 Well, it is seven, excuse me, 734 p.m. On Thursday, May 11, 2023. Good evening, everybody. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Ellington zoning board of appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. All attendees who are not recognized to speak are requested to mute their connection to the remainder of the evening, or until such time as they are recognized by the chair. And first, I would like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. So from the zoning board of appeals, Roger DuPont. Roger, can you hear me? Christian. Hey, there we are. Perfect. Thank you. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Daniel Rickidelli. Venkat Holly here. Have you and Adam LeBlanc. Right. And Elaine Hoffman will be unable to join us this evening. On behalf of the town we have Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. Good evening. Good evening. And also joining us is Paul Haverty with our outside consultant from BVH law. Good evening. So this open meeting of the Ellington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2025 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March. Well, 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. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location. So long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. 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. For this meeting, the Ellington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it is being broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. So starting with, we have several administrative items to quickly run through this evening. The first is agenda item number two, which is approval of the decision for 90 Brentwood Road. This was a hearing that was held. I believe this one was on April 11. The board deliberated voted and I wrote up the written decision distributed the board for comment. I got a couple comments back. We distributed a final version this afternoon. Are there any further questions or comments in regard to the approval draft of the written decision for 90 Brentwood Road? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the written decision for 90 Brentwood Road? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board approve the written decision in 90 Brentwood Road. Thank you. May I have a second? I can't. Mr. Goodelley. Vote of the members present at that meeting. Roger Dupont. Roger dropped off his video. I want to check back in with him in a second. Patrick Hanlon. Hi. Ben Cahole. Hi. It's happens not here. The chair votes aye. Mr. Mr. Dupont Roger are you available? Mr. Goodelley. I vote as a, so it is a, what's a five to zero decision? This is just a vote on the written decision. So we have a majority. I will note that moves us to item three on the agenda, which is approval of the written decision for 11 Pine Ridge Road. This is again, a hearing that we have held recently. I vote for the applicant was unanimous and the decision was written by Mr. Hanlon distributed to the board for questions and comments final draft issue this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to 11 Pine Ridge Road? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve the written decision for 11 Pine Ridge Road. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you very much. May I have a second? Thank Mr. Goodelley. We'll call vote of the members present at that. Mr. Dupont. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Goodelley. Chair votes aye. That is approved. That moves us to item four. Approval of the decision for 39 sunny side. Avenue. Hey, there we can hear you Roger. So the decision, so 39 sunny side Avenue was unanimous decision of the board. We had a written decision prepared by Mr. Hanlon. Distributed for questions and comments final issue. This afternoon. Any questions or additional comments regards to the decision for 39 sunny side Avenue. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the written decision for 39 sunny side Avenue. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. Thank you. May I have a second? Second. Thank you Mr. Goodelley. Roll call vote of those present. My sound went out both my speakers and my microphone. I can hear you now Roger. So is there somehow I can. Roger, I can hear you now. Period. Roger, I can hear you. He's sending me a text. Okay, but I cannot hear you. The system is muted. Mr. Hanlon. We were on, sorry, on 39 sunny side Avenue. If we've had. It was approved that we have a. A motion which has been seconded. The vote of the board. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Mr. Goodelley. I can vote now. Fantastic. Mr. Dupont. Yes. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good road and 90 Brentwood road. Will you find with both of those as well? Yes, thank you very much. Perfect. Okay. That brings us to item five on our agenda. The approval of the written decision for 25 teal street. Again, this was. A recent case. Unanimous verdict from the board. I wrote up the decision and distributed it for comments. Final draft issue this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments on the. The court will approve the reason for our amendment. Um, By the ministry? Seemed them to have a motion to approve. Miss chairman. So moved. Thank you, Mr. And a second. Second. Thank you. Mr. Dupont. Vote of the members present. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Holly. Hi. Hoffman is not present. And the chair votes are that is approved brings us to item six of view a road. Again, a recent case unanimous verdict from the board. Mr. Hanlon wrote the decision distributed for questions and comments final version issued this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments in regards to the written decision for 15 brand you wrote being done may have a motion to approve. Chairman so moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon in a second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont vote of the members present at that hearing. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holly. Hi. Hoffman was not there. Not available this evening in the chair votes. So that one is passed. Fantastic. All right. That brings us to item seven our agenda, which is deliberation on the final decision for comprehensive permit. So turning to the comprehensive permit for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. At its May 25 2023 public hearing, the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40 day period for the board to consider and render a decision. Tonight's discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the board's peer review consultants or the public. On behalf of the board, I ask everyone who is not a member of this board to please mute their connection, turn off their video and not interrupt the proceedings. I appreciate everyone's understanding. The board will begin its discussion using the draft decision available on the ZBA's website for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue is annotated during the previous meeting on May 25 2023. The board will proceed through the draft in the following order. I'd like to start with section one, the procedural history, moved to section two on jurisdictional findings, section three on factual findings, then move on to the waivers at the end, and then come back and do the conditions last. And at the end of tonight's meeting, the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting to continuous deliberations. And under state regulations, the board must issue a decision by Sunday, June 4 or request an extension from the applicant to further continuous deliberations. And should the board decide it is prepared to vote on the final decision, there are three votes the board may take. We can either vote to approve the comprehensive permit without conditions, they're just as submitted. We can vote to approve the comprehensive permit application with conditions, or we may vote to deny the comprehensive permit for this project. But what we have before us now is the, I will go ahead and bring this up. So this is the draft that we were working on in our deliberations back on the 25th. And so there's this version and I know I have, there's also a different version from the applicant that has some slight differences. I was looking to see if there was a way I could merge them, it does not look like I can. If I merge it then it automatically accepts all of the possible changes. So what I may do is just sort of jump back and forth a little bit between the two. Find the right version though. Okay, so just to confirm, are you seeing a version with a red draft notice, diagonally across the screen? Yeah, okay. I wasn't entirely sure how this was going to work. Okay, so this is the version that was with the red is the one that was prepared by the applicant. And this version here is the one that that we were working from. So on the procedural history, yes. I think we're, I'm only seeing the one version. Did you just switch between the two? I did. Are you seeing one that says drafting gray or drafting gray is the one we're seeing? Oh, okay. Oh, okay. All right. So I have to, so if I do this, then you see the red. Is that right? We see the same thing no matter what you do. Oh, that's weird. Yeah, now it's blue. I lost it with the gray. Okay. All right. So that's blue, but do you see it? Does it say drafting red now? No, now it does. Now it does, yes. No, now it does. Okay. All right. So this, the red, yeah. Okay. So that's the version that was prepared by the, by the applicant. So it's something we can reference, but I think we're better off sort of working from our copy. And then we can come back and see if there are pieces here to include. In this section, some of the differences are mainly just sort of in how the property is described. And I'm not entirely sure it's that relevant to how we do it. So your screen will flip back to the, the grade version in a second. So section one is just about the application being filed. Number two is the public hearing was opened on October 18th. Three is that it's located on the property and we are going to edit this. We should read 1021, 1027 because the, the second building is 1025, 1027. So that we want to make sure it's totally inclusive. And one point point, 1.08 acres of land located in the neighborhood office B1 district and is adjacent to the residence R6 zoning district. Nearby uses, because it's a commercial office residential uses, including an apartment building, a two family home, and a condominium development known as Milbrook. That Milbrook is actually one word property consists, property says again, so the 11% was the number that was provided by the applicant last hearing for lock coverage. So the pavement to 25% for total impervious area of 36%. No stormwater is present on the property. What the applicant provided us, applicant proposes a 50 home ownership condominium units in a single structure, the minimum 25% restricted as affordable is determined by the subsidizing agency and the applicant also proposes approximately 1700 square feet of brown level commercial space. So that was the number that they had asked us to include. And then during the hearing, this is just who were the primaries for the applicant. And then who was present for the board. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. In number eight, I think at the end of the first line, I think you want its principal's plural. Yes. Thank you. And then I would just point out that above that where it says approximately 1700 square feet of commercial space later on, there's an actual number which I believe is 16 and 58. So I don't know whether that matters, but those are two different numbers. Same, same space. And then the applicant had asked us to go with the 1700 figure rather than the 1658. Okay. So we will provide that. So we should, we should just have a standing rule that whenever, whenever that comes up, we change it to approximately 1700. Absolutely. This is who assisted the board. And then during the hearing, there was significant public input, the board heard input from butters and other interested persons throughout the hearing process. Board also heard significant input from town departments, including conservation, playing community development, engineering division and transportation advisory committee. Are there any other town departments I should list? All righty. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. No, just meditating on that, but there were at least two units. I'm not sure that they're really, they're not exactly departments. So I'll leave it to you what, how this should work. But we did get something from the affordable housing trust. Which was actually a fairly significant letter from Karen Kelleher. And we also got a statement of content of comments for the first time from the Clean Energy Future Committee, which given the importance of environmental and sustainability concerns in this project might, might be included as well. I know we also, we had, we didn't have written comment, but I know we had conversations with the police department and the fire department, which we could include. Actually, I don't know if we had contact with the police department. I know we did with fire and ISD as well. And we did with the tree committee as well on this one. Oh, that's very true. Important early on. Paul, is there anything else you can think of we should be including here? Sorry. No, I think that covers it. Great. Thank you. Got to remember to turn off mute. So spring, this is the second section, jurisdictional findings. So this first part is just sort of that they have met the legal requirements applicants demonstrate its eligibility to submit an application. Applicants is a limited liability company. They've written determine a project eligibility from a housing applicant provided a copy of the purchase and sale agreement between 1021 Massachusetts Avenue LLC and MAG investment LLC that has been assigned to the applicant and a copy of purchase and sale agreement between Jonathan Nyberg and Sarah Q. Dolan and MAG investment that has been assigned to the applicant. And so those are included. We do have that. I can't remember if we have specifically have the purchase and sale agreements or if we have the mortgages or we have some document from the from the registry proving that they have ownership. And part sub D, the applicant turned to not more than 20% of total development costs in accordance with 40 B and regulations. Um, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I just have a question and maybe this is for Mr. Haverty, but is the term return is that sort of defined? Is that a common term that's used in these? With the chairman. Yes. Actually, the HAC defines reasonable return. Okay. As someone not making more than 20% return on total costs on a ownership project. Okay. So they use the term return itself. So that's correct. I was wondering. Okay. Thanks. And 12 is the safe harbor provisions, the statutory minima. The time of filing the number of lower moderate income housing units in town constituted 5.7% for the total year round housing units in town. Um, I thought I had a more recent version of this. So Mr. Chairman, I'm pretty, I'm almost positive that there is a more recent version than December 21st, 2020. It's either 2021 or maybe it's 2022. But I remember seeing it early this year. Yeah. And that, yeah, I definitely was in an email from from Kelly line a month. So I will, I will find that and make sure those numbers get updated. And then this is the, the one and a half percent information. So I don't know if we want to put forward the number we have, or if we want to just say that we did not provide the applicant with written notice. I think that you can just stay there. We have, I think that's okay. Subceed when I result in the commencement of construction. It's not three 10 to 1% of the land there in town or 10 acres. Did we have an approved housing production plan, but it's not within or eligible for certification. Town has not achieved recent progress towards its housing unit minimum. It's originally submitted does not constitute a large project and the application doesn't constitute a related application. So I think that is it for section two and it qualifies and the board is not in a position to us. Any questions on that section? All right. So that brings us to section three to factual findings. So of land, it's 1021 1027 mass juices avenue portion of the property is located within the 200 foot riverfront area from Mill Brook property is located within the neighborhood office zoning district. In addition to being located next to various commercial uses project also about a 12 unit apartment building located at 1033 Massachusetts Avenue to family dwelling at 1017 1019 Massachusetts Avenue and a 100 unit condominium development located at 993 95 Massachusetts Avenue Mill Brook condominiums project. It's also less than a hundred feet from the historic Highland fire station at 1007 Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just as a matter of consistency, this largely repeats the information that is included in paragraph four. And I think that that we should when it comes to Mill Brook condominiums, I think that we should use to be consistent on the name of that project in both in both places and it's more accurate here. So I that means is using the word condominiums in paragraph four, I believe there's also I know a historic structure on Brattle Street. I'm not sure if we should list it or not. And I know it isn't a budding structure. Oh, no, it's not in a budding structure. It's on the other side of the condominium. Okay. So then the wetlands applicant proposes work within the outer 200 foot buffer to the riverfront area associated with Mill Brook. The riverfront area already consists of a degraded area, getting approximately 2517 that's existing paid parking area. Post work includes 4619 disturbance. Installation subsurface stormwater management infiltration system is also proposed within the riverfront area. Two areas of onsite mitigation are proposed to address the new disturbances to the riverfront area one to your feet and two creation of a meadow area of 4,000 square feet. This work will also installation of erosion control is great. I'm not sure we want to not sure why it's limited to a bench and not benches. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. In line three, it says that the river front area already consists of a degraded area containing approximately 2,517 square feet. Then the next sentence says that there's a lot of degradation in addition to that, which results in a new degraded riverfront area of 2,102 square feet. You would think from that sentence that the second number should be bigger than the first number rather than smaller. There's so I'm sure that I have no reason to doubt that the numbers are correct, but if they are, there's something that needs to be said to avoid those looking like they're in contradiction with each other or alternatively. Definitely. The first number and the third number, if you sum those, you get that middle number. I think what they're saying is that currently there's roughly 2,500 square feet that's degraded and that's the parking area. And so now they're going to be impacting 4,600 square feet, which includes an additional 2,100 square feet. So maybe if we replace the word new with additional dufuses like me, we'll understand it. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. So in the third line after 2517, I think you do need to add the word square feet after. Yes, true. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. So in the description of the work, it mentions the installation of erosion control. Are we talking about permanent erosion control or is that the temporary erosion control during construction? Everything else here seems to be the finished condition. I don't remember seeing anything for permanent erosion control. It's just the temporary. Right. I think partly it's the, I think they're relying on the planting to be the erosion control. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. I'm also, I'm looking at it too. It's also, it's sort of sequential. So they remove the trees, they install erosion control, they grade, and they install the retaining wall pass benches and things. Okay. I think that makes sense. Yeah. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. One, two, three, four, five, six lines up from the bottom of that paragraph. It talks of two areas of one site ministry. That's probably meant to be on site. You're right. Project also proposes offsite work within the inner 100-foot buffer zone to millbrook, consisting of the removal of invasive plants and installation of new native plantings. This work will be conducted by the applicant on the abutting millbrook condominium property. Project will be required to obtain an order of conditions from the conservation commission pursuant to the Protection Act. Project proposes like square feet of work within the aura. I need to confirm if I have that information. If not, we'll have to generate it. All work within the aura is limited to the woodland restoration, the replacement of an existing fence. Projects in compliance with section 25d of the Arlington Regulations for Well and Protection. Well, does the proposed work consist entirely of woodland restoration and the replacement of an existing fence from the woodland restoration is proposed work consistent entirely of woodland restoration, the replacement of an existing fence, and the woodland restoration. That's not right. I'm trying to get this to be a sentence. Woodland restoration is considered an enhancement of the resource area. Let's do that. The applicant submitted an impact analysis on the natural and built environment prepared by LEC Environmental Consultants. The applicant has utilized NOAA 14 plus data for the stormwater management calculations consistent with current best practices. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I have this big recollection that when this issue first came up in the Thorndyke case, the right description of that was NOAA 14 plus plus plus. And we have this in this application here, it's NOAA 14 plus. And there's another place where it's just NOAA plus plus plus. I think that all of those things go in, but we should just make sure that and I think the best way to a way of doing that is to look and see how it was done in the Thorndyke application because there we did it. We got it right with the assistance of the conservation commission, which is where all this came from to begin with. But I've actually I've actually think that we have we may have pulled off the unusual trick of getting it wrong twice. But whatever it is, we should we should just make sure we have the right one. Okay, now I'll I'll confirm with my notes because I remember having this this question came up specifically in one of our one of our hearings. I think it was April 25th one. Okay. Not finding it quickly in my notes. So I will look through these afterwards like in the meantime, but I haven't highlighted that moving on to the transportation network all access the project will be from Massachusetts Avenue. Project will provide 51 parking spaces for the residential units in commercial space. Project will provide 75 long term bicycle parking spaces and eight short term bicycle spaces. Designs stormwater impact board engagement and we did not do flood plain impacts because we are not in flood command. Project will connect to the early municipal water and sewer systems. Approximately 25% of the site is currently covered by impervious service. I thought we had a different number for that up here. So current total impervious area 36% project will increase the amount of the site covered by impervious surface to 27.8% of the property applicant proposes to mitigate the increase in pervious area through the installation of a full stormwater management system as with the Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Policy based on us here. That places no hemisphere NOAA plus plus precipitation data. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yep. I have succeeded in verifying that it should be NOAA 14 plus. In other words, the first place where it came up was correct and here we just need one plus. Okay. So that is the correct one and where it appeared earlier. That was also the correct one. Okay. NOAA 14 plus precipitation data. Okay. Stormwater Management Designs and Compliance with Mass Stormwater Management Standards Suspended Sunflowers Removal Infiltration and Detention of Stormwater Flows. Project is conditioned here and will address lack of affordable home ownership units in town. The Board finds that the conditions imposed in Section 4 of this decision are necessary in order to address local concerns. Board finds that such conditions will not render the project uneconomic. The extent that such conditions may render the project uneconomic is defined in 760CMR5602. The Board finds the local concerns outweigh the potential benefits of the proposed affordable units. Board finds that granting certain waivers from local bylaws and regulations is acceptable even though granting waivers may have an adverse impact on local concerns. Board acknowledges concerns raised by butters and other interested parties about the project's potential impact with near by uses. The Board has addressed these concerns by the imposition of appropriate conditions. The Board further finds that conditions detailed below appropriately address the matters of local concern and the matter that outweighs the regional need for affordable housing. The Board finds that the conditions imposed below address local and regional housing needs while properly protecting valid issues of local concern. Then there's a comment here that the applicant had proposed deleting. I don't understand why they would want to delete it but. Mr. Chairman, the question for Paul. Yes, go ahead. You should just ask the question for Paul. I'll come in later. Okay, so we have a sort of a subheading here for civil engineering side design stormwater impact. Should we have a similar one here because it feels like we changed topics between 28 and 29? Or is that just being nitpicky? I mean, it's up to you. You can subhead it any way you want to. So if you feel like providing greater detail as to this particular section is helpful, then you should. Mr. Chairman, it may be the right thing to do is to step back the other way. The heading here is this section is basically all of our findings and we don't have a whole lot. We've got location of project is one heading. But much of what is in that, I guess there's wetlands. Okay, there's more headings than I thought. So when you get to 29, you switch to affordable housing. And then 30 immediately addresses to local concern. So if you were trying to bring it down, you might put the affordable housing as part of the local concerns thing, but the basic theme is local concerns for those last several paragraphs. Which actually does make Jermaine the reason I originally asked for recognition, which is we sometimes capitalize local concerns, which presumably means that we're following the definition in the regulations. But we don't always capitalize local concern or local concerns, which kind of suggests that we mean something different there. And I'm not sure which it is, but it seems to me that if we mean something different, we should think of a way of saying it that would be less confusing. And if we mean always local concern in the regulatory sense, we should capitalize it each place. But using using the same words in both capitalized and not capitalized creates a potential confusion that is that seems unnecessary. Okay. Paul, I don't actually, Paul probably knows better than anybody, whether whether we actually are using two different concepts here or whether we're not. Paul, we can't hear you. Can we? Yeah, now can. Talking about local concerns, you're talking about the regulatory definition and the regulations, it should be capitalized. Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, there's one additional thing I like to assuming that we go another day, so I can actually do this on number 29, excuse me, yes, it's, I think it's 29. I'd like to add a sentence there that we can draw from Ms. Kelleher's letter to us relating to the extremely low number of affordable ownership units that we have in town, just to emphasize what a big deal this is. Everywhere else in these local concern is capitalized. The local needs, I believe, is also a defined term. Before we do conditions, I wanted to review the waivers just because the intent of the conditions is the conditions are there to mitigate the effects of granting the waiver. So I want to go ahead and cover waivers first. Actually, I'm waiting for requests. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. So while we're looking for this, the very first one waiver, the applicant requests a waiver of the section to allow for the proposed project consisting of 50 multifamily home ownership condominium units and associated 1,658 square feet of commercial space. That raises the approximately 1,700 issue again, but I'm wondering since we earlier have defined what we mean by project as including these things, whether we couldn't just rely on that definition and not go through the trouble of spelling it all out again and risking saying it differently. Mr. Haverty, do you have a view on that? Yeah, again, the project is defined, so there's no need to really restate it. So I would say to allow the project as proposed. The number two is the front yard setback. It's going from 20 down to 17. Mr. Chairman, going back to one, on the last line you've got to allow the proposed project as proposed. So I think you just take care of the original proposed, the initial. Ah, right. Thank you. And number three, applicant also requests a waiver of the maximum height requirement of this section, which limits the height of a structure to three stories and 35 feet. The applicant requests the waiver to allow a structure containing five stories and a building height of 66 feet, four inches. That's good and clear. Section 552, applicant also requests a waiver of the floor area ratio requirement in this section, which limits floor area ratio to a maximum of 0.75 and the applicant requests a waiver to allow an FAR of 2.0. Simple. Section, Article 6, Section 614, this section requires one parking space per residential unit plus additional off-street parking for the commercial space. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a total of 51 parking spaces for their proposed 50 condominium units and associated. There's our magic number again, 17, 1700 square feet of commercial space. I think in total for 1700 square feet of commercial space, I think it's four, it's only four or five parking spaces. So they're really requesting a waiver of like three or four spaces in total. Mr. Chair, may I ask a question about that? Absolutely. So I was looking back because I had written down a different number than the 51 number and the similar drive say 53. Is that, did that change later on in the process? And I just don't remember it. No, we've gone back. We went back and forth on this question as to what the actual parking space count is. And I'm going to do one last dive through the documents, but I know that there was, yeah, she was pretty adamant about a number. Okay. I'm looking at sheet six of the, the Patriot engineering drawings. The chart there says 53 from the latest, what I think is the latest set. Oh, okay. This number was also stated earlier. I just took you a little bit of time to find where I was remembering it. Thanks. Mr. Chairman. Helen. Question for Mr. Havarty. Suppose it turns out that what the applicant did tell us on April 25th is 51. And what they have on their plans is 53. And we can't ask them what they really mean because we can't ask anybody any questions anymore except Mr. Havarty. And I'm wondering what we do about that because it has implications as to what it is we're actually authorizing. So Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that if you're granting a waiver to allow 51 spaces and the plans actually show 53, there's really no harm to the board. If you were granting a waiver to allow 53, and it turns out that the proposal was actually 51, then they have to come back for the modification. So basically the way we say it here, Trump's with what's on the plan? Because it would not prevent them from constructing 53 spaces as shown on the plan. What it does is authorize them to do only 51 spaces. That's what the waiver I see. Okay. The waiver number six, again zoning article six, sexual requires one and a half long-term bicycle parking spaces and one tenth short-term bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit. It's the minimum number of required bike spaces without a finding of the special permit granting authority unless a physical assistance is provided. The applicant requests a waiver to allow 48 bicycle storage units in the basement and 27 unassisted hanging bicycle spaces in the garage. Mr. Chairman, so the 48 spaces and yes, sir. I'm sorry, go ahead. Now I'll come in in a minute. I was just going to say the 48 spaces in the basement, the bikes are not, their bikes are at ground on the floor, so they don't require being raised. It's just the 27 additional spaces that are in the parking garage that they want to hang on the wall, but they would not have a lift assist system with them as is required by our bylaws. So I have a question as to are we using the bicycle storage unit term intentionally as opposed to bicycle parking spaces? Because we say 1.5 on the second line, one and a half, and then down below we call them bicycle storage units and I just was unfamiliar with perhaps the section of the bylaw that maybe it used storage unit as well. I think for consistent, we could say parking spaces. That would seem more straightforward than hanging spaces in the garage. I think adding parking to the unassisted hanging bicycle spaces would just make confusing. And then as long as the board is comfortable with having the bike spaces that are in the garage be unassisted for lifting, then we could consider granting the waiver. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I've been trying to quickly find the right section of the, but the way in which this is written, these bylaws do not allow hanging bike spaces to count towards the minimum number of required bike spaces without a finding of the special permit granting authority unless physical assistance is provided. But it doesn't say what that finding is. And I'm trying to, I don't remember, and I'm trying to figure out what finding the bylaw poses that we make. We may be able to make that finding under the bylaw in which case a waiver is unnecessary. Oh, good point. You don't see it right away. We can add it to our homework. Well, it should be in Article Six, Section Six. I'm trying to, there's a lot of words in here I'm trying to find. Article Six, Section Six. It says bicycle parking. No, 6-1-12 is the right one, right? So I'm close. There we go. 6-1-12. I don't actually see the... We can come back to it. Okay. I've got it here. I'll look at it with one eye. It's got to be there somewhere. Yeah. Number seven, so Title Five. So now we're into the town bylaws. We're out of the zoning bylaws. Title Five, Article 16, Sections Two and Four, Tree Protection and Preservation. Appoint or request a waiver of the requirement to make a payment to the Tree Fund for removal of protected trees in lieu of the Riverfront Restoration proposed in the approved plans. So they are doing Riverfront Restoration immediately adjacent to Millbrook, which is here there. So they're sort of trying to double count it. They're counting it against the Conservation Commission for the work that they're doing within the aura. Then they're also saying here it should also count against the Tree Bylaw. So we had... I think we had talked to them at one point briefly about their adding... They're paying for this and they felt it was... Because of the it being a 40B project, they shouldn't have... It would be an unnecessary burden for them to pay for it. We had asked them specifically if they would be willing to plant additional street trees and they had again said that they thought that that would be burdensome to them. But they are specifically requesting a waiver from this section of our town bylaws. And so I guess the question then for the board is what do we feel comfortable saying that given what they're doing in terms of the restoration of that back area that we're okay with them not paying into the trees fund? Or do we say that they should be doing more in order to be relieved from the requirements of the bylaws? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So on the merits of that, I started off with the idea that we should not be forgiving the fee. They're basically taking down everything and including some very significant trees. I did withdraw from that position in the course of the hearings and the reason for it was that I became increasingly appreciated the value of the... In part because of what Ms. Chapnick of the Conservation Commission said, the value of that urban park in the back and the restoration of native species, I did was always concerned, as Mr. Moore knows, that this is only a big plus as long as it survives and actually is established. And we have attempted to address that in another place. But this taking out the predominantly the Norway maples and keeping them away while the new the New Woodland matures, if it is successful will be a major plus for the town and I think would merit a waiver. So we'll come in other places to conditions that are designed to make sure that the proposal works in reality. But I think that if we make the assumption that it does, that a waiver of the fee here is is is appropriate and and I would support it. Okay. Other thoughts on this? Sure. Mr. Cadelli. I agree with what Pat's saying. I'm not sure I've come around all the way to think that the waiver is appropriate. I think I was just rereading the drawings before this meeting and they're removing 79 trees that are established in that back area. And most of what are being replaced are, you know, two inch caliper trees, which will certainly not, you know, I think it's a great thing for the long term, but those won't be reaching their potential for many, many years. So it does make me slightly uncomfortable to say, well, you can sort of clear cut this whole site and plant, you know, more like seedlings or very young trees that would in the future be a benefit to the city. But in the short term, you know, won't be doing very much in terms of a tree canopy or water management or any of that stuff. So I still think it makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I will say that I know it was asked of the applicant that if they would consider planting a couple more trees along Mass Ave. And I felt as when that question came up, that that would be maybe a reasonable way to get around this and we waived the fee if they're willing to maybe extend their reach along Mass Ave. A bit, which this area doesn't have a lot of street trees. But I remember them saying that they weren't willing to do that. So I think, you know, I'd love to hear how others feel, but I think this one still makes me a little uncomfortable. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duke, respond. So I agree with both Pat and Dan. And when I read this, I just was wondering if we had any senses to what the amount would be that would be required for payment to the fund. Because is this a per inch diameter sort of calculation? Because it just says, you know, waive the requirement to make a payment. And I had no clear idea as to what we were talking in terms of dollars. Right. So it's specifically for protected trees, which are trees that are within the setback. So it's not all the trees on the side. It's just the ones that are all within the setbacks. And it is, the price is set by the size of the tree. So we can prepare that calculation for next time. If we want to know what that actual value is, we can. Even if they provide us efficient information. I'm sorry, even a ballpark figure might be helpful. But would you know, does that include the invasive Norway maples as well that would be included in that calculation? Absolutely. Because that gets us back into what Pat was saying about how the Conservation Commission thought that it was, if I'm not misquoting Pat, thought it was a benefit to actually get rid of those ultimately and to have them replaced. So I think it's a little bit of, you know, balancing, I guess. Mr. Chairman, it would be great to be able to recognize Mr. Moore, but we can't. But in lieu of that, I think we might, this is, this may be one of those places where having a transcript will be helpful. We will can look back and see in the record what we have. My recollection of the Street Tree conversation is that we were quite taken with that. The applicant after looking at it was very negative. I am not sure that it ever got down to dollars and cents as opposed to we will or we won't do it. But as I recall, we did link that directly to the waiver of this fee. And we were thinking to ourselves that, you know, it's one thing to ask someone to pay into a fund that could be spent anywhere. It's another thing to ask someone to take an equivalent amount of money and either directly or indirectly because they don't necessarily have the property interest necessary to plant the Street Trees. But if they could do that, that would be to the benefit of their project and its residents in a way, in a direct way that is far different from being just in general for the benefit of the town. And that kind of a nexus seemed to us at the time to be a reason to be thinking along those lines. And on the assumption that the Street Trees are not hugely expensive, it seemed like a useful addition in return for this waiver, a useful addition rather than having the sort of blanket contribution. They indicated they did not wish to do that. Nevertheless, if it's a local concern, it's our local concern. And I don't think that we are limited and we have not in the past considered ourselves as limited to doing only the things that the applicant is prepared to consent to do. At the end of the day, we may have an appeal or and there may be difficulties. But we could follow it up on this ground. I would be very reluctant to insist on they're actually paying the full amount into trust fund that benefits the whole town. But if there were, if as Dan suggested, there was a way of doing this that could be worked out in a condition so that we can, so that it ties it more closely to this site in this neighborhood. I think that that would be a concern that might overbalance the reluctance of the applicant to do that. But I would think that we'd need to figure out a way of making that pretty tight. I just sort of felt feel that a lot of the work that they're doing in order to get those permits, a lot of the stuff that now is becoming this urban woodland in the back is really a response to that. And then to say, oh, but it's this too, I think I don't feel as necessarily as appropriate. And I agree, Pat, as you said earlier, we really felt that adding some street trees really addressed this in particular. And I like the notion of maybe we reconsider that and we say that we just be very specific that we would be looking for X number of trees within X number of feet of the project site. And then we leave it up to them to determine how that how that happens. Right. And we may need to write in there what happens if they can't get, I mean, I'm guessing I don't really know at this point what property interests they need to be able to execute on that condition. I don't want to make them do something that they can't they can't do. And it may very well be that the town controls a great deal of the property that's there. And it's a matter of getting the cooperation of the town. And I think we need to think we need to think that through and write the condition in such a way that it doesn't impose an unfair obligation on them in case they have a recalcitrant property on it. Okay. All right. So then what's our what's our takeaway on this one that we some Mr. Chair, it sounds like if I may ask Pat, it sounds like Pat, you're suggesting that we would grant the waiver and then run a condition rather than denying the waiver west and and going from there. Correct. Yeah, that would be the way I think about it is that you'd ultimately grant the waiver. But the reason why is the condition, which if they satisfy that condition, it satisfies what we think we need in order to make the waiver. Okay. And we could in this in the waiver grant section say that we're you know, the board feels that additional an additional condition is more warranted and refer it back to the condition to those that section and then at least it's tied. Yeah, the tie could easily go the other way as well. In fact, it may properly go both ways. When we do the condition, we explicitly tie it to the waiver, which actually would be a probably a pretty good idea to do period. Number eight, wetland protection applicant request a waiver. The procedure requirement of obtaining an order of conditions from the Arlington Conservation Commission, no substantive waivers of the wetland protection bylaw was requested. Waiver denied is unnecessary. First to end, the comprehensive permits as soon as all local permitting requirements currently this comprehensive permit includes an order of conditions under the local bylaw, there's no waivers required. Simple. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. You may have just fixed it, but there was a failure to agree of Bourbon's noun and earlier where word is attempting to tell us that in the last sentence of section eight, there's a little underline there that indicates that there's something wrong. And if you click on that, it'll fix it. But anyway, it should be no substantive waivers or no fissile waivers were. Yeah. Now, so is this the applicant requests a waiver of the procedural requirements or from the procedural requirements? Make from works better. Yeah. Number nine. Title five, Article 15, stormwater management applicant requests a waiver of the procedural requirements of obtaining approval of a stormwater management plan. Those substantive waivers of this article are requested. And then waiver denied is unnecessary again, for the same reason. I'm not sure, I think maybe requirements should maybe be singular, but 10 are linked to historical commission. The applicant notes that the structure at 1021 Massachusetts Avenue 1021. 1023 Massachusetts Avenue is listed on the historic structures inventory, requiring determinations in the Arlington Historic Commission, whether the structure is preferably retained under the demolition delay bylaw. The applicant requests that the Board determine that the structure is not required to go through the demolition delay process. Well, action depends on the report. So as these things go, the historic commission did discuss this project, and they, we closed the hearing at 730 p.m. on the 25th, and I got the letter from them at 1030 that night. So unfortunately, the official is not in the record, but we do have testimony from the applicant on the April 25th, sort of spelling out what had happened, and basically what the historic commission decided that it should be, it should have a demolition delay, but then they sort of waived the requirement, which is all moot because they're not allowed to act on it anyways, because it's under our jurisdiction as soon as it was, as the governance of permit was filed. So I think, and Mr., Mr. Havity can, with this, I think it's this same response here that a waiver is deemed as unnecessary because it's under our jurisdiction now. The right language of this is, why doesn't it look to everyone? Looks good. Okay, we can move on to number 11. After the lighting, so condition E9 states that they're, they do not have any upliting, and they confirmed in the hearings that they have no upliting. So it seems like this is a waiver that they do not need. Just say that. So the INI fees, we routinely grant that because we do not have a set. We have nothing in writing in the bylaws that states that we charge INI fees, so we can't impose it. Number 13, efficacy waiver for the building step back requirements of this section, which requires an additional seven and one half foot step back beginning at the fourth story along the street frontage, which we would grant. I think that addresses all the, we had, I, this one we had added, I don't recall if there were any other, oh, that was it. There was one more waiver they needed. This would be, and I can find the right citation on this. It's the noise abatement section that says you have to start at eight on weekdays and nine on weekends, and they had requested the ability to start at seven. And they had said, I had asked them if they would be willing, if in exchange for being able to start at seven during the week, whether they would be willing to drop Sunday and holiday hours, and they said they would. So that would basically be the swap that they would allow them to start construction at seven a.m. But in exchange, they would not be, they would not have any construction hours on Sundays. I want to make sure we can. So, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. We might do this in a way similar to the one we discussed before. The waiver is the waiver here, possibly with a cross reference to a condition. And then the condition can say explicitly that, you know, in lieu of the applicants doing this, the board waived the normal requirements of the noise control by law. And I can take the language from the, I'm pretty sure we did the exact same thing at 1165R, so we can, I can just take the language from there. Anyone think of any other, any other waivers that we were contemplating? I don't think so. So, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of that, I have succeeded in finding the right section of the zoning bylaw that deals with this. It's basically subsection that deals with the, what is required by the special permit granting authority. And, oh, okay. It's subparagraph F, or at least it seems to be the case, which says that bicycle parking designed in the following matter shall not be permitted unless otherwise allowed by the special permit granting authority upon a finding of unusual circumstances unique to the property. And then it lists three circumstances, one of which, none of them are exactly what it is that we have here, but they're they're relatively close. And that's all I was able. So is that still under 6-1-12? Yeah, it is. The 6-1-12 F, I think there's lots of subparts to 6-1-12. This is the only reference that I can find of the special permit granting authority. The three things that are listed here are storage that requires bicycles to be lying down or requiring a kickstand to remain upright, bicycles that must be hung with one or more wheels suspended in the air, just sort of what they're doing, or bicycles that must be lifted off the ground or floor without any physical assistance. And those are all not just not counted, they are not permitted in the absence of unusual circumstances unique to the property. And I doubt that we would be able to make that finding in this case, so they probably do need the waiver. Okay, back to the start of conditions. So we're at 9 o'clock, we're doing good. I don't know how late people want to go tonight, but we can make some progress with conditions that would definitely be great, and then we'll need to figure out when we would want to continue to. So why don't we go ahead and dig into conditions. So Mr. Chairman, can I suggest something? Yes, please. As we go through this, I mean up to now we've on a number of occasions found relatively small things that we spend time on. And I was wondering if assuming that we're not going to finish tonight, if we're in a position where when we have what seems to be typos, you know, things that don't really require discussion, they just require fixing. If we were to give those things to Mr. Havarty and he could make a judgment as to whether or not that can just be put into the next draft or whether that is something that he thinks that we ought to be considering because they're substantive, we might be able to make some progress by not having to spend time on small things and focusing more on things that we identify that are larger. If Mr. Havarty thinks that's an appropriate procedure and consistent with our legal obligations, it might be helpful to do that. I think that that would be fine. I struggle to imagine what a substantive typo would be. I can think of some. Sure, I could make that kind of typo. Okay, so I think that's a fine way to proceed. So here, just being a little more definition about who the comprehensive permit applies to, that we've read about conditions, constructed and conformed to the plans listed below, who has prepared them, so now it's just so this is their documentation in September 19th revisions through April 14th. The mohearn, those are the architectural plans, landscaping details, the KCLA, landscaping, lighting plans, utility plans, construction management plans, just so that those are all enumerated in. A three, that the applicant should be a limited dividend entity is required under chapter 40 being its successors, or a four project consists of not more than 50 home ownership condominium units located in a single structure and other amenities as shown on the approved plans. Project consists of no more than 96 bedrooms. Project consists of approximately seven, so also is approximately 1700 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the 96 bedrooms. I don't remember a discussion about that and don't have the remotest idea why it is we would impose that condition particularly. And so if I'm looking forward, I mean, it may very well be that that's just what the plan chose, but why we would identify that particularly seems odd to me and potentially questionable. So I'm fairly confident that we include this on all of them because it sort of sets a cap on the number of, because they're providing a variety of one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units. So the number 96 comes from them as to the maximum number of bedrooms that they're anticipating. Yeah, the question, that's fine with me. They can do 96. I'm not encouraging them to do more. The way you'd get to beyond that 96 presumably is by having two bedrooms instead of one bedroom and there were three bedrooms instead of two or one bedrooms and that would mean reconfiguring things and putting, but making somewhat smaller apartments and so forth. I can see lots of reasons why they don't want to do that and wouldn't do that. But now that we don't base the parking requirements on the number of bedrooms anymore and we don't want to do things like controlling the number of bedrooms in order to control the possible expansion of the school age population. I don't see why we should call that out. The plans show what they show and I don't see any reason why, I mean, I don't see any reason why we should put that, make a legal requirement out of it. As I asked that question of Paul, is that sort of a typical language to include the number of bedrooms? It is, but it's certainly not a requirement. Okay. I mean, I guess I would propose keeping it partly because there definitely are on the plans in certain spaces. There are things that are referred to as study and things like that and rather than have them, you know, rather than have those converted to another use before the unit is sold. I think it's a worthwhile safeguard for the board that the properties, you know, we are saying it's 50 units, but that it really just constitutes 96 bedrooms. Why? How do other people feel? Mr. Chair, I agree with you. I mean, I think that it's useful language, as Pat said, even though the parking is not necessarily tied to the number of bedrooms, sort of all the spaces are tied to the number of bedrooms in the building, bike parking, the amount of open space and amenity that is being provided is all sort of contingent on this. And if I'm just sort of gaming out a scenario, if the owner decided that every bedroom, every one bedroom was sized to, was large enough to be a two bedroom and then later on decide to convert, you might have, you know, 25% more residents in the building, which I think would be a detriment. So, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dupont, following up on that idea, too, I mean, I think a lot of the times condominium documents themselves don't actually, they may state at the end of the condominium master deed, what each unit consists of in terms of rooms. And but I'm not sure that that's necessarily binding. And I think that, you know, people can do to the interior of their condominium units what they wish as long as it doesn't involve the structural elements. So, you know, it might be, as Dan has said, might be useful, too, so that you don't have people converting a lot of spaces to bedroom spaces. And the way I've seen it at times, too, even though you can go back to the condominium documents themselves, as I see, you know, eight real estate agents sort of pumping up the number of bedrooms in a particular unit and counting spaces which have not actually been designated as bedrooms. So it's probably not a major deal, but I don't think it hurts to keep that number there. Well, I just, I would like to just, I'm not going to agree with that. But it seems to, I've been thinking of my five a son who's been living for a long time until he recently got a house in the District of Columbia. And having a three bedroom apartment with two children who want their own bedrooms, it's tight. If they had a study or they were able to get an extra bedroom out of it, possibly if some unexpected child should come along. I don't see any reason why we should be sitting here with no better reason than just fearing how many people make it fall to get into this building to tell property owners, in this case, property owners, that they can't, they can't do that in order to meet their own needs. It seems to me that it's a, it's a kind of overreaching that people sometimes criticize boards from doing. And I would let the property owners do what they want to and not risk it. Of course, you know, that it won't be, I believe that it won't really be enforced unless somebody is concerned about that third baby crying too much. And it's likely to be quite arbitrary sort of thing. And since it isn't necessarily room by apartment by apartment, it just would involve a general difficulty that I think that we should not reach out to do. Now, of course, you know, they are doing the plans. And the plans will show the bedrooms. And the, you know, without singling it out, it may very well be that, that that then is a practical matter. They can't really do much about this anyway. But singling it out is a problem for me. It's also a problem for me, frankly, that this is exactly what you do when you're trying to control the school population. Just try to get, try to limit the number of bedrooms so that smaller families occupy the, occupy the building. And so they don't generate as much students. And as you know, this is this thing that we are not supposed to be taking into consideration. And I don't propose that we are taking into consideration because we barely notice this until now. But it has a bad look to it. And I'm not comfortable with that. Well, I'm fairly, I'm fairly confident we've included this on all the other ones. But I'm so slow at the update review that I would be comfortable taking out the specific number and coming up with something that just says that units shall be as in the approved plans or something, you know, something along those lines that just sort of says that, you know, sort of ties the number of units to the, because we're tying the number of units to the plans. And I think we, the approved plans give a certain count of one, two, and three bedroom units. And so if we were to just say that the project, the project shall consist of the number of bedrooms indicated on the approved plans. And we just left it at that. Or is that, is that still problematic? Well, we've defined the project already. And we haven't used the number of bedrooms in that definition. Right. So if we took out the number of bedrooms and we just referred it back to the approved plans, does that address your concern or is that still too limiting? Well, you know, I'm counting and looking and suspect that I don't have the votes position, but it seems to me that that it's at least helpful to me to do that, because I think that they basically would be stuck with whatever's in their plans anyway. And it would, as a practical matter, make this less salient. So I can go along with that. Paul, do you have any other ideas? Patrick's point, I do think this becomes an enforcement problem for you if you do try to limit conversion of space to bedrooms. I think you are probably better off being somewhat vague, just tying it to compliance with the approved plans so that if somebody does want to come in and convert space, they would have to at least inform the board and get the permit modified. Okay. So if we said that the project shall consist of the distribution of units as presented in the approved plans. It's fine. We ought to be able to do this without saying that the project consists of because we've said that before and I don't want to say it again the other in a way that contradicts it. So now I'm trying to find. So if we just said the distribution of units shall be as presented in the approved plans. Yes. That would do better. You may want to go in A5 and put that there should be a minimum of 51 vehicle parking spaces in case the developer was intending to build the 53 spaces. Very well taken. Percent to the revised waiver list submitted to the board and attached here to his exhibit A to have the request in the board is granted those waivers from the bylaw and other local bylaws and regulations are specified here. They're in no waivers are granted from requirements that are beyond the purview of 40B20 to 23 no waiver of permit or inspection fees has been granted any subsequent revision to the approved plans including but not limited to revisions of the final plans reference below that requires additional or more expensive waivers and must be approved by the board in accordance. All right. Decision for our submission of plans and other documents for approval of the director planning the development other time departments the director. This we are going back and forth. I think we had originally said 45. And then we agreed that we would do 30 specifically because it doesn't say that they have to be done in 30 days just as they have to respond within 30 days. We thought that was fine. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just was I'm wondering whether I mean that this is the way we did this in the 1165R and was we made it clear this is what we intended. But I wonder if Paul could give us some advice as to whether he thinks that the weight that we're putting on the word responses is sufficiently clear that if a controversy should develop in the future that we can be confident that the deciding authority would back us up. I mean at the end of the day I don't see it ever getting to that point. There's no way a developer is going to take a question regarding the response of the board to the housing appeals committee because it's going to take them 10 times longer to get a resolution that way that it's going to get just working with the board. So I wouldn't I wouldn't be too concerned about that language. Okay eight. What happens if they transfer the project provisions that conference of permit decision conditions to be binding on the successors the 10 sidewalks driveways roads utility strange systems and all their outside infrastructure shown improved plans that serving the project shall remain private in perpetuity in the town shall not have now or in the future any legal responsibility for the operation or maintenance of the infrastructure including but not limited to snow removal landscape maintenance hydrant maintenance that we there are no hydrants on the site so I don't know if we want to remove that and just say not limited to snow removal and the landscape maintenance 1111 was indicated here and the board may designate agent to review and approve matters on the board's behalf on the section be on affordability. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Could I go backward for one second? Yeah. On the on the parking. I just wonder if it would be worthwhile to change the language instead of saying anti-cap spaces to say accessible spaces because that's what 21 CMR says. I just I just looked it up. That's why I didn't say it earlier. No, that is great. Thank you. These are fairly boilerplate. 25% which is 13 which is the correct number that it's home ownership units. For units restricted for sale the households earning no more than the maximum allowable household income adjusted for household size as term of a mass housing or any substitute subsidizing agency. Advocates shall obtain approval by the subsidizing agency or the affirmative for mass marketing plan prior to the sale of any affordable units. The initial sale of units in the project the maximum number of affordable units allowed by law that may be subject to a local preference is 70% if approved by the subsidizing agency the board chooses not to implement any local preference but recognizing the regional need for affordable housing as permanent. So essentially what that just means is that the board is not going to request that the subsidizing agency sets aside a certain number or a certain percentage of units that are affordable specifically for town residents. And so we have on all the ones we've done recently we have basically waived the local preference section. So that's just what that is. The submission requirements prior to any construction or site development activities the applicant shall deliver to the board a check and a reasonable amount determined by the director of planning and development to be used for staff to retain outside experts if necessary for technical review and inspections required under these conditions but at inception shall not exceed $6500 unless an alternate amount has been agreed upon by applicant and then they had requested we had I think we had done this previously we just say outside peer review shall only be used if town staff lacks the necessary expertise to review a particular aspect or aspects of the final plans. So the town will do what reviews it can in-house and if it has to go out of house it hasn't the options and still do so. Be obtained and file a copy of the national pollution discharge elimination system Kermit. So I know there was a question as to whether or not this property was large enough to actually need to prepare this document but this does say that they need to do it if necessary. So we I think we're fine just leaving it in and the board shall also be provided a copy of the stormwater pollution prevention plan submitted along with any required NPDES filing. Mr. Chairman this is happening so back on A. I've read this with a thought in mind that I didn't have when we dealt with this earlier but we've made it very clear here that we under when we originally came up with language like this we were saying we were thinking very broadly that if a town can do it to whatever the work is that the outside expert is being asked to do if the town can do it then the town should do it and the applicant should only be able to have to only have to pay when the town can't do it but there are reasons why the town can't do it other than that they don't have anybody with the necessary expertise. So for example Claire has lots and lots of expertise on a zillion kinds of things and it would be a very difficult thing for the town to prioritize pulling with whatever these things are when the person who has the expertise and so many other things that they have to do that it would be unreasonable to imagine that that she would do it even though she conceivably could. And I was wondering if we could maybe instead of being so clear that the only thing is necessary expertise if we might make it a little bit broader and say outside peer review should only be used if the town staff is not reasonably able to review a particular aspect so that we have I mean reasonably able as a more flexible concept and takes into account more reasons why it is that it would that it would not be a proper to imagine the town doing doing things in house that that that they can't reasonably do. Paul do you have a do you think we could get away with that? Sounds fine. Yeah because that's okay I look forward to thinking you know the problem that the department is going to run into is nothing to do with expertise it has to do with capacity especially where they're down to at least two staff people at the moment so I think this works and then subspeed the final engineering drawings and plans such approval to be that the plans conform to the requirements of comprehensive permit and incorporate all the relevant conditions here is having jurisdiction look well sheets the final plan shall be signed and see a survey or final plans will be submitted to the board at least 30 days prior to the anticipated date of the commencement of building construction or submission and that 30 was a reduction from 45 which I don't know if anyone has a concern about that brings us to D that's the landscaping plan dinosaur by Richard that's architected between the following overall planting plan that includes the demarcation of clearing and the limits of work planting plans for drives showing shade trees and lighting fixture locations plan of walkways and open space and recreation areas if any prototype planting plans for each area of the property planting schedules tree protection preservation plans construction fencing along the budding property lines extraction details it's just the number two there the planting plans for drives they don't have any drives but we do have drive way with sidewalk we have other areas I don't know if this is not sure what a better way to phrase that would be so Christian these things you're not all I don't it didn't I don't interpret all of these things as the fact that it's listed here means that in fact the applicant is going to actually be doing doing anything in a particular category it's just that if they do they it has to be shown it has to be shown so I wonder I mean so if that's if that's what it's supposed to mean then I think that we can leave things the way they are and then they just won't have a drive so they won't show anything they may have fixtures but because I thought it was just getting rid of the term for drives I just say planting plans showing shade tree locations uh no I think you're right let's just leave it don't worry about it and for this next one I need to go back to so we do have and the applicant has requested that we include in the commission and so this here we're talking about percentage survival and time frames I want to go back and make sure that those are specifically incomplete you know agree with the time frames and things that were put forward by the conservation commission so we want to make sure that those are in agreement and then sub e so we did have a construction mitigation plan um and that was approved by the town and works with the conservation commission and everyone so I think we're good there so the applicant didn't specifically flag the reference to 45 days here as they had where else should we leave it as 45 or should we change it to 30 chairman it should be consistent okay it's really done um applicants should include on the final plans all the various changes that have occurred during the hearing process these plans should reflect there's an extra space reflect site plan changes include but out limited to surface parking proposed rating stormwater gradualation other relevant features final plan shall show designated stone snow storage areas um so we have gone around and around with them on that um I do feel pretty strongly it's important that they know where they're going to put their snow so unless anyone is objects I want to make sure we keep that in but mr chairman yes sir this isn't an objection but in the area that you just deleted uh Paul it suggested I think it was Paul had suggested that uh they either should show this area or we should have a condition requiring removal of the snow from the site which I take to be implicitly saying that they won't have a snow storage area on the site because they won't store any snow on the site I'm not I'm I'm completely with every with you on the fact that this has got to be addressed does it need to be addressed by designating which is the better way to address it here where and if where I don't know that they actually well which is the better way to address it it might be better to insist that they just remove the snow and they don't store anything outside I mean I guess the question that becomes you know if they have a if we have a light snow storm and somebody shovels they shovel off the sidewalk does the snow they just removed now have to be trucked away like we say it just has to be removed chairman yes sir it should either be placed in designated snow storage areas or removed from the site oh that's good the notification to the assessors for addresses and numbers prior to the issuance of any building permit the application shall record the comprehensive permit with Middlesex south registry of beads submit to the board and the director of planning community development evidence of final approval from the subsidizing agency as required by housing project eligibility letter submit to the board a copy of the regulatory agreement and monitoring services agreement for the project execution with DHCD shall be complete prior to the issuance of any building permit submit to the building commissioner final architectural plan prepared signed by an architect okay automatic print core system conforming with NFPA 13 and the fire alarm system informing with NFPA 72 okay and file with the building commissioner a copy of all required federal state and local permits and approvals required to begin construction take on necessary building electrical plumbing and associated permits required to begin construction of the project required by state law so the compliance with the requirement is part of the building permit process rather than required prior to the issuance of the building permit applicant will be responsible for all applicable sewer permit capacity impacts to not just the i and i fees which is impact so okay here sorry second sense notwithstanding anything here in the applicant shall not be responsible to pay for and low infiltration fees perfect uh applicant not responsible for applicable warning sewer system fees that i and i alarm additional test pits at the proposed storm water basins to confirm groundwater elevation test pits shall be done during seasonal high groundwater conditions shall be witnessed by the town and or its agent uh if mr chairman before we go on to d i've I guess this is a question for mr haverty but and we've well we just read repeatedly refers to building condition building commissioner and capital letters which is not in arlington the title of the person who function who executes that function I don't remember whether there's somewhere a definition in this document of what a building commissioner is that that would make that clear but I'm wondering whether there's anything whether we either ought to say that the building commissioner refers to the director of inspectional services uh in the town of arlington or whether we should use his actual title or whether we don't need to because in state law building commissioner is a broad enough term to include everybody who does what building commissioners do but I know some towns have these and some towns don't and I don't fully understand what the differences are tension is to have the director of inspectional services serve this function that's what it should state okay okay so this comes up quite a bit we should can just do a global search to change those right if you want to see if there's sure locations led to the board engineer aren't you obtained of acceptance in the audit fire department of testing and all fire protection systems yeah obtained sewer connection sign off from the department of public works prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project the applicant shall submit final as built plans under association so in the original that's going to quickly flip over to the one that's provided by the applicant that they submit to the board for review by its council a copy of the condominium is the station master deed and rules and regulations to ensure such documents contain a reference that the condominium is subject to this decision and identify the following continuing conditions after the receipt of an occupancy permit so I think that this list here is what they list that the conditions that run in perpetuity so I don't know if that makes our document yeah so it's basically the same thing with the little they won't have a homeowner association I don't think no but it will have a condo association which will function in a similar way so I'm I pretty I think that Paul's comment here is persuasive that I know enough about what it's like to be on the board of directors of a condo association because I've done it for about 30 years in one capacity or another and you forget everything really and nobody kind of remembers what is going on so that everything that that calls you back to the kinds of things that you should be paying attention to is helpful and that's kind of what Paul's language does he mentioned specifically a couple of things that that are are discussed in the decision but really it's emphasizing that all of the conditions that it will be applicable are are within what the homeowners association is supposed to be paying attention to now it may very well be that that if we go through this document we will discover that the list that the applicant has given us consists of not necessarily permanent conditions they don't have to be permanent but things where the obligation continues after the occupancy permit but I wouldn't be willing to sort of I wouldn't be willing to commit myself to one particular list without combing through this document to make sure that that list includes everything that we want right and I'm not particularly volunteering to do that uh and basically if if a condition doesn't apply a continuing obligation the homeowners association or the condo association can properly ignore it if it does then I want them to be paying attention to it and I don't want to be at our risk enumerating things and if I miss something then there's something the homeowners association doesn't have to do so I kind of prefer not not being too specific about listing everything that is a continuing obligation so then would you end at the term here in or is there something else you want to include oh I see no I think that it would be fine ending after her in although I invite Paul to I think that was what his recommendation is and I was happy with it if it's helpful to have something more that would be fine but I don't see that as necessary because I think this additional language was added by the applicant to ensure maybe maybe the concept of ensuring such documents contain a reference that the condominium is subject to this decision I think that that part is there and that's a useful sentence the question is basically identifying the following continuing conditions that that's it's that half of a sentence that clause that is giving me a little bit of heartburn so I guess the logic of the situation is to submit to the board for its review by its counsel and so forth a copy of the condominium stuff to ensure that and then that's where the to ensure part would come in right those documents have to be there to ensure that such documents contain a reference that the condo association is subject to this decision and then you can go to the at minimum sentence and then that could end with the word here in I think that that works all is that makes sense to you so what what am I changing you're taking the part about ensuring and and tagging it on to the first sentence and then you're leaving the second sentence alone all right I'm designing construction prior to commencement of any work on the property the applicant and the site general contractor shall attend a pre-construction conference representatives the arlington fire department the department of public work department of planning and community development special services ought to be there and this is where we had language from 1165 r about having a public meeting open to members of having a you know open meeting for members of public we had specifically done there because of the fact that they were going to be using a narrow private way in order to access the the site for construction which is not the case here so um I don't know if we if people feel strongly that we should require that it be a public meeting or not I don't think so okay I mean there you had a whole community that was up in arms about it and that needed to communication in order to smooth away and here people who are people are interested for sure but it isn't the same sort of situation um you too prior to the pre-construction conference the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for administrative approval by the board the mp shall provide documentation of various construction related activities including um this is a question about whether we need a neighborhood meeting I think we just addressed that the project description outline of primary construction tasks project schedule project logistic site management's public safety and coordination and coordination with the town to provide advanced email or website information regarding construction activities for public information Mr Chairman we do have we do have a construction management plan dated February 22nd with with revisions to March 17th and I'm not completely sure how that matches up with this list of this list of things but we did go through considerable effort to make sure that the town officials were agreed that the cmp was a sensible thing to do and I'm a little concerned about requiring a cmp at the beginning and then requiring a different one prior to a pre-construction conference and saying that that's just a matter of language for me because I don't do this kind of work so I don't know exactly what this entails but many of the rest of you do and I don't know what degree of confusion there may be and having a plan that we approve at the outset and then before you have a conference just before construction you have another one with with potentially a different set of obligations which may have to which either supplement or don't the others but I it does seem to me that it creates a confusion as to what it is people need to do it to what extent they can rely on what they've already done we could say the applicant shall submit a copy of the construction management plan if we didn't specifically are we specifically voting to it's one thing to approve preliminary plans for the building it's another thing to approve a specific management plan because that's going to evolve as they go through the process if they run into something that's not working they're going to need to adjust it so I was thinking you could say prior to the construction conference the applicant shall submit a revised construction management plan or administrative approval by the board and we could just leave the rest of it in there but these are topics that you know will come up during that pre-construction conference if they if they're not specifically in the plan already so should we maybe the way in which this is all coming up is starts with a to which is comes up as a definition of what the approved plans are and the approved plans include the what is on file with us as the CMP and then there's a provision if they would need to change an approved plan there's a provision for how to do that and you know so if I'm understanding right really it's anomalous to include a CMP as part of the list of approved plans and I wonder if that if it all should be pulled out somehow separately I I'm just not sure I mean our basic problem is you've got this thing that we've worked on hard and that the town officials have signed off on and that we think that we have an agreement that this is the thing you ought to do and to be sure that's going to be changing and it's more flexible than the number of bedrooms or something but but at the end of the day we have to define what the relationship what the relationship is between what we already have which is reflects a lot of process and the kind of flexibility that would be expected going forward so that we don't find ourselves tying our own shoe strings and I don't know how to do that exactly but I have the feeling that the structure is that doesn't make us eat make it easy to do that you could carve out and say as a separate thing construction management and say this is what we've got and that's and say something about what that is and then have a different provision for how they may amend it over time I'm not quite sure these would all be probably minor amendments within the definition in section 802 anyway right yeah I mean I I think and I would I would ask paul to concur but I mean the highlight the way of highlighted e2 here I mean if we were to just remove that because they've essentially already done that yep which is why they wanted to delete that yeah so we just do that but and then when they have their pre-construction conference they can discuss the document they already have and then the new e2 they had asked us to include that part of the front so that we don't just show up on the site unannounced but that we are allowed to observe and inspect but not but to do so you know after conversation with them which is fine e3 and e4 are just straightforward reiterations of law e5 during construction the applicant shall conform to all local state federal laws and provide advanced notice to butters for the town's construction control agreement regarding noise vibration dust and blocking of town roads or to accommodate delivery of material to the site and for other construction staging purposes then then yeah obviously except as waves here and you should definitely add that so the construction control agreement is just basically it's a document that has to be provided to a butters that basically says what's going to be happening and who to contact if you have problems the essential part of it i think e5 as fine as is e6 it's appropriate signage e7 location of all utilities shall be as shown on the final plans all transformers other electric and telecommunications isn't fun should be included on the final plans project shall be all electric including heat hot water and appliances all right why do we have a capital a oh because we have two copies of it oh this is it's a word glitch okay um the project shall be all electric including heat hot water and appliances and natural gas services to be provided solely to serve a backup generator for the elevator as required under state law we all comfortable with that right now the applicant shall install lighting on the site that conforms to the town of arlington zoning by-law and town by-law lighting shall be downloaded shielded to prevent lights bill over onto surrounding properties and comply with dark sky requirements management of outdoor lighting shall be the responsibility of the applicant um and that that's the e9 that ties back to the the uh that waiver that we are oh an agreement we're not required to provide um e10 utilities but not limited to telephone electric and cable shall be located underground general kind of director shall be responsible for coordinating all subsurface work with big safe prior to convince commencement soil material used as backfill for pipes access shall be certified by the geotechnical engineer to the director of inspectional services as meeting design specs is applicable applicant shall test the soil during construction to confirm soil types in the areas of the infiltration system such testing shall be witnessed by the board's designee all unsuitable material if any discovered in excavation for the infiltration system shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local regs uh okay p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays because it's no longer per this section it says the poll in this situation where we are granting a waiver from the requirements we shouldn't should we still list the requirements or should we do it as we've done it here and just remove it oh just remove it okay everybody comfortable with that burning of materials it's all boilerplate no building areas should be left in an open unstabilized condition longer than 60 days temporary stabilization shall be accomplished by hay bales hay carings or matting final stabilization shall be accomplished by loaming and seating exposed areas or do we say final stabilization shall be for the approved landscape plan or shall be accomplished by loaming and seating or compliance with the with the approved lighting plan no you don't want to give them an option out of it does it work to say final stabilization cow it shall be accomplished in accordance with the landscape plan or the approved landscape plan does that say enough this chair it's maybe it's just my you know the architect kicking in yeah when I read no building areas I think build building area so I wonder if it would be more clear to say site area or no area on on the subject site or something or just no areas yeah yes yeah that would be fine all dumpsters now the trash recycling container serving the project shall be enclosed and covered production dumpsters the board shall review the dumpster locations probably proof final plans if different from what has been shown the approved plans okay yeah but they've said they're not providing a dumpster they're going strictly with barrels so but this this would only apply is if different from what's been shown on the approved plans okay all retaining walls visible from the public way or direct of butters as determined by the direction special services based upon the time of year when such walls would be most visible shall be constructed in an aesthetic manner specifically a retain specifically retaining walls shall avoid the use of exposed concrete similar to a foundational wall to the greatest extent practical I think that only applies to that one wall that's going to be in the rear of the planting area snow shall be stored within the areas of the property designated on the approved plans the extent snowfall exceeds the capacity of the designated snow storage areas the applicant shall truck the excess snow offsite snow may not be placed in or adjacent to resource areas so this is slightly different than what we said before before we sort of gave them an out that they could either have a snow storage area or they had to truck it off and this is more that it has to be within the approved snow area is anybody concerned by that I don't know that it's true actually okay because if e 18 doesn't apply if you don't store the snow on site it would have been trucked away so the implication is if you're storing see what I mean so it seems to me it would work yeah okay Mr. Chairman yes sir so just to that point I think you could say snow may only be stored within the areas on the property designated on the approved plans and to the extent then that it exceeds the capacity it shall be removed so because when you say snow shall be stored there is some sense although it doesn't actually it's not logical if you think about it but it does almost indicate that it has to be stored there and so I would just suggest that you could say snow may only be stored within the areas of the property designated on the approved plans actually then Roger if you do that then you can leave the the second stents then still works just the way it's written yeah that's what I was thinking too I felt just the adding this for that purpose just to clarify where on the site there's nobody only be stored within the areas of the property designated for that purpose on the approved plans okay this is noise for construction all right so the application applies all applicable local state federal permits I think we have to see here because the technically the hours of construction are included in the noise of pavement by law I've been responsible for sweeping removal of snow and sanding the internal roadways and driveways providing access and sanding of the internal roadways is this clear that they need to clear the sidewalk as well or should we list that separately Mr. Chairman yes sir I'm all in favor of saying things like that separately because you I imagine that they are the property owner that were the condo association required by town law to clear the sidewalks just the way all of us are but it's it's not that rare to come across folks that don't do it and this is a somewhat different I mean it's an area that you want to make sure that it's done so it seems to me that if it's belt and suspenders that's fine if it helps keeps your pants up okay that will show maintain all portions of any public road whether state or local roads used for the access to the property free from some water construction comply with dpw requirements regarding curb cut permits and this one went back and forth with them to the extent earth removal is necessary the applicant shall prepare an earth removal plan showing all necessary cuts and fills and describing the number of truck trips necessary for the earth removal copy the plan to be kept on file at the job site there's a note here about the applicant proposes language to exempt earth removal associated with construction of footages and foundation walls so I guess the question is do we want to maintain this condition or modify it Mr. Chairman yes sir for those of us who are just lawyers that don't really understand what's involved here what actually would be the reason for exempting or exempting earth removal associated with construction of footings and foundations what would be the rationale for that my sense is that they the reason for this is that it provides us with the knowledge to the number of truck trips they're intending are going to be required to remove earth from the site and they know they're going to have to remove earth in order to put in the footings in the foundation walls they'll stockpile like fill but they're going to be moving stuff off site it sounds like they just don't want to go through the process of having to figure out how many trips are necessary I don't see this being particularly burdensome because you have determining the volume that they're going to remove in order to put the foundations and the footings in and then comparing that to the size of a truck is fairly straightforward calculation um what are all the necessary cuts and fills what's that about but I don't think there are very specific about what aspect of this so cuts are where you're removing soil and fills is where you're placing them because often what'll happen on a site is you're going to be taking soil from one place and putting it somewhere else on the site so it may end up being that you don't take any any materials off site because you're taking it from one end and moving it to the other um and so really what this is doing is saying that they need to figure out how much soil they're taking off site and combination but they don't even have to according to this they don't even have to report it Mr. Chair I wonder if what they're getting at is you know I wonder if they're what they're asking is that if they rough grade the site you know to place the slab that they would do the the necessary earth removal of any pieces after the cut and fill at that time and then they'll come back to do you know to to dig the footings uh and that's why they're trying to break this up but but I I agree with you I don't I don't think it's necessarily burdensome to ask them to include that we could also just say to the extent earth removal is necessary the applicant shall prepare an earth removal plan showing unnecessary cuts and fills period and just removing um describing the number of truck trips necessary for the earth removal I guess I defer to the the others of you who are experts at all of this but I'm like struggling to figure out from perspective what provides us at all you may ask was was the intent um to limit that is the intent to limit the number of truck trips or I I think that the intent is to just quantify so that the board has in the town has a sense in terms of what the earth removal that's going to be necessary for the project will look like I mean I I get where they're coming from they're basically trying to say that it's going to be a just de minimis impact because you know it's only addressing earth removal necessary you know for the footings and foundation walls and that's not going to be a significant amount um but on the flip side I also don't think it's a particularly significant burden on them to provide it we for this project it's going to be fairly fairly incidental but you know for other projects it could be you know we could be talking tens or hundreds of trucks it would probably become burdensome but here I don't see there would be a situation where it would become burdensome yeah I also could see you know with the installation of the the groundwater system that there could be a good amount of earth removal required to to place that system in so okay I'm pretty sure the term is bound and incidental I added when we put this on the 25th incidental I think because we felt that it was going to be an incidental amount but I'm not really sure what I meant by bound Mr Chairman will we lose Christian sorry what's that oh your screen has gone blank I wasn't sure if we lost you were not oh no am I am I back no I see you really let me be a picture it's not blank for me but it's not moving either well you can't trust you can't trust me because I couldn't figure out how to get my sound working early so you'll see the screen I'll rely on everyone else I see a picture I can see the screen this year for I think I think the system is telling us it's getting tired and it's time to go funny you should raise that Pat so can you not see my screen at all anymore no we can see we can see the screen itself I can't see you your face except now you've disappeared all together he's gone well I'm out of here then as the vice chair I guess I can entertain a motion to adjourn right that yeah we need a quorum though do we need him for that or are we good you still we've we've got a quorum all right it seems just loyal however to do that well he have trouble getting back in because of the time I don't know that happened question that happened to me one time do you know what the what the end what do we have on the as the end time in our I think I said 11 we're not that late then I'd rather not go that late either well I was thinking get through e perhaps and then because we're if we're coming back for a second meeting may as well have something to do he just texted he's trying to get back in okay let's take this opportunity to make a quick bathroom break okay my gosh the zoom actually has this until 1130 which I'm pretty confident we won't have a quorum then your photo is showing up Christian if you can hear all right I can see me I can't see anybody else I can hear you anybody hear me yes yes your screen is no longer shared if I try to share this my still it says my screen share is low Christian when you disappeared we did discuss mutiny and the possibility of adjourning without you okay excellent excellent but Pat Pat stood up for you so nobody else volunteered to be chair well I think under the circumstances we're having enough difficulties now that I'm sharing okay yes I agree that this is probably the right time to come up with one we're going to meet and meet again and not push they push our luck tonight we're almost at 1030 so yeah um okay so looking at our calendar we have a meeting on the 16th we have another one on the 23rd we went on the 23rd I don't think we have anything currently on the 18th and we do have to wrap up by the June 4th is our is the date well given where we are is it a fair assumption that no we certainly will get through the rest of the conditions we're at E we need to go to J there are not that many for a whole meeting we should be able to do that and then how much do we after we've done that there's a certain amount of pulling it all together but it looks to me as if we've done enough tonight that if we insist on it we will finish next time and well before the date expires I don't know if Paul Paul's back I'm going back and forth between my calendar and so I don't know who's available fantastic so we have the option of if we want to stick with Thursdays we could do the 18th of the 25th um we would also have Monday the 22nd should also be available because gosh willing town meetings over by then um the 18th of the 25th I am not available on the 27th what date seems to work better for people okay I'm available on the 18th and the 25th I am not available on the 22nd okay do we want to go for the 18th then does that work for everyone it works for me I can do that and personally I would prefer the 25th but okay just because in the early we could also go to the 25th that's perfectly fine all right go along with that it's just the 25th is slightly bad for me so so if we go with the 25th we always have the option of Tuesday the 30th as a possible backup if we need it Paul with the 20s would the 30th work for you if as a backup date if we had to okay Mr. Chair I can um I have another public meeting before this on the 25th that we're probably running till eight so I may just be a couple minutes late if if that's okay or we could start at eight if that made I mean I'm sure I could you know I could call it I might just have a little bit of a divided attention for the first few minutes as long as that's all right oh okay all right Paul that wouldn't cause any problems would it I think that that you know he should be present for the entire meeting okay so I mean you could start at eight that should work for me okay so then we would be looking to continue to Thursday May probably 25th right at 8 p.m. and then we have in our back pocket should we not complete on the 25th that we would go with Tuesday the 30th right so one thing I'd like to remind us of is that we have another 40 beats going on at the same time and we'll be meeting the next time on that one on the 16th and I think that just so you know the applicant would like to present on transportation on that one so that's what took is the main thing to look forward to that in administrative things we're in the process of working out getting some assistance as a for a peer review consultant and we'll probably want to make sure that that is done before we have the meeting after the 16th but it's not going to be Miller time after this one is over we've we we still got some more stuff to do I'm hoping that we're able to do that in two or three meetings rather than as many as we've had on this one but we are going into the summertime and I'm going to eventually need from you what your schedules are and when you can be available and all of the Thursdays that we're talking about right now are days that might have been used in the other case too so once we get fixed what we need to do to get this one out of the way we should be thinking about how we can move forward in an orderly but quick way on the other one okay so I will though I can either take a first stab at trying to clean up the word file as we just worked on it tonight or I could pass it off to to Paul what would be your preference Paul okay all right so I'll take a first pass at cleaning it up and then I'll redistribute it to everyone uh so we all have that ahead of the 25th all right and if we have various typos that are not worth talking about do we send them to you Christian or Paul um you can send them to me for now okay we'll get those wrapped in great well unless there's anything else I will entertain a emotion to continue so to a date certain of June 25th right or May 25th yeah so moved second there's the vote of the board to continue the meeting for 10 21 10 27 Massachusetts Avenue to Thursday May 25th at 8 p.m vote of the board mr. Dupont hi mr. Hanlon hi mr. Holly hi mr. Riccadelli hi mr. Blake hi and the chair votes aye so we are continued on 10 21 10 27 Massachusetts Avenue until the week from Thursday so two weeks from tonight so there's nothing else on our docket for tonight so I thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Dunning Board of Appeals appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting I would especially like to thank Colleen Ralston for assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings it is our understanding the recording 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 zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zba website and to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn mr. chairman so moved thank mr. Hanlon in a second oh second thank mr. Dupont everyone wants to just stay on the call we're having too much fun uh vote of the board mr. Dupont hi mr. Hanlon hi mr. Holley hi mr. LeBlanc hi and the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you all very much I will get you happy for this and see you all on Tuesday have a good night everyone thanks everybody good night