 What is 735 p.m. on Monday, July 19th, 2021. This is the federal hearing for the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. Let's call this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals Roger Dupont here. Patrick handlin here. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. And Steven Revoli. Here. Oh, well, thank you all. On behalf of the town, I know Rick Dallarelli will be joining us later on, but Vincent Lee. He's in here. Let's step away for a sec. I see Kelly Landemus here. Here. Yeah. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. And from beta group, I know we have three people are here. Laura Krauss is here. Bill McGrath is here. And Tyle Derruder as well. Mr. Thank you. Yes, good evening, Mr. Shannon. Good evening. I know a wide variety of folks from your team are here as well. Correct. Perfect. Hey, so this open meeting of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act in extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported and is being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by audio or phone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. Any materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. We will only have one item on our agenda this evening. That's the continued hearing for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Before we begin, I just have a few comments to read through. So the initial application for comprehensive permit for 1565 R Massachusetts Avenue was filed with the zoning board of appeals in December for 2020. The application was based on a project eligibility letter issued by mass housing on November 17, 2020. The first public hearing of this project was held on January 5, 2021 over zoom. During the boat, the board chose cannot assert safe harbor under 760 CMR 5603. If harbor would exclude the applicant from appealing the decisions of the board for the state housing appeals committee. The board had asserted safe harbor in regards to the comprehensive permit application for Thorndike place. While the town has not been successful in defending that assertion in that case. The final determination of whether the town qualifies for safe harbor has been stayed until after the decision of the board on that matter is finalized. Under state law, the board can only reach one of three decisions in regards to comprehensive permit application. First, the board can deny the application must be understood that this does not mean that the project cannot or will not be built. The applicant can appeal the decision to the housing appeals committee and if they determine that the board's decision does not address the town's requirements under state law to provide sufficient affordable housing, the board's decision can be reversed. This would allow the applicant to seek approval for not only the current proposal, but any of their prior proposals took before the board. A denial also limits the public's right to an appeal based on the project not being consistent with local needs. Secondly, the board can approve a project without condition. I believe the board would consider such a decision if the applicant this town the residents were unanimously in favor of the project without condition or objection. The board third option is to approve the project with condition under state law, the board may impose conditions on the project that are similar to conditions imposed on similar projects. If they serve to address the issues of health, safety and welfare, and the conditions do not creates with a large imposition that the project is rendered on economic. The applicant reserves their right to appeal the decision to the housing appeals committee and the public retains their rights to appeal based on the project not being consistent with local needs. The board does not have unlimited discretion and imposing conditions on the project board is limited to conditions that will regularly be applied to similar projects under the regular application process. The board is also limited to conditions that address local concerns regarding health, safety and welfare. We may not impose restrictions on business practices, personal matters, personnel matters and similar operational concerns. We have discussed several of these topics, but we are only allowed to consider how those may impact the health and safety of the neighborhood. The zoning board of appeals has held six public hearings on this project this being the seventh. The zoning board has taken public testimony at every hearing. Perspectives expressed by the residents of this neighborhood and the town in general have been highly informative, and we greatly appreciate the input. The level of experience and expertise that the residents have brought to the hearings has been remarkable and their passion is well noted. Well, we are now coming to the end of the public hearings. I would like to clarify what the applicant is proposing, what aspects of the project are within the board's discretion to condition. We'll then begin to review the draft decision prepared by our legal consultant with proposed amendments from the applicant, the board's consulting engineers, conservation commission and other town staff. Please note the draft before us does not necessarily represent the opinion of the board, nor should it be considered the final document. It is the first framework of a possible decision. The applicant is proposing to demolish one building west of no brook and portions of other buildings east of no brook. They're proposing to construct a new four story residential apartment building with parking below west of no brook. This building will include 13 parking spaces in the lowest level and four bike parking spaces outside. There will be four residential units on the first floor, five on the second, and, excuse me, that five units on each of the three remaining floors for a total of 19 units. The remaining building east of no brook will be expanded with the addition of a six story residential apartment building with parking below. There will be 97 covered parking spaces distributed on two floors with an additional seven long term and 11 short term surface spaces. There will be 114 interior bicycle parking spaces and 22 exterior bicycle parking spaces. There will be six residential units on the first floor seven on the second 27 on each of the third and fourth floors and 19 on each of the fifth and sixth floors for a total of 105 units. There will be a location for the six story building location of writer brook and intermittent stream, almost the entire site is within the 200 foot riverfront protection area. However, the existence and reuse of a historic mill building on the site provides an exception to that regulation. The applicant has cooperated with the conservation commission and beta group to address the wetland issues. The applicant proposes to have automobile traffic entered from Massachusetts Avenue using an existing right of way and exit via writer street private way bicycles can both enter and exit from both Massachusetts Avenue and writer street exiting automobile traffic exiting to writer street must turn left towards forestry and avoid driving through the adjacent residential neighborhood traffic heading west towards Massachusetts Avenue must utilize an interior street to reach Quinn Road, but may not exit back along the entrance drive. There are several concerns regarding offsite parking location of a utility pole along the entrance drive and construction operations will be up to the board to determine how these issues are weighed relative to local needs and how they are addressed in the decision. For tonight's discussion the board would like to look first at the sections of the draft decision where there are differences between the applicant and the town will then take up sections requested by the board followed by public comment. The board anticipates continuing tonight's hearing to allow for more detailed comment to be submitted in writing and for the draft to be further revised. The board does indeed, excuse me, the board does intend to close the public hearing at the following hearing, which will would be the last opportunity for the board to receive additional outside information before it begins internal deliberation. The board looks forward to a productive evening we thank everyone for their patience and contribution. If that in mind. I will go ahead and bring up on the screen. Okay, so this was posted to the agenda, I believe it was posted today. I apologize for the for the late posting. As you'll be able to see from the coloring there are a variety of different authors at this point. So a little bit complicated. For those of you who have who are new to the, this process we haven't seen one of these decisions before. So, it's broken up into several sections the first of the procedural history which includes all the submittals and the background information for the project. The applicant is who's representing the applicant is representing the board. And those kinds of things. And the second section is jurisdictional findings and this is sort of legal determinations, particularly around the, the filing of the application with the state. And the third is the factual findings. And so this is the section where we outline exactly what we have determined through the course of the hearings. So there will be a lot of information here but we'll be adding to this as we go along. And then we get into the conditions and the conditions are where we will be a little bit more strongly what the applicant is to do. And this is broken also into different sections. The general section is just about basically about what documentation has been submitted what are the controlling documents that are going to be a part of the decision. The general nature that we have the affordability section with addresses specifically the affordability aspects and also includes you know, some of the, some of the aspects around who is eligible for the project, the submission requirements is how they apply for the application the final applications from the town construction completion. And then closing out the project project design and construction is where we have much more detail about how the project is to be designed and what are the very specific requirements traffic traffic safety conditions, please fire emergency medical conditions, water sewer and utilities. So we're applying environmental conditions, a large section on this project because it's location and other general conditions. And then the final decision and their record of vote. And then I just want to ask Paul have any Paul we typically would include the list of requested waivers as an appendix is that correct. So, unless there's an objection I was going to recommend is to try to hit first off the areas where it looks like there's a lot of comment being provided either by the applicant or by the by data group or conservation commission or the account itself so the submission under the submission requirements. There's a question. Getting to the board. There's a question about the plantings. I believe these comments are from the town Kelly do you recall if these are These were, I believe comments by Emily Sullivan on behalf of the conservation commission. Okay. Emily is here and she can correct me if I'm wrong. Hi Kelly. Yeah, I added those. Okay, so this extends from 12 months to essentially the 36 months to confirm with his rival rate of the plantings. We have no problem with that Mr Chairman. The issue was non cult of our species. And Emily, according to our landscape architect Kyle sick. So what species are going to need to be used to develop that design that was presented to the conservation commission. So Mary, I, I know the commission did review the planting plan and they didn't have any issues with it so I'd say as long as the plan conform or what's planted conforms to the plan I think we're all set but it turns out to be some replacement species needed. I think the commission is certainly willing to, to have a conversation if needed. So, so maybe what we could do with Mr Chairman, say that the applicant shall implement the planting plan approved by the conservation commission. Would that do it Emily. That would be wonderful. Thank you. And then those are under section age this is the question about that the inflow infiltration fees and Kelly just to confirm with you. These, these fees are the ones that are not from a fee schedule but they were recommended to be imposed by the engineering division. Yeah, they were sort of recommended as a best practice or something to potentially be implemented but we don't have a standard fee schedule for those so we are going to go for nothing not be required. Okay. And then the under J. So I believe the mayor this is from this changes from your office is that correct. Yes, that. So what we're attempting to do is submit to the building inspector and all the survey plan for approval not required, splitting off the work by our site from the 40 B project, and we will be coming before the board on a shared parking agreement under the zoning bylaw. Is. I know we did sort of touch base on this earlier today but just to clarify so is the board being asked to approve the subdivision as a part of this project this application. No, the board is only being asked to state that the 40 B site will comport with the zoning requirements of this decision. So that the building inspector doesn't have an issue. When he looks at the NO, the approval not required plan. Okay, but but is the, the approval not required plan then going to be endorsed by the planning board. It does not need to be endorsed by the planning board. What they do need to do is they need to review our parking agreement under the bylaw. I'm a little bit confused how how are you getting your approval not required plan endorsed the building inspector I went through with this with Doug Heim, the building inspector is the one that has the authority. There's no commercial subdivision approval in Ellington. It's only residential, but the bylaw the bylaw asking the board of appeals to certify that the remainder lot is going to comply with zoning right. We are not. We are not. All right, well that's fine. And Mary you had crossed out. The request to protest it to confirm groundwater elevations. My understanding is that my, my team felt that this came from a different project and it wasn't applicable here. They have done whatever tests need to be done. If I could ask Emily Sullivan, if this is something that she thinks would be required or Bill McGrath. Chairman Bill McGrath with beta. Yeah, I think this is something from another project. In this case, we didn't have issues with groundwater. So I don't think this is a requirement that the board needs to have any of the approval. Perfect. Thank you. Next. I'm going to have control work with the Arlington open space committee in our commitment on development of interpretive signage. I believe that was an addition after. On behalf of the town, Kelly, can you speak to that condition? Yes. Yes. So earlier in this process, I believe that one of the first hearings there was a discussion about interpretive signage being located along the Millbrook. As is recommended in the Millbrook quarter report. There was There was a call out to interpretive signage on that plan dated June 16, 2020, and it is since disappeared. And so that is something that based on it's it would just be a sign or something indicating the location of the Millbrook and the historic nature of like the historic nature of the Mill complexes in Arlington. That is not an issue. That's fine. Perfect. It may have been lost when the location of the past was adjusted. I know he was a carryover from a prior project and it's not a part of this application. I guess I guess that's film a graph again. If there's any concerns about confirming soil types in the area of the infiltration system. I don't think we have an infiltration system here. There's no infiltration systems. That's exactly right. In regards to the vibration monitoring. As Mario Connor, if you could speak to what this change does from the prior language. We wanted to make it clearer that we'd submit the plan as to what we were going to do rather than visiting homes individually with represent with a representative from the town. So you're monitoring for then then. Do you have any issue with the prior. He 29. No. Okay. Perfect. We will. My client will also be monitoring the building that's remaining because that has a stone foundation. Okay. And then the last one is just further clarification about the truck has 32, That's control. Change for the elevators from generator to battery backup. domestic law. Okay. So the cheese decks, the project shall maintain fire access to all four sides of each residential structure at all times to show them on the approved plans. Does, is there. Access around the back. I'm assuming the access to two of the back sizes from adjacent properties. Is that correct? Or is it. I will ask Randy Marin who's on the call. Thank you. Okay. So we're talking about fire access. Are we talking about access for fire department personnel or fire. Fire apparatus. Well, I guess that's something that's going to have to be determined specifically by the fire department near review. But I just want to make sure that you're, you're comfortable with the, you're comfortable with the fire department. And besides the building that don't have driveways on it, because really there's only a paved drive on one side of the, The primary building. Right. Yeah. Fire department looked at this and approve it. Didn't they Randy? They did. Yeah. The state. So we know from the deputy fire chief saying that he's okay with the fire department access shown on basically on the current plans. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat. I just, it does say on all four sides. As shown on the approved plans. And I guess the question that I had is whether the approved plans in fact shows access. On all four sides. That wasn't clear from the conversation that you just had. The fire department and it's my understanding, Joe Bargman, our architect might be able to articulate this a little bit more sharply than me, but the fire department doesn't need to have driving access around the perimeter of your building. It needs to have access to get the vehicles a certain distance away so that they have access to all sides of the building. Not only with driving their vehicles up, but having man access with their hoses and whatnot. I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you have that, if you can articulate that more sharply, it would be appreciated. But this was a conversation we did have with the fire department and was reviewed and we got documentation that they reviewed it and we're, we're, we're good to go. My interest here isn't so much is, is, is not that substantive actually. And you've described language saying the project shall maintain fire access at all times to the each residential structure at all times as shown on the approved plans would give you everything you needed to do. I'm just worried that it'll turn out that somebody will say that there's a contradiction there because the approved plans don't really show access fire access to all four sides and the issue is just that it doesn't need to. That's from the point of view of avoiding interpretive issues later on. What is the reference to all four sides add to the as shown on the approved plans. Point that. Yeah. Yeah, again, I think it's fire. Go ahead, Joel. I was going to say that you don't have to provide it. You have to provide it within 250 feet. And so couldn't we just say provide fire access required by the building code. And that's what I will actually revise this to include the reference to the state building code provision requiring fire access. Yeah, okay. Sounds great. I think that would be the best. I think the dimension changes. So if we could just keep it generic to the building department, the dimension changes depending on what other life safety systems are in the building. And so avoid getting caught. If we just. Reference the building code requirement. I think that would be the best. She ate. So. I think that would be the best. Kind of. Part of the way the language works now. So during construction, the project shall have a superintendent on site during working arts. Security concerns. So. Is there any. Is there an access, any kind of an access system? I guess it. It's more sort of an operational question for how the. The project, the site would be used in terms of whether or not there's a. A card access system. I don't know if. The board, we can come back to this question to whether the board things is important to include something in regards to access after the construction is complete. Fire. Okay. So in a case like each one here where it's in accordance with the approved plans, is it the plans that are approved. By this board or the plans that are approved upon final submittal to the building inspector. Well, we were referring to the plans that were submitted correct Randy. So far. And Joel. Yeah. Approved plans is actually a defined term. So we should probably Paul cap approved and plans and H1. Because they're lower case and. All with the. Did the defined term approved plans are those the plans the board is going to be. Those are the plans that the board is approving in the issuance of the comprehensive. And the applicant has to submit final plans. And those are the plans that get submitted with all of the additional detail after the process has been completed. Okay. And if the town requires changes to the final plans, does that impact this at all. If it were, if it requires changes to the final plans with regards to what issue with regards to water and sewer and utilities. I mean, we're saying here that they're responsible for the design as in accordance with the approved plans, but if the town comes back and decides that they want to do something slightly different, how does that impact the decision. Well, I mean, the, these plans are being approved. So this is what should be the basis for the final plans that are submitted. The applicant wants to make a change with what has already been proposed and they have to go through the modification process. Okay. But the town should not be asking for something different already approved by the board. Now, if in the process of submitting additional information, you know, an issue arises, then we can go through that. Okay. And just to confirm with the applicant so that the utilities that are serving the buildings east of Millbrook, those are being run underground from the pole at Rider Street. That's correct. Brandy. He went to that please. Chairman Klein, you said east the building. So then the new six story building to that side of is that being that's being served. I believe it's coming underground from Rider Street. That's correct. Okay. And then the, the work bar and the new building number two, those will be both served overhead from the massive line. Correct for the electric service. Okay. But let just to be clear, the work bar is going to be back fed to be served underground. So the is the pole remaining that's in front of work bar. The pole that remains in the driveway remains. Correct. But the electric service to to work bar will come off of the new underground service that is serving the eastern side and then crossing over the brook. Okay. Got it. Thank you. So this brings us to section I about wetlands floodplains and environmental conditions. I can give you the reason on one I two I three and I four I my assistant sent Paul and Pat and you Christian of that attachment that showed the whole the site is nearly all aura. So it would be virtually impossible to agree to these three provisions. I would reach out to Emily if you want to address is how the town has dealt with these kinds of issues in the past, if you're aware. Yeah. So Christian in the past, when a project in an environment resource areas is fully within a resource area, and there needs to be stockpiling or dumpsters we just like to make sure that erosion controls are placed such that any stockpiles, you know they you know, flow into let's say Milbrook so I guess one way to resolve not having any of these three conditions in this draft decision would just be to make sure there's a pre construction meeting where erosion controls are checked and then dumpsters are covered at the end of the day. And we would recommend that no equipment is refueled in resource areas or if so there's some sort of secondary containment so that no fuel enters resource areas like no brook. Thank you. Yeah, that's that's, I believe that's reasonable. Yes. I six was added by the town Mary I wasn't sure. I sent in my letter just one minor change to I six at the beginning. We propose adding, while no de watering operations are anticipated by the applicant, comma, any water discharged as part of any D water watering operation, etc. Okay, seven. This is the hiring of a qualified environmental monitor with potential credentials. I think it came from another decision. Reach out to Emily. Is this a typical thing that the that they require or is this from something else. The conservation commission usually requires a professional environmental monitor for more complex projects so we've used this, for example at the high school dpw when we the commission permitted that we've also done a few of more residential developments like single family homes when we feel like it's been complicated. I know this is going to be a big project they're going to be a lot of folks with eyes on the site and so I think the commission would be comfortable with having some sort of monitor. I think monitor might be listed several times in this, you know, in terms of store monitor monitor and stuff like that too. But usually we find something like this can be beneficial. During a complex project. Okay. Mary is the objection to any kind of monitoring or just Well, we thought this paragraph was pretty intensive. Okay. So I think it's a good idea to see as there's requesting that electronic reports be submitted weekly to the ZBA. And I didn't that's not what I'm hearing from Emily. Are there any questions from the board about this particular question. Mr Chairman. Yes, Matt. Just as a, it's not really a question. For me that there's some that that they're really that there's not as much of a disagreement as the language suggests and I have a feeling that if we could just articulate Emily and Mary could articulate what it is they're looking for. I don't think that they're very far apart and they could just work out the exact language with Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Cameron Klein. Yes, please. Susan chapter of the conservation commission, if I may just comment. Please. Thank you. The intent is exactly as Emily said is for complex projects. This is always a requirement in terms of the frequency of reporting. So, you know, it's always, you know, negotiable and specific to the complexity and what's, what's happening. And the, and the chances that the conservation commission feels for, you know, for potential problems. So, so the specific issues we really worry about a rainfall. And with the overall, I think we're kind of on the same page. And we do have a set sense in here during the duration of the project of Qualifier monitor, we're concerned about what's going to happen with erosion controls during heavy rains. That's one issue. We want some kind of frequency of reporting, but one week is not necessarily a requirement. So I agree with Mr. This is consistent with what the conservation commission requires on complex projects. Thank you. Information. So this is, I think the original I 15 I 16. SW triple P inspection reports and invasives management. I think it's consistent with what the conservation commission requested. I think it's consistent with what the conservation commission requested. As soon as the conservation commission request invasives management. Yes, we did. Respectfully, I think on this one, we thought, since there wasn't any. Areas of the existing site that had invasives that we're going to remain it. We questioned whether that really was directly. We wanted to make sure that we don't get invasives back in there. This is a very urban area. There are a lot of invasives in the area. It's very easy for invasives to take over. In native areas. What the conservation commission is concerned about in these areas where there have been many invasives and where we're removing them and we're replanting. And, you know, restoring. Native habitat. We want to make sure that we don't get invasives back in there. We want to make sure that we don't get invasives back in there. In native areas. So, and this is consistent with what we do. Request of other projects. When they have required vegetation mitigation. That they have an invasive management. Control. Plans so that the native plants don't get overrun. Okay. I think that's consistent with our goals. So we have to make sure that we don't have to put a plan together. And maybe we can work with Emily and the conservation commission to. Get an example and, and provide a good product for you. Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. What is an S.W. PPP inspection report. Oh, I think your protection plan. No, thank you. Okay. It was the objection to the reporting at all or just the frequency of the reporting? I would say that it was the frequency of reporting. Randy, you can provide a report, can't you, West of this? Correct. We will be providing a SWIP document. I think it was just a little redundant with that other condition about the environmental monitoring, which is also asking for observations after everything happened rainfall. Which basically state that's essentially what the SWIP actually asked you to do also. Emily, are you comfortable with that? Yeah, Christian, I think that's great. Thank you. I went through this was put in at the rest of the town. Mary, did you have any concerns about this? Yeah, we wanted to remove from there from the third line all requirements under the application for vegetation removal in accordance with section 24. We want to have the Allington Wetlands Protection bylaw because we've already gone through that process. Wetlands Protection Act that applies we have no problem providing all this information. Emily, are you comfortable with that? I think this condition is largely just a reminder that this project does have to go through another permit process through the conservation commission. And the commission has found already through the comprehensive permit process that it largely complies with all the commission's performance standards and the wetlands regulations. Okay, so yes. Perfect, thank you. I would like to note to the approved plans and then adding through a recorded deed restriction. Does the applicant have an issue with the recorded deed restriction? No, it was agreed to. Perfect. The freeze is done I 23. With respect to this one, Chairman Klein, the concern Chairman Klein and Emily and Susan is that doing this work in the early phase is going to be a problem because of the construction that's going to go on. What we proposed is revising this section to say as follows. As part of the conservation, as part of the notice of intent, the conservation commission shall review the applicant's proposal for the scheduling of the work, and she shall detail the work necessary for rewriting the right of Brooke. And then talks about the work that you're providing there an A B and C. Chairman Klein, I would like to close coming to you with the notice of intent to discuss when to do this, putting it in at the beginning is going to present a problem because heavy equipment will be going over the swale. As I understand it to put windows in and the like. So we don't think it should be at the front end. Chairman Klein. Yes, so this was one of our recommended conditions one of our concern. The reason why we were concerned with the timing of the construction of the swale was that we wanted to make sure that there was still like the flow was maintained throughout construction because the construction plan kind of just shows a building across where the swell is so we just want to make sure that there's, I mean, the water needs to go somewhere we don't want to backing up behind the building building so some kind of way to get the water through the site during construction I'll let Emily and Susan say whether or not they think it's okay to wait till the NOI but as long as there's some kind of plan for moving the water through the site, I think that that's the primary concern. Laura, we could do I believe a temporary pipe until the swale goes in. If that works in that can you know handle the flows and there'll be no flooding upstream or concerned with potential for flooding and maintaining the flow so I don't know if Emily or Susan has anything else to add on that or I think that sounds agreeable to go through it in the nose of intent process Susan, are you comfortable with that. Yes, I'm comfortable with doing it then but I agree with Laura that we have to have some kind of plan in place and maybe that's the temporary pipe because the right of brook as it exists does move water especially lately, as we've seen with these rains, and they have to go somewhere. Thank you all. So those were what appeared on on a review would be sort of the larger changes. Or should say the larger addition to the decision. So at this point like to reach out to the board to see if there are members of the board who have specific questions and comments in regards to the draft decision that's before us. Thank you, Mr Chair I do have a few questions. I'm going to have to flip through a printed copy that in order to, in order to find them. And. Okay, so can we start with in the general conditions. Number B2. This is this is more of a question than anything else. Okay, so my question is regarding the last sentence the affordable unit shall be maintained as affordable and perpetuity which for the purposes of this decision shall mean for as long as the property does not comply with applicable zoning requirements without the benefit of this comprehensive permit. Okay, I'm sort of curious why that's limited to zoning requirements and not other local regulations, such as our local wetlands protection bylaws. That's a good point. And we can certainly revise that to include it. Okay, very good. And I believe it's item B4 where there's a mention of local preferences 70% local preference. Yeah, I think this should deserves to we've talked a little bit about local preferences in another project but I'd like us as a board to this to have a discussion about whether that is something we do in fact desire. Um, and Can I just give some information here. Do director rate had suggested 50% and a majority of the board of select men had suggested 50 versus 70. That's where that number came from. Okay. Um, my other my final quest. Oh, God, I'm sorry. Mr. Aberdeen to before this is this is Pat actually going on. This kind of could you where where is it that the board of select men, when did they do that I'd like to be able to look up what they did and what their discussion was. I don't recall at what meeting I know my memory was Mrs. Mahan was opposed to that she wanted the maximum 70% but my memory was the other members wanted a reduced percentage. And they settled on the 50%. I don't know if it came from director rate but I think they concurred with that. I see the just why I would like to just sort of state for the record Brookline has sort of taken a lead in addressing all of these issues and they if I'm memory is correct have reduced it to 25% and in place like Arlington with a very very, which is very far from being an integrated community. It's not 100% clear that's right. Mr. Haveardy this will be a decision that the board has to make right. That is correct Mr. Hanlon this is entirely within the scope of the board's discretion whether or not it wants to include a local preference requirement for up to 70%. Of course, at the end of the day it is it's actually subsidizing agency that gets to determine whether or not that local preference will be imposed into what extent it would be imposed. But if the board makes a determination that it does not believe that any local preference is appropriate. It would just leave it out of the decision and that would really end the matter. Thank you. Strong feeling one way or the other. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry Steve. No, actually, Mr. Hanlon you, I think you, you got where you stated quite well where I was, you know, kind of going with this. My last question is, there was a bond, one of our local bylaws has a bonding requirement for work in flood plains. I don't see that. I believe we discussed this during the waiver process. And, you know, but there are no one, I recall correctly no one knew what bond amounts would typically be used for a project like this. I would reach out to Emily or Susan if you have a sense of that. Does it all relate to that email exchange about bonds. I'm trying to recall. And Christian we can look into this I'm not sure I have an answer for you right now. And I apologize for not having the specific section of the town bylaws. And I apologize for not having the specific section to refer to right right off the top of my head. Sorry. And that is all I had Mr. Chair. Right. Other members of the board who have specific questions or general questions. Mr. Mills. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I go back to the first part of this memorandum and the poll situation. I'd like to know if there's been any further negotiations on the moving of the poll. Or if there's any estimation what it would cost to bury the poll, bury the wires. I'll defer it at Mr. Mills to Mr. St. Clair on that. Thank you. Daniel. So we continue to try to work with the utility companies to see what options are available. And although we don't have any clear answers yet, you know, we're hopeful that there is something that we can do to improve the situation with the poll. So I wish I had something more definitive to offer at this point, but you know, we haven't had that breakthrough yet, but we continue to try to work with the utility companies to figure out what their requirements are and define that better and continue to see if we can work out something with the butters. Again, the bearing of the lines, I think is, although it would be nice to snap your fingers and make all this stuff disappear, it would cause dramatic and extended outages for all of the butters and would require a lot of interior work to those buildings. And, you know, I would just submit that in the end, when people understand what impact that has on them, you know, even outside of the cost, which would be extreme and make our project financially uneconomic. You know, I just don't think people are going to want to do that, but we're continuing to look into options to move the poll out of the way. We've heard the concerns that Mr. Nessie has and we'd like to find a solution that would appease his concerns and we're working to try to make that happen. Well, sir, in my mind, I mean, there's a poll on Mass Avenue, the poll in question, then a third poll. So it seems to me tunneling from the first poll to the third poll and burying all of the circuits under there would be the one route. And I know that would be expensive, but I understand there's going to be some digging and burying of other lines anyway, so there'll be some excavations. And to truly assess the impact of this on cost, I think it would be good if somebody could give a ballpark estimate of what such a project would cost. Thank you. So we've had discussions about that and what the utility company has said is because of the different types of services that come off of those utility lines. I'm not an electrical engineer, but there's single volt, there's 480 and 270 and all of that. What they said is the current service, there's like three different types of service that come off of those poles. If they were to replace it with underground, they could not replicate that. It doesn't meet the standard. So all of the buildings would have to, the individual buildings owned by the different companies would have to have a total new electrical service put in those buildings. And you would end up having transformers sitting in front of all these buildings. I don't mean to sound difficult, but as we had those conversations that it was apparent to us that even if you had an unlimited amount of dollars to throw at it, it was not a solution that people would really want in the end, because they don't want to have the obstruction of the transformer sitting in front of their buildings. The poles actually make it, you know, there's stuff up in the air, but at least you're not bumping into it other than the pole, which I know is the concern here. So we've gone back to the place where saying, well, let's do our best to try to get the pole out of the roadway or at least to the very edge of the roadway. We can't make the decision to put it on the Myrack Hyundai property. We can ask them and we have asked them, but we don't have all the data yet from the utility companies as to what they would really require. But we will continue to make our best effort to try to get that pole either moved to the Myrack Hyundai property if they allow us to do that. And if they don't, we'll make our best effort to push it to the edge of the 20 foot right of way that we own and make a clear space of 18 and a half feet instead of 14 feet 11 as it is now. Well, sir, I appreciate that. And I would just like some more clarification. I realize there are three lines of very high voltage running over those wires. Are you saying by regular, it's a matter of regulatory matters, those lines could not be run underground? No, no, I'm not saying that I'm saying that the services that come to the buildings are three different types of services. And if you were to put in those services, the new modern equipment doesn't deliver those services. It delivers a more modern service. So all of the buildings that have the old standards would have to be upgraded. And so can you imagine somebody coming into your house or your business and ripping off all the electrical equipment on the wall and saying, yeah, we'll get some new panels in whenever they arrive. And, you know, you having not only a disruption, but you have a loss of power, a loss of business. And, you know, then suddenly maybe it trickles down and other systems in your building are designed to meet the old service and they don't meet the new service. So again, sir, I have a high time understanding if you're taking a piece of wire that's in the air, basically going to cut it and buried underneath the ground. They won't they won't put the same service in kind underground. Okay, so it's a regulatory matter that some along that line. I don't know if it's regulatory or if it's technical. And again, I just know I've been in many of the meetings where we I said the same things. Like, guys, why is this so hard? Let's just move the wires. And well, we don't have this. We don't have this. There's, you know, so there are there are challenges that we're just trying to work through that we just inherit because inherit because this is a, you know, infrastructure that's dated and is not modern to today standards unfortunately. Thank you. We have taken this seriously we do have a consultant that's working with the utility companies. My client would like to move that poll. Believe me. Thank you. That's all I have thank you Chairman. Thank you. Mr. have any in terms of writing conditions, if the board wanted to have a condition that was, you know, if the poll can be moved. That's great if the ball if the poll can't be moved then we will request the applicant do X Y or Z to try to mitigate some of the hazards is that something we can do some in a condition. We can do it in a condition I would need some information as to what X Y and Z could be. Yeah. But yes, I mean, you know, we can put it in a condition that the applicant shall continue to work with the utility companies to try to find a way in which the poll can be located. Okay, if not, and you know, whatever needs to be done to try to improve safety. We can write a condition where it's not, you have to do this one thing but that you could do one of these three things in order to mitigate the issue. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. There is condition h nine. I think goes part of the way at least to what you're you're trying to accomplish. Yeah, I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much for your question. So I'm just asking, was Linema, were there any, has the town looked at all into the question of this poll. Yeah, so we have. Early last week we had a conversation with Verizon about a number of issues with Verizon polls to town. poll number and I sent him a photo of the poll. So he's looking into it. I followed up with him when it was Friday and I still have not heard back. So as soon as I hear something, I will let the board know through you. But at this point, I don't have an update. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may, we'd be happy to try to collaborate on our efforts there. Was this contact with Verizon or with Eversource? It was with Verizon. So I'm happy to put him in touch with you. If that would be helpful. Well, we're happy to do that or connect them through Mary, however you would like to do that, but it's a little bit of a black box of an organization, but I think we are making some incremental progress with our consultant and we'll be able to get to the bottom of whether it is feasible or not and whether the butters will agree and we will certainly share our findings when we have those. So I think the language that's in here does kind of capture the essence of what the goal is. And we would look forward to having another point of contact to try to help us get to the clear truth. So Chairman Klein, if it is okay with you, I can email Barry O'Connor and CCU and just do an introduction to Stan at Verizon. That would be great. I would appreciate that. Thank you. Great, thank you. Other comments or questions from the board in regards to the draft decision? Stephen, did you have another? Well, just to fill in a blank that I had left earlier, the bonding requirement that I was referring to is the town bylaws, title five, article eight, section 11. But just for clarity. The five, eight, 11? That is correct. Perfect, thank you. Oh, other question. Yes, please. Chairman, one of the things that was left open for discussion was C1A on the submission requirements. We had suggested there'd be a cap on expenses associated with technical reviews and inspections. It does provide for $6,500, but then if the town feels they need additional funds. Islamic, is there something you can speak to? You know anything about that? Okay, can you please repeat the question? Sure. So this is... For additional reviews, the director of planning, through the Department of Planning and Community Development, there are technical reviews and inspections that can be, it's additional 53G funds during construction and approvals. And I wasn't sure how your department typically handles those. Because obviously the town has not had a large number of 40Bs, certainly not recently. And the applicant is requesting that there be a not to exceed figure included. I cannot answer that for you right now, but I'll get to it and follow up. If you could do that, that'd be great, thanks. Certainly, I can talk with my director tomorrow, I know. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Halen. I wondered if Mr. Hoverty just in looking at other communities that have had more experience with this could tell us a little more about what would be normal here since this should rise practically every case. Mr. Hovery? Yes, sure, Mr. Chairman. So my concern with putting a cap on it is it obviously limits the amount of review that the board will be able to do, that the town will be able to do with regard to the final plans without having sought out an estimate as to, first of all, what each department will be looking for and then how much that might cost. I can't really hazard a guess as to whether or not $6,500 would be sufficient for all of the review. And I know that Arlington has a lot of in-house capability for review of plans and that is what should be the default in the first instance. It's really only when you're getting to areas in which you don't have the in-house capability to review these final plans that they should be sent out for additional review. But I really, I'm not comfortable at this stage saying $6,500 would be the cap and that wouldn't be a need for more, which is why the condition is generally prepared to allow for additional funds to be added at a later date if necessary. Mr. Hovery, we're not saying, just to be clear, we're not suggesting that the 6,500 be the cap, but that's some number over the 6,500 be the cap. We understand this as a 6,500, but that's what we're talking about. Okay, and again, I just don't know how to set that cap at this stage without having sought out any quotes as to A, what is going to be reviewed and B, what the cost of those reviews would be. And I would be more comfortable with language that states that the town is going to use best efforts to minimize the use of outside consultants and rely upon town staff, whether it be the director of planning, whether it be the engineering departments, I think that that is appropriate, but I just don't see how you can put a number onto what that cap would be at this point in time. Thank you. Mr. O'Connor, are there other sections you'd like to bring our attention to? The only other thing is that Mr. Hovery, there was supposed to be a 20% reduction in the con-com fees. I did put a parenthetical note in there. That was the only fee that it was going to be a reduction. The conservation commission had voted that. Okay, did you see that? I think that captures everything, Chairman Klein. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I do want to say that the applicant and I really appreciate Attorney Hovery and Chairman Klein and the board getting us the decision on the second draft in such a quick and efficient manner. We appreciate it. Thank you. Agreed. Thank you. Lanema, are there any points in the draft decision that you would like to specifically review at this time? Not for me. No, thank you. Okay. Ms. Sullivan, are there any sections you'd like us to review? Just to touch on what Mary mentioned so the commission did issue a comment letter on June 8th which commented on a fee reduction for the conservation permitting fee. So that's outlined in that letter and I'm happy to email that directly to you too if that would be helpful. That would be helpful to me, Mr. Chairman. Can you explain what exactly the fee is that the commission agreed to waive? Of course. A filing fee under the wetlands by law and so it's based on land use and things like that but so essentially the commission looked, they issued a reduced fee for a downing square so 19-hour park av just based on the number of affordable units that were being built so the commission used the same logic and agreed that a 20% fee reduction for the commission for the conservation filing fee would be appropriate. And so based on the applicant stated that the fee amounted to $15,000 and so the commission was fine reducing it by 20% to $12,000. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, were there any other points you would like the board to review this time? No, I'm very pleased with the collaboration and the way the findings and conditions have been drafted. I did have a procedural question if I may. Please. Thank you. I didn't understand where the waivers get recorded. Is that in the decision or is that in a separate document? Mr. Havity, can you address the question of waivers? Hope you're on mute. I apologize, I answered without realizing I was on mute. Yeah, they would be added at the end of the decision. Okay, and I just would like to point out that at least for the wetlands regulation waivers the letter that Emily referenced where we have the fee schedule in there are our recommendation list of waivers to agree to as well. That's the June 8th letter and with justification for why. So if that's helpful in writing the decision. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Havity, we'll make sure we get that to you. Thank you. Laura Kraus, she has anything further? I think we covered everything. I just wanted to point out there were two waiver requests in the table that was submitted by Mary that were not covered in our most recent letter. And I think therefore they were also not covered in the commissions letter. Those waiver requests were not discussed in a previous letter. So we didn't address them, but based on our review of the documents and we, it was our opinion that those waivers weren't needed and that they could be, that the findings could include that the project meets the requirements of those provisions of the wetlands bylaw and they have been reviewed and then included in the draft decision already. But just to point out that there were just two waiver requests that were not in our comment letter. And we discussed this at the last meeting. There was some confusion there. So I just wanted to figure it out. So I figured I'd clarify. Thank you. Appreciate that. If I may just clarify, thanks, Laura, that I didn't point that out, but our June 8th letter also shows exactly which waivers were withdrawn by the applicant because the conservation commission and beta agreed that they were met. And I believe in the findings, the sections that Emily added to in the draft you have showing up here, Christian, that we have that information in there. So for example, section 25D, I think 25C, a few of those for the bylaw are in compliance now and we stated Emily added that language. Yeah. Okay, great. Perfect, thank you. Mr. McGrath, were there any further comments from you? I don't know, I think I'm all set, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. DeRoyder, was there anything you wanted to add? No, I'm all set, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay. So with that, I would like to go ahead and ask there's any more comments then I will open this up for public comment. So public comments and questions should be, will be taken as they relate to the matter to hand to be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision to provide for an orderly flow and to allow for inclusion of many voices. I ask individual speakers to try to limit their comments and encourage you to use your time to provide comments related to the indicated topics. Additional time may be provided with discretion of the chair. Chair was encouraged as the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board included in the record and in the decision. Is especially true if you have specific recommendations. Procedure for a question to speak with the same as for prior hearings, please select the raise hand button for the comments tab on Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate who'd like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions should be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps us generate an accurate record. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or time allocated by the chair has ended, public comment period will be closed for this session of the hearing. We'll do our best to show the section of the draft decision related to the question you'd like to ask. So the first speaker is Mr. Nessie. Can you hear me now? I believe I was on mute. Thank you. The meeting has been very informative. I just find it very frustrating that we're now at the decision stage and we still do not have a plan or a roadmap with respect to dealing with the utility poll. Now, even the, if you read H nine in the draft decision, there's a concession that the existence of the poll presents a safety issue. Well, that's been a safety issue all along. I've raised it certainly. And hopefully to the point where I've not been tiresome with the members of the board. If I have been, I apologize. I have read the substance of H nine and I do have a concern with respect to the way it's framed. And I'll tell you what that concern is. My thinking is that there's been a delay on the part of the applicant in dealing with the poll issue. And I say that because I contacted Verizon through Metro in New York some months ago and learned that the applicant had filed some sort of a filing with Verizon back in January. And the next step was that they were going to submit a plan. I called Verizon and I learned that they never in fact submitted that plan. So they never followed up on that at that point. They simply dropped it. I have been raising this issue as I've indicated for some time. Now, if the H nine suggestion is implemented and the matter gets continued to be kicked around and discussed by the applicant, perhaps with me, perhaps with members of the board in the town, what's going to happen? What's going to happen is the zoning board is going to render a decision. And when they render that decision, I'm only going to have 20 days to file an appeal in the land court or superior court. Now, if you read H nine, H nine takes us out far beyond that period of time. Discussions can continue beyond that period of time with respect to what's going to happen with the poll. I'm going to suggest to the members of the board that enough time has gone by. It's time to pull the trigger with respect to what's going to happen with that poll. And quite frankly, as the directive about it being impacted by this, I'm frustrated that I keep hearing that we can't do this or we can't do that. Mr. Mills has suggested that the lines could go underground. I don't mind having the apparatus within my building taken off the walls if it has to come off the walls to get the line underground. I'm the most directly impacted individual with respect to that event occurring. Something has to happen with the poll. My frustration also occurred because I don't believe that the town officials not the board now gave much thought to the poll. Engineering wrote a report, basically talked about a bicycle path, talked about things happening in the right of way, not even mentioning the poll. The Allington Transportation Committee did the same thing, not even mentioning the poll. I'm going to suggest that maybe none of those individuals ever even took a ride down here as Mr. Mills did. And I believe you did, Mr. Klein, to take a view of the poll, how the poll impacted the right of way. I'm going to just indicate to the members of the board that there has to be a decision on this. And there has to be a decision so that when the decision does come down, I can make a determination within that 20 day appeal period as to what I'm going to do. Because quite frankly, if there's not a solution that protects my property and takes care of the safety issue as far as the right of way is concerned, I will be in the land court, I will be in superior court. I will not only contest the existence of the poll, I will also contest the overburdening of the private right of way. This is a private right of way unlike Quinn Road, which is a public way. This is a private right of way and I intend to do what I have to do to protect my rights in this private right of way. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nessie. Steph, a quick question from Mr. Havity in regards to a condition like this, as it's written where it may not be resolved at the time the decision is filed, how does that impact and the butter's ability to file an appeal? Appeal has to be filed within 20 days of the board's decision being recorded with the town clerk. Again, the board is in a position where it is required to issue a decision based upon preliminary plans. That's part of the way chapter 40 works. You don't really have the authority in most instances to require additional information. The best you can do is address it through conditions and require it to be addressed on the final minutes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tee. Good evening. This is Alex Tee of Two Riders Street. Haven't had a chance to go through the document in great detail, but I would love to get some more insight into the discussions that happened within the CBA about kind of parking. I think you've heard from many members of our community that were incredibly worried about the amount of parking and that waiver as, again, a fair amount of research has been done, but if those assumptions don't hold true, that is going to be a persistent heartache for our community, if we're the ones that have to deal with it. I believe we've also voiced a lot of concern around the lack of language around how that's going to be managed. And we've requested on multiple occasions and multiple forums for more detail about how that's going to be managed, and especially around the language of eviction and how unequivocal that is in this time and age in terms of the consequence and who bears the burden for that. So we'd love to understand kind of the discussions, if any, that were had amongst the board in writing these conditions. And then secondly, I would also love to understand what recourse do we have as a neighborhood and a community if these assumptions don't hold true? What are the forums and how does this get managed downstream? Again, I think we all hope that their studies and everything play out as planned, but there's really no backup plan. And I guess that's the thing that concerns us. Thank you. Thank you. In regards to the first question in regards to discussion. So the board can only discuss in a public forum. So all the discussions the board has had specifically in regards to these decisions has happened over Zoom on these public meetings. The next phase of this, once the public hearing phase has been closed, then the board has 40 days to render its decision. The deliberations the board takes during that period are also all fully public, but we are not allowed to take additional testimony during that time period. And so all the deliberations of the board will be held publicly. The question in regards to what recourses are available I don't know, Mr. Havity, can you address that? You're on mute still. I'm sorry, can you repeat that question? So the, Mr. T had asked a question about sort of what recourses are available to the abutters, should there be an issue with the way that the number of parking spaces were decided upon and that there is parking that is starting to occur in their neighborhood, what recourse do they have? Or I guess in general, depending on what the decision rights is written, what recourse do they have in regards to the decision? Well, again, with regards to the decision there's a 20 day appeal period that anybody that has standing can file an appeal. If at some point in the future it's determined that the parking is insufficient and it's impacting neighboring properties it's gonna be an enforcement issue for the town. And where this is, where the budding streets are private ways, I don't believe the town has the ability to police those. Then it would be up to the owners of the private ways to have those vehicles removed. We'll have to address that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon, yes. Two things. One is I believe it is true that the issue of enforcement afterwards and what can and can't be done in a private way has been addressed earlier in the process. At some point when it was cold and snowy instead of hot and humid. But if we go back and look over and if Mr. T does I think there is something in the record that talks about that. And secondly, obviously if there is a parking issue in general and particularly since some portion of this I gather is owned by the public the board also has the ability to or at least arguably has the ability to control parking directly just as it would with any building in any parking situation that came up. The other thing I wanted to just stress because you mentioned it Mr. Chairman in your opening remarks but I think that something underlying the way Mr. T presented it. I think it's important to realize that Mr. Havity wrote this decision and the board did not. Many of the things that are in it the inserts and so forth came from various agencies of the town or they came from suggestions of the applicant. But at this point this is not a document of the board it won't or a successor won't become a document of the board until we decide to make it one in the deliberation process. There's nothing to prevent us from just saying you know this doesn't work Wilson we're gonna say no. So it's important to recognize that this is not a board document yet it is a draft for consideration by the board and it has to be viewed in that light. Thank you for having me. And Mr. Chair this is Alex here do you mind if I follow up on that real quick? No I was just gonna call on you to do so. So I really appreciate that visibility and new being new to the process I didn't really I don't have a healthy appreciation for how this works so I do appreciate that. And I think kind of going back to that awkward silence a couple of minutes ago this is just the concern for us is that no one really owns this no one has truly figured out how that enforcement is going to happen or be managed or at what point it becomes a problem. And so not too dissimilar from Mr. Nesse's comment that it kind of just gets kicked around. We are just concerned and I am just concerned that this is gonna get kicked around and no one's going to have a plan. I'm not saying there can't be one but because again everyone's kind of throwing up their hands that they don't own this tree enforcement's question it's a huge, huge gray area and to ask for a waiver kind of on the town ordinance without a plan in place. That's what concerns us, right? And so I guess I don't know the best way to ask for that level of detail or to have the appropriate levels of accountability. I think again it's just really it is such no man's land no person's land excuse me that again we're all trying to figure this out and there's I'm sorry the ZBA has to be the forum for that. So thank you for the time. No, absolutely. Mr. Cameron, may I just comment because this there's no gray here. I wrote a legal opinion that I submitted a board the town of Arlington owns the nine rider street portion of the right of way. The Myrax own the even side portion of the right of way. There's nothing gray about it, the town owns it. So I just wanna make that clear. That was we provided that information by way of the office survey and by way of a legal opinion. So in that regard, are you saying that if someone parks on the even side of rider street that it's the Myrax responsibility to have them removed? They could tell the Myrax, that's correct. If they park on the nine ride it's virtually impossible to park on the even side because the butters have encroached into rider street. The parking occurs on the odd side which is owned by the town of Arlington. Okay, but it's but it's still private way even though it's owned by the town. That's correct. Okay. Taking a note here one second. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up on that. Mr. O'Connor is the consequent. Suppose things didn't go the way we all hope and there's parking that is causing a difficult problem and it's occurring on the side that the town owns but it is a private proprietor of rather than in its capacity rather than as a public way. Could Mr. T or somebody else go to the town and say, we want you to put up no parking signs and if necessary, he had tow people away and the town could if it decided to do that is that something they could do or not? They could do it. It would be up to the select board to make that determination. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I continue to feel Mr. Anish's pain. And I'm now going to risk displaying my ignorance here but I'm going to ask some straightforward questions that I hope the answers to are simple. I don't know. Mr. Chairman, for you, who is currently the owners of the property on which the development's going to occur? Mr. O'Connor, can I answer that? Yes, it is a MIRAC family separate MIRAC family than the MIRAC dealership owns it through Arlington Center Corporation, I believe, Garage Corporation. They are not the same families. Okay. Thank you. Okay, because my next question was going to be simply, so who are the owners of the MIRAC dealership? When you say not the same families, you mean... One is the MIRAC Chevrolet Hyundai dealership that was owned by Edward MIRAC or the other brother and that's separate and distinct. Okay. I understand that they are separate branches of the family just like there were branches of the Damoulas family for a market basket and their arguments went on between families for many years. I'm wondering simply why it is that the MIRACs between the branches of their family can't figure out a way to relocate the pole on their property, the Edward MIRAC property that's different than the development. I know that they're branches of the family but it strikes me as that's a real simple solution to the pole issue that Mr. Anise has if it can truly be brought to ground. And I don't disagree, Mr. Moore, but it has not happened so far and there have been discussions. Could those discussions, cause as I say, I believe, Mr. Chairman, I believe that Mr. Anise has a very valid issue here and if he does go and pursue his options, like he says he might, it will prolong difficulty here with this project. And I'm wondering if the efforts with the branches of the MIRAC family could be redoubled to bring this issue of the pole and location, the closure. That's my comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Looking for a new public comment. Mr. Anise, I believe your hand is still raised earlier, is that right? I'm finished, I'm done, yeah. No? Nope. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this matter? I'm gonna either raise your hand or if you're on the phone, you can dial star nine. Otherwise I'm gonna look at people's pictures and if anyone is waiting frantically, we will call upon them. I do not see anybody waving. With that, I will go ahead and close public comment for this evening. So there are a couple of, I'm gonna go ahead and stop sharing this for now. And share something different. This is, so our current schedule, so we are right now on Monday, July 19th. And the 23rd is when the public hearing is scheduled to be closed. So we are going to be discussing the continuation of this hearing and also the extension of the review period. So I had spoken with Mary O'Connor earlier today about the possibility of extending to Thursday, July 29th, the 10 days from today, which would give the public more time to review the draft and give us a chance to have some of the comments that were discussed this evening, incorporated into the draft, and to make sure that we have all the documentation that the board has all the documentation that's looking for all the information it needs in order to deliver a decision so that we can close the public comment period. Not the cloak, I'm between the public hearing. So we would be looking to continue to Thursday, July 29th and 730 p.m. Is there anyone from the board or from the applicant or consultants who would be unable to participate on that date? I'd like that's probably gonna be an okay date. And then would the board be comfortable having Friday the 30th as being the extension of the public hearing period or would we want to extend that further than the 20th of July? Is it really dependent if anyone thinks that we're not gonna be able to close on the 29th? Mr. Foyn. Mr. Foyn. If I could jump in here, I do always like to see an extra week on your last schedule date, just in case something happens. There's a thunderstorm that knocks out power. Anything that would cause the board to be unable to actually meet on the 29th, it would give the body to regroup and schedule a meeting for the next week. So that's why I generally like to see an additional week beyond the last schedule hearing date. Okay, all right, thank you. Mr. Foyn, sorry. Yeah, I was trying to look at my calendar and I'm traveling that day so I won't be able to make next Thursday, the 29th, or... Mr. Foyn, have you missed any of the other hearings on 11.65 hours? Just one, but I've rewatched the... Okay. The hearing. But it might not be necessary that I'm at it since I'm not necessarily a full... Yeah, but it would... Since you've already missed one, if you missed a second, it would preclude you. Is more the issue. But we would still have five... Mr. O'Rourke has also had... Unfortunately, he's had his second miss, but that would still leave us with five members who have been present for all the hearings. So we would be able to proceed. So then my question to the board then is, are they comfortable with proceeding on the 29th or should we find a different date so that Mr. Corden can attend? Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I hate to lose two people so that if anything... I mean, suppose the reason we couldn't have our meeting is that Mr. Revolak got hit by lightning, then we would be stuck. So I'm wondering if... So the only really option that we have is to, as a practical matter, is to go over to the following week. And the following week, we have a very big hearing on the other 40B on Tuesday. And we'd end up having to meet twice. And the question, I guess, is whether anybody is prepared to do that. If not, I guess we have to stick with the 29th. And then I would suggest on Mr. Havardy's advice to make the expiration happen on the 6th, which is the following Friday. Mr. Havardy, were you available on Wednesday the 28th? I don't know if we discussed that date earlier. Mr. Chairman, I am available on Wednesday the 28th. Everyone else available on Wednesday the 28th? Mr. Ford, does that help you? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm traveling Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the 27th, 28th, and 29th. Oh, I see. How about Monday the 26th? Is that even a possibility? I could do that. I could do that. I'm also fine with that date. Mr. Havardy, is that a possibility? Yeah, it's my birthday, though. Oh, no. Well, we can do that. We can handle that. We're really great at singing over. I was going to say, I'm pretty sure the participants tab has a button for that. And we can do that. You sure? Yep. Mary, does that work for you? That's fine. Thank you. So if you're looking at Monday. July 26. 730. And then with that, then. Push out an extra week. So we would look to be closing. August 2nd. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Just to be clear when we say the closing is August 2nd. What we mean is the outside date to actually close. The closing date is August 2nd. So we're going to meet again on the 2nd to do that. So it's very likely. That if everything goes according to plan. The closing will happen on the, will actually happen on the 26th, even though we have one weekly way. Is that correct? Thank you. Yes. That's absolutely correct. So we would be looking to extend. The public hearing period until August 2nd and continue. Until Monday, July 26th. Just to. Start members of boards are thinking about this. So 40 days from July 29th, which we're now backing up by three days. So. Would be. Labor Day weekend. Would be the end of the 40 day period. So we should consider. How we would want to have possible discussions. As I mentioned before, unfortunately, I am completely unavailable August 7th through the 21st. But we could have a, we could have a meeting. Over zoom on the Tuesday, the 24th. To discuss things that we could try to meet around the September 2nd. So. That's a possibility. Trying to stay away from that week after, because September 9th is a continued is Thorndike place again. And then the following week, the 14th. Is. We have a new hearing as well with a possible extended continuation of funding place onto September 14th. So. We don't. We don't need to resolve these dates today. We don't need to. We don't need to resolve these dates today. So. Going forward. So with that. Is there any further discussion about. The extension and the continuance. Seeing none. I have a motion to extend the public hearing period. To Monday, August 2nd. So moved. Thank you. I have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. For Mr. Bond. Mr. Hanlon Hi. Mrs. Ravelac. Hi. Mr. Ford. The chair votes, I saw. The public hearing period is extended to Monday, August 2nd. 2021. And then emotion to continue the public hearing for 1165 parking 26, 2021 at 7.30 PM. So moved. Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thanks, Mr. Dupont. Go to the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Redlack. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So we are continued on 1165 Armands Chief's Avenue until Monday, July 26th. 2021 at 7.30 PM. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. Thank you. So I'll just leave up here on the screen just the upcoming dates in case anybody has any questions about our upcoming schedule. That in mind, I would like to thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I especially wish to thank Rick Valorelli, Vincent Lee and Kelly Lanema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting, the meeting is to ensure their creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It's our understanding the recordings made by ACMI will be available on demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. And to conclude tonight's meeting, I would look for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Go to the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. The chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Please be patient and make all your efforts. Good night. Good night. Thank you. Good night. Good night, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all. Thank you.