 All right, good evening everyone welcome to the town of Arlington redevelopment board. This is the meeting on February 26, 2024 and I'd like to call it to order. My name is Rachel Zemberi I'm the chair of the board and if the other members of the board please introduce themselves. I appreciate it. Steve Robilac, good evening. Shayna Corman, Houston. Chin-Lao. We also have Claire Ricker joining us from the Department of Planning and Community Development. So this evening we do have one member of the redevelopment board who is absent so we will proceed with the four members of the board in attendance this evening. Let's move to the first agenda item which is a review of the meeting minutes. These are the meeting minutes from February 5, 2024 and I'll see if there are any revisions or corrections starting with Ken. I am not. Great, Shayna? I am not. Steve? I have not. Great, let's see. I just had one correction and it's in the second page the first paragraph where it says she noted that issues such as signage, maintenance of building facades, etc. where it says but those issues are not often priorities for ISD. I clarified that that was due to staffing constraints. So if we could just add that that would be great. And that's the only change I had. With that is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended. So motion. Second. I will take a vote starting with Steve? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? Yes. And I'm against as well. Meeting minutes have been approved as amended. Great, let's move to the second agenda item which is the public hearing for the warrant articles for 2024 annual town meeting. As we open the hearing this will be the first night of hearings in the schedule as posted for the warrant articles for spring 2024 town meeting. Consistent with the past, the ARV will be hearing from article applicants and the public wishing to speak on each of the articles as scheduled. Applicants will have three minutes to address the board. The board will then pose any questions to the applicants followed by a period of open public comment. Note that the board will reserve final discussion and voting on each article until the last night of hearings. Let's see. So let's go ahead and start with article 25, which is the zoning bylaw amendment related to building definitions and clear for each one of these. I think what I'd like to do is turn it over to you for introduction, any words you'd like to say and then we'll open it up to the board for any any initial discussion. And again, we'll save the liberation for the last night of our meeting. Great. Thank you. So tonight we'll be looking at articles 25 through 29. These are articles that the ARB has agreed to take up as a promoting at town meeting, which it seems like we just had coming circling back around here. The first three articles 25, 26, 27 are administrative in nature. Article 28 is to delete the inland wetland overlay district and then article 29 is the reduced type buffer. And I believe that their board had some discussion or at least, you know, had an alternate draft for article 29. Mr. Rebel, I provided if we we can start with articles 25, 26, 27. I can't imagine it will be too much time for that. Of course, you know, and also have time for public comment. I can tell you article 28, I attended a meeting of the conservation commission last week and they did vote to support article 28 as Britain. And I think that's it. Great. No, conservation committee. Great. Thank you. So let's go ahead and start with article 25 to see if there's any question or any discussion from the members of the Redevelopment Board. And we'll start with you, Ken. I have none. Great. Shayna. I have none. Steve. Nothing on article 25. Great. At this time, we will open the floor for public comment for article 25. Any member of the public wishing to speak, please indicate so by raising your hand. Seeing none, we will close public comment on article 25. Any final discussion from members of the board before we move to the next article? None. You know, Steve? No. Seeing none, let's move to article 26. Article 26 is a bylaw amendment related to an administrative clarification. And I will open it up to the board for any initial questions or comments starting with Ken. I have none. Shayna. I have none. Steve. Nothing here. Great. Seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. Any member of the public wishing to speak regarding article 26, please raise your hand. Chris Slaury, you can come to the front, please, so that the microphone can pick you up. Thank you, Chris Slaury. Six items. Just a reminder for anyone speaking this evening that you will have up to three minutes. Sure. Thank you. Just a couple of administrative things. First, the second item referred to here is 5.9.2b1e. But there is no e in the bylaw right now. All there is after b1 is a series of bullets. So I don't think you can reference the e, because that's actually a different, another change that you're proposing in the bylaw that has not yet been enacted. So I think it would be e if the other bylaw change is passed and approved, but as of right now, there is no e. And I would say for the other one, for 5.4.2b, I would suggest you go to the same level of specificity as you do for 5.9.2. So for example, if you're going 1e, or one of a bullet, it isn't a fifth bullet. For 5.4.2, I think you should do the same thing for give the letter designation in the bullet is specific bullet sub bullet under that letter as well, because there are a lot of different items listed under 5.4.2 and a lot of them are completely irrelevant to this particular change. And so anyway, I don't have any substantive disagreement with it. But in terms of clarification, I think I would look into that and hopefully, it's just the change of that one. Great. Thank you very much. Any other members wishing to speak this evening? Okay. At this time, we'll close public comment, and I'll turn it back to the members of the board for any final discussion, starting with Kim. I thought what Chris brought up, we were doing that. We were taking out the bullets to put in letters in there. It's like, it's part of that's article 27. Okay, so it's not a water. We are doing 20. So we are doing that. Chris, I know, but you can't propose a change to something that doesn't exist. You're proposing the change to what exists now. What we can do is we can speak with the moderator about the order of these and about tabling one and, you know, town meeting agrees to that. Doing the other one first of the venue or making the change to the other. I think it's a Scrivener's right. Okay. Any other comments, Shayna? Great, Steve. All right. At this time, we will close discussion for this evening on article 26. And we'll now move to article 27, which is an administrative amendment related to the redesignation of the list of requirements in section 5.9.2b1. Can any discussion? No. Shayna? No. Steve? Yeah. We'll now open it up for a public comment. Any members of the public wishing to speak on this article? Great. We'll close public comments on article 27. And we will now move to article 28, which is a zoning by law amendment related to deleting the inland wetland overlay district. Start with Ken. Any discussion? No. Shayna? No. Steve? No. We'll now open it up for a public comment. Any discussion on article 28, the deletion of the inland wetland district section? Thank you. I guess as a town meeting member, I would like to understand the relationship of the current zoning by law that you're proposing to eliminate with the conservation commission regulations because it's not clear to me that the zoning by law doesn't go beyond what the current, you know, what the protection regulations are that the conservation commission enforces. And if indeed, this is going to weaken the protections for the town's wetlands, and I would have some real problems with it. I don't know whether it does or not, but I would hope that in prior to town meeting, your board can make clear exactly what the implications are of this change. So I would disagree with that. Great. Thank you very much. Any other discussion on this item from the public? Okay, with that, we'll close public comment for article 28. And Claire, I will turn it over to you for the record to address that that comment. As I understand it, again, this is proposed by the conservation committee whose current policies actually are more stringent in many ways than what's currently in our bylaws. So if you could just speak a little bit to that, that would be great. Sure, absolutely. So this was a change that was recommended by David Morgan, who is our environmental planner and conservation agent, as well as staff to the conservation commission. And he is arguing and DPCD is arguing, at least that the conservation commission possesses a robust authority to protect wetlands via public caring permit review acquisition. The inland wetland district is redundant. And you overlay creates unnecessary complexity and potential for conflicting regulations. The Inspectional Services Department, the ZBA, DPCD and Conservation Commission are all in support of removing this district as it does tend to muddy the waters a little bit in terms of who has the authority to adjudicate in terms of the inland wetland district. It turns when when we get down to it, it's the building commissioner who's responsible for determining, you know, the impact of the district and not the conservation commission. And so rather than duplicate those efforts, there was at least some agreement internally that the thing to do is to eliminate the district so that the conservation commission can then establish any authority they need to or whatever parcels are implicated. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Any other discussions from the board members, starting with Ken? None. Shayna, Steve. Great. So that will close our discussion this evening on Article 28. We'll now move to Article 29, the Zoning Bylaw Amendment related to reduced height buffer. And I believe that there is some alternate language proposed by Steve Revillac. So Steve, I will turn it over to you first. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the alternate language, I'd like to address it in two parts. One is the changes to the paragraph in 5319A. And the second is changes to the table below. In terms of the paragraph itself, I liked what the staff recommendation, but my goal was to simply try to make it read a little easier. And that's without really changing the substance. So it's more about just wordsmithing than anything else. Now, in terms of the buffer distances, we had some conversations in the past as a board about what appropriate distances were. And I'm, and I'm basically suggesting to reduce it by 50%. And there's the rationale behind that goes like this. 5319A exists was added to our bylaw in 1975, wasn't a different number was number differently, but the substance of it, I think actually the language is the same. But the buffer distances were also the same. So 200 feet, 150 feet, 100 feet. Now, at the time, the bylaw allowed greater building heights. So the R7 District and B5 allowed 110 feet. And the PUD District allowed 200. Now, the each of those districts were down zoned in subsequent years. So in 1978, our seven was down zoned from maximum height of 110 feet to a maximum height of 60 feet. The planned unit development district was down zoned in 1982, and the maximum height reduced going from 200 feet to 80 feet. And the B5 district was down zoned in 1987, the maximum height going from 110 feet to 75 feet. Now, I tried to research all of the articles, sort of like the history behind these three events to see if there was discussion of adjusting the buffer zones. And I was, I was not able to find any. Now, given that the, you know, the change in the reductions in these, in these districts are between 32 and 60%. I'm suggesting a 50% reduction to a, make it around number and B to get the buffer distances more in line with what, what they were between 1975 and 1987. So basically, through successive changes, we introduced an internal consistency. And I think we're changing the buffers to a, you know, account for, you know, the, the, these three, you know, I jumped three down zonings in 1987, 82 and 87 would sort of like bring it back to what it was originally intended to be. Thank you. Thank you. Ken, we will start with you for discussion on the both the proposed language as well as Steve's proposed modifications. I'm in agreement with Steve's modifications. I think this just because the heights have been adjusted, I think the buffer zone should be adjusted the same, making more predictable so that it still follows saying a spirit of what was originally done. So I am finding this. Great, Shayna. I am also in agreement with Steve's adjustments. I appreciate the history, Steve, of, of where the height adjustments came from. And I think, I think your proposed adjustment to our buffer zone height adjustments is sensitive in the light of the history. I am definitely in favor of the first section. I think that, you know, the wording change certainly makes it clear and simpler to, to understand. Can you talk through again? I, I think here what you're saying with regard to the relative adjustment. Do you have concerns with the radar adjustment that was initially planned? Well, the one of the going back to our discussions, you know, the, the what was originally planned was proposed by a staff member who unfortunately, right, works for the town. No longer works for the town. No longer works for the town. I think I'd like staffs better, but I find I can, I actually like staffs better, but I can offer a stronger adjustment to the Asian. More of a rationalization for the other. I would ask, if you don't mind, Claire, if I could ask your opinion with regard to any examples you may have seen, or perhaps if something we could pull with regard to other towns or other communities that may have this type of provision and what what we are currently seeing as a, as a range that might help guide our discussion for our next evening. Because I appreciate the rationalization, but I also know that the initial recommendation came from some research. Unfortunately, I just went back to the initial memo, which was prepared. And I, I don't see that particular item called out in greater greater detail. So I think it would be helpful to just understand any other comments before we open up for public comment. Great. So this time, any member of the public wishing to speak regarding Article 29, if you could please raise your hand. Thanks. I guess a few comments in this first, I guess I wonder whether the changes even necessary. The bylaw already allows you the flexibility to waive the lower height requirement on making a finding that the higher height, the bigger height is not detrimental. And in addition, you know, a former town council has rendered the opinion that the redolent court can just ignore the zoning bylaw and a lot of violations if it wants to because you're so special as we don't. Now, I certainly don't agree with that opinion, as we know, but presumably you do because that opinion is still posted on your web page. So if you actually believe that, there's really no need for this change of law. But I'm just to appreciate this rebel acts history. I would also note, though, that this section of the bylaw has subsequently been amended since 1975, and presumably town meeting in the planning board at the time was aware of those reduced height since that was to where the law was referring to. I would say that, you know, if you're going to change the bylaw as it was originally proposed, you might as well just get rid of it completely. Because these these instances are so small, effectively, they provide no protection whatsoever. So my preference is that you leave it as is and don't do anything. If you aren't going to change it, I would do it as you know, as the rebel act has proposed. And to be honest, I'm not sure there's actually that much difference if you look at how the zoning works, where you have these types of parcels close to close to a residential area, lower number of districts. Thanks. Great. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wishing to speak on Article 29? Great. With that, we'll close public comment for Article 29. And I will just note that this is part of a group of bylaw modifications that the Redevelopment Board has taken on to make the process more predictive in terms of the way that we have been interpreting the bylaw. Any other comments related to that topic or this article? Kim? No, I think you have had them now. I know. Making a simpler and easier to go through these bylaws for a developer or a homeowner is the plan that we try to do. I think this does that. Shane, anything else? Steve? I agree with you. Over time, I would like to see the process being a less discretionary, more predictable. Fantastic. So let's see my agenda here. So that concludes tonight's items that we have on the public hearing for the Warren Articles for 2024 annual town meeting. We do have several more nights of hearings ahead of us, including deliberation and voting from the Redevelopment Board on these Warren Articles on the last night of our hearings. What I would like to see is that there is a motion to continue the open public hearing to the next scheduled date, which is it's next week to March 4th. Is there a motion? So motioned. Is there a second? Second. I will take a vote starting with Kim. Yes. Shayna? Yes. Steve? Yes. I am AS as well. So we will continue the open public hearing for the Warren Articles for Springtown meeting to Monday, March 4th. There are more zoning articles, aren't there? There are. And that's what we will hear at the meeting on the 4th. Okay. So they will come up? They will come up exactly. All but yes, I think all of the rest of them are scheduled for the 4th. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes. And then the meeting after that is when we will meet to deliberate. I think I can vote on the 18th. Thank you for the clarification on the schedule. Great. So thank you, everyone, for participating this evening in the open public hearing. The next item on our agenda is the site plan review, application and draft. And Claire, I will turn this over to you. I know that you and Jean have been working on this draft for review. Great. Thank you. Yeah. So Jean and I have been working on this application for site plan review. This is the third item to talk about with our proposed changes to the rules and regulations for the board. We've already discussed adding site plan review to your rules and regulations, making some slight changes to the sign the sign rules, allowing for a little more administrative approval or some latitude for the department to make those approvals. And then this is the third item, which is the application for site plan review. It's based pretty pretty much on the EDR application, as we already have it. Jean has made some changes to to provide a little more clarity and to really underline that this is a by right process. But that site plan review is still likely to require for most projects that we'll see under MBTA communities and we provide this draft for us to comment on this. Great. Thank you very much. Let's see. So let us start. I have a couple of comments. I'm sure the rest of you do as well. So perhaps what we could do is can if we would like to start with with you for any any comments you might have about the general structure and any specific modification to the text that you might want to chat about. I think this is a pretty good checklist. Good job. Thank you. Thank you, Jean, too. Hopefully, it's listening in. The only comment I have is near the end where it says sketch up a compatible model if required. To me is a little vague because it doesn't define what's required is the sketch of my own required or what what is the requirements for a sketch of model. So I think we want to expand on that a little bit and you can work through that a little better. But I was thinking of maybe saying like if a sketch of model is required to explain or demonstrate the project, if one is used, then that model should be submitted to us. If the project is small enough and it doesn't require one, then I'm not going to ask them for a sketch of model. That I was going to talk to the board about that. See what they think. Sure, let's take up that that item. I mean, I think the other question I would have for the board is, do we think we would require one for, and I'll use the MBTA communities overly just the multifamily overly district as an example, you know, would we are we looking to model as a town just originally we talked about the commercial corridor. So Bradley and Massab, would we require one or not? Would we want to specify that for the neighborhood sub districts, for example? Those are the kinds of questions I have, although, you know, again, to Kent's point, perhaps if we identify, you know, if if if a model is used again, part of me isn't crazy about that language because they use so many different visualization tools that can all be exported to SketchUp. So we kind of have to be careful about how we talked about visualization. I'm not sure how the worst meant that. But I agree that if required should be defined. Yes. So if we come up with something like that, and we off that topic, well, did you want to discuss it? Sure. Go through that topic and then we'll go to your next one. Yes. I have one more. That's it. OK, perfect. Sheena, that's on that topic. Well, I'm actually curious to the two architects on the board. If there's a threshold, I'm not sure if there's a type of project that in your mind becomes really useful to see the model. Like there are projects at the polls where it's kind of clear what is useful and necessary and what is not so necessary. But but is there in your mind a place where you would draw a line? Well, I'll give you some extremes. OK, if it's if it's an existing building that they used to be configuring to add more units in there, I really don't think that's required. But if there's a larger building and and massing, you want to see what that scale is, this will lead to my second comment later. But excuse me. Thank you. But I think it's I think it's going to be up to. I mean, it's so subjective that for us to say, here's the break point. I think we have to say that if a model is required to claim the project, then that model should give it to us. So we put it into the database. If it was not required, then we're not going to ask them to make. That's that's what I was trying to elaborate on. If required, because who's going to say what's required? So I don't know how exactly words would. Well, I think that's what I'm what I'm getting at, is who's going to say what's required? I made a note. Sketch of compatible compatible model, if available, or a question, you know, where do we want it required? Maybe the model is required for mass out in Broadway. We would think, you know, what those those presentations, you know, and folks who come in with projects on those two streets often have models available. We could also put it as part of the pre application review and just ask the question, do you plan on submitting or making a 3D model, in which case, could we have to file? We don't if you present one. If we present one, we need it. So maybe the sketch of make the conversation about the sketch of model happens in the pre pre application with staff that we talked about earlier. I think that's a great idea because it sets the expectation that they're handing it over as opposed to at the at the end, which is currently where the discussion happens, you know, that we then requested at the end and it's harder to harder to ensure that we typically receive that file. We can put it on the checklist of materials that we would look at in a pre application review. Here you go. I'm OK with that. Great. Steve? I've done nothing. Well, nothing on nothing on the on the top. It's Mr. Wildbraiths. I do have a small change. OK, great. You had a second one. Yes, on the drawings of a pole structure a little further up, I think the next page up 30 of 36. Here's the point there where it says elevation of each exterior facade of each building. I want to say that the elevations of the building should include the surrounding buildings. So you're not just showing your building, but you're showing the building next door to it, adjacent to it. Behind it. So you see it in context. People don't. I'm not asking to draw the whole thing out, but enough so that you can use that to base the scale and portions of what you're putting here. Because otherwise, unless you know that thing intimately, it forces us to go look in Google and walk sites and everything else for that. Did I miss that somewhere? Well, I don't remember for where it says drawings from one or more prominent public vantage point illustrating how the proposed project will appear within the context of its surroundings. Is that does that address your comment? Or are you specifically looking for it in elevation? I'm specific to one in elevation. OK, that's fair. You can you can play many tricks. I think how you put one of you you're selecting and how it is when you actually see the true elevation and how they line up and don't line up. That's that's when it's the road. So I see what you saying are saying specifically with the immediately adjacent properties. However, I think we would need to ensure that they would have access to being able to to pull the specific height information. You know, again, if we're asking them to show that in elevation, part of the reason why they show it, you know, they make certain assumptions in in the modeling tools. Some of that would be public data and they certainly could could pull that. But that's just one item I wanted to bring up is that could be harder information to accurately portray. Unless we are fine with it being a close. I'm not going to ask them to show me a simple cornice or a single brick line or anything else. But if you show that, you know, the building setbacks here is a porch here or, you know, that kind of passing. A lot of elevations come up. There's just their building and this show the building next door. I just want to make sure that we are actually looking at adjacent buildings where this building fits in. So it's not, you know. And knowing that it's a adjacent building has a bunch of windows or no windows in it or something like that. It would influence how you look at how it fits in the neighborhood. You know, I don't care if it's four inches off or eight inches this way. Let's get a feel for what's what's next to it. I think it's I think which any good doctor would do. Anyways, just look at the buildings next door. Great. Any other? Well, those are my two things. Those are your two things. All right. Thank you very much, Gina. So just a few things. On the first page in the in the first bullet point, read the definitions of site plan review as a break. So so if you search, if you go into the document into the zoning byline, search site plan review and as of right, nothing comes up. And I know it sounds silly, right? One should know what does as of right. But if you have a small developer during four units or something, I wonder if there's somewhere we could point them to, somewhere that already exists that we could point them to, throw in a link. Because it does refer to it's not actually what it's actually to. Would a definition just help? Yeah, definition would help. Just put the definition of what? Yeah, that's the right means. Or or even just say to them, this is this is not. This is just site plan review, not talking about some special definition for the Arlington Zone. This is just site plan, you know, little, little footnote. This is term of art, not not Arlington zoning, special definition. And then they can go forward and go over this. You know, almost everything else in here, if you search in the zoning byline, find it in the zoning byline. I think an inexperienced developer might get stuck trying to find site plan in the bylaw. So there was that. There were just tiny things, a few places where it says scene number seven, four day the number seven item two application to be provided four days before the public hearing. Do calendar or business days. Pops up a couple of other places. The appeal period and work period runs business. Oh, on the checklist on the checklist under residential and commercial units described number location size of residential units, if affordable units. If any, so that we don't run into some of the trouble we had with the previous developers if we want to clarify that affordable units need to meet standards for inclusion on SHI, that is how I know, I think that was all I had. Thank you. Steve. I'd actually like, I have a small followup on this form of use in comments. Yes. Perfect. So regarding kudos for searching the definitions, I just checked section references. Yeah, I did as well. And that was the only one that didn't pop up. Of course it didn't pop up. But the, well, the, I believe that the more narrative we passed to institutes multi-family zoning for section 3A had definitions in it and they just haven't been incorporated with the bylaw. But I mean, I take, but your point is very well taken. Because we're still waiting for that approval from. Yeah, and if it's not in the, and if it's not in what Tom being adopted, a little explainer would be. Yeah. My only, overall I thought, this was a very nice sort of like guided process. And I really appreciate that. One small little thing in the first page, the second paragraph, for more information about site climber, view and other zoning requirements, refer to the Arlington zoning bylaw and the rules and regulations of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. The hypermix a little messed up. So it's, I had to consider breaking it up into two Arlington zoning bylaw to as a link to the zoning bylaw and rules and regulations. Yeah, to the other one. I know that that makes two lengths to the zoning bylaw on the first page, but I don't think the redundancy will be a problem. And finally kudos for including the mention of the bicycle parking guidelines. Thank you. Great, thank you. I had a couple of items. One just a formatting item, the third paragraph on the first page, ending to be a period and not a, not a problem. Let's see, on page two, number five, where it talks here, the last sentence on five starts for larger projects. DPCD may also skip the meeting. Do we want to define larger projects? I think that is, that's again a question for the board. I would be happy. I think we probably should, unless we are going to just say for projects on the last avenue. Great. Since those will be the larger projects. That was a question I had. It could be with regard to size, number of units, it could be the projects within the commercial corridor, because right now those are the projects or the areas in town where those larger projects are permitted. We don't have to solve that tonight, but it's a discussion I thought we should have. Steve. Well, I'd like to ask Ms. Ruger, in terms of when you get together like the fire department and health and human services and the police department to all look at an application, how big does it have to be? Generally it's, I think we're talking about things that are probably 20 units or more. Please. Can we just make it part of the determination from the pre-application meeting with the planned department saying that at your pre-application meeting. The DPCD will determine whether and how we need to. Go to the lunch. Yeah. Because it's mandatory to go to the pre-meeting no matter what. Correct. And then it can be determined in discussion, then you explain why it's falling over the big one or not falling over the big one. And you have a little more leadway, where it's not that way. Yeah, just a point of clarification. It is not, the pre-meeting is not required for everything, for those projects with four units or under. It is not required, but those wouldn't fall under this anyway. I just want to make sure we can clarify that for those listening. Yes. Okay, great. So I think that makes a lot of sense that at the pre-meeting, the department of planning and community development will determine whether a town developer or a PT meeting is required. Perfect. Right. Just administratively, under number two, I wanted Claire, do you want them to go all through you? Is this the best way for this to happen or is there a more administrative intake process that you might want to think about? It's just a question for you. No, I appreciate that lightly as talk of staff. Okay, great. I have no opinion one way or the other on that. I just wanted to make sure your hand overlapped. Can I change that a little bit? Yeah, please. At least talk about it. I was thinking maybe we just, we still call it the director of the department but not give your name because this is going to be here for a while. That's true. We love you, too. You are too, but I'm not trying to put you out here. Not close to that, okay? But if we just said the director of the department and then say the phone number if you can be found online on the website and then we can send the email and then this way here, there's nothing really personal to you. Yes. It's the position you hold. Sure. And then you just determine. Again, or whomever or if it's project, the department and there's more general matter that you would like to use. Because you need to put your home number there, you know? Okay. Number seven, we explain how they are going to present their proposal to the ARB. So the first item where it talks about the staff memo to the ARB, do we need to define what that is or do we feel that that's clear that they are going to write a memo based on their pre-meeting, et cetera? I'm just trying to think this through with somebody who's using this document. We know what that means because we sit here and we receive them. That was a question I had for the board. Do we think that needs to be further defined? I think if we just add something in there, I think we're at a good point. I think if the memo, the purpose of the memo is to say that it falls under all, the memos will state that it meets all the requirements. It doesn't, there's no ask for forgiveness because they can't, if they have to ask for it for any relief, then it's not a special permit. It's a special permit. It's not as as a right. So all that memo says is it meets all the requirements and that's what this memo would be about. If we had something like that there, would that clarify it? That's fine with me. Again, I think it would be just clearer to the applicants if they understood what that was. If someone was looking at the project, this is the staff will create a memo saying it meets all the requirements and that's what you guys would do at the pre-meeting. Or summarizing the pre-meeting findings or something like that. Okay, let's see. The next item I had was item number four where we were to specify, so in item number two, we do not specify how much time the applicant will have to present at the meeting, which I think is fine because depending on the size of the project, we sometimes give them 10 minutes, sometimes 15. I would like to take that same approach with number four and not identify how much time each person will have under public comment because, again, depending on how many people come out and what is on the agenda, sometimes we allow two minutes, sometimes we allow three minutes. So I think perhaps if we identify attendees will receive an allotment of time to each speak about your application or will have the opportunity to each speak about your application without identifying the time that would maintain some of the flexibility that we needed to use in the past. And number five, where it says the ARB will deliberate on the request to no concession, I think we need the application. In section number eight, the second line, I think the word will is missing after DPCD staff will file with the town clerk. Okay, the next page, the required submittals checklist. So we're saying that this is the submittal checklist, but then we also at the very beginning tell them to go to the website for the full list of required submittals. Is that different than what's on this list? I don't believe so, but it's worth either eliminating or checking. Yes, if we could, that would be great. You agree to eliminate it? Yeah, so that it's just, here's what you need. Okay, the next, I'm sorry, I went deep on this. Sorry for all the interviews. I read a lot of policies at work, so in that mode today, the impact statement. We include the requirement for a lead checklist here, and then also, where else, where was that? Where was that? On the next page, under sustainable building and site design elements, it also requires a lead checklist and narrative for EDR criteria now. I personally like to have an item live only in one place, so I think we should decide, and I think I'd leave that up to you in the department based on where you think it will be most visible, and likely to be, likely to be adhered to, because this is something that we sometimes have an issue with them, actually producing. So, whether it lives in the under impact statement or under sustainable building and site design elements, I personally feel it should just live in one place. Okay, okay, let's talk about the SketchUp model. One item we don't have in here that I think, to me, as a board member, would be helpful, is if they are going to pursue any bonus provision under the MBTA community's guidelines, the multi-family guidelines, I think I would want them to state which provision and provide the relative documentation for that bonus provision. So I don't know if any of you have any, or the members of the board have any thoughts on that. Steve, unless I missed where that is. Well, on the actual applications, so this would be age seven of it. Item number six, unless any waivers or bonuses be requested. Thank you, okay, that addresses it. You can ignore that. Me. And then my last item was on the dimensional and parking information. So all of the footnotes here refer back to the underlying zoning. However, we are specifically creating this process for the MBTA community's, the Overlay District, which in which case many of the minimum requirements are specifically non-applicable per the section we just provided. So that includes minimum log size, frontage, floor area ratio, percentage of log coverage, block area per dwelling unit, and the open space requirements. So I'm wondering whether or not we need to rethink some of the footnotes or provide a general footnote under the, where it says Minermax required by zoning for proposed use at the top of that column. If perhaps there is a footnote there that speaks to the elimination of those requirements by that section of the zoning code. So we're going to get the board's feedback on that. Steve? Yeah, I could see where someone would get tripped up. Like for example, I'm quite certain that nothing in the MBTA, the Overlay, places a restriction on log area per dwelling unit, but we use it all over the place elsewhere in the bylaw. Correct. And so yeah, I think calling out requirements in four, you know, since this is predominantly for multi-family housing, I think calling out requirements in section 594 first. Yeah, I looked it up earlier. I don't remember off the top of the page. Yeah, but in the MBTA, in the multi-family zone and then sort of falling back and then list the, you know, non-MBTA section separately. So your, well, second. So you're suggesting in the existing footnotes to list the MBTA communities provision first and then or the underlying zoning, the other or to create a general footnote where these are not applicable? Yeah, I guess part of it might be, some of these might be useful to know for context, like for example, the first footnote talks about FAR and I believe we don't have FAR restrictions. Correct, the first five, we do not have restrictions. Right, but I don't know if having that piece of information might be useful for board members. Although if there are, I don't know, if the, to the extent where something is not regulated, maybe there's not a, maybe it's not, you don't need to have the applicant fill out a form. Right, I mean, that's really the question, right? You could approach it a couple different ways. You could add another column that identifies which, you know, that has the heading of, you know, NBTA communities don't really disturb where these are non-clickable so that it's clear if you wanted them to fill them out anyway. You know, in a sense, but at the same time again, our whole point is trying to make this easier for them. So would we want to have them go through that exercise or not? And I, Jane, I'd be interested in your opinion on that. If we're not, if we're not going to use the information to assess the project, why are we asking? And that's kind of, that was kind of my thought for whether it belongs in the column itself in terms of the footnote identifying the areas where it specifically is not required if you are using the provisions of the overlay district so that they are very clear that they do not need to fill out those sections. As opposed to just adding it to the existing footnotes because there were more actually than the existing footnotes. If it's not required in this chart. Again, we're setting this up so that it can be used for potentially other uses in the future and not just, it's my understanding and not just the NBTA. I know, but I think that makes it too hard. I don't agree that if the FAR is not a requirement for the NBTA communities, we should not ask for it. And just leave it out. We can always add it back in later on if you use it for someone else. But just because you want to make this one chart work for everything, it won't work the easiest or the best because it's trying to fit too many criterias. I don't know, that's my belief, okay? I believe if it's not required, don't put it there. Because they don't need to. And they're not going to follow one footnotes there and they go down here and say, okay. And they go back and say, oh, this is not required for the NBTA. Someone's got to, you know, it's, I just think it's making it so much easier for someone who's, you know, agree with you. If we are going to have just one chart, I think Rachel, your idea about having the column that says don't fill out this line if, you know, you don't have the NBTA community. I think footnotes are not sufficient. I think Ken is right now. It's too hard to refer up and down from up, but. I mean, the other thing we could do is we could, you know, basically lightly gray those six, there are six sections out and basically identify, you know, for those projects pursuing section, you know, 5.9.4. The section related to NBTA communities overlay district. You know, these fields are not required or something. That's another way we can, that way the chart is the same and it's very clear. Don't fill that out. Less comfortable, but I'm okay with it. Okay, I rather not have one chart used for everything. You know, I'm always not, you know, simple with gutter. Again, I think that that just comes to, are we going to use site plan review for things up? Right now I think the only place that we currently have this identified is in that section, but we have talked about potentially using that in the future. So we could edit this application in the future if we did want to do that. Yeah, I could go either way and I, you know, first, I could leave it up to the department to, you know, figure out what you won't feel as best as well. So I don't believe we have Jean send an email before the meeting when he mentioned he wasn't going to be able to be here. We haven't in the past voted to approve application. Materials, because those are typically used by the department. We give feedback, we don't necessarily know that we need to vote on this, but I think if there are additional items as we continue to use this that we certainly could provide feedback. That's helpful. So I think next steps are we've discussed these three items and what we'll do is we have to post a hearing notice if you all are going to vote to change your rules and regulations. So as soon as we can post the hearing notice that you'll look at your rules and regulations, you'll have another opportunity to talk about these again and we can provide a different draft at that point and then at that point you'll vote to change your rules and regulations. I'm thinking that will be one of the first meetings of people I think at this point is where we are. So you would include this in the rules and regulations vote. That's what you're saying. Okay. We can do it that way. That'll work. Okay, one more thing or at least three more things for us to talk about. Under on page four, drawings of the full structures, second to last bullet point. It says graphic information showing facade materials and color samples. Back in the day, we used to actually said if you want to bring in materials. Color and materials. After samples of materials, this is the brief where they actually bring in samples and then COVID hit and then we went with teams and nobody brought in anything anymore. We need to start seeing that stuff again. We've had too many miscommunications or we'll call them charitably miscommunications. So if we add somehow how do you want to word bringing samples of materials, it'd be helpful. The color and material, just add in material, right? Facade materials, graphic information showing facade materials and color and material samples. Because that requires business sample board, definitely. Yes, but we used to have that back in the day. Yeah, I agree. I think especially for a larger project that is important. It's nice. Yeah. I mean, I think if you say color and material samples, they'll either bring a large format or, well, you don't have to say a sample board. In some ways it's actually better not to because then you get sometimes a larger brick mock-up or something like that, so we always do. Don't you do that? Depends on the project. And I actually had one more thing, which is a very small thing. Page three, section eight, the second sentence. I think there's a tense change in the middle of the sentence. Oh yeah. Future and then, correct. Notifies should just be, or will send should be sense. Yeah. Okay, anything else? Good job. Yeah, thank you so much for putting this together. This is really good. Good. All right, that it closes agenda item number three and will now move to agenda item number four, open forum. So if there's anyone who wishes to speak this evening, please raise your hand. Okay, we'll close open forum and move to agenda item number five, new business. So I'll turn it over to Claire for any new business. Great, yes. So I have two to three new business items. One is that we did ultimately receive a letter of compliance for the NBTA Communities District. Congratulations. Good job. EOHLC. The letter, right after I had spoken to some members of the board about EOHLC's intentions and they did ultimately issue a letter of compliance with conditions, which I will bring in, we will go over that letter as a board at a future meeting. Second is we did receive a letter from DOER about the fossil fuel free pilot program. And we are given the letter of compliance from EOHLC for NBTA Communities. We are eligible for the fossil fuel free bylaw. We've got that letter a few days after EOHLC letter. The third thing is that our economic feasibility analysis has been completed. It is determined that our inclusionary zoning may be applied in NBTA Communities Overland Zone. That information has been submitted to EOHLC for review, but I think the language that we put in the bylaw language says if it is determined that our economic feasibility analysis allows for the inclusionary zone to be applied, then it shall be. And so it shall be. Great, that was really good news to get. So those are the three items of new business I have tonight. Oh, the night when we have good news to you. Yeah, fantastic. That's wonderful. And I'm sure that everybody who is participatory in the town will be excited to hear that we are close. I'm just so thank you so much. Just kind of, did you say we've submitted our economic feasibility to the study or that EOHLC accepted it? It has been submitted via email to EOHLC. They are in the process of reviewing. Oh, so they're still reviewing? They're still reviewing. Fantastic. So I have one item. We had discussed as a board next steps with potentially a joint meeting with the select board. And I mentioned that I was going to follow up with the select board chair, which I did. We talked about the items that we had identified as potential topics of interest for both the select board and the development board. And I think the one that they initially feel felt the most strongly about us, really having a good working session around is one that we've also identified we need to have a working session around, which is the issue of parking, parking, parking, parking. So what we discussed was potentially a joint meeting in the early summer or the early fall, given that the on street parking pilot program is concluding in June. So they will have data at that point to be able to discuss the issue of not only on street parking, but parking in general, because we know that that will come up when I assume we will see again the affordable housing overlay district proposal. We had identified that parking was something we were going to need to address there. We also identified that the residential parking provisions in terms of the alternate compliance path for requesting reduction in completely blanking on the GDM. Thank you. TDM, the TDM requirements needed to be reviewed again and that we needed to potentially add more creative and achievable items to the residential parking list. And so I think a joint meeting where we check through some of the parking implications would be beneficial for both bodies. So great. Any other thoughts? Ken, I see you running. Yes, I have maybe two more topics. They put it on the list. If they want to talk about it, we can't not. One was about a science person. So we get some sort of funding. We did speak about that. And I know that Claire was planning on talking to Director Champa, as well as the town manager, and they committed that they would talk to the town manager about that position as well. So we'll just leave that one off, if they have some other thing. No, I mean, I think that that's something that maybe, maybe something that the discussion starts before we wind up meeting. And so depending on whether that goes to the 2024 annual budget or not, that would dictate whether or not we have that discussion. I mean, if that moves forward for town meeting this year, that's one path and we would need to put it on the table. But if it doesn't, I agree with you. I think we should continue that conversation. Okay. And then my second one was, and I'm not sure of the, I'm just running this by the board here, but this is my own thing right now is, you know, there's talk about tree canopy and hot spots and stuff like that. And people are right now using that to say, we should put in all developments and stuff like that. I don't think that's enough or that puts too much burden on development. We've got to start talking about maybe having some islands. So where we have, it's not parking everywhere on all streets, but we could start including some tree islands that happens in the parking spaces. And does the town want to do that? Because that's where you really going to get the big bang for the buck, get the tree canopy in there that everybody's talking about. And that's where you have to address there. That's the low hanging fruit, I believe. Not trying to squeeze the extra tree here there in the parking lot. And then also, we talked about, and they started this program of having where they call those rain gardens and the corners of the street. I don't know what happened to that. You know, they built a couple and I like them. I think they're good. If you charge this groundwater, it adds greenery at the corners. It brings the streets closer so you don't cross such wider streets. It's, yeah, I think it's a win-win everywhere. And they did a study on it on saying what the most economical way of doing that was. And then they sort of died. I just want to bring that back up again, you know. My understanding that was a grant program. Yeah, I don't know. So just to add on the parking, CBL section 6-1-10 and 6-1-11, 6-1-10 in particular needs help. It's difficult to understand, even if you've read it a whole bunch of times. To go with the, like sort of a general version of what Mr. Lau is saying, Somerville not too long ago did a curb management plan. So this is basically the city looking at all of the space, curbside space it's using for parking, what else it could be used for and where it's appropriate for some of those other uses. So it could be like how we're dining, it could be planting areas, it could be rain gardens, it could be bike lanes, it could be short-term loading zones. I think that would, at least in our central business districts would be worth looking at. But I agree in terms of, in terms of like increasing the tree canopy. Yeah, we, places where we have excess parking should be, it's a big place to talk about converting that to. I'd like to at least start the dialogue, okay? And just not this. At that level that we're talking about, we can follow through, and I would like your support and funding. Great, Shayna, any thoughts, no other thoughts, great. I'll just, I was just going through my notes, one other topic that I did bring up, Claire was the topic of alcohol licensing and how that may be an impediment to development. So I think they were looking for more information on specific challenges that the planning department may have encountered and thoughts on what types of modifications would unlock the potential of some of the sites that we've been challenged with at the time. That's a good one. When I moved there, there was a dry towel. I'm also trying to find a time for Katie Lusai to come and introduce herself to you all. She's the new economic development director. Great, she's been working on some of the adult alcohol things. Perfect, that's all I have. All right, any other new business? All right, is there a motion to adjourn? So motion. Say a second. Second. Take a vote, starting with Steve. Yes. Shayna? Yes. Ken? Yes. And me as well, speaking as adjourned.