 So it is 6.34 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 2021. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. Confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Some members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger DuPont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. He's moving. How do you unmute? He's on mute. Kevin Mills. Here. Sean O'Rourke. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Even Revillai. Here. Okay. Officials here from the town of Vincent Lee. Yep. Mr. Dallarelli is away this week. I believe Emily Sullivan is on. Here. Mr. Dallarelli is away this week. I believe Emily Sullivan is on. Here. If there are any other. Of course, he's here from the board of selectmen. I see. I don't see other. Count officials. Paul Haverty on. I don't believe Marty Novres joining us tonight, but. I believe that's our Greg Lucas is here. I am here. Yeah. My Stephanie Kiefer is here on behalf of the applicant. It's like when noise is here for the applicant is. Are there others joining as well? I look for John's name. I don't speak in the list. Oh, there he is. No, he is here. Yeah. I will keep an eye over Mr. Haverty. This open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020. The public bodies may meet remotely as long as reasonable public access is afforded. So the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town hall. The public bodies may meet remotely as long as reasonable public access is afforded. So the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. The public bodies may meet remotely as long as reasonable public access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded as being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. Also, boarding materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website. Unless otherwise noted, public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair. I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So the sole item on the agenda, the evening is the comprehensive permit hearing for the continuation of the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndyke place. I would just quickly review some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. Discussion will primarily involve the proposed draft decision. Related topics. The draft decision was initially released on Wednesday, March 10th, and there was an update issued today that came out later this afternoon. So we're concentrating, I think more on the earlier draft, but we would like to, to open the conversation on some of the changes. Excuse me. So initially the, the 180 day hearing period for this hearing was to expire tomorrow, April 9th. That has been extended by 14 days to April 23rd. So that is the new, the new end date for the public hearing. So the, the main thing that has sort of transpired in the, in the meantime was on, on March 8th, the applicant filed a notice of project revision with mass housing, which detailed the changes to the project since it was initially filed with mass housing on March 12th. The zoning board of appeals requested an expedited review by mass housing of that application. On March 15th, the select board issued comments to mass housing in regards to the notice of project revision. On Monday, March 22nd, mass housing held a conference call with members of the, of the town to discuss the application. And the notice of project revision and on the, the following day on March 23rd, mass housing issued their formal response. And in their formal response, they noted that the changes were not substantial for 760 CMR 56045, which is the governing legislation for a determination of project revision and whether it is substantial. And they found the current review process is the proper review process. And so that is the, that is the, sort of the full circle with mass housing on the question of the project revision and whether the changes were substantial. So that. So the next item on the agenda. Um, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know what would probably be or what would be. That item on the agenda. Um, so one of the items that the select board has been very, very vocal about is and that the. A lot of the neighbors have been requesting is the issue of that. as a part of the revision when the main body of the apartment block was brought out to Dorothy Road. And after all the public input we've had and the input from the select board, on behalf of the board we'd like to raise this question with the applicant as to whether the applicant would consider putting the duplex houses back into the project as a buffer between Dorothy Road and a larger apartment building that would occur behind it. Now, obviously one of the considerations that came about and was one of the driving reasons for the revision I believe was the position of the wetlands immediately behind the building and the determination of wetlands that are in the immediate area. And so had wanted to open this question with the applicant as to would the applicant be willing to have a discussion about putting the duplex houses back into the program as a buffer between Dorothy Road and an apartment block? And if they were to entertain that, what would the implications be for an apartment block that would occur behind it? And is this feasible? Is this feasible enough that we should do a more deep dive into it? So I had had a brief conversation earlier today with attorney Kiefer in regards to the board. Was considering discussing and so I would like to formally ask that question of Ms. Kiefer at this time as to whether that's something she thinks that the applicant would be willing to discuss with the board. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me OK? Absolutely. OK, thank you. And as you just mentioned, we had briefly discussed this probably five minutes ago. And on that vein and the project where we are today and how it's been designed, I do want to point out that since about September of 2020, the applicant started to refine and revise the project and as updated throughout the coming months in the public hearings. And just to clarify, the multifamily building, as it's designed right now and its most recent modification, the front wings, what we're calling it, or some people may call them tabs, of the building essentially somewhat currently mimic the houses or the townhouses on the opposite. You have one that's almost like a double lot. And then you have two wings that come out to the north central part and then the northeasterly part that are largely of the width of the townhouses across the street. And those three wings are only at two stories tall. The initial proposal actually with the townhouses, when this was submitted, just as a reminder, those townhouses were two and a half stories, so about 32 feet high. And I think that it's very difficult at this juncture to give you a suitable response as to whether the applicant will consider that without further information and feedback from the board. So if the board can provide that this evening, we can more intelligently think about this because to look at a revision now, this very late in the process obviously is very significant. And some of the questions that would come to my mind that I think would help inform the applicant in making its decision is, if there's an introduction of townhouses and there's a building behind it, what is the board's thought on, this is a PUD zoning. So under the PUD zoning district, there's actually allowed five floors of residential as you know, under the zoning bylaw is the board contemplating that if there's a revised multi-family building behind townhouses that it be permitted to go up five floors. And otherwise, what are the thoughts in terms of, as you had mentioned, with the removal of the townhomes and the multi-family building being moved closer to the road, it likewise had the benefit of being farther away from BBW, isolated wetlands, limited impacts into the aura and then really revised and limited the amount within the flood plain. And so I think that if the board is willing to provide some feedback to the applicant tonight so we can consider, what is the board envisioning? Not that it will necessarily make our determination easier in terms of whether we're willing and what it would look like. But I think that the question in a vacuum is super difficult to understand until there's some feedback from the board and we would really appreciate that. Absolutely, thank you. So I think I'd like to start off this conversation with the board. So I know this is something that has been mentioned many times by the residents and by others in town as to what the duplex houses brought to the project. And that in the initial design, the townhomes were intended to, and were portrayed as providing a buffer between the residential nature that's existent on Dorothy Road and sort of a larger apartment building that is not as in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, but would provide sort of the level of housing that would make a project such as this be viable. And so obviously there are many concerns in this neighborhood in regards to two different issues. One being sort of the massing of the building and the way it relates to the residents, but also having to do with the wetlands and the water issues on site and also issues revolving around transportation and access to the site. So the board has been working on this balancing act for quite a while and the applicant has as well to try to come up with something where we're able to balance all these needs, which is what the 40D process is intended to have. So at this stage, we have gone down one direction fairly considerably. And so as Ms. Cooper noted, it is a little late in the process, but I think it's incumbent upon us to really vet all possible options. And this is certainly an option that many members of the neighborhood have expressed an interest in and certain members of the town have expressed as well. And so just want to sort of talk with the board in regards to how this might impact the wetlands. I think it's a really critical piece because the current proposal really has gotten to the point where it is essentially compliant with local wetlands bylaw. And if we were to encourage a strong look at this, is there, what is the board's sense in regards to the wetlands impact? Is it better to have townhomes? And have to revisit the question of wetlands or do we really only want to discuss townhomes, keeping the wetlands as they are currently as we have them today because there are really so many different issues that need to come together. So open this question to the board, Mr. Revlak. Yeah, so I've been, now unfortunately I don't have a set of plans in front of me, so I'm just trying to visualize this from memory. I mean, personally, I completely understand, I readily admit this is a late, it is late in the game, but and I am very happy from the negotiations that have been ongoing that we have gotten the project nearly in compliance with local wetlands bylaws. So I would, now if we were to bring the townhomes back, it was six duplex units, is that correct? That was in the initial proposal, but I think we would need to entertain what that number might be. Okay, so I could see that eating in, so just spatially, it would be preferable not to move the main building back in my opinion because of the wetlands impacts. I understand that adding townhomes in front would take away space from the building. So I think the trade-off that we're making is potentially the townhomes, a taller main building to make up the difference in units potentially. As Ms. Kieffer said, we do allow five stories of residential in the planned unit development district and they could do that without a waiver and then minimize the, and the other trade-off on the back end of the building is the wetland impact. So it's just, I'm just trying to say that there is a tug of, there are balances to be made on both sides of the building, but I'm not opposed to the idea of say bringing back some of the townhouses and going up to adding a fifth story on the main building and minimizing the distance that the main building has to move back. Chairman? Yes. Well, of course, the question has come up overtly just now about what to do about the townhouses, but the conflict between neighborhood compatibility and protecting the wetlands and guarding against flooding has been there all along and this has always been the elephant in the room. The difficulty is that you can't protect the wetlands and do everything that has been accomplished since November on the respect of flooding and provide for neighborhood compatibility if the project remains the size it is. So it's not just a matter of say, let's take as a given that the project is going to be essentially the way it is right now and where do we wanna make the sacrifices? This is a balance that needs to be a three-way balance. And I think that while I agree with Mr. Revillac, I'd be willing to contemplate a design that attempts to save as much as the applicant can of the size of the project. There's no point in trying to make it a smaller project just to make it a smaller project. Nevertheless, it has to come into some kind of a balance and I would not be willing to compromise on the water side of that balance. We've made it, this project has come a long way in protecting wetlands and guarding against flooding. It wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it has really come a long way. And those are really important achievements and they're not achievements that we should put on the negotiating block now. So the issue to me is whether or not the applicant is able within what they're willing to contemplate to work with us in order on a design that whether it involves the townhouses or whether there's other alternatives to reducing the mass, because we don't want to sort of assume that the solution has to be of one kind, but basically the impact now on neighborhood compatibility is too much and it has to be reduced and not reduced at the expense of the wetlands and the flooding that could conceivably involve more height further back. I wouldn't exclude that, but I think that it's fair to say that any solution to this problem is likely to involve somewhat less massive building than is proposed now. Mr. Mills. Yes, thank you for this opportunity. I feel putting the townhouses back in would be very good for the neighborhood. Those three piers fronting Dorothy Street, I really don't feel replicate the feel of a home or a townhouse. I do believe one of those piers is about 110 feet long, which is about three lots wide, you know, edge to edge, which is a pre-imposing elephants. I would like to see if we could put the townhouses back in and there may be a reduced front footprint available out back due to the wetlands, but I would have no problem myself allowing it to go up to five stories. Intuitively, I feel if you move that building farther away from Dorothy Road, the water that naturally drains towards our wife, Brooke, would have more of a chance of going around that foundation in a way from the local houses. I feel that foundation is gonna be like a dam holding the ground wall in that neighborhood. And the farther you can move it towards the old wife, Brooke, in my opinion, and I'm not a hydrologist, but just intuitively, I would think it would be better for the neighbors, but I think certainly the transition of having townhouses and not a huge apartment house right on their block would be more appealing to the locals. And I think that's the least we can do for them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. The members of the board, not at the time. So asking a question of John Hessian. So John, based on your knowledge of this site and the considerable work you have done in developing the current project, has it cited what is your sense of available space that is developable that's outside the wetlands as it is sort of designated right now? Do you have any sense as to whether there is developable space to have both a series of duplex houses on Dorothy Road and an apartment block behind? Mr. Chair, yeah. Again, with just a few minutes to really kind of think about this or consider it without being able to identify that what potentially the total number of units would be. I think there is the potential to reintroduce the townhomes. What that would require on the existing multifamily building is the elimination, likely the elimination of the three wings that extend towards Dorothy. So the townhomes would essentially take the place of those three wings. And then the main spine, the east-west spine of the building would likely need to slide a little bit further to the south. And from what I heard from all three board members that spoke was that they didn't wanna see us go kind of backwards with respect to protecting the wetlands. So it would also likely mean shortening up the three wings on the south side of the main spine to essentially stay within a similar, I'd call it building envelope as the existing or the current multifamily building that's before the board presently is within. So maintaining similar wetland setbacks, similar floodplain impacts, but then, so the units lost, it would be, this is where the architects will need to weigh in the units lost with the elimination or reduction in those kind of north-south wings. How much of that could be made back up with the addition of a fifth floor on that multifamily building. But conceptually, I believe something along those lines could work whether it's viable for the overall project. I can't really answer that till we do a little bit more design and programming. Mr. Revlak? Yes, just going back to the duplexes in front, which we've been calling townhomes, I would also wonder if, and I'm trying to just think of ways to balance out the unit count among the different buildings, if possibly consideration could be given to not necessarily duplexes, but actually a row of townhomes, just basically eliminating some of the space in between the buildings to get a few more units in to sort of make up the difference from what would be lost from the main multifamily building. Michael, sort of what you're getting to with that is sort of the term townhomes is really more, it's a series of individual buildings that are stacked immediately adjacent to each other with a width somewhere in the 25 to 28. Usually they're somewhere between 25 and 30 feet wide. They're stacked against each other. So they are a more consistent frontage, but they are a series of individual homes rather than duplexes, which is sort of the prevalent building style of directly across the street where it's two residences that are side by side with a party wall in between. I'm glad to see for you, I believe, you had your hand up. I was just wondering if I could ask for a clarification from Mr. Rubilock and what he was envisioning there, just so I, I wasn't quite certain. Were you suggesting that these series go like lot to lot? So, you might see like in brownstones in the city or I wasn't quite certain what you were. That is exactly what I was suggesting. So our zoning bylaws term for this would be townhouse structure, but it would base, think, you know, if you were to think of a duplex as a multi-unit home that's two units wide, a town house, town home or a town house structure is a multi-unit home that's several units wide. So basically what this would allow, potentially allow is to take what would ordinarily be space between duplex structures and allow you to infill between those. Okay, can I ask one follow-up question on that side? Of course you can. What would you, and John, from John Hesher may go on away into just because this is somewhat more of an engineering question, but in terms of would that then have a drive that accesses them from the back or would they each have drive, are you contemplating small driveways where they can then go similar to how the people across the street go for their parking underneath the buildings? Is that for me? Yeah, it was. Yeah, so typically with town homes, yes, I would say a small driveway to, or service road to access from the rear. Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. Well, I'm not very much an expert in the construction of town homes. I am an expert in living one, having done it for about 20 years in both Berkeley, California, where the entrance was from the back and Arlington, Virginia, where the entrance was from the front. It's actually much more common outside the Boston area to develop along that pattern. And it can be made into a perfectly, it can come in at every level. It's not necessarily a cheap construction and it's not necessarily expensive. It is just another way of doing it. I think that it really would be up to Mr. Hessian to figure out how to handle the parking. It's a potentially large problem. There was no down under feature in either of the two townhouses that I lived in. One of them you could come into a garage that faced out towards the back. The other one you could come in through a garage that faced out towards the front but didn't have a driveway. So you have to be somewhat, for you can be quite innovative once you are in point of working out what the various implications are. And I'm sure that Mr. Hessian and the architects, once they set their mind to it, to think of a number of different solutions to the problem, but finding a way of dealing with the parking and also dealing with the potential for increased impervious services and so forth would be a challenge. Although I don't think that that would be a challenge that's beyond the skills of the people who are involved. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Mr. Vann. So I just want to express a little bit of concern here because I do understand that the conversation I think is really just for purposes of discussion and getting a sense as to what the possibilities might be. But I want to make sure that it's understood by the applicant that they were the ones who came initially with the townhome or duplex plan. And as I drove down Dorothy Road again today, and I looked at it, there's six structures which are, I think in keeping with the neighborhood 61 through 85. And it would strike me that something along those lines across the street would be the type of approach that would at least give a nod to making this fit in with the neighborhood. And the fact that the change was made somewhere a while ago, I don't want that to be interpreted because we weren't discussing it at the time as acquiescence on the part of the board. And I think the applicant has known that this has been an express concern of the board as well as the neighbors for a very lengthy period of time. And so when it's presented to us as well, this is kind of late in the whole process. I do find that to be inconceivable that knowing of the preference on the part of the board, I think, and on the part of the town, the neighbors, that that has not somehow been gamed out on their side of things. And so even though I hear discussions about the possibility of a taller building, I certainly want to be clear that I am not endorsing that concept. I understand that it's in discussion and it would be considered, but I think it's incumbent upon the applicant to be able to respond to the concerns that have been expressed over a lengthy period of time without us having to make concessions during the discussions that we're having. So that's all I want to say. I just, I'm not on board with anything anyone has said, but I do think that the applicant has had sufficient notice over time that this was a preference we had. And in particular, when the letter was sent out, saying that we had concerns about the change. So that's my comment. Thank you. Other questions for the comments from the board at this time? Ms. Keeper, do you have questions to the board? Sorry, I don't know if you heard me. Ms. Keeper, I don't know. Do you have further questions to the board or any pun from your team, last questions of the board? I don't believe I have any questions. I'll open it up to John or members of the team. They have any specific questions just to help us inform our consideration of this proposal. Mr. Chair, I would just say that we'll take the town home concept shared by Mr. Revlak into consideration, but also Mr. Dupont's comments also about the town homes or duplexes that were originally proposed or more in keeping with the two-family homes directly across Dorothy Street. So we'll, you know, if you have any questions we'll, you know, if the reintroduction, we haven't even had the chance to, you know, discuss as a team how the team wants to proceed. But if the team wants to investigate the opportunity to reintroduce the town homes, we'll take all of that into consideration to try to develop, you know, a revised plan that's, you know, responsive to the comments we're hearing this evening. Chairman. Thank you for that. Mr. Hallen. I just wanted to stress that I agree completely with what Mr. Dupont said. And the conversation that led up to that was sort of a back and forth about various possibilities, but I don't want it to be thought that the board was sort of leaning towards one responsibility or attempting to define its own way of having the applicant resolve this problem. I mean, essentially there is a conflict between what lands I think that the applicant has heard that there's a very strong endorsement of maintaining the progress that was made since November on that and that you now have a big neighborhood compatibility problem that is in part the result of the earlier saving the wetlands, but it's also in part a result of the applicant's own ambitions for what they want to do here. And it's a solution that if there can be a solution, it's something that we can't tell them what it would be and we certainly can't tell them in advance what we would accept or not accept without hearing from the public and whoever else it is. All we really can say is that we'd welcome engaging my conversation about that and seeing if we can come to a better balance of these interests than the proposal we have before us. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. I would like to ask if there's noise or Mr. Cliff will have any comments at this time. Are we being heard at this point? This is Dr. Cliff. You are, yes, sir. Well, I think as Stephanie said, we'll definitely take this under consideration. We're trying very hard to have a happy ending to this, a happy ending as we can get this process. And I think we're very willing to go back and take a look at very well found houses back along Dorothy Road. We'll just have to look into it. So I think the thing that puzzles me a little bit is how that can be handled in the process. That's one thing, how is our process give us probably at least two or three weeks to come back with an organized thought through proposal? And I like very much what John said. I think we should very much try to capture the gains we've made with the wetlands because we've done well with that. We've spent a lot of time on that. And I feel pretty good about that. So I don't wanna go back into something that challenges that, we should keep that and try to find a solution that keeps that advantage. So I think that's an important piece. The time is important piece. And I think one other thing just to put on the table, that a thing we did when we put those townhouses originally in the design, before we were made the concessions to the wetlands by needing to go nearer to the road and further in that direction to get something that avoided the wetlands, they were condominiums. And that, I'd like everybody just to know that that's not as easy for us as maintaining those townhouse looking pieces as part of the overall project in other words, rentals. And one thing we could do, and I just put this in front of everybody is maybe those could be the three bedroom, the required 10% three bedroom use. So maybe there's a way to do this would make our life a little easier to try to stay within that wetland boundary. If we had you kind of thinking about number one that those townhouse looking things could be whatever we call them would be rentals. Because I think the neighborhood actually one of them to be townhouses because we had home ownership. So that would be a little bit of a concession on others parts to let us do something that would help us make a project for us. So yeah, these are all just things to begin on the table and think about. But I think the biggest thing is to try to establish a time frame for us to come back to you with something that could move in the direction that you're mapping out for us tonight. Thank you. If I could just ask you to clarify where you had mentioned that so pursuing this front row of buildings as rental as opposed to ownership would be easier. Could you just sort of elaborate what you mean by that? Well, I think from a development standpoint having a mixture in your marketing effort and your ownership effort is very complicated. It clearly couldn't be as easily a 40D. It would be very, very complicated. And I just, you know, we need to think about this but I think I'm just kind of raising a flag here that one of the things we make a back to back with is to say that this could be part of the overall project. There'd be one project which would have some townhouse looking things. They could be, you know, wood frames small. They could be exactly like the other buildings we did before, but they would be structured. And I, you know, we can talk about that. I'm not trying to close the door on anything at this point but I just, I'm just letting you know something that we would probably be thinking hard about in terms of taking another look at this. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Thank you. At this point, we've had several people with their hands up for quite a while waiting patiently. So I will, in a moment, go ahead and open up public comment on the proposed inclusion of housing as the interstitial world of housing as part of the proposed project. So I would like to open public comment at this point, we'll say we'll open it for 40 minutes till 8 p.m. So public questions and comments will be taken on all aspects of the proposed project to be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision and to provide for an orderly flow to the meeting and to allow for inclusion of many voices. Chair would like to limit individual public speakers to three minutes each and encourage them to use their time to provide comment related to this syndicated topic. If time allows, speakers will be afforded a second opportunity to speak. The chair encourages the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board and included in the record. This is especially true just specific recommendations in regards to the project. Procedure for request to speak will be the same as for previous hearings. Please select the raise hand button on the comments tab on Zoom where I dial star nine on your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. You'll be given three minutes for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. Once the allocated time has been expended while the comment period to the portion of the evening's hearing will be closed. Board and staff will do our best to show any documents that people would like. We don't have any documents prior to us currently. If you would like this specific document to be pulled up please let us know. So with that, I believe Mr. Yorowitz was the first with his hand up. Yes, thank you. My name is John Yorowitz. I live at 47 Watch Street for 36 years. And we should establish one thing first. For decades we've fought development on this site in one. Now comes along a new proposal for housing. Nothing has changed about the site. It's still wet. It's a wet land. It's green. Nothing has changed about the neighborhood except a few people here and there. We are going to get what has been called a happy ending if nothing gets built. But we don't have that choice it looks like. We're negotiating down what was to be 172 dwellings to whatever it is now. The point I'm trying to make here is that the last transaction and transmission that came from the state was to be from the ZBA to get an approval with restrictions. I have found that five stories is unacceptable. Putting the six townhouses back on Dorothy Road is the way to do it. But the building behind need only be three stories tall. It doesn't matter how far back you push it because you get wet land. My restrictions that I'm suggesting are the six townhouses, two egresses, Birch Street and Little John Street. And to put the six townhouses back and three stories that brings it down to about 134 units. We can live with that. It's a restriction. If the town deems it as a restriction that's the way it goes. If what I gather the applicant can appeal thanks to the state and they realize the problem. But understand we didn't want anything, nothing. We haven't for decades. So we don't want this. But if we have to take something, let's take it as small and as harmless as possible. Six townhouses, three stories, two egresses. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Mr. McKinnon. Hello, my name is Matt McKinnon. I live at Nine Little John Street in Arlington. Yes, sir. I've already said my piece in previous CBA meetings and I've written multiple letters and those can be read. But I think tonight we're just discussing whether it's in good nature to put those townhomes back in as they were and the original submittal. I agree that they should be put back in with the 100% owner occupied. This is a 4DB application. It's all about providing affordable housing. I think the way to provide affordable housing is to actually provide a way to home ownership and that can be done by putting these townhomes back in. I think the problem is that they also own this other company GreenStacks which is this modular company. They kind of want to just put these blocks in because it's the most cost efficient way to do it. I'm afraid they kind of want to stick these blocks right as townhomes. I don't think that's the way to go. I think we need to let someone from Arlington build these houses, build these townhomes and it shouldn't be just this company. I think we should get local builders involved and not just sell out. Thank you on my list. Linda Medwar. Hi, my name is Linda Medwar. I live at 24 Little John Street right at the hot spot of where everything's gonna be projected to happen. So I have a couple of comments and questions. So there's been mention of the elephant in the room. Although I think there are many elephants that are crammed in this room at this point. There's so many issues that I just don't understand how and why this project can even still continue to be thought of or moving in any direction forward. There's flood zone, it's wetlands, it's conservation, it's trees, it's whole environmental sustainability. So I don't understand how it's even being thought of as an issue. I mean, aside from the other elephants regarding the traffic issues, the water increase is just absurd to even think about on a rainy day, all of the residents in this area are dealing with water in their basement, some pumps continuously going, not once every year or so, not twice every year, often, they're filled. So there's the whole displacement of water stuff that Oak Tree has claimed they can guarantee there will be no water. I'm not an engineer, but that's absurd. And I'm like sickened by it. I don't understand how it can just even be thought of. I'm curious as to zoning board members, how many, if any, have been down here, have looked at this area, have driven by, have seen when it's flooded, has seen the streets and the water going over people's driveways into their basements. That's just on a rainy day, let alone when this whole water gets pushed away from these townhouses and buildings that are allegedly going up. I mean, all of the neighbors in this entire area get water. I just, I don't get it. So like when Mr. Mills, I'm sorry, but like you said, I don't have a problem with going up five stories. We have a problem. I'm not sure where you live, but if you were in this area, I think you would have a big problem with it. And again, so I am curious if someone could comment how many zoning board members have been in this area. And I also agree with Mr. DuPont who said, the applicant needs to respond to the express concerns that we have had for a number of years. It just, I feel like we're talking about this and it shouldn't even be at this point. It's absurd. So that's how I feel. Thank you. Thank you. I know in his testimony, Mr. DuPont indicated that he was on site today. I was on site earlier this week. I don't know about the specific schedules for others, but I feel fairly confident in saying that, all members of the board have visited the site on multiple occasions. On a rainy day? On a drizzly? I have never been there on a drizzly day. I personally have been there on a rainy day, but it was over a week ago. And, you know, it's tough to, you know, I can't see into people's houses, so it's tough to know what's going on in people's houses. But, you know, we are well aware through, you know, the wide variety of testimony we've received that this is a predominant concern in this neighborhood. And that is something we are absolutely... But we're still talking about townhouses, two-story, five-story, it just can't happen. The area cannot handle it. It's a wet zone, it's a flood zone, it's whatever you want to call it zone. It's not gonna work. And again, I will ask, you know, people that say, I have no problem with the five-story building, I'm curious, where do you live? Doesn't fit in the name. Anybody? Anybody? Mr. Mills, where do you live? I'm just curious, if that's true. I answered the question. You may, Mr. Mills. Hey, I live on 28 Mystic Valley, Parkway, and I've been an Allenton resident for all my 68 years. My aunt, Margie, lives on Dorothy Street, Margie Boule. I am well aware of your areas. The reason I mentioned five stories was as to try and make a negotiation, if you will. It shouldn't be one. All right, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Edward. Thank you. Next on my list, Ms. Griffith. A concession that would be comparable to having the apartment house right on the street, ma'am. Mr. Mills, we're moving on. Thank you, Ms. Griffith. First of all, I really want to thank the Zoning Board of Appeals. They're all volunteers doing a lot of great work for the town, so I don't want to get on anybody's case about that, but several things. One, townhouses is the only thing that's appropriate to build there. Any sort of big, giant building is completely inappropriate. So I've been saying this all along. I think I said it to Gwen at the public meeting at the school. You just build those townhouses. You can make millions, and it fits the neighborhood, but a big, giant building, putting an access road off of Birch and Edith is the worst thing possible. We have so many commuters that park here. We have all the school. The soccer has just started up. We have all that stuff. I mean, it seats down further towards Dorothy Road, but it is crazy here and trying to add more traffic. It's dangerous. It's not appropriate. So the changes they made back in November made a lot of sense, although a big, giant building is still completely inappropriate. But my main two comments I wanted to say was I have a feeling that two things outside of all of our control have conspired to advance this because we have a pandemic, so we don't have the traffic on Lake Street. If any of you ever tried to come down here in the morning between eight and nine o'clock or in the evening between four o'clock and seven o'clock to visit this site in normal times, you would say it's crazy to try to build anything that would add any more traffic. It is nuts. And maybe not everybody is going to own a car in this complex, but they're going to be ordering online for deliveries. They're going to be ordering their food for delivery. They're going to be Ubering and lifting. There's a lot of traffic that's going to be involved with this. And if you were able, if we weren't having a pandemic to come down here and experience the real situation, you would say it's crazy. The other thing is precipitation ended 2020. We were down over seven inches in precipitation. So far this year we're down another three or four. We are drought advisories are coming up already in the springtime when we're supposed to have all this wet weather. So again, nobody is going to be able to experience the real situation down here with the weather and the wetness. My sun pump is usually going off all the time. It's hardly, it's not going off at all. A lot of times I have standing water in the back corner of my yard and a pair of mallard ducks comes every year and swims around. That is not happening this year. You dig down the ground is close to the surface normally. You're not going to see that this year. We are down so much precipitation. So unfortunately, anybody, you're not seeing the real situation this particular time, this particular year. And it's just crazy to be thinking about building anything and a big giant building and certainly putting back an egress at the end of Birch and it just creates so much safety problems. And I've already advocated again that I think there needs to be a traffic light on Lake Street at Little John because it's treacherous to try to come out of this neighborhood and turn left onto Lake Street to try to head to Route 2 or whatever. You can't do it. You can't see, because there's so many cars backed up in front of you that you can't see what's coming from the right. So it's so dangerous, but we're in a pandemic, so you guys can't tell, but this, I'm sorry, it's... I have a follow-up question for you. You had said at the start that you thought the townhouses were appropriate. I just wanted to confirm. So there's two different styles of housing. So one is duplex, which is two houses side-by-side and then driveway, then another two houses in the driveway. And townhouses or town homes typically is a series of like eight individual buildings stuck together before there's a break. And I just wanted to confirm whether you are saying duplex, meaning you liked sort of what the current pattern is across the street or whether you were welcoming and considering something that might be a little bit longer that would be a little denser. Well, I don't live right there. I'm okay with something that's three stories tall and just on Dorothy Road, nothing in the whole area behind it. So that's where the problem comes. Just the number of the size, the number of units, the number of people and traffic that that generates, that's the problem. Thank you so much. This area that's impacted because it's so wet, we just smallest area possible impacted. And it seems reasonable to me that building some townhomes or duplexes or whatever along Dorothy Road is reasonable. Everything else is not. All right, thank you. Ms. Chepnick. Hi, Chepnick Klein. Thank you for allowing me to make a comment. I am speaking, I'm the chair of the Arlington Conservation Commission. I am speaking on that behalf, considering the discussion tonight, bears directly upon our jurisdictional areas and the comments we have previously presented to the board in numerous comment letters and at these hearings. And I just want to reiterate that the change in the plans that was proposed by the applicant, which we're discussing right now, which came about, I think, back in September of 2020, greatly reduced the impacts to the resource areas on this site. The resource areas being bordering land subject to flooding, the 100-year floodplain, isolated vegetated wetlands and the adjacent upland resource areas, which are 100 feet buffer zones next to the resource areas. And we were pleased, the Conservation Commission was pleased to see the buildings and the actual structures be moved outside of these wetland resource areas to minimize the impact on the site. However, we should all remember that there's still significant impact to the floodplain, even with this current building design that is being mitigated proposed by what we call compensatory flood storage, meaning that the impacts from the buildings in the footprint as it exists now in the plans is being offset, if you will, by flood storage elsewhere on the site. And I will say that if you move the footprint of the buildings, you're going to have a hard time finding other places to put the compensatory flood storage, especially because of the isolated vegetated wetlands that are on the site that have been delineated by the applicant as well as the data group and the Conservation Commission in the past. So we need to understand that this should not be a trade-off. I appreciate the comments of the board previously that said this should not be a trade-off between what is appropriate for Dorothy Boad versus protecting our wetland resources. And we need to not lose the gains we have made there. And if some progress can be made by changing the massing of the building on Dorothy Road and maintaining the same building footprint, that would be acceptable to the commission. If the building footprint is going to increase, that's unacceptable at this time to the Conservation Commission, and we would have to reiterate and review the substantial impacts that might occur to resource areas as well as flood plain if the building footprint is extended down into the resource areas. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Ms. Brown. Hi, Patricia Brown, 49 Mary Street. I've got a couple of questions, but I want to come out first and say, I would be all for either duplexes or townhomes, but I'd like to see it as affordable home ownership. So if the townhomes would provide more opportunities for home ownership, then that would be my vote. I do think we need some kind of either townhome or duplex facing Dorothy Road. All right, now my questions. Has the 25-foot road width been noted and does that impact it? I'm just going to give you all my questions. I'm confused. Are we to a point where this project is going to go forward and now we're just kind of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Third question that I have is what are the legal options for the neighbors if this project goes through? Okay. So just your first question. So the roadways inside of Lake Street are technically listed in the town is having a 40-foot right-of-way. And so the 40 feet is the land that's under the control of the town, but the actual roadways are 25-feet curve-to-curve. And that's- So my front stairs are part of the town property? So the sidewalk, the area where the sidewalk would go, that is under the control of the town. It would be substantially beyond the sidewalk on both sides. So the sidewalks aren't that wide. So we're talking, it doesn't matter, just that's the streets are 25 feet wide, not 20 feet wide. Yeah, no, the reason that the 40-foot came about is specifically because it's listed as a 40-foot right-of-way in the town documents. So this is not, so the process where we are in the process, we are still in the fact-finding portion of the project. We still are in an open public hearing where we're taking testimony and we're learning from the applicant and from our experts and from the community what we want this project to be and how we want it to try to craft it as best we can. So at this stage, nothing is fixed, nothing is set in stone, the board, after the closing of the public hearing, the board then has a set period of time for it to render its final decision. But at this point, there is no decision in place at this time. And then as far as legal options for neighbors, I would like to ask Mr. Havardy, if he would mind addressing that question. I don't have town council on today. Mr. Chairman, you're asking me to address what the appeal rates are for. I believe Ms. Brown that your question was what options are available to the residents after the rendering of a decision, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So any party that can show that they're aggrieved by the decision of the board has a right to file an appeal pursuant to generalize chapter 48, section 17, that appeal would be submitted either to land court or superior court. And the time from filing is 20 days after the board files its decision with the town court. What constitutes aggrieved? You have to show that you're harmed in a manner that is special and different from the rest of the town. If you are a director butter or in a butter, two in a butter within 300 feet, then you will have a presumption of standing, which means that unless the applicant is able to show for some reason that you don't have a harm, then you will be presumed to have been harmed by the board's decision. If you are outside of that area, you can still establish that you are aggrieved, but you have to put on affirmative evidence to support that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Adler. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Giannolio. Yes, can you hear me well? I can. Hi, so I'm Diego Giannolio, I live at 85 Dorothea Road. That corresponds to the corner of little John and Dorothea. So really facing the area that we're talking about. And I just want to hear further express the concerns that we are trying to convey to the neighbors about the flooding. I'm moving from this building. This is one of the townhouses built in 2017. And the developer had a good idea of the flooding in the area. So we have a French drainage in the front. We have two sump pumps in the front. We have two sump pumps in the back. So each Dorothea had one. My experience is that those sump pumps run nonstop 24 to 72 hours when it rains. So I moved in again, 2017 construction, 2018. The sump pump in the garage pushed out the pipe from the elbow. So water was actually being pumped inside my garage because it was so much of the stress on the system. 2020, one of the sump pumps in the front broke and the neighbor and I had to replace it. And again, it broke down due to the stress. And so everything is done correctly for this townhouse. That's what I'm trying to say. It's just that the stress on the system is so high that the sump pumps really have a hard time keeping up with it. We look at the forecast when we see a rain, we go outside with the leaf blowers. We try to clear everything we can for drainage. We hear the sump pumps and then we're ready to fix them as necessary. Before living here, I came from the city of Boston. So in my building, in front of the meeting, there were also portable units. I know very well what it means to live in crowded areas. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But what we're trying to say is that this is not a corner in our lives and it can close the building for these dimensions. They're trying to fix it again, would be horrible. It's a corner that doesn't have any access. There's the access to a massive and a room too. You have to have a car. I have kids and to buy a gallon of milk. Either you take the ride line and go to some of the stations there's no way around it, you really need to have a car. So I hope that my experience living in this exact corner that you're considering and I'm actually up to a future for what's being considered. I hope that my experience can help. You know, I just, you know, as other neighbors said, you know, we're talking about the Titanic, we're talking about elephants in the room. Again, this is what we're trying to say. You know, to really share the concern, not because it's our own idea but it's a reality and the flooding and the traffic. We just, it's very bad. So I think I'm borderline, I can still live here in terms of being comfortable with their flooding. But I think that any other construction in the neighborhood especially going down here will be really a wrong thing to do. Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate that. Ms. Light? Hi, Elaine Light, 53 Dorothy Road. I sent an email to the board. I don't see it in the record. So I'm just going to read my email to you and then maybe have a couple of comments. Once again, Massachusetts is experiencing drought conditions. Mild to severe drought has become more common in the last 10 years. Is this a new normal or merely a swing of the climate change pendulum? I remember the wetter years. When my walk to the L-Wife T station became a detour to Mass Ave because the Thorndike field area of the bike trail was underwater and not by inches, but feet. I'm not willing to risk my home and I hope you are not either. I'm attaching Heather Keith-Lucas' thoughtful response to the ZBA's draft decision as my endorsement of her arguments. Along with the many, many issues this proposed development raises, I ask you to keep in mind this threat to the very foundation of my house posed by the increased risk of flooding. And my only comment is to draw the line between the drought conditions that were mentioned earlier by a neighbor, the flooding that the gentleman is experiencing in a newly constructed top of the line, it appears, ways of dealing with flooding. And it isn't working. And it isn't working in drought years. And it isn't working with climate change where it is now. And we only can fear where it's going. Thank you. Thank you. With Ingalls? Yes, hello. My name is Martha Ingalls. I live at 148 Herbert Road. I used to live on Edith Street. It's all well and good to say that the new construction should be in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. And I agree, but there are 12 townhouses across the street from the site on Dorothy Road where the parking is below grade. And we can't have that in the new construction. Nothing in the new construction should be below grade because the neighborhood is already suffering from flooding and we can't make it worse. I like the idea of having townhomes where the parking is behind the house and accessed by a back driveway. I think that would look better than the existing new construction across the street. And that's all I have to say tonight. Thank you, appreciate that. Next one is Marcia Nicholas. Hello, this is Nicholas Hyde at 152 Lake Street. That's the corner of Lake and Little John. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me a chance to speak. I just have a few quick comments. So one is that in a previous correspondence I had said, I might have used the word townhome. And I want to enforce that I meant duplex because my understanding was that the original plan that was drawn up was duplexes, these buildings that have two domiciles and one building separated by a two feet. And I'm not sure how many other of my neighbors also mean duplex when they say the word townhome. For me, unfortunately in my vernacular, they mean the same thing, but I understand that here, duplex is what I mean to say when I say the word townhome. And I think there may be others that think that as well. The other thing I'd just like to say is an extreme heartfelt thanks to both Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Dupont. I really appreciate what you said. And I feel what you said captures what I wish is, what I wish people would say. So I'm extremely in support of what you said. And I don't know if it was one of Mr. Hanlon or Mr. Dupont who had said this, but somebody had mentioned that this really needs to be a three-way compromise. And that is heartfelt as well. I really agree with that, that it's not just about the wetlands. It's not just about what the town needs. Everybody needs to give a little bit. Some will give a lot, but everybody needs to give a little bit. And so the three-way compromise, I totally agree. And again, thank you, Mr. Dupont. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. That is all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Ovid. Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name's Sarah August. I live at 73 Dorothy Road, directly across from the development we're discussing here. In the interest of time, I won't reiterate all the comments from my neighbors with regards to flooding and my strong objection against a five-story dwelling anywhere on the property. I think it's just ridiculous. But the one thing that all two points that I did want to make is with regards to the flooding, so my driveway, the bottom of my driveway is currently 39 inches below grade of Dorothy Road. I was one of the first townhouses to be built on Dorothy Road. And I have flooded my basement and my garage has flooded due to a rise in the water level, which you cannot pump out. I mean, this is the ground water level. So this is hugely concerning to me, as well as I think it was a comment that Ms. Chapnick made about how the applicant is going to handle the displacement of water, the compensatory flood storage that's going to take into consideration the trees that are going to be removed from the property for any development. That's very concerning to me as well. And then secondly, I understand that there is a discrepancy between the town plans and the applicant stamp drawings saying the roads are, or giving the impression the roads are 40 feet wide, whereas in fact they are 24 feet wide in the entire neighborhood, including Kelwyn Manor. In fact, Lake Street is only 30 to 34 feet wide, curb to curb, not including the sidewalks. So my question is, how can construction vehicles access our site when the roads are 24 feet wide? Especially if you are talking about having modular units that are going to come in on flatbed trucks that require trains, you physically will not be able to get them down Lake Street, around the corner, down Little John and onto Dorothy. So I really do think this is something that needs to be considered and do a deep dive. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, Ms. Murphy. Hi, this is actually Sarah Harris. Florence, it's to me. We live at 83 Mary Street. So we are approximately two blocks away from the proposed development area. And with regards to the flooding, we have a French drain around our entire basement because we have experienced significant flooding in the past. So I can only feel a ton of empathy for my friends and neighbors who live on Dorothy. I've seen their flooding. We can't even walk our dog down Dorothy after it's rained significantly or after there's been a significant snow melt. So please take that into consideration as you move forward with this project. Our other concern is of course the traffic. Our neighbors know that Florence and I were very instrumental in getting the no turn on, no right turn between the hours of seven and nine AM and four to seven PM because of the significant traffic that we've had down Mary Street. Now you add people who aren't familiar with the neighborhood coming down Little John and we're going to have more accidents. I personally have witnessed two of them at Little John and Mary Street. So these concerns are very valid. I don't think the developers have necessarily considered them all and consistency with our neighbors. And we really want to make sure that if anything happens that it's a safe project. The only thing that makes sense in our minds are those townhomes. We need to, or duplexes, whatever. We need to keep this to a minimum so that we keep the neighborhood safe. There are a lot of kids who live on Dorothy and Mott Street and if you add all these other cars in it's going to be very unsafe. Please consider that as you move forward. Thank you. Thank you. It says GM Hakeem. Yep, George Michael Hakeem, 10 Edith Streets. I just want to thank the board for the concerns that they raised tonight. I think they capture the spirit of what a lot of us are thinking. And so I appreciate that support. While I am opposed to any large building at all I agree with the previous commenter that a little bit of compromise goes a long way. And so as many others have said, the duplex is fine. The moogers own the land. They want to develop it. If they want to put up the duplexes, make several million dollars, that's their right to do so. That keeps with the character of the neighborhood not too much harm done. And the other thing that that does is that is ownership. Rental units only. While they are affordable, they don't really provide a pathway to sustainable long-term ownership and equity building for people who are trying to build that equity for their futures. I want to also address another concern. The project as it currently exists has only one entrance and exit. And that's on the corner of Dorothy and Little John. You're putting 179 units in there or something around that number. If a car breaks down or a fire truck pulls in and parks there or whatever happens and blocks that exit, you're creating a serious safety hazard for anybody that lives in there who might have a medical emergency. One entrance and exit for that many units really, I mean, it's kind of like a death trap, just waiting to happen. And not to be too dramatic about it, but if we're thinking about the worst case scenario that we don't want to be negligent. So certainly a second exit or entrance, if that project were to go forward, I think has to be required or hopefully out off route two, but certainly not just the one. And the other thing I just want to address is before anything happens, whether it's the building or the duplex, as I said, hopefully nothing or hopefully just the duplexes. I think the moogers have a responsibility to clean up the woods. There's been years of human waste and refuse in those woods from the homeless population who's been living there, just waiting to sort of flood down and a big flood into the neighborhoods and cause serious health hazards for just the homeless who live there but the area residents. So I think if the board is going to accept the project with conditions, one of the conditions has to be that the woods must be cleaned up by the applicants or the owners of the land completely before any ground is broken in any sort of construction. I think that's a huge concern and can't be overstated too much. Thank you very much for the time. Thank you. Mr. Moore? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I walked the edges of the area today that the previous speaker was just mentioning and I have to agree the edges are a mess full of trash and not been cleaned up and my guess is it's from a number of years. I don't believe it's just from this winter. You can tell when trash has been hanging out for a while. So the property really hasn't been maintained to date very well, particularly as I know there's a serious homeless situation going on. And I guess we've heard now testimony from homeowners of the homes that are older than the townhouses which were recently built on Dorothy Road talking about the flooding. We've also heard from homeowners from the townhouses themselves too, I believe both of which said they experienced flooding from places that were built within the past 10 years. And someone else had mentioned they probably have a state of the art or state of the current art of dealing with flooding. And in one case the system has broken from serious stressing and overuse. What I guess I'm not understanding is why building in the swampy area which is the entire, it looks to me to be the entire plot of land where the development is going to happen. Why the expectation is that flooding from building in that area can be mitigated in any useful way short of moving the water around. You can't pump it out of the area. It would just be pumped to a different part of the area isn't going to impact all of the existing homes plus the newer townhomes. I'm wondering if the townhomes that were built in 2017 and around that era timeframe required a special permit. Does anyone on the board know that? Certainly none of those came before the zoning board. So my sense, I believe that those were designed specifically to just comply with the building code. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. So they comply with all the zoning rules. But look, the new place is built there have flooding problems already within, in that case, five years of having been built. Why it is the current developer's field they can develop a system which will not have flooding of their own property much less the neighbors. I guess I don't quite understand. The final point I'd like to make is a property ownership is not, does not include the right to develop the property if the property is substandard as this property is. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Blair. Awesome, Blair. I live at 50 Dorothy Road and you definitely comment about the flooding that happens even with just a very minimal amount of rain. I actually took pictures when we had a quarter of an inch and we had some water in our basement and I'm going to be catching to my next email to the CPA but I also wanted to add to some of the comments about the nuclear property and the state that it's in. We can just see so much trash from our backyard and last week on two separate instances I believe it was Wednesday and Friday or it's either Wednesday, Friday, Thursday, Saturday I don't remember. The fire department had been called in twice because the homeless population had had fires. One of them had been more basal fire and the other had been a candle that set head on fire. And with all the dry conditions that we've had there is definitely potential for a fire on that property to really escalate I think we could, especially because there's just all sorts of loose brush and things in all sorts of trash that haven't been cleaned up. So I think that is a real safety issue. And I think that regardless of what happens that needs to be addressed ASAP. We as neighbors shouldn't have to worry about that potential and I also don't think we should have to be worrying that strangers in these homeless population who are often using drugs are coming through some backyards, coming down Parker Street with all these small kids around. And I would say that I am very encouraged by some of the things that the board has said tonight and we would be fully on board with just the set of duplexes that are there that match the neighborhood especially if they were affordable home ownership as well. Thank you. Thank you. So I have four hands up from four people who had spoken before. I just want to make sure, ask quickly those of you with your hands up, do you have a second comment or is your hand just still up from before? So if you can just check and if you have your hand up just quickly to inquire. I'll just say one more thing to make it clear and I forgot to say where I live the last time and I'm at four street and I just want to make it clear that I think all of us are saying the town homes or the duplexes or whatever along Dorothy Road is okay but that we're saying no big giant building behind those. That is so not okay. I don't think anybody is saying put the townhouses on Dorothy Road and a giant building behind it. Thank you. Mr. McKinnon, did you have additional comments? I did, yes. Matt McKinnon, my little John Street. I just want to go on record that I've actually been on record with the ZBA. We had our house renovated around 2016. I went in front of the ZBA to approve that renovation. Part of the renovation was to install a basement underneath the area we were building. So it was actually a new underground basement foundation. It was not a crawl space. It's not finished. We never had flooding in our house. I was never told about flooding but we were aware every once in a while during a big rainstorm we would get significant flooding. Once I put the underground basement in, I made sure I put a perimeter drain in with a sump pump. And this is 2016. This thing is constantly running. There's nothing I can do about it. I can't even put the water anywhere because I don't have a backyard to put it into. So now I need to go back and redesign, get somebody to come out here and design some sort of catch basin somewhere away from my property to hold this water. And then once that catch basin fills up, I'm then allowed to tap into the town's storm drain system to catch that overflow. And luckily I can do that because I'm grandfathered in with the existing foundation I have. But this is going to cost me tens of thousands of dollars to do and I'm extremely angry and scared. And I don't know if you can hear it in my voice because it's shaking, but I am afraid that putting in anything over there, put in those duplexes, those townhouses but the side yards need to have the side yards because we need all the absorption of water we can get around here, but let them flood. Just make sure that they know they're gonna flood because we're all flooding out here. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Murphy, who's the second time? Or is your hand just up? Hi, Sarah Harris and Florence Murphy here again from 83 Mary Street. I did thank you again for your time. We do appreciate greatly the amount of time and energy that you've afforded us all and that you've put into this project. We also have concerns as our neighbors have raised about the trash and the homeless that are currently residing in the New Guard wetlands. That really needs to be addressed first and foremost as a couple of people have raised tonight. I understand that there are hypodermic needles in the wetlands, there's a rat in the destination and that's a problem. I heard from another neighbor today that somebody raised up a gorilla and found a rat. So if you go to build and we all get rats because you flushed them out, we're not gonna be very happy and we really do not advocate for the use of pesticide. So please take all of these things into consideration as you move forward and hopefully you just won't do it, but thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kalanand. Yeah, thank you very much for hearing me out today. I wanna echo a lot. Can I assess your address please, sorry. I'm sorry, yeah, John Kalanand, 23 Parker Street. Parker Street on one of the plans it looks like is the entranceway into one of the developments. I don't know if that's still on the current plan or not. It's kind of hard to tell because the plans that I've seen, it looks like they've been changes to them. However, I wanted to kind of echo what some of the neighbors have said, I'm not going to belabor the point. I think you get it pretty loud and clear that we have flooding, serious flooding. I wanted to relay an experience here, right? I've been here for 35 years. I can't tell you how many times I've gone down Dorothy Road. And when I say flooding, I'm talking about, we have garages that are below the houses that are in the basements of the houses. And the water level is level with the street, maybe six inches over the curb. And that means that their basements are that full with water. We're talking feet of water. We're not talking about inches or puddles in the bottoms of the basements. I've seen washing machines float out of a basement door. This is the kind of water and flooding we're talking about. I'm just trying to put it into perspective. I also wanted to comment on the homeless population and the trash that's in the MuGar site right now. There's been a lot of concern that's been raised. Town managers been involved. There are a number of groups that are getting engaged in terms of trying to control what's going on on the property. The level of debris that's in there, I participated in a cleanup effort back in the fall to help remove some of the debris. We filled up two large dumpsters full of trash, buckets full of hypodermic needles. And I'm here to tell you that we didn't put a scratch in the amount of garbage and trash, human waste and everything else that you could think of that's in that property. And I 100% think that if there are any construction that's going to be done before it's approved, that site has to be cleaned up. And it has to be done so at the cost of the property owner. I can't believe that the property owner is allowed to continue to have this kind of activity going on on their property and then have the audacity to come before us and say, now we want to develop it. We're not even going to take care of what we have today. This is their property. They should be held accountable for it. And the townspeople shouldn't be in there cleaning their property up. We've got rats running amuck all over the neighborhood. And if you walk through that property, you'll know why because there are piles of garbage and plenty of places for these rats to feed and nest. So this is what I've got to say. I hope you take that into consideration when you're making your decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. I guess I had originally said we would be done with this at eight, but I'm going to go ahead and extend it to 8.30. Try to just quickly pick up people who are still looking to speak for the first time. First will be Ms. Bittaker. Thank you. I think all of my neighbors have raised all of the concerns. I'm sorry, I just need you to name a little bit. Oh, sorry. Eva Bittaker for White Street. What I want to make sure is that in the decision that the ZVA will publish, that all of the concerns that have been raised are considered in the conditions that the conditions will address the concerns that have been raised with regards to water, with regards to traffic, with regards to health, the construction period and that the last draft decision that we saw before the last meeting still had a lot of holes in addressing many of the issues that came up today and that have come up in the past. Thank you. Thank you. Laura, how did your last name turn to you? Leibensberger, can you hear me? I can. Yes, just address the record please. Yes, I love the 21th on the next street up towards the Mass Ed in. Mass Ed, I'm not subject to flooding in all that mouth of wood, but I just want to speak in support of all the people opposing this project because really nobody wants it. And they're just kind of forcing people to bend over backwards to find reasons when really it doesn't benefit anybody, it benefits Mugar. And I know this is high in the sky, but we spent 300 whatever million on the high school. Why can't we just buy this property, take it off everybody's backs? It's not good for anybody who already lives here. And so I just want to support the people who spoke in opposition who actually live there. I don't live there, but I'm up on the other end. I just want to speak in support because nobody wants this, nobody needs it. It's all Mugar making money. So that's all I have to say, done. Thank you. And then I did the last one, Ms. Griffiths for a second. Have anything else? Sorry. Oh, you don't, okay. I guess the hand doesn't go away after you get called on, sorry about that. I can pull it down for you. One hand that has popped back, and now it's gone again. Ms. Kokarski. Hi, I'm Anna Kokarski, 34 Mont Street. I want to thank the board for your discussion today, especially Mr. DuPont and Mr. Hanlon for expressing your views today. I also want to agree with my neighbors who brought up the fact that in order to match the rest of the neighborhood, I think only duplexes are reasonable. And if there is something that can be placed behind the duplexes, I think at the same height of the duplexes would be the most reasonable, again, if the intention is to match the rest of the neighborhood. My other comment is about the traffic, which I don't feel like has been significantly sufficiently addressed. Because there will be an increase of 70% of households with the addition of this 176 unit building, there will be an increase in traffic. There'll be around 300 adults that would move into this building. And although not everyone will use the cars, it has been mentioned before, they will be doing car shares. They will be using vehicles because there's no way to do anything from this location without using a vehicle. And I've definitely tried. And so there's going to be a significant increase in traffic, so I have two questions for this. One is the original proposal included a separate exit to route two. I know this was dismissed, but now that we are reconsidering things brought up in the original proposal, which was approved by mass housing, can that in any way, is that any way possible still to have another egress off of route two from their proposed complex? And then my second question is more personal question for the neighborhood and for the future tenants in the neighborhood who will see a 70% increase in the neighborhood and 300 adults using cars. If should God forbid one of our children are hit by the increased amount of traffic, what is the legal process by which we can prove the liability that is from this approved increase of the cars in our neighborhood? Thank you. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment, but we definitely have a few questions that were raised that I do want to double back on. So the first is the recurring question of access from route two. This keeper, I believe you guys have pursued this with mass DOT who owns the property and owns the rights to the connection. Is that correct? So I don't know if Vanessa Scott Thornton may be the better person to respond to it, but it does not appear that there's going to be an ability to come in from route two. So, when this was initially proposed back in 2015, we're going for project eligibility, that was the hope, but it doesn't appear that that's viable. Okay. Mr. Lucas, do you have any, or Mr. Thornton, or any other of you have any specific? Yeah, Mr. Chair, as attorney Kiefer mentioned, the access from route two is no longer contemplated. There are a number of operational concerns associated with that type of connection. There's parameters related to weaving, and merging criteria that would not be able to be met. You'd have traffic that would be looking to exit onto route two at the same time that there'd be traffic that would be looking to exit from route two onto Lake Street. So it was always, I think, sort of a, I think it was always a problematic access scenario looking at access from route two, and there's a number of logistical and permitting issues and operational issues as well that make it so it would not be considered a good design to have that type of access. So I just want to clarify that the plan going forward for traffic then is just based on the pandemic traffic studies, which is hoped by the architects to continue at this pace. The public, I appreciate your follow-up question, but the public comment period is closed, and I do need to ask you to not jump in if you would please not do so. So I don't know, Mr. Thornton, if you could just spend a quick couple of minutes to explain the methodology for how we have the traffic counts that you have provided and that have been corroborated by the board's peer review. Yeah, sure. So we did collect some traffic volumes at the intersections associated with the neighborhood, and then we had historic, so those were conducted in 2020 during pandemic time periods because there was no historic data that was available that we could use. But then those traffic volumes were adjusted using current, or sorry, using traffic volumes historic to the area that were pre-pandemic conditions. We were also looking at permanent traffic count day or continuous traffic count data provided by MassDOT in order to look at conditions and traffic volume adjustment factors from conditions prior to the COVID pandemic and how those adjustment factors would be applied to the traffic volumes to adjust them both for a seasonal consideration, for historic condition, for lapse of time, and also if needed for the effects of the pandemic. And again, this is something that we worked out. There's policies that are developed by MassDOT for adjustment of traffic volumes in pandemic conditions. And we worked with the town's peer consultant on the adjustment of the traffic volumes and they are in agreement that the volumes were adjusted to present a realistic scenario. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wonder for the record if Mr. Lucas can comment on it too. I know that Mr. Thornton has discussed what the peer reviewer's position is, but it would be helpful, I think, on the record to have Mr. Lucas's view from Mr. Lucas. I would be happy to reiterate what Mr. Thornton said. The study was done with a combination of data that was collected prior to the pandemic that was adjusted based on both industry standard and MassDOT specific guidelines looking at continuous counting stations to determine factors for adjustment to current conditions. And then there was some data that was collected during the pandemic where there were additional counts that were necessary based on preliminary peer review comments and board comments and those were adjusted. So overall the study and the traffic volumes and the assumptions based on those traffic volumes contained in the study are based on a pre-pandemic condition using the data that was collected. Overall as an industry, although there's great uncertainty as to what's going to happen as a result of the pandemic, it's prudent to design to a pre-pandemic condition assuming that there will be a return to normal of what traffic conditions existed before the pandemic. And so to have this a public comments about, there's less traffic now on Lake Street and when it comes back, the study is entirely based on that pre-pandemic condition that the public describes. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one other question. Yes, Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Lucas, if I remember from reading through the tables that are included in the applicant's study and that you've looked at, the description of the situation that exists on Lake Street at the signalized and unsignalized intersections does not, would it be fair to say it does not exactly paint a rosy picture of what the traffic is that those traffic levels do represent a seriously problematic traffic situation. We all agree on that, is that correct? That's correct. We're looking at, you know, level of service and delay calculations that show existing faults in the traffic network along Lake Street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for your support as well. Another question that has been raised a couple of times and I'll direct this to Ms. Kiefer and ask her to find the appropriate person. It's this question of the constructability and the ability to bring the boxes which are 13 feet wide, 11 feet tall and 62 feet long, the ability to maneuver those to the project site. Has anyone done a study to confirm that it is actually possible to move something this large into those positions? I would probably defer back to Scott again. I know that he had been working with the, some of the manufacturers and looking at the routes and how that would go forward. So, and Scott, if you want to pull in anyone else, but probably you're the best point person to initially address that question. Yeah, absolutely. So, Mr. Chairman, we did work with a couple of potential manufacturers of the residential modules and we do have some information related to, or they provided some information related to the size of the modules and the types of vehicles that would be needed to bring the modules to the site. And we did perform some vehicle circulation studies that looked at the path that the module truck would take, a delivery vehicle would take coming in from route two on to Lake Street, traversing down Little John to into the site at the end of Dorothy road. And at that point, the vehicle would be able to pull into a portion of the site, be unloaded and then exit back out onto Dorothy and then out onto Lake Street. As was mentioned previously, we did program the width or as was mentioned previously, North Little John Street is between 24 and 25 feet wide. We did program that width into those studies and we found that the vehicles were still able to make the turn from Lake Street on to Little John and also exiting the neighborhood, traveling back out Little John onto Lake Street. We anticipate that during the period of when these modules would be delivered to the site, there would be police officer details at a few key intersections, particularly Lake Street and Little John Street, probably, and also Dorothy Road and Little John Street, so that the, to ensure that there would be no pedestrians, bicyclists, children, anyone in the area when the vehicles would be coming to the site. We'd also have flaggers associated with the contractors to temporarily stop vehicles coming up from Mary Street, Mott Street, just for the delivery vehicle to enter the site. And then we would probably have or look to work with the town and the neighborhood on ensuring some, or working to develop some construction management plan that would include some temporary parking restrictions on Little John Street, but only during the period that we would see that the deliveries of these modules would take place. And we would try to, to the extent possible, we would try to schedule them off-peak. When you say off-peak, are you talking sort of middle of day, or are you talking evenings? No, no, we're talking middle of day. And just to clarify, so that the route back to route two would that go up Little John or would that go down Dorothy to the next street and out? No, no, we would assume it would just go back out Little John. Okay. We wouldn't have the trucks entering and exiting at the same time, one truck on Little John at any one time. Those were the questions that I had noted going through the public comments. Are there, were there other questions identified, Mr. Revillac? Yes, one of the things that was mentioned a few times was owner occupied affordable units rather than rentals. And I guess this is probably going to be a question for Mr. Haverty. Let's say a household buys an affordable town home. So based on what's, what would, based on a price that would be non-housing burden to someone making 80% of the area median income will pay maybe $350,000. Now that household later goes to sell the property. Would they be selling it for market rate or would they also be selling it at an affordable rate? So they would still have to sell it at the affordable rate. So basically the affordable price will change over time depending on the increase in the 80% tile income level. It will change based upon interest rates. So they could sell it at a higher price than what they purchased it for, but they are not going to make the same increase that an unrestricted housing owner would be able to make. Okay. It would effectively be a combination of interest rates and whatever, you know, whatever. You know, regional income is, you know, in other words, non-housing burden to a household who at the affordable rate would be able to make the same increase compared to a household who at the time of sale is making 80% of the area median income. Right. And it's someone not making, sorry, not spending more than 30% of their income. Oh, no. Mr. Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. There was one other question that had to do with the, the ingress of the, of the truck during construction that had to do with the street trees that exist. And I just wanted for the record for Mr. Thornton to address whether those have been taken into account, whether there are difficulties that might be encountered bringing this heavy equipment in, in light of the trees that exist along the relevant streets. So it's a great question. And there are definitely some trees, particularly the, there's one at the, at the intersection of little John and Dorothy, that's definitely, you know, impinges are, are, is, is growing out into and over the roadway. And that's one of the reasons why. The, the, the path that we've chosen for the vehicles to get to the site steers clear of that, a battery so that there's, there would be a staging area that would be set up for the trucks to pull into the site away from, from that tree. And then when they, when they, when they exit the site, they'll be backing up into the site. And then, and then continuing back out onto little John. And then we, I can't tell you that we looked at each and every single tree. But during the, you know, as, as part of a, as part of a construction management plan where the, which would be worked out with the town staff and the contractors and bringing materials to the site. There would, there would be measures taken to, to avoid the, to the extent possible, some of those trees that were the, the, the canopies of some of those trees that are out or growing out into the streets. I think if the, if the, if the trucks are able to come up the middle of little John street, they can, they can avoid most of the, the area that's being used to the site. And then we'll have to do some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of close contact. The kind of damaging contact that would occur from them riding right along, along the side of the, of this. But again, that's, that's, that's something that would be worked out with the, with the development of the construction management plan and. And town staff. Do you just. Do you know what the. Between the load and the truck, Well, it should be below 14 feet. It's not allowed to be higher than that on to be on Massachusetts roadways. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman. So I just wanted to follow up to, if someone could remind us, what is the period of time over which this construction would carry on and on how many trips with these modules would there be per day or in total, whichever is the easiest to give over that period of time? Right, so I can give a quick answer and then maybe if art is available, you could chime in with some more details. And to some extent, we've been working with contractors and manufacturers that may be selected, but no one has been selected and therefore these plans haven't been definitively nailed down yet. But I believe the total module number was somewhere between 250 and 290 modules will be brought to the site. And we had done some math related to bringing those in over the course of about a six-week period that worked out to be, so it would be close to, I think it would be a truck or two of the modules would be brought in every hour between say nine and three, Monday through Friday. So that worked out to be somewhere around a six-week period and that would get all the modules onto the site. Now we haven't, again, we haven't gone into the detail with the contractors to determine if that's the right schedule, but we think that that's a reasonable estimate for how long it'll take for the modules to be delivered to the site. I don't know if Art has any other follow-up for that. So they're here. There we are. Can you hear me? We cannot. Okay, they set around 10 modules per day. So that's fairly consistent and the trucking to the site is also consistent because it's coming from a staging area that might be two or three miles away. So they, you know, they can maintain a fairly predictable flow of modules that isn't subject to delays or anything like that. And it really is fairly predictable and obviously will be worked out with the building department in Arlington as to how that all worked. And Scott did a good job of explaining the details and there'd be one box delivered at each time. I think it's all coordinated by, they all coordinate because they all have cell phones and directors and, you know, it works very well. It works very well. In fact, one of the reasons we were, we won a competition to do a project in Newton is that the city was very interested in the ability to get the pain of construction out of the neighborhood as quickly as possible, which of course is an advantage in modules. So other than that, I think Scott did a good job. Follow-up, Mr. Chairman. That's great, Mr. Define. So in terms of the entering from Lake Street and then exiting back out onto Lake Street, with whatever the truck is that's being used to carry the modules, is that going to be an unimpeded turn so that once traffic is clear, say they're on Little John and they're turning on to Lake, that they can just make that turn just freely or does it have to require some sort of a two-point turn or three-point turn or something like that? Yeah, no, it's a, it is a unimpeded turn. The trailer for the module has a large, it has a longer overhang, but it has, the wheelbase is fairly short. So it makes the trailer pretty maneuverable. And we would anticipate that there'd be sort of a clear zone that would be set up on Lake Street so that the police details would know where to stop the traffic on Lake Street so that the truck could exit out of Little John, but we're showing that the truck doesn't go up onto the curb or crossover onto property. It stays within the curb to curb dimensions of Lake Street and Little John. Is that true coming into Little John as well? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yep. Other questions from the board at this point? Jeremy, Mr. Hanlon? This is so nice, I'm just looking to. Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm sorry, I'm switching to a different subject matter. We've heard a lot about flooding. We always do and everyone knows that there's serious flooding problems here. And both our engineers from Beta and Mr. Hessian's people Mr. Hessian's people have been studying that. And it's complicated and you have to read through a lot of materials that a lot of which is sort of technical back and forth between highly educated and experienced people. And I wonder if it's possible to just say in a sentence or a paragraph, why is it that we can be confident or that the applicant are you confident? And if so, why that the construction of a project along the lines that you've proposed will not make the flooding for the neighbors worse? Mr. Hessian? Mr. Hanlon? Mr. Chairman, in a sentence, Mr. Hanlon's put a challenge out there to me. A lot of what has been discussed with some of the experiences the neighbors live with some of the newer duplex homes directly across Dorothy street with garages under with those driveways sloping steeply down from Dorothy down into the garage which is at the same elevation of the basement. And also the acknowledgement of the need for foundation drainage systems, French drains and sump pumps. It's one thing that we have discussed incorporating into the design, into the architectural design are measures that will prevent floodwaters or just stormwater runoff from getting down the driveway, if you will, into the garage level. We've talked about incorporating similar to the homes in the neighborhood, the newer homes in the neighborhood and some of the retro column retrofits to some of the older homes in the neighborhood. Foundation drainage systems, French drains and sump pump systems, which whenever you build in the groundwater, that has to all be considered in the design. What this project is doing is not, it's not really changing. I know there's been discussion of the multifamily building acting as a dam. Groundwater flows to the path of lease resistance. And we've talked a little bit about some of the foundation drainage systems that will really allow and enhance that existing groundwater to follow its normal path of travel which is towards the south, towards El White Brook. Some of what we've discussed tonight also is the potential modification of the development program to reintroduce the town and homes again to move the multifamily building further back from Dorothy Road which is further away from those adjacent single family and duplex neighbors. And sorry, I lost my train of thought there for a second. Oh, and allow for the flow of both surface water and groundwater in the areas between the potential duplex units. One other thing that I wanted to mention too is just to reiterate, there's been a lot of discussion about this project being built in a swamp or in the wetlands. And it has been acknowledged also by several of the board members that the project has done a lot since I think back September of 2020 to really be cognizant of the wetland resource areas on site and to avoid or minimize impacts. And the development on this site is really limited to upland areas significantly outside of any wetland resource areas, predominantly outside of the 100 foot buffer and locally regulated aura and with just limited impacts to the floodplain. But with that floodplain providing a two to one compensatory storage volume as required by the Arlington wetland regulations. And it's also important to note that that compensatory storage volume is being provided in what is today not floodplain nor wetland resource areas, in other words, upland areas. So that was not a single sentence and it was probably a bit of a run on paragraph. But I hope that responds to your question. Mr. Hanlon. As a follow up to that question, several of the residents spoke of high groundwater being a contributing factor to the issues they're having in their basements and the inability to sort of pump their way out of it. So how would the building address that as it's currently conceived where it appears that the lowest level of the garage is below what is considered the groundwater level? So again, the design of the building foundation, the garage foundation for that portion of the garage that's in the groundwater table, will be fully waterproofed to prevent groundwater seepage into the garage level for stormwater, groundwater or just snow melt or runoff in a garage that is brought in by vehicles using the garage. That water will be pumped first filtered through a oil grid separator and then pumped to the municipal sewer system. Thank you. Mr. Mills. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I have a question to that same gentleman. Again, I brought up the point that this long building will act like a dam and you pretty much said it wouldn't. Being that it extends down into the water table and water was like to find its path of least resistance. When there was no foundation there, there was no resistance. Now you're putting something in the path. So how do you explain that this should not cause a change? Again, it will be incorporated into the foundation designed to waterproof the foundation. When you saw a French drain around a building foundation. Excuse me, sir. I'm not talking about water going into your foundation. I'm talking about changes in the water table around it. Water once will flow south through your site. You're putting a dam basically east-west. So water's gonna have to run around either area. Intuitively, to me, it sounds like you're gonna be making an impediment to the flow, which is gonna make the local water table worse. If you could explain how you're gonna attack that problem, I think the locals would greatly appreciate it. Again, I was responding to not the garage, water getting into the garage. It was allowing that groundwater to travel with ease around the new building foundation. The backfill will be more conducive to water flow than the existing earth material that's there today. And that's what I meant, finding the path of least resistance. A very high permeable backfill material, gravel adjacent to that foundation wall, the water will find its way to that and it will have the easiest path of travel to flow kind of east and west along the front, the north side of the building foundation and then south along the east and west foundation walls. Excuse me. How thick will this back layer be of permeable fill? I would think it would have to be considerable. It's, you know, the backfill probably at the base of the foundation is going to be, probably need to be on the order of, you know, five feet in width around the building. And then if there's the other thing is assuming there's a perimeter drain system installed that will be sized appropriately. That's a pipe. So it's not just water traveling through gravel. It's water flowing through a, you know, free flowing pipe to divert that water around the building to the south to its normal path of travel. Excuse me. I missed a minute or two of that. I think I have a bad connection. You're explaining about how it was going to go around either side. Did you mention something about a pipeline, sir? The, yes, I did. The foundation drainage system will likely, in addition to the gravel backfill include, you know, a foundation drainage system similar to some of the French strains that were mentioned by some of the neighbors tonight. That French strain, that pipe will even be a less restrictive path of travel than the gravel backfill itself. So water will migrate through the ground to the gravel to that pipe and flow east-west around the front of the building, north side of the building down the east and west sides, ultimately discharging to the south toward Zale-Whitebrook. Thank you for your explanation, sir. Thank you. I hope your engineers are correct in their assessment. Mr. Revillac. I have a slightly related question. This is something I believe we discussed a couple of weeks ago. It's been, I'm reminded of it by the conversation we're having and also by one of the correspondents from the, you know, from the neighbors. So with us at a prior meeting, I think we had broached the idea of basically taking the garage floor and bringing it up some amount and bringing the whole entire building up in 3D space for the purpose of clearing the water table and providing less possibility for impediment and possibly reducing the amount of excavation that would be necessary when constructing the foundation. I was wondering if that received any further consideration or, you know, or if it got a thumbs down. Yeah. I wasn't sure if Gwen was going to speak to that, but I can, Mr. John Heshen again, I can speak to that. We did look at that, we did discuss that in one of our responses to the town engineer and or beta peer review letters. We made a commitment to go back out and further investigate the groundwater elevations during, you know, a high groundwater season. So I guess I would say, you know, a fair response to that would be that, you know, we kind of tabled that discussion until we had better information on the groundwater table or either confirmatory information or updated information. It didn't seem prudent to raise the building and then go out and find out the groundwater elevation is, you know, a little higher than what we, what was originally expected. But I think that is something that is definitely that can be looked at and especially in light of potentially looking at some site plan changes based on the conversation tonight regarding the change in the building program. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Heshen. You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Hanlon. In the course of the, well, let me just do two things. One, before I forget, I wanted to thank Ms. Keith Lucas for the very interesting paper that she submitted to us. We haven't gone into it in nearly as much detail as we will over the next few days as we get a chance to, as we get a chance to carefully look at what she has said about the individual conditions and how what the responses might be and what we can take from that. But it's an extremely constructive approach and it's very useful as we try to make the conditions and the decision as good as it can be before we make a decision as to whether it's good enough for us to make the conclusion we have to make at the end as to whether the local concerns have been met. So I'm not sure whether she's on the call or not, but others who have been working with her are. And I just want for the record to say that I'm grateful to that. The specific question I wanted to ask has, I guess it may be for Mr. Thornton and Mr. Lucas. It's been pointed out that there's a potential danger when you have only a single access of this kind that under circumstance where that single access is blocked for some reason. And in this neighborhood, there are lots of reasons why it might get blocked, that you then have a dangerous situation in case an emergency develops. And I just wanted to know how the applicant is dealing with that. Is there an alternative way in an emergency of getting people out of the site and to the help that they need? Is how does that issue being addressed? So that's a good question. And typically when we look at access for complexes like this, we look at that has one access point. We look at certain guidelines, ITE guidelines, NFPA guidelines for emergency vehicles and things. And given that we have such a short distance from where the streets and the ability to access to separate streets is from where the garage and the access to the development is, we're not concerned with emergency access in egress. There's the ability to, the driveway is wide enough to accommodate flow. If for instance, there was an accident or something blocking the drive aisle, it's wide enough that the vehicles would be able to bypass a parked vehicle along the driveway. And then there's access out to the Dorothy Road or to Little John. This is something that we would also review with the fire department to make sure that they don't have any concerns with it as well. So I don't know if Mr. Lucas has an opinion on that as well. But again, we're not concerned with the access as it's planned. Yeah, I would echo that. There the driveway with the courtyard entrance and the front of the building, even if there was a blockage of the main driveway with the garage access, there would still be vehicle access to the front of the building. There would still be emergency access by Dorothy Road. And for some reason, Little John or the main site entrance was blocked. So for the question of in the case of an emergency, the building is served by the street network both with the driveway opposite Little John Street and a building front to John Dorothy Road. And as Mr. Thorn stated, if there was a breakdown or an accident, anything's possible, but if there was a breakdown or an accident, the driveway is of a sufficient width to allow vehicles to pass one another. So in the case of a stopped or broken down vehicle, there would still likely be an ability for other vehicles to get around it. Thank you both. So the follow-up to an earlier question, and I'd like to direct to Mr. Havardies, the question of the units that would be on Dorothy Road, rental versus ownership, the decision in regards to that question, that rests solely with the applicant, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. It can be a project that has a portion that's rental and a portion that is home ownership. That is not something that we've heard of as part of the chapter 4D process. But the board is not allowed to dictate the ownership category. Correct. Other questions at this time from the board? Okay, so based on the initial requests from the board, this evening and the commentary that's been received both from the board and from the residents and in response to the questions and responses from the applicant and the board's peer review consultant. I guess this is a question back to the applicant. Does this provide you with sufficient guidance in regards to what sort of a project the board and the residents are looking for at this stage or is there additional information you would like to have from us at this time? Stephanie, why don't you go ahead? But I just didn't want to say that from the other side and I'd like to have Stephanie get into this. What would the process be in terms of working toward we've heard what's said and obviously appreciated very much. And I think there is a degree of clarity. So we'll have to stretch our hands on that. But I don't understand the process. So Stephanie, why don't you take over? Thank you, Art. I was just going to say that we appreciate the input that we've received from the board together with the public comment that has been received. And I think that we're going to need to meet as a team to evaluate the request to consider this. But in terms of a process, my suggestion is probably we would want at least a week just to discuss internally again, as you can appreciate there's... There's a number of considerations to take into account, not the least of which is the engineering aspect of it. And then I think, Mr. Klein, if you would consider this, that we schedule a timeframe that we just let you know what our thoughts are. And then if we seek to advance a revision, maybe a quick coordination call to figure out what the timing would be before we can get something to the board, even at a preliminary stage. And then secondly, if the decision is that we should keep with the current program to get us back on track to review the revisions there. So just, I guess I'll put this out to my team first, whether or not we think that something along the lines of a week, a week to 10 days is enough time for us to coordinate and get back in touch with the board. I think that sounds okay, Stephanie. Thank you for with us. John, if I could just ask you quickly, because I don't want to impinge too much on you, if that's too tight of a timeframe. No, Stephanie, I think that week to 10 days should be adequate to kind of... Just to so, and obviously not have fully engineered redesigned plans, but to be able to discuss the concept of the changes, potential changes. So with that said, Mr. Chairman, I would potentially suggest today is the eight. And I think we were contemplating the next hearing would be on the 20th. So if we could get back to the board by the 17th, not even certain what day of the week that is, actually. 19, 18, 17, 16 will be a Friday, I believe. Okay, is that right? I think so. The 19th is the Monday. Oh, you're right, you're right. Okay, so that gives us, right, that would give us about nine days. So if we were able to get back to the board by the end of next week, that would be, we would have a sense of whether or not or what a hearing would look like on the 20th. That'd be great. Well, I think just to echo, this is Arthur again, what John just said, this would be on the level of concepts. Oh, absolutely. Not well worked out drawings. Absolutely. I mean, we're at this date, we're really looking to get a sense as to, is this something that is pursuable? Or is this something that is not gonna fly? And I think that if we can get that kind of a decision in a week or 10 days, I think that's, that'll be extremely helpful. Any further questions from either from the applicant or from the board? I am seeing none. Well, then with that, this is a very, very constructive meeting. So I think we will, I will ask for a motion to continue the hearing until Tuesday, April 20th. I guess we should keep 630 PM is probably a good idea. So I'm gonna have a motion to continue until Tuesday, April 20th at 630 PM. So moved. So Mr. Hamlin. A second. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Quick vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. Aye. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And Mr. Revillac. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So with that, and with great thanks to everyone for their participation this evening, we are continued on this matter. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, especially wish to thank then Lee for his assistance and preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings. It's our understanding that recording will be transferred to ACMI and will be available on DemandedACMI.tv, probably not in the coming days, but probably in a week or so. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. To conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. All board members in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The board is adjourned. Thank you all so very much for your participation and all your efforts this evening. It's greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kepa.