 Good evening, everybody. This is the meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm Pat Hamlin. I'm the vice chair of the board and I've been designated chair for tonight's meeting. So I'm calling this meeting to order. It is now 7.32 p.m. I ask all attendees who are not recognized to speak to please mute their connection until such time as they're recognized by the chair. To start with, I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. We'll start with the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Christian Klein. Present. Roger Dupont. Here. Daniel Rickardelli. Here. Venkat Holy. Here. Elaine Hoffman. Here. Adam LeBlanc. Here. And with the town officials is Colleen Ralston, the administrative assistant of the board here. Here. Thank you, Colleen. Outside council, Paul Haverty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Paul. And the board's peer review consultants, Sean Reardon. Here, good evening, everybody. Good evening, Sean. Appearing for the applicant, I'm only going to go through the council and the applicant's leader. Mary Lynn Stanley O'Connor, are you here? Here. Thank you, Mary. And Erica Schwartz. Here. Mary, would you like to introduce your team? Sure. I'll introduce the people that are going to speak this evening to Mr. Reardon's report. I think that makes the most sense. Yes. We have Erica Schwartz, who is the executive director of the Housing Corporation. But tonight, we have representatives of UTIL, Rachel Ayn and Nick Yerins, and Jeffrey Pallott from Sammy Otis, who will speak to the site Civil Matters, referenced in Mr. Reardon's report. Right. So that gets to the end of that list. Next, this is an open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, being conducted remotely, consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide for a whole bunch of things, which I'm not going to read to you tonight. This act includes an extension until March 31st, 2025 of the remote meeting of provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided by us during the public comment period during each public meeting. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted on the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, others by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care not to share any personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask that you please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the meeting's agenda or the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. There's only one matter on our agenda tonight, a continuation of the public hearing on the request for a comprehensive permit at 10 Sunnyside Avenue. So we're now going to turn to that comprehensive hearing. In the past, I've usually begun these sessions by observing that there'll be many other sessions down the road and you'll have lots and lots of time to address the various matters that come up. Now, however, we're approaching the end of the road, and tonight will be the last session that's devoted generally to developing the factual record of this case. Our next meeting, which is scheduled for August 15th, will primarily focus on the language of a draft comprehensive permit, although it may be necessary to resolve a few outstanding issues. Barring unforeseen circumstances will close the public hearing in this case at the end of that meeting. The record will remain open for written comments until the hearing is closed. Once the hearing is closed, the board will begin the deliberations phase. It cannot receive any new information from the applicant, the town, the public, its consultant, or anyone else. It will, of course, include discuss the deliberations with Mr. Havardy, who as our legal advisor is the principal draftsman of the board's decision. Legally, the board is required to render a decision within 40 days of the closing of the public hearing. If in fact we close on August 15th, our decision will be due no later than Sunday, September 24th. So tonight we'll be taking up the comments submitted by the board's peer review consultant, Sean Reardon, whom we introduced himself earlier, primarily on the civil aspects of the proposal. Those comments are in the record as well as the applicant's submissions responding to them and a number of updated plans and other documents. I've asked Mr. Reardon to provide an overview and touch on several specific comments that might benefit from discussion tonight. After Mr. Reardon has introduced his comments, Mr. Connor will have a chance to present the applicant's response, presumably as sort of the mistress of ceremonies for the team response she described before. And we'll again focus on the matters that are important to discuss at this hearing. And also on my understanding is that there are a number of there's a new waiver list that has been provided and Mr. Connor may wish to describe that to the board as well as some additional information that was requested at prior meetings. So following the opening presentations, the floor will be open to questions and comments by the board. After that the usual public hearing followed by board comments again and questions going into the last meeting. And then I anticipate that we'll continue this hearing to August 15th. And with all that, let me turn to Sean and let you get to the really interesting part of the meeting. The first time I've ever heard it referred to as that, but I'll do my best. So again, my name is Sean Reardon. I'm the board's consultant review consultant on matters related to sort of the technical features of the design and traffic related matters. What we did is we reviewed all the submittals and prepared a comment letter addressing, you know, just not so much areas of concern, but just areas that maybe warrant some further attention going forward so that they don't get lost before this project goes to say a building permit or something like that. So what we did is we listed all our comments and in all of those comments, we felt were addressable without compromising the project or creating any fundamental changes in the project. So really they're just items that we would envision being captured as part of future revisions that would happen before a building permit submission. So for the purposes of the board's review, we didn't see anything that constituted a level of concern that would warrant sort of delaying any closure of the public hearing if they chose to do so. But some of the main points were just to go through the order that they occur on the letter. Item number three was probably one of our first significant concerns and that has to do with the drain line that the project ties into and relies on for discharging its runoff. It's a little bit unclear as to where the drain line ends and what it serves and how it gets to the public way. Right now the point of connection is a manhole that exists on an adjacent parcel. So we just wanted some confirmation that that's a public manhole. The applicant provided some record drawings from the engineering department that showed it's part of the town's drainage infrastructure. So what we're presuming is they have the town has prescriptive rights for it that if there's no formal easement, certainly there's rights that are granted just by it being there for so long. One of the things that we did note in the documentation that was submitted was that it does show that drain line extending to provide service to the parcel behind the development parcel. And the record information shows the drain going up the adjacent property but there's the survey drawing for the project doesn't show that pipe. So our concern is there's a pipe that heads towards the project site that we just want to make sure that in sort of cutting off that pipe that the the project confirms that it doesn't serve another parcel before they do so. And then if it did there's really no significant hurdle for diverting the pipe around their building that the project has you know at least five or six feet on either side of the building so there's more than enough room to divert a drain line if they needed to. Going on what we we hit on this at the last hearing was about the sort of the lack of detail on sort of the construction management methodologies and you know how they're going to deal with building such a not a large building but a building that comprises most of the site and I thought the applicants developer builder gave a really good summary about what they planned to do and how they plan to handle those things and the project is committed to doing a construction management plan as part of the building permit filing. I thought that was appropriate and one of the big distinctions between this site and the prior project that we assisted on on Mass Ave is you know this this road is a very very low volume road so certainly none of the same concerns that we have out at Mass Ave so I think the methodology described by the applicants representative seemed appropriate and don't see any reason why that wasn't those the issues that we thought about were unsolvable. Going on we had some concern about you know how the walls would be demolished and managed given that they retain slopes on the on the abutting parcels the construction manager also pointed out that you know that's something they'd have to be worked out with the adjacent property owners and that seemed appropriate. We just in each case we just recommended the condition in the board's decision that just you know holds the project to doing those things before any building permit gets issued. You emergency vehicles were something we looked at too again in this case a little bit different than 1010 mass or 1025 Mass Ave this building is relatively small it doesn't have a big depth dimension to it and again low volume street it's on so it's nothing that we saw that would sort of represent a sort of a prohibitive condition to the fire department adequately accessing the site also both of the property on all three sides it has either parking or open area so really easy to access from adjacent process if they needed to. Going on we talked about a concern for or at least a little bit better understanding of how loading and unloading would happen at the site given that there's really no street side parking and no set aside space within the garage for loading or unloading but don't think it's unreasonable that most of that could happen street side I'm sure that street is pretty used to people queuing in it temporarily either to get service at the prior establishment that was here or the adjacent one so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that whatever needed to happen short term could happen right along the curb and traffic would just get around it if it was something longer term than the applicant we would presume would would go to the town and and look for a temporary lane closure or something like that which again because of the low volumes on sunny sunny side it I don't think that would be a problem either um and it goes through we talked a bit a little bit briefly about the garage door and its placement relative to the street so we noticed on the plan that the garage door was close to the edge of the layout line or edge of the property line which would force that if a car had to stop at the door it would likely its rear end would likely be in the street again not a not a high risk or a high um a high sensitivity area because of the the low volumes on the road and I think in a prior conversation the applicant was telling us that the door placement was in response to some prior concerns about not creating a sort of an alcove where people could hide so we thought it was appropriate that you know that that they take the measures that they did where the door was closer to the street thereby preventing sort of someone from hiding out in a darker space on such a low volume roadway we asked for some information about water and sewer demands the applicant provided some of that we haven't reviewed at all but we anticipate it's going to be fine there were some minor changes to sewer routing and and drain routing that we asked which were I think were cleaned up and some minor changes to some grading oh we also we were provided some additional um stormwater analysis that was probably the bigger change in our comment letter we were struggling a bit with the the infiltration system that was being proposed underneath the building traditionally infiltration systems aren't sort of accepted underneath buildings but in this case we look back at some of the old historical photos that showed the site was completely paved back in 2019 so we suggested to the applicant that they consider revising their analysis to reflect that and thereby the project would actually result in a net decrease in impervious surface so the the need for that whole infiltration system went away um which we're sort of happy to see and um and the drawings now reflect that um and I think aside from some minor comments related to sort of references to drawings and some elevations I um were pretty comfortable with where the plan sit right now and that any outstanding items can certainly be handled in a in a condition of approval great thank you Sean Mr. Connor this is your time to thank you thank you thank you first of all I want to thank Mr. Reardon for so quickly getting out his peer review report and for Mr. Reardon Mr. Hanlon's taking the time to review it with the team and I want to thank the zoning board for their work on this project let me say that you have a number of submissions that Rochelle and Nick and Jeff will go over but I wanted to review a couple of things I want to talk about the issue with respect to the the sidewalk beyond the project site this development is 100 affordable and is public funds there is no extra money for my client to do anything outside the project the four corners of the project this is not your typical 40b where we have 15 percent of the units that are affordable and the rest market rate so that is not a possibility here um the I wanted to talk to about the the waiver list you have a revised waiver list and that waiver list primarily was revised for two reasons one to show that the parking space requirement is one space per unit under the bylaw and I had had 1.5 in there from under the old bylaw the other thing is I did put a waiver request in there to waive the requirement for the storm compliance with the Arlington storm water bylaw I put that in there I really don't think that it needs to be a waiver because my reading of the Arlington storm water bylaw from April of 2022 is that this project is exempt from it and I will tell you why the bylaw requires that a project comply a new development if there's an increase in impervious surface of 350 square feet or more what is actually happening here is there is an increase substantially in previous space here so I do not think that the bylaw the storm water bylaw applies here but we have put that waiver in there just in case so I will turn this over now to Rochelle to review the submissions the submissions address what Mr. Reardon's comments in the peer review as well as the board's questions over the past couple of years Rochelle thank you Mary I was specifically going to address a couple of questions that had come up prior about shadow study and height delta shall I start there or should we continue to address Mr. Reardon some comments well whatever you think best go right ahead all right I'll share screen with regard to the question of tabulating data over the year for the shadow the solar exposure onto 43 Michael street we had done analysis so what you're seeing here is the existing condition and in the graph over on the right you'll see on the x-axis are the months and on the y-axis monthly incident solar radiation yielding 1490 kilowatt hours per square meter years year and then with a proposed development you'll see that number decreased to 1486 which represents a overall change of less than 0.003 percent and there's a bit of a further breakdown if that helps over to the right just addressing around the months because the area of concern was the solstice so we're looking from November to January and we're really not see there's there's really no effect on the other months so that's the description of existing to new we had a question on the delta between the building that is being proposed in 27 Broadway with 27 Broadway we'd like to note that the height is estimated based on observation what we're estimating approximately 188 and then lastly there was a question about the single egress from the second floor let me show this again you the second floor roof deck there's a single egress out to the community room we just want to point out that during our presentation to town officials we had not received any you know contrary feedback to that proposal and in reviewing the code it's a compliant we did on recommendation of the board reach out to ISD to get a confirmation we're still awaiting a response we haven't heard back yet but we have initiated that discussion anything else for shell i think that will be it from you too i'm going to invite jeffrey to speak about the site issues okay sure jeffrey pilots samoyota's consultants for the civil engineer on the project um shone covered the the the comments the main the main comments um that we've been working with him um over the past week or so um we've done a site we've had a map from our team do a site observation on the sewer appears that is a eight inch and not a six inch main out in the street and it's flowing at about one third our calculations show that it's about two percent of the flow that's going in there so we should be good on capacity um the MEP provided the the water and sewer calyx from the site um let's see what other major items the drainage system we've removed the infiltration system changed that mini dry well to a solid cover regraded that uh those both those biking areas so there's no ponding issues potential ponding issues in the within the garage um and then just like mary said you know we've gone through the bylaw and uh it due to the decrease in impervious area it does not appear that we trigger the storm water uh permit however we've included the um the waiver request uh just in case if the town engineer was requesting it um that's included with the package uh there's photos and videos of uh both that catch basin and the sewer manhole as part of the package um the catch basin does show all three connections as the two on the survey and then the one that wraps around the rear of the building and the the sewer shows that trough and the the flow going through it on a weekend assuming that's a that's a good time to capture that I think that captures everything from the peer review letter anything else that Sean can think of uh willing to answer any questions at the moment mr chair if I could ask a couple quick questions mr ruden um so thanks jeff I appreciate that work now the one third vote you did I didn't see all of the documentation you referenced yet I looked through most of the stuff but was what what time of day was that you recall uh I'd have to ask Matt he's on that he's on the call right and then was there ever any visual evidence of surcharge in that structure at all not from the photos now okay and then the drain line that you referenced you said so um you did find a third pipe in there heading um up the the that side lot okay correct we have the uh the ten inch pvc that's heading towards our site that we're proposing to connect into yeah and then we have the ten inch that wraps around the rear of the property with which appears to connect to a butters garage uh which is the another ten inch and then we have the uh the line that's leaving the system and then ultimately discharging to a bank out on sunny side avenue yeah based okay so that that was that that addresses my biggest concern which was you know is that is that drain line that's extending onto your property serving anybody else and based on what you just said it I doubt it is so that's good thank you verify from the uh the timing the timestamp on the photographs but I believe I was there about between four and five p.m. on sunday when I when I pop the two manual covers thank you mr. Hosser yeah thanks man Sean do you have anything else nope okay so Connor is there anything else that you want your team to cover not at this point great so it's time for board comments is there anybody on the board has any questions or comments on what you've just heard mr. chairman mr. depart so as I was looking through this response this afternoon I noted that at least in one place there was a reference to the layout of the parking spaces and and I believe mr. Reardon had suggested spaces being redesigned and I just wanted to understand a little bit better about what that entails and is that just something where you know there can just be some agreement later on down the line and those things are easily tended to or is that something that is a major concern now I know it wasn't raised when mr. Reardon just went through his summary so but I just want to know are those references to parking spaces something that are sort of easily handled in a matter of course I think that's an accurate way to put it and we actually suggested a means to doing so and just to help understand that there's like two or three spaces in the garage that that lack sort of ideal access to them so our our solution or a suggested consideration is to just you mark that as as as compact spaces so the shortcomings of the layout you are only really a problem for for larger vehicles if you designate them as compact spaces I think they probably work just fine there are other potential solutions they could you reduce striping or make a few changes none of which is sort of going to reverberate through the development okay thanks that's what it sounded like I just wanted to double check correct so mr. Reardon how if we had to write a condition or or in some other way make sure that this is paid attention to with building at the building permit stage uh what would that what would that condition say I'm actually surprised I didn't recommend if you could just give me a minute to think about that okay we'll come back to it we'll come back I think I think it's as simple as saying that you could make them designate them as as compact spaces or otherwise redesign them because there are there are opportunities whether it's with the layout of the handicapped spaces or you know there there are and if they're if for example during the course of design their structure layout changes we would expect the garage layout to change a little bit during the course of design so I think the thing as long as we specify how many spaces are required and maybe give them a little bit of leeway or otherwise direct them to use compact spaces for spaces that don't meet the standard dimensions that in the town we could we could address that so mr. Conner I'm not quite sure who would ask what what you've been thinking about that whether that's you to jeffrey or with her rachel I think that that's you teal nick do you want to address that sure I mean I don't think there's honestly much more to say beyond what what sean has already articulated which is that you know we'll continue to refine the parking plan it's absolutely sort of part of you know part and parcel of continuing to develop the design and we can easily make a compact space adjustment or we'll continue to be shifting columns around as we coordinate with our structural engineer that's for the thing so providing a little bit of a hammerhead at the end of the drive aisle there to facilitate back out for those end spaces is really not an issue but I think we're probably flexible on um you know language for a condition that would uh make sure that that takes place okay just anything else uh no thank you um does anyone else have any questions or comments on this mr. chair mr. rickard ellie I just like to ask a question about the um the storm water management system so I understand um sounds like it's not required to have the infiltration system which is certainly a benefit um for the project in terms of not having to install that but I just wanted to ask um mr. reardon or um the applicant has there been any study done to make sure that uh without that infiltration system the storm water system can handle you know the hundred year or um what we're obviously finding is that those hundred year floods happen more than every hundred years so the the capacity of storms that we're we're more used to seeing now yeah I think the best way to address that is to say that the project's going to result in a net reduction of runoff from the site so so regardless of what the outcomes are regardless of what the analysis is it's always going to be less than what the what the site currently sees um another important factor is um you know the the site is currently an upgrade lot with an industrial use um it's going to be switched to almost a completely covered roof so from a water quality standpoint the quality of runoff coming off the site's going to go up astronomically so so you're going to go from a relatively sort of sediment laden potentially pollutant laden runoff to to something that's that's principally clean and basic doesn't even touch the ground so um you know just a significant net benefit in both cases and we've confirmed with our calculations that the the system's not going to surcharge above any of the rims on the hundred year storm and that we have a we do have a reduced peak flow for the the hundred year in the post condition and if I can add one other minor detail so this is what's nice is we're right near a wife brook so the runoff storm drain is is pretty short till it gets to an outfall so it's only a few hundred feet in a couple sections of catch basin so um wouldn't expect it to be any sort of complication or collateral damage great thank you so much anybody else Mr. Chair Mr. Klein um first I wanted to thank the application for the additional information on the solar studies and for pursuing the egress question with the spectral service that I do appreciate you looking into those matters I did have a couple questions on the waiver request so one of them is in regards to the size of the parking spaces and its request to permit more than 20 of spaces to be sized for compact cars and I'm wondering is the applicant going to provide an upper bound for that or is the request to leave that open-ended um I think at this point to leave that open-ended so that potentially 100 of the spaces could be compact no we would not be doing that I can say that but at this point I don't know Nick are you prepared to make a suggestion of the division between compact and regular sized spaces not not specifically I mean I think to maybe you know to speak to the point that we were just discussing a minute ago you know we have to have ongoing you know design coordination conversations with our engineers about structural layout building layout you know accessibility clearances all the types of things and you know having a little bit of flexibility in the parking plan is one of the ways they were going to be able to meet all of those underlying requirements as the design progresses on a very tight site so I feel like it might be a little bit premature for me to throw a number right out there I agree with Mary I don't think the plan is to do 100% compact spaces we want to provide you know as functional a parking area as possible but I don't think I'm prepared to throw out a specific number right off the off the cuff because I have a similar question for the following one which is about the the drive aisle width and the reduction and the request is just very reduction in the drive aisle size and again it doesn't have a bound I'm just a little leery about you know issuing a comprehensive permit where those are you know very open questions as to to what the bounds of of those are if you could make a proposal in two weeks at the meeting on the 15th I think that would be helpful I will sure thank you Mr. Klein anything else so just anywhere else like there's another one I'm about parking lot setbacks landscaping and screening obviously there were the parking is all within the building so I don't think that that's really a major issue and then the fees and charges I don't know we haven't really just discussed that question yet don't recall what the board had done specifically last time we had done a project that had come to us from the housing corporation so I I think I think we should you should discuss that that question at some point but does does not need to be now Mr. Connor can you find out what happened in previous occasions where I can look at the one in Downing Square and Broadway and see so that would be that would be very helpful Klein I'm all set is there anybody else who wishes to has any questions Mr. Chairman Mr. Japan so this is another question for Sean and I think it's a probably a quick answer but I know that in number four there was a site prep and erosion control and there was the question raised about when retaining walls were removed you know next to budding properties and the and the response was that there would be a detail in the construction management plan to address that and I just wanted to know because I'm not familiar with it is that again something that's sort of technologically fairly standard to address where if you're going to take something out that's you know holding back earth that you have something that can easily be put in temporarily until the permanent you know structures for retaining are in place yeah the the easy is probably subject to interpretation but there are methods but in this case and I think the applicant addressed at the last hearing is they anticipate having a conversation with each of their butters okay because you're frankly there's I don't see a way where they're they're going to be able to remove those walls without without at least you know a short term sort of occupation of the abutting parcel but I think their response that they gave that the solution has to be worked out in sort of coordination with the butters and they plan to do so was exactly what I had hoped to hear and and I guess the follow-up to that is that and how does that get monitored then is that part of the construction management plan where you know reference will be made to the fact that conversations have been made have been had in that agreements have been reached with regard to how that happens I guess just seems like one of those details that's a little bit squishing at the moment yeah I would think that it's it's something that the each of the landowners needs to work out independent of the board that the board doesn't even necessarily need to play a role in that I mean Paul can speak to that but you know typically we would we would leave that up to the the landowner to work out and you know the the more cooperation they get from their landowner the easier the effort's going to be so you know if they get no cooperation from the landowner then they might have to drive piles or something like that the the the real distinction is is there are solutions that can work for a very short period of time while they're constructing the new wall yeah that that would suffice but wouldn't wouldn't suit a long-term application so I think there are a lot of ways to skin that cat certainly the easiest way would be to get some cooperation from the landowner do some temporary grading construct whatever wall system the building is proposing and then replace the grade so I don't think this is going to be a sort of a heavy lift but okay it depends on the level of cooperation they can get okay thanks thank you is there anything else all right well as it happens I had a whole bunch of thick questions to ask and my colleagues have asked all of them and so I'm going to pass so it's time to open the public hearing appreciate the presentations from both Mr. Riven and from the applicant tonight's hearing will be open to public comment and I wanted to review some of the ground rules that I can recognize so many names here that you've all heard before but public questions and comment will only be taken as it relates to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision due to previously demonstrated interest in this project and to provide an orderly float at the meeting the chair strongly encourages individual public speakers to limit their comments and use their time provided to comment related solely to the topics that are discussed at this hearing I will say that I'll be pretty tolerant about that because this is your last chance on a lot of issues and so it may very well be that there are some things that have come up at other times that you wish to say something more about we will remember and we'll review a transcript of what you said before but it's not going to be quite a strict focus on Mr. Riven's report and the other things that we've discussed as we might otherwise do if we were having lots more meetings chair will first ask members of the public who previously identified themselves by logging in through zoom who wish to speak to digitally raise their hand using the raise hand button in the participants tab and zoom application you'll be called upon by the meeting host you may unmute yourself you'll be asked to give your name and address for the record and you will be given up to five minutes for your questions and comments all questions are to be addressed through the chair remember to speak clearly concisely and in a way that helps generate an act an accurate record of the meeting those calling in by phone please dial star nine to indicate that you'd like to speak and when you called on you may unmute your line please identify yourself by name and address for the record and from there on I follow the same rules I just said for people who are using their computer what's all questions and comments have been addressed we reached let's see the hour let's say of nine fifteen the public comment period for this evening's hearing will be closed as noted previously there are multiple hearings scheduled for this project but not so many now and each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment the next hearing will be focused a lot on the kinds of questions we've been hearing before about what would be in a condition I should stress that the fact that we talk about that doesn't necessarily say that the board will adopt any of these conditions or not make it up themselves when they get into the deliberation section nor does it necessarily mean that will grant the comprehensive permit this is a way of working it all free and of whatever errors we can and trying to come up with the best conditioned resolution of the of the case that we can't the board and applicant and staff will do our best to show the documents being discussed and if you'd like a specific document to be displayed during your comment please ask us to do so and we'll do our best to accommodate your request now that really means miss wallston would do your best because my best would be totally unavailing but she's really good at that so with all that the public comment period is open so anyone who wishes to address the application miss chaplain welcome thank you mr chairman monique chaplain 35 michael street first i just want to thank folks for doing the deeper dive of the shade study that was very reassuring i'm primarily speaking to just make sure that the zoning board and the housing corporation received the email sent by the concerned butters of michael street we sent that yesterday and our copy letters will be arriving via us post in the next couple of days outlining our concerns and a few suggestions that we had that we hope you'll consider thank you thank you miss chaplain i actually haven't seen that yet so i will be certainly on the lookout for it and i'm sure that the applicant will be as well and we can take up those matters when we get back together so anybody else who wishes to address the application uh mr allmond no well actually i'm sorry uh if you waited mr allmond you were sort of beaten out a little bit by um uh mr or miss someone who's a phone number ends in 644 so let me try calling on that person chair steve more piedmont street um i've had to join you by phone tonight as opposed to video um and my my question uh is just a um a touch back to a question that i asked at a number hearings ago or maybe it was even the last one about um has there been any thoughts that the applicant has relative to uh providing irrigation to the public street shade trees that are going to align the sidewalk on sunny side there in front of the oh i can answer that we will not be doing that there is no funds in this project to do that to provide irrigation at all and i'll add that but we're obviously committed to keeping all the trees alive so we'll we'll find methods that that work within our budget so the stress is just on the irrigation part watering the trees is something that you have to do if yes well our own irrigation on our property gets the street trees maybe i've spoken out of line if that's our obligation or not if the city if the town would normally be supporting that and the town actually regressed for all residential property owners the town requests that the street trees the ones that are in front that are on the right of way in front are watered at least and maintained that way by residents it's a standard standard sort of thing is that true mr more yes yes thank you mr that's a that's exactly right and for for a public street trees the town provides what's called gator bags around the trunks of trees that it makes watering pretty simple in terms of just providing water into the bag once a week so i'm hoping there'd be some commitment to that because i think the growth of trees in this area will greatly enhance the building and i know that they're adding a bunch of their own plantings which is great but the street trees will help uh i don't know uh modify soften the transition between the building and the street on what amounts to is a pretty tight piece of property there in terms of the street width so i would i would encourage that watering plant to be included in terms of the street trees i am pointing out though that when we make installs around town now we are suggesting irrigation lines now i understand that as as was clearly said there's no funds in the budget for that um but helping of the watering would be would be good um my second question is just kind of a kind of a point of information it's not really a question i joined this meeting late and i apologize since you've already spoken to this because i when i came in you were talking about um the storm water and mitigation plan and such and some changes which have made i believe to deal with parking spaces under the building uh could could say they have to quickly refresh my memories what's going to be done with the storm water from the roof and such is it going to be put into a in effect a drywall sort of arrangement or something else jeff sure uh it's going to be conveyed from the site uh first it's going to be pretreated before it gets to a drywall and then it discharges to the budding drainage system that's uh the municipal system the storm water correct it's uh it's uh roof water so it's considered clean uh therefore and also that we don't trigger the storm water permit uh and we do have a reduction in pervis area uh and a reduction in peak overall peak flow um and therefore it's just going to connect into the municipal drainage system okay and the drain uh mr. chair of the drainage system is designed and i think mr. rickadelli asks his question already just is designed to deal with the maximum flow of the 100-year storm and and for the 100-year storm and with the lf proposed by was was noa the latest noa data used or the old uh the old storm totals it's based on a 24-hour storm event um i believe it's 57 right but i know there's newer storm data that is now being used for developments around town which developers are utilizing which basically is our higher higher inflow you know what rain data was used for this project um i'll have to check with my office but um i believe it's the latest it's actually in the in the initial in the initial submission uh when there begins to discuss it's the noa something or rather either plus or plus plus i think the intention is to is to meet was was to meet the uh what is currently being requested of the conservation commission even though they are not actually involved in this project um but there was some question in my mind about whether it had enough pluses so uh but if the applicant can can look at that and just make sure uh what it is if if if i i can easily offline i to look up and find out how many pluses they're supposed to be i can look at the the last 40 b that we did when this issue came up and i've conveniently forgot then just the way i'm forgetting now okay thank you mr chair that's helpful we'll take a look thank you so if there was mr more his hand will come down in a second um i'm trying to find the person who wished to speak before is there anyone on the line who wants to address the application all right seeing not going once going twice the public hearing is closed um these is there anything further than anyone on the board wants to raise or anybody or the applicant if there's something that has come up that causes you some concern mr hem and i just wanted to answer mr kline's question about the dry by a width just to cross that off the list for next time um as i understand that the zener requirement is for 24 feet as drawn we have a little bit less than 23 feet and i think we would request a waiver for 22 feet at the minimum and that aligns with um other you know municipal zoning codes in the greater boston area for interior structured parking we found that to be a functional width in this application i appreciate that thank you yep all right mr chair may i ask one follow up question um yes mr rickard ellie just um just um speaking about the parking um and and you know i think this is new so i just wanted to ask um but i think that recently there's been guidance for electric parking charging stations to um have accessibility requirements um which are a da not 521 cm r so uh just wondering if the applicant is planning to include those with whatever charge spaces are being provided are you saying that you think that there are accessibility requirements in excess of what's called for an ma ab that's right yeah so um you know previously we would provide accessible parking spaces and then electric charging spaces and they wouldn't overlap because um it would be restrictive so if someone needed accessible accessible space and also a charging station they wouldn't have an option so um so we did uh i don't know if you recall but we did submit an earlier plan at one of the previous hearings showing aren't intended locations for the ev charging stations some of which do serve those accessible spaces in the lower leg of the parking so that's absolutely our intention to balance you know the number of ev charging spaces that we have with the number of accessible spaces that we have and make sure that there's um you know equitable service being provided to everyone excellent okay thank you yep was there anything else all right seeing none i'd like to before closing and all enjoying the rest of our evening um i'd like to talk a bit about uh deliberation dates um and these are not actually these are not actually going to there's a sort of an an administrative actually let's do this the other way around because the applicant doesn't is not going to be here for deliberation we can't they take any more input from the applicant and so the question about figuring out the right dates for it are not really matters that they and their team need to need to stand by and discuss it unless they they would like to because we're such charming people um so at this point the chair will entertain a motion to consider the to uh continue this hearing uh to a date certain that April not april august 15th uh 2023 at 7 30 p.m. or soon thereafter is the matter may be heard so move mr chair moved by mr kline is is it her second second second of my mr dupont to a roll call mr kline i mr dupont hi mr rickard ellie hi mr holy hi mr hoffman hi mr leblanc hi okay so this this case has continued until then i look forward to to seeing you all again and what what i'm hoping is is our our uh uh our last last fling uh and so those of you who would like to stay on the line can but i'm especially interested in and holding on to mr havarty and the members of the board um the we have to be finished as i said earlier by the 24th and uh as a practical matter we're not going to want to go up to i mean that's a sunday so that really means the 21st which is a thursday uh or maybe the 19th which is the which which is a tuesday um the 12th we've reserved because one day for the uh as one day uh for the deliberation and i would like to propose to you if you're able to do it uh meeting the day after labor day on the fifth uh that puts us in a situation where i'm hoping that we can maybe can get done one day but but especially in two and if anything really comes up it still gives us plenty of time to get our act together have maybe as we did last time uh one hour fixing up the whatever happens at the end where where it takes a much time to do that whereas starting on the 12th and then going for the 19th or maybe going to a thursday uh runs the risk that we have to scramble at the end which i i think we'd we'd like to avoid so i wanted to see if a schedule of the of meeting on the fifth with the thought that we carry over to the 12th if necessary whether that uh whether that is possible for you all mr have any of me i'm free both the fifth and the 12th great members of the board those both work for me me too me as well this often uh that work for you yes all right so let's miss waltzen if we can schedule those and do whatever we need to do to get the word out and onto the website and so forth that's that's where we'll go um it was chaplain the hearing's over but but this is all a friendly gathering right now so if you'd like to chat please do thank you i just had a quick question whether these upcoming meetings are ones that the public are also invited to oh yes the public is always invited but you'll be silent partners at the ones in sept september as i said earlier we can't take any additional input from anybody we can't even turn to the applicant onto something and say is that acceptable to you uh we all it all has to be based on the hearings what we've done so far and what we do on on the 15th but these are all public meetings so but they will be public meetings without public comment including the 15 no no the 15 i was just talking about the ones in september the 15th is still the hearing is going and that'll be treated in exactly the same way uh that the meeting tonight and all the other ones that you've participated great thank you so much welcome all right uh i guess we're now at the point where if there's nothing is there anything else that anyone wishes to bring up before we do an adjournment so mr chairman i i think it would be helpful if i can get you a draft decision by the eighth so we have it a week in advance yes the next hearing yes so that will be my goal that that would be great that would be great and we'll all do our homework and make sure that that we're all loaded not loaded for beer that's not a good metaphor for for that particular thing for the the applicant may want to be loaded for beer but not us all right is there anything else if not uh chair linda chain of motion to adjourn don't move mr chair second mr move by mr kline seconded i think mr depont yes um so we'll do the roll call mr kline hi mr depont hi mr riecker delhi hi mr holey mr mr holey is at least making motions that suggest an eye can you hear me now yes yes now i can miss hoffman hi mr look like i and we're all adjourned thank you very much for coming and i look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks and mr rosen particularly thank you to you thank you everybody good night everyone thank you bye bye