 All right, good evening, everyone. I call to order the October 17th meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board being recorded by ACMI of a heavy agenda tonight. We're starting to open earlier than usual. We are down in the middle of this evening. I do expect them to come shortly but we'll get started in the agenda. First up, we have a public hearing regarding two warrant articles for a special town meeting which begins later this week. So I'm going to open that public hearing. First up, we have Article 10, Regulation of Crocker Rule. This is suggested to amend the zoning bylaw by adding section to it. Phone it. John Warden is here with us this evening. So I ask Mr. Warden to step up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we've seen the social motion that we have to file with the zombie communists today. Thank you. It is similar to the warrant article which I'm currently seeing. The changes we forget are to reduce the greatest notice from 1800 to 600. And then we put in two, or put in an exception, which in the least this input comes from the people who commented on it on the article that involved the laborer and so on. Just the removal of the stones and whatnot that doesn't require use of heavy equipment would be accepted altogether. That's right, Mr. Chairman. The other exception is down towards the end. And the zoning board would give the equipment without having a public hearing. A relatively small project, and a relatively current source, so to speak, in eight hours is a wonderful day of rampage. Rampage, that's what I've been driving some of these places like. And 50 cubic yards is one of those humongous dumps, or that's equivalent to four or five dump trucks. This guy in the early streets used dump trucks. They were lining them in the street, personally turned the range off, so they had diesel fumes to the flying rocks, the dust, the stone particles, the vibrations, and that's what went on for nine hours a day by these weeks. The question I got going around town talking about this is, why is it re-developed for bringing something forward in this connection? This has been a, you know, it's not like this rot-busting project existed in some quiet vacuum somewhere, but somewhere in the corner of the town. I don't even know this about it. It was right, you could hear in town hall. I'm sure you've worked with town hall for some of that. It was Indiana United State, it was on the Arlington, it was all over the list for a while. And anyway, it's certainly a matter of, you see what I've noticed, but when the special town meeting was announced, we were talking about doing anything outside of it, something had to be done. And so I filed a warrant out for about 235 signatures, very quickly, and we filed it. So here we are, we gave it to you folks about 40 days ago, I'm sorry, you don't know who we'll have appearing until tonight. I'd like to answer any questions about the nature of the art of itself and so on. I would ask, considering that the town meeting that is 48 hours, will be at a very moderate scale, that you make a decision and let me know what it is because I have a plan. What I'm going to do, I hope that you'll endorse the art, it seems like an o-brainer, and then we go forward to get it. If you're going to say no action, well, OK, I frame that as a substitute motion because someone thinks they know what's going on, says it's not their idea, they'll just say no action. I hope you have more imagination. Thank you. I'm a little confused, I just want to ask a little clarity here. You're saying, and by this motion you're saying that no rock or any ledge can be moved without a special permit. Right, yes. But you read the exception at the front end, right? Yes, but the exception, who determines that? Well, they don't need heavy equipment. No, no, let's say there's an exception on the back here, here it says, is it cubic yards or less? No, no, no, I'm sorry, there are two exceptions. Yes. One is an absolute exception for, this is, you know, time-worthly exception, so it's close on building a force and there's a boulder in the way, we've got to get it out of the way, it gets better for that course, it's not the intent. If you don't need heavy equipment to get it, you're in the front end of it, it says that stuff is accepted all together. But let's say you do need heavy equipment to get something out of there that's less than 50 cubic yards and less than an aggregate of one day's worth of work. Right. Okay, so according to this, you still need a special permit. You go to a zoning work, they don't have to have a public hearing. Yeah, but who determines that then? It's less than 50 cubic yards. Well, I suppose, I would, I don't know, I would suppose that since the site plan is required, they would file a site plan and say, okay, here is a, in fact, I think, here is a square feet that I would like to estimate. And I think this rock is, you know, 2 feet deep. I've had some soundings done and it's 2 feet deep. And then you do the arithmetic, say, well, that's only 48 yards. Okay, good to go. But there's only board that has to be... Yeah, but John, I think that's one scenario. But let's say someone's doing an addition to their house and they dig in a foundation, they pull the permit, they dig in a foundation, and they found some ledge, unforeseen. Are they going to find dump trucks full? That's what I'm trying to get at right now, John, okay? Let's say they look at it and you determine that it's less than days before they work the jack and wear it out, they need the jack and wear it out. Okay, and you believe it's less than 50. But you know what, it's so very different. They've got the permit already. They've got the permit to build the addition. No, no. They have to get a permit, as you said, the house set for any amount of rod removal, because it's less than 50 yards. It's a lot of stuff. The zoning board does not have to call a public hearing. They don't have to give us fairly extensive notice. No, what I'm trying to get at, well, I'm sure you're not paying this. Let's say I'm a homeowner, okay? I hire an architect, I do a job in addition, a kitchen addition or maybe a family room, because they're broke. He hires a general contractor, a general contractor goes, takes drawings, the job is prepared, brings it to the city, it's a permit. While they're estimating the foundation for this addition, they found some ledger there. All right? They determine, it's best guessing, you know, that it's less than 50, and it's less than a day's worth of work, but they need to jack it right out, because I'm here for equipment. However, this is down, the owner has to hire a civil engineer and a lawyer to apply to the ZBA to get relief on this. And then the ZBA can go ahead and say, it meets this criteria of less than 50 yards, and a day's worth of work. We don't have to have our public hearing, but there's a hearing anyway, because they have to hear this, and then it delays the whole project. What I'm asking of this is, would you be able to be detained to say, okay, let's say something was found there, and the building inspector then decides, it's less than 50 yards, it's less than a day's worth of work. You do not need to go to the ZBA. I support the part that G.I. Twitt was he gave, it's a lot of excavation. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. But I think just doing it a little too far, and I want to bring it back a little bit and say, All right, let me just say, the thing is, we had to, I didn't know if such a time being was coming up, we had to put this together very quickly. We had to, any changes we made, the modifications that we made had to be within the scope of the audit, the consultant with the moderator on that subject. I'm not saying, and I would say it's a time meeting, I'm not saying this is perfect. I think it can be tinkered with, it can be amended. It can amend it next spring. What I am saying is that, if we wait until next spring, and I don't know when you guys were going to get into this, if we wait until next spring, that bylawed pass will not become effective until like a year from now. That means there's a whole summer that people may have to put up with this. Bylawed accounts are a couple of things that you said, I'll just speak in a term. There are protections in the general bylaw for exactly what you're talking about, and I agree with you, I think that the intent of your article here is worthy and something worth pursuing. There are general bylaw provisions that will attack those, and I don't know whether those are being enforced, whether you're looking at open excavations, noise abatement. Those are some of the things that it seems to me this article is geared toward tackling, and whether those are being properly enforced throughout town, I can't say that some of the people who are affected by it to make those complaints and seek the relief from the property. I think there are provisions. I don't see this as a zoning issue. I see this as an issue of the general bylaw where you have existing bylaws in place to go after rock removal to go after things. The zoning bylaw? I think you're approaching it as though this is only bylaw. I'm mentioning on the board that it's been on the books for 40 years. The zoning board has had control over rock, sand, gravel, etc. removal since at least 1975, maybe before then. I can't help with this, I don't know if it's ever been a book. If you get away from it by saying, oh, we're not going to sell the rocks here, we're going to give them away. Okay, then blast away, there's no rules. If you didn't, have you spoken with the zoning enforcement officer? I have spoken to the zoning board. And what's taking place there? And what's taking place? What's taking place as far as enforcement of the bylaws that are in place? Well, see, the guy says he's not selling the rocks. Or the guy in the audience here said he wasn't selling the rocks. So therefore, they didn't have to give a permit. They didn't have to ask for a permit. Secondly, you're skipping around part of your proposed article skips around the proper authority here. This is a zoning article, and you're right, it goes after rock removal, dirt, sand, etc. But it also calls site-climbing review. Site-climbing review is supposed to be coming before the redevelopment board as You know, it doesn't say site-climbing but it says to present site-climbing. That's just so they can see where the site is. What involved site-climbing review, which would make the island to redevelop before the proper authority and not necessarily the zoning. That's that saying. Board of Appeals. Thirdly, I really want to take issue with the fact that the ARB hasn't taken any action on this. After town meeting last year, we established a residential zoning subprime that's meant four times. That's working on it. People from your own citizens group are on that committee and are fairly auspoken and very good participants of that. I give them all the credit in the world for that. This issue has come up. We do intend to tackle it as part of the largest slate of zoning reforms that come into play at town meeting in the spring. You yourself said this was hastily thrown together. I agree with the thrust of the ARB and the sword. I just don't agree with it now. I'd be glad to go into action on it. Well, okay. I don't disagree with your intent. Okay. Let's stick with these things. Let's stick with next summer and what people are going to have to put up with if they don't get some level of protection. That's what I'm looking at. If you think that your board would rather handle it, I had to stick within the scope of the ARB. I didn't ask for this assignment, really. I would have thought, I mean, why didn't your zoning committee come up with this for the special meeting? Staff the committee. They had to meet. Schedule time to meet. We've met four times already, but as you're well aware, the bureaucracy of town government volunteers sometimes takes time to get things in place. If you have certain goals or certain agenda items that we intend to tackle and get to, I have town meeting in the spring. Special town meeting was, I think, a surprise for most of us in town when you yourself admitted that. I think we'll be ready by spring to have something that's a little bit better fit and we'll put the problem forward. Then I'm only asking this to be a temporary solution to give people, the basic thing about this is to give people a voice so that someone comes into their neighborhood and starts banging rocks. They know an advance is going to happen. Maybe they can send me this summer camp. Maybe they can take the vacation at that point. Maybe they can do something. Maybe the zoning board can, you know, put some requirements in there. Wet down some of these buses. Can you tell me, Janet, what the proper enforcement channels are for some of these employees? So there's the, you had mentioned, the town bylaws that exist. Noise Abatement is one of the bylaws that we've talked about. We talked about open excavations. We talked about other, you know, sort of nuisance issues that I think Mr. Ward is speaking to. Those are bylaws that could be strengthened and to the point that you've already made, the residential study group is willing to explore this issue. There's actually, excuse me, there's actually a member of the audience tonight who's on that committee who may wish to speak about this. I don't know. It was brought up at the last meeting. He'll talk to the audience and talk to the team for it on the street. It did come up at the last meeting on topics that we are going to discuss further. Andy? I'm hearing what you're saying about purposes, noise and dust, noise and dust abatement and control. That is the main focus. And it's not just dust. You have to understand, when you're smashing up rocks, and my wife will be speaking about this when she's assigning this, you're releasing all microscopic particles of rock. And if those get into the lungs of a young kid, he could be, he or she, who have a terrible disease or the rest of their life. So, and noise. Noise isn't, noise is big. I mean, big in more ways than one. So that's the thrust. How does the current, how do the current regulations... There are no current regulations. Nothing was done. The only thing that anybody in this town, administration did, the board of health went down there and they said, okay, you can only do this jackhammering and co-ramming between seven and four. And the developer said, oh, that's a shame. That's exactly the hours I've been working anyway. And then, they did, twice they went down and checked decibels. Once it was up to 91, there's probably no more limit to 85, which is too high. The decibel thing was, you know, a decibel thing was passed because people were annoyed about the noise of leaf blowers. But a leaf blower, however obnoxious, goes on for maybe 15, 20 minutes max. This thing is going on for nine hours a day. And actually, they said, well, the average is below the legal level, so we're not going to do anything. And they also said, well, if this was because of SIMTRACULAR, we would be up here monitoring it. But this is with any kind of notice. I think I'd like to hear what they have to say about the inspectional services. The inspectional services was not involved. They claimed that they had no jurisdiction over anything. Well, actually, I don't want to take your word for it. Thank you. I respect your word for it, but it seems like there are other people involved in this, and we'll just be cherry picking on. I'd like to hear more from the group, the residential group, and potentially from inspectional services and others that are involved in regulating or enforcing regulation on noise abatement, or dust abatement, and construction techniques and practices. So that's what I have to say. Welcome to our group. So along the same lines, I'd like to know how do you fully, or those concerned, fully avail themselves of the bylaws that are already in place? They have tried. They have appealed to the building department, to the top manager, to the select one, to the board of health. Well, I'd like to hear that from people who have asked, I want to know what they asked, what bylaws they were asking leaf under, and what action, if any, was taken. And if not, why not? You told me what action was taken. That was in one instance, and I'd like, again, I'd like to hear the full course of events, not just the retailing of it. I'm also concerned, because we're just at the beginning of the zoning recodification, and we've got this residential working group that came about from town meeting as a result of a large amount of confusion over the complex intertwined issues involved in changing zoning, and I'm very cognizant about trying to avoid tackling these very complex zoning issues piecemeal. Can clients who want to live in the zoning recodification process run this course? With respect, Mr. Watson, this is not a complex issue. This is a very simple issue. You want every neighborhood from Mystic Pleasant Street on up, west and north, to be subject to this kind of thing, with no voice, no hearing, no regulation, no nothing. You wait for zoning recodification, sure. And I believe I was involved in the last zoning recodification by the only one in this room who was. It's a long, tedious process. It doesn't take place in six months. It's a long process. I don't think people can wait. I don't think they should have to wait that long. I mean, with respect, if the board wanted to hear from all these people, why didn't they call them in? Why didn't they like the board? Open it up to public comment. We are running a little bit behind schedule, so I ask everyone to please keep your comments brief. If you raise your hand, I'll call on you. Please stand up. State your name and address for the record. Please. I'm just waiting for comments. With that. This is actually setting out one-on-one till set out. So I guess my question is, is there a way that we can implement regulations such that it would be regulated and not require a special permit? If some of the concerns are ours that you're committed in operation or the noise level, it just seems that dealing with ledge isn't a subjective thing. So what is the purpose of requiring a special permit? Perhaps we could require a notification any time anyone has a project that they anticipate much removal. And then set some parameters that everyone has to deal with when they're dealing with ledge removal as opposed to making an application in a process that might be on our sunlight for the homeowner. Well, I guess that's just my comment in general to this proposal. Thank you. We'll take that into consideration and welcome you all to the forum. I can communicate that to the working group that's going on. Other comments? I do have the Steve Revillack on the low and sunny side avenue. I do have a question. One of the way the, this is worded, it states that ZBA may impose requirements so that people can have the continued quiet enjoyment of their own. So let's say that you have someone who they know they've got a big ledge to remove, they go through the permit process, people get notified. And in the process of removing it, well, it's just as much of a racket as went on this past summer. And then you have, so at which point the ZBA might try, the town might issue a software border, say. But the, what's to prevent the applicant from coming back and saying, well, you're not going to always make the bomb. We're following that to the letter. Please explain to us how this differs from quiet enjoyment of one's property. If you're, in other words, my one concern about this is that, you know, you go through a public hearing, you go through a notification process, and you'd likely wind up in the same place. So I, I mean, personally, I think our noise abatement law is not the most sophisticated one. It will protect you from permanent hearing damage, but I don't think it will be much more than that. I think there is, I think that would be my own opinion. I think that would be a better way to tackle it. Thank you. Other comments, questions? To endorse it or to take no action? Support the idea. The way to recommend it, I would support it for no action. Second. Second. All in favor? All right. Thank you. Stuffed is Article 11 of the Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers registered marijuana dispensary in six, five hundred new schools operating in the same building. Board of Health, the town council, up high. I would ask the town council to open up a page of synopsis of what's before us this evening. Council Washington, I don't want to make a presentation on behalf of the folks who submitted this article, but what I do want to do is try to give us some background in terms of why this article was submitted as far as I can understand it. The board will recall, as well, a lot of folks here that afforded the opportunity to have a brief moratorium in terms of where they were going for registered marijuana dispensaries or MTCs. They're changing. At a certain point in time, the state must know that we couldn't maintain a moratorium anymore. And even more importantly, we could not effectively zone registered marijuana dispensaries out of our municipalities. So faithfully, the requirement that we had to make a decision as to where we would zone them in a 2014 town meeting decided to zone them in certain business districts. At that point in time, we had a healthy conversation about where these facilities should be located, if anywhere, in Condon, Arlington, and obviously eliminated residential areas as well as the industrial zone and some of the business districts from consideration for public health and safety reasons, as well as other reasons. At that time, the Department of Public Health were interpreting their regulations in a manner for not just your local officials here, but also folks like the MMA, the MMA, other folks throughout the state to basically read that if you didn't establish a specific buffer zone around your medical marijuana treatment centers that had default 500 foot buffer zone would be in place, and that buffer zone would preclude from citing R&D with 500 feet of the school, and daycare, or somewhat ambiguous and defined places where children come and come. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but at the end of the day, the reason I'm here is that two problems cracked up in the two years that DPA and its process of vetting medical marijuana facilities for their own reasons and requirements and seeing local municipalities engage in their own process. One is they started giving contradictory advice on what constitutes a place where children come and come. It's a somewhat ambiguous term to be dealing with. I think that without trying to slam the state on this, I think they tried to be responsive to different concerns that sometimes are being directed. Most specifically, as this board would recall from the MLA issues, some time ago, the DPA issued a writing perspective that a pediatrician's office was not precluded in the buffer foot buffer zone, and also put in writing to one of our interested town residents that it was precluded in the buffer foot buffer zone, which created a problem for us. We updated guidance. The DPA changed this interpretation to say that only that absent a specific buffer zone by any municipality wouldn't necessarily have a buffer zone in any type of local site, such as zoning. So it's left around to a number of other communities, including some communities that are neighbors for us, in a difficult position of potentially having no buffer zone whatsoever, even though it was our understanding of these representations that we did, and having to evaluate an active proposal that is before the ARB and the applicants have been gracious enough to voluntarily extend their timeline to consider it. We're sort of left in a position of not having a very clear set of criteria that are supposed to be defined when using the final buffer zone that the state's established, even though there might be some disagreement about what would be allowed and not be allowed in the buffer zone, or is there no buffer zone whatsoever. I think that's a very difficult position for the ARB and the Board of Health to be in. Now, the applicants I think have gone about the trying to propose a proactive solution to this by garnering enough signatures for a citizen to propose their own buffer zone, which provides clarity in terms of what the ARB and the Board of Health would be looking at when they're evaluating their application, whether or not it's the buffer zone all town officials would like to see as a different matter, and I would expect they present on their rationale for creating a buffer zone as they have. I'd be happy to answer any questions with that. The only other thing that I want to comment on is that we do have to allow for R&D and if we have an over-aggressive zoning requirement that essentially doesn't allow any place for these dispensaries to open it will be subject to liability in a way. So, it is a concern. It's a concern in mind that there may not be a buffer zone as a big town. Well, I didn't want that buffer zone and we presented it and we relied upon that information in zoning R&Ds in the first place but I also think it's important to keep in mind that you can't now return on it and establish a buffer zone that would effectively allow these types of facilities anymore now. Are there any questions that we have against them now? Or wait until more information comes up from the applicants or anything else? Thank you. As the point I had, introduce yourself. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burnett. My name is Valerio Romano. I'm a attorney for Master's Education Foundation and I'm here with Adam Thine who is my law partner as well. I'm Joseph Focache from the Foundation. I wanted to first of all thank the board for being here and the members of the public for their interest in this issue. If there's a lot of questions, feel free to call me Val. We've been working here for well over a year trying to get the site with lots of members of the town. It's been a real pleasure thus far and it's a shame that the uncertainty that came out of the public health process has put us in this sort of quandary. We believe where we plan on citing works zoning-wise and we move forward with that understanding after having worked with the town since the letter of opposition from the board of select and zoning enforcement officer communicated with them thinking that Water Street address would work. So just full transparency. It's no secret. We represent Massachusetts Patient Foundation so they are the non-profits seeking to cite a medical use of marijuana dispensary in Arlington. This effort was to create the clarity that had sort of evaporated after the Department of Public Health sort of, you know, re-analyzed or put forth a different perspective on how they will enforce the medical use of marijuana regulations. So the Water Street location was really the only location that worked. We looked everywhere in Arlington. We knocked on doors. We walked everywhere. It was the only place that we could find that would be remotely available that would work. It was something else we found but it was too close to a Coulomb Center so that made that one possible. We looked and looked and looked and we felt actually in the long run it's a good use for that building. It's a medical building. This is a medical program. This is about helping sick people. It's tough to say no to that. We really believe that it was a good use for that building. The existing zoning bylaw that contemplated that Water Street location passed in Arlington by over two-thirds vote. It was 160 to 49 that passed that bylaw that contemplated that location. The voters of Arlington knew ahead of time that there could be dispensary in medical marijuana dispensary in that building and they passed it overwhelmingly. What we tried to do in crafting the zoning petition was to further that but also give the protections to Arlington that sort of disappeared after the change in the implementation of the regs in the Department of Public Health. The assumption, as Mr. Hyne pointed out was that he had 500 foot set back and that's what we tried to put through. So this is not without precedent. Other towns have done similar things and I apologize about the cold. At Brookline they've done away with the confused definition of where children commonly congregate. Somerville has no set back at all just their zones. So there's many different cities and towns that have amended zoning in Kingston 100 foot. Recently in Cambridge 250 feet set back. So this is not without precedent. It's happened in communities that are close by that are similarly situated and we're sort of following up on that. We're not making up something new and having Arlington come out of left field to try something different. We really tried to model it largely after Brookline. We hope this bylaw creates something that Arlington could work with in the future. Give some clarity as to where dispensaries could be in Arlington in the future. The fact is the point of this 500 foot set back is to not create a secondary market for medical marijuana. You don't want dispensary. This is the idea behind it. Whether there's real credence to this I don't know. I'm not here to advocate for question 12 which passed in 2012. What I would like to say is that it's about not creating a secondary market. You don't want a dispensary across the street from a high school or middle school or high cannabis and then go across the street someone scrupulous person and resell it to a high school kid. That's the point of this. It's not really some sort of madness about sick people with MS and cancer presenting a harm just because they're in the same vicinity of a child. That's not really what this is about. It's not what the setback is about. It's about not creating that secondary market. We feel that the zoning bylaw we put forth hits that way on the head. We try to keep it 500 feet from schools essentially. So the water street building again, medical building a great location. One of the things about Arlington is 68% of people in Arlington voted in favor of medical marijuana. 68%. It always takes just a couple people who show up to meetings like this in opposition but you don't get the 68% of people. Nothing passes with 68%. But medical marijuana did in Arlington. I think it's important to remember to move forward because if we effectively preclude this by implementing a very restrictive zoning bylaw, overly restrictive although we believe ours is fairly restrictive actually what we put forth if we effectively preclude it we are doing a disservice to the over two-thirds folks who voted in favor of the zoning bylaw and a disservice to the 68% of people who voted for medical marijuana in Arlington. Anecdotally while we were gathering signatures we had more people than not tell us we don't want any further restrictions on citing dispensary in Arlington and it's anecdotal but we had people out there gathering signatures meeting with the public talking about the issues and they said what? You want us to restrict this further and most people were actually quite opposed to the idea of making it so you couldn't cite dispensary in Arlington. So what's really at stake here is patient access. Not some sort of madness about protecting people from an unknown harm. So I've done this in many places throughout the Commonwealth and I've had a released opposition in Arlington worse than anywhere. Now Mr. Heim pointed out the fact that you can't effectively prohibit medical marijuana program that largely came out of the Wakefield decision from the Attorney General's office. A town can't effectively preclude the use by creating, cannot, by creating a limiting bylaw with a low bylaw owner. Courts have found local regulation to be inconsistent with this and thus invalid under a state statute when the purpose of the statute cannot be achieved in the face of local regulation. And I have, you know, smored language there but I think we get the point. You can't override state law via zoning and the Attorney General's office has said expressly that's the case. So everything we've done is to be transparent with Arlington. I've been in front of the select many times. I know Adam's been in front of this board before. I've met with the town council to work out, you know, how we should best, I've met with a town manager. We've tried to do everything we can to be totally open and transparent and work really closely with the board to implement this important medical program. And so add a language that would effectively limit the siting of the RMD on Water Street or essentially anywhere in Arlington would ultimately hurt patients for what it's worth to highlight sort of the trust and working relationship patients have with the town of Arlington. It would probably be illegal and it would violate the will of the voters of Arlington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So I want to urge you to think about what are the true public health reasons for implementing the zoning by-law that's so restrictive and what really has been shown. What are the real public health reasons? So our request is this. First, either to endorse the petition, the zoning by-law that would be our first request. If that isn't done and any modifications that are contemplated make it restrictive, particularly so that that Water Street address in the law that works, then our second request down the line would be to take no action. If both of those aren't acceptable to the board, we would ask that the board at least write in the opportunity for the special permit grant authority to have a waiver of link petition for cases where you couldn't feasibly cite one otherwise. And that way we could at least apply for that waiver as part of our special permit. So with that thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you. You had included this package with two drawings. I'm sorry, Mr. La. Those are from my department. Oh, okay. Let me ask that. Jenny. The one drawing right here where I hit the one circle. Right. That is showing a reading, right? That's the, yeah, the 500 foot buffer. The second one is actually the one to reference though. This is as, this is, we, sorry. I'm Jenny Ryan, the director. Yes. This is a map that I requested our GIS director prepare. He had prepared a map at the time that we adopted the zoning as a near call. There had been a map done about potential facilities and locations, business districts, et cetera. So we took the proposed zoning and we mapped it. So that's what you're looking at here. Ms. May, is there any extra copy of that? You can take the copy. You're saying the one, the two, the two radiuses, right? That's the one that has two schools in it and that's the radius based off those two schools. So the inclusion of those two schools is a subject that we should discuss. We are understanding, the town's understanding, is that those two schools are within the purview under that Massachusetts department of early education and second, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the department suddenly does it. Early education, secondary education. Elementary. Thank you. So we have an understanding that those two schools are all within that but the way that the proposal was written, I suppose we might, that was actually a potential amendment is to include public and private schools. So just to have that clarity as well as the general department. So that's what you're looking at. And the one circle with the two stars there. Those stars are The stars are the potential facilities for the child care potential places where children congregate. You have a daycare in there. Right, yeah, those are the two, no, there's a daycare across the street and there's a, we've understood that there might be a daycare across the street and then that is the Montessori school that is located in the church. That's the two stars within this, I'm sorry that everybody's not looking at the same map. So for the purposes of understanding what the buffer zone impact might be if you have if you had a local buffer zone what would it look like compared to the current lack of any buffer zone. Just skip over the line so we'll come at it. Just following up on that though can't wait for Jenny. So this 500 foot buffer on this one would allow for the current water street location to be approved or would be approvable. It might be approvable. I'm going to say might, we're not approving the facility at this discussion so I feel a little bit that that's not, the matter at hand is if you want to adopt a local buffer zone not if we want to permit that facility in that location. I just want to focus on the substance right here. That's the continued hearing on the beverage side if that's not what's happening tonight. I'm not into your questions at this. I just want to reach out to you guys. So the town has been presented approved this location. Do you want to hear that in your presentation? Mr. West, I'm sorry could you please repeat that? Did the town approve this water street? Yes, this location was compensated in the zone while it has approved the town meeting in 2014. So this was absolutely contemplated in the first place. This was an approved location. But whether the council thought this address specifically I don't know, but certainly this part of the approved area. Meaning the central business district? Yes. So the access to two-thirds of town members and the Board of Selectment in the past have vented this location and found that they've approved of this use at that location. So well over two-thirds of town meeting in 2014 before this location. I remember a discussion about actually keeping it in an area of the downtown business district where the police could be keeping eye on as opposed to starting to try to find an area that's farther out than the industrial district for instance. Obviously not a residential district. So if we're going to have one in this town we agree with what was said in town meeting that a central business district zone in a medical office building is potentially where we may end up. So I'm a little worried about the buffer zone that I don't quite understand. But I'm more less worried about thinking about an actual zone in town than the central business district. Well the discussion tonight is about the buffer zone. Just about the buffer zone. We have a further discussion continuation of public hearing we have last month on November 7th. Actually discuss this just in regards to buffer zone tonight. Tonight's discussion regards only the buffer zone. Tonight's vote is only in regards to buffer zone. We do have Doug Hannon and Christine Bargeron here that probably clarify some of the buffer zone questions you want to ask them specifically. I don't even want to ask them specific questions about that. How it came to that decision. Mr. Chairman, may I just share a little bit more of that. Thank you. So currently the bylaw contemplates signing in B3 to B5. And that's the current contemplated area. So I think it's exactly it's the nail on the head for what you're talking about Mr. West keeping it in downtown business district as opposed to putting it further out in the industrial part. The current bylaw is B3 and B5. So redirecting based on that this is all about buffer zone. What is making it not clear to us that board of health is projecting why isn't that a clear if the town's already approved those two zones. Because the board of health is saying you've got to have a buffer zone. If I may. I don't think the board of health is saying that you've got to have a buffer zone. The board of health has provided input on this already. When we made the case in town meeting for where we wanted to zone this we made it with the understanding that the state had established this 500 buffer zone. That if we didn't regulate in any other way it would exist. So here we've got it. We know that we can put it in a B3 or B5 district with some reasonable confidence that it's not going to be right up against Arlington High School or Arlington Catholic because the state says you can't have within 500 feet of the school. It's the state that then said well actually if you zoned it then we don't have a buffer zone at all. So the concern is that we don't have any other local sighting controls at this time. The board of health has spoken to is if we're going to have some local sighting these are some of the things that we're concerned because right now we don't have anything other than it's zoned in B3 or B5. I think what you're saying is well by having this buffer zone it's limiting and pushing things further away from the ass out potential. Maybe that's an opportunity. I don't know but that would be my worry. So we were operating in the right because of illogical locations. We were operating under some kind of belief that that was the sales quote that we're zoning in B3 and B5 with a 500% buffer zone. Now our understanding is that DPH is backed off of that position and without creating a new buffer zone there's the risk that there isn't and so you could sight it anywhere within B3 and B5. So within B3 and B5 that doesn't mean there are locations within B3 and B5 if there were a buffer zone it still wouldn't be possible to get so expensive. Yes sir. Because of the buffer zone and my earlier point was is that we only have zoned for two districts and realistically speaking I have not done an absolute amount of GIS analysis but realistically speaking a very restricted buffer zone you could zone in any business district and you wouldn't be able to put it in any food. So the alternatives at the time are you know is this something that we're going to allow in this industrial is those the only zones in Arlington that aren't going to have some of these facilities for the general concern as Ramon has both because they're the only things that aren't going to have a school within a certain radius so if you expanded the buffer zone you could have a thousand if you can conquer it I think it's 3,000 if you can conquer it it's not very much like Arlington in terms of if you can interject one. Thank you. So there's one other function here is that the board of select and operate is sort of the operating of gatekeeping function so obviously we're supported in our petition more restricted than impossible the site particularly in our location taking no action whether the Department of Public Health is saying there is a 500 footer the board of select still has that gatekeeping function so if I came in as a new applicant and I wanted to be across the street from Arlington Catholic the board of health isn't going to give me a letter of support or opposition that would allow me to move forward in the application process so they have complete discretion and we have to go and we have multiple meetings with them and we have to go through that sort of discretionary evaluation with them and that is absolutely an application requirement that is this so while we're obviously components of our article and the event that became overly restricted when we put the site taking no action wouldn't just allow it to go across the street from any of your schools because the board is that gatekeeper if that helps to shed some light on that so other communities have taken different approaches to this you referred to a couple of them but there are a number of others that have created different kinds of buffers including a wider range of facilities that were not allowed to be within the buffer zone different distance buffer zones as well as different ways of calculating buffer zone distances and it seems like many of them are looking at a straight linear distances an actual circle like we're looking at these diagrams but that isn't what's been proposed in the proposed product and can you talk about that a little bit of what we calculated this issue that way so it has really to do with the density of our children children or medical use of marijuana patients don't travel as the crow flies if the issue is how far away is and how long does it take to get somewhere then direct pedestrian access makes sense, Quincy for instance has a 1500 foot setback but it's direct pedestrian access so we were able to cite one not this group but one of our clients was able to cite one on the shooting drive and so it has to do with the density of our island and why we couldn't just do it as a crow flies without significantly reducing that setback requirement from 500 to 250 feet or 100 feet which we contemplated we thought to do it but we figured we would meet with less opposition if we maintain the 500 foot have a justification as to why we measured it the way we did which is that direct pedestrian access to the density so that was the thought process behind doing it yes, I hope that answers your question was responsible for doing that calculation and reviewing that calculation as part of the approval process for setting it down so the zoning enforcement officer here in our island and I believe his name is Mr. Byrne would not select them but the other Byrne would certainly have would have to do with that decision making process to make sure you comply with the zoning and then I think that you're bored and you're on a special permit would say do we qualify in the special permit criteria and so you're bored but also waiting but my guess is that there would be some look to the zoning enforcement officer to help you make that determination and we of course would hire a civil engineer to do measurements and we'll get measurements on a civil engineer's letter head with his signature saying that we are x, y, z feet away and also why if you look at the original DPH regulation it refers to schools without the qualification under DPSC supervision why are you doing that so it's really largely it's not exactly the same language the Brookland language is actually a lot looser we're trying to craft a tighter bylaw what they say is anywhere children commonly congregate is what they say and as Mr. Heim spoke about it they include schools, they don't include ice cream shops it's sort of all over the map it's really the three-pronged analysis is that people under 18 do they show up in numbers and do they show up regularly scheduling activities so that's why an ice cream shop doesn't count that was the DPH analysis in implementing the regulations that are appropriate during my introductory remarks I tried to give some rationale as to what the real idea behind children commonly congregate is in the setback is to keep it away from an aftermarket for candidates it's not about having people with MS and cancer being near just any child at all here no matter what age and that's really sort of the rationale and the thought process behind this so that's why we looked at what other communities are doing particularly Brookline that's close by and we tried to we tried to sort of model it after that you know away from schools but not in the same building but that was as a daycare so that was basically the way we tried to model it but we tried to make it more precise along those lines why did you exclude libraries I see Belmont has libraries included in their bylaw I do know that it's included in others why was that excluded here well you know all along we had been sort of operating we moved forward in this process to well over a year working with our own team and the board of select men and these other enforcement officers to the extent that we were able to communicate with them met with police met with town manager, met with town council and all along we were operating under the impression of the belief and the reliance that the library is not too far away the five water streets just around the quarter the library around the quarter too and we were operating under the impression that the town felt also given the fact that it passed the town felt that was an appropriate location so when we crafted our supplemental bylaw to give some clarity to these issues we wanted to keep that location working and we certainly weren't trying to craft a bylaw to make it impossible for us to cite our own team and it just wasted a year and a half of our lives you know so that's really the reasoning behind why we crafted it that we did can I follow up on that? so are you saying that you think the library does have regular schedules? no we do not that it fits that it wouldn't figure out what it is but that it would be prohibited because of the buffer zone if we went with the state one should we add? so one of the things that I want to be clear is that the state buffer zone is not an option that is not on the table the state is saying you don't have one that's what I'm saying in my interpretation the library didn't meet that requirement I would agree with that I was asking the component whether that's why he was avoiding that so I want to say that there are representations and stuff like that in the town I just want to make it clear that when the zoning enforcement also went through the inventory things that are in that area that was if you get the board's interest in my read on that I'm happy to provide it there is not a definitive set of rulings from VPH if somebody calls them and then as we've seen sometimes they say thank you Mr. Chair I'll defer to go ahead so you know I think from my perspective but having been here when we first I guess I feel a little bit uncomfortable going beyond what the state buffer zone is because I know that was the intent of town meeting and there certainly was a lot of communication around that now having said and I think the other thing that this does not dig up I know that there was a daycare center at Marlington Boys and Girls Club but you know, presuming that was a B325 that fits everything else I think it's a little incredulous that something like that would not be picked up by them because I do think that's something like Marlington Boys and Girls Club would be exactly what it is that the town seeks to include in the buffer zone so my own opinion is that if if council believes that we are now don't have a buffer zone because of the non-inclusion of it that the only thing that the board should do and I'm not sure if we can whether we're too limited in the scope here but it is to reiterate that the state buffer zone applies to this can I ask a question about that I didn't think town meeting said that you don't? no that was my recollection my recollection was that I'll just keep in mind then because you were there too so we were there we would have talked about it when the board was there but my recollection was that we specifically did not put in the buffer zone because we were told by town council that we avoided putting the buffer zone into the zoning that the buffer zone would exist per the state buffer zone definition that's my recollection so you think that it was approved in those two districts B3 and B4 with the state buffer zone understanding that that's not what was approved in town meeting because the opinion that was provided to town meeting and to the board was that if you didn't mention the buffer zone then the state buffer would have won now over here I think what I understood was that if silence meant if there was a proposed R and D in a B3 or B5 zone then the buffer zone would be applied to that to see if it was possible at that specific location within B3 and B5 but apparently that's not the case at the moment well I think the state has kind of dealt a little bit about I mean my question my question is I don't know if this might be planning department or town council has anyone actually done an analysis that if we were to recreate the the state buffer zone that town meeting would be would be in effect are there viable locations for an R and D in B3 and B5 in that case because it sounds from the proponent statement that there is but it sounded like it was these guys are recommending a buffer zone but it's more tightly constrained than the one that stays in the DPH regulation is it? I didn't know that because it sounds like it's a 500 foot it's going to ask for 500 feet and then 1,000 feet the one issue is daycares model after broke line is it going to be in the same building as opposed to early education is to be in the same building as opposed to anywhere other than 500 feet that counts we modeled that after broke line and that's sort of the way we felt that we saved the water street location but following precedent in the broke line which has an excited dispensary right now but we didn't include early education secondary and high schools in the 500 foot definition when you look at and I have some more I have some more copies of the I have distributed the proposed vote I have the proposed vote so that was the way we modeled it after broke line that's why I was talking about the precedent there I do want to give the town council the up here the answer is following life and the reason why was the time that the application was received and this application process is unusual in the sense that there's a parallel state application process that goes to the select it goes to the air it goes to the water valve it's a little bit more complicated in the traditional sort of application before the ARV which is actually complicated enough at the time that their application was submitted there wasn't any there weren't any day cares there wasn't a day care in the and it depended on how you interpreted facilities in which children commonly congregate so my interpretation the library was not a place where children commonly congregate and I think I've never heard anything from the state or anybody else in this practice area that's been consistent with that I understand there might be some philosophical disagreement about it the pediatrician's office wasn't initially an issue and that was confirmed with DPH but then DPH reversed its position it's my understanding that the applicants hadn't write aid from DPH so the pediatrician's office was not a problem under where children commonly congregate and then we had a town resident who got a completely different position from DPH in writing so this is the issue this is how we arrived at the place where we were at today so we had a five or four or seven at the time they put in an application I didn't see any facilities in which children commonly congregated schools or day cares as the application wound through a couple things happened one, a day care open two, more importantly because you can only hold applicants to things that are open at the time they submit their application otherwise you could preclude any facility that people didn't even want to have but then two DPH reversed course on not just something that was in and around the office but was very specifically co-located in the same building in this case the pediatrician's office it's very hard for me to answer the question in a super direct fashion because at one point in time I think the state buckles on the spot but then at this point in time with the state's new interpretation of pediatrician's office I think it poses a problem there are a couple other things that also bear in mind there are some things that might be considered close calls there's something called a lindum bell learning center close to the location of large street it's not a school it's mostly a tutoring center where they don't have classes but according to them in theory maybe they could someday but for a couple other reasons they weren't listed in either SES profiles or our building inspector zoning records as a place that had operating children's services it was a whole separate issue but what I'm sure of it is is that it doesn't seem like there are a lot of locations that would be available under the state department so if you took a conservative reading of places where children come under the most current readings that are coming out exactly as we get along with the two zones that we that's the only thing that's only part of it if you applied these two zones if you applied the state proper zone to B3 and B5 it would not be behind the light if you took a conservative reading of places where children come if you took a midline reading which is what I think I tried to adopt in this wrong you know I felt like all three of those criteria weren't met by other things in that zone until the day caroled and even then there's some difficult questions about how we handle a great father situation still wise given the Warren article latitude we have does anyone have time to moderate how much latitude it's moderate decision right it is I understand how you work this way so Mr. Chairman that should be interesting but I don't have to say I don't know how I can talk about it but it's been a changing landscape for a long time Mr. Chairman just to point are you going to allow public to speak on this article it's almost free yes I am Jason Cofield I live at 94 Robins Road first off I think anybody that gives you a definitive answer on this is probably not accurately answering the questions for you because one thing I've learned is that everybody is already bored with this but one thing I have asked specifically your question I believe the same way you do the town meeting under a theory that they adopted this zoning bylaw I asked the moderator an email they said that can we just reinstate the buffer zone as it was believed it was supplied in 2014 he said that would be out of scope for two reasons one well I asked that we have a definition of what you want to copy whatever that is just to provide some clarity he said that would be in scope that would not be in scope so if we just even define that correct he said that the other problem with the scope is the way this warrant article measures 500 feet is different than the way DPH measures the airports out of scope according to the town monitor those are the two issues he had with it that would be out of scope so in my opinion the thing and again it is the town moderator's decision you know I can talk about these things a lot in my opinion things like the footage could be made so that it's less restrictive but it would be difficult to make it more restrictive with respect to footage so if you wanted to make it a 600 foot buffer zone it would be hard to make it less restrictive but it would be more potentially in scope again okay so when you when you have more funds with hands you were fairly specific on your asks though you didn't say how much can we move away from I basically copied the definition for DPH the buffer zone definition for DPH a definition for children common economy adopted from 2014 there was no definition in 2014 that's the problem yes 2014 correct and the way it was measured that was out of scope I think to town councils point is that if you actually measure the distance of bird travels that's more restrictive than so if you went even with the DPH version of 500 feet it would be out of scope we are far out of schedule here we're still right here if you want to allow a public comment at this point I will take that single supply please raise your hand I'll call on you stand up stage your name sir hi my name is Peter Rich I'm a resident a lot like that I live on Delano street and it just seems to me I don't know all the ins and outs as you all know I'm sure but it just seems completely reasonable and responsible for a location that's being proposed on modern street I don't speak with myself I was diagnosed with that 15 years ago and I would love to see this located here like I said it seems responsible and reasonable for me and having the convenient access off of Mass Ave for medical marijuana seems something that I would like as a resident I have two young kids so I understand the concerns people might have but I don't think they're found here and I don't know I just want to express my support that's it, thank you Christopher Moore, E.D. School Street in Arlington I'd like to express support for making this work somehow but suggest to the board that you consider being quite inclusive in the locations that you restrict and then shrink the buffer zone to a level that you think is reasonable a reasonable balance between the goal of providing a reasonable number of sites in the town as well as protecting them so inclusive on what what sites counties, places, children and congregate sites that you restrict but shrink the zone and make it work I provided you with the letter from the board of health I just want to clarify a few issues the board looked at regulations and buffer zones from cities and towns and states across the country so what was included here the parks and playgrounds came from in Washington state there were cases pulled from across the country so that was what was put in here I think the board of health felt strongly that they appreciated the warranted however they felt that the daycares not being included in really clarifying the place to where children and congregate may have been lacking that's the reason for the opportunity to submit comments thank you for letting me speak I'm glad that the town is trying to at least go on record whether there is a buffer zone or not trying to clear up some of this ambiguity I think it's a good effort I don't think this is the right vehicle to do it I think given the fact that it originated with the proponents of this dispensary and the fact that the limits on the scope in which we can amend this kind of limited the date I appreciate the town council's efforts on this and following the democratic process but I really think it actually limits the democratic process by having this as the vehicle I would urge a no action recommendation on this article and have to ask the board to come back after the special town meeting and really sit down and try to craft something that works for the town balances all the interests of the town there's certainly interest in having a medical marijuana dispensary here in town but there's also other interests as well and this this amendment or this award argument does not balance those interests I think it really only answers the interests of the proponent who obviously has a financial stake in this thank you I'd also like to thank the proponents for being this article forward frankly that's something I think the town should have gone long ago and I'm disappointed to really see the lack of leadership among the town boards the state gave the town authorities some buffer zones and certainly as soon as the ambiguity was known this summer in the state's interpretation of its own regulation it's done that and I think what we're running into here is the problem that occurs when you let the regulator break their own regulations and if somebody mentioned a thousand foot buffer we haven't talked about that you know what that's for that's to prevent competition from getting within a thousand feet of the facility so it seems to be the most important aspect of buffer zones to this applicant the other thing I want to emphasize is that this buffer zone regulation doesn't come close to meeting the level of stringency that is in the state default buffer zone that the town goes under the impression they don't apply at least until August and someone raised the question about what does this mean for supervision I didn't hear a clear answer to that the town is now saying that they believe that this this applies both to public and private schools I'm not so sure and I think the town is using a very generous definition of what supervision DESE supervision is because private schools are not in the supervision of the DESES it's commonly understood and about that I see that as a real problem I also wanted to mention that we have provided a couple maps this bylaw does not apply to this facility it applies to any facility in any B3 or B5 zoning districts we have B3 zoning districts in Arlington Heights and in East Arlington they're not shown there the B3 zoning district isn't shown on the map for Arlington centers there's a lot more to this than I think information and I'd like to refer you specifically to one of the comments of the Board of Health the Board of Health dealt with the proposal lacks important aspects that included in 105 CMR725 that is the safe buffer zone that the town thought applied until this August clearly they see the shortcomings of this proposal as well and we talked about the lack of daycare facilities being included unless they have to be in the same building and we've also talked about the lack of definition of any other facilities for children in common congregate those are not excluded I would suggest that the reason the applicant is putting forward the article as it is now is that their facility didn't conform to the state regulation that existed there or as it currently exists in Arlington in particular there's a daycare facility at the Unitarian Church I believe it did operate in the past it may not have been operating at the time that they submitted their application because of construction work that is going on they submitted a permit application doing some construction to restart that school and I think that may have occurred before the application to your tour there is a children's library located in the main library I believe that also applies and I think the applicant or not properly reading the DECD from a public health interpretation of its own regulation that's a facility dedicated to children's use I believe that also applies so we have here the situation where you're being put forth with a article that's clearly put forth for this performance benefit but it's one that doesn't meet the standards that the state offers as the state finds it and I think your proper course of action is to build no action and to work from the town's own that will apply throughout the town and be at least as protective as the state regulation is as the department of public health is requested the comments Sir I would like to recommend that there be a no buffer zone I don't think it serves much of a point one prices at these medical dispensaries are higher than the black market so people are going to be selling this two people going to these married women dispensaries are going through a licensing process paying fees they're doing this the legal way and you know they're they're not degenerates so I don't think the buffer zone serves much of a point and I recommend no action thank you the other things talked about disclosure one of the things that's in the background here at least on the town side is the $300,000 a year payment potentially that they could be making their facility be a lot of locate here I hope you've seen the stories in Boston of applicants coming before the zoning board or the planning board in Boston giving financial consideration either to non-profits either for supporting particular proposals that they're putting forward or not opposing them I'm wondering if Mr. Chairman could ask through you two questions one whether this applicant would identify any persons or non-profit organizations or any entities that they may be providing payments to in addition to the town itself to either support this article or their facility and to whether they would be willing to testify under oath to that effect I don't think that's really within your heart for remittalment I would defer to the town council on whether that's a subject for tonight we've spent significant time working with the town to make sure that in full life everything I say is essentially under oath I don't mean you well thank you any other comments, questions concerned that moving in direction that is different meaning thought this was going to in the first place and with all the respect for improvement and concern that this is tailored to limit any potential secondary market if we look at what some of the other communities have done that clearly wasn't their concern because they many other locations were children and I think we have here in Arlington given sufficient consideration to what are the legitimate concerns of Arlington's citizens you know is a secondary market of concern you know is proximity of children so at all legitimate concern that we need to regulate I had noticed the 1000 foot buffer between our communities and Mr. O'Ready mentioned and I'm also concerned about what the full purpose of that is so I would recommend that we take action on this and as a community find a way to make this work we clearly need to make it work somehow and there are tools at our disposal such as shrinking distances perhaps and in additional categories we think they're worthy of protection but I don't think we have that discussion yet so from my perspective I think you know we did go through this both on the board as well as town leading when the original bylaw was written and unfortunately the state has kind of taken a few different paths here which is disappointing to say the least but I do think no action is appropriate because of the fact that town leading really had a different set of intentions I believe and we are severely limited by how this warrant article has been presented in trying to either interpret what it was that we think that town leading that by it and to provide a vote in support of something that might get that but working with this and it is probably not going to do the trick from my perspective so I've got some good comments here I actually don't think a buffer zone may not be the correct application for a correct instrument for our and I want to give ourselves the ability to go in front of town leading potentially we're a smaller we're a different kind of a town our downtown area may be the appropriate place to have a close observation and most proximity to other services which are best free and friendly so to speak or well-shoddened paths well-lit archimonde and so forth that's the way it had best function for us and this could be a very a benefit to the town because it's a medical office it's a medical facility so I would I think ironically or contradictoryly I'm going against this motion I'd like to go no action but I see a lot of benefits in that location so at this point that's as far as I can get you know what I know I think I agree with what you said David I'll let you speak it's just one more question and this may be out of scope of this conversation but with the current ballot measure coming up for both statewide on recreational marijuana my understanding is that existing R&Ds would get preferential treatment if that were to come to pass and does the proponent have any intention of moving forward with the sale of recreational marijuana if that were to become legal in Massachusetts I'll let you read the answer because we've heard a lot of public comment about that I don't need to if you'd like we can chat about it afterwards I don't need to address it but I will if the chairman I certainly have some strong thoughts about what the limitations are for anybody to sell non-medical cannabis out of that location if you'd like to hear that but I don't want to the chairman mention the full story I think we've heard what direction we'd like to have this and see this go would have some promotion that we recommend to vote of no action on vertical second all in favor thank you thank you Mr. Chairman any discussion on Kagan outside down the hallway up the hallway is better we're still on the record first of all we'll close the public hearing we're waiting on Broadway caffeine here thank you for your patience you can both stand up introduce yourselves caffeine is a great location my name is My name is Chris Natas-Lerno, I'm a representative of the property owner and obviously we're strongly in support of a campaign here. I think it'll be a great piece to build it into a great addition to the FKR. So I noticed you did include a bike rack in the site for me. Yep. Which I appreciate. You were asked to pull the roll off. I did notice looking at the proposed plan that a very large percentage of the space is open because of the infrastructure. So I was wondering whether you had considered making indoor bike parking available in that space for employees to encourage employees to perhaps not drive. They're always welcome. I can't tell you. I don't have a cafe that does not bike in the kitchen somewhere. A store here is somewhere for you by itself. All our employees are welcome to get that while they're here to give you no influence on this at all. Do you provide any other incentives for employees to not drive for work? If we're on a MBTA line or something like that, we'll offer some sort of reimbursement for the managers to take the T. So we usually, like Downtown Boston for instance, I think they get, we offer managers $125 a month parking. And then they go, I don't really exactly get it. And then so they will say, well, the rule of that, if you want to take the T instead, you know, we'll pay that amount of dollars towards the Chowley guy. And you know, we offer that. And we hire a lot of local folks. We hire a lot of local kids, college kids. We usually have two or three managers that are FEML plus BES and then the rest of it, which is two local people. I mean, it sounds like you've thought about it. We appreciate it. We, the hours of endless meetings we have talking about our employees, how within a three-family we're going to do, you know, we try to become active members of the community. But obviously we work at the historic community. We took over an old historic train station. The landlord didn't want to get it registered because it was too much grief and hydration to him. So we work at the historic committee. We paid them to put up plaques talking about the building. You know, we paid our pictures to put up how the building, how the train station used to look. We work with all the communities. And over we have, we closed annually for the marching band, old fundraisers. You know, once a year, we give them the whole store at night. And you know, they have fundraisers in there. We try to work with chiefs to make a plan. We have a location on low-lodger sacks up in the end of the sale. We work with all the communities. We're not just, you know, we're in for a long run to make friends with the communities and be part of the community, not just the, you know, community funding and seal effects coming in. It's not a war of hope. I mean, if you have any development for our locations, they're very comfortable. You know, our Wi-Fi is Wi-Fi the best. If you wouldn't have it, you can download the e-mails like it's nothing. And we encourage you to go sit down for three or four hours and relax, have a good time. You know, it's a European population, it's not a, it's not a, you know, it's not a stop-up, you know, it's where you can talk to each other. You know, we want you to come sit down for a few hours. Just a couple of things. Number one is, I see you've included plans on the outside seating. Yeah. That type of thing. It's just part of the regulations. Just want to make sure. Okay. Because there's no confusion on that. It looks like, so you've got the signage out properly, the sign on the top. So what is that exactly? It's an honor. It's, no, the one on top of the top. The actual. Oh, the letter. It's supposed to be a fly letter. So a fly letter is a backlit? I don't know. What does it just say? It says in terms of the way. It says in terms of the way. It says in terms of the way. It says in terms of the way. It says in terms of the way. I think I can tell that it's going. That particular file is normally backlit. But we have no problem with the U-snacks. I can see it coming around. Yeah. Well, and that was my question. That's a blade sign. What is that? Oh, sorry. So that was my point. That was my next question. Is this okay? So what's that? Signed Buffy on it. No, that was not what Buffy wanted. That would go. That's the one I couldn't figure out what it was. But I guess the point is it's on the sign. So there's the blade sign right there. Oh, so that's kicking out? Yeah. Okay. So it's not like that. That's one of our traditional things that we could offer in America. Okay. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. This is more European. Now, when you say backwards, so that means that the light is coming around the letter? That means it'll be able to be eternally lit. So it's sort of the light comes through the letters. Okay. And what sort of letters do you mean? So those letters are copper and black. So that must come over from the back here, though. It's just going behind. It's going behind. You would see, so in between the copper and black, you'd just see a light. Okay. A light. Okay. That means that the whole C isn't lit up. No, no, no, no. Okay. It's a black letter. Okay. So I got it. Okay. Channel cruise. Watch out. Okay. Actually, I liked the design. I thought it made sense. I really didn't have controls. So I'm happy to hear. It doesn't sound like a formal transportation manager. It certainly sounds like they're giving it up. No, we don't. Okay. My concern is deliveries, traffic, trash in the alley behind the building that really will impact the budding streets in the neighborhood, and things like that. So, again, we're not going to stop up. We don't have an 18-well that goes and services 12 locations. We seek out small local bakeries that have a good product, and we buy off of them. And they come in very small vehicles. Eight wheelers is usually, you know, you don't see very, very live vehicles, but then usually they're all smaller vehicles. They'll come in usually at 6 o'clock in the morning, 5.30 in the morning, drop off. You know, our managers are always there. And then they leave. You'll never see an 18-well full-up on the front of our locations and drop off and unload the next location. We don't want to run like that. We encourage local businesses, you know, to use milk distributed from this area. We'll use local bakeries. The only thing that we import ourselves, and it'll come on small trucks, is we own our own groceries. And so it will involve our population primarily for our actual centralized locations distributed. And that, again, is still distributed in small vehicles. We don't, nothing comes to us in large vehicles. As far as trash goes, we prefer the 94-gallon road-proof tint bins. If I think they're cleaner, they're easier to clean out. They're easier to maintain and manage versus the two or three dumps. Sometimes don't have that. Sometimes do. It depends upon the location. So we usually put, we still put the dumps with that and the closure. And we can trash pick up six days a week. Who do you use? Who will you use? Waste manager. Waste manager is probably in this area. You know, the operation will find someone. By the time we get to health, usually it's on the Health Department phone, they'll ask you who you're going to use, how authentically you're going to put your trash in. Have you given any consideration to working with some of the other similar businesses in that area of coordinate trash service that do not impact the neighborhood and different schedules to those others? Yeah. I mean, if Common Ground has someone that they're using, and we can use them as well, can't pass them. You know, they're already yours. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. Well, I was going to ask one more question. I really support this. I think it's just a nice bit for the stereo here. But Mike said that we don't, we can't comment on the outside space. Well, you can comment, but we don't have any burden. We don't have any burden. I just, yeah. You have a post you have on the base plate. Yeah. I was wondering if you could just offset those base plates so they always sit inside the space on that outside. So it's a lot easier. I believe this location is showing planters. I see these. All right. So it's showing all planters. So it's showing planters here. So the only place you really have, because you're sonical, is on the outside corners. Yeah, those can easily be offset. I prefer to do it actually, and I don't know why he didn't try it this way. I would prefer that this planters are on the ends and we get rid of those base plates completely because they really don't do a very good job. I used to think of it as a trip pass. And you're right. Even inside or outside, it's just, you know what, and they don't sit well on brick. No. 12 by 12 place, it gets under rock a little bit on the brick. I would rather redesign this a little bit and have those put on the corners. That didn't come from us, right? No, no, no. We just, oh no. Oh yeah. Yeah. We just can't require it. Okay. That's, and then also, is that stuff going to be stored inside the storage area at the time? Yep. So those will all be in the storage area drop back at the end of the season and brought back out. We have professional people take care of our landscape, you know, plant it. We do plant it. We don't do it ourselves. We yell at the man. We just make sure the water's soaking nice. And so there's no cooking, no premises, right? There's no what? Cooking. There is, there is some. So it's, we reheat croissants. Okay, definitely. You don't fry. You don't eat. No, no fry. No more fry foods. No more fry foods. No more fry foods. No more fry foods. No more fry foods. No more fry foods. We have an electric oven for pastries. We reheat pastries. Things like that. Yeah, just wait a minute. Yeah, yeah, no. We don't, there's no black iron. It's the only clue we have in our kitchen is to heat reduction, just heat the heat. Get some of that heat out of the kitchen. Okay. We're, there's some hot sandwiches on the menu. We're, there's some hot sandwiches on the menu. There is. What the hell are those for delicious. So, yeah, so it's all prepared and eats, they, again, come from a little trivia, and, you know, we keep them in our walk-in, and we make separate different types of sandwiches, have them already pre-done out in the display case, so you walk in, you pick out the sandwich, you just put it on a beanie grill, and cook it on a beanie grill. So, our panini grills are microwaves and ovens at the same time. $7,000 apiece for these things. They will cook a panini perfect, toasted on both sides in one meal in 45 seconds. They're amazing. You should have brought a sandwich. I should have brought a sandwich. The Italians humble it to what I love at the time. It really is really good. So, is this approval for the build-up and the sandwich, too? Same thing? Yeah. I'll turn it to other comments, questions, concerns. Same rules as always. Please stand up and state your name and address. Good evening members of the board. My name is Michael Bruderman. My wife, Susan, and I are here tonight. We live on Alton Street, number 9 Alton Street, which in terms of location is just a few footsteps from the corner of Alton and Broadway. In fact, our front porch faces down the alley that runs behind the commercial block where the proposed cafe is located. We think it's a great addition to the neighborhood. Looking forward to seeing it come. Our concerns are about, as Mr. Benel mentioned, traffic and noise. The bins that Mr. Kitter mentioned, I believe, are quieter than the metal dumpster being hauled up by waste management at the hours of the morning that they tend to operate. Are they doing the pomegranate? I'm not sure whose dumpsters they're pulling out, but sometimes they are well before dawn and the clatter of that metal being hauled out on chains is a rude way. Not just for us across the alley, but for the seven or eight families whose residences line that alley, too. We would like the board to incorporate in whatever approval it deems warranted here. A very succinct note that the management staff and vendors of the establishment will simply observe the posted traffic regulations as they exist today on Alton Street. So it sounds good to have the assurance of small vehicles coming, small vehicles that I would take to be of sufficiently small size to negotiate that alley and deliver in there and not be parked on the street, blocking the alley, blocking people's driveways in marked no parking areas, which Alton Street is at that end. Simply to incorporate in your approval, if you issue one, the requirement that the establishment and its vendors obtain the marked parking regulations. I'm going to pass as far as that goes. That's employers, companies to work with their vendors to post notices saying this is a neighborhood to use a buy-buy, keep your currency pools, not to have traffic laws, etc. Absolutely. You've got to be satisfied some of the concerns. That's fair. Absolutely. I do want the board to have a plan and bang the steel dumpsters. Other questions? I'll move to approve the application for 321 Broadway as presented for Kathy Warren. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Sounds like a great project. There's just a couple quick little shakeouts. Celebrate some good news. I've hired an economic development coordinator, Alison Carter. She's going to be starting on November 14th. And then Julie Wayman. She's going to start on actually November 7th. It says the second. Change the date to the 7th. As the community develops a law grant administrator. And that brings us to almost a full staff after nine months. I know. So that's kind of thrilling news. I know Ali. She's a great partner. Yeah. Ali is very excited for both of you to start. And I think I mentioned last time the conservation administrator Corey Beckett is leaving the town and within the next month. We've posted the position. Of course, if you know anybody who might be interested in a part-time administrator position, please forward the advertisement. The shop closes the next couple of weeks. We anticipate the interviews will begin on the 14th. And then I've just got a couple of project updates here. The only just quick modification to what I put in my report is that the zoning recalculation bids are now due on Friday, October 21st. Instead of tomorrow, we need to extend the deadline. And I'm going to be conducting the interviews, November 3rd. And then just a couple of updates on capital planning. I've met the capital planning and the big ask, as you may know, is for this wonderful space that we're in right now for the senior center. The request is for about four million dollars in capital funds, including also about $400,000 for design and construction document fees. That would be in the next year. So I may be asking some of you to help with that ask in the next week or two. I'll let you know, of course. And then on the back, I've put in some updates just upcoming meetings if anybody's interested. One thing that's coming up soon this Saturday is the residential study group, which was mentioned earlier. They're having some site visits that start this Saturday morning at 9.30 in the morning. If you're interested in learning more about that, I'm glad to send around a little more. I'll have my tinderberry if we're going. So just let me know. I hope this is public. And then also just the last thing is... So the reason we started at 6.30 p.m. tonight is because we originally thought... My fault. Sorry about that. We originally thought that we were going to have, I think, one or two more hearings tonight. Ended up that. Those hearings are now on November 7th. So on November 7th, you've got the continued R&D hearing, just so you know. So some of the conversation we had tonight is going to happen again on the 7th. And then two more... Three more hearings happening that evening. So we started at 7.30 p.m. as always. But I was trying to accommodate more hearings by starting a little bit earlier. That's up to you. We just sort of made that amendment internally. And then, of course, let's let you know. I moved to 7 for the 7th. 7.30 p.m. Okay. Sorry. Pat, we've already moved over. We already posted a hearing. We already posted a hearing. So I'm just letting you know that it's a lot going on that evening, but it starts at 7.30 p.m. We cannot actually repost anything. Yeah, no, sorry. If anything else comes up, we can start at 4.00 p.m. That's what I was about to say. Okay. Well, we're on the director's report. We should talk about the report to town meeting and special town meeting. Okay, sure. I don't want to put it in front of the board. I just wanted to make sure that it was to the point to be submitted. I know that we need to vote on it. We do need to vote on that. Thank you. I completely forgot. So I'm going to give us just the report to special town meeting. I mean, the highlighted areas are obviously some of the things that we need to change. And then of course, if you have any questions about the content. Yeah, so once again, I am sorry I was late. And I was not here for the rock removal. However, it did have some changes that I'll pass along anyway, because it sounds like the ultimate outcome was what I expected and would have supported it. In the first paragraph of the issue summary recommendation on rock removal, I would suggest on, let me see, one, two, three, four, five, lines up from the bottom of the first paragraph of the issue summary, where it says methods can create public health and safety. This is going to sound stupid, but I would switch can with May. And then I would actually lose from wild vibrations with the rest of that paragraph, as well as the whole of next paragraph. Because I don't think we need to kind of get into the issue. The issue. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And I was trying to have a sound. No, I appreciate it. I'm incredibly sympathetic about the issue and I didn't have a chance to speak about it. Right. But that's why I think it's important to recognize that. But I appreciate it. Yeah. And I guess I don't want to, I don't, I wasn't here, but I'm assuming we didn't decide that it is a hazard. So, you know, that's, I guess one of my concerns. So I would, I would lose that next paragraph in additional hazard, blah, blah, blah. Then I would say in the next paragraph, these issues have created the impetus for the article to strengthen requirements. Okay. This article to strengthen requirements for public health. Okay. And then at the end of that insane paragraph, opportunity to review a proposal such as article six, but has not been provided. And I think it's the opportunity to do so. They never even approached the residential. No, not at all. No. What's article six? It's article ten. I'm sorry, article ten. It's a mistake. Sorry. So article ten, but has not been provided the opportunity to do so. No. It's not about time. It's been brought up in discussions in those meetings. It's on the agenda, and I explained this in the beginning, it's on the agenda, it's something to look at as we approach spring town. But the component of this article has not come to that. And that's why I would say the opportunity. Yeah, no, I think the right. It's not about time. Yeah. And then I think, I think that's all I have. I mean, I like the different things. It does go into quite a bit of detail, I will say. Yeah. I was trying to, and I see article six again, I was trying to illustrate to you the problems with the bylaw, as proposed. And also frankly to eventually maybe make some recommendations that we could address in the future. Is it for the on and on? Yeah, I wasn't here for the discussion. That's all I have. So I had that, and then do you want to just do article 10 right now? Or do you want to have comments on article 10? This is when it comes to who decides, what, is that what you're talking about? Is that what you're talking about? Well now it's stated that it has to go to the ZBA. Well, it's for no action, as it relates to tonight. So the way that it would work is anything goes, anything that goes to the ZBA goes to the building inspector first, and the building inspector decides that it does not meet the requirements of the zoning bylaw, so therefore it needs either a very inter-special permit or whatever reason that he determines. But the way he explained it, the way he went here, it's not that. I understand, but that is the way the bylaw is supposed to work. Correct. So I don't think he answered that question actually. Any other comments on the report? Comments on article 11. Article 11. I guess I should have written something up, but I think we should say... I wrote a lot of our conversation down, obviously I have prepared this, but I'm going to be kind of diverted. I like what I say. I made a lot of statements, but I didn't write them down. I mean, my own personal views is, I'd like to say something about how many things are regional intent, and the limitations of this particular article to live up to that original intent. That's why I voted no action on this. That was part of it. Yeah, that was part of it. I mean, part of it was also the discussion of what is really important to aren't. You know, is there a need for a buffer zone? If so, what should be included in the scope of the buffer zone? Because it's... Some of the buffer zones in other communities are much broader in scope than covered in lots of different places where they're a children prison. I mean, it's very clear that their intention is to keep dispensaries away from children period. And that is not what... Either the literal or stated intention of the comment is here. Here it's specifically to prevent secondary sales. Yeah. I can add these things, or if somebody would like to send me some language? Well, I think you should try to just come up with two sentences that describe it, frankly, because I think otherwise would be in tomorrow, right? I know. Wednesday. Wednesday. Sorry. So I've got those two, you know, rough out of those two sentences. Is that enough? Yeah. I mean, I guess with respect to your conversation, that I think once again it comes back to, if we kind of concentrate on the article as presented, it's very limited in what we can discuss and what we can allow for town leading to discuss. Right. So I think that if you... to put yours maybe in a little bit different way is to say that the article as presented does not allow for the fullsome discussion that beyond what it is that was previously determined by town leading, it doesn't provide for a mechanism to have a lot of discussion around these important issues for the town or something like that. Okay. I don't know. I understand. It's... Yeah, I mean it's just reframing that it doesn't, as written, it doesn't allow us to talk about these important factors and the decision of what to do. Exactly. Exactly. There's that. But before that, we want to say, we need to state the basis of the town leading agreement. Well, I actually, when we are arguing without quite knowing, putting it on paper, I should say the following was agreed to in the 2014 town meeting. It was understood. It was understood. It was understood. And two zones came out of it with the understanding that the current state, which is the same as the Board of Health, 500 feet above her, et cetera, et cetera, would be... But would that... Why? Why? I want to say that a lot. I just want to say that. So I think it's one thing to... I'm sorry. It's different than whatever town leading, whatever the original intent was. But I think it's another thing to just focus on the article as presented, which I think that language is good. Yeah. And doesn't allow for the full, broader discussion that we wish to have, which then gets back to whatever that original town meeting discussion actually was, which we all don't necessarily need to pick at what that exactly was. But the memory is that you didn't have this depth of conversation at that time. And so therefore, this doesn't allow you to continue that conversation now, correct? Well, actually, see, I think that's... We did. Yeah, we actually did. We did have a conversation about the process. About what was important. About what was important. Okay. And the fact that... Yeah, I think... So then why wasn't the by-law written with that in mind? Or do you think it was? It was. Okay, so once again, the reason why, and I don't think Doug was here at the time, I think it was... Yeah, I think you're right. I think it was... Was it 2012? Yeah. It was 2012 at the time. And we were told that if we wrote a buffer zone in, that it would be disallowed. Okay. We were actually told that it would be disallowed. And that the way to keep a buffer zone would be... Or we were at risk that the buffer zone would be deemed to be too exclusive and prohibitory so that we would not actually get the benefit of the buffer zone. So we were told the better course is to stay silent. Because if you stayed silent, then you got the benefit of the state buffer zone. And this was under the state guidance, but not because there was a time-meaning discussion per se. Well, if that was discussed at town meeting, it came up at town meeting, absolutely. Because they said, why isn't there a buffer or something? And it was described at town meeting, and it's, well, there isn't a buffer zone on purpose. Because if we write one in, we're at... Because no one knew what would happen. That's right. You're not remembering that whole discussion. Right. Yeah. Absolutely right. You may have even spoken to it. I think I did. That's why I remember it so well. So from that perspective, like, I think... I think we could have a... Now that we have a little bit more learning about what each of these things is, maybe we can have a more full discussion. A more... Referencing. Somehow I want to say referencing. Referencing the initiation of 2014. Yeah, 2018 or something. 2012, right? Okay. It was 2012. Sorry. 2012. Yeah. Because what he said, this guy said it was, it's out of scope even to... Well, that's the problem. This is really limiting. How they... Because they didn't just use the tagline or anything, you know. Exactly. 200. Yeah. They so narrowly tailored it that we came here to talk about it. Right. Well, that's right. And they didn't add the usual language that says or any matter related there too or something like that. Right. Usually you toss that on at the end of a warrant article and then you can kind of go a little bit further and add a little bit. And the 2012 was relevant too because of this measurement thing. Because it's both the measurement as well as the conjugation. Correct. Right? Because the DPH writing was both broader in scope and it uses a straight line. I think it applies versus this... We need a consultant just to go through what this means and map it out as you've done, just to understand that before it could even possibly agree to that. I would never vote on that without really understanding it. Because basically that that creates a buffer zone that's not a circle. It's, you know, some amorphous shape. It's not on... You do a... When you do fire code travel distances, that's what we do. So if you're escaping from a fire you walk around furniture and around... That's the only thing I can relate to. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's like a transit-catchment area. The ideal is a circle with three options. Hold on. Yeah. One more break. So I have that, you know, sentence or two just making it clear how limited the article is and that, you know, sort of prevented fuller discussion about what should be included in the buffer zone. Is there anything else that you want me to include in the report? Can I just separately say... I mean, do we need to say anything at all about the other buffer between RMBs that's in there? All right. I didn't mention that. I don't think so. I think we should be prepared to answer that question. But... Well, Noah, so let's be clear. So long as... So I do not expect any substitute motions. I don't know. I don't have the expectation of the release. Yeah. They don't have that. No, actually, it's hard to make that. Is there something on the floor? Right. And I would be surprised if there was nobody. Because my sentence on the map that we were talking about, it shows that 1,000 foot and it extends so far into the other... into the other RMB5 zones that it would effectively preclude another sensory from opening the first few most of that space, even if there was a location. I agree that, I think the purpose of that was to monopolize a little bit. However, it also is not a terrible idea to say in one B3B5 zone building on one... Well, yeah. They could actually pitch it as a benefit. Oh, I think they had... I think that's exactly what they had to do. But having said that, I don't know. Personally, I think you just, to some extent, right there, get on the pedigree it's an election vote. Yeah. I think it's covered by another statement. Okay. Do you think you had a much better... I think I had a... Last time. Yeah, I'll send it around again. Yeah, you did it where you sent it around a few times or something. I think... I'll send it by... Well, we can... I have to submit the report by the... basically, I think the... I think that's when we had it. Yeah, we're already they had a report. Let me get this point. Well, I mean, but we would like to, you know, ideally post it before time. Right? Yeah. Yeah, they can send it up to the town meeting. That's what John wants to do. John, in the tarp. So, yeah, I'd like to comment on it and I'll do the best to get this to you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. So, town meeting is what time on Wednesday? 8? 8. Shall we go through there? Yes, ideally, yes. Okay. One second. Yes. Is that the date then? Yeah. Yeah, I'm curious as to just where else to go. I know. I think we're probably going to end up seeing that on Wednesday. That's right. Yep. This one. All right. So, now you've got your minutes in case you're done with my report. Are you done with it? I'm done with my report. Okay. Thank you. That's from the last meeting. I didn't have any questions. No, they look good. I'm going to approve the minutes of September 26. Second. All in favor. Aye. I'm going to abstain. You have nothing to say. You sure? Feel free. Yeah, look, this is another apology. Sorry, I was late. I should have done it while everyone was here, but welcome. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. There wasn't even that. Thank you, Fer. It's very nice to finally have a phone. Can I ask about we're voting on November 7th on a special permit. What's it be sort of like? For the marijuana, where you're voting well. The R&D. You continue the hearing. Yeah. You continue the hearing. You continue the hearing, too, November 7th. So, that's what's starting their entire special permit application. Yeah, you're voting on it as if, as if the state beverage zone is the way it is. And that's the decision. And so, if you vote. But I don't know what the state's voting on it. It is based upon what we know and the facts that we've been presented are understanding is that it would be allowed in that location. So, you'd be looking at the proposal as it is. Not on whether or not it's allowed in that location. This information is fulsome discussion. Mm-hmm. What are we going to have? Are we going to have that prior to hearing about it? I'm sorry. What do you mean? In other words, we're talking about the buffers. It's a discussion. Oh, well, I mean, if town meeting votes something different than, of course, we'll be talking about that on November 7th, I'm sure. There's nothing to talk about. But there is nothing to talk about. Because that has to be part of the bylaw. Right. And the bylaw has to be changed in town meeting. So, we can have that discussion, but it goes nowhere because there's no town meeting. So, if town meeting... And what do you talk about on November 7th? We use the current way of doing this. Which is there is no buffers on? I think there is. Yeah, there is no buffers on, but we're not talking about the buffers. We're talking about their proposal. And the same way that you just reviewed cap and errors proposal today, you're reviewing an EDR special permit for the criteria that's in here. Not the criteria of the location or the buffers. Okay. Which is what you put our previous meeting was derailed by that whole discussion, which is now where we are. I know. So, we're returning to that. We're returning to that discussion. Okay. Just so I understand what you're saying. You're not returning to the discussion about what is the right buffers on? We will unless it is. Boom. No. We shouldn't. The town council is the town council for the EDR. Oh, I see. So, you're saying history won't repeat itself and we won't get somebody coming up and saying this entire discussion is moot. Well, they might. One is public comment has been closed. Okay. No. That's getting closed. We did. But I thought town council said based on what they submitted and what was at the time the buffers sold, it complies. That's right. Correct. So, we're relying on town council. But that one thing now we have to go through the EDR. Of course. But I'm just saying the buffers sold on the town council for that application on the 7th, if they want to go forward. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, I'm clear. And so, it would be up to the applicant or the town to then challenge DPH and say which is the right determination. You said one thing and one is it. So, that may be the outcome of that conversation depending on how you make a decision based on the EDR. Not on location. The expectation of which way. Okay. Yep. Okay. Great. Move to close meeting. Return. Yeah. Second. All in favor. All right. Thank you.