 It is 735 p.m. on Monday, April 17th, 2023. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. And I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I ask all attendees who are not recognized by the chair to please mute their connection until such time as they're recognized by the chair. I would like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Is here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Daniel Riccadelli. Here. Venkat Hulley. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Admiral Blank. Here. Good evening. On behalf of the town, I'll call Colleen Rawlston, our zoning assistant. Here. Good evening, Colleen. And then I don't believe we have anyone here on behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development or any other department. The consultants for the board, we have Paul Haverty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. And our other two consultants, Sean Reardon and Cliff Boomer are unavailable this evening as they will not be joining us. And then appearing on behalf of the applicant, we have Paul Feldman. Good evening. Good evening. And I see we have Matt Mejuri is here. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. We also have Paul Mejuri and Jackie Mejuri joining us as well. Good evening. Good evening. So this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29th, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive orders to spending certain provisions of the open meeting lot which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as 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. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on this meeting's agenda or on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and as chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting and orderly meeting. We are now turning to item two on our agenda which is the comprehensive permit hearing for the residences at Millbrook to be located at 1021, 1025 Massachusetts Avenue. This evening, the board is continuing the comprehensive permit hearing for the residences at Millbrook. The redevelopment of an existing site in the neighborhood office B1 district. The submitted documents are available from the board's website or as an attachment to the posted agenda. At the January hearings, the board heard testimony regarding wetlands and stormwater plans for the property, traffic and transportation issues and architectural considerations. At the February hearings, the board heard testimony regarding the landscape plans, revisions to the civil plans, revisions to the architectural plans and presentation of the construction management plan. At the March hearing, the board heard testimony regarding the applicant's wetland protection act application before the conservation commission, revisions to the construction management plan, the historic status of the building at 1021 Mass Ave and the revised waiver request from the applicant. Tonight, we plan to discuss progress of the applicant's wetland protection act application before the conservation commission, the applicant's status for the historic mission and possible conditions for the board's decision. After members of the board have had an opportunity to ask their questions to the applicant, the hearing will be open for public comment and questions on the topics discussed this evening. The board is reaching the end of the scheduled hearings for this project. Under state law, as extended by the consent of the applicant, the public hearing phase of this project must conclude before April 30th, 2023. The board will hear public comment at this session on topics related to the materials presented this evening. Comments from the public, which do not specifically relate to topics under discussion this evening are important to the board and we request that those comments be submitted by email to the board for consideration. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will discuss whether there is need for an additional session and if so, discuss options for further extension of the public hearing period with the applicant before a vote to continue the hearing and adjourn for the evening. So at this point, I would like to introduce attorney Paul Feldman and Dave's mom, DiAugustine to introduce tonight's presenters. Paul? Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the zoning board, Paul Feldman on behalf of the applicant. Tonight, the only presenters are gonna be myself and Matt Masiori from Masiori Construction. Let me begin by the first couple of items that the chair just made reference to the status of some of our hearings in front of other municipal boards. With regard to conservation commission, when we hear last, we have already had our first conservation commission hearing under the Wetlands Protection Act. That hearing was continued until last week and in between the continued hearing, the conservation commission conducted a site visit. So the site visit was conducted. The conservation commission had additional requests for information that one of the applicant to respond to. And at the hearing last week, we submitted our responses to those open information questions. Our Wetlands expert that presented before this board, Richard Kirby answered any follow-up questions. And at the conclusion of the CONCOM public hearing last week, two things occurred. One was the conservation commission appeared to indicate that they had no additional questions that they were looking for additional information from the applicant. The second thing was that the conservation commission continued the public hearing on the request for an order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act until this Thursday, April 20th. And the third thing, the chair asked the conservation commission agent to prepare a draft order of conditions which would contain both general conditions and special conditions that the conservation commission thought was important if it decided to move ahead with a order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act. And so we have an expectation that the public hearing process is going to close on Thursday, April 20th, after which time the conservation commission is then gonna, I think they'll actually vote whether or not to issue or deny a order of conditions on the 20th, but they may not issue the exact order of conditions for a couple of weeks thereafter. The reason why the chair asked that some condition, the conditions be prepared is we talked about the coordination that we were trying to accomplish between the zoning boards decision-making authority under the local bylaw and the conservation commission's authority under the State Wetlands Protection Act to try to get conditions that would conform and that if the conservation commission was inclined to issue an order of conditions and then set forth all their conditions, we can, you know, they could be adopted wholesale under, by the zoning board and to the extent there were anything else under the local act that the zoning board needed to do it would then be just add those local conditions. So that's where we are with the conservation commission. Our expectation is that the hearing will close on Thursday the 20th. There will be draft conditions available and there will be draft conditions and there will be an order of conditions if it gets issued for this board to have during its decision writing period, which I know is about a 30 or 40 day period after April 30th. So I think we're the coordination that we attempted to start a couple of months ago or three months ago, it seems to be working out. Let me pause there to see if there's any questions on concom, I'm happy to respond. That sounds very positive. And so you had just to clarify if you think that this Thursday maybe the conclusion of the public hearings on that and that all the conditions may not be finalized that evening they may require some additional time, is that essentially correct? Well, I think the expectation is that they wanna, the reason why they asked David Morgan to draft conditions is they wanna go through them and if they're then going to vote, they will vote and they will vote those conditions, but I don't know if they're actually going to issue the final order of conditions on the 20th. They typically take some period of time couple of weeks after they vote to issue the order of conditions, but an order of conditions if they approve it will be available to the ZBA right at the outset of your decision writing period. So you're not gonna be waiting on them. You'll have their work product to consider when you guys are considering your own decision. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just asked a little follow-up. I take it that between the 20th and two weeks after the 20th, it's possible for CONCOM to change its mind on the exact formulation of the commissions that presumably they want that extra time to do something, isn't that right? The sense that I got was they weren't sure if David was gonna have the time to prepare a complete order of conditions for the 20th. I think what they wanted to see David do is at least put together the order of conditions that would be considered special conditions that are unique to this project so that they can be considered and discussed with the applicant. So I wouldn't expect there to be conditions that would be in the order of conditions that would ultimately issue if they were inclined to grant an order of conditions that would be objectionable to the applicant. Yes, I'm looking at it from a slightly different point of view is that if there were changes that took place, I mean, if they do this on the 20th and they really take literally two weeks, that takes us past April 30th and we have to put our hands over our ears on April 30th and so whatever we won't be able to take, we won't be able to take into account any changes that occur and I'm just, I'm guessing that there won't be anything big that would happen and that probably that's not a problem but I just wanna surface that because in terms of the timing that slight difference and the possibility of slight differences in the language could introduce potential inconsistencies where we have version one and they have version two of the same condition. So I'm not sure exactly what to do about that but we ought not to put ourselves in a position where something like that happens just from snafu. Yeah, I thought Mr. Hanlon that what the ZBA was going to do, it was going to make as a condition it's approval if it chose to vote for an approval that we had to comply with the order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission under the Wetlands Protection Act. I didn't expect you guys to rewrite every one of the conditions so that whatever that final language is that's what we're going to be required to comply with under your decision. So I didn't think you really needed that we needed to see it exactly in final form because you're just gonna reference the order of conditions and whatever it is it is it's been we're gonna comply with it. So that's why I didn't think that few days mattered but I was really interested in and what the Conservation Commission Commission seemed to be okay about is they wanted to make sure that there was a condition on maintenance of invasive species for example because that's a specific condition that they were interested in. So our consultant has submitted something for them to consider so that we can get that squared away on Thursday night. And as this board knows and as this board has requested there's a condition on 10 years of monitoring of the woodland restoration. And we have prepared or can be asked our consultant to prepare a proposed condition for both the concom and the ZBA on that exact subject so that you guys can consider a specific conditioning because it's much easier for you to look at a condition and edit it than to just create one from whole cloth where you don't know where anyone's coming from. So we've done those. We've done those conditions that we've been talking about in front of this board and in front of the Conservation Commission. And when we get to a little later in the meeting when we get to the draft decision that Mr. Havardy prepared I was gonna suggest how we can get that stuff for you guys to start to consider. So those types of conditions with Havardy I think we're gonna have hammered out on Thursday night but there's some other more generic conditions that we may not have hammered out but they don't just be in the aware of conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I think from the board's perspective we just wanna make sure if we have conditions and concom has conditions on the same topic that we are in agreement and that we don't accidentally create a conflict between the two. And just a question for Mr. Havardy. I think that the board would need to receive the final order of conditions from the concom before we close the public hearing, correct? If the board wants to take it into consideration in its decision, yes. Okay. To the extent that the Conservation Commission decision is rendered after the board closes public hearing then it's really the applicant's risk as to whether or not there are conditions in the board's decision that conflict with the Conservation Commission decision in which case they have to try to get a modification of your decision. Okay. No, one thing I could suggest is that chances are we're gonna have another hearing before this board, before April 3rd and I presume we're not gonna finish tonight. And we're gonna go to concom on the 20th. So if it turns out that we, they are able to complete their decision and issue it in final form before the 30th, we'll know that at our next meeting with you guys. And if it turns out it's a few days longer, I'll talk to my client about extending seven days so that, or whatever it is so that we don't run into the issues that people seem to be concerned about. But we could make those decisions at the next time we meet. We're open to that. And everybody's on the same page trying to complete the process in a timely way. So let's see where we can end up. Great. Have you heard anything from the Historic Commission? Yeah, so I'll report on the Historic Commission. So at the last hearing, we presented information to the ZBA on the research that we did because we were asking for the ZBA to make a determination that there really isn't a need for construction delay. We explained at the last hearing why. I think it was Mr. Hanlon who suggested that he really did want to at least give the Historic Commission an opportunity to provide information to the zoning board. And I know, I believe, Mr. Klein, that you reached out to the Historic Commission advising them, look, we're considering this issue. If you have anything that you want to address, please get us information and make it available to the ZBA. What happened was the Historic Commission did hold a hearing since our last meeting. It invited the owner of the property to attend the hearing to present the owner's view, or in our case, the applicant's view of why we thought the construction delay wasn't necessary. When I heard that, I reached out to town council because I was concerned that the Historic Commission was holding a hearing on subject matter that is in the purview of this board. And I just wanted the town council, Doug Hyme, to know that that meeting is going on and that I didn't feel that it was appropriate for the applicant to attend that hearing and start a proceeding in front of the Historic Commission. And the property owner didn't want to go either. And I had drafted an email so that we weren't just snubbing the Historic Commission. We were explaining to the Historic Commission we weren't, and I wanted to review it with the town council first, and I did. And town council concurred that we shouldn't be participating in a second public hearing process when we are before the ZBA and a comprehensive permit process. And so we sent the email saying, look, whatever information you'd like to provide the zoning bullet on the Historic Significance, please just do whatever you wanna do, send in the information and we'll discuss it at the ZBA. We, I did send to the Historic Commission with that email or I should say the property owner did send to the Historic Commission with that email the Historic Information Cards that I had referenced to this board that we had reviewed. We sent those to the board saying, look, here are the Historic Information and there's really nothing remarkable in that record. We did, I did see an email thanking the property owner for sending that so they didn't have to go hunt around for it. It was immediately available to them. But I don't know what happened at the meeting that was held because I wasn't in attendance and I don't know if there's been communication to the ZBA. So- I have a little info on that, Paul. I can report on that. I can follow up, Mr. Chairman. So the property owner just out of courtesy decided to sit in on the meeting, although he didn't have much to add. The Historic Commission was appreciative that they did actually show up. And basically the long or the short of is that they were gonna send the letter to the ZBA which you may not have yet. Basically saying that as long as, you know as long as this permit is gonna be issued through the 40B process, then it doesn't conflict with the commission's reading of the bylaw. So I think at the end of the day, we ended up in the place where we thought we were going to end up. But I think they just wanted to feel like they're a part of the process which we are fine with and which we accommodated. All right, thank you very much. So those are where we, those are the meetings that were held with other boards that have jurisdiction. Let me just go through a couple of quick items that were open items from our last meeting so we can sort of close them off. One of the questions was, will the bike racks that were hanging in the garage have an assist mechanism? The chair was kind enough to send an example of what type of bike rack he had in mind. We've reviewed it with the architect. The answer is for the bike racks that we're gonna put in the garage, we weren't going to try to have an assist mechanism. They are a much larger bike rack. They're gonna take a room that's gonna interfere potentially with the parking of the car. We have 49 bike racks in the basement that don't require any lifting or any effort whatsoever, their elevator access. So it didn't make sense to us for the 26 racks that we were gonna hang that we make them have some kind of assist mechanism which makes the whole unit much great, much, much larger. I think it was the architect who said most bicyclists are fit enough to be able to lift their bicycle and put it on the rack. I'm sure that's not always the case, but we're gonna have 49 accessible bike racks that are gonna be available. And if it turns out that someone really needs to just be able to have access without having to lift the bike, I'm sure the condo association is gonna be able to accommodate that. So that's where we came down on what type of bike rack. The next one, the next open item was the commission wanted us to provide a proposed condition on the monitoring report. I'll get to that when we talk about the decisions. We have something. The next item that was opened from last time was that the board wanted to confirm that the generator that we need to have, which would be powered by natural gas to provide emergency power for the elevator system, that that's going to run on a once a week cycle and an only once a week. And we would prefer that we don't have a specific condition that says it's going to run on a certain day at a certain time. But if the board wants to have a condition that says it'll run on a weekly cycle, a once a week cycle, I mean, that's perfectly fine. But we obviously want to do it at a time when it's least disruptive. So if that ends up being a weekend afternoon or a weekday afternoon, we sort of want the condominium association to guide us on when they want the unit to run. One other point of clarification, this unit would be roof mounted. It sits on a curb with vibration isolation. It'd be very unlikely that you would even hear it running and the vibration isolation is a system that doesn't allow that vibration to transfer back to the building. So we don't anticipate any, certainly not going to hear it from street level. We don't anticipate any nuisance and noise or vibration in the living levels either. Okay. The next item was that... Paul, sorry, just to go back to the question about bikes. Sure. The number of bike spaces shown in the basement level is 48, not 49. Okay, I should check with the architect because he specifically told me 49, but I didn't count them. So we'll double check that. Okay. Make sure we get that correct. Thank you. With the next item was that there was a request made that on our construction management plan, we specifically call out on the plan itself, the private streets that are immediately in the location of our property with a... And call out the prohibition that there is no parking of cars on private streets. So that in the construction management plan diagram, when someone is looking at the preferred route and that diagram that we have, it's actually called out on that diagram. So that changes in process. I know, Matt, you're on that. I've added a note to the CDMP that was submitted this evening in the note section under truck routes that parking on that private street that's just to the south of us is prohibited at all times. Great, thank you. Yeah, and while we're on the subject of the construction management plan, at the last hearing, we had submitted a revised plan, taking into account the comments that we had from an interdepartmental meeting, but we had not yet heard feedback, but with the assistance of the chair who asked for the town engineer in particular to weigh in and give us feedback, the town engineer did respond to us that he was satisfied with the revised construction management plan and he published his view to all the other town departments and boards with the suggestion that if they have something to weigh in any further that they should weigh in. So if you haven't heard anything, it's I think because the last iteration of the construction management plan that Matt submitted to the board today is the construction management plan that we understand to be satisfactory to the town engineer. And as, again, when we get to the decision as I'm suggesting that construction management plan be an exhibit to the decision and that we be required to comply with it. So we'll sort of close that loop. I don't know if it made it into that, I don't remember now if I deleted it from the proposed decision, but we concluded that we no longer needed a parking waiver because of some zoning changes. So we had a parking waiver request, but we're now compliant with parking. And the last item was someone asked if we could find ourselves making an additional contribution to street trees. And we said that we would consider that and we had a lengthy discussion about it. And here's where we ended up coming down. We're doing a lot of mitigation that is, I think, technically and legally not required and in particular to illustrate. In order to mitigate our requests for the disturbance in the riverfront area, we have to do a two to one mitigation. We're doing like a three and a half to one mitigation. So we completely comply with our legal requirement. But the conservation commission said it would really be meaningful if we can do an added enhancement to address some area on the Millbrook condominium property that we don't own that was immediately adjacent to the brook. And we have undertaken to do that and we have a plan and we have worked out an access agreement, although I'm constantly hounding the lawyer to get the signed version back to me and we just can't seem to get it. It's fully negotiated and fully agreed upon. We're just trying to get the signatures so we can give it to you guys. And so there's just so many extra dollars of this applicant going above and beyond that we just could not see ourselves now just adding whatever dollars it is to a street tree fund even though we're not saying that because we don't understand this importance to the town. But I did want to say, so we're not just doing nothing here that there was a comment made last public hearing by a member of the public, I don't know who it was about the sycamore tree that is going to be taken down. And that's sort of a majestic tree that has some significance and could the applicant find a way to just not dump that tree. And so what Matt has indicated is as follows. Assuming the tree when it comes down doesn't is in a condition to be reused or reclaimed. We can reclaim some wood out of it. We were going to build the benches that you see on the plan next to the bus stop out of the wood from that sycamore tree so that it would still have a presence on the site, although it would have a presence on the site in a different form. But that was sort of the suggestion of the member of the public as a way to do that. And depending upon the tree when it comes down and its internal condition and can it be mined for usable wood, imaginary construction is also willing to donate that wood to a local furniture maker who would wanna make useful products from that wood. So we would just wanna suggest that those people that are interested in seeing that the sycamore tree reclaimed in some way find the local furniture maker who would have interest in it and then we'll try to coordinate if there is wood available how to get it to that person. The only thing I would ask the commission on the ZBA on this type of item is that I wouldn't want it to be fashioned into a condition. I mean, the applicant is saying this is what we're going to do because he intends to do it and we're gonna build the benches if the wood is available, if you don't open it up and there's no disease or something in the tree so you know you could use the wood. But it's the type of thing that best laid plans with the person who's cutting the trees down and our subcontract is something gets missed and there's a snafu, we wouldn't wanna be in violation of a condition. So we would ask that the commission understand our intention, our desire to recognize that tree and we don't turn it into a condition but that's what we were thinking. Those were our thoughts about the sycamore tree that we could at least do two things. One is make the benches out of it and to the extent that there was wood available, make it available to a furniture maker in Arlington that desires to have it. Great, thank you. So those were the open items that I had on the list and then the last subject is we received the draft decision from Mr. Hoverty and first of all we thank Mr. Hoverty for preparing it because it's a lot of work and it takes a lot of energy and we have gone through the decision and I have a red line which I will present back to Mr. Hoverty tomorrow. And so ultimately it'll be able to get to the zoning board before this process is completed. The red line does two things. One thing it does is it just cleans up some of the facts that we're much more familiar with than Mr. Hoverty would be familiar with and clean those things up and he can review exactly how we clean them up so that we present the facts correctly. The other thing that we did is we added some conditions that we know we've talked about with the ZBA that he may not have just focused on or been tuned into. He picked up a lot of the conditions for sure but the two most important was a condition on the 10-year monitoring and a condition on invasive species maintenance. And so both of those are in this red line version. They were prepared by our consultants. They made sense to me. It was the type of condition that I would expect to see in the decision. So I'll get those to Mr. Hoverty and to you guys. What I didn't wanna do tonight if the board would think it's worthwhile is just point out some conditions that were presented that we would like to change in this form so that we could have a discussion about some of them so you can understand where we're coming from on those. I'll leave it up to the board would you rather get the red line first and then I guess discuss it at the next hearing. What would you like to hear some of the items that we wanted to bring up? There aren't many, frankly. There's not a ton of red lines in this decision to be frank. I mean, it was a well-drafted decision and we'll get our comments back to you guys. Well, I know I put together a red line as said as well. And I think this, I think, excuse me, Mr. Hanlon has probably as well. And so I'm not sure we should put all of this on Mr. Hoverty to try to hash between all the different versions. So I guess my question to the, is sort of what would be the best way at this point whether it makes sense for Mr. Feldman to present his proposed changes and then maybe the board discusses some of those and then the board present, then I could present some of the ones that I think we may want to consider or whether we should basically hash the versions first and come up with something that has a bit of everything in it and then excuse me, try to review that going forward. Not sure what's going to be the best at this stage. I'll defer Mr. Hoverty first of all to see if he has a thought on that. I don't really have a preference. We can go through whatever the changes are proposed tonight or we can wait and take a look at the red line and address it at another time. You know, if the board has, you're here. You're taking Patriots data to have a public meeting. And if you have some stamina, I wouldn't mind just pointing out a few of the ones that are going to have to be, you know, we want to weigh in on and they're not that many and I could just go through them real quickly and I'm sure maybe the board can give some guidance to everybody when I bring them up. Do you want me to give you an example of one? For example, I'll give you a real easy one. There's a limitation on construction start eight o'clock on a weekday ending at six o'clock and on a weekend, nine o'clock to five. The challenge is that almost the entire construction industry in Massachusetts is built on a 7 a.m. start time. Usually a four o'clock or five o'clock quitting time. And so to start at eight o'clock in the morning, really it just doesn't work or make sense to us. Virtually every project in the Commonwealth has a limitation where you start at seven. And I know that must have been in another decision because Mr. Harvard made reference, oh, this was the start time that the board used at another ZBA decision. But we would really ask that for our decision, the board start time is consistent with what the construction trade is typically used to in the hours that they typically work. And then the nine o'clock start time on a Saturday, we would basically be counting out a Saturday in our schedule and these projects rely, especially once your interior doing finishes. There's a whole slew of trades that like to work on the weekends and if it's not a disturbance to the public or to the neighbors, they'd be able to get in, but if you're telling them they can't start till nine, they'll never show up. So we would ostensibly lose every Saturday because people aren't willing, they're willing to come in and blow out a morning, but they're not gonna come in at nine o'clock. Okay, so those hours are in the town bylaws. So that's where they're coming from, they're from title five, the noise of aims, I think it's five, 12, three, I think is where it is in the town bylaws. So if you, and it relates specifically to work that's outdoors and large equipment. So I would encourage you to review that section of the town bylaws and determine if you need to request a waiver. Okay, I- Changing of those hours to other hours will require a waiver. Yeah, let me just, because I went through all the bylawism and I may have missed it, but do I have a waiver request on that one already? No. No. Okay, all right, so let's do that. So that's gonna be an important one that we'll come back to you guys on. I'm glad we brought it up here. We have to request a waiver then, that I know that's something we're gonna be interested in requesting. The next example of a proposed change that we have that is a little bit significant is that in the draft decision, the construction management plan was contemplated to be prepared at a later date. We went through doing the construction management plan as part of this process because the buildability of the project was an issue raised by the review consultants and this board wanted to understand how we were gonna accomplish that and the review consultant wanted to review it and all of that has occurred. So now we have the town engineer signing off on it. So we wanna substitute that condition as it was drafted that we would prepare such a plan and what we would do with it and when we would do it to indicate that the plan has been prepared, it's attached as an exhibit, it would be exhibit B and that we're obligated to conform to that plan. It's been, the plan has been approved and we're obligated to conform to it. So you'll see that kind of proposed change. The other thing we wanted to reference is that there were a couple of conditions where when we submit subsequent materials to the director of planning and community development or town departments that there's a 45 day period for a response. We really like to request that period be shortened. The work that we've done through this public hearing process has been so thorough and so detailed and we've frankly hammered out things that are even beyond the schematic level that we don't fully expect there to be, yes, there has to be final drawings and final construction drawings, but they're just gonna conform to what's been presented on our approved plans that we like to see that period shortened to 15 days. It really becomes cumbersome at 45. So you'll see that in our request. It shows up in a couple of places. And there's one place where there's contemplations that inspections will be done and there'll be third party's doing it and there'll need to be some fees spent and that's another one we don't understand. We would expect inspections to be done by the municipality. This is a pretty standard building and it's a pretty straightforward construction and we pay all these building permit fees that's very, very expensive and it's designed to fund and part of it is designed to fund the inspections. And so we wouldn't want to have to pay twice. So we would ask that we not be subject to third party review on inspections. And so you'll see that as a proposed change. There's a couple of references to snow removal and snow removal plans. I think that, again, because this was modeled after a different project where there probably was a lot of snow removal issues, they just not applicable. We just don't think those conditions are applicable in our project. The only thing we have is the 20 feet of driveway between the street and going into our garage. That's the only snow removal that we really have on this site. And so there isn't snow removal plans and snow removal storage areas and things like that. If the board wants to put in a condition that we shouldn't store snow in any resource area, we get that. That's in the back of the building and we're not gonna be doing anything back there anyway. So there's snow removal. So you'll see, you'll see catered like that, but we thought we're just not applicable to our project. Then there was the condominium documents. I proposed a change in what it is that we're asking town council to review or special council to review in the condominium documents to really specify that you wanna make sure that what you have in the condominium documents is that they're subject to this condition, to this decision, I mean, and if there's a particular special condition for how they have to conduct themselves that it's called out in the condominium documents. And so that's the extent of the review that those things that you would expect that you would wanna see in the condo documents are there, not like review with the condo documents. So that I made some minor suggested language changes on that particular condition. There was reference to the board wants property management plan and a contact with a management company. We didn't think that was an appropriate condition. We don't know, I mean, look, we fully expect the condominium association is gonna hire a company that's gonna help them manage your condominium, but that's gonna be up to the condominium association on how they wanna organize themselves and run themselves. I mean, we know in our 15 unit building, they're gonna have a management company do it, but we didn't think it made sense that, in a comprehensive permit that they'd be required to provide a copy of the contract of the with the management company, if it's a third party to the board for what purpose? Why is that a condition of this permit? It didn't make sense to us. The way the condition was written is that we were gonna submit to the board all information relating to issues of building security and public access that they may adopt as part of their rules and regulations. Again, those types of operational issues that are not related to conditions of the board in terms of what we've been addressed, we didn't think it was appropriate. Now, I didn't remove it. I did say that we would submit, we would give you a copy of the rules and regulations that the condominium association is adopting for things like their pet policy and their trash removal. But again, I thought that the condition is correct. It just seemed not to make sense to us. So you'll see a proposed change on that. There was, yeah, you'll see a small change. There's a condition that the applicant's gonna permit representatives of the board to observe and inspect the properties and construction progress until it's completed. You'll see a small change where I just said, upon reasonable notice and subject to construction activity. If they're coicing steel or something like that, we're not gonna want board members to come to have access that day. It's just not, it wouldn't be a safe thing. So I need to put some kind of, you know, modification to that representative board access. It's not that we're not gonna provide it. Of course, the board wants to come and see the progress. You're entitled to see it. We're not resisting it. It's just, we just wanna have notice and make sure it's on a day when the nature of the construction activity is just wouldn't be safe that people trancing around the building. That's all. That's a small change that you're gonna see. I talked about the hours already. You know, here's a snow removal. I spoke about catch basins. There was a requirement that all catch basins have oil, water, separators. You'll see me modify that to say, any catch basins that receive runoff from vehicles should have oil, oil, water separators. There are gonna be a couple of catch basins or structures in the storm water management system, particularly in the back, that they're not gonna have oil, water separators in it because they're not gonna receive any water that's gonna be other than either roof water or it's not gonna have any water that's gonna have contact with vehicles. So we cleaned up something like that because the condition was a little bit too broadly articulated. On emergency vehicle access, everybody knows that an emergency vehicle is not gonna be able to go down the two side yards. And so we change that language to say that the applicants shall ensure that emergency personnel as you will recall, we added that emergency access gate from the Milbrook parking lot and a path that you could come into the property from behind as well as from NASSF. So again, I just modified that language a little bit to suit our particular project. I don't know if that was just an articulation from the nature of a different development. There was a reference to a standpipes shall be operational on each floor during construction as required by the building code or fire department. We don't think there's a building code requirement that standpipes be operational during construction for a building like this. There are certainly, you know, high rise towers in Boston where that's required but that would be a very complicated requirement for us to meet. So you'll see the suggested deletion there. Reference to fire hydrants. We don't have any fire hydrants in this particular development that we're putting in. So we deleted the reference to fire hydrants. And you'll see that we did a more complete job of presenting the facts associated with the riverfront area, how many square foot of disturbance, how many square foot of mitigation stuff that Mr. Havarty would be a detail he'd have to go through the record and try to pull out that was just readily available for us. So we put it in so that, you know, it was clear everything that was being required of us. I think I hit all the highlights, but you can tell from my comments that the nature of our changes were rather miter and we're well on our way to having a decision that we don't find objectionable. Great, well, thank you for that. So yes, I took notes, I think I'm going to move on. So yes, I took notes, I think I'm most of those. You have mentioned the work hours, as I said, that that comes out of the town bylaws. So I just encourage you to review. It's the noise abatement ordinance, which I think is Title 5, Section 12. I mean, Title 5, Article 12. But I think that's where that is. The note on CMP completion, that makes sense. The 45 day review period. So cutting that down to 15 days feels a little stringent. I think in the past, the board has changed that to 30 days on some projects. I would need to confirm the text on that. But I will discuss that with planning and with ISD to get their input on that. The last thing we want to do is put a time period in there that would cause the bill. And either of those departments to be unable to respond in time and things get out ahead of them. In one of the conditions, we did propose 30 days. I mean, you have two different conditions. They do two different things. The one where we asked for 15 days, it seemed like it should be easy enough for the director of planning to respond within a two week period. But the one that had us submit final plans for approval, that we said was 30 days, which is consistent with the time period that a building commissioner has on the law to issue a building permit. So we just made those two time periods conformed. So we didn't do, we didn't go to 15 days twice. So you'll see that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Helen. I just wanted to mention so that we all are focused on it. When we've used these conditions in the past, we have taken the view and expressed them clearly to applicants that a response doesn't necessarily mean that the answer finally addresses the issue. It may very well be that a response is we need more time to address it. So basically the obligation is to not just sit there silent and wait for the time to expire and not do anything at all. But the language doesn't say and we have not interpreted to require that the response be something that subsequently resolves the issue. Okay. Thank you for that. The question on inspections and third party fees, I think in the past we've included subsequent language that essentially it's that that would only be used where there is not a town agency having expertise in the area of requiring review. And so that would come in if, when you're doing, when you're pouring your concrete and there needs to be testing of the concrete, slump testing and things like that, that those would be billed back to, those would need to be paid for. Typically they're paid for by the owner. But if for some reason, those were being put back on the town that the town would then build the applicant for those kinds of testing services that are not a part of the town, but certainly the review of the drawings by inspection services, the review of drawings by the different departments that that would be, as long as it's within their normal purview of business that it would not be something that would be subbed out. So maybe that language is going to work. I know that, go ahead, Matt. Well, the third party testing for us as a matter of course, gets paid for by the general contractor. So for concrete testing verification that you're tying steel appropriately or rebar appropriately that your inspection of soils before placing concrete, things of that nature, is all done by third party testing companies through the general contractor. Further, we have engineers completing control construction and inspection reports on a monthly basis where they're visiting the site or during critical aspects of a job. And they're visiting the site, providing reporting to ISD. And all the third party testing is also provided to ISD. So that's what we're going to do. And third party testing is also provided to ISD. So I don't foresee the town ever having to step in to perform any of those services. Okay. So we're bound by control construction in Massachusetts. Correct. We have to be looked at by our architects and our engineers and we have to report to the town. Correct. And the question on snow removal, obviously you're going to shovel the sidewalks as well. But I think the question is just that, where will that snow end up being to make sure there's no sight line issues? If heavy snow is going to be piled up against the size of the driveway in such a way that it interferes with the ability of vehicles to see up and down the street while they're trying to exit that maybe something that the applicant would want to reconsider that location, that snow and that placement. And sort of the second part of that too is that if the locations that the applicant has chosen to store their snow, if it's an exceptional snow year and that the snow isn't unable to be accommodated, that it has to be moved off of site that you're not allowed to then encroach on the street or into other places. So it serves other purposes. And so we'll obviously take a look at that. Yeah, but I think it's okay, Matt. Mr. Chairman, just actually, because I never even thought to ask this question and it's different in every community does. So the town does not remove snow from the right of way. That's the responsibility of the owner along their own frontage. So the owner is responsible for clearing the sidewalk but not the street. That's what I was asking about the sidewalk. So we own the sidewalk. Correct, yeah. Okay. And your points well taken about obstructing site distance and things like that. I mean, we appreciate that. So again, it was just, the way the condition was drafted, it felt like it may have come from a project that where the developer is really building driveways and a different project. It's just not, we don't have that here. Certainly if there's a condition that says snow management will be undertaken in a way so as not to interfere with site line distance views and things like that. If we were to put in a condition that says that, yeah, that's not, that makes perfect sense. I mean, it would be, we would have a condition like that and the Condomist Social Association would actually do that anyway. You never go out of the driveway and not be able to see where you're going. You're gonna have to put that snow somewhere else. Right. We can take another read of the information about condo docs and the property management plan. I think there are certainly things that the board is looking for, that the town is looking for, especially things that are in support of the goals of mass housing and the public housing requirements. We wanna make sure that those kinds of things are in there and are enforceable. So I think that that's more where that's coming from rather than sort of the nitty gritty of how the board operates itself. I think you'll modify my language, may not be objectionable to you guys, you'll see it. Mr. Chairman. Okay. Mr. Hanlon. On the condo documents, I think Mr. Feldman has a point that we ought to be clear on what it is we're looking at those documents for because once you get into them, it's so much fun that you can take hours and days to get out again. But I think that it's important, but this also gives us an opportunity to think through with something that when I was reading the decision, I felt a little ambivalent about. We use the word applicant over and over, but applicant isn't actually defined. There is something that defines what the permit holder is. And I wasn't completely sure whether applicant was being used implicitly that somehow the applicant becomes the condo association, which succeeds to all the obligations that the applicant has or whether something else is in mind. This also comes up in connection with things like the management. You really, once this thing is built and control over the residential part has been ceded to a condo association, we need, I think, to be a little clearer than I feel that we are as to who has what obligations to whom. And particularly, under some circumstances, we may want to be quite clear that the obligation, this is an obligation to the town. It's not automatically true that because you put something in a condo document that creates an obligation between the condo association and the government of the town. So I think that that's just one of those things that we need to imagine ourselves out a little bit further into the future and make sure that we clearly understand who has an obligation to whom to do what and then try to make these, and then try to make the conditions correspond with that and review of the condo documents can be a piece of that overall process of creating a legal structure that everybody is going to be living with going forward. We missed it. My experience on that exact topic is that the decisions is going to be recorded at the registry of the needs. What we do in our condominium documents is we specifically reference that the condominiums operations are subject to and need to be in compliance with the decision. And so what happens is if there was a condition that's not being filed, it's going to run with the land and it is going to be the responsibility of the council. So if the municipality sends an enforcement letter, it will send an enforcement letter to the condominium association and there will be a direct line, there will be a direct linkage so that that enforcement letter has to be responded to or the condominium association will be subject to penalties and further action by the municipality just like any other property are. So a lot of times the word applicant, I think is used appropriately. The couple of times when we thought there was one time where we thought, particularly when it comes to maintenance of the stormwater management system, that there was a condition that said, look, if there's a repair that needs to happen and the condo association doesn't do it, the town wants the right to do it. And then the condominium association would be obligated to reimburse the town. I did switch that language around to make that legal connection work correctly given the timing. But I think that the board can have a lot of confidence that once this decision is recorded and it's recorded and our condominium documents specifically say that the operations of the condominium are subject to compliance with the decision that there's an enforcement mechanism available to the town if the conditions are ever violated, just like for any other property are. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So just following up on what Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Feldman were just discussing, as I was reading this provision in the conditions, I was wondering if rather than in addition, I guess, to saying that the decision has been recorded at the registry of deeds and that the condominium association is going to be, the operation is gonna be subject to the conditions contained in the decision. I'm wondering if it would ever make sense and if it would not be too onerous to have some sort of a digest appended to the condominium documents referencing the sections specifically that are carrying over from the applicant into the condominium trust. So it was just a thought because I know that, you know, if you have the manager or people who are administering the condominium business on a day to day basis, I don't know how they reach those conditions that they have to actually comply with. So I just thought a list somehow of those incorporated into the condo trust, for instance, by way of reference, might not be a bad idea. That's not objectionable at all. It's frankly, if my office prepares the condominium documents, and I've done this on many occasions, we actually do that. We put in the condominium documents sort of the specific continuing, you know, conditions that we point them out in the condominium documents. So you don't have to go back to the decision to find them. So that's just our practice in our office. I haven't talked to the client about hiring us to do the condominium documents to it yet, but, you know, we're not the cheapest office in town for doing condo documents. So I fully respect that they go somewhere else, but that is our practice. So it's not a big deal to do that. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board in regards to the proposed conditions as put forward by the applicant? So tomorrow I'm going to submit a red line to Mr. Havardy, and I'll leave it up to Mr. Havardy how he wants to digest it and disseminate it to the board. I mean, I got to draft from him and maybe I got it from you, Christian. And I'll actually send it to whoever wants the red line. Whatever you tell me to do, I'll do. Just let me know. Okay. So I don't know if it's worthwhile for me to go through some of the ones that I have identified. We can do it sort of in the same format. So I had a couple of comments on the procedural history. I know while you had mentioned, there are some places where they're specifically looking for numbers like the lot coverage and the specific coverage and things like that. Yep, that you guys will grab. That's great. Just want to confirm with you, the ground level commercial space, I believe at 1658 square feet is what it was on the last plan. So I put in approximately 1700 in every place where I saw the 935. Because I know that change created the basement area and Mr. Havardy wouldn't have picked that up. He wouldn't have realized there was a change in the design there. Yep. Strictural findings are pretty straightforward. I'm going to talk to the, I have to talk to the planning department to get the subsidized housing inventory number for that. So I'll take care of that. Strictural findings. Just on that sort of, the latest publication from DHCB is that December 20th, 2020. That is the latest publicly available where Arlington is at 5.7%. 5.7? That was what I put in. Yeah, that's what's reported on that DHCB inventory and that's what I filled in for that. And that is that I did confirm that's the latest one available. Paul, I don't know if you know of another. Well, what I do know is that since December, 2020, the town has approved a couple of comprehensive permit developments. So the number of most likely has changed, but I am aware that DHCB hadn't updated the SHI since then. But you did reference the date of the HSI. So when it gets fixed, I mean it did. Right. You can request specific more up-to-date SHI for a town from DHCB, but they don't, I mean, they're pretty slow to update, you know, the overall SHI, you know, for the entire state. In particular, they've been waiting for the census information to come. So I think that they didn't want to bother doing an iteration before that data was ready. So if we have the more accurate local SHI information, it would be helpful to include it. If not, we just write on the December 20th. Certainly not going to add 4.3%. No. Okay. The factual findings are just filling in the couple of little things here and there. I'm assuming you have the proposed square footage of work within the aura. I think you guys will be able to provide that. Just sort of change that all access. The project is from Mass Ave. There is no other side available. Project is, I counted 75 parking spaces. I know that number is sometimes 75, sometimes 76, but I think 75 is the correct number with eight short term spaces on the exterior. You're talking about bike racks. Yes. Yeah. So I have 75 too, but I have 49 and 26. And you said there were 48. So that means there must be 27. 48 and 27. Yeah. All right, we'll double check. Okay. So there's a note in here. How much of the site is currently covered by impervious surface? What the total of the impervious surface will be afterwards and whether things, the question is whether it's going to be a reduction in impervious surface or an addition in impervious surface. So once you provide those numbers, obviously we'll know which way that's going. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Could just, I've been doing fine in following so far, but I'll get lost soon. And if you all could- Would you like me to share? Well, I don't really care that. You can if you want. I'm actually would be satisfied with the lesser course of just identifying what paragraph you're talking about. Okay, certainly. But that's because I have it on my screen, so I'm following it along. Ah, perfect, okay. So the next section is the conditions section. There's a section A2 is the list of the drawings. So I've gone ahead, added documentation, added the landscaping plans, adding the lighting plans, the construction management plan. So all of those are included. So we'll just confirm that those are all correct. We need to infill the number of bedrooms, but following the assuming you have that- I agree on that, I've done that already. No, okay. Then let's get it to all the way down to where am I? The submission requirements. There was a, there's a line in here about prototype screening plans for dumpsters, evicting plantings and fencing. Obviously we don't need that because all the trash storage will be inside the building. Then there's a note that, I think there's a couple of different places in here where we talk about plant maintenance. And we just want to make sure that we get all those sort of coordinated. There's one here that talks about 12 months after completion of planting, so you have to replace any dead disease plantings or trees. On prior projects, we've done it as a three-year thing. And I know we had discussed last time it being a 10-year thing. So I think we just need to figure out what the, what the right one of those is and sort of coordinate on those. We talk about this with the concom. For the Millbrook property, there's a two-year period because that's our rights of access that we were able to negotiate with some of those. But that was the offsite enhancement. To the onsite, we have a 10-year annual monitoring obligation and you'll see our proposed language. It's pretty complicated. Perfect. Paul. Mr. Chairman, if I may- No, no. Paul, do we want to discuss what the conservation commission mentioned with regard to bonds so we can just get that off? Yeah, I mean, I didn't know if the chair was going to be here. Under the State Wetlands Protection Act there's no ability to require the applicant to have a bond. But under your local bylaw, there is a provision that would allow the town to have a bond. Well, there's actually, I went back and I looked at the local regs and the way the local regs are drafted, they're drafted to say that to secure that the work is going to be done, you could do a bond or the conservation commission can restrict conveyance of the property until the work has been installed. There was discussion at the concom about somehow having a bond out there for the next 10 years to make sure that the condominium association was going to do what it's supposed to do under its annual monitoring. And we did spend a few minutes at the public hearing indicating that that would be a real problematic provision because the condominium associations, they don't have a capacity to post bonds and how they would post bonds. And I'm not sure what the municipality would do with that bond. They would enter on the condo property and they're gonna end up doing work on the condo property using the bond. It didn't seem to fit in this circumstance it would really be a complication. So the concom was quick to say, look, we don't have bonding authority under the Wetlands Protection Act. So this is something that we're gonna address with ZBA. But since they're not here, but Matt brought it up, we wanna alert you to the fact that they seem to be interested in we're talking about a bond, but there's I think much more effective enforcement capabilities for the municipality that are more straightforward and easier to administer than trying to impose a bond on a condominium association. Because again, it's just what Mr. Hanowens said. There's a time when the applicant sells out the units and then the projects owned and operated by a condominium association. And that's gonna be for most of the period of the 10 year annual obligation on monitoring, for example, and having a bond requirement for that is very challenging. There's a certificate of compliance which we're gonna have to obtain when the work is complete. So that's a very important enforcement tool. Conservation commission isn't gonna issue a certificate of compliance, frankly, nor will the ZBA until we demonstrated that we constructed the work in accordance with the order of conditions in the plan. So there are so many enforcement mechanisms that are available that we really objected to the notion of a bond in this circumstance. But the chair of the concomas in here, so I again, in the same spirit that Mr. Hanowens brought up when we talked about the historic commission, he's only hearing one side. I just want to know where we will come in from on that subject. Okay. There's a couple of things in here about sewer permits and such. We just clarified that the applicant is not responsible for inflow and infiltration fees. I made the same clarification. The property management plan just added vegetation management to the list of things that's in that list. On the construction management plan as a additional notice about coordination with the town to provide additional information for the upcoming activities. There was one requirement that we deleted on that subject. There was a requirement that the applicant hold a public meeting with just any members of the public to present this plan. We don't think that's appropriate at all. I mean, that that would- It has been more appropriate for some other recent projects that were much deeper in residential neighborhoods. But that's a circumstance that may be reasonable to not necessarily require that. Yeah, so you'll see in our draft, I deleted it and substituted the construction management plan exhibit. Okay. There was a line in here about the applicant should use electric heat and hot water for the project. And just added, I just added that the natural gas service is to be provided for the backup generator for the elevators required under state law. That we're aware that that's coming in. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. I just, I just had to be clear about that. If you read those two things together, it comes to the conclusion that appliances will be all electric too. And I wanted to make sure that people understood that. And if that's not what's intended, that the applicant should say so. But this would involve dryers and cooking and stoves and all kinds of things like that, which would could rely on gas and that would be go beyond the generator. Mr. Hanlon, we appreciate that. We are aware and we would intend for the cooking and the laundry to also be electric. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to actually say that again because otherwise, I mean, if that's what the intent is, I don't want to leave it in a situation where you have two sentences that are looking, that appear to be looking in different directions it would be useful just to have it clear on its face what's required. Perhaps it's just that this will be an all electric building with the exception of a gas service for a backup generator for elevators. Okay. That's deeply appreciated, Mr. Hanlon. Yep. Thank you. We can massage that. The E-13 was the one about the construction hours. So it is title five, article 12 is where those hours are. Again, about just the location of the trash. I don't think you're having dumpsters at all, correct? Is it just trash barrels and recycling barrels? Correct. And it's towards the end of the E-series. So the E-section is specifically about a project design and construction. There are a bunch that we've had on similar projects that we're sort of considering. We had talked, I think we had talked about doing a survey of abutting properties just in terms of making sure there's no settlement. We were especially concerned about the house immediately to the east where they're very, very close to the corner of the property. So just including some language about conducting that survey and monitoring for that. Want to put in there that you have submitted a truck path diagram to the board showing the path for construction vehicles accessing the site. And that truck access to the site and egress from the site shall only be from the westbound lane of Massachusetts Avenue. So just want to make sure we had included that as well. We have adding a statement about the application of a higher licensed pet control company to conduct comprehensive assessment of pest activity on the property and develop and implement an integrated pest management plan. So obviously if there's no pest detected then it's not an issue. If there are pests, we just want to make sure that that's addressed going forward. In the drawings there's an open shaft adjacent to the elevators. I wasn't sure if there was space in that possibly for if the retail space in the first floor wanted to be used as a restaurant would they be able to utilize that shaft for ventilation? Well, the issue with once you get into any sort of restaurant construction then you're looking at a gas service for cooking and for heated makeup air and things of that nature. So in our minds with an all electric building we're going to be limited to other retail uses other than restaurant food services. Okay. And then there was a comment that the redevelopment board had put forward earlier on about access to the bike storage area in the basement. So just noting that the interior dimensions of at least one elevator should accommodate a standard bicycle with both wheels on the ground. One of our initiatives demonstrated that it's sized for a bicycle. We've really... Perfect, okay. Great. There's the parking spaces. So are there 50 or 51 parking spaces? 51. 51, okay. There's 10 compact size and two accessible. We had 52 and then when we proposed the doors out to the woodland area that took away one of the parking spaces, which netted us 51. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hanlon. On condition F8, which I think is what we were just talking about. The previously it said 5%, now it says 11, which is kind of more than 5%. And I'm just wondering what's intended there. So 11 is just the count that's shown on the drawing today. I see, okay. Well, what I'm wondering, I just happened to have been amusing myself by reading through the new stretch code. And there's a whole lot of stuff about being EV ready. And here you're actually just providing the spaces themselves. I believe it's like 20% EV ready here. And by the time, I'm guessing by the time the applicant succeeds in getting a building permit, the stretch code, if not the specialized code will be applicable here. I think the effective date is July 1st. And I guess I wouldn't want to go into saying all of the things that you need to have to be EV ready. But a generic reminder that the applicant will be complying with the requirements of the building code on providing parking might be helpful. I'm especially concerned about the second sentence here about just providing for expansion of the number of charging stations in accordance with tenant demand. Because at least as I read the updated code, more things will have to be EV ready than that. And it's not clear to me exactly what the capability is of the EV stations that are going to be there. So I don't think that this is a big issue, but I would like to be sort of have more clarity about what exactly is intended here. You mean in terms of the, I think that it's already at 20%, right? 20% of 50 is roughly is 10. So it's already being provided for. And I'm just interested in knowing what the capability of that is and whether it will be equivalent to what the state would consider EV ready if the charging station hadn't already been built. I have no idea. Well, let me speak to Mr. Haverny and I have had conversations about this. You know, whether or not the structure is going to be applicable to this project, it's a state code issue. So it's not, you know, a local issue. Either we have to comply with it or if we don't. And there's a real question of if we would have to comply with something that we've already in the process of applying for. So it may not be applicable to us, but it's not a decision that is made by the ZBA. It's a state law issue at the end of the day. And Matt, do you know from Chris what the EV ready capability is going to be? Are they going to be fast charges? Are they going to be? Do you know what you're what you're planning for the to those charging stations? We haven't gotten into those. We get all we have to size the electoral service based on something. So, you know, that'll come obviously, you know, during design development. There's a slew of different methods to achieve it. There's the fast charging ones, which, you know, really require like a 60 amp dedicated circuit. There's other systems where they have priority charging where, you know, three or four, five cars, you know, share, you know, one circuit. And we can really dial in. And I agree with Mr. Hanlon. It definitely begs a deeper dive into what EV ready is and what we want to do to be prepared if we would fall under that stretch code. Mr. Chair. Ms. Hoffman. Um, I, my understanding, not that this is necessary for the hearing, but is that if you're to be EV ready, you're supposed to be providing conduit to the spaces. And the only reason I bring that up is because I thought maybe it had come up in previous hearings that there you were planning to bring conduit to more of the spaces. Is that accurate or not? Because if it is part of the plan, maybe that could be reflected here. We did have conversations about providing an empty conduit to each parking space. However, they get tricky when you have parking spaces that don't have, you know, wall space or, you know, adjacent to order in front of it. So I think we, I have to go back to my notes, but I believe we back down from that and we just, you know, provided the approximate 20% that we needed. And we should check with Chris on that. Mel, because I think he, I thought that Chris has provided for conduit on that. We should check. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon. If I could be brave enough to venture to F9. I, I just was wondering whether. They don't know what F9 is because I added it. I'm sorry. That's right. Okay. As parking for unit shall be subject to an additional monthly fee at market rate separate from the regular condominium fees. Crimate holders shall be issued. Well, it says issues, but it should be issued a sticker tag to be displayed on their vehicle. The underlying principle behind that I assume is that if you didn't want to have a parking space, you could make that parking space available to somebody else and they could buy it for, and, and you go free. It's a sort of thing that, that is kind of more common in non ownership situations. And I just want to be, the idea here is to basically allow people to save money by not, by not having a car or, and I'm wondering if that's, if that's clearly enough understood and if the applicant has a problem with that. Yeah. I was going to say we didn't have any direction as to how spaces were going to be allocated if they're going to be deeded with the unit, if they're going to be sold separately, how that's going to happen. So I just wanted to, this is a certain point for some language along that line. The intention would be that they be, you know, there's a parking space deeded to each unit for the price. Okay. Yeah, we wouldn't want to have, we wouldn't want to have a condition that went into the economics of how the parking spaces are, that they're decoupled from the units or something like that. That, you know, that is a bigger issue in rental projects, but not in a for sale, condominium development. All right. And then obviously the kind of board you have to figure out like who gets to have an electric space and who gets to have an accessible space and those kinds of issues. And then we had talked about improving one of the existing crosswalks on Massav, that was something that had come up a few times. And I believe it's the one that's in front of 990 Massachusetts Avenue. I thought that was picked up by the, in the project plans, there was a submission by Vanessa that shows that crosswalk and the improvements, the restriping of it. So I thought that was already picked up through the reference to the drawings of the project. If not, that's maybe the simplest way to address that. There is a, from Vanessa, there's the restriping. Well, there's two, well, we are, where the CMP has the temporary crosswalk that describes exactly what we're doing. But then there's an additional permanent crosswalk that we've agreed to upgrade. And I don't remember if that both of those are. It is. I think that permanent upgrade, it was one of the things that was in Vanessa's thing. But if not, we could put it into words. But I think that it's shown on a Vanessa exhibit. I'll go back and check. We're pleased to add a language in. It would make sense that it'll just keep us in tune that we have to do it. Okay. And then you had said again, that you're not planning on providing lift assistance for the bike storage areas on the main level. In the garage, right? Correct. But you are providing a bike maintenance stand for residents on the lower level. Correct. I guess I just want to include that. Then the next section is police fire emergency. So all elevators must have emergency generator backup that's added as required by mass state elevator code. During construction, the project shall have a superintendent on site during working hours to address security and traffic concerns with the police department. Obviously you'll have a construction. There will be construction superintendent on site during working hours. So this is just. And that's actually in the building code. So that's a law. Yep. Okay. Section H is water, sewer and utilities. Just clarifying that the applicant is responsible for all trash recycling and yard waste removal. And then you had noted the fire hydrants on the property shall remain private that those don't exist. We'll go ahead and strike that. Yeah, there's another paragraph in H4. There's another sentence in H4 that I'm striking where it says the applicant shall replace the water main hydrants and gate valves. We're tapping into the existing high pressure water main. We're not replacing any water mains. It's just, again, it's carryover for a different project where they're actually installing water mains. We're not installing water mains here. So you'll see a deletion of that sentence in my draft. Alrighty. And then I say utility meters where required to be mounted externally are to be located on the sides of the building. Do not mount utility meters. Meters are other structures on the front of the building. I'm assuming that if it's all electrical, they're all going to be interior anyways, but just that if you are required to have a meter, don't put it on the front. And then in the next section of wetlands was that I had the applicant shall provide a bond amount in the bond in the amount of blank. So we will discuss that with conservation and see how they want to make sure that the intent of the bond is carried through. And then we have a section which we didn't include initially. We have had on other projects. It says, while no dewatering is anticipated by the applicant, any water discharged as part of any dewatering operation shall be passed through filters onsite, yadda yadda yadda. So it's a catch-all in case you run into water, but we don't anticipate you will, but you are close to the river, so we're not entirely sure. And then we have going down to I-14, all mitigation plantings shall be maintained according to the standards that the American Association of Nursery Men. We have a catch-all after that in the event that the AAN ceases to exist or issued to maintain relevant standards. Just in case they were relying on the American Association of Nursery Men and they cease to exist, that we still have what we need. And I added fencing surrounding your urban forest in the rear yard shall have sufficient clearance below the bottom rail to allow small animals to migrate to and between adjacent resource areas. Yeah, when you look at our revised plans, you're gonna see the gap in the plans. That gap is shown on the drawings. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. This is when we had a discussion last time and Ms. Hoffman raised the question about what the material of the fencing would be. And we were offered a choice by the applicant as to whether to have Cedar or I don't remember what the other option was, but everybody was a minor. But Ms. Hoffman and the rest of us all shook our heads and said Cedar is definitely the way to go. So I just wanted not to forget that. Thank you. That's specified on the plans that we submitted today. Great. It's clearly labeled as a Cedar fence. Great, thank you. And I was concerned sort of the rear part of the lot is sort of this enclosed area where we have a lot of plantings that are gonna take time to establish themselves and to grow and to really sort of thrive. I wasn't sure if there should be some kind of a policy in regards to pets about sort of not using the rear area as a run yard for animals because I could unfortunately see someone's over-exuberant dog sort of tearing up some of these plantings that you're working so hard to establish. So I don't know what, that's obviously this up to the kind of association, but that's just something that they may want to consider because it could cause a lot of damage very quickly. And then we had discussed that the impervious pavement in the patio area at the front of the building is to be pitched as best as practical to direct surface water towards the landscaped areas instead of towards the street. Yeah, that's, you'll see that on the floor. It may not be practical. But it's been designed that way on the revised civil drawings. Oh, perfect. That's been taken into account in the drawings. Okay. And then I had added something about street trees on the additional street trees in addition to the ones that you had already included. You've indicated that that's something you're not intending to do. This is section J, other general conditions, a line here overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is prohibited in the town of Arlington. This truth, A, there is a way to get a car a grant from the town, from the police department for up to 14 nights per year. But the town is also now talking about possibly doing an overnight parking pilot study which would allow parking on street. So I'm not quite sure what we should do about that language. But I did want to include there that the parking of vehicles on private ways without the permission of the property owner is likewise prohibited, which you had excluded as we had asked on the CNP. See, I mean, the particular condition you're talking about with the parking I didn't see in here. So it must be something that you're adding, Mr. Klein. But if it is, I think the way it should be changed. I'm sorry? It's J4. Oh, unregistered vehicles. Right, we came up on what I read. But then the next line is that overnight parking of vehicles. Right, so I would just say overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is prohibited. You could just say currently or that the overnight parking shall comply with the regulations of the town of Arlington. And if they change, they change. Whatever they are, they are. All right, I'll make a note of that too. And then we got down into the waivers. The waivers were pretty straightforward. Waiver number five, which is the one about parking. So I had just revised the bylaw now. It's one parking space per residential unit. But then there's also parking required for the retail space. So eventually, so essentially what I note is that the applicant requests a waiver to allow a total of 50 spaces for the proposed 50 condominium units, but it's actually 51 spaces. And it's 1,700 square feet of commercial, approximately. Okay, so the waiver would still be required. Right. Because it's dead, but it's only like 54 down to 51, I think. And then just the next one, the bicycle parking design guidelines, I just changed it to zoning bylaw, Article 6, Section 61112, which is the zoning side of that and about the number of required parking spaces for bicycles. So I'll need to finish massaging that about the number of units, the basement number for unit hanging. And then the board action will need to determine, I think seven, eight, nine, those were 10. Those were all pretty straightforward. Number 10, just waiting on the report from the historic commission. As you stated, I think we're fine just reporting on that. Outdoor lighting, are you still requesting a waiver for uplighting? Because of the drawing set. Well, we took that out of the way to sway the list. Paul may have been looking at the original list when he prepared this. All right, so we'll strike that one. And then the sewer infiltration fees, we already said that we're not doing that. And then the ARB had noted that there's one waiver you were missing, which is Article 5, Section 5, 317, which is the building step back. That for buildings over three stories high, there's a seven and a half foot step back requiring at the fourth story. So we just want to make sure that you're requesting that waiver because it will be required. Okay, so there are two now. One is the noise for the construction time. And the other is the fourth floor step back of seven and a half feet, which we're asking to be waived. Mr. Chairman, one more question. Right, and that second one is in the zoning bylaws. I just want to give you the citation. It's 5, 317, just so you have that for your notes. Yes, Matt. One important clarification on the site lighting. So I believe, and I'd have to go back to our response letter from Harrison Mulherrn Architects, but the lighting that was proposed is not actually uplighting. It's accent lighting that would basically provide illumination of the towers on the building. And I believe Chris explained that it wasn't, by definition didn't fall into the category of uplighting. So I believe that lighting is still in the photometrics. I have to check that in the morning, but I believe it's still in the photometrics. Okay, yeah. If you could let us, no, because I need to go back and take a look at Article 14 as well in the town bylaw and see exactly what it says. If it's an issue, we'll take it out. I just, I think we were able to redefine what it is. And I thought the issue would not, that resolved the issue, but if not, we can certainly take it out. Okay. All right. Those were all my comments. Those are, so that, and I had basically gone through that entire list ball that you and I had gone through before of places. I thought that there may be some different places where we were looking for some different conditions and try to place something on all of those. So I'll go ahead and revise this as well. And then I can forward this off to both Paul's tomorrow and, or I should say two of the three Paul's and then we'll let Mr. Havardy deal with the hard question of how to piece this together. Yes. So I need to get some of the blanks on the numbers I need to get from our civil engineer. I asked him for it, but I haven't. Mike, Mike Novak hasn't responded. So I'm going to wait to send my red line to Paul until I can get those blanks filled in for him to. Okay. Those square footage. But if it's not tomorrow, it'll be Wednesday. Okay. So at this stage, are there other questions specifically from the board being none? We do have a few members of the public in attendance. And so I think it's important to go ahead and give them an opportunity to participate. So for those of you who would like to go in a minute, I'll be opening the meeting for a public comment. Public comments take as it relates to the matters at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of helping us inform our decision. If you are participating via the Zoom application, you may raise your hand using the button on the participants tab. And if you're calling in, you may dial star nine to indicate you would like to be addressed. When you're called upon, please name an address for the record and then give us a testimony you would like to provide to the board when all public testimony is taken, the board will close the public comment period. So with that, first hand up is Patricia Warden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Patricia Warden, 27 Jason Street. Can you hear me? I certainly can. Thank you. Okay. I would like to ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to do everything in their power to prevent this destructive 40B project. The Consolidation Commission, presumably, will be addressing the wetland issues, but overarching all of this is the sustainability considerations which have attracted a great deal of attention in the town and many town meeting votes as regards our climate and sustainable concepts of construction. This project does not have passive house-type construction with constraints. It is antithetical to heating systems like geothermal, which would be very important in a construction project of this size. And this is a paradigm for exploitation and speculation in order to derive from the consideration of developer profits. And the housing considerations here, too, the select board should never allow this project to be before the ZBA. And actually, in violation of the directives of the master plan, where we are advised to have only new construction of affordable units, there are some marginally affordable units here. But the predominance is by far market rate or even luxury units, which the town does not need. They're using resources the town does not have to spend on this kind of thing. And the huge amount of financial support would be needed for schools and infrastructure and things like that. I would particularly like to point out the fact that there is a historic house that will be demolished should not be glossed over, as is being done, as is of no importance. This section of Massachusetts Avenue is actually part of the natural road and will be completely despoiled by this project. And the loss of those two houses, especially the historic one, is just unacceptable. We need those houses for other programs in town. The exemplary housing authority program for disabled adults should never be destroyed. This is ridiculous. And I would like to say that I would really like to see the actual lies that were said of having no historic property on this site should have been addressed at the very beginning by denying this project. And I do want to say that there are zero units of affordable housing for those who really need them in this project. That is antithetical to what the master plan directives say. So once again, please use your power to deny this project. I have much more to say about heat islands and cutting on trees and everything else. But this is a dreadful project. And please do whatever you can to deny it. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Gordon. Are there other members of the public wish to address the board this evening? I have a set of hands. Mr. Moore. Stephen Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Moore. Even on Street. I am saddened to hear that the applicant is not willing to go along with the idea of additional street trees along in the neighborhood, making the contribution of the police fund. I understand their logic. This particular area of town streetscape is pretty desolate. And although the project is going to be contributing trees on its own property, we're trying to remediate the fact that this is the case here. And I understand the consolation prize relative to dealing with the Sycamore tree is certainly a nice idea. It's not quite the same in that taking town to mature a huge Sycamore in terms of its effect on global warming and such and mitigation is the problem. Not so much what gets done with the wood that's left over after. However, it still is a good idea. And I do applaud that they are going to do that. I would suggest perhaps getting in touch with the board of directors of Schwab Mill would be a good idea in terms of the use of that Sycamore wood. They make, of course, historic milling and picture frames and the like. And they may have use for the large lumber that would be created by the taking of that tree. That said, I have a question on two issues in the draft decision. The first is C2J on page 14. It talks about the applicant performing additional test bits for the stormwater basins. I'm wondering, is that to be done in the future? Or is the applicant considering that that's completed at this point? So we have an ask Mr. Majority to answer that. Yes, please. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we've already completed the test bits to enable us to design the stormwater infiltration system. So Paul and I have modified that language to remove that requirement in the future because that work is done. All right. So does that mean that the test bits were sufficient and the drainage was sufficient in the test bits to deal with all that within the building code? Yes. OK, so we can expect no additional runoff due to the forest surface or ledge. OK. I raised an issue like that, Rob, to this before. And I just wanted to ensure that that problem is taken care of as far as is practical at this juncture. The second issue I have is I-16 on page 24. I'm going to go there myself because I think this had to do with going to it on my screen. Yes, I-16. It talks about the plantings of asus species and moose products, et cetera, et cetera. And there was some discussion about this earlier, I think. In this case, it looks like this is something that was put in relative to the Conservation Commission comments. It talks about monitoring for three years with an annual report. I've also heard tonight about a 10-year plan and monitoring. I'm wondering which is the intended approach? And is this just a three-year incorrect? Or is it somehow this is being different than what's being done under the 10-year monitoring? Mr. Feldman? So let me read the proposed monitoring report condition that nobody's seen yet. So you can at least understand where we're headed with this. And then we can talk about Mr. Moore's question and reconcile any issues anybody has. We're proposing a commission that says annual monitoring reports will be provided to the Arlington Zoning Board and the Conservation Commission by November 15 of every year for a 10-year monitoring period after installation of the restored woodland. By the way, that's a term that we use throughout restored woodland instead of this urban park idea. It seems to be more descriptive. These reports will describe the condition of the restored woodland, overview the management efforts undertaken over the past growing season, such as plant replacement invasive species management, et cetera, and describe the anticipated management efforts required for the subsequent growing season. All reports shall include representative photographs of the restored woodland from photographic stations established within the woodland such that year-to-year images can be compared. So I think what we're contemplating is that in a more typical three-year monitoring period, you have this 80% survival rate that has to be achieved. We weren't suggesting that we move away from that. That was a specific requirement in the three-year. But the annual reporting and what efforts are being made in terms of management of invasive species and plant replacements and what's anticipated as we see it develop, that's going to go on for another seven years after that. So that's, I think the two are, one covers the first three-year period, and this was intended to cover from year 4 to 10. Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Mr. Moore. That's good news. 10 years is certainly better than three, and it sounds very thorough. I'm wondering, once the applicant builds the building and lets all the condos to the various folks, both affordable and non, how does this survive? I think there's been repeated mention of hundred documents tonight. I still don't have much of a feel for how enforceable under document statements are. I mean, who do you go after? The condo board, if they don't follow the rules. So what happens after the applicant's done and the building is all leased? So I think I can explain that. Weekly, the land that is going to be the restored woodwind is common area that is the responsibility and the control of the condominium association. And so the condominium documents are going to specifically provide that the condominium association's obligation to maintain the common area. The restored woodwind is specifically a common area, and it's going to reference the obligation to provide annual reports under a condition, what I put in is I-19. It was the next condition after I-18. And so let's say the condominium association or the management company fails to submit that report. I mean, it's going to be in their annual budget that they have to do it, but they fail to submit it. Then there would be either an enforcement notice either under the comprehensive permit where there's going to be a similar obligation under the order of conditions under state, what was protection act as a continuing obligation. And just like any other property owner that doesn't comply with the condition, the municipality is going to be able to take an enforcement action and enforce compliance. But the woodwind is actually going to be the legal responsibility of the association to manage and maintain in accordance with the permits. It is defined common area. And so that's all specified in the condominium documents. So there is going to actually be that the trustees of the condominium association are responsible to perform the obligations that are in here. And if they don't, and they get a letter from the municipality, it would be a violation of their fiduciary duty to ignore it. They just can't. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hammond? Mr. Chairman, I'd like just to add, if you're analyzing what the risk is that the reports aren't done or they're not done properly and the restored woodland area ultimately fails, there are two kinds of risks here. One is the risk that the condo association with the passage of time and people come and people go don't remember or don't understand what their obligation is. And the other is that on the town side, somebody has to be keeping track whether they actually get these reports or not. And that's a particularly difficult problem because this isn't a common report. If everybody had to file it by November 15th, they'd know whether they were getting a whole bunch of reports. But somebody has to be watching over this in the town side. So that's pretty much a town responsibility. You can't really ask Mr. Feldman's clients to do that. And I must say that I am less than completely confident that the town will be up to the task, not because of bad negligence or anything like that, but because it goes outside the standard procedures so that people don't watch it. In the discussion we had earlier though, I thought that the suggestion of Mr. Feldman that the obligations under the agreement be summarized. And a list that's fairly clear that people on the condo board understand that they're supposed to do this and why would go at least some distance towards avoiding having people just conveniently forget that they ever had an obligation to do this unless somebody prods and nobody ever prods. So I think that that's helpful. I would say this, that in thinking about whoever does the condo documents, and I dearly hope that it's Mr. Feldman, but that's probably not within my purview to suggest. But it seems to me that the analysis that Mr. Feldman just gave as to why is there obligation to do that and you have to work all that out. My experience is not what you can usually expect from a condo board. If they've hired a management association, that would help. But I think some effort needs to be made to have a policy of clear statement about what the obligations are so that it doesn't require any great sophistication to understand them. And I trust that the people who do the summary, if that's the way it happens with the condo documents, would prepare it with controlling that risk in mind. I can make one more suggestion here. And that is that the applicant, which is who's before you, they're going to create the first annual budget for the association. And I think we could just add a line that says there will be a separate line item in the annual budget that is for the annual reporting requirement. And we're going to find out from our wetlands consultant roughly how much we have to carry, because it's going to be the wetlands or the landscaping expert that's going to do the inspection that's going to do. So we're going to. And so again, once a condo board has a budget in year one and it has a line item, annual reporting, the next year they do the budget, they look at the prior year budget. They're going to see the line item. It's a practical way to create more confidence that. And so in the original budget, we'll put a separate line item for this obligation. And it'll be in the budget that when the board takes over, they'll look at the prior year budget and they'll see it there. And one more thing if I may, Mr. Chairman? That's a great call on Paul's behalf. And also we have a commercial condo. We have a commercial space that majorities will retain control of. Therefore, we will always have a seat on the board as long as we're the commercial owner of that space. So we're certainly well in tune with what the expectation is and we'll always, as long as we own that space, we'll be there to support the board and remind them of these conditions. And further, this would be a project to think once it's landscaped, once things are thriving, it's going to be so beautiful that the association and the board of trustees are going to want to maintain this and make sure that it's in tip top shape because it's an asset to the condo community. It's a feature for potential resale down the road. And in all of our experiences, condo owners want to take care of their property. So those two pieces just to add is a little bit of confidence that we're going to be able to keep the pressure on that this place is going to be maintained properly. Great, thanks. Mr. Chair. Any further, Mr. Moore? Yeah, I just want to say I appreciate Mr. Feldman's and Mr. Medioli's comments relative to that. That's good news. And also Mr. Hanlon, for being the nail on the head as he usually does. That's exactly the issue that I had is how all of this survives the conveyance of the property. I'm just trying to line out for definite purposes what's going on with the, you know, we're going to be basically flattening the current urban forest and building a new one. And I want to make sure that it has the top chance for survival. So thank you very much for all you've done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address the board this evening? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period for this evening. Thank you to those who participated. There's a couple of votes the board needs to take this stage sort of to close things out, but before we do that, are there any other questions or comments that the members of the board have for the applicant? Just if, you know, this is a great time to get those questions out there in case we need to research anything because obviously once the public hearing is closed, we can no longer seek answers to questions outside the board. So anyone has any questions? Feel free to bring them forward at this time. Otherwise, we'll move on. Mr. Trev? Mr. LeBlanc? Just wanted to address one of the comments from the public as well as something that was brought up earlier in this meeting, that the compliance with the state building codes is all based on the date of the issuance of the building permit, and that Mr. Hamlin is corrected is the July 1st of this year where the new stretch energy code comes into effect for commercial buildings. And then also the specialized code that the town is voting on with the town meeting will take effect six months after approval if it is so approved. So, you know, just refer to your architect on compliance with all of those things depending on what the project schedule is. Thank you for that. You know, can I, you know, Mr. Chair, if it's appropriate, Mr. Harrity and I have spoken about this issue and I'd like to defer to him so he could articulate, he does it much better than I do, exactly how this will ultimately play out. Well, I don't know that we know exactly how this will ultimately play out. The question is whether or not the local adoption of opt-in portion of the state building code constitutes a local rule of whether it's a state law. Ultimately, it's really not something that the zoning board of appeals needs to make a determination because if it's state law, you don't have the authority to grant waivers. If it is local rule, then it was adopted after the comprehensive permit application was filed and it's thus not applicable to this development. I can't really give you a definitive answer as to which of those two options ultimately will be applicable because I haven't seen any sort of determinations. The closest I have come to seeing any sort of guidance on this question was back at the last, when they adopted the stretch code in 2008 or so, there was a project that went to the state building code appeals board and rather than arguing that it was a local rule, that was waivable under 40B, they requested a waiver from the state building code appeals board regarding a particular provision, arguing that it made the project essentially uneconomic and that was with support of the local board and the state building code appeals board agreed and granted the waiver. So in that regard, the state building code appeals board, certainly wasn't going to independently make a determination that it didn't have jurisdiction when the parties were asking it for relief, but if you're reading those tea leaves, then maybe it does constitute state law, but under chapter 40B, there's nothing more decisive than that to give any sort of guidance. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I should add, this question came up in a forum that the town of Arlington had on the stretch code on the specialized code on March 1st and a member of the ARB raised that question with the deputy director of DOER who was one of the people who drafted the code. They at least are convinced that it's a question of state law and that it would apply. And it's not DOER's responsibility to make that call either. So what has to make of it, whatever you can, but at least from the point of view of the agency that is responsible for devising the code, they think what they're doing is doing a matter of state law. And I think Mr. Haverty is quite correct that the specialized code is basically the same as the original stretch code in this regard because they're structured in pretty much the same way. So Mr. Chairman, my only reason for bringing this up and because I appreciated Mr. Lank's comment but I didn't wanna just rely on that comment because he sort of ended it with so it's gonna be required for the stretch code is going to be required for this project and that's how he ended it. And there's a real open legal question if that's the case or not. It's just not something that the ZBA can do something about. So that's the only reason why I appreciated Mr. Lank's comment but I didn't want him to have the misimpression that it's automatically gonna be required. If it's deemed state law and we don't have our building permit in time for it not to be applicable to this project, it's gonna apply to this project. But if it's not and it's local because it was a local adoption of the stretch code then it's not gonna be applicable to us because we already filed our 40B application. So that's the only reason why I put us through this explanation I just didn't want. I didn't want that to be a misunderstanding on this subject. Any further questions? Okay. So I had sent an email to Betsy Major excuse me a little earlier this afternoon. So knowing that we're sort of coming to the end I had reached out to our consultants to ask where they were in terms of their finances. So the board has two consultants. We have Tetra Tech and we have Davis Square Architects who are assisting us in our review. One of them is on track with their finances per their initial request. The other one has run over and is looking to for additional funds to complete their to both cover the work they've already done and to complete the work that would be required to review the final submittal of documents from the applicant. And so they're requesting an additional $2,500 to complete that work. And that would be money that would be requested under 53G in the state building code and excuse me in the under state law. And so I had asked for the gravity if this was something that we needed to come back to the applicant for and he recommended that that was the appropriate way to proceed. So did want to just follow up with Mr. Majuria. So the board is gonna need to request this funds in order to cover the expense. But I just wanted to know if there was any concerns from your end in this regard. I mean, I guess it is what it is, I guess. It would be nice to know maybe a counting of or just to get us comfortable with what's been spent today. I think it was $35,000 that was paid in so that we'd be 37,500 for the review. It'd be nice to see what those hours entailed and how they broke down their fees and things of that nature. If there's some backup that we, I don't know if we're entitled to the backup but if we had the ability to take a peek at that backup it would be appreciated. So have a day. Who's looking for the, Mr. Chair, who's looking for the additional funds? So that would be Davis Square Architects. Who please? Davis Square. But it's Davis Square Architects. So I, but I, Mr. Haviday, I believe that those that the invoices can certainly be made available to the applicants. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman, those would be public record. Okay. So the answer is obviously- So I will provide those. I'll request that the invoices be forwarded to you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. And then I moved at the board request an additional sum of $2,500 dollars from the applicant for 1021, 1025 messages this afternoon. We provided and deposited into the 53G fund account for this project. Second. You have a second? Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. So just a simple vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holley. Hi. Mr. Brigadale. Hi. Is that the top comment? Hi. Mr. LeBlanc. Hi. And the chair votes aye. So as I will make sure we get the invoices off to you guys to cover that. The next question is when we would want to continue this hearing to- Oh, sorry. Yes, ma'am. Apologies. So what other work would Mr. Boner still have to do on this project? Isn't it? I mean, I can understand that in terms of technical information, Sean would need to provide a closeout letter from Tetra Tech, addressing all the technical aspects of this, but with all due respect, with regard to architectural, there's really no closeout. He put forth his vision and his opinions. We put forth ours. We ended where we are now. What more with all due respect would he have to do? So he's gonna provide us with a final analysis of the final set of documents we have and how they relate to what we've requested of the applicant over the time of the hearings. So that we're fully aware of, we make sure that, excuse me, we have captured everything that we're looking for and that what we anticipate is in the drawings is in the drawings. Thank you. So then a continuation of the hearing. So we need to be done before April 30th or else we're gonna need to request additional time. I know that the Conservation Commission is meeting up on the 20th. What I don't recall was how we sort of ended up on the final report, the final set of conditions from the Conservation Commission. Do we want to have those in hand before we close the public hearing or do we want to? Are we comfortable closing without their final, final conditions? Well, we could probably get an advanced copy, but... Right, well, what I would suggest is if the board's available for Thursday, the 27th, that we continue the hearing to the 27th, which is still within the April 30th deadline, that we go to the concom on the 20th and we see if we can explain that the anticipated last hearing for the ZBA is the 27th and if the decision is far enough along, they can issue it before the 27th, then we'll have it for you guys. And if they say that it's impossible for them to get it done by the 27th and we conclude that we really need it, then maybe we, on the 27th, we extend the time period beyond the 30th to allow for that to happen and we can figure it out on the 27th. So that's a long way of saying if the board is available and willing, I think we should meet on the 27th of April. Mr. Chairman, I'm not available that night. Okay. I am available on the 26th or the 25th. The board unfortunately is heavily booked for the 25th and I do have a conflict on the 26th. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Helen? What it's worth. I also have the same conflict you do on Monday and Wednesday, but on Thursday, I have a conflict with another meeting that I am supposed to co-chair. Of course, that means there's somebody else in the position to chair. And if I have to choose between the obligations, I would choose this one, but Thursday is not a convenient time for me. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes. Not to pile on, but I'm also unavailable on Thursday. On Wednesday? On the 27th. On the 27th. Yeah. All right. Well, the challenge just like I put it out there is I get on a flight to Europe on Friday, February 28th, the two weeks. That's why I was trying to get this last hearing in before I leave the commonwealth. And it was before the April 30th. I thought I was safe going away because it was a Sunday. If we were to try to have, that's a highly unusual, but to do a meeting in the afternoon on the 27th, would that work for anyone? I could do that. I could do that too. What time were you thinking, Mr. Chair? I would, whatever time people can make. Like four o'clock, if that's works, five o'clock, whatever. I can do basically from four to 6.30. If you could do a meeting at 6.30 or up until 6.30. No, no, I could meet from four until 6.30. Until 6.30. I would be available. If the board was to schedule time to meet Thursday at four o'clock, is there any member of the board who would be unable to make that time? Mr. Chair, I would not be able to make that time. I'm out of the country all next week. So I'm sorry. None of these times are gonna work for me. Okay. Got it. Mr. Chair, could I offer your suggestion? Mr. Moore. I know that you have a meeting on a next Tuesday, which is for, I believe, the first meeting of the other 40D project. I don't know how long that meeting is expected to go that evening, but a time certain after that, folks to convene perhaps a little bit later than normal might work, since you're already all meeting that night on a similar kind of activity. So the 25th, we actually got changed around a bit. So the first meeting for 10th sunny side will be the following Tuesday on May 5th, sorry, May 2nd, Tuesday, May 2nd. We have four regular hearings scheduled for the night of the 25th. We could, assuming we could finish this up in an hour, we could meet at 6.30, we'll make for a long night for the board, but we could meet at 6.30 on this matter and then meet at 7.30 on the other matters if we thought we could complete this within an hour, or we could meet at 6. Just trying to help. Is Tuesday a possibility for people? But six would work. Apart from Mr. Rigorani. I have a ZBA hearing at seven o'clock on my calendar already in Marblehead. I just don't know where I am on the agenda. It's a virtual meeting, so I could obviously do both, but if you would do it at six, I'm confident that I could swing both. So I'm sorry, this is 6 p.m. on the 25th, correct? This would be 6 p.m. on the 25th, correct. Good for me. I can do that. I can do that. I'll have a number for you. I'll have any. That works for me, but didn't one of you members say that he would be gone the entire week? We do have one member gone the entire week, but we do currently have six members who are fully, who have been at all sessions, and this would be Mr. Rigorani's first miss, so he could mull in back in if he needed to. Okay, I'm free with the entire evening on the 25th, so that's fine. This wouldn't prohibit it. This wouldn't exclude him from the voting process, correct? So this would only, no, he would have to use the mull on rule to review the content of the hearing and sign a statement that he's done so, and then he would be re-eligible for final voting. We do have six members who have attended all the hearings, and so if we lost one, we would still have a full voting board of five members, regardless. And Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to do that, to review that video. Okay. Thank you. All right then. So then, that being the case, we do not need an extension, but we would need a motion to continue the public hearing for the residents of the Millbrook to Tuesday, April 25th, and we would get 6 p.m. I should also ask our administrator, Colleen, does that work for you as well? Yeah, that works for me, thank you. Okay. Right, okay. So then I move, is there any other items we wanna discuss this evening? Mr. Chairman. Then I will move. Yes, sir. This isn't another item, it's just that, but if we do what we're planning to do, and which I think we'll do in a moment, we need to be quite efficient in how we use our time when this comes up. And I just encourage everyone who has red lines to get in merging drafts and so forth to take that into consideration and try to frontload that effort as much as possible so that things are as close to final condition going in to that last hearing as possible so that we can move through things and make sure that we've covered everything that we need to cover in the limited time we'll have to cover it. And along those lines, Mr. Chairman, is it possible between you and Mr. Feldman to get one document with the red line, with the edits, so that we can distinguish who's made what suggestions and certainly try? Well, let me, so let's just talk about these logistics for a second. I was gonna deliver a red line to Mr. Havardy, probably on Wednesday now because I wanna add a few things that we talked about tonight and get some language there so people would see him. Mr. Klein, you have a red line that you're gonna get to Mr. Havardy and we were gonna let Mr. Havardy put together a consolidated draft and then publish that consolidated draft presumably for us to everybody to give a look at so that on Tuesday night, if anybody had any comments about what's in that draft we just raise it and try to resolve it right then and there. I don't know if it matters to me if it's a proposed change is my change or Mr. Klein's. I'm gonna look at the proposed change and if everybody is satisfied with it, I guess the source of it doesn't matter and if someone's not satisfied with some language we'll worth Smith and get it figured out on the 25th. So I guess I'm suggesting maybe it doesn't matter whose red line it is as long as Mr. Havardy is able to create a red line and I would create a red line against his original draft that was circulated originally to everybody so we can see all the cumulative changes that Mr. Klein's made that I've made that they're gonna be all in one document. Does that make any sense? It does, it puts a big onus on Paul to try to put that together quickly. That's fine, I can do that. Okay, great, so we'll get that to you either tomorrow or the first of Wednesday. Yeah, okay, perfect. Unless there's anything further, I will move to continue the public hearing for the residents is at Melbrook to Tuesday, April 25th, 2023 at 6 p.m. Second. So a vote on the board to continue. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. Ms. Hoppen. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So we are continued on the residents is at Melbrook to Tuesday, April 25th, 2023 at 6 p.m. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. You're welcome. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right, so the board just quickly gone over our calendar, as we said, we've got a meeting on the 25th now. So we have two meetings until the 25th, starting at 6, and then again, it's 7.30. Christian, a quick question. Should we do two separate zooms for that? So the board would have to switch from the first one to the second so they can stop recording every start. Oh, that's a good question. Yeah. All right, honestly, I have no idea. I probably does make sense to have two different numbers. Okay. So I'll do a different one for each meeting and then everybody will just have to remember to switch. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Colleen. And then, yeah, so we're meeting, we have the two meetings on the 25th and then we're meeting on Tuesday the 2nd, which is the first meeting for 10 Sunnyside Avenue. We have no meeting on Tuesday, May 9th, but we meet again on the 23rd. And I'm assuming on the 2nd, we'll try to set up a schedule for hearing going forward with them as well. So there may be others coming in. So that is our calendar. We're at the conclusion of the meeting. Are there any other questions from the board? I think not. I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston for all her help and assistance this evening and for Marissa Lau for her assistance also supporting the website. My thank you for the preparing for and hosting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. It's our understanding, the recording by us will be available in the future. And if anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. A second. Thank you. Second. The vote of the board to adjourn for the evening, Mr. DuPont. I? DuPont. Mr. Hanlon. I. Mr. Huffman. I. Mr. Rikordelli. I. Ms. Huffman. I. Mr. LeBlanc. I. And the chair votes, I the board adjourned. Thank you, all.