 All right. So it is 733 p.m. on Thursday, October 28th, 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. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Steven Revlach. Here. Shauna Rourke. Here. Thank you all. Rick Valarelli is here. Good evening. Good evening and I know Vin Lee is occupied. He will not be joining us this evening. And Paul Haverde. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. How are you? Good evening. I don't seem to have an option to turn my computer to my video one for some reason. Not. Rick, is that something we can fix for Paul? I don't work on that. Paul, sit tight. We can hear you loud and clear. I'm not really all that concerned about it. That also means you can't share your screen. Yeah, that's not really very capable of that anyhow. Well, let me bring, well, I'm getting that to launch. I'll go ahead. So this open meeting of the Earrington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of the Governor Baker's March 12 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location for their all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting the Earrington zoning board of appeals has convened a video webinar via the zoom webinar app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. So we'll start this evening with a comprehensive permit for Thorndike Place. At the end of its October 20, 2022 public hearing the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for Thorndike Place. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40 day period for the board to consider and render for a decision. Tonight's discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept further comment from the applicant, the board's peer review consultants, the town or the public. For this reason tonight's meeting is being conducted using the webinar platform, which allows the board to limit who may participate in the discussion. On behalf of the board, I appreciate everyone's understanding. As we have presented in the past, the board has three decisions available to it under state statute approval without condition approval with conditions or a denial. The three options remain available to the board throughout the deliberation, while the deliberation is based around a draft decision, considering an approval with conditions discussion of this draft should not be taken to assume that the other options are no longer being considered. At the end of the deliberation the members of the board will need to decide for themselves the best way to address the local needs of the neighborhood and the town. On October 5 2021 public hearing the board and the applicant agreed to work towards voting on a final decision, no later than November 23 2021. While the 40 day period for deliberation officially ends on November 30 2021 is the official vote to close the public hearing occurred in the early hours of October 21. There are several holidays that make meeting after the 23rd difficult. We'll end this evening by discussing the schedule for future deliberative sessions in regards to draft decision and we'll then discuss strategies for how to discuss the draft decision before starting our official deliberations. And at the end of tonight's meeting the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting to continue this deliberations as stated before by negotiation with the applicant the board is working towards issuing a decision. On November 23 but it must issue a decision by November 30 under state law or request an extension of the applicant to further continuous deliberations. Let me quickly bring up the document. So tonight is Thursday October 28. It's the start of the open deliberation period. Two meetings that we currently have scheduled one is Tuesday November 9 and 730, which is a new hearing for 31 Melvin Road and also be the continuance of 125 127 Webster Street. We could use that evening as well for Thorndag Place. The trick would be we would essentially need to hold two hearings on that same night we'd have one hearing where we would do Melvin Road and Webster Street. And then we would close that hearing and then we would reopen in webinar to do the deliberations on Thorndag Place, but we could certainly do that on the ninth. And then the 23rd, because of scheduling, we really couldn't put it much long much later we have four new hearings already on for the 23rd, because and then the week after is the week of Hanukkah comes very early this year so what we'd like to do is see if we can find dates the week of November 2 and November 16 that work for everyone where we could try to get meetings in and I think if we can do that we'll be able to close the week of the 16th. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Are we going to try to focus on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I would like to but we certainly other dates are are in the cards if that's easier. So I know that Tuesday the second is technically election day but there are no elections in the town of Arlington so that we can still meet on that evening. I'm unavailable in the second. Sorry. Okay. How do we is the fourth of possibility, either the third or the fourth is Thursday and the third is Wednesday. Correct. And it would be nice to meet once that that week, if we can. Absolutely. So usually Paul schedule is the hardest one. I am not available on the fourth I am available on the third. Okay. Everyone else available on the third. I would be. Yes. Yes. Perfect. Okay, so we will use the third. And then would we prefer to try to meet later on the ninth. Or would we prefer to try for a different day that week or what seems better for people. I'm available on the ninth. I'm assuming if we start with 730 with the other two hearings, Melvin wrote it, I think it's probably. Miss fellow really what's the. What's Melvin wrote about your call. A lot of addition. It's a lot of addition. Now web searches can be a little complicated so we. Starting at 730 for those we probably starting deliberations at nine. I'd rather move it to another day personally then. Are the 10th or the 11th possibility. I'm not available on the 10th. I am available on the 11th. How people feel about meeting on the 11th. Mr Mills is a thumbs up. I'm fine. Okay. And then should it be necessary the week of the 16th. Available the 15th and the 16th. Is the 16th work for people. Yeah. Okay. So we'll. Meet. Next week on the third. On Thornback place will be the following week on the 11th. And the week thereafter on the 16th. And hopefully on the 16th, we'll be able to. Finish things up. And stop sharing on that. So this is the draft decision from October 13. I think it's a little bit different. It may look slightly different at the word. It's the copy has converted. Back into word. So at the hearing on Tuesday. Pat had a couple of. The recommendations about how we might want to proceed this evening. And I believe the recommendation was to start with the start from the beginning of the meeting. Through those and then. Double back. Correct that. Yeah. Work through that. And I, I would do it through waivers first. And then conditions. And then go back to the findings last. That's partly due to the fact that it's easy to get bogged down. In wordsmithing on findings. And the conditions are usually more discreet. In terms of how we might make the decisions. And how we might make the decisions that are binding. And so consequently, there's a legal drafting. I personally have got some thoughts as to how we might make the. Findings. Explain better what the rationale of the decision is in a way that's somewhat more transparent. And that would, that again, takes time because that's not just fiddling with one paragraph. So I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. And I certainly would like to be able to move that in towards the end rather than try to deal with it on the fly. At the beginning. So I'd start with the waivers because I think those are the clearest. And then go to the conditions and do the findings last. Find everyone. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. So I have a couple of process questions. And I think these are probably for Mr. Chairman. I would like to know that during the period of our deliberation, are we able to consult with him, town council. And attorney Whitten, should we so desire. You are able to consult with town council in with special town council during the deliberation process. I've never heard of any suggestion to the. Okay. And then. So I'll let them then you wouldn't be allowed to consult with me during this process either. So we should be able to. I think that you would be allowed to, yes. Yes. And then the other question I have, and I think it's already been addressed is. You know, if we're working backwards and we go to waivers and then we go to conditions. We're not actually going to vote on those. We're just sort of discussing how they might be worded. Or what the actual language should be. Or what the intent of those particular paragraphs are. We're not going to vote. My concern is we're not going to vote on those after we're done with that particular section so that we're really reserving. Our final decision until the very end of the process. As I understand it. That is correct. Yeah. They'll just be the one vote at the end. Okay. All right. That's all. Thanks. All right. So with that. Thank you. So the first couple of these, I think are fairly straightforward. I don't think there's any disagreement. The first waiver. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Sorry to, sorry to jump in, but. As I was reviewing my notes from some of the hearings. I recall a number of public commenters. They were asking a preference that the board us. Deny the application and they would seem to want to do. Sort of. Prefer to go the appeal route if necessary. Without expressing an opinion one way or the other. I wanted to see to just ask my colleagues how they felt about that request. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There, there as the chair stated earlier, there'll be a time. When we're going to have a motion at the end. Presumably, I'm assuming that during the course of the discussion, the changes that are made to a draft opinion will be taken as the thing that we'd vote for if we were voting for adopting an opinion. I think that would probably be better. I think that would probably be better. I think the possibility of just denying it all together. And there, there are a couple of ways of doing that. One is to vote on the. Opinion and, and, and decision. And if that fails to get a suitable majority, then that acts as a. As a denial, although it would probably be better. I think to. To move denial or a motion to just say, I think that would be better. I think that would be better. I think that. Could be made before we get to the opinion. That would basically be saying as good as we've been able to make the draft decision. We still don't think it passes muster. And we think that, that we should deny it. That would enable everybody to go on record. If that's what they want to do. On whether. And whether to just outright deny it. And if that motion passes, it passes. That would be to. To approve the decision before us. That. I think that makes sense. Reserving it until later. Mr. Chairman, may I just have a point of clarity on that. The point was said that if we were to just. Deny and so the neighbors could exercise their appeal rights. It's my understanding that if we deny this petition. my understanding that if we deny this petition that no appeal rights that the applicant can go to the housing appeals committee and try and to their original application over 200 units and the neighbors cannot do anything about that because they can only appeal our decision to approve or approve with conditions. Is that correct? That is correct Mr. O'Rourke. There is no standing for any party other than the applicants to file an appeal if the board issues a denial. In that instance they wouldn't have any right to intervene in appeal to the housing appeals committee. They wouldn't have the right to file a separate appeal to the land court or the superior court. They would be left with in a position of having to rely upon the board to defend its own decision. Mr. Chairman. Suppose if the, I'm assuming, how does it actually work if this actually goes to court? I mean to the outset to the extent to which our opinion wouldn't aggrieve somebody who wants us to deny it, we're doing what they want. So presumably they wouldn't have the ability to appeal that and they can't intervene before the HAC. So if HAC basically agrees with the applicant or comes out with a favorable decision from the applicant's point of view, what recourse then would the residents or the people who oppose this to be, what would be their recourse in court? At that point they would be aggrieved by whatever the decision of HAC was if it favored the applicant. Theoretically they could attempt to file a Chapter 30A appeal of the Housing Appeals Committee decision. There would be a question as to whether or not they have a right to file that appeal since they weren't a party to the original proceeding. There is some discretion in the superior court to allow a party to intervene into an appeal if they are going from a non-agreed status to an agreed status, which would be the case if the Housing Appeals Committee overturns a denial in issues and approval based upon whatever project the applicant decides to pursue at the Housing Appeals Committee. Okay, thank you. Welcome. Are there questions along these lines? Then with that, so turning back to the draft decision and the waivers. The first was a request for a waiver from Title III, Article I, Section 22, Use of Streets for Construction Demolition Materials, and this was a request of permit from the Board of Public Works and Town Engineer, including a bond requirement for work adjacent to public ways and for the use of public ways to place building materials and or rubbish. The applicant requests a waiver, except for the bonding requirements. So my understanding of this, the waiver is being denied. The applicant requested a waiver of the procedural requirements and the exception and the waiver that's unnecessary for comprehensive permit applications, as all of their local approval processes are subsumed into a comprehensive permit application. The applicant has not set forth any substantive waiver requests of this section. There were no waiver grants. The applicant did not request that that be waived or did not, sorry, object to that interpretation. And there was no further comment from our, from Beta, so I think that one was, is there any questions? I think we're fine there. Number two was of Article Title, excuse me, Title V, Article V of the Town Wetland Protection Law, requesting a waiver, procedural, jurisdictional requirements, applications, these costs, regulations, et cetera. And similar to the first one, the recommendation to deny the waiver, that the waiver, not to use a request for a waiver from the procedural requirements under the Wetlands Bylaw. The request is denied as unnecessary as the procedural requirements of other local permitting processes are assumed into this comprehensive process. To the extent that this waiver seeks substantive waivers such as jurisdictional requirements, policies, et cetera, the waiver request is overly broad in this therefore denied. And again, that was in the comments that were submitted by applicants. They did not press that. Number three, in Wetlands Protection Section two, area subject to jurisdiction, the applicant requests a waiver, these sections waive the area adjacent to upland resource area as resource areas to allow portions that were already be created completed as compensatory flood storage and or emergency access areas as shown in the approved plans. So this one, they would need a waiver in order to complete the project. And the recommended action was to allow the grant to allow the waiver to allow work within the aura as shown on the plan, but to waive the aura as a resource area in general would be denied. So this would basically just allow them to work in the limited areas of the aura. I believe there's a small portion at the rear of the building where the pathway goes around the back for emergency access and then the location of the compensatory flood storage. That's what this would allow. And there was no, the applicant had not issued any statement in regards to that one. Number four, kind of our election public regulations vegetation and removal replacement requires an application process in which the applicant must list all species, existing and all proposal please, including specific requirements for deciduous trees, organism jobs. So the waiver that applicant has requested that the waiver be granted and the conservation commission and beta have recommended that it's not be allowed. And the description would be the waiver was denied as unnecessary project is providing habitat restoration in the location of the two to one floodplain compensation area and will also be providing habitat restoration of the rear acres that will remain undeveloped. Such restoration efforts should follow the guidance provided by the regulations of section 24. And there was additional language that was also provided by the conservation commission. So they had an extended version of that which would be the waiver is denied project providing habitat restoration relocation to one floodplain compensatory storage, excuse me floodplain compensation area and also some grading revegetation of the outer aura. Such restoration of revegetation efforts should follow the guidance provided by the regulations in section 24 for protection of resource areas establishment of a healthy diversified native community within the two to one floodplain compensation area will provide a resilient habitat and a resource area that protects the interests it must replicate including protection of flood control groundwater and wildlife habitat. The guidance found in section 24 vegetation removal and replacement is critical to the long term success of this mitigation area whereby providing important public benefit. So in regards to this waiver that which I just read which is the the recommendation from the conservation commission in their October 14 letter to the board. Mr. Chairman. Hanlon. I wondered if Mr. Havity could comment a little bit. My I was going along with the ACC fine for a while but then we got it got to be pretty long and much of it of the discussion didn't seem that it seemed to be a general more general than necessary to support the to support the denial of the waiver and I wonder if it would be appropriate to do some of that and not all of it. Unfortunately we don't have that language exactly in front of it me and I can't keep it in my head is just to remember it. I'm trying to find where it is in the October 14th letter but it's hard to it's hard to do that. Yeah let me see if I can bring it up. I believe it's page two of the letter going into page three and I'm sorry page one. Right I got it. This text hearing. Okay having I mean having read it it doesn't seem nearly as long reading it as it does hearing it it looks all right to me. I think it does a very good job of explaining specifically why we are denying this. We do we move to accept certain language is that how we proceed Mr. Chair. So typically what we I think what we had done last time was if there were you know we just sort of we would present it and ask if there's any questions or comments and then we sort of decide if this is what we're going to keep or if we're going to move or if we want to go with a different version. So I think go to ask if is there any objection to maintain to going with the language by the Conservation Commission in regards to waiver four. No objection. All right move on to number five. This is in regards to section 25 adjacent resource areas. This is similar to number this was number four where the waiver is branded while I work within the or as shown in the approved plan but the request to leave you as a resource area general is denied. Sorry Mr. Chairman. Yes please. I was trying to get to my button here to what I was I was actually reading my copy of the language that we had up before. In in this one doesn't the doesn't Oh you're back on mute Roger. There we go. Sorry about that. So so didn't it say though in the language that prior to what we're seeing now that it was saying it was denied as unnecessary. So in their October 14 letter they had their recommendation was to repeat the same response as waiver number three which is waiver granted to allow workers in the or as shown in the approved plans request to waive or as a resource area in general is denied. Okay so we're not we're not framing it in terms of being denied as unnecessary then if we accept this language. That's correct because I think this is not actually a procedural matter. I just wanted to clarify because one said unnecessary and the other did not so I'm fine thank you. Further any objections to five none. I'm sorry Mr. Chair. The number five using the ACC language using the ACC language yes okay this brings us to Okay this brings us to number six. So this is the bond question. So the recommendation for the conservation commission is to reject the is to deny the waiver. So we had some discussion over at the prior hearing with the applicant in terms of what was appropriate and I know they were very opposed at the start but it sounded towards the end like they were not completely as opposed as they were initially. So in the September 20th memo from Beta Group they they had a memo and then they had documentation supporting it so the the value here the $173,900 is the approximate replacement cost for all the vegetation on the property which is how we had arrived at a figure for 1165R Mass Ave and had done the same calculation just there it was a significantly smaller impact area whereas here it is much more considerable so that's where that value comes from so we cannot we can maintain that amount we can choose a smaller amount we just whatever number we provide we just need to make sure that we can justify it. Here's what people think on this point. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. It seems to me that I would go with the language that the conservation commission has. I think that the explanation that this is just a very different project from 1165R is persuasive there's much more work that needs to be done and we have a justification of the amount that is proposed by the ACC we could we could go higher or lower but I don't have any basis at least in what I know to pick any other number than that one it would just be an arbitrary compromise of some kind so I would I would propose accepting the ACC's language here. Do we need any additional explanation as to why that number or is just referencing the memo from Beta Groups Efficient? Mr. Chairman I had a question the the land from the ACC October 14th memo doesn't state the number correct it just says to follow Beta's recommendation so would we be adopting the language in paragraph six of the decision as we look at it with the number or the language that the ACC has a number six or a combination of the two. So that the figure comes from a September 20th memo from Beta Groups speaking out here. Do you know if there was a reason that the ACC left out the number and just said as requested by the data? The only reason I could think of is that it was Beta who had put forward the figure. Mr. Chairman yes please. We should we should keep in mind that the language that appears in the October 14th letter is not necessarily intended to be language actually used in the decision that is really up to us but in each case the form of the ACC's letter is to make a recommendation and then state its own justification to us as to why it is we should adopt its recommendation. I think it is helpful to use their justification where we agree with it as part of the explanation but here when the ACC is agreeing with Beta's recommendation I think that that to me at least that implies a agreement with their calculation as to what is required and as I remember from the hearing last week or the was last last week Ms. Chapnick did not present did did not dissent for that or suggest that some other number was appropriate. In fact she sort of as I recall emphasized that the adjustment reduced the estimate considerably and was another reason why it should be thought of as reasonable. On the screen so this is the memo that was prepared. I don't remember the reasoning behind the adjusted estimate I meant to highlight that before I brought this up. Oh here it is so that for the woodland restoration areas assume the entire restoration area will not be cleared and grub for invasive species management therefore the number of plants will not be as high as calculated. In addition it's assumed that not all vegetation will need to be replaced based on the assumption the cost of planting is divided by four and similarly they divided in the compensatory storage area by two which is how they arrived with that figure of $173,900. Mr. Chairman the panel as a way of dealing with this I wonder whether we could tentatively approve this at the $173,900 level and then take up an opportunity of the next couple of days to refer back to the hearing and for this discussion to see if there's anything there that would lead us to either make that higher or lower or take some other or or leave it indefinite. At this point we have you know sort of the number that beta has and a general sense that the ACC agreed with it but but there's unless somebody can remember exactly what was said the best way to go about resolving that is to go back and look at it. And Mr. Chairman I agree with Mr. Hamlet maybe adding that language from the ACC number justification. Okay I'll put a note there to return it next session on that one. Okay Mr. Chairman if I'm willing to volunteer to look at it I mean everybody who wants to can but I will make sure I do so that I can have it in my mind next time. Let's see if that is all right. Number seven is the wetland consultants fees so again this is one where the applicant is looking for us to waive. We had approved funds for this at an $11.65 ARMS app for these reviews so you can see the strikeout was the request and then that's the spell commission. The commission needs to retain the funds for potential peer review needs due to the complexity of the project the uncertainty in several aspects of the proposal including uncertainty in groundwater elevations. So this funds applies to the town bylaw stuff that falls under the town bylaw only it does not include funds for reviews that would come under the state wetlands bylaw. The state wetlands bylaw they can apply for independent deputy review funds for that and so this is to support the review of work under the conditions and it basically needs to support if they need to hire a consultant to assist them in the review of the materials that are that they'll be assisting in the review of Mr. Chairman. Yes please. My notes actually have in the side Haverty has language on this and so while he looks stunned let me just let me just you know the key thing is what the chair just said that that we can't prescribe funds for them to implement the state act that there's another procedure for that but there are conditions that are being imposed here in lieu of what the board would in lieu of what the conservation commission would do if it were in the ordinary course establishing conditions under here and my understanding was that the justification of this is that this is a fairly complex thing and they may need funds for help in assessing the way in which the these were these were carried out when we dealt with this under 1165 R we also had language that Mr. Haverty suggested mentioning that the board that the town would was expected normally to provide its own expertise here and that this is for work that is beyond what is within the capability of the town but in any event the conservation commission here is looking towards consistency with the 1165 R decision and we dealt with this kind of question there so that being said I wonder if Mr. Haverty can comment on what the language is we should use here Mr. Chairman I don't actually see the need for this waiver at all and they don't see that the reason why it needs to be denied the conservation commission has full authority to retain peer review consultants under the wetlands protection they don't have any authority under the local bylaw to retain peer review consultants for this project because they're not reviewing this project under the local bylaw you have already retained peer review consultants to review this proposal under the wetlands bylaw you don't need to do any additional review once this hearing is closed other than review of final plans and there's authorization within the body of your decision for the routine peer review consultants to review the final plans so I mean I ultimately I think this is a whole lot to do about nothing I don't see this as a waiver that should have been even requested because I don't think it's applicable oh I see so you would wrap up the bylaw you know applies to wetlands consultant fees for the review of the application right once this decision has been issued the review of the application is complete and nobody is going to be doing any additional review of wetlands under the local bylaw so there will be no need for consultant fees to undertake such review but wouldn't there still be a requirement to review the final plans there is still a requirement to review the final plans and there is language in the body of the conditions that allows the board to retain peer review consultants and as Mr. Hanlon noted only to the extent that there is a lack of sufficient local expertise to actually review the plans themselves but again that we you don't need to rely upon this particular section for that but ultimately I think waiver denied is fine I don't think you need to to really include any language beyond that because at minimum if you did get to a point of an argument you know at a later time about the rights for the board the conservation commission board to impose consultant fees as they relate to the wetlands you probably don't want to have waived this Mr. Chairman Hanlon so excuse me the the explanation that's given by the conservation commission is that what they're interested in is potential peer review and technical assistance needed during project construction because of the complexity of the project and uncertainties in some areas of the proposal including uncertainty in groundwater elevations through the site as I recall what this was intended to be to refer to was not technical assistance in the course of our coming to our decision but technical assistance in the course of enforcing our decision or ensuring compliance with the conditions that are otherwise going to be are otherwise going to be imposed it may very well be that we ought to just punt on this but I'd hate for the record to show I'm not convinced that there's no occasion in which the board I mean ultimately the issue here is whether in reality the conditions are being complied with and that that may involve technical expertise I don't actually know exactly where we would go or who has the right to get that expertise so maybe it would be better just to say denied and not to expand beyond that but I wouldn't want the record to reflect that we all agreed that that no one was entitled to anything because we may need we may need to to work on this later on so I guess at the end of the day I'm happy with just saying denied but leaving open that that there may be occasions where we may need to seek funds Mr. Chair yes sir um if I may I'd like to read some of my notes from the hearing on October 20th where this was discussed please so for Ms. Kiefer I have her saying paraphrased for waiver number 7 Ms. Kiefer suggests the regulation was not intended to require continuous review it's for reviewing the NOI and order of conditions under the state wetlands act she suggests the board deny the waiver is an us as unnecessary the conservation conservation commission can request chapter 53 g funds when permitting under the state wetlands act Susan Chapnick responded that she was okay with denying as unnecessary provided that Ms. Kiefer's legal argument is correct and then I have Mr. Havardy saying Mr. Havardy states that Ms. Kiefer's legal argument is correct the comprehensive permit does not take away the conservation commission's ability to review the project under the state wetlands act so that's what I have for waiver 7 okay the waiver denied is unnecessary what was that last sentence you had there that was helpful I thought hope you're you're muted now though sorry about that uh the last sentence I read was the comprehensive permit yeah doesn't take away the conservation commission's ability to review the project under the state wetlands act apart from my short hand does that sound to everyone and I'll fix that afterwards okay number eight we have moved beyond the conservation commission once um so from so the waiver is denied as I'm this is about the exterior placement dumpsters and they're intending to put them on the inside so we had said the waiver was denied as unnecessary I was going to propose adding to it the dumpsters will be internal to the apartment building per the provided plans relocation of the dumpsters to an exterior location will be considered a substantial change requiring a public hearing I think it's fine and clear and hopefully his stuff will never need to worry about so mr chairman the only thing I would say about that is you would still need to go through the process of making a determination okay proposed to move them to an outside location you would still have to go through the process of actually formally declaring that the change is a substantial change that requires a public hearing okay so should we do we need the second sense or is it just for redundant I I think my only concern is including it might leave you in a position where a request for a change comes in you don't act on it within your time frame so I think I would delete it okay because if you if you don't act within the I think it's 15 days on the request for modification then it's automatically approved oh I see okay you don't want to run into a situation where you think well this is obviously you know per the decision it's a substantial change therefore we're going to schedule a public hearing which is 30 days no that 15 day period yeah rather than run the risk of running into that circumstance I think you better off just leaving it silence this way you know you have to go through the process of making the determination and scheduling the public hearing okay so waiver number nine water management the applicant had recommended if you waived storm water will be managed in accordance with mass steps storm water policy and technical guidance unless otherwise exempt storm water be managed in accordance with the cpa Mr. Chair yes sir I had a couple of questions about this so I do understand that the section of the bylaw provides that the engineering division reviews the storm water systems and I understand that what they're saying is that that's not going to be needed because it's going to be done according to DEP and EPA but who in fact is responsible for reviewing an approval that I take it's the state and the federal government so do we not have any part whatsoever to play in making sure that they are in fact conforming to those requirements that's a good question I was going to say locally I mean the applicant has you know done a storm water design that has been reviewed by the peer review consultants and so we don't have any there's there's not a stated concern that this that there's an issue specifically with this with the storm water system I was also I'm wondering if this is supposed to be waived I mean I'm denied because it's a procedural and covered under the comprehensive permit but I do appreciate your question about if this is under MASTEP and under US EPA who is responsible for those. Mr. Chairman the Conservation Commission has jurisdictions to review and make determinations regarding compliance with the NASA EEP storm water management policy as part of its process. That's one of the determinations that they have to make as part of issuing water conditions so that essentially that goes without saying that essentially yep and then I had another question and this is more informational so if you're looking at the DEP storm water policy and then the EPA storm water etc if those are to be amended over time whatever those policies are during the course of the construction does the applicant then have to conform to the amended versions of these policies? It's difficult to answer that question without actually reviewing whatever the proposed change would be. Yeah they may actually address that in terms of whether it's applied prospectively or whether it's retroactively. Generally speaking once they have an order of conditions they're subject to whatever requirements were in place as of the date of the issuance of that order of conditions. On the federal level it would probably be the same once they got the local approvals any changes to federal requirements wouldn't be applicable to the project. And just to understand the timeline a little bit better so the issuance of the order of conditions from the Conservation Commission comes relatively soon after we were to if we approved it with conditions. It doesn't have to I mean it's in the applicant's best interest I mean if they want to get to the point where they're able to pull the building permit for this the sooner they get their order of conditions the better off it is for them. There's nothing that says they can't wait two years and file in. But should they as long as they wait during that pendency if the policies were to change either at the state or federal level then if the orders of conditions haven't haven't actually issued then they would likely be subject to whatever any amendments would be. Right okay right the issuance of the Comprehensive Permit doesn't as far as I'm aware does not provide them any sort of protection as it relates to the state wetlands protection acts or any federal requirements they would have to have received approvals under those provisions in order to have. Thank you. So it sounds therefore that we would basically be saying waiver denied it's unnecessary because all local permitting processes are subsumed into the comprehensive permit application no waiver if this provision is required. I don't know that we've been made aware of any substantive requirements of this provision that are being requested to be waived so it does seem as though it's a procedural labor. Yeah because this is a sexual requires engineering division review and approval that's all they're saying so we can go and we can review what it actually says and determine if there's an issue. And the issuance of the Comprehensive Permit is the issuance of the local approval under this plan. Correct okay so I will I'll check on that before the next hearing. Um number 10 uh acute protection tree protection and preservation um waiver denied is unnecessary and this there was some question about what it required but this is based on the 2016 bylaw um not the more recent bylaw and I believe uh I think Steve you notes have this oh I believe ever at the end everyone sort of agreed that this was fine. Yeah so let's see so wait that is not waiver 10 and all right I don't uh that one didn't come up on the 10th but let's see okay we'll see what uh let me do some skimming. Well on the applicants copy of the draft markup from September 24 they had it in here as waiver denied is unnecessary. So I found it we did talk about it on the 10th it was just earlier it kind of came up during public comment. Oh I see okay okay so um so this was in response to uh Steve Moore yeah during the public comment period raised the question um about it I wrote he's concerned about covenants being oh regarding waiver 10 that means working with the tree warden and submitting a tree plan and then I have Ms. Kiefer says the applicant agrees to work with the tree warden the open space parcel was not a sudden change the original plan was to convey it to a third party there will be a conservation restriction the parcel will be available for recreation and can be used by the public those are public benefits which are desired by the town there's also been hesitancy part of the town so basically so all it looks like all I have is that the applicant the applicant agreeing to work with the tree warden okay oh and there's another it does come up again uh Susan stamps yeah um regarding waiver 10 Ms. Stamps understands that the applicants have to comply with the 2016 version of the tree by law she asked if the applicants will have to submit a tree plan showing the location of all trees that are located within the setback and have a diameter of at least 10 inches and pay replanting fees. Ms. Kiefer says the applicants will present a tree plan they're not required to have it approved because the comprehensive permit subsumes all others and then a little later Ms. Noyes says that they intend to comply with the ordinance though she's not sure how unsauce removal of unsafe trees will be counted. Okay so if we deny the waivers unnecessary because the local permitting processes are substitute which is the comprehensive permit application does that get us into any issues with those statements because they have agreed to provide the plan. I think that this waiver decision should note that the tree plan shall be submitted as part of the final plan if they don't believe you received it yet. Mr. Chairman yep just to underscore that the um in order to figure out whether you that regardless of whether the tree warden approves the tree plan or not you need the tree plan in order to decide whether the applicant is complying with the sub substantive provisions at some point there has to be an identification of the trees and what it is they have to pay for and what it is that they don't and so it seems to me that it's impossible really to divorce the tree plan from the substantive provisions of the act the details of administration it could be but basically you're going to have to have a tree plan in order to be able to enforce the substance and provisions of the bylaw. Okay and Mr. Chair I believe you added yes yes looks good okay it's on to number 11 so 11 12 and 13 are all requests to waive these and we are just denying those and they have not objected in the prior set of comments which brings us to number 14 um that's waiver of spurious not best by definitions the applicant is not submitted sufficient information to the board to make informed decisions or waiving where we are denying the waiver 15 um so the waiver granted to allow construction is shown on the approved plans I'm not sure why I put for discussion I don't know if there's any real discussion about that I think this just can't proceed unless we 15 16 uh it's use regulations waiver denied is unnecessary there's a comprehensive permit so it assumes all of their local property processes the applicant is not required to change special permit for the projects and the applicant is detailed no substantive waivers of the these sections that are necessary waiver request is denied use the waiver requests 17 uh tension density and dimensional regulation section and it's basically just sort of a blanket request um so this waiver is denied the board addresses the more specific waiver requests below 18 uh across the waiver front yard side yard setback under section 628 requiring 25 foot setback for each front yard setback proposed to the town homes on dorthy road at 20 feet in the southwest part of the senior residential building rear yard setback is 18.7 feet from the lot line due to the odd configuration of the property lines no adjacent buildable property is impacted by the rear yard that says rear year so change year to yard setback waiver um waiver granted to allow construction is shown on the approved plans 19 uh building in floodplains no substantive waivers requested please excuse me going back to the last one yeah just so when i'm missing anything they're probably missing several other zoning um parameters in there besides setbacks like free space etc do we know if they've got the 25 foot free space in the allots etc the open space is waiver number 20 okay and there's yeah i believe they meet the height requirements yeah they met height they met floor area ratio and there should be one for parking both for the number of spaces provided for the multifamily building and uh some of the townhouses are only getting one space instead of the two that were required in 2016 yep the special permit this one is is tonight is unnecessary because they don't need to obtain a special permit because they're getting a comprehensive permit number 20 is the open space regulations section says for the minimum requirement of 10% landscaping 10% usable open space for apartments in the qd zoning district the applicant requests a waiver to allow for less than 10 usable open space um and this is the applicant had to the waiver needs to be granted but the applicant has agreed to set aside 12 of the 17.7 acres of open space in lieu of strict appearance to the 10 usable open space requirement as that term may narrowly be construed under the bylaw so i guess as a question as to whether we want to consider the rest of the lot of which we you know we don't fully understand what the disposition of those 12 acres are really going to be in the end who's going to be taken over who's going responsible for them etc do we want to put that second sentence in or do we just want to say that the waiver is granted mr chairman my recommendation is just to leave it out we were granted i agree i agree with that too i'm sorry so leave it as is or just as we were granted leave it out we were granted okay perfect okay so 21 was one that they got stuck in a little later it's about the sign permitting um because this is one we had discussed at the previous hearing um the board actually waver granted only to allow the one brown sign not to exceed 24 square feet they had requested four by six um and one canopy side sign not to exceed the size of the face of the proposed entry canopy uh directional and other signs to be limited to two square feet per sign because the bylaw only allows one square foot per sign any questions with that one 22 off street parking the amount of parking proposed by the applicant was deemed appropriate by the peer review engineer so that was added by here we go added by the applicant spaces oh wait a second sorry my number's off on this one yeah so the last sentence there was added um by the applicant i don't know if we want to retain that in the waiver request Mr. Chairman if you do want to retain it i would actually bring it down to the next section after waver granted because that's really a justification for the granting okay not really describing the waiver that's requested right and mr. chairman i don't even know why we would need to retain it fine with that as well and then this is a good place i think we've discussed as mr mills noted that or mr. evick had noted that they were requesting two additional parks they needed two additional parking waivers in regards to the duplex units let's go to mr chair i believe that's toe that is one way common mistypings in addition two of the duplex units shall be allowed to have one parking space only mr. chairman yes mr. handlin i would the description of the application the description of the request for a waiver doesn't refer to these two duplex units it's i don't remember exactly which document or which statement it was with where it was added but it seems to me that in order to that we shouldn't just sort of grant a waiver that as far as we've indicated hasn't been asked for so i would we would i think we should probably put in the in the heading that they've asked for the two you know the two cases in which they have only one parking space and then we can just grant it okay looking back at my notes from the last hearing uh for waiver 22 miss kiefer requests the language include a statement about the duplex parking there were two parking spaces required in 2016 and some of the units will have only one space and duplex units will only be required to provide one she said a two that seems fair we'll go time with that 23 parking loading space standards limit the number of compact spaces 20 percent applicants requesting a waiver to allow possibly 25 percent um again waiver granted to allow construction is shown on the approved plans in basically because of the way they are from doing the parking underneath the the building posts in the basement level parking brings us to number 24 article 10 section 10.2 section 3 of its permits would be because structures that do not comply with the substantive provisions is only bylaws waiver granted to allow construction is shown on the approved plans straightforward next one 25 that's for special permit review requirements for the board or they are on to redevelopment for board start with redevelopment authority that'd be that's right this board loves the duration of the special permits to two years staff can't request a waiver the procedure requirements for special permits also request a waiver of the two-year lapse provision waiver denies unnecessary because comprehensive permits assumes all other local permitting waiver the special parts are required the board grants the substantive waiver of the two-year lapse provision contained in section 10 11 so that the comprehensive permit shall lapse if substantial use is not commenced within three years as set forth in the regulation any questions with that one I think that's straightforward uh next one 26 under variances waiver denied is unnecessary applicant is not required to obtain variance is a part of comprehensive permit application the court of provisions are not applicable 27 floodplain district special permit requirement for use is within the floodplain waiver denied is unnecessary the applicant is not required to obtain waivers and special permit requirements as all of the local permits are assumed and then the same with the inland wetland district um the same response 29 um I was just going to just to clarify this d4 d5 and d6 um and then e and f under edr but then again the waiver is denied is unnecessary the applicant is not required to obtain waivers and procedural requirements for special permits um and then substantive waiver contemporary just I don't know why that's here oh the applicant also requests a substantive waiver of the signage requirement to allow for temporary construction signage is allowed by the building vector I I don't see why that would be required I think they're required to do I think they're allowed to have things with or without edr 30 affordable housing requirements um and request a waiver to allow compliance with the requirements of the subsidizing agency yeah so it's granted so it does indicate that it's because of the subsidizing agency that it's being granted so that's fine um 31 uh property permit regulations request a waiver to allow for an application does not so this is our own permit special permit regulations um and it's in regards to what they're supposed to be providing in terms of the documentation and essentially they have provided us the documentation if we feel they provided the documentation we need to to decide on the application then the waiver is fine are there any other questions on these I know there was one I was going to be looking up um and I believe there was one that Pat was going to be following up on yeah I think Pat is following up on number six there is one oh I'm sorry um I did Mr. Depont you first all right I'll go ahead uh so I um I do have Ms. Key for asking for a verbal waiver of hours to allow work from 730 to 430 um but you know perhaps that's something we address in condition in the conditions section right the town bylaws the noise by ordinance yet allows from eight to six and we had the sort of a long discussion about starting a little earlier at 730 and you know kind of we went back and forth between various end times that I don't remember exactly if we ended up at 430 or 530 but um you know they were requesting um an adjustment there right so Paul where the town bylaws include a provision for uh essentially a provision for construction hours for exterior work do if if we're looking to limit those to different hours do we need to put down a waiver it would be preferable to make it clear that a waiver has been granted let me see if I can find it in the bylaw town bylaws okay so I believe it is title five article 12 that's titled noise title titled noise abatement if I say waiver granted is conditioned by the board then we can in our conditions we can give a specific time and I think then mr chairman yes please just suggest that when we when we go back over this eventually we'll have a condition that will relate to this in some way which may or may not actually involve a change in the noise regime we haven't really decided what to do and I didn't think that the neighbors were unanimous on that either but here I think that we could simply say that this is granted to allow the compliance with condition something or other and then we should specify what the condition is but we don't know that now because we haven't done it yet okay those are the waivers so I'll go ahead I'll clean this up and then we can come back I'll clean this up and then get this back out to everybody look back over so nine o'clock should we go to 9 30 and then call it a night so I think these first few conditions are really straightforward and they're just anyone has any specific things um did add under the the site the site drawings there's an unnumbered document called the potential conservation parcel which we've added in document that should be limited entity consists of not more than 12 duplex ownership units contained within six duplex structures of duplex ownership units 12 ownership units contained within six duplex structures together with 124 units in the residential apartment units there's no more than 12 four bedroom duplex ownership units let me come back to this because there's not 12 duplex ownership units there's 12 12 ownership units in six duplexes so come back and take a look at that again um mr. chair just a small procedural if you will formatting issue sometimes you repeat numbers as spelling them out and the numerics and sometimes we don't it just seems very inconsistent in the formatting okay now if we want to adopt one format or another consistently some of these we have 124 dash units so we can have 24 I can see the three-digit ones but you know we have a lot of two-digit ones that it spells out or not well I don't know if there's any rationale in the formatting actually with that particular one I think it should read a with a 124 dash unit yes you're living a 124 unit apartment building consisting of and then would we do 58 the chairman yeah um you know I hate to to descend from the consensus of my profession but I've always thought that that I don't think there's any danger that anyone is going to misread that 58 and doing and making the repetition doesn't seem to me to be advantageous so you know I I would just go with using using all one or the other but I I prefer to use the number just because it's easier to read and is clearer I agree with Pat just a formatting issue and consistency as long as we spell the numbers correctly but I think we're going with not spelling the numbers right that's right right but if you spell one you want to spell 112 1 2 and not say 2 3 because your fingers yeah anyway this is this is fine I agree with mr. Handler okay next to 95 vehicle parking spaces exclusive of the required handicapped spaces for senior living parts building duplex will have driveway parking for two vehicles per dwelling unit with the exception of the end units with one parking space in the side rear of the duplex unit so that was the one we just added the exception to cover um the waiver list attached your choosing so says here that the waiver list is attached to exhibit a but it's not actually labeled exhibit a um I just leave it as attached here too seems right otherwise that's pretty much boilerplate seven plans in the 45-day period for review some premises transferred ready to compensate binding of the possessors that end restriction shall apply to the home where the product gradle is a stale transfer of some of the property prior to the regulatory agreement that the sizing agency is not otherwise expired a 10 some of the cons go sidewalks the sidewalks driveways where as you go to and all other on-site infrastructure on the approved plans accepting the existing server as serving the project shall remain private and perpetuity in the town shall not have an hour in the future any legal responsibility for the operation or maintenance of the infrastructure so I think the question that was being raised so the sidewalks that are on the public way do we need to treat them differently well I guess if the sidewalks were in the public way would they be considered on-site so have any of you I wonder and I don't believe they would it specifically limits us to on-site yes I can't just can't remember if the sidewalk on Dorothy that's technically on their property or if it's still within the right-of-way but I guess if it's far enough back that it's on their property then it's on-site it doesn't matter that's all section a which is Mr. Chairman yes Mr. Hanlon I'm a little nervous about it in a 10 it is recognized that the storm grain storm grain easement running out of the site in the existing sewer easement or the legal obligation of the town to remain I don't think that we have the authority to concede anything on behalf of the town I don't know whether that's true or not I assume it is but I wonder whether it's necessary for us to for us to do that it in general I think that things in the conditions that purport to propose to pose obligations on anything anyone other than the applicant are probably inappropriate and it's sort of a sort of an extension to that recognizing a proposition of what our legal obligations are without thorough study at least uh doesn't seem like something that we need to or should do I agree with that Mr. Chairman say thank you Mr. Hanlon absolutely any other questions on the a's except the last look at that wording see if I want to propose the next one all right brings on to section b on affordability key first comment uh mess housing is charged for the programmatic aspects of the project additional conditioning may inadvertently be viewed as overstepping the role of the zba Mr. Chairman I don't think that this is overstepping it's simply noting what the board is presuming the subsidizing agency will require and then presuming that it does requiring them to share copies this was from I that is my comment I um took that language from the 1165 our decision okay you should be maintained as affordable and perpetuity which is the purpose of the decision to meet as long as property is not complied with applicable zoning or other local requirements without the benefit of the conference requirement and that is exactly what we had on 1165 bar three rules of the agency fair market plan so so this is the local preference question so at um you know this the board may impose up to I think it's up to 70% for local preference where the the board can limit occupancy to specific classes of people based on their residents in the town or they're working for the town and we had decided 1165 are not to impose that to allow for the a greater pool of applicants for the affordable units and I believe that the the question then before the board is do we want to adopt that same posture here or do we want to impose a local preference and chairman Mr. Hanlon um in I think in essential respects this is the in the same position and covered by the same rationale as 1165 are uh it it may actually even be stronger here because I'm guessing and I wouldn't rely on this particularly but I'm guessing the older population of Arlington is even more racially homogeneous than the population as a whole but in any event you know you're still you're still looking at restricting the pool of people from whom you are taking applicants to a population that has been affected by segregation intentional and unintentional for many many years and we should we should just not continue doing that any further questions on that or any of the other section b requests submission requirements and this is one that again there are some requests in here from the conservation commission and data in regards to the ones that are under their jurisdiction or would typically be under their jurisdiction um so again this is just the that ought to be a error I'll fix the number um that the board review final engineering drawings and plans such a cool purpose purpose to this provision is to ensure the final plans are indeed final if the conservation commission requires changes to the plans the part of the WPA process those changes have to be included on the final plans final plan should also incorporate all relevant conditions here in and requirements not otherwise waived by this decision to the permitting agencies having jurisdiction and seats to have 45 days believe the on the 1165 are there was a question about whether the town had to just respond within 45 days or whether they had to um they just had to acknowledge they've received them within 45 days I can't work I think that's elsewhere in the in the conditions so there's this section here submit to the board for administrative approval landscaping plan with the final plans and substantial performance of the planting plan including the plan signed by registered length of architect victim to following so this is very typical of just sort of the general lance you know the the landscaping around the building but the conservation commission had in their letter of October 14th had recommended another section so they have a landscape plan which is more towards what's governed under section 24 of the wetland regulations and so it's a I'm not sure if we should have two landscape sections one for this more about the the regular landscaping and then a separate one for the landscaping that falls under the wetland regulations or what people think we might want to do mr chairman hanlon um it seems to me that if we tried to combine them it would be it would end up being confusing um and assuming my recollection and and mr revelax recollection is always better than mine on figuring out what happened at a previous hearing but my recollection is that the thrust of the conservation commission had to do with the work that particularly I thought it was focused on the construction that would happen when providing the compensatory storage but more generally the vegetation that's necessary after that in any event there's some distinction between the two and I just you can solve that problem to a degree to just qualify one is sort of an on-site landscaping plan or some verbal formula that says that this is what it relates to and then the other one to talk about a wetlands one or some other uh phrase that that modifies it so it's you know landscaping plan a and landscaping plan b and the task is just to figure out what just to what the actual words are for for a and b and then you can separate them out but then but it will always be clear because the title of the section will be different as to what's required right so one this one here is substantively uh areas that are outside of the wetlands resource areas so that might be a reasonable way to do it so this is for areas outside the wetland resource areas and then the language that was provided by the conservation commission we could consider for areas within the resource areas for be just uh because this discussion came up earlier or at a prior hearing um we may want to the the through the issue of whether or not the term resource area includes adjacent upland resource areas yeah um so we may want to we may we may need to wordsmith of it a little differently like saying bvw i vw an area devoted to compensatory flood storage or lands ordinarily under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission or i'm ordering lands subject to flooding and the aura anyone of those those types of okay because at least the proposal by the by the commission um i'm not sure what he in the in the lead in paragraph it says given the extent of vegetation proposed to be removed within a resource area comma here blsf and aura and parentheses the applicant shall provide a landscape plan as provided in section 24 uh so i don't know exactly what the word here means uh but that does sort of specify which which things they're they're treating as resource areas for purposes of of this i don't know if it makes sense to say a section 24 landscape plan or something use that as a way of describing it it's a little bit tricky land into the jurisdiction of section 24 or in the area of land not under that jurisdiction section 24 stravity do you think that would work i think that would be fine mr chairman yeah just as we go through this we're doing a fair amount of uh addressing this i don't want to say on the on the fly although it sort of is on the fly but as we think through the solutions to these problems i'm kind of hoping that at the very end we we just have a read through uh perhaps mr havert you can do that just to reconcile things and there will certainly be things that will be off at astray because we're essentially doing this by committee and you know i'm beginning to have this feeling that that once we look back at it as a whole there'll be some various bits of ironing that need to be done to make it all fit together properly yeah and so certainly what i can do here with you know with the with the waivers and then with the conditions will we get to this evening i can clean those up so that um those can be distributed back out to the board that would be very much appreciated mr chair thank you absolutely so yeah so this here section d will be length game plan and then i will insert the language from the conservation commission for the following hearing um then here the applicant must provide a compensatory flood storage mitigation plan that proposed compensatory flood storage area to mitigate the negative impacts so the veteran's removal this is the one that had initially i think was initially proposed by the conservation commission um and had was originally in the finding section and we moved it down here um so i've taken that language and then there is further language in the uh the october 14 letter from the conservation commission which is then incorporated into here so the goal is to provide a temporary storage area for flood water as well as provide important wildlife habitat functions including important food source shelter monitoring or overwintering areas breeding areas for wildlife this flood storage area shall rectify the current adverse impact of the flood plain by providing a better replacements resource area said mitigation plans to provide the following um so their recommendation was to change to an 80 survival rate throughout which we've made the change um as mr hanlon had recommended for 1165 r there's the standard here of the american association of nursery men and then he provided language in case the american association of nursery men goes under what that means in that case that's in here um the monitor reports we submitted to the zba annually in june during the three-year monitoring period that's about and then so these sections in red were from the original but then they were not included in the most recent letter from the conservation commission um just wanted to get the board sent as to whether they wanted to maintain those or remove them and then the i think that was number six and seven and then number eight so uh mr fuchs had submitted a letter uh to the original april one and uh the mr river watershed association had similarly submitted letters um looking towards longer term um invasive plant management and reporting so basically that we you know if things are still not working out after three years that they continue their efforts but if they if things have worked over after three years then they can remain mr chairman yes i'm not clear what the difference is between number seven and number eight survivorship and health is different is distinct from the invasive species management goal both of them are dealing with what happens if it if goals aren't met in the third year um if eight just adds an additional goal that is i mean i'm not sure whether plant survivorship and health substantively is more is is a practical matter equivalent to target invasive species management goals but if it is then we already have it and if it isn't we could expand a little bit to put it within the structure we've got already right so this section is yeah compensatory start mitigation as to this this is not the invasive plant management plan which is a different plan yeah so maybe we're moving eight would not be detrimental to anything i mean i i see them and you know i this is i have a i i completely have a completely layperson's view of this but uh survivalship rate for the planting plant means you want the new plants to grow and invasives mean you you want it the invasives to stay away um i i think they're two different things with two different courses of action um and if we and if we do have another section devoted to invasive species management then you know perhaps five six seven eight eight but uh you know is is not worth retaining okay i'm trying to remember if the invasive plant is in here or if it didn't make it in yet mr chairman yes i'm a little worried about having the same problem we had with the landscape plan that you have something that relates to the compensatory uh the consumer compensatory uh flood storage and then something else that deals more broadly and that if we excluded here there's where i'm afraid that we might be be introducing a gap because the one doesn't completely cover the other and they need to be there to be complimentary even though the substance of obligation is similar and i don't i mean it seems to me we need to take a look at that and make sure that that the two provisions would fit together properly and in particular whether the invasive species plan is going to cover the compensatory storage construction right so the the invasive species management plan language is actually under i-28 and i think that's because this section here is prior to any construction or site development activities oh so okay so this is these are just submission requirements these are submission requirements which says release the question that you know these other portions that are going to occur afterwards do they were should they be here or should they be elsewhere or we could you scroll up i think it said that these are the it looks like this section is basically a list of what has to be in the mitigation plan yeah so it's not a requirement to actually do it it's a requirement to put it in a plan correct okay okay mr chairman yes sir going back up to three it makes a specific note yeah only native non-cultivated species shall be planted on the site yeah i would suggest taking out the non-cultivate i would encourage non-cultivated species to be specified did you want that non-cultivar in or out in more likely be beneficial to wildlife cultivators can be less beneficial for wildlife being bred for one thing or another size shape color okay so i remember we had gone back and forth on this a bit at 1165 trying to determine which was the right way to go mr chairman yes mr hand 1165 we followed the recommendation of the conservation commission which is the recommendation here is to not include the non-cultivar species but and i think that the language we have here might be taken from 1165 i'm not sure but it looks familiar okay you know the two are obviously different situations and and there was a special reason in 1165 is it was it was difficult to with 1165 with the way in which they were moving the stream it was difficult for the specific plan that the conservation commission had approved to be done and at the same time prohibit it or to the the cultivar species we don't really have a similar situation here so if it's the sense of the board the conservation commission isn't insisting on it here but if it's the sense of the board that we should do what mr mills suggests i don't think that would be inconsistent with the 1165 decision it just has a different there's there are different facts there i do remember that with 1165 it was basically we wanted to ensure that the decision permitted the applicants to plant as according to the plans the conservation commission had approved okay yeah so in in the language from the conservation commission they did not include noncultivar under this section they always said only native species shall be planted on site to establish a ground cover and native woody trebs and trees chairman that that would be fine with me i don't really care actually on this one i i just want to you know it's whatever the board comes up with it's it's not something that i think is is goes to the heart of the matter okay so mr mills if the conservation commission left noncultivar out are you comfortable taking it out as well or do you want to still leave it um i want to leave it in tell you the truth okay let's do it i do believe later on in the document it refers to using noncultivar species that may very well be mr chairman yeah i'm i'm drawing a blank here but what we're doing is saying which should be in in a plan and i'm trying to remember in each case is there a substantive condition later on saying the applicant has to comply with the plan we should make sure that there is i don't want to just assume that because they have a plan they have they they're legally obligated to follow it without making sure that's right the director of planning development construction mitigation plan which is dust control measure so there's a separate condition that deals with that's the construction management plan which needs to be coordinated with the building department and requires a public meeting and so it's recommending say we say well it'd be better even better with a verb this is separate from the construction management plan required by condition d2 make sure that we have that loaded other than mr heavy we can we can say they have to submit things to like the director of planning who can meet community development that's okay to require right that they don't have to do it necessarily through us that is correct in fact the hac decision law makes it clear that that's the preferred approach okay and this is the review of the final plans by the department of planning we can do development so does the so this doesn't this references the planning it doesn't reference inspectional services in the in this final in this review of the final plans but i think this is just for conformance with this decision and then the inspectional services would do them to issue a building permit is that correct mr averty so this paragraph g talks about submission to department of planning planning and community development and their review for conformance but this doesn't impact inspectional services requirement to still review the plans before issuance of a building permit correct absolutely okay building permit process is 100 different than the final approval process it's done under state law it's not part of the company and they have to complete this process before they're able to go and file it okay perfect thank you final plans for potential compliance this should be sufficient I'm going to include final design details of the proposed roof storm water storage system final plan shall show designated snow storage areas consistent with the area shown on the approved plans location of all utilities including but not limited to electric telephone a cable should be shown on the final plans all transformers and other electrical communication system provided shall be included on the final plans final plans shall provide for the relocation of an existing utility pole presently located in the area of the proposed drive way for duplex units three and four applicants should also coordinate with the utility company with the applicant must provide notifications to the Ellington assessor's office for address and unit numbering submit to the board for its administrative approval sign plans and details consistent with the sign information shown on the approved plans and descriptions provided within the hearing signage to include ground sign at the main access drive additional wayfinding signage to direct residents or guests to parking garage and the main entrance and a canopy sign on the senior living building proposed signage to be depicted on final plans Mr. Chairman yes on this last one I have a little bit of a problem with saying description provided within the hearing okay and I think if we know what that description is we should substitute it in here okay otherwise it would be extremely difficult for me what is anyone going to do is go back and look up ACMI to find the right place in the hearing it's not really very enforceable so I think now is the time to get clear on just what that description is and just put it into the condition okay I'll include that because they had indicated they were going to do a 24 square foot ground sign a canopy sign the size of the canopy and the two square foot per sign per sign yeah yeah and I think they did it all in one spot so it's easy just to figure out what it is okay update that so we can either go on to the last part of C or if you want we can break now and pick this up again for the next session I'm okay with picking up with C2 at the next session okay agreed agreed looks like it'll go fast anyway yeah Mr. Chairman could you go back up to E with the small room and numerals six seven eight just quickly I just wanted to so you you've crossed out eight and you know sort of relative to the comment that Mr. Revlock made about those are only saying what needed to be included in the plan it's not actually imposing an obligation on them to do that just to include it in the plan so I wasn't clear are you thinking that eight is so different that it should be deleted from this or are you going to go six seven and eight the same so I think eight is supposed to be a part of the invasive species management plan not a part of the the landscape plan okay great I just want to clarify thank you all right so with that I will go ahead I will clean up the parts that we have reviewed tonight and get those back out to people well are those things that should get posted to the website as well or at least to the agenda so the revisions that we're making sort of day to day here if I reissue them to the board should they be posted to the public as well they should yes okay Mr. Chairman yeah should there be some sort of a notice that that these are not I mean these are not final decisions are part in two for two reasons one is that we haven't made a decision and won't until the very end as to whether to adopt any of this but also the way in which we're going about it is somewhat tentative and subject to rethinking and fine-tuning later on in this process and I guess I'm sort of interested in being able to make it in that it be clear to anybody in the public looking at this that they shouldn't treat it as more firm than it is okay one thing Mr. Chairman you can do is actually put a watermark on the draft decision labeling it as a draft okay I personally like using different colors but I don't think many people follow me in that so with that then our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday November 3rd at 7 30 so you're looking for a motion to continue tonight's deliberation until Wednesday November 3rd 2021 at 7 30 p.m. I moved anyone second thank you bells vote of the board mr. DuPont aye mr. Hanlon aye melz aye mr. O'Rourke aye mr. revelac aye board aye and the chair votes aye so we are continued until Wednesday November 3rd now with that we can take a motion to adjourn so moved thank you Mr. Hanlon second second thank you melz vote of the board mr. DuPont aye Mr. Hanlon aye melz aye mr. O'Rourke aye the revelac aye the board aye the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you all very much thank you mr. chairman thank you mr. chairman