 All right, since it is 730, I am going to go ahead and open the November 15 meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. This meeting of the Redevelopment Board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020, due to the state of emergency and the Commonwealth through the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. For this meeting, the ARB is convening via Zoom, as posted on the town's website, identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. So I'd now like to confirm that all members of the Redevelopment Board and staff members of the Department of Planning and Community Development are present and can hear me. Starting with Kin Lau. Here. Jean Benson. Present. Melissa Tinkoff-Kentakis. Present. And Steve Revillac. Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening, and I am Rachel Zenberry, Chair of the Board. And we have Jennifer Wraith joining us this evening from the department. Awesome. And is Kelly joining us this evening? She won't be joining us tonight. Okay. Great. Thank you. So with that, we will move into our two continued public hearings, starting first with docket number 365, 645 Massachusetts Avenue. And as a reminder, this is a request for withdrawal of an application without prejudice. And it's a continuation of the withdrawal that we discussed during our last meeting. I will first see if I see that Attorney Nessie is here. Did you have anything that you would like to address the board. Starting in terms of this, this withdrawal. Yes, I am here. And I did request that the matter be withdrawn without prejudice. My impression from the last meeting was that that was not going to happen, that I would not be able to garner for votes to allow the matter to be withdrawn without prejudice. And I'm curious to see whether that still is the case. Well, when I say four votes, it would have to be the four votes of the four individuals who heard the hearing to begin with. And Mr. Reveller could not join in with respect to that vote. So I'm curious to see whether in fact that still is the case. If that still is the case, I would instead be requesting that the matter be continued. And I would like to come in with a presented a continued presentation. When I do, I think I would like to bring in the owner. I think that would be important for the board to hear from the owner of the property, in addition to the applicant. And I would also like to bring in a representative of Chase Bank. I'm giving to understand that did not happen at the last hearing. The representative would also have a video that we would like to present for the members of the board as well but here. But firstly, am I correct in assuming that I will not be able to withdraw without prejudice. I'm not asking for vote on that. I do not want a vote on that because if that's the case, then I simply want to request a new hearing date. Thank you. We can certainly go around and I can pull the, the members of the board in terms of their, their willingness to entertain the withdrawal without, without prejudice. And I can start with with Ken, I know that we had a discussion last week about this, can you are unable to join us so I'm curious as to your thoughts on allowing the applicant to withdraw without prejudice. I'm fine with that. I like to want to encourage them. If we, if we say no, they have, they don't have much choice to respond for another two years. That's a shame that we may leave this site empty for two years so I'm okay with saying yes, I'm fine with that. And I as well have no issue with the bank withdrawing and returning with it with a new application. Melissa, could you just help me understand without prejudice I know it was emphasized last meeting but I didn't, I'm not familiar with exactly what the difference is withdrawing it or not. So, Jenny can go into greater detail. Basically, if we allow them to withdraw without prejudice that our discussion of their current application would not influence their subsequent application when they should they return with a with a new application on this particular site. Jenny is there anything else that you would like to add to that. Jenny. All right. If you accept the withdrawal without prejudice then they can read submit they can basically file a new application and come back to the board. If that with request for with withdrawal without prejudice is denied. And then you have to take a vote. Also on the original on the application itself, you know to actually execute a decision. And then it essentially means that they cannot come to the board for two years there's a moratorium on them returning to the board under mass general law chapter 40 a section 16, a rare section of the zoning. Typically, one of much thought or dilemma, but in this case because we are, there is some question mark about that withdrawal with without prejudice. Those are the next steps either it could they could come back and refile, or they're not able to do anything for two years with the board. So, those are the two, those are two of the pathways. Does that help you to understand Alyssa or do you have another question for me. No, that's helpful. Madam chair so we understand that there's a revised proposal. So the proposal as attorney and se has stated to us and he can certainly elaborate on this if you would like some some additional clarification. This brought in after this, this process had been started if you recall we had a representative from the design firm who was representing the banks interest come to us with the initial proposal. He made several requests to to the bank through that individual, and then they retained the services of attorney and se. And he would like the opportunity to counsel the bank and return. The reason for the request is he would like to return with a renewed application attorney and se if there's any other color to that that you would like to give that would go great. On that, what I would be doing is looking at the situation anew, as I would in any case that I'm coming in on. I was not able to do that, quite frankly, because I was not involved at the outset. And I'm going to very be very frank with you that this particular situation is teaching me a lesson. And that it's teaching me is that if we ever have a four member board again, I may advise my clients not to appear before the ARB, but wait, and it may be an inconvenience to them. But I may advise them to wait until there's a full five member board before bringing a matter before the ARB. And the way the town set up the ARB. It was meant to have a five member board unfortunately this hearing went forward with a four member board. So in any event, what I would want to do is and what I'm doing in talking with Chase at this point is looking at the situation and anew. We have some tweaks we want to make some changes we want to make. And that's the reason I was asking to have the matter was drawn without prejudice. And for Melissa for your information, I've been doing this before the zoning board and the ARB for since the 1970s. I've never had a request to have a matter was drawn without prejudice, denied by either the zoning board or the ARB. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Was any other questions for attorney and I see or Jenny. No, thank you. Thank you both. Okay. And, and Jean, any thoughts on the withdrawal. Yes, I guess. I'll give you a little bit of my thought process on this. I think chapter 48 section 16 is pretty clear that attorney and messy cannot simply withdraw and file again. We have to give him permission to withdraw and file again. So, if he asks us to vote on withdrawal, and we say, we're not going to do it without prejudice. He's given us the third pathway, which is, he will withdraw his withdrawal, and he will file an amended proposal with us. The other side, from his perspective, is that since it's a continuation of an application and Mr revelac was not on the board at the time, the decision would have to be made by the other four members, which means he would need the unanimous vote of the four of us. So, the question for me then is, what's the, is there a bad precedent in allowing somebody to withdraw without prejudice, just so they can refile almost the exact same application. I would say, I don't think that's a good precedent for us to have, but in thinking this through since the last meeting, I do think that they should be entitled to have the entire five member board have the ability to review the application and to vote on it. Because of those circumstances, and only because of this special circumstance, I would vote to allow them to withdraw without prejudice. Thank you for explaining your thinking through that gene I think that was helpful for for us. Melissa, did you have, you know, I want I want to be absolutely transparent with with attorney and se, do you have any concerns about the withdrawal without prejudice. Before we call for a vote. Melissa, do I have questions reservations about. Yes, I mean I think that, you know, from my perspective. It seems that, you know, they didn't proceed properly initially, and they were not prepared. And based on, you know, what I've seen to date from the bank. I think they're trying to do kind of step back and do a redo which doesn't seem appropriate to me. And so I have reservations yes. Do you have any. I'm not sure what Melissa just said, is she indicating she's not willing to vote right to allow them to meet with her without prejudice. Right. So, so I think what I'm asking you attorney and se do you have any response to her concern that the intent is to refile the exact same petition. We don't, I don't know that we're going to file the exact same that application that's the reason they brought me in. They brought me in to look at it anew. And that's what I'm going to do. That's what I do in every case I filed before the zoning board in the ARB. I've looked at it, and I already have some ideas about some things we could change in terms of what they did the initial time around. I certainly have ideas about how the presentation should be made as well. That I would want to get into. And again, Melissa, I've never had one of these turned down in 40 to 50 years of my doing this. And it is a five member board to begin with. I just don't see, I don't see the prejudice to anyone to any of the neighbors to any of the butters to anyone to allowing a full five member board to hear them out or particularly where I would be coming in anew, presenting an application. And again, it won't be the exact same application. I'm not going to say how much it's going to be tweaked, but we already have some ideas about how we can handle bicycle parking and the like and things like that, that would be different than what was presented initially. So again, I don't see the prejudice to anyone to allowing it to be withdrawn without prejudice and allowing the full five member board to hear it. Okay. Thank you. So do you, and I think we should talk about this then as as a board do you have concerns with moving forward as as Jean suggested to with, you know, again, a special circumstance where it took a long time for the approval to go through for the fifth board member, which is the situation where now do you have any concerns with moving forward with the withdrawal so that we can again restart this process with the full board who's currently seated. Sorry, I am thinking about this. I'm trying to think through this. I still have reservations so I apologize that I'm kind of deliberating this kind of through this process but I don't think I understood exactly when we last talk even when Ken was not here that the impact of without prejudice, withdrawing without prejudice. So my understanding was it was a withdrawal and so that's where kind of I'm left a little bit. If I could just. Madam chair, I don't know if Jean's on the line he had raised his hand. Sorry, Jean. Yeah, so I most I don't want to encourage you one way or the other. I just want to expand upon my thinking a little bit here and why I sort of changed my mind from last time where I was leaning towards saying no, and now would say yes, because if we were to say no. Mr and Se would withdraw his request to withdraw. He'd go back to the bank and they would file something that's very similar to what they filed before. The only difference between a yes and a no here, as I see it is, if we say yes, then Mr revelac gets to participate in the deliberations and vote when they come back. And they get a five person board to make the decision and they need four out of five people in favor at the end. If we say no, then he withdraws and everything the same happens. The only differences Mr revelac can't participate and the four people would have to be unanimous that four out of five. I'm sort of gritting my teeth and saying yes because I don't like the idea that somebody can withdraw without prejudice and file almost an identical application. That's my issue. Right. On the other hand, and I wouldn't say yes, if there were five people who had heard it before. But I think there's a benefit in process to allow the five people who are now on the board to. review the whole thing and to vote. So that's why I would vote yes, under those circumstances. But if you vote no, I'm fine with that. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Melissa, again, if you could let us know your thoughts because obviously attorney and essay has said that if he doesn't feel like they. He has the support of the four members he will not call for a he does not want us to call for a vote and again, I have no problem being completely transparent with him so if you can let us know if you still have concerns about supporting the withdrawal without prejudice, I appreciate it. And we can then decide whether or not to take a motion for a vote. So I'm not supporting it at this time. Okay. So, given that we do not have the full support of the board attorney and essay for a withdrawal without prejudice is my understanding that you would like to continue the hearing is that correct. I would. Yeah. So, Jenny, could we an attorney and essay could we talk about a date for the continue hearing. We have a few dates in December but would you prefer to push it out to the new year. What are the dates in December that you have. Let's see we have December 6. And December 20. Jenny, please correct me if I'm wrong. That's correct. What is your state in January that you have. Technically the board has to vote on their upcoming their next year's dates and they're going to do that at their next meeting, but it will likely be January 3 and January 24. Contingent upon the board agreeing to this date. Yeah, okay. Is it the third a public holiday. I think that's on the absurd. No, it's not. Now, in fact, it's a Saturday and we don't know. I think the observed. Well, okay. Oh, okay. Not for the town of Arlington. But I don't, I don't have that in my calendar so I don't, I don't know but January 3 was usually you meet on the first and third Mondays, the third Monday is a holiday. But if Mr. Nessie wants to, in January, we could vote to continue to the first meeting in January without naming the date. I think usually we continue to a date certain gene, respectfully. So I would feel more comfortable continuing to a date certain so that my staff have had a quick time to prepare and review any upcoming materials. Okay, we can certainly do that I think change to your point then if the date does change we can certainly work that through with it would only push out, as opposed to pushing forward. I'm just thinking that I kind of rather not have it around the holidays because I have to gather all my people together, and I want to make sure that I can do that successfully. And that's the reason I was thinking not having it during the month of December. So would you prefer the third or the 24th. I think the earlier date would be better. The third. Great. Is there a motion to continue. The hearing. Sorry. My number up here. Their motion to continue docket number 3665 to January 3. Second. Thank you, Ken. We'll take a roll call vote. Gene. Yes. Yes. Melissa. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you for understanding and we will see you back in January. All right. And the next item on our agenda will be docket number 3348. We continue public hearing for 833 NASA. Also known as the Atwood house. And I understand that you have an update for us from the most recent meeting with the historic commission. We, my, my client and Marty French, the architect did meet with the historical commission. And by the way, Jeff noise, I believe is available by phone. He's on the red eye back from California, but I think he's got a telephone in hand. Monty French is on the zoom as well. The, I must say to you that the consensus on the part of the folks on the historical commission was that they would like to see the building retained. The, I made the argument that we would like to maybe retain some portion of the building, perhaps the facade, perhaps other attributes of the building and move the building up close to Massachusetts Avenue. And that didn't get me too far with the historical commission. We did present the two site plans we presented before the ARB as well, the one showing the building cited out on NASA, and the one showing the building where it is. The members of the historical commission seem to be in favor of moving the existing building out toward Massachusetts Avenue, and having an addition put on the existing building. If Monty can talk to that issue. I believe that there would be some architectural issues with that ADA issues as well. In terms of the height of the building and the like, I think that also would be something that would be applicable to leaving the building where it is, and adding on to the rear of the building. The instructions from Mr. Noises to say to the members of the board that I'm presenting those scenarios to you folks, and asking you folks to see whether you have a preference for how you ought, how you, you would like us to proceed. Now there's a third option, which would not probably be favorable to the members of the board and I can see why, given the history of the situation and that is that Mr. Noises wait for two years take the building down, and then construct a building out of fronting on NASA. One of the issues raised at before the historical commission was and was raised by Mr. Seltzer, I must say, and I think he had a good point, and that is, if you move the existing building out toward Mass Ave. And by the way, the historic permission did indicate that they would prefer to retaining that side porch. If you move the building out toward Mass Ave. You're lessening the width of the lot as you get out closer to Mass Ave. And that in turn is going to cause some architectural problems. So, one of the, one of the advantages of course, to moving it out toward Mass Ave is that we get more units, and we could then do a mixed use development. If we did more than six units, one of the units would be affordable, and that would be a good thing for the town. The comport with the master plan, comport with the housing development plan as well. If the building remains where it is, and we add on to the rear. We probably don't get to that level of number of units, so that we can have an affordable unit. If it is mixed use again with the building cited out front on Mass Ave, we get maybe seven or eight units and Mr. Mr. Monty French can talk about that. And the commercial component would probably be an office component, not a retail component, because I would not want to get into a conflict with CVS. They have a lease with CVS. They have a long list of items that we could never lease our property to with people who would be in competition with the items they sell at CVS. Monte, you want to jump in and have something to say to what I've added? Hi, Bob. Yeah, sure. Thanks. So I think. We stated it accurately in terms of what happened before a charcoal, Monty. Yes, I mean, I think that that all sounds accurate. And, you know, the things that we can do. I know that the favored keeping the house at its existing location, or, you know, they were willing to let us move it. And I know that you presented the third option of recreating the house out further in the site. I don't think that that was as favorable, but I think the thing that yields as Bob said, yields the most units is moving the house out towards the front. And then adding to the rear of it. We're probably not going to as it's pretty straightforward, we wouldn't get as many units out of it if we kept it in its current location and add it to the rear. I don't know if do you want me to show those plans Bob. I think they've seen the plans before. Yeah. Mr. Benson's raising said in the affirmative. I don't think that that's so important right now as we get the we need the benefit of the thinking of the members of the ARB, because we're in the midst of a, we're in the middle. We're in the middle, perhaps in two different directions by historical and by the ARB. My understanding of the jurisdiction of historical is that they generally comment on the exterior of a building in terms of the citing and the materials to be used on the site. The question in my mind is, how much jurisdiction do they have with respect to the citing of the building on the lot. The reason I came before the ARB first is, I believe in my mind that it is the ARB that has the test to make that crucial determination, that's how a building should be cited on a lot. But again, I would like to get here the benefit of the thinking on the part of the members of the ARB. And by the way, we're ready to start drafting enough time has gone by at this point that we are ready to start drafting. Great. Thank you very much. And I'll turn it over to the members of the board but I just want to recap that at our last meeting, we had identified as a board that we preferred that option to moving the building up and looking at mixed use. If the Historic Commission was willing to waive the demo delay rather than just using the existing building. So I just wanted to remind the board from my notes of our last conversation, but we'll go ahead and start with Kim, any thoughts? Quick question, Bob. So I'm assuming the Historic Commission does not want to waive the moratorium for delay and demolition. I haven't asked that pointed question, Kim. What I did get from the board, and I raised it, I raised it in a different context. I raised it in the context of I wanted to have the building move up toward Mass Ave, retain some of the characteristics of the building, but not retain the building. And I kind of got a denial of that approach. So I have not asked them whether they'd be willing to waive the moratorium. I can certainly do that. There's no question about that. And if I have some direction from the ARB in that regard, that might give me more ammunition in making that argument before the historical commission as well. Well, my feelings has not changed since our last meeting. I prefer scheme number two, where you develop a building further closer to the Mass Ave, giving more life to the street. And bless you, Rachel. And having mixed use so we have some some affordable units, affordable unit in there. I think that's the most better use for that area there. That's my opinion. And, you know, but I still want a wrapped house for two years. I was hoping that they would give you a leave on the moratorium so we get this going that's our first choice. The second choice if they don't give you a moratorium is go ahead and do a band-aid fix and do what you can with the existing house. That's not my. That's not our call. I think you guys going to have to make the call. We're telling you what our preferences and you make the call which way you want to go. My choice has not changed since last time. I thought I made it fairly clear. I prefer scheme two. And it's all about the moratorium. Is that clear enough, Rob? And I made it pretty clear to them in terms of where I was coming from. So I'm just telling you what they, what they indicated. All right. Is that enough Rachel? I'll throw it to the other members, but I agree with, with, with Kim here in that, I think, you know, we were pretty clear that we wanted to find out if they were going to waive that demo delay. So I think that's what Kim just reiterated. That's, that's, that's really the, the Lynch pin here, but I will give it to Jordan over to Jean for any comments you might have. I pretty much agree with Kim. I think our number one hope would be that there would not be a demolition delay or else the building will end up, you know, being wrapped up for two years and nothing will happen to it. You know, I think either of the two options, I think potentially would be fine with me. Of course it still has to meet zoning and all the other reviews that have to get done. I went out and looked at the site after the last meeting, and I agree with my colleagues pulling the building up. So it's pretty much at the same level of the CVS makes sense because that's also if you walk over to the church where the front steps of the church go. The church isn't set back really the front steps of the church are about the same distance from the street as the CVS is so it seems to me that pulling it up and allowing more building is better for the streetscape and, and better for the town. Yeah, so I, I agree with Ken, I agree with Rachel. I guess. Yeah, I think that's it. Yeah, let me just say one other thing. You know, the Historical Commission has allowed historic houses to be moved. Simply a few feet, but from one part of the town to another. So I don't know what their authority is in terms of where a house gets cited on a lot, but they've allowed houses to be moved much farther than this house is going to be. So can I say something, Rachel. Please. Yeah, am I hearing them that there's a an indication from the members of the ARB that they would be willing to go along with the building itself. They moved up toward Mass Ave and added on to the rear, because that's what the Historical Commission is saying. I mean if that's the case, we're being consistent. Okay. I tried to argue something different. I tried to argue that the building itself would essentially not come down totally, but we retain some part of it. So let's move the facade portion, move it out front, okay, and add on to the back of the building. That's what I tried to argue. They did not like that argument, but they did like the argument that I'm hearing now. That is move the building out front toward Mass Ave, add on to the back of it. And it could be mixed use. Let me just say for Canon for me that would be choice number two. One would be what you had proposed that the Historical Commission was not happy. Exactly, right. Moving to move. Sorry. Moving the building forward does not activate the streetscape. The building is five, six feet up in the air. You just moving a wall closer to the sidewalk, which makes it even less appealing. And that's, that's not what I want. I'm not, I'm not speaking for Jean, but I think what we're trying to do is activate the streetscape it's Mass Ave. And I think it's important that we do that with new development. We, you know, I don't want to build these recessed managers way back. It's not what Mass Ave is now. Maybe back. You know, earlier on when it was horse carriage but not now. So that's why I tried to argue my approach, initially with them. And that would have brought about a situation where there could have been a better architectural treatment of the building out front on Mass Ave and the streetscape. Sorry, go ahead. But we were aligned on that part there, Robert. So I'll just ask Melissa and Steve for, for their thoughts and then I think I'd like to just wrap up what next steps would, would be here. Melissa. Thank you, chair. In terms of you're trying to gauge priorities. Is that what you're, I want to make sure that we are still aligned so we previously gave attorney and I see the recommendation that moving the building up and retaining the architectural language but not specifically the building. The entire building was what our preference was, if he could, if he could secure the demolition delay, otherwise, moving the building up and retaining it, as is with the, with the addition behind it was with what was preferred. So we're just again, making sure that we are all aligned exactly because I think we need to give him a clear, you know, the next step is, you know, you need to find out if that demolition delay is going to be activated or not. Well, thank you in terms of kind of the thinking that we've talked about and discussed as a group, retaining the building and adding the mix use behind it. Kind of still support that I get a little. There's more apprehension with the initial proposal, keeping some elements of the building and moving it forward because I'm unclear what that would, you know, kind of the result of that we're not talking about 80% are we just talking about the facade. So I'm not understanding as well how that would play out, but I still support bringing the building to the front I think, unlike, can I think with, you know, narrate retaining some of the architectural integrity that was once here, adding onto it and allowing it to kind of still be functional and allow for some housing. I think those are all positive elements of the proposal still. Thank you, Steve. I think I agree pretty much with Mr. Lau. My first preference would be to, well, what the Historical Commission gave a very cool reception to my second preference would be to take the whole building move it forward and then build in the back. And my third would be to, you know, do what you can with it in its current location on the site. So to wrap up, I think we're still in the same place that we were previously in that, you know, we need to understand if the demolition delay will be granted. If you move forward with the preferred proposal as which I believe is an aligned with your client and with the with the board that is moving the building forward retaining elements of the existing building and extending it in the back. If not, if that demolition delay is not granted again to Kim's point so that it doesn't sit there for another two years, we prefer to see the building move forward and intact and the, and the addition added. I'll just say this again, I'm beating a hammer here, but they would prefer to see the entire building move forward. Okay, that's their preference. Now, I can go back to them. And if I say to them that that's something that we have a consensus from the be on. Then everybody I think is on the same page. I don't think there's going to be an issue with that point. We can add on to the rear of the building and do what we need to. On the other hand, am I hearing that and I'm hearing from Ken that there may be issues with respect to what this streetscape is going to look like. Perhaps I ought not to go back to them with that proposal, because it's not going to be architecturally sound, it's not going to work for the streetscape it's not going to work for the character of the neighborhood. And I, that's where I am. I mean, I can go back with an ultimatum to the historical commission and say to them, well the heck with you. As far as I'm concerned, we'll take our, we'll take our dibs will take the two year moratorium at this point, and we'll wait for two years, I can do that. Okay, but I mean, that's not in anyone's interest for me to do that. So, very, how far can I push this with historical that's what I need to know. How far can I go without getting myself in trouble with them. So I certainly have an opinion I saw Jean raise your hand first to to answer this question which I think we've already answered but I'll pick it over to Jean and you're on Eugene. I'm a little less about simultaneously raise their hands and I'd be more interested in hearing what they have to say first. Okay, sure. I'll start with Ken. I was gonna say ladies first but okay. Monty. If we move the building forward okay. Right now the building sits on it, I believe a full foot foundation. The basement below as I recall. If we move that forward, can we lower the building so the first floor is maybe a one step or two step up from the sidewalk, or is there a sewer line in a way that you had discovered before that would prevent us from doing that. You're in mute Monty. Okay. You're back on mute Monty. All kinds of buttons going on here sorry. Here corrects our cursory review of that is the sewer line is off to the left there. So that's something that we would have to deal with. So you see my, my biggest concern about moving the building forward is how that building reacts interacts with the sidewalk and mess up. If you move it forward I'm assuming since there's a little slight hill there that goes up like a crown to the sidewalk, then it's up four feet so it's probably what six feet off elevation wise as far as the top floor and the top of the sidewalk. That's what we estimated, and I think you'll recall from the schemes that even we presented last year. You know, you recall that we had something that was much different out at the streetscape that was more in line with some of the things that were happening along a mass have the intent was to bring it down towards the sidewalk. We would have to address the sewer line and storm drains and things like that. So one of my, my comments once we hear that, if that makes sense Robert that if we bring the building forward, it's, it's, it can't be a wall there. I don't want to see a brick wall or foundation wall there right on Mass App, or a few feet back from Mass App they just won't look right. And you'll probably end up putting a ramp. I'm assuming right Monty to get up to the first floor. I don't know. I just, I mean I would prefer to, you know, in a scenario like that I would prefer to avoid that. I think, you know, again going back to the way we studied it before we showed a pretty good intervention with the sidewalk in the building and even access to the rear of the building. So something in keeping with that whole intention of tying into the pedestrian way would be what we would prefer. Okay. I just want to make that clear that we just moving it forward is not option to it's moving it forward and having a some sort of interaction with the, with the first floor, or a floor with Mass App sidewalk. I don't want to see a wall there. Melissa. Yeah, could you point me to where online the, the rendering or the plan was for pulling the building forward. No, can you show that. Are you talking about, excuse me, Melissa are you referring to the plans that we presented a couple weeks ago or the scheme from last year. Last year. I'm just, I'm, are they, because I don't think I saw the one from last year. I'm just trying to give me give me a minute I can pull that up. Let me. I actually have it and I can't, you can't screen share Monty. But it's also, it was in 20. It was last year. During the process. So, is that necessary to bring that up Rachel. What would you like me to do. So, so at this time I guess I'm trying to understand I think Ken has a good point in terms of if we are trying to get to a place that we kind of there's general consensus right from the ARB. And it seems to me that, you know, there's pulling the building forward is still possible. It sounds like with the historic district commission, they would like the whole building, and then the mixed use behind it. Correct. Yes. Yes, thank you. I'm wondering if the ARB can support that. I feel that you know we'd like, you know, if we could be in line together and it's a compromise to some degree for us. But I, I see that working to the benefit of the town so that we're not in limbo for two years. So I'm going to add some housing. Some of it one at least right Bob I think you said unit could potentially be affordable. So, I think given the alternatives if we could support moving the whole building forward with the mixed use in the back as long as that street level integration in the front is done appropriately to what Ken was talking about. We talked about mixed use so I'm not exactly sure if that front building had the mixed use or not. But there's many ways to activate that front, even with, you know, some green. So I think I'm asking my board members here to kind of find a compromise with this so that Bob can bring it back to the historic commission with our support. And I'm going to kick it over to Steve who had his hand raised next. Well, yeah, I, I, I understand where Mr. were Mr. Lau is going with wanting to bring the building sort of down closer to the sidewalk. I also think it's possible to make something work with the building elevated a few feet. My sort of frame of reference for this is new Mary street. The first floor of everything is four feet off the ground. I don't know. It's it I'm not so I understand I understand this point but I'm less worried about it being a little bit separated from the sidewalk. Thanks for the note. On that one. Jean. I think I remember some outline of the plan from last year which we never got to consider because it wasn't a formal plan. My recollection is that I didn't like it because you had the residents go through the CVS parking lot to get around to the back of the building. So I just want to say that I could not support something like that, if it came before us. So there is, I guess, you know, to be a little bold about this, another pathway, if you really feel Mr. Nessie, and your client feels that the best option is to eventually tear down the building and build a new building. You just go with the demolition delay, even though we don't like it and don't want it. But and I would ask Jenny if this could work during that period of time, you come to us with a special permit application for what you would build there. And we process that and get it done in your three years to act on it afterward. So effectively as soon as the demo delay was over, you could start work on the project. Again, not ideal, but you know, ideal would be to be able to do what you want sooner rather than later for all the reasons. Everybody talk to that. I just want to just put that gene wholeheartedly. Do you mind if I say something real quick. Sure. I just wanted to reiterate gene on the the scheme that we proposed last year I know it's been a year so actually it's been a year and a half. Yeah, I think it was March, March 2020 so it's been quite sometimes but that scheme. So we did think about the, the access to the residents at the rear. We designed a walkway that came from Mass Ave, up along the side of the building a tree lined walkway. So we tried to prevent the whole issue of folks having to walk around CVS to get to the rear so I don't recall saying that was that something you did but never got to us. That's okay it doesn't matter. Yeah, if not I can provide it. I don't need it now. Okay, so we, we need to give us her need to see some some clear direction here I see us moving further away from clear direction as opposed to where we were before. So, I believe that the direction from the board had had been in the goals of the board had been to ensure that forward as expeditiously as possible. Given the length of time that this has been sitting here and and that again to work together with the goals of the historic Commission and in the spirit of the original special permit to find a way to retain a portion or a, or perhaps the building in general was what we had identified at our last meeting as a as a secondary goal as well. So, I just personally to just speak to Steve, the point that you made about the sighting of that of that building. I think what can had identified from an accessibility standpoint, though that Newberry Street, every one of those buildings that I worked. That's a very good point here so anything we can do to help the accessibility of this building I am all for. And so, I think what I would, and we could take a straw poll here this is not a not a vote because we have no formal plans in front of us. But again, to understand who would be. We have three options right we have retain a portion of the building, move it forward I think moving forward is a given from from that is the common denominator, whether it's a new building whether it's routine a portion of the existing or whether it's the existing building right. So, what we need to come to some sort of consensus on is which of these three is is the preferred option of the of the board and give give Steve and his clients some clear direction as to what to ask the historic Commission for so that they can come back and start the special permit process with us on this. So, I will go around. Again, the group here. And what I'd like you to do is identify your preference order of these three three options. Again, we have weighed out the delay, which again does not meet the goal of moving forward as expeditiously as possible, and move the building forward and retain a portion of it, which would require a request for a waiver and and an attorney and SC to go back and say that this is the preferred option of the ARB. Or option three, which would align the ARB and the current thinking of the historic Commission, which is to move the existing building forward, drop it, and add a add an additional on the fear of the building. So, let's start with Jean. So, you know, get us to just keep a running list of our preferences here because we need to move this forward and give him some clear direction. Let me say I think there might be a little bit of a zoning and possibility with pulling the building forward. I'm going to put a map in the information that Mr. Seltzer sent about the lot line and it's unclear who's got the right lot line, but in any event, even the drawing that Mr. Nessie and Mr. Friends showed us had the porch within the setback and I'm just afraid that if you pull the building forward, you're going to run into not being able to do it. So I'm not sure how viable an option it is to do that with the existing building. Okay. So that said, my number one preference would be to have Mr. Nessie convince the historical commission not to go ahead with the demolition delay, because it's in the best interest of the town to get the building, a new building there, that pulling the building forward probably won't work because of the way the lot is configured, and it does present some of the problems that Kim talked about. So that's my preference. Great. So just to recap that is retain a portion of the building and moving that forward and with the addition on the back correct. You are a complete new building. Or so that's two separate ones. Those are equal weight for you. Got it. Okay. Okay, Kim. I'm more or less agree with Jean. I want to move the building forward. I don't think it's physically possible to move the portion of the existing building forward. But I think it's going to have to be a new building with a historic design intent to it. I have all the confidence in Monty doing that. So my first and only preference is to move the building forward and you know, some sort of historic reference, okay. And I think that's agreeable and, you know, it won't be a glass box or anything like that. Okay. Melissa. So when we're talking about moving the building forward and having the historic reference. I just want to understand what people are are meaning by that. I mean, is that, what does that mean to you, Ken? I would say having some reference to let's say clapboard is what clapboard sightings, maybe it's a more traditional windows like a one, like a four over one or something like that. Maybe a colonnade along along along three sides of this little arcade. That's sort of, you know, you step out of the weather I mean that's stuff we can talk about when we get into the special permit process and we can make it historical that's what I'm envisioning I'm not visioning a modern building there. I'm envisioning something that would fit nicely in there that has more traditional details. I don't know, is that fair enough Melissa or I'm not being. I guess what I'm hearing pulling the building forward and then I'm hearing references to with new building. So it's pulling it forward with a new building. No, I would say a new building up forward. Not pulling the building. I don't think you can pull. I don't think you physically Adam chair can you explain that just again. There are three options the one one is pulling the existing building forward which several both Ken and Jean have identified that they don't believe is is possible so that again is something for attorney and I see to take back to the historical commission that from a lot line perspective, it does not seem feasible to do that. Option number two is to pull a portion again whether they retrain the existing portion of the existing facade to retain a portion of the building pull that forward and add the addition behind it. And option number three is a new building cited forward on the, on the lot line that has historical references but it's not any portion of the existing building. Okay, so Ken is advocating the third one that you just correct. Okay, Jean indicated that he would prefer one number two or three was advocating for number three. Okay, got it. And Madam chair. So, in terms of us knowing that the historic District Commission will not support the new building, most likely, right. They've already expressed that to Bob. I understand is that correct against as we were not. But but but that wouldn't make any difference. If I said to them that this is the position or the consensus of the members of the ARB. And this is the way my client intends to proceed. I don't have any say in that, because at that point, we would have filed our demo app, and the two year demo period would begin to run during that two year demo period. We would be coming up with plans we were doing what we had to do to get before the ARB with respect to those plans. And that's going to take some time, I would suggest as well. So, so Melissa, at some point, the historical commission isn't going to have anything to say about it. If in fact, we go in that direction. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but I'm saying that's one of our options. And I think that the question becomes, you know, they, they're, it could potentially happen more quickly if Attorney Nessie is successful in convincing the historical commission to waive the demolition delay for option number two. And if he's not, then option number two and three are going to take the same amount of time because they could give the same right amount of demolition delay. Right. So I would be, I would support number two less so three, but if I had to wait it, it would be two to three. Okay. Great. Thank you, Steve. I believe two is also my preference. New building less new building less of a front yard setback and three as an alternate. So sorry, you, you three is three is the completely new building. Oh, I'm sorry. A portion of the existing rather. All right, let me rephrase that for first preference new building less of a front yard setback. Let's move the existing building forward. A portion of the existing building forward. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And I, I would, again, like Melissa, like to see a portion of the existing building retained. So, I think that's a pretty, pretty even split here, folks. But I think. Did you have any specific concerns with retaining a portion of the existing building or you just don't see that it's a necessary. What are what were any concerns you might have retaining a portion of the existing building. I don't think it's feasible. I think you're adding undo burden to it because you're you're asking someone to move a portion of a building forward. Just because you like the, I mean you have no one's has ever said the design of that is historic significance. I mean, I think, just because it's old doesn't mean anything to me right now. And I can appreciate it being old but I rather have a nice building there. And if they can build. And they're going to have to go to us again for design that we can we can impose some historic characteristics and details to the building is there asking for as for some waivers, I think we have a chance to do that. And I think we can make a very nice building there, without having to subject the owner to move an old chunk of a building forward, just because it's old. That's my feeling. And also the whole side, the whole front cannot move forward. Just the setbacks won't allow that I think genes correct and he was basing off of dawns. About how it tapers toward the Mass Ave and the setbacks tapers to, and the building stays the same with it he moved forward it's going to. Yes, or less value to even having to chop off a section of that as it is, I see your point. Okay, that's, I mean that's just, I'm just thinking it realistically. That's my opinion okay I'm not trying to impose that on anybody else just my opinion. I'm just sort of say, I think this is in support of Kim, if, if the historical Commission is going to impose the demolition delay. If it's number two or number three, then we might as well favor number three. That's my thought. I agree. So, so that we can give Bob appropriate direction here. So we would, what I'm hearing is the majority of the board would prefer to see a new building with historical references, which means that the next step would be the request of the demolition delay. This does not seem that moving the existing building forward is feasible, and moving a portion, you would run into even if you tried to retain the facade, some of the same issues in terms of moving a portion of the building such as the facade forward. Any objections or clarifications to that direction for from the ARB from any of the members to Steve, Jean, Ken, Melissa. All right. So, we had discussed at our last meeting, closing this special permit, so that we, we could all move, move on from here, and they could, the team could open a new special permit with the application as a, as a next step after this meeting. So is there a support of closing this, this special permit I believe Jean you were the one who had wanted to keep it open for, for one more week to see, or one more meeting rather to see what the, what the reaction from the historic commission was. Right. And we, we didn't get that because I thought what we're going to get is the actual ruling for historical commission. So, as much as I would like to close this out. I think we should keep it open until Bob comes back and tells us what the historical commission is has done, and what their plans are going forward that I would be comfortable closing it out. Any other thoughts on, on, on that. I don't disagree at all I think we want to make sure that we know what the direction is, and that, that that is consistent with what we've, we've been discussing so I don't know when the next time you would be able to go in front of the historic commission is to get that specific determination to move forward. So I'm Joanne Robinson at nine o'clock in the morning. Okay, I will get an answer on that. I think they meet every couple of weeks so it's not a long delay I don't believe. And I don't care about the holidays with the historical commission I want to get before them ASAP. Okay, so can we continue to December 20 or whatever that date is. Would that give you enough time to be in front of the historic commission. If you came back to us in December 20, or would we need to move this to January third as well. I'd rather the earlier date so it keeps the heat on me, and I can in turn put the heat on others. So why don't we take the earlier date, and if that isn't going to work I can always let you know, I'll let Jenny know. Okay, thank you. And again the request is to come back with the results of the request for the demolition delay. Or December or December 20. Correct. So I've so moved that we continue this to December. Second. All right. Take a roll call vote. Yes. Yes. Melissa. Yeah. Steve. And I'm the yes as well. We'll see you on the 20th. Thank you very much. Right. So that now. Thank you, Monty. That now closes agenda item number one, and we will move to agenda item number two, which is the continued preliminary discussion of zoning amendments and I will turn it over to Jenny. With regard to the report out from the zoning by law working group. Thank you, Rachel. I have on the screen a the best I could do with sharing a lot of you're not, I'm sorry, my screen's not sharing. Not yet. Not yet. Here we go. All right, on the screen. I know how to screen share everybody. Okay, so the zoning by law working group had a meeting. We shared a lot of ideas. A lot of various things that came from discussions based upon the zoning audit that is in the master plan. And then a follow up zoning audit that was performed during the zoning recadification process in 2018. That led up to the 2018 recadification. So one was conducted as part of the master plan and one was a little bit after but they both have similar elements to them, and many of the recommendations from those zoning audits are still relevant. So the zoning by law working group started there discussed some of the outstanding issues and we sort of got a sense of different working group member priorities. And there were also additional items that were shared among the group, although I haven't gotten everything together from the entire group there were a lot of, you know, some of these small amendments summer, I would consider sort of much larger ones that might require study and follow up. So what I wanted to share tonight was mostly a couple that I think have the most possibility for moving forward and wanted to mostly discuss the timeline with the board because of just potential expectations but also what is possible or feasible between now and filing at the end of January for the which would be the warrant deadline for the annual town meeting. What we had discussed as a board for our goals, which was to aim for some sort of special 10 meeting perhaps next fall which of course we don't have the power to call, but to encourage potentially a special 10 meeting next fall which would give us plenty of time to lead into something. Some of these items that are being potentially discussed. So the first of them is where my cursor is which is this reduce the overall number of zoning districts these. The discussion of the item also is directly from the zoning audit so the words that are here. They may not, they may not say exactly what you want them to say or as you recall a discussion that we had about these items but this is just the sort of parroting back from the zoning audit. So the first one is the reduce the overall number of zoning districts to address infill development and ease of use of the bylaw address setbacks dimensional standards building height maximums at they are and minimum lot. I think that's what say area per dwelling and a map amendment was would also be necessary. I think this was mostly focused on the business districts. And that aligns very much with the boards priorities around that. So there definitely seem to be interest on behalf of the bylaw, the zoning bylaw working group around that one. And that one seemed to have the most, you know, ideas around, yes, we should do that. Of course, there were, you know, additional comments as well about the business district as you can see here, perhaps other far standards. Those would be things that I think we would investigate if we were going to move forward. And then, you know, we sort of continued down this line of the sort of the outstanding issues that were brought before the to the discussion for that meeting. The next one is the reduce reduction of the number of uses requiring special permits. And then we got it making the but which makes the bylaw overly restrictive confusing and impractical for the purposes of determining build out and growth. I would say that there was general. You know, we understood the issue but not everybody necessarily agreed with the route forward for addressing whatever the actual issue is. And that in in in all likelihood we would need to do a little more study and analysis about what why exactly what what are what are some of the impediments with the current bylaw based upon the current number of uses and some evaluation and study and sort of the special permits that have been granted maybe ones that have not moved forward. Not sure how I would do that but sort of getting a better sense of what whether or not that is truly needed and what would be the best possible outcome. So that one was a little bit more lukewarm. Other ones that came up were. I'm just going to go then I'm going to actually skip the next one because this one did not have as much agreement in the zoning bylaw worker working group but it was something identified in the zoning audit, which was amend the special permit for large section for clarity and updates. That one did not have as much agreement, I can talk about it if you want me to but I don't think this board ever deals with that particular issue either. So I would probably need to talk a little bit more about what that process looks like the zoning board of appeals perspective on it, and, and other other factors that might influence whether or not you want to pursue that further with the board The next one though is something that I know that we've talked about and we also had a presentation about it the last time we had this discussion which is to address parking issues throughout the bylaw, including parking in front setbacks, maximum parking instead of minimum parking greater reductions for residential and some commercial. Look at clusters of districts separately going forward. These are some of the sort of notes highlights. There generally be some consensus about this one but you know varying varying feelings about it including a remark made about, you know how quickly we can really anticipate people parting ways with cars and the need for parking in certain circumstances, how low you would really go for residential was was what we primarily focused on. Obviously the board have a lot of discussions and has recently made amendments to business district parking requirements. The next one is actually one that does is something that's in the board goals but did not get a lot of did not have a lot of interest at the zoning bylaw working group level but it is to amend the environmental design review process, including the study of the permits that have been granted, and the, the idea of incorporating a staff review of smaller projects which is still a little unclear to me what, what that would exactly mean, but was a recommendation from the zoning audit, and creating an easier to use table to determine appropriate criteria. So all that we got out of that from the working group was that further analysis was needed. And the next, the next four were also a little, you know, either required more analysis or there were some, there was some uncertainty based upon what was in the zoning audit. One of those was add regulations for solar wasn't exactly clear what that necessarily meant. The Clean Energy Future Committee is, I know talking about this there is some interest but I don't think anything is ready to move forward for the next town meeting. Add regulations for short term rentals we ended up doing that through a town bylaw amendment, but it's not in the zoning bylaw. I don't know that that's a high priority, didn't appear to be a high priority in the group during our discussions. Add transfer of development rights. This one also was a little perplexing and would certainly require more study to determine what, what could, you know what's really feasible and what could happen. And the one that I skipped amend standards for townhouses that one. I think in general people agreed and agreed certainly that you can't build a townhouse anymore. And but also agreed that we would need more areas where you could build that type of housing, because if you just focused on the R for zoning district. You wouldn't really go very far with that with a new product being built. So that so I'm not going to go through all the other ones because these were individuals from the zoning bylaw working group providing comments, the working group itself didn't have time to talk about them so I wasn't. I just wanted to focus on what the working group discussed and bring that back to you for any further discussion. So I guess I'll just see if there are any questions also Jean attended the meeting. I don't know if you've normally does as well but was not present that day but did provide comments. Great. Thank you, Jenny. Go to Jean next since you were in attendance at the meeting to see if you have any additional comments you'd like to add. Yeah, I think Jenny give an excellent recap of the meeting and, and, and I, I don't think we'll know until we have the next zoning bylaw working group meeting, what may be coming out of it as a result of this. Great. Thank you, Jean. Can any questions. Well, I'm kind of the first one you roll back up to me. I'm very supportive of the first one I think that's a good one for us to talk about number. I think the next two. So so the fourth one. I'm very supportive of that. The next one after that I'm kind of interested I think if we were to make smaller projects where it doesn't have to go through special permit, because I've been hearing a lot of criticism saying that our special permit is so intricate and they don't know how to go through it. And it costs a lot of money to hire a lawyer or hire an architect for for every small project that we're maybe eliminating some of the mom and pop stuff. And maybe we can streamline that a little better and just have the planning department say yes sounds good. We go forward so we have some seed seedlings for some businesses where it doesn't necessarily have to go through the ARB for smaller projects that don't really affect the neighborhoods that much. I think that might be a good streamline of fostering that. So I'm kind of interested in that very much. And then that's about it for for Michael also the solar panels and regulations for solar panels I'm a little. I would like to have my talking a little bit about that. I don't mind encouraging solar panels but I don't want that to be used. As a as a tool to inhibit development. I'll leave it at that. Great. Thank you. Melissa, any questions for Jenny. No thanks for the summary Jenny. I guess. Up at the top the first one. It looks more dimensional were uses considered in that at all or that strictly dimensional for any modification to that to zoning districts. This particular recommendation was dimensional in nature and about the districts being too many. It's too confusing. It's very, you know, it's, it's seems like spot zoning in certain situations, including the property we were just talking about 833 massive is just one before the zoning districts we've had this conversation about others where it's just one or two buildings as a B2. So that that's what that recommendation was talking about. But however there is another recommendation about, you know, reducing the number of uses. There's a lot of different uses and a lot of uses requiring special permits. So that's a separate recommendation that came from the zoning out that you just don't see it here. Okay, but did the committee talk about it. You know, one in the same exact. I mean, I guess my, my mind is thinking that, you know, if we're going to make some reduction in the district so we want to kind of ensure that the uses are up to date and allowed in these reduced areas is that or is is that just strictly kind of more residential. I mean, or was it this first one. Sorry, I'm pointing at it. You can't see me. The first one is the business districts. Yeah, okay, it's business districts, because it's talking about infill development along the main corridors. I don't know that I don't know that people were not thinking about use but it wasn't explicitly discussed as part of the, you know, the discussion that the working group had. Um, no, I mean, I think I don't know if you're looking for us in terms of any prioritization, but I think you know the summary and you know moving this forward as you kind of identified makes sense. Thank you, Melissa. Rachel Jane also had a point. Okay, just really quickly. I mean I think Melissa makes a good point if we reduce the number of business districts. We are going to have to do something with uses because while they're very similar from one business district to another, they're not identical. So as we do this we're going to have to deal with that too. I'm going to add that Steve provided a follow up memo that I think we were going to give them a little bit of time to discuss after we're done with this piece, which was looking at the business district and uses and particularly what we do allow by right versus a special permit, which relates to another earlier discussion the board had this evening. So I think we would have to look at uses. Okay, thank you. Okay, I did not realize I would be presenting but I will do my best to remember what my memo, what I said in my memo. You know, one of the. So I, I agree with reducing the overall number of zoning districts and, you know, perhaps making the business districts larger maybe even significantly larger than they are now. You know, they're, in fact, I, my memo contained a picture of the town zoning map around 833 Massachusetts Avenue, as to use as an example of how there's not really a logical layout to, you know, to our zoning map I So yes, a 33 mass ab is is a is a before district if you go one space over it's our one the next space over is be to the net across the street on one side is our six across the street on the other side is be to a and then as you go down the street before the street there's a, you know, there's another be to a be to a and our six and another before. It's, it was, I think it does more to capture the, you know, the, the state of that area in 1970 something or other than it is for any kind of forward looking coherent plan. In terms of uses, if you, I tend to think of our use table as, you know, sort of describing three categories categories of things. There's things that we encourage. There's things that we don't allow, and then there's things that might be okay but we have to think about them first, aka special permits. So for the business districts of things that we encourage a lot by right are generally offices and restaurants that are smaller than 2000 square feet. Sorry, banks and restaurants that are smaller than 2000 square feet offices and retail that are smaller than 3000 square feet businesses that employ five or fewer employees and single and two family dwellings, which of course are not businesses at all but they are allowed by right in every business district. Yeah, if there is, I, for, for business, I think we, I would like to see it I think it's very completely reasonable to have EDR for new construction in the business districts, but I think there should be. I don't think it's necessary for, you know, changes of use in existing buildings to the extent that it is required today. That's my spiel. Hi, Steve. Hi. Let's see. So I agree is as well I think that the two items that you highlighted at Jenny and that the zoning. It sounds like two of the items that the zoning while working for the most time on with regard to the challenges we have with our current zoning map and the definition of the districts and parking which were the board has already been very supportive of working towards you know to the to the point to have the most recent citizen petition which they've already given some additional feedback on. I think we're well underway with the parking piece, it would be great. From my perspective, we've been really looking at it piece by piece, if the zoning bylaw working group is suggesting that this be given a more comprehensive you know from from from the entirety of our zoning bylaw I think that that certainly would be would be warranted. I think we've been making some good progress doing so piece by piece but certainly it's not been reviewed in its entirety so I think that along with my fellow board members those are those are the two that rest of the top for me as well. Does that give you the feedback that you were looking for. That definitely that certainly helps I mean again it is not, you know necessarily everything the working group might have additional things that they want to bring back to the board, which I will do when following their next meeting. I wanted to kind of, you know, I have a couple of things might that that I've been thinking would be useful that I would like to also bring to the board for a future meeting. Things that address street trees, things that address sort of ground floor, you know, we are always talking about sort of activation of ground, you know, at the ground floor storefront level. So I think that is about things like that that I would like to bring to a future meeting, but one of sort of that a little bit more before I do that. I guess the big question is, some of these things we could potentially move forward for springtown meeting but I, I'm still down a little bit of staffing, including a couple of key positions. I'm not sure how much time my staff could put into the first item though I know it is really important to get that done. I don't know that we could get that done for springtown meeting filing. I think that might be very slightly challenging, plus the engagement that might be needed around that but I'd be willing to sketch something out for the board's discussion and then we can officially decide and talk about it. But since the ward is not open yet, you know, there's still time to think about these things, and there will likely be other things to talk about but since I know that is a very high priority of the board I want to, I want to give it the energy that it deserves to move it forward. My preference would be that we look to a fall special town meeting to do that. That kind of work. The parking issues I think are definitely something that both between the staff and many residents seem to be very much interested in this one I think that that one could easily move to a to a spring annual town meeting. There's also a number of things from existing plans either things that are in progress or things that you've talked about from other planning documents that I think that could also go to springtown meeting that are sort of lighter lifts is what I would consider them to be that don't require, you know, some of these things require some study before they can even turn into a zoning recommendation. So I will be bringing those back to the board at a future meeting as well. That's really all that I wanted to discuss with you tonight. I didn't mean to put Steve on the spot and I did not share them. The memo that I was referencing is actually a memo he sent to the zoning by law working group not to the redevelopment board. So I will, I will share that with the board and then we'll continue this discussion for the next meeting. And then there can be some proper time for that as well. So that sounds fair Steve. Oh, absolutely. Great. Thank you. And I agree I think that having a potential timeline that we could then react to and, you know, again speak to prioritization and what the scope and breadth would be because I think that's obviously important as well would be a great step. And I just want to note that I do see that there is a hand raised we will have an open forum. Towards the later items in in our agenda at which time we'll take, we'll take any public comment. All right. Let's see so we will now close item number two and move to item number three which is an update on the Arlington housing plan. Yes. Okay. For this what I wanted to just mention is that we had, we had our forum, and for those of you who might have seen it or attended. You're aware that we had the final forum about the draft plan which was the, the consultants walked through the needs, the housing needs assessment that was drafted. They talked about the draft goals, and they began to start to talk about some of the draft strategies that are being considered. And then we received a pretty decent amount of sort of feedback mostly just input to the plan but not a lot of there were there were not any small group discussions or breakouts like the prior meetings. So this one was more of just a presentation and a report out and, you know, an opportunity for people to talk about some of the priorities. What will happen next though is that we are anticipating in a week from now that we will have an in a draft internally for us to review, and then to be able to share by the 29th. And then we're planning to post it publicly on November 29, and the board will meet on December 16, as you all agreed to and I appreciate you adding on that extra meeting. It is a different night of the week. But it will be, I think at 730pm December, 16, and it will just be devoted to talking about the draft housing plan so that we can talk about your comments. We can provide a presentation with the consultants, and you'll have an opportunity for us to discuss further. I'm sure that you'll talk about it at another meeting after that, where you would need to hopefully be able to adopt it at that point because it is a plan that gets adopted by the redevelopment board, and also that the select board. We will be having just like the last time that we did the housing production plan though I know only kin was part of that discussion in the past so for those of you who weren't part of it. We will probably have some overlapping discussions between the redevelopment board and the select board. While you're both considering the plan and ultimately adopting it. We thought that it might be helpful after both boards adopt the plan to then have a joint meeting between the Airbnb and the select board we, you know it's been a while it was February of last year, believe it or not, which was the last time the board had had a joint meeting. And since the last, the focus of the last joint meeting was actually about housing and the way forward and in community engagement. We thought it would be a good opportunity to kind of bring that full circle now that the plans would be adopted for you to meet again and talk about those priorities and talk about how to move forward. And I think that that would be my recommendation for moving forward so I'm, I just wanted to let you know the sort of timing of everything, what to anticipate and to see if you had any questions. I'll run around the agenda again for any questions or comments for Jenny starting with Kim. No. Okay, Jean. I was at the last meeting and was, it was very interesting there's a lot of information presented by the consultants a lot of strategy suggestions that I think are going to make it into the plan. I think for me, I think the next step will be to read the draft. When it's available, everybody is going to have the time to do it because we may or may not agree with everything that's in there but you won't know the reason. But there's a lot there and I think it's definitely headed in the direction the town needs to go. Thank you Jean Melissa. No comment this time. Deep. No questions at this time. So Jenny, I just have two questions. One related to any of the goals we might have had to spur forward any of the recommendations from this production plan towards anything that might happen at this year's time meeting which sounds like it would be challenging at best given the timeline so I'm just going to put it in your perspective there. Yeah, I, I'm still not really sure at this time with the exception of the parking discussion that we just had. I'm not really sure what else at this exact moment in time. I think that the fair housing action plan recommendations potentially though are something that I want to discuss with the board. There are also some of those things have been discussed as part of the housing production plan but I would also like the board to talk about those fair housing action plan items. Some of them are zoning related and some of them are process related. Do you see that as becoming wrapped into that same discussion on the night of the 16th or would that be an agenda item that we would put on a subsequent meeting. I was planning to talk about it when I send the board a memo with my, the sort of additions that I've been thinking about, which will include it will incorporate some of the additions that have come from some of our recent planning that I would like the board to consider. So it'll it'll be before the 16th. Okay, however it might be also folded into the 16th I might say I might say it again I can't, can't promise that I won't say it again but I will likely bring it to you sooner on the, at your next meeting on the six. Thank you. And, and then I, I agree I think that it would be great to have a repeat of the ARB and select for joint meeting. One of the things whether it's specifically related to this or for other potential zoning warrant articles to go forward but I've been thinking about is to perhaps have a joint meeting at some point with the, the ZBA, given, you know the way that they also review a certain percentage of the housing, housing bylaws that that are that are currently enacted in town and may also have a perspective that's worth, worth having a discussion about as well. I appreciate that point, Rachel. Christian Klein participates in the zoning bylaw working group and had indicated and of course, Steve Revillac is still a member of the zoning board of appeals and we had requested that perhaps we, we receive a memo from the ZBA with the ZBA to potential amendments that they think would be useful based upon the, the cases that they review and approve and actually some of the things that we discussed in the working group meeting incorporated some of those situations that they tend to deal with which includes parking in the front setback. A lot of a lot of interesting little side items that for some reason there's a number of special permit requests to the ZBA for relief. So some definitely things to consider but I think that perhaps Christian could appear before the board and sort of present that might be hard to get a ZBA a joint ZBA and board meeting only because the ZBA has had I believe about 39 meetings this year. So I'm not sure I would be able to get them to meet on top of that but I think it's possible to have Christian, the chair attend a future meeting. Great. Any other questions or comments from the, from the board regarding the update that Jenny just provided on the Arlington housing plan. We will close that agenda item and move to item number four, which is a review of the meeting minutes from October 25. And as Jenny pulls these up, I will see if there are any additions or corrections starting with Jean. I have two, both on the second page, the last paragraph. There's one. The sentence is the fourth from the bottom line. It should say, Mr. or the fifth Mr. Benson said that it says is it should be if this project. So the ends should be if and the next sentence should be after the word fine. It should be as a starting point. That's it. Plans are fine as a starting point. Those are my two suggested. Great. Thank you, Jean. Yeah, I had two comments on page one. The last second at the last paragraph. Just allow suggested using cement panels with horizontal reveals, not just few veils for more traditional character. I don't know where the more depth came in from, but I don't think I said that I may have. Just, I'm sorry, just reveals, but not horizontal. No, with horizontal reveals. That period. And then get rid of for more depth. And no, it leaves a character there more traditional character characteristics. Okay. And then the second one was the same paragraph at the end. This is to make sure the storage or utilities will not extend from the retail over the rare walkway. I just wanted to find that is that little alleyway there. So put in right. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Melissa. No comment. Thank you, Steve. Yes, I'd like to request one change on page. Well, two changes on page two in the third paragraph from the bottom. The, let's see. Yep. So the line that begins revelack asked if the historical commission. Can we change asked to stated that stated that if, yeah, stated that if. Then, and then the other change is the word both sides. Or the words both sides. Could we change that to other sides. And that's all. Great. Thank you very much. And I have no changes. Is there a motion to approve the October 25, 2021. Meeting minutes. As amended. So. Second. Thank you. We'll take the roll call vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. I think I have to abstain because I wasn't there. Okay. Steve. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Meeting minutes have been approved. Right. So we'll close agenda item number four and move to agenda item number five open forum. Let my participants list here. And remember who is joining us in the public. He would like to speak this evening. You would please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. And then we'll move to agenda item number five. And then we'll move to agenda item number six to address the board. Right. We have a Eliza burden. And I will just remind you before you begin to please address or please introduce yourself with your first last name and address. Hi, I'm Eliza burden. 44 Brentwood road. I'm also a member of the tree committee. As many of you know. And I just wanted to make a comment on the zoning. I just wanted to. I just wanted to. I just wanted to. Or had any communication with the zoning bylaw working group. But I just wanted to. Point out to. Those present that the tree committee. Is really working to address some of our heat island issues. In our hottest zones in town, trying to do tree planting along for major corridors. As development happens along Mass Ave. To always. Try to. Make sure we're leaving room for street trees, because I know that the. There's, there's so many. Demands for bike paths and sidewalks and widening sidewalks along the road itself. That in order to get trees and landscape along Mass Ave, there's a lot of, there's a lot of, there's a lot of, there's a lot of, there's a lot of different types. In a much more pleasant thoroughfare. And to address some of the stormwater issues that. We leave room. On those properties as much as we can for. Green. Trees. Shade trees in particular. So I, you know, when it comes to. You know, you know, you can look at other standards that are in place in other communities like sites. That try to address. Making. Communities greener. So. Thank you. And thanks for all the work you all do. Thank you. I appreciate it. Is there a seat? Any other members of the public. Public comment period. James Fleming. Sorry. I have the same exact problem of too many. But. To press up for God's sake. Oh, let's see how that works. When you're ready, if you could just address. Introduce yourself first, last and address, please. Yep. Okay. There you are. There I am. So James Fleming 58 Oxford street. I had a question about. I don't think I've seen any examples of this in town. In all of Boston's old districts like back bay, north end, et cetera. The lots are. Narrow and they basically have party walls between them. So there is no side yard setback. From a zoning perspective. Does our zoning not allow anything like that? I know we allow townhouses. Like where it's multiple units space next to each other. But as, as an, as like. Separate lots that people own individually. Can you, can you, can you, is that buildable in any sense in town? Or do you have to basically take a big plot, put a bunch of units on it and carve it up? Great question. Jean, I know you were you at the zoning fellow working group meeting where they specifically spoke to townhouses and is that something you'd like to address? Or would you like me to hand that over to Jenny? I'd like to hand it over to Jenny. My recollection is that if you would look at that line. On the chart. I was the only one who said, yes, we need to do something about townhouse. Great question. Jean, I know you were you at the zoning fellow working group meeting where they specifically spoke to townhouses and is that something you'd like to address? Or would you like me to hand that over to Jenny? Or would you like me to hand that over to Jenny? I don't think about townhouse. But I'll turn it over to Jenny. Okay, great. Jenny. I was going to answer. I'm not sure. So, um, based upon what the way that James asked the question, I'm not sure I completely understand. Can you. Sure. And also Steve has done. Steve's. Steve was. Unmuting himself before. And has also looked into this a bit further. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I guess. Can I clarify for the question? Cause I was going to say, if I asked James to clarify, but then Steve. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. I asked it because I know we allow townhouses as a use, but I don't know the details of that. And I don't, and the examples that I know, some of them are have party walls and others don't. So I don't know if there's a difference between the two, but effectively I wanted to pursue a zoning article to allow. Um, I don't know if there's a difference between the two. Um, I don't know if there's a difference between like the back bay or in the north and where you have townhouses next to each other, different in dimension and scale, but effectively that where you can have buildings. One by one with separate owners that share a party wall. But I don't, I'm almost starting the zoning while I doesn't allow it. And, uh, and. I guess I was wondering what is, what is keeping us from allowing that. Um, I don't know if I could answer what is keeping us from allowing it. I think that that's a bigger deeper discussion. Um, but it is not currently allowed as you just described it. Steve, did you have anything to, to add to it? Well, originally I was going to say, I, I understand Mr. Fleming's question. Um, in most of the districts, you need a 20 or 30, a 20 or 30,000 square foot lot in order to build a townhouse structure. But once you've built that townhouse structure, can you carve, can you put party lines for each of the walls? Um, I know that there is only one place in town where. Single family attached houses are legal. I happen to live in one. Um, uh, so I'm, I'm guessing that, you know, there are probably, it's not terribly clear to me if the bylaw would allow it or not, but I'm guessing it doesn't. Thank you, Steve. Um, and Jean will take your last clarification on this, on this question. I'm going to guess the other way. I think that the bylaw does allow it because it defines townhouse structure as a row of at least three single family attached dwelling units. Whose sidewalls are separated from other dwelling units. By a fire separation wall. So I'm pretty sure that based on that definition, the problem is not that it doesn't allow it. But that. Dimensional requirements for putting them in, aside from the fact they're almost allowed nowhere in town. But the setbacks and the. And the Fars and things like that. Basically prohibiting from building. What I just read from the definition. And. I don't want to put Mike on the hot seat, but my camper is the building commissioner and he's on, on right now. Can we just ask him. He's an enforcement agent. Uh, sure. I don't want to put him on the spot either, but if he. Recognizing Mr. Campus value as a resource. Hey, Mike. Are you there with us? He might just be listening and right, right now. Ken, but what I would say that to James is that if this is something that you'd like to pursue further, we'd certainly love to have a discussion and perhaps be able to repair. A little bit more for it. We can certainly. Ask Mr. Campus opinion and have that ready for a future meeting where you might want to come before us and chat with us, much like we did on the previous items you have. Okay. Jenny, I saw you just immediately. I was just going to say that, you know, we did a whole zoning amendment proposed in 2019 about townhouse districts and townhouses. So I'd be glad to share that information. Or refer it. Refer James to it so that he can see a little bit further about the study that we did. And. Also the amendment that was proposed. And also the zoning audit said that. The problem with the definition and didn't put a limit on the number that could be in a row. It just said a minimum of three, but they suggested. Adding a maximum of, I think they said eight or nine or seven. To. Great. So it sounds like a topic that's something to come back with. Right. Right. For a plenty of discussion. Sounds good. Thank you. Great. Thank you, James. Any other members of the public. Who have a comment that they'd like to share this evening. Okay. Seeing none. We will close public comments for this evening. And that concludes our agenda items. Is there a motion to adjourn for the evening? Can I bring up one thing, Rachel? Please go ahead. In the past years before the pandemic, we've always had a. Meeting with the board had a quick cocktail somewhere where we can sort of. Socialize a little bit and, you know. Just, you know, We acquaint ourselves in person. I'm wondering is the board. And minimal for that for that. That was a nice thing that. I found when I first joined the board. Many, many years ago that it made me felt welcome. And we have a lot of new people. And I wouldn't mind me, some of the old people back again. I mean, you know, I haven't seen Jean in a long time. But I don't think I ever had a drink with you. I don't remember ever getting invited to. Oh, it's also, wasn't it the typist or whatever you call that place? Chris. Chris. There you go. So, right. I may have too many drinks. But I'm just wanting to, can we adjourn one of these meetings and meet over there or. Or plan a separate date as social, not. I don't think we can meet and talk about other things, but. We had members of the public Steve joined us before he was a member of the board. I think there are other people who joined us for that as well. So. I think if, how about this? Why don't you. You know me if you have any concerns about. You know, doing that kind of a gathering. I don't want people to have to, you know, speak about, about that here at the meeting. But if you do have any concerns, please, please reach out. And we can. We can perhaps propose a date, which is the date of the meeting. Because we have free. That we, we might pursue something like that, but please, please feel free to, to reach out afterwards. And we can, we can bring that up at a future one. That's a great suggestion. Ken. So thank you for bringing that up. That works. All right. Okay. Is there a second? Second. We'll take a little call of votes. Yes. Dean. Yeah. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you everyone for joining us this evening. And we will see you. After the Thanksgiving holiday. Bye bye. Bye bye.