 ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. All right, good evening everyone and welcome to the town of Arlington Redevelopment Board for April 1st, 2024. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Rachel Zendery. I'm the chair of the board and if the members could please introduce themselves. Steve Rebelak, good evening. Eugene Benson. Shayna Corman, Houston. Can I allow? And we also have Claire Ricker, the director of the department of planning and community development joining us this evening. Let's move to our first agenda item, which is to review the meeting minutes from our meeting on March 18th, 2024. And we'll see if there are any additions or corrections starting with Ken. I am not. Shayna? I am not. Jean? I do not have any. And Steve? Nothing here. I have no additions or corrections either. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes as submitted? So motioned. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve? Yes. Jean? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I may ask as well, the meeting minutes are approved. Moving on to agenda item number two. This is the, we have held our public hearings, the continuance of the public hearing for the Redevelopment Board rules and regulations, which have already been discussed. So we will now open that for deliberation and a vote on the proposed changes to rule eight, rules 18 and 20 in the Redevelopment Board rules and regulations. So we'll start with any comments, any additional proposed modifications starting with Ken. I am not. Shayna? I had two very small things. In rule 18, if you go to procedures, number one, photos of existing signs, et cetera, et cetera, at the end of the sentence, I propose adding and immediately adjacent properties. So photos of signs, existing signs, not just on that site, but on immediately adjacent properties. Claire, are you clear on where that is? Photos of existing signs, if any maintained on premises and photos of signs. And any adjacent properties? Yup. Okay. And the one other was in rule 20, section B2B, I was wondering, is it worth asking, not just are there wetlands on or near the site, but is there known contamination or I made for a mediation? Okay. And that's all I have. Thank you very much, Jean. Any additions or corrections? I'm fine with Shayna's first addition. Whether we want to start asking for whether there's contamination on site, is a discussion I had a number of years ago with the previous planning director who convinced me we shouldn't do that. Because it's up to either the Board of Health in town or the Massachusetts DVP to make decisions about that and not us. On the other hand, there have been some places that have been built and they had to do a lot of site remediation and they talked about it ahead of time. So we should learn about it anyhow. So I would, I'm leaning against it, but I could be persuaded to include it. Is there, Jean, a way that you would prefer it be boarded such as any known contamination? You know, again, we're not asking them to do soil testing and other items, specifically for the special permit. You know, though I can't remember the exact wording, maybe one of you know, if there's known contamination, they would have had to report it. Right, exactly. So to your point, it would be moved because that is under a separate jurisdiction. I guess maybe, I think what I was getting at or what my concern was is the design that we're looking at impacted by known contamination. Are you designing something that looks different or is arranged differently because of contamination? Much as you would for wetlands, using less of the site because of wetlands when you're trying to stay out of wetlands, I'm thinking of sites, sites that I am aware of where former contamination has resulted in podium, in ground level parking and podium above, which might not be desirable but for addressing the contamination. Would you, would it arrive at the same end that you were looking for if we added, are there wetlands on or near the site or any other something like special site conditions or that could cover not only that but also are we looking at ledge or other items which might impact the ability for foundations and other items to be constructed. I think that makes good sense. Okay, okay. Gene, thoughts on expanding the B2, are there any wetlands on or near the site or any other special site conditions? That's fine. Okay. All right, Steve. I'm happy with the proposal as amended. Ken, any concerns about the amendments proposed? As modified. As modified? Yeah, as modified, saying that the design was altered or done because of the following guests. Okay. Instead of, we're not here to site if there's contaminate soil or exactly, we don't have the expertise. Right. And, but it would be nice to know if the design was changed that way so we wouldn't be pushing one way or the other. We knew. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Just identify special site conditions. Yes. Okay. Okay. Great. Claire, are you good on the modifications? Are there wetlands on or near the site or any other special site conditions? Perfect. Got it. And then we changed the rule 18 procedures, number one, to include maintained on the premises. And photos of signs on adjacent to the site. Correct. Great. Is there a motion, let's see, is there a motion to adopt the changes to the board rules and regulations as amended this evening? So motion. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I may ask as well. Those changes have been approved. We will now discuss and vote on the redevelopment board report to 2024 annual town meeting, which is agenda item number three. And Claire, if I could ask, if you bring that up, if you have that up already. Perfect. Thank you. So I had already submitted my modifications as we discussed at our last board meeting. So I will start with Steve for any additional modifications that you would like to propose. Sure. I just, I said these is written in formal form, but I'm happy to read them. Sure. Or if you wanted to highlight those, again, because they are, with those included as course, they were not included as correspondence, but we can add those following this meeting to correspondence for the meeting, which I think would be a good idea, Steve. So if you, Claire, I don't know if you have Steve's proposed modifications. There were two. Correct. Two items. I don't know if you have those available to be able to pull up on the screen. That's fine. Steve, if you could run through those then so that we can capture those in the, no, so the meeting, that would be great. Sure. Thank you. The first proposed set of changes involves the new selection for article 29. Great. Okay, so I propose in the first sentence, I propose striking the words in the uncommon situation in which, and adding the word when, so article 29 would reduce the high buffer distance that's required when two different heights are specified for the same zoning district. The next change is to the three percentages listed, 32, 45, and 60. I would suggest reordering them as 45, 60, and 32. And I could explain how that got out of order, but in terms of having percentages correspond respectively to the districts, it's 45 and 60 and 32. Great. And then finally, strike the sentence, this article would reduce the applicable buffer distances by 50% and move that clause to the end of the next sentence, so that the next sentence reads, given that the overall height minimum, sorry, start again, given that the overall height maximums have been reduced, the required height buffer distances should likewise be reduced. And this article would reduce the applicable buffer distances by 50%. That makes sense. Does anyone have any comments or questions for Steve on the proposed modifications for article 29? If you propose. I think they're fine. Dana? Agreed. Tim? None. I have no views either. All right, Steve, do you wanna go to your next one? Yes, article 31. So the general gist of the changes to the discussion of article 31 involve changing multifamily neighborhood sub-district to neighborhood with multifamily sub-district. The only, so there are one, two places where that occurs. And then the addition, the one other changes in the sentence, properties in the MBTA communities overlay and commercial properties on Mass Ave have allowable taller heights. I would suggest rewarding that to read properties in the MBTA communities overlay and commercial properties on Mass Ave allow taller heights. So a small bit of words, I think. Great. And that's it? Great, thank you. Any concerns or modifications to Steve's suggested wording, Jean? I think it's fine, but I wanna mention a nomenclature class that we had that I didn't realize until I was looking at this today. If you were to go back and look at the text for the MBTA communities that was adopted by town meeting in the fall, we don't use the term sub-district at all. We use the term neighborhood multifamily overlay district and Massachusetts slash Broadway multifamily overlay district. But then when I went and looked at the parcel listing that was on the supplemental report that was submitted to town meeting a week later, it used the sub-district language instead. So we have a clash. My suggestion is the text. And it's obvious they're the same thing, but I think we can fix it. In that the text is adopted approved. They are overlay districts. I think that's better. I would suggest that we change this to neighborhood multifamily overlay district the two times instead of sub-district. And if we are going to have to redo the parcel list, we can fix the nomenclature there so it doesn't use the word sub-district, but it uses the terms out of the text. So that's my other suggestion for article three. Great. Thank you, Claire. Are you clear on the changes as proposed so that we can reword this? I know that the timing for getting this out to town meeting is fast approaching, so I wanna make sure. So we're changing sub-district to overlay district in article 31 discussion. Yes, the neighborhood multifamily overlay district. Overlay and district are two words. Yeah, got it. Great. Okay, Jaina, any questions or concerns about Steve's proposed modifications? None. Ken? None. Great. Anything else, Steve? Okay. All right, Gene. I'm not to Steve's proposal. Sorry. Do you have any of your own? Let's be more specific. Yes, I do, sorry. If again, if we go to article 31, there are a few other places where it uses the term sub-district instead of overlay district. I think there are three or four or five places where it does that. So I think if we could change the discussion and then change the vote and recommendation, the draft amendments, it says neighborhood multifamily and an overlay district, and then when we fix the other thing, we can fix that. Okay. That's my only other comment on all of that. Great, great. Claire, you heard that from Gene. Okay. I'm sorry, could you just repeat it again, Gene? I apologize. On article 31, a few times where it, well, the proponent used the term sub-district, so we can't change what's in his, but in the discussion, there are a number of times where we use the term multifamily neighborhood sub-district instead of multifamily neighborhood overlay district. And I just think we should substitute overlay district to sub-district wherever that is in the discussion, and then in the vote and recommendation too. Got it. Great. Anything else, Gene? No, that's it. All right, Sheena. Yes, just a minute. So in article 25, the second paragraph talks about, talks about the definitions of attached and detached buildings. And I suggest adding a very brief example. So I'm just going to count sentences. I'm just going to quite count sentences here. First paragraph, second sentence, the definitions of attached and detached buildings in the current zoning bylaw are not internally consistent, so some buildings not clearly fall into either category. So some buildings, and I would just add there, such as those connected by a breezeway or something similar, a very brief example for clarity purposes. I think the breezeway example is something that was, something that was raised by the ZBA early in the discussion. I think that's fine. So Claire, if we add the, for example, such as those attached through a breezeway as the example. Great. And any other changes for article 25? No other changes for 25. So before we move on to the next one, any concerns with adding the example? Steve, Jean, Ken. These examples are for town meeting or for the actually in the article? No, in the report. In the point, okay. And I'm supportive of that. I think that the more detail we can give in the discussion leads less, the more clarity we can provide there, the better, especially if this is one of the articles that we may recommend be considered as part of the consent agenda, so that it is entirely clear why the administrative change is occurring. Okay. So I also had in article 28 the second paragraph the second paragraph begins like many towns in Massachusetts, Arlington has a inland wetland district, blah, blah, blah. So it talks about other communities have found that administering zoned well in districts create conflicts. And I just wanted to make sure that if asked the conservation commission would be able to identify what other communities, at least one other community is having trouble if not maybe revise this to just say that the conservation commission was having trouble administering this. If there are in fact other communities that they're aware of, that's wonderful. If David Kent off the top of his head mentioned one, then keep on the conservation commission has the problem themselves. It's not the conservation commission that has the problem, it's the ZBA that has the problem. But again, I think that the clarification is that the conservation committee is aware of and can cite the other communities, not that they're having a problem which has been documented. Yeah, and I think it is quite likely other communities are having this problem would not like the question to arise at town meeting and not be able to answer it. And that's all I have. Great, Ken, any additions or corrections? No, I do not. Okay, so we could motion to approve the Arlington Redevelopment Board report to 2024 annual town meeting with the stipulation that the Department of Planning and Community Development will confirm the ability of the conservation committee to confirm the accuracy of that particular statement and adjust as suggested, if required. Gene, please. I think the way to adjust that if David Morgan can't identify is just to take out in the first sentence the phrase that says, like many towns in Massachusetts and in the second sentence, take out some communities have found that and then just start with administering. So if David can't identify, we can just take out those two phrases from the first two sentences. That sounds good to me. Any objections? Okay, sounds good. Is there a motion to approve the Redevelopment Board report to 2024 annual town meeting as amended? So motion to part of the 25 to let 34. Second. We will take a roll call vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Gene. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. The report has been approved and Claire, you and the department will work on getting those copies to the clerk. I believe that's requested. Okay, great. Yes. Thank you very much. I think it's being mailed on me. So they may need it earlier. All the copies earlier this week. Yeah. The copies done this week. Perfect. Make the changes tomorrow. Great. Thank you very much. All right. So that concludes agenda item number three and we will now open agenda item number four, which is open forum. So anyone wishing to speak this evening, if you could raise your hand, you will have up to three minutes to address the board. Okay. Seeing none, we will close open forum and move to agenda item number five. Which is new business. And Claire, I will turn it over to you. Great. Thank you. So I was away last week, but got back today. I spoke with the town council, Mike Cunningham, about the idea that we would hold a special town meeting during spring town meeting to have town meetings again on the MDTA community's overlaying map only. The AG's office has returned a decision that they would like us to revoke on the map and worked with Mr. Cunningham and town council's office to schedule the special town meeting during spring town meeting for I believe it's May night, which would be during the course of the spring town meeting. What we will have to do, what my office is, what is happening this evening at Sledboard is that they are voting to hold the special town meeting and to announce a date of opening and closing of a warrant to include a warrant article that will indicate that we need to revoke on the map. The department has now, we've prepared for this. We knew that it was a potential that we would hold this meeting. We are ready to advertise a hearing and we are ready to notify all parties necessary to notify, including those under the overlay district again. I think still to be determined, Jean is your question about no supplementary notification or any other notification that is required to those under the overlay about this, what will ultimately be a map change, a revote on the map change. We should have an answer on that from town council as well. And we'll know very soon within the next two days what we have to do that, in addition to the postcard notice that we ordinarily sent. So, excuse me, I said that the specials town meeting was the night that is the 13th. It's probably the ninth or the 13th. So what will happen to happen this board will advertise the hearing. And then on April 29th, the irregular meeting, you will hold the hearing or should hold the hearing on the zoning warrant article to revote on the map. So this is where we are today. This was the procedural flaw that was identified and that I've tried to keep you apprised of as we've worked through the process with the attorney general's office. And this is something that has only really kind of been firmed up over the last couple of days. Great, thank you Claire. And to confirm, there will be no changes. It will be the same. It is the same map that was voted on at balltown meeting. We will vote on it, this special town meeting in the spring. Great, thank you for the clarification. Any questions starting with Steve? No questions. Map meaning map and parcel list both. So we'll get to see both the map and the parcel list. Sure, okay. And as long as we're doing this, as I mentioned before, we can fix the moment, Claire. Yes, but we need to talk about that when we review the warrant article language. But we should, right. And at the hearing, we should talk about that next week. And so I think the postcard will go out not only to everyone in the overlay district, but all the butters, and the butters of the butters within 300 feet, whatever that is. We've extended it to 310 feet to make sure we don't miss anybody. Okay, thanks. Sure, great. Shayna, any questions? None. Okay. This is just only pertaining to the MBTA where we're not doing any other subject. Correct. No, I have no other questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other new business? No. Okay. Any other new business from the board, Steve? Actually, yeah. Fantastic. There's a little bit of trivia. One of the things that was released earlier this week was the 2020 for Arlington Annual Count Report. And one of the, and it was a section on, you know, from the assessors in terms of, you know, what real property is owned and how that contributes to taxes. And they also include a little large chart of the average value of single family owns and condominiums over the last couple of years. So 2024 was the year that our average assessed value of a single family owned exceeded $1 million. So it was $1 million, $14,000. That is my new business for the week. Thank you for apprising everyone of that milestone. Jean, any new business? The Arlington master plan update. We haven't had a conversation about whether one or more of the board will be on the committee. So I wondered if we could add that to the agenda for our next meeting. Sure, that sounds great. It's my expectation that we will have someone from the board on the committee. I'd say put an agenda item so we can have a discussion and decide who wants to do it. Sounds good. Sheena, any new business? No new business. Great. And then I also wanted to bring up two scheduling items that we should discuss. We had discussed with the select board putting together a joint meeting in June, which by the time Cal meeting starts we'll be here before we know it. So I think that would be either, we said either June or in September. So I think if we can just start aligning calendars that would be good. And then we also had a initial discussion around the schedule for the Arlington Heights rezoning. And so I think whether it's the next meeting on the eighth or the meeting after that it would be great to review. We had some feedback as a board on the initial plan with regard to other stakeholders who might want to be involved and some timing. So I think it would be great as we're going into town meeting to revisit that and make sure that we're aligned on the outreach schedule. Great. Those are the only two items I have. Ken. Yeah, I have two minor ones. Just one update on what's happening with that. What else? So very short update on the Atwood houses. We've been in discussion with Bob and Nixie. He thinks that the project will be moving forward and has discussed a hearing date in May. But these are very, these are preliminary conversations. Do you think the last item we have to give them a deadline by? He was given a deadline by Mike Ciampa. And I believe this board may have also given him a deadline as well. But the project is progressing. He needs, Mr. Nixie has been suffering some health problems and he is trying to decide if he can continue to work on this project to bring it forward or if he's going to need to hand it off to someone else. But he did at least mention a hearing date in May. Okay. And then my second one was that we had talked about doing APUB and looking at some sites. Has that gone further anymore or are we still? At this point he has not progressed. No, he apologies. No, no, that's all right. I think we're very busy, understandable. It sounds like I'll have to do something we want to take up after kind of meeting again, kid. Okay, just for some of you put it on the agenda for some time to come in the future. Okay. I'm not trying to push it. Like next week or anything, but I just want to keep that going. Yeah. Thank you for keeping it on the front burner. That's all I had. Great, thank you. Any other new business? All right. Well, that did that. We will see if there is a motion to adjourn. So motioned. Second. Take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I mean yes as well. This meeting is adjourned. It's possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help.