 I will now call this meeting the November 1st meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board to order. This open meeting of the Redevelopment Board is being conducted remotely with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020 due to this current state of emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. For this meeting, the ARB is convening the Zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some of the attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you. And take care not to screen share your computer. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. So at this point, I will take a roll call to ensure that all members of the board are present and can hear me. Starting with Ken Lau. Who's not here this evening. Eugene Benson. Present. Melissa Tentacalus. That's it. Steve Revillac. Good evening, Madam Chair. And I am Rachel Zimbary, chair of the board, and I'm here as well. We have two members of the staff joining us this evening. Jennifer Rait, Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development. And Kelly line, I'm also with the Department of Planning and Community Development. Present. Great. Thank you all for joining us this evening. Let's see, we will move right ahead to our continued public hearings. Item number one on our agenda. Starting with docket 3665 645 Massachusetts Avenue. This is currently a request that the application be withdrawn without prejudice. And I will turn it over to Bob and Essie who is here on behalf of the applicant. Yes, thank you. We are requesting I've just been retained. As I indicated last week at the hearing by Chase bank. I am coming in a new, and I'm taking a new look at everything at this point. We are perhaps going to be tweaking our plans to some extent. I don't know whether we might be advertising for other zoning relief that perhaps may not have been advertised for. I can't tell you that right now. I would indicate and suggest to the members of the board that no one is going to be prejudiced by the withdrawal. Because the public is going to have a right to be heard. Everyone is going to have a right to be heard. The board who heard the matter the last time in part will be heard and there'll be a full hearing on this matter. So therefore, I'm requesting that the matter be withdrawn without prejudice. I can withdraw it anytime I want to. Okay. And the only reason that I ever add the word without prejudices. I was trained as a lawyer. I've tried probably 100 jury trials in my career. I've argued cases in the appeals court US court of appeals. I've never had a situation where I have not asked that a matter be withdrawn without prejudice. I've never had that matter turned down in my many years of practicing law. So I'm requesting that at this point. And I would like the board to act on that request. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification. I will note that unfortunately, can allow has still unfortunately not not joined this evening and when the, when the docket was originally opened, it was opened with four board members. I'm sorry for Steve ever like had joined the board. And unfortunately, I need for four votes to with, because this is an action on the special permit application to withdraw. To vote on the request to withdraw without prejudice. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can vote on this tonight. Jenny, do you see any other way around this. I, the only thing I would suggest is if you want, you can move on to the next item and you could come back to this. Just to see wait, that's not going to take very long. But, you know, we can, we can continue to wait a little bit more for Ken I don't, I, but you have to have can hear to, to take that vote. And withdrawing without prejudice as part of 40 a section 16 it is not. And it is a specific clause and it applies to something that has already gone through a hearing, which this has started a hearing process. And so it is not as simple as just withdrawing it. It does need to be voted on and acted upon by the board. But unfortunately, not this week, we need Ken to be part of the board to take that vote. So either you can wait a bit, or we can put it off till the 15th. I have a preference. Mr. Nessie I apologize for the lack of a full board this evening it was not something I was aware of. Is there any expectation that can will appear this evening. I have done everything I can to contact him I don't know what the situation is other than there must have been some sort of extenuating circumstance it's not. This is highly unusual so I apologize. Yes. When is the next hearing that November 15. For another matter, the next matter in any event. Well, let's move on to the next matter as Jenny has suggested, if Ken shows up in the interim, great. If he does not, then it would have to go on. I agree with Jenny and you for the 15th. Thank you for your understanding I appreciate it so we will pause and move on to the next item on the agenda, which is docket number 3348 833 Massachusetts Avenue. This is a request by the owner to move the continued hearing from December 6 to November 15. And attorney Nessie I believe that you are representing the owner on this item as well. So there's anything that you'd like to mention. The I did speak with the client after the last meeting, and we are in fact meeting with the historical commission tomorrow evening. So we ought to have a sense for where the historical commission is headed tomorrow evening. And I said to the client, it probably doesn't make sense to wait until December 6. Let's try to get back before the ARB. We have a sense for where the ARB may be coming on this. Let's try to get back before the ARB sooner than that. He has agreed. That's the reason I'm requesting that the matter be placed on the hearing list for the 15th of November. Great. Thank you so much for the clarification. I'll now open it up to members of the board for any questions that you might have. We'll start with Jean. I'm fine with the continuance. Great. Thank you, Jean. Melissa, any questions? No questions. I'm fine with it. Steve, any questions? No questions. Great. Thank you. In that case, what I would like to do is see if there is a motion to move the continued hearing for docket number 3348, 833 Massachusetts Avenue from December 6, 2021 to November 15, 2021. So move. Is there a second? Second. Great. We will take a roll call vote. Starting with Jean. Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will see you back for that docket on November 15. And unfortunately it does not look like Kim has joined us yet. Why don't we say then that the chase matter will be on for the 15th as well. Okay, great. Thank you for your understanding. And again, I apologize. So is there a motion to continue the hearing for docket number 3665, 645 Massachusetts Avenue from this evening to November 15? So move. Is there a second? Second. All right, we'll start with a roll call. Jean? Yes. Steve? Yes. Melissa? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you. All right. We will see you. In two weeks on both matters. Thank you so much. Yeah. All right. Much appreciated. So that. Sorry. So that closes agenda item number one for us this evening. And we will now move to agenda item number two, which is the preliminary discussion of zoning amendments. I believe that you have a request from one of the residents, James Fleming. With regard to a future warrant article filing. Yes. Thank you, Rachel. So we have discussed this plan to have. Residents or any other petitioners other than the redevelopment board to come to the board and start discussing their ideas or plans for filing of warrant articles. Prior to the time that things do and inevitably get filed that usually at the end of January. And we've been updating the sort of timeline from, you know, getting things filed to town meeting, which was introduced to us and voted on by the board earlier this year. So with that in mind, and we had previously worked with James Fleming. Last year on a warrant article and James has since reached out and has a couple of ideas to share this evening. One is about a parking reduction related to apartment dwellings. The residential use for apartments. And the second article is related to the uses of our open space and recreational areas for a variety of activities, which there are some limitations actually in our zoning by law related to that. Staff met with James to talk about the second idea and have sort of designed a potential process to follow and we've had a little bit of communication about that. But I figured having James attend this evening and start to share these ideas with all of you and here he is would be useful and then just to set expectations. The zoning by law working group is meeting this Wednesday morning at 830am, and they are going to be talking about other potential zoning amendments to follow up from the zoning audits that have occurred, as well as other recommendations and suggestions and then we thought we would come back again on the 15th to continue that discussion to report out from the zoning by law working group. And also to allow any board members to share their additions or ideas that they've been considering for us to discuss. So with that, that's sort of the timeline and plan for now, and I'm open to any other suggestions but also if there aren't any, I'll hand it over to James if that's okay Rachel. Sure, it looks like Jean has something. Just a quick question to make sure that I understood so it's on the 15th that the zoning by law working group will be reporting back and any of us can also present our proposals. Okay. Yeah, if something doesn't come up on Wednesday during the zoning by law working group meeting, which a couple of you are probably attending. Then we will have certainly much time you know it doesn't have to just be on November 15 but that is one opening for that opportunity to have that discussion. Great thank you for the commission. You're welcome. Steve or Melissa do you have any questions for Jenny before we turn it over to James to discuss the two items that he has. Nope. No. Okay. Great James the floor is yours and I appreciate you coming to chat with us this evening. Thanks. So the, the first one. Should I assume that you all know the zoning by law by like the back of your hand. No. I think that we know the zoning by law. Not necessarily like the back of our hand but yes we can certainly most of us have it and we can certainly go to any references that you would like to give us. So the, so the, the first one really parking for apartments the section is section six 6.1 off street parking. There's a section which says single two or three family dwellings which is one space per unit. And then below that is a separate category for apartment buildings which has what looks like a tiered structure for varying numbers of bedrooms. So my, my, the warrant article what I thought I'd like to do is to, to combine those two and make it one space per unit for all, I guess you'd say all four of those categories or maybe the name changes to be something else. And the reason is that I live in an apartment, but it's just happens to be on the first floor of a two family and it only needs one unit under the spy law, which doesn't make sense to me because if I move into a building I don't use more cars. Unless they have an empty space and I want one or something like that. So I don't see why it needs to be that way. That's, that's the reason behind the first one. Great. Thanks. If it is okay with you, what I'd love to do is get some initial reaction and thoughts from the board members on each one. Okay. That great is maybe some questions for you as well. Yeah. Okay, super. Jean, I'll start with you any questions for James. Thanks. I have one question but I'll stop by saying I think it's an excellent idea with single two and three family dwellings one space per dwelling unit it seems to me that it's just consistent to apply at one space per dwelling unit for larger buildings to the question for James is if you look at the apartment building thing it says, and one space per five units of public housing for the elderly, we're going to keep that right that's not part of your shirt. I know nothing about public housing for the elderly and I'd really like to avoid stirring up any mud that I don't have to. And also it looks like it would. And if we made it one space per unit then it would actually quintuple the requirement, which, no, let's not do that. So then I guess we would then have a separate category for public housing for the elderly I guess would be some maybe some other name, whatever happens to be the intent is that the, all the categories that say X spaces per number of bedrooms becomes one for the apartments. Great. Thank you for the clarification gene. Melissa, any questions or comments for James. Hi James, could you help me understand kind of the aggregate I know you're speaking to your one, your unit in particular, but how many units and kind of what is kind of a bigger totalitarian impact. I'm not. So maybe it's the analysis and I don't know if this is something that you've worked on or if you've brought it to planning staff in terms of how many units this would impact or how many parcels. Um, no, I haven't I talked to Jenny and I think it was Kelly, but we never we never looked at the total number of things this would affect and this I don't think this would apply retroactively to any existing would be going forward and I don't know how many are coming up. Looking at just I looked at a handful of buildings that are in I live in the, I don't know if it's even like Middle East Starlington and there's a couple buildings at the end of one of my streets. It's just like a cursory look and it looks like they they were built sometime in the 70s or 80s it's the style and they more or less fit this table exactly. Based on the like they they have 14 spaces and based on what I can see of the exterior looks like 12 units, which is about right if you assume 1.15 to one and a half spaces each. You know, no townwide, how many might this have affected although I just assumed that it affected anything built after 1973 or so. Okay, and then. Before it looks like Jenny put her hand up to also answer that part of your question. Okay, good over to Jenny. Definitely not to answer but more to just say that the purpose of this conversation is to maybe give James some things to think about to prepare. So the questions that you're asking, which would be that you'd like to see or have a set and just taking what you're saying you want to see what the impact might be and so James if you might need to work with staff to think about what you know how many apartment buildings are there right now and what would that mean if we made these changes or how many are in the pipeline those kinds of things that would help to answer Melissa's question. I have not gotten that far with James it was some. This is a very early part of this conversation, I will say though, we did propose a similar change in 2019. This is part of a whole package of potential changes and so, you know, we can certainly look back into the research that we did at that time but I just want to make sure that I'm clarifying what what might happen as a result of James and potentially other residents who wish to speak with the board, what to expect from this process that the questions that are being asked or things for you to think about and research as you move forward not to necessarily expect that you've completed these from these conclusions just so you know right. Thank you. Great clarification Jenny. So, Madam chair, may I go ahead. Yeah, okay. So I guess that would be something James I'm thinking about in terms of how it impacts kind of the other areas it might impact. I think it would be helpful to understand how this aligns with either. At least the master plan and some of the zoning by law kind of adjustments that have been looked at through this board. And then I think. I'm not recalling if I believe prior to the meters or was a parking management study conducted. So if there was analysis through that study that may help inform this, because I think when we're looking at parking, we do want to be mindful of how it is kind of as a whole on street parking off street parking those conditions and how we're managing the whole so I think those are things that would be helpful for the board to understand going forward with this recommendation. Great thank you most I think that those are all helpful questions for for James to look into and to work with the department to study further. I'll turn to Virginia I saw that you had your hand up is that a clarification. Oh, you're on mute. I'll wait till the end. Okay, thank you. Steve. Yeah, I'm actually I'd like to start with a comment that Mr Benson made with respect to apartment buildings and having the regulation that there be one space per five units of public housing for the elderly. I should go into its own section because it I don't think it contemplates the possibility of having public housing for the elderly in two or three family dwellings, or at least, you know, if you were to get into that situation you'd have two rules that apply. Overall, I do I am in favor of putting apartment buildings, the parking requirements for apartment buildings with to match those of single two or three family dwellings. I have a to a home with two bedrooms, and it doesn't make sense to me why you know this would require one space under as a single family but if it were happened to be an apartment it would require one and a half. I also want to point out that, you know, with respect to housing costs, parking is is land land cost is one of our most is one of our most significant drivers. I think that we can use parking, you know, space that might have been dedicated to parking to either, you know, providing more dwellings or more, more open space. Just to me that seems like a, you know, a desire, a better outcome in terms of questions that, you know, I might be curious to know the answer to if Mr Fleming can possibly provide at some point. Just some sort of analysis, comparing, you know, cost per unit, you know, given for a give a certain size building under the two regulations, I believe that Boston did a little bit of this when they started instituting parking maximums. And that might be a source to draw from. Finally, I just would like to mention that I think the last big apartment building permitted in Arlington was 1165 our mass out this was a comprehensive permit that went through the ZBA and you know I happen to be part of those proceedings. The parking ratio there was just slightly over one space per unit. Thank you Steve for your comments and clarifications. Gene, you had something that you wanted to, to jump in when I just, I just did want to follow up on something that was said, which is, I mean this is clear that it would apply prospectively to new buildings coming to town. I think I, I might disagree to say that doesn't apply retroactively or retrospectively whatever the right word is, because if there's a building now, let's say it has 10 units residential units that has 20 spaces theoretically. The owner of the building would be subject to the new rules and could reduce the number of spaces not that that would happen, but it could happen it could result in a little bit more open space. As a result of this both retrospectively and prospectively so I do want to point that out. Great. Thank you, Gene. And James, I would just add that I too am really interested in this proposal and I, I agree that I think the questions that Melissa asked are really important to to take a look at it sounds like there is some existing based on the study that Jenny had mentioned that had been completed back in 2019. And I think on first blush I'm, I'm very interested in seeing where, where this goes as well. Let's see, would you like any other comments before we ask James to move on to his second item. Okay, seeing none. Why don't we move on to you have any other questions for for us on that item or did you want to move on to any open space. I don't think so. Just if there's any like technical things to watch out for in the in the article, although I guess we can work on that later. Yes, definitely I think that that's something that we can definitely I think crafting what the scope of the article is is the most important. And as you move towards the warrant article final right that's right because the warrant article is very broad and then you write the text of it. Yes, that's right. That's right. We did we do all this a year ago. That's right. But the fact that you're so far ahead of this I think is really great because it gives you the opportunity then to have to make sure that you have all of the data and the things that you'll need to eventually craft that scope and make sure that your scope is is defined broadly enough for what you want but without going into an area that that takes you out of the the kind of the crux of the idea that you're looking to move forward. Great. Did you want to move on to the second item. Sure. I think Don's got his hand up to be is there. I see that yep I'm actually not going to take public comments until after we're fully done with this discussion. Okay. Thank you. So the, the second one, I guess, Jenny I guess there's technically three, because I kind of decided to split the second one into two. So this is sort of a continuation of a bunch of town policies that were enacted under COVID where fitness businesses were allowed to use parks under permits from the parks department during the nice weather so they could stay open when we were restricted from being inside. The idea was that that would become a permanent option and that the parks department would more or less have the authority to set conditions of and like when where and how a business could use a piece of open space that the town, one of the town was controlled. But when Jenny and I were looking at the section of the zoning by law which I believe is it's five something something something. I know that's very helpful. Table 563 use regulations for multi use but PUD industrial transit and open space districts. I should know sorry it's not that it is the description of the districts which is section 561 the open space district so Jenny pointed out that the description of the open space district technically doesn't say we can do anything with open space. So it's there to exist and be green and free of human activity forever more, which is obviously not what happens. I mean, good luck telling someone playing on the playground to stop. So, so the thinking was that maybe they would be an article to one clarify the use of the open space district to say that you can do something, whatever it is, whatever the text is in that district. And then the second thing that we discovered is that, and this is I guess this is where five table 563 becomes relevant is that all the way down in the accessory use category on page five dash 45. And then a handful of uses allowed in the open space district, one of which is temporary food or beverage at an event for profit. This is fundraise a fundraiser for a nonprofit based in Arlington. These all require a special permit, which from what Jenny and I were talking about sounds like they have to go to either the ZBA or the air be, and we couldn't. I'm mentioning Ali Carter myself, none of us could think of any any example in recent history where someone had actually gone to the ZBA, or the air be and said hey can we do something in the open space district. They would just go to the parks department or they would go to some other department who would then refer them or some other thing would happen. So that was that was another thing that that more administrative slash technical article would go over is say you know these things are allowed, you don't have to go to these boards and get a special permit but you do have to whatever the current process is that they follow. So like the, they go to the parks department or the conservation commission or whatever it is, and they ask very nicely if they can use the space to do whatever. So that's the first one in a while we talk about that because that alone sounds like a nightmare to deal with. Great thanks. Can you give me the second citation, not 5.6.1 e but the second citation that you referred and 5.6.3. It's a very multi long multi page table. It's on page five dash 45. Yeah. District regulations accessory uses class of users. Okay, great. There's three in a row for that are allowed in the open space district. Yeah, so the first thing was well that sounds inconsistent. So why don't we maybe do something about that. Great. Thank you so you're looking for feedback on this first two before you move to the third. The third one is very boring by comparison. I'm not sure if this is the third part that you're talking about, which is to introduce the special regulation. I guess, so the name is, there's a third part, which is more of just a how to fix this, which is that there would be a new section 8.4 at the very end under the special regulations, which would more or less outline. If you want to do something in an open space district, you do whatever it is that is currently happening, just to write it down so that way, anyone who says there needs to be a process. There is a process. Right. Great. Thank you. Anything else before I take questions from the board. No, I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified. That there's a suite of things that might happen. Fabulous. Thank you. I'll go to Jean, Jean first for any questions or comments. Actually, I have one thing. So, please go ahead, James. So, so my thing is, I don't care how this happens, as long as it does happen. So if there is a need to be an 8.4 if you determine that there doesn't need to be, it's just this is what our discussions have entailed so far and it seems reasonable. Great. Thank you. Jean. I like the thinking I'm not sure I agree with where you're going on some of these. So let me walk you through my thinking about it and obviously I've just heard it right now. So this is off the top of my head. I'm ending the definition in 5.6.1. I really don't think that's necessary to specify the type of uses, because all that's really doing is defining the district and says that they're under jurisdiction of the various departments in town, which means, and has met in the past. Those departments make decisions on what's going on there. So, I'm not sure we need to complicate this, where I don't think the complication is needed on the accessory uses table on. Page 5-45. In section 5.6.3. It certainly makes sense to me that temporary food or beverage concession, and the fundraising event should be subject to whatever approval of whatever entity in the town happens to be responsible for that particular piece of open space. And I think if you just get rid of the SP, that's really all you need to do, because they'll still need to go to the park and rec commission or whichever one it is to get approval. I'm a little, you didn't mention anything about accessory off street parking and loading spaces, or I think the special permit would still be appropriate. Yeah, this is, this is kind of where the third warrant article bleeds in. I was, I was only going to think about, I was only thinking about certain ones, but, but just in general, and thinking of things that the town has hosted as events or that other businesses have put on. Just not having to have them go to the ZVA or the ARB seemed like a reasonable thing. It does. I'm just not sure about, you know, accessory off street parking and loading spaces tend to be permanent. Right. So I was thinking this was this was intent. The original impetus was temporary things like if you were going to do an event. Like, if you're going to permanently modify the open space, you probably want a special permit. Well, that's why I would suggest at this point, keeping the special permit for the accessory off street parking. What about the third one. And I'm not sure about other accessory use customarily incidental be called because it's not specific. It doesn't tell you what it is. It doesn't tell you what it is, but on the other hand, if it was no special permit, they'd still need to get the approval of whichever entity in town had responsibility for the property. I'm a little bit more unsure about that one, but I think it probably would work without special permit, especially since that seems to be the way it's worked for years for those without special permit. So, yeah, those, those are my thoughts. I don't think you need anything at the end that tells people where they go to get approvals in town. But that's not, I think the role of his own bylaw. That's just my initial thoughts, but thanks for bringing it to us. Thank you, Jean. Melissa questions or comments. Yeah, thanks James for bringing this up. Can you help me again just explain the beginning your intention with it. Okay, so the, the, so okay, I'll let the third one slip. So basically what I'd like to do is allow for fitness businesses to and the other line that I have is for like cultural arts organizations like if you want to put on a rehearsal or production, you know, in a park of a Shakespeare or something like that. That you should be able to and it was in, in trying to bring that together that we realized that these are labeled special permit. And so the, the intent is that it's this is more of this isn't more of technical just trying to fix it because no one actually gets a special permit, because that would be ridiculous. So the point the intent here is to just write rewrite this just to say what's actually happening. Okay, that you just go to whatever department owns the land, and you ask for permission to do whatever it is that you want to do. Okay. So it would be for profit entities, nonprofit entities would be able to go and ask and it's for temporary actions in public space, essentially. That's what's in there right now. And so the, the idea is if you just flip these from special permit to guess, they still go to the parks department or whoever it is like they currently do, but now they aren't not getting a special permit that that's only by less as they should be doing, but I said you know what I expect them to do. So it's, it's, it's more administrative than anything else. Okay, I would love to see them try someone try and enforce this and see that but okay. We don't need to do that. So I guess I think the thinking to make facilitate this and allow businesses and different entities to be a little bit more creative and temporary support that. I think from my perspective it'd be good to hear from staff and maybe Ali, you know what kind of requests do come up how often. And I'd like to understand better maybe town policies around, you know, for profit entities on public land, different communities have different perspectives on that and how it's administered. Because you know, I think when it comes to for profit companies, making a profit on town property. That's where some controversy starts to come up. There's ways to address it through permitting fees and things like that. But I think the intention to make it. You're facilitating the creative use and activating and I'm living in spaces and that's how I'm reading this. You know, I support so I think, but just understanding where some of the issues might come up around the for profit on private land would be good for me to understand. Yep. My intention was to more or less just say this is allowed and then the relevant department gets to decide the what where and when and if that involves a fee then I don't want to be the one saying that they can or can't do that. They should, they get to decide it's their part, it's their parcel. These are good. Any other questions for James, Steve. Yeah, I've got one question and I think two comments. So my first the question first. I'm wondering, did the town, did the did the town charge fees to the folks who have been holding beer gardens during the summer? Oh, I don't know. Please help me. The town didn't hold any beer gardens. It was that was at the Jason Russell house. But did the town charge fees, I guess. We didn't have any beer gardens this past summer. In the past, there was a very marginal fee and it was associated with taking care of the lawn. After the fact, paying for a cleaning company to take care of the bathrooms, the building that was being used for such, but nothing, nothing more than that. At the time that we had that particular beer garden, the beer gardens this past summer were at the Jason Russell house. So not, not town property. Okay. And then the temporary outdoor permitting process was only during COVID. We've only had those regulations in place. I'm currently trying to get that. Actually, it was the select board agreed to approve allowing that to happen that sort of continued temporary permitting process, which was a recommendation that came from the Arlington Economic Development Recovery Task Force, which Rachel sits on. And the recovery task force has actually been looking at a lot of these issues, including this issue around the use of open spaces for this type of activity, and some of the barriers that we've been faced with in trying to do that and execute those efforts during the pandemic, trying to find a way to make them somewhat permanent temporary permanent activities permanent temporary activities rather. I think that one of the, if there is a silver lining that came out of the pandemic, it's the fact that it reminded us how much fun you could have being outside. And I hope we can continue that in the future. And just to the, to the remark about the use table in 563 the temporary food or beverage concession for profit in an event in the special special permit requirement to do that in the open space extract. I'm thinking if one were to go to the zoning board of appeals and ask for a special permit for such a use. You know, I presume I presume it would be a normal special permit where there is two weeks of advertising in the paper of record prior to a public hearing. There's time to write a decision, time for the board to vote to approve the decision, and then a 20, 20 day appeal period has to go by. That's a really, really high bar. So I agree with the notion of, I support the idea of, you know, I'm supportive of the idea of, you know, imposing a lower barrier, or less stringent requirements on it. And I, as someone said earlier, I would also be interested to hear what our economic development coordinator in the, you know, and the business community, how they feel would feel about such a thing. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Steve. And James, I think that I agree with Steve, I think that if the goal is really removing impediments and streamlining a process to get to a vehicle by which we can work more quickly and in a more streamlined way approve some of these temporary activations that meet a certain amount of requirements. Might not be a bad idea to look at both pre pandemic and post pandemic what the process has been because it is different and what has been approved versus has not been approved. Again, if the goal is to come up with a process, you know, removing this barrier of special permit which isn't even being followed. Anyways, is one thing but then what are, are there any other barriers that need to be addressed as, as part of this in terms of creating a new process. So I'm just taking notes. No problem. I guess this is a question about jeans point is do we even if we turn it let's say we flip the, the special permit to yes for the temporary food or beverage. Would it really just be you still just go to the parks department to ask for permission to use it. Jenny, I see you. Not necessarily it's either the it could be parks and rec commission it could be the conservation commission it could be the select or multiple. But but they would you would do you would go to whoever owns the parcel and ask for her owns it. So I guess then maybe we don't need a section, which is great, a lot less for me to have to write. Yeah, I think the point of the section was to more codify sort of the steps as to why it's okay to have those types of uses in the parks. And so that was also in part why we were talking about amending the definition, which is speaks to how, how we currently use our open space and recreational areas and we talked about how not, you know, there's there's sometimes some tension about using those spaces for these types of activities. So finding a way to have the zoning reflect that in some manner. That was that was one of the part of the reasoning behind that. And Jenny just to clarify that's the activation of these spaces. Activation, yes. Great. Okay. So I think that that's something James to think about where where that might best live as you come back to this is where within the zoning bylaws again the goal becomes to encourage activation. I was just curious. Also maybe how this fits in maybe this is for our planning stuff. So we talked about the park let's in the public right of way. This seems to me that it's related. And I don't know if there's separate initiative that's moving that forward. And how this dovetails and if it should be kind of considered as a package for, you know, considering covert era practices that support businesses that in live in space and that this is its own, you know, kind of item. That's a great question and I'll ask Jenny to speak to how the parklets are being looked at going forward. They're being looked at under that same sort of temporary outdoor licensing through the select board, not through zoning amendment. So it wouldn't be tied to this process. Do you want to continue. Well I guess I'm just curious because I think the idea is to streamline it right so then how are we. You know I think we, I guess I would like to see how we make it a little bit easier so if you're a business, and you want to do something interesting that's in the public right of way or open space. Is it going to be a straightforward temporary permit pass, or am I going to have to figure out which board to go to. I guess I'd like to see if there's a way for us to give some consideration to streamlining that from the perspective of the applicant. That is, that is what we are streamlining and that's the process that the select board approved last week. But in terms of the zoning we're not talking about zoning for, I might be confused by your question so I'm sorry. So please let me, if I'm, if I'm not answering the right question might be because I don't understand. Are you suggesting that we amend zoning related to parklets or am I conflating these two things I'm sorry. So, well but maybe that's where it's on me. So the zoning for the parklet exists as it stands now that there's zoning for that. No, there's no, it's not related to zoning at all. It's basically a temporary use of a parking space for outdoor dining. And that process is approved by the select board. They're also approving other processes, you know again depends upon which entity owns the property. So they might approve other activation to use that word in other public spaces. But if they're not then it would be through the parks and rec commission or some other body. That's what we proposed previously it's not related to a zoning amendment. I may not be totally following your. No, I think that's great. No, thank you, Jenny for trying to help me kind of navigate it I guess from what James is proposing, I understand it's kind of peeling back the special permit so it can move forward. But when it moves forward I guess what board, what body is in front of it has yet to be determined, or is that dependent on the land depends on the land. And part of the reason that we goes back to James intention is James's intention which is to remove what is really an impediment that the park the parks and rec commission does not want to permit these things because the zoning by law says that you cannot have these there is nothing in the zoning by law right now that says that you can do these types have these types of uses do have. You do them as well but that's, that is the impediment that we were trying to I don't want to speak for you James but I believe that this was the. This was what his intention was. Correct, James. Yes, yes, so that that's the third warrant article and then this this is the one that was like, oh we really shouldn't be requiring a special permit because the event, your, your, your waiting your 20 day waiting appeal period will have. When that passes your event will have come and gone and no one will have attended and you won't have had an event because it takes so long. So, and no one does it anyways so it's it's if we're not following our own rules well let's just not do that. We'll just we'll just make it a yes and then whoever owns the parcel gets to decide the conditions and when. Okay, that makes sense so I think yeah I appreciate the extra explanation. Great. Thank you Melissa. And let's see Steve. Did you have any Nothing further anything for anything further Jean I think you had your hand up at one point. Just, it just occurred to me that the park near my house occasionally has had, you know, Shakespeare Park. Before they didn't go and get a special permit each time. I think they just got permission from the park and Recreation Commission to do Shakespeare in the park and you know I just think getting rid of the or changing those three sps to why would probably solve these problems. So thank you. All right, so it sounds like moving to in a yes, but with the conditions as identified by the by the body that has jurisdiction over that particular that was the intent is to be yeah. I would also to add the fitness uses, which is currently the business fitness activities. So this is free. This is free. This and I kept them separate, because if someone doesn't want fitness if this is basically just for time meeting members if a fitness that if someone doesn't want that to happen but they do say oh yeah we really shouldn't be requiring a special permit, then they can vote on them separately. It's the only reason I'm filing two different articles. The assuming the second one. Oh, actually, I guess that everyone is basically just the second one but we add two new entries to the use table. And this comes out of a discussion I had with Joe Connolly from the parks department and Todd Doug time Council about the uses in the parks and basically what fell out of the discussion is that parks and recreation will not allow anything in the parks that doesn't have an explicitly is not explicitly allowed by the zoning by law. I don't know why they do that but that's that's why they do that that's what I asked him if he that it was accurate and he said yes. I don't know what the reasons in the email correspondence that helps. But so I was like okay well I can't change how the parks committee thinks about their work but I can change. I can feed them what they eat I can add new entries to the use table that says we allow some some entry that says cultural arts organizations can do rehearsals and productions in the park. That would be nice. And the other one would be some description that allows fitness businesses to use parks for classes, things like that made basically whatever whatever the parks department is currently allowing and a temporary basis for the COVID policies, just make that permanent in effect. That's the intent of number three. Great. Thank you. Jean. This is sort of surprising because the park near my house. The park near my house hosts all sorts of sporting events, cross country track meets, take place there archery takes place there. Orientaring takes place there. So, in addition, and some of those are, you know, not profit making. So I'm sort of surprised that park and wreck. Apparently allow some of those things, but doesn't allow a yoga teacher to teach a yoga class in the park, even though Tai Chi is often taught in some of the town's parks during the summertime so maybe think about tweaking the wording of this a little bit so it deals with the reality of what actually goes on in the parks. So instead of it's more than simply profit making places that use the park for sporting and fitness and things like that. So would that be then a, you said tweak the language that you would pose because your language is just profit making entities or something. I guess, well then I guess I wonder what their rationalization is for allowing soccer teams and lacrosse teams and whatever else you use parks if it's not in the zoning. Well, that's why I was surprised to hear you say that it'd be interesting to know where they draw the line. So you can write something for this bylaw that bothers me on a much deeper level. Quite frankly that they aren't they don't consistently follow even what I guess their their head is saying they allow. But I guess I can just ignore that for now and write entries that say whatever I'm trying to get done. And then maybe have that discussion at a later date. Let's just further to Jean's point, trying to think as broadly as you can about the entry that would again have a broad interpretation of the profit and non for profit uses, because again, if the response you've received is that whatever is not specifically identified is not something you know that is currently being considered for approval, if you can identify again the the broadest version of of that because again you're saying fitness and specific cultural arts piece but there may be other very valid uses that we are not contemplating right now that you know we don't want to have to have this list to include you know 50 different uses so I would suggest that you try and again, much like this is just temporary food or beverage, very specific. Think along more of the lines of the other accessory use customarily incidental to primary use, you know, in in that kind of being. Jean. I mean, where could just be that I'll just add there's probably something that's too big, or too crazy. And if we all could think of what it was, we would say, Oh, that doesn't belong in the town's open space. But I think the way to think about it after that is, that's the job of whichever town entity has responsibility for the property to make that sort of decision. It shouldn't be this sort of random, what's in the zoning by law, and what's not in the zoning by law. So I think, oh, and I see Melissa speaking but I don't think she's speaking to me. Yep, let's go to Melissa next. Um, no I agree I mean I think it's something we have to kind of consider broadly in terms of who can apply. I think we have to have just some thought on, you know, who the organizing body is because you just want to you're checking for public safety. You know, kind of, I think deterioration on the open space over time like it's a huge sums is it how often, like there should be a little oversight just given, you know, the land itself. But I think the idea is good and I think I is, you know, support with a direction you're trying. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. Nothing else. Great. James, did you have any other questions on that particular. Yes, so go ahead. So I know the general way you read a zoning by a lot is that it's not allowed explicitly in one of the tables somewhere or there's not a body of text that says something is allowed. It's not allowed. That's just the default is no, which is just kind of the way it is. My, my other understanding is that it's having an entry in the zoning by law means that. So for example, the, the, the temporary food or beverage concession for profit at an event. It means that the, my understanding is correct me if I'm wrong, is that the parks department cannot say. No, you cannot do this because we don't like it. They just have to attach conditions to it as to when and where you can't do that. So if, if the thought running through my head right now is completely take the open space district out of the use table and have an entry that says the uses that are allowed are determined by the body that runs it. However, you want to write that. That's jeans jeans shaking his head. What would you do to elaborate on the basic, basically, I really don't want to have to figure out brawling I would love to be able to say that authority is completely delegated to the body that owns the land they decide what happens when where how for what price whatever it is. Is that, is that anything like that even remotely possible. I think the advantage of keeping an open space district and having on the zoning map, which areas are open space basically is another layer of protection for those open spaces that they don't get. No, no, I was thinking more lines of as far as the uses. So keep the district, but for the uses, say the allowed uses are delegated to the body that owns the parcel. You don't do don't ditch the district. Well, I mean the example I would give you a little pushback in is the one we discussed earlier, which was the parking and whatever it said, where you might say whatever else we say. Oh, zoning violence says that's not really open space. If you start allowing parking off street parking and loading space. So, you know, I'm not sure where to draw the line there but there are in addition to, you know, you don't want it to be. I see. Okay, no that's that's a good point. I think it would be something to the effect of unless otherwise written in a use table. It's allowed and then you can explicitly say what you don't want like you don't want parking to be allowed just by the department that's something that requires a permit. Okay, I can think about that. Okay, I'm just looking again at this section of other accessory use customarily incidental to primary use. And I'm wondering if there is a companion to that that has in, you know, obviously word smithing a way to talk about other temporary uses that is incidental to the primary use which again gives you some broadness but again identifies that it's temporary in nature. As opposed to permanent which is determined which is in the way that I'm reading how it was written is more specific to a permanent. Because the entire most of the focus that I care about is temporary uses and letting you do something in a park or something. Like if I think that's fair if it's permanent modification you probably want more than just the department you want some sort of community input because everyone uses it. That's fair. So I'm going to see if any members of the board have any other comments and then I'm going to open this up for a short public comment period because James I think sorry, just let me one second and then I'll take your comment. What I'd like to propose is that you get a little bit of feedback from, you know, those members of the public who are on the on the call. I see that you and Steve both had something else to add before we do that and I am going to, so that we stay on on topic close that any public questions that might come up by 9pm, but I'll take your comment first James and then I'll go to Steve. The problem is, because I had a fourth one that we're not going to have time for tonight. Can I come back another time and talk about it. Sure, absolutely. Is that something that you want did want to train and get in this evening. I read that I'm looking at the time and thinking probably another time. I also I so I also want to flush it out a little bit more. No, you can come back. Just let Jenny know and we'll make sure that it's posted on the agenda. For you to come back. Steve. Mr. Benson gave me a little bit of a puzzle in terms of like energy and yourself as well in terms of thinking like how would you actually word this. The best I could come up with, you know, so far is basically temporary group activities conducted by profit or nonprofit for profit or nonprofit organizations. Yeah, I think that that about covers human activity. Thank you Steve. Any other comments or questions before we open this up. Okay. I will at this time open this up for any questions or comments that any member of the public joining us this evening would like to make on any of the potential warrant article topics that James Fleming has presented us this evening. Again, noting that this is for discussion at this point nothing has been proposed, but any any feedback you'd like to give would be welcome. If you could please use the raise hand function on your screen if you wish to make a comment. I will open public comment now. Okay, we do have one person's hand raised please note that you will have up to three minutes for your comments and please identify yourself by your first last name and address. So Don Seltzer, please go ahead. Thank you Don Seltzer Irving street. This is the first topic parking. I just want to point out unintended consequences, and that's for disabled handicapped parking spaces that set by state law on a schedule according to the number of total spaces and a lot. When you start saying for apartment buildings okay we're going to reduce the number from what normally is, you're also automatically reducing the required number of disabled spots, and maybe you want to tweak it a little bit. And start putting in our local bylaw, just how many disabled spots there should be for apartment buildings. And on the open space. I agree with James. Those two entries for temporary uses requiring special permits just don't make any sense. In fact, it really doesn't belong in our zoning bylaws at all. It really belongs in our town bylaws. I think it's article four, which regulates the use of public areas. And that's where any revisions or additions to our laws should be specifying how parks and conference conservation areas should be utilized and who has the authority to, to make determinations, which I think is ultimately the select forward. And that would be my suggestion going forward, just to remove the two sbs for temporary uses and pass it over to the town bylaws and make any corrections there. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize. I totally slipped my mind. Okay, can thank you. Okay, any other members of the public wishing to speak this evening on the potential warrant articles. Okay, seeing none, we will close public comment on this item. And James just to wrap up. Do you have any other questions? I don't think so. Okay, I've got some homework to do. That sounds great. Well, I really appreciate you entering this process so early. And again, we are welcome any, any person who is interested in contemplating a warrant article for 2022 town meeting to please engage us. We'd love to work together with you and in the lead up to that to that filing. Thank you, James. I will close agenda item number two and enter agenda item number three, which is an update on the upcoming planning meetings and activities related to the housing production plan. And I will turn it over to Jenny rate. This is not just about the housing production plan, but multiple plans and actually I'm going to have Kelly I'm going to share the memo and Kelly is going to talk about the upcoming meetings that we are planning over the month of November. Thank you. Great. Good evening everyone. I'm Kelly lineup assistant director of the department of planning and community development. We just wanted to inform the board of a number of meetings ranging from sort of local neighborhood meetings to townwide meetings that are coming up in the next few weeks. And we do have one schedule change that I'll note at the end of this. But the first is a public meeting on Wednesday night this is our first our kickoff meeting for the minimum bikeway planning project. This is an overall planning project to discuss the full length of the bikeway from the Cambridge border all the way to Lexington. And there's a lot of exciting work that's going into this project. At this point we're looking at discussions around issues opportunities, ways that we can improve safety access and the overall user experience. So the plan is going to move forward to recommending those types of improvements but also looking at a few specific locations where access is provided onto the bikeway and providing specific conceptual plans for how we can improve those spaces. So we have this meeting on Wednesday. If you're unable to attend that meeting on Wednesday we do have a survey that is out right now and what we invite everyone to respond to that survey. Moving into next week we have three meetings next week. The first is the presentation of the draft housing plan. This is going to be one of the first presentations of the draft plan so this is our public presentation. The third public presentation will be doing our last presentation was a discussion about goals and strategies and then we also had an accompanying meeting in a box kit that went out for that. Now we're moving into strategies and recommendations and so that is what Barrett planning group is going to be presenting on Tuesday, November 9. We're actually starting that meeting at 730 with sort of an overview of what has happened in the plan to date it's kind of a refresher for anyone who is jumping into the process now and may not be aware of where we're at. And then at 8 o'clock we're getting more into a presentation of the draft housing plan so that's going to be about strategies and actions to move forward. We are also looking at, and I think Jenny is probably reaching out to you about this soon, doing a separate presentation directly to the ARB about this project so this would be a fuller presentation to the ARB. But we do invite you to participate in this meeting as well. That's that December. Adding that December meeting is for that presentation. Right now we tentatively have December 16. I just need to hear back from a couple of members, whether or not they can attend that evening. Yeah. And then the other thing to note about that December meeting is we will be giving you a full copy of the draft plan. In advance of that meeting with enough time for you to review the draft plan. This is really to prevent, present an overview of the plan, before we hand off the draft to various reviewers. And then we have two meetings on Wednesday night. The first is about Stratton Safe Roads to School. The town received a Massachusetts Department of Transportation Safe Roads to School infrastructure project award of about $1 million. And this is to fund new sidewalk sidewalk repair, improve safety along the route to Stratton Elementary School. This is a public meeting for the community to hear about the public, about the process of the project as we're moving into, I believe, 25% design. And so if you are curious about this, if you live in the neighborhood, you want to hear about the overall improvements and how they not only improve safety for children, but also for adults. So this is a good meeting to go to and you'll find out more. There is additional information about this project, including the full project scope on the Department of Planning and Community Development's transportation planning page. And there's a link to that in this document. The second meeting is an exciting meeting about community development block grants. This is what we're calling a community development open house. So in this meeting, we're trying to encourage more members of nonprofits and other organizations to apply for funding through community development block grants. This open house is going to be a two part meeting. The first is going to provide an overview of CDBG. And then the second part is going to be more of a discussion and Q&A around how to actually apply for funding through community development block grants. So anyone who is curious about the community development block grant program, someone, anyone who's advocate, who's a grassroots advocate or who is trying to encourage their organization to apply for funding should attend this. It will also be recorded, but this is a really good opportunity to get your questions answered. And that's also on Wednesday, starting at seven o'clock. So the final meeting, this meeting is the second community forum for the open space and recreation plan. This is the meeting that we have rescheduled so we're moving this meeting to December 8, which is a Wednesday, it's going to be held at the same time from seven o'clock to nine o'clock p.m. This is the second meeting and we'll be talking about the process and we're going to date, and not actually about the action plan but talking about goals and strategies. So we'll be taking a look back at the town's existing open space and recreation plan, looking at those goals and strategies and really interrogating how those worked and what could be improved, and then taking feedback from the community on new goals that should be considered as we move forward into this development of the open space and recreation plan update. So again, that meeting is on December 8 from seven o'clock to nine o'clock p.m. and you can find out more on the town website, Arlington, a medical space. And if anyone has any questions about these meetings I'm happy to see if I can answer them or find out more and follow up later on. Thank you so much Kelly I really appreciate the comprehensive overview. We're all very busy so thank you for keeping all of these plans moving forward simultaneously on behalf of the town. What I'll do is I'll just go around and see if anyone has any specific questions or comments starting with Jean. No, Melissa. I have a question for you guys. What's going on. I think the CDBG open house that you're inviting the public to are there parameters for folks that people are aware of because they feel like you might get like CPA type folks looking for applying or with that still work. For you. Jenny do you want to follow up on that I know there's specific sort of criteria for applying but Yeah, Mallory Sullivan, who is our community development block grant administrator will be who runs the whole CDBG program will be running that meeting and we'll be talking about the guidelines for applying. How to meet, you know, the various federal criteria for applying and also if it's relevant guide people to other potential grant opportunities CPA already had a preliminary application deadline, but it is possible that an applicant of CPA funds could also apply for CDBG. Totally possible so there's many, many options and the point of it is really just to introduce how CDBG works and get people excited to apply hopefully. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Steve, any questions. No questions. Great. Can any questions. Great. Well, I am again I appreciate all of these different items moving forward I'm really looking forward to seeing the housing plan as well as the latest from the from the bike way those were really interesting meetings the first few public forums, as well as the other items on this list so thank you very much. Thank you. Great. So that closes agenda item number three. And we are now moving to agenda item number four which is the review of the meeting minutes from October 4. And I will see if anyone has any additions or corrections as Jenny pulls these up on the screen. And I'll start with Jean. You're on. I have to. Okay. Go down on the first page more Jenny. Let me see where is it. There we go. About halfway down the last paragraph on that page. There's a sentence that says there is no public action to improve the property. Should the word public be private. Should have been when there's no private action. And then the other go to the next page. Very top of the next page. The last line shouldn't say Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development 90 PA. Massachusetts DHCD. Yeah, it's meet by review and approval. That's just to that's just to send to DHCD. All of these things go in an urban renewal plan application. You do need approval of Massachusetts EPA. It's been done. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. Okay, you want me to spell that out. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, thank you. That's it. Thanks. Great. Thank you. While we're on page two to I just had one item. With regard to in the second paragraph on page two. It's the one, two, three, fourth line where you're talking about the town manager, the select board, the board and the planning department and the finance committee. I'm assuming the board is the redevelopment board. So I just thought we could clarify that one. That's all I had. Can any additions or corrections for this site for this set of meeting minutes. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Melissa. No. Okay. Thank you. Steve. No changes to propose. Okay. Great. Is there a motion to accept the meeting minutes from October 4th, 2021 as amended. So moved. Second. Second. Great. We'll take a vote for approval. Starting with Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I am a yes as well. The meeting minutes from October 4th have been approved as amended. All right. Moving on to agenda item agenda item number five open forum. We'll invite any member of the public who is with us this evening who wishes to address the board. Please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. I will call on. I will call on members of the public as hands are raised. Okay. Seeing none. We will now close the open forum. And. That concludes our agenda for today. So I will now see if there's a motion to adjourn. I move that the November 1st meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board be adjourned. Second. Great. We'll take a vote. Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. Steve. Yes. Melissa. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Thank you all and have a great evening.