 My name is Pat Hanlon. I'm the vice chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and I've been designated chair for tonight's meeting. And I'm calling the meeting to order by my watch. It's 733 p.m. I ask all attendees who are not recognized to speak to please mute their connection until such time as they're recognized by the chair. So I'd like first of all to confirm that all of the members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Christian Klein. Here. Good evening. Roger DuPont. Hello. Hello, how do you do? Daniel Riccardelli. Here. Venkate Holy. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. And Adam LeBlanc. Here. If we're town officials, I think the only person I'm actually expecting for tonight is Colleen Ralston, our administrative assistant. I'm here. Great. We are outside council. Paul Havardy. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Paul. The board's peer review consultant, I think is here. Sean Reardon. I am. Sorry. Okay. So the only issue with the only hearing we're going to have tonight is has to do with 10 sunny side. Peering from the applicant is lawyer Mary Wyn Stanley O'Connor. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Good evening. Erica Schwartz. Are you here? Yes. Hello. Hi, Erica. I'm going to put in Gabby Geller, who I pretty sure is here, too. She said you've got a great picture out here. And then we'll let you go through the rest of your team when we finally get to talking about the conditions. Gabby, I assume you're there behind the picture. Yes, I'm here. I'm sorry about that. That's okay. That's okay. So we have a few administrative items on our agenda tonight. And I'm going to go through them before we actually start in on the hearing that it's our main business tonight. There are three matters. One is the approval of the minutes. We have had before us for now some time, minutes from May 23rd, 2023, March 28th, 2023, and February 28th, 2023. And unless there's an objection, I'd like to take all of them together rather than go each one of them separately. But if anyone would want to break any of those sets of minutes out, you should let me know now. Okay, these have been around for us. I think Colleen knows whether she's made any changes in that in response to our comments. Colleen, are these the same things or have there been changes made? No changes, if I sent them out. Okay. So at this point, the chair will interchange a motion to approve the set of minutes that I just read into the record. Mr. Chair. Mr. Klein. I move that we approve the three sets of minutes previously documented from February, March, and May of this year. Wait, is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Dupont. We'll go through the roll. Christian Klein. Aye. Roger Dupont. Aye. Dan Riccordelli. Aye. Venkat Holi. Aye. Elaine Hoffman. Aye. Adam LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The next item on our agenda is approval of a final decision in docket number 3757, 18 Robin Hood-Rolled. You have had that actually. There have been virtually no changes in it since what I sent out to you, just correction of some typos. And are there any other corrections that anyone wishes to suggest now for other discussion? All right, seeing none, the chair will interchange a motion to approve the final decision in section 3757, 18 Robin Hood-Rolled. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Adam LeBlanc by just a whisker. We'll go through the roll again. All in favor, Christian Klein. I wasn't present on the hearing, I wasn't sure if I should vote on it. I think that probably you should not. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Riecker-Delley. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Ms. Hoffman, I believe you were not there for that one either, is that correct? Correct. So Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes, and the chair votes aye. The final one is the approval of a final decision in 3734, 14 Oakland Avenue. I wanted to point out for the record and it's all my fault that this happened but that on the agenda it appears actually as 3731-48 Oakland Avenue, which is a decision that we approved several weeks ago. And you also got this sort of late. I've gotten some comments on that. Again, they were mostly picking up typos. And I would, if you wish to postpone that to give us a little bit more time to analyze, to revise the notification, we could do that. It's really up to you. But if it is the sense of the board that we should move forward before the chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. I would move to approve the decision. Is there a second? Second. That was Mr. Holley, I think. Mr. LeBlanc. Okay. It's hard to see because my screen is not lighting up when you're speaking. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We'll go through the role of Mr. Klein. I think that you were not there for this one either, right? No, they're not present. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Ms. Hoffman, I believe you were there the first night that we had the hearing, but not the second. So in the absence of a position, let me go to Mr. LeBlanc who was there both nights. Okay. So the motion carries in that decision, which again is 14 Oakland Avenue is approved. And we've now gotten through the administrative items. The, let me for a second. So we're now going to turn to the comprehensive permit hearing for 10 Sunnyside Avenue. The main purpose of tonight's hearing is to review the draft decision that was prepared by Mr. Havarty. And our purpose tonight is to make sure that the board has all the facts that it needs to deliberate on that draft during the next phase of the meeting. Tonight is the time for discovering mistakes of fact, possible unintended consequences of proposed conditions, additional facts that might be relevant and so on. In order to put ourselves in the position that when we go into deliberation mode, that we have the facts that we need in order to make an informed decision. The draft decision is in the board agenda. So if you don't happen to have it readily at hand, if you dial into the agenda, you'll find it there near the end, roughly 450 pages in from the beginning. And I'd encourage you to follow along in the draft because it'll be a lot easier to follow if you're able to see the text that people are talking about. So this hearing began many months ago. We've discussed the proposed project in great detail in lots of sessions since then. And at the end of our session tonight, I'm expecting to close the public hearing. Once the hearing is closed, the board will begin a deliberation process that by law can take no longer than 40 days. During that period of time, we can't receive any new information from the applicant, from the town, from the public, from peer review consultant, or anyone else. It will, of course, discuss the deliberations with Mr. Havarty. It's 40B legal advisor. And as you know, the principal draftsman of the board's decision. Legally, as I said, we're required to make the decision in 40 days. If we close the public hearing tonight, then our decision will be due no later than Sunday, September 24th. We've scheduled our first deliberation session for a Tuesday, September 5th, followed by a second session, if necessary, on September the 12th. See you later. Before we get into the details of the hearing, I wanna distress a couple of things. First of all, the board isn't deliberating tonight. And this isn't the time for the members of the board to be editing Mr. Havarty's draft. We'll have that opportunity to I'm sure Mr. Havarty's great regret. In September, and if you wanted to see a really tedious meeting, you should see what those are like. Our questions tonight will be aimed at making sure the board has the record it needs in order to make an informed decision. See if I can find the right. I guess the second thing is that, again, we should be following through the decision as we can. And people talk about it. One helpful thing will be to refer to things by number. If you're looking at part four, section C1, I know it's hard to make yourself do that, but it would be helpful to others who are trying to find it and to Ms. Ralston, who is going to be trying to show these on the screen to know which is the language that you're talking about. And second is that not everybody is going to have a copy of the opinion before them. And so if you can just say enough about what it is you're planning to talk about so that somebody who's not following along in the text is able to understand the drift of the discussion that would be helpful. And so with that, what I'd like to do at the beginning is to ask Mr. Havarty to explain a little bit what the document is that we all have before us, how it fits into this process and what its general structure is. And then I think we would move next to Ms. Westanley O'Connor to have the applicant comment on how that decision looks to them and where they have problems and were suggestions or additional conditions or provisions to add. So Mr. Havarty, I wonder if you could start us off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we know, this is an application for a comprehensive permit pursuant to general laws chapter 40B sections 20 to 23. And the way that the chapter 40B works is that the Board of Appeals actually is the permit granting authority for all local approvals necessary for the project to move forward. So that of necessity requires a fairly complex decision from the Board. Under chapter 40B, there are three different possibilities of what a Board can issue of a decision. It can either approve the application as submitted, which I literally have never seen happen ever. It can approve the application with conditions or it can deny the application. So in this instance, we've moved forward drafting a decision with a presumption that it was going to be an approval with conditions. And the purpose of the conditions is to make sure that the Board is actually addressing issues of local concern, which is sort of the fundamental issue under chapter 40B. You have to weigh the regional need for affordable housing against legitimate issues of local concern. A lot of the conditions and sort of provisions of a draft decision are programmatic. They address issues that occur in basically every chapter 40B decision. So if you actually compare this draft decision to previously issued decisions by this Board, you will see a lot of conditions in findings and things of that nature that are repetitive. And you will also see a lot of things that are unique for this project. So the way that the decision is broken down is the first section we have the procedural history. And that just sort of tries to lay out exactly what was submitted and sort of the circumstances that are generally in place at the time of the submittal. The second is the jurisdictional findings. So chapter 40B has very unique requirements in order for an applicant to be eligible to file a comprehensive permit application. So this addresses those requirements. There are also a number of safe harbors that are available to a town that's also addressed within sort of these jurisdictional findings. And then we go to the factual findings. And these factual findings are obviously very project specific. And they try to address all of the different factual issues that have been brought up throughout the course of the hearing on the project. And they're broken down into different subsections. And then from there, we go to the conditions of the project. So these are the conditions that the Board is imposing to make sure that the development is going to move forward in a way that, again, properly addresses legitimate issues of local concern. So the conditions are then further broken down into different sections. There's the general conditions. And these really are intended to address the issues to identify exactly what the plans are that are being approved. And from there, there's also some jurisdictional issues with regards to transfer of the permit and things of that nature. The second section is affordability. And those really are addressing programmatic issues under Chapter 40B. A lot of these are really within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidizing agency. However, it's very important for the Board to make note of them in their decision so that they're not overlooked as the project moves forward. The third section is the submittal requirements. So Chapter 40B is unique in that it only requires the submittal of preliminary plans as part of the approval process before the Board, which means then that the Board has to include requirements for the submittal of final plans to make sure that what is actually ultimately put forth is consistent with what was reviewed and approved by the Board. And these are very detailed in terms of what is required to be submitted for the final plans. There's all sorts of timing issues. Some things are required before the issuance of building permits. Some of them are required before the issuance of certificates of occupancy. So that's actually in subsection D is construction completion slash certificate of occupancy. Subsection E, project design and construction. A lot of these are actually very general conditions that are applicable on any type of 40B development. And then you'll have a number of these conditions which are unique to this project. The next subsection, subsection F, traffic safety concerns. And again, these are actually very unique to this project and they come through the peer review process and the suggestions that were made by the peer review engineers. Subsection G, police fire and emergency medical conditions. This is again, a mix of standard conditions and project specific conditions having to do with police fire and other safety matters. Subsection H, water sewer and utilities. Subsection I, wetlands, floodplain, environmental conditions. These are actually much less significant on this project than they have been on other projects because we're not within any jurisdictional wetland areas. And then subsection K, other general conditions. So these are catchall conditions for the end of the process. And then the next section after that is the waiver decisions. And with the waiver decisions what I've done is I've set forth what has been requested for waivers by the applicant. I've operated under the presumption that the board intends to approve this project and therefore where waivers are necessary for the project to move forward. I presume that waiver is going to be granted. But again, that's ultimately for the board to decide and these are only suggestions and the board can act however they want on any of the specific waiver requests. So that lays out sort of the bare bones of the decision and any questions I'll be happy to respond. Great, thank you. That was excellent summary. Thank you. So if there are no questions and I give you a little break and a pause so you can have some if you want. Let's go to Ms. O'Connor who can give us the applicant's reaction to the details that are for the particular things that are in the draft report. Ms. O'Connor. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Before I start, I just want to thank the board, Attorney Havardy and Mr. Reardon for their diligent work on this application. So the housing corporation does thank you. With respect, I did send Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Havardy the comments of my client with respect to the draft comprehensive permit. If you'd like me to go through them number by number I can do that and I can give you the rationale for my client's position. Is that okay with you, Mr. Hanlon? I think that's fine. You should exercise some judgment as to whether everything needs to be done that way. Some of them may be just pure details that don't need to be. Yeah, correct. On anything that is significant that we need to be focused in on that need that goes beyond what the bare bones of the paper that you submitted. I should say that I've asked Mr. Ralston to include that paper into the record. So we have an index of it and all of the members of the board and ultimately the public will see what those are. So you don't have to mention anything just because otherwise it'll get lost because at least the paper will be there. I would direct the board to procedural history number seven where it says 60% affordability of area medium income. My client would like the flexibility for it to be up to 80%. As this short's testified during several of the hearings there will be a range of area median incomes that are gonna be used at this project but they wanna have that flexibility for this site. And that is addressed in several other places in the decision. With respect to number 26 on page five which talks about long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces because of some concerns raised at the last hearing as to appropriate space in the garage and in other areas what my client would like to the decision to read is that rather than say 70 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 10 short-term they'd like to say the project will provide at least 60 long-term and at least five short-term. The intention is to provide more but they want to have that flexibility. Next, I just wanna point out that I believe that the request was for 21 parking spaces, Paul, and not 22 and that's correct. It's kind of, yes, that's absolutely right. Okay. And there's some other things that were in that that as you know, you ended up, you corrected the months ago and submitted something for the record. So we'll get that straight. Okay. Now, one of the important things to discuss tonight is the issue of the waiver of fees, permitting fees and inspection fees. And that is page 13 of 28 number H and C2HI. Now, I believe and I did provide Mr. Klein and Mr. Hanlon what the board did with respect to the Westminster project for the housing corporation and they did waive 100% of all fees and inspection requirements with the exception of water and sewer permit fees. The housing corporation would be looking for the same type of waiver here. If the board members wanna reference that language that was included in that decision, that's at Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, book 67774, page 1698. Now- Can I stop you there for a minute? I'm wondering if, as you said, Mr. Klein has been working on this issue. And I wonder if he has anything that he can add to where we stand on that. Certainly, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've been working with the town manager on this question and he has been working with the department. We did receive confirmation this afternoon from the town that the town would be willing to offer the same waiver that they had on the Westminster project where the town would waive the permit and review fees with the exception of the water and sewer connection fees. So one thing I wanted to be clear is that we don't understand this request, but in any event it's not what we, I don't think it's what the town is willing to do. We're not really talking about the costs of the safety details around the construction site and that sort of thing. And these are the kinds of fees that were involved really in the Westminster project. The safety details were not involved. Like police details, no, those were not waived. Yeah. Okay, so we can go back to the next one, I think is before. The, I'm sorry. You want to meet me after the fees, that I would just go back to the list. Sure. The next thing I have is D2B. This is the section that talks about submitting the property management plan to the board. We thought some of the requirements that we submit were a little overreaching. For instance, pet policy, smoking policies, staffing. My client has no issue with respect to providing details as to building security, public access, trash removal, vegetation management, and the transportation management policies and procedures. We'd also want to point out that the plan could not be submitted to the zoning board until it is approved by the executive office of housing and livable communities, which was formally DHCD because DHCD has to approve the plan as well. The next is E8, and this is fairly significant. There was discussion at the very beginning of the permitting process that the project would be all electric with the exception of the hot water, which would be serviced by natural gas. Now my client is proposing that the project will be designed to provide future electric domestication of hot water. But at this point, they are proposing that the project shall be all electric as to heating, ventilation, cooling, and appliances. The next item of concern is E10. We want to make sure that we are only required to install underground. That's the utilities we're bringing to the site because I believe, and Nick can correct me if I'm not correct, that the cable is above ground, correct Nick? Yeah, all the utilities in the street are above ground. And I think we just wanted to acknowledge a small language change here to say that anything that's entering the site should be underground, but we're obviously not going to be taking municipal utility services and putting them underground within the public right of way. The next is E13, which talks about the hours, which is a totally appropriate constricting construction. We'd like some language in there that if extraordinary circumstances are presented that the applicant shall be entitled to request a waiver to perform work outside the hours by submitting a request to the director of planning. And I believe that there is precedent for this. We did this with respect, you did this with respect to 1165R. You may recall that when they were flooring the floors for the concrete, they needed continuous pores and it couldn't be done within the hours. Concrete has to be wet and spoff and it was that type of situation. So they would look for that type of additional condition in there as well. Mr. Chair, if I could just interject for a second. Yes. Follow this, Ms. O'Connor. So in E13, the time that are listed currently, those would require a waiver already, which was not requested. The current town by-law is weekdays 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Okay. It means 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. And that's Saturday, Sundays and holidays. So if we do want to, if these are the hours that are required, we would need to include a waiver to that effect. Okay. But otherwise, if you're comfortable with what is currently in the town by-laws that title five section 12 on noise abatement, then we can, we don't need a waiver, but it would read 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. as opposed to 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. No, we would look for a waiver as written the way the decision is written. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Just want to clarify that. Sure, thank you. So I have a question, Mr. Klein. What do you think, if Ms. O'Connor still has to give us a request for a waiver in order to show us to act, do we have to keep the hearing open in time for her to do that? I think that, I mean, we have on some prior cases put forward waivers that were recognized as being required without a separate written request from the applicant. Mr. Havardy, is that makes sense to you? Yeah, I mean, I think we should add this to the waiver list. And I'm happy to do that. We don't need the applicant to submit something formally. You know, they've made the request orally as part of this hearing. So we can add it to the list of waivers at the end of the decision. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. O'Connor. Next, F-11, my client has no issue with respect to coordinating the repair of the sidewalk from Broadway to the project site, but it would like it to say at the town's expense. Because as Ms. Geller indicated at one of the hearings, DHED does not allow money spent outside the project site. So they would not be in a position to do that. This is for the sidewalk between the site and Broadway? Yes. With respect to G-5, I don't necessarily know that there is access for the fire department personnel. We don't think for all four sides of the structure, but the fire chief has reviewed the plans and appears to be satisfied. So I think that if this is revised to say, the project shall maintain access for fire department personnel as determined by the fire chief that would be adequate. It is accessible from three sides at a minimum. I mean, that's fine with me. Ultimately it's the fire department's call. Okay. Going to H-5. Sorry, Mary, did we wanna touch on F-12 briefly? Regarding the garage door? Oh, yes. Well, Pat had said they have my list and they're aware of some of the things that I could, the garage door is not going to be recessed. You may recall from the hearing that the neighbors do not want the garage door recessed. So that should be stricter. Thank you. Okay. H-5. We would like some language in there that the Department of Public Works will work with the applicant on permitting disconnects to facilitate the demolition of the existing building. I-3, that would be deleted because there's no stormwater management system. And the same with K-5. And those are my client's comments except for the minor comments that I sent you in the memorandum with respect to parking spaces number of charging stations and the like. I did not, they are in my memorandum to you with respect to the waiver list. Before we go to the waiver list, are you saying that there is no stormwater management at all on the property? No, no stormwater management system, correct. No, there are, Paul, you're correct. That's what I thought. I mean, it's small, right? But it's kind of critical that it gets installed properly and according to plan because what you don't want is you don't want a cross-connection between the floor drains in the garage and the drainage system. So there is a modest drainage system. So I think it's probably prudent to keep that condition in there. Does that apply both to I-3 and K-5? I think it does. Again, it's not a huge obligation but there is still a leaching catch basin and some minor stormwater improvements. And this also swells around the building and the requirement that you can't discharge the abutting property. So it's not a heavy lift for the applicant but it's important that it gets taken care of. Should we strike, in that same vein, should we strike the soil testing from it since we're not infiltrating? I didn't see a condition for soil testing. Where's that? Didn't A-6, this might be out of order, but I think A-6 mentioned something about that and also referenced infiltration. I was about to maybe text Mary to say, is that this part of this that needs to be removed? Yeah, I don't see any compelling need to require any soil testing. The soil testing is E-12. E-12. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Gotta speak up sooner, Jeff. This actually does illustrate exactly what the purpose of this hearing is, right? Because if we easily could have gone over it and gotten it wrong, and we would never have been able to fix it if we didn't have all you people here to chat about it. So Connor? All right, so now I guess we're ready to move on to the waivers. All right. Paul, please note that the setback, the rear yard setback is 24 feet, not 20 feet. And there are just some points that I pointed out that it's the reparking requirements so the residential one space per residential unit would be 44 spaces total with the commercial. We're talking 21 spaces. That's what we're looking for for a waiver. All right, so where are we looking at in terms of the setback being 24 feet? Which waiver decision is that? Which, hold on a second. Two. Two. Minimum rear yard setback. So if the proposed is 24 and the minimum fired is 20, is there a need for a waiver? No, no, no. So the 24 is what's required in the recommendation of five. Okay. So it's 24 feet, not 20? Yeah, it's 24 because it's 10 plus L over 10. Nick figured it out. Yeah, my eyes glazed over as soon as I saw that. Yeah, well, we're lawyers, not mathematicians, that's why. Exactly. Mr. Conner, I have a question on parking. You're seeking, my understanding of the way in which the parking works is that there's an automatic 10% discount because this is affordable housing, which brings us down to 39 ish or something like that. And then the board has the discretion without waiving the bylaw at all, but the discretion under the bylaw to reduce the total amount of parking further down to 25% of that 39, which comes out to be about 10, which is well within the range that you need, but the catch is there has to be some sort of transportation demand management program, which is otherwise also already included in these conditions which you haven't really addressed. And so I assume that you didn't object to. Now, obviously nobody is looking for the kind of transportation demand management that involves, giving people free fare cards and having bus routes and so forth, but there are a bunch of things that could be useful that have to do with a number of transportation issues, some of which could be just pure demand management issues like providing literature about bus schedules, providing literature about how to get around Arlington and the neighboring jurisdictions using public transportation, which are the kinds of conditions that you've I'm sure seen in other cases and that we've used in other cases. There also is potentially some things that might, that have related to demand management that have to do with, for example, notifying people that they're not supposed to park on the street or they're not in violation of the town rules, whatever the town rules may be at any given time. And it would be, I think that at least when I read what is already in Mr. Havardy's decision about demand management, if there's a package of essentially notification kinds of requirements like that, and that's what demand management means. And I assume that for right now, at least that's what I'm assuming that we would decide that it did mean, whether informational type of requirements like that are problems that would pose great difficulties for the applicant because it both would enable us to not give you a waiver, but rather just say under the bylaw, you don't need any more parking than you've got, which there's a good policy for not giving unnecessary waivers. And it also may give us the flexibility to address some of the other issues that neighbors have brought up having to do with parking and the number and that stay within what you guys have got control over, but provide at least some assurance to the neighborhood that some of the fears that they have may not materialize. So all of that is a long way of saying is that a sort of thing that poses a big problem for you or the sort of thing that you were kind of expecting was coming along anyway? No, absolutely not. We were intending to do a very comprehensive transportation management plan along the lines that you suggested. And as you know, this isn't the first comprehensive permit, I believe we did one for Westminster and it'll include just what you spoke to. We cannot, you are prevented from the subsidy because these people are on subsidies for charging for parking. And the project is not in a position to give free MBTA crowds and the like, but we will provide all of that information and we will have a very detailed transportation management plan. It is a non-issue. Thank you. So I have another question that has to do with the town department of Public Works working with the applicant on permitting disconnects to facilitate the demolition of the existing building. And I guess what I'm looking for is if you can help me understand or maybe Mr. Havardy can do this, there's something that is a little bit, I mean, you're here before us and are subject to the conditions that we impose because that's what the conditions of the permit are, but the town department of Public Works isn't before us. And I'm not entirely sure why we have the jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring anything from them. I will give it to Mr. Grosshandler to explain why we felt that was necessary from Bald Hill Builders. Matt. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm happy to do that. Which component are you asking about? This is about the demolition issue with the Department of Public Works. As far as the disconnect permits. Yeah, really the question came down to timing. Certain municipalities will have moratoriums around doing work after November 15th before April 15th for plowing reasons and so on. So I just wanna make sure that we're working in concert with the DPW and the varying departments just to make sure we're aligned based on when the project gets going and so on. There are, that's topic one. So the topic one will be around. Sometimes what we may be asked to do when we go to do a disconnect to the existing building is we can, if it does occur in, let's say, I'll make it up to December or January if they were in a plow season. Sometimes they can make a special exemption to allow us to do a disconnect in the roadway. Other times they'll have us do the disconnect under the sidewalk. Again, I just wanna make sure we're aligned in our expectations. The second part to this, and this is really just boots on the ground as I went out recently to this site, I can see that the DPW or somebody's done recent road work out there. There's binder course down in the roadway now. There's exposed cast iron structures and so on. So clearly there's gonna be a finished top course that could happen at some point. Ideally I'd like to work in concert with the paving operations for the new work so that we're not having to soft cut into brand new roadways and have to repair brand new roadways if there's some way that we can work in an aligned methodology, we can make sure that our work is done prior to the top coat going down. So Mr. Havity- There's a little more around best faith. Mr. Havity, I think I'm understanding more or less why it is that the requirement, why it is that the public works department where the applicant needs that cooperation, but I'm a little bit unclear about what mechanisms we have to require or otherwise induce the public works department to cooperate. Again, boardings. Acting in the stead of all local boards and commissions. And if permits are required for these disconnects, then they're issued technically as part of the comprehensive permit process. But obviously the board is going to want the input of the DPW. So I mean, I do think that what is being proposed here is appropriate. And I take it that the actual input from the DPW is something that occurs in the course of they're working together during, at a later stage in the proceeding that we don't actually have to have the DPW in here saying that they've approved this or that. Correct. It's for later on. Okay, thank you. The only other comment I have is that we're looking for a waiver. The number of compact parking spaces, 60% of the parking spaces to be sized for compact cars. And those are the applicants concerns and comments on the comprehensive permit. Mary, if I may, there was also soil testing in C2J. So that's the comment about the soil testing and removing that. And the other one was comments about a NEPTIS SWIP permit which is required for land disturbances greater than one acre. Our lot is only 16,500 square feet. So thus it's not required. Do you think that the NEPTIS condition does say if necessary? It's generally how I have those conditions drafted. Oh, if necessary, okay. Yep. Okay. Thank you. So I did have some blanks that still need to be filled in that I was hoping to get from the applicants. I think since we were on the waivers, we can start there. Okay. Waiver number three. I did want to touch on that one in particular, Mary and Paul, if I could. I think we were curious about the structure of that and wondering if we could modify the language to basically say that we're seeking waiver from the requirement. And the proposal is, you know, the plans that submitted would show a roof deck on the second floor of approximately 2000 square feet and landscape areas of the ground floor. I mean, again, I'm happy, however you want to structure it, as long as it's identifying exactly what is proposed. So there's a requirement of a 10% minimum landscape and 20% minimum usable open space. What is being proposed instead of meeting those requirements? Nikki needs the percentages, like from the percentage. My concern, Mary, is that there are specific prescriptive requirements within the zoning code that define what landscape area can constitute and what usable open space can constitute. And I don't think that the project is necessarily designed around 100% of those requirements. I think we've made a clear proposal to the board about what the character of the roof deck space will be and what the character of the plantings both along the streetscape on sunny side and around the three other sides of the site will be, I think those are well documented in the submitted plans and in the landscape plan and the planting plan. So I would propose that, you know, the waiver be rewritten to say, we're seeking the waiver from the 10% and 20% requirements and the proposal is to, you know, to build the plans as submitted. Mr. Chairman, I mean, I think it would be appropriate for the applicant if those percentages are 0%, let's put in 0%, but then also indicate that in lieu of, you know, providing, you know, that acknowledge also in the waiver request that the applicant is providing an alternative means of providing outdoor space and landscape space that it is and do it that way. But I, you know, I think it's important that we do have acknowledgement that, you know, the request, there's a specific request being made and it's not sort of as open-ended as saying, well, we're doing something different. Right. From my perspective, it's always better to be very specific as to what the proposal is for the waiver. So that the board, if there's ever an appeal of a decision, I like the board to be able to be a point to their waiver decisions and say, we were cognizant of exactly, you know, the extent of the waiver that was being granted and it's in our decision. Otherwise, you know, it renders the board vulnerable to a claim that they've been acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. So I'm a little bit unclear, Mr. Burence, as to, I mean, everybody always wants as much flexibility as they can have, but you do have a fairly specific proposal before us. We do, yeah. And I guess, you know, if there was a request to try to tabulate what those specific percentages would be based on the strict reading of the bylaws, we're happy to do that. It just seemed more straightforward to say, we've made a very specific proposal to you. We'd like, you know, the waiver to grant us the ability to build what's been proposed and what you've reviewed, right? They are talking about granting it, but they want the percentages. I think that's the answer. Yeah, I mean, you know, if Mr. Klein's suggestion of saying zero and zero, but we're choosing an alternative compliance path and the board agrees that this is a valid path, that seems perfectly fine to me. I think the problem is that when we write the opinion, we're going to want to have a specific enough description of the alternative compliance path that it's clear to everyone that we know what it is that we were buying into. And I think that's the solution. It seemed like there was a precedent for this type of approach in waiver number one, for example, where, you know, as we all know, there's a requirement, you know, in the bylaws to provide a step back at a certain amount and a certain depth in the building. We've proposed a slightly alternative design. It's not zero, but it's something and that's documented in the approved plans. And that's the way that the waiver is written, right? So... Well, the waiver requested number one, the applicant requests a waiver to allow no stepping back as shown on the approved plans. But there is stepping back on the approved plans is my point, right? So the plans are approved with a step back at the fifth floor of a lesser dimension, right? So that's, I think an analogous situation where we're proposing something that, you know, is different than the requirement. That's why we requested a waiver and we've documented it with the plans that are, you know, submitted and approved. Nick, you can tabulate the numbers, correct? Yes, we can take a pass at tabulating the number. That's fine. We will get you the numbers. Yeah. And the board can always in the board action where it's stating that the waiver is granted, we can also reference the approved plans as a way of proceeding. I think that would be helpful. All right, waiver number seven, the applicant requests a waiver to allow a reduction in the drive aisle requirement to, and I don't know how many feet is being requested. 22 feet was discussed at the last hearing. 22? Yeah. Yes. And I know there were some blanks at the beginning of the decision with regards to impervious area. Number five. Number five, property contains significant pavement covering approximately blank percent of the property. It was 100%, I believe, isn't that right, Nick? I think GF had that number at slightly less than 190 something. I'm looking for it right now. Do you know? Yeah, I'm looking it up as well. 95.9, I believe you said, and with a reduction to 89.49. 89.49. Yep. Yep. So 95.9? Yep. And then the reduction is to 89. what? 49. 49. Yep. Mr. Reardon, I just, you commented a little bit on that, too. Those numbers, bring true to you as well. They do. I just have an issue with significant digits. So. Okay. Just to the 10th, please. Fair enough. Not to the 100th. I got it. It brings back eighth grade. And I think that's allowing me more digits than we're allowed. But, you know, just 100. Okay. Got it. All right. Mr. Avidy. Other things? So I'm just trying to say, I know that there was. Do you have number six of the waiver? It's Paul. 60% of the parking spaces to be sized for compact. Yes. I got that from the way you sent in. All right. I think that covers. Oh, no, number 27. Just proximity to the nearest MBTA bus stop. I mean, I guess. The board could provide that as well. If you're aware. Yeah. So Broadway at sunny side. It's the one that's on their side of the street and Broadway. Opposite sunny side of is on the opposite side of the street. And they're served by the 87 bus. That's from 87. 87. All right. And Christian, you can give me that. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So without other things, I mean, it seems to me that. It is, it's important here. The 87 isn't the only bus that stops nearby. At least get subject to the snow problem that some of the neighbors have pointed out to. Going to Clarendon Hill gives you. But two more bus lines and going to both the green line as I'm, if I'm mistaken. And certainly did a square. So. You know, you're really in a. The sunny side is really kind of. Only as a part of the transit friendliness of this project. Paul, and I just want to point out that it's one space for dwelling unit. Not 1.5. There was a revised waiver list. Yep. No, I got, I got that from your. Suggesting changes. So I think that is all of the missing information. That I have on the project plans. Can you just give me the revision date. So dated March 9, 2023 with revisions through. Just need to know what that is. We're shallow. I'd have to rely on for that. So I think, I guess my question would be, we've submitted a lot of supplementary material at the hearings over the last couple of months. Should those be counted as the revisions and. Revision. Revision. Well, I guess my point being that there have been plans that have been submitted and then supplementary material to compliment those plans has been provided. Some plans have been revised. Some have not, but there's, I think a record of information. It's been recorded. So. I guess for your guidance as to how, how you want to date that. I go with whatever plans are submitted with the most recent revision date. I don't want to put on a date. That's not actually shown on a set of plans. Okay. The revised date on the Sammy Otis plans is August 1st. Thanks, Jeff. And Paul, you just typically reference the approved plans. The other material that. I don't know. I have a question about having to do with the hot water. Yes. I'm. If in the language that you've suggested it almost as a requirement that you use a gas for hot water. And I don't know how long it'll take you to. Paul, you just typically reference the approved plans. The other material that Nick references just. Factual basis for the board to make a decision on not necessarily. Correct. Yep. Mr. Connor, I have a question having to do with the hot water. I don't know how long it'll take you to actually get your financing and build this up, but that may or may not be what you want to do at that point. I gather what, what you're looking for here is, is something that says, you know, something more like it, like gas or electric, because if, if it were appropriate, you do electric and you just think that that won't, that won't be the case at that point, but you're not going to want to be, have someone say, you know, you know, I want to show up to Mr. Trump and say, well, look, I want to do electric. And they says, no, your permit says you have to do gas that presumed presumably around that. Yeah, that's not the intention. The intention is that we not be locked into doing electric. That we have the option at this point to do gas. Right. That's what I would have assumed. Yeah. I think that's the intention. In throughout the decision, the architecture firm is sometimes relate, refer to as Utah architecture. And sometimes it's Utah architecture and urban design. I just wanted to ask, which is the correct legal name. Or correct. Legal name is UTL Inc. UTL Inc. Okay. Yep. So going through the decision a little further on E 29. I don't think that was provided. I think that's a holdover from the prior language. Okay. So we never got truck path diagrams. We did. I don't believe we have anything related to CMP at this point. Okay. And I would ask the applicant to confirm that. That's correct. We asked the applicant to confirm that. I don't think that was provided. I think that's a holdover from the prior language. Okay. So we never got truck path diagrams. So we're not going to confirm that. That's correct. We as in from provided from stimulus. Yeah, Paul, I don't know if that tip. That was like conditioned that tip with the reverse to like fire truck turning plans. Which in this, in this case, we don't have, because the only access is from sunny side. There's no navigation through the site by a fire truck. Okay. This is for construction vehicles. Mr. Connor. Yes. Okay. E 30 says that the applicant shall hire a licensed pest control company to conduct a comprehensive assessment of pest activity on the property. And then develop and implement an integrated test pest management plan for all phases of the project. Before construction, during construction post occupancy, the use of second generation. And it's, it's a matter of some significance, as you know, given, given what's going on in the town right now. And I wanted to make sure you focused on that and that you have no problems with that. No issues ball till builders will take care of that. We have no issue with respect to the restriction on the, the pesticide. And you have no, they, it also says at a wholly different subject that construction vehicles will all be parked on site. So, I, I'm not sure that the construction workers, I actually have, don't have that in front of me. So that wasn't exact quote, but I do that in terms of making sure that the vehicles from the construction workers as well as the, are not sort of parked all the way on the, on the neighborhood streets. And I take it that that is a condition that you have no objection to. Well, I'm going to refer that to Mr. Grosshand. Whether that's accomplishable. Thank you. The comments that came up in one of the earlier hearings had to do with no parking on the Michael street. And I suggested at the time that we'd be willing or amenable to accommodating that there is a public parking and meter parking available on some of the cross streets. We'd like to have access to that. We are also looking into negotiating some larger scale rental and or arrangements with some of the butters to use some parking. So the intent is to try to minimize the amount of on street parking, but we would do so in a legal and an appropriate manner. Is it. And I, but I take it that you're still don't have any objection to something that that pre that requires you to notice that your parking crews are not allowed to park on Michael street. That's something that would be a matter a lot to the neighborhood. Yes, that's something we were consented to. And I take it that there's another thing that isn't really in here in the same detail that I thought, but as a kind of earlier, you described something about the kind of meetings or the, the communications with the public during the course of construction to let people know what's going on. And I guess I have two questions about that. One question is we don't currently have something that really is developed in the way that that you've described. We do have a precedent in the 1165 case and we do have. I can, and I'm sure I can go back and, and, and find your recording where you describe what you had in mind, which I think was a little more generous than that. And I guess I, I'd like to ask whether as part of the community that would be within that protection, that it would be the entire, the all of the residents of Michael street. Would that make sense? I think it would make sense. And frankly, anyone that would provide an email in that area could certainly receive those notifications from volatile builders. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair under the condition of the conditions f eight. Which is about electric vehicle charging stations that is also a blank looking for a number to it. The number is two. Two. And would there be consideration for future expansion? Yes, they're, they're outfitting it. So there would be future expansion. Correct, Nick. Yeah, I believe the number of future wired spots is five. So two day one and five in the future. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Chair. Yes. I remember just looking at the plans previously, there were, I think there were four. Do we, did you all reduce the number of EV? No, it's two times two. It's four of. It's two charges stations with two each on it. So for, for parking spaces, we'll have access. Correct. Right. It's two charging stations. Parking stations. Yeah, that is correct. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions that. Remember the board wishes to bring up right now. Mr. Chair. Mr. Klein. Condition H six. Which is the applicant should be responsible for all trash recycling yard waste removal from the property. The town shall not have any responsibility. I just want to confirm with the applicant that that's correct. I'm not looking at it right now. This is eight. This is. Snow removal. What was it? Trash recycling and yard waste removal. The town shall have no responsibility for those. The applicant will be responsible for the costs associated and organizing it. Mr. Actually. Erica, go ahead. Yes, we use private pickup at our other larger sites. So I assume we're not going to rely on town. Trash collection. Yeah. And then, yeah, certainly snow removal. And then also going down to I four. Which has to do with. Fertilization fertilizer and things like that. Are there any areas that are. That would have a lawn at this time. I don't. I think there are. I just wanted to confirm that. No. Okay. Yeah, I don't think we'll be fertilizing. Okay. So essentially what we would be striking is basically everything except for the last. Two sentences. So we'll just read that the application of plant nutrients. Shall comply with. 330 CMR 31. No other herbicides or treatment methods are approved. Correct. We just leave it there. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Check that. Mr. Have any, I wonder if you could, I'm. Very early looking through to find the right paragraph, but you'll tell me quicker. There's a provision about what to do about snow. And particularly what to happen if there's not enough room for. To put it on the site. And I wonder if you could. Remind us what that provision is. And so that we can be sure that the applicant is in agreement with it. I can run through and find it. Essentially it. Generally is that if there are not sufficient snow storage areas. On site, then they will have to remove snow. And truck it off site. Yeah, I just purely by accident. I opened it up to 18, which says no may only be stored within the areas of the property designated for that purpose on the approved plants. To the extent snow fall exceeds the capacity of the designated area of the property. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm just going to run through it. I'm just going to run through it. There's no storage area that the applicant should truck. The excess snow off site. Snow will not be placed in or adjacent to resource areas. And I take it that that is something that doesn't cause a cause a problem to the app. I did not have my client. Okay. Are there any other questions from the board? Seeing none. This is a public hearing. We're all kind of at this point familiar as to what that means. I'm going to go through some ground rules for effective and clear contact of tonight's business. Public questions and comment will only be taken as it relates to the matter at hand, which at this point is practically everything and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision in all probability. This will be the last session of the public hearing and our focus will be on what the board should do to address the various concerns that have been expressed. Members of the public should keep in mind that we will not be able to receive any new information from the applicant or the public hearing formally closes. The chair will first act members of the public who've logged in through zoom and wish to speak to digitally raise their hands using the raise hand button in the participants tab in the zoom application. You'll be called upon by the meeting host after which you may unmute yourself. And for those calling in by phone, please dial nine. And again, you'll be called on by the meeting host. Please begin your comments by giving your name and address for the record. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to send them up to five minutes for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Remember to speak clearly, concisely and in a way that helps generate an accurate record of the meeting. Once all public questions. And comments have been addressed. Or if we reached the hour, I'm just going to arbitrarily say nine 30, although I don't know that we'll go that far. The public comment period for this evening session will be five minutes before the meeting. And then we'll have a draft, which ultimately means the indefatigable Ms. Ralston. We'll do our best to show the documents being discussed. If you'd like a specific document to be displayed during your comment, please ask us to do so. And we'll do our best to accommodate. So that said, we'll open the public comment hearing and. Ask if there's anyone who would like to address this application. Okay. Going once. Going twice. Going three times. I don't know that makes much sense to go back and ask the board if they have something more, since they just passed on the opportunity. Before we, before we do that, Karina Liendo has put her hand up and. She didn't really make it before going three times probably, but I'm not going to be strict about that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Liendo. This actually her husband, Roberto Costa. I got the forward to the link. I still think the project is too big for the area. I still think there are way too many waivers for the building to fit in the footprint that it should fit. I understand there are economic concerns for that. I don't think that should be the priority. I don't think that should drive something as permanent as a five story building in the area. They still have a concerns about forcing everybody to bike. Arlington, I think you'll deprive the citizens to access to the town. By forcing them to be in a bike. There are none of the bike lanes. And it's not. Typically when. I guess what I've been most done in my life is when I'm most needed a cart to get to places on time. The public transportation is not reliable. And can also have a second income as a big economy and over or something else. So. I still think you are going to need more parking lot. Parking space. And it's required there. And. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Costa. So is there anyone else for the public before I turn to Mr. Klein? All right. Seeing none. Christian, it's all up to you. Thank you. I just wanted to acknowledge that the board is in receipt. Of a letter by the concerned citizens of Michael street. Which raises many. Important points that they have brought forward on a lot of the prior hearings. And I. I think it's important that the. The board look at those. And specifically. They have some requests and suggestions. I think a lot of those have made their way into what we're looking at now. They were looking to. Include the residents of Michael street in the neighborhood of construction update with. Mr. Connor has said. They can easily accommodate. Looking to prevent contractor parking on Michael street. The contractor has stated that they would be willing to do that. They had concerns about using a redundant side. And that's included now in the. In the. Conditions. There was a question that could the HCA commit to in writing that in the future overnight street parking permit stickers will not be issued to allow 10 Sunday set of residents to park on Michael street. That is currently not allowed. Under the. Town by-laws is my understanding. So I don't think that's something that. Falls within our purview. And similarly. Making Michael street one way towards sunny side. That is solely within the discretion of the select board. And there's not something that the. The ZBA. Is allowed to address. And there were two other. Suggestions they had. Which had to do with the size of the building. And I think we've discussed several times the issues about the size of the building and the economic considerations that go into that. And that the. The size of the building is currently allowed by zoning. So. As far as the height is concerned, not the setbacks. So I just wanted to, to address that letter. Because I appreciate the effort that the residents went through. Put that together. And to provide that commentary to us. And I did want to acknowledge that. We are cognizant of that. We are taking. Much of that into consideration. Mr. Klein may well. May well notice that the last several questions I was asking to the applicant all really came from, from that letter. There's one other concern that's expressed in that letter that. Is not something that I think that the applicant can directly handle. But I would like to understand a little bit better. What the possibilities are and whether there's any kind of action that the board could take. That would be constructive. One of the things that's come up over and over in the hearing is that the, during the winter. The snow is not cleared off the space that goes between setting aside and Broadway. And I can, since I walk that frequently, I can attest that that is certainly the case. I'm not quite sure who the. Who, who exactly. Is the agency, but I'm sure it's a public agency that's responsible for the snow removal. And I was, and obviously the residents here, who after the 87, isn't running, or if they're going in a place, the 87 doesn't go, might want to go to Clarendon Hill. It's, it's an obstacle. And if you walk into the street as many times as you can, I'm not quite sure who the, who exactly is the agency, but I'm sure it's a public agency that's responsible for the snow removal. And if you walk into the street as many people, including me do. It's not entirely safe either, especially when it's snowy and icy outside. So. Does anyone have an understanding that's better than I do with that as to what it is that could actually be accomplished. For the safety of the people who live here and to improve the safety of the people who already live here. I think that might be a question we would need to address to the DPW as to who has jurisdiction over that. That area of sidewalk. There are, as, as we've just seen, there are several, there are lots of issues that are involved in this site where the applicant doesn't really have any control over that. Either the select board, if it has to do with parking or possibly with the street is who you'd have to turn to. And often on these issues like the snow, the, the applicant and the residents of this property. And the residents of the neighborhood have had the same interest. They, they're not really conflicting. The board has any ability to, as we think through those things and the things that are outside our peer view of to note them, or at least to provide some way of communicating to the rest of the town that there are issues here that need to be addressed. We might want to consider doing that. So there's one other, one other late speaker. And then I think that it's going to be time for us to move over, but Ms. Broder has her hand up now. Thank you. You'd think after three years of this, I could figure out how to raise my hand in a timely manner, but that's not the case. First, just a sincere gratitude and appreciation for all of the hard work that this applicant has put toward all of these hearings at being on the design side professionally. I understand what that means. And I really appreciate it. I think they have been responsive to many things as the designs have evolved. Like Roberto before me, I, you know, I will continue with my position that the building is outsized for the site and that paving 89% of a site adjacent to a brook and one of the few urban wilds we have is not a good idea. But I see where this process is going. And so it is what it is. Today, something came up that I hadn't seen before and I have been unable to find the draft decision online to view it myself, but the request to extend construction hours to earlier in the morning, six or seven days a week, I would strongly suggest that the board does not allow that. We're talking about the long-term impacts of the building size to all of the residents, but we're also talking about the short-term impacts to people far beyond the abutters with that, with the noise of construction. And there's a reason that we have that noise ordinance. So I strongly, strongly ask that the, that no extension of the construction periods be granted except for extenuating circumstances like the poor or, you know, et cetera. So that was it. Thank you all for your work and, and thank you to the board for all of their diligent work. And for their real, um, I think the effort they've made to bring forward all of the residents comments and to take them seriously. And it means a lot to be able to participate in this process and see that it's not just, um, uh, that it's meaningful and it's taken seriously. So thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Broder. That was very kind. All right. Is there anything else? I guess that we're not going to go back just to the board. Uh, and, uh, if, if there's any final comments. Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Klein. Just, just the previous speaker's, um, concerns. Oh. The current town bylaw allows for, um, construction money through Friday, eight to six and then, uh, nine to five on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Um, and what the, the board has typically done. If, if, uh, when requested to extend the hours, we extend it seven, seven a.m. to six p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of nine a.m. and five p.m. on Saturdays and then disallow any construction activities on Sundays and legal holidays. Um, and so we, I do appreciate that. You know, it does, um, sort of start the construction earlier, but it does guarantee that there's at least one day a week when there is no construction activity on site. Okay. This is, we're now. As much as you can tell that this, I, this is like a party. That's so much fun. It's hard to leave. Um, but leave it. We must. Uh, if there's nothing more, uh, we're now at the point, uh, of deciding on closing the hearing. Um, the, uh, we've been at this for a long time. Uh, closing the hearing will be. Important, uh, because it will mean that we're then sort of like a ballistic missile. We've been shot off and that where we've land is already determined by where we've already been. Um, and so, uh, Uh, at this point, uh, the chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Haverty, you should correct me if this is not exactly the right motion to make, but would entertain a motion. To, uh, Close the public hearing in this case. And to schedule the first day of our deliberations. Uh, for September the 5th, 2023 at 730. At 730. Mr. Haverty, is that a satisfactory? Absolutely. Yes. So move, Mr. Chair. This was moved by Mr. Klein. Uh, seconded by Mr. Dupont. Uh, let's go through the. Roll. Uh, Mr. Klein. Aye. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. Mr. Holy. Aye. Mr. Miss Hoffman. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So the public hearing in this case is now closed after, uh, a number of months. The deliberation period will begin. Uh, I will say that I echo this broader and, and thanking the applicant for their cooperation. Uh, they certainly are, are showing themselves. They are about to be residents in this neighborhood, just like the other people who appeared before us. And I'm hoping that by the time we all get together to celebrate the first anniversary of this, that, that will, it will be all, uh, it will be a Kumbaya moment. Uh, I also very much appreciate the effort made by Mr. Havarty who's still got plenty of effort left to make. Uh, and Mr. Reardon who has been, who has been terrific at providing us with the peer review advice that, that we've met, uh, and appreciative of all the members of the board and all of the families who are putting up with a lot and, uh, I'm looking forward to doing the deliberations, uh, and to seeing all of you, even if I can't necessarily, uh, hear all of you for the rest of the donations. So with that, the chair would enter, entertain a motion to, to adjourn. So move, Mr. Chair. Move by Mr. Klein. Second, Mr. Chair. Seconded by Mr. Dupont. Uh, go through the role of Mr. Klein. Aye. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Regardelli. Aye. Ms. Holy. Aye. Excuse me. That was Mr. Holy. Uh, and, uh, Ms. Hoffman. Aye. And Adam, Mr. Blank. Mr. LeBlanc. Aye. And the acting chair, uh, votes aye. So we can stop acting and turn it back over to the regular chair later. All right. Thank you all very much. It's been a pleasure. Thank you everybody. Take care. Bye bye.