 All right, a call to order the January 23, 2017 meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, recorded by ACMI. First up on the agenda this evening is a discussion regarding 2017 annual town meeting warrant articles, beginning with Jenny. Great, thank you, Andrew. I actually think you have a suite of warrant articles in your packet. The first page is proposed zoning warrant articles. Then there's another set of articles, A through D, goes on the opposite page. Those are town bylaw, town warrant articles. And then the last two pages are a citizen proposed warrant article for zoning, just so we know what we're talking about. All these items relate to this agenda item. So on the first proposed zoning bylaw amendments, warrant articles, Laura's going to talk about articles A and B. I think we'd first discuss this with you back in December. Article A is to slightly adjust or tweak the mixed use bylaw. The dimensional regulations for mixed use all have something in the dimensional and density regulations called minimum lot area per dwelling unit, which we have found from all of the developers who have come in looking for permits for mixed use have said that that is a difficult requirement, because what it ends up doing is it limits the number of units. But since the area that's allowed is larger, it pushes them towards larger units. And I think we had really wanted to see a mix of unit sizes, small and large, and it's standing in the way of that mix occurring. So there were some other things we had talked about previously, but I think we decided to keep it simple this time because of the commitment we made not to make a lot of zoning changes this year. So what this article will allow us to do is to remove the requirement for lot area per dwelling unit and all of the mixed use, all the commercial zones where mixed use is allowed, which is all of the commercial zones. My big thing on Warren articles is to keep them as flexible as possible so that you're never out of scope if anything comes up. And I guess my question is, why wouldn't you change is to say in business zones, well, first off, why would you say in business zones? Why wouldn't you say for mixed use development? Because it is in business zones and industrial zones, but industrial zones don't allow residential zones. So there's no requirement. But the point is, is what does in business zones add? You're right. And if, for some reason, there was something you wanted to do, actually, it's not brought enough. It's not brought enough. So I would take out in business zones. And then why not say by reducing or removing the minimum lot area? Let's just say that for some reason, we don't think we can get a full removal. At the very least, we can have the public hearing on whatever it is that's come up. And maybe there is stronger desire for a reduction or something like that. I guess, once again, because of scope and the need to keep any final recommendations within the scope of the article itself, if you decided, oh, crap, we wish we had just halved everything, right? Or something like that, that would have been good enough. Or something like that, that might help. Now, having said that, if you want it to be all or nothing, that's perfectly fine. It's just, I think that. Reducing it would be better than nothing. Yeah, exactly. That's more my point. So I would say by reducing or removing. I don't know if you know square feet. And so that was my take on that, was to, once again, try to keep it as flexible as possible. I mean, you could even say by reducing and or removing and really keep it flexible. Because maybe there are some zones that you want to keep it in, some zones that you want to remove it. Any other? Dave? Is there either a best practice or a sweet spot for encouraging an appropriate balance between larger and smaller units? Because I'm thinking particularly in the case of affordable housing, sometimes there's a need for larger units to families and we wouldn't want to create a situation where there weren't enough larger units available. The state, the Department of Housing and Community Development requires that 10% of all affordable units be three bedroom. So that, I think, takes care of that. And the developments that you approved do have that. They each have like one or two or three bedrooms. So they have a preponderance of two bedrooms. And I think that affordable housing developers kind of know what they need. And so they might continue to build larger units. But it was the housing corporation of Arlington's architect that suggested that they would have preferred to maybe have a different mix or have more units in the same area. It doesn't make the building bigger or more dense, but they could potentially have more units, which would serve more households. But there's no generally accepted best practices for how to set this appropriately. No, but I will just say that a number of different communities that I looked at, including Waterton and Brookline, do not have a lot of area for dwelling unit requirement for mixed use. It's more for open development houses on a lot. Right. It's not really for mixed use in buildings. And I think that's why it's a good idea to allow flexibility, that's what I think. There, comments. I just have one other edit. I think you need the word requirement after unit square feet requirement. Square feet? We'll go to a men's table for mixed use. Yeah, you need the word requirement. And once again, I mean, if we think that we don't want to potentially give people the opportunity to do that, to reduce it versus, if we want it to be all or nothing once again, then that's just something that. But otherwise, I'd say reducing it. Good. Do you want to vote on each one? We're going to do that later. At the end, we've got you. And keep in mind, these are just placeholders for now. The town meeting warrant closes Friday. So these have to be in them. If there are other questions, as far as best practices, as far as specific changes that we want to make after we have the public hearing, they'll come in when we do that in March. We do want to keep them, want to keep them as vague, or not as vague, but as broad and open-ended as possible in case we do decide to change things at that point. Moving on to Article B, Laura. Yes. And this is also an adjustment to something that we adopted last year, the definition for artisanal fabrication, which is the small manufacturing kind of use, but also includes creative arts uses, woodworking, and things like that, and also includes commercial kitchens and breweries. And something that I think people are quite interested in seeing. And those are both two industries that are growing. Our new economic development coordinator, Ali Carter, suggested to me that the 5,000 square foot maximum that is in the definition is too small. You would never get a brewery that was under 5,000 square feet. You might get a commercial kitchen. But if it does well, it's going to want to grow beyond 5,000 square feet. And be sad to be kicking them out at that point. Right, right. I don't think there's any reason why we need to limit it that way. I think it was just when we did it last year, it was just a way to kind of go slow. Questions? Same point on this one, except just the opposite, by saying by increasing and or removing the maximum square foot area requirement. I think this one is to me a slam dunk. I mean, it'd be sad that the person goes up by 1,000 square feet and we're kicking them out of town. That makes no sense whatsoever. So I completely agree. But just to keep flexibility. Yeah, any other questions or comments on Article B? Article C. All right, so Article C and then all of the next articles we're going to discuss with also inviting up Steve McKenna and Winnell Evans. Steve and Winnell serve on the residential study group, which as you all know, is a subgroup of the zoning reconfiguration working group. Working on the revamp of the zoning bylaw and the residential study group has been having many conversations and conducting a lot of research and doing a lot of work around thinking about what types of interventions should we think about in the zoning bylaw and also the town bylaw now that can help to address neighbor concerns about new residential construction and existing neighborhoods. So that's what we've been charged with. And so we come to you with these recommendations. Steve and Winnell, have you come sit at the table with us, please? Thanks for coming. Winnell, do you want to start? I'll go first. Winnell Evans orchard place. And I'm just going to fill you in very briefly on the history of this article. This was brought up at last year's town meeting. And there was a lot of citizen interest in this article because of the safety issue. But it was not properly expressed. And it did not define the slope as being limited to downward driveways. So many people raised the issue of, well, what happens with a driveway that goes up? And why should we be worried about the slope? And the whole thing, I think that was a major issue that caused it to fizzle. But people were indeed interested in the safety issue. And what we found out is that Arlington currently has no regulation of driveway grade at all. And some of the grades are as great as 28%, which is really significant. The MAS DOT recommends between 10 and 15, I believe. Cambridge is as 7.2, I think. So we're really kind of an outlier in terms of regulating this. And you can imagine when you're backing out of a driveway that's almost at a 30 degree angle, you really do not see anybody coming from either direction who's going to be crossing behind you. You're essentially seeing sky. So I think a lot of people who live in neighborhoods where we have the garage under situation who have kids were very concerned about this. So that was the beginning of this bylaw. And I'll turn it over to Steve. So with that, we realize, and thank you very much for having us come, with a lot of the discussions, we looked upon it, again, from the original town Warren article there. There was a significant concern about these new constructions that were being built predominantly in East Arlington. And because of the size of the lots and the configuration of the lots and the frontage, that you're getting at these garage unders. And I'll agree that I think the way the article was written put a lot of concern on a lot of people and how it affected homeowners and for people who wanted to live in the community. So in the last few months of our meetings, we started recognizing that there is potential opportunities to try to make adjustments that could benefit developers, benefit homeowners, and more importantly, be more safe to the community and more appealing to people living in the neighborhood. And in doing so, myself and a few other committee members came up with a few proposals and suggestions that we try to consider for the future. And that's why this Warren article was drafted to give us some flexibility and to at least make note of that. And shall I speak specifics of some of things? So some of the things that, and I don't have my notes in front of me, but the way we looked upon it is the current zoning bylaws. And based upon East Arlington being the predominant area where all these developments occurring is a more urban setting, the developers, because the zoning bylaws that were drafted, were limited to only putting the garage under, due to the fact that if you weren't allowed to have two curb cuts, so that eliminated the situation there. And the zoning bylaws also mandate and require that you have two parking spaces behind the front foundation wall for each unit. So virtually that's impossible to put it on a main level if it's a straight lot, flat lot, like most of them are in East Arlington, that you'd be putting two car garages inside the dwelling. So therefore, developers started looking upon it from a rational standpoint. The only way to do it is put the garage under if you're building the foundation, cut a hole in it, and make it steep it down. And as when Ella had mentioned, there was really no specific determination in the zoning bylaws about the grade. So these became sort of the normal for the last five or seven years. And looking at this and understanding where I think the concerns are, we came back with a couple of proposals to look at and to offer some options and flexibilities to potentially deter developers from developing these. But if they have to, there's gonna be certain requirements. And the first is, and these are just suggestions again, if you decide to put in a two car garage under, then you have to be a minimum, instead of 25 feet from the front yard setback, we're gonna push you back 30 feet. So therefore, we'll get a 15% grade. But in doing so, the developer's gonna lose a certain amount of size of the house because you still have to have a certain amount of open space in the real lot line. So it says, great, if you wanna do it, we'll give that to you, but we're taking something away from you. Another option was that if you decide that you don't wanna do the garage on this, but you still need to provide the parking, we'll consider allowing you to put in the garage as you drive straight through. There will be a parking space on the main level, but instead of two car parking behind the front down foundation wall, you're only required to have one car parking. So if you envision you've got your square box, you're gonna take a 20 by 20 area to make that your first garage, 20 by eight garage parking area. We'll give you that, so we'll eliminate the two car garage behind the front foundation wall. You can put one car within the main level of the living area, another parking space in the driveway, which we should look out there. Most people now are parking their cars in the driveways. The garages are filled with bikes, lawn mowers, and so forth, so people are parking their driveways anyways. If we give you that option, then we'll also give you a provision where the garage is not gonna be used as living space as far as your gross living area, floor calculations, and as in a provision since we're creating, eliminating living space for you, we will then limit your open space requirement in the real lot line, which is typical from 25 feet to 20 feet. You have to have a 25% percentage, but we'll make it smaller for you in one direction so that you don't have to come up with a 25 feet. So we're taking something away from you, but we're gonna give something for you. We look at that, that it makes what appears to be, and there's been a few of these built on Park Street by a developer a few years ago that are quite attractive. And we feel as though that responds to a lot of the concerns from not only the safety factor, which has been a concern coming across, but physically it will look a lot more appealing from the outside and it'll be that much more attractive and also it doesn't hurt the developer and actually brings us some of the developer's costs down. The third option is if the site doesn't allow for that, then we'll give you the option of doing a two curb cuts. Now, one of the problems we have with two curb cuts and there was a property done on Beacon Street last year when the Town Ward article was proposed, the developer said, great, I don't have to do garage unders, I'm gonna do two curb cuts. The developer did two curb cuts. The problem is on a 60 foot lot, the average of these houses are 40 feet, these duplexes, because when you think of the 40 feet for the house, each unit then is 20 feet. Then you have to take two feet away for the studs, so you have an 18 foot wide unit. So they were putting in a 40 foot house and they had 10 feet on each side. By having the 10 feet on each side, parking space is eight and a half by 18 feet, which is required. Problem is you can't open up your car doors. You can only open up one side. If you try to open up the passenger side, now you're potentially opening up into a fence or into your neighbor's yard. So we looked at it and then said, well, let's do this. If they're not gonna do the garage unders, and we've taken that away from them because there's some opportunities that they get restrictions and they can't, or it feels as though construction-wise, this doesn't make sense to do the garage in the living space area. That will give you two curb cuts. The first thing we'll do is we'll, again, allow one car parking behind the front foundation wall. But we're gonna have to take away the 10 foot setback and make it a 12 foot setback. So you're gonna have to make a smaller house. You'll have to do a 36 foot wide house. But it's better for the neighborhood and it allows us to then provide a buffer zone for landscaping. So that way, you've got a little bit of a buffer area between you and the neighbor and you don't have typical, and not picking on them, but Medford, you've got pavement against pavement. Just not that appealing, not that attractive. So we create somewhat of a buffer area. And then again, the parking space will be in front of that. So we tried to look at what is best for everyone and how to work in harmony that it's not only safe, but it's appealing, detractive, and it sustains values and interest in for the areas where people are building. Questions? Thanks, Steve. Anyone else? First off, I'm so excited. Thank you both for working together on this and the whole group. I actually, I have to credit Elizabeth Pyle, who's not here tonight because she really did. That's too bad, because I would tell her the same and I know she was a force last year. I just, because this is the way things get done and the way they get done well. So I'm just really, this is my last ARB meeting and this is the first time this has happened in the six years I've been here. So it's great, I'm glad to see. So that's just my commentary on it. I'm gonna actually be pedantic and just kind of what I did, you may have heard me do it on A and B. My concern about what you've done here is I'm just a little bit concerned about scope and if we put this into the warrant article, have you gone over it with Town Council? Yes, Town Council has reviewed all of this. So the one comment from Town Council on this one is that we, depending upon your interest, we might unbundle all of these things. That was exactly my, that was gonna be. It just needs a little crowded. Well, not only is it crowded, but here's my concern. Yeah, if you lost something, does it lose everything? That's my other concern, right? It's kind of like, yeah. So as far as the bundling is concerned, my concern is if someone doesn't like this one thing, the whole thing could go by the wayside. And it might be the residential study committee gets up and says, no, we want the package. And from our, when you folks vote on it eventually or whatever else, your recommendation might be all or nothing, right? But you may want to give people the opportunity to kind of unbundle this. And that would be my biggest concern with it is if someone doesn't like one thing, you might lose the whole thing. So that'd be my biggest thing. And then, and so that's, that's really my biggest question on that. And I'm not exactly sure how we would take the vote on it is my biggest. Whatever you decide tonight would be as amended. And then I'm gonna have to amend it and work with Doug to get the final language and then submit it by Friday for the work selection. So that's kind of with any of these, all these tweaks will be. But I think that's a question for the two of you as far as how you feel about unbundling it too. I think it makes sense. I think it's gonna be easier for the average person to understand them to read and also for it to be taken on its own merits. I do think if you do unbundle it, it's gonna be very important for all of you to bring your own opinions that they should be bundled to bear at the meeting itself. Because what you may find is if you unbundle it, then the different, I'm gonna use a word here, factions might just go after their own pieces and the good work that you folks have done, as far as finding a common ground could go out the window. That's, so I'm kind of talking out of both sides of my mouth. I kind of like the bundling because this is your deal. But it does concern me that if you lose one, you might lose all. So anyway, that's my call. Okay, I would echo what Mike said. I highly recommend, encourage to unbundle it and separate it and say the dry wishful for safety is one thing and that stands on its own. And then maybe have something else say, okay, the parking of cars, I really like what you guys did. I think it's a real good compromise of having several choices. Either having two dry ways or having, if you go under, you have to set it back a little bit or if you put them on the side to a tandem, I think those all good options, good all choices, if you guys feel that's good, put that as another one, it could be D or C1, C2. Is it to say, look, this is pure safety for down, where it goes down, does it go up? New construction for pure safety. I think that would be a really easy thing to talk about. And then the other thing is about how you work, how you put parking in, you bring up the east point. The east arrow. The east arrow, okay? Well, how do we address this thing that's making fear that we bring that up and talk about that and say that, okay, if we do go under, it goes back, I like that. If we do side parking or two curbs. I really like the fact that two curbs with a smaller house is a good compromise. Allowing you to have some vegetation aside of separation from the dry ways. I'm sorry, it will work. One of the slight concerns that we would always have with two curb cuts is at some point, if it becomes continuous, you then limit parking on the street. So there's something we have to look at on how that's gonna be addressed and appropriated. That's a good point. But I think the idea of C1, C2 might be a way that we can propose them individually, but collectively they have to be approved because I think otherwise it could cause issues with approving one part, but then the others don't get it accepted and now we have issues. Okay, that's a good point. I don't know if that can happen. I think you present them as separate articles. Each option. You can cert them as separate warrant articles, but you present them as a whole. That's in conversation with the town moderator and others. Thank you. I like the 15% as a separate one and then the other ones as a bundle. Because it's interesting to create these options. I mean, this is the first time I've heard someone kind of rationally say either A, B, or C. So that's my take on it, that you want to take them all. I'm a little, you guys are saying, individually propose them, but I think they're strong as a bundle. I think you're right, Andy. And having said that on these meetings, gone through the thought process that got us here, I'd agree with that because the idea is to, the idea isn't to say no and specifically prohibit the driveway slopes that go down. The idea is to reduce them by giving developers and builders incentives to not do that. And so by keeping them together, you keep all those incentives together as a package. So I'd agree with that statement. I mean, you could do it, but maybe what Mike is saying and kind of say recommended as a bundle or if suddenly there's a groundswell that one of them is so desired, you might have the option, but I agree. I think it's nice, right? Mixed use of the parking reduction somewhat went together in the same fashion, but obviously didn't belong together. So we can figure out a way to communicate that at town meeting, but I just want to understand. So you're saying break up one of the first, the 15% grade as a standalone. Yes, that's per safety. All of the others are bundled together in the sub-particle? Yeah, that's very good. And one last thing, before at some point, could you give Janet or some of those examples you had in various different places? Because I want to go see him myself, because this is- Oh, the real life examples. Yeah, the ones you mentioned. Yeah, we have those. We have those, and we'll have examples to present. David. So I'm thinking just in terms of strategy, I like the bundling and having it all bundled together. Yeah, I can definitely see it. Because it will, you know, the factions, for lack of a better word, have found common ground to bring this proposal forward. And I think by keeping it bundled together, you keep that consensus together so that nobody is tempted to, you know, try to get what the piece they wanted and vote down the rest of it in town meeting. Because I think it is a really good compromise that I think gives everybody mostly what they wanted. You know, addresses a safety issue and gives developers a number of options for building things that will sell. So I'm not sure from the legal side of things, you know, what would happen if there's significant opposition to one or more pieces of this if it continues to be bundled. There could be amendments substitute. Yeah, I think that's the case. And I think the moderator could figure out what he wants on that. So I think that can see that. Yeah, but I think it supports the consensus that has been reached by the study group to keep it bundled. Yeah, and I want to say, Mike gave credit to Stephen Winnell and Elizabeth Piles that have credit to it, every member. Oh, I meant every member, yeah. Every member of that group. I think this was one issue that from the beginning we found that there was some consensus on and everyone worked very hard to get something that was, it was a compromise, but it was the kind of compromise that actually leaves everyone satisfied in the end where no one feels like they've given anything up to get into the final result. And I think that that's why it's such a strong article. Then I just to be clear, I was just pointing that out. I'm fine if the proponents and the boy, I can definitely see the reasons for keeping it all together. And I think to that extent, it's fine with me. So. Good. And if I might add just one other separate side note. One of the reasons why I'm here is because it was so vocal with regards to the concerns about the warrant articles that came up. And it wasn't that I didn't appreciate what they were trying to do, but they didn't make sense. And I had made a comment that every action had a reaction. And if we look at the bylaws and we look at the proposed warrant articles we've made last year, this type of a format can work quite well on many of the issues that are facing the zoning bylaws and the problems with new construction and development. There is I think a benefit for giving incentives and taking away something so that we can then somewhat control and be satisfied with the developments being built because what's being built now is based upon what was written specifically in the bylaws and it was, it's how you interpret them. And I think that's what's caused a lot of issues. So if we can take the interpretation out of it and give potential options, it creates a wider range for a lot of people to be more satisfied with what's being built in the town. Completely agree? Yeah. That's all I have to say. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice evening. Do you want to vote on these two? Because these are the only ones that will actually... Yes, because the other ones aren't ours. The other aren't. I just want to be clear now. So we're not separating. We're going to bundle it back together. We'll bundle it together. Sounds like... I think that's the consensus. Because I think that's the kind of... That's what I want. No fragile. But... That's fine. I can see both ways. But the way it's written right here, to me right now, it's confusing. Maybe because I'm, you know, you guys are working on it. But I just, when I first look at this, it just looks like... I think it could just be a formatting issue. Yeah. Because it looks like a lot of words and what any section isn't clearly delineated. Could you do it with bullet points? It's just the warrant article. Well, that's true. Language is not the actual article itself, so we'll have a lot more... We'll add it in and make it more clear. And I think part of the issue here, but getting to, yes, getting to a positive vote at town meeting will be in the presentation. And I think with members of that group coming up and assisting in the presentation, we'll be able to get the intent across and not lose anything in translation. Well, and I think the other thing, too, Kim, from my perspective is, this is the thing that goes in the warrant article. And then the recommended vote is going to be much more specific and less layout, right? It's going to say... Okay. The recommended, when you guys finally get this down, you're going to have to say, you know, Section 6 is here by deleted, blah, blah, blah, you know, and actually kind of just piece it out. Because I'm not comfortable with weights. Yeah, no, I don't disagree. And Mike's right. That will change significantly by the time this gets to. And it is repetitive, in a way, when you read it, but you have to repeat the different sections that need to be amended, so in the warrant. So I'll move to... Yeah, I did it so well last year, right? Move to approve Articles 8 through C to be submitted at the request of the Redevelopment Board to the Board of Selectment in the warrant as amended. Second. All in favor? Aye. You section at last year. Pretty? Oh, really? I'm just pretty. Good luck for most. Good. Thank you. Good job. No, I mean, nice job on that, because getting everyone together is a great thing. No, it's just, it's really nice to see. So I'm very happy about that. It doesn't happen, I'm not glad I did. But that group has actually done a lot of good work to get to. In a short time, they've met a lot, they've worked hard, so they deserve a little credit in the world. I really appreciate it. Speaking of that, they've gone past zoning. Yeah. Warrant Articles into general town by law articles, and that's what we have next. So we won't vote on these necessarily. This is really just an overview. Actually, I spoke with the town council and the town manager, and it would be great if you would vote on them. All right. The same way in which, and you could say, insert it at the request of the residential study group and the redevelopment board. He says often warrant articles have two, you know, groups making that request. Okay. It's the same thing to have that happen. So it's, that's the request. So I think the problem I see is these aren't zoning by-laws. Right, no understanding. Yeah, so we don't. We can make it to put them in the warrant, but once we get to the hearings, we wouldn't hold a hearing on these. That would be the board of selection to hear town by-law. So would we vote on these to go to? You're just voting on, recommending them to the board of selection. That's all. To include in the board. It's our support, or not support. It's basically your support. Okay. So that is my understanding from council. You could find some people thinking that's overreaching. Do we have authority to propose a non-zoning article? Well, that's, that's my concern. Is that these are general town by-laws? Yes. Well, what my understanding is that we wouldn't vote on them, but. Somebody has to recommend them. The residential study group didn't exactly vote on them to be put on the warrant. I can, of course, reconvene the group and get them to officially vote. But somebody needs to vote to recommend them to the board of selectmen. Well, the board of selectmen can do their own. They can always add something in their own name. Well, do you want to talk them through first before we talk about what needs to happen then? Well, for my perspective, I just, I get a little bit concerned about being perceived as overreaching, which I think we've often been accused of that in the past. I don't know, David, I've been in town meeting for a while. But, and I don't know whether it helps these three. We opine on them. That's in this way, but I don't know that I care all that much. I would always vote for anything that we go into the warrant article, in the warrant, because all that says is we may or may not have something for you town meeting on these points, right? It's kind of like I'll sign anyone's petition to run for office because, God bless them if they want to. So. So when we formed the residential study group, the pathway that we told them to take for bylaw amendments was to go to, it was the residential study group to the zoning recadification working group to the master plan implementation committee, and then to the redevelopment board for any bylaw changes. We didn't specify, you know, what would happen if you had a town bylaw change? So I just wanna make sure that I communicate that to you. You could, there's actually four articles here. Here's your one on the back. I'm not sure I can support any of these, some of most of these. Okay. That's my first reading of this. I mean, we can talk about it, but I just. I haven't thought about this. So I read through it. And the first one is kind of to me about notification and providing a plan that could be reviewed by the building inspector. B, C, and D are, B is protection waste construction materials. C is protection of open foundations, best practices, excavation practices. And D is noise. So what I would think, I guess my inclination, if I was voting on it, would be to say, look, notification and providing a plan that would address B, C, and D, best practices for foundation, best practices for waste control, protection of foundations and noise. So you have to provide a plan to the building inspector which addresses these things. To me, that's probably the way I want to vote rather than saying at this point, you've got to take measures to remove, the following measures or you'll be penalized for foundation protection, waste removal or noise. I'm not ready to tell the building inspector how to regulate those three things. I don't know enough about it. I'm not enough of an expert in those kinds of things. If I might, one, I might ask if you want to talk about the construction, could the whole, the foundation of all of this conversation actually relates back to that. Yeah, why don't you get into that and fill in. And then the building inspector and both building inspectors actually participate in this group. So we have, and the town manager and other town staff have participated and then a whole host of other people who we've already talked about. This is all around this good neighbor agreement which we sort of previewed maybe the last, maybe a couple of meetings ago and this construction of control type of agreement would address all kinds of different issues. It basically codifies many of the things that we're already doing. But then in the agreement, we found many things that did not align with town bylaws. So they needed to be amended. So the things that you see here, articles A through D, are those things that with town council's assistance and the assistant town manager's assistance, we identified as issues that need to be amended in order to have a more sound construction control agreement. The reason for the construction control agreement is because while the driveway issue and the zoning bylaw issues that we've been talking about are important to address the issues around neighbor concerns, a lot of neighbor concerns actually relate to construction. Whether it's dust, noise, other related issues, not feeling like they have any idea what's happening. So the notification piece is very important. Control of the site and a number of other things. Some of those things are protected through existing town bylaws but a lot of things are not necessarily covered. So this suite of articles relates to the things that need to be amended in our town bylaws to align. They're actually strengthening and clarifying existing bylaws. I don't think there's anything specifically new. So the penalties are already in there in the current bylaw? There are penalties that are... That's a zoning bylaw penalty. Yeah, there are penalties that can be levied by the building department and by inspectional services that are already in there. That are already in the zoning bylaws in a separate section. We're not addressing that or just referring back to that that these zoning articles to let people know that they do exist. And I just want to add that in terms of impact on personnel, town personnel, which has come up before especially with noise and with any of the additional construction oversight. If you had read, I don't know if you've read the town managers proposed FY18 budget but he is discussing adding another full-timed inspector to the Department of Inspectional Services. And part of the reason for that is to engage in more of this residential construction oversight. Yeah, and as Jenny said, both Mike Byrne and Rick Relarelli have been part of these discussions and have helped to craft these proposals. So they understand the ins and outs and have actually made some pretty valuable recommendations as to how they can be enforced. Yeah, I kind of like to hear from them to understand what might be supporting if it sounds reasonable because I think construction controls and you're saying some of them are already there this is strengthening them, they're in favor of them. But now I've got four articles that seem to be related, but what does it all mean? And I don't know if I can make, I would want to make that determination without hearing directly from the town building inspectors or officials that say, okay, this is what we've got now and these are specifically what we're refining. I don't know what we have now. I can't tell from this description. Maybe I should be able to. I think the issue is this isn't what we do. And I think that, so the thing that I'm a little bit confused by is why didn't the residential study group vote on this? Well, I can say that we didn't vote on it. We actually agreed to these articles. We didn't exactly vote at the end of that, but we could. Well, the only reason I say it is because you said it would be both of us. Well, no, that was a suggestion. But if it were both of us, you'd need them anyway. And so you don't really need us. I understand that. I guess the other, I mean, if I'm not mistaken, I think different departments can put articles in as well. So I think the town manager, so that's what I'm thinking. My own thought is, and I think what you're hearing from the members is, I'm not sure. I agree. I agree. Could the Inspectional Services recommend it? They can't even do it. Because to be honest with you, if Inspectional Services recommends it, it'll get a lot. It'll do a lot better if I want to hear from the experts. Sure, yeah. I don't want to be in a position of recommending something. And I don't think that we're necessarily recommending it, just to be clear, just by putting it in the warrant. No, so I understand that point. The purpose of this, from my perspective, and this was included in your packet, was for us to discuss so that you knew what was happening as a residential study group. That's why I began my spiel tonight with saying that we were going to be voting on it. Because my understanding was that they would come from the town manager or the board of selection. But you said that, but then Jenny said you wanted it. The board of selection met tonight for his meeting right now. So we can't have them vote on it between now and Friday. So I can go back and talk with Adam, and I'm sure he'll insert it. Or we can, and with the residential study group. And I think what we would want to do is have an opinion or a recommendation in our report to town meeting, but it can either endorse or unendorse. But not to vote, but no, no, no, no, no. And we can bring back Mike. Much later. It sounds like a good idea, construction control. They just think we need to hear it, understand what we're talking about. Yeah, I understand that completely. I also, I think we want to make sure that we're not, neither perceived to be overreaching our authority, but also we want to make sure that we're being consistent with the position that we took in special town meeting when some of these issues previously came up around what was and what was not appropriate to deal with in zoning and zoning. You're right. That is why we did that. And that is why we did that. And that's why this discussion went to town bylaws instead of through that night. Which I believe is the right approach. So again, it's more appropriate. But I don't think we should necessarily, you know, put our hands back on it since we've taken them off. No, you're right. But I know you're right. I'll leave it at that. So I think unless you, if you don't mind. Go ahead. Unless you have any other feedback or comments about them, just in general or feelings in particular, I'll circle back with Adam Chapelein and we'll figure out how to insert these on the warrant. I agree with Andy. I think we should be with the building officials and have a discussion with them. Well, but later on. Neither you nor they are, because it's not for us to vote on. Yes. All right. Moving on. This last one is really, again, another kind of FYI. There's nothing to do to vote on or anything. I just am bringing it to your attention. The only question I had was, I'm assuming someone explained to the proponent that these can't be retroactive. Yes. Okay. That's my only question. We did. Good point. That was my thought as well. Yes. I figured he had. I know Doug and I'm sure he had, but I just figured I'd mention that. Yes, that would definitely be a good point. Yes. And Ms. Thomas actually had been to one of your hearings. Oh, yes. That was it on this one. All right. Do you have a question about it? No, but I don't like this one. Oh. Well, you may see it. We'll talk about that in March. Yeah, exactly. I thought we already knew this. Well, procedurally, it's up to us to bring it back since it's already been put down. We can decide if it comes up as part of the ARB's purview whether to support or take action on it. We would have to move it forward. Even though it's brought up the best of 10 registered voters, we have to be a group to move it forward. So we'll be able to make that decision after public hearing. All right. Actually, and just on a prune, I was just going to be curious. So can it even make it into the warrant without us actually being the performance of it? No, I don't think it can. Yeah, it shouldn't be able to make it into the warrant. So that's, that's. Okay. And that's. So maybe it does. The town council's final determination. Okay. I advised as such. Okay. There are some things that are slightly different in there than the way that you had voted it previously. Yep. No, I've noticed that. So they find that it meets to a slightly different scope. Okay. But I don't know what the first determination will be. I also, this is the most recent version that I had that I printed for you. Could well have changed. Yes. Got it. It's January 20th is actually the date. Okay. All right. That is it for warrant articles for now. Back. Not too long from now. So, this was an item that we had tabled two weeks ago as far as ARB properties for fiscal year 18. Now we'll kind of go over to Jenny and Laura to walk us through. Laura, would you like to talk about it? No. I took it out of your hands last time. No. Okay. I took it out of your hands last time. Jenny. All right. So I don't know how much you all individually or together have really looked at the urban renewal fund and what it means and the different properties. I know obviously having worked with Mike that he's pretty familiar with, particularly the central school building but probably other buildings as well. And you voted on leases before in my time here but I wanted to kind of have the opportunity and I'd like to do this as regularly as you would find a value. Give you sort of just an overview of where things stand with the fund and answer any questions about who, what spaces are leased, what's currently available, sort of give you any sense about. So each property, we have three properties. 23 Maple Street, the central school building which is also affectionately the senior center and the Jefferson Cutter House. Maple Street is right next door to the central school. So it's basically a single family home that operates by northeast family incorporated. Central school has seven tenants currently, would have eight but as you know, a pretty significant state, two state tenants vacated and I only replaced those two with one tenant because as you also know, we've been in negotiations with Arlington Center for the Arts through the Memorandum of Understanding. It looks like that could move forward but that's not final yet. And then in the Jefferson Cutter House, we have three tenants, Arlington Chamber of Commerce, the Dallin Museum and the Cutter Gallery which operates, it's really like a community room but also with a gallery art on the walls in that room. So there's lots of different current capital projects that I can run through if you are interested and I can also talk about future capital projects that I'm planning or in the pipeline. We do go through the capital planning process. If you get a chance to look at the FY18 proposed budget, you'll see it's both an operating and a capital budget. So it talks about the capital plan from FY18 through FY22 and for every year, there's some sort of minimal or significant type of improvements that's called for at each one of these buildings. Anything from remodeling the kitchen to completely redoing the senior center on the ground floor and the first floor which is a very significant ask that will be coming up next year. To minor things like slate roof repairs to a bigger thing like updating the entire fire alarm system. And I'm glad to talk about any of these things. Mostly I wanted to get the information in front of you and first answer any questions. So how does the subsidy manifest itself in the budget? The sub-state? So in other words, for annualized FY17, we're gonna be short because obviously we lost the state. We lost the big tenants. Yeah, we lost the big tenants, exactly. The nice part is, I will say in looking at this, which is nice is we come out of it a lot sooner than I would have thought. Quite frankly, given the ACA's rental rate, which is great. But when I look down here and we've got the P&L for FY with debt, how does the 110K or that's FY17 is already in that? So I guess it's FY18. FY18, how is that going to present itself in the budget that 40,000? Just out of the redevelopment board's budget? It just comes out of the redevelopment. The Urban Renewal Fund. The Urban Renewal Fund budget, okay. It's all out of the Urban Renewal Fund, not the redevelopment board. The redevelopment board is 18,000 every year. Oh, and is this the URF end of year? Oh, this is the, ah, okay. Because it's not a revolving account. Got it, got it, got it. It's a special fund. Got it. It's actually... And it's separate from everything. That's right, because we're at the end of this. It's separate from everything else because you're a redevelopment authority. Yes, of course. No, so just to be clear, I love this because this is something that we probably didn't have enough visibility to before. So in three years, we're out of the red. We're out of the red, yeah. Which is nice. But it is a little tight right now. Yeah. But we're still maintaining... We maintain the three properties. No, we're not deferring any stuff to the buildings that were because of the shortfall. No. No. So all the life safety and all the rest is still maintained in here? Everything is, yes, absolutely, yeah. And I actually, this year, working with Fred Lambern, who's basically the building craftsman or superintendent, we worked out a preventative maintenance strategy, which will eventually roll into the way that the town is managing preventative maintenance for all town buildings so that we know when things need to be replaced. We know when we need to do certain things at different properties. Doesn't mean that we always get it exactly right yet, but... All I can say is, good job, this looks real good. Very good. It does. For how long has it been going on? I think that's right. Very good. So what are the capital projects in 18, 19, and 20? So I don't have each year of the capital plan right in front of me, but for which property are you talking about? Any of them? Well, I'm just, I'm looking at the third line from the bottom for capital. Oh. So in like FY18, that $131,500, for example, that's going to go to a potential, depending upon the outcome of the capital plan committee's recommendation, remodeling the kitchen, complete gut remodel of the kitchen at 23 Maple Street. It's woefully outdated for the kind of commercial use that they put on that kitchen. It's basically a residential facility. OK, so though it's a residential facility, the level of use is more like a commercial kitchen. So we're going to be guiding the place and turning it into more of a commercial kitchen. And that's going to cost a lot of money. That's actually the most significant cost next year. And actually that tenant is paying for the architectural fees, which is helping to offset some of the bigger costs. But we're going to take care of the, depending upon the capital plan stuff, the actual cost of construction. And then let's see. Oh, the, I think actually the slate roof, the driveway reconstruction is this year. OK. OK, so we're completely reconstructing the driveway over the central school. That's a $200,000 project that'll be wrapping up by the end of this fiscal year. And then also hopefully wrapping up at the end of this fiscal year is the Academy Street stairs entrance. You may have noticed. You may have fallen through a hole on the inside building. It's in need of some dire repair, basically. The stone is expensive and difficult to fix. Let's just leave it there. So that's this year. But next year is the slate roof repairs at central school. And then the other request, which is not here in $151,000, will be if the town decides to bond money for the actual renovations. The first year, which is next year, we ask for $500,000 to get the design and construction documents for the central, for the senior center. And then in the following years, we've asked for, I think, $2 million for FY19 and $2 million in FY20 for the actual renovation. That would be out of the town's regular budget. That's out of the town's regular budget. Or the capital budget. Or some other capital budget. Not out of the town's. And Jefferson Cutter House, you know from talking with you about some previous meeting with Whittemore Park, we want to make some updates there. So that would be in a future capital plan, if depending on the outcome of CK and RE. And then we definitely need to make some interior updates, particularly in the museum, for accessibility. Handicap accessibility. And that's pretty much the thumbnail. Actually, if you look in the capital plan budget, it tells you year over year how much is going where for each building. And you can either find it through redevelopment board or planning. That's how they tuck it away. CPM needs rich this year and next year. You know that, my wife? Yep, you've got two years left. Now's the time to. I've got the request in, so we'll see what happens. So that was all. Thank you. All right, approval of meeting that in December 19, 2016, January 9, 2017. I didn't have any changes, so nothing to do with it. Do you want to take them under the table? So beginning with December 19, again. No changes? Anyone else? Good. Move to proof minutes on December 19. Second. All in favor? Aye. January 9. The comments, I don't need that. Actually, I do. The title is listed as January 9, 2016. She changed it to 2017. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good call. That happens. Oh, and actually, the other one as well. No, the other one is December. Oh, it is December. That's right, because it was December. We're not there yet. All right. Move to approved meeting minutes as amended, January 9. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Before we adjourn tonight, I want to thank Mike Care for his six years of service on the Ellington redevelopment board. It's been a pleasure. Big help to me when I first came along, as I got thrust into the chairmanship. I always made sure somebody else was sitting next to me, I would switch your name card so that you would be there to whisper instructions to my ear if necessary. So I'm going to have to do that to Andy for the time being. Good. But thank you. Good. Well, thank you. It's been a great board to be a part of. I really appreciate, especially, the staff's help with everything that's gone on for the past six years. And I think we've done some really good work, and I happen to know that this group is going to do great work. And I look forward to, if I'm elected, I guess, helping out in town meeting whenever I can. Come back any time. Great. Thanks. I want to say, since maybe I'm the oldest running person here, Mike, it's been a great run, six years. Large, small projects, everything. I remember you talked about transparency when you came in. And I think you did that, and also you made us effective in a lot of different ways. Part of it is your town meeting. Part of it is just your contribution and your clarity of thinking. You seem very fair. You bring a sense of purpose to the board that was really appreciated. You look at the big picture, and you have a great sense of humor you're great to work with. So congratulations for a great time. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate it. It's very nice. Appreciate it. I'll move to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye.