 ACMI Productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. All right, good evening, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Welcome to the town of Arlington Redevelopment Board Meeting on March 18th, 2024. My name is Rachel Semberry. I'm the chair of the Redevelopment Board. And if the other members of the board could please introduce themselves, I'd appreciate it. Steve Revillack, good evening. Eugene Benson. Shayna Corman Houston. Kinlalala. Thank you. And we have Claire Ricker from the Department of Planning and Community Development joining us on the board here this evening as well. Let's see. So let's go ahead and move right into our first agenda item, which is a review of the meeting minutes from March 4th, 2024. And I will see if there are any additions or corrections starting with Kin. I have none. Shayna? None. Gene? None. Steve? No additional. And I do not have any either. So we will see if there is a vote to, excuse me, if there is a motion to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. So motion. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve? Yes. Gene? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I may ask as well, the meeting minutes have been approved. So our second agenda item is the continuation of the public hearing for the Warren Articles for 2024 annual town meeting. We have two sections of the hearing for this evening. The first will be to see if there is any public comment for Article 31, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to adding 5 to 7 Winter Street to the MBTA neighborhood district. We will be opening this as the public notice to the certified notice to the abutters when out directly following the March 4th hearing. So if there are any abutters who receive that notice, joining us this evening, who would like to speak if you could indicate so by raising your hand? OK. Seeing none, we will close the comment for article public comment for Article 31. Now that we have concluded that item, we will move into the board deliberation and voting on each of the articles. As we have done in the past, what I would like to do is take deliberation on each article, and we will take a vote at that time. As soon as we complete the discussion for each article, then we will run through at the end to ensure that we have recorded the votes accordingly. So with that, we will move to Article 25, just one request of the board. We will be building the board report to town meeting based on the comments that the board has put forth, both during the public hearing as well as this evening. So if as we deliberate and prepare to take the vote, we could make sure to clearly articulate the points of view both for and or against recommending action for each of the zoning articles that would greatly aid with the preparation of the Redevelopment Board's report. So let us start with Article 25, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to building definitions, and we will start with any discussion starting with Ken. Now I have no issues with this. I would like to move this ahead. This is a clerical. It clears up some of my between two definitions. So this is making it easier. So I agree with this. Great. Thank you, Ken. And I'll just note that this was one of the Zoning By-law Amendments that was discussed together with Christian Klein and originally discussed by the Zoning Board of Appeals before it came before us ahead of the warrant article process. So we'll start with D'Shaina for any commentary. I agree entirely with Ken. This seems to me to be a sensible clarification. And I support moving it forward. Great. Thank you, Jean. Yeah, I'll just add that Mr. Klein and I met with Mike Shampa to discuss this. And this is where we ended up because there was a question about whether there were some buildings that fell into neither building attached nor building detached and they have to be one or the other. So this cleared up that ambiguity. And it cleared it up in the way that Inspectional Services has been interpreting these sections. Thank you for that clarification, Jean. Steve, any commentary? Yes, Madam Chair, I think it's important for us to make these kind of clarification so that the by-law is easier to interpret and apply. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, I will see if there is a motion to vote to recommend favorable action for Article 25 for springtown meeting. Thank you. Motion to take favorable action. So second. Great. And we will take a vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shaina. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So the board will recommend favorable action for Article 25, the vote of 5 to 0. Thank you. We'll now move on to Article 26, which is another administrative clarification. This is related to the citations for the residential district yard and open space requirements. So any discussion, starting with Ken? No, I have no discussions. I'm in favor of this clarification. Great. Thank you, Shaina. Again, I agree with Ken. I have no discussion. I agree with this clarification. Jean. I'll just add that while this specifically notes the additional exception, that exception is already found elsewhere. Mr. Klein asked us to add this just so, as Mr. Revlach said about the previous article, it just makes the bylaw clearer and easier to understand, to have this extra cross-reference. Yeah. Great. Thank you. The only thing I will add is that when we get to town meeting, we'll need to ask town meeting or the moderator to take up Article 27 before Article 26, because Article 27 changes how the subsections are enumerated, and this exception is for those amended subsections. Great. Or we can also ask him to add both to the consent agenda. Well, I would hope he does. Great. Perfect. Steve. I am supportive of the additional citation. Great. Thank you. Is there a motion to recommend favorable action for Article 26? Motions to take favorable action on Article 26. We'll take a vote, starting with Ken. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. We will recommend favorable action on Article 26, the vote of 5 to 0. Let's now move to Article 27, which is an administrative correction related to creating a clarification by replacing the bullets in Section 5.9.2, Subsection B, with letters. So that it is consistent with the balance of the zoning bylaws and the way that they are notated. We'll start with Ken for any discussion on this topic. I have a little discussion on this topic. I'm available on this topic. It makes the reading of the code simpler and easier to follow. Great. Thank you. Shayna. I agree. I have no discussion. I think it would be great to move this forward for clarity's sake. Great. Thank you, Jean. And Mr. Klein also asked us to make this change so it would be easier for the zoning board of appeals to cite this when it references the subsection. I'll point out that we also are deleting the subsection that is no longer needed because the date has passed. Thank you. So that's the other part of this. And I agree with all of them. Steve. Yes. I'm in support of this. I think it would make it easier to cite individual provisions of Section 5.9.2B. I'd also like to offer a small clarification to the public regarding, in response to one of the letters that the board received. Thanks. So this article is not proposing to add provisions for accessory dwelling units. These already exist in the by-law. They've been there for several years. We are just changing a bulleted list to an enumerated list in a section which already exists and striking one provision which is no longer relevant. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Steve. Any other discussion? Is there a vote to, or excuse me, a motion to vote to recommend favorable action for Article 27? Motion to favorable action on Article 27. Second. We'll take a vote. Starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So the board will recommend favorable action for Article 27 with a vote of 5 to 0. We'll now move to Article 28, which is an amendment to delete the inland wetland overlay district. And we'll start discussion with Ken. We'll remove this. This came from a consulate to clarify that we've done it. And I believe comms comm is regulations are more strict than this right here. So I think this is good. Great. Thank you, Shayna. Yes, agreed. I think this is a great clarification, if I recall. Concom's concern was, by and large, one of jurisdiction and struggling to identify who had jurisdiction of certain areas of town wanted to make sure that most stringent regs and most current regs were being followed and that if there was a problem, it was clear who had the jurisdiction to address those issues. And so I know there were questions from the community about would this weaken environmental protections in town. And what we hear from David Morgan is that no, in fact, functionally, it should strengthen protections. Great. Thank you. Jean. Yes. I'll add that Mr. Klein also asked us to delete this section because it completely overlapped the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals in certain cases with the Conservation Commission unnecessarily because they end up doing the exact same thing. And the conservation agent assured us that the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission through state wetlands law, state wetlands regulations, the town bylaw, and the town regulations on wetlands cover the same ground adequately. And therefore, there's no need to have these regulations or this in the Zoning Bylaw anymore. That state regulations on wetlands and the town bylaw and regulations on wetlands have been strengthened over the years. So this might have been necessary when it was first put into the Zoning Bylaw, but it's superfluous if this came. Thank you. Steve. So I think the Conservation Commission is the most appropriate body to adjudicate issues through state wetlands. And I think the removal of this section through Zoning Bylaw will clarify which body has jurisdiction over such matters. I'd also like to express my appreciation to the Conservation Agent for working on this and to the Conservation Commission for their support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could you advance the slides, please? Thank you. Is there a motion? Any other discussion? Is there a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 28? Motion to favorable action on Article 28. Second. We'll take a vote. Starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Sheena. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Recommend action with a vote of five to zero. Let's move to Article 29, which is the reduced height buffer. And I do want to make sure that we have the most recent text up on the screen. That is it. And we'll start discussion this time with Steve, since I know that you helped us with the edits for the most current version. So after the board's hearing, this earlier hearing on this article, I went back and compared the language in the bylaw today with what was in the warrant from special town meeting of 1975. And they are, in fact, identical with two exceptions. The two exceptions are the mention of the R0 and open space districts, which were not part of the bylaw in 1975. So and in particular, the height buffer distances of 200 feet, 150 feet, and 100 feet have been unchanged since the bylaw was adopted in 1975. Now, as I mentioned during an earlier hearing night, in the intervening years, there were some significant down zoning and height reductions in the B5, R7, and plan unit development districts. And in my efforts to research the background of this, I could find no discussion of changing the height buffer's distances to reflect the reduced height. So I think it's, in effect, it's an internal consistency that's crept into the bylaw over the last few years. And I'm supportive of changing it. I had proposed roughly cutting the distances in half because that is approximately what the height reductions work out to across the districts affected. But that was sort of my opening suggestion. I welcome additional comment on whether those distances. I think there's some one that I can make a compelling story for, but I'm open to other options. Great. Thank you. Jean. Can if I could ask Mr. Revile a question? Please. Please. When the down zoning happened in those districts, what was the height before and what was the height after? So the first district to be down zone was R7. This was 1978. The height limit went from 110 feet to 60. The second district to be down zone was the plan unit development district. And it went from 200 feet to, forget if it was 80 or 85, one of those two. And the third was the B5 district, which was 1987. And that also started at 110 feet. And I believe it went down to 75. I think it's important to point out that this is only for those very few instances where the by-law allows two different heights in a district and not most of the by-law. So this is a very limited application. And this clearly seems to be there to prevent shadows. And if you've lowered the height that's permissible, you're therefore lowering also how large the shadows will be placed. So it certainly makes sense, in my opinion, when the areas have been down zone where there are two possible height limits to also come out here. And it's also important, I think, to point out that we've always had the ability, when something came before us, to allow the upper height limit if we felt it didn't have any adverse impact based on the criteria in 3.3, which is special permits, and 3.4, which is environmental design review. So all this does is add a little more certainty going forward as to what the minimum buffer should be. So that makes sense to me to do it under those circumstances. Steve, could I? I think probably, Steve, you're the most likely to know the answer to this. Do you have any idea how many parcels this impacts? I was looking through the map today. I counted only about a half dozen, but I'm sure I was missing some. I have never not made an attempt to count the number of parcels impacted by this provision of the bylaw. OK, fair enough. Anyone knew it would be you? So I think Jane is right, though, that it's not very many and also agree with both of you that in the context of reducing the height of the zoning, a reduced buffer makes a lot of sense. I thought that the change from the initial proposal of 50 feet, 35 feet, 25 feet back up to 175 and 50 was a little bit drastic. I didn't think the adjustment upward was probably merited somewhere in the middle seemed a little more appropriate to me, but I would certainly be willing to be convinced otherwise. Great, thank you. Ken? Through Jean and Steve on this, I think this is the proper adjustment. I believe it was something that made was left out. And I agree with this, and I think it was forward. Great, thank you. Claire, did the department have any other? I know that you were taking a look at some other EOI towns. So we took a look at the height limits that were suggested in Kevin Lyman's memo of last year, where we went 50, 35, and 25. And what we discovered was that the research that was done related to reduced height buffer was actually applicable to the rear yard setback that we were working on. And so sort of reflective of that, that is where these heights came from in the initial. In concert? Exactly. And so because we did the work last fall of the variable rear yard setback, those heights that were suggested initially are no longer applicable. And Steve's suggestion, his Ritalak's suggestion is more of a middle of the road proposition. Cure communities, adjacent ones. So some of them has a form-based code, so they are less likely to have a direct comparison. But some communities adjacent to us, like Belmont, for example, increases setbacks when adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Redford has side yard departments and height limits varied based on adjacent residential districts. So these suggestions and Steve's height proposal does sort of jive with our adjacent communities or with our abundant communities, although they don't necessarily spell it out as a reduced height buffer. Great, thank you. Any other discussion? Jean? I think I'll add that with a couple exceptions, the difference in the height between the higher and the lower is only 10 feet in any house. So we're not talking about the difference between a two-story building and a six-story building. We're talking about the difference between either a three and a four-story building or a four-story building and a five-story building. So we're not talking about the huge disparity in the height of the buildings between. So I think that supports reducing the buffer area. Great, thank you, Jean. Any other discussion? Great, is there a motion to recommend favorable action for Article 29? No, motion for favorable action on Article 29. We'll take a vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Jean? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend favorable action for the vote of five to zero. All right, let's move to the next item, which is shaded parking lots. And I believe that we have the latest update on the article language on the screen. And we will start discussion with Ken. Well, I always had issues with this article. Too much of a burn, businesses, developers, who proved their property and to develop. I think when people come up to us and we ask for more trees or additional trees, they've been happy to do so. I have not seen any pushback in my seven, eight years here that someone has said, no, we're not gonna add a lot of tree because you asked for it. So I don't think this is a good amendment to put in right now. I think this is just adding more stuff that would discourage one more step that we make it harder for an owner to occupy his property or so forth. So talk about it. Great. I'll add as well that I find this too prescriptive. Again, I think it's a solution in search of a problem, especially given the size of most of the developments that we see here in town. I'm certainly in favor of adding shade trees and landscaping. I think that the redevelopment board has been very good at working on creative solutions with the developers that have come in front of us. And again, because of that ability to work on creative solutions, I think that the way that this is written is quite frankly too prescriptive and we started to talk about that a little bit in terms of the distance that each parking space is required to be from the shade trees, specifically as one of the things that is challenging. So again, I'm happy to talk about it, but as it stands right now, I'm not in favor of this. Shayna. I first really appreciate the stamps in this card, Joan, bringing this in front of us and the rest of the tree committee bringing this to us. Really appreciate concern about heat islands and runoff and the other environmental issues raised in Arlington's built environment and do appreciate quite a bit your flexibility working with us on an ongoing basis, trying to craft something that would work for developers because prescriptiveness has been a concern. I think that you've gotten it to a place that works for me and I would be comfortable moving it forward but I do recognize my committee members, my fellow board members concerns about the prescriptiveness of the measure as being a valid point. I think you have moved it along enough that it's gotten me comfortable about it. Great, thank you, Jean. Claire, can you put up the photo that I asked to be added to the materials for today? It's the photo of the Whole Foods parking lot. No, that's not it. Yep, that's it, thanks. Now, the reason I wanted to show this photo, the proponents of the article showed a photo of the Whole Foods parking lot last time. The reason I wanted to show this photo, and I'm gonna get up for a second to show you. Written on two sides by trees here. Jean, I'm so sorry. Can I just ask you to stand on the other side because if the camera can catch what you're pointing at, thank you. Here, this was probably taken in the summer. I'm guessing it was sometime just before noon because this is the south side. You can see this entire area is shaded by trees reducing the bed island effect. This entire area is also shaded by trees and what we can't tell by looking at this is that there are parking spaces all over here and parking spaces all along here. And if you're like me and you drive there on a hot summer day, the first thing you look and see is a shaded parking space along one of these two sides where I can go and park. And in the summer, what I have found is that these are the spaces that are taken up first. So I said to the proponents, I think your Oracle makes perfect sense because I think we as a town should be doing as much as we can to counter climate disruption and to the extent that we can have zoning that reduces heat island effect on private property that helps all of us. And we did that a little bit last year by MBTA zoning by requiring green space in front where people could plant trees, things like that. So we have a history of doing that. We've done that by requiring some of the roofs in places, things like that is. So I said to them, I like your Oracle but I think you should add something that says if there are trees of property that provide shade, we can count that. And they said, great. And that got added to the article as a result of that. So if both of them were to build this parking lot today and all the trees were there, all those trees could be counted toward the shade and they need very little additional trees actually to meet the requirements. One of the other things I like about this, and I think it's appropriately prescriptive. A lot of the times what we've said, and when you said this about the article with the reduced type buffer zones, which is to the extent that we can add some certainty to builders, it makes sense. So rather than we doing our terrific job, which we often do, trying to get builders and developers to add more landscaping, if they know it's coming, they can plan their parking lot that way. So this I think is not overly prescriptive. I think it's appropriately prescriptive. And what the proponents did is they actually increased the spacing for the trees a little bit based upon comments that they got. The only other thing I will add and why I think this is a good idea is it's similar to the requirements that already exist for parking lots and industrial zones. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have one set of requirements for parking lot in industrial zones and yet not have them for parking lots in other parts of town. And I do point out that currently at least 8% of the parking lots must be landscaped. Anyhow, a lot of these trees could fit within the 8% area. So I don't think we're putting a real burden. And I think if there's any minor burden, it's much offset by the increased certainty on the reduction in heat island effect. And I know the town has its job to do with trees along sidewalks and planting pits, but private people, private places also have a job that they can do and zoning requires that a lot of time. So I think this is a good idea. I appreciate the changes that the proponents made and I would like to support this. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Madam Chair. Parking lots of this size, 25 units plus. We have them, but they're not something that typically comes before the board. Though I expect that properties do turn over and it's not completely without reason that we'll see one of these in the future. To the extent that we can do something to mitigate heat islands as these lots are constructed, I'm in support of this. I'd also like to express some appreciation to the proponents for willing to have a diet, their willingness to have a dialogue and kind of negotiate to come up with some, what I think is a fairly good proposal. Thank you. Great, thank you. Any other discussion? Yeah. Jean, you pick up a quick point on one project. And I think the whole green side is a good argument for you. But you didn't, but let's pick up another argument that's not in there, okay? Let's say there's so many parking, let's say you have, if you wanna build up a mixed use building and a parking is very expensive. If you wanna put on the ground, that's almost 10 times the cost of putting it, surface parking. So you're talking about surface parking here, which is really vital, and then you wanna have landscaping and so forth. But taking away some cars, so you've been parking in there or making it less efficient, it makes it harder to encourage that, those kinds of projects. And I think we do well enough job getting that with those trees when we see those projects. I'm not saying, I'm not arguing with you saying having Key Islands is good, I think it's bad, but I think taking this approach for this kind of new development is not the low-hanging fruit we can get at. Yes, I think we should look at this and look at areas where we can put more trees but not at the cost of all the things. So I'm just trying to balance the two out of looking at future development or future renovations upkeep, because people are not gonna wanna do things, they can know if they, once they pass a certain threshold, now they're bound to put more trees in and this and that, it just makes it harder for someone who wants to make their property look nicer or for someone to do their project. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. It's a good thing, but I just think it's a harder burden to put on someone that's gonna hold back as time goes forward in making more housing, making more businesses and so forth like that. I think if we went ahead and looked at, and spent the same energy and looking at all the place so we can get rid of the heat islands, I think that's better served than at the cost of what we need, what this may be costing a burden to us. That's my opinion right now, okay? And I feel strongly about that. Other discussion? I think just one item I wanted to pick up. I know that we had talked about looking at parking in general and again that was mostly around TDM plans and other things starting this summer. Again, I still feel that this is too prescriptive. I think that there are creative ways that we've worked with developers in the past and I actually have appreciated some innovative ideas that they've brought with regard to their landscaping plans. If the majority of the board moves us forward, that we can certainly move forward in that way but we could also take a look at this in concert with the other parking reviews that we are planning on doing starting this summer. Other thoughts? Gene of both things, one is currently parking lots of 25, more than 25 spaces as this is, requires at least 8% of it to be landscaped anyhow. So I don't see this as a particularly large burden. In addition, they have to have landscape buffers where they can also put trees. So I see this as a very minor burden at the most and it was just a year ago that we agreed to, or two years ago, recommend the change in the zoning bylaw requiring developers to plant speed trees 25 feet apart unless they didn't fit. So I do think that this is a way to go and I think that the other things we're gonna be looking at in parking is not this, it's gonna be a lot of other things about parking. And I think this can go ahead now. Great, any other discussion? Gene, can you tell me your read of this? My read is that a tree could be put inside the 8% landscaped areas that you read as well. Yep, okay, nothing prevents it. In fact, I would expect that's where I want to go. That was my expectation as well. I would like to make a motion for a favorable report. For favorable action? For favorable action on Article 30 as it's submitted. Great, is there a second? I'll second it. Great, we'll take a vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Gene? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? No. And I'm a no as well. So we will recommend favorable action by a vote of three to two. Let's now move to Article 31, which is related to adding five to seven winter street to the MBTA neighborhood district. And we will start our discussion with Ken. Well, we originally did the MBTA neighborhood districts. Our intention was to leave the historic buildings alone in the projects, just so we can store that, and destroying all the nice buildings we have here. Up to us, this other project's purpose is to share nature of all the numbers of projects. The other historic buildings that we have best is located right behind the road. Businesses right now that is basically hemmed in and connect the whole block of business at only 30 to 40 feet deep, something like that. It's impossible to do anything with what's there right now, which is basically a mama pop store that we really survive. I'm in favor of this based on the owner's request and feedback we've gotten from the meetings. Great, thank you. Shayna? I think it's a very reasonable and appropriate site for the MBTA communities. I do recognize that its omission was intentional, but I believe that the demo delay protections and other protections in historic regs should be sufficient to protect the historic fabric on the site in an appropriate manner. And I would recommend favorable action. Thank you. Jean? I agree. Substitutively, it should be added to the zone. I cannot agree due to the procedural defects and I wanna explain that to the board. As many of you may recall, the zoning bylaw says that before the petitioner petitioner files to change the zoning. The petitioner must by certified or registered mail notify the abutters of the petition. That didn't happen in this case, even though when the petitioner came to us months ago, I said to the petitioner there are notices that must be followed. So I had and then Rachel had a series of email communications with town council about this. And town council, I think, ends up basically saying the question at this stage is whether the opportunity for public comment has passed. In other words, Mr. Leone sent out the registered mail after we had closed public comment on all of the articles. However, our chair opened public comment on this article and there was nobody here to provide public comment. However, I will note nobody had noticed that public comment would reopen. And if you look at the materials that Mr. Leone sent to the abutters, it did not inform them that they would have the opportunity to make public comment tonight. What I would suggest we do rather than vote on this is to have Mr. Leone send out another notice indicating that there will be the opportunity for public comment and that we have public comment on this for the abutters at our next regularly scheduled meeting. And if they don't come, then we can vote in favor if we all think it's in favor. If they do come, then they'll have an opportunity to say whatever they want and we can make the decision. But if we don't give them a real opportunity to come and make public comment after getting the notice, I don't think I can vote in favor on procedural grounds or on a subset of ground, it makes perfect sense to me to add it to the zone. Thank you, Jean. Steve, I will see what comments you have and then I'd like to talk about timing for Jean's suggestion before we have a discussion around what his specific suggestion is. Substantively, I am in support of the trustee's request to have the property included in the overlay district given its location and the fact that surrounding adjacent properties were also included. I think the request is entirely reasonable. Great, thank you. So Claire, I just want to look at our calendar here. So our next meeting is April 1st, at which time we were planning on reviewing and approving the notice, or excuse me, the ARB report to town meeting. I also wanted to note that the reports to town meeting are due by April 8th. So we would need to, Jean, I don't know that we have the, I don't know that the calendar is on our side to be able to prepare a report, post it for a public meeting and have a public meeting and vote on that report if we pushed it to April 1st. The meeting tonight was publicly posted. And again, I did review that with town council. I understand where you're coming from and again, I personally have to go with what our town council has recommended. And Mike Cunningham did review this. But again, I'm open to discussion of the other board members if you have thoughts on timing or share Jean's concerns about the procedural. So you're saying town council is filing this right now? They sent a letter where he sent a note today and Jean referenced it, identifying that the opportunity for public comment on article 31 tonight satisfies the requirements in the town requirements for the availability for a better comment. If I may, I believe what town council wrote is although section 5.1 contemplates that evidence of such copies, that is that the notices have been sent by certified or registered mail be shown in the petition. If the petitioner can show that has been done prior to the close of the public hearing in common period, my opinion, his opinion, that substantial compliance with the bylaw has occurred, recording the question at the stage is whether the opportunity for public comment has passed. Now we did close public comment at the end of last meeting. If a butter who received the proposal from the petitioner appeared at tonight's ARB meeting under the posted agenda section two, public hearing war articles, would that person be permitted to offer testimony? If so, then it's because substantial compliance has been achieved. Prior to the close of public comment, ARB may consider the law of darkness. So that's what he says. My response to that is they were not given notice that we have reopened for the sole purpose of having their comment. Yeah, I'm just seeing this letter tonight and it does not mention tonight's hearing. It does not mention it. So I feel like what we can do is have staff prepare the report and when it comes to this warrant article, it can be written two ways. One is a favorable report and another is an unfavorable report and we will have notice given to the abutters and put it on the agenda for the next meeting and if they don't come, then they had notice. If they do come in, they have things to say then we'll make a decision. I'm that timing. The second was enough time. It does if we proceed as Gene proposes, which is we would hold that particular vote, prepare it's a fairly we would prepare and we've all indicated support so we could prepare a section of the board report relative to favorable action if there is a butter discussion that changes our perspective at that meeting. We can certainly we've substantially edited the redevelopment report in place and then voted on the amended report in the past. Steve. I was wondering, now granted there's throwing it out. Please. Can we have a short meeting next Monday? I'm taking it today is the 18th, the 25th, and then we have the 25th and then April 1st. So a brief meeting on the 25th to accept public comment. You can't be good at the concert tickets. That's fine. That's fine. I mean, I honestly don't think we need to add another meeting. I think what Gene is suggesting could be sufficient. I think two things have to happen. One is our agenda has to say there'll be public comment on this article. Specifically on this article. On this article and we would ask Mr. Leone to send by certifying the register to the general. That's for a hundred bucks, Gene. Again, to notice, to notice. The two monophysic dollars are emailing already. Noticing. I just, I have one comment and that is that 65 days after the close of the war, we are supposed to, you know, hold our hearings and take votes to the votes on the morning. Excuse me. I want to make sure that we are within that timeframe that we're going to. I think initially we can plan on people first being the deliberation. Yes. We're actually ahead of schedule, but I just want to double check and make sure with town council that we're able to do that, that we can let that 65 days threshold. I think we have, but I want to make sure. Gene, it's not like we're all in favor, okay? What's the risk of it being overturned because we didn't follow the procedure correctly? Town council said that all of the abutters had due process rights. And that if they didn't receive notice appropriately, they could raise a due process concern. That's basically what he said in one of the emails. Again, I am going to go by what, again, I discussed with town council this morning that by allowing public comment this evening and the fact that the notices did go out, that the requirements, personally, I believe that they have been met, but I respect if you are reading that in a different way. No, I'm going to go with you, town council, so I don't have a first hand knowledge, but I believe that what you said is fine. If we have to do something wrong, if we have to do something wrong. Again, it wouldn't be the board, it's the petitioner would have to start over. So again, this is part of, you also have a vested interest in this. And if you were at all concerned about us voting action and moving forward, and then one of the abutters raising a concern if you feel that there is a potentially different way of reading this than how our discussion with town council, well, again, if you would like to withdraw, then that would be really the only other option at this point. May I? Again, I'm asking yes, one of the reasons why we... I think we're fine. My reading of the bylaw meant the fourth town meeting. It didn't specifically say before this board, it said before the petition is presented, my petition is to the town meeting, not to the ARP. So I thought my notice was fine because it's way before town meeting. Abutters can appear at town meeting and address town meeting, and we have to do a process right secret there. The way the bylaw reads it does not specifically say this board. So I thought we were fine in our interpretation of it. The bylaw is a little bit ambiguous as to which board I'm supposed to be addressing regarding my certified mail. We sent those out to the eight, 11 people. It was nearly $100. We sent $162 worth of mailings to, yeah, like over 300 people. Two people showed up last time, and we haven't been contacted by anybody. So I would ask the board to please proceed tonight and I'll take my chances with the process if they decide to address it at that point in time. I think it's town meeting and office board. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, Sheena? I think I agree with you, Rachel, that if town council feels comfortable, I feel comfortable moving this board. Great. Steve? Nothing further. Jean, anything else? I think I've said all I need to say. Okay. Is there a motion to recommend favorable action for article 31? Motion of favorable action on article 31. Is there a second? Second. We'll take a vote, starting with Steve? Yes. Jean? No. Sheena? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I may ask as well. A motion on article 31 with a vote of four to one. And we will note the discussion in the Redevelopment Board Report to town meeting. Okay. The next item is article 32, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to traffic visibility. And Jean, I believe you had a discussion with Mike Ciampa, the director of the Inspectional Services Department. So if you wanted to start with comments, that would be fantastic. Fine. And the email exchange with Mr. Ciampa is among the materials for tonight's meeting. Correct. If folks had a chance to read them or not. I asked Mr. Ciampa two questions. One is, where is the correct line for where the fences have to go? You may recall that the petitioner put the line at the edge of her property. And then Mr. Loretty indicated it should not be at the edge of the property, it should be at the curb. And then he later sent us an illustration from an old zoning by-law that said it's at the curb. Mr. Ciampa was very clear that the petitioner had the triangle in the correct place. And Mr. Loretty had the triangle in the wrong place. That the wording of the by-law was very clear that it was the property line, not the curb, except in a few instances where the curb might be the property line. And that what Mr. Loretty said the illustration was for illustrious purposes only and not technically something that drives the decision in the by-law. So then the second question was, what about the proposal that the petitioner made? And Mr. Ciampa's concern was that something that starts off as transparent may not become transparent later on, bushes may grow, things may fog over, something like that. So he didn't like the idea, but he said, if you're going to go ahead with it, you should put in when installed and in the future. So I passed that all on to the petitioner, Ms. Monaghan. And she ended up with this language, which I think is very consistent with what Mr. Ciampa had suggested. It's limited to fences, so it's not buildings, bushes or other structures. And it's limited to five feet and it has to be transparent enough when installed and in the future, not to hinder safe passage. So this is where we ended up, I think it's, if we think it's a good idea to allow owners to be able to put these fences up, this I think meets Mr. Ciampa's concerns. Thank you, Gene. Steve, any comments? Yes. Well, I read Mr. Ciampa's memo and Mr. Benson's correspondence to him. I'll take his point of concern. Given that we have a performance standard in five, three, 12B, it makes sense to have something similar in five, three, 12A, and in this case, I think the performance standard actually does a lot to clarify what that part of the bylaw is supposed to do. That said, I would prefer Mr. Ciampa's wording. If the petitioner would be amenable to that, Mr. Ciampa's wording was, unless it can be shown that the building structure or vegetation will not now or in the future restrict visibility in such a way as to hinder the safe transit of a vehicle through the intersection. To me, it's a little more clear, it's a little more direct, and it also is clear that it applies to vegetation as well as offense for a structure. Steve, so that I make sure before we ask the petitioner whether or not they would be amenable to that. So your suggestion is replacing the entire underlined section with unless it can be shown that the building structure of vegetation will not now or in the future restrict visibility? Through the intersection. Through the intersection? Yeah, that is my suggestion, Madam Chair. Okay. Let's, we'll have discussion and then we'll, and then we'll pose the question to you as to whether or not that would be acceptable. Shayna, any comments either on the proposed text or Steve's recommendation in support of the wording recommended by Mike Champa? Yep, so the vegetation piece has always made me a little bit nervous. I was able to get comfortable with this because we walked it back or because the petitioner was willing to walk it back to fencing. I think Mr. Champa's stated concerns about vegetation being difficult to maintain into the future in such a way that it does not hinder visibility is very, is forefront in my mind as well. I think offense is much more likely to be maintained in that way. And so if, and so if the language were to be changed to reflect Mr. Champa's wording and might wanna take out the vegetation piece, it gives me a lot of pause that he's not comfortable with this provision. It gives me a lot of pause that he's not comfortable. I had gotten there myself with the transparent fencing, but I'm really on the fence for lack of a better term now. I agree with you in a lot of ways, Shane. I think that the building inspector is the one who is going to be, the building department is the one who enforces this provision. And I think it certainly gives me some pause if they're not in support of that because obviously he is not stated and I don't want to put words into his mouth or assume whether he's concerned about the enforced ability and the ability of his very busy team to be able to support the adherence in the future of this as well. I agree with Shane. I think the vegetation piece gives me the most pause. So I'm interested in how my fellow board members you know that feel on this one too, Ken. Well, I think I stated last time that I'm a little concerned that it says transparent enough. You got to give a percentage. I thought we talked about 50%, 40%, or whatever. Whatever you feel like it's fair. I'm not trying, I'm supportive of this. Just got to give it a little more definition as opposed to transparent enough is that it might be different. And it might be different five years from now where someone else might interpret it differently. But I'd rather make it clear enough where do you have any suggestions? Is it okay if we ask? I mean, is she okay to change it? Well, I mean, I think we need to decide rather than asking that we need to come up with whether there is it rather than just throwing things out there to come to a... That's my hang-up right now. If you do a definition of transparency like 50% or whatever percentage you guys just talk about and then it's clear. We understand what it is. Right. I mean, my other question is whether this is... We're talking about two feet in difference, right? It's currently, there's a... You are allowed to erect a fence or vegetation up to three feet. We're only going up to five feet. Is this necessary for the challenges that we're coming up with in terms of defining what transparent is and again, given the reservations that the D'Berger of Inspectional Services has? So, question. Now that we've kind of gone around once. Yep. Would I be correct if I were to interpret? I got the sense that Ms. Corbyn Houston and Madam Terry, you preferred the petitioner's language. No, I do not. Okay. I don't, but I do not like the inclusion of vegetation in Mr. Champa's language. So, I like Mr. Champa's language but would want to omit vegetation. Okay. But I'm still not decided, even with the change in language. I'm really not certain where I would come down. The way I read it, the vegetation piece is specifically saying that it's something that cannot restrict the visibility. Yeah. So, I'm done. Thank you. I would like something that says accept for offense up to five feet in height that does not restrict visibility through the intersection. That will not now we're in the future. That will not now we're in the future. Thank you, restrict visibility through the intersection. I think we can't know what percentage visibility is enough. It's going to be something that ISD is going to have to look at. So, mine is like an amalgam of what Mr. Champa suggested. You would suggest, you would suggest accept for fencing up to five feet in height that will not now or in the future restrict visibility in such a way. Okay. That's what would be my suggestion. And I go back to the board with, is this necessary? The offense of up to three feet is already allowed. Why do we need this for the additional two feet? What Ms. Monahan said to me, and I get this right, is that if you're going to have like a daycare or something, the fence has to be four feet high. If you want to have a swimming pool, it has to be five feet high. And that's, at least is my understanding of where we ended up with five feet high. Okay. Other thoughts on Jean's suggestion for wording or on the necessity of this? I still like to see a percentage or something. It's still right now interpretive on somebody interpreting it. What's the percent visibility of a genuine fence? I would say close to 90%. But you don't know. So the problem is we don't know and we can't put a number in. Yes, but if you look at a stockade fence or a picket fence, and the pickets are, let's say, every other pickets are four inches and you leave the four inch space there, then you know it's 50%. But we don't know if 50% is adequate or not. I don't know. So maybe it's, we have to find that out and we don't accept this thing right now until we find out what that acceptable percentage is. But I just don't want to leave it vague like this because it's just, you know, I mean, I'm okay with this, but I just, I don't want to leave it vague like that. I just Googled transparency of a chain-link fence just for argument's sake and, again, Google. So fence manufacturers are what's coming up and it's coming up at 95% to 100% transparent. 100% is optimistic on their part, but 50% is clearly not a chain-link fence. I don't know. Clearly this board does not have, you know, the, I would, we were going to recommend a percentage transparency. I would want to do so perhaps in concert with the transportation planner or, you know, somebody who deals with these types of items regularly, which, you know, we don't have the benefit of doing before we take a vote this evening. You could not do it in a disciplined way tonight. Correct. And so I feel uncomfortable with that and I'm not, and I understand, concerned that enough or in such a way so, you know, as to hinder is vague. If it doesn't bother me, why is it bother you? You know, I would say that five foot fence is fine. It does bother me for traffic. It's subjective. I think that the inspectional services can handle this. Like Mr. Benson? So the proposed language that you are suggesting is except for fencing up to five feet in height that will not now or in the future restrict visibility in such a way as to hinder the safe transit of a vehicle through the intersection. Correct. So I'll ask the proponent, would you have any objections to altering your language to that language as proposed? I would not object to that. I would also note that while it would not be massively disciplined, I think it would be a pretty safe thing if we wanted to add 90% language. I think in my view, there's very little risk that 90% visibility or 90% transparency would be enough. It might be a higher bar than is certainly necessary. I still think it would probably be enough. Thank you. Appreciate that. I'm personally uncomfortable with putting in a percentage without having any type of guideline. And you know, the last thing I want to do is promote chain link fences all over town. So I certainly don't want to go down that road. Ken, what are your thoughts about being able to support that language or whether this isn't something that we would, in your mind, want to support at this time? Can we ask? I mean, good. Just like yellow. Can we have time to just see what is? We decided we weren't going to... We took the vote tonight on the other one. We decided we did not have time to wait and see. And we don't. We have to take a vote at our next meeting on the report. And this isn't a board article. It's, you know, not the board's responsibility to come up with the transparency. It's up to the board though to determine whether or not this proposal as proposed for the Warren article is an improvement for the town and something that is necessary within the zoning bylaws. I'm probably not going to be supportive of this unless it's a percentage. And I think I agree with you. I'm not going to give you the percentage. I don't want to do that. Okay. And a percentage was requested before at other meetings for this. So that would be my feeling right now. Okay. I heard the voices. I agree. I think it's fine. But I think having a percentage is important. Okay. Sheena? I don't think I can get supportive of this without more emphatic support from Mr. Champa. Thank you. Gene? I really have nothing to add. Steve? Nothing to add. Great. I feel similarly to Sheena, I think, without the support of Inspectional Services who is responsible for enforcing this, I'm having a hard time supporting it as well. So is there a motion to recommend no action on Article 32? So a motion. Is there a second? Second. I'll take a vote starting with Steve. No. Gene? No. Sheena? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I am a yes as well. So the board will recommend no action on this article by a vote of three to two. The next article is Article 33, which is related to rear yard setbacks in the business districts. And we will start discussion with Ken. I'm in favor of this article. I think it makes sense since we have decreased the height of the buildings. We did not take into account four adjusting setbacks. I think having the taller buildings sets it back up, it makes sense that it does shadow on this. So I'm in support of this. Thank you. Sheena? I agree and have nothing further. Gene? I agree. I think the important thing is that what this is doing is just setting back the fourth floor where it would have been otherwise. And it really doesn't change what the shadows are. I would just ask, Claire, that this be cleaned up in two ways. One is what's added shouldn't be bolded. It should just be underlined. And it should be after the 30 feet. So you can see that the 30 feet is being crossed out. And the other one's taking the place. I think the presentation would look a little better if it was that way instead. But I think this makes sense. It doesn't increase shadows. It just steps back, the building and back where it needs to be. Thank you, Steve. I'm also supportive. I think this will, I think this will have the potential to allow some more ground floor commercial space in mixed use and may help make those kind of developments more economically feasible. And to be perfectly honest, I wish the petitioner had suggested this in the fall when we were making this change to begin with. Here, here. Thank you, Steve. I agree with you. I think that this is certainly not any more detrimental than what's existing. And it does provide for more opportunity for an increase in ground floor commercial space. So is there a motion to approve article, excuse me, is there a motion to recommend action for article 33 with the Scribner's revisions that were suggested by Gene with moving the underlying section to below the star width 30 feet and ensuring that that is not in bold text? Yes. Motion for favorable action, article 33. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Gene. Yes. Sheena. Yes. Kin. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. We will recommend favorable action by a vote of five to zero for article 33. And the last article is article 34, residential uses. I did receive, and I believe the other members of the board did as well, correspondence from the petitioner. And I will read this for record as well. It has also been posted with correspondence. We've collectively decided that we would like to ask the redevelopment board to recommend, excuse me, this is from John Paul Lewicki, one of the proponents of the article. I quote, we would like to ask the redevelopment board to recommend no action on article 34. We are planning to do some thorough public outreach later this year and file a newborn article for the 2025 town meeting. We very much appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions and are confident that taking the time to get all the details right and receive more feedback will make this an even stronger proposal. So any discussion starting with Kin? No. Sheena. I really appreciate that the proponents brought this forward in the first place. I think it attempts to address, it does address some important issues facing our town. I think it was probably wise for them to step back and look for further public comment, but I do look forward to hearing from them again at some point in the future. Great, thank you, Jean. I agree with what my colleague just said. Steve. I also want to extend some gratitude to the petitioners for coming, bringing this forward and working with us. I felt it was a productive conversation and I look forward to seeing what, to seeing how this takes shape over time. Great, thank you, and I also appreciate their recognition of the importance of public outreach and a thorough public process in bringing this forward in the future. So with that, is there a motion to recommend no action for Article 34? Motion for no action for Article 34. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I may ask as well. So we will vote no action on Article 34 by a vote of five to zero. And with that, we are at the end of our warrant article for 2024 annual town meeting. Is there a motion to close the public hearing for the 2024 annual town meeting? So motion. Second. Are we closing or continuing? We are closing. We are voting on our report, but we are closing the public hearing. Second. Great. We will take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I may ask as well. We will take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I may ask as well. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. ACMI Productions are only made possible with your support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.