 Welcome everyone to the town of Arlington redevelopment board meeting on May 15, 2023. Thank you all for joining us. Let's see. So we'll just do quick introductions of all of the members of the board. I'm Rachel Zenberry chair of the board. Hello, Jean Benson. And Claire, the director of the Department of Planning and Community Development joining us this evening. So thank you all for joining us. We have one primary agenda item and then we'll chat with our guest, I think, during, during new business. So sorry, we have another member of the Department of Planning and Community Development joining us this evening. If you could introduce yourself before Marie Salal senior planner. Great. Thank you so much, Marie, for joining us. So let's jump right in because I know we have a limited time this evening. We will be adjourning around 745 750 two town meeting. So we are meeting this evening to discuss an update on the MBTA community's planning process and our understanding is that the consultant hired by the town has come back with their preliminary draft report and recommendations, which Claire is going to take us through. That's correct. Thank you very much. So these are draft versions. I'm trying to, in fact, they're so draft that I only have them in the design software. Of the MBTA community's district. Now, these were districts were drawn based on the community survey, as well as the work that UTL has done to Calculate the exact number of acres units, etc. That will make us compliant. That would be a compliant district. There are two drawings here, both comply. This one, I think, interestingly, and something that we should point out is one of the requirements for the MBTA communities is that we have half of it be contiguous. So this gets us there mostly because of, you know, this identification in East Arlington. And you can see here, not a lot of zoning involved in the center, although they're calling it an Arlington center zone. So this is a compliant district. That's the orange. So this is the orange. It's both. So what do you mean by, you say, compliant? This is where one would rezone this to what? This would get us three families across the entire thing. Yeah, all the orange. This is all the orange and the blue. Now, it obviously doesn't have to be three families across the entire thing. We could think about where six family go, and that gets us an affordable unit. Where would we want to have three families? But right now this drawing represents three families, a density of roughly three families across this entire, you know, these properties, the blue and the orange are both included. Now, it excluded existing B districts, excluded existing I districts, obviously open space. I don't think anybody wanted to build an open space. So that's good. But this is sort of the initial, the initial district that was drawn based on really the survey and where in Arlington it would, you know, it makes the most sense, residential, etc., where we could add some density. Claire, is this either or both? They both have to be done to meet the requirements? There's version two. Version two, interestingly, does not. Thank you. The requirements, because we don't have half of the district that is contiguous, representing 50% of the district. So this is, you can see smaller here in East Arlington, a little bit bigger in the heights, and then we add the center. Okay. And everything is set back off of MassApp, correct? Everything is off of MassApp, right? You can see, well, I don't know if you can see it. I did this on purpose because I didn't know if it was anything, but we do come a couple parcels back from the commercial areas. But this doesn't mean it. We do not have 50% of the district as contiguous. What the rule is, five contiguous. Camera one. This gets us there. Mostly because of the amount that we have there. And this is, you know, great. But this is pretty clearly, at least to me, and I'd be interested to hear what the board has to say. It's spread out a little more, maybe a little more fairly across neighborhoods. I think that was something that came out of the survey. The thing about this one is that it would require some tweaking, I think, to get that 50%. How much tweaking, do you know? I think this is going to have to be figured out in the working group. And honestly, it's a design question. And it's just two verses, right? There's only two verses. Okay. Is it possible to zoom in? Yep. So how much frontage on Mass Ave is there in that option? There's a significant amount, correct? Well, there's, you can see some of these larger parcels here, which I think, I'm not sure if these are already being developed or not. But here on Mass Ave, we're retaining, you know, these are larger parcels, which were included. But you can see the setback on smaller, some of these smaller ones. And then up here, as well, as we get closer to Broadway. And then here in East Arlington, excuse me, in Arlington Heights, mostly setback from Mass Ave. So that big blue spot is the lumber yard? It is. Not that we have arrows where... Yeah. Because I think this is Arlington Coal and Lumber. Yeah. No, that's probably over in the... Yeah, that's the blue spot there, right? No. No. Hercab is way to the left. There's, it's not part of it. Okay. Currently his own business is not included. Okay. On either, on both. Neither are I. Yeah, we avoided all, anything zone B1 now or BDs now. And focused on anything currently zoned residential. And this is, I think, a really interesting question about, you know, putting this here makes us compliant. But when we start to stretch it out a little bit, we're less compliant. However, it's a better plan. And it does more than the bare minimum if you throw in the Arlington Subsection. I sort of like number two, but with replacing that East Arlington District with the East Arlington District conversion one. Oh, see. Wow. Throw us down the gauntlet. Okay. And like I said, these are, can you talk about why? Part of it is, I like having, or there's sort of two reasons. One is this is, I think, gives a little more to Broadway and Broadway Plaza in terms of, you know, providing a source of foot traffic for there. This is already one of the more walkable points. Can you flip over to number two? This is, it's focused more on mass. It does give a good focus to Mass Ave. But, you know, it just, it seems like it's smushed up way on the outskirts. Now, I'd like something a little closer to the center. That's my high level liking. I know. Go ahead. No, go ahead. I think there were some questions that came out in the public meetings, or at least some comments that I thought were really interesting. This one really is transit oriented as we're, you know, getting real, getting, you know, really getting really close there also means we're getting close, you know, to A.O. Wife. So I think, you know, that was some of the thinking there. Let's group it around transit as much as we can. I, when you go to the top, it's a little more, a little less transit oriented. A little more into the existing residential. But still, as a client, you know. Gina, you, can I answer up here? No, you go first. Putting the phone together. Thanks. I like version one better. It puts less of a burden on East Arlington, which is quite dense already. And it's starting to build up a, a downtown where you can have a walking district and that will support the businesses more. I like that much, much more. As far as, I know Steve's point about being near transit and I appreciate that. But I think if we have that there, like that, I think the bus routes will come. I don't think we have to solely focus on what's existing right now because these changes are going to be long term changes. It's not going to happen overnight. All of a sudden those orange blocks can be all built up. It's going to develop over time. And as, I think, as things develop, the MBTA will, will, will change for that. I'm hoping, you know, they're not going to say, oh, well, you know, right now they're changing their schedules and their buses because of what people use the buses for. If they find that there's a heavier traffic, they might increase bus service. They might, so I don't want to solely rely on this MBTA and we have to follow them. I much rather us lead them saying, hey, this is better for the town. If we start encouraging development here that would focus on business and developing right along Mass Ave, I think that's a good win. And then the bus routes will follow and the transit will follow. That's my thought. I have a couple of substantive thoughts and a couple of procedural things. On the substantive thoughts, I agree with Ken about this district because there will be, there are, and even if the MBTA does its, you know, alleged bus improvement process, there'll be buses going down Mass Ave there. One going, you know, into Harvard Square down Mass Ave. And the other going Mass Ave to L-Life to Parkway and then to L-Life to Parkway to L-Life when they're reading the 67 bus. So I think it will remain good for transit for that sort of reason. I like in both of them that we're not losing any business rehearsals. I think that's one thing that we as a board talked about, making sure we didn't use any business parcels. So I think that's good. Also, I'm a little bit concerned with the other one because it's right next to L-Life to Parkway and the potential flooding either now or, you know, as the climate gets worse. Climate gets worse. Yeah. So I think if we want to do something for a little bit more sustainability, this may be a better place than smack up against the perk for that reason also. I, you know, even the ones up in the heights are not quite the heights. Party? The blues. The blues. Yeah, there's still going to be the 77 buses going that way. So we don't know what the individual parcels are. This one also has an East Arlington zone that works with the bikeway. The other one is off the bikeway a little bit. Now, again, very, very fuzzy. The starting point that we could come up with a district and prioritize, hey, we should have a touch the bikeway. I mean, this is something we've decided. Okay. But if you're on a bike and you're two blocks away from the bikeway, it's fine. You know, I live far away from the bikeway than that. But, you know, once you're on your bike, it's not a big deal. I just wonder, other than if you're walking to L-Life, then it's helpful to be right on the bikeway. On a process side, I think it would be interesting, you know, after the committee looks at this tomorrow, to figure out how to present both of these options to the community for community input and to somehow inform all the people whose properties might be affected by both of these proposals, that these are two options that we're looking at. And for the second one that's not quite up to snuff, figure out what needs to be done to it. So we have two viable projects, as opposed to one viable and one doesn't quite meet the rules. You know, I think this is, again, I think this is a starting place for discussion. I like, I do like, including some of our LinkedIn centered because quite honestly, it has the largest pieces of property on it. And, you know, we're more likely to be able to turn, oh, I can't believe I'm going to say this, you know, a house on Jason Street and before family, you know, then you would leaving it a single family. I mean, I think there's good opportunity there for, you know, units quickly. I mean, there's no way you couldn't include that in exactly. Exactly. That's the whole match. Exactly. You could absolutely do mix and match. You know, this is just really a question of a starting place that encompasses what we heard from the community in the survey. Yeah. At least I just go ahead and finish the. So my biggest concern with, I prefer option one as well, but my biggest concern with it is that we have talked about the importance of rezoning as many parcels as we can that are currently, we're currently, that were downzoned to residential on Mass Ave. And to a certain, to a lesser extent on Broadway back to business districts. Yep. By including many of these, which are in this plan, we lose that opportunity because those that are, are zoned for residential on Mass Ave, both in this section that straddles East Arlington and Arlington Center and then in the Heights would become part of this, this district. And that's a concern for me because I think it's directly at odds with the vision that this board has, which is to really make Mass Ave, you know, eventually a much more continuous commercial, commercial district. You know, if you move over, if you go towards the blue and the Heights, for example, in the overlay district that we are proposing all of those right there, for example, we were proposing to rezone as part of a future Arlington Heights business district. Right. It does not mean that those people that live there in their homes cannot continue to operate as residential, but there is an opportunity in the future as those turnover for those, I think, very valuable parcels to be used in a way that contributes in a much greater way to the town and unites the piecemeal business district that we're currently dealing with in the Heights. So I agree with a lot of this, but I would like to massage it to eliminate a lot of these residential parcels that like Mass Ave personally. So bring them into the zone. You know, remove them. Yes. If you go back to the other area there, what Rachel was talking about, swinging to the left, I think see those blue things right there? That's why they say that's why they color the blue. It's an easy change, but I agree with Rachel that maybe we should just pull up our skirt a little bit and just leave the edges along Mass Ave, stay as business, and that's a further rezoning later on and just move up the hill or down on Bow Street or anywhere around there to increase that because right around that area there, it's already pretty dense in putting a little more dense housing there. It might be okay. There's a lot of nice parks there. Some of this, as if it were business, pull it back. So we would extend the pink, maybe here, obviously along here and here, and then pick up something. I'm just total guessing here or here or something like that. Unless there's an opportunity, again, working within what I think is a flawed part of the MBTA community requirement, one of the flaws of the MBTA, which is silent on next use to indicate, for example, that if three family parcels, it is three family, for example, as of right or next use. Again, I don't know what we can, I think that we're going to need some technical guidance from you, Claire, on in terms of what is the or that we might be able to incentivize people. If we do need to include any of those parcels along Mass Ave, I would want to do so, worded in such a way that there is a much more attractive alternative that does include a commercial base. So the other part of this is that you asked me in the game, what does this look like? This is three families completely across the zone. That doesn't mean that we couldn't remove, say, I don't know, these right here and then up zone this parcel to be 10 units or something like that. There's still a lot to play with here, but this is really just the initial take from the consultant. So, I mean, what you're saying is what we have all talked about on this board for a long time, and I agree with it, and I want to think about another counterpart for it, which is the parcels along Mass Ave that are right now residential would be up zone to allow six units buildings, but could also at the same time we do that to take communities, we could also change the underlying zoning to business and incentivize mixed use. So we could, I think, do both. I think we're saying the big thing is that we're creating an attractive alternative. But we've had mixed use as an attractive alternative, but if somebody doesn't want to use it, at least we're going to get six family, which I think is better than the threes that are there now in terms of activation of the street and people are going to use the businesses and things like that. So I think that's the other way to think about combining. Well, this is all based on three families, right? So you're saying the version of one doesn't comply strictly right now, but what if we up zone some of that area there, the orange where we're on Broadway becomes six families or maybe eight families. Oh wait, what is compliant, right? Version one complies because of the 50% rule. But we're up zoning, so maybe we can get higher density, so we can then use our inclusion area to get to that portal housing. So I think the six is a magic number that we want to sort of keep in the back of mind, even though it's not a requirement in MTA communities, but if we sort of say, you know, at the center of those, that our area may be six or more or more. You know that magic number 24 is the most optimal density. That's right. I'd be inclined to agree, but leave those on Mesa and Broadway and not move them onto the side streets and keep the sides as three because I think that's more consistent with sort of how the town's operating now. So we could up to six with, you know, mixed use base zoning for those on Mesa, Broadway, but keep threes on the side streets going back. That's all the details right now. It is all the details. And I mean, we still haven't talked about height and lot sizes and all those other cute things. It's a good start. Yeah. One of the things that Lex intended, a fair number of their districts were in areas that are currently occupied by small businesses and they were concerned about losing commercial and one of, so what they did was, you know, they allowed mixed use, but if you did basically, if you're doing like residential, you could do three stories and you're going to do do ground floor commercial, you get an extra two stories. That's right. That's exactly but I would only do that in our residential and not our business. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Right. Right. Yeah. Exactly what I was suggesting. They added two floors, not one, two. Good for them. So, there becomes an incentive for, you know, and quite frankly, it's something that's going to pencil out a lot easier for a developer. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And that was a reason for two stories is to, you know, ensure that it had a better chance of penciling out. Right. So, it's for sure food for thought. I think, you know, is anyone surprised at the zone? Did you think it would be bigger, smaller? No. I think it's realistic for the town. Yeah. Yeah. For number two, I would like to see the flood plain drawn out. Okay. I know with, you know, I live over here and I know that a, you know, Cambridge's model of the 2070s sea level rise, storm surge, will put about this much above my first floor. Yep. And, you know, this area is a lower elevation. So, I think, you know, or, you know, in the future, this part of town is going to get really clogged. There's, I mean, it's more at risk than, you know, areas over here. Although it is relatively flat, there is a great increase. And, you know, and we can't use the flood plain because that's past. We like to do, you know, projected for 2070. And if it was going to go there, one of the things that we talked about at the Zone and Biola Working Group, but it sort of stalled, was allowing people to build up over the flood elevation with extra heights. If we went with number two, I think we'd have to figure out what to do with that too. There's another piece of this, and it's something that Kelly was working on before she left. And I'm going to pick back up, which is an infrastructure impact fee. And so a lot of times you can really leverage new development to fix problems, which would be attractive here. You know, doing some kind of, you know, contribution to stormwater impact or, you know, something like that. In fact, I'm pretty seriously going to put through that with Mike Radmacher. This opportunity that we may have to push the private side to do that kind of infrastructure work that we need anyway. A lot of towns have I and I. Exactly. Yes, you know. Well, we could write ours down. Okay, yeah. No, it's come up in 40D hearings where, you know, when I was on the ZBA, we had to wave I and I because they weren't written down, and they're not written down. You can't say what it is. We need to write that down. I think, you know, it's pretty clear. This seemed a little like I was surprised at size when I saw it. I thought it was, oh, wow, that's not as big or as impactful as I necessarily thought it would be. But it does make me think a lot about mitigation and especially related to the infrastructure. And, you know, I was also thinking about, you know, potentially some impacts to open space, but I just just doesn't seem as large, I think, as I thought it was going to turn out to be. But yeah. Nine Oregon is a really large percentage of the area of the town, which is, I think, helpful. I'm still thinking about Warren Street. I would not have expected it there, but. Here. No, no, no, the other one. Oh. This little. Yeah, I mean, right here. Yeah. It's a tiny one. Right. But I think they picked this up. Maybe because of parcel size, maybe because of the lack of zoned, you know, business necessarily. Well, this week, handing out some sort of a PDF, something for tomorrow's meeting. So, yes, it will be on paper for tomorrow's meeting. I was going to try to have it on paper for you all tonight. I couldn't get it on paper. So I figured showing it was. That's good. That's good. Thank you. So, yeah, the way that the the public meeting, this will go in front of the working group tomorrow night, we will probably have these same conversations about, you know, oh, well, let's take, you know, how could we potentially tweak this? Where's a denser parcel? You know, we don't want these parcels. You know, what would something like that look like and talk about the best way to sort of work with the public on this as well. But the public meeting that we have scoped out for June 8th is going to be maps and pens and, you know, please, if not this, what? And of course remain as open as we can to it. I think that there's an interesting, you know, to just look at this and say it's three family across all zones. I'm looking forward to a conversation about where more dense than that. Where do we get, where can we pick up more affordable housing? Because we all know this isn't necessarily about affordable housing, but it should be. And so we should at least think of a couple of ways to, just by virtue of by right, 12 units gets its two. Have they done any, like, graphics, like three-dimensional graphics, saying this is a sketch up block model of what a three family looks like? Not yet. As opposed to a six family, because I think that is really crucial for people to visualize what the impact may be as far as a six family block of housing versus a three family block of housing. And then what you have is two family block and get that comparison, otherwise, I think people are going to just realize they're going to go skit sorry and say, hey, we got building canyons again. And it really depends on the lot size in that case. And so I think this will be more of a conversation that we had tomorrow night about how do we achieve this, because we may end up shrinking the overall spread of it, but densifying, tensifying the density on some of these parts of it. So I'm in Mass Ave. It's the place in town, a little bit on other streets that already have larger apartment buildings on it. So it's not. That's where it's a good comparison. Right. Right. Fast forward to that place, as if we put it in some other part. And we already have that sketch up model of Mass Ave that we can pop these things here, and you can fly up and see how this proposal changes that Mass Ave massing model we have. One of the, I think somewhere on the side, there was a little histogram of lot sizes. There was. And given the number that are median, given the number around the median of 5,000-dish square feet, three families probably is probably a good fit for that. That might be something that's an interesting part of this when it's presented for the June 8th meeting, is really helping people understand what appropriate size and scale of development is per parcel size. I think the more options are. I mean, the interesting thing about including some bits of Arlington centers that we end up with, much larger parcels. Yeah. I didn't see that one before. Which parcel is it? Again, they're all in this one. I have no idea. Could consider removing parcels greater than 15,000 square feet. Well, that's a thought that we can share. Rahi can share with us tomorrow night and we can talk about. That was a third of the thing. Well, the other thing is, I mean, most parcels aren't set in stone forever. Somebody might want to make contiguous parcels and combine them. Right, right, right, right. Yeah, anything else that you'd like us to focus on with the working group? I think just for the working group to figure out how to present this to the public. And, you know, Steve and I were on a talk the other day with a couple of folks in Lexington planning board. And one of the things that I found real interesting is that they notified by postcard everybody who owned a parcel that might get resumed. So they were no surprises coming about that at all. At this early stage. Not at this early stage, but at some point, I think that would be something. When we get something, I think this is just the beginning. I mean, we tried as a working group to, in our first couple of meetings, put something down on a map. And we're so just flummoxed by prospect and trying to decide the goals we're in the vision. You know, yes, we had the consultant work on this and work with our survey to get us it. But again, we can still just start to play with it now. I wanted to also let you guys know we had UTIL on. And they were doing mass housing partnership was paying for them to give us the technical assistance that brought us here. I have been speaking with Jim, we're going to keep UTIL on. So we can get your drawings and so we can have some of these wonderful graphics that we used to be able to do in-house. We'll certainly carry on with that. God never have enough in the personnel budget. So we do have funding? Yes, we do. We do have funding related to keeping UTIL on to help us work through, you know, graphic the visualization. Yes, the visualization. Right, thank you. Graphic for the setting. Don't look forward. That's it. We need that 100 percent. You didn't want to do it for us, Kim? No? I can't even finish my own fiction. Okay. So that concludes that presentation. Yeah, I think it's a good first step. And I think, you know, it's easily kind of digestible to say, if we allow three families across the board, this is what we do. Now let's talk about it. Let's talk about what we need. Great. All right. Thank you. And that is agenda item number one. Agenda item number two is new business. So I'd love to be look forward just a little bit for our coming meetings and make sure that we're aligned on what's coming up. And then I'd love our, yes, opportunity to ask any questions you might have of us. And tell them about what's about themselves. Yes. And let us know a little bit about you as well. So maybe let's first look forward a bit. So we have the 20th. All right. 23rd. Turn it around. No? Yes. 22nd. 22nd of May. I don't know that we have. Do we have anything on the agenda for that evening? I'm not sure when the third dispensary is coming in front of us. I think that's June. That's June. That's June. That's June. Okay. That's just Kalec speak. Great. So I don't know that we have anything currently on the agenda for the 22nd. Okay. That's the last one, right? What's that? Yes, there's only three. Yes, this is the third of three. Okay. So something the board had asked for was an update on Atwood House. Well, all the projects, I thought I asked. All the projects. Well, second. How about as many as I can fit? But I think we had talked with Mike Champa, for example, was going to come meet with us in Devtime also about the Atwood House. We may do an executive session around the Atwood House to talk about options for how to move that project forward that may involve the town. So I think that they both thought that let them get through. Let them get to June. So I think if we're able to find a June meeting that works for Doug and Mike, that to Kim's point, let's get an update on many of the projects that have been approved and are sitting without moving forward. And then I think a specific discussion around the Atwood House would be appropriate since that is a unique circumstance. I didn't ask for it today. I know how busy you are. No, no. And any of the stuff. The hotel and all of the other. Just let us know when you're ready. Sure, sure. So either of the two meetings in June, I think are fine for that. Is the board, how would you like to handle the Juneteenth holiday? I thought you'd scheduled around that. Did we not? So no holiday. It should be the 19th. Yeah, so I think we're scheduled for the 5th and the 26th. If I'm specifically to, oh, no, I don't have that one on me. You know what? I don't know that we scheduled for the 5th. No, I thought we had one on the 19th. We had the one on the 19th. Yeah. I just didn't put on my calendar because it's a holiday. So we should move to the 26th. To the 25th, yeah. Let's do that. Yeah, sounds great. Because then we're going to miss. You know, I don't know that we have the 3rd. But I don't think we scheduled in July. Did we? Did we do the full year? I think we just did through June. Yeah. Next meeting can we schedule the rest of the year? Yes. Right. So that's the question is, should we meet next week? I don't know that we have anything on our agenda, which really compels us to need to do that. Can I just get us where we are on the MOUs on the 3 properties? That's, you know what? I owe you guys an update on that. Yes. So is that for next week? Well, I mean, I feel they're just... It's with Doug. And so... That's June. Yeah. So in June, we'll have the MOUs. Maybe we'll be done with town meeting in June. This may be the last session. We might get through now. I don't think we move this week. I think this is my last one. I doubt it, June. I really doubt it today, Gene. Me too, but you know. Okay. In any case, if we cancel the 20 seconds, we'll have the 5th and the 26th in June. And we'll do in June, the MOU, the update on existing... ARB, yeah, projects, approved projects. And we'll have the discussion around the Atwood House. And we'll also have the 3rd dispensary. About the Atwood House, we'll be in the executive session. Marisa. Yes. The signs in Arlington Heights. Is she going to come back or we don't know yet? I don't know yet. No applications yet. The other... We're behind on minutes, so... We've been using a transcription service for minutes, and we'll probably continue to do it. I can have someone check in and see where we are with that. But it's just, you know, try to record it, send it off to Cambridge, not to Cambridge, but to the consultant in Cambridge. And then they do the minutes. Okay. And then I think in June, we also should review again the articles that we had originally planned. Yes, of course. So I think we could do that at the first meeting in June, because we really need to plan out community engagement and ensure that those are still the articles we want to move forward for Faltown Meeting, knowing how much we're going to be putting into MBTA communities. And we did talk... We had 9 of them. We did talk about maybe trying to appear that down a little bit. We did. Bar, Tricer, right? Yeah, correct, yeah. Great. So I think that's a good agenda item for June as well. Great. Anything else? Just the schedule for the next half of the year. Yes. And we'll review that maybe the first meeting in June we'll review the schedule for the second half of the year. Yes. Including the retreat. Yes. We'll start thinking about them. Thanks for that. Great. Sure. Okay. Montreal. In. Well, at some point when you get caught up, I know that my term ends in September. I think mine ends in June. June. Yeah, but I don't know with... I don't know how the process works for... Oh, yours is different. Yeah, I'm different. You're the longer... You're with the governor. Yeah. The editorial, right? All right. Okay. And I can look into that to look for the files and see how we do that. Doug can, I think, work with you on that because I think Doug worked with you on the appointment, correct? No, that was mostly Jenny. It was mostly Jenny. Okay. All right. Yours is simple. What's that? Yours is simple. Yeah, I just have to go and turn the select board again, I think. Well, you don't actually know. You don't have to go. They just... It's the last time, isn't it? Of course not. You're invited, you're invited, but you don't have to attend. Okay. Because I didn't attend. It was a bad night. I think it was the same night as the annual beam meetings. Yeah. Okay. I forget about that. Yeah. Could you want to give us a quick background on... Yeah, sure. So Andrew, Andrew Plum, well, just it's funny. Our family seems to be getting more and more involved in the town. My wife, Metta, is a part of the working group. My mother-in-law who lives downstairs is in the part of town meeting for our district. But we heard from Claire that there was a potential opening on the board and we were talking about it. And I'm an architect and a builder and a small-scale developer. My wife and I have had a business together for 15 years. We've been in Arlington for 20 years. The kids are growing up here. We just, you know, it's like we love this place and are looking for ways to be more involved and more thinking about its future and use our skill set and experience, you know, in a way that benefits the town. And so, I had a meeting with Claire and I was just really interested in being a part of thinking about the future and the types of things that are, you know, always coming up in these things. So I'm no stranger to dealing with it. I work mostly in Cambridge, but on my projects, but dealing with the zoning boards and planning boards and then so on. So it's interesting for me to potentially be on the other side of it and, you know, so I, anyway, what questions can I answer for you guys? Without me. Well, I'm excited to hear that you have some development experience. I think that that's a question that comes up a lot from people who visit the board, the public, and then, you know, just thinking about economic feasibility and what are the considerations that create opportunities for development in town. So to me, that is something that, you know, kin has some experience, but that brings a perspective, but to have, you know, additional perspective, I think to me is really interesting. Well, I mean, I didn't really know if I was allowed to ask questions or whatever in that presentation earlier or whatever, but it was interesting to look at those maps and think about that that was, you were saying it was a footprint was smaller than you expected, but that's actually the maximum footprint, right? Because that's three family. Yes. Everywhere, and it will only get smaller as more things get more dense. That's right. And if you mentioned about East Darlington and infrastructure, and you're not really going to get three family developments contributing much to infrastructure. So if you want development to help drive infrastructure, you need more density because the projects, you know, I mean, we're doing a lot of like three family scale and it's actually tough. You know, if I had to, if I was needing to contribute to an infrastructure fund, it probably wouldn't work. Or to pin out. It wouldn't. It just wouldn't. Not the way things are right now, unless the land is, I don't know what these parcels would sell for, but in Cambridge, like, not so, you know. Anyway, so thinking about what's feasible, I mean, I love the idea of being able to just do like missing middle scale housing. I mean, all that's great. And but the, if you're thinking about, well, what else might the development give to the town? Like, you need larger scale things to be able to have the room for affordable housing and if there's whatever, if it's helping with infrastructure and stuff. Right, right. Anyway, it's exciting. It's exciting that this this conversation is happening. I mean, yeah, you know, yeah, it's really. And we want to go to town meeting the fall with the proposals. Yeah. That's the angle. Yes. If you do join, buckle up. Yeah. It's exciting, though. I think this is this brings to fruition a lot of things that the board has been interested in working on in terms of how to how to think more broadly about map changes and putting together opportunities for higher higher value uses for for some of the properties. You have questions for us? I mean, I'm trying to get a sense of the purview and the I was I mean, I just whatever you just mentioned, how do you sit in today? So fine. So I'm trying to understand like what what the what commentary you were looking for from the board and the relationship between this board and like the working group, for example. I'm more than happy. I know that that that means that means that we're also pretty pretty close to that. So I'm more than happy. You know, I'm sure any member of the board would be more than happy to talk to you about purview and process, etc. And absolutely can make our example available. A couple of our members have to run to town meeting. But, you know, I I don't so I'm more than happy to chat a little bit. OK, great. Thanks. But yeah. Yeah. Sounds good. Any other items before we take a motion to adjourn to town meeting? Yeah. Yeah. All right. So moved. I'll second. Let's take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. And then he has as well. We'll adjourn.