 Good evening, everyone. I'm calling Arlington's annual town meeting session 10 to order on Wednesday, May 25th. We can close the check-in vote. And after that's closed, we'll just cycle through those screens so everyone can see. I'm not seeing the display up for, there we go. I want to verify whether their test vote got in. And then after that we're done with that, we'll go to the Star-Spangled Banner performance. Thank you. Before we get started, with the business of the meeting, I just have some quick remarks. First, I want to acknowledge the tragedy yesterday in Uvalde, Texas. I don't have any words that are adequate for this moment. At the same time, today is the two-year anniversary of George Floyd's murder. I also want to remind everyone that we will not be meeting next Monday, May 30th in observance of Memorial Day. Let's take a brief moment of silence for the victims of these tragedies as well as those who sacrificed their lives for our benefit and those affected by their loss. Thank you. If you're feeling a lot of emotions about these events like I am, know that you're not alone. There are many ways to honor the victims of these tragedies. One way is to continue to use our voices, use the privilege that we've inherited from the sacrifices of others, as we'll observe Monday on Memorial Day to effect change in our communities through the democratic process. As we head into debate on zoning articles tonight, which can be a contentious topic, let us summon the better angels of our nature, harness our emotions and put them to work constructively with civility for the benefit of our town. And a quick note about the voting portal. You'll notice that there will now be yellow highlighted text when we open voting. The text isn't new, but the highlighting is so, so that it's more clear when your wave of precincts is waiting for voting to be enabled. Next on the agenda is the swearing in of new town meeting members, and we're not going to do that in the meeting. But if you're a new town meeting member, and you have still not been sworn in with the oath of office, please contact the town clerk, Miss Brazil. And with that, I recognize the chair of the select board, Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Miss moderator. It is moved that if all business of the meeting as set forth in a warrant for the annual Tom meeting is not disposed of at this session, then when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Wednesday, June 1 2022 at 8pm. Okay, do we have a second to Mr. Diggins motion. Second. Do we have a second for Mr. Foscoe. Any objections, please raise hands. If you have objections to Mr. Diggins motion to reconvene at Wednesday, June 1 at 8pm next week, seeing no hands raised no objections in zoom motion passes. Do we have a call for any announcements or resolutions through raised hands and zoom zoom please. Okay, we have a raised hand from Miss Weiner, let's bring her up. Laura we know precinct eight. I wanted to let people know that the Jason Russell house is reopening for tours this Saturday May 28 through October 20. The house is open for guided tours Saturdays and Sundays from one to four masks are required for admission. The Jason Russell house is the site of fighting on April 19, 1775 now observed as Patriots Day, and is run by the Arlington Historical Commission. It's a great place to bring family and friends, especially out of town guests. For more information you can visit the Arlington historical.org. Thank you, Miss Weiner. Do we have any other announcements or resolutions before we move on. Okay, seeing none. I now call for reports that are ready to be received. Yes. Charles Foscoe precinct 10 and move that article three be removed from the table. Okay, do we have a second second second from his Brazil to Mr. Foscoe's motion to remove article three from the table. And any objections in in zoom and raised hands. Seeing none article three is now before us we're ready to receive reports. So please use raised hands and zoom if you have any reports that are ready to be received by time being. Okay, seeing no hands. Mr. moderator Charles Foscoe precinct 10 and move that article three be laid upon the table. Okay, do we have a second Mr. Foscoe's motion. Second, second from his Brazil to Mr. Foscoe's motion to lay article three on the table. Any objections in zoom. Seeing none article three is now back on the table. And that brings us to back to article 28. Let's bring that up. And this is where we left off from Monday night. Okay, so we should have the speaking queue back up. Okay, so let's take Mr. Kepline to start us off tonight. Thank you Mr. moderator Mark Kepline precinct nine. I'd like to get an idea what sort of construction is compliant with the new zoning design. For example, the building that's between the high school and stop and shop the mixed use one. Would that be compliant. That's it. So we don't have Ms. Zember with us tonight she's traveling tonight. We do have wasn't I was told that Mr. Revolak could answer questions from the ARB Mr. Revolak. We bring him up. See if he's able to answer that. Thank you Mr. moderator Steve Revolak Arling can redevelopment board. I had not considered that particular building but if you'd like I can walk through the requirements or if Mr. Kepline would like. Oh, no I wanted, you know, some tangible examples, you know, rather than sort of abstract specifications. In that particular building, the first it's it's zero setback and it's got windows on the first floor to engage the street and sidewalk. Yet the windows are all whiteed out because there's a preschool there. Ms. Raid is with us tonight from the planning department tonight. In case she's able to answer Ms. Raid you have an answer to Mr. Kepline's question. Well, let me finish. Okay. So, so if a tenant is going to white out the you know the windows and make them opaque to the street doesn't that defeat the purpose of sidewalk engagement and is that is that allowed and are there any restrictions on what a tenant can do. Thank you. So in the case of I mean this is not the only element of the by a lot and play in the case of the preschool, the use is protected by the Dover amendment. And what we are, you know, as a redevelopment board would be doing would be to, you know, ensure, you know, standards around that we know you can't reject them based on that used to my knowledge. You know, the there is a ground floor transparency and they have provided finance fenestration but of course it is a preschool so they are. They are, you know, frosting the windows to provide some privacy for the children. Without speaking for the redevelopment board as a whole I that strikes me is perfectly reasonable to do. Sure. But I mean, I'm wondering, you know, what good is this zoning change do if people can then go ahead and do anything like that. Mr. Reveller. Well, so it's not simply, you know, there is because preschools are not the only form of business which opened in Arlington, I think you have to consider how the proposed change would apply across a variety of cases. If it were a restaurant, you know, then the windows would presumably be not frosted so, you know, you could see inside. Generally, you know, as far as the board goes, in my experience we have light ground floor transparency but we are but we are cognizant of cases where, you know, transparency may not be the best option. We can call a massage parlor or yoga studio or a food bank. But those are other examples to. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Take Mr. Rosenthal next. Mark Rosenthal precinct 14. First, let me apologize for not having taken notes at the end of Monday night because I had a clearly formulated question Monday night, and the recollection of what that question was only slowly coming back to me. The best the best approximation you have. Yes. If I remember correctly, one of the things that was mentioned with regard to this article had to do with creating more vibrancy, and part of that had to do with with restaurants. Now, it's my understanding that a number of the buildings being turned down and then reconstructed are being built with without facilities. I'm not sure exactly what all but you know exhaust fans and basically designed in such a way that they're really not designed to be able to hold restaurants to buy hold I mean contain restaurants. And so I'm wondering how, you know, what will this article have any effect on changing that so that when the air be considered is permitting new buildings that there's some requirement that they're built in such a way that you know that they can contain restaurants and that a restaurateur would actually want to open a restaurant there. Mr. Revlock. Steve Revlock Arlington redevelopment board that's an orthogonal question. In my experience when the the board has had applicant there are cases where the board has asked, you know, proponents to install venting in such so that a, you know, the first floor would be, you know, could could be easily used as a restaurant. This article doesn't address that directly. It's this article again is more about facade treatment about fenestration about lobby placement and detailing and and so on. Would it be correct to say that the comments about this, making Arlington more vibrant because it will. It will improve or increase the number of restaurants really is not that that argument really is not particularly relevant to. So what this article would prevent. Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. What this article would prevent. I think it's what the art. So what this article would prevent is a restaurant whose, for example, a restaurant whose front wall was a blank facade. Okay, but it's it's not going to. It sounds like it's not going to accomplish a lot in terms of inviting new restaurants in. That is correct that the article is not written to was not written to favor any particular form of business. Thank you. Okay, let's say Mr. Tosti next. Thank you, Mr. moderator Alan Tosti precinct 17. I moved the question on all issues involved in this article. Okay, so we have a motion from Mr. Tosti to terminate debate. And we have a second from Mr. Moore. So let's, let's take a vote on whether to terminate debate. Let's see has the opening of voting been confirmed area. Okay, voting should start opening for at least some waves of voting. Okay, so we're voting here. So if you see that the yellow highlighted text telling you which way it means that your, your, your wave of precinct has not been made. So if you're open to voting it, if you're able to vote, please vote. And we're voting here on whether to terminate debate on article 28 zoning bylaw amendment about enhanced business districts, if you want to terminate debate. Vote yes if you want to continue debate you can vote no. And this is a two thirds vote, I have almost 200 votes cast at this point. And this is 150. Okay, the votes are coming in pretty quickly. It's good. Let's give another 30 seconds. So we close voting 20 seconds. And this is for termination of debate on article 28 10 seconds, five seconds and so we close voting. Okay, let's close voting, and the motion passes 190 and affirmative 24 and negative. The debate is terminated let's now open up voting on the main motion. Again, we're no longer going to wait for the voting screens to be shown for termination of debate votes just so we can speed things along. But we will do so on main motions and other and substitutes and amendments. Okay, so voting should now be opening, at least for one of the waves of precincts. So if you are in favor of the main motion of article 28 zoning bylaw change about enhancing business districts vote yes if you're opposed vote no. So that adds section 5.5.2 to the zoning bylaw titled development standards for business districts. This main motion is does require a two thirds vote. Can we have 200 votes cast at this point. Okay, let's just wait another. It's almost everybody. Let's just wait another 20 seconds before we close voting. You can always vote in the q amp a if you have trouble through the portal. 10 seconds until we close voting. 5 seconds. Let's close voting and article 28 main motion and vote passes 203 in the affirmative 11 in the negative. We will wait for these screens. After we've gone through all the voting screens for all the precincts will bring up article 29, which is now before us. Let's bring up article 29 and let's say, Mr. We can actually Miss rate. Do you want to introduce this article or we could have Mr. Revolac introduce it if you'd rather from the redevelopment board. Missouri. I'm prepared to do so. Good evening and thank you, Mr. moderator Jennifer rate director of planning and community. I am introducing article 29 on behalf of the air be as their secretary ex officio. I would like to request that the prerecorded video priest should be known to introduce this article. Mr. I think some of this rates audio is cut off, but let's bring up the video. I'm Rachel Zenberry chair of the Arlington redevelopment board, also known as the air be and I will be taking you through warren article 29, a by law amendment related to street trees for the 2022 annual town meeting. Currently an existing town by law article 16 related to tree protection and preservation. It describes town procedures and requirements for preservation of trees. It applies only to trees located on private property. The tree warden maintains a tree inventory and plants 200 to 300 new street trees annually. Regarding this additional requirement, this would be following local and regional precedent, including following the requirements described in the site standard section of the industrial zoning district amendments adopted by 2021 Arlington town meeting and aligning with the zoning by laws throughout the Commonwealth that includes public shade trees as required as part of development or redevelopment of commercial areas. The proposed amendment follows standards set forth in other communities regarding tree placement size type and maintenance. The next amendment is to provide for adequate public shade tree coverage along Arlington's main corridors, implement carbon neutral policies of the town of Arlington, address heat island effects emanating from Arlington's main quarters, enhance public health and walkability with proper shading, and create a zoning by law definition for public shade trees consistent with state law. The text of the new sections requires the implementation of new shade trees along our business corridors for new construction, major addition and redevelopment projects subject to the jurisdiction of the ARB with certain exceptions. The new section includes standards for the implementation of shade trees in the business corridors, including location, species, size and maintenance, as well as the provisions for the ARB to modify or exempt projects from compliance when incompatible with existing conditions of the public way. The new section also includes provisions for the number and spacing of shade trees required. The amendment establishes minimum standards for newly planted public shade trees, including selection from the approved list by the tree warden, standards for hiding caliber, location of tree plantings, appropriate distance between public shade trees and maintenance standards. It also describes exemptions for certain applicants under special circumstances. The ARB believes that this by law amendment allows, aligns with the town's practice of the preservation and protection of trees. The ARB voted 5 to 0 at our April 4 meeting to recommend favorable action on article 29. Thank you. Thank you. With that, let's, let's go to the speaking queue and let's take Ms. Bloom. Nancy Bloom precinct 18. I just have a question. I was just curious how we will be making sure that all the street trees. The addition ones would be made monitored and watered appropriately. I know it says that the tree warden would help with that. I just wanted to know. Particularly how that would be done. Let's, well, first go to Mr. Revolak and if he's not able to answer, we can go to someone else. Mr. Revolak, do you have an answer for that from the redevelopment board? Steve Revolak Arlington redevelopment board. There is a, there is a requirement that the trees be maintained for a period of no less than 36 months. This is a requirement in the zoning by law and the zoning enforcement officer in the town of Arlington is the building inspector. So for specific details on enforcement, Mr. Moderator, I would have to defer to one of the building inspectors. Okay. Do we have a miss bloom? Does that answer satisfy you or would you like to go? I just be curious what they're what the plans are. Sure. So do we have a Mr. Champa is see available. And I don't know if it's all of his jurisdiction. Or do we have the perhaps the warden with us. That's a good answer. Actually, Mr. Heim, why don't you go ahead and give your hand raised. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Doug Heim, Town Council. So the good news is there might be some folks from the committee here as well. And while there's only enforcement officer has the ability to the exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the zoning by law, I would imagine that it will be a team effort. For example, the the board would be minding these trees and keeping an eye out for for trees that are not being properly cared for. And that he might have to report that information and record it so that a zoning enforcement officer can record a violation. the tree committee and a team of folks who volunteer a lot of time in interest to make sure our regular street trees are well maintained. So I would imagine there will be a combination of those folks and they might have to build a record for the zoning enforcement officer. But there are a lot of folks out there keeping an eye on trees for violations of different kinds involving shade trees. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Heim. Ms. Bloom, does that satisfy your question or? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Behind. Great. Thank you. Ms. Baviaris next. Joe Baviaris, precinct 15. I have a very quick question. If this is on private property, what would be the impact on electrical lines and other utilities that might be having to go to these particular buildings? Is that taken into account and is that going to be the responsibility of the tree warden to discuss or determine or is that going to fall back on the private businesses? Thank you very much. Thank you. So let's go to Mr. Revolak first and then we could try other folks if he doesn't have it. Mr. Revolak? I think the intent of the proposed bylaw, Mr. Moderator, Steve Revolak, Arlington Redevelopment Board, is that these trees be planted in the public right of way. So not necessarily on private property. To the extent that excavation is needed for the tree, I believe dig safe rules would apply. And you would just have to call before you dig, so to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Baviaris, did you want to go further without her? Does it also impact the, yes, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Joe Baviaris, precinct 15. Does it also impact, if they're on the public right of way, is it going to impact any of the power lines? On our streets, for example, in many residential areas here where the trees are on the public lines, public right of way rather, the trees are hacked in the center and they just have stuff going on either side of the power lines. Is that what is going to happen here? Or is it some other plan? Sure. Let's, is Mr. Rademacher here from Director of Public Works? It seems like it might be a DPW question. I don't see Mr. Rademacher here. How about Mr. Chapterline? Do you have an answer? Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Adam Chapterline, Town Manager. So my understanding in working with Mr. Rademacher and Mr. Lerqueef, who is the town's tree warden, is that the species they recommend for street trees that would be under power lines are species that would best coexist with those power lines to try to reduce the amount of hacking, so to speak, as was just mentioned, as we see with some of the older Norway maples and other larger trees that are currently planted in the planting of the under power lines. I don't think there is a perfect solution based on the proximity of those lines and the height of really any tree that can provide public shade, but I do know they've made an effort to identify species that can coexist as best possible. Thank you very much. That's a very reassuring answer. Goodbye. Thank you. I'll take Ms. Culverhouse next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Lynette Culverhouse, Precinct 11. I'm very supportive of this article, but I just have a question. Is there any provision in this amendment to provide for the protection of existing mature trees? Mr. Revolac, is there anything that protects mature trees in this by-law change? Steve Revolac, Arlington Redevelopment Board. I believe existing skimming through, I believe existing trees would would sort of preclude the need to plant a new one. In terms of, I mean in terms of, you know, so what this the proposed by-law is a standard for new tree planting, so it does not change any of the existing tree protection laws that we have. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Culverhouse. So just to follow up this, there wouldn't be no protection. If there was an existing mature tree, there would be no additional protection within this amendment for that. Mr. Heim has his hand raised. Let's see if he has an answer to that. Mr. Heim. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Don't Heim Town Council. The answer is no, there's not additional protecting because public shade trees are covered under Chapter 87. There has to be a public hearing in order to remove a public shade tree that folks inject to removing. So there's already a process with the tree committee and the select board for any mature tree. In other words, if one concern is that people might try to cut down mature trees to plant smaller trees as part of this, you can't do that without a public shade tree hearing. Thank you. Ms. Culverhouse. Okay, thank you. This is my question. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take Ms. Milovchuk next. Say Ms. Milovchuk there. Ms. Milovchuk, can you hear us? I see that it looks like your microphone is not muted, at least in Zoom. Let's see if you can hear me, Ms. Milovchuk, perhaps you could, if you have a question or something you could put in the Q&A, we can get to it that way. If someone from technical support or IT could try to figure out what's happening with Ms. Milovchuk's connection, we'll hopefully be able to circle back. So why don't we take Mr. O'Day next from the speaker queue? Oh, she's asking, can she phone in? She seems to be having trouble with microphone being recognized by Zoom. Let's take a point of, while we're trying to figure that out, let's take a point of order from Mr. Rosenthal. Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. I'm just wondering since this problem has recurred more than once, isn't there any way to have somebody dial in through the phone system? That's what she is. Ms. Milovchuk was asking that in the Q&A. Thank you. Can she phone in? Can someone on the panel, like from the text side, just give me a quick answer on whether we can receive a phone call right now? Not seeing any response about that. Is someone actually contacting, does someone have a way of contacting Ms. Milovchuk? Yes, we're trying to call in even right now. Okay, thank you. In the meantime, let's take Mr. O'Day. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Brendan O'Day, precinct 14. I rise to move the question and I'll matter to you for it. Okay, before I recognize a second on that, I do want to give Ms. Milovchuk an opportunity to speak since she's clearly intending to speak. Okay, let's see a phone number. I don't know if the intention is for, is someone from the panel calling that or? I believe the ad is on the phone. Okay, is the intention like for technical support or to actually put her through to the meeting? Yes, for technical support. Oh, okay. Let's just hold up a minute here because obviously we have a motion to terminate debate and so that would be unfortunate if we weren't able to get the speaker to speak. And I have a point of order for Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Carl Wagner, precinct 15. Can you hear me okay? I can, yes. Thank you for the wise decision not to allow the motion to terminate debate after Ms. Milovchuk's second problem because it was like this last time when she actually wanted to speak and debate was terminated. Given that there is some time while the technical assistance is provided, I'm sure that some of your speakers would like to speak. I see, for example, I believe the chair of the tree department in the queue of people waiting to speak. Thank you. Thank you. That's a fair point. Let's, while we're resolving that issue, let's take and we can return to that to that motion. Let's take, so we took Mr. O'Day, let's take Ms. Stamps. I'm Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Well, thanks a lot. Susan Stamps, precinct three. I'm on the tree committee. I'm not speaking for the tree committee because we actually, we're not given the opportunity to discuss this at our meeting, but a few of us members did review this article carefully and we did reach out to members of the redevelopment board and were satisfied with their answers. So personally, I feel fine about it, but just to give people a little bit information that was asked about, as far as who's responsible for watering the the amendment says that the the applicant will comply with some national nursery standards for maintenance for three years. And it was told to me by one of the redevelopment board members that that they understand that that includes watering. So that's awesome. So the applicant is responsible for watering and the applicant, even if they they build the property, I guess, if it's out of their hands after a year or so, they're still responsible to maintain those trees or make sure they're maintained for three years. So we're very happy about that. Another question was whether existing street trees would be protected, which is a really important question. And the under Chapter 87, as Mr. Heim explained, you can't remove a tree without permission of the tree warden, and it has to be unhealthy. But also you can't damage a street tree so that I'm sure that the tree warden will be monitoring that project and will be and will work with the applicant to put the protective the boards up against the street trees and so on. Basically, we're really happy about the idea of sort of this public-private partnership that here is a project where they're going to be adding to Arlington's tree canopy. So I think it actually sets a really good example. And also, by the way, these trees don't necessarily have to be exactly in the public way. And we're starting to move towards encouraging people to plant trees on private property that are within the sort of the area of the public way. And so this is nice in that direction too. So all in all, I recommend the people vote for it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. There was a suggestion in the Q&A, which I was wondering myself, whether Ms. Milofchick could just call someone who could actually just put it on either on speakerphone or kind of to transmit the question. Yes, someone in the panel is asking if they can put her on speakerphone. Yes, I approve of that. Apologies for the delay here. Go ahead, Beth. Beth Milofchick. Milofchick, no precinct nine to compose my site. That was a technological nightmare. Yes, apologies for that. Thank you for putting me on speakerphone. So there are a lot of unknowns based on what I've heard from ARB, which confuses me. I wasn't able to listen to Ms. Stamps' testimony as I was trying to answer phone calls from IT and dial in two dozen numbers to get into the Zoom. My concerns are that the ARB seems to be carving out tree responsibility for trees. And I think we have a great tree warden and the tree committee has protocols that are working. But are these like super ARB tree trees? Or as I think I heard Susan Stamps mentioned, who's responsible for watering them after they're planted? It's very confusing to me that there seems to be or have been a lack of coordination with the tree committee and the tree warden. Can someone please speak to that? We can direct that to Ms. Stamps. Ms. Stamps, I believe you are a member of the tree committee. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Moderator. What I did say a few minutes ago when Ms. Milofchick was trying to get in and so she didn't hear what I said was that we actually were concerned about the watering issue. We did follow up with members of the ARB and were assured that where it says in the amendment that the applicant will be responsible for 36 months of maintenance, that that includes watering. So I think that's been taken care of. And we see this more as a plus for the town to start putting these kinds of requirements of helping the town out during projects. So thank you. I have another question. Who has final word? Who adjudicates the tree? Does the ARB adjudicate whether this tree can be cut down at some future point? Or does the tree warden and the tree bylaw have supreme authority on this? We can direct that to Ms. Stamps again. Do you know the answer to that? As I understand it, they're going to be public trees. Perhaps Mr. Rebelak could clarify that, but if they are public trees, then in the future, no, no one can cut them down without permission of the tree warden. Mr. Chaplain has his hand raised. Mr. Chaplain, do you have an answer? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Adam Chaplain, Town Manager. Once any tree is planted and becomes a public shade tree, it is then covered by the public shade tree law, which is state law. So as Ms. Stamps just mentioned, it would be governed by those rules and regulations with oversight by the tree warden, holding a hearing and then ultimate oversight potentially being brought to the select board if an appeal was filed for the tree warden's ruling. Thank you. Ms. Lopchuk? Thank you. Can it be briefly clarified as to what this is doing that hasn't been done before? Like the articles, like the articles of hold or a specific aspect of it? Well, it seems like the ARB is encouraging the planting of trees. Is that what this article is? Trees every 25 feet in commercial districts? Let's direct that to Mr. Rebelak. Is that the case that the ARB is taking position on the planting of trees? Yes, Mr. Moderator, Steve Rebelak, Arlington Redevelopment Board. This is a set of standards for tree planting. So yes, we are encouraging the planting of public shade trees. In commercial districts? Yes. Yes, it would include commercial districts. So it's encouraging. So the ARB is encouraging the planting of trees in commercial and other districts. Doesn't that already exist? Mr. Rebelak, they exist in the zoning bylaw? So it exists for our industrial districts. Mr. Moderator, we modified that section of the bylaw last year and introduced a tree planting requirement for the business districts or, you know, technically it's or, you know, any, well, for areas subject to environmental design review, which can, which include the business districts but can include other areas. You know, there was not a similar requirement and we are proposing to add one this year. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Milovchuk? Thank you. It's very still remains confusing. More trees are good. I guess they can duke out the unknowns. Thank you very much and I appreciate the patience of the town moderator and town meeting and facilitating my gating through. Thank you, Ms. Milovchuk. And I appreciate your patience and the patience of everyone in the meeting as we go with these technical difficulties. Thank you. So I will now go back to, we had a emotion to terminate debate by Mr. O'Day. I will now recognize second from Mr. Hamlin. So let's open up voting for termination of debate. First we have a point of order from Mr. Jamison. Let's take that. Thank you very much, Ms. moderator Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. I just wanted to note that we had a large discussion when we had a pending motion to terminate, which is not debatable. And second of all, I would like to mention that the town meeting for those who are new to the meeting has been an extremely strong supporter as Ms. Stamps would attest to. I was just saying back into the debate, not the... Exactly, Ms. moderator. And the debate went on when we had a pending debate to terminate, which we did not do. Thank you very much, Ms. moderator Gordon Jamison. Okay. So let's get back. So this also came up in the Q&A. So because it came up in the Q&A as well, there was... I'll just briefly mention it. So let's bring up the vote to terminate debate. And as we're bringing that up, I'll briefly explain. Someone posted in the Q&A that motion to terminate debate is not debatable. We did not debate it. I simply chose to not recognize a second. So there was nothing to act on at that point as determined by my discretion under the circumstances. So that was not a debate. That was me exercising my discretion as moderator to not recognize a second at that time. And so we now have vote open to terminate debate on Article 29, Zoning By-law Amendment about street trees to introduce... We don't need to get into the details. Just if you want to continue debate on Article 29, vote yes. I'm sorry. If you want to terminate debate on Article 29, vote yes. If you want to continue debate on Article 29, vote no. This is a two-thirds vote to terminate debate. I appreciate everyone's forbearance as we deal with these technical difficulties. When I cut off debate, when similar circumstances have happened in the past, there was significant amount of pushback about that. And so I decided to ensure that we can actually get someone who is in the queue at the right time and who is selected to be able to speak. Okay. So we have almost 200 votes cast so far. Let's give another 30 seconds before we close voting on termination of debate of Article 29. 20 seconds, 10 seconds, until we close voting on termination of debate. Five seconds. Okay. Let's close voting. Okay. And the motion passes. Debate is terminated. 260 affirmative to 13 and negative. We will not wait for the voting screens. We'll go straight to voting on the main motion. And as we bring that up, and folks wait to vote, this is... Okay. See this screen is back. Hopefully that's just temporary. Okay. So we're voting now on the main motion of Article 29. This is a two-thirds vote for zoning bylaw change to introduce measures that intend to enhance the street canopy in our business districts. If you're in favor, vote yes. If you're opposed to this main motion, vote no. And if you're seeing the yellow highlighted text in the voting portal about what wave you're in and your voting controls will be enabled in a future wave, just sit tight and it'll open up shortly. And if you don't see the yellow highlighted text and you see a button to cast your vote, please go ahead and vote. This is a vote on the main motion of Article 29. A zoning bylaw change to introduce measures that intend to enhance the street canopy in our business districts. We have over 200 votes cast now, 217. Let's just wait another 30 seconds. You can always get your vote into the Q and A. If you're having trouble through the portal, 20 seconds. Main motion, Article 29, two-thirds vote, 10 seconds until we close voting. Five seconds. Okay. Let's close voting. Okay. The motion passes 220 in the affirmative, six and negative. We'll just wait for the all the voting screens to get through all the precincts. If you miss your precinct, you can always view votes in the portal by clicking the view votes button on the left side of your portal window. Okay. So we now have Article 30 before us. So let's bring that up. And while we're waiting for that to come up, let's bring up Ms. Rae from the Planning Department to introduce this article. Ms. Rae? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Is my audio okay? Yes, it's better now. Okay. Jennifer Rae, Director of Planning and Community Development. I am introducing Article 30 on behalf of the ARB, Secretary Ex-officio. I would like to request that the prerecorded video presentation be shown to introduce this article. Would that be possible? Yes, it is. Let's bring it up right now. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I'm Rachel Zembery, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB. And I will be taking you through one Article 30, a bylaw amendment related to solar energy systems for the 2022 annual town meeting. Ground-mounted solar installations are allowed by right in the industrial district only. Solar energy systems in other districts require a building permit but are not prohibited. In historic districts, additional guidelines apply. Since 2010, the town has continued to modify its requirements related to solar energy systems and in 2021 received unanimous endorsement of the Net Zero Action Plan by the Select Board. This amendment follows the guidance of the 2021 Net Zero Action Plan, which placed this amendment as a priority measure. It identified that solar energy systems are a key to achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and calls for every building in Arlington to be net zero energy capable by 2050. To achieve that goal, effectively, all suitable rooftops in Arlington would need a solar energy system, 75% of the total or 9,000 roofs. Looking at local precedents, there are towns with solar bylaw requirements, which include Watertown per new and large commercial, Medford per new and large residential and non-residential. And there are towns with design review for solar systems, which include Summerville, Cambridge and Boston. There are also towns within municipal green building policies, which include Lexington and Wellesley. This proposed amendment begins by defining a photovoltaic system, roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems, solar energy systems, solar ready building, solar ready zones and solar thermal systems. A project requiring environmental design review shall include a solar energy system that is equivalent to at least 50% of the root area of the building or buildings that are the subject of the review. Where a site includes a parking structure, the structure shall also have a solar energy system that covers at least 90% of its top level. The amendment identifies conditions where a solar energy system on the roof of the building or other structure is not required. The ARB can reduce or waive requirements when the applicant proposes and the ARB determines that there is a better alternative that meets the goal of this section. The amendment sets out regulations for emergency access and safety. Solar energy systems shall not be counted in determining the height and gross area of buildings. This amendment also covers solar energy system placements. System placement cannot preclude a neighboring property owner from constructing, renovating or expanding a building to the full extent allowed by zoning. Even if the neighboring property owner's building would partially or fully shade the installed solar energy system. Nor can the placement of a solar energy system on a building as required by this bylaw require that a neighboring property owner prune an existing shade tree or abstain from planting a shade tree so as to prevent future shading in the installed solar energy system. This amendment is a significant step towards enacting policies recommended in the town's 2021 net zero action plan. The ARB voted five to zero at our April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on Article 30. Thank you. Hello. And just a note briefly before we move on to the speaker queue there was a just make sure there's a message from our staff in the chat that they're the closed captioning function which folks have been asking about in the QA is not functioning tonight. I apologize for that but you can follow along and there's a link to a website where you can follow the real time transcription there and that's in the chat. Thank you. So let's head to the and tonight again because the the chair of the redevelopment board is not able to join with us tonight to give instruction the December give instructions that Mr. Benson who's also a town meeting member but also a member of the ARB can field questions specifically about these solar energy systems so we can direct questions to him if we have a technical questions. So let's go to the speaker queue. Let's take Mr. Rudick. Thank you Mr. Rotterator. Ben Rudick precinct five. First let me say that as a new town meeting member out of respect for town meeting I have limited my speaking to only those issues where I feel I have some professional perspective that would be valuable or a particularly salient personal connection as with the daycare warrant article previously. In this case I do have some professional perspective. I have worked on development of approximately 200 megawatts of utility scale solar across several countries approximately half a million panels and I'm currently working on about 300 megawatts of additional development of solar projects and so I have some idea about the field. Overall I think this is a tremendous change a tremendous warrant article. The last 10 plus years has seen extraordinary improvements in the viability of photovoltaic solar energy. Panel prices per watt have come down tremendously with a slight bump due to the trade war with China. Panel efficiencies have gone up. In short solar has become much more economically viable in many more places which has further been improved by the drop in lithium ion battery prices and the ability to tie in storage in an economic way. So I would say this is wonderful if not long overdue. I have done my best to do my homework with regard to this article and read the accompanying reports. I was left with one question namely about the ability of a building to meet the requirement by becoming solar ready which I understand to have the roof be pre-wired and allow for additional loading etc to make the installation of a solar project more straightforward. From my experience solar deployment is quite easy. Panels aren't not that heavy etc etc and so I would just like additional a bit more color which I could not find in the report on why it was felt necessary to give that ability to satisfy this requirement just by becoming solar ready and not installing a system which I think would be a great thing to do if the roof is in the right position and so forth. I just like some additional color on that. Sure let's go to Mr. Benson on that. So why just the solar readiness and not going the full step to the installation? It's Eugene Benson precinct 10 and also Redo Ailman board member. This does require the installation of a solar system on the roof unless it's an older building in which the roof doesn't have sufficient structural load capacity or if the roof is oriented in the wrong way so solar doesn't work. So it's more than simply making the roof solar ready. It actually requires the installation and operation of a solar system. I see. I guess the part I was confusing was the in the text where it says you know or be solar ready in parentheses and so I just like to just clarify my understanding which if it is as you state gets me even more excited to support this article. Yeah it's not just be solar ready. This actually requires solar when if it meets the requirements. I see. So just to be clear that there are some cases where it only requires to be solar ready but that's not in all cases. No no it's either requires solar or it's exempted for one of the exemption reasons. Mr. Rudick anything else? Okay I trust Gene sure narrowly and I believe in his competence to the utmost degree so I take him at his word. I'll just read you the operative sentence. A project requiring environmental design review shall include a solar energy system that is equivalent to at least 50 percent of the roof area of or the building or buildings that are subject to the review and then it goes on from there so it's not simply solar ready. It's actually a solar energy system. Great thank you. Thank you Mr. Benson. Thank you Mr. Rudick. Let's take Mr. Leone next. My question was just answered. Okay so it sounds like a pass. Precinct A. Okay thank you. Let's take Mr. Rosenthal next. Mark Rosenthal precinct 14. This sounds like a wonderful idea or at least it did and up until I heard something in the presentation that has me a little worried and so I'd like to clarify whether my understanding that whether I misunderstood or what but I thought I heard that if I either have a pre-existing solar panels on my roof or if I build a new building and install solar panels on that and somebody in an adjacent property can build something higher that would shade my solar panels turning that investment you know making that investment far less valuable or potentially worthless and I have no recourse. Am I understanding that correctly? Partially it doesn't affect you and your house so let's start there. This only affects buildings that require environmental design review and a special permit by the redevelopment board. So basically buildings on Mass Ave and Broadway that you know are mixed use or commercial buildings things of that nature and it does say that if one of those buildings is required to put solar on the roof it doesn't stop a neighboring building from building taller. It doesn't stop a neighbor from planting a tree. We had to figure out what the right balance was between those and determine that the right balance was not to prevent future development. I anticipate that most of these buildings that will be coming before the zoning board will be three or four stories tall because that's what's allowed in those places so it's pretty unlikely that they're going to be shaded by a later development. May I ask Mr. Benson follow question? Sure. How does this differ from what the rules are in residential areas that you say it sounds like there's already a set of rules for them. How does this differ? Well this there's no requirement in residential areas to have solar. This establishes a requirement to have solar on a roof again for buildings that are subject to environmental design review by the redevelopment board. It doesn't require any single family homeowner to put solar on a roof. What I'm asking is not so much about that but rather about an owner of an adjacent property having the right to build something that casts a shadow on my solar panels. How does that differ in what would be covered by this article versus whatever the rules currently are in residential areas? Before we get into the details of that it sounds like this is just not within scope of this article which is I'm just looking at the warrant article text but actually the warrant article text is not restricted to business districts does it? Well if I might Mr. Moderator it does to the extent that it only applies to projects requiring an environmental design review and they are almost always in the business district so it does not have anything to do with Mr. Rosenthal's house if his next door neighbor wants to build let's say a dormer on top of the next door neighbor's house which would shade Mr. Rosenthal's solar panel. It has nothing to do with that. Different rules apply to different districts correct. Different rules apply to different districts different rules apply if it's one homeowner to another. Great thank you Mr. Benson and Mr. Moderator. Thank you Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you Mr. Benson. Let's take Ms. Friedman. I'm a little confused about what buildings this would apply to because you mentioned those that we will require environmental design review initially assumed that was new construction but then you said something about older buildings also it would apply also to older buildings and can you clarify exactly when an older building would be required to put solar panels on the roof rather than the just new construction? Yeah an example would be an older building where they're doing a gut renovation and maybe putting an extra story on top of the building that would be an example of one where they would be required as a result of the work they were doing to put a solar on if however it's just a building an older building and again it's going to be a commercial or a mixed use building generally where they might be doing a change of use or the existing roof doesn't have the capacity to support solar then they don't have to include it. Thank you very much. That's all Mr. Moderator. Great thank you Ms. Friedman. Let's take Ms. Malopchik next and by the way if we do still have audio issues over zoom we we did find the phone in zoom numbers so we don't have to go through like speaker phones like we did last time. Ms. Malopchik are you able to use your microphone? Can someone contact Ms. Malopchik or perhaps put it in the chat like the phone in number she says not working in the Q&A so while we get that resolved let's take Mr. Miller next and we can circle back to Ms. Malopchik once we can get a call going through. Wait do we have a call through at this point? Okay we'll take that now sorry Mr. Miller let's take Ms. Malopchik over yep. Ms. Malopchik precinct nine thank you I'll be brief. I would like to know the ARB's plans in working with historic districts commission as it stands now street facing roofs on homes in historic districts are prohibited from putting on solar panels we had a I'm on the historic district commission we had a house come before us in the last one or two years with a street facing roof solar panel placement was not allowed they were forced to put it on a rear different directional roof with less percentage of efficiency with the state of the climate I think this needs to evolve. Thank you so Mr. Benson is that covered by this article? It is thank you there is an exemption for a building in a historic district when the relevant historic district commission has denied a certificate of appropriateness non-applicability or hardship to allow the solar energy system so in other words if if it's a historic building in the district and the district says you can't put solar on we're not this does not authorize solar if on the other hand the historic district says yes it can go there then it would require it. Ms. Malopchik? Mr. moderator would you please ask Mr. Benson what the ARB's plans are to work with the historic district commission to have them evolve and modernize their protocols in the face of a climate disaster. Mr. Benson? The ARB has not had that discussion I actually think it's a very good discussion to have with the town's clean energy future committee which is working on achieving the net zero plan. Thank you Ms. Malopchik. Thank you very much I hope that town meeting will see that an appointment is set for conversation at everyone's earliest convenience for that conversation. Thank you very much. Beth Malopchik precinct nine. Thank you Ms. Malopchik. Let's take Mr. Miller next name and precinct please. Mr. Miller are you able to unmute? I apologize Mr. moderator. Thank you. Yes Matthew Miller precinct 11. I don't have any issue with you know extending the solar exposure and preserving energy that's obviously a good thing. My concern is related to the printing of trees by someone who is being directed by someone who doesn't own the property. The pruning of trees was that the verb pruning? What I believe I heard earlier was that an owner of a property who has a tree that could be blocking solar energy panels could be required to prune their tree is that correct? If I may Mr. moderator. No it's the opposite Mr. Miller. It's very clearly stated that the placement of a solar energy system cannot require a neighboring property owner to prune an existing shade tree or from planting a shade tree. Just as a follow-up on that does that mean that the tree continues to grow and it's already been planted? Would that require the owner of the property to prune that tree? No it does not. Oh I see okay that answers my question. Exactly thank you very much. Matthew Miller precinct 11. Thank you. I'll say Mr. Moore next. Just FYI we are at the 16-minute mark in debate. Mr. Moore? Precinct 14 motion to terminate debate. Great timing. Do we have a second to Mr. Moore's motion to terminate debate? We have a second for Mr. Hamlin. So let's open voting on termination of debate and I see we also have a point of order from Mr. Goodsell. So maybe we could take that up. Hi Mr. moderator Ian Goodsell precinct 11. I just wanted to remind you that back in session four you had said that you would be looking through the list to try and take people who don't speak very much. The list of people that were ahead of me were that just a bunch of people that have spoken a lot. So I'm fine with terminating debate but I'd like you to maybe take that into account in future times. I'll try to do a better job of that. Thank you for the reminder Mr. Goodsell. Thank you. I'm voting here on termination debate of article 30. If you're in favor of terminating debate vote yes. If you want to continue debate vote no. This is a two-thirds vote. We have just over 200 votes now. Let's just give another 215. Let's just go another 20 seconds before we close voting on termination of debate. 15 seconds. You could already use the Q&A if you're having trouble with the portal. 10 seconds. Five seconds. Did we close voting? Okay let's close voting on termination of debate and the motion passes 194 and the affirmative 24 and the negative debate is terminated. Let's open voting for the main motion and so please wait for your wave of precinct to have voting enabled. I meant to remind folks earlier if you happen to have like something that might help with these server connection issues that come up here with the people waiting for the tea. Something that might help is if you have multiple web browser windows open that are connected to the portal, the town meeting portal, that can create increased load on the system. So please especially like but if you have that portal window open on multiple devices or just on one device on a laptop or maybe you have it open on a tablet also if you can close those so you only have one window open to the portal that would be helpful. A web browser that you're connecting to the portal through. Even if the browser windows are in the background they might still be connecting and creating more load on the system. So we're voting now on the main motion of article 30. This is a zoning bylaw amendment to allow for and require installation of solar energy systems for building subject to environmental design review. So if you're in favor of these zoning bylaw changes vote yes. If you're opposed vote no and this is a two-thirds vote to amend the zoning bylaw. Here we have 215 votes cast so far. Let's wait another 30 seconds until we close voting on article 30. If you're unable to go through the portal to enter your vote you can use the Q and A. 20 seconds until we close voting. 10 seconds. Five seconds until we close voting. Okay let's close voting on article 30. Okay and motion passes. 208 in the affirmative, 16 in the negative. We'll just wait for the screens to go through since there's a main motion. To answer the question there was a question in the Q and A about the multiple windows that I mentioned. Does that include the annotated warrant? That does not include the annotated warrant. That's a different system. This is the Arlington town meeting portal that has like the maroon or brown colored buttons in it that you vote in and request to speak in. This is not the zoom window and it's not the annotated warrant. Then after we're done going through these looking through these screens we're going to bring up we now have article 32 before us. Let's bring up article 32 now. Actually before we do that it is 929. Why don't we take a break now before we get into this and let's come back at 939, 10 minutes and we'll pick up at article 32. Thank you. It's 939. Let's come back. Let's get into article 32. So let's bring up Ms. Rait to introduce article 32. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. Jennifer Rait, director of planning and community development. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I am introducing article 32 on behalf of the ARB as their secretary ex officio and I would like to request that the prerecorded video presentation be shown to introduce this article. Thank you. I'm Rachel Zimbary, chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board also known as the ARB and I will be taking you through warrant article 32 by law amendment related to zoning the zoning board of appeals rules and regulations for the 2022 annual time meeting. In 2018, during the zoning by law recodification, administrative rules and processes were recommended to be removed from the bylaw. At that time, the redevelopment boards administrative rules and processes were removed. The ARB held a public hearing adopting its own rules and regulations. The zoning board of appeals for the ZBA also adopted their own rules and regulations. However, section 3.3 and the zoning by law continues to outline ZBA administrative procedures. ZBA is the only Arlington board or commission with rules codified in a town by law. The amended text includes the removal of the administrative rules and processes for the zoning board of appeals from the zoning by law. This amendment aligns the practice of the zoning board of appeals with that of other boards and commissions in town and aligns with the intent of the zoning by law recodification. The ARB voted five to zero at their April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on article 32. Thank you. Great, thank you. Well, I'm Rachel Zimbary. Let's see. And any questions that we have tonight, we can direct to either the chair of the zoning board of appeals, the ZBA, Mr. Klein, or the vice chair, Mr. Hanlon, if either of them are with us tonight. This was on the consent agenda. It was removed by Mr. Rosenthal. Let's bring up Mr. Rosenthal, who also has introduced a, at least has proposed a substitute motion. So Mr. Rosenthal, do you want to present that and move that substitute motion? Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. Can you hear me, Mr. Moderator? Yes, I can. Very good. Mr. Moderator, I move to amend article 32 in accordance with the Rosenthal substitute motion. Yes, I move to substitute, but that's close enough. We'll move to substitute. We have a motion to substitute. The point of order from Mr. Goodsell. I see based on the timestamp on my screen is from before, so we can clear that. We have a second from Mr. Weinstein. So Mr. Rosenthal, why don't you go ahead and introduce your substitute motion, and we can bring that up on the screen so folks can see that while Mr. Rosenthal introduces this. Go ahead. Okay. The ARB chair has said that the reason for article 32 is to align the practice of the ZBA with that of other boards. She said that the ZBA is the only Arlington board with rules codified in a town bylaw. True, but the ZBA is also the only board that has to defend itself in front of the State Housing Appeals Committee when a 4DB developer appeals its ruling. And when I discussed this with Town Council, he acknowledged that the Housing Appeals Committee, otherwise known as the HACHAC, is quote an unfriendly forum, unquote, to zoning boards like our ZBA. Cleaning up bylaw language is a worthy effort when it removes superfluous language, but it should be done with care so that things put into the bylaw for good reason don't get swept away in the cleanup effort. For anyone wondering what 4DB is, in a nutshell, there's a state law that allows developers to ignore local zoning bylaws if a town hasn't met certain affordable housing goals. That's 4DB. My substitute motion would preserve two important requirements that are actually already in the zoning bylaw. One is the requirement that 4DB developers testifying before the ZBA do so under oath. The other requirement is that their testimony be recorded. Neither of these requirements is onerous, especially nowadays, when everybody with a cell phone has a video recorder in their pocket. This substitute motion also clarifies the oath requirement is only intended to apply to the 4DB developer and not to residents, residents who simply want to voice their opinions. When I spoke with Town Council, he explained that what typically happens with a 4DB project is that a developer testifies before the ZBA. The ZBA agrees to allow the project under certain conditions and then the 4DB developer goes to the to the hack and appeals those conditions. That, you know, the hack, as I said, is the state body the Town Council describes as unfriendly to local zoning boards and there may also be subsequent appeals to higher courts. Other towns had experienced 4DB developers saying one thing in front of their zoning board and then something different in front of the hack. As a result, they added bylaw requirements that 4DB developer testimony be given under oath and be recorded. The language in Arlington's bylaw that my substitution motion would preserve was modeled on those Town's bylaws. I've learned that from the former town meeting member who introduced the article that turned into that language in the bylaws. The oath requirement was intended to apply only to the 4DB developer but that was an explicit in our bylaw and I've learned that some ZBA members think the oath requirement applies to residents who just want to give their opinion. I've been told that because of that the ZBA hasn't been following the oath requirement not even for the 4DB developer. That's why I added a clause to make it unambiguous that only the 4DB developers required to be sworn in. So to sum up, these oath and recording requirements don't place an onerous burden on the ZBA. The oath is likely to take a half a minute or less. The recording just requires somebody to take out their cell phone. These two simple actions will preserve testimony that could turn out to be important. Keeping these requirements in the zoning bylaw will insulate the ZBA from any pressure that developers might exert to get them to remove those requirements from the ZBA's own rules. So I ask you to please vote in favor of this substitute motion. Thank you. Thank you. And so since Mr. Rosenthal did cite words from Mr. Heim, I do want to give Mr. Heim an opportunity to either corroborate or react to that since he was actually called out by name. Mr. Heim? Name or title? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Doug Heim, Town Council. I think the summary that I would state with respect to this overall posture and I won't speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals, which has its own representatives here tonight, is that the administration of oaths in a zoning board proceeding is something that's already set forth in the zoning board's regulation. So that is true. My understanding from Mr. Rosenthal after our very nice discussions together is that the original idea behind requiring an oath to be administered is that the HAC would not allow video recorded testimony of some kind to be presented as evidence before them in a housing appeals because it was quote not under oath. I'm not sure I understand the rationale that I'm not doubting that this happened. I'm just not sure I understand the rationale. Usually when you administer an oath, the purpose is for there to be some later impeachment. In other words, some cross-examination would make it clear that someone was lying under oath or potentially some sort of prosecution for a perjury. Both of those things are pretty unlikely to happen in this scenario, which is something that I also relate to Mr. Rosenthal because of the nature of the forum, which mostly relies on pre-file testimony. If somebody manifestly lies before the zoning board appeals, it's certainly something that can be presented to the HAC, but the odds that there's going to be some penalty for a perjury or that there would be some meaningful opportunity to impeach them because it is slim. It's not a jury trial. It's not even a bench trial. It's an administrative appeal. It really speaks more to the weight of what a developer or anybody else is saying. The only other thing I want to comment on that I did add for Mr. Rosenthal is that well, two quick things. One is that I'm sorry, Mr. Moderator, if I'm speaking too much, let me know. Oh, no, no, no. I want you to finish your thoughts. Go ahead. Okay. The only other two things that I think would be helpful for town meeting to understand is that the Chapter 40B generally trumps Chapter 40A, which is one of the things that I think a lot of people complain about because it's designed to do that. So to the extent that there's an inconsistency with Chapter 40B and Chapter 40A or any local viola, the HAC, for reasons I outlined to Mr. Rosenthal, it's likely to say that, well, you can't apply a requirement to a Chapter 40B permit that's not required of a Chapter 40A permit. Now, town meeting can take that for what it's worth, but I suppose what I'm trying to get at is I don't know the actual practicality of having a zoning bylaw provision that preserves this. Whether or not the ZBA should be administering this oath pursuant to their own internal regulations, it's kind of a separate matter. And finally, with respect to the uneven application of oaths, I do understand what Mr. Rosenthal is getting at. I think the chair of the ZBA could speak better to concern about asking people testifying as residents under oath. But that may propose pose some problems for Attorney General Review. If you are basically saying that only one set of folks have to have a oath administered to them in a hearing, and not others, I'm not 100% sure how that would be treated by the Attorney General's Office. I did try to note that for Mr. Rosenthal, but I recognize that I was a little bit tardy in providing him that perspective after speaking to our special counsel on 40B matters. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, and thank you, Tom, for indulging. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Let's go to the speaker to you now. Let's take Ms. Bloom. Nancy Bloom, precinct 18. Can you hear me? Yes, I can, Ms. Bloom. Okay. I have a question. I was reading from Mr. Jemison's notes about the various articles. My understanding from what I read from him was that the current zoning bylaw as well as Mr. Rosenthal's amendment might both not be in compliance with state law. I might have misunderstood that, but I wanted to clarify. I mean, I don't believe so because these have both been vetted by Town Council. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hunt, do you want to confirm the legality of the main motion and the substitute motion? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I may be mistaken, but I think what Ms. Bloom and Mr. Jemison may be talking about is whether or not you can require an administration of oath in a 40B context if you don't require in a 40A context. In other words, the law generally says you're not allowed to treat 40B. This is a little bit of a summary statement, but generally you're not allowed to treat 40B applications in a way that's materially different from the way you treat a 40A application. 40B being the comprehensive permit, 40A being most other types of relief under the zoning bylaw, special permits for more typical projects, etc. I think that's what Mr. Jemison is referencing. Obviously, the Attorney General's Office passed the zoning bylaw as it currently exists. To the extent that Mr. Rosenthal's amendment seeks to keep something that's already there, the Attorney General's Office will not review that. That is my best summary of the posture that's somewhat complicated and probably dates back quite some time. Thank you. Ms. Bloom. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. And let's take Mr. Klein next. Good evening, Mr. Moderator. Christian Klein, precinct 10, also Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate this opportunity to speak to the meeting on this article. So at the time of the recodification, back in 2018, the ZVA had a set of comprehensive rules and regulations that were in effect since 2016, but it had never had a set of regular rules and regulations. And so at the time, it was decided to keep the rules and regulations that were codified in the zoning bylaw as the rules and regulations of the Board and the Board actually voted to approve that. Subsequently, the Board has generated its own set of rules and regulations for regular hearings for 48 hearings and adopted those. So now we have rules and regulations for both 48 and 40B and they are both available on the ZVA website. The reason that the Board put this article forward, as Ms. Embery had noted in her video presentation, was that the Zoning Board of Appeals, the section in the Zoning Bylaws that outlines specific rules for the Zoning Board of Appeals is no longer required as the Zoning Board of Appeals has adopted its own rules and regulations. And the Zoning Board of Appeals adopts rules and regulations under Chapter 40A, Section 12 of Massachusetts General Laws, whereby the Zoning Board of Appeals shall adopt rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Board and its bylaw for the conduct of its business and for purposes of this chapter. And as such, in my conversation with Mr. Jamison, I feel that the section, the subsection A in our current Zoning Bylaws is essentially in opposition to allowing the Zoning Board of Appeals to adopt its own rules and regulations. At present, if we want to change the rules and regulations as they are presented in the Zoning Bylaw, we are not allowed to do so on our own. We have to get the approval of the Redevelopment Board to put them onto the town meeting warrant, and then we have to get a two-thirds vote of town meeting to amend our rules and regulations. Specifically, in regards to 40B, the 40B process, comprehensive permit process is a very complicated and very lengthy process of review. The Zoning Board of Appeals met six times more last year than the Select Board did, and that is because we had two comprehensive permit hearings running simultaneously. And during those times, the Board did not request that the applicants speak under oath. The rules, what's written in the Zoning Bylaws requires that anyone who speaks before the Zoning Board of Appeals is required to speak under oath. And it was my opinion in speaking with Council that that requirement would stifle the free expression of the neighbors. And it is critical in a hearing like this, where there is extensive impacts that are on the town and on the residents, that the residents feel free to fully express all of their concerns both that occur in regards to the application. Any piece of testimony that is provided by the applicant comes by way of their team of engineers. The Zoning Board of Appeals has its own set of consulting engineers that are fully funded. They take every single piece of information, they fully vet every single piece of information that is provided. They provide guidance back to the Board, they provide guidance back to the applicant, there's a bit of go in between, between the two groups. And so there is no testimony that is provided that is not vetted. Whether or not it is specifically given under oath, there is no piece of information that is handed to the Board that is taken at face value without full review. I would also note that the Zoning Board of Appeals decision on the previous two cases that came before it that were going for seeking comprehensive permits, one proceeded without an appeal to the HAC. The one for Thorndike Place was submitted for an appeal for the HAC and I would also note that that appeal has been with, has the request to withdraw the appeal has been provided by the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals takes great pride in the work it does and we feel it's important that that be reflected in giving the Board the ability to manage its own rules and regulations for the operation of its business. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Klein. Let's take Mr. Warden next. Name and precinct, please. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Oh, thank you. Go ahead. The different sort of setups has been. Okay, yeah, John Warden precinct eight. Be very brief. At this stage of the where we're at with respect to 40B, unless the select board members are going to do the right thing and the next time a 40B developer comes along say no, we have our one and a half percent devoted to affordable housing and therefore we don't, we don't have to allow you to override our zoning. They can do that. They, they, they did it with the original MUGAR project and it turned out that their calculations were a little bit off. They did not do it with the MIRAC project for some reason but now surely we have that, we have that one and a half percent although for some reason they haven't been very diligent or planning whoever is not very diligent about nailing that down. If it's they're going to do that then, then we're fine because then the developer whoever he is is going to have to go to the regular process like everybody else does. But if we, if they don't, then I think it's very important that, that, that we have this, we have this provision which is Mr. Rosenthal noted has been in several other towns and it's it's been approved by the Attorney General and just because there are also rules and regulations that the zoning board has enacted as they're authorized to do doesn't mean that we can't have a parallel requirement in the, in the bylaw itself that both deals with the, the, the testimony by the African under oath and the, and the, the recording of the thing, recording of that, of that testimony because frankly, well, in my opinion, 40B developers are typically not very nice people and if they were nice people. Well, let's, let's not make a cast dispersions on entire classes of people or their career choices here. Okay, I would say that in my opinion, nice people come to our, I can say we will build, we want to do our project, tell us what your zoning, your zoning laws are and we will follow your regulations. 40B developers don't do that. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Warden. Let's take Mr. Wagner next, next, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Carl Wagner, precinct 15. I moved to terminate debate on the article on all matters. Okay, we have a motion for Mr. Wagner to terminate debate. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a second from Mr. Granucci. So let's bring up a vote for terminating debates on article 32 and Mr. Rosenthal substitute motion. Okay, voting should be open or opening depending on which wave of precinct you're in. And so if you see the yellow highlighted text that you're in a future wave, just sit tight. If you do not see the yellow highlighted text, but you see a button to cast your vote, please cast your vote. And so we're voting on whether to terminate debate on article 32 and Mr. Rosenthal's substitute motion. So if you're in favor of terminating debate, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. We have almost 200 votes cast, so it's a little bit longer. Still have over 20 outstanding votes that we're waiting for. Okay, we're up to 216. Let's just wait another 30 seconds for termination of debate of article 32. 20 seconds, 15 seconds until we close voting on termination debate of the main motion and the substitute. Five seconds. Okay, let's close voting. That's a two-thirds vote. And motion passes, 183 in the affirmative, 34 in the negative. So debate is terminated on the main motion and all the matters before it, which is the substitute motion. So let's bring up voting now on the substitute motion. For article 32, Mr. the Rosenthal substitute motion. Did it say two-thirds vote because the substitute motion should be, and double check this, it should be a majority vote. So let's hold off on that. Subsidiary motions, amend or substitute, it's always majority. Can we correct that before we proceed? Sorry we didn't catch that before when these were entered into the system. Can we close the voting and re-enter this, if that's possible re-enter this as a majority vote, just so there's no confusion when the voting screen comes up? Apologies for that. Again, sorry we didn't catch that earlier. Motions to amend and substitute are always majority regardless of whether the main motion is majority two-thirds, eight-ninths, it doesn't matter. I don't want to get to the end of the vote and we're looking at the voting screens and the display says one thing and I'm verbalizing another. Let's make sure that's consistent. Okay, so we're back to voting now on the Rosenthal substitute motion. It says amend but substitute and amend are procedurally equivalent as far as voting goes. So this is now correctly states that it is a majority vote to substitute Mr. Rosenthal's substitute motion in place of the main motion. So the waves of voting are still kind of rolling out so if you see the yellow highlighted text just please wait for your chance to vote. If you see a cast your vote button on your screen and in your voting portal please vote. And so we're voting here on whether to substitute Mr. Rosenthal's substitute motion in place of the main motion. If you wish to substitute Mr. Rosenthal's substitute motion vote yes. If you want to leave the main motion not substituted then vote no. Again a no vote means to retain the main motion as it was originally written. Again this is a majority vote. The main motion will be a two-thirds vote but we're not there yet. Okay so we have 213 votes, 215 votes cast now. Let's just wait another 30 seconds until we close voting on whether to substitute Mr. Rosenthal's substitute motion. 25 seconds, 20 seconds until we close voting on the substitute motion. 15 seconds, 10 seconds, 5 seconds. Okay let's close voting on the substitute motion or this is a majority vote and the vote fails. 54 an affirmative 162 in the negative so we'll wait for these screens since it's a substitute motion. We're only skipping the voting screens for termination of debate and then after we cycle all through these precinct screens we'll then open voting on the main motion without substitution. Okay let's open voting now on the main motion for article 32. Now this will be a two-thirds vote. Okay so voting should now start rolling out for the main motion of article 32. Again if you're seeing the yellow highlighted text in your voting window that just means that your wave of precincts has not had voting enabled yet so just sit tight and open up momentarily. If you see a cast vote button feel free to vote and please get your vote in quickly. There's a request in the Q&A to show the language of the article. Can we bring that up while we're waiting for the votes to come in? So yeah there's a lot of text here so it might be hard to fit it on screen at a font size that folks are going to be able to read. So if we can scroll down to the vote language since that's technically what's changing or what's being proposed to change in the zoning bylaw. Okay thank you and just to remind us this is a two-thirds vote for the main motion so the zoning bylaw change related to the rules and regulations for the zoning board of appeals. We have 212 votes in we're still waiting for several more to come in. If you're able to vote in the voting portal please do. Okay let's keep voting open for another 30 seconds. If you're not able to vote in the portal you can always enter your vote type it into the Q&A and zoom 20 seconds until we close voting on the main motion of article 32. 10 seconds. Last chance to vote five seconds until we close voting. Okay let's close voting on article 32 and the vote passes 174 in the affirmative 45 in the negative. We'll just wait for the screens to run through all the precincts. Article 32 is now closed we'll just wait for the screens now and then after we're done seeing the votes across all the precincts we'll open up article 33. Okay so let's now go to article 33 and this has a recommended vote of favorable action from the redevelopment board. Let's bring up Mr. Klein to introduce this. Thank you Mr. Moderator Christian Klein, precinct 10, Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe that Ms. Embrie has prepared a video presentation on this article. I believe there is. Can you bring that up? Thank you. I'm Rachel Zimbary, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board also known as the ARB and I will be taking you through warrant article 33, a bylaw amendment related to the definition of half story for the 2022 annual town meeting. Between 2018 and 2021 this section of the bylaw related to the definition of half story has been updated multiple times to provide clarity and to align with the definition in the state building code. The purpose of this amendment is to improve and clarify the existing definition of half story. This amendment was brought to the ARB by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Bylaw Working Group. The text of the amendment includes specifying that the area comprising half story is calculated on the finished floor or story below not including purchase index. This definition ensures consistent interpretation by the ZBA, applicants, staff, and the general public. This amendment provides clarity to the Zoning Bylaw and does not alter the substance of the bylaw. The ARB voted 5-0 at our April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on article 33. Thank you. Hello. This was on the consent agenda. It was requested to be removed by Ms. Falen. Could you bring Ms. Falen up? She could be our first speaker. Mr. Moderator? Sorry, Mr. Klein, did you have more to say? I'm sorry. I did. I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. Go ahead, please. Mr. Moderator, again, Christian Klein, freezing 10. Essentially, the reason for bringing this is there was some confusion as to how the second part of this is to be interpreted, which is the reason for bringing forward the article. The numerator and the equation remains absolutely the same. The question is just what is the denominator? There has been some confusion as to what was meant by in the prior definition. What this clarifies is that when you're calculating a half story for the third level of a building, it is relative to the gross floor area of the second floor. That is the reason for this article. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Apologies for cutting off your time. Let's bring up Ms. Falen, who asked to remove this from the consent agenda. Hi, Ms. Moderator. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Name and precinct. Michelle Falen, precinct four. The chart and explanation have answered my questions, and I'm all set with this. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Do we have any other speakers? We have no other speakers, so let's go straight to voting. We're opening up voting now. This is the main motion of article 33, which seeks to change the zoning bylaw to update the definition of half story. If you're in favor of this change, vote yes, and can we bring up the change on screen? Article 33. If you are not in favor of this change in definition of half story, you can vote no. This is a two-thirds vote to amend the zoning bylaw. The waves of precincts, the waves of voting should be all opened up for all precincts at this point. Just over 200 votes. We're still waiting for several votes to go. Everyone should be able to vote at this point. If you have problems voting in the portal, you can enter your vote by typing it into the Q&A, and we'll have someone enter it for you. Let's just give folks another 30 seconds before we close voting on article 33. 20 seconds until we close voting. 10 seconds. Five seconds until we close voting. Let's close voting on article 33. The main motion is a two-thirds vote, and it passes 209 in the affirmative, six in the negative, just wait for all the screens to show the votes from all the precincts. Once we've finished cycling through these screens with article 33 disposed of, we'll open up article 34, which is in front of us. We'll just finish watching all the votes from all the precincts first. Let's now bring up article 34. It's a zoning bylaw amendment related to porches. This was also on the consent agenda. It was pulled off. It's a two-thirds vote. Mr. Klein, do you want to speak to this to introduce this? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christian Klein, precinct 10, the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I would ask that the video presentation prepared by the Arlington Redevelopment Board be played. Yeah, let's bring that up. I'm Rachel Zunbury, chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB, and I will be taking you through a warrant article 34, a bylaw amendment related to the definition of porch for the 2022 annual town meeting. This amendment was brought to the ARB by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Bylaw Working Group in response to frequent requests for a special permit under section 5.3.9 by property owners seeking to construct a farmer's porch or similar structure. The text of the amendment includes, text that specifies that the porches are included in the consideration of projections into a minimum front yard setback and clarification that porches are subject to section 5.3.9.a for the ZDA, applicants, staff, and the general public. This amendment provides clarity to the zoning bylaw and does not alter the substance of the bylaw. The ARB voted 5-0 at our April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on article 34. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Mr. County, do you have anything else to add? I do. Thank you. Again, Christian Kine, Precinct 10, chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. So essentially, currently the board receives many applications looking for adding a farmer's porch to large porch on the front of a house. And the Respectional Services has considered them to be enclosed entrances for the purposes of this section in order for them to be considered. This is such a common feature in Arlington that we felt it was better to include it specifically under this section of the bylaw and then to amend the definition of porches to clarify that a porch is unenclosed and open it to the elements to differentiate it from a porch which would be enclosed. And this article is brought forth in conjunction with article 35, which has already been passed by this meeting whereby the enclosure of a porch would require a separate special permit. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, I did mention this was pulled off the consent agenda by Ms. Leahy, but she did contact me before the meeting to say that that was unintentional. She intended that as a second, and so she doesn't need to speak, but we do have someone in the speaking queue. Let's take Mr. Slotnick. Larry Slotnick, Precinct 7. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. So I just would like to clarify or point out what's happening in East Arlington, and I think there might be some relevance to this. When developers purchase two-family homes, they often, to not exceed FAR limits, dismantle existing porches on two-family houses, then basically bring the front of the house, you know, the rebuilt building closer to the sidewalk or closer to where was the original porch on the house. So we're finding these luxury... FAR just for the benefit of the floor area ratio, correct? Yeah, floor area ratio. So we're finding these, you know, kind of super luxury developments having no front porches anymore. The developer has been able to add a few hundred square feet to the second and first floor of the building because they now enclose them and they're under air conditioning and heating. And so I'm just wondering if these condominium owners typically will now be able to petition to put an open front porch onto the house again? Mr. Klein, do you have an answer? Thank you, Christian Klein, Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. So currently the reason that those porches are allowed to be enclosed by right was an interpretation under the zoning bylaw that those are already considered enclosed because they have a roof on them. And as I mentioned previously under Article 35, which was previously approved by this meeting, that is no longer allowed by right, that is allowed by special permit. So there will be some oversight of those enclosures and then they request to add a porch on the front would require a special permit because it would be constructed within the setback. Okay. All right, that answers my question. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Slotnik. Thank you, Mr. Klein. Let's take, we have a note from Mr. Hanlon tonight. Let's take Mr. Hanlon. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Name and precinct, please. My name is Pat Hanlon. I'm room precinct five. And I'm also a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and have written most of the opinions of the last year or so. We get a lot of cases that relate to the intrusion of porches into the front, the projection of the porches into the usually the front mandated yard. Those cases, mostly, although not entirely, mostly are people seeking to create porches. And they're ordinary folks, just like all the people here. They're not developers. They're people who are looking forward to doing something that maybe makes the street a little bit more interesting and something that makes the, that gives them a place to sit during the summertime, watch children and so forth. That's the kind of justification we hear. There is almost never any opposition to this. These are very uncontroversial things. Obviously, something could be controversial. Someone could try to abuse this, but that hasn't generally been the case. We have typically included a condition that requires that the application, that the porch not be enclosed, but more or less in line with the bylaw that we'll come to next. And we've put in a condition that the porch doesn't redefine what the foundation wall is so that it doesn't provide a way for sort of creeping enlargement of the structure. And that system has worked out pretty well, but the difficulty is that the language of the bylaw on which we rely in rendering these decisions is something that the very least is subject to question. And in a spirit of transparency, which I think we and ISD are both working towards now as a major priority, we really would like to be clear that the bylaw authorizes what it is that it is a long-standing practice to do. And so you will see, and the body will see a number of amendments that are designed to do, provide for clarifications in just this way, because the zoning bylaw is complicated enough. And it ought to be true that when you read the bylaw, what you read clearly justifies what actually happens in practice. And so the board has asked for a clarification of the bylaw to make clear that the porches that are pretty uncontroversial in accordance with town policy can proceed as they have been doing in the past. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Hamlin. And this comment is not directed at any anyone individually, but I just want to remind folks that this article was removed from the consent agenda apparently unintentionally. So let's just keep it in mind as we go through debate. So I see no more speakers in the speaker queue, so let's go straight to voting on Article 34. Okay, so we're now opening voting on Article 34. If you're seeing that yellow highlighted text that your voting controls will be enabled in a future wave, just sit tight. That'll open up momentarily. If you see a cast vote button, please go ahead and vote. We're voting on the main motion of Article 34. So you vote yes if you want to change the zoning bylaw to update the definition of a porch. Vote no if you don't want to change the definition of a porch. You just don't want to change the zoning bylaws in this regard. Can we bring up the text from the annotated warrant, the voting language for Article 34, please? And this is a two-thirds vote. So you can see the edits there or the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw under vote language on the screen here, the underlying text being added, the stricken text being removed. So if you're in favor of these changes to the zoning bylaw, vote yes to change the definition of a porch. If you disapprove of this change, vote no. Okay, we're at 212 votes cast, 215. Still several outstanding. Now to 218, let's just wait another 30 seconds and then we'll close voting on Article 34. Okay, 20 seconds left. So we close voting, 15 seconds. If you can't get it through the voting portal, you can do it through the chat. I'm sorry, that's through the Q&A. 10 seconds. Five seconds until we close voting. Okay, let's close voting on Article 34. Main motion. Okay, it passes 216 in the affirmative, six in the negative. We'll just wait for the screens to cycle. And so Article 34 is closed and while we're waiting for these screens, next up is Article 36. The way we're getting through these zoning articles, it says if everyone's racing to get to 38. Well, I'm Rachel. Thanks for queuing that up. Okay, so let's now bring up Article 36, which is before us. And I see Mr. Klein, do you want to introduce this as well? Certainly. Christian Klein, Precinct 10, Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, I ask that the video presentation by the Arlington Redevelopment Board be displayed. Okay, let's bring that up. And while we're bringing that up, I just want to let folks know this was also on the consent agenda. It was removed by Ms. Band, but she no longer wishes to speak to the article. Actually, before we get to the video, we do have a point of order from Mr. Hanlon. So let's take that before we get into the video. Mr. Moderator, we just did number 34, and I thought that was number 35 on the Article 35 was on the consent agenda. I see. Okay, I would draw the border. Thank you. Thank you. So let's go back to the video. Thank you. Hello, I'm Rachel Zimbari, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB, and I will be taking you through one Article 36 related to large additions for the 2022 annual time meeting. This amendment was brought to the ARB by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning By-law Working Group and eliminates dual and potentially conflicting requirements in the zoning by-law and improves clarity for the ZBA, applicants, staff, and the general public. The text of the amendment includes clarification of the calculation by which the determination of a large addition is made, specification that the more restrictive requirements apply. This amendment provides clarity to the zoning by-law and does not alter the substance of the by-law. The ARB voted 5-0 at our April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on Article 36. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Klein, do you have anything to add? Just thank you, Mr. Moderator, Christian Klein, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Just very briefly, the by-law has always indicated that a large addition is either 750 square feet or 50% of the existing area of the house, but it never said whether it was the larger or the lesser of those two. And so this clarifies that it's the lesser. And then there has also been a long-standing interpretation by the inspectional services that when you are considering the area of an addition, the portion of that that falls within the existing footprint of the house does not count towards the calculation of a large addition. This is because Section 813A, which deals with non-existing non-conforming buildings, very specifically notes that anything within the existing footprint is not considered detrimental. And so for this reason, because this is the general interpretation and it is not necessarily clear, we wanted to make sure that it was clear in this revision that the portion of an addition that falls within the footprint of the house does not count towards the calculation of a large addition. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Klein. I see, by the way, from I can see the timestamp on the point of order on my screen, that is an obsolete point of order from a few minutes ago. Thank you. And so do we have any speakers? Let's get back to the second in case their displays are slow to update. Okay. So I don't see any speakers in the queue. And so let's go straight to voting on Article 36. Okay. So voting is opening up. You might see yellow highlighted texts saying that you're in a future wave. So just sit tight if you're seeing that. And if you see a cast vote button, please proceed to vote. And this is a two-thirds vote for changing the zoning bylaw to update the definition of large additions. So if you're in favor of that change, can we bring up the text of that change, please? If you're in favor of that change in definition of a large addition, vote yes. If you're opposed, vote no. And this is a two-thirds vote to amend the zoning bylaw. And we have just around 190 votes cast so far, still waiting for several more. 200 votes cast. 210. We're at 214. Let's skip folks now with 30 seconds until we close voting on Article 36. 20 seconds until we close voting. 10 seconds. Okay. Let's close voting on the main motion of Article 36. And the vote passes 210 in the affirmative, five in the negative. I'll just wait for the screens to go by to show all the votes from all the precincts. Okay. That's the seventh article that we've disposed of tonight. If we dispose of one more, we'll break our record at this annual town meeting. That would be exciting. And also, if we finish Article 37 tonight, then we can start next Wednesday with a clean slate with Article 38, which I know has a lot of interest. Okay. So let's now bring up Article 37, zoning bylaw amendment for unsafe structures. And let's see, let's bring up Mr. Chapa, the Director of Inspectional Services. Do we have Mr. Chapa with us tonight? If we don't, could we bring up Ms. Rait? Jennifer Rait, Director of Planning and Community Development. I'm introducing Article 37. And on behalf of the ARB, I'd like to request that the pre-recorded video presentation be played. Thank you. Bring up the video. Thank you, Ms. Rait. Hello, I'm Rachel Semberry, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB. And I will be taking you through one Article 37, a bylaw amendment for unsafe structures in the 2022 annual town meeting. This amendment was brought to the ARB by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Bylaw Working Group and establishes who may determine whether a structure is unsafe. This responds to instances where a contractor has removed a portion of a building without consulting the Inspectional Services Department. Inappropriate determinations in the past have led to portions of a structure being rebuilt that would otherwise not be allowed. The text of the amendment includes clarification that the Director of Inspectional Services, whether designee, must make the determination that a structure is unsafe prior to demolition. This amendment provides clarity to the Zoning Bylaw and does not alter the substance of the bylaw. The ARB voted 5-0 at our April 4th meeting to recommend favorable action on Article 37. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, I'm Zavid Presley. Okay, so this was on the, Mr. Klein, actually, Ms. Wright, did you have anything further to add? No, Mr. Moderator. I do not have anything further to add. Okay, thank you. So this was on the Consent Agenda. It was requested by Ms. Mazzina to remove it. So, and I see Ms. Mazzina's in the speaking queue. So let's take Ms. Mazzina first, since she requested that we take this off the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mazzina, name and precinct? Hi, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Angel Mazzina, Precinct 15. I requested to remove this from the Consent Agenda and did follow up with Mr. Klein on this piece about the need to clarify this addition to the bylaw when it's already contained in Article 30 of the Zoning Bylaws. The Inspectional Services Director has already has the authorization to do so and it's outlined in the bylaws. I thought it was sort of a duplication, unnecessary duplication, but perhaps I don't believe I've heard back from for Mr. Klein and so, Mr. Moderator, if you'd like to ask Mr. Klein for clarification, that'd be helpful. Great, thank you. Mr. Klein, do you have a clarification or answer for Ms. Mazzina's question? Thank you, Christian Klein. Precinct 10, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I would apologize to Ms. Mazzina if I did not respond to her earlier question. The reason for including it in this section specifically is when the bylaws are reviewed by various parties, people are not always consistent in reading the entire document. And we did have a very unfortunate incident where a contractor who was directed to leave two walls of an existing house intact decided that they were unsafe and demolished it and essentially left the owner without a house on a non-developable lot. We were able to remedy this situation through the issuance of a variance, but it was a very disturbing for the owner of the house to realize all of a sudden their house was gone. So we felt it was important to include this provision in this section specifically because this is where a contractor would look to determine what their rights would be. Ms. Mazzina? Ms. Mazzina, you're muted. Oh, there you go. Yes, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Then in that case, if I am allowed to move to amend from the floor here just to clarify that this is reflecting the authorization due under Mazz General Laws. So I am okay with that addition as long as we park in or relate back to the authority granted by the statute in Mazz General Laws. So adding perhaps Mr. Klein, if you would be open to that, just adding that clarification in that sentence. Just so we understand we are not overriding here state law, but actually just clarifying and putting in that reference. I mean, I understand I'm not an attorney and my understanding is that well, we can't have zoning bylaws that override state law. There's home rule petitions that we can make. Mr. Heim, is this legally necessary or meaningful? Doug Heim, Town Council. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. You're correct. We cannot override state law by operation of our bylaws. Our bylaws certainly in theory can clarify that we are following state law, but the default should always be that our bylaws would be interpreted consistent state law. Thank you. Right. And so given the subtlety of this, I am inclined to not entertain a motion to amend at this point that there if there was an opportunity to submit that in advance. And so I'm not going to entertain that motion at this time on the floor. So, Mr. Moderator, if I could hear Mr. Klein's opinion on that, that'd be helpful. Sure. Mr. Klein. Thank you, Christian Klein, Precinct 10. Are you saying that this is in regards to last general law is Chapter 40A, Section 3, is your concern? Ms. Mazzina. That's correct, as I had indicated in our exchange. Okay, because my in reviewing Chapter 40A, Section 3, the term unsafe does not occur in that section. So I'm just curious if you were considering a different section. No, actually, I stand corrected. The section that I'm referring to is Chapter 143, Section 6, that grants the Director of Inspectional Services the authority to oversee and determine the safety of the structures. And that is already outlined in Section 3 of our zoning bylaws. So basically, inserting that reference, meaning that we are adding this or clarifying it based on that law, not that we are creating new authority here, I think it wouldn't be helpful. Yes, I do agree it isn't that, excuse me, Chapter 143, Section 6 doesn't include that the local building inspector has that ability. So this reiterates what is already in state law, but does not contradict what's in state law. Yeah, so again, not to belabor the point. I am not stating that in contradict state law. What I'm saying is it appears to be a duplication here of what's already not only in state law, but in our zoning bylaws. So if the need here to insert this reference here is to clarify any confusion as to people failing to see that reference in Section 3 of the zoning bylaws, then if so, then let's just insert that reference in full. Right, through an amendment that you're suggesting, Ms. Mazzino. Correct. Basically, the effort here is to clarify what section 3 of the zoning bylaw is actually saying, which is that under the Mazzino Laws 146 Section 6, the building inspector has this authority already. Right, so again, because this is involving issues of state law and the subtlety of that, I'm not going to allow that amendment at this time. There are other procedural options that you could pursue, but I'm not going to take the time right now to enumerate those in front of the meeting. But if you have another procedural option that you would care to move, I would consider entertaining that. So my position, I think it's not being clear here if it isn't. It's not an argument about the law, whether it applies or not, or if there's any conflict. In and of itself, it's a duplication. It's almost an unnecessary amendment here. But if the effort here is to clarify any ambiguity, then what I am saying is then if that's the case, then let's refer to the section that we're trying to clarify with this amendment. Otherwise, basically, we're saying the same thing in two, three different places. And I'm weary of that because if you're pointing it out in one section and not the others, then are you carving out an exemption by assertion? Right, so we're actually over time, we're over seven minutes at this point. But again, I apologize, I'm not going to accept that particular motion to amend at this point. Again, there are other procedural options, but I can't really take the meeting's time to enumerate all those at this time. Thank you. So let's take Ms. Nathan next. Hello, Mr. Moderator Michelle Nathan, Precinct 11. I was listening carefully to the prayer speaker and I also, I don't completely understand her thinking process, but I think she had a good point about you could see exceptions. And so then you can argue the, you know, well, it says this here. So therefore, I'm correct. So I can just see it can cause problems in the future. But my question was, when a structure is determined to be unsafe, I know that there's a lot of things to inspect. And there's one director. So is things inspected before it's like a contractor would say it's unsafe? Is it a proactive approach? Or is it a reactive approach? And then I was curious about it says occasional, I was curious about what is occasional mean? And how often are things caught before something is done that's not supposed to be done? Thank you. Let's take a period. We have Mr. Champa here, I say. Mr. Champa, Director of Instructional Services, do you have an answer from Ms. Nathan? Thank you, Mr. Lauderdale. I'm Mike Champa, Director of Instructional Services. Generally, when a building is, when it's brought to our attention that a building is unsafe, it's generally during construction and the contractors would, as they're working on the building, find evidence that they believe it's unsafe. And then we would do our investigation into it and possibly bring in a structural engineer and go from there. It's not a short process or something that we would miss. Ms. Nathan? Oh, thank you very much. I think I, and I'm just curious again about the occasional. Is it, you know, like five cases a year? Or I don't know what the word occasional means. Mr. Champa, do you have a sense of like, what sort of, like, what would be typical? I mean, it's not something that's very often. It's an unsafe, doesn't always mean that the building has to come down. There's only been one or two in the past few years that have been to a degree that they've had to come down. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. We have a point of order for Mr. Foskett. Let's take that now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. moderator Charles Foskett, Precinct 10. Since there are a number of speakers on the list here, I'm wondering if it's in order for me to make a motion to table this article until after the completion of Article 38? I would entertain that since either there is something to, it seems like it would be good to have time to assess that, to assess those, for folks to assess those options. So, yeah, I would entertain a, are you making that motion, Mr. Foskett? Yes, I am. Okay. So, I have a motion to lay Article 37 on the table. Do we have a second? I see we are second from Mr. Leaving. So, we have another, we have a point of order now from Mr. Slickman. Let's take that. Thank you, Mr. moderator Paul Slickman, Precinct 9. Is it legal to make a motion through a point of order? No. I'm going to say no. Oh, because Mr. Foskett just did that, didn't he? Mr. moderator? Mr. Foskett? Yes, I would argue that I made the motion after you asked me. That is true. So, we are where we are right now. So, I will entertain Mr. Foskett's motion and we do have a second. And that's something procedural we can talk about offline. So, if there are any objections to laying Article 37 on the table, I mean, frankly, we're going to run out of time tonight anyway. Mr., let's see. So, there are objections to, so the raising hand if you're objecting to laying Article 37 on the table, because there's a lot of hands going up. Laying on the table is a two-thirds vote. So, the objections would have to exceed one-third of the voting members. And so, we're getting numbers that are high enough that right now at 44, 45, 52, 52 out of, so it's 214 is the denominator of voters here that I see within among the participants. And I'll subtract off the ones who are not. So, we're at 210. So, by my count, we have inching closer and closer to one-third. So, this is just not a good format for doing this vote since it's actually very close to being one-third objections, which would, if it exceeds one-third of objections, then we're effectively at less than two-thirds, but we're dancing close to that. We haven't quite reached yet. Let's say, have we gotten there? We're at 63 now, 64 right now at 30.5%. It'd be nice if we didn't have to take a few minutes to take an official vote on this. Let's just give folks another 20 seconds to get their hands raised that they object to laying article 37 on the table. Apologize, this is kind of unorthodox. We are now at 34.7%, 73 out of 210 that I count, but actually it's way more now. It's now at 84. And so, we're well in excess of the one-third in objection, which means that we have not reached the two-thirds threshold implicitly to lay this on the table. So, the motion fails to lay article 37 on the table. It's now 11.01 p.m. After that very interesting procedural gymnastics we just did, I would entertain a motion to adjourn at this point. Just to monitor Charles Foskett precinct 10, I move we adjourn. Okay. Second. And we have a motion to adjourn from Mr. Foskett. Before I recognize that second, do we have any notices of reconsideration for tonight? Everyone could lower their hands in Zoom. Looks like they're all lowered now. We have, so raise your hand if you want to give notice of reconsideration on a vote that you voted tonight on the prevailing side because take Mr. Jamison, let's bring him up to give his notice of consideration. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. I disagree completely with the procedures that have been done in the last five minutes. Mr. Foskett moved to put something on the table and basically made those have to adjourn. When we could have taken a vote on this article, I'm very disappointed with the procedure and I would suggest that we continue and not adjourn until we continue to finish this article tonight. We need to get stuff done. Thank you very much, Mr. moderator. That's it. So thank you, Mr. Jamison. Just give me a second here. Let me consult something here. Okay. So the motion to adjourn to a fixed time is a majority vote. So let's do this properly and let's open up a vote on adjournment since we're in this kind of weird area where with this particular article, as Mr. Jamison pointed out, and I think we do have other, so we'll bring up a majority vote on whether to adjourn. And if this vote fails, we'll continue with article 37, which is still before us because it was not successfully laid upon the table. And so effectively, if you want to continue debating and eventually potentially voting on article 37, you can vote no on adjournment. And hopefully that remedies this procedural anomaly that we've gotten into. And we hope we have points of order here from Mr., can we take up Mr. Warden's point of order, please? Thank you, Mr. moderator. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Go ahead. John Warden, precinct eight. I was going to ask you under the point of order whether it would be appropriate for me to move to postpone article 37 to time certain, namely after article 38. That only requires a majority vote. Correct, sir. Are you making that? I guess it's moved now, but yeah, yeah, it'll affect me the same as adjourning effectively. It'd be affected like, yeah. So let's see, we have another point of order from Ms. Weber. Let's take that and then we'll go to the vote on adjournment. Janice Weber, precinct 21. I just don't understand the reason for postponing this because I don't know what it has to do with article 38. It doesn't seem to interfere with it. So I would prefer, I don't, I just don't understand why we're having this discussion. I don't understand the connection to article 38, 38, but I'm not really using that reference as, you know, in my determination of the procedure at this point. Thank you. Okay, so we're now voting on whether to adjourn. This is a majority vote. If you wish to adjourn, vote yes. If you wish to continue with article 37, which is before us, you can vote no. And we'll continue debating and potentially voting on article 37. We don't normally do this, but the timing tonight was awkward. And admittedly, the motion to table from a point of order was also awkward. But this is a much more proper way to do it than the raise hands and zoom. So please vote on whether to adjourn. Yes, vote means that you wish to adjourn. And we will reconvene next Wednesday. Vote no. If you wish to continue debate on article 37 tonight. 177 votes cast. Okay, we're still waiting for several more votes. 180 votes in. Okay, let's give folks now, let's say, it's possible a number of folks have actually signed off at this point, it's hard to say. Okay, let's give folks just another 30 seconds to get their votes in and whether to adjourn. If you want to adjourn, vote yes. If you want to continue voting or debating article 37, vote no. 20 seconds until we close voting. 10 seconds. Five seconds. So we close voting on whether to adjourn or to continue debate on article 37. Let's close voting. This is a majority vote. And it passes 112 in the affirmative 70 and negative. And so the meeting is adjourned until next Wednesday. Do not sign in on Monday. That is Memorial Day. And I guess you can stay and watch the screens if you like. Or otherwise, we'll see you next week. Thanks, everyone.