 Hello, Town Meeting. I'm Chris Loretty. I live at 56 Adams Street. I'm a former member of Town Meeting and a former member of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. I'm here to present on Article 39. The purpose of this article is to clarify the definition of mixed use, to ensure that it is applied in the way it was presented to and passed by Town Meeting in 2016. It does so by stating that the individual land uses that make up a mixed use development also have to be allowed individually in the same zoning district. That is the way the ARB presented mixed use to Town Meeting, and that is how Town Meeting voted to adopt it. If you were a member of Town Meeting in 2016, you may recall that I submitted a similar amendment. I was concerned that the definition of mixed use was so broad, essentially any two or more land uses, that it could allow prohibited uses to be snuck into places that Town Meeting had not intended. The ARB said I was wrong. That the definition could not be used that way, and my amendment wasn't needed. Let's listen. There was a statement made that said that any commercial use can be snuck into the definition that's been put forth before you in a mixed use development. So, you know, you can put a meat processing plant at the first floor. If you so choose, and if those rascals on the Redevelopment Board approve it, then you're going to have a meat packing plant on the first floor. That's not correct. We've worked with both the Inspectoral Services, the Head of Inspectoral Services, as well as Town Council on the wording that's before you. And only the uses that are permitted in a particular district are the ones that can happen in a mixed use in that district. Is any use that would be more than one use? It can't be solely residential, and again, it has to fit within the permitted use. A parking garage won't be permitted in there, but if a parking garage isn't permitted, residential on top of a gas station won't be permitted if that use is not already permitted. It has to fit what's already allowed under zoning and it has to fit within the character of the neighborhood being considered. If the ARB had abided by its commitment to allow only land uses permitted by the zoning bylaw in mixed use developments, I would not have submitted this article. Within the past year, however, the ARB has approved two special permits containing prohibited uses. This table illustrates just a sampling of the discrepancies between land uses town meeting has deemed appropriate and what the ARB now claims it can permit. On the left side of the table, all of the no entries offer business districts where the listed land use is not allowed. Everything from an Amazon distribution facility to a fast food restaurant with a drive-through are allowed by special permit in only one district. On the right, the ARB claims these same uses can be allowed in any business district if they are part of a mixed use. Here's what this looks like geographically. This is a map of the B-4 zoning district. The only business or industrial zoning district for which town meeting has authorized the ARB to permit gas stations and many other automotive uses. Note its limited extent. The result of previously approved zoning changes. This slide illustrates the fire larger area where the ARB now claims it can permit those same uses. All an applicant need do is include a convenience store, car wash, or some other use to make it a mixed use. I believe the ARB should respect town meeting decisions about where these and other land uses are allowed by special permit and where they are not allowed. I'd like to correct some misinformation about this article. First, does not create new limitations on the distinct land uses allowed in mixed use developments. It merely affirms the uses town meeting has already approved. It will not prevent housing and mixed use developments. As you can see from this table, housing is already allowed in all business districts and apartments are allowed in all but one of those districts, B-1. If the ARB wants to permit larger apartment buildings, fast food restaurants, gas stations, or other prohibited uses in the B-1 district, it should get town meeting to change the zoning bylaw. The legality of the ARB overriding town meetings land use designations remains unresolved. The lawsuit that resulted from the ARB permitting a prohibited use was dismissed primarily on procedural grounds without addressing the question. Finally, substantive requirements are quite common in the definitions of our Allington zoning bylaw and need not be of any concern. In conclusion, I'm asking you to support this substitute motion because it confirms how mixed use was presented to and passed by town meeting in 2016. It affirms town meetings authority to designate land uses through the zoning bylaw. It provides clarity both to abutting homeowners and to developers about which land uses can be permitted and it reduces the chance of future litigation. Thank you for listening. Thank you.