. That moves us onto the jurisdictional findings. First, talks about the, 11 talks about the regulatory and 12 basically covers everything in regards to the state of Barbara's status and the board's non-recognition. Are there, is there anything in this section here the section on jurisdictional findings that the board has comments or questions on? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This is one of the key areas where the word application comes up a lot. And frequently it's being used in a way that would be appropriate just to say the application if it's a defined term. And I'd leave it up to Mr. Havity to make the judgment of when that's appropriate. But these, this particularly paragraph 11 is one several times. Looking at paragraph mainly as references to applicants. Mr. Chairman and 11A, for example, it says the applicant is a limited liability company and has indicated in its application. I would probably say in the application. And that would be the original application. I don't know if that distinction is important right there, but I would have said, I think just the application, but it's, again, I don't wanna waste a great deal of time getting that right. I just like, if we're gonna have a defined term, I would like to use the defined term wherever it's appropriate. And then Mr. Havity, you had had a question before I believe about the address. And whether it's, I don't know if it's post office, it's one post office square, but that leaves us initially some question about the, not only the address, but also the establishment of the entity within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Do you know if those were resolved? Not to my knowledge. That's something that's going to have to be resolved before they can commence construction on the project, but it doesn't need to be resolved. Okay. Any other questions or comments on section two, jurisdictional findings? Looking up and down and seeing none. I'll move on to factual findings. So section to paragraph 13, we have it in here already a correction that is 2.0 acres. That's what we are defining it as. The project is located within the industrial district. I wasn't sure if we should note here that residential uses are not allowed in industrial districts under local zoning bylaw. Or if that, those kinds of references to what the bylaw states, if those are unnecessary. I don't think it hurts to mention that here. Okay. So if we could mention that the residential uses are not allowed in industrial districts under local zoning bylaws. Before I go to the next page, anything else on number 13, anyone? So number 14, in addition to being located next to various commercial uses, I wasn't sure if we should add as noted in the procedural history comma, the project also about the residential condominium complex at Nine Ryder Street. Let me do that change. Okay. Anything else before we move on to wetlands? Seeing none. So I did not have any comments myself on 15 through 20. And Mr. Revlak had asked that we include a reference to line 16 previously, so that that's what, this is what section 16 includes. Any questions or comments from the board on anything on what the page five wetlands? Seeing none, look over to page six. In line 20, in paragraph 22, after wetlands protection, I was thinking we should have a comma. And then in paragraph 23, again, after wetlands protection, put in a comma in the second line, and then the third line, a comma after aura. And then the only other question, I don't know if it makes any difference to anyone. In 22, we're talking about section 25E. Section 23, we're talking about 25F. But in 25, we're talking about 25D. And in 26, we're talking about 25C. Does it, does anyone think we should go through the exercise of rearranging those paragraphs so that they go in order? No. Nope, excellent. Anyone have any other comments on the wetland sections of page six? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. In 24 at the end, it says the proposed planning plan for Ryderbrook contains all native plants and I don't know what choir fashin means, but I'm sure that experts do for natural erosion control and bank stabilization. And I'm a little at a loss here, but I seem to remember something that we received from Ms. O'Connor, suggesting that there was at least some elements of the planting plan that did not include, that did not include native plants. And I'm wondering if anyone else remembers that. I have not relocated where I thought that was, but it was in the comments that were submitted to, if I'm right about the existence of it, it was in the comments that were submitted to us in response to an earlier draft of the decision. This is really a question, not a proposal, but I just want to make sure that we don't inadvertently require something that Ms. O'Connor indicated that they couldn't provide. Right. I don't recall it specifically. Don't know if others have a different recollection on that point. I do not recall either way. I would have to go back and look. Yeah. I'll go back and take a look at the correspondence. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Is there anything else on page six? Anything on page seven? Just the last continuation of the wetlands. It's basically the comments about the NOAA 14 plus data. So, assuming there's no questions in regards to the wetlands on page seven, it moves on to transportation network. So, as Mr. Revelle had noted before, paragraph 29, we should add that primary automobile access to the project will be from Massachusetts Avenue and or Quinn Road. Second sentence is fine. There was a miss. Yep, please go ahead. Mr. Chair, I also is, and I apologize for, well, is, would it be appropriate to mention the utility pole at this point? I believe that comes up under utilities. It is, it is, does come up under H nine, but. Oh, I see. I think it would be appropriate. I agree with that as well. We should go ahead and note that the access from Massachusetts Avenue does include a utility pole was in the right of way. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So, one of the things that Mr. Amstutz raised was whether we should include as part of the transportation network, a reference to the Minuteman trail and in general to bicycles as a means of, as a means of transportation. That's particularly important here, I think, because one of the advantages of this site is its location on the Minuteman. I think that's the best way to do that. We do mention in paragraph 31, the bicycle parking spots, although we don't lay any basis for why it is, we think that's relevant. But I think that maybe if we just added a sentence, and I don't have exact language, although I can come up with something, but in paragraph 29 to say something to the effect that in addition, the Minuteman trail affords the opportunity for excellent bicycle access to the site, maybe something like that, would at least reference the fact that we consider the bicycle connection as an important part of the transportation setting of the site. I agree with that. And I think we should also note that there is MBTA bus service on Massachusetts Avenue adjacent to the site. Right, I agree. And whether those all fall under 29 or whether we should have a, add a 29A. I think it should be a separate paragraph. Okay, we can go ahead and do that, that'll be great. And then under 31, the project will provide 114 bicycle, bicycle parking, I would refer to them as spaces rather than spots. Which will include, and I would say up to 50% upper level stack spaces. So could you repeat that question? Sure, so in the first line, we'll reference 114 bicycle parking spaces rather than spots, which will include up to 50% upper level stack spaces. And actually, I believe to find the reference later on, I believe there's 114, I think the count is actually 114 interior and I believe there's a separate account exterior spaces for long-term and short-term. Looking through to try to find that. Yeah, so the 114 is actually the count of long-term bicycle parking spaces and there are 22 additional short-term spaces. So I don't know in this paragraph, should we say 114 or should we say 136? Hey, what was it, 22 short-term spaces? 22 short-term. I think we just had a sentence, the project will provide an additional 22 short-term bicycle parking spaces. Perfect. And then we'll reference the 114, we'll reference as long-term. Are there any other comments on transportation network? None. The next section is civil engineering, site design and stormwater impact. Any comments on those items 32, 33, 34, 35 on page seven? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This is very low-key, but in the one, two, three, fourth line where we have, where it says BMPs, we should delete the, yeah, we should delete the hypothesis, the apostrophe. Okay. Any other comments on those four paragraphs? I'm moving on to page eight, general section. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, could you back up one? I just noticed that you're using an acronym BMP to describe best management practices. Yep. I do believe when you're gonna use that type of style, you should capitalize best the B, the M and the P in the previous words, just how publications are done. Yeah. And we should, should we do then the same in the following paragraph, in the following line for total suspended software? Yes, anytime you're gonna define something as its initials, you should capitalize the initials first. Okay. Mine of thing. On then to the general section on page, does anyone have any questions or comments on those? Mr. Chairman. Please. On paragraph 39, I would include the word neighbors after a butters so that it would read raised by a butters, neighbors and other interested parties. This is in the first line. Yep. That works well. Anything further under general? Seeing none, that moves us out of findings into conditions so that we have conditions A1 and start of A2 are on this page. So questions on A1 and moving on to A2 which continues on to page nine. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think that the meeting here, if you go one, two, three, four, five lines down, it says minor changes to the approved plans and then a parenthetical that begins EG. And I think that means that was intended to mean IE, although I remain to be corrected. But I believe that the point is that minor, that the language changes that do not materially affect the location of or increase the height or massing of the structures, et cetera, is not just intended to be an example of a minor change but to define what a minor change is. And if that's true, then EG would be the wrong abbreviation to use. If it's not, I think that we might want to say that more clearly because I obviously misunderstood it in that event. Mr. Havardy, do you have a recommendation on that? I think it is intended to be examples. I'm happy to make any change that you need. Mr. Chairman, if it is supposed to be an example, I guess I read it as if it was a definition and others might as well. And I wonder if maybe a few more words could be used to make it clear that it really is an example. If we replace the EG with four example, would that satisfy you? Yeah, that might do it. I think that's fine. Thank you for that. Anything further in this first paragraph? Being none under, in the second paragraph of the ALTA NPS, there's a double comma after February 8th. Mr. Governor, that? One or the other? Is there anything further on page nine? Excuse me, Chairman. In the line sheet 104, there's one parentheses. I don't see the other side of the parentheses. In quotation marks, ALTA survey. Oh, no, excuse me, I see it. My error. Okay, perfect. And I guess the only other thing up where we had the double comma was February 8th. I wasn't sure if we should just remove the underlining under February 8th. I don't know if that's just an editor's mark or not. Anything further under page nine? Bearing none that moves us onto page 10, which is just a continuation of the list of documents that are included. Anything further on page 10? Bearing none, moving us onto page 11, which is a further continuation. So under H2.2, we have this empty table under that section then. And I wasn't sure what the origin of that was. Not clear on that either. I don't think I came up with that either. Not very big on tables. I think I would recommend we just omit that unless I'll go back and take one last look to confirm, but I think that's probably what we should be doing. Have another section that deals with get it as part of final plans. Paragraph 8.4 in the second line there's some kind of a duplication, we say not more than 124, 124 in friends. And then we say 24. And then there's the kind of that. So we just need to paragraph A5. I would just, before the word vehicle, I would add the word motor. So it's 128 motor vehicle parking spaces. Are there any further questions or comments in regards to the contents of page 11? Page 12 starts with A6. Which includes the waiver information in regards to the conservation commission and the agreement to go from 15,000 to 12,000. I did have a question on A7. So this is the first of several places where the initial language had provided 45 days for a response and the recommended change to the 30 days. And I wasn't sure if there was any statutory determination for either of those two time periods. There's nothing statutory. I generally provide for 45 days because it gives sufficient time for the town to actually review the plans and make sure that they are consistent with the board's approval. Unless there's any objection for the board, I would recommend that we go back for 45 days on all those. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hamlin. I'm entirely in agreement on that, but there are two other things that we ought to at least focus on. One is the last sentence is should 30 days, or in this case, 45 days elapsed without a response, as aforesaid, such plans or documents shall be deemed approved. I understand that that's a hammer to avoid red tape and bureaucratic delay and all that. But I think it's much too great a penalty for missing a deadline. For all, I know these things will be submitted in August where it's almost impossible to serve anything in 45 days. So I generally do not think that we ought to be imposing conditions that involve automatic approvals in the event that we fail to meet the required deadline. I'd also point out that the way in which this paragraph is written, it isn't really a hard deadline anyway. It's a reasonable efforts to review and provide a reasonable response within 30 days. And so even if it were ever justified to include the hammer of automatic approval, it certainly wouldn't be appropriate under circumstances where the town's obligation is merely to use reasonable efforts. Okay. Is there any issue with us just removing that final line, the final sentence for having? Well, I mean, the sentence states that if 45 days elapsed without a response, as aforesaid, said plans or documents shall be deemed approved. I don't think it's unreasonable for the town to at least provide a response within that timeframe. Whether or not the completion of the review occurs within the 45 days, I think that should be the goal. But if not, at least a response stating additional time is necessary. But I think if you run into a situation where the submittal is just completely ignored, there has to be some time period in which the plans are deemed approved. Suppose we said at the end of the sentence, what you've added, Mr. Hoverty, to what I didn't necessarily read into this is that the written response could be a statement that we need additional time. And if that is envisioned, then it seems to me that some sentence that makes that clear, possibly at the end of the paragraph would be desirable. I still don't feel entirely comfortable with it because sometimes the reason there isn't a response is purely inadvertent. And the right response is not just to deem that the application, that the permission or whatever it is is granted, but to prod the government into paying attention. But if we are going to go to the point where it's good enough just to say, we need more time or we've looked at this and we're not sure or whatever, then there ought to be something that makes it clear that a non-substantive response of that kind is adequate. Would you be comfortable if we said should 45 days elapse without a response or request for additional time as A4 said, would that make sense? I guess that's right, although I wouldn't use the word request because it implies that the applicant can simply say no. I think just notification that additional time is necessary. Okay, let's go ahead and do that. And then two lines above that, this department head comma, the 30 day time. Yeah, I got that, I changed that to 45. Perfect, the only one that wasn't highlighted. I wonder if we might just sort of save a little time. I think it might be our general sense that 45 is better than 30 in each of the places where it comes up, there are several. And I think that unless somebody feels strongly about maintaining the 30 that is requested by the applicant, we can just assume that we've chosen the 45 in each of these cases. I would go ahead, I would second that and that we maintain 45 as the standard throughout the document. No objection. Perfect. And then I had no comments on a eight or a nine. So are there any other comments, questions or comments in regards to paragraphs A6 through A9? Hearing none, on to page 13. A10 and A11 are the last two of that opening section of the general conditions. Any questions on either A11? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Well, I have two on A10. The easier one, I think is the one that pertains to the last line, I would change the language there to say the project shall not be dedicated to and then delete the word or and say and will not be accepted by the town. And the reason is we're not in a position of laying down conditions for the town or giving an order of whether the town may or may not accept this later on. The most we can do is declare what we think the town will do under the circumstances. And so just to preserve a certain sense of humility about what our function is, I would change that language. I think that, sorry, go ahead. Jose, just to clarify, so it's a project shall not be dedicated to and shall not be accepted by the town. And will not be accepted by the town. Will not be accepted by the town, okay. Just changing it from an order to a prediction. Okay. The second thing actually is something that arises in lots of places. And that is shall the app, excuse me. And the third line we talk about shall remain private in perpetuity. In perpetuity, that phrase, we talk about perpetuity quite a lot actually. And we define it in B2 to refer to mean so long as the property does not comply with applicable zoning and other local requirements without the benefits of the comprehensive permit. I think it may be that that definition is intended to apply here, but further on we have many, many places where the language that we received from the conservation commission says in perpetuity and survives the exploration of the permit where perpetuity is used more or less in a religious sense to say until the end of time. I'm not entirely sure we can appropriately go all the way to the judgment day on these things. But in any event, perpetuity is being used in several, and because of the source of the conditions or in different places, it's being used in different ways. And so the latter thing I'm concerned about just what we can and appropriately say in terms of how long this is supposed to last. But we've got this one word which is potentially being used in at least two or three different ways. And I'd like to try to think of a way of using it more precisely. So when we see it, it always means the same thing. But what I would do for B2 is I would actually change that. So instead of saying for the purposes of this decision, I would state that for the purposes of this condition shall mean for so long as the property does not comply. And then everywhere else in the decision, perpetuity would have its general. Okay. Are there any further questions or comments on either item B1 or B2 or A10 and 11? Hearing none, let's move us on to page 14, item B3 and B4. So B3 I think is fairly straightforward. B4 is something that we should spend a little time discussing. Actually, Mr. Chair. Yes, please. I would like to go back to, or at least earmark or put a note on B3 so that we come back to it. Referring to Karen Kellerher's letter to the board dated July 26th, she made a few suggestions regarding the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Marketing Plan that I think are at least worthy of discussion. What do we go ahead and do that? Okay, so the, I'm reading from page three of her letter and basically the draft decision appropriately. So okay, here we go. I encourage the ZDA to take an additional step and to retain town approval rights over this document, which will give it the ability to review the marketing strategy in the context of the Affordable Housing Action Plan and propose specific outreach, language, access, or other measures to increase the likelihood that the marketing strategy effectively attracts diverse applicants. So I think the gist of what she's saying is she would like to see us have some say over the marketing plan. Well, yeah, the ZDA have some say over the marketing plan, but clearly it's really going to come down to the subsidizing agency's decision. I wonder, you know, for Mr. Havarty is do, is it, are there case other municipal, other projects where the board has wanted to provide input into the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan? That is something that the board has no jurisdiction over and cannot impose any requirements. That's something within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidizing agency. So that's really not an appropriate place for additional conditional requirements. Okay. So in that case, I guess B3 is probably settled then. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I wanted to make sure we had something pointing out that it needs to be done, but the terms of that Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan, I'll left solely up to the judgment of the subsidizing agency. Mr. Verlach, I do appreciate you bringing that up. It's an important question from brought forward to the board. We suspect it'd be four. This is the local preference question. So under statute, the board can put a local preference of up to 70% of the affordable units distributed to specific categories that the board can allocate. But we have had a conversation, partly in the past, and I think it's something we should discuss a little more fully as to whether the board wants to do that at all, have any kind of a local preference requirement, just being that the board should try to be as inclusive as possible in regards to the availability of these units. Mr. Chair. Mr. Verlach. I favor not imposing a local preference requirement. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. The board has heard me on this one several times and I don't really need to go back over it. It's just, you know, suburbs like us, which have a skewed population in terms of marginalized unit people really ought to are encountering a danger of essentially creating a pool of applicants that itself is unrepresentative and that tends to have a discriminatory effect. We don't really have the information before us and it would be difficult to acquire it to enable us to figure out, for example, what exactly the pool, the racial composition of the pool of people who are eligible, forget these apartments would be, possibly it would be a more relevant statistic. But in view of the history here and in view of all of the things that have been coming to light in the last year or so, it's time for us to just stop. And it seems to me that we don't need to do this, that we are serving the interest that the statute is supposed to serve better if we don't do this and that we should be willing to take that step. That's recommended in the affordable housing document, the fair housing document that the town recently commissioned from MAPC. And I think that Ms. Keller's letter makes a very persuasive case for not pursuing this. So I'd stop at this point and say, basically if people from marginalized populations are able to apply here and they're not already Arlingtonians, they will be soon and I welcome them. Chairman. You are muted, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Yeah, so as I read the rest of it then, if we just keep what's been added in the very beginning of the paragraph then everything down to the very end is gonna be eliminated. Because where you start on the black again, it says a lottery shall be established to effectuate the local preference. So we're not gonna do that, right? So that just wipes out the rest of the paragraph. Yep. Yeah, so I wasn't sure if we would still have a lottery should be established in a form approved by the subsidizing agency for all applicants. Yeah, that would probably stay. Okay. And then the applicant shall assist the Department of Planning Community Development in the submittal of any evidence required by the subsidizing agency. Is that the, I agree. After that, everything else goes away. Mr. Chair. Mr. Mel. I would just like to say, I agree with Mr. Revelleck, Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Dupont. That's all. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board on B4? We would be moving to remove the local preference requirement. Hearing none, we will go ahead and make that change. Mr. Howard, if you can go ahead and make that change for us. That brings us to any other questions on section B? Seeing none. Section C, submission requirements. One is really straightforward. It's about review requirements where this comes up more as farther down under section A here on page 15. There have been a request from the applicant to cap the additional funds that may be required for the review of the final application. There was a discussion at the prior hearing about rather than providing a cap, providing language that would basically stipulate that the town would use its own resources, its own staff resources to make the reviews and would use the technical consultants where town review is impractical. And so I think we could make that change. I don't agree that we should have a set financial cap because I think that creates a problem for the town farther down the road. Mr. Howard, I don't know if you need specific language from us on how that we might adjust that paragraph. I would suggest a sentence at the end. Such outside review shall be limited only to those circumstances where account staff was unable to complete such review. That sounds excellent. Further from the board on this sub paragraph A? Hearing none. B, C, and D? C, again, has the situation where it's the 30 versus 45. Those to 45. Anything further on this page 15? Hearing none. Moves us over to page 16. This is a sub paragraph under D or documents to be submitted for administrative approval. And then here, there was the question that Mr. Hanlon, I believe, has raised before the question. This is the line, all planting shall consist of native noninvasive species. Are you comfortable, Mr. Hanlon, with leaving this being all plantings? If you're unmuted though. I'm sorry, I'm comfortable. I mean, I actually don't have a substantive issue with this one way or the other. I guess my problem is, is that I have this vague recollection that Mr. Connor objected at some point and said that the actual plan that they required, did you need some non-native species? And until I can find the letter where she said that, assuming I did, I don't know whether we're getting ourselves into the situation where there's a contradiction between what is intended really and what we're saying here. The language we have all the way through, I've sort of checked and it all looks to me like it's consistent that we're looking for non-native species. And my recollection could be wrong. I've got a bunch of papers sitting here next to me and they're just smirking at me because they're not yielding the right, the right letter from Mr. Connor. Certainly in the review of the draft decision by the applicant, I don't, there's no indication that they had flagged this language. Any event, Mr. Chairman, I can go back and the review letters and double check them. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. And I've highlighted that spot so I can go back. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. A couple of questions on that paragraph. Who will be the monitoring for the survival rate of the 80% will be the policeman, the judge. Ultimately, it's the board, but the board can designate an agent. So you could designate the conservation agent. We could designate someone from the conservation commission to do that. Correct. Okay. And a second thing was in regard to learn, I mean, native species, I don't have it in front of me, but there's a reference later on discussing native species. And it makes reference to not using cultivars of native species. In other words, native species that have been cultivated and not necessarily will be pollinators. I think the language should be consistent of making sure that's in there. Okay. Keep an eye out for the term cultivars. I remember reading it, but I can't remember where it falls. I'll come across it sooner or later. I'm sure. Anything further on page 16? Done. On to page 17. Again, the first paragraph here, it's the 30 versus 45. We'll change that to 45. Under C2. Final line under sub A and provide proof of such recording to the board rather than with. I think the only thing I had on this page. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. We sort of have heard by E, but he still has the same hammer at the end. In this case, deeming approval in the absence, if there are no written response or comments have been given to the applicant and whatever fixed Mr. Haverty proposes for the earlier occasion, I think should be done, should be done here as well. I agree with that. This states, if no written response or comments have been given to the applicants by the building commissioner, the director of planning. So if comments have been submitted that indicate that there needs to be changes to the final plans because they don't conform, then it wouldn't be constructive approval. It's only if there's no correspondence at all. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit, we have the opportunity to make this absolutely clear. To me, comments would be substantive and a statement that this is also hard and we can't get this done because half of our people are on vacation or whatever other things might be like that don't really fit within what I think comments means. And again, I just wanna make sure that it's clear that essentially saying I need more time is a response. And clear in a way that there's no possibility of an argument later on about whether or not that kind of a response is enough of a response to avoid the hammer falling. And that's really the objective. I don't think comments does it here because comments itself suggest something more substantive than saying I need more time. Mr. Abbe, could you think it's a little more similar to I guess what we had done under A7 just to make that clear? I'm working on something right now. So if the building commissioner and or director of planning and community development indicate additional time is necessary to complete the review of final plans, then no constructive approval of the final plans shall occur. Yes. That would be perfect. That's great. Anything further on this page 17? There's nothing that moves us onto page 18. I had comments under G. And the second line was required by state law. I would put the period there and then capitalize it at the very end and move the period inside the parentheses. The only comment I had on page 19. Anything for the questions or comments refers to page 18. The none will move on to page 19. 19 is a continuation of construction and completion certificate of occupancy. We have the sub paragraphs under D1, D2 and the sub paragraphs under D2. Under in sub paragraph B, does that question I had? I'm going to show some of the board of financial related issues. It's a pet policy and vegetation management. I wasn't sure if there were any issues with residents walking their dogs, relieving their dogs along the banks of the relocated Ryder Brook and not being a dog owner. I cannot comment on this because I have no concept. Yeah, I don't think this is something that would fall within your jurisdiction. Okay. I have an additional question. Would we want to receive copies of the transportation guidelines that are given to tenants? I lost at the very start of that. Okay, so the... Actually, let me look at my copy rather than the screen. So the applicant still submit to the board all information relating to the issues of building security, public access, pet policy, et cetera, et cetera. We spent a fair amount of time talking about, during the course of the hearing, talking about traffic flow. And we understand that the applicants will provide tenants with copies of like sort of like a transportation guidebook or at least something that explains, no-turn policies, which ways or entrance in egress, et cetera. Are those transportation management policies something that we would want included in this list? I think so. I mean, they would certainly be captured by the catch-all at the end, but I think it would... I think we should add it specifically, add transportation management policies. Perfect. And put that right before in smoking policies. Okay, that works. Anything further on page 19? Nothing, I move on to page 20. In that first paragraph, second line, after community development, I'm an Oxford comma person. So I would just put a comma after the word development in that second line. I have a note on my notes about notice requirements. What did I mean by that? Oh, so you see the applicant and the site general contractor shall host a meeting open to all members of the public to review the construction schedule, hours, policies, procedures and other neighborhood impacts at least 14 days prior to the start of construction. Do we need to include something about requirements for the notice of that meeting? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Sorry, go ahead, Paul. No, I was not going to say. So it seems to me that this also fits together with E2, where I had a question about when it is that the construction management plan is first submitted. Ideally what you're looking for is the situation where at the time you have the conference, you'll want to have that plan available. So people can look at it and you'll want to have had it available for enough time for people to look at it. And it seems to me that dovetails with a notice requirement. And just in terms of substance, I'd suggest having, you know, making the, not scheduling the meeting with the public until the plan has been at least five days old is at least five days old and maybe providing an additional week's notice of the existence of both the existence of the document and also the existence of the meeting so that people can arrange their affairs and go to it. That involves two kinds of deadlines. One is basically something similar to what we do in trying to get the material that has been submitted to us into the record a certain number of days before we actually have a hearing. And the other is to make sure that people can put the hearing on their, or the meeting on their calendar and are not caught at the last moment. All of that will make everything go much more smoothly and people should want to do it anyway but having numbers or deadlines or guidance to as to when it should be done would presumably avoid a certain degree of potential conflict later on that ought to be unnecessary. Who would be receiving this notice? You are muted, Mr. Chair. You are muted. I mean, from my perspective, I would specifically want a butters and neighbors to receive notice as they would be the ones most impacted by the construction operations. If I recall correctly, at some point during the hearing there was discussion of having sort of an announcement list that the applicant, the property owners would use for noticing some things like this. And I specifically remember a discussion or a request that the Otterson middle school principal be on it. So I mean, I was sort of when I first read this, I assumed that was the vehicle by which the notices would occur. Yeah, because I think, I mean, certainly written notice to the same a butters list who had, you know, the butters and a budding of butters within 300 feet, I think certainly that starts those who should be noticed. It would also, I think the good if there was a way that additional people who wanted to be notified could be notified, but I don't know what the limits are to what we can require in this regard. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we could do is allow people, I mean, it's just to have a notification list that if somebody wants to receive notice, presumably by email, that's what I'm thinking is the way in which it would be done, that they could basically sign up for it, the way we sign up for town notices. And the people who are most interested will presumably do that. Mr. Mills? Yes, I do believe by statute, they there's a good neighbor agreement that the contract is supposed to be getting in touch with all the neighbors. Couldn't that be used as a vehicle? At the same time, you're notifying that the construction is going to begin, but also that you're going to host this meeting, that would at least get most of the people involved. I'd also suggest that they'd have to publicize it in a local paper for other people to become aware of it. And finally, the parameters of the meeting, where they're going to have this meeting is it's going to be a convenient time. It'll be able to see a decent number of people. You just can't have it in the pocket around five a.m. and say you had a meeting. All right, so paragraph E5 specifically references the Towns Residential Construction Control Agreement, which is the good neighbor agreement. So with that, they have to contact those people anyway. Right. Mr. Havity, have you run into this before and sort of what are ways to address this? Generally, it would be anybody that's a party in interest pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 11, which as you noted, Mr. Chairman, is a butters and a butters to a butters within 300 feet. We can include language, you know, that the applicant shall keep a list of people requesting to be notified. Mm-hmm. And one on that list shall be... I think if we have, I don't know if we have a specific list of people who have participated in the hearings or not. Well, I believe, Mr. Chair, the applicants have had several meetings on their own with a butters. That's true. And so they were clearly able to put together a list and get a group together for the purpose of conducting a meeting. You know, I think like to Mr. Havity's suggestion of butters to a butters to a butters within 300 feet and any other parties who have expressed interest, I think that would, maybe that would cover it. Okay. Additionally, the applicant shall prepare a list of additional parties interested in notice and shall provide notice to such parties. Okay, sounds fair. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jupan. So where is that going to be? Is that going to be an E1? Yeah. Where it says he'll host a meeting and provide notice thereof, et cetera, is that what we're anticipating? Yes. Anything further on page 20? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just to think, to go back to something I said earlier is that once we have as I think we've figured out, I don't know that we've actually suggested what the right time for the notice is, but I would like to basically say that the notice will be provided within X number of days of the scheduled meeting. And then in E2 say that the construction management plan would be made available to the public within five days prior to the scheduled meeting. So that they all fit together and we don't have meetings where people say, we don't know what's going on because we haven't had a chance to review any of the documents. So in the same sentence, we're looking to add, we're burning who is to receive notice. We indicate that notice shall be provided at least 14 days prior to the day of the hearing. Or does that seem too long? I don't have a strong feeling about that. Seven would be fine to, I mean, I just wanna make sure that it's one of those things that's more important to be decided than it is to decided, right? So just have something to look at would be right. And then once we have a scheduled meeting, I would say in E2 prior to the pre-construction conference you would just say within no later than five days prior to the conference. And then you'll have the construction management plan. Mr. Gravity, can you think those adjustments? Yes. In E2, I would add as a second sentence, the CMP shall be provided to those receiving notice of the meeting open to the public at least five days prior to such meeting. With regards to the notice for that meeting that's open to the public, I would have it required to be provided 14 days prior to such meeting. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it might be better. I don't know. I mean, I leave this up to Mr. Havarty, but I wonder whether we better just say made available than provided to since I'm guessing that that's a really big document and not everybody's gonna want a copy. They're just gonna wanna be able to see it. Would you please say that again, Mr. Havarty? I said they could just put it on a website to make it available for anyone who's interested. I'll agree. They don't need to. With those adjustments to E1 and E2, anything further on page 20? Two E2s. Oh, thank you. I have to sequence those down. I'll have to continue on the move to page 21. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Before hurrying on to 21, I wonder if it would make sense in E5 on page 20, instead of saying provide advance notice to a butters per the town's residential construction control, just to say provide advance notice per the town's residential construction control agreement. I mean, there a butters is redefined in a way that includes people quite some distance away. And rather than trying to make it match up, it seems to me that you just, if you eliminate the word two of butters, then the notice would have to be provided in accordance with that agreement. And that would then tell you who has to get the notice. That's well taken. On to page 21, under what current E6, future E7, appropriate signage should be shown on the final plans consistent with sign information shown on the approved plans, a temporary sign including the name and address of the project and contact information for the applicant. General contractor, engineers, architect and other relevant parties shall be posted on site. I wasn't sure if we wanted to be more descriptive. We posted adjacent to each construction entrance because it's a fairly large site and if there's only one sign then it occurs at the place where people can't find it. There may be some who are confused as to why there's no sign. I would just change that, that it would stipulate that it'd be adjacent to all construction entrances, which I think it's probably practice for the contractor anyways, but... Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm the same paragraph and I may just, I mean, there's so many things to look at, but I couldn't see the landscape plan dated June 16th, 2020 in the list of plans that were included in final plans in A-2. I may just have missed it, but it seems to me that if it's an important document and is going to govern what they're going to do under E-6. Yeah. Doesn't it be listed in the final plans documents? So it is listed under A-2. On page 10 in that first table. Okay. It's sheet L-101 landscape plan date June 16th, 2020. Got it. Okay, so I withdraw that. And then it does indicate revised for final approval May 21st, 2021. So maybe we should... Yes. The date reference in this paragraph. Yes. Let's just do that. Let's remove the date reference in this paragraph. Mr. Chairman, what are we doing on this one then? In the current E-6, just at the very end. Yep. We're just removing... So we'll just end the sentence after landscape plan. Okay. And remove that dated June 16th, 2020. And then in current E-9 after approved plans, it doesn't just editorial comment. There just needs to be. And so this is specific to the new utilities that are being brought on site for the new residential buildings. And this, I wasn't sure if at this point we want to reference the existing utility pole with overhead lines that is not part of this. So I wasn't sure if it's just instead of saying utilities if we wanted to say new utilities or if there's some other language to clarify that. Utilities works. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I've forgotten. But there's a version of... I think at one point I've seen language here and I'm missing exactly where it is that has that first sentence reading, utilities serving the project, including but not limited to telephone, electric, and cable shall to the greatest extent feasible be located underground as shown on approved plans. And I've now not quite sure I can identify exactly where I saw that language, but I liked it and thought it addresses the issue that we've just raised because that would be the new utilities. Right. I think we put the utilities for the project, including but not limited to telephone, electric, and cable shall be located underground because we do have approval from the applicants that they're intending to run those utilities underground. Mr. Chairman, just the next sentence troubled me a little bit, but why would be stating as a condition that the contract with the property management company shall note that no satellite dishes should be allowed? I mean, I'm not sure why that's a concern that's appropriate for this proceeding. And I also have this general sense that there's a lot of potential preemption issues that are available and trying to have local governments regulate satellite dishes and wonder whether that can't be just left up to private ordering. I was wondering about that sentence too. Mr. Havity, is that a common condition or is that something... It is a common condition, but I have no qualms removing it. I guess the question is, does the board want to allow the possibility that the management company would allow satellite dishes to be affixed to the outside of window cells of random windows all over the development? My sense is that that would detract from the general appearance of the project. My read of the response to this draft decision from the applicant was they weren't concerned about this because they did not propose to remove this language. My guess is that they don't intend to allow it whether you put something in here or not. Chairman, I guess if it doesn't matter a great deal one way or the other, I would feel a lot more comfortable to have this board not involve itself in that sort of matter. Reverend Black, how do you feel on that? I am fine with it. I agree with Mr. Hanlon. Okay. Are we saying that we are striking the second sentence which reads the contract with the property management company shall note that no satellite dishes shall be allowed? Yes. Yeah, so thank you. I just, Joe, would the board be comfortable if some point in the future satellite dishes did appear on the outside of the building? Or are we saying that's not our concern? In my view, it's really not our concern. I mean, obviously it would be a more attractive building otherwise, but I'm guessing that the applicant, you can, that's true of the applicant as well and the aligns are not that different. And I just don't see in allowing the town's services to be enlisted in order to regulate whether there's a satellite dish here. Okay. And I believe there are other configurations besides other dish configurations aside from individual dishes outside, residential, so there could be something on the roof that serves a plurality of tenants, for example. Okay. And sometimes in buildings like this, it's a big issue how it is that people are going to get their cable service or the ISP service or whatever. Everything that basically makes people at the mercy of the landlord is usually a reason why they have to pay twice as much as the rest of us for it. And there are just so many ways in which this can get into inky conversations and I don't think that the town manager or his subordinate should be involved in those conversations. Okay. All right, now let's go ahead. We'll strike that second sentence unless there's any objection. Hearing no objection, we'll strike that second sentence. We obviously did. There will be later sections in regards to the poll and the massive right of way. Do we need to, then we feel we need to reference it in this paragraph. Hearing none. Anything further on page 21? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this is just a general, oops. I think we refer to the building department and other places we've referred to the building inspectors and so forth. Just in general, is it necessary or appropriate? Well, it's probably as appropriate. Is there any, I mean, we don't actually have a building department. What we have is the inspectional services department and the people we have who serve those functions which are also often defined in state law don't always have the titles that appear here. And I'm just wondering whether it is useful or whether it is useful or important to make sure that our officials are referred to by the titles they actually have. They definitely change all references to building department, from building department to the inspectional services department. And I would say I don't think we have a building commissioner. We have a director of inspectional services, et cetera. Yeah, I was just gonna quickly flip to that page on the town's website here in the background and see what it says. The inspectional services department currently have an interim director of the inspectional services. I guess, yeah, instead of building commissioner, we should say director of inspectional services. Instead of building department, we just say inspectional services department. And also on page 21, just page 22, obviously we're still incrementing all the E's going forward. So the last, the first pair of sentences lines here, which is a continuation of the previous era, parking of all vehicles and equipment must be on the property during construction. We want to include a line that parking on public and private ways will not be permitted or we want to say parking on private ways will not be permitted. Because certainly the parking along Massachusetts Avenue during the day is not illegal. I think the last sentence there is pretty clear. Must is a very, you know, that's, that is a strong directive. Yeah. So Mass Ave doesn't, parking on Mass Ave doesn't fit the criteria of must be on the property. But is that something we are allowed to dictate? Public parking on Massachusetts Avenue is allowed. I don't see why you can't. And again, the applicant did not object to this condition. Should we provide any additional clarifying comments in regards to parking on adjacent private ways? Or is this deficient? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I think actually that Mr. Revillac has it right that to saying must be on the property includes all that and efforts to try to make it, I'm just afraid that efforts to be more specific and to enumerate possibilities and so forth will introduce ambiguities in what is otherwise a very clear directive. Mr. Chairman, before we go off that page, again, we have a reference to building the Poppins. I think that should be Department of Inspection or Services to be consistent. Yeah, I think Mr. Havard is going to do a universal swap on that. Thank you. Returning to page 22, incrementing the lines under E. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. The last sentence in E-12, I get the intent of it, but it seems rather undefined. I mean, is there anything we can, all construction activities that have to be conducted in a workman-like manner? Is that something the Board really should be attending to since it's undefined? It is a term that's often used in standard construction contracts. Okay, fine. Yes, that's, I have seen it there as well. Just in home renovations, the contractor promises to perform work in a workman-like manner. So I just assumed it was sort of a term of art. Yeah. Any further questions or comments on page 22? Hearing none, that moves us on to page 23. And incrementing under E, recommended adjustment to current E-21. Acceptable. Applicant shall submit an earth removal plan to an unnecessary cuts and fills and describing the appropriate number of truck trips forward. Under 23, project sidewalks pathways shall be compliant with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act and the Access Board. I think that's sufficient protection in terms of those two requirements. I was originally considering whether we should state anything about requesting variances from those acts, but I think if they were to do so, that would be a change to the approved plans and therefore would be required to come before us anyways. Dupont. So in E-18, I just had a question of definition. So when we're saying that removal of snow and sanding of internal roadways and driveways, are we referring to the private right of way next to Mr. Nessie and then Quinn Road? So at the lead, we are referencing specifically roadways that are within the boundaries of the project. So it would include the right of way leading up to Massachusetts Avenue, but would not be include Quinn Road, it would not include the pathway leading to Quinn Road. Because I'm just wondering, because I'm not sure that we've referred to that right of way as a driveway prior to this. And I'm just wondering if for clarification, we could somehow indicate the location. I don't know what other, I don't know how many other driveways there are per se, because to me a driveway is the access route into the area. And so are you thinking that there are any other driveways other than that right of way? Well, I think that the term internal roadways would include any surface that you can drive upon within the property. Right, but the right of way is not within the property. It is within the property controlled by the applicant because the property line extends around it. Okay, fair enough. Okay, thanks. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So when I read this originally actually, I, the phrase internal roadways and driveways providing access, I read the word adjective internal as modifying just roadways and driveways providing access as being something different from that. And that would have included when road and so on. And I actually don't have a strong feeling as to what the right answer is, but it seems to me that we should either make sure that internal is clear that it modifies both roadways and driveways or the opposite, but we shouldn't leave it where it could be read both ways. Certainly, well, Quinn Road is a public way. So it's the responsibility of the town, clear that. I don't know who is responsible for the roadway, the private way that connects Quinn Road over to the Mass Aparite of Way, but certainly that does get cleared. My question, Mr. Havity, would you think that this is unclear? Oh, I mean, I think this addresses internal roadways and driveways. It doesn't really address anything that's outside of the project site. If you want to add something, I mean, I'm not sure what the current processes for moving sand on private ways. I think that, yeah, I mean, I think that if I'm, Mr. Hanlon, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think your concern is that it could be interpreted to require the applicant to know beyond the boundaries of their property, which is not what's intended. I think the question is whether the term internal roadways and driveways, whether internal is implied to both terms. We can add internal driveways as well. All right, well, we'll go ahead and do that. Or alternatively, roadways and driveways within the site, you know, might convey the same meaning. I think anything along those lines would be, so E-25, I had proposed earlier that the hours that forth that condition may be modified by the senior transportation planner in consultation with the construction manager to address concerns related to pedestrian safety. At the last hearing, there was a concern raised by the applicant that this was vague because the original hours had specifically been set to correspond to cool children using it on the way to Audison. And the late pedestrian safety was overly broad and would allow the transportation planner to recommend that other hours be included as well. I just wanted to get a sense of the board if we should mod up, we should change that language. The hours that forth in this condition may be modified by the senior transportation planner in consultation with the construction manager to address concerns relating to student pedestrian safety. Or pedestrian safety for students at the Audison Middle School. Pedestrian safety for traveling to school. I do not know if there are any students who would use it in the opposite direction going towards strand or not. Okay, so yeah, so after pedestrian safety, we would add for students traveling to school. We'll make that adjustment. Anything further on page 23? Hearing none, we'll move on to page 24. Again, incrementing all the ease. The applicant shall perform a pre-construction, post-construction survey of adjacent properties on Rider Street and Massachusetts Avenue, right of way, including photographs and or video. We don't really indicate why we're doing that. Do we need to clarify that? I mean, for larger construction projects, doing a photographic or video survey is, I mean, beforehand, I understand it's quite common. It usually the contractor will do that for their own protection. So if there's a dispute over whether a construction vehicle damaged a roadway, they can pull up pictures of the pre-construction condition of the roadway and then discuss to what extent it was actually damaged. Okay, as long as I see, I'm sorry, I see this is really something that, I mean, it's more for the applicant's protection, I think. Right. And I would just assume they would do it anyway. I just wasn't sure if we should clarify the reasoning behind doing the photographs. We just say they should do it. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So, and I pardon me because I just don't remember. Is Rider Street private? Okay, if it is. So where we're including pre-construction and pre-construction and post-construction survey of the adjacent properties on Rider Street and the Massachusetts Avenue right of way and sort of commenting about what Mr. Revillac said, I think he mentioned the idea of some sort of damage to the roadway itself. I think it's damaged to the roadway but it's also damaged to adjacent properties. But I'm wondering if we should include, because construction, the survey of adjacent properties does not include the streets. Ah, I see what you're saying. So I'm just wondering if we might somehow incorporate that into that as well. So Mr. Chairman, along the same lines, adjacent properties doesn't literally include the houses across the street either, which is where the most active people are. So looking at the site layout plan C301. Mr. Hanlon does have a good technicality there because Rider Street, let's see the, if I recall correctly, the eastern side is owned by the applicant, the western side is owned by the town. And then there are some of the butters that we've seen during the hearings on the other side of that. So it's not literally adjacent, but it's just, it's more common meaning of adjacent. Correct. So the portion of Rider Street that is under the control of the town is the side closer to the project. And the side that is under control of the applicant is the one that is adjacent to the residential houses on Rider Street. My apologies, then I had it backwards. I'm trying to ascertain from looking here at the plans. Yeah, it's difficult to tell. I know that the applicant is certainly replacing some portions of asphalt on Rider. I'm not entirely sure of that full extent that they're replacing it, but we could certainly include that. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, please. How about we have this condition state, the applicant shall perform a pre-construction and post-construction survey of properties on either side of Rider Street. And she'll also provide a pre-construction and post-construction survey of Rider Street in the Massachusetts Avenue right of way, including photographs and video. I think that would work. I would just want to make sure that included in that survey would be Mr. Rennesi's property, which is adjacent to the Mass App right of way. As long as we can include that in that same paragraph, I think we're good. And I mean, I would even suggest that Nine Rider, the condominium building, might also be worth including. The Nine Rider would be located on Rider Street. It's encompassed. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, to go back to your original thing, would it be helpful to say at the end of the Endor video in order to document any construction-related damage that may have occurred as just a way of documenting what the purpose of all this is? I assume that is the purpose. I believe it is. I think that would be a helpful addition. Or maybe perhaps even broaden a little bit to document pre-construction and post-construction conditions. I would leave that up to Mr. Havarty. I think what that eliminates is the possibility that you're looking for potential damage. But the objective is just to make it clear what this is about. We also don't want to presuppose that damage has will be done. Correct, absolutely. The net effect of this could be documenting an improvement. Yeah. So I think Mr. Rubelack's language here. Okay. In paragraph E28, one, two, in the fourth line after debris, I wanted to add a comma. I'm going to check one and two as well. Okay. Are there any other comments on the E paragraphs? Mr. Chairman. Mills. Each 27 seems nebulous to me. The applicant shall submit a plan proposal for review. When are they supposed to give us this plan proposal and what are we going to stipulate what we want to see in this? It seems rather open-ended to me and it seems important. In regards to the timing, I think it should be prior to the commencement of construction. With regards to the specifics, I mean, I think that that's something that needs to be reviewed in terms of what their proposal is. Generally, it's just going to be some sort of monitoring but vibrations. Okay. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Dubon. So in E29, I was just curious. I mean, we at the end where it says an integrated pest management plan for all phases of the project before, during, and after. And so I know what before, enduring mean, but I'm just wondering about after because where we have imposed, I think a three-season or three-year survival rate for planting, 80% of plants, it just sort of raises the question. I mean, how long after construction is completed are they responsible for pest management? And I have no way of knowing. I mean, I know people in town complain of rodents pretty frequently and I know they're here and I know they're not going to go away, but should we give any thought to a timeline for post-construction on that? I mean, the paragraph indicates that they're required to, you know, how it has an assessment and develop and implement a plan. I would assume that would allow them going forward that they could adjust the plan as necessary depending on the conditions. I do think the need for the plan is going to continue even once the development is operation. Especially where they're going to be storing waste within the building, storing garbage within the building. So that makes me wonder then whether or not that needs to be beefed up somehow because you could read that to say after construction and you could say, well, you know, we're done and it's been a month and everything looks good and we walk away. And if other members of the board aren't concerned about it, it was just something that came to mind as I was looking at that. My sense would be it would become an immediate issue for the residents of the building if there was a pest problem. And that's something that they would take up with the management of the property. I always say that it should be for all phases of the project. And then in parentheses before construction during construction in post-occupies. I think that works well. And then just returning to Mr. Mills point on E27. Do we wanna include a time for when that should be, when that plan should be? Yeah, so I've changed that to include at the beginning of the second sentence prior to the commencement of construction. Perfect. The applicant shall submit a plan for post-occupies. Thank you. Anything further on the E's? Being done. The F's, we're on the bottom of page 24. I was gonna say, I do for in F1, I might suggest a forward reference to H9 which talks about the utility pole. So for possible wording would be in the second sentence the site will be signed directing motor vehicles to enter via the Massachusetts Avenue right of way parentheses subject to considerations in section H9 close parentheses and then continue on as is. Yeah, that's fair. H9. H, yes, Harry 9. Right, that's been done. Anything further on sections F1, F2, or F3 on page 24? Bearing done, moving on to page 25. So here we have the opposite problem we had on a prior page. We know we do not have an F5 increment in the opposite direction. Decrement under F4A. I just wanted to add no resident or guest parking on Ryder Street or other private ways. Then we had a conversation at the prior hearing about subsection C, discussion rights to online portal. And I think this red lacquer recommended maybe online link, possibly online method. Yeah, I believe electronic mechanism might have been the language we settled on. Okay. We'll have to go back and look. Provide both a telephone number and an electronic mechanism for residents to report potential interactions. So there's objection, let's proceed with that. Subsection D, there was some concern raised about the residents who have repeated infractions and warnings that their lease will not be reviewed or terminates. There was some concern that that was a little possibly too harsh. I wasn't sure if we wanted to replace will with may, so may not be reviewed, renewed, wasn't terminates. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I would be the people among the people who raised this issue are Mr. T and his wife. And the, I would feel a lot more comfortable saying may. I think that the applicant may very well just do it anyway, but I'm envisioning a conversation where somebody, maybe somebody in one of the affordable units is in trouble on this and is about to be evicted and the landlord is saying, well, we'd want to take it easy on you, but we can't because the town of Arlington says we're required to evict you. That's not a position I want to put the town in and particularly since at least some of the neighboring residents don't want to be in that position either. I think that it's better for us just to alert to it. I mean, ultimately we are not going to be the assurance that we have that the parking restrictions will work and that the turns will work is that both that they make good sense and we have data that indicates that the parking is sufficient. I don't think that we have to go the extra mile for draconian penalties of people who disregard these things. At the end of the day, if people are parking on Ryder Street, they're parking on the property of the select board and plan B is for the select board to enforce its rights over the private way in a way that satisfies what it considers the overriding objectives and that may be the objectives of the people who currently live there or not. But again, I just don't think I want to have the town in a position of insisting on people being made homeless because there's scoff laws with respect to parking. Mr. Chair. Mr. Rivillac. So I at the very least would be supportive of changing will to shall. I actually wanted to talk about striking this section altogether because essentially for two reasons. One was the, while I understand the residents desire to have some sort of punitive consequences for traffic violations, there were a number of them who were clearly uncomfortable with the idea of lease non-regual. And the second is just, I see this my concern, this building will be around for 60, 80, 100 years. My concern is that this provision could possibly be abused at some point in the future where someone's got a beef with a resident. So they just happened to report that resident for traffic infringements that never happened. So there's, I mean, striking this would essentially put the tenants of the new building along, you know, on the same standing as the tenants and condo owners at Nine Rider. And to me, that does not seem like a terrible thing to do. Would it make sense to change it so that it's just it should be the responsibility of the management company to enforce the restrict, to enforce restrictions on parking and... How about address repeated infractions? Okay, so it should be the responsibility of the management company who address repeated infractions of the stated policies. Well, I think maybe we want to say parking and transportation policies. Okay, the responsibility of the management company to address repeated infractions of the parking and transportation policies. Any objection to that language? I mean, the only change I would say rather than infractions, say violations of the parking and transportation policies. That works. Under six, I had wanted, at the end of the first sentence, I had wanted to change guest parkers to those seeking guest parking. In line three, any parking on private ways that I wanted to add beyond the project boundaries, parking spaces being included in the project that are on private ways. Any parking on private ways beyond the project boundaries is prohibited. Parking in public ways shall be governed by the bylaws of the town of Arlington. And then under F7, the four short term parking space shall be provided and maintained in the courtyard for taxis, rideshare vehicles, deliveries and visitors remaining for one hour or less. Do we want to include that time requirement or do we want to leave that up to the management company? Certainly we did not receive any pushback from the applicant on that number. Mr. Chair, I would feel comfortable leaving it up to the management company. Okay. So we could say four short term parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in the courtyard for taxis, rideshare vehicles, deliveries and vehicles for a duration determined by the management company. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, we could say that but I don't really think, I think that what we're really doing is simply the word short term basically covers it. Okay. And I just leave it there. So just basically put a period after the, after visitors and remove remaining for one hour or less. Yes. Do that. So it may make sense to them in the future to limit that even further. F9. To provide 114 long term bicycle parking spaces that are covered and secure. The applicant has indicated that they are looking to do those double stacked, which if they are done double stacked, they are do not meet their requirements for bicycle parking under the zoning bylaw, unless those spaces have, the upper spaces have some form of mechanical assist to help them lift the bicycles. I wasn't sure if we wanted to get any statement along those lines. Mr. Chairman, is this something that the, I'm blanking now in as to whether the applicant addressed this, whether we know whether they're okay with this or not. I don't have any specific notes about that. I just, I have notes that we discussed it, but I don't know if we ever. What I recall them saying is they were not against it. They were against us telling them the model to use. Somebody had specified a specific model. And they said, as long as you don't tell us to use that model, they'll provide an assist. They just, I believe they wanted to have an affordable one. So. Okay. I seem to remember mechanical, settling on the language mechanical assist for, the phrase mechanical assist, referring to racks that involved lifting the bicycle. Okay. So I would recommend adding set spaces, maybe double stacked so long as mechanical assist is provided to access the upper racks. Current F10 to provide 22 outdoor short-term bike parking spaces, spaces shall be your location of public building access such as a courtyard area. And I was just going to indicate, I had wanted to include that these spaces shall not be double stacked for short-term usage. They should not be double stacked. Any other comments on page 25? None. So we're at 10 o'clock. We keep plowing ahead. I have the advantage, it's only nine o'clock for me where I am, so I'll leave the decision up to you guys. All right. I would favor going for, if we are to continue, I'd like to set an end time, maybe 10 30. I guess we have a fair, this is a 38 page document. And we have 12 pages to go. Yes. So we're two thirds of the way through essentially. I have no problem, sorry. I have no problem, Mr. Chairman, calling a halt now because we're gonna have to come back at some point anyway. And I don't mind being fresher, but if the consensus is to keep going, I'm fine with that as well. If we're not gonna make it all the way through and that's the goal, we'll make it all the way, either make it all the way through tonight or postpone, I'd say let's pause and postpone because I think I've got 30 minutes in me maybe. Okay. Well, let's go ahead, we'll finish out section F and then we will pick, we have a date already established of September 2nd to continue to and we could pick up then with section G. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. In light of that, I wonder if what would be really nice is if we were pretty much, if we were agreed so that we could get all the way to the end on the second. And I wonder if Mr. Hoverty would be able to and be willing to incorporate the changes that are occasioned by the discussion that we've had tonight so that we could have a chance to review those and hopefully just say we think all that language is great. And then we will have done the first 26 pages at least and there's a possibility that we could actually just agree with languages and have a vote on the whole thing on the second. Otherwise we may be in a position where we have to do still another day in order to give Paul the opportunity to incorporate the not always completely sharp discussion that we have here. I have actually made all the changes that have been discussed so far. If you have a couple of spots where I've just got a note that new language needs to be drafted to address some things. But I'll send that out as soon as we're done. But I have not been tracking the changes though. No, absolutely. That's okay. If somebody wants to take my July 26th version and want to compare with this version, it'll kill off. Right. I think that would be, I don't know. Paul, can I, what is it? Do you think that it's realistic to think that if we basically have got 12 pages to go or 11 pages to go and we do that? And we're not any more persnickety than we've been so far that we actually could be able to come to a conclusion in real time. Who do you think that we really sort of have another day in us to make a final decision on language that's actually before us? I think we can finish on this side. Okay. Well, one caveat, they're in the section on waivers. There are two waiver requests that where the decision has not been made yet. And one of them involves a dollar amount. So in order to actually bring this to completion in a future night, we should at least have some direction on where to take those. Okay. Give some thought to where to take those. Right. And we had, I do have in my notes that we had requested from the town's conservation agent some further information on what those values might be relative to precedent set by the conservation commission. I have not seen that. I will follow up with to confirm that has been issued. All right. So picking up here on page 26 with F11, which will increase all of these, I'm 12, let me end up with F13. I had under F12, the second line to adjust policies. I had adjust parking space allocations as required to minimize impacts. There was some question about the applicant in regards to the term policies. And we're really talking about how they're allocating the parking space. And then... Can you repeat that again, please? Sure. So striking in the second line, striking the word policies and inserting parking space allocations. And then in section 13, to say parking fee units shall be subject to additional monthly fee at market rates separate from rent in order to discourage motor vehicle ownership in the project. I wanted to add permit holders shall be issued a sticker slash tag to be displayed at all times. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I had a question about that because I was wondering about the affordable units and I don't know what they're talking about in terms of a monthly fee. And so I didn't know whether or not having a market rate monthly fee would be prohibitive for affordable unit renters tenants. And so I don't have a specific proposal but I was just wondering about whether or not that's too broad. And maybe for Mr. Haverty, I mean, is that something that the tenants and affordable units would usually get a break on? So what would happen was that would actually be part of the calculation of what the rent for the affordable unit would be. Okay. That'd be one of the inputs in terms of the total cost and it would be factored into the rent. Again, they can't pay more than 80%, more than 30% of their income and it's affordable for someone at 80% of area median income. So if the inclusion of the parking fee takes them above that level, then the rent has to be adjusted down. Understood. So since it's called additional monthly fee, it's really not additional for them because it's still part of the package. Right. Thank you. And the only other thing I had was in under F-14, changing the end of the third line. So the importance with tenant demand in so far as the proposed electrical service size allows and striking without upgrade, cleaner. Any further questions or comments on F-11 through F-14 on page 26? And hearing none, we are currently on page 26 at the start of section G on police, fire, and emergency medical conditions. So we will hold our discussion at this point. Decision, as everybody said, he has been making the corrections in the background so he will provide to the board an updated version of everything up to this point for the board to review and be prepared to discuss along with the remaining section of the draft decision that we have not gotten to this evening. Unless there's anything further we move that we continue to nice deliberations until Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 7.30 p.m. So moved. Second. Thank you. Black, Mr. Hanlon. Okay, vote of the board. Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So we are continued on this discussion until Thursday, September 2nd. Yes. Chairman, I forwarded that revised decision to you so you can distribute it. Oh, perfect. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Before we adjourn, I'd just like to commend Paul on his excellent work on the draft. Absolutely. You feel good at hurting kids, sir. I second that. Mr. Havarty is a very impressive individual. Very impressed, Mr. Chairman. If my memory serves me right, I'd also like to wish Mr. Havarty a happy birthday. Oh. No, that was the last meeting. That was the last time. Well. Last meeting. Oh, it takes my sister's birthday so I can pass that on to her. Okay, do that. So I just wanted, as I've been doing recently, just sort of share the schedule. So obviously today is the 24th, so just at that meeting are Thursday, September 2nd at 730. So that is no longer proposed. That is now a happen, which will give us time. So we will be complete before the September 4th. If something should happen and we're unable to complete on the 2nd, we will need to discuss an extension with the applicant, which we will be able to accomplish. And the next hearing after that, Thursday, September 9th is the continuation of the Gordyke Place. There's a lot of new documentation that has been coming in on that and reviewed documentation. Like, thank you, Kelly, line them up for keeping up with all of that and getting that all up on the website. Well, they have to review. On September 14th, we have a regular hearing for 2028 Lafayette Street and now the addition of 14 Nikot Street and 53 Marathon Street. So those three cases are scheduled for September 14th. And then we had set aside Tuesday, September 28th at 7.30 as a continuation of Gordyke Place. But October 8th has been the proposed close of the public hearing. And then not on this list, but to be added is Tuesday, October 12th is currently scheduled for four regular hearings where it has been putting that information together. So that will be an additional on this list. And I've been talking with Rick and Vin and Mike Champa about putting these dates up on the town calendar, even though they don't have an agenda yet associated with them necessarily, just so that those dates are searchable on the town's website. So we will get those up. Unless there's anything further, I'd like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. Especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee and Kelly Lanema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And it's our understanding that the recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days or week. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zvaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZVA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you. Go to the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revolac? Aye. The board? Aye. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, guys. Bye, everybody. Thank you for your attention. Thank you.