 So we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. So this open meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12 2020 due to the state to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth. Through the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. In order to mitigate the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, we've been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings and as such the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. For this meeting, the redevelopment board is convening via zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We'll now take a roll call to confirm that all members are present and can hear me starting with Ken Lau. Yes, present. Jean Benson. Present. Melissa Tentacolas. Present. And I believe we have Jennifer rate from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Present. And Kelly lineup of the department. Present. Do you have any other any members of the department or this evening? No, no. Great. Thank you. So we will move to agenda item number one, which is docket number three, six, four, seven, 10 sunny side Avenue, which is a continued public hearing. And my understanding is that the only agenda item for this particular docket is the acceptance of the letter of withdrawal from the applicant. Jenny, is there anything else related to. No, that is all you just need to vote to accept it. And then it will be withdrawn. Any questions or discussion from the board. Jenny, did they give her explanation why they're calling it. They are considering coming back with a office only proposal. Okay. Great. Without any other questions from the from the board before we move to a vote. All right. We'll also actually call for any questions from the public. We won't be debating the actual submission since it's being withdrawn. But if there are any questions from the public, please use the raise hand function. On the bottom of your screen and the participants button in zoom. Give that a minute or two. Seeing none, we will close public comments. And we will move to a roll call vote to accept the letter of withdrawal or docket number three, six, four, seven, 10 sunny side Avenue. Starting, or is there a motion to accept the letter of withdrawal. So motion. Again. Great. Thank you. And we'll take a roll call vote Ken Lau. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yeah. And I'm the yes as well. Right. That closes. Item number one. Now move to item number two, which is the town meeting updates. And so far, I'm sorry to say it's been a. A long six nights so far. And so far we've moved through the administrative amendments. And a few of the articles. So I'll just read through which articles have passed. So article 28, which was on the administrative agenda was, was, or excuse me, it was on the consent agenda was taken off and that was passed, which is the affordable housing requirements administrative correction. Article 29 apartment conversion was passed. Article 30 gross floor area was passed. Article 30, which was also on the consent agenda and taken off was then passed. And then all of the items on the consent agenda, which are article 31. Prohibited uses article 32. Other district dimensional and density requirements, article 34 marijuana uses. Article 36, the zoning that adoption. Article 37, the removal of the multi-family zoning for MBTA communities. Article 42, the removal of affordable housing on privately owned parcel and non-conforming size and article 47. We eliminated the article or did not have favorable action for the requirements for off street handicap placard parking. So that's what we've gotten through. And we still have, let's see here. One, two, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and 11 more articles left to do. Any questions about, so we've opened article 35. We'd have had about half an hour of really just presentation so far with one comment. I believe that that one will be. There was an email from the town moderator today to the town meeting members noting that that and several other articles because of late. Amendments being submitted would be tabled. Tonight. And we would be looking this evening at articles 44 through 49, depending on how many we get through. Jenny, anything else to add? No, I think that that summarizes that. Right. Any questions from the board on what. You've been able to get through so far. No. Okay. I'd like to thank you guys for. Persevering. Jennifer. No problem. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be a few more nights, I think of these before we wrap them up and we'll certainly send out a summary. As soon as these. These come through. So. That's where we are with article number. Agenda item number two. So we'll move to agenda item number three. Which is. A discussion around the. Agenda item number four. For article 43. So you've probably seen. What do we have Jenny about 17. I think it's 14. Would you like me to bring up the combined document? That would be great. Thank you. Just let me know where you'd like to go. I think I'd like to, I've, I've read, read through all of these. And I, and I hope everybody had a chance to read through all of them. And, you know, formulate any questions you, you might have. I noticed that several of the proponents of, of some of the amendments are, are in attendance this evening. I also just want to know how. Do you have any questions? Closely we work together with the, with Barbara Thornton and the. For the original article. But I thought I would perhaps go through a roll call and I've been going through these one by one. Ask if there are any, any questions. That any of the, the board members have for. myself on what has been proposed with some of the amendments and the substitute motion before we go into a discussion. I think ultimately the goal that I'd like to leave with is whether or not the board is interested in supporting any of these amendments or the substitute motion or if we are consistent with our I'd like to be able to let the members of town meeting know whether we are still firmly in support of the original article as proposed or if there are any of these amendments that board members are interested in having any discussion on. So I'll move first to Kin to see if there are any specific amendments having had the opportunity to go through them that you'd like to discuss. I've gone through these amendments and also gone through Barbara's response to these. I really don't feel that we need to add anything else or make any changes. I believe the majority of these amendments will actually hurt the proposal we have in front of us right now with the ADUs and make it unattainable. I would support what we have right now and leave it as is. I don't know what the rest of the board thinks but that's my thought. Great. Thank you, Ken. Gina, I'll move to you next. Okay, thank you. I've read every one of the I didn't count the number but 17 I guess is the number. 14. I was corrected by Jenny. 14. I've also read the very comprehensive memo from the proponents of the article discussing all of them and the email we got today from Mr. Lorette and I agree completely it was Mr. Lau. I think that these are the substitutes are not particularly good. I think some of them would make it much more difficult if not impossible to have any ADUs in town and I agree that we should continue to support the article as it was submitted. Great. Thank you, Gene, for your perspective. Melissa. Thank you, Rachel. I too read them and I think that given where we are and given the process that I'd like to remain with our original position on article 43. My sense with some of these if there are town meeting members that have put several amendments into kind of really weak in the existing proposed article, I recommend voting against it if you're a town meeting member. At this point, the article has had a lot of research and consensus building through the process and I appreciate that. I'd like to stick with how we had discussed originally and stick with 43 stands. Great. Thank you, Melissa. I'm in agreement with the three of you as well. I think especially just to note the substitute motion, which is to revert back to the article as submitted in 2019 certainly concerns me because we certainly worked hard together with Barbara and Phil and the other folks who have researched and worked with us on this new article and we've learned a lot. There's been research completed and other towns have adopted ADU provisions in there by law since that time as well. So for that reason and everything that you have all stated, I also am in favor of article 43 as originally submitted and we're not going to necessarily take a vote on this. We've already voted on our support in terms of our favorable action for this. But what I wanted to do was to be able to have this discussion tonight to be able to go back to the town meeting members and reaffirm after our collective review whether our support had changed or whether we were still fully supportive of this article as submitted. Rachel, if I had something about our warrant article in 2019, I agree with you completely that we've learned a lot since 2019 about ADUs and what needs to go into the zoning by-law to really give them a chance to work. I think the other thing that I would say is that we were too timid in 2019 and you know and what's in front of the town now is much more appropriate for Arlington and I think we both learned that since 2019 and also we're probably even too timid in 2019. Thank you, Jean. That's an excellent point to make as well. Just go back to my agenda here. Are there any other questions or comments on article 43? I will open this up for public comment and I'm sure that we'll have several people who wish to speak. I would like to before I do that just set a couple of timing reminders for everyone. We will need to adjourn this meeting a little before eight o'clock so that we can move to town meeting. So I will take everyone who wishes to speak in the queue but please just note that by 7.50, 7.55 I will wrap up wherever we are at that point. Bring it back to the let's call it 7.50. I'll bring it back to the board and we'll have any final discussion and then move on to our final agenda items which is meeting minutes. Any concerns from the board about that approach or you? Okay great. With that I'd like to open agenda item number three up to the public for any comments or questions. If you would like to speak please use the raise hand function. All right so I see one speaker so far so I will just note that anyone wishing to speak will have three minutes. Please make sure to introduce yourself with your first last name and address. So the first speaker will be Don Seltzer. Thank you Madam Chair. Don Seltzer Irving Street. I just want to remind the board of what several of the opinions were a few months ago when you were reviewing this in October of 2020. One of the board members said that they would like to limit this only to existing structures. Quote they cannot build an addition or new structure to accommodate the success redwelling unit. Another board member said a few of the things that we did in 2019 need to be in eight to use again. One is no short-term rentals with a specified term and second is the owner needs to live on the property. A third member of the board agreed that they wanted to have the owner occupancy in one of the units. I think one of the more insightful comments that were made back then was one board member who said I was very supportive of the article that we put together last year which I thought well it did have some procedural hoops hoops to jump through. I thought it was a measured approach to it to see what happens. My concern is that we open the door pretty widely to ADUs and it doesn't end up working in a way that's positive for the town or in all the districts that applies to. Shutting that door is much more difficult than progressively open the door wider as you see how it's working. It's easier to loosen restrictions than reimpose tighter restrictions and I think that's a direct reference to the fact that it only takes a 50% majority to loosen restrictions it takes a two-thirds to tighten it back if it's found that it's not working out okay. So I would urge you to follow that kind of approach start out a little simpler a little restricted with the knowledge that as you go along and learn more you can very easily expand it to other broader uses. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Seltzer and I'd also like to thank you for reminding us of how far we can move with a collaborative process that we undertake as well. I think that the board learned quite a lot since some of those discussions that were had in October of last year. I think that we work together with the applicant to ensure that those concerns were addressed. We learned a lot more about what has worked in other communities and because of those discussions over the period of months, months leading up to the final submission of the article we are where we are now and are very happy with it. So thank you for that reminder of how important this kind of collaborative process is. The next speaker will be Jennifer Seuss. Okay, yes. Thank you for reaffirming your support for the original amendment article and rejecting the amendments. I do very firmly believe that the amendments would lead to fewer ADUs which is I think some partly the intent of some of them. And just to point out this is a very careful thoughtful well vetted process. This is not a radical proposal. We are not building 20-story size trappers with this proposal. This is a very, very modest, careful proposal as is even without the restrictions that would have actually from 2019 that we now realize were way, way, way too restrictive. And so I appreciate your thought on this and I just want to say that there are lots of people in the community who are behind you and are excited about the possibility. I mean doesn't mean everyone's going to add an ADU. It's a very expensive thing to do but just knowing that they have the ability, if their family needs require it, offers a lot of comfort to people in the community. So thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker will be Lori Leahy. Hi, I'm Lori Leahy. I'm a town meeting member of Precinct 21. And I had a question. I know that when you drafted 2019 article 15, you took a lot of input from the public. But for this article 43, did that process occur? Did you reach out the, did you hold public forums? We did actually. So all of the ARB meetings are public meetings. This, the discussion about the ADUs, we've had meetings about these at least monthly since October. And those were all, there were quite, there was quite a lot of public engagement. So it was. But that's different than like having a public forum specifically for ADUs, right? Not specifically for ADUs, but it was certainly with the, there were, Jenny, do you want to talk a little bit about some of the housing, housing surveys that were included this, this summer that were broad and over many topics? Sure. So we've had a lot of discussions about different topics around housing, the Housing Plan Implementation Committee. My own, my department have issued, you know, the question campaign. We're also, we've been talking through the housing production plan about different types of housing and encouraging that type of housing. We held housing forums in 2019. Obviously last year was kind of a different year for forums in and of itself. So I think Rachel's summary of how we engage people through this process, which has been iterative, as she noted, is really the best way that we've been able to engage people. And this meeting format, frankly, has lured a lot of new people to our meetings who have had the desire to talk about issues and topics that they don't normally talk about when coming to our board. So actually we've had quite a number of people attend our meetings, express their interest in this particular topic and learn quite a bit about accessory dwelling units along the way. I will also note that, you know, this is Barbara Thornton, her article in many regards, and it's not the board's article. And she has also had her own level of engagement, including engagement through the precinct meetings that have occurred leading up to town meeting. I think that her presentations at precinct meetings are one thing. But to engage, like, I'm very worried about the people in East Darlington. I lived there for 10 years and I really feel like that's what the biggest impact will be when the ADUs are allowed in two families, three families and garages. And I don't feel that East Darlington residents had enough input around this article. I feel like it was just not the people that I've spoken to. It's been a real mixed bag. Some people had no idea about it. Some people had heard about it. And those people that had heard about it were either people involved directly with this article or were people that had signed for the article. So that's a big concern for me. I guess I'll leave it at that. Okay, that's all I wanted to say. I guess I wanted to ask that question. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. The next speaker will be Al Tosti. Yes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I wanted to just support. I'm so sorry to interrupt. Would you mind, please, just introducing yourself first to last name and address. Thank you. Yeah. Al Tosti, precinct 17, One Water Mill Place. I just wanted to support what Don had said. I think the way you start off is something modest and then expanded. The 2019 proposal I think was a fairly modest that we could have gotten a start and then we could have adjusted it over a period of time. I don't think this is a modest proposal that the board has given it all. I think it's a very radical proposal. I think it will affect negatively many of our neighborhoods. I think you need to keep in mind Arlington is the most densely populated town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's the 11th most densely populated municipality in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We are already in many ways overcrowded. When we mentioned East Arlington, I spent 45 years of my life in East Arlington. I had a house in East Arlington, two family that I owned and brought up my children. I think this can be devastating in large to part of East Arlington. My own house, I took out my old plot plan. I could put two new units in the backyard of my house under this proposal. Well, that might be great for me. I could have three units to rent out. I'm not sure if it would be great for my neighbors on both sides of this or behind us that all had yards. If you walk around East Arlington, there are garages back to back. I think that you'll see a lot of those garages converted into these ADUs. The density of the population will be increased and I think it'll have a very negative impact. I know you've already made up your mind. I got into this a bit late because of responsibilities I had with another committee. But I just wanted to make those points and thank you for your work. Thank you. I certainly think that some of the comments that you made about the evolution of the thinking of the board, we addressed a bit when we spoke to Don Seltzer's comments. But I do take your points. I'll just note that any additions, if you note, are subject to the same requirements in terms of the size of the additions as any other addition in the zoning bylaw. I see that Barbara Thornton has her hand up next so I'm sure that she can also help to clarify a few points. But I just want to assure you that those size and location restrictions are still in place. Barbara Thornton will be the next speaker. Well, I was just going to simply say thank you. I'll go on and say I'm a huge fan of governance and I'm a huge fan of citizen engagement and participation. I'm so sorry to interrupt, Barbara. Could you just state your... Oh, I'm sorry. Barbara Thornton, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 16, 223 Park Avenue, Arlington. I think that the combination that what I have gone through today in my life and involved in citizen engagement, not today, but in this process, has been such a wonderful blend of the boards and not just the ARB, but the members of the ZBA and the staff, like Jennifer Rait and the Planning Department and Mike Byrne and the Fire Chief, all kind of being willing to work with us and work together and trust each other that we were being fair-minded and coming up with a compromise. I think Phil Tedesco must have rewritten half a dozen, maybe a dozen different versions of this to get to the point where there was a consensus in government. And I just think that's the highest form of governance that you can have in a democracy when you see something like this. So I want to thank you for that. And I just on Al Tosti's point and Lloyd Leahy's point, I don't think he's Darlington is going to be hurt by the addition of ADUs. I think they're going to be more hurt by their inability to qualify under zoning rules for ADUs. The average ADU size for most of East Arlington is about 500, excuse me, 500 square feet or a little less than people can expect to build. And in that, there's probably going to be one person. And I don't see how that's going to disrupt the density of the Arlington that we know it for one person every now and then coming through. I think that's enough. I don't want to overuse my time. And I again, did I say thank you? I want to thank the ARB board and I want to thank the town departments and Jennifer Rage for their cooperation and their support. Thank you. The next speaker will be Steve Revolak. Thank you, Madam Chair. Steve Revolak, 111 Sunnyside Avenue. I just want to touch on three things very briefly. The first is the iterative process. I actually went and dug the dates up. The first meeting or the first hearing we had on Ms. Sorton's ADU article was back on January 27th of 2020. This is pre-pandemic. Gosh, I think pre-pandemic when we were actually meeting in the community building on Maple Street. There was another meeting, another hearing on October 26th. That was for the Special Town meeting last year, last fall. The board voted no action at the time. And Ms. Sorton, rather than moving forward, decided to take a step back and revise and take your ideas under advisement. The board had another hearing on January 4th of 2021 and then the warrant article hearing for this town meeting on March 15th. This is honestly a lot more iteration than most warrant zoning articles go through. I really want to thank Barbara and Phil for their perseverance and the board for being able to work with them. I recall giving a comment at a board meeting sometime saying that there are folks who would really like to work with you and you made that possible. And so I want to say thanks. Finally, living on Sunnyside Avenue in the heart of downtown urban East Arlington, the ADU article is actually kind of popular here. I'm looking forward to it. I have a positive feeling about it and I know quite a few other people who do too. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Steve Revelak. The next speaker will be Chris. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris Loretty, 56 Adams Street. I heard about all the research that was done. I'm wondering how many other communities do you find that allow more than one ADU per lot? I will turn that over to Jenny or to Barbara. We'll start with Jenny. Actually, I think Phil has been, Phil Tedesco has been providing research for Barbara on this article. So I think it would be best to ask the petitioner. Sure. I would have to double check. I'm not actually sure if they're limited. I mean, obviously many towns have much more restrictive single families. So it's sort of one per primary unit is often how it's defined. But I would have to go through the 37 municipalities that allow them. Right. Well, let me allow me to answer my own question. Can I answer? No, I'm... Chris, excuse me, Barbara, please go ahead. I was just going to point out that the framework that we used was to address the homeowners and to keep in mind the framework of zoning so that the spatial requirements could be met for where homeowners lived. And that's how we approached it, that it should be available to two family and duplex as well. Thank you. You haven't answered the question, but can I go on before all my time is wasted by people not getting answers? You could be a little bit more respectful in the way that you addressed me. My other question, Madam Chair, is how many communities allow ADUs and accessory structures to be built right on the property line with just a special permit, like the back-to-back garages that Mr. Tosti was talking about. And I'll ask my final question before you answer that one. And how many communities have the sort of poison-pill language that Attorney Tedesco introduced into the by-law change to make it so difficult for the ZBA to turn down a special permit? And I refer to the language that says all the applicant need do is show that the ADU is no worse than a garage that could be allowed on in the same location. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be... No, Madam Chair. I was asking for answers to those questions. Could I have an answer, please? Excuse me, do not interrupt me. Bill Tostesco said he did not have the answer for you this evening. I'm asking about my second question, Madam Chair. Not the first question. You did not answer my question. Would you please mute, Chris? Thank you. It is at my discretion as to whether or not I answered the questions or saved those for later in our public meeting discussion. And I would like to hold that question so that Bill can answer and answer any others together that might come up. The next speaker will be Kristen Anderson. Thank you. Kristen Anderson, 12 up on Road West. Article 43 ADUs came up at my precinct 13 meeting and one of my constituents asked that I vote against this article because of the impact that it could have on open space landscaping in people's yards. My jaw literally dropped to the floor when I heard this because I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that my precinct has the largest lot sizes in town. Nobody's correcting me. I must be right. My thoughts do go to East Arlington. I used to live in East Arlington. I represented town meeting and precinct one and lived in a single family attached house on Sunnyside Avenue with what has to be one of the smallest lot sizes in town. Yet I really want to vote for this article as a town meeting member. I'm a town meeting member representing precinct 13. It has so much potential, but I think that the point that Don Seltzer has raised is an important one. And so my question to the board is if it is harder to roll back restrictions after the article is passed, why are you recommending it? So I will, what would I like to do for this and the other questions? I'm going to keep a log of them. So we had the question about the back-to-back garages. We had the question about the lot size and additions. And what I'd like to do is answer those all together, Kristen. One other thing I wanted to say is that the house that I live in and own now in precinct 13 is an adorable little single family garage that was built, I think, in 1940. My house was built in 34, so it was added later. And it is seven feet from my neighbor's property line. It would be an awesome place to build a tiny house, like to turn that into a tiny house. But if you did that, then you would really be in their yard. Like my garage, even though I own that seven feet, my garage, the seven feet between the side of my garage and the property of my neighbor's property line, even though I own that land, my neighbors effectively use it. I don't see that part, like we just have for Scythia growing there. And it's basically, my garage is just practically in their backyard. So I'm generally actually really in favor of this article. I'm excited about it. But I do wish that you guys had been a little less loose on it. I'm so sorry. If you could just wrap up, I do need to get to the other speakers and we do want to answer the questions that have been put forth. Yes, thank you. I was just finishing up actually when you interrupted me. I was just going to say that I do wish that the board had not approved or recommended rather this article, which is so loose because it makes it harder for 10 meeting members like me who really are in favor of it. Thank you. I understand your sentiments. Thank you. And also thanks for your hard work and thanks for letting me speak. I appreciate that. Thank you. The next speaker will be Winnell Evans. Thank you. Winnell Evans, Orchard Place. I support ADUs and I'm appreciative of the enormous amount of work that has gone into this. But I feel that there are three parts to this process. There was the recognition of the need on the part of property owners. There was the work of the proponent and the town to draft the article. The third part has not yet been addressed and that is consideration of a butters and close neighbors. And as Laurie Leahy pointed out, the solicitation of input from residents, not simply holding meetings, which they can find out about, but soliciting input. The proper place for this to have been taken up was in the residential study group, which I realize is water under the bridge. But we had literally a one-hour discussion of ADUs and that was it. So I feel that there's a whole leg of this triangle that has not been addressed. And I think that the number of amendments and the substitute motion speak to the awareness on the part of residents that their needs have not been thoroughly considered. And I will speak to just one of those. In the communities that allow ADUs, a great number of them specify no lodgers. The ones that do allow rentals frequently specify that it must be to a family member or they set a time period to it. The article before us now simply says no short-term rentals, but short-term rentals are not defined in the bylaw. My concept of short-term rental, your concept of short-term rental could be very, very different. And I think that this place is an undue burden on inspectional services because it's going to be left to them to figure out what is a short-term rental. I think that we also are being a little bit naive if we think that people are going to register their ADUs. When they rent them, there are currently two short-term rentals registered in the town of Arlington. And I'm guessing that everybody on this call knows somebody who's got an Airbnb situation going. So I think that there are many aspects to this. Again, I support ADUs but I think there are many aspects that have not yet been addressed. And I think the response of the people who have submitted so many amendments says, wait a minute, we really, really need to think about this quite a bit more carefully from the standpoint of the people who are going to be living next door. Thank you. Thank you. I will add short-term rentals to the list of questions. The next speaker will be Karen Kelleher. Thank you very much, Karen Kelleher. I'm 57 Beacon Street, precinct 5. I'll be very brief and just speak to the perspective of an East Arlington residence. I live on Beacon Street, which may or may not have ADUs eventually but has had in the time I've lived here, which is about 15 years, at least 10 small single-family homes that have been demolished and replaced with very large two-family properties. And I don't know that I love that aesthetically, but I want to say that it has not really materially changed the character of our neighborhood. I still enjoy living here just as much as I did before. It's greater density and it has some aesthetic impact but it has not really changed the quality of life on this street. And I know this street is more effective than most in Arlington. So I'm not worried about East Arlington. East Arlington is a relatively dense place. It's a place where we accept density. And what I wish is that some of those two-family properties that had been built were smaller and more affordable because they are mostly luxury housing. And what ADUs will create is small units that will be naturally as a matter of market value less expensive. So I'm supportive of ADUs and I'm appreciative of all of the work of the proponents and of the board and all those who commented on it. It's been a robust public discussion and I hope we can take action and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Patrick Hamlin. Patrick Hamlin, are you there? I'm trying to be there. Oh, there you are. Great. You could just introduce yourself, please. I'm Patrick Hamlin. I'm Tom Meading, member from Precinct Five. There's been lots of discussion about the certain questions and I just want to address a very narrow technical one and maybe Mr. Tedesco, if he speaks as he has his hand up to do, could comment on this. It has to do with this sort of if you do, if you make a reform now, you have to get two-thirds to two-thirds in order to reverse it. I'm not sure that's true. The statute, the housing choice statute does not say that. It simply says that there's a simple majority requirement for ADUs done as a right, either in the principal dwelling unit or in a detached unit and then separately you can do it by special permit if you are only focused on the detached unit. As long as you stay within that boundary, it doesn't seem to me to indicate that you couldn't loosen or tighten as you wish. What you cannot do is what Mr. Tosti's substitute would have done, which is to make granting it in the principal dwelling a matter of of special permit that would fall outside the exceptions in the statute. But as long as you stay within that house, so to speak, whether you ease up or tighten up in the future, you would still fall within the with the framework of the statute, which doesn't really discuss the direction of the change. Thank you. Let's see, the next speaker will be Phil Tedesco. Phil, I don't know if you had a separate point to make or if you wanted me to run through the list of questions. And if so, you'll be the final speaker on our list tonight. Sure. Yeah. I mean, I guess I would just preface it by saying that one thing that was very apparent, I think in listening to everyone talk, I guess taking a step back and thinking everyone for all their work, I think one thing that was really apparent in doing it was the I would say collaborative process and coming up with a proposal over months that works for everyone. And that is thoughtful by taking everyone's input into account. I think one thing that was apparent listening to everyone was how so many of the issues and concerns people have voiced were things that we all considered and thought about in that process and felt were sufficiently addressed and taken into account in the way in which the proposal works and is structured. And just really appreciate the board's reaffirming its support and confidence in its work and in that process, which I think is great. And so thank you for all of that. I'm happy to kind of go through the questions. Rachel, as you have them, I had some here. I'm not sure I picked them up and I'm not sure I can answer them all, but I will sort of... Sure. Why don't you go through and again, if we could try and address this in the next two or three minutes. I'll just go quick. So that would be fantastic. Thank you. Totally. So there are several dozen municipalities that allow ADUs in some form. I have like sort of a summary, you know, kind of that I had kind of put together just in doing it together. Those were looking at 180 per lot. So obviously our thinking in the proposal was to look at it more from the, you know, what are the rules of what you can build and looking at it from the individual homeowner's perspective and allowing them within their condominium unit, for example, or to family property to work within those rules. On the detect structures close to the lot line, I don't know on the list I have. There are many more than half. It looks like up here to allow them in accessory structures of some kind. I will point out that a special permit is no small thing and that in the section 3.3 of the by-law, one of the, I don't have the exact quote, but one of the criteria that the ZBA would need to find is here it is that the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts. And the required use will not by addition to the neighborhood cause an excess of the use that could be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, which are separate findings that ZBA would need to determine. And obviously as ZBA, that's a process where all neighbors are notified and have the right to participate. The short-term rentals, we have a, I didn't realize this actually till it came up is the short-term rental by-law was passed overwhelmingly at town meeting in 2019, like really overwhelmingly based on a state statute. And it has reporting enforcement and penalty provisions for any violations. And I believe the town adopted it to follow the work and piggyback on what it could from the state legislature. I mean, look to the extent town wisdom in its judgment would like to refine that, that would be fine. I've certainly lived in, I don't know how you define short-term rental. I think the real target of that would be like an Airbnb type situation, which I think is very clearly in its prohibited by it. Those are the questions I had from folks. I don't know the answer to Pat's question about how housing choice works. I'd have to review it, but my inclination is to think that he's right on how it would work because it would allow, it does allow you to sort of, as he put it, I think, call it within those lines, within the one, under the one-half threshold. Great. Thank you, Phil Tesco. I appreciate it. I will now close public comment on agenda item number three and turn it back to the board to see if there are any additional questions, comments before we move on to agenda item number four. And as Yvonne moved around, I can't see you, so I'll just run through an order quickly. Jean? Yeah, I just, I mean, very quickly, you know, to say that, I mean, I appreciate everybody who came tonight and people who put in substitute motions and good faith to what's going on. I think Phil sort of hit on what I was going to say, which is all of these things were things that people brought up during the public hearing and review process, and that were discussed. And I can't speak for anyone else on the board about this, but I felt that for every one of them, there were safeguards in this proposal so that ADUs would not run rampant in the town, you know, whether it's, you know, limits on how close you can get to the lot line, special permits, things like that. So to me, we heard these, we considered them, and Phil and Barbara did some adjustments in what they were doing to respond to them. And I felt that the safeguards were there. And I would just ask the people who put in the articles to take a look and see if they would agree that there are significant safeguards for these things. Great. Thank you, Jean. Ken, any final thoughts or comments? No? Melissa? No. Okay. Well, with that, we will close agenda item number three. And at town meeting, we will reinforce the ARB's continued support of Article 43 as submitted. Next, we have agenda item number four, which are the meeting minutes from April 5th, 2021. And I will run through a roll call just to see if there are any additions or corrections starting with Jean. I had one addition. Now I need to find it. It's on page six of six, where the last sentence of the top paragraph says Mr. Benson moved to recommend federal action, Article 15, Mr. Watson seconded, approve 500. I think it should be with the amendments the board agreed to. Word into that effect. Because that was the one where we did ask and some changes were made to it. That's my only comment from the minutes. Great. Thank you, Jean. Ken, any additions or corrections? No, I have none. Great. Thank you. Melissa? No corrections. Okay. So the only item I have is actually on the first page, Jenny, in the second paragraph, that long paragraph we were talking about the feedback to the applicants there. I had also asked them to look at potentially an office use on the second floor in that section where we were talking about the use. Let's see. I think it's at the bottom there. So I think it was after I suggested using the windows on a large window. It was the last comments I made was that I wanted them to look at other uses besides residential such as office on the second floor. And with that, is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes from April 5th, 2021 as corrected? So moved. Second. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Melissa? I saw, yep, I saw yes. Yes. Thank you. And I have a yes as well. So the meeting minutes are approved as amended. Let's see. And I think at this point we are going to need to adjourn to town meeting as it's 7.56. So I will ask for a motion to adjourn to town meeting. So motion. Second. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Melissa? Yes. And I am an yes as well. Thank you everyone for joining us this evening and we'll see some of you at town meeting. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.