 All right, I'm going to get this started a little bit later than usual. Thanks for everybody for understanding the Cork's schedule. I'll call it order. The December 16th meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board being recorded by ASCII tonight. First on our agenda this evening, you know, to keep it with the board. We have three public hearings tonight. Two of those have asked for continuances, which we will need to vote on. So the first up is POSCA, which is the recreational marijuana site at 1386 Mass Ave. Docket number 3610. We have a letter from their attorney requesting a continuance to January 6th. They think they'll be ready. My understanding is that they're working some things out with some other departments in town and want to handle traffic and parking issues with that before they're ready to come back and answer our questions. So with that, I would take a motion to continue that docket to January 6th, which is actually going to be our next meeting. Second. All in favor? Aye. Good. All right, so one with them no to come back on the 6th. And second is the hotel project, which back here. But my understanding is they're still working with the town departments to answer some of the questions that the board has and the questions that the butters have. Make sure that they're fully prepared to answer those questions the next time they come back. And they've asked for a continuance to January 27th. And that's docket number 3602, 12.7, 12.11, Massachusetts. So moved. All in favor? Aye. Good. All right, that takes care of that much faster than the 10 minutes that was allotted for it. So again, we're taking things a little bit out of order this evening. So now I will allow for members of the public who wish to speak to be heard. We'll give you the next few minutes to do so in our open forum. If you have a comment about 833 Mass Ave at Woodhouse, please hold that until that hearing just in the interest of fairness when that applicant is here. So if there's anyone who wishes to speak, please raise your hand and I will recognize you. Aye. Sorry, I was just going to say Bob's not here yet. That's all right. You have until 830, so we'll call you back. Go ahead, Don. Don Seltzer, Irving Street. Regarding the last item on the agenda, the Heights Hotel, I sent a letter out to the board. I hope you've received it and perhaps have read it by now. I just wanted to address the second point of my letter. And that is the special permit fee. As you know, when the applicant came before you actually filed for this, the special permit back in White Spring, he did not pay this fee. He claimed he was exempt because of a deal he had with the town regarding the purchase of 1207 Mass Ave, which is part of the property where he proposed this to build the hotel. There are a couple problems with this. One is that the people in the town who negotiated this deal simply do not have the authority to exempt a builder from all permit fees. They didn't even ask your advice, approval, opinion or anything in advance. And the second problem with being exempted from these fees is that he hasn't completed the deal yet to buy the property. If this exemption is legal, then it should be contingent upon him actually having purchased the property. It's my understanding he can basically walk away from the deal at any time and without having even paid the special permit fee for all the time and effort that has gone into hearing about it. Now questions about this fee were brought up before the first hearing on July 22nd. And the board at that time said that they would consider hearing a request for a waiver of that fee at a future meeting. And that was August 12th. And at that time at least two members of the board expressed some reservations about the legality and wanted more time to consider it. And you voted to postpone that consideration until October 21st meeting. October 21st came and the applicant didn't show up. The topic wasn't brought up or raised or discussed. So as far as things stand, the board has yet to approve any sort of waiver. And the applicant hasn't paid the fee that he's required to do by your own rules at the beginning of the process. And all this has left the board in a pretty uncomfortable position. You have been asked to retroactively approve a single suspension of your own rules for someone who is involved in buying property directly from the town. And it's a deal which unfortunately has a number of red flags associated with it. It's not the kind of thing that the board wants to be dragged into involuntarily. What I have suggested to you is that the best course of action for this board is simply to reject the suspension of the tools. Require that the applicant pay the full fee. And he can then pursue with the other count officials the one who granted him the exemption some sort of refund in the future when or even if he actually completes the deal and buys the land in question. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments, questions, concerns from, yes, sir. Just some questions. Name and address. Marlon Banta on Clark Street. Butter to the proposed hotel program. I'm quite new to this so I have a lot of obvious questions. I've had a lot of trouble finding the documents related to this proposal. I found them a few times in the past and don't see if they've changed. I did raise a concern about the solar access study. When I've run these models, you can either use a planar ground or one slopes down and the land behind the hotel is sloped down, which would extend the shadows out. It looks as though they just used a planar projection. And so I don't see, I haven't been able to see an updated version of the solar access study. My concern is, you know, nearby residents including myself with solar panels. Also, I haven't heard of any change to the proposal from the 26 spots for a 50 room hotel parking spots. That raises a lot of concerns. I live on Clark Street. We're a private road. We're very grateful for when the town plows our room. But any repairs or anything like that, we have to take care of it. And, you know, what do we do if there's hotel guests parking their cars on our street? Likely would be in the event that they reach the 80% occupancy rate required for a hotel become profitable. You know, I do share concerns about waiving the fee. I heard they got the land for $750,000 in that neighborhood. That's a really sweet deal. I wish I could buy that. We have no authority over the purchase price. But I mean, it's waiving fee, cheap purchase price. And then they want relief on the parking spots. And, you know, again, we would love to have a nice fancy hotel there. Some places where my wife can go have dinner. As long as they're a good neighbor and it's a good deal for the town, we welcome them. But there are concerns about the 26 spots. And so I do, you know, just what advice do you have as far as finding, you know, updated documents? You know, I've looked on the town website. Type in document 3602. Look at my agendas. What's on the website is what we have. Okay. And then, so if that's what we have, I look at their lead, you know, spreadsheet. And come on. We can't allow businesses to come into our town and not be at least lead certified or lead silver. It's, you know, in Boston, it was expanded lead gold, I think, for a new commercial development. It's, it's, it don't believe that it's a requirement. It's similar to Arlington in that there is a checklist and an attempt to be made, but you're not required to actually go through the certification. And that's what we're requesting of this applicant. And that was a part, a note of discussion at the last meeting. We gave some feedback for our expectations on improvement against that. So all of the things that you have just brought up are all things that I believe the applicant is working on currently due to the input that he received from both the members of the community as well as the board. But we haven't seen it yet. Yeah. We haven't seen it. We haven't seen it. I would pressure them to, you know, obtain at least lead certification silver gold. Harvard University and their building development plan. They mandate lead gold at a minimum and strive for lead platinum. And at lead gold, they say a 2% increase in building costs paid back in six years. So as soon as, as soon as plan just submitted, they go up on the website. So I think you can sort of see what I'm saying. So the plans that I saw in the summer and just a few weeks ago are the same. That's why the hearings continue. So still 20, that's why the hearings continue. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak before I call Mr. Seltzer again? Go ahead. Without getting into a long back and forth discussion. No, I just wanted to address that last point. One reason why those plans are difficult to find is that you'd have to go. Know which particular meeting they were associated with and know that their correspondence and go to the link for items, correspondence, and then click on it. And then eventually you get to the individual submissions. What I was just going to suggest to the board is that I know in a couple of times in the past, where there have been major projects, you elevated up to the top level of the Read Development Board page as a link to click on. And then all the documents are there. I think that would satisfy this gentleman's needs and everyone else's if it was easily accessible that way. Can I say something in response to both of those? The points you raised were points raised when the applicant came in by both the board and a lot of people who were attending during the public hearing. And we don't know what they're going to say when they come back. I have the same concerns you had. I expect to see a much different and better proposal. And if they don't, I'm not sure where they're going at this point. So that's the meaning of the continuance is that they've asked, they've asked even more time, they need more time. And we're continuing to January 27th. So that's why, I think, because they weren't going to get approval with what they presented to us the first time. So I'm back. I don't know what to do about the fee. I don't know that the way it was set up was illegal, as you say. I haven't seen any legal opinion that says it's illegal. I just don't know what to do about it. And we're certainly not going to do anything about it without the applicants here and without it being on the agenda. So we can't do anything about it tonight. And we did ask Town Council to opine on it. He has provided his opinion. The short answer to that is that the board has the authority within its discretion to waive certain permit fees. Even when the applicant comes back before we visit that discussion one at a time, it's right. I don't think any decision has been made one way or the other. And that internally or certainly we haven't taken a vote on it yet. But internally, I just mean I haven't made it. It comes to my own decision yet. Other comments for open forum? All right. So the hearing for 833 Mass App is advertised for 830. And unfortunately, we can't begin that until 830. So take a brief recess until 830. Don't go too far. Please take your seats. We'll get started right at 830. We'll take a brief recess. All right. We're going to bring the meeting back to recess. And before we bring the proponent for 833 out, during the break, Erin went and grabbed something. I just want to make a point as far as total 712.11. As far as the fees that are being discussed here, the applicant actually has already paid 50% of what the application fee would be, which is the only fee that this department would have the authority to waive. It would be the application fee. It wouldn't permit fees, any other department's fees. So far, they've paid $2,694.30 out of a total fee calculated to be 5,388.60. That's a point in the future. We'll have a discussion on that. This was provided to us in a memo dated August 7th from the meeting over the summer from Erin and Jenning Department. So if there's any questions about that, then it's public record. May I respond to that? Quickly. I don't want to have it back and forth about this stuff. Okay. Quickly. I would have been glad to early if you wrote up. I'm familiar with that memo, and it's an opinion, I believe, of Jenning and somebody in Inspectional Services. I don't know what the rationale is saying that, well, half the fee would be okay. I would note that of the properties, 1207 is merely a third of the entire land and project. And if you're going to go down that path, the proper thing would be to say two thirds would be. But even then, I question what? It's not a public discussion this evening. Okay. So you're input is taken. Okay. I'll leave it at that. All right. So moving on to giving up 33 Mass Ave, which is a special permit done at 3348. So here we are discussing the 33 Mass Ave Council. Okay. We're back again. Robin and Essie for the petitioner. That's on our right is Monty French. Monty's the architect. Jeff Noyes, you all know from the last meeting we had. We are here for the purpose of giving you an update with regard to where we are. And to start off, I'm going to say that it's very complicated from the point of view of trying to mesh everything with that 2009 ARB decision in terms of what it said. It talks about a lot of things. It talks about maintaining the Atwood House. And by the way, we don't quarrel with that. Okay. We may not be able to maintain the entire house, but we are certainly going to do our level best to work with that. You have received, you should have received a structural report dated June 26th of 2018 that was addressed to Michael Byrne, the building inspector. And that report indicated that the structure was in fact stable in acceptable shape. Monty had one of his representatives go down to the building as well, take photographs, check the building out with respect to stability. And Monty's individual agrees with that assessment. So we're working with the idea that we're going to try to stay with the Atwood House. We're not going to be asking at some point that the building come down, okay? But again, there have to be substantial changes because of the building itself. Now, I talked about the ARB decision. It's a little complicated because what you've got is a decision from 2009 that talks about the CVS store going up, then talks about the retention of the Atwood House. I question whether in fact there was a lot of thought that went into zoning issues with respect to retaining the Atwood House on the site. The couple of issues leave out at me. One would be perhaps open space. Another one might be FAR, but even beyond that. If you read the decision from 2009, it talks about 10 parking spaces being allocated for the Atwood House. Now, the difficulty is that if you look at those 10 parking spaces on the plan that you have, you need to keep in mind that access to the Atwood House would be through the same access that the pharmacy enjoys. On the plan. And there's a turnaround with respect to that access way for the pharmacy customers. They have to turn around. Now, when they turn around in that area query, are they going to be intruding into any of the 10 parking spaces allocated for the Atwood House? I think if you look at the plan, there's a reasonable inference that could be drawn that that would be the case and perhaps is the case presently. So there's a conflict there. And that's why I'm suggesting to you that maybe that issue would have to be looked at from our point of view with respect to the building inspector regarding the access, regarding the turnaround and all of that. Now, CVS, in my opinion, as a lawyer, is cast in concrete. So that can't change, okay? But if something is going to change, it's going to have to be what happens with the Atwood House and how we can mesh that. But again, the fact that the ARB back in 2009 said, here's what we can do. Here's what we're going to do. That doesn't mean we can do that, okay? Because it has to pass muster with the building inspector as well, okay? So we haven't gotten to that point yet, okay? We're looking at it. We're going to be coming up with a design. We want to go with multi-use in terms of the first level, perhaps being office or something of that nature. And we want to go with residential above. I know there was talk way back. There's nothing in the ARB decision about that. There was talk way back about affordable housing. We're not interested in affordable housing. We can't do affordable housing economically. We need to, if we're going to develop the site development, but we can't do it by way of giving a donation to the affordable housing concept. We need to make a profit. That's why we exist, okay? We need to do that. We pay money to people who are going to do the work to construct the building. Now, in addition to the complications as far as zoning are concerned, we are now on the list, okay? The ARB decision in 2009 said the building was not significant, okay? Well, somehow after that, the building got on the significant list. Now, I know John Worden has done a great history, and he educated me, and I grew up in this town, okay? I went to high school here when Nois Buick existed, okay? But he brought to my attention history about the site I never knew before, okay? And that history is all good, okay? But again, when you're talking about a significant building, it's a different issue. But in any event, that issue is now foreclosed to us from arguing against it, because we now are on the list. So therefore, in addition to dealing with you folks, we need to deal with the Historical Commissioner. So we need to go before them. Now, true with them, if we decided that we wanted to take the building down and they said no, we could wait a year and do it, okay? But we're not interested in babbling that issue, okay? What we're interested in doing is coming up with a solution that makes sense, okay? Makes sense for the site, makes sense for my client, who again has got to put a lot of money into this to rehab the building, to redo the building. And if that can't happen, it doesn't make sense for him. Now, look, the ARB back in 2009 could have said, we want the Atwood House to be done now at the same time the CBS building was done. Never did that, okay? And that's one of the reasons why it's gone on as long as it has. With regard to the noise family, there have been dynasty issues of the assets that had to be resolved. The father's estate got resolved about maybe three or four months ago. We're now in a go position in terms of wanting to get this done and getting this moving along. There's conservation issues as well. I'm given to understand that there's a culvert back there that's covered, but in any event, they went before the Conservation Commission back in 2009. There is an order of conditions recorded at the Registry of Deeds. So, again, we're here now. We want to come up with a plan. What I don't want to do is get into a battle with anyone, okay? I don't want to get into a battle with the ARB, with the Historical Commission. I want to work with everybody and try to make something happen for the site. But there has to be an understanding that we're going to have to spend a lot of money to make that happen. Again, I recognize John Warden's concern about the history of the Atwood House, and that's all well and good, okay? But we need to do something with the site right now and something with the building. I would agree it's gone on far too long in the condition that it's been for a lot of different reasons which I've indicated. So, again, we're actually working on that. Monte is going to be coming up with a design for us that we can look at. We need to look at the site in terms of the zoning by-law to see how many residential units we can get in the building. We look at the property from the point of view of the office perhaps on the first level and what has to be done to satisfy zoning. So, before I come back to you folks, I intend to come up with a plan with Monte and Jeff and sit down with the building inspector because, again, I have to pass mustard with him for zoning purposes before I can talk with you folks about environmental design and issues related to the jurisdiction of the ARV. Would you like to add anything to that? No, I agree. We need the opportunity. I mean, we did walk the site in the building. We just need the opportunity to survey it, document it through drawings and such, and then do some research in terms of photos and things like that and see how we can bring the thing back to life. So, we just need time. Like Bob said, we've got a lot of studying to do with the zoning because of the way it's situated on the site. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that this particular site is B4 and was a vehicle-oriented site before CVS went in, and it's a B4 zone now. So, we have to work with that as well but I think it's important to keep in mind that what is happening as far, and by the way, there's 79,000 square feet on the lot. That's a big lot. But we need to keep in mind that we're improving the site from a vehicle-oriented site to a site that is not vehicle-oriented. And if you read in the bylaw, the district regulations 5.25 under B4, as these businesses are talking about vehicle-oriented businesses gradually close, the town has encouraged conversion of the property to other retail, service, office, or residential use, particularly as part of a mixed-use development. That's what we want to do. I appreciate the fact that you're all here. And hiring an architect is a positive step in my mind. I don't disagree that you have a lot of work to do. What's a reasonable timeline? Pointe, from the point of your design point of view. Well, like I said, the first thing that we need to do is we need to get the building in a shape where we can actually get in there and survey it. So I think it takes some remediation. There's some things in there that don't really allow people to walk into it right now. So that'll have to happen. And then once that happens, we'll have to have probably a week or so to go through the building. Survey just the footprint volume and openings and then all the relevant historical details that we think that need to be documented. And then that's just the basis that we'll start with. And then from there, we'll know the volume and everything that we're dealing with. And we can study the zoning piece of it. And I think that that part of it will get a start and allow Bob to have a discussion. So that's probably going to take, once I can get in there, maybe a month. One of the other things we're thinking about is the possibility of a subdivision. However, that creates problems too because of what I said earlier. And that is the access to the site, the turnaround issue for the CVS pharmacy, the invasion of the parking spaces, potential intrusion into the parking spaces. So all of that would have to be taken into account. I suppose you could think about doing something like that by way of having an easement situation prepared, okay? But again, we're not there yet. So we're not even talking about... We're thinking about it, but not really seriously talking about it until Monti does his work. Any questions? I still like to figure out push for at least a high-level timeline, okay? Monti said a month to do that. From that time he can get in, in essence to me. That's reasonable. I think a month includes the time. There's some remediation there that's cleaning up. It's not really any hazardous material, I believe. What about the molding station? Yeah, but that's a week. Getting someone there... Okay, we'll give you two months to remediate and to document, okay? I'm just thinking high-level, that's all, okay? And what do you guys think to study the best use for that? Another two, three months? I think once... Yeah, that probably makes sense. We're not going to hold you into it and say, okay, let's take this call. Not for any reasons that you're responsible for. It's gone on long enough, so I agree with you, okay? We need to move it along. And he's ready to move it along at this point. That may not have been the case in the past, for a lot of reasons, okay? So I think we're ready to do that at this point. So you want to say four to five months? We'll revisit this? Okay, that sounds good. I'd like at least a report, not necessarily to the opening of the special permit hearing, but if you can file a report with the department, just so that we can have it on record by mid-February. Mid-February? Yeah, I think we'd probably have a meeting on the 24th. On February 24th? February 24th, yeah. Just a progress report. I was going to suggest that. Let us know where things stand. If we choose to have you come in and answer questions, we may reserve that right. We won't make Monti and your client come back. You want me on the 24th? I think I'd want you to be available on the 24th. Give us a progress report. Let us know where things stand. I don't think we're being, well, from your perspective, I'd certainly say that you would think we're being a little overly difficult, but given the fact that it's a 10-year special permit. I don't think you are at all given the issue. And what's going on there in the last several years, and I don't think we're being unreasonable. Just to keep things moving, keep an eye on things. So, on February 24th, we'll have a progress report back. Let us know where things stand, where progress is taking place by that point. I appreciate your willingness to work with us and explore options. I'm a little bit disappointed to hear that it won't be affordable housing, but I understand. There are people who will be encouraged that you don't intend to tear the building down, which is positive in some respects. Any other questions? Remember the board. Yes, one. I appreciate the fact that you re-boarded up some of the windows and painted up the plywood, the massive building a little better, took away the action boarding sign, so it doesn't look like it's had a fire or something in there, you know. And shoveling sidewalks. That's been a multi-year issue. I think we're probably getting there. I'm saying thank you. Go ahead, Jenny. I'm representative from CBS, actually. Yeah, I was going to ask I wanted to make sure that people can have them introduce themselves. There's a way in Pearson, I'm the manager of the CBS at 833. That's out there. Thanks for coming. So I take a slightly different view of this. I think the CBS permit is at risk. I think we do have the option of pulling the entire permit because of this. And I just wanted to make sure somebody was here from CBS. So we heard at least one member of this board thinks the CBS permit is at risk. I don't put the onus on the ARB for a permit from 10 years ago. You came in or whoever came in to ask for this permit, they got it, they liked it, they didn't appeal it. So I would not put the onus on the ARB from 10 years ago for what happened. February is a good first step, but what I would be interested in knowing is when are you going to come back with a real proposal for us to look at? Because I sort of feel like February is going to happen, it will drag out, drag out, drag out. So I want to know when... We have to have something for February so we know what we're going to do in March. That's the reason we're coming back on February 24th to give you a progress report. We will have some idea at that point so we can use the site. I intend to give you that information as much as I can on February 24th. Well, I mean, if that's where you're going, what I would like to have on February 24th is a date certain when you will have an actual proposal. Because you're not going to have it on February 24th. No, not at all. So I think what we want to know on February 24th then is when are you going to come back on February 24th? I think based on what we mentioned in terms of weeks and months, I think with the holidays right around the corner hopefully it's reasonable to say the first or second week in January we can get people in there to start cleaning it up and that sort of thing and then that will allow us, our team to get in there and survey the building, start getting lines pulled together and then that allows us like, you know, we'll have some of that put together for the 24th and that will allow us to study all the nuts and bolts of it and then in terms of the design, we'll come after that. So I think answering the nuts and bolts of zoning and building allowances and navigating the site in terms of parking and things like that are things that we've got to answer before we spend a bunch of money on design that you don't know if it's real design until we answer those questions. So I think that the 24th we can answer most of the nuts and bolts questions and then after that if it's agreeable then I think it makes sense to pursue the design but until we can answer those questions. No, no, I'm not asking for the design on the 24th No, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm asking for on the 24th. We're going to have an idea about what we're going to do with the site. I would also like to see at some point the economics showing why you can't put it at least one unit. The economics showing why you can't put in at least one unit of affordable housing. You've said that. I'm not questioning it but I would like to see the economics of why I can't put it at least one unit. I was talking about affordable housing for the entire site which historically was discussed not in the ARB decision but was discussed back in 2009, okay? That's what I was talking about. I have an open mind, we have an open mind to what we're going to come with in terms of the units. If we have six, then affordable housing, okay? If we have less than that, then we'll have to talk about it. Well, I think we should, I think I would encourage you to think about whether it's six units or fewer the potential of putting in at least one affordable housing unit. Sure. I must say this too about the CVS permit being at risk, okay? That's not what the ARB decision said back in 2009, okay? It didn't phrase it in that manner, okay? What it said was that the petitioner requested to come back with a plan, okay? With regard to the Atwood House, okay? And there was no mandate in 2009 ARB decision that, in fact, they have to do that, okay? There was discussion about preserving the Atwood House and we're going to do that as much as we can, okay? But there was nothing in the ARB decision the way I read it, okay? That basically conditioned the permitting of the CVS, which again has been cast and concrete at this point, which basically conditioned that upon something happening. This is one permit. It's not one permit for the Atwood House and a separate permit for the CVS. No, we know that. It's one permit. We hopefully will never have to deal with this. I just need to make that point, okay? We hopefully will never have to deal with this disagreement. Okay, all right. So I just had two items that I just want to make to what was just discussed, because I still haven't heard confirmation from your team. What we expect is a timeline, not just leaving my hands about what the next steps are going to be, but an actual timeline to be submitted. Which you're going to have when we come back on February 24th. Thank you. I appreciate the confirmation. And the other thing that I just wanted to point out, you had made a reference to the fact that the Atwood House was not listed as a significant building at the time of the application, but it's actually in the in the notes. All right. That's all I have. Thanks. Any other comments from members of the board? We'll open it up to members of the public. Please raise your hand, state your name and address. I'll call on you as I see you. Mr. Warden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Warden at 27 Jason Street. I think I'm the only person that here who was actually participant in the hearings when the redevelopment board made the decision back 10 years ago. And I will say that the decision itself says what it says. And it's kind of working kind of contradictory and not as inclusive as 10 years later we might expect. But in the context of the discussions that occurred at that time the expectation was very strong that there would be rapid movement forward to create an affordable small affordable housing complex there. And there were conversations with the housing corporation of Allington. David Levy was the president then had some preliminary commitments about funding and it was a sort of a subtext to the opinion of the decision of the board that didn't spell out any details because there weren't any details at that point. It was conversation, but I think the belief on the part of the board members as well as people like me and people like David Levy were within a reasonable time we'd move forward to fixing up the house putting an L on the back and putting some affordable housing in there. Now that didn't happen as we know and I think the board maybe they were kind of naive and thinking well we'll have good faith here we'll just assume these things are going to happen. But they didn't happen for whatever reason it's advanced, but I'm very glad to hear that they do intend to preserve the house or preserve a major private building and that's very encouraging because those of us who've come to this hearing a number of other people here who had the same concern you know we've been worried about this we have watched it, we've lived in the town we've watched the house disintegrate bit by bit and get boarded up and the sidewalk not being shoveled and the bushes not being trimmed and all that stuff. So it's great it's going to happen. The point about the parking and the turn around and all that stuff it seems to me that it was, had it been contemplated it wasn't written. They didn't have a plan for the tennis spaces or any of that stuff but it was obvious it must have been obvious to the CVS people as well as to the noise people that if people were going to get to the parking lot in the back of this house they'd have to go through the CVS lot. And that somehow I'm sure that somehow could be worked out but I don't see how that should be a real impediment so and by the way the zoning on that property that was owned by the noise families at some period of time the zoning on it was bizarre one under the 75 recodification at some point and I can't remember what year it was but I remember when it happened and I the noise family filed a 10 register voter article to change it to the same zoning as the auto dealership and and the redevelopment board just they were ambushed by well I don't know why they didn't notice it why they didn't have a hearing on it but they didn't it came up to town meeting one night they went to the redevelopment board which just sat there with their mouths agape and the proponents through and so that's how it got into this the zoning making this going to be a lot what they had in mind I don't know they left the house there so again we're glad this is going to be progress we look forward to hearing what's going to happen on February 24th and I'm pleased that finally something is going to happen and I encourage you to let's all work together and make this happen thank you thank you Mr. Wagner Carl Wagner of 30 Edge Hill Road I just wanted to thank the proponents of making changes and improvements and development at the property for coming and working with you and thank the ARB for holding the project to the terms that were spelled out 10 years ago I think it's really important that people visualize the woodhouse in the context of the neighborhood CVS is a really nice part of the community that fits in it's kind of back from the street it transitions to the high school nicely and the atwood house transitions currently very nicely I think it's the Baptist church next to it and with apartment buildings and small retail businesses across from it so what shouldn't happen in my opinion and I'm not a zoning person really like on the other side of AHS where there's a monstrosity that is a mixed expensive unit and I think now a child care facility practically towering over people walking by it so I hope that the setbacks the open space and what's right about the atwood house are preserved in anything that happens thank you Mr. Ruderman Michael Ruderman 9 Alton Street I was a member of the historical commission during the early years of dependency of this project and we were concerned then I'm sure the existing commissioners remain concerned that this building is going to be lost to the town by what we call demolition by neglect that the accumulated bits of foregone maintenance and the vandalism will pile up to the point where someone comes before the board and says look what terrible shape it's in we don't have very many options with what to do with it which of course is a function of not having taken care of the property from then to now I thank Mr. Benson for what I detect is a note of urgency in his comments that nothing has happened for far too long and a suitable resolution of how this property is going to be have its next life would not only be welcome but long overdue thank you David Baldwin Academy Street I just want to stress that it's not the Jason Russell House it's not the Whitmore Robbins House but we have very few of the early 20th century properties a long mass have and as it becomes more and more under pressure for development I think it's important to save as many of them as we can and it troubles me a little bit to hear words like we'll have to make substantial changes or we'll save as much as we possibly can which is sort of code word for we're going to take down as much as we can I think that from the outside it's important to continue it looking and on the inside it's what they make of it but on the outside I think it's important that it not become a modern home thank you Mr. Seltzer Thank you Mr. Chairman Don Seltzer Irving Street I wasn't planning on speaking at this hearing but I came across something surprising this afternoon about this house that I thought I would share according to the town that Atwood House doesn't exist it's not on the assessor's role I went into the property card and it shows the lot values the land it shows the CVS building and it has its value but there's no mention no valuation placed on the Atwood House it's like it doesn't exist so it looks like for the last decade or so there have been no taxes property taxes paid on that building well I could or I can allow the applicant to talk about it it's listed as card one and card two you have to look a little deeper okay maybe I didn't look in the right place including the vacancy registration fee being paid on it these past two years so it is certainly a separate property in terms of how the assessor is handling it I don't know how it looks in terms of the property cards or how you search for it in the database but it is indeed a property and payments have been made so you're saying that there is a separate property card for it and there is actually property taxes paid on the building to talk about that I'm not the assessor I'm not in charge of tax collection however it's two cards and taxes have been paid all these years I don't know what else to tell you that's fine thank you any other comments, questions, concerns alright seeing none I will close the hearing until February 24th I look forward to having you back here then with some details I would suggest that and a timeline I would suggest that if you schedule a meeting Mr. Byrne that you ask Mr. Laub to be present what a meeting with my meeting I think that's a great idea I'm looking for input as much as I can get whether it's informal or whatever from all you folks if you want to give us input at this stage we're just starting I look forward to it anything else are we closing the hearing or continuing if these gentlemen walk away we're walking away we're not closing we're continuing this in February 24th thank you for your time thank you thank you alright what we will do is so will we get motion to adjourn that's right motion to adjourn drove к motion to do we're out 32 4 motion to do you hear that February 24th no four precedeur motion to adjourn Motion to adjourn and then the down street is traced. Second. All in favor. All right.