 Okay. So for the recording, I just have to back up. So good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the items any board of appeals calling this meeting of the board to order. We have previously gone through the list of members and assume and check off at all members are present. And officials and consultants are present as well. I have read through the introductory remarks. So for this meeting. So this meeting was originally intended to be a zoom webinar on the account that we have been using for deliberations in the past. Unfortunately, that account is the same account that the select board uses for their meetings. And so they have priority over us for that account. And we're not using that right now. So for that reason, we had to effectively shift rooms to the room we're in now, which is not a webinar room. However, the reasons for using the webinar room, which I will review in a minute is essentially because after the close of the public hearing on a 40 B or comprehensive permit case, the board is not allowed to take additional public hearing from any parties, both for the applicant side from the town side, our consultants, the public, we are limited to the information that has come before us during the open hearing. And so this evening that rule still applies, even though we are in a different format. So I really ask everyone's indulgence to please that we need to limit the conversations to what goes on tonight to just the members of the board and not to open that up to the outside. So before I move us on to the meeting of tonight's meeting, I do see I do have one hand up from the public. I will go ahead and take that question so long as it relates to the format of the meeting rather than to the content of the meeting. Mr very Thank you, Mr cherry does indeed relate to the mechanics of the meeting. I wanted to first remind you to start recording. To let you know that the email had come through to me at least from Julie Raymond with the correct link. So thank you for the for for getting that done. Thank you very much. Thank you for letting us know. There's no one else in the waiting room right now. Okay. So with that we'll move on to the sole item on our agenda this evening. Which is the resumption of the discussion of the decision on the comprehensive permit for Thorndike place. So at our October 20 2021 public hearing the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for Thorndike place. 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. On October 28 2021 the board initiated its deliberations. They were continued on November 3 11 16th and 18th and we are continuing them again this evening. The discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the board peer review consultants, the town or the public. For this reason, tonight's meeting would usually have been held using the webinar platform, which allows the board to limit who may participate in the discussion. On behalf of the board I appreciate everyone's understanding and everyone's cooperation in maintaining that same rule this evening. So to resume its discussion using the draft decision available on tonight's agenda, it can be differentiated by the text in the footer noting an 1118 21 word vision date. And the board will briefly just review the revisions proposed at the previous meeting and resume the discussions. 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 under state regulations the board must issue a decision by November 30. To continue the extension for the applicant to further continue its deliberations with that. And share my screen. So Rick, while I have the screen up I may not be able to follow when new participants are coming into the waiting room if you could keep an extra eye out for that for me. I am Mr chairman I'm on it. Thank you. So this is effectively the same document that's on the website. It does have some additional proposed edits, which I have added based on my further reading of the decision again today and some additions that at the end of the prior meeting we had requested members of the board to submit, but any changes are marked as changes. So we had this. So last time we had gone through all of the findings we had identified some that needed revision. And we had also talked again about the conditions and about the waivers and so tonight I was just going to go ahead and run down the whole document from beginning to end capturing everything that we have noticed and proposed for change, and we'll just go through those. Okay, the top nothing has changed. One question I had for Mr have a day on number three there's a complete listing of all the dates of the public hearings and I wasn't sure if we needed to add the dates of the deliberation to that. Mr chairman you don't need to list the dates of the deliberations. Okay, let's go away on number six. Number four or two places in the document we're still referring to the parcels them you got property. So I thought it was important that we include a reference as to what we mean when we say you got property. That seem a fair assessment. Okay. Go ahead and accept that number 12. I'm going to be more specific about when the board had requested the applicant consider reintroduction of the duplex units. So we had said spring but it was actually April is a more more appropriate term so we're just going to go ahead and do that. And then this next one. There was an extra space in the sentence and the paragraph sorry so go ahead and set that one as well. It takes us through the first set that we're into the jurisdictional findings. And the factual findings this is the main portion of the findings. location. Item 21. So this is the paragraph that outlines how we're going to be treating the rent how we're going to be organizing the discussion of the rest of the findings. And so Mr handland had recommended a change to flooding in wetlands. So it had read the neighborhood of the proposed project is subject to severe and repeated flooding, and much of the property subject to the application consists of wetlands subject. He's recommending a change to the neighborhood of the approved project which is how it's referenced in the rest of the document experiences severe and repeated flooding, and much of the property consists of wetlands subject not only to state regulation. Mr handlin. I just want to hasten to assure people that it's called the approved project because if we approve this decision it will become the approved project. If we approve it, then of course, it would be the rejected project so the use of the approved project here is just based on the posture of the thing it doesn't have any it is not intended to give any hints as to where we're going so nobody should go out and buy stock based on this. Thank you. Is there any questions on this from the board, and then G on open space and property management. I would just was going to change just capitalize conservation parcel because it is a becomes a defined term in the document. I do need for affordable housing. What important indication of the shortfall in affordable housing. It's more proper than of affordable housing for fall in rather than shortfall of affordable housing to the point where the $30 that we have. And then farther down the state subsidizing house and inventory for which the town is at 5.64%. As of 2016. Mr, chairman. Yes Sir, I wonder whether we should just say was there. It seems odd to say is and then have a date for five years ago, Mr chairman, Mr chairman in order to clarify that you might want to state that the town subsidize housing inventory as of the date of the filing of the application was at 5.64%. So that clarifies why we're using the 2016 date. Then you could probably get rid of the as of 2016. So one important indication of the shortfall and affordable housing in Arlington is the percentage of low and moderate income units as compared to the state subsidized housing inventory, as of the date of the comprehensive permit application was at 5.64%. So let me go ahead and accept that and just see what it looks like as compared to the state subsidizing housing as of the date of the comprehensive permit application. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. After inventory, perhaps insert the word wit seems like we're missing word inventory which as of the date. As such. Looks fine to me. Okay. Great. Thank you. It was feeling a little. Yeah. I'm not sure why it's flagging something in this. Sentence, the extra space or something. 24. For units and senior housing. And not sure why brings us up to the flooding and wetlands section. Okay, 26. We're just clarifying when the Western and Samson memorandum was prepared, which is January 2021. Have the land trust. Mr. Hanlon, we're keeping the. The footnotes correct. We're still in here. Yeah. Okay. 27 in response to the board's request on October 4, 2021, the applicants engineer. A memorandum on flooding mitigation measures. Summarizing the evidence in the record on which the project would exacerbate the flooding in the, at the surrounding community experiences already. The board as this peer review consultants beta. To review the applicants conclusions this peer review flood. Not floor but flood. Mitigation memorandum was received on October 8, 2021. So this just clarifies which documents were referring to. In this same. We're not changing the meaning of it at all. That's of a. So the sense this first sentence here in red, this is a question that we had. We wanted to make sure that. We're certain that we won't have wanted to include all this and we were curious. As to whether we had a specific reaction from beta group in response to this question, which we do not have. We have a response to the document in general, but not to this one specific point. And then I was just going to change part to portion. So only a very small portion of the project area currently drains. And then we're going to change the color of that back. And then change that change. This has, again, this has a footnote, which we had previously. None of the footnotes have been accepted yet. So that's just why they're all flight. They're not changed specifically from before, but they just have never been accepted. Do that. And then be a project area experiences stream flooding as well. And then the last sentence it was recommended by. Mr. Handler that we included, instead of being in the paragraph itself that we included as a footnote. Do I have that correct. Yes, that's correct. Question about that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I don't mind. Who is wrong. This is. It's time to throw in 10. This should be time to go in 10. This is. The same section under E. The NOAA 14. Data was requested. By the commission, but it was also requested by the board. So I wanted to make sure to clarify that under F. The board takes know the observation, the applicants engineer, construction project may provide an opportunity for the town to clear its existing eat cement. A vegetation and increase the capacity of the municipal storm water system. To reduce the likelihood of localized flooding in the future. I think that was my recommendation. Okay. That was a request of the footnote. The storm water management and. Standards should be, should this second management be capitalized as well? Chairman, I think it should. That was my recommendation. Okay. Anyway. Do both. It's down to 29. Added a comma for clarity. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that brings us to the climate change and resiliency section. Yeah. Yes, sir. Just. I think it would be probably better. Back when the Western and Samson memorandum. First came up. We just put parentheses around the rounded and said the Western and Samson memorandum. And then every time it comes up afterwards, you can just say the Western and Samson memorandum and not the Western and Samson memorandum. So that's something we want to go back in. I think that. I would say that correcting that is something you could just do administratively. Okay. Number 40. It's just changing apartments to senior living, building and duplexes. So it includes everything involved in the project. The key issue is whether the project design is sufficient to provide a calculation of the building and duplexes as well as neighbors. Just wanted to clarify for. For people who can read, who might be reading this or not. As familiar with the terms. So the site engineer provided calculation showing the imposition of the new basements into the water table would not cause any mounding or raised elevation of brown water. And then that brings us. That zero policy in February, 2021, the town adopted a net zero action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and remove or offset any remaining pollution by 2050. And I believe Mr. Handlin that's to adopt the same languages in the net zero action plan. Hope you're on mute, sir. That's correct. Language comes directly from the plan. I think that's a good point. Thank you. I think that's a good point. And 45 was just the. Addition of a comma after hearing. To the traffic and transportation section. Yes, Mr. Mills. Section 47 line. The last line. I think it needs the word for between has in the. I think it helps us read better. And, you know, I think that's a good point. And that's the general direction and perspective as it has. For the senior housing. Thank you very much for that. 48. So just including a little bit more context to some of these and including some distances. So the approved project. Enjoyes relatively convenient access to the AYF MBTA station at zero point 7 miles, the minute man bike way at 0.4 miles. miles to Mass Ave. Any objection to that? No. Effect on the roadway network, bunch of footnotes. And then down here, VAI reports calculated queuing lengths of one to four vehicles residents testified to much longer queues today. And just today doesn't really help. So the question was to remove that word. It's 62, adding a couple of commas. Feel free to take the position in a 40B case where it must comma as a matter of law comma give heavy weight to the regional need. And then incremental impact end of 65. In essence, Lake Street is so severely impaired that the additional traffic generated by the approved project has a little additional impact, as opposed to has a little impact on the extent of the crisis. So I think that's better. And that's 66. 66A was usually not surprisingly the queuing data and just changing it to the queuing data and accepting footnotes. Seven, we added here a footnote. C16 is again adding a footnote. Footnote is down here. And then we have this table, which I guess we did not accept yet. So let me take that to what's not popping in right now. Effect on quality of life. In 70, we're just changing paddle tennis to pickleball. The proposals to address traffic impacts here, we just added the underline. So 74 is a new paragraph. So it was recommended by the Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee in its report dated January 6, 2021. The board finds that due to the traffic impacts on the neighborhood streets between Lake Street and the Pro-Ontrick location, particularly Little John Street, Northeast Road and Birch Street, a post development monitoring study is necessary to identify whether future traffic calming measures are needed to mitigate impacts on the neighborhood streets and what measures would be desirable. So this was something that the Transportation Advisory Committee at ATAC had recommended the board consider. Is there anyone on the board has a question about that proposed finding? Nope. Neighborhood compatibility. We'll get down to 78. Senior Living Building would be among the largest apartment developments in Arlington and one of the few, if not the only one not connected to a collector or arterial street without the need to access a local residential street network. Any question about that one? No. 79. So this is essentially a replacement of what was here before. So what was here before is now in strike through. And so the revised, the proposed text as properties located within the planned unit development, PUD zoning district. In this district, duplexes are allowed as a right and a multifamily housing building is conditionally allowed. The height of the proposed buildings would be within the limits allowed in the PUD district. The duplexes at three stories and 38.13 feet from the first floor elevation to the ridge are a little taller than the buildings on neighboring properties, especially those on the other side of Dorothy Road, which are subject to height limits of 2.5 stories and 35 feet. The duplexes have reintroduced to the project plan, were reintroduced to the project plan at the request of the select board and have generally been well received by a butters and other neighbors. The duplexes serve as a buffer between the lower density residential neighborhood and the higher density senior residential building. Their height by better concealing the senior residents is actually makes the duplexes more effective in their buffering function. Any question about what the intent of this is? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. The only part I'm a little uncomfortable with is the comments on that they were well received by butters and other neighbors. I don't know if I'm comfortable saying that or if we need to. So I wonder if we should stop that sentence as serve as a buffer between the low density and the high density senior or just stop it at the request of the select one. I welcome all these thoughts. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I don't have any difficulty with that. I mean actually what the truth of the matter is is that the majority sentiment on the testimony we got was let's have the duplexes and not have the senior residences which is a particularly good buffering function but I mean nobody nobody thought that the senior residents nobody that I can remember thought that the senior residences were fine because they were adequately buffered by the duplexes. You put a period here and then strike the remainder is that without your recommending Mr. Org. Any other questions or comments from the board on this one? And accept this. Okay number 80. Excuse me. Addition. I don't remember exactly where how the additions on this came about. So I think the red was the purple I think was there initially and the red was added in. That's correct. Okay. So the neighborhood's concern includes not only the size of concerns so the concerns at this point include not only the size of the proposed structures but the activities that will be associated with those structures. In finding 71 Tyler DeRoyder, Beta's traffic engineer calculated that the daily traffic generated by the current neighborhood was 2276 trips and the additional traffic expected for the project would be for 12 trips or approximately 18% more. And then I was going to recommend adding the home owner at the corner of Dorothy and little John noted his front door camera reported around 50 vehicle trips past his house on average day. The additional anticipated trips would increase that number eight fold. The board has received testimony the neighborhood today is very quiet and the children can safely play in the streets. Pickleball court was created on little John's street adjacent to Dorothy Road. Some residents fear that the greatly increased activity associated with the final proposed project will adversely affect safety and the established quality of life in the neighborhood. We have any questions or concerns about that? 81. So we originally had had some information about the parking so this is just being brought up to here. The applicant originally proposed 315 parking spaces for the project ratio of 144 per unit. Applicants subsequently reduced the parking ratio 293 spaces or approximately 1.12 per unit. The applicant's final project design provides 95 parking spaces. 84 garage parking spaces and 11 surface parking spaces. And that changed this comma to semicolon. Actually should be a colon not a semicolon. Parking garage will include 10 EV charging stations with an additional 10 EV ready parking spaces as shown on the project lands. The parking garage will provide for eight handicap parking spaces as well as two surface parking spaces designed for handicap parking as shown on the approved plans. Projects duplex units will have tandem parking to accommodate two vehicles per unit with the exception of the eastern end unit which will have a single parking space. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. So is EV term of art that everyone will understand or does that need is that defined anywhere else? Does it say electric vehicle anywhere else or if that's what it stands for? That is what it stands for. I don't know that we specifically know but we can certainly do that. And then I just wanted to change this one sentence around. So the applicant's final project design provides 95 parking spaces for the senior living building. 84 garage parking spaces and 11 surface parking spaces. Okay I think that reads a lot better. Mr. Chairman. Yes Mr. Mills. What's the hyphen between EV and ready is that? I think it's just saying that there are spaces that they would be they would not have the EV charging devices installed but they would be created in a way that they could readily have that that equipment installed. I was simply asking why the yes. Okay. Yeah. Any further questions or comments on paragraph 81? Looks good. All right. So let me accept that. Will we go any farther? I'm just going to quickly save this. 82 the applicant did not originally propose bicycle parking. The applicant's final proposed project design includes 28 covered secured bicycle parking spaces accessible from the front of the senior living building. There's a possible expansion area for eight additional bicycle parking spaces within the senior residential parking garage. Outside the main entrance of the senior living building the applicant will provide an additional two bike racks capable of securing six bikes apiece. Question about that one brings us up to construction impacts. So I had originally brought this forward. This is a finding we had elsewhere but Mr. Handlin pointed out to me that we actually have this currently as a footnote elsewhere and so we don't actually need to include it as a footnote. And he also nicely pointed out that 80 the next one which was originally 84 was kind of long and we could split it into two and that would preserve the numbering so that the numbering wouldn't get messed up going beyond that. So that's what I've gone ahead and done here. So this part of 83 is the was the first half of 84 and now 84 is the second half of the original 84. Okay so 85 so we had we're looking to make some kind of add some information regarding staging. And so I'm not sure this is fully yet in the form of a finding. Sorry I wrote it as a condition not a finding. Sorry. Oh that's okay. Okay. And all should be all. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. So it would be pretty easy to begin by saying construction staging specifically for the modular units but for other units as well has a high has a high risk of disturbance in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Chairman if I could I have a okay that's good. So then Mr. Chairman we might continue on here and say that the applicant has repeatedly informed the board that staging would take place off site at several miles distance from the project. Period. And the applicant has also advised the board that offloading would take place on the subject property. Mr. Chairman I would say the board finds that these measures are important in reducing the construction impact on the neighborhood period. I would stop there but you know when we get to putting a condition in we could go back to the language that didn't make it in that's really the condition language and we could deal with it there. So construction staging specifically for the modular units but applicable to all but applicable to all other aspects of construction pose a high risk of disturbance in the residential neighborhood. The 25 foot width of the local streets makes navigation of the neighborhood challenging especially in the presence of parked cars. The applicant has repeatedly informed the board that staging would take place off site at several miles distance from the project. The applicant has also advised the board that offloading would take place on the subject property. The board finds that these measures are important in reducing the construction impact on the neighborhood. Does that sound to everyone? Mr. Chair. Mr. Revlak. A small suggestion in the second line perhaps in place of disturbance in the residential neighborhood. Disturbance to the residential neighborhood. Okay. Excuse me Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Since we're doing this one a little on the fly I'd like to make sure that we have not had the occasion to dive into the tapes but I would like to have my colleagues reflect that their recollection of what we were told is the same as mine. Now that's definitely what I recall as well because I remember there was a I remember specifically a question about whether trucks will be parked on the street while they were offloading. We were told no that they would be offloaded from the site particularly because the construction would be taking place farther back on the site and they wouldn't be able to access it from the street. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. Are we all set with that one? Nothing else. I'll go ahead. 86 construction of the project is expected to take 12 to 18 months. So I know we had had a different figure here before there was some discussion back and forth between what construction is just the assembly of the the modular units and what is the actual project site entirety. And so 12 to 18 months was a number that was provided to the board in the course of its celebration. So that's where that number is coming from. 87, 88, 89. So this is in regards to noise abatement and hours of operation. So the town's noise abatement by law allows construction activities between 8am and 6pm on weekdays, 9am and 5pm on Saturday, Sundays and holidays. Local residents expressed considerable concern regarding what could be relentless construction without any quiet days. It was considerable interest in eliminating weekend work even at the expense of a longer work schedule. The applicant was interested in starting weekday work earlier than allowed by the bylaw. This would provide the opportunity to have the workers arrive on site early before traffic would make commuting difficult. They agreed to no Sunday or holiday hours if they could start weekdays earlier. The board found this compromise acceptable and has incorporated these hours into the conditions. The board will also need to provide a waiver, which is parenthetical because we have done that. So I just wanted to see if this met everyone's approval. I think there was a little question as to whether they're what we do have a formal, whether there was any kind of a formal agreement made during the hearings or whether it was just something that was discussed. Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that it was there was no handshake because we don't do handshakes anymore. But and it was certainly discussed with a view towards working out and an acceptable arrangement. I don't necessarily believe that everybody who was watching us that night is bought into the to the exception. But at least I thought that the clear gist of it was that the sort of trade off here was something that was with both sides in a better position than just following the bylaw would. If I change that to they could be amenable to no Sundays or holiday hours if they could start weekdays earlier. Does that sound more appropriate, more accurate? I don't know. I felt that the applicant was pretty clear, but but that would be fine. May I go back to the say they were amenable to? I believe that that is the case. There was a considerable amount of discussion about Saturdays where I don't think that an agreement was actually reached. But Sunday and holidays did not seem to as I recall it didn't attract much much opposition from the applicant. Mr. Mr. Chair, that is my recollection as well. Thank you both. Mr. Chair, I concur too. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Anything further on 89? And lock that in. Number 90. I'll go ahead and read this one because it's kind of long in the course of the public comment period. Many butters and local residents expressed their significant concern in regards to the effects of the construction activities would have on their neighborhood. These concerns included blockage of streets by construction vehicles, traffic made worse by construction vehicles, contractor parking, storage of construction materials, and the unloading of construction materials. Additional concerns included what specific routes the contractors and construction delivery vehicles would take to the site and at what time those deliveries would occur so as to minimize impacts on local traffic. There were also concerns raised in regards to noise, dust, and vibration emanating from the site during construction, construction causing damage to their homes, damage to street trees, damage to local roadways, damage to the wetlands, and damage to local wildlife. Other construction related issues that were raised involved pest control, light emanating from the site during construction, what dates construction would begin and end, along with what would be the days of the week and times work on the site would be allowed. Several parties were anxious about the safety of the neighborhood children during construction, especially on the weekends. The butters and local residents made it known. They need to be informed and receive satisfactory responses to these questions and concerns. Furthermore, they expressed the need to know whom to contact if they require further information involving the construction or whom to contact if they observe issues and wish to notify someone or make a complaint. Any questions or comments on that one? That's pretty pretty forceful and very accurate. It's the open space and management of the conservation parcel, effectively as it was last time. In 1998, we had a placeholder before about adding a paragraph about wildlife. The proposed paragraph is the property provides significant wildlife habitat. On a number of occasions, members of the public have articulated their view of the critical importance of not only maintaining habitat, but of enhancing and creating additional habitat, particularly in the open space parcel. They described the diversity of wildlife that they have observed and provided photographs, including of waterfowl and deer. In its August 5, 2020 letter to the Department of Planning and Community Development, Beta stated that wildlife habitat is of significant interest to the town. They indicated that property would be expected to support numerous urban species such as common resident birds, raccoons, fox, squirrel, chipmunks, skunk, possum, deer, and rabbits. They recommended that the applicant conduct a wildlife habitat evaluation. The applicant's consultant, BSC Group, performed an evaluation on October 27, 2020. BSC observed several species, including rabbit, squirrel, presumed coyote, and a variety of passerine birds. In its report, entitled Wildlife, Habitat, and Vegetation Evaluation, dated November 2020, confirmed Beta's assessment that the property would be expected to serve as habitat for other human adapted or human-tolerant species. BSC also noted that the habitat, especially the open space parcel, had been degraded by dumping of waste, including concrete and macadam, and the accumulation of trash and debris as well as from the encampment of homeless people. The inference may be drawn that the cleanup of the area and the cessation of human habitation will significantly improve the wildlife habitat. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Where you stumbled a little bit in reading is in the beginning where it says, in its report entitled Wildlife Habitat, confirmed. I think that somehow what started off being a long prepositional phrase, it turned into the subject of the sentence, but there isn't really a subject. So I would say that we could probably fix that easily by just saying that Beta's report entitled and then go from there. Just get rid of the preposition. No, no, I'm talking about down further in the four lines. Right before the November, I dragged this there. All right. So you want to- I would just simply say Beta's report entitled, and then off you go. That's all you need. It's not Beta's report. It's BSC's report. Oh, good. That's right. And I think for convention, instead of having quotes, I think we're using italics on the titles reports. Okay, italics. So should I leave it as it or should I change this to BSC's? Well, the reason I suggest to BSC's is that it's a fairly long way from the subject to the preceding sentence so that it kind of is helpful to know what it refers to, but it doesn't matter if you get either one. But I would take out the end. That's the most important thing. BSC's report titled, While to Have Life Habitat and Vegetation Evaluation Data November 2020 Confirmed Beta's Assessment to Property Will Be Yeti Yeti. Okay. Further comments or questions on that paragraph? Everybody? Visit to 99. So in alignment with prior attestations, the applicant has proposed that the portion of the property outside the development area shown on the plans is containing approximately 12 acres, the conservation parcel, be placed under a conservation restriction and may be deeded to a third party to hold the conservation parcel as open space. The town has expressed significant concern regarding the existing condition of the proposed conservation parcel, which will require extensive environmental testing and cleanup relating to years of illegal dumping and habitation. Through the terms of a proposed memorandum of understanding, MOU, with the town of Arlington, the applicant intends to establish a proposed funding schedule to advance certain conservation and or restoration efforts for the conservation parcel. And then goes on. So what has been discussed as being in the MOU so that everybody knows that the applicant and the town are negotiating a memorandum of understanding regards to the final disposition of the remaining portion of the site that's not being considered for development. And that memorandum of understanding, they're still under negotiation. It has not been signed. It has not been released as of yet. So the board is putting in findings based and conditions based on our understanding of what the the memorandum of understanding should include. But the conditions are actually going to be conditional on the on the that if the town does sign a memorandum of understanding with the applicant that that will supersede the terms of the comprehensive permit in those regards. So there's the perpetual restriction against future development of the conservation parcel. So the applicant has already contracted a third party services to engage in the removal of solid waste, needles, sharps previously disposed on the property. And they have put forward $100,000 towards that effort. Working with several homeless coalition, the Earrington police department, they responded to the community issue, finding housing for unhoused persons on the property. The applicant recognized that additional funds to be required to perform environmental testing, remove additional solid waste degree and prepare and implement a prioritized mitigation plan. And so for that, they had proposed additional $100,000. And then the applicant is offered to fund over the course of a 10-year period, annual contribution of $25,000 for continued implementation maintenance of the conservation parcel, provide assurance to the ZBA, the applicant is offered to accept the condition to include a $25,000 annual maintenance budget for 10 years upon the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. And then the findings do not limit the applicant's obligation to clean, restore, remediate the site, nor does it remove any other requirements from the applicant under state or federal law. So basically what this is, this is what has come up on the course of our hearings as to what the applicant has offered in regards to what's referred to as the conservation parcel. Are there any questions or comments about that? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. The thing that a lot of people are concerned about that isn't really addressed here is who's going to own the parcel at the end. And I guess some of how important that is depends a lot on how the conservation restriction would work. Certainly if the conservation restriction were essentially granted to the town, the town would enforce it and that would put the town in a good position to make sure that things develop in the way that they ought to. And to some extent the same thing is true of granting it to a third party so long as the third party is an appropriately selected entity. What I'm concerned about is what exactly a conservation restriction means if the applicant is basically giving it to itself. Who's going to enforce that? What actually is it going to mean? And procedurally how does it even happen? And I was wondering if maybe Mr. Averde could enlighten this on that because this is one of those things that if it may be a contentious thing in the negotiations between the town and the applicant and we did explore it to some extent in the hearings. And the level of trust is better now than it was five years ago but it's still not great. And a lot of people in the town I think are worried that a memorandum of understanding that resolves this issue won't be forthcoming and that the town won't have the protections that it is envisioning in the management of the conservation parcel. What exactly clarification are you looking for? So what happens when let's suppose that there is no third party and that the town does not receive the is not granted the rights. I'm assuming that this conservation restriction is a granted thing so that somebody other than the applicant normally has the ability to enforce it. What happens when neither of that occurs in the applicant proposed is to continue to own the property but subject to a conservation restriction which it voluntarily enters into. Well if it enters into a conservation restriction then there is going to be a third party that actually holds that conservation restriction. So they won't have full control over the remaining parcel irrespective of whether or not they retain deeded title to it. It'll still be the party that holds the restriction that actually gets to say what does it does not go on on that parcel. I'm not sure you know where the concern would be. Is it true that the I had understood at least from the closing hearing when this thing came up that the applicant was proposing to I guess it was to retain ownership in the parcel. It wasn't clear to me that they were planning to grant the conservation easement to anyone else and one of the reasons they thought it was very useful to them to retain control over what's done on the property is that they had some thought of rendering a sort of a park like atmosphere that would be an amenity to the to the apartment building. I'm really testing how that would work if that's what they want to do if that's where their interest is how do these legal arrangements deal with that. Well again if it's subject to a conservation restriction you know that's a legal process that's done through the state has to be signed off by the state and there has to be a third party non-profit entity that actually. I see okay. So and I don't see any reason for concern you know as long as it's going to be a actual conservation restriction as I said before under the statute. Thank you Mr. Hamid. I was led astray a little bit by the panel of the discussion in the hearing which which seemed to eliminate the the interfacing of the third party but I'm happy that that the situation is as you described. Yeah it can't it's not eligible to be a de-restricted conservation restriction that's enforceable in perpetuity unless there is that third party non-profit entity which can be the conservation commission or it can be you know a separate non-profit conservation group but it does have to be something that's accepted by the state it can't just be the applicants as the party that's holding the restriction on its own property. Right. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. So in the servant of line with Mr. Hanlon with this for the start of your comments initially the applicant had indicated they were interested in donating the land to the town and that has certainly shifted over the course of the last five years to being much more that that land might transfer to a third party or that the applicant may hold the property with it as a conservation easement that's a conservation restriction that's held by another party. Do we want to include an additional paragraph that sort of documents that the evolution of the ownership on the conservation parcel? Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. I think that we sort of do for many many of us on the board and off that evolution is not a mutual thing and it's part of the factual background of this case. Do you think it should be part of 99 or should we make it a different number? Because the subs are all things that the applicant is stating. I mean we could do it as another one because I mean it does sort of relate to what the applicant has stated but it doesn't relate specifically to the right what's in the MOU. It may be good. I don't feel strongly about this but it might be useful to bring it to to bring it at the very end. I hate to introduce a new paragraph without getting rid of one. Just accept this as it is. Okay so we can start a paragraph here and it will still be under 99 but it would be a separate sort of follow-up paragraph. I'm just typing away here so feel free to jump in if you have recommendations. I'm just thankful in the back of my mind to my high school typing teacher whose name I wish I could recall so I could thank her at this moment in time. How's that? Mr. Chairman, that looks pretty good to me. I think that Mr. Chairman, if I may it's it's important I think you've succeeded in doing this in saying that it's having somebody to hold the conservation agreement except the utmost performance avoids the potential danger of signaling to the applicant that well that would be all right then. I think that it's always true that having somebody they're dealing with a counterparty in whom you have a great deal of faith and a history of of cooperation and good dealing is is always better than having a provision and an agreement and so at least from my point of view I very much hope that the town and the applicant are pursuing this with an open mind towards having either the town or a third party but not the applicant retain ownership of the conservation parcel that was tending the the conservation restriction. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Anything further from the board on this one? Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. So it's not necessarily specific to that paragraph which I like a lot but it's really just a clarification and perhaps from Mr. Hoverty. So in terms of the terms of a conservation restriction are those essentially something that we are going to develop or have set out in the conditions or is it something that's more pro forma I just want to know how much input we have or if we need to have in in terms of what those particulars might be. So there is sort of a standard format you know that the state uses for conservation restrictions but there can be you know a decent amount of variation within those. I mean I don't know that you want to get into that sort of finite detail as to what exactly you want to see. I think that you want the opportunity to review the conservation restriction before it's executed. I think that that should be sufficient. Okay. So that brings us to number 100 in the general section and these are fairly boilerplate I believe. It's a review. I guess so Paul Hoverty at the last meeting we had edited this paragraph the first paragraph on 100 to add the sentence that no time during the public hearing to the applicant contends that the cost of the project rendered it uneconomic as such the board finds that such conditions will not render the project uneconomic to the extent that such conditions may render the project uneconomic and then the rest of that I think is specifically from the prior case. Do you see any issue with that statement? I mean the only problem with that statement is the applicant never got to see the final terms of the decision during public hearing so never really had the chance to say whether or not it believed the decision rendered the project uneconomic. The basic outlines were there. The conditions that were discussed pretty much in great detail while the hearing was still open are the main conditions impacting the economic viability of the decision so I do think in spirit that this probably is accurate. Okay. Thank you. That's the end of the findings. There are anything that we missed in the findings that we want to make sure we go back and add? Nothing. I'll go ahead and save this into the conditions which we've spent considerable time on already. This is the plans that are forming a part of what's referred to as the approved plans as Mr. Hanlon had pointed out. Section B is the section on affordability and again as we had done on the prior case that the Hound is not we're not requesting any local preference and who may apply for the units and submission requirements. There was a request for the landscape plan for the areas not under the jurisdiction of the wetlands bylaw. So originally it said all planning shall consist of native non-invasive drought tolerant species and so there was a request by Mr. Mills to add non-cultivar to that. So just be clear so this is for the plantings that are around the buildings themselves and not for the areas that are farther that are a part of the conservation land or and are not in the wetlands areas. So I just wanted to make sure that that was something we had wanted to impose for those areas. Are you okay with that? Section subsection E so this is the this is the landscape plan for the areas that are in the wetlands areas and under the that are typically under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. There was this the rational versus rationale question so we're working that out with Mr. Handel this afternoon. So number one the quantity of plants before and after reed vegetation and the rationale behind the removal and maintenance plan. Under the planting plan that the total area in SF just saying the total area in square feet just to clarify what we're what is being requested and again rational versus rationale. The survival rate of the plantings is less than 80% the dead failing or disease plantings will be replaced. No idea what that's asking for. The conditions the C2s are prior to the issuance of any building permits and Mr. Handel pointed out that the applicant would be responsible for all applicable sewer permit capacity impacts and privilege fees as applicable notwithstanding the foregoing the applicant shall not be responsible for any infiltration and inflow ITI fees so they do precede not go after so that should be foregoing rather than following and then again I think this is probably the same as well. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. So in each I just see that we have the word applicable twice and I'm okay with it if there's a reason for it to be there but where it says shall be responsible for applicable do we just want to say all sewer permit as applicable leave it leave as applicable either way I just didn't think we needed applicable twice. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Perhaps consider sewer permit to sewer sewer permits just because everything else in that you know in that conjunction is plural. Okay so the applicant will be responsible for all applicable sewer permits capacity impacts and privilege fees. Oxford notwithstanding the foregoing the applicant shall not be responsible for any ITI fees the applicant will be responsible for all applicable water and sewer system fees as per officially promulgated fee schedules and uniformly applicable to all other kind of projects notwithstanding the foregoing the applicant shall not be responsible for any ITIs. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. In age I think the intention here when you get to capacity is that your everything else in that list is a fee of some sort and I think maybe the idea was that should be capacity impact fees. Oh okay oh I see what you're saying yep sewer permits capacity impacts and privilege fees so then so that actually this I'm assuming there is such a thing as a cap capacity impact fee although I'm not aware that I pay it. The applicant will be responsible for all applicable sewer permits oops and capacity impact. Chairman let me just try again age is all about fees that the applicant has to pay and I think the intent. Oh I see what you're saying. Was that there's a permit fee they have to pay that a capacity fee they have to pay that and privilege well I'm not quite sure what the privilege fee is so I'm not quite sure how that works out but I think they the theme that goes all the way through is his fees which ones do they have to pay and which ones don't they. Oh well let's see what this looks like. The applicant will be responsible for all applicable sewer permit comma capacity impact comma and privilege fees does that sound right? I think so I mean it sounds right the question is whether it makes sense in the real world because I'm not really up on the various fees that people pay and maybe one of the rest of this Aaron or Kevin might be able to help. I think I agree with you I think it does read it read definitely reads better in this format it's probably more accurate. And just as I do note that it does we do have the word all or the phrase all applicable so if one of these is not in fact a fee it's probably it may be okay simply because it doesn't apply. Okay make sense all right moving on. As I said sort of so the first of in the absence of a signed memorandum of understanding and the second like construction. Product commencement of any work on the property disinfections temporary signage 22. So this was about the that the applicant shall comply with and closes the noise abatement by law. So we just want thought we should add except that specifically waived in this decision because we do wave a portion of it in order to allow changing the work hours. And D33 so D33 again was the is the the second half of the construction staging. Mr. Chair. This is just a curious question. You know the the phrase not closer than two miles. I'm just curious why two is opposed to say one or three. It was arbitrary. It was far enough away from the site to keep it off of the the major roads but the one wording we could add is two miles or approved by AHA you know the authority having jurisdiction or other approved or other approved by the AHA. And the 15 minutes is also arbitrary I think it's I mean I think these these numbers are trying to just highlight that highlighted distance that they can't just park around the block on somebody else's clogging somebody else's small street or they can't you know sit there for 30 minutes or an hour you know so. Okay thank you thank you for clarifying that. Chair. Yes sir. As I recall the applicant when they were describing where the modular the staging area would be was actually further away than two miles. But I'm not sure that I see the interest that we have once it's out of the neighborhood. In other words this is about protecting the neighborhood from what otherwise would be staging there if it was two miles three miles five miles or a mile and a half. It's it's probably not our problem or if it is it's certainly a different problem because that mile and a half is on some of the street and some of the part of Arlington. And so I'm wondering whether we need to be as specific the important thing is that it that the unloading will take place you know on the property itself. And when we get to idling we're introducing not just the question of pollution in the neighborhood which is not insignificant but you're also introducing a general pollution question that also has implications for greenhouse gases. And I'm not quite sure I understand why idling is necessary at all. I mean you know lots of people turn their cars off when they're waiting to do something and it seems to me that that would be a better practice than sitting there and letting it idle. I realize that there is some stories and traditionally evidence that you know you admit a larger amount of gases of various kinds when you're starting your car and that may affect you know some length of time thing but I sort of like to see them not idling their vehicles in the neighborhood at all. I probably would just take out the idling construction vehicles. I think I got my own wording confused about being idle and then idling so I don't I don't know that I was trying to necessarily speak to the to a car a vehicle being on or off. I mean I agree I don't think they should idle at all but I mean the reality is that's just what they do. Have a have a vehicle idling. The only comment Mr. Hanlon about the distances I guess my concern was if you didn't give a value then it would just leave it open to trusting that they would do it for enough away and if that's the case what's the point of writing any of this. So I felt like you know what what what one often sees or I see on large projects is that you get concrete trucks lined up around the block whether it's two blocks away or four blocks away and where you get you know you get modular trucks lined up you know wherever they can park and wait and so they can just kind of fall into the queue. So that that was the only intent of having a number totally arbitrary but I think it was really just to get it out of the neighborhood. But yeah long away I see what the point is is that it's not on the street if it's around the block well that would be fine. I wouldn't be unduly restrictive about it though I mean two miles away is foul enough I mean you know there's going to be a lot of fighting things and it seems to me that if we're going to impose a restriction there needs to be a substantial local concern by restriction which you've just articulated and that sounds fine to me but I wouldn't go further than that in being over prescriptive. What I have here is a construction staging specifically for the modular units but applicable to all other aspects of construction such as concrete trucks shall occur offsite in a location acceptable to the director of inspectional services. All deliveries to the site shall be offloaded on the property delivery vehicles shall not be permitted to idle delivery and construction vehicles shall not block any driveways or publicways. The intent of this condition is to prevent traffic congestion and idling of construction vehicles. Mr. Chairman. Yes. So where you said driveways or publicways I don't know if all of the streets in that vicinity are publicways or if there might be a private way tucked in there and I don't know if we would be overstepping our bounds but I'd like to see private or publicways. I think I certainly had private ways. The intent of this condition is to prevent traffic congestion and reduce the impact of construction vehicles on the local neighborhood. Mr. Chairman do we have somewhere of provision that relates to parking construction vehicles on the street? I seem to remember that we have something like that somewhere. I believe we do. Parking of all vehicles and equipment must be on the property during construction. There is under D16. Any further adjustments to this paragraph? Chairman. Yes sir. I just want to I just had this thought that popped in and it's just that you know as Mr. Ford had you know talked about queuing and I'm wondering is the language do you think that we have acceptable to director of inspection services is that sufficient and I'm hoping it is so that if somebody a mile away says you know there are a number of concrete trucks parked on our street and you know they've been there every day for the last three four days and they are attached to this project and so do we think that that with the language of this paragraph would give inspection services the authority to say you can't do that. I guess that's my main concern. Mr. Havity what's your sense on that? My sense is that if it constitutes a zoning issue in another district then the director of inspection services has whatever authority it has to enforce the zoning on that property waiver of any zoning provisions for anything that's off of the the 40B site. So whatever they do has to comply with existing zoning in terms of that staging. And I'm assuming if the vehicles were being staged on the public way that was caught in a manner that was causing a problem then obviously to be under the jurisdiction of the police department to address such issues. Okay so I believe that's the last of the D's. Construction completion, certificate of occupancy. Again this is more of the in the absence of assigned memorandum of understandings. So this is the one where put in a conservation restriction shall be in effect and perpetuity and shall limit the use of said parcel for conservation of the wetland resources and passive recreation by the general public. When we were talking about the conservation restriction earlier there was something we wanted to make sure we included in this place. Mr. Chairman? Yes sir. So we actually are we've got a great paragraph that I think was written by Mr. Dupont earlier about wildlife. And you know the the conservation of wetland resources is is sort of part of that but it's not the whole of it. And so we might want to think a little more deeply in what it is that what limitations should be. You know on the other hand these things I gather from what Mr. Hoverty says are generally fairly cut and dried and everybody knows what they mean if you follow the forms and if you get too original you may not know what they mean. So I'm a little bit nervous about doing too much but the truth is is that we're eager to protect more than just what's here and I don't know whether getting into more detail would be advantageous whether this language would exclude anything we wanted to include or whether trying to wrestle with the question is just going to make it more more difficult. Because you know we don't have any direct authority as far as I know what's in this conservation sort of conservation restriction anyway. So earlier we had the earlier we had thought about whether the conservation or the final conservation restriction whether it should be whether the board should review it. Did we want to include that? Mr. Hoverty seems to be wisely nodding his head. Yeah I think you should include that as a provision. Would you submit it to the board for approval or just for review? For administrative review. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. I think I might suggest changing in the first line the status of the memorandum of understanding to the status of a memorandum. Okay. These sounds a little bit more definitive as if it already exists to me. Mr. Chairman if I could follow a wise comment with an almost silly one but we might want to say CR because we made a big effort in the preceding paragraph to introduce to introduce that abbreviation and set it there and it would be nice to see. What was that Mr. Hoverty? I think what Mr. Hanlon is saying is use the term CR rather than conservation restriction. Okay. Mr. Hanlon's earlier comment do we want to include anything about what we would want the conservation restriction to include or should we just leave that to the negotiation. In our prior discussions with the conservation commission we had talked about the passive recreation and they were very concerned that conservation of the wetland resources was the first and foremost the most important aspect of the conservation restriction and that absolutely needs to be first and that passive recreation would be sort of a secondary thing. Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. I mean I guess I think this is kind of complicated. The underlying idea is that this land should remain in a more or less wild state so turning it into something that looks like Central Park would probably not be what it is that you're looking to do with the CR even though that's really great for passive recreation and may preserve some wetland resources and other things. And as I recall there was some discussion in the last or the second to the last day of our hearings of just exactly what it is that would be envisioned here and the kind of passive recreation that I think it was the conservation commission that somebody had in mind was something like a boardwalk which is already there and there's one similar to that taking you through the wetlands and near the transit station. But you know turning it into something that's unduly prettied up is sort of not what we want to do and it's hard to kind of it's hard to get it said exactly right. Mr. Haverty I wonder how is it that I mean this is something that everybody will have to struggle with because it's very hard to say exactly what you mean in this kind of situation. How do others do it? Again generally it's left to be resolved after the permit has been issued but through a review by the board of the actual conservation restriction to be executed. So that's my recommendation is the board reserve the rights to review the conservation restriction that's proposed to be executed but ultimately you know it's going to be executed between the applicant the state and whatever the entity is that's going to oversee. So Mr. Chairman I wonder if the best way to do this is to say less and simply say that the CR shall be in effect in perpetuity and shall limit the use of said parcel to conservation purposes and to a lesser extent limited passive recreation by the general public and you just don't that prepositional phrase of the wetland resources is where we're getting into trouble because that's both a little bit too broad and a little and not quite broad enough and it seems to me that if you just get rid of it you've got something that says enough about what the standard is that we know what we're doing when it comes back to us and it doesn't undesirably narrow things down. So you would get rid of the wetland resources? Yeah and I would just say to conservation purposes limit the use of the parcel to conservation purposes and to a lesser extent limited passive recreation by the general public. That would be fine. Yes Mr. Chair. Mr. Revillac. Yeah I was going to say this I mean it sounds like I get the sense that you know we we're going to at least have the opportunity to review this but we may not necessarily be the the the body that negotiates the MOU and we might not necessarily be party to it but I think we have done a the finding section I think does a pretty thorough job in you know outlining the various ways in which the conservation parcel is important and you know hopefully some of that you know rubs off down the road so to speak. Thank you for that Mr. Revillac. So that's that in mind does this sentence provide the guidance that we're looking to provide? All right everyone? Yeah. Yes. Okay and then and G as well. Yes. Rancous ability to oops you know again that's where we're whoops I know we have two G's so I've changed that to H and then E2 prior to the each one's the final certificate of occupancy recommendation E3 property management plan and then E4 so we this was we had included the finding in regards to monitoring that the local traffic that was something that had been recommended by attack and so this is the condition that would correspond to that so this is new as well I can shrink it so it actually all appears at once so close so within three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall participate in a post-development monitoring study designed to determine the local traffic on neighborhood streets and to make recommendations regarding traffic calming measures that may be necessary and desirable to mitigate impacts on the streets on and between Lake Street and the project location which include Lake Street Wilson Avenue Little John Street Homestead Road Birch Street Margaret Street Mary Street Mott Street and Dorothy Road and Parker Street Street the study shall be submitted to the town of Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee for review and approval by TAC and the Arlington Select Board in accordance with the procedure set forth in the town of Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee traffic calming guideline approved by TAC December 8 2010 traffic calming guidelines the applicant shall cooperate with the town in implementing all such measures to Mr. Chairman yes sir um so this obviously is not one of the most muscular conditions that we have to impose um and it would have been nicer to be able to do more but all of this is going to happen substantially after this project is built it's kind of a looking backwards and I think that it's appropriate to at to me at least the main purpose of it is is not so much to try to force the applicant to do a study and to push through traffic calming measures I think that that we might not be on firm ground attempting to do that but it is important to have someone say look there's a problem here TAC said there was a problem here and TAC actually will be the agency that is going to review what the study would say so somebody needs to do it most of the changes that have to take place will be changes that are within the power of the town to do and ultimately we have to depend upon the count the town to cooperate with the applicant in doing something that will meet the needs of of the people in the neighborhood as best they can be met and so I'm sort of satisfied with not reaching too far because I have some hope that the process will emerge from this where it's not just the applicant but also the town and everybody is paying attention to probably which I think we all think is is significant thank you for that Mr. Chair Mr. Mills could we go back up a little bit I thought I saw one section where you just had an A and not a B I think for formatting if you're going to have an A you have to have a B yeah e2 there do you need to have a B if you have an A I think it should be at one point and then it got deleted well actually I think e2b became e3 if I remember correctly so you just have that run into this one sentence then a one paragraph just a simple four I mean a silly formatting thing I don't know whether we want to pay attention to it or not if I can get I'll tell you if I can get word to accept it it's tough when you get that indentation all right that works thank you you're welcome anything further on e4 nothing new she big change in I was I went through and got rid of all the blanks and then went back and made sure that we had all the references correct base decision vote was noted this is a town hall growth lens we've changed that to Arlington that's a set decision on waivers I think the only one that we there's one that has changed I'll make sure there wasn't anything else we're hanging out so it's 32 so this is the one in regards to noise abatement and the resetting the hours so we had originally had a condition in here that just said the applicant you know request a waiver to allow for hours of construction that differ and then the waiver would be granted this condition and the question that was brought up was that if for some reason the applicant had wanted to get Sunday hours back and had appealed to the state for that but still wanted to keep the early morning hours and so basically what this does is it states that should one part of the condition be way be disallowed then the whole condition is disallowed very good so sort of maintained it as an all or nothing chairman yes sir just to title up to sunday says an unity where else is that sorry right after the word sundays oh and a board action sundays or legal holidays mr chair yes sir in one place we use the clause sundays or legal holidays and one place we use sundays and legal holidays I think we want and rather than I think we I suggest and in both places mr chairman yes sir I'd be willing to vote for war and the reason is that at least from the point of view of language the last thing if the pro if you say and sundays and legal holidays suppose what happened was the prohibition against work on sundays was invalidated for some reason but legal holidays was left in play and really what we want to say is if either the sundays or the legal holidays are eliminated then the whole thing is eliminated that that's kind of where I would be now maybe maybe you all have a different idea of what the policy should be but the reason for choosing war rather than and is exactly that what happens if sunday or the war holidays is preserved but the other isn't I withdraw my suggestion if we say and or go back and or that view as long as there's an order in there somewhere it makes it clear so the waiver to allow hours of operation beginning at 7 a.m on weekdays is contingent on the limitation prohibiting work on sundays or legal holidays contained in d16 if the prohibition against work on sundays or legal holidays is subsequently stricken from this decision this waiver shall cease to be operative that sounds good to all all right no more comments or track changes okay we have gone through the entire draft decision reached its end which means last request of all if there are any final findings or conditions that any member of the board would want to attach to this document no from all and no from all so that brings us up to having to make a decision here so what the board has in front of us so we now have a draft decision that we have effectively gone through and culled everything we wanted to change everything we wanted to modify so that it is as complete as the as the board has made it and so the board still has in front of it there's the three options the board had in front of it when we started on this process the board has the option of approving the original application without condition which i i think it's fair to say that the board is not considering board has the option of voting to approve this decision which has conditions and waivers in it or the board can vote to to deny the permit those three options are those options are still in front of the board and it is you know not up to need to direct the board how it you know how it should want to proceed how it's really it needs to be up to the individual members really what the board is trying to determine is does this decision um does it meet local needs for this project um in terms of you know providing affordable housing which is the the purpose of the comprehensive permit process but also in regards to other needs of the local community in terms of you know the the traffic the enjoyment of their neighborhood the wetlands the wildlife and all other aspects that we have spent time discussing on this project so at this point are there any topics that the members of the board would want to discuss in regards to um how we would proceed on a on a vote or anything that you know pertains to the project that they would want us to discuss people pretty much ready to cast a vote Mr. Chairman Mr. Hanlon um we really can go two ways here we could try if anyone was interested in making a motion to deny we could discuss that and decide whether or not we wanted to do that or we can I think have a motion that would move the adoption of the decision that we've been working on for the last month at that point the discussion if people were so inclined if that failed to get the requisite majority then it would be denied so if you have the lateness of the hour I would sort of like to skip to part two rather than have a preliminary motion so that either the motion carries to take to approve the draft decision or it doesn't in which case we reject the draft decision but either way in a shorter period of time with only one discussion we'd be able to resolve the entire case I think that very much makes sense um so Mr. Chairman if if people are comfortable going in that way I'm perfectly willing to start it by moving the acceptance of the decision as we have perfected it in a technical legal sense over the course of the last month Mr. Handler do I have a second second thank you is there discussion in regards to the motion Mr. Chairman Mr. Handler um I think with all the people watching it would be so anticlimactic if we didn't have any discussion but I think everybody would value a short one this is by far I mean obviously it's not perfect um but before I was on the board I was still seeing all the signs about preserved and river wetlands and the applicant has worked with the conservation commission to go as about as far as the conference formation commission could get them to go to protect the west lands and then a little bit further now is that going to be enough given all of the things we know are likely to happen to us over you know the lifetime of my grandchildren no uh and I wish we could do I wish we could have done more I wish we could have focused in on what more there is to do and actually followed a little more the advice of the western memorandum in the Arlington land trust um but we haven't been given the right to be the czar of this project all we can do is operate within the matrix of legal rules and so the first thing I observe is that um we have gone a long way towards protecting the move our wetlands uh and all of that as mr moor pointed out uh near the last hearing all of that is an issue it's not like we get to bank at all who knows what would happen if this goes to the state and if the hac gets its hand to it they aren't looking at the same thing we do they don't know about the the wetlands they you know it's all abstract to them and for them with all due respect to everybody here you know we understand that what's at stake is the quality of life in this neighborhood but for them it'll be oh that's the arlington nimby case and I don't like it but you know that's what they're going to do and so I think that we've got a lot of good things in what has happened so far um I would have liked to have more but I we think we've got a lot and I think we're much better off preserving the advantages that we've gotten uh and uh and adopting something which I trust at least the applicant uh won't appeal and if and if the applicant does appeal then fine that would be the same as our turning it down so I would like to do that I do think that I would like to say that the hearing has sensitized me to the pressure this this neighborhood is suffering under a lot both in terms of the flooding and which I think has got to to some extent be due to inadequate stormwater management on the town's part but I'm not ready to find that because I don't know enough about it but the this this neighborhood is under a lot of pressure and it seems to me that we have done what we can to address that and we don't have the ability to do everything that we might do and at the same time affordable housing is enough well we need in this town and throughout the and throughout the boston region so it's a hard decision I think and I've certainly become acquainted with the people who've been talking to us I'm going to miss them sometimes uh and and maybe not some others but I think that that all of these cases show us aspects of life in Arlington that we don't often see that we're not really looking and uh and I think that that I'm hoping that not just with respect to this project but generally with respect to what happens in the neighborhood that this is at least the beginning for some things that measures that can be done by other people that would relieve some of the pressure that that people properly feel thank you Mr. Handler Mr. Chairman Mr. Mills um I would just like to say that I think um as a board we've done as best possible given the circumstances to make a a sole purse out of a Salusia so to say I think it's a bit of pill this neighborhood's going to have to swallow but I believe moving forward affirmatively on this is the best result the neighborhood can hold for because we've got our conditions in place on many issues and the uh the power the applicant has behind them with the state if we voted in the negative I think would be even worse on the neighbors and they certainly have my personal sympathy that being said I think you know I think we need to vote in the affirmative both for the affordable housing and be to control things as best we can thank you thank you Mr. Mills for others Mr. Chairman Mr. DuPont so I I would like to agree with both Mr. Handler and Mr. Mills I think it was stated very clearly and eloquently and I think the thing that I've personally wrestled with is the thought in the back of my mind that I just wish that there was something to do to stop this or to just sort of cut it down substantially but I think as Mr. Mills just indicated we really don't have that authority because the state is the ultimate arbiter of this and so I think it's a reluctant decision on my part but I have to be in agreement with both Mr. Mills and Mr. Hamlin with regard to the analysis that they gave. Mr. Revlak? I just wanted to um trying not to repeat earlier comments um this is this has been a very long negotiating process and you know considering where we started I there are a few elements of the project that we managed to negotiate that I feel personally proud of I understand as Mr. Mills said this will be likely be a difficult pill for the neighborhood to swallow but I'm hoping that some good things will come of it and I'm I'm also hoping that Mr. Rierig is right in that in 50 years the thing that will you know be making the most difference and that will people will remember the most is the conservation parcel. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Rierig. Mr. Rierig or Mr. Ford did either of you have comments you wanted to make? Chairman I guess that would just reiterate what others have said I mean this project was pre-approved by this was approved by the state with you know over 207 apartments and the 12 units and I think it bears repeating again that if we rejected this outright people have to know the applicant could appeal and go back to what they originally wanted and then secondly if we make our conditions too onerous the applicant can appeal and go back to what they originally wanted so I do think it's a reluctant decision in a lot of ways or it's a reluctant decision but I think we have to try and come up with something that balances the need for local housing with the town interests and I think a lot of people have done a lot of work to get us there so and and I think I'm inclined to vote in favor of it even though it is a bitter pill to swallow for the neighbors because I think it would be a lot worse if we deny or if the conditions are a lot more onerous such as what Mr. DuPont's we tried to reduce this significantly I think that would be a real problem and then the neighbors would be back to 200 plus units with the 12 houses in front. Thank you. Thank you sir. I'm Mr. Chairman I don't really have anything to add other than to just say I agree with my peers I'm not happy about this project on this site I don't think it's a good thing for the site but I think our options are a little bit limited so so obviously I'm agreeing with my my peers here. Thank you Mr. Fort. Yeah so I mean really I feel you know very strongly in line with the with the other members of my board I mean the comprehensive permit process was initiated by the state to generate additional affordable housing which was a problem for the state at the time it was passed and continues to be a problem for the state and you know Arlington is a town with limited available land for projects such as this I think this is probably the largest undeveloped parcel left in Arlington and is initially envisioned back in the 50s the plan was for this to be a shopping plaza available from route two and that did not come to fruition that was attempted again in the 70s and didn't come to fruition and the town has tried to purchase this property outright for conservation and that has been unsuccessful as well and so this is in some ways it's the most recent in a string of attempts to develop this parcel but is likely to be the final one because the this process doesn't allow for a town to easily bypass its responsibility to provide affordable housing to those members of its population that are in need of housing and the sort of the carrot that the only carrot that this really comes with I think in all two carrots this comes within a lot of ways one is that this does allow finally for sort of a final disposition of the wetland portion of the property for the conservation parcel to have it be properly cleaned to have it be restored to have the invasives managed on it to have it be planted with native species and to have it be brought back and to serve as a much better functioning wetland resource but also as a place for wildlife and you know hopefully a place where there can be some limited enjoyment by the public so the public can come out and see what this parcel really is and to do it in a in a safe manner in a way that allows them to really enjoy the the neighborhood and the other piece of this is that you know understanding that this is sort of an imposition on the neighborhood and that I think everyone would be more than happy to have the six duplex units on Dorothy road and nothing else that there will be new neighbors in this neighborhood and that you know we're very hopeful that those neighbors will become an integral part of this community this neighborhood and share the passion that the current residents do for this neighborhood and that they will you know be as be as passionate and be as supportive and really take a strong effort to be a part of this this neighborhood because as we have been learning over the course of the you know the last 20 months or so this is really a special place in Arlington which has you know really strong support among its residents and you know while there are certain people we have met through this process who we have heard from you know time and time again there are lots of people we may have heard from once and certainly many many more who we have received emails from and correspondence from but have not spoken up directly in the meetings and one of my primary goals being chair of this board has been to make sure that we listen to everybody and that everyone is heard by this board and that everyone feels that they've been heard by this board and we understand that you know it's not possible for us to to necessarily implement everything that everybody wants and to do things the way that everybody wants because there are so many competing interests and competing needs in regards to this area and the the issues of affordable housing in this in this town but when this started we had two main problems one was the problem of how to preserve the wetlands and the second was how do we access the site and I think we have been through the through the efforts of the conservation commission our conservation agents and beta and the applicant and their team have I think come to a pretty good conservation plan for the wetlands portion and the wildlife portion and the traffic side I think unfortunately is not going to be as as clear cut and is not as as good a an outcome but unfortunately with you know we've had very limited possibilities for how we could address those those terms and especially given the conditions of Lake Street and the inability to access Route 2 directly which is something I don't a lot of us had hoped we would be able to to do really on the process so I think for me I would you know I strongly thank everyone for all their efforts throughout this this whole process and given given where we are with with this decision I think we have come up with a strong and defensible decision as we can for this project and I hope that we are able to pass it and then we're able to see it through to to its final fruition in a way that is it becomes an asset for this neighborhood and and can do so going into the future so with that unless there's further discussion the board has a motion before it which is a motion to approve the comprehensive permit for Thorndike Place has conditioned by the decision that's before us now just ask Mr. Haffnery if there's anything else I need to add to that motion I think that motion is fine Mr. Chairman thank you sir so then without further ado I will take a vote of the board except I have to at this point so the the board consists of five members we have two very excellent associate members of the board who have been with us for every single meeting since the start and unfortunately for them they're not allowed to vote on the final decision because it's the vote of the board but I did want to thank both Steve Revlak and Aaron Ford for for being here constantly to making sure that when the and now that we're at the end we would have still five voting members present so thank you both for that so for a vote of the board on the motion Roger Dupont hi Patrick Handlin hi Kevin Mills hi Sean O'Rourke hi and the chair votes aye so the comprehensive permit for Thorndike Place is approved as conditioned by the draft decision thank you to everyone who's taken apart in this process I especially like to thank Paul Haffnery who has been with us since day one on this and it's been a tremendous tremendous asset to us keeping us on this great narrow really appreciated all your assistance with not only this one but with also with the 1165 RMAS have which you had helped us with also earlier in the year so thank you very much thank you Mr. Chairman it's been my pleasure working with the board thank you thank you and thank we thank you very much also to first and foremost everyone in the in the public who's taken apart in this process really it is a much better decision based on your input and your assistance and guidance and allowing us to better understand your neighborhood and your neighborhood's needs it's greatly appreciated I'd like to thank our consultants thank the conservation commission our conservation agent department of planning community development especially director Jennifer Rait and Kelly Lyman the assistant director who's been invaluable to that proposal that's terrible too much at least we got to vote in bring a project to the town Christian you cut off for about the last 15 seconds or so you're on mute Mr. Chairman Mr. Chair you're on mute there we go hi internet's trying to get me off as best it can so having voted on a final decision for Thorndike Place this evening's meetings there are several changes coming to our board so we have three members who are stepping down Steve Revlak has been an associate member since April 2020 is stepping down to the conclusion of tonight's meeting Aaron Ford our other associate member who joined us in April 2020 is stepping down after our night's hearings and they have both served us ably and faithfully throughout the board's most active and demanding period in recent the board and the town are grateful for your service with us here on the zoning board of appeals and Sean O'Rourke who joined the board as an associate member back in April of 2017 and was elevated to a full member in September of that year will also be leaving the board in the coming weeks has been a great privilege having him serve on the zoning board of appeals for the four and a half years his wisdom and expertise will sorely be missed Mr. Revlak had asked if he could say a few words at the end of the meeting which I will grant him the time to do and if either Mr. O'Rourke or Mr. Ford would want to make any comments or allow them to do so as well Mr. Revlak now since thank you Mr. Chair since this is my last meeting as an associate member of the ZDA I just want to say that I'm really impressed at how much of a thoughtful deliberative and hardworking board this is that I mentioned hardworking it has been a privilege to to serve with you and a great learning experience I'd also like to give special recognition to Mr. Klein and Mr. Hanlon who've just done a tremendous job you know with the with our workload over this year and just managing just basically keeping keeping the train moving so to speak you two gentlemen are a real asset to the town and we're lucky to have you thank you I don't have any words prepared or anything but I've enjoyed working alongside with all of you I wish it was not remote and in person but that's this way it's been I've learned a ton and had this been in a different part of my career where I had more time to commit to this I wouldn't leave because it's a it's a good group and it's a good cause so thank thanks for doing it and I've enjoyed working remotely with all of you and I'm sure I'll see you around 10 thank you thank you Mr. Court you can always join up again later well thank you Mr. Chair and it's been great getting to know all of you I guess my only regret's been with COVID because I enjoyed our in-person meetings for sure and it helped all of us as members get to know each other which was a ton of fun the amount of work that people do on this board is incredible for a volunteer board so thank you all and the amount I've learned from all of you Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Klein, Mr. DuPont and even you Mr. Mills who I first got to know here in Arlington Little League so it's been great seeing you again Kevin and just thank you all very much it's been an honor thank you thank you Sean so with that our traditional ending thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting I especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee and Kelly Lenema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting and tonight especially to thank Jennifer Rait for salvaging this meeting and finding us a new room and getting us up and running again that was invaluable and much appreciated please note that the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings it's our understanding the recording made by us will be available hopefully on htmi at some point 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 Zoning Board of Appeals website and if you have not had enough of the Zoning Board of Appeals we will be back with you tomorrow night at 7 30 on this same channel to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Second. Second. Thank you Mr. Mills vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Mr. Revlak. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye we are adjourned. Thank you all very very much. Hey good night everyone. Good night everybody. Good night Aaron. See y'all tomorrow. Take care everybody. Good night Steve. All the best.