 Welcome everyone to the April 4 meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board. Let's see this open meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board is being conducted remotely private governor's extension of the executive order of March 12, 2020 due to the current state of emergency and the Commonwealth through the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. For this meeting the ARB is convening via 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 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. Please also make sure during public comment not to project any, any slides on the background behind you anything that shown must be submitted in advance to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Note that anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. At this point, I would like to confirm that all members of the redevelopment board and the Department of Planning and Community Development who are here this evening are present and can hear me. We'll start with Ken Lau. President. Jean Benson. President. Will assist in calculus. Present. Steve Revillac. Good evening, Madam chair. And I am Rachel Zimbary, chair of the redevelopment board. We also have Jennifer rate from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Present. And Kelly lineup also from the departments. All right. Thank you all for joining us this evening. So the majority of our agenda this evening will be the, the board's discussion, the deliberation and voting on the 2022 annual time meeting zoning warrant articles. So we have 18 articles this evening, and of which we heard the petitioner presentations over the last four nights of public hearings. This evening, there will be no public comment period during this agenda item. There will be deliberation on each one of the articles, and we will vote on each one as soon as we have finished deliberation. We've had several of the petitioners will are joining us this evening so that if there are any questions from the board, we may direct any questions or discussion to those petitioners if there are items that we would like clarification or if there are any proposed items that we would like to confirm before we vote action or no action. I'll remind everyone that this is a simple majority that's required to either vote to to support through recommending action or to not support which is recommending no action for town meeting. And we will go ahead and get started this evening with article 28. I apologize just one more item before we start. I do want to remind the board that we, there were several articles that we had asked that the select board way in on and discuss as part of their review of the one articles prior to this evening. We did have a discussion about those and I submitted information both the planning department's memos, as well as information requesting feedback by last Wednesday. And I just wanted to let you all know that the select board declined to to comment on on those, those items so they did not add it to their agenda. I just wanted to close the loop and let you know that we would not be receiving those comments. Okay, so Jenny, if you wanted to go ahead and bring up the first article will take them in order, starting with article 28 enhanced business districts. Again, since we've already heard, since we've already heard deliver, excuse me, questions and the petitioner present these what I'd like to do each one Jenny if it's good with you is to ask you to just identify if there are any substantive changes that were made I know that you went through and cleaned up the the articles and removed any of the, any of the notes and the changes that have been captured during the comment period. So I'll just Jenny ask you for any, any comments or items you'd like to highlight before we begin each one. So we'll start with article 28 Jenny. Basically, all of the articles that I'm going to show on the screen, have no longer have the track changes as Rachel noted, and they have incorporated any of the comments that we heard from the board during the hearings. And for a couple of them, I think for example, this one, the street trees and the solar bylaw as well as maybe one other. There were some additional comments after the hearing by either board members or others who had been working with the department and the board on these bylaws Christian Klein, etc. I think that there's anything different from this meant this proposed motion from the prior time that the board has seen it so I don't have anything additional to add beyond what you've already seen before. So some of the things for example that came up were around. We talked about corner lots. We talked about visibility of all facades. We incorporated some clarification on lobbies. I don't believe there was there were many other we talked about beyond just Mass Ave and Broadway we made it say business districts more broadly. I don't think there's anything else remarkable to note in this one from the conversation we had. Great. Thank you, Jenny. Those are the highlights I had from my notes from that evening as well. All right, so I will run through the roll call for the board and see if there are any questions and what I'd like each member to discuss or any questions you might have for the board and your support for either action or no action on this item as we run through the roll call so we'll start with Kim. I'm supportive of this article here, but I do want to bring up one thing to discuss amongst the boards here before we do the final is under 5.5.2. Section be number four. The second bullet down. Can we add something there subject to ARB review or subject to ARB exceptions, because I think some of those areas. This this is requiring a certain amount of trans minimal transparency but let's say if it's the food pantry or a daycare center where they may require a little bit more screening just for what's happening inside just because of the nature of the program. I was hoping that we had some sort of exception that we can approve. So what does the rest of the board think. Thank you, Ken. I think that's a good discussion point. You know we do have flexibility with regard to in interpretation and ensuring that for those applicants who have extenuating circumstances that you know we do have some leeway with the interpretation of this I think in the way it's written. But we certainly can talk about ways that we might broaden that which I think is a good question for the board and I'll turn it over to Jean next to discuss that item that can brought up and any other thoughts you might have on this article. Thank you. Excuse me, I agree with can a little clarification to make that clear would be helpful. And I'm not sure exactly what I put it. I have to suggested changes and two questions. Let me start with a suggested changes. The title, I think would be better as development standards for business districts, because that's what they are and I think we'll just make it more clear if you look through the table of contents and just the headings what it was. Second is the first bullet in four. We still have the word principle facade there, which, when we discussed a few weeks ago, there was some question about what does it mean, if to, if it's a corner building with two facades, the facades facing two streets. So, I, I don't think principle facade does it I think ground floor. I don't know but you know the example I gave when you know there are a lot of businesses that are on two major roadways, and they have potentially two principle facades but I think we just need to clear that up a little bit with the word principle, or you know, principle, or principle facades or something, something to indicate there might be more than one. All right, so. Sorry, just before we move on from that one would it be as simple as adding an, and s in parentheses after facade, so that we identify that if there is more than one it could be on either. I think, I think that's possible, or, yes, something like that. Help. I don't understand the last, the sentence at the very end, when that starts next page, please, when that starts existing commercial spaces with frontage exceeding the above dimensional requirements are exempt. I don't really understand how that fits into any of this. So, could somebody give an explanation on what that means. Yeah, okay. So on the kids suggestions kind of winding backwards, can suggestion, we could amend this number three to make it clear that you know the board has the ability or, you know, you can think about how to maybe amend that section, which then would apply to anything here. I'll let you think about that one principle was meant, I think, and Kelly please jump in, if needed but principle I think this kind of goes back to where we started which was massive and Broadway. And I think we were thinking that's the principle facade facing one of those streets is actually that that facade is the principle facade is that what you were also thinking Kelly I don't want to speak for you but we did have this conversation in office. And I think it was that, you know where you have two different facades on two different major streets or one primary street and then one secondary street you may have a you may have a building with multiple storefronts and one of those storefronts could open up on the secondary street and one could open up on the first. And it just seemed that the way this was written there was sufficient flexibility for the board to sort of to interpret this in different ways. I don't want to say that you're avoiding the second facade, if you're on two main roads. It's just to say that we want attention given to the facade that's on mass ever Broadway. But that's the primary facade to pay attention to in general that I'm open to other I'm open to the facades being the solution there but I just wanted to give you the what the reasoning was behind keeping the word principle on this one. Can I interrupt for a minute. Sure. In uniform to whoever's changing her name on the website, saying no action article 38 is improperly doing that and that should not be happening. If they're not willing to do that for them to leave. I'm sorry what do you see happening I. They're changing her name on their. It says no action on article 38 that just not right. Correct, I would agree please so I usually address this during public comment period but it is inappropriate for it for anyone to provide any type of reaction including using the reactions button at the bottom of your screen while the board is still deliberating or members of the public are speaking and for you to change your name indicating support, or non support of any, any item so you will be removed from the meeting if that continues to happen. Thank you can for pointing that out I hadn't seen that. So generating to me to interrupt. Nope that's a good thank you. I understand I appreciate it. The last one was I think maybe it's this phrase that's not quite right, exceeding the above dimensional requirement or right here, I think what we were trying to say is that if the existing commercial space is already meet these requirements, then they're exempt I think that's what we meant, and I was this rewritten Kelly. I don't remember seeing that before but I may have forgot. I don't. Right. No, in the prior version it was a bullet point under standards. But I believe it was actually referring to existing commercial spaces. Where the, like if it's just a change of use, and there isn't a change to the facade it would be exempt from. I'm not sure it's exceeding the above I think it's meeting these requirements that that's what I would suggest if I'll see what you want to do, but that would be my suggestion. Well they're not really dimensional requirements right are you just saying yeah meeting the above requirements. Yeah, I think that makes sense but it's almost redundant redundant thank you. Yeah, I, it may not be necessary. I don't know how it became it's a stray without the bullet but we can also need it. Yeah might be redundant. And now my base do that my big suggestion. Thank you for the previous page, Jenny, you know this. Thank you, this started off. And has evolved I think in a nice way and I think you know Jenny and Kelly have done a nice job evolving this. What got dropped off is one of the initial things we are thinking about, which is how to use something to make sure we activate the streetscape and we've ended up with mostly, you know how something facades I think we could add another standard that says something like I didn't have it written out real well, but if you can go up to the previous page again Jerry. I would say something more, which would say something like the redevelopment board may consider the purposes of this section 5.5 point to be in in determining whether to grant a special permit not whether to approve a special permit environmental design review application. So that it gives us a little flexibility, beyond only the facade to say, hey, this thing is not going to encourage pedestrian activity. So we're just. So that's what I'm suggesting. Just repeat that, please. I'm sorry. Just repeat that. The board may consider the purpose of the section in the, in determining whether to grant a special permit through environmental design. You can fill in the right section number. Yeah, something. So that's my other suggestion. Thank you, Jean. That might be better understanders, but I'm not sure. That's where I was. No, all the standards. All the standards have to do with transparency and access. So that's not a good place for it. Yeah, I would have a different. Maybe having the best place, but anyway, that's my, that's my other suggestion. Great. Thank you, Jean. Melissa, any. Discussion on the points that were brought up currently or any further items related to your either support or. Thoughts towards nonaction on this item. Thanks, Rachel. I guess I'm curious about what the board was thinking in terms of the applicability piece. You know, I had mentioned. At our last discussion about this being applicable for a special permit or change of use. I think there's few, there's going to be, you know, The scope of the applicability will be limited for new construction and expansion. I think what we'll see more is reuse and maybe limited. Expansion on the footprint. So I think if we're really trying to do something, it's going to be. In those smaller changes and I wanted to hear what the board was thinking about that. Great. Good question. We'll definitely come back to that one and discuss Steve. I'm okay with all with the changes that Mr. Lau and Mr. Benson have. I'm still thinking about applicability, but overall, I'm supportive of this. I think it will help to encourage attractive spaces as our commercial parcels are redeveloped. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. I want to go back to the suggestion that or that that Ken and and Jean were both speaking about regarding. I think it was, can correct me if I'm wrong this second bullet point. The first bullet point under standards. Yeah, just to require minimal transparency on the ground floor. I think we want to put in with with exception from the ARB or something. I don't know. I'll leave that to Jean the words method. Could I make a suggestion that perhaps we add that under three administration, and perhaps it's administered subject to 3.3 and 3.4. Including consideration of any reasonable exemptions. Yeah, that'd be fine. Jean, your thoughts on that. You're on you, Jean. Yeah, I think, I think, and I think it's including making reasonable exemptions from the standard, something like that. Including provisions for reasonable exemptions. Ken, does that address. I think so. It might be a little vague, but it gives us, I think it gives us enough latitude. I think we'd be okay. So, I think we should weigh in on Melissa's question about also including in to the applicability to change of use in addition to the larger redevelopment or new construction sections. My, I'll just note that I think that requiring some of the transparency and other items with a change of use would put an undue burden on some of the applicants and would in some ways perhaps stifle development in some ways. You know, again, because of the breadth of what we're requesting here and what the scope that comes before sometimes in a change of use consists of, but I'll turn it over to to Ken next for your thoughts on adding the change of use. I would agree with you. I think I don't want to put too much of an undue burden on somebody that's trying to do something that's moderate that it's helpful and and I, you know, I want to keep it in the word development, you know, we want to encourage development with that. I think this would be one way of adding one more hurdle. That would be undue burden. I agree with what she says, I stick it. It's going a little far for me. Great. Thank you, and Jean. I have, I think Melissa's hit on an important point that I have a suggestion for this. The applicability word in new construction additions over 50%, etc. is the exact same wording that's almost in the very opening a sentence of standards. So I'm not sure we need to have them in two places. I would suggest taking them out of the applicability part, because the point that Melissa said that intrigues me is, and oh, by the way, I agree with Rachel and I agree with can that, you know, somebody's just doing, you know, minor changes just changing news. We don't necessarily want them to do stuff with the facade for the reasons Ken and Rachel said however for the uses. And the idea that we should look at the purposes. That's very important. So I think if we should, if this applicability would say in the business districts and take out all of the wording that should be in for, you know, in the business districts application subject to review that would put all of those transparency standards in the facade part and the lobby and things like that. Allow us to do what I had suggested and number one, which is look at the uses and see whether they're consistent with the purposes. So I think that's the way to get at what Rachel and can you are talking about and hopefully get at what Melissa was thinking too. And here you Rachel. Thank you, Jenny. Steve. I guess I have a question for the architects on the board in the event that, you know, a building started off with 40% 40% transparency on the ground floor and we needed to go to 60. How much structural modification would that require depends on the way that the facade was constructed it could be a significant modification or it could be. It could be fairly, fairly minor it could be taking out a couple of courses of bricks and adding a lintel or it could be something more significant depending on what kind of the facade treatment it was but there is. I sort of I like Mr. Benson's revisions and I see we're missed and talk to us is going on. Yeah, I guess my, my concern is that I'm, you know, if it can be tricky enough to start a start a business and my concern would be to add a big construction bill to, you know, their start up costs. But I'm okay with where I think I'm okay with where we're at now. Thank you Steve. Melissa, I'll see if that this change addresses the concern that you have and if you have any other thoughts on this topic. Well I like the intention of it and I think what we're trying to do in terms of activation and being kind of thoughtful for the interaction with the public realm is important. I think the opportunities are going to be limited with new construction and expansion at 60%. So I think just, and I don't, I mean I see where you could see that maybe an additional burden on a new business or change of new. So, at the same time, I think what Jean was saying if I understood it correctly allows a little bit oversight and Jean you might have to re explain that one to me to make sure I've got it because you would remove it from the applicability and then you leave it only in design standards is that correct. Yeah so my intention and I'm looking at this I actually think it would work because it's in the basically what are the design standards that would mean that what what Ken and Rachel were talking about which is you know if you're just changing the use or just doing some moderate addition. You don't have to pay a lot of money to redo the facade, but because we took it out of the applicability part, it's applicable to anything which means that if it's just a change of use. We can't deal with, we don't deal with the facades, but we can see if the if it meets the purposes of the development standards which are the act you know encourage pedestrian activity active street and development of active ground floor uses so splitting that out. I think it gets at what Ken and and Rachel will concern about which I am too, but also gets at what I think we had discussed a few weeks ago. Give us a little way to say look that seems to be really the wrong use to put here. I'd support that. And I hope that's what this says. Well, I'll ask before we move on to vote on this I'll ask Jenny for her thoughts in terms of the way that this has been reworded because I also, you know, want to be mindful of the fact that sign permits come in through the same process as well and and again I just would not confuse the matter and and open this too wide in terms of what some of the smaller items that people sometimes come in front of us for but Jenny I'll see if you have any concerns about the way this is. Yeah, I mean that would be my biggest concern I think having this applied to things that are very small and an applicant is really just looking to change out the sign and, you know, change the restaurant change the retail store I just don't think that that's what we were ever aiming for. I mean as much as I would like to change some of the facades. I don't think that that's the way to go about it, not for a business that's just trying to, you know, they might be making up, you know, a preliminary investment and then there might be a longer term investment and I think we want to appreciate that there are many businesses that kind of eventually stretch to making that longer term investment, but not make them do it right up front at the risk of any expense of their business potentially I don't think that was the intention. The intention was what it says here new construction additions over, or, you know, redevelopment that touches upon the sort of more significant situations that I was hoping that this would be applicable to nothing. Nothing more than that so I don't think that this applies to signs, and I don't think that this applies to change of use. My reading of it would not suggest that it does. Correct, even with the new changes correct even with the new changes yeah if you I've highlighted them when you tell me you're good with them we'll take out the highlight by the way. So, can I, can I weigh in for a second. Yes, of course you. So, I think in applicability we should probably add a sentence that says, you know, you know, this is not applicable to, you know, sign, you know, determination. The section is not applicable to request for approval of signs, but I think is it's now written. Not number four but number one allows us to look at uses, if somebody comes in for a change of use. So the example I'll give is chase bank that came before us a few weeks ago. I would say that this would allow us to take a look at, does it encourage pedestrian activity, maintain an active street, encourage development of active ground floor uses, because we're saying that we should consider the purposes of this section. So, as I read it now, it would give us the ability to do that for a change in use, we may choose not to, you know, if it's going from one restaurant to another. If we certainly wouldn't but there's somewhere we might. And I think that's the benefit of having it go this way. My concern again would be just to be clear my concern about having this applied to change of use is that not every change of use comes to this board actually. And it is, you know, it's not, not subject to the board's review but then making it subject to the board's review is like adding an additional special permit process. Jenny, it wouldn't because this still has to require a special permit and EDR review. So, well, gee, if it's under 2000 square feet, no. That's right, then we wouldn't do anything. Right. Exactly. Good point too. Right. There are some limitations where there are no special permits or EDR review. I mean, does that number three, which limits it the scope to those items that fall under 3.3 and 3.4 does that address the concerns that you just brought up there in terms of those items that actually don't come in front of us for change of use. No, I'm not completely sure right now reading it. I'm trying to read it to understand it. Yeah, trying to say I'm, I would be concerned that we would have somebody come to the board for something way beyond the scope of what they were planning. That would be my biggest concern. I think, I think this clause is all we have basically to deal with it. The other clause we have is it has to come before us for a special permit. Right. It has to already be in the special permit. Right. Has to already meet the criteria elsewhere for needing to come in to the ARB. Okay, for special permit. Right. Okay. We are okay with these things. Do you want to go back to this one. Before you move on the principle facade. Yes, we can do that. I will just run through again after Kelly and Jenny's explanation about the principle facade really meaning NASA or or Broadway can, would you still be interested in adding the multiple the facades with it with an S here. No, I wouldn't want, I wouldn't be, I wouldn't put the S there. I would say if both facades. If both sides are equal. Then, and if we, and we agree that it's equal that I would ask the developer, or the owner to choose one. Okay, so we would just leave this as is gene thoughts on leaving this as is with the explanation and the the opportunity to define for the applicant, the principle facade. Correct. One would be chosen, but I think it's undue burn to do both just because it's on the corner a lot. You don't have, it just doesn't make sense architecturally. I don't have the opportunity to define for the applicant, the principle facade. That's fine. I don't think it will come up very often. I'm fine with that too. Great Steve. Also find madam chair. Great. All right, are there any other. Any other discussion points or revisions. For this item, I'll just run quickly through Ken. No. Jean. No, Melissa. No, and Steve. No revisions. All right. Is there a motion. To recommend action. Or article 28, the zoning by law amendment for enhanced business districts. Motion. Go ahead. Ken, all second. Motion to recommend for action as amended. Thank you, Ken. Second. Thank you, Melissa. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken. Yes. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Just a quick point of information about. I mean, we voted this in, which is great. So Jenny needs to set, put this all in the package. So we'll have. One chance if we find a common missing or something like that. On Thursday. Correct. Correct. So we will review the memo on, on Thursday and be able to make any final, final revisions at that time. Jenny, did you have. The draft report to 10 meeting is what you're reviewing on Thursday. And I'll also send it in a word document after it's posted tomorrow afternoon. To the agenda, but it's, it's the, it'll be voted on on Thursday. As the final report. I still do need a little more rationale for that vote. If possible. Couple of. Couple of. You might add some. I, I, we, we spent a lot of time talking about the edits, but I want to make sure we capture why. Why the board votes to recommend action. Or no action in the future. The potentially. In this one, I think the purpose pretty much says it though. So the purpose being, if you could just state the purpose for, for Jenny, so that she can capture that gene. It's the purpose right here that she's got the arrow. I agree with that. Jenny, does that give you what we need? Basically restating the purpose from. I think, oh yeah, I can work with that. Okay. I can also go back to the first hearing. I just want to make sure that you just keep that in mind when you're voting, please. To make some statements of support or lack of support and why. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So moving on to our next. Article, which is article 29. Zoning by law amendments. Related to street trees. And Jenny, again, I'll ask you to highlight anything that you would want to note that has been revised for discussion. I actually, I'm going to ask Kelly. I don't think this one changed substantially with the exception that I think we had heard about watering, but we just, we did not incorporate watering. Into this Kelly. I don't know. There were minor modifications that were made during, like directly during the hearing. And those are reflected in the text here. There was a recommendation to add and watering, but we determined that was redundant with maintained. Because watering is a component of maintenance by the American standard of nursery stock standards. Great. Thank you very much. So now open it up to the board for discussion and. Making sure that we are highlighting either our support or concerns as we move towards action or no action on this item for the notes that Jenny is putting together and we'll start with that. I'm in support of this article. For. Encouraging three trees. And I have no comments as far as any changes or anything like that. Great. Thank you. I'm supportive too. I have two minor wording changes. If you can go back up a little bit please. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You must be back down. There we go. A little more. More. There we go in. There should be no comma after the word circumstances. And in, in D. I would suggest the phrase. Or other standards. to the end of the set. So let's say nursery stock stands for a period of less than 36 months from the date of planting and then put that in. Yes, those are my only suggested changes. Dean, thoughts on support or concerns on this article? Yeah, I mean, I think it's a fine article. Again, the purpose says it all. I mean, we have serious heat islands along the main corridors. The town's made a commitment to both, you know, adaptation and mitigation for climate and trees do some of each. So, you know, I just think this is an important step and it also says, and, you know, this is again in the purpose, people tend to like to walk where there are trees, stop where they are trees in the summertime. So it also helps with encouraging pedestrian activity on our main corridors. Great, thank you for summing that up. So eloquently, Jean. Melissa. No additional comments in terms of action. I support it. I think similar to Jean. I mean, I think, you know, walkability is not just, you know, sidewalks, but it's attractiveness. It's the shade. And then this also contributes kind of nature-based solutions, you know, planting trees towards, you know, mitigating built, you know, built environment impacts. So thanks. Thanks for bringing that forward. Great, thank you so much, Melissa. That's very helpful. Steve. Yes, one, well, one, first a, I guess a suggested edit in six, three, four D. The last sentence where it says, public right of way are exempt. I'm wondering if that should be public way mirroring to mirror the words in the definition of public chagry. Thank you, Steve. I think you did point that out at our first meeting as well. I noticed that this is in 6.3.2 as well. Kelly, could you chime in? I think we did talk about this, but I don't know why this, it's still says. No, we talked about changing the definition, but I'm not glad to make that change throughout. So I think we can state that. Not a problem. I just want to make sure we're consistent. So public way is okay for everybody? Yes. I'm going to change this one too. Yeah, in terms of general comments, I do note that there was some opposition to this. And mainly concern over the town's ability to take care of or to properly care for forestry trees. When I first moved to Arlington, it seemed like about half of the trees that the middle lopped out of them and they just looked like a bunch of bushy whys. I think over the last couple of years and especially since hiring a full-time tree warden, we've gotten a lot better at it and I think it's an area where we're taking shade trees a lot more seriously and it's an area where we're improving. I support this for all of the, for reasons my colleagues have mentioned in terms of providing shade and providing shade dealing with stormwater and reducing heat island effects. So I am supportive. Great, thank you very much, Steve. And I am supportive as well for all of the reasons identified and as was pointed out in the Department of Planning and Community Development memo when we first reviewed this, also it's applicability with the goals of the master plan has been identified in terms of pedestrian walkability and enjoyment of the pedestrian experience in our commercial neighborhoods as well as mitigating heat island effects. So are there any other items that board members wish to bring forward on this article? All right, seeing none, I will see if there is a motion to recommend action on Article 29 as amended. Tomu. Back in. Great, thank you. We'll take a vote, starting with Kim. Yes. Dean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action for Article 29, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to street trees. All right. The next article, second, Article 30, is a Zoning By-law Amendment related to solar energy systems. And again, I'll turn it over to Jenny to highlight any significant changes that may have been made through the revision process. I'm actually gonna turn it to Jean and Kelly, who I believe worked with Talia and Shelley to finalize and sort of took in all of the comments during the public hearing and a little bit after and made some edits. So maybe Jean. Yep. So if you could go down to the next page, the one big change, and I think it's actually the only change if you keep on going down, Jenny to four is the neighboring properties. So this is something that Kin raised during the previous hearing. And it was, look, we don't want this to prevent someone else from building a building nearby. We don't want this to prevent people from planting trees or cutting down trees or having to prune trees. So Talia and I and Shelley Dean, who's not here at the moment, worked on and ended up with 6.4.4. And Kin can speak on this, but I think he felt it was fine. And I felt that it meant what we were trying to do and was a nice way to do it. And I think that was the only change. Kelly, did I miss anything? Oh, you're correct. That is the change. I believe that Talia had spoken directly with Kin about this after that other conversation. I'll let Kin speak for himself. No, I'm very happy with what the outcome was. That's good war smithing. Great, thank you both for working on that together. Let's see, so we'll run through any questions. And if I could just start this time, and Kin, maybe I'll direct this towards you since I know you worked a little bit on the word smithing of this one. I have a question as to whether or not there's a conflict in the wording of, let's see, where under 6.4.1, where it states the redevelopment board may require a smaller percentage of the roof area to include a solar energy system when at least 50% of the roof area is not viable for solar energy system. And then under 6.4.2A, it says that a solar energy system is not required when there's no solar ready zone or the solar zone is shaded for more than 50% of daylight hours annually. So if that's already an exemption, we wouldn't need to require a smaller percentage in that first section. I think that's a good question because this came up before, and I'm sorry Shelly's not here. She couldn't be here till later this evening. But her thought was, 50% usually makes sense, but what happens if it's 40 or 45% of the roof that's available? It would still make a lot of sense to have solar on it. So there needs to be some ability to do that. So we added that part that allows us to require a smaller percentage. But I think you're right. I think we have to do something. Think of the PIP 1 of the two. Yeah, I think we have to do something with A. I think the way to do it is to say, but people help me out here, or I would say in A where it says or the solar ready zone is shaded for more than 50% of the daylight hours annually unless the redevelopment board requires a solar system anyway or something like that. Or perhaps just identify where there is no solar ready zone period. And then again, our ability to reduce it for when it's less than 50 is granted above. So it's not an, to me it either has to be an automatic exemption or we're going to review it and decide whether to exempt them or not. Yeah, let me just look at a solar ready zone. Okay. Yes, I think you're right. I think you're right, Rachel. We should just delete it from A. Yeah. Can I say one thing real quick? Absolutely, please. When you put things in zoning that says subject to the ARB review and review qualifications, as a person who's developing a project, a developer generally looks for minimizing risk or so understanding it. So if we have to do solar, he understands that we have to do solar. So he puts it in his pro forma and does it and either pencils out or doesn't pencil out and doesn't do it. But when it's subjective to a board or someone's opinion then it's risk. And that in itself will stifle some development. That's what I'm just trying to say. I'm not saying one or the other, but if we just pick something and then let it lie and say, hey, this is what we want, but not subject to any, because then you can't calculate that. That's ice, don't see it that way. Working in encouragement. This will seem to me like another hurdle that I don't want. I don't want this solar to be a hurdle. I want it to be a bonus. That's a fair point. Why don't we do this? Why don't we take other questions, comments? Maybe, Jean, we can come back to this one and review the rest of it. So I just wanted to make that one comment. Otherwise, I'm very supportive of this. I think it continues to move forward the goals of our climate goals within the town. And I appreciate the comprehensive approach that was taken to putting this together. But I do want to make sure that we come back to that one item. So Ken, I'll go to you next for your thoughts on this one article. I'm supportive of this article. I think if we can work out some of the language, I think it would be fine. I think this is the meets our goals or we want to do. And I think that's, I'll leave it at that. Great, thank you. Jean, any comments? I don't have any other comments. I'm very supportive of this too. I think it fits right into the town's net zero action plan and the responsibility we have as a community to deal with climate change. As to the one piece you mentioned, Rachel, maybe I think Shelley Dean who was integrally involved in this will be coming later, I think. So maybe on that piece, we might wait and take all the other comments and everything else on this. We could definitely decide to table this vote and we would take a motion to do that until the later in the process. If we, I would agree, it would be great to have her weigh in on this as well. Any other comments, Jean? No. Great, thank you. Melissa? No additional comments. I'm supportive of this and I appreciate all the effort and kind of work that has gone into it to make it work. So Jean and team, so thank you. I think it was just another report out that addressing climate change has to happen not just on an individual level but on a community level through these types of policies and actions. So I think that reinforces that and it moves kind of, you know, the net zero action plan is only as good as the implementation that comes from it. So I see that as a positive, this article. Great, thank you, Melissa. Steve? I am supportive of the article. I believe it helps will further the use of renewable energy sources in the town and assist us with meeting our goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Great, thank you, Steve. So at this point, I'd certainly be interested in tabling this until the Shelley who worked with Jean and others on crafting this article is able to join us. So I would suggest that we move through the other articles and then circle back to this after we finished with article 45. So is there a motion to table this, the vote on article 30 to the end of our deliberations? Or maybe until Shelley arrives. I think if we could do that at the end, Jean, I think it would just be easier rather than to keep going back and forth if that's okay, we'll confirm with her that when you see her pop in, we'll just confirm the privilege. She'll still be available this evening. And if we have to take something out of order, we'll do so. Okay, thank you. So I'll make that motion you suggested. Great, thank you. Is there a second? Second. All right, take a vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Melissa? Steve? Yes to table. And I'm the S as well. So we'll come back to article 29. Excuse me, article 30. At the end or when Shelley arrives that she's not able to be with us for the balance of the articles. All right, we will now move on to article 31, which is a zoning by law amendment containing five administrative amendments. And I think as we've discussed these before, these are all necessary and appropriate amendments that have been identified by the Department of Planning and Community Development as we seek to bring clarity to the zoning bylaws as they've been put into use. And I'm supportive and I will turn it over to Ken for any comments. Okay, sorry, I was just trying to check. Okay, article 31, right? Yes. Yeah, I'm fine with that and I'm supported a little bit. And I have no comments on this right now or I have no comments period, sorry. It's okay, thank you Ken, Jean. I'm supportive too. And I don't have any comments other than I think it's good we once a year try to fix things that have come up in the bylaw. Great, thank you, Melissa. Yes, supportive of this and in agreement with Jean and that this is proposed so that we are making a job easier and making things more clear for applicants. Great, thank you, Melissa. Steve? I agree that it's always good to clean things up and add clarity where possible, I am supportive. Great, thank you all. Jenny, do you have enough? Yeah, that was all great. Thank you. Great, thank you. Let's see, is there, so there are no proposed amendments to Article 31. So is there a motion to approve Article 31, the Zoning bylaw amendment for administrative amendments? So motion. Not approved, recommend action. So motion to recommend action. Great, thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. So we'll take a roll call vote, Ken? Yes. Steve? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I am the yes as well. So we will be recommending action on Article 31, the Zoning bylaw amendment containing the administrative amendments. All right, moving on to Article 32, which is the Zoning bylaw amendment related to zoning, the zoning board of appeals, rules and regulation. Jenny, any, I believe that there were any major changes in this one? There were not any changes to this one now. Great. Thank you. We'll start with Jean for any discussion or comments in support or not in favor of this. I'm glad that the chair of the zoning redevelopment board and I think Jenny too brought this to our attention and it seems like the right thing to do. It's consistent with how the zoning bylaw works in many other ways and how the redevelopment board has the authority to do its own rules and regulations. So yeah, I support this. I don't have any suggested changes to that. Great. Thank you, Jean. Ken? I'm a supporter of this article and I agree with Jean. The zoning board should have their right to make their rules just like we do. Great. Thank you. Melissa? I'm supportive of this for the same reasons. Jean and Ken just mentioned. Thank you, Steve. Yes. I'll note that to the extent that I'm aware, the ZBA is the only town border commission whose rules and regulations are partially codified in a bylaw. I don't, I think they should be like any other board and have the ability and flexibility to create and amend their own rules and regulations. So I am supportive. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I am supportive as well for the same reasons that were just identified by my colleagues. So is there a, there were no amendments proposed. So is there a motion to recommend action on article 32, the zoning bylaw amendment related to the zoning board of appeals, rules and regulations? So motion to recommend action. I'll second. Thank you. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I am a yes as well. We will recommend action for article 32 for the zoning board of appeals, rules and regulations. All right. The next article is article 33, the zoning bylaw amendment related to the definition of half story. There was some discussion during the public hearing and I see that several of the clarifications that were identified were included. Jenny, did you have anything specifically you wanted to highlight? No. I think that we just incorporated everything that was discussed. You know, we amended this during the hearing which was to sort of consolidate as I recall and we came to an agreement that it was okay to have this kind of detail in the definition rather than as a separate section which is why it's consolidated. And then we added the waves to illustrate better how the half story might look. Great. Thank you, Jenny. Ken, any commentary? No, I'm a supporter of this and all the changes that were made. Steve's wave is good. And I think this also helps clarify it and makes it easier to understand. Great. Thank you, Ken. Gene. And yeah, I think this is fine too thanks to the chair of the zoning board of appeals to bringing this to our attention for this extra clarity and we did also speak with, as you know the building inspector about it and he thought this was appropriate too and many times he's the one who gets to apply this also. So I think that we have the approvals of the folks who are going to use this most often. Great. Thank you, Melissa. I support the action. And yeah, I think, you know when we hear from staff and that it makes it clear I think that's an important amendment to the zoning bylaw. Great, thank you. Steve. I just want to note that although, you know a half story may look deceivingly simple that is sometimes it is tricky to get the words right and down on paper. You know, I applaud the chair of the ZBA for bringing this clarification forward and I am supportive of it. Great. Thank you, Steve and I am supportive as well. It's there. So we did not make any amendments during our discussion this evening. So is there a motion to recommend action for article 33, the zoning bylaw amendment related to a definition of half story? So motion to recommend action. There are seconds. So move. So second. Second. Okay. Thank you, Gene. We'll take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Thank you, Gene. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action for article 33, the zoning bylaw amendment related to half stories. We'll now move to article 34, the zoning bylaw amendment related to porches. And Jenny, then I'll see. I don't think that we had any major modifications to this one. All right. There were not any changes since the last time we discussed it during the hearing. Great. Thank you very much. We'll start with Ken for any commentary. No, I think this is good. It clarifies what porches are and makes it easier for people to understand and for the zoning board to enforce. So I'm very supportive of this. Great. Thank you. I agree. I'll add again, thanks to the chair of the zoning board of appeals to bringing this to us, asking for the clarification and that both he and the building inspector had a chance to look at this. And again, they're the ones who deal with this most often and they're appreciative of these changes. So I think that's good. Great. Thank you. Melissa. I support it. Great. Steve. I am happy to see that we have clarified that projections into minimum yards includes porches. So I, this is a very, very, it's a useful clarification and I'm fully supportive. Great. Thank you. I am as well. Is there, so we did not make any amendments. Is there a motion to approve or excuse me to recommend action for article 34, the zoning by law amendment relative to porches? Motion to recommend action. One second. Thank you, Melissa. I'll take a vote. Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action for article 34, the zoning by law amendment related to the definition of porches. Now move to article 35. The zoning by law amendment related to yard encroachments. And again, we did not have any significant changes during the discussion during the public comment period. So I will start with Jean for any comments on this article. Same comments I had on the other one. I think this is a good idea. I appreciate that. Chair of the zoning board of appeals bringing this to our attention for this clarification and both he and the building inspector had a chance to look and consider this and they both think it's a good idea. Great. Thank you. Ken. I agree with Jean and what he said. I'm a supporter of this. Thank you. Melissa. Gordon. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Yes. This is the new material in section 539 is similar to what the ZVA had been imposing as a condition on special permits. And I think it's fully appropriate to add it to the bylaw. So I'm supportive. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I am supportive as well. So since there were no amendments made, we'll take a motion to see if anyone would make a motion to recommend action for article 35, the zoning by law amendment related to yard encroachment. Some motion to recommend action. For a second. I can make a vote. Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I know yes as well. So we will recommend action for article 35, right? The next will be article 36, the zoning by law amendment related to large additions. We did have a little bit of discussion during the public hearing on this item. Jenny, I don't recall. I don't believe that any substantive changes were made as a result of that discussion. We're not any changes following that discussion. Okay, great. Thank you. So we'll start with Ken. No, I have no, I'm supportive of this. And I have no questions right now. I have no questions at all with what's here. Great. Thank you. Jean. Guess what? I appreciate the chair of the zoning board of appeals bringing these clarifications to our attention and that he and the building inspector took a close look at them and think that they're necessary and will help in clarifying for them for people who are reading the zoning by law. So I support this too. Great. Thank you, Melissa. Diddow, same as Jean. I support it. And I think the ZBA has done a good job bringing these things forward. So thanks. Great. Thank you very much. Steve. I am also supportive. I want to note that the changes proposed are effectively bringing the language in the bylaw to match the way this provision has been interpreted. It has been a, you know, I'm aware of a few cases where it has been the source of the confusion. So it's, I think it is a useful clarification and I'm glad to see that we're making it. Great. Thank you for that commentary. That's very helpful. All right. So we have not made any amendments. Is there a motion to recommend action for article 36? The zoning by law amendment related to large additions. Motion to recommend action. All second. Thank you. Take a vote. Ken. Yes. Dean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I am a yes as well. So we will recommend action for article 36. The zoning by law amendment for large additions. We now come to article 37, the zoning by law amendment for unsafe structures. And there was one change during the public comment period where we added whether Jezic me to the item in terms of who could make the determination that the structures were unsafe in discussion with the director of inspection services. So I will ask him for any questions, commentary or support. I'm supportive of this article 37. I am also a part of the change saying director of the special services or their digs or their Disney, which is fine. I think this is I'll let you phrase it, but I'm supportive of this. Great. Thank you. So you think I have this memorized? I appreciate the chair of the zoning Board of Appeals bringing this to our attention and the need to clarify this and that he and the director of inspectional services both looked at this and thought it was appropriate in. And the reason they're bringing this to our attention is there have been at least one or more instances where the determination was made by a third party that might not have been appropriately made or with the input of inspectional services. So just just clarifies that it needs to be a town decision in these circumstances. Thank you, Jean. Melissa. Same. I supported. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. I am supportive. Since this is I believe this is the last of the ZBA articles, I'm going to take this a moment to express my gratitude to ZBA chair Christian Klein for bringing these proposals forward. I just want to say that the ZBA and ARB have sort of different scopes of authority under our eye law and some generally work in different areas. Although the ZBA works with tends to work with smaller projects, you know, their hearings affect a lot, a lot of people and it's extremely important work. So I'm glad to see the two boards working collaboratively together. And I hope we can do so in the future. I support this. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I really appreciate that recognition of the collaboration between the ZBA and the ARB and all of the work that Christian Klein and the ZBA as well as the building inspector put forth in creating this article, as well as many others in terms of interpretation and ensuring that this would clarify and codify current interpretations for others. So we have not made any amendments this evening. Is there a motion to recommend action for Article 37, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to unsafe structure? Motion to recommend action. Service second. I can. Take a vote. Thank you. We'll take a vote. Ken. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action for Article 37. OK, so we now get to Article 38, which is the Zoning By-law Amendment noting that to family construction would be allowed by right in the R0 and R1 residential zones. Jenny, were there any changes that were made by the petitioner between our public hearing and what we see here tonight? There were not any changes made. Kelly, can you confirm that? Confirm that there have been no changes made. Great. Thank you very much. Let's see. So let's go ahead and start discussion with Ken. I have to one question. We did talk about setting some square footage. I think Gina brought that up at the last discussion. And so the proponent for this to not want to make that modification. I believe you're directing that to Kelly or Jenny. You don't want it as my understanding that the petitioner was not as favorable to that modification. That's fine. I just want to understand it. It's all. OK, so so this is as is as presented as was submitted by the petitioner. Yeah, there are proposed main motion. Right. I just want to make this clear that this I've been getting a lot of emails and a lot of questions about this. And this article has nothing to do with affordable housing. And I think the opponent of this made that clear in their statements. I think as far as building this encouraging building larger buildings. This does not do that because it says it still has to fall within a single family setbacks and an open space and all that stuff. It does not. This also does not. Include increasing parking is still the same parking that's required for a single family. And there's been some talk about by increasing this from a single family to two family that are infrastructures not set up for this. And I don't think I don't think that's quite a correct statement. Just because in the last, I don't know, 30 years are all our which is, I believe, where the infrastructure was designed at that point in time that our our our water usage has greatly diminished because we're using water energy conscious apparatus is not where the toilet flushes at 1.5 gallons or 1.3 gallons, even 1.1 on a really efficient ones. From what used to be like five gallons, our shower heads are used, spits out a lot less water, same with the faucets. We have dishwashers now, which uses more than, I mean, less than half what the water is to use a wash by hand. So I think our energy conference, our water conservation has increased. Has increased and made the life expectancy of our design. That was done in the fifties. Much better. And last. So the only question I had, and this was this came up to with me the last time this was brought up. And actually, I believe I voted against this. A rezoning changes. But this time around, I think with. The fact that the. The such great support for this right now that I'm willing to. Support this article and move it forward to town meeting and let the town decide. And I'm OK with that. So that's why I stand right now. You can, Jean. Thank you. I'm going to say a few of the same things that can said and then some others. I think I think we have received more emails about this article than any other article that's been before us for, I think, the, you know, five years that I've been on the redevelopment board. Many people sent in emails opposing it and many people sent in emails in favor. Yeah, I just want to go through a few of the themes from the opposition and give my reaction to them. One of them, which can mentioned was that we don't have the infrastructure to support it. And that I think is incorrect, both in conversations with people in the town who know who know what the infrastructure can support. And as Ken said, water and wastewater flows have actually gone down in the past years because of all the water saving devices that are available. You know, there's not going to be loss of open space, things like that, because there's no change being made to the dimensional requirements, the open space requirements, anything like that, that would fill up more space on a lot. It shouldn't affect the value of people's homes at all, as has been pointed out by the Redevelopment Board. There are about 182 family homes currently in the single family districts, plus some multiplexes, some condos, some apartments. And, you know, I live in the Arwin district. There are no two family homes on my block, but I can walk a block away. And there are two family homes and houses right next to them have sold in the past couple of years for no less than they have on the blocks next door that don't have any two family homes on them. So I don't see this as causing any diminution in value of people's homes. And, you know, a lot of people have said, well, you know, there are tear downs happening in town. Look at the R2 district where little single family homes are getting torn down and replaced with two families. Well, what's happening in the R1 and R0 district is smaller homes are getting torn down and replaced with bigger houses. So we're not in a status quo situation where things are changing. Our neighborhoods are changing. And the real question is, what do we want to have the neighborhoods be? And do we want to provide an opportunity for people to have some more housing options to live in town? So I have read all of the letters with arguments against and not persuaded by them, quite frankly, except except for one thing that I want to mention. And that leads to the change that I would like to see in this, which as Ken pointed out, I mentioned last time, I would like these in the R0 and R1 zone to be limited to 1,850 square feet of heated living space per unit. They can be less, but they can't be more. Where did I come up with 1,850 square feet? That's the state's smart starter home limit in 40R. So there's a real basis for that. Now, why do I think that's important? Because I think what will happen otherwise is that houses will get torn down, which they will anyhow, and we'll get two very large two families that will each exceed that amount. I had an interesting conversation. Oh, let me just say one thing first. So I don't think we can control prices in town, but I can think we can try to damp them down a little bit by putting a limit on the size of these buildings that would be coming in. As we know, state law does not allow us to put limits on the size of some of the family homes, but state law does not prevent us from putting limits on the size of units in two family and larger homes. So we are permitted to do this. I had an interesting conversation the other day with Arlington's chief of police, and I asked her how many of the officers and there in 60 some number of officers around the exact amount live in town. And she said almost none of them live in town because they really can't afford to live in town anymore because the prices have gone up so much and they all need to live within 15 miles of town because that's some rules. So they live in a lot of the surrounding towns where housing is less expensive. I think one thing that we can do and I think it's one thing that we should do is limit the size of these units. As I said, 1850 square feet of heated living space, de-restricted so people who might not be able to afford large single family homes to people who might not be able to afford larger condos or apartments in two families will have something. Is it going to create affordable housing? No, you know, but is it going to create some housing that way that some people will be able to afford to live in Arlington that they won't be able to afford if we don't put a numeric limit on the size of these units? Yes, it will. So I I am willing to support this. I think it's the right thing for the town to do with the size limit that I recommend. Thank you, Jean. What I'd like to do is to take the initial comments and discussion from the board members and then we will. I believe that any of the court is the petitioners here with us this evening. And I'd like to ask her to to address the suggestion you made before we move to Melissa, I'll just remind everybody that this there will be no public comment this evening on these agenda items. The public comments and public hearing was closed during our last Monday's meeting. So if you could please put your hands down if they are raised. We will not be taking public comments. I'll also remind people to please not gesture approval or disapproval of the articles as they are being discussed. That was one of the rules of conduct that we did identify at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you. So I will now go to Melissa. Rachel, I did have a question in terms of where the housing production plan kind of stood the status on the select one if they had adopted it or accepted it. For for which the housing production plan or they tabled that discussion. They did not vote one way or the other at their meeting. They to currently do not have a date on their schedule for for taking that back up. So Rachel, you want to hear comments from me in terms of this proposal at this point? That's right. Any any thoughts you have to further the discussion towards towards moving towards action or no action? Well, just, you know, for the record, given my experience, you know, I'm a urban planner by trade. I've looked at housing, economic development. So has been interested in this policy as being pretty innovative and coming forward. We've seen it kind of nationwide. I think, however, you know, I'm inclined to maybe give some pause, given kind of where we are with the housing production plan. It was a coincidence kind of that any had brought this, you know, just in time as we were putting together strategies for housing. And I think my thinking is I'd like to kind of understand how we can strategize better together for a package on housing policies and work with staff for some thoughtful implementation on this, as opposed to, you know, how I see it currently. Although it's a good, you know, kind of concept proposal, it is kind of independent and. At this point, you know, kind of running, you know, running a little ahead of where I see our community needing to socialize this idea a little bit more so. In general, I think, you know, we talk a lot about, you know, affordable housing, you know, as Jean mentioned, and as the applicant had mentioned to us several times, this is not intended as an affordable housing initiative, but more, you know, creating housing options. And I think that's still very important. But with a mandate from the state on the MBTA communities, looking at three family and more so throughout our community, I think maybe we can turn our efforts and kind of find a little bit more alliance where the state is in terms of our meeting those requirements and less on, you know, kind of this more independent policy and try to tie in our our efforts together so that they kind of are in sync with the housing production plan. I would like to see the select men, you know, accept that and understand kind of, you know, what's behind that housing production plan and those recommendations and to weigh in on that a little bit because we are predominantly a residential community. So it's important that they chime in on that. And so, I mean, I am a little bit concerned, you know, kind of size, you know, I think we did hear a lot from, you know, the McMansion versus two family. If we're not controlling the dimensions, I understand that. But I think if we're trying to limit them in McMansion piece, my thoughts are, you know, I think there is a different mechanism for that. So I think we have to kind of think through that a little bit. And yeah, that's kind of where where my thoughts are right now. Right. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are two ways to sort of look at Article 38. One is as a policy piece. And aside from, you know, it's got a policy side, but it also has a political side. I mean, the, you know, there has been a great deal of correspondence and debate and passion about Article 38. And for that reason, I'd like to spend maybe a little more time than I have with other articles sort of explaining, you know, my reasoning and thoughts about it. Fortunately, I think the policy side is fairly straightforward. I understand that Ms. LeCourt proposes article after seeing a number of smaller single family homes in her neighborhood replaced with much larger ones. And from her perspective, you know, she thought a building of that size could accommodate two families. The smaller dwellings would have a, you know, would cost less. And we would be gradually adding supply at the same point. Now, these, a lot, we do have quite a few older homes in Arlington and they are going to be replaced at some point. And what we're really discussing is what are they going to be replaced with? So over the last nine months, new single family sales that I have seen listed in the Arlington Advocate have ranged from $1.7 million to $2.6 million. That is sort of our current status quo for new single family construction. New half duplexes have ranged from $1.1 to $1.7 million. And that's really the cost aspect we're talking about. The difference between a $1.1 to $1.7 million home versus $1.7 to $2.6. If we were to adopt Mr. Venson's size limitation, maybe, you know, that probably would go down a little bit. Now, these half duplexes aren't cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but I think they are far less expensive than, you know, the new single families that are going up. During the first half of 2021, the median price of a single family home in Arlington was about $960,000. And towards the end of the year, I received a brochure from one of our realtors, you know, basically putting the average sale price of a single family home at a little over a million dollars. So if you want a single family home in Arlington, even a used one, it's going to cost you about a million dollars. That's where the market is and that's where we are now. So to me, the prospect of getting new construction for just a little more than what a used single family costs is significant, especially since new construction will be up to code. It will have tighter envelopes and it'll be more energy efficient than what we were building 50, 75, or 100 years ago. I also want to talk a little bit about sort of what I see as the, you know, long-term climate change impacts about this. Land use and, you know, climate change is really a greenhouse house gas emissions issue and land use and transportation. This guy should be recused. Land use and transportation played big roles in that. Excuse me. I believe that was Carl Wagner. This is your first warning. If you interrupt the deliberations again, you'll be removed from the meeting. Oh, sorry. This doesn't seem like the public meeting. Carl, you may please remove yourself from the meeting. Jenny, would you help me help Carl remove himself from the meeting? Thank you. Go ahead, Steve. I apologize for the disruption. So no worries. I will just try to wrap up quickly. You know, a good portion of our greenhouse gases come from personal transportation and it's my understanding that in order to get to net zero, we will have to completely switch over to electric vehicles and reduce the number of vehicle miles that, you know, we drive. So this is why smart growth policies, like having housing near transit and jobs works, I think we, you know, I hope that we are willing to have a little bit more of that in Arlington. And I think if we're serious about avoiding the worst effects of climate change, I think we will have to get more comfortable with, you know, allowing more people to live here because we are so close to so many job centers. I think this is a, you know, a small step in that direction that I hope we can take it. So I am, I am supportive of this. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Steve. I apologize again for the disruption to your comments. I just wanted to add, I agree with my colleagues that this is a really interesting proposal and one that aligns with a lot of the goals that that we have discussed as a as a board in terms of housing choice, addressing the environmental impacts of that we are trying to address in the town. I also really see the merit to what Melissa has suggested, which is to take the good work that has been done in creating the housing production plan and look at a lot of these strategies as a more comprehensive and connected as more comprehensive and connected policy, as opposed to this, which again, I see as a net positive for the town, but which could be combined with other strategies to potentially be more effective. So one of the items that I want to bring forth that we discussed back in 2020 as a board when a similar article was proposed, which was, you know, to perhaps look at requiring a, you know, from a conversion from a single family to a two family, a percentage to the affordable housing trust fund, or again, some sort of some sort of an interconnected policy change, in addition to a comprehensive education piece for the public who may not fully understand this, and I appreciate any law court sent to the members of the Redevelopment Board, which is posted with the meeting minutes, a fact sheet that she has developed with her partner petitioner, Laura, for how to start explaining this to the members of the public and town meeting members at the precinct meetings. I think there's a really comprehensive education piece that is required that gets to again, a lot of the items that both Ken and Jean and Steve spoke to to dispel some of the some of the items, which are in many ways unfounded, which are being identified. And I would hate for this to move forward without the appropriate education and background that's required in order to to make this a successful article in front of town meeting. And it's something that I brought forth at our last meeting. And I think we saw an example of when this is done really well, and very comprehensively with the ADU article that we saw last year, which again, was back through quite a bit of research, and quite a bit of documentation, which ultimately helped inform and educate not only this board, but the members of town meetings. So I'm interested in, you know, hearing from Annie McCord, I know that Jean had a specific question for her with regarding the whether she would consider a potential a potential cap on the size of the two family units. Before I ask Annie to address that, I'd like to go back through the members of the board and see if they are also interested in having any review that as a as a cap as a as a condition for support of this article. And I'll start with with you, Ken. I can go either way with what Jean said. I was more interested in what you said about having a linkage fund where that a certain percentage, you know, like 2% or 1% of the sales would go to an affordable housing account. I think we have already have established already, right? Correct. And, you know, with new sales, all houses that they'll go in that this is an addition above that. And I think that would be a great linkage to affordable housing, which this was not all about. This does not this is about choice. But having that linkage there, it makes it more interesting for me. I think the setbacks that are established for single family houses, gone pretty much gonna control the size of the house, I think. So, you know, and if they're a little bigger, it's, you know, it's the market. I think what you know, we're trying to give market choice here. And I think that's okay. That's what I think right now. Thank you, Ken. And Jean. Yeah, thank you. A few things. I mean, Jenny may know this, I and she doesn't know what I'm about to say, but she may know the answer. I actually talked to a lawyer about a year ago, asking if we could do linkage. And I was told we did not have the legal authority to do that sort of linkage. If we did, it would be great. Maybe Jenny knows differently on that. But that's my understanding that that, you know, we don't have the authority that would need to be special legislation passed to give us the authority. I have more to say, but I wondered if Jenny knew the answer to that. Sure, Jenny. We do not have the authority. No, it's basically, it basically constitutes an impact fee, which is not legal. There's not a way to do that without as Jean noted, some sort of special legislation or homeroom petition, something other, some something like that to that effect, but we do not have that authority. It's a good, good idea. Good suggestion that unfortunately, not something we could do under this amendment. Yeah, on the size, I mean, there are two things. One is we do need to see, we don't have to do what the market wants. There are times where we can say, the market is doing something that's not not exactly what's best for the town. And what are we going to do about that? We do that all the time in zoning. And I think it's appropriate to think about doing that here for housing in this circumstance. You know what? The building inspector told us when this came last time, was on the larger lots, we would expect to have pretty big two families, if this were approved, because the larger lots, you can still have the setbacks and open space and still have very large two family homes. So, you know, Ken is right, there are going to be some 6,000 square foot lots, where you might not get more than 2,000 square feet per each unit. But there are also many, many lots in town that vastly exceed 6,000 square feet. When we're going to get a duplex or two family where each one is going to exceed 2,500 square feet. And that's why I think it's essential that we say, look, there's something we can do here. And that's something we can do here is try to get some housing built that's no longer getting built in town. And that is housing of a starter home size. So, you know, that I'm sticking with that as as to, you know, what Rachel and Melissa both said, I definitely am sympathetic to this would have been better if it came as part of a package strategy. But I think it's okay to go forward to town meeting without being part of a package strategy, but I would only go forward with the size limitations. Thank you, Jean. Melissa. I don't really have any further comment on this. Okay. Thank you, Steve. I think Mr. Benson suggestion for a size limitation is very practical. And I would like to, if possible, I would hope I'm hoping to hear what the proponent the articles petitioner feels about Great. Thank you. So at this time, and I look forward, I believe that you were here with us this evening, if you're able to unmute yourself, if you could just introduce yourself first, last name and address. And we'd love to have a discussion with you about whether or not you would be interested in entertaining the size restriction. Um, so I'm Andy LaCourte, 48 Chatham Street here in Northam. I would reluctantly entertain that motion. I believe that we have more flexibility and it's more likely to produce more units without it. But I would like to get to the floor of town meeting and be able to debate the merits. So if that is what the what makes the board comfortable, moving this forward, I'm comfortable with that. Great. Thank you very much. And let's see, I'll go back to Jean for any other any other comments you might have. No, I appreciate very much. Ms. LaCourte having that point of view and articulating it to us, because I know it's not ideally what she would want. But I think it would be a better way to get it to town meeting. So thank you very much. So Jean, where would you propose introducing that? Because I think that's the next thing. If again, we are to take a motion one way or the other on this, we'd need to identify where we would add that language, so that we can again, then just review it with any LaCourte and make sure that she's in agreement with any recommendations that we make. I think I think in the in the two places, and that would be in the table. And in the two tables that are there, there would just be a footnote for two family in duplex dwelling that says neither unit may exceed 1,850 square feet of heated living space deed restricted. So that would be my suggestion. Maybe Gemini has a better suggestion. Will you just repeat it one more time for us, please? Neither unit shall exceed 1,850 square feet of heated living space, comma deed restricted. And that would footnote or Jenny has an asterisk, both there and then in the next one down the two lines. And I think that would do it. Would you need to add that asterisk to both two family dwelling as well as duplex, Jenny? Yes. So that would be ignore the asterisk right now. It's just it's just a reminder. It'll it'll become something different. And Ken, I'll go back. Sorry, go ahead, Jenny. Oh, just deed restricted as an affordable. Has an affordable, but it's not affordable. I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm not I don't have I can't have thousands of things open in front of me. Could somebody go into our definitions too? Because I don't think that we have that. I think I think we just say as affordable or we would use a definition. So it's clear that it's affordable housing. But it's not affordable. It's not affordable housing, Jenny. Just saying, okay, are you just saying deed restricted? Can you besides have it for me? Well, then the deed, the deed to the units will restrict them to 1850 square feet of the living space. I see. Okay. Okay. If you want to move that phrase somewhere else, that's I think I might that would be my suggestion. I was confusing it with some I thought you had a different intention. Okay, you could put it at, you know, you can put it the bottom by deed restriction, neither unit. Yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you for helping me understand that by deed restriction, comma, neither unit shall exceed. Yeah. Give me a quick make a point of clarification here. Please. So on the second table, where you have the asterisks with those that asterisks not instead be on our zero and our one, because we wouldn't be having that same restriction. Okay. Correct. That's correct. Okay. It would be on the Y for our zero and Y for our one, not where the asterisks are. Thank you, Kelly. If you're going to ask, uh, do you have a question? Sure. Gene. So is this for perpetuity? Or if it's deed restricted, it's for perpetuity. So if someone wanted to, we'll say 10 years down the line, have one of these units and their family grew a bit and they wanted to do a small addition like, like anybody else that's allowed to do that, they're not out to do that then, right? Correct. Because they're in a special category. Because they bought in knowing that. Yeah, they would have bought in knowing that. Exactly. Okay. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. That's all. Yeah. And you know, one of the advantages for that is it keeps certain housing at a certain size. So if the whole town was like that, it would be a real problem. I would never suggest that for the whole town, but to provide a variety of housing options the same way you did restrict some affordable housing. Okay. Just asking questions. Yeah, yeah, good questions too, as usual. Okay. Jenny, just before we leave that, I think that the asterisks where you were under class abuse, the asterisk after two families willing in duplex would get removed since you now have them under the Y. Right. I just wanted to clarify that before we moved on. Kim, did you have any other questions or comments now that we have that clarification? No, I think Jean is winning me over. Steve, Steve, any questions or. I'd like to propose just a small friendly amendment to the wording. Where it currently says neither unit. I'm wondering if we could say neither unit of a two family dwelling or duplex dwelling. That's fine with me. I accept that friendly. That looks fine. Yes. Thank you. Melissa. Well, I'm thinking through this, you know, I can appreciate what Jean's proposal is trying to do in terms of the limitation. I mean, I think the land economics of, you know, how. Kind of housing works. Those houses will be, you know. They're just going to give you some info. When we're talking about the affordable affordable affordable affordable affordable, it's not going to have. You know, a significant impact. I mean, by square footage, maybe a little bit in terms of some size. But, you know, new construction with a couple hundred more square feet. this forward. And I feel like some of the implications of thinking through this with this strategy and now putting forward, even though it's more of a limitation, you know, it's not, you know, it's not sitting along with me without the outreach, without the understanding and we're going to bring it to town meeting will be a lot of misinformation, a lot of lack of understanding because we haven't had the outreach in any meaningful way. And my concern is that, you know, we're going to create, you know, a little bit of a storm there in town meeting without real information and analysis, and we won't be able to respond well. And there's not too much precedence to kind of show elsewhere how this has been working. So even with this modification, I'm not inclined to support it at this time. Thank you, Melissa. Can I go ahead? Please go ahead, Jean. Yeah, I'm not, you know, questioning what Melissa said. I just want to sort of say I agree with the part that says this is not going to cause a steep decline in the price of these because the price of land in Arlington is so expensive that it drives up everything and construction costs drive up everything. But what I've looked at is I've been looking at the real estate listings as the larger the units, the more expensive they are. You know, the square footage, the price you pay for square foot is about the same, depending a little bit on the unit and how it's built and what it is. But the larger square footage, the more expensive they're going to be. So this takes, I agree with you, not a big bite out of it. But I think it takes a little bite out of it. And I think it's a good little bite to take. But I understand completely why you're not going this direction on the whole idea. Rachel. Go ahead, Melissa. Please. Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm appreciative and want to kind of under, you know, kind of share that I have an open mind about kind of moving a policy like this forward. It's just that, you know, with the analysis, I think even, even with some of the social kind of arguments that we've heard around diversity, equity, inclusion, I mean, you know, we know historically there's been racial racial segregation and that's come up in some of the letters. I mean, but some of what we need to look at is just kind of, you know, the social variability, you know, for all at one income level, affording Arlington, you know, how diverse is that? It's just something that, you know, I want to kind of look at the linkage fee that we talked about that, that does require a home rule petition, but, you know, maybe that's where we should be working. Some of this effort needs to be put in the hard work where we actually need to make a difference. I don't, I see this creating a lot of controversy, but I don't see this getting us where we want to be in a meaningful way on, you know, the affordable housing or in that zone where it matters for people to make a difference here in terms of the diversity of the population. In the biggest way that I mean diversity. Thank you, Melissa. I think I'd like to at this point just go back to Annie La Courte now that we have the wording identified. This is your proposed amendment and I would like to ensure that you feel comfortable with what has been suggested. So if you could review that and let us know if you'd like to propose any changes or if this is acceptable to you. Well, I mean, I've been following the discussion. I guess I'm a little bit concerned about this idea of by deed restriction, which restricts a family from expanding their home as they, as their family grows. But I would just like to see it get to town meeting floor for debate. Thank you. You know, I also appreciate Melissa's bigger picture view of the need to have a complete strategy and a complete set of policies. And, you know, I'm usually the person who's not hotheaded and is prepared to wait the time to do that. Just over the edge at this point. So let us proceed with this amendment and see where the board is at. And then, you know, if what it means is we're going to spend the next year working on this, I'm in for the long call. Great. Thank you, Annie. I appreciate that. And I'll, again, I'll just say to that. And again, like like Melissa, I'm, I'm, I don't want to put words in Melissa's mouth. I am supportive of this, this policy change. But like Melissa, I would like to see this part of a more comprehensive plan. And I would really want to work together with with Annie, if this doesn't move forward to ensure that we are able to craft something that is easily understandable and comprehensive and backed by backed by the research and documentation, visuals, all of the things that are needed for for the public to understand this, this change, which I think in terms of housing choice is, is important. And it isn't, again, I think we've all made clear it's this is not a specific, specific, it's not about affordability in the capital A sense. But that's, that's, that's what I'd like to see happen. But I also will respect, you know, my colleague's decision of this doesn't forward. And again, I really appreciate Annie bringing this forward, because I think it is a really important strategy for us to take a look at in the town. So I'll go through once more to see any, if there's any additional discussion before I see if someone would like to craft a emotion to, to move us forward. So we'll start with Ken. Yeah, I, I liked, like Annie says, I would like to like move this forward. If not, just to start the debate in town meeting, and we put this onus on us moving this moving this together, we've been talking about this for a long time, and talking about adopting certain things and and I think this is a potential spearhead to get everybody involved in talking about this and moving this forward. So I'm okay with moving this up to debate. I mean, it's, we're not voting this in, we're just moving it forward. So we could continue this discussion and moving this issue across. So I'm okay with moving this forward. Great, thank you. Gene? Yeah, I am too. I think that if we do move it forward, we're going to ask Annie to do a lot of work between now and town meeting, so that, you know, she, she and we can make a, the best case that we can for it at town meeting. And I guess the other reason why I, there are two other reasons why I think we should move this now with the amendment. So I suggested, rather than wait another year, one is, and this is what Ken said, I mean, we've talked about putting together a comprehensive housing package, and then it was, let's wait for the housing production plan. And I just, I just think we need to put this out there for that and see how it goes. And hopefully get a lot of timing support. And if not a majority, you know, if not necessary to pass town meeting, it will be a great educational opportunity, informational opportunity for everybody at town meeting for us as a redevelopment board and for other people in town. And the other reason is, you know, we don't expect there to be that many houses converted every year, but every year they're going to be few more small houses torn down in, in the residential single family districts and replaced with large, large houses. And maybe if this passes this year, a few of those will be replaced with medium size two family and duplexes rather than a large house. So I think that's the other reason to bring it forward now, you know, it's, it's like the baby step in the right direction. Thank you, Jean. And before we finish our discussion, I just want to clarify for the, for the board and for the public here and for Annie that should we vote action on this to, to move it forward that the outreach and the presentation of the petition will be the responsibility of any of the court, not the redevelopment board, because this is a warrant article inserted by Annie and Tim registered voters, not by the ARB. So I just again want to make that clear in terms of the expectations of the board, as well as of, of Annie. So any year, I'm very clear about that. Okay, I just want to make sure we all are. Thank you. Great. Let's see. So, Melissa, any, any final thoughts before we ask for a motion? No, not at this point. Thank you, Steve. I, I'm just going to I concur with Mr. Lau and Mr. Benson. You know, and I, the other, you know, the other alternative is the essentially the status quo that we've seen for the C today and we've seen for the past few years. And I do think this is a better alternative. Thank you. Great. So we want to be board members like to make a motion, perhaps Eugene, since you have amended the article. So I thank you. So I will make a motion to recommend action on this article as amended tonight. Great. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. We'll take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Gene. Yes. Melissa. Now. Steve. Yes. And I'm a no. So we will move forward with the recommendation of action on this article to move forward to Tommy. Thank you, Annie, for your work on this. Thank you guys. I thought I needed four votes. The majority. Okay. Great. All right. Now the fun begins. Okay. All right. So the next article will be article 39, which is a zoning by law amendment for increased floor area, the increased floor area ratio for mixed use structures. And this was inserted at the request of David Pretzer and 10 registered voters. So there were a few changes made to this article by the petitioner between the public hearing and where we are today. Jenny, if you could just top line those changes for us, we will then move into the discussion. Okay, Rachel. The only changes were, I think, in response to the board's comment about moving from four to what had been discussed at the meeting, which was maybe not higher than three. And so that's what you see throughout this table. I I think it's basically doubled, but not higher than three. Is that, would that be the better way to frame it? Okay. Yeah. All right. Sorry. That everything is doubled from what it is today, unless it was going to be higher than three. It just was stayed at three. Great. Thank you very much. And that that was the only change. Great. Great. So we had a lot of discussion at our prior meeting. I'd like to continue this and hear the board's thoughts on moving this one forward as well. And we'll start with Ken. I am in favor of this article. I think increasing the FAR does help encourage more development in what we want in the business quarters for mixed use and helps support that venture of having ground floor retail with some sort of lively interaction with the streetscape and having housing above that, which helps activate that. And I think you need a certain amount of density. I'm glad that the petitioner lowered the FAR from four all the way across down to double what was there. I think that is a much more better mixture for what's required there. And we've seen some of the existing ones where it was a little higher than 2.2, 2.3, or 2.5. But with the cost of construction and land these days, I think the threes are required in those areas. So I think this is a good change. And I support this. Great. Thank you, Ken. Gene. I support this too. I'm very glad that the petitioner changed the floor area ratio that he was supporting. You know, this board had talked about doing this ourselves. And the petitioner just did this before we did it. We had recognized that the low FAR really put a damper on not only development along the commercial corridors, but the ability to include more affordable housing. You know, when people can use this FAR, they will be required by the inclusionary bylaw to have affordable housing. So I think this is a win for affordable housing. It's a win for the tax on the tax of the town, the tax base of the town. It's a win for activating the businesses and the streetscape. And I think it actually fits nicely with one of the other articles that we voted favorably on today. We had to do with the ground floor uses and what they would look like in activating the streetscape. So I think this is a nice package with both of those. And you know, it's important to point out that it doesn't change the height limitations. There are still height limitations in each one of these districts. So we're not going to get any tall buildings or skyscrapers or not even a six story building. And there are still going to be the same requirements for setbacks and the like that there are before. So I think this is just the way that we need to go ahead with our commercial districts. And again, it's just basically for the commercial districts. So that's yes, I think it's great. Thank you, Jean. Melissa. Yes, I'm a little curious to hear from my fellow board members about kind of how this works with the analysis of use and a little bit more kind of design review, because I feel like, you know, on the heels of the self storage down Dudley Street, where they're using maximizing an FAR. So we have a five story building without stepbacks. And now it's kind of a low, in my opinion, kind of a low value, probably empirically so, but a low value commercial use. If they're given that this was a citizen petition, like has there been enough analysis that this, that we've reviewed the uses and I'm still a little kind of uneasy without understanding if we're doing the right thing without some stepbacks on this and context. And I'd like to hear from my fellow board members on that. Sure. I'll keep going to Steve and we'll go back around again, but I will note that this is a little bit different since it's not the industrial use zone. It is the form mixed use. For example, there are setbacks required that are already in the zoning by a lot that would be applied that with this change in FAR or even without the change in FAR, they're required. But go ahead, Steve. So thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate mixed pretzer making these refinements. I think it's more incremental and it still retains some of the distinction that the bylaw previously had for the different districts. I think there's at least one of the master's plan recommendations that would be addressed would be furthered by this article, namely promoting the development of higher value mixed use buildings by providing redevelopment incentives. And I think there's, you know, we put added mixed use in 2016 primarily that was one of the recommendations of the master plan. I think we did put our, I think the effort to set up the initial dimensional regulations was, you know, put, we put our best foot forward, but I think the FAR just turned out to be a little bit low. And I think this is a targeted change. We're just, you know, working with, we're working with one dimensional aspect. And I think it will be at least, you know, easier for town meeting to get their head around then, you know, perhaps some of the more elaborate proposals that have come forward. So I think this is a good step forward. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I appreciate, Steve, the very simple way that you approach this as well too in terms of identifying that we put our best foot forward with creating the mixed use regulations in 2016 and the FAR turned out to be too low to actually do what the mixed use section of the bylaw intended. And this is a good, especially with the change that the petitioner made. I think I appreciate that they were so, that they took the recommendations of the board and introduced them in this change. And I'm also supportive of this change. I'll go back through. I know that Melissa had some questions and was looking to see if anyone from the board wanted to further discuss whether there was a need for additional analysis. And I'll start with Ken. Well, hopefully this answers Melissa's questions a little bit. This doesn't, this change here is increasingly FAR only. It's not affecting the setbacks. It's not affecting I don't know, the height limitations and all that stuff. So it still falls within all that stuff that we had determined earlier when we approved the mixed use. I think what Steve said earlier was 100% correct. We just did not have enough FAR support that we had approved in 2016 with the mixed use. I think this is a good step forward. Like Gene said, we're, I think we were considering this a while back. And we had looked at increasing the FAR so we can, as one of the things that we missed last time around. So I know that answer your question or not. Melissa, if you want to. Oh yeah. So I understand in terms of making a project feasible, it needs enough square footage and that generally comes from the FAR, right? We have the height limitation. And each of these districts remind me, is it the same height? Or is it very still? I think it's varied. I believe depending on where it's at. And I think the setbacks are a little different depending on where it is and what's next to it. So because of, let's give an example of Mass Ave, there might be business districts but adjacent to it, there are zones and there's other zones that vary, that influences that. So I can't give you a straight answer saying it's all the same. It's going to vary. Just depending on what's next to it or what is to it. But this is something that we were supposed to do and we didn't get around to it and this decision had got ahead of us. But we were looking at these numbers earlier. And could I ask why didn't staff or the ARB put this forward? I don't know. I don't know. That's a good question. I think we ran out of time. We're busy doing other things. I think we would have gotten around to it. I know it was one of, this was one of our things we talked about at our retreat. We talked about it at the beginning of the year. Again, I think the reason I, thanks Ken, I have more pause is kind of, yes, it is in the industrial zone kind of the most recent project that's on my mind. But the fact that these business districts and Mass Ave is essentially kind of Arlington's living room and the care and conscientiousness that goes into the redeveloped projects. We don't have an architect on staff as a retainer as far as I know. I mean, I know you guys are skilled architects, but I don't understand some of our design review process seems, it's under the environmental review process, but not necessarily design review process. So I'm just trying to make sure when redeveloped projects come through, have we incorporated enough kind of other mechanisms to ensure that these developments, taller, bigger, are well designed. That's part of our responsibility. But beyond what I'm saying is in other communities, I've seen an architect on like a retained architect to review kind of urban design and context. I mean, I know that's part of this board, but I'm trying to get an additional layer. And I'm wondering if we've considered that and just in the context of this coming, again, as a citizen's petition, I'm wondering if we've done all the due diligence that we should be doing as we move this forward. That's kind of what I'm thinking. Yeah, sure. I'll answer that a little bit more. And this is kind of off to the side. Let's say if you have a project down in Boston that's a lot larger, generally a developer will hire a more expensive architect, but more experienced architect, because there's more wiggle room and the value of the project is much larger and so forth. Whereas you are doing something on the side in a little small town somewhere where there was not as much wiggle room and not as much trying to say in a nice way, but enough capital where you can hire. So generally, where there's more risk, you hire someone that's not as experienced, maybe not as caring, and you get less quality designs. So I think by having something that's a little more stable and a little larger, people would say, oh, well, this is, if we put up a nice product, they all approve it. And so there's more leadway that way. I'm not sure if I make enough sense here. You want to help me a little, Rachel? You're speaking to the overall, this creates more opportunity in the projects, which creates a, which creates space for a different level of developer and architect partner to engage, given the increased opportunity for scale, which again, was the intent of the mixed use bylaw in the first place. Is that fair, Ken? Yes. Okay. Gene, I'll move on to you next. Again, we'll just finish up this this discussion, see if there are any other points that we would like to raise before looking for a motion. Yeah. In answer to Melissa's question about the height limitations, it depends on which one of the business districts, and it depends on the size of the building, the smaller buildings can have a higher story. So the maximum is five stories in some of the districts, and for some of them and others, it's four or three. So again, it depends on which district and the size. And this only is for mixed use projects. So clearly, this wouldn't affect somebody trying to put in, you know, a self-storage facility here because it's not mixed use, aside from, I don't think it's allowable use anyhow. I guess two other things to point out is that, well, three other things. One is, you know, during the time I've been on the board, the architects on the board have done a great job in sometimes sending developers back to the drawing board and saying, look, this is just not going to work here at this location. And so I think we have a pretty good track record about doing that. I can take credit, course, I'm not, you know, architect or design person, but the people who are have done that, I think, pretty well. Hopefully, there'll be something funded this year. I think it was just approved by the finance committee so that we can do significant design guidelines for commercial buildings. So by the time this is in place or soon thereafter, hopefully, we will have design guidelines that the builders can use and that we can point to, which I think will be helpful. And there are some design guidelines now as, you know, the things, the thing we passed earlier with facades, you know, there's a requirement for stepbacks on the fourth floor, things like that. So I think some of those are there. I think we had decided this was something to do. Thank you, Jean. And I'll just also point out that I know how hard the department works together with all of the applicants as well before these applications even get to us. I think, you know, when we read through the memos, you can tell that they've already gone through several iterations and sometimes they detail how they've gotten to the point where they are today. So I just want to, again, acknowledge and recognize the work that the department does even before we see the projects that we see today. Steve, I'll turn it over to you for any additional comments. Yeah, in terms of other constraints on sort of the building envelope, as Mr. Benson mentioned, it's three, four or five stories based on the lot size or district. There is also, you know, a height buffer zone, which depends on the parcel's proximity to an R1 or R2 district. And of course, there's the rest of the other dimensional regulations. Yeah, I think nothing further from me, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I think that at this point, I'd like to see if there is a motion, so we did not make any changes, recommend any changes or make any amendments this evening. Is there a motion to recommend action on Article 39, increase floor area ratio? I'd like the motion to recommend action. For a second. I'll second. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Dean? Yes. Melissa? Yeah. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes. So we will recommend action for Article 39, zoning by law amendment for increased floor area ratio for mixed-use structures. And as a reminder, this was concerted at the press of David Pretzer and registered voters, and they will be responsible for creating the outreach and presentation for the town meeting. All right. We will now move to, let me pull my agenda back up here, Article 40, which is the zoning map amendment for expanded business districts. And Jenny, I will see, I don't believe there were any changes on this. No, nothing has changed at all on this particular article or proposed amendment. And map change. Great. Thank you. So we'll start with Ken. I'm kind of torn on this one here. I'm on the fence. I see what my rest of the board members to say. But I'm very forward and want to continue zoning along Mass Ave to be more continuous. It's right now sort of spot zoned all over the place. It was zoned to whatever was there at the time. And I think we need to step back and not just look at these four apostles, but look at the whole Mass Ave. I'll take a playbook out of Melissa here and say, hey, let's go and look at this whole thing here and understand what we want to do with the whole Mass Ave. Because right now it ranges anywhere from R to B4 or whatever it does. And I think we need to look at it holistically and I don't know. And then make these, and then make changes, not just a little spot here, a little spot there. I'm not big into spot zoning. Thank you, Ken. Gene? I'm torn on this too for the reasons Ken stated and for a couple of other reasons. I think one of the owners of one of the properties said this was a good idea. And I think one or two or more of the others said it was not. And I'm not sure they really, and they didn't say why. They didn't think it was a good idea because it should have no immediate impact on their property. But in the long run, if they ever decided to sell, they might actually be better off. So it's not clear why they were opposed to it and they didn't really, I think, give us good information. The other part I'm not sure about, and this is a little bit in what Ken had to say. I'm not automatically opposed to apartment buildings on Mass App mixed in with commercial spaces. So I'm not sure about the parcel that's current and zoning R5. So I'd like to hear what other people say about that. And again, I'm mixed too because do we just go ahead with this very small area? Or do we do a more comprehensive look? This is another thing that the Board has talked about in the past, not just these few properties, but lots of properties. We're taking a whole look at what's a more rational zoning for Mass App because as we've all come to learn, these are zoned to whatever the building happened to be basically in 1970, what, four or five when the town rezoned, which is sort of the opposite of what you do if you were really looking at this and trying to figure out a plan for development of your commercial corridor. So yeah, I'm mixed. Interested to hear what other people have to say. Thank you, Jean. Melissa? Yeah, no, I appreciate kind of the effort that the applicant brought forward in trying to offer some kind of unifying zone here through this area. But the way I'm thinking about it right now is that mixed use can come not only in vertical mixed use, but it can come in like a horizontal side by side mixed use throughout a corridor. If we're looking at 15 minute cities, you can have apartment buildings, you can have some commercial adjacent to it, and it doesn't have to be all on the one lot, whether it's mixed use or trying to create a whole corridor commercial. It might sound a little incongruent, kind of given my background is economic development, and I think I want to kind of provide some context. I mean, I think my caution on moving forward on FAR, my caution on some of this is that we need to look at, we haven't talked a little bit more about form-based zoning, we haven't talked about the parking pieces. There are other pieces that kind of play into a feasible redevelopment and a quality redevelopment of that. And so, as I look at this, I'm, again, in my experience and my work, I work directly with property owners and say, what is it going to take for you to do XYZ, which is aligned with a community goal? And so, is it a zoning change? Is it something else? Or given the circumstances, maybe there's no intention for change for a long time. So, I'm thinking through this, and I'm trying to understand, although it kind of goes in with our goals, what is a bigger message we're sending as we bring these things to town meeting? You know, are we doing a halter-skelter piecemeal thing? Or are we trying to kind of say, hey, this is our, you know, this is us going forward. This is, you know, the ARB going forward. So, I'm a little kind of on the fence with that, and that's my thinking at this time. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. Yeah, there's, it is a small district, but I do think, you know, the proposed parcel rezoning makes sense. I had to think a lot about the comments from the property owners, and I'm still a little, you know, on the fence about that. I'd feel better if we had gotten more letters of support. I, you know, one of the things, if we as a board put forward a, you know, a larger, you know, looking at, looking at MassAb, which I think we do need to do, and whether or not we support this or not, I think we still will need to look at MassAb. You know, I think there, you know, some of the hesitation that we've encountered here is also what we're, you know, we'll encounter that in other parts of town. Yeah, so I'm, yeah, like as, as, as with, as my other colleagues have said, I'm somewhat torn. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. So, I'd have a really hard time supporting this given how torn every, everybody is on this. I think that, you know, changing the zoning map is not something that any of us take lightly. And I think that what I'm hearing from everybody, again, as we look towards trying to find some consensus here, is that a more comprehensive view of this seems to be the desire of the redevelopment board. Can I take your note about not wanting to engage in spot zoning very, very seriously? And I, and I think that obviously with the MBT communities pace coming up, there is going to be a, you know, a zoning review that we'll need to do as part of that, which may make the timing right for us to look at a larger, larger zoning review at that time. So I'll run through again, because we were torn as to whether to move this forward and see if anyone has gained any clarity from this discussion, so that we can move forward with a vote of action or no action. And we'll start again with you, Ken. Well, I want to start off by saying thanks to James for bringing this forward and bringing up some of these ideas. It's much appreciative. But hearing the rest of my board members, I'm probably lacking a vote in favor of this. Thank you, Ken. Gene. I'll second what Ken had to say, and just want to add that Melissa said better and I had said, which was, you know, I'm not sure we want to prohibit larger apartment buildings, because there's some benefit to having a mix on mess. You know, so if we were to have done this ourselves, we might have come up with a different conclusion on which one of these to change and to what to change then and whether we should have done or would do some other parts of the avenue at the same time. So yeah, I'm thinking we're not ready to go here yet. Thank you, Gene. Melissa? Yeah, I'm not inclined at this point to go forward. Thank you, Melissa. Steve? Yeah, I mean, the apartments, I think the apartment is a separate issue because I believe that isn't allowed use in the B district. I think the B district is the only parcels in town that are large enough to actually meet the lot requirements for an apartment, but neither here nor there. I really appreciate Mr. Fleming for bringing this forward, and I hope that we as a board will be willing to work on this, you know, hopefully in the next year or so. Great. Thank you, Steve. All right. Is there, so when I'm hearing this consensus, is there a motion to recommend no action on Article 41, excuse me, Article 40 related to expanded business districts on the table? Yes, motion to recommend no action. Is there a second? I'll second. Take a vote. Ken? Yes. Gene? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will, we will recommend no action for Article 40. We'll now move to Article 41, which is the Zoning By-law Amendment for apartment parking minimums. I do not believe that there were any changes as a result of the public comment. Jenny's checking her head. No. No changes. Great. So let's go ahead and move right into the discussion and we'll start with Gene. I favor this and I have two wording changes. In the table, the word units I think should be singular unit. Maybe other people disagree, but to me that should be unit. And afterward, after the, in the residential use line, apartment building should read apartment building except for public housing for the elderly because they're in the next block down. And as we've discussed before about parking, these are the areas that have good access to public transportation. And I guess studies have shown that one space per dwelling unit is all that's fine. So sorry, Gene, if you wouldn't mind for a second, I believe that there's someone, Robin Bergman, if you could please mute yourself. Thank you. Sorry, Gene, if you could go ahead. Yeah. And the studies which were discussed when we had the public hearing on this show that one space per dwelling unit is more than adequate in these areas. And it does allow the possibility of more apartments to be built and more apartments being more affordable units under the inclusion and rezoning bylaw. And, you know, there were some comments that were changing the rules for public housing for the elderly and were not. All it did was move around where the requirements are, but the requirements for public housing for the elderly are not proposed to be changed here. It's only the parking for apartment building to make them consistent with the parking for single family, two family, and three family dwellings. So I support this. Great. Thank you, Gene. Ken? I also support this with all Gene's comments. And I believe this is a number of parking requirements was also has been a hindrance on moving forward to developing mixed use projects because the lots are so small along Mass Ave that you ran out of space for parking and then retail. And this gives an opportunity to have a little more retail on the ground floor, which is activation of streetscape. We're trying to do it along with master plans. So I think this is a good step for a balanced approach at the whole thing. Great. Thank you, Ken. And before I move to the next member of the board, I'll just note that for James Fleming that we will, after I have all of the board members speak, we'll come back to you with regard to your acceptance or not of the proposed changes that Gene has suggested. So I'll now go to Melissa. I support this in terms of, you know, reducing the parking. Great. Thank you, Melissa. Steve? I'm supportive. I think this goes in the general direction of two of the master plan recommendations. One being to establish parking ratios that reflect the actual actual need for parking. And the second being to modify parking requirements to encourage multifamily housing and mixed use development in commercial areas. Now, I was on the zoning board of appeals while we were doing the comprehensive permit hearings for 1165 RMMS Ave, which wound up at, you know, requiring one space per dwelling. And we spent a lot of time discussing whether that would be a sufficient amount of parking for an apartment building. And, you know, the applicants came in with their, you know, their estimates. And then we had to set a peer review engineer, an engineering firm to act as peer reviewers who, you know, also went over them. And we ended up coming down on the side of one space per unit being sufficient. And I'm comfortable with that. And also comfortable because it is what we require for single two and three family homes. So I am supportive. Great. Thank you, Steve. I too am supportive of this for the reasons already stated by my colleagues, specifically with the consistency, as Steve was just mentioning, with a single family, two family, two family homes. So at this time, I will check and see if James Summing, yes, James, I see that you're here with us this evening. If you could unmute yourself and let us know if you have any concerns with the highlighted changes to the wording, as has been suggested, or if that would be acceptable to you. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you, James. And I'm sorry, James, if you could just introduce yourself as well. First, last name and address. Good reminder. I was definitely going to forget. James Summing, Oxford Street. So I guess is the reason to put except for public housing? Is that because public housing for the elderly is considered an apartment building? Jean is nodding and said yes. Okay. Would it make more sense maybe to put that down in the second entry instead? So basically, instead of adding it to the top row, we just say one space per dwelling unit and one space per five units of public housing for the elderly in the second row. Does that make sense? I think the way it is with these exceptions is better because there's one line for everything except public housing. Second line for public housing for the elderly. Okay. That's fine. Okay. It's where word's missing at this point. I'm okay with the change. Okay. Thank you, James. And thank you for submitting this morning article. Let's see. So I'll go back through the board members one more time to see if there's any additional comments before we take a motion. So starting with Ken. Oh, no additional comments. Jean. No comments. Melissa. No comment. Steve. No further comments, Madam Chair. All right. So is there a motion to recommend action on article 41 as amended? Motion to recommend action. I'll second. Thank you. I'll take a vote. With Ken. Yes. Steve. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I am a yes as well. So we will recommend action. On article 41, apartment parking minimums. Now move to article 42, the zoning by law amendment or open space uses. And we had discussion, but I don't believe that there are any changes, Jenny, for this. No changes. Okay. Great. Thank you. So we'll start the discussion with Ken. I have no, no changes, no questions. And I'm supportive of this article. Great. Thank you, Jean. I'm supportive too, because as we learned last time, every one of these will still need a permit or an approval from somewhere else in the town. And so there doesn't seem any need for them to get an approval or permit somewhere else and also get a zoning by law approval. I do have a wording suggestion though. Okay. In the first third and fourth lines, I don't see the need for the words that say for or not for profit. Because if you take them out, it just means the same thing. You know, they're just like surplus to take out the words for or not for profit. So I take them out of lines one, three and four. Can I just ask Jenny, if you see any reason for keeping those in? I, I, this is a, this is in other parts of uses in our by law for one and two. This is actually one of the points of the parks and rec commission is that currently we actually only allow nonprofit, but we don't allow for profit according to our zoning by law. So that's the reason for the addition. I think actually James might be best positioned to answer further because this is again, he's adding these amendments. But that is my understanding. And especially having worked on this through the pandemic and trying to get things permitted. This was something that came up pretty frequently in those conversations, which we were able to relax during the pandemic. And of course, we would like to keep it, to keep it would mean to add this language. So let me just say in those three, if you had the words in for or not for profit or remove them, it would mean exactly the same thing. May I add something to this? Sure, Melissa. Yeah, I saw you had your hand up. Go ahead. Jane, just in a practical sense, because we I've been part of a lot of regional discussions on implementation of these concepts. I think it's better to be explicit for for this sake. I know in terms of being concise, it might be cleaner to just remove it. But for this type, because it's unusual and for what you're putting forward, it's better to be explicit. Okay, I'll withdraw my suggestion. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Any other comments? Jean, any other comments? No. Okay. Thank you. Melissa. No comments. I'm supportive of this. Great. And thank you for the clarification. Steve. I am supportive. I think this is essentially taking some of the temporary outdoor uses we allowed during the pandemic and just making the more permanent. And I think that's a good thing. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Steve. I agree. I think that taking away the red tape since there is already a permanent printing authority for this type of use, taking away the second and the red tape is something that I would favor. So I will ask James Fleming again if you could introduce yourself and unmute and let us know. Actually, you know what? We didn't make that amendment. So never mind. Thank you. Let's see. So I think at this point I will ask the board members if there is a motion to recommend action for Article 42. I motion to recommend the action for Article 42. Thank you, Melissa. Thank you, Ken. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action on Article 42. We'll move to Article 43, which is a zoning bylaw amendment for zoning map amendment requirements. This was also inserted by the request of James Fleming and 10 registered voters. I don't believe that there were any changes during our there were not during the hearing, but there were after. Yeah, some correspondence with James and I think Jean. Maybe Jean, do you want to talk about that? Yeah, just that there was some correspondences about how to word the sentence that starts with Department of Planning and Community Development. And that's where we landed so that the initial petition goes to the owners and immediate butters. One of the things that came up during the public hearing about that was what about the people who were directly opposite and then the public or private way or street. And since there has to be a second notice at the Department of Planning, where there is a second notice Department of Planning and Human Development does, we still thought it was just appropriate to put in here exactly what that was. So people would understand it goes to the petitioner, the owners of the land, a butters, owners of land directly across any public or private street and a butters of a butters within 300 feet. So that tracks language in the state zoning code. Great. Thank you, Jean. Did you have any other comments or discussion around support or thoughts about no action for this article? I just oh you're asking me. I just this provides necessary clarity and and to the to the zoning bylaw, which is helpful when there's a potential when a potential change to the zoning map is filed. Great. Thank you, Kim. Yes, I am also supportive of this. I think this clarifies it and makes it easier to who gets notified who doesn't. Great. Thank you, Melissa. No further comment. I'm supportive of this. Great. Thank you, Steve. I'm supportive during the hearings. I may have been the director who said this, but it may have been someone else. But you know, if the bylaw is telling us to do something, it should be clear on what it's telling us to do. And I hope this, you know, adds some clarity. So yes, I'm supportive. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I am as well. I appreciate, Jean, you working together with with Jenny and James Fleming on the reworded article language. So thank you. So at this time, is there a motion to recommend action for the for article 43? Motion to recommend action. Sorry, Jean, go ahead. No, no. Kim, then I will second Kim's motion. Thank you both. We'll take a vote starting with Kim. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you all. We will recommend action for article 43. And again, this was inserted request of James Fleming. See, the next article is article 44 for restaurant uses, which was also inserted at the request of James Fleming. And Jenny, were there any changes following the discussion? There were not any changes following the discussion. Great. Thank you. So we'll start with Kim. This one here. I think I'm on the fence on too, because I think upping the square footage to a larger restaurant it impacts the neighborhood more. And I think it should go under a special permit and review with the neighbors having some input too. So I don't know. I would like to see what my board numbers think. It was always at that 2000 mark where it was a small place that didn't make that much of an impact. But once you start getting into larger restaurants with grease traps and dumpsters and parking and stuff like that, I don't know. I'm not sure what the correct number is. But I think this is to help streamline the permitting process. And I'm not sure what, you know, is it 3,000, 4,000? Or was it right at 2,000? So that's where I'm at right now. Thank you, Ken. Gene. Now I at the public hearing expressed my concern about this proposal and felt that the example that was given for why we should do this was an example about why we shouldn't do this. That there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. The line has been drawn at 2,000 square feet. And it seems to have worked. We've had larger and smaller restaurants come and go in town at that number. And Ken points out a lot of reasons why larger restaurants need more review. So maybe it could be higher than 2,000. I don't see any justification for 4,000 or anywhere near 4,000. The other thing that I had mentioned last time was that if we had site design review, that would be an alternative. But we don't have that. And until we have it, I think for the reasons Ken stated, we need to continue the special permits for restaurants greater than 2,000 square feet. So I'm not in favor of this article. Thank you, Gene. Melissa. Well, in general, I actually feel supportive. I think this is a supportive action for restaurant and hospitality in Arlington. I don't see 4,000 square feet being excessive. I think even the site where you're not your average Joe's and then the desire for Chase Bank wanted to go in was about 4,000 square feet. And I don't see that being egregious in terms of its impact in the neighborhood. I think we've been doing better with parking and parking management in the town and with meters, with enforcement. And so I would support this. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. I do have a question. If even without a special permit, when someone wants to open a restaurant, they do need to get permits from the Board of Health at least with respect to things like dumpster placement and that sort of thing. Correct. Jenny, can you further clarify? Board of Health, the Select Board, those abbey inspection services. I mean, there's still other permitting entities. Yeah. Yeah, I think I'm with Melissa on this one. I don't think this is terribly large. Um, one of the other elements that or one of the one of the. Yeah, I'll just say that I agree with Ms. Jantacal on this one. So I'm supportive. Great. Thank you, Steve. And I will see if there are any other any other discussion. Any other questions from any of the board members? All right. Richard, what's your opinion? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't have my opinion. I also feel that to me, the number seems a bit arbitrary. Again, I too, I think the point that Ken and Gene made could almost pick any number out, but I don't think that the petitioner has specifically identified why 4,000 is the right number. So if we're going to make a change, I would, I would want to better understand why. I'll go back to Ken. Any, any further thoughts or questions? No, you didn't help. I'm still on the fence. Um, I mean, I'd like to add to that. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, of all the industries, I know restaurants are the most regulated industry as, you know, you know, Jenny was saying between board of health state and several of these other agencies that have to approve kind of food plans and moving forward. I mean, I think, you know, 4,000 square feet, if we mean what we say about activation and trying to create, you know, this kind of environment that becomes more of a destination over time through Mass App. I mean, I think this is a supportive action in that, that very classic kind of economic development, you know, policy on a community level. I think the oversight on trash cans and stuff like that. I mean, I think that's kind of a little controlling. And I think we could kind of give that and trust that, you know, our staff would be on top of that. What about traffic? In my opinion, I mean, I think when there are a lonely street with no cars, no one wants to be there when it's like, it's harder actually to park and get around. It sounds a little crazy. I know there's kind of the dynamics of like people will turn away, but I think we've managed parking. We've have meters now. We have, you know, technology in those meters. We've done a better in terms of locating some of the parking offsite into some of the lots. And so I think, and if we're trying to encourage walkability, if we look around the density of the corridor where residents would, you know, where restaurants would be allowed, I think kind of in terms of the density of residents just like down the quarter, I think we'd find that, you know, it's still and could encourage that walkability. And so I feel like there's, you know, this is kind of, to me, it seems pretty small in the big scheme of things. I mean, we're putting some art, we're letting some of the analysis on the FAR on development be proposed by a citizen petition without further analysis. But on a 4,000 square foot restaurant, I think we could consider allowing that by right. So I'll just add to that. If I were going to support this at all, I would want it to be in alignment with the retail size, which is 3,000 square feet. Again, I just feel like 4,000 is completely arbitrary. And I think that one of the reasons why we have these numbers here is so that we can review facade activation. There are a number of other items that I think are important for us to review, especially when you get to some of those larger square footage items, because we are able then to, you know, ensure that windows are activated or perhaps fold. I mean, there are lots of different ways that we can work with an applicant when they are taking a larger square footage parcel within the town. So again, if I were to look at this in terms of how to make this less arbitrary, I would ask that it be the restaurants become in alignment with the retail square footage requirements. Richard, are you going to ask asking that of James, is he willing to change it to 3,000 or? I'd want us to discuss that first. And then yes, we could certainly, if others feel that that is something that they'd like to see, or if they prefer the 4,000 or again, there's no support for that. I'd want us to discuss that and then we can ask James. That gets me off the fence. Okay. I'd like to say a couple things before we ask James. Sure. One is, James did not present any information that the current levels are an impediment for any restaurant coming to town. And before the pandemic, we were known for restaurants of various sizes and types. The two, you know, the, I think, five years I've been on the board, I can recall two restaurants that came before us for special permits. And we asked them for minor changes and approve them relatively quickly. So, I don't think we've been an impediment. I think we've helped. And there's been no evidence presented that this has really been an impediment other than, oh, maybe somebody wouldn't do it, you know, because of having to go get a special permit. So, yeah, I'm really not convinced that there's a case made to change this in any way. Thank you, James. Melissa? I mean, I would agree with Rachel and that, you know, as much as the number is kind of arbitrary, given what I've seen, again, in my experience, they tend to be smaller restaurants. I mean, the larger corporate ones, you know, see many more need a much larger footprint for some of the larger, I would say impactful restaurants. So, I could see the alignment with the retail piece at 3000 makes sense. You have some, if that's by right currently, the retail, and then you have a restaurant that is the same square footage, I would say that would be okay. Thank you, Melissa. Steve? I would also, I would be fine with aligning with retail. There's one other thing that is actually in the main motion that we haven't mentioned, which is that for the B-4 district, we're adding a Y. I think that's a little bit significant. The B-4 district is our vehicular oriented business district. I think that's what it's called. But basically it's, you know, there's the district's definition talks about, you know, having auto repair facilities and filling stations and body shops. And, you know, saying that as these businesses go out of, out of, as these businesses turn over or, you know, stop operating, the bylaw would like something not automotive to go into those districts. But, you know, the restaurant use under, you know, under the, that first restaurant line was never, was not allowed. And I am, I am glad that it would, you know, to see the Y as part of that main motion. But I, yeah, I'm fine with 3000 feet. I think that would be fine. Great. Thank you, Steven. Thank you for that. For pointing that out, I think that's an important call out as well for, for everybody. So at this time, I think I'd like to ask James as to whether or not you would be amenable to a change from 4000 square feet to 3000 to align with the requirements for, for retail, retail use. I mean, I guess so, but the 3000 for retail is also an arbitrary number. And the 2000 that is there now is arbitrary as well. And the only reason we're not talking about them that way is that they've been there for decades at this point. So I will reluctantly accept 3000, but I would challenge you that 4000 and 3000, no matter what the number you pick, there's still arbitrary. There's still arbitrary. Thank you, James. Further discussion? I'll start with, with Ken. No, I'm all set. Okay. Gene? I think 3000 is better than 4000. I'm still going to vote no on it. And they're not arbitrary. Sometimes you have to pick a number and you have to do the best that you can to determine where the number should be. And sometimes history, not always, but sometimes history is a good guide to whether the number you chose works or not. And becomes no longer arbitrary when it seems to be working fine. Thank you, Gene. Melissa, I have no further comment. Thank you, Steve. Nothing further from me, Madam Chair. All right. So is there a motion to recommend action on article, and you could you scroll up, trying to get back to my question. In your article 44, restaurant uses as amended. I moved to make a support, an action. Recommend action. Thank you. On article, what number are we? Article 44 as amended. 44 as amended. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Ken. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Gene? No. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will recommend action for article 44 as amended. All right. And our next article is article 45, which is a Zoni by law amendment related to appeals. And this was inserted at the request of Sophie Meazzo and 10 registered voters. And Jenny, I know that we had quite a bit of discussion. Did the petitioner make any changes following the public hearing? I think Gene is going to talk about a potential change that he discussed with the petitioner, but we did also have the opportunity to have a discussion with town council. And I wanted to share that with the board. Great. If that's possible. Yes. Thank you. So regarding the appeals, this whole discussion, Doug provided three concerns about the article as follows. The first one was that, and we talked about this, and I think it was in the memo originally, but that it's possibly the preemption by state law issue. The second one that I think we also discussed either in the memo or during the hearing was that it's not consistent with the town manager act. Individuals who have complaints with inspectional services department handling of any complaint can write to the town manager to request any sort of additional action. So that is something that can happen right now. And that is technically what the purpose of the town manager act is for, not to direct another body. And then further, to continue what the town council suggested, this puts the zoning board of appeals in a very difficult position because the appeal would not be an appeal of the building inspector's decision or interpretation of the zoning bylaw, but rather that the complainant disagrees with the building inspector's decision not to take civil action. So this is ultimately not a matter that the CBA has any authority over. And that was the nature of the discussion with town council. And I just want to put that in the record and offer that that is the primary follow-up that I did. But again, there was further follow-up by Jean. Great. Thank you so much, Jenny. Jean. So Jenny, can you put up the revised main motion, please? So while Jenny's looking for, I'll just say the petitioner contacted me after the public hearing, maybe because I had the most concerns or expressed the most concerns, and asked if we could work on coming up with an alternative, which is what we did, which Jenny is going to share pretty soon. And I just want to just walk you through it. So in the original main motion, they would have amended 3.1.2B to say that to require the building inspector to institute appropriate action of proceedings in the name of the town. But it seemed like you can't ask the town to bring a loss. So they said, okay, let's not do that. And instead, they put in the bolded language instead in 3, which basically gives the building inspector a lot of time to take action. So what's the action? The building inspector has determined there's a violation. The building inspector has issued an order that says you, person, are in violation of the zoning by-law. You must abate the violation by a certain amount of days, but then the person doesn't abate the violation. So the zoning, so the next step if the town wanted to pursue it would have to be to go to court against the person because they're not obeying the town's, the building inspector's order to abate. So this is what we, and so this basically just gives a way to get to the zoning Board of Appeals. And this is what Jenny and I and the building inspector discussed with town council, not the original one, but this one. And Jenny accurately reported the town council's concerns about this. And I said to the town council, well, are you saying then that if the building inspector doesn't go to court because he's too busy, there's too much going on, you know, whatever, the appropriate reason is that the person making the request doesn't have any remedy. And so, well, and the town council said basically two remedies, one, you know, the building inspector reports to the town manager. So you can go to the town manager and say, hey, town manager, this is going on, something needs to happen. And Doug didn't say this, but I will say if they're not satisfied with what the town manager says in response or the response that they get thereafter, they can always go to the select board because the town manager reports the select board so they can do that administratively. Or, you know, town council said they can sue in court against the violator for nuisance. One of the people who brought the article said, you know, there's this court case, which he allowed me to read, which he gave me to read, I should say, which says you can't sue somebody else for a zoning violation. So you just can't sue and say they're violating zoning, but you can sue if it amounts to a nuisance on your property. So I mean, to me, telling somebody the only way you have to do is sue to go to court, because the town's not suing the court. If you can't get any, any satisfaction within the town is not a great answer. But I think Doug pointed out, the board of appeals doesn't have the authority, the zoning board of appeals to tell the building inspector of the town to bring a lawsuit. So, you know, it seems like the remedies are to go up the administrative ladder in town or to, and, you know, try to get something done or to go to court yourself. So that's where it's left. Thank you for the clarification, Jean. So start the discussion with Ken. Yeah, I'd like to ask one question to Jean, I'm not sure, or Jenny. The building inspector is hired and works under the state inspector. Am I not correct? As well as the town manager. Okay, so if the building inspector is not doing his job or not following regulations, then you step it up to the state inspector and let him know that this is happening. There's no mention of this whatsoever here. I'm a little concerned about that. And that usually, I agree with Jean, that's the next step, I believe, and then you can go to the town manager. But I still think this is just repetitive and I'm not sure I agree with this at all right now, just the whole thing. I think, I don't know what happened with this person who may have an issue and the building inspector didn't follow through or didn't do something. But I think this is making this whole article just for that reason is not there. And I'm not supportive of this at all. I think it adds more, I don't know, just because someone's unhappy with the outcome. I mean, was the town manager notified? What was the town manager's position on? What did happen there? I think there's so many other things. I kind of concur with Doug that this is too much of a burden on the zoning board. Thank you, Ken. We'll go to Melissa next. I'm not inclined to support moving this forward. I think Doug explained well, the limitations, number one, and number two, it does feel like it's adding a level of litigation or opportunities for that don't see it well and kind of articulated through Doug Town Council. So that's where I'm at. Thank you, Steve. Just to clarify the what we're looking at on the screen is the revised main motion. That's my understanding, yes. I can also take this down and put the original up, if that would be right. This is better, better to have if the original is not in play anymore, better to have the one that is. Yeah, I think I am inclined to agree with, agree with Melissa and, you know, if there is a, it sounds like there is a remedy through the Town Manager Act. And I would be concerned about introducing new avenues for litigation. So thank you. Thank you, Gene. So a couple of things. Yeah, what Ken pointed out is sort of interesting that the building inspector reports to both the Town Manager and the state building inspector. Although what I don't know is whether the state building inspector can say something to the building inspector, what the building inspector is doing is not an interpretation of the building code, not an interpretation of the zoning bylaw, but just failing to have the town go to court. So I'm not clear that the state building inspector can come on down on the local building inspector on that. I just don't know. In my conversations with, well, let me ask this, what would you think if the people who had brought this article had spoken to the Town Manager many times over the course of many months and nothing changed? Would that change your mind? I mean, it doesn't change my mind, Gene. I would agree. I think that introducing something that, number one, is possibly not allowable in terms of process by state law. And that puts the DBA in a position that where they don't actually have authority over the building inspector, this doesn't solve for what you just mentioned. Yeah, so I'm not inclined to support it either. I think we have, you know, if we vote no action, what will go to Town Meeting, I think is not this, but the original main motion, am I right about that, Jenny? Correct. So if the proponent of the article wants to put in a substitute motion at Town Meeting, they'll have to make that happen. Yeah, I'm not saying I support this. I just wanted to lay out what happened and the results of my conversations with the article proponents. Thank you, Gene. And I really do appreciate you taking the time to meet with everybody and to to try and understand the impetus for the article and to craft something that better achieved their aim in terms of what the town bodies could support. So thank you for doing all that work. Any further discussion? I'll just run through. Ken? Steve? Nothing. Melissa? Yeah. Gene? Yeah, I would just say I wish I could support something for them, but based on the conversation with Doug and with the building inspector, I just don't think there's any way to amend the zoning bylaw to get what they want. Thank you. Okay, so at this time, I will see if there is a motion to recommend no action for article 45. Motion to recommend no action. Sorry, go ahead. I will second that, Ken. Thank you. We'll take a vote. Ken? Yes. Gene? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I am a yes as well. So we will recommend no action for article 45. All right. So at this time, we will return back to article 30, which we had tabled, the article for solar installation. Let's get back to that one. Give me one second. And we will reopen discussion. Gene, is your... I just hoped for Shelley on the participant list and did not see her. Okay. So if we go to the next page, which is where we, I think, had the question. Yes. Yes. So the question, I think, if you go, no, no, up a little more. Yeah, like that. The question really is whether we keep in A what has been deleted and get rid of that sentence that Jenny has highlighted in gray above or whether we keep the gray sentence and get rid and delete what Jenny has deleted in yellow. I think those are our two options. Agreed. So, you know, Ken's point is, look, if you keep the gray one, then somebody's, you know, is going to the board not knowing, let's say that they have, you know, that maybe 40% of their roof is covered with solar, could be solar, whether they need solar until they ask the board. On the other hand, if somebody does have 40% of their roof that's solar ready, do we want to say no? You know, that that's okay not to put on solar because they're not up at 50%. The we borrowed liberally from the Watertown ordinance on this. The Watertown ordinance did not have the smaller percentage of the roof area. Instead it had a part in A that's not highlighted in yellow. And when Shelly spoke to the Watertown staff person, you know, he said this is working great. Everybody who's had to do it has put the solar on the roof. There have been no problems whatsoever. But we didn't really ask about the smaller percentage piece. And Shelly was the one who thought the smaller percentage piece was a good idea, which is why I was hoping that she should be here. I don't really want to speak for her. So I'm sort of interested. I think if those of you think it's better to get rid of the gray and put the yellow back in, that's fine. If you want to keep the gray and get rid of the yellow, that's fine too. I don't want to speak for Shelly one way or the other. Great. Thank you for that additional clarification, Jean, on where those two sections came from. So let's let's just go through again for discussion and see what the members of the board are thinking on this one. And we'll start with Kim. I would go for the yellow. Okay. Melissa. I'm fine with the yellow. I mean, overall, I'm supportive of the whole article. I mean, I think if I have to comment now on the yellow versus the gray, I'd probably go with yellow. Okay. Steve. I would favor retaining the yellow and striking the gray. So that it's clear and the applicants know what to expect. Great. I would agree with that as well. I think that making a clear standard is important. And we, I think I'd prefer to keep the yellow as well. I'm sorry we didn't make it gold because then we're going to say let's go with the gold. You know it's late at night, but those are the jokes that I have. All right. Gene, are you comfortable with that? Yes. I mean, yeah. Again, I wish Shelly was here to choose between the two or to try to explain, but I think this is fine too. Okay. Great. So with that, is there a motion to recommend action on article 30 as amended? Yes. Motion to recommend action. Second. Okay. We'll take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Gene. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I have a yes as well. Right. So that brings us to the end of agenda item number one. I'm trying to get back into my agenda. One second, please. All right. So that brings us to the end of agenda item number one, the zoning warrant articles. So as next steps, Jenny and Kelly, thank you so much for all of the work we will, we know you will be doing between now and Thursday to pull together this memo to town meeting, which we will then review at our Thursday evening agenda. And Jenny, Kelly, is there anything that you would like to add regarding process as we move forward? No. I think you'll have the draft report to town meeting by tomorrow afternoon and look forward to the discussion of it on Thursday. That's it. Great. Thank you so much. And thank you to the members of the department and all of the petitioners and members of the public who've weighed in on all of the articles. All of your comments are very much appreciated and led to some really wonderful dialogue, again, for all of these 18 zoning warrant articles. So thank you so much. All right. So at this time, we'll move to agenda item number two, which are, which is the review of meeting minutes. And we'll start with the meeting minutes for March 7th. And I will just run through and see if anyone has any modifications, starting with Jean. I submitted my modifications to all three of them earlier today. Okay, great. Thank you, Steve. Nothing beyond what I submitted earlier. Okay. Kim? Yes, I had one, but I'm not sure which date it was. I'm trying to find out. I'll come back to you. I'm fine with them. Okay. Jenny, if you can go to page five on these. Near the bottom. So where it's the paragraph that starts near the bottom, the chair open the floor to the board. And it says seeing none. I think it was the chair open the floor to the board. If you keep going up, it's the one, two, three, fourth paragraph on the bottom, the chair open the floor to the board for comments. And then that makes more sense because we're seeing none. And then under on page six, where it says under Mr. Revillac recommended the next line down, the chair asked if there was a motion to continue. You can just add the public hearing. Thank you. Kim, did you find? Yes, it's on. I'm not sure why I highlighted it now. It was on, the first one page is four of six. But after all those letters, I had three. So I'm maybe getting a little cock-eyed. It says Mr. Lau objected to the use of banks and offices. I'm not sure what I meant by that or what. I think it was we were removing that those words from the draft amendment at the time. So it might not be objected to the use of, but asked to delete banks and offices. As a non-active use? Yeah, that was what we removed. It used to be those two specific uses. Okay, then never mind. I don't know what I was, I had it all yellow, but for some reason, I don't know what I was trying to question. Is this a better way of phrasing it or from the description? Yes. I'll come back. Thank you, Jenny. Great. Thank you. Any other corrections or changes? All right. Is there a motion to approve the March 7th, 2022 meeting minutes as amended? So motion. Second. I'll second. Take a vote. Kim? Yes. Gene? Yes. Melissa? Yes. Steve? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So the meeting minutes of March 7th have been approved as amended. So I'll now go to the meeting minutes for March 14th, 2022. And Gene and Steve, I assume you already submitted comments. So I'll go to Kim. Nope, I have no comments on this one. Melissa? No comments. And I had no comments either. So we'll take a vote to or see if there's a motion to approve the March 14th meeting minutes as amended. I will move to accept as amended. Second. Take a vote. Kim? Yes. Gene? Yes. Steve? Yes. Melissa? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So the meeting minutes have been approved as amended for March 14th. I will now move to March 21st. And Gene and Steve, I believe already submitted. Were there modifications to this one, Jenny? Very minor. Okay. But there were amendments. Yeah, here. Okay. And I think a couple little, yeah. Okay. Great. Thanks. Kim, any additional? I have no comments, no changes. Okay. Melissa? No comment. Okay. Jenny, I just had one, it was on page three, and it might have already been caught. I had one on page three that it looks like is still there. Go ahead, Gene. Well, maybe it's now on page two. There it is. Yeah. It's the same one. Yes. It's why it has, Mr. Benson asked why they were asking, should ask why they were asking. So four, it's right at the bottom of what you have on the screen. Jenny? Help. The number four, yeah. Should say Mr. Benson asked why the proposal is for a 4.0 if they are. You missed that one, Jenny, am I? Yeah, I did. That was the same one that I had. All right. So is there a motion to approve the March 21st, 2022 meeting minutes as amended? So motioned. Second. Can we go back and look at it for a second again? Sure. On page four, Jenny, please. I just want to see if I caught one of the others. Oh, wait. This is five. Yep, you got it. Page four. Okay. Yep. Thank you. All right. Well, we'll move right to the vote. Starting with Ken? Yes. Gene? Yes. Steve? Yes. Melissa? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So the meeting minutes from March 21st have been approved. All right. So that closes agenda item number two. At this point, we'll move to agenda item number three, which is open forum. So any member of the public wishing to speak, please use the raise hand function. And I'm calling you as your hands are raised. All right. Seeing those speakers, we will close open forum. There is a speaker. Michael Champa has his camera. I'm sorry I didn't see that. I don't see it. No, I don't have my hand raised. Oh, sorry. Michael. Thank you for sticking with us this evening. Okay. So at this point, I will close open forum and we will move to adjourn. Is there a motion on the floor to adjourn this evening? Can I ask one question before we adjourn? Please, go ahead. When do we go back in person? After town meeting. After town meeting. Okay. So town meeting will be virtual. We don't know. Jenny, unless you know. Is there any late breaking news? I don't know about that, but April 25th, you're slated to meet in person actually. April 25th. Yeah. I don't know though if town meeting is in person. I'm not I'm not certain of that, but we agreed that we would have our meeting on April 25th would be in person. So the plan is for that meeting to be in the main room of the community center. And I'm just not sure if we'll adjourn and you'll go home and participate virtually or we'll go over to the town hall auditorium or somewhere else. So we will find out. Is that the one that starts at 630? Yes. 630. So you'll notify us exactly where we're going to meet in person sometime. I'll send I'll send you a notice. Yeah. Thanks. Great. Thank you for the clarification, Ken. Anything else? Any other questions before we move to adjourn? All right. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All right. We'll take a vote. Ken. Yes. Gene. Yes. Melissa. Yep. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you all so much for joining us this evening and we will see you on Thursday.