 ACMI Productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. Good evening, welcome to the town of Arlington redevelopment board meeting on April 8th, 2024. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Rachel Zemberry, I'm the chair of the board and I'd like if the other members of the board could please introduce themselves. Steve Herbalot, good evening. Eugene Benson. Shayna Corman, Houston. Can you allow? Thank you very much. And we have the director of the Department of Planning and Community Development, Claire Rickard, joining us this evening as well. Thank you. Thank you. So let's go ahead and move to our first item of business tonight, which is a public hearing for docket number 378962 to 64 Brooks Avenue. And I will turn it over first to Claire for any background on this hearing. Sure. So this is an application to install a former on a property that is adjacent to the Mid-Man Bikeway, this will be visible, from the Mid-Man Bikeway. And so therefore it was decided that the board should probably hear this application. The current use is for a two-family is an existing non-conforming two-family home. And the applicant seeks a special permit and hearing from the board to determine the appropriateness of the dormer, the addition of the dormer as well as an exit gate onto the Mid-Man Bikeway and the site plan. Great, thank you very much. And before we actually get to the hearing, I wanted to turn this over to Jean because I understand you had a question for the board really about the, this falls under EDR criteria whether or not this is something that used to come in front of the board or can be reviewed by the Department of Planning and the Building Department. So if I can turn it over to you first. Sure. So in thinking about whether this is subject to environmental desire review, I took a look at section 3.4.2 of the Zoning By-law, I also spoke with Steve because they had been on the Zoning Board of Appeals and also had some experience with this. And it seems like this project does not require a special permit. So the only reason why it would require environmental design review under the criteria is if it alters a facade in a manner that affects the architectural integrity of the structure. So I spoke this morning with Mr. Champa, the head of the Inspectional Services to get an understanding about this. And I asked him, is this an unusual dormer in any way? Does it raise any issues in any way? Or is this sort of the standard run-of-the-mill dormers we tend to see added to two family homes? And he just said, it's pretty much a standard shed dormer. Nothing particularly special or unusual about it. So I said, then what's the reason why it needs environmental design review? And his response was, well, we weren't sure since it was on the bikeway, whether, or whether, or what's the bikeway, whether the redevelopment board should look at it or not. And I said, huh. He said, what do you think about that? I said, well, I think we're gonna have a discussion at the redevelopment board about that tonight. I also then spoke to Claire about it a little bit. And it seems that the question is, who gets to make the decision whether it alters the facade in a manner that affects the architectural integrity of the structure? Because the way the bylaw is written, it sort of says we only get to do an EDR review if it alters the facade and affects the architectural integrity. So one way to think about this is we need to make a decision on each one of these that come before us. And if we decide that it doesn't affect the architectural integrity, then there's no EDR review. Then we just say, it doesn't meet the criteria for EDR review. The alternative is to ask the planning director and the director of inspection services to have a discussion about each one of these when they come and if they can agree that it doesn't, then no need to come to us. But if they think that it does or it might affect it, then it would come to us. So I think maybe our initial conversation is if this doesn't affect the architectural integrity or doesn't, and if it doesn't, what do we do with this? Do we just say it doesn't require EDR review and therefore the applicant can go ahead without? So the finding would be, for example, that it does not meet the criteria of EDR. Right, right. Right, so that's where we are on that. Any thoughts on what Jean has just shared before? Before we turn it over to the applicant. And I appreciate you bearing with us while we have this discussion. Thank you. There's, yeah, I agree with the thought there of reasoning, but for tonight's particular case, I don't think we've received any information about what the, about the finish, color, kind of, we haven't, we haven't, we haven't, we have plan, we have construction drawings or design drawings, but not any sort of a rendering that would let us see what the facade will actually look like. So I think, I think for tonight, I would at least like to ask that, have the opportunity to ask that question. Great, thank you. Sheena? I feel like if you walk up and down the street in this neighborhood, more houses than not have this sort of dormer, and that it would not likely impact the architectural integrity. And so I would, I would lean in the direction of at least in this particular case, not needing EDR review and the question of, the question that Jean raised about process, I think is a separate question. Great, thank you. Can any thoughts, my feeling is, we should invite our applicant to speak and then I think have a discussion around whether or not we feel it meets the criteria to EDR unless you have any other? No, I whole-heartedly agree with Jean. That I don't think this, looking at this and reading this, I don't think it justifies, I think it falls on our preview per view, per view, right? Yes. Okay, and this is a typical dormer that's added. I also agree with Jean about deciding, does it go in front of us or not? I think if the building commissioner and client director says it doesn't, it then it doesn't. I think they're the first line that can look at this and say, yeah, this is pretty typical, pretty normal. It doesn't, and if they feel like it's something's out there that they want, they can bring it to us, but not every single thing is brought to us like this. So as far as today's review, he's here, I just wanna, you know, I don't think we need to have say anything. If we have questions for him, we can, but I think he's all set as far as I'm concerned. Ken, can I just? Jean, please go ahead. A couple things. So I walk the block today and there are a number of houses that are very similar. If you think about this, if the houses were on the other side of Brooks Avenue, it wouldn't be an issue at all. It just happens to be because it's on the Minuteman bikeway side that it becomes an issue. And I just, I didn't walk and look at every house, but I walked and looked at a few houses. There actually were no dormers on the houses on the next side, but if you walk on the Minuteman bikeway any length, you're gonna see these shed dormers up and down the bikeway on the top of two family houses. So, you know, they're not something new. They're not something significantly different in any way. Yep. So if I could suggest in terms of where at least the majority of the discussion seems to be moving is whether or not at this time we feel like it would be appropriate for someone to make a motion of a finding that this docket 32 to 64 Brooks Ave does not meet the criteria of EDR and does not require a special permit. I'll second that. Okay. So let's go ahead and take a vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I am a yes as well. So that would mean that you actually do not need a special permit or environmental design because the design review criteria do not apply in this particular case because the proposal does not alter the architectural integrity of the building. So I appreciate you coming in this evening and we will certainly, I think as a next step before we fully close the public hearing and the docking, the docket, what I would like to do is have a discussion among the board about procedure going forward and also see if you have any questions. No, only the question was because we have done many of these two families in Wellington and so this was very unique because on the movement back when we were trying to do normal, we were trying to do like the permitting process at the same time and then we were trying to blow the whole roof to raise the height, then Mike Champa told me, oh no, if you do the whole roof, then there's a bylaw that triggers the tree ordinance and I have to get the whole thing and like, oh really, what if it's just too simple, one side normal. He said, well, if you don't touch the roof and just do one side normal, then you're good. Right. I'll approve your permit. So I said, okay, let's just do it. And then I took my architect to do that. And then it went back in like, oh, sorry. Now you gotta go from like, what happened just. Right. So then he said, oh, because of the minute manual. So it was a process for us over here. Yeah, I understand that. And I think that's what we, our next step to do is to, you're correct in that the minute man bikeway location throws things into a space sometimes of needing to really understand whether a special permit is required to review the project under environmental design criteria. So I think that, again, that's what we'll talk about is a more streamlined process to make sure that it's keep it going forward. He was about to issue us a permit and then he called back. So now, what is how this is gonna take time? So what we would do and Claire, please feel free to jump in. You would work with Mike to let him know that the finding was that this review is not required. And you should be able to. I'll send an email to Mike first thing in the morning to let him know what the findings were. You should be able to issue your building permit from that. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much for your understanding. No problem. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. So before we close the public hearing in this docket to Jean's point, I think we should talk Claire with you as well about a process so that we can be more streamlined going forward. And I think Jean, you maybe perhaps if you could reiterate what your initial suggestion was. And then Claire, I'd love to see if you have any thoughts on how you think we could best work together with you and Inspector Champa and the board. I guess I should say, and the applicant pointed this out, the head of Inspectoral Services makes a lot of decisions already about what fits within the zoning code, what doesn't, what needs a special permit, what may need a variance, et cetera. So I don't think it's a lot to add to his plate to say he and Claire, if Claire would wanna be in this, interested in hearing from you on it, would make a decision about whether it met this criteria B for applicability or not. And then if it doesn't meet the criteria, Mike can do whatever he needs to do. But if it does meet the criteria, then the applicant has to come here. So I don't know what you think about that. I think that's fine. I think Mike generally has, because he sees every project that comes in even more than I do, he has a good idea of what's a regular shed dormer, what's appropriate for the neighborhood, not that my office or myself couldn't go out there and take a look at vernacular and what the situation is. I think where I was a little concerned is that that would ultimately turn into an administrative approval on my department's behalf, which I'm happy to issue. I think I have been a little hesitant to issue administrative approval in my 10 years so far, but if that is what the board is looking at, so long as it's something very typical, something very typical in the neighborhood, I'm happy to work with Inspector Champa and issue that sort of approval. Kim? Yes, I think that would work out well. Okay, great. Thank you. Shayna, any? A great discussion. Jean? I said what I had to say. Great. Steve? One thing I'd like to throw into the mix is our residential design guidelines for single and two family homes, and I think for those alterations that are better consistent with those guidelines do not need to come before us. Right. That is a wonderful suggestion. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you, Steve. Great. Anything else? I will open it up to public comment, but seeing that nobody is here for that, I will close public comment and see if there is a motion to close this public hearing. Should we vote on what we just... We voted on the finding. Should we vote on what would like the process to be done? Sure. So Jean, would you like to craft a motion? I think to that end. The motion should be when there's a project that raises the issue in 3.4.2B as to whether it alters the facade in a manner that affects the architectural integrity of the structure. The director of instructional services with the planning director will make an administrative decision as to whether it needs to come to the board taking into consideration the residential design guidelines. Is there a second to that motion? Okay, I ask one question. Please. The ordinance you specified, Jean, is solely for R1 and R2? No, it could be in any of the districts. But you know what, for most of the other districts, they'll require a special permit which will trigger another thing that requires EDR review. So it's EDR review if it either requires a building permit and a special permit or it alters the facade of a building. So when you get to things on Mass Ave or Broadway or mixed use, we get EDR review under the other part of the regulation or the bylaw. Okay, that's fine. So I'm okay with that then. I still wanna. We're not cutting ourselves out completely. Thank you. We could add just in for one and two family dwellings or we could say in the R0, R1 and R2 zones if you wanna add that. Would you feel more comfortable? Yeah, well, we add our three families too. Yeah. Yes, I would feel more comfortable with that. In R0, R1, R2 and R3, only. So do we want to focus on districts or uses? It's another great question. Because you can say single, two and three family dwellings which would apply regardless of district. Yeah, that makes more sense. Yes, that's a very good suggestion, Steve. Okay, so you're in agreement to amend your motion to include single, two and three family dwellings. Single, two, duplex and three family dwellings. And duplexes. I'll second that. All right, is there a vote starting with Steve? So there was mention of the residential visit guidelines in there. Yes. Can I suggest an amendment to that? Please. Things that, what's the language that we have now? Jean, could you restate? It was subject to review with the residential design line. So can we say subject to review, subject to conformance with the residential design guidelines for single or two family dwellings or other design guidelines that the town may adopt? Okay, I would accept that amendment. Could you, let's go ahead and restate the motion, please, Jean. You don't really think I can restate it but on this case, Steve, I'll try. In instances where there's a question about whether something alters the facade in a manner that affects the architectural integrity of the structure to require EDR review under section 3.4.2, the decision will be made jointly by the Head of Inspectional Services and the Planning Director and will not come to the board if they believe it does not for a single, two family, duplex and three family dwellings that are in conformance with the residential design guidelines and other guidelines that may be adopted. Thank you. I'll second that. I will not make Jean restate that again. This won't be the same. I know, I know. Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Shayna. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I may yes as well. Thank you all. We will move forward with that new process. And that will conclude our public hearing for docket number 3789. Let's move to agenda item number two, which is the master planning process update. And I will turn it over to Claire. Great. Thank you. So on February 29th, Sarah and I held a webinar for interested parties in an Arlington master plan update, which would be an update to the master plan of 2015. We're calling the process and up. The master plan update. So as part of that, I gave a presentation, which I won't go through in total tonight, that basically went over what is master planning, kind of recapped some of the work that's done and some of the achievements that have been met from the master plan of 2015, and then went through the update process, the planning process, including roles and responsibilities, you know, the status of where we are right now, timeline for this project and then next steps. And so because this is, you know, this is a group that already sort of understands and is familiar with the master planning process, I won't go through some of these background slides, you know, only to say, the characteristics of the master plan are that it's comprehensive, long-term, it encompasses the entire community, focused primarily on physical development and assets, and then of course, the process, the first step is oversight, which is establishing a committee, an advisory committee that can oversee the process and offer insight and advice on where we are and help direct many working groups or other, you know, bodies that approve that the advisory committee thinks are appropriate and important. So I think we can also review what is a master plan in Massachusetts. It is governed by the planning board, it will be, your role as a planning board that you will sort of oversee this process from an even broader view than a master plan advisory committee. There are seven study areas that I think that you are mostly familiar with including plan-producing housing, which we've been working on a lot in the last year, clearly economic development, which is something I know this board is interested in, arts and culture, open space, public services, and then transportation. We will also need to include the statement on goals and policies, as well as an implementation plan for the master plan update. Planning process had a glance, it went over, identification of issues, surveying, and by surveying, I don't just mean surveys, but building polling and working with the community to see what is where we are and what's needed, listening to goals and objectives, preparation of the plan, consider alternatives, adopt the plan, implement the plan, and then evaluate the plan. So we will go back to the 2015 master plan. Clearly a community conversation, which is essentially where we are right now with the update process. This is from the 2015 master plan, where the nice we are here right in the beginning, and at the end of 2025, we are here. So we are at the place where we are scheduled to update the plan. Some of the achievements since 2015 is re-population of the zoning bylaw, adoption of residential design guidelines, and then the design guidelines for commercial industrial sites, which we are keeping off, is underway in 2024. Some of the transportation goals and policies, we adopted the complete streets policy in 2016. And then of course, the Connector Island tends to sustainable transportation plan of 2021. Also came out of the goals from the 2015 master plan. Some other supporting documents that have been developed as a result of the plan. We already talked about the residential design guidelines, our island and high-speed remote action plan, which we're re-engaging on, and then the study of the economic analysis of industrial districts was informed by the island and high-speed remote action plan. So one plan leads to the next clearly since 2015. So next steps for the master plan update. Here is the ARB's responsibilities will be to appoint a new master plan update advisory committee, which we're calling the AMP UP advisory committee. This is a group that we have solicited applications from. From our February 29th meeting, these applications are open through April 14th. For those who are interested in being on this advisory committee, and we're looking to have 12 community members serve on the board. From there, staff will draft requests for proposals from planning consultants. And this scope will be a draft that is reviewed by the advisory committee. We'll be task one of an advisory committee. This is a little different than how this has been done in other communities where the staff has worked to develop an RFP. And then once the consultant is selected, the advisory committee generally is selected. Once the consultant is on board, we want to get the advisory committee on board prior to selecting a consultant so that we can have security input on that consultant, maybe. And then once we have selected the planning consultant, we will kick off the project at Ernest. So here's the timeline I put together that kind of goes over some of this work that we intend to do in the next year or so. And then move into the AMPA project kickoff, likely November-ish of this year. Once the consultant is on board, and that's when we will start the update and master planning process more intensely. So the AMPA advisory committee, we're hoping to fire 12 community members who wish to serve, plus representatives from the redevelopment board, the select board and the capital planning committee. This was roughly the same makeup of the advisory committee from 2015. We've pitched it as a two-year commitment with monthly meetings over Zoom, but we may need more frequently throughout 2025 as the work progresses. May should be in place by May, the first meeting scheduled for the first week in June. So that's roughly the presentation that was given at the end of February, as well as the process that we're looking to go through to get this project kicked off. Great, thank you so much. It's very comprehensive and I appreciate you sharing that. Sure. Any questions or comments starting with Shayna? None, none at this time. Great, Jean. Just wondering how you think it's going and getting volunteers. We have 22, 26 applications as of today. Fabulous, it's great. It's very exciting. When I said in the presentation, we're really hoping to get some folks who rent in Arlington on the Community Advising Board. That's something that's pretty important. I think there's something that I heard a lot in the MBTA community's process. It's like we'd like to start meeting people. I'd like to hear from some renters and people who want to be in Arlington long-term, but perhaps potentially not as property owners, as well as property owners, folks who have experience in planning, although that's not necessarily a prerequisite. And then, of course, the three representatives from this board, capital planning, and then the select board also to offer their expertise. And I eventually, eventually, before this committee, I think is really established that we will make a recommendation to the New Development Board for membership. And the New Development Board can vote to establish the committee. This will likely be done at our second meeting in May, if not the first meeting in May, although that's starting to get a little full. And I think that's basically how we're going to move through the establishment of this committee. Thanks. Other than the 12 people in the capital planning and select board and us, and renters, are there any criteria you're looking for? I would like people with planning experience, et cetera, et cetera. I think what we explained during the presentation is that it would be great for folks to have planning experience, but that's not necessarily anything that we should have someone from being selected to be on the board, or be on the committee. Any other questions? I guess the board has to decide who's going to be the board. Who's the representative? Yeah. Yeah, at some point. Yes. Yes. That's it. Great, Steve. Two questions. Did you say three members of the ARB? I said three members of town committees and boards, one from the ARB, one from capital planning, excuse me, one from FIMCOM, one from the select board. Okay, so we'll draw straws at some point. Essentially, yes. And just out of curiosity, have you received many or any applicants or any applications from applicants with transportation backgrounds? That's interesting. We have, yes. We have a couple from AMAC that have. Oh, excellent. Okay. Staff has been promoting this with their boards and committees as well, as well as the general public in terms of, please apply and offer your expertise. Thank you, Ken. I'm just one right now. Have we got approved for any funding from the town yet for the consultant? Thank you. So there is a warrant article for a $50,000 appropriation related to master planning. So that is a start. It's a bit of seed money. I've also had a bit in discussion with Mr. Feeney about outstanding ARPA dollars, which may be applied to master planning. We have at least done the homework on that. And we think that whatever the 50,000 appropriation doesn't have a room to be able to achieve with ARPA funding. I just have to get the consultant in place before the end of the year. I don't think the 50,000 is enough. I agree. I think we spent close to $200,000. The original appropriation in 2015 was for $175,000, and I think they might have gone over. I have asked for $250,000 to do this project. And like I said, the appropriation of 50 is the initial funding, but we would be looking to use ARPA dollars, any remaining ARPA money to supplement the rest. So we have about $200,000 of our funding for this? We have quite a bit of outstanding ARPA funds to then need to be committed before the end of the year. Okay. That's all I have for now. I think having a funding so we can get the resources and the studies to do this. It's gonna be a long drawn out process that's gonna involve a lot of people. And I don't want to run out of funding so we stop through these. And that's all I have for now. Great, thank you. And I'll just echo I think the question that Steve had, my question was whether or not there was anyone with any transportation experience who had applied so far because they think that that's something that's very important obviously to them. Okay, I agree. Yeah, great. Okay, follow on. Please, go ahead. Have there been any landowners? Commercial landowners? Yes, commercial landowners that have said they're interested. We don't have a specific question that asks if you're the landowner, if you're a resident and you agree with it. We've been trying to actually not look at the applications very much. Review them all together. Yeah, that's fair. Okay. Great, good question. Anything else, Jean? I could have asked this before. What's the difference between, as you say, between updating the master plan as opposed to starting a whole new process? That's a great question. I think so what we will do is use the 2015 master plan as a place to start. We don't have to start all the way over from scratch. What would likely result in fewer visioning sessions and things like that. And I think more detailed and specific work in those seven subject areas. And we've talked in this, you know, this board, I know we've had discussions about needing to flesh out or wanting to do more work in the economic development section. I also think open space could probably lose some more attention, but basically it's using the 2015 document as a starting place rather than just completely starting, you know, from scratch. What consultants are you considering at this point? I think, you know, there are several out there, RKG did, I believe, did the master plan in 2015, but, you know, there are several firms out there right now that are doing master planning work, including MAPC, which I don't know, you know, doesn't necessarily mean you have to go with MAPC, but they are doing the work. I know UTIL, Justin Bowles, master plan, there are a lot of firms out there working on that subject. Any other questions? All right, thank you so much for the update. Let's move on to agenda item number three, the update for the timeline for the Arlington Heights Business District. Great. So, this is something that has been a little bit on the back burner as we've moved through the traffic of the town reading and the master plan work kickoff, but I did, in January, make a presentation to the Arlington Heights Business Association Group about the idea that we would be progressing an Arlington Heights Business District, a comprehensive business district in Arlington. I was at their meeting in January and talked about this and tried to gauge interest from those who were there. Everybody seemed pretty excited about the idea. There were a number of people who were on that Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Committee who did agree to participate in this implementation project. So, sort of did a soft kickoff in January. I've re-engaged with the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Plan committee, reached out to them both at this business meeting and then again over email, including today, to propose a meeting in May on May 9th. The committee would get together to kick off this project, the implementation. I've also secured a table at the Arlington Heights Spring Fling on the 19th of May to start to bring this proposal to the public and talk a little bit more about what a comprehensive business zone means and what it will do for the area. We would move into another committee meeting maybe after this initial public engagement and then have a public meeting sometime in late June to go over the initial proposal for this comprehensive business district and bring it back to the public so that we can revisit the topic and gauge interest and get, honestly get some input and suggestions. The plan is five years old at this point. There are opportunities for engagement over the summer. I haven't quite identified, I know that for MTA communities we were at the farmers market quite a bit. This is something we can do again over the summer a couple of times to let people know what's happening. Again, we would have this committee meet to work to draft the zoning. Jean, you asked for a time sort of certain about when this may come back to the ARB. I'm looking at your meeting on the 21st of October for that. And then after getting the ARBs input, drafting the zoning, we have a second public meeting where we sort of go over our findings and try to fine tune public input and any observation that we get at the final zoning to the ARB right about when we usually start to discuss more in articles in December and then draft the more in article here and bring it to town meeting next spring. So that's the timeline that I've looked at that we've established. And like I said, reached out to the committee this afternoon to talk about the meeting on May 9th and see if that works for folks. And we should be getting this underway right after time meeting. Great, thank you. Kim, any questions? Comments. Can we have a consultant on board for this or do we need a consultant for this? We don't have a consultant on board for this. I'm not sure we need a consultant for this. We do have pretty prescriptive zoning written already in the neighborhood action plan. And I think what we're looking for is public input and comment. I would, I think, you know, if when the zoning, as we're drafting the zoning, I will rely on the ARB on the sleep for input and also work with the town council on drafting the zoning for this. But, you know, interestingly, I think what we did in the community is we did not have a consultant other than town council to review and this board, frankly, to review the zoning as it was drafted, we used mostly, like I said, resources that we have in hand. We don't, so no, we don't have a consultant for this. It's just more, really honestly, this is about public outreach, planning five years old, and, you know, just making sure that we have, that it's still, you know, what the committee is looking to have for the rest. The reason why I asked is, I think having diagrams and some models and sketch-up stuff would help portray our ideas better and get comment back from the public. I think just having, you know, some verbiage is not good enough and it would be hard to misinterpret what is meant. So I would suggest maybe having some, setting aside some sort of funding where we hire somebody to do some models or some diagrams so that we can easily understand. Great, thank you, Ken. Anything else? No, not for now. I think it's good. Great, thank you, Shayna. Ken just touched on something I was gonna ask, which was what kind of budget do you anticipate meeting for this with mailings, with whatever else, what sort of budget do you anticipate meeting and where do you think that's going to be coming from? That's a great question. I think, you know, it's, I do have some department funds that we could put towards this as well as planning dollars that I'm regularly received through the CDBG that's possible, that's applicable to this as well. And certainly I could ask, you know, see what's available to the town manager's office. I don't anticipate this being a big dollar project or that heavy a lift. I'm thinking maybe $2,500, $5,000, something like that, which shouldn't be too, too hard to come up with. And how are you feeling about staff time with the master plan and the Arlington Heights Business District? That's a great question. I think I'm so working a lot of them. Clearly I think we will need some, we'll need staff to be engaged on this. I think Marie's allowed as our senior planner has some capacity to help me with this project. That's all I have. Great. Thank you. Jean. Yeah, I think this looks good in lines with some of the things we've talked about before. Do we have an IRB member on this committee? We do. It's great. It's me. Oh, good. It's me? Okay, just wondered whether we did. Yeah, I think the only thing we've talked about this in some other contexts too. If we have an IRB member on the committee, we can ask the IRB member at any point during this time to sort of do a little presentation or if you, Rachel, since it's gonna be you, feel at any point it would be helpful to have input from the board along the way. Absolutely. Yeah, so yeah, I think this is good. I sort of agree that I don't think this is a heavy-spending plan to get done. There are some changes, I think, in the heights since that plan was done five years ago and when I was reading it a couple months ago, I was like, oh, well, those things happened even without the plan. So I think there's a little bit of a need to think about that and sort of how to fit those pieces together in what will be 2025 and 2026, yeah. Great, thank you. Steve. Yeah, one question. Any word or in terms of gauging interest, did you get any feedback or, I'm thinking about the owners of the significant industrial properties in the heights, like the gym site. Yes. Any feedback or was it positive? Very positive feedback from owners of larger industrial sites that I have spoken with. Okay, very good, thank you. Great, any other questions for Claire? All right, so let us close agenda item number three and move to agenda item number four, which is the special town meeting discussion. So I will turn this one over to Claire to discuss the proposed one article that will be submitted tomorrow pending any potential changes from the board this evening. This is not a public hearing. This is purely to discuss the warrant article language for tomorrow. A full hearing will be held on April 28th, 29th. Thank you very much. April 29th, and prior to that time, the final main motion may be altered. So at this point, we can certainly discuss the main motion, but the discussion this evening is primarily around the language of the warrant article language, which will be submitted during the time that the warrant is, the special town meeting warrant is open tomorrow. So Claire, any clarification? Thank you. This warrant article is an extension of the conversation that I've had with this board about procedural flaw in warrant article 12 of the last of the fall town meeting. The AG's office working with town council has determined that the town meeting needs to, should re-vote on the map and the parcel list that are attached to the MBTA community zoning. And so town council has really taken the lead on this warrant article and on what is required from the attorney general's office. We drafted a warrant article as well as the draft amendment language. I believe in consultation with the attorney general's office to make sure that it was correct. And it is indeed exactly what the attorney general's office is looking for in a re-vote of town meeting. We spoke about how quickly and what the board's involvement needs to be in progressing this warrant article. Again, this is not the public hearing this evening, it is merely a discussion on article language and the draft amendment. If the board has any comments on that, the warrant will open and close tomorrow is what I believe. And we will be able to get any comments or thoughts to town council tomorrow before the warrant opens and closes and should be able to move forward from there. Great, thank you very much. So, let's go ahead and see if there is any discussion regarding the draft warrant article language and we'll start with Steve. With respect to the warrant language itself. Actually, no, all of my comments were related to the draft being motion. I'm okay with the warrant language. Okay, great, and we can come back to the draft, to the main motion language after we review the warrant article language. Jean. So, I called town council this afternoon and had a conversation with him about this and so what I'm going to mention just in the warrant article language itself is based on that conversation with him. The first thing I'll point out is this says not inserted at the request of the redevelopment board inserted at the request of the department of planning and community development and the town manager, which is pretty unusual for a zoning article and I had a conversation with town council about that and why that was and he ended up thinking it would be better if it was the ARB warrant article rather than the department of planning community development and the town manager warrant article. So, that's for our consideration but seems to me that's the way zoning articles other than resident articles are presented and it would make more sense. That's one. Number two, his use of the term in quotation mark MBTA communities, which was not used and is not in the text that town meeting adopted in October and he said he just got this from some other towns that did it and it was perfectly okay to leave out quote MBTA communities close quote from both the title of the article and then from the wording of the article itself where it says quote MBTA communities close quote. So, I'd recommend leaving that out and also he got the words backwards. It's not multifamily overlay housing district, it's multifamily housing overlay and it's districts with plural because there are two and we looked at what was adopted by town meeting in the text, it's districts so we would need to change that wherever it says multifamily overlay housing to housing overlay and then districts so there are a couple places where that would have to be fixed and since we're taking out MBTA communities, my suggestion in the sentence for the bylaw where it says to see if the town will vote to amend its zoning map and zoning bylaw my amending section 6.1.2, it's 4.1.2, 4.2 of the zoning bylaw, I would add consistent with the MBTA communities law and then I'd say to add and then the rest with the changes I suggest. So, that's what I would have for the article title and the article itself. Thank you, Jean. I think once we get through discussion, we will restate the full language to ensure that we are, that we have caught everything that you have suggested. Sheena. So I have nothing for the warrant language and we're coming back to the draft agreement. We're gonna come back to the draft agreement. All right, so I'll leave it there for now. Great, thank you. Kim. I sort of agree with you, but so you're saying this should be at the request of the ARB? Well, however we usually do it when we're the ones who put in a warrant article, that's about what the exact wording is submitted by, filed by whatever the exact wording is when we do it. Insert. I think it's inserted. Do we have to vote on that then? If it's our, Yeah, we do. Will we have time for that? Yes, that is built in. That is what the hearing on April 29th is for. We will hold the hearing and vote. Typically we do them separately because we need multiple nights to do so, but there is no issue with us doing so in one evening. And would that also open up the public comment too then? Correct, the whole hearing would be on that date. Okay, all right, that's all I had. I just hope that we had enough time to make that change. Great, one item I would look at and I did not have a chance to review this with town council, let me just get back to this item here. Because I do wanna make sure that we're consistent with the way that the the district was described in the warrant article from special town meeting 2023. The procedural item references that this map, I'm looking at the words as approved by the town special town meeting on October 25th, 2023. I wanted to make sure that the way that others are reading that is that that is relative to the zoning change and not to the map as approved. Can I say something? Please. Yeah, I think you raised an important point because it's a problem in the wording below when we get to that also because what's in this article is what they haven't approved. Correct. Yes. So without making the changes that you've suggested, I would suggest in alignment with the, and then restate the MBTA or excuse me, the, so you would keep the first two sentences and then note as reviewed and in alignment with the approved multifamily housing overlay districts or in alignment with the multifamily housing overlay districts as approved by the town special town meeting on October 25th, 2023. So separate. Consistent with. Correct. Consistent with. Correct. Yeah, so after the semicolon would say consistent with. The multifamily housing overlay districts as approved by the town special town meeting on October 25th, 2023. Yeah. Or you could say, well, yeah, as consistent with the multifamily housing overlay districts. Yes. And there's a similar problem in the amendment. Down here. Oh, I know, we haven't done that yet. Yes. Yes. This is largely for Mr. Venson, but would it be worth reference just making mention of chapter 48, section 3A? As opposed to consistent with the MBTA community. Yeah. That would be. Yeah. There's, I mean, if we can cite a chapter first, I think it would make sense to do that. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Okay, so this would read to see if the town will vote to amend zoning map and zoning bylaw by amending section 4.1.2 and section 4.2 of the zoning bylaw to add the multifamily housing overlay districts. Multifamily housing overlay districts. Yes, I had that plural. Yep. Consistent with the multifamily housing overlay districts approved by the town's special town meeting on October 25th, 2023 or take any action related there too. The only other thing would be, after the phrase section 4.2 of the zoning bylaw, you could say consistent with mass general laws chapter 4A that was in section 3A. Yes. Mass general laws chapter 4A that was in section 3A. Yes. And the, so it would be up here. I'm sorry. So can you tell me exactly? So you see where it says by amending section 4.1.2 and section 4.2 of the zoning bylaw and consistent with mass general law chapter 4A section 3A. In lieu of MBTA. Right, right, right. Which flows a little better. Right, yeah. And then it goes back to the multifamily. Yeah, consistent with, and then it goes into, again, it's another consistent with. That's okay, because that's after the semicolon. Correct, after the semicolon. Consistent with the, consistent with the multifamily housing overlay districts. Overlay districts approved by the town's special town meeting on October 25th, 2023. Yeah. Mm-hmm. May I buy a conjunction after the first semicolon? Please. Please. Oh, I was thinking just a semicolon and. Okay. And consistent with the, yes. Yes, exactly. Okay. Do you have that? Shall I read it? Please. To see if the town will go to amended zoning map and zoning by law by amendment section 4.1.2. Section 4.2 of the zoning by law consistent with mass general law, 40A section 3A. So chapter 40A section. Then you know, chapter 40A section 3A to add the multifamily housing overlay districts as approved by town's special town meeting on October 25th, 2023. And consistent with the multifamily housing overlay districts as approved by special town or take any action there too. So. There's an extra. Your first as approved by the town's special town meeting should be struck. There's a semicolon after the citation of mass general law chapter in section and the first reference to multifamily housing overlay districts, semicolon, and consistent with the multifamily housing overlay districts approved by the town's special town meeting. And then it would say inserted at the request of the redevelopment board if that's what we would prefer. Which there? Yes, it's inserted at the request of the redevelopment board. That's consistent with our other. Great. And then Claire, will you review this updated language with Mike Cunningham tomorrow morning? Okay. Great. And if you wouldn't mind either you or Mike before submitted, just sharing that out to me and perhaps to Jean's via email before that submitted. Sure. Okay, great. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. There was also Jean, the suggestion to the title, which was amendment of zoning map. Just delete MBTA communities. Designating the multifamily housing overlay districts. Right. And amendment of the zoning bylaw. Right. And then again in the article title itself you have to delete MBTA communities and make districts a plural. So it's a zoning by law amendment slash amendment or zoning map designating the multifamily housing overlay districts and amendment of zoning bylaw. So basically in that title just crossing out MBTA communities, the article title. Correct. And districts plural. Right, districts. All right. Any other discussion on the title? All right. Let's get to the draft amendment. And Jean, do you want to kick us off again? I think a lot of people have comments. My major comments were in the draft amendment deleting every time there's MBTA communities in quotes. Fixing the one, two, three, four, five places where the words overlay and housing are reversed and adding districts to them. And then we have the problem in here where I don't know exactly how we want to say this. Town meeting approved the text but the AG's office felt like we had to have town meeting approved the map again. Correct. That's really what it is. And so I think a planer way to say that part of it and then down in accordance with this vote I think would be fine with again getting rid of MBTA communities and flipping the overlay housing and adding the districts. But I think while Steve and Shayna had some other issues with it too. Okay, let's start with Steve. So the, actually I just had one. Under the proposed change in 412 I was going to ask if we should name the two overlay districts. But I think just making the new item, the enumerated item number three plural would be fine. Yeah, they need to write number get overlay and housing need to be reversed. Oh yeah. They're reversed on that one too. I forgot that one and adding districts at the end. I agree Steve. I think since it's mentioned multiple times that perhaps naming both of them and then in parentheses noting that and we'll just refer to them as the plural districts going forward would not be a bad idea. There's no harm in being as specific as possible. Where would you do that? So that the town doesn't hereby amend, not amend, it's zoning map to designate the, and then I would name the two districts and then in parentheses call them the multifamily housing overlay districts that were voted and approved by the town's 2023 special town meeting. So name the business as well as the neighborhood multi-family districts. I would do it reverse. I would, because if, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that's fine. What I thought it was the multifamily housing overlay district is consisting of correct those two districts that makes sense. Steve, does that address your concern? Yes. One other when we say approved by the town's 2023 special town meeting, I believe we had special town meetings in the spring and fall. Correct. So maybe we can say fall special town meeting 23rd special town meeting. We're just to indicate it's the fall. Yep. Thank you. Gina. Rachel, you spoke to my main concern. So I'm going to leave that for you to raise again. We're more articulate about it than I was going to be. That's about naming the two districts. That's right. Okay. That's right. But Jean, I'd also be interested in hearing you talk a little bit more about the issue you raised speaking in planter language about what the true problem is here. I think that might be useful. How would you go about doing that? So I think, so I don't know. I would have to sit down and try to write this out. In terms of like the getting back to the true nature of the problem, I think that might be better material for the discussion in our report rather than the main motion. Okay. Does that make sense? That's fair. Yeah, but I agree that this draft amendment could be a lot shorter as a result. Yep. Yeah. It could just be a mend section whatever and the zoning map to adopt was that our reference in... This tries to split the baby. It tries to do an explanation, but not a good explanation and maybe just cut it all together and have that discussion. We have a little more time with that, right? That doesn't have to be right away. Correct. Claire, I think I'd need you to confirm the date that the main motion needs to be finalized prior. Well, we can review it and change it. Actually, if it's our article, up until that evening, we can change that because we will be voting on the final text. Up until which evening? Up until the hearing date on April 29th. Okay. Up in and through that evening, we can make changes to the text of the main motion. So for tomorrow, we just need... We just need the title and the motion and the warrant article language. Yeah. I just want to see if we can add somewhere that explains that the zoning map that we're amending put into this has not changed. It's the same zoning map that was that came with the text there and everything else. It was just a clerical... Yeah, I think when we do that, we need to do this. But I want to say that it was not changed. It had not changed. So people will say, are you trying to slice something by or whatever? It has not. Correct. That's potentially also good material for the discussion. A section of a report. That's all. Right. Shayna, did you have something else? No. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Great. So we will work on ensuring that this is submitted tomorrow. Thank you. So we'll now move to anything else on agenda item number four. Close agenda item number four and move to agenda item number five, which is open forum. So anyone who's joined us this evening, who wishes to speak, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will close open forum and move to item number six, which is new business. And I will see first if Claire has any new business. None at this time. Great. Thank you. Kim? No. Shayna? No. Jean? Yes. Go for it. So what we just were discussing for MBTA communities made me go back and look at all of the warrant articles we put forth for the regular town meeting. And I realized that when we proposed deleting the wet inland wetland district, we didn't go into 4.1.2 and delete number two inland wetland district. So we have to figure out how to do that at town meeting if not before town meeting. And I'm not sure if there's a way that we can put in an amendment to our warrant article at this point or a town meeting or if one of the town meeting members for putting an amendment just because all we really need to do is the map change that was to delete this line right here which we failed to do when we agreed when we voted to delete the inland wetland district, we didn't look back at 4.1. So I don't, you know if there's a way to do that. I don't know if there's a way to do that for a town meeting. So we can, Claire, do you want me to talk to Mike Cunningham and Greg, the moderator about that? What I would do is I would then pull that from the request to be included on the consent agenda. The, that particular warrant article, I included that on the. We'll get folded off the consent agenda. It is an administrative change. So I can ask that that be pulled and then at the same time, we can have a conversation with the two of them to determine how best to address that. Yeah, because if we can address ahead of time, Steve or I would offer to file an amendment. Yeah, we could do that if it can't be done at the time. It's just cleaning up a little piece that we didn't do. Okay. And that's which letter in 4.1. 4.1.22. Thank you. See it in the right years if we should have proposed deleting that along with everything else. Thank you. Sorry, Sheena. And is that, do we need to delete it elsewhere? For example, maps or in-law? I don't think so. Great. There's no math. No math exists on the Inland Whatland District. Yeah, it's a good question though, right? It is a good question. Yeah, we so rarely make a map change like this that it's important to review that. There should have been a map. There should be a map of the flood plain this one. Anything else, Jean? No. Steve? I do have something. Yes. So over things I've used myself with, I want to say this week it was looking through the results of the 2023 Indigenous Arlington Town Survey. So there were 1,944 responses, which was a significant increase over the last year. But two things I thought were sort of no were made. Three things I thought were sort of no were made. The largest group of respondents by tenure, how long they've lived in town were people who've lived in Arlington zero to five years. That was 23%. The next largest group was 11 to 20, and then six to 10 years. So between those three, it's about, that's about 60% of the respondents. So we continue to turn people over to fairly good click. The report mentioned 79% answered that they own their own home rather than rent, which is a higher percentage than the census figures indicate this could be just in terms of a difference in who answered is different than the census, or it could be that things have changed that much since 2020. And finally, 32% of respondents reported having incomes over $200,000, that's the largest group. And it was up 3% from last year. Thank you for the summary. That is my summary. Much appreciated, Steven. Thank you for pouring through that in such detail. Steve, household incomes or personal incomes? So there is, I don't remember the way they asked it. So in, I think in the past, there was a point in the past where one copy of the survey was mailed on paper to every household, and now I think they've sort of switched to individual, pulling individual. So I think it may, I am not 100% sure, but I think it may be individual. Great, thank you very much. Any other new business? Is there a motion to adjourn? So motion. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes. Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. I'm a yes as well. This meeting is adjourned.