 I'll go through staff and we'll get into things. I have some preliminary things I need to discuss before we call the hearings, but we'll go through in an orderly fashion. So Kinlau. Present. David Watson. Present. Jean Benson. Present. Rachel Sanbury. She's muted. All right. Okay. Present. All right, good. And then Jenny Raid and Aaron Zwerko from staff. I'm here too. Good. I just unmuted Aaron. You can meet people as need be. All right. So good evening. This is the Arlington Redevelopment Board being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th, 2020 due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth through to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. In order to mitigate the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, we've been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings and as such the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. All members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. The order which is posted with agenda materials for this meeting allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment during the open meeting portions of the session and during the open forum at the end of the meeting. For this meeting, just for the record, this meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board is convening via a Zoom conference. Information to access this meeting has been posted on the town website identifying how the public may join. As I noted earlier, this meeting is being recorded and all attendees are participating by video conference or by telephone. Other folks might be able to see you although we have been advised by Town Council and others to turn screens off for anyone not actually participating. And the director and I are the only ones who will be able to screen share the computer just for purposes to avoid Zoom bombing and other security issues. So we will turn to the first item on the agenda momentarily but I'll go over some ground rules for those of you who weren't able to participate or did not join us for our last meeting. As we move through, I will introduce each speaker on the agenda after introducing the agenda item. Allow them to conclude their remarks. I will go down the line of members individually, ask them to comment and keep their comments in line with one another. If staff has any input, we'll let them go. As we move to open questions, public comment period for each item, I'll ask that you use the raise hand feature which is somewhere in the Zoom app in the bottom corner. If you're unfamiliar with it, we can walk you through at that time. I will then call on you, yield the floor to you and allow you your portion of time to speak from most of you I see first and last names. I will still ask you to identify yourself fully as we go through the public comment portion of the hearing so that we can continue to keep good records and good minutes as we do when we're actually all in the same room together. So all three of our public hearings this evening were continued from prior meetings and all were advertised for 7 p.m. this evening. I am going to take them out of order as they were published on the agenda for the sake of consistency and efficiency. And so with that, I will take the last item first which is docket number 3348 for 833 Massachusetts Avenue, commonly known as the Atwood House. I know we have Attorney Bob Vanessa here for the proponent. Bob, I'm going to unmute you at this time and you can let me know if there's anyone else on the line here that should be unmuted as well and allow you to speak your piece but I will say we do have some housekeeping items to route through on this item as well. So Bob, go ahead and introduce yourself. Yes, Bob and Essie, I am the attorney for the proponent. So Jeffrey Noyes, who is the owner of the Atwood House and I believe that Monty French should be on board as well as Jeff Noyes. Is that true, German? All right, I just unmuted Jeff Noyes. I see Monty French on the line but can't do anything with his icon, so that's fine. All right, so we did submit plans. We met last time as we all know and we did come up with plans which we have sent on to the ARB with respect to an updated proposal that we have. As we know from prior discussions, our proposal now contemplates that the Atwood building itself would come down. We do know that we have to go before the Historical Commission and I did discuss that matter with my client and with Monty French earlier today and one of the things that we would need to do if we are going to pursue that approach would be that we would have to file for a demo permit with the town. Now all of our discussions with the ARB to date have centered upon whether in fact we would try to work with the Atwood house or have the Atwood house come down. Monty French has applying previously that in his opinion as the architect even though the building is structurally sound that it would not be feasible to go ahead and rehab the building. Now it is on the historical significant list and it was on the historical significant list the way back when the ARB decision was generated. We do know that there were statements in the prior ARB decision to the effect that the Atwood house would be maintained. That was the proposal. There was also another indication in the ARB decision that any effort to take down the Atwood house would have to wait for any effort to take it down, modify it or take it down would have to wait for 24 months following that ARB decision way back. I think it was in 2009. We are now at a point where I think we need to come to a decision on our part in conjunction with discussing the matter with you folks, okay? With respect to whether in fact we continue with the ARB with our discussions, whether in fact we apply for a demo permit and get before the historical commission. Having in mind that you folks have the ultimate jurisdiction because when the CVS store was approved as part of that the approval process also talked about the Atwood house and indeed allocated 10 parking spaces for development of the Atwood house. So we're now at a point where we've given you plans we've given you mixed use plans. They talk about a commercial component and they talk about a residential component as well. But again, I think that if we're going to proceed further at this point, the question from my point of view to you folks on the ARB and I'm looking for your guidance at this point is do we in fact go ahead now and apply for a demo permit which I have hesitated to do because quite frankly, I wanted to be on the same page with the members of the ARB in terms how we were approaching this matter. I was asked to submit a memo with respect to the jurisdiction of the historical commission which I have done and I believe you all have had an opportunity of looking at that. So I think Monte is here, I know and he's prepared to talk about the plans if that's in fact what you want to do but I'm gonna ask you folks on the ARB for some guidance at this point as to where we should be heading. I think we opened this hearing back last year with the impetus that CVS had come before us asking us to reopen the special permit and approve their signage and design change. At the time, the board sought as an opportunity to have Mr. Noyes and yourself come before us and give us a status update on the proceedings at the Atwood House. I think at this time, we are, or I shouldn't say we, I should speak for myself. I am appreciative of the efforts that you've put forward and the fact that now you've come forward and shown us that there is something in motion here that there is an intent to improve the building but for procedural reasons. I think the appropriate move at this point is to take a step back and ask you to file a demolition permit and to file an EDR package permits with the department so that we can close what we would do is close this hearing this evening and then reopen it at such time that that paperwork is submitted formally, carry on through with a formal approval hearing for the special permit to be amended based on whatever it is that you present, understanding that you're further down the road than a lot of applicants at this point. I've discussed this with staff and we think, I believe staffs have chance to discuss this with other members of the board individually and I think this is the most appropriate way to go procedurally and legally. The Africa does certainly prepare to do that. I, again, other members of the board want to weigh in on that if they could at this point, that would be appreciated. Thanks. That's what I will have them do. So I'll go right down the line and begin with Ken Lau. Am I on? Yes. Yes, I agree, you Andrew. And I think the next steps are now to go ahead and file your application for your demolition permit. I think you come a long ways in the building itself and we can talk more about the building itself once it comes back to us. But for now, I think the process is what you have outlined and I'm fully supportive of the project and what you want to do here. Yeah. Thank you. David Watson. I'm also supportive of what Andrew has suggested. I really appreciate and the commitment to doing something productive with this property. But I think that where we're at at this essentially beyond the scope of the original permit and beyond the scope of what we achieved by reopening the original. So I think moving into a new appropriate process that will and the public committees in town, the ability to fully review and comment and is the best way to go at this point. Thank you. Gene Benson. Gene, I can't get you unmuted so I'm gonna go. I'm not unmuted. Sorry. I mostly agree with some additions I would like to have added to this. So I'll initially say that I don't, I don't at this point have a final opinion about whether the demolition should go forward or whether the owner of the property should be rehabbing the existing building. I think that's a decision for the owner to make. And I understand the direction the owner is intending to go with this, which is to do a demolition permit, which I think is an essential next step. But I wouldn't want us to make that the prerequisite. Instead what I would want us to do. And I have some suggested time limits I'd like to hear from the Mr. Anese whether these timelines make sense. I'd like if we're going to close this hearing I'd like to have some conditions. And the condition would be that they either file for a demolition permit within 30 days or return with an application or EDR application for a renovation of the existing house within 30 days. And if they proceed with the demolition permit and get the demo and end up with the demolition that within 30 days after the property is demolished that they return with an EDR permit application for the project they're proposing to put on site. I wouldn't want to leave this with our imprimatur is the demolition permit. I think our imprimatur is they need to move forward quickly now by the 30 days for a demolition permit or 30 days for an EDR application for a renovation of the house. And if they go with a demolition permit 30 days after the demolition with an EDR permit. So that's the qualification. I do think it's appropriate for us to do what the chair said with those provisos. Thank you, Jean. Rachel, Sam Barry. I actually support Jean's recommendation. My biggest concern would be the timing on action on these items following the closure of this active application for, excuse me, site review. Okay. Any other board members have comments on Jean's suggestion? I think I agree with that. I agree with Jean. Yeah. That sounds reasonable. But I'd like to hear from Mr. Innessi on what he thinks about the timetable. Agreed. I think the timetable is, given what's happening right now with Corona, I think is going to be difficult to achieve. That's the problem, okay? I have no problem with Mr. Benson's suggestion and his approach, his suggestion approach. But I believe we need more time. And Monta, if Monta can chime in on that, since Monta is the architect, okay? That would be good too. But I think 30 days would be very, very tight given what's happening right now with the health climate. The emergency situation has not even been lifted yet in Massachusetts. And who knows whether in fact that's going to be lifted in the next couple of weeks or whether it's going to be further extended. So I have a problem with that. Is Monta on board? Monta, can Monta hear me? Gene? I see his name, that he's viewing the room and listening. I don't see that he either has a camera or a phone next to him to be able to participate. Whether he's going to us via telephone. Yeah, yeah. Well, again, I'm an attorney, not an architect, not a contractor, okay? But 30 days is tight. I would think that we, I would be asking for 90 days given what's happening right now with respect to the health situation with the proviso that if in fact, further extensions are with respect to, is that Monta? No. No. Monta? No? Okay. Hang on. I have Monta unmuted now. So you can predict. You do. Okay, Monta? Hi everyone. Sorry about that. Monta, have you heard what Mr. Benson has suggested and that Rachel had agreed to as well? Yeah, and in terms of submitting, I think that 30 days is pretty tight, especially if we need to sort through a few other variations. I don't know if we can open up some time on that. Well, we can apply for the demo permit, but even in applying for that, there are certain things we need to do. There's a good neighbor agreement. There are other things we need to comply with as well. And my suggestion would be that maybe 90 days would be more appropriate with the proviso that if Governor Baker or circumstances in Massachusetts dictate further extensions with respect to health timelines that we'd be allowed to come back and request even more time. You okay with that, Monta? Yeah, I mean, I think that that seems more appropriate just given everything that we need to do and things seem to take longer given the, you know, that we can't meet in person or do some of the normal things that we do. There's 90 days enough. I mean, I'm just throwing that out there. From my perspective, it is. Okay. Gene, I'll put it over to you since you're the one requesting it first. I guess I'm interested involved or Monti explaining what the steps are that they haven't done that they would need to do to file the demolition permit within 30 days and why those steps can't be done, let's say by the end of May. I'm not clear why the current health emergency I can't even get into paperwork from getting filed. I'm sorry. I can't even get into the building inspection department. Okay. You're only allowed to go into the foyer. Now you can do things by email for sure, but I'm used to dealing with people face-to-face, okay? And I can't even do that because the door I'm given to understand in the building department is locked, okay? So I delivered plans recently and I had to deliver the plans into the foyer and they then pick them up after I'm gone. So that's a factor here with me in terms of being able to get this stuff done. And again, we need to do a good neighbors agreement I'm given to understand as far as the demo permit app is concerned. These are things that I've never had to do given having these things occur in the middle of a health crisis. So I just don't, I can't predict what obstacles I'm going to encounter. That's why I'm looking for more time, Jim. I think, I'm sorry, this is Monty French. You know, we would do everything in our power to do the work necessary in a shorter timeframe, but I think I agree with Bob that if we were to commit to 30 days and fail on that because of unforeseen conditions or, you know, our inability to control other others timing, I think that that, you know, would cause more frustration to others. Whereas if we said 90 days, let's try and push to get it done sooner, something that I think should be reasonable. And Gene, I'll just say this, since I came on the scene on this about a year or so ago, we have been moving forward, okay? And the intent on the part of Mr. Noyes, who is should be on board as well, is to follow through with the project. There's no question about that. He's not going to ride off into the sunset at this point. You folks will not let him do it anyway, but he's not going to do that. He's got too much into it at this point. So he wants to move ahead with the project. I'll hear if any of my other colleagues want to respond to the time. I have no issues with the timing at 90 days. I think the ownership has already spent quite a bit of money on getting to this point. I just don't see them walking away from it. David, Rachel, any comments? I think that 90 days is the absolute maximum that I would grant. Just because we're used to doing things in person doesn't mean that there are different ways to be able to do them now. So I would encourage you to make every effort to finalize this well ahead of the 90 days. Maybe we should choose 60 days. The inspection department is open. It's not like the town is not in business. We're in business, we're having this hearing. Maybe Bob needs a little more time and Monty needs a little more time, but I can't understand why it would extend beyond 60 days. Which won't say the end of June, the last day of June. Just to jump in real quick, Andrew. The Inspectional Services Department is open and accepting applications, do conducting inspections, work continues. So that should not be a barrier in terms of getting things rolling and filing something, which is the only thing that I think the board is requesting at this time. And frankly, it wouldn't really trigger a whole review because it would commission for the actual review that is required and the actual time that is required for the applicant to go through the process of complying with the town's by-law with regard to demolition delay. So I think that if the board is only requesting for the applicant to exercise the process just to file the application, that step is achievable because the Inspectional Services Department is currently accepting applications and moving them. So Jenny, are you suggesting they can do it within 30 days? Materials, unless they are planning to change the materials that they've been thinking about and then we're shared with the board and I've been posted to this meeting unless they're thinking of changing things in order to fill out a depth of permit itself. And they need more time to do that. I don't see why, I don't know because I can't answer on behalf of the applicant other than what they've already conveyed to you but if that's the action that they need to take I don't know why they need more than 30 days. I would agree with that. Why don't we say 30 days for the demo permit but if they change their minds about the demo permit they can have 60 days to follow the EVR permit if they intend to rehab the building instead. Monte, how do you feel about that? Well, I think it's too tight. I guess I'd have to have a better understanding of what needs to be submitted for the demo permit. Well, a couple of things, okay? You need a demo permit, you need an EDR application, okay? That's gonna require our knowing exactly what we want on the site which we don't even know right now, okay? We were coming in this evening for the purpose of presenting plans to the members of the ARB to get some feedback, okay? Well, the complexion of that has all changed, okay? We're now talking about closing out the hearing tonight and putting us in a position where we need to file a set of plans, okay? With respect to applying for a demo permit with respect to filing for EDR approval as well and application, are we ready to do that? Can we be ready to do that in 30 days? Bob, I think you're slightly misunderstanding what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that if you file the demo permit within 30 days, then clearly you don't have to file the EDR permit for the new development until you get the demo permit which is at least a year down the road. On the other hand, if you go back with your clients and they change our minds and they decide that they don't wanna do a demo permit but they wanna go ahead and rehab the building, then you don't file a demo permit, then you have 60 days to go back and file an EDR permit. So it's not both, it's either one or the other and since it seems like your clients are on the path to demolishing the building, it's not a heavy lift to file an application for a demo permit within 30 days. I agree with that, Bob. I think- Bon, are you okay with that? Forgive me, I just wanna have, make sure we're all on the same page and there's ultimate clarity here. So in terms of the requirements for filing a demo permit on a project such as this, what sort of documentation are you looking for? Is it merely a permit request or do we need a file? They're not looking for any documentation. Monty, they're not looking for any documentation. The demo permit app has to be filed with the building department. And basically at that point, it'll wind up getting before the historical commission, okay? That's the process. So what Mr. Benson is suggesting and he clarified it for me is more palatable to me, quite frankly. I still would like 60 days rather than 30, but- Yeah, I guess from my perspective, not having to do the EDR obviously, the EDR takes time on our part but not having to do that. And it sounds like we don't really need to have any architectural drawings submitted for a demo permit. Then there's no real duty on our part. Yeah, I think filing a demo permit since it appears that that's the direction we're headed is- I feel better about it after Mr. Benson said our series. There's something that's necessary that will have to happen anyway. So I'd encourage you if this is your plan to get started on that sooner rather than later regardless and take that before the appropriate board and commission and then come back before us once that process has been seen through. Forgive me, I didn't realize when we were talking about this previously, I thought we were gonna have to submit the EDR and that does take time. So that's part of my reason. No, a demolition permit is a pretty easy task. Okay. It's a pretty easy task. A lot should be able to handle. So I think, I don't know if it's time to make a motion but if it's time I could make a motion that we close this hearing with the following conditions. Number one, that a demolition permit is- So Jean, before you do that, this is still a hearing and we've gotten away from it a little bit just from the start. No, no, that's all right. I don't mean to jump the gun. I think it's clear that the direction the board is heading in and the vote that'll be taken tonight, but I do have to offer the opportunity to any members of the public that are here to speak about this meeting with the understanding that this is going to be tabled so to speak closed tonight, most likely. And the plans as they currently exist will likely go through some iteration over the next year as this is discussed with the historical commission and any other boards that have a say in it that the plans that are there tonight were for review purposes only and not the purposes of a vote or a hard and fast plan. Bob, you can correct me if that's not a fair statement that it was taken as a picture, but in the interest of moving this project to its next logical procedural point, this is not really the appropriate board to discuss the actual contents of those plans this evening unless and until an EDR application is finalized and submitted. So that stated, I don't want anyone to waste breath or bandwidth, but anyone who would like to speak, any member of the public who would like to speak at this time is welcome to do so. Please use the raise hand function on your Zoom screen and I will give you the opportunity to say your piece. I'll give you a few minutes to figure that out. And if we can't speak tonight or if you see this after the fact, you can of course submit any materials to us electronically to be included in future meeting packages. All right, I see a PJS, I'm going to unmute you. Please state your name and address for the record anyway. I'm not sure who you are. So PJS is welcome to speak. Thank you. My name is Patrice Smith. My only comment was that you should tell people to click participants to see raise hand. People may not realize. Yeah, thank you. Okay, thanks. Okay, Patricia unmuted. Thank you, it's actually Johnward here. Patricia is my technical person who set us up. I wish, I guess you can't see me because it says the host is not allowing our picture to be seen. And saying, and I click that, they say they've cut you off is that okay? Well, I don't know, maybe you don't want to see me. But I, well, I think it's absolutely outrageous that this property that's been moldering away for over 10 years, all of a sudden in the middle of this unprecedented endemic suddenly has to be dealt with in some short period of time. This should be postponed until the pandemic is over and the public has a real opportunity to see the plans, have a real meeting person to person and see things and so on. So the idea of getting going with demolition permits and so on at this point is, I think just atrocious. And I mean, and one of their, one of the ideas raised by Mr. Nessie was in his luminous submission was letters to the historical commission saying, is there somebody who would like to move this house? Let us know. I think if they really expect people to move this house, they should put it back in the condition it was 10 years ago before they let it be vandalized, broken up and made a total mess out so that no one would look at that and say, well, gee, first I spent a lot of money just making it habitable, nevermind, moving it somewhere. And the key hole, I mean, we're in the middle of the last pandemic we had in this country and around the world was 102 years ago, 1918 and 19. And it hit this town, there were a lot of victims in this town, a lot of deaths, a lot of sickness. And Dr. Atwood, who lived in this house, this was his home. He was one of the leading people caring for those folks that were trying to recover from that pandemic and they didn't have all the marvelous things we have nowadays, it was pretty primitive, but they did what they could. And to pick this particular opportunity in the middle of this pandemic to say, tear his house down, put up this atrocious monstrosity right on the sidewalk is in the front of the people around. And I hope you will back off on your rushing freight train to get this started and at least have the decency to put it off for a period of time so that there can be real public participation. Well, I hardly think invoking the demolition delay and requiring an additional year here is rushing freight train, but you're entitled to your opinion, Mr. Warden. Gene, go ahead. I just want John to understand that we are not approving the project that they put before us. They have a right to go to the Stark commission for a demolition permit. And what we're just saying to them is, look, you either have to go get the demolition permit or actually file an EDR application so that we can take a look at a project you're proposing. No one should assume that we would or would not approve anything like what they've submitted tonight. Well, I should hope not. But I still think that the whole process should not be started until everybody is free to go wherever they want to go. And we can have real meetings and see real documents and real people. I mean, here I'm just this invisible voice here. And as some of you are also invisible, I don't think that's an appropriate way to conduct public business. And this is not just some little doghouse somewhere. This is a very important historical building in our town that's been there forever. And now they want to tear it down to put up something else that should not be done in a sort of virtual dark of night. I think that's your pitch to the Stark commission. One more little quick add on here. The town is conducting business to our best ability remotely. And that includes the Arlington Historical Commission. They are ready to conduct their first meeting if they haven't already done that. And so I guess I just want to say again, all the time I'm supporting what Jean just said, but also just noting that historical commission is able to move through that process to then allow the applicant to go through the steps that they're intending to hopefully to find either somebody to renovate or restore the house or move it or then at the end of that delay allow for a demolition permit. So it is not a conversation about anything other than that. And again, the historical commission like all the other boards and commissions are doing their best to meet during this very unusual time. That doesn't mean it's a real public meeting. Now you're entitled to your opinion, Mr. Warden. Can we move on? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this matter? All right, bring it, David, go ahead. David. I just wanted to point out that I don't think it's fair to say that this is not a real meeting because we are conducting business in accordance with current state rules and guidelines. And yes, we are in an extraordinary situation but we are conducting business in a way that is explicitly permitted by the Commonwealth. This is certainly not unique to Arlington. We are following statewide guidelines and trying to conduct business as opposed to bringing things to a halt entirely which other close by cities and towns have chosen to do. And to the town's credit, I think it's moved quickly. Thank you to the select board and town council for doing what they've done so that people trying to get business done in Arlington are still able to do so. I think all of the people who are potential personnel have done a good job of showing up and conducting business. I don't want to get off the rails down this road on this discussion. We're still in the middle of a public hearing related to P33 Mass Ave. Don Seltzer, I see your hand up. I'm gonna call on you next, go ahead. Thank you. Can I have the video? No, we're not. Town guidelines are not allowing users to share screens. Anyone but the post. I'm not asking to share a screen. I'm just asking to have the video on. No, we've been advised by town council not to allow that for the citizens. Are you confusing that with the feature of Zoom that allows you to share a computer screen? No, I think what you're doing, please just get to your point, Don. Conducting this meeting consistently with every other meeting. I wanted to present something, but if you did not allow me to show my face, solve the coin. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? We did receive the drawing that you sent earlier today. It's been made a part of our package that's available online. I assume that's what you wanted to show. You can take a look at that. I will remind you that these plans are subject not to the jurisdiction of the Arlington Redevelopment Board at this point. If the proponent chooses to file a demolition application that that will become the subject of the historical commission. And it will be a year before they're back in front of us with an EDR application in a formal showing. So anything at this point beyond and including what's been submitted by the proponent is a sample and speculative and really for informational purposes only. So thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak to this matter? All right, I'm going to turn it back to the board. Jean, go ahead and present your proposed votes, please. The proposed vote is to close the permit with the following conditions that either within 30 days they file a demolition permit or within 60 days they file an EDR permit if they intend to renovate a house instead. So it's an either or. And second, that within one month after they demolish the house they file an EDR permit or whatever project they are then proposing for the site. That's- I'll second that. Okay, so we have a motion by Jean Benson. We have a second by Ken Lau for these votes, public hearing votes, any votes really required to do a roll call vote. So I'll just go down a line, Ken Lau to say yay or nay. Yay, David Watson. He's muted. I just wanted to point out, I think Jean might have misspoken slightly. He said close the permit. We're closing the hearing. Here, correct. We're closing the hearing. Yeah. Thank you, David. So with that clarification, I vote aye. Jean Benson. I say yes. Rachel Lombari. Aye. I am an aye. All right, so this hearing is closed. Public comment is closed. Mr. Nessie, please let the director know what your next steps are. You appreciate your cooperation. I think you're on the right track. We'll see where things turn out when you come back before. It's good luck with that historical commission. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right, so moving on, the next two I'll take in order as they are on the agenda. The next is docket 3616, 434, Massachusetts Avenue. This is a continued public hearing regarding signage at Taipei Tokyo, 434 Mass Ave. I believe we have some members with proponents on here. Jenny, do you want to let me know who's out there for this one, if you can tell? Raise your hand if there's a proponent on this one. Right here. Right here. We have some. Hello? Yeah. I see 327, and I see someone named Charlie. Please introduce yourselves. Yeah. Charlie from Vital Signs, representing Taipei Tokyo, Asian cuisine. Can you hear me? We can. Yeah. Oh, OK. Well, you have the drawing. Do you guys all have the drawings in front of you? Jenny, can you please up on the screen, please? Yeah. OK. What we're proposing to do, well, what Andy's proposing to do is remove the lettering on the left-hand panel that's existing, leaving the panel and just leaving the logo, which is middle, and then leaving the Taipei Tokyo writing, which is on the right, and just leaving the left-hand panel blank. I'll remove those letters that are on that left-hand panel, keeping the facade uniform to the rest of the signage. Because removing that sign, if we did remove that sign, you've got a lot of corroded facade behind there, which he'd have to fix anyway. And I believe at this point he really doesn't have the funds to do that. So we're proposing just me removing the lettering that's on the left-hand panel, keeping the middle logo, which is the two dragons in Taipei Tokyo there, and then Taipei Tokyo writing leaving on there. So basically, like the picture. All right. All right, thanks. Rachel and Jean, you were the ones who began the concern, had the most concern here. So I'll begin down at your end. So Rachel, why don't you lead off here with discussion as far as your thoughts on these signs? You need to be on mute. Yep, done. Thank you. I appreciate it. So I appreciate the applicant taking another look at the signage. I think that removing the lettering on the left-hand sign is certainly an improvement with bringing this closer to conformance with the signage bylaws. I don't, in theory, have a problem with the artwork. If it's a logo that would not be in compliance with the signage bylaws, the center panel, we had spoken before about the signage or the graphics on that panel as artwork, which I think is acceptable, as it's not a recognizable national logo or anything else that is considered signage that is communicating the name or any other business information about the restaurant. So to me, the fact that the logo on the left is remaining and serving to enhance the appearance of the space, given the deterioration of the building facade behind, is acceptable. And again, I appreciate the effort that was made to look at how to modify these signs. Yeah, that's kind of what we wanted to do. We kind of, he was, which signs to remove or which signs were most important. And the left hand seemed to be, although it is part of the restaurant, seemed to be the one to take away to make the whole thing look better. So yeah, thank you. Jean, go ahead. I think, I mean, I appreciate where you've gone. I actually don't think it's enough. I think that the center logo meets the definition of sign in our bylaw, which is a figure or display, which is intended to advertise or direct attention. And it includes designs, figures, letters, symbols, et cetera. So for me, I can't say that that middle panel is not a sign as it's described in our bylaw. So I've been thinking a lot about whether I would feel comfortable in using our ability to modify in the public interest or not. And I ended up thinking if the left hand panel can be blacked out, the center panel can be blacked out also. And then when that's blacked out also, then we don't have anything that's non-compliant with the sign bylaw while my preference would be to have the name of the restaurant over the entrance. I understand that would be an incredible additional expense to do that because the signs are different sizes and you can't just swap them out. So I would be comfortable in having the center side darkened out also and then keeping the right one side with the name of the restaurant and saying Asian cuisine. All right, Kim or do you have any thoughts on this? Yeah, I would agree with Rachel. I would disagree a little bit with Jean. I'm OK with them go ahead and removing the letters on the left-hand side, leaving what of that is like horses or something rather in the middle and the sign there. So I'm OK with that. I don't think this whole thing was not distracting to the whole nature of the whole building. It's not really following the letter of the bylaw. But I think its image is still nice and it's not hurting the area there. So I don't want to put undue burden on another business there that's hopefully be there for a long time and can survive this what we're going through right now. So I would be OK with just removing the sign on the left-hand side. David, any comments? So I wasn't present when this was last heard, but I did watch the video. And what we're looking at now is consistent with what was being discussed at that time. So I appreciate that. I understand what Jean's saying. I think we're in a gray area here between whether this is artwork or whether this is a sign. I think I'm inclined to give the proponent a little bit of leeway given that they've worked with us so far to improve the situation. And I'm not sure we can clearly say that that middle sign is in violation of the bylaw. I think I would tend to agree with that. My recollection of the prior hearing is that we asked for more or less. We gave them pretty clear marching orders. From my perspective, they've come back and answered those adequately. I am comfortable with the department's view that this is artwork as opposed to a sign. I think it's kind of interesting looking at ads to the building as opposed to what's just a blank black space on the other side and lettering on the other. I think I can live with that as artwork. As Rachel said, it's not a national logo or chain or any identifying portion of Taipei Tokyo. It's just sort of something interesting to look at. And my mind would qualify as art. Dean, do you want to respond to those comments? Rachel, do you have anything else to add, or ready to turn it over to public comment? I'll just say that I appreciate where the rest of you are on this. I'm just concerned that I think it sets the wrong precedent and allows something that the sign by law doesn't allow. That is people creating other things other than words that are used to attract attention to the building. Artwork is not intended, as I read the sign by law, to be something that is attracting something to the building. So I just think this is going in the wrong direction. I'm not going to put up a big fuss about it. I just think that it would be easy enough for them to black out the symbols also. I'm not a big extra expense. And I'll just add, Jean, I completely understand where you're coming from here. I do think in the world of signage design and retail and restaurant signage that there is a place for artwork as a companion to signage in terms of the actual wording of a sign or a national logo. And my concern in asking them to take that out and black that out is that that is the actual entrance to the space. So I think without the artwork, it might be a bit confusing to the potential patrons of the restaurant as to where the entrance actually is. They could put the number of the building there. That would be allowable. They could. Like I said, I personally feel that there is a potential complement for artwork on a building when it comes to a restaurant or retail establishment. Yes, I like it. I think it looks nice. It's not my problem with that. OK. Moving on to public comment, is there anyone in the audience this evening who wishes to speak to this particular matter? Go ahead and use the raise hand function. All right, I take it there's no one. So we'll move to a vote to approve Taipei Tokyo revised proposal as submitted. So moved. All right. Thank you, David. Thank you, Rachel. Motion by David Watson, second by Rachel Sunbury. Kin, your vote. Aye. David. Aye. Rachel. Aye. Jean. No. And I vote yes. So thank you, Charlie. We appreciate it. You can get to work. You're welcome. Thank you. That sign special permit should be approved in the next few days. We coordinate with Jenny on the side of this meeting to get that done. Thanks for your help and your patience with this process. No problem. Thank you guys. David, you could drop off. OK, bye bye. All right, so moving on, the third of our public hearings this evening is docket number 2818, 880 Massachusetts Avenue. This is moving from our last hearing. Application by back base signs for TD Bank, which is located at 80 Mass Ave. Reopening this special permit is another sign review. I believe J. Parillo is the applicant here, or at least represents the applicant. So Mr. Parillo, I unmuted you. Please walk us through your presentation and then we'll move to discussion before. Yes, thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. I'm Jason Parillo with back base sign representing TD Bank North tonight. So as a part of the sign package that we submitted, we found out that one of the signs, the directional sign that's on Loughland would need to be reviewed by this board because of previous decision. The existing sign is a directional that guides people to the drive-through and the parking lot. And the existing sign was actually made to be internally illuminated, which we understand is a non-compliance. So in order to bring that into compliance and replace the sign as they have been doing with other sites in other towns, we're proposing this slightly different directional sign that is aluminum construction, non-illuminated. It's a slightly different size, shape, and height than the existing sign. The sign has some verbiage on it that guides people to the parking lot. On the screen, I believe it's signed E03. If you wanted to scroll down so we can see the sign that I'm talking about, keep going. It's not three. It's eight or nine then. Sorry. Yeah, keep going. You'll see it. Yeah, it's that one right there, E05. And like I said, this sign is located on the side street. So one of the reasons why the sign's a little bit bigger than the one that's existing is just so that that verbiage can be legible because most of the people that are going to be approaching the bank are going to be on Mass Ave. And they're going to need to see this sign, which is set back a little bit from Mass Ave. So that pretty much sums up the presentation. OK. All right, thank you. I do want to point out, Rachel Zimbari notified me before the last hearing. And I'll just reiterate this evening that she is recusing herself this hearing. I'll just speak for herself in a moment if she wishes due to conflict with some of her prior work. So when the time comes for a vote, she will be abstaining and not asking questions. Rachel, do you have anything you want to add to that? No, I just have a business relationship with TD Bank so I need to recuse myself. OK. All right, thanks. So I'll begin with Ken and move on from there. Actually, the sign that you have on the side street, E05 and E06, site A and site B, that sign there is quite a bit larger, isn't it? What's there? Yeah, the sign that's there now is about 20 inches high and 27 inches wide. This one is 25 inches high and 36 inches wide. So it is slightly larger. And this is set back way back by the driveway. So it's heading. It's heading toward the residential neighborhood. That's the issue I have right now. If that was, I mean, I would like to have that to smaller if it's closer to the residential neighborhood. Or if you want it to be more legible, then move it up more toward the corner and sell that it's more toward the public business district as opposed to the residential. Because that's, you're like almost a block in. Yeah. I mean, I think the point of where it is is so that people see it and then know that that's where you turn in. Yeah, but from a Mass Ave. So if you put the sign on Mass Ave, then the turn in is that way there, not almost half a block in. OK. So I just see that I just I'm OK with all the other signs and all the other logos. It's just that one sign that's so close to the residential neighborhood. It's, you know, your next door neighbors probably like I like that. OK. Yeah, I would suggest the same thing. The rest of those signs I can I can live with. David, did you want to say anything? Yeah, with the exception of the sign we're talking about E05, are all of the other ones just one-to-one placements size-wise? Correct. I was told that this is the only sign that actually would be an issue or possibly an issue. Because that's the only sign that requires because it is larger than. OK. Thanks, Jenny. David, go ahead. Well, I mean, if it if it is larger than what is allowed by the bylaw and it can be made smaller, it seems to me it should be made smaller to be in compliance with the bylaw. Yeah, I would agree with that. Anything else, David? No, that was it. OK. Jean, go ahead if you have anything. Yeah, I'm not concerned about the placement. I'm concerned that it's larger than permitted by the bylaw and it seems to me to be no reason why we should allow the sign to be larger than what's permitted by the bylaw. Yeah, so I guess I would ask, Jay, is it possible to shrink this sign down to what's permitted? Yeah, what I'll have to do is I'll have to go back and explain to the bank that they did you would want the sign to be the same size as existing and see how they want to proceed. They'll likely agree and will change the design of it so that it can be the same size as the existing. Well, it's not just the size, it's the height. Yeah, it would only be six inches higher than the markup might throw it off a little. The existing sign I measure myself is four feet high and this one is four foot six. So I can also ask them if we can make the sign the same height as existing. Yeah, I think if you look at all of the requirements of the sign bylaw, there is a combination of size and height that would be permitted. Yeah, it's pretty straightforward as far as what's allowed. I would add it's not that it needs to be the same size as the previous sign. It needs to be in compliance with the size required by the sign bylaw. Do we know what that is? Jenny, do you have that? Yeah, that is in my memo actually. The sign is about six inches taller than allowed. Six inches nine is six inches tall. So it's a foot and six inches taller than what is technically allowed for a driveway sign by height. Yeah, so it has to come down. I think if you would speak with a staff another day, they can tell you exactly what sizes would be acceptable. OK. Yep. All right, so go ahead and do that. I will ask if there's any member of the audience wishes to speak to the matter of the TD Bank signs. Use the raise hand function. So all right, seeing I have MJ Smith 999, please. I'm going to unmute you. State your name and address for the record, please. Hi, my name is Michael Smith. I live a few doors up on Laughlin Ave at number 10. And actually my main concern is going back to when the existing sign had uplighting. It was extremely glaring. And made it difficult when you were approaching Mass Ave, especially to see pedestrians, to see the lights clearly, the crossing lights. So I just want to know for sure this sign is not going to be illuminated in any way at all. Is that correct? Correct. OK, thank you. I'm also in agreement about reducing the proposed sign in size. OK, thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you. Anyone else? OK, so bring it back to the board. What we would do here, and typically, Jay, is continue the hearing to another date and time certain we could come back with a revision of the sign plan, present that to us. In the meantime, you can work with Jenny and her staff to make sure that what's being proposed fits with the sign by-law exactly. I think it's clear that it needs to come down. Some, she can point you to the exact spot in the sign by-law that regulates height and width, et cetera. How long do you think, I guess, a couple of questions. One, how long would it take you to get a response from the bank and provide updated plans? And two, to Jenny and the board, or the staff, rather, when would be an appropriate meeting to continue this hearing to? If we can get, I believe I can get a response and drawings within a week. If I can do that and work with the staff, will we need to do another hearing, or could it be approved administratively? We need to do another hearing, because we need to take a vote. But it would be similar to this. Probably more like the last hearing that you saw with the- OK. Yep, I'll explain to the bank that then we need to get moving on this. OK, so Jenny, when is a good date, as far as our future meeting schedule? Based on what Jay just noted, I think it would be May 18. So that would be the next hearing, and we would need it the week before. Sure. OK. All right, so I would move to a motion to continue this hearing to Monday, May 18, 2017. So a motion. Second. Motion by Kin, second by Jean. Kin, your vote. Aye. David. Aye. Jean. Yes. Rachel. That's Dean. Thank you, and I vote yes. So all right. Thank you, Jay. We'll see you on the 18th. Thank you very much. Have a good night. All right, thanks a lot. Good. All right, thanks, everyone. We move through public hearings. So we're going to go to the second item on our agenda, which involves town meeting and warrant articles that are upcoming that had been intended to begin this week, tonight, actually. But here we are. So Jenny, I'm going to turn the floor over to you to present the findings of the Select Board Town Manager last week and how we've been asked to proceed procedurally. Thank you, Andrew. The town moderator, town council, town manager, chairwoman of the Select Board, the chair of the Finance Committee, the chair of the Community Preservation Act Committee, and myself. And Andrew, of course, was invited, but could not participate, unfortunately. But we all had a conversation about how town meeting may be proceeding. Currently, town meeting has to proceed as a formal in-person town meeting, because the governor has yet to put forth and sign any sort of order or bill that would allow for virtual town meetings. So we're currently in this suspended situation of meeting to plan for a regular town meeting. But the reality is that I think we understand from our public health officials that it is very unlikely that there would be an in-person town meeting, part one, and part two. If we were to have town meeting, which we are required to pass the budget, and if we're going to have to do those things, the meeting would only focus on financial issues, the highest, most important matters I can in order to move into the next fiscal year. And so with that said, the town meeting itself would, in fact, be modified. And some more of these other warrant articles that are a combination of zoning warrant articles, of course, which relates to the Redevelopment Board and town bylaw amendments, which relates to the Select Board, as well as some other resolutions and actions, would not be taken up at this annual town meeting but would be deferred to another town meeting. There has been some conversation back and forth about what that might look like and what sort of vote should be taken. I initially posted with this agenda material that had been provided to me at that point in time, just a little bit earlier today, but not in enough time, unfortunately, to post this supplemental memo. I received this supplemental memo from further sort of, that's a point on the best way to vote for you to vote because you're not going to hold any more of your hearings, the public hearings for the warrant articles than you had been, that you had started back in March. So we had some back and forth about that and essentially the suggested language for that vote is now in this supplemental recommendation. And it is right now on the screen, hopefully you can see this. And what it would allow you to do instead of voting no action, which was what was initially considered the way to go, and then subsequently favorable action. Or there had been various phrases that were sort of put around and I think put out on email prior to our meeting. This, however, is the recommendation that aligns with the town moderator association and then also, of course, town council is recommending that this language be used. We may want to refine it a bit by making a citation to 40A, perhaps making other citations as well, just to make it very clear. There's actually one small edit that I see. It's not Article 8, for example, it's Article 28 that you need to make sure that you're voting on. I don't know what Article 8 is, but if you wanted to vote on that, that's fine, but Article 28 is the one that you want to vote on. But you might want to make other amendments to this language. However, this is the language that is recommended by town council for you to use. And again, the intention here is that we would further study these articles and refile them on the warrant for a future town meeting. Now, we don't want to say that it's a town meeting that's going to be a special town meeting in the fall. If that situation also means that we have a limited town meeting again and the emergency continues or some new emergency is declared, so it'd be best to just postpone to some town meeting in the future. And that was essentially outlined here. The reason, Gene, I'll let you get into this in a minute, but the reason for this is twofold. And one, it's so that we can ensure that any citizen-proponent articles go through the full vetting and study process. A, and B, aren't forestalled by the two-year limitation prescribed by 40A. This protects those, will allow them to continue to be under discussion and not cut them off from a future town meeting. And it also gives the ARB the chance to review our own articles that haven't yet been discussed to preserve the right to bring all of these up. In the future, it doesn't make a positive or negative recommendation to town meeting. What it does is it puts them on hold and refers them to us for further study so that we can keep them alive and allow for further public discussion and presentation. Gene, I don't know if you had anything to add out to that. Yeah, I think Jenny and Andrew pretty much covered the whole thing. The beauty of this language is you don't have to deal with the issue of the town meeting votes down the war to articles. Then we can prevent them from going to town meeting for another year because they're zoning articles. The referral back to us and the requirement that we present them at the next meeting, that's not, again, a limited purpose emergency meeting, preserves the citizen's rights to have their warrant articles heard. And of course, we would go through the whole public hearing process. I just suggested that a little clarification to make it clear that we can still make whatever recommendation we consider appropriate. So after the first sentence ends with the word declaration, I would put a comma instead of the period at the word declaration and add a phrase that says, with whatever recommendations the redevelopment for deans appropriate. That would make it clear that we still do our normal job of reviewing and making recommendations in our report to town meeting. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent way to deal with the emergency situation we're in. Oh, and I did share that additional phrase with town council who thought it was fine. Yeah, and that's why I went to Jean first is because I was included on those discussions that went back and forth. And so was Jenny. Any comments from members of the board? And then what I'll do is I'll ask Jean to read back the proposed motion and we'll go from there. Ken, David, Rachel, if you want to just. I'm also just to quickly, if anybody has questions about town meeting or more about that discussion beyond just what you're voting on, I'm also happy to answer any of those questions. I'm fine. Rachel, David. I'll just add that I appreciate Jean and Andrew and Jenny, the work that you did today to alter this language from what was originally proposed. I previously felt a bit uncomfortable with the implied qualitative assessment. So I support what you've put forth and I do appreciate you digging into it further. Yeah, that credit goes to Jean for bringing this up. So thank you, Jean. I agree. I feel a lot more comfortable with this approach than what we were previously looking at. All right, so with that, Jean, I'll turn it back to you to make a proposed motion and then we can have someone second that. OK, I make the following motion that we vote that article is 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 be referred to the Redevelopment Board for further study. And that all such articles be placed on the warrant for the next annual or special town meeting by the Redevelopment Board, whichever occurs first, where such meeting also is not intended to be a limited purpose due to the emergency declaration with whatever recommendations the redevelopment board needs appropriate. This action is being taken due to the extraordinary circumstances presented by the current COVID-19 pandemic and emergency. So basically, all we've done is add that extra phrase after, oh, it's already in there. OK, so that's it. I'll second that. All right, motion by Jean, second by David. Kin, your vote? I. David. I. Jean. Yes. Rachel. I. And I vote I as well, so that's unanimous. Good, good work. Thank you. I feel good about that. Excellent. All right, thank you all. Moving on to the next item is meeting minutes or directors updates. You have too many screens going on at once. Let's do directors updates. Jenny, go ahead. Yes, just some quick updates, which is just to let you all know that we are starting to kind of get a little bit back into gear and trying to focus on projects that we had been starting and working on. I think I mentioned this at our last meeting, the sustainable transportation plan, for example, the net zero plan, and then the economic analysis of industrial districts. Those are three examples of the residential design guidelines. All of these projects continue to move on. And at some point soon, I will be able to provide an announcement with virtual meeting dates and virtual opportunities for people to participate, whether it's surveys, submitting questions, lots of opportunities, essentially, to engage. Obviously not in the ways that we are. We may want to engage, which is in person, but we understand at this point that it is highly unlikely that people will be re-engaging at public meetings certainly through June and perhaps beyond that. But planning is incredibly important at this time. And particularly as we move into a recovery mode, we need to be thinking about our master plan. We need to be thinking about the conversations that we had and will want to continue to have about economic development and housing. And so we are trying to thoughtfully and very respectfully continue those conversations with the community. And I just wanted to invite all of you to first of all ask me questions, but also provide any guidance about things that you think my department might need to think about or you'd like us to be thinking more about and any other information that I can provide you, essentially, to make you feel like you're more engaged in that work moving forward. I know some of you are engaged because you participate in a committee or a working group. But I think it's really important for all of you to feel like you're thought partners and leaders as we move into this incredible time in Arlington. And it's so important that we put our minds together to think about how we can recover from this and how we can make sure our business community survives and is sustained. And of course, not just financially, but in many other ways that definitely relate to this board, as well as people, residential areas and other things as well. So all of those things, I want you to feel like you are up to date on that. And I'll provide as much information as I can about it. But I mostly just wanted to let you know where things stand, give you the opportunity to ask me any questions, and also offer any suggestions about things you think I should be, the department rather, should be thinking about. All right. Thanks, Jenny. You got it. Can I behind me? Yes, I'll be good for a minute. Anything else? Yeah, anyone? No, just that we are all very incredibly busy in the department. We've received an announcement that the town is receiving an additional $659,000 in CDBG funds. And so we've had to kind of go through some extra measures that we don't typically go through. And I'm down about five staff. So a lot of additional work. And I really give so much credit to Erin. I know she's probably still listening on this call. She's just an amazing and talented staff person, as well as many other staff that Erin has been carrying quite a bit, and particularly helping to lead us through figuring out the CDBG work that we need to do. And that relates to housing for rental assistance and economic development for micro-entreprise assistance all related to anybody dealing with the pandemic, the effects of the pandemic, and also social service agencies. That's great. Thank you, Erin. All right. So moving on to meeting minutes, unless there's anything else there, I think the first one we have goes way back to life before COVID. February. February 24th. So David, you were absent at that hearing. So you can abstain from these. Did anyone else have comments on this set of minutes? None. All right. All right. So we'll take a motion to approve the minutes of February 24th, 2020. I'll move. I second. All right. Kin, I, David, abstain. Rachel. Jean. Yes. All right. I vote yes. So those are approved. Thank you. And the next one is March 2nd, I think. Anyone have changes on that in the comments? I'll do it. You get it? Sorry. I missed whether anyone had comments on that. No. All right. So anyone who would like to make a motion to approve those, go ahead. Go ahead, Rachel. Rachel. Kin, you can second. All right. So Kin, I, David. I, Jean. Yes. Rachel. I. I vote yes. Those are approved as well. Great. All right. I do see that we have a couple of people still on the line. I'll open up my participant's box again if you would like to speak during open forum to anything not discussed here. To be taken under advisement by the board, please raise your hand virtually. And I'll answer you or allow you to speak. All right. No takers. Then I will take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion by Kin Lous, second by David Watson. Kin. Aye. David. Aye. Rachel. Aye. Jean. Yes. All right. I won't hold anyone else up. I'll vote yes. Thanks, everyone. That's two meetings that have gone smoothly, so I'm sure the next one will be a disaster. Thank you to Jenny and Erin for all of their work. Thank you. With all of this. I hope the viewers are doing well and staying sane, surviving, keeping businesses going as the case may be. And then I want to thank the select board, but especially I think Diane has been doing a great job keeping things running along with Doug Heim and Adam, town manager as well. I think everybody's been adapting well in Arlington. I've seen how these things are going in other towns. And we are certainly a model of good behavior. So thanks to everyone. We'll see you at our next meeting, which is when Jenny. Next week. And I guess I would say agenda. So your next meeting up for that would be May 18th. Good. We'll touch base about canceling next Monday formally. But other than that, I will see everyone on the 18th. If anything is done, but something, why don't we keep the meeting? Yeah, you and I can talk Thursday. I'd make it a different way. Good. All right. Thank you, everyone. Be safe, everyone. Be well. Thank you. Stay safe. All right.