 that today is Thursday, September 2nd, 2021. It is 733 p.m. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Life calls me to order. Just quickly, we are being recorded. Yes, perfect. So I'd confirm that members and anticipated individuals are present from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Let me see you here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. And Stephen Redlack. Here. Good evening all. I'm appearing on behalf of the town, Rick Valorelli. Here. Vincent Lee. Here. And Kelly Lanema. Here. Thank you so much. And assisting us as always, Paul Havity. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Good to have you. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 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. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video webinar via the Zoom webinar app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. We have one item on our agenda for this evening which is a continuation of the deliberations on the decision for comprehensive permit for 1165 RMS Tuesdays Avenue. At it's July 26, 2021, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for 1165 RMS Tuesdays Avenue. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40-day period for the Board to consider and render a decision. On August 24th, 2021, the Board initiated its deliberations. At the end of that session, the Board voted to continue to this evening, September 2nd. Tonight's discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly but the Board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the Board's peer review consultants or the public. For this reason, tonight's meeting is being conducted using the webinar platform which allows the Board to limit who may participate in the discussion. On behalf of the Board, I appreciate everyone's understanding. The Board will resume its discussion using the draft decision available on tonight's agenda. It can be differentiated by the red text in the footer noting in August 24th revision. The Board will quickly review the revisions proposed at the previous meeting, then resume the discussion on section G of the conditions discussing the proposed revisions. At the end of tonight's meeting, the Board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting and continue with the deliberations. Under state regulations, the Board must issue a decision by September 4th or request an extension from the applicant to further continuous deliberations. But I hope we are able to conclude this evening. So with that, let me pull up. Linemuff, you could give me permission to share my screen. Sure, one second here. Maybe you should be able to. Yep, I'm good now. Thank you so much. You're welcome. This document here, so this is noted it has the draft. So this is the draft that Mr. Havity provided us after the last session. And I don't know if everyone's had an opportunity to review it. A few notes on this document that I wanted to just quickly cover. If there's any, I'm just gonna sort of go down through my notes. If others have notes and they want me to stop, please just pick up. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I have a number of notes that I've given Paul already. And as we go through, I'd be happy to go through them. They're, I think not of great consequence, but there's several. Okay, I was gonna start with a minor one just on six. The second line should be six existing structures that just should be pluralized. And then seven was a placeholder. I had provided Mr. Havity with some, with an alternate language for that. So we were looking for, I think we were just looking for a description of Ryder Brook and Millbrook. So I was gonna recommend that the property contains two water bodies, Millbrook perennial stream flows southeast through Arlington. The portion on the property is contained in an open pulver Ryder Brook and intermittent stream flows southwest from the Minuteman commuter bikeway onto the property. Brook feeds into an enclosed pulver and empties into the Millbrook. That's just a very simple description of those two bodies of water. And my next issue was on a number 10. I want to conclude the landscape architect, Kyle Zick of KVLA, the utility consultant, Patrick Neon of ICO Energy and Engineering and the development manager, Daniel St. Clair from Spalding and Sly Investments. Add those to the list of the applicants team. And then the question for Mr. Havity. So 13A for the principal address, it appears in the introductory documents from the applicant that the limited liability company is in care of Spalding and Sly Investments at one post office square, floor 26. I'm not sure if we should include it that way or if it's fine the way it is. We repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Sure, so in the original list of who was involved in the project, you mentioned the limited liability company, which is, sorry, the 165 RMS MA property LLC, it's listed as being in care of Spalding and Sly Investments at one post office square. Okay. So I don't know if we want it. Add it in care of Spalding and Sly Investments. So you just want to add in care of Spalding and Sly Investments? Yeah, just because, just if that's appropriate, I think that would be more clear. Yep, that's fine. Okay. Page six. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I had one on paragraph 16. Paragraph 16, yeah. I'd like to add the following language at the end of that. After the words Rider Street in the third line and will affect parentheses among others and parentheses, residents located on the west side of Rider Street. Period. Okay. And now you said it was in addition to number 16. Yep. 22. The first time to come across the term aura, which we reuse several times. So I just wanted at the end of the first line. So be the property currently contains 4,135 square feet of pervious surface within the. Now put in the decent upland resource area. And then in parentheses. And then it's defined for the rest of the document. 24. I was going to recommend a comma after the word protection. In the second line. 25. Again, recommend the comma after protection in the second line and then after aura and the third one. 26. Number. 1,880. I would just add a comma. After the one. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. In number 26. Hold on. I need to. Go between drafts. I think this is. Okay. The. I'll pass on this. There is an issue that I raised last. At the last meeting about native cultivars. But this is not. Sort of comes up here, but this is not the primary place where it comes up. So I'll turn to it when we get, when we get to the right spot. I'm sorry. And I, I did work. Reference the comments that we had received on the, from the initial draft decision from the. Our own conservation commission. And they did not. Make any comments in regards to the statement, all native plants in this paragraph. So I believe that that. Brings us down to 32 and 33. I'm in for 31. Mr. Chair. Steve Robilac. So on the online. So how. The last line of the, of 26 reads, double check if native plants are used in all circumstances. Yes. Your voice dropped out for a second. I didn't hear the outcome, the disc, the outcome of that. So that. I went back and referenced the conservation commission's comments to the original draft decision. And they did not steer us away from this language. Okay. I think that this language is correct. So we can just strike that last line. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Absolutely. Was there a question about 31. Add language. 31. There's, you know, there's language. That could be in 31 or 33. That I provided to Paul earlier. I would suggest adding. Doing one of two things. Either adding a new 33. Or adding a sentence to 31. To refer to the minute man commuter bike way. So option A is to do. Is to do the latter. It would be to add the language. In addition, the minute man commuter bike way affords excellent bicycle access to the site. Another alternative is simply to add a new. Paragraph 33. Where. The language about which, which fills the placeholder that it currently exists. That would say in addition, the minute man commuter bike way affords excellent bicycle access to the site. And I think that that would be another place. That would be another place to do it. So the language is the same. It's just a question of whether it should be added to the end of paragraph 31. Or in a separate paragraph in 33 relating to the minute man bike way. It's a, that is a question on which I'm more or less indifferent, but. It does seem logical. Maybe to add it to 33 to use that language for 33. Mr. Do you have any suggestion here? I think using it as a new paragraph 33. So I had also proposed language for 33. Which would note that the property is located approximately 210 feet southwest of the minute man commuter bike way. A paved multi-use rail trail running from Bedford to Cambridge. There's an entrance to the trail at the northeast end of Rider Street. I don't know if we want. I think using it as a new paragraph 33 works. I had also proposed language for 33. Which would note that the property is located approximately 210 feet southwest of the minute man commuter bike way. So I don't know if we want more of a description as to what the minute man commuter bike way is, or if we want to assume that it's understood what it is. Mr. Chairman, as your language is nice language. And I don't think it makes the opinion excessively long. I'd go for the, I was attempting to do it as, as economically as possible, but if you've got the language there. I'd go with it as long as Mr. Chairman. Going back to 32. I was going to recommend their presently exists the utility pole in the right of way leading to Massachusetts Avenue. The location is opposite the building at 1171 Massachusetts Avenue. The pole's position reduces the listed 20 foot width of the right of way to approximately 14.5 feet. Beta group recommended relocating the pole in their May 6th, August 12th, 2021. Traffic comment response letter to Jennifer. Mr. Chairman, what number is this? This is 32. 32. Which was a placeholder language. Yeah. I got that. Any questions from the board on either of those. None. Next quick note I had was on 43. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question I did before. And I tried hard to go through the. Tape to find this. And I'm hoping that this maybe Mr. Revolak can clarify. It has to do with the bicycle parking spaces. My recollection is that we started off with, with some language that essentially required that allowed stacking under certain circumstances. And it may be here. And this comes up at a later thing. Mr. St. Clair. Objected that the way in which we had originally. Stated it. Limited one to them to one technology for stacking, as opposed to. Making it, which was associated as I understood it to one or a few vendors and that they wanted to have more flexibility to solve the problem. That they were perfectly willing to solve. I can't. I can't remember what the favorite language was. And I'm not. And I'm not sure. That we've got it. And I wondered if Mr. Revolak, who is. Certainly our main expert on bicycles in some respects. Can remember this and, and, and remember what the right formulation is. Again, this is one of those things that will come up again later. And this may not be the right place to correct it, but it's the first place it comes up. So we do have language in condition. That talks about stacked parking. The application shall provide 114 long-term bicycle parking spaces that are covered and secure. Such spaces may be stacked parking spaces. So long as mechanical assistance is provided for the spaces on the upper racks. And that's a consistent with the waiver request. Yes. Mr. Chair. Please. I just pulled up my notes from July 26th. When we talked about this. And, you know, what I. What I wrote was, the applicants are agreeable to this condition, but would like it stated more generally. We settled on stacked bicycle parking with mechanical assist for the upper level. Perfect. Yeah. So I think the first reference we have in regards to parking. To bike parking is that. Is a finding on number 35. Which just documents. The part of the amount of parking. And then in condition F eight, we're more deliberate about the, how those spaces are to be carried out. You can include a sentence on 35. The applicant proposes mechanical lift assistance. You can include a sentence on 35. The applicant proposes mechanical lift assistance for. Upper level stacks. That would be a good addition. That sounds fine. Then the next. Nope. I had. In the conditions under section B. B one would just be a comma after the word agency in the first line. So a lot by the subsidizing agency mass housing. Or other subsidizing agency. I think that's how that's supposed to read. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Would you just scroll down? We're still up at 31. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I've got it on two screens. I'm looking at the wrong one. Now it's going to go way fast. Come on. There we go. That's as may otherwise be allowed by the subsidizing agency mass housing. Or other subsidizing agency. Okay. My next comment was in section E. E 27. It's just a correction of the spelling of a message to the A and then. Before we get to that one, Mr. Chairman, there is actually comments on age 16. This has to do with the cult of ours. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, if I could. I expressed a concern several times during the hearing regarding. My sense of regarding native plants, which we sort of touched on earlier, but this is the primary way it comes up. And what I would propose is including the following sentence after conservation commission. And this is in D actually. Following the long list of little Roman numerals. So the paragraph begins all planning shall consist if you can follow that. Yes. I'd include the words. After conservation commission, cultivars of native plants may be used as reasonably necessary to achieve the landscape. And the plan submitted to the conservation commission. So the reason for that, there's, I had remembered, vaguely that there was a letter from this O'Connor. That raised this issue. And I found that letter. It's the letter of July 19th, 2021. In the first point. I would suggest that deleting the reference to the con conservation commission's approved plan. Because Mr. Conner said that their expert, their expert said that the. That they would need cultivars in order to, in order to actually comply with the plan that they gave to the conservation commission. So that leaves us with the awkward situation of whether we should do that. And I think we should stick with not having cultivars at least mentioned or authorized. In which case the conservation plan. Might that was prevented to the commission. Might not be doable. Or do include a reference to the cultivars. And. Which, which does make it doable. And I think that the, the, the commission would be to have the plan that was presented to them actually done. And that would. Require language that was not, not unduly strict about. That might be interpreted as prohibiting the cultivars of native species. And so I'm proposing to clarify this in such a way as to allow. To comply with the plans that were presented to the, to the conservation commission. I have no objections to that. You have other. Comments. Before section E. No, I don't. Have some in section E before we get to each one. Okay. Right. There's, there is one in section E. So we can get to E six. I'm not sure if there's anything before that. Okay. So with these sex, I would propose after in the third line up from the bottom. To include as a parenthetical. Or shared private way. And parenthesis. In order to use language that is broad enough to include writer street. That technically is not a public way. But it's not a public way. It's not a public way. It's not a public way. It's not a public way. It's not a public way. It's a here ought to be to. Prevent that street. From being encumbered with mud and soil. As much as mass app. So. I think this language. Accomplishes that. And you said that was for E six. Yes. Control and minimize dust on the site and adjacent roadways during construction. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think the sentence that would be the applicant shall keep all portions of any public way or shared private way used as access or egress to the project. Free of soil, mud, or debris deposited doing to do. Due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project. Well taken. Anything else ahead of each 27. 17 is the first time that we. In more or less similar ways address snow on site. I think that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to consolidate all of that. So I'm taking a pass, but if anyone feels uncomfortable with it. We do more or less say the same thing in three different places. I think they all essentially, they're all essentially the same. So as long as they're not contradictory, I think we're okay. I think that's, I think that's true. I think that's true. I think that's true. You hate to say things multiple times for fear that, that what doesn't seem controversy now. We'll seem contradictory later on, but I think that we're pretty safe. Pretty safe grounds with these particular ones. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. Good. My, my. Microphone's been bugging out. So I apologize. But just before the start of E. I have it on page 19. I think it's the right page. And it was, it was B. Yeah. Just before it, and we're, I was just curious because it says the applicant shall provide to the board evidence of a property management plan. And I'm wondering why we're just not requesting a property. Management plan. So just so that it would read shall provide to the board a property management plan. And I'm wondering why we're just not requesting a property management plan. I think that's just because it's going to be too voluminous. That we would want evidence meaning what? A summary or some. Something along those lines. So I'd prefer to see the plan. If it's not too awkward to actually have it provided. I don't think it's too awkward. Doesn't make sense. Right. So there should read the applicant shall provide to the board a property management plan. And I'm wondering why we're just not requesting a property management plan. Management will be done in. All right. She'll provide a copy of. Exactly. And then each 27 was just the spelling of a Nessie. There should be a double and ESC. On F. Four. Sub C. And now it just asks to rebel act to just take a look at this as well. Because we had. An email from the property manager. Yeah. I don't think they're. Electronically comments to the property manager, but I don't think this quite captures what was proposed last time. And I just wanted to pass that back to Mr. Revellex to see what. Mr. Chairman. I, I mean, I also have. Language to Mr. Haverde that attempted to address that. So. What was your recommendation? electronic submissions for residents to report potential infractions to the property manager. Now it's good to me, Mr. Revac, does that address the concern we were trying to address? I believe it does. Okay. That was it seems there's a space before the word parking in F-12. At that in Patrick also had a modification. Yes, I actually the, I was a little bit concerned with in the second line to discourage motor vehicle ownership in the project, which seemed to me to be not quite getting at the right concept. Mr. Haverty suggested how about to say to discourage motor vehicle ownership by residents of the project. And that seems to capture with the right ideas. Okay. So that's where we left off last time. Is it the start of G? The, I guess my last question under F was we don't mention anything in here about transportation to the property manager. Is there any other questions or comments in regards to. Everything up through the up through F-13. Okay. So that's where we left off last time. Okay. I think we can hear about. Transportation demand management. Specifically. And I just want to confirm with everyone that that was correct. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. My recollection is that the. The applicant did propose a traffic demand management plan. And I wonder if I think it's a good catch. I don't know of any point where they backed away from it. And it seemed to me that it was a, that it was a good idea and a well thought out plan. If we can look. The condition the applicant shall comply with the traffic management plan proposed and submitted to the board during the course of the public hearing. That works. That works to me. I like it. That'll be. Okay. I'm going to start with the. I'm going to start with the. The F-14. And so starting with G on page 26. Please try emergency medical conditions. Under G2. I just wanted to change this. So it would read stairwells and garages must be minimum. Two hour. Residential units must be minimum one hour. Okay. Do we say that they'll provide management and maintenance. Personnel during typical business hours. Is that sort of understood what those are, or would it be advisable to put in between the hours of such and such and such and such. Maybe it's too directive, but I just, as I was reading it, I didn't know what typical business hours would mean for this type of a. Development. So just throwing that out is really a question. Mr. How many do you think that's unclear? I mean, I guess. Typical typical business hours historically have been presumed to be nine to five. I don't know. And I have no problem reflecting current reality. Yeah. Right. Yeah. If that's understood, that's fine. I just didn't know. If we wanted, as long as they're operating in good faith and they make sure they get personnel where they need them and when they need them. That's fine. So. I just wouldn't want to see somebody say, I'm sorry, we're here from one to two. Every day, you know, that's all. Typical would regular be better term. I don't think there's a fundamental difference. I don't think there's a fundamental difference. I'm fine as it is. I just wanted to raise the question. Yeah, I was going to suggest typical daytime business hours, but that probably doesn't. Make much of a difference. Let's just go ahead and leave it as is. Next comment I had was on G eight. Are there any. Comments. Between G one and G seven. Hearing none. I'd originally flagged this because I thought it was redundant with G one, but I thought it was redundant with G one. Looking at again, G one is during regular operation. And G eight is specifically during construction. I think that's okay. Mr. Chairman again. On that point. Yeah. During construction, I was reading that and I was wondering what sort of signals the termination of construction is that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That's a fair question. I think that's a fair question. I think that's a fair question. I would start that even when you get to the CEO point, you still sometimes have construction activities on going. Right. I think it's really probably. The final signoffs. Yeah, until the sign to the. Yeah, because you can get a temporary certificate of occupancy. In which case you're not totally complete, but you're still working on some aspects of the project, but you're still working on some aspects of the project. You're still working on some aspects of the project. Certificate of occupancy. You would have to have complete sign off. Chairman. Yeah. This is one of those things where I think the practicalities will help solve the problem. Because if there's the purpose of this is to make sure that there's somebody to receive complaints or information. Regarding construction activities. There won't be such complaints unless there are construction activities. I think that's going to work perfectly well, whether. I mean, if it happens that somebody is trying to reach a construction manager because of construction. And somebody is not there. That will in itself be evidence that there's a violation of this condition. So it may be that figuring out a precise way of. Terminating this obligation is a little bit self-defeating. Really it's ultimately if you're doing construction, you want to have a construction superintendent there, period. Okay. Okay. Moving on to page 27. And she nine. I was wondering if the, in the first line, if the word project is correct or whether it should be property, the during construction, the project involved in all structures shall be accessible or whether it should be the project, including all structures shall be accessible. It can be the property. I mean, all structures would include everything that's. I would, I would recommend changing it. Are there any other comments on the. On section G. Moving on to section H on water sewer and utilities. My first question was in section H four. Are there any questions on each one, two or three. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Number H four. It says the service size for the domestic water service should be verified by the water and sewer duty. Should it is should correct. Or should it be a shall. And again, in line three, there's a similar. Requirements should. The coming requirements shall. Are there any other comments through H five. None moving on to page 28. First, I have as H nine. So are there any comments on age six, seven or eight? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. So I think in the line where it says that the applicant. In conjunction with the utility companies. Shall request a grant of location. Don't we want them to obtain a grant of location. Because it's a necessity as far as I read that. So rather than request. I understand that all they can do is request and then awaited decision. But don't they need to obtain. This in order to move forward. So it would be for the public right of way. And my, my understanding is that the, the utilities that they're installing are starting at. An existing poll. And. Are being located underground on the property. Right. I'm, I'm just, I am just reading the part where it says, they're going to request a grant of location. From the select board. And so I would think that to finish the process, they need to actually obtain the grant location. Unless I'm misunderstanding. Yeah. Would you say request and obtain or just say shall obtain. We just change request to obtain. That's what I was thinking. Thanks. And then in seven. If I may. Please. So we're in the second sentence. It says that the town's not responsible for trash recycling, compost and or yard waste. I think that we should probably in the first sentence say that the applicant shall be responsible for all trash. Recycling and yard waste. Just for consistency. So those, those same four that are listed in the second paragraph include all of those in the first paragraph, excuse me, they're in the second sentence include all those in the first sentence. Correct. So under H nine. So this is the utility poll question. There's a lot to do here. So I in the one, two, three, four, five, six. In the starting in the sixth line at that. So if the applicant should continue to work to resolve this issue, including further exploration of relocating. The poll further East. But within the right of way. And I'm wondering if that should say. But within the bounds of the property. And I'm wondering if there are portions of the property. That are not. That are outside the right of way, but that are still on the property. Mr. Chair. Yes, please. I would. I'd suggest. I just lost the language. Stopping after the word East. So if, for example, the applicants can work out. There's some sort of an arrangement where, you know, the poll is repositioned on an adjacent property. I think that should be acceptable to us. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. It seems to me it's not only acceptable, but in some ways it's the preferred solution. Yes. Certainly where the poll does not. Does not serve the property, but serves the adjacent properties. Yes, please. In that same sentence. Is that another instance where should, should be shall. So. Applicants shall continue to work. Um, I think it should be show. Okay. I also have a comment on the last sentence of H nine. Yeah. So this is curious to hear what people think of this one. This was mine. You first then. No, I mean, I had. I've been looking. So we have been trying to, you know, it's sort of the stick and carrot approach to this issue. You know, my, my opinion has been all along that this whole is, is an accident waiting to happen. And treating it as anything other than that. You know, is, is somehow disingenuous. So. You know, either the poll has to be relocated or it has to be made crash worthy. Um, and so what I have been, what I had sort of tried to do with the language here was to really push the poll relocation. And to basically say, you know, you don't have to relocate the poll. If you want to leave the poll where it is, that's fine, but you just can't use it as an entrance for the residents. Um, So Mr. Chair, I could agree with that. Like, as you said, I believe it is an accident waiting to happen. But, um, you know, the, the, the, what caught my attention was the applicant is limited to, limited to using Quinn road for resident and staff access to the project. I think the right of way to Ryder street should also be usable. As an entrance. Not as an entrance. Yeah. Right. Because the language that's there now just talks about access, not just entrance. That's a good point. So I want to clarify that. I had sort of intended where it says access to the project was as sort of implying that it was for entrance. Um, because certainly the existing uses that have access to that right of way, we don't want to. Um, prohibit those. It's really, we just don't want the increase in traffic. Um, that would accompany the. The addition of residents. In road is going to be available for access and egress to the project. And then Ryder street would be available only for egress. Right. That is the intent. Although I would say ingress and egress rather than access and. I prefer that as well. But for some reason, most people don't understand. Um, So the question, the other question that, um, You know, when we had been reviewing this earlier is should we provide for other alternatives. That to right now, the way this is written is the poll has to be relocated. Um, And so if there is a. If there comes down that there's some fundamental reason that this is going to move and needs to remain where it is. Are we. Comfortable to board telling the applicant that they can't use that. Right of way for residents. Or do we want to. Provide a mechanism for them to come back, either come back to the board or to include something, some language in this decision that would allow them to seek an alternate. An alternate resolution. Okay. Mr. Chairman. We should recognize, of course, that. The applicant can, if it has to come back and seek a modification of the committee of the condition. So in a situation where there's an extraordinary circumstance where they. Have a compelling case for why it is they need to provide this source of access. And they show that they've done everything remote. They possibly could. Either to get the poll relocated or, which, you know, is not just the utility, but also providing, you know, bargaining for the neighboring and related. Property to allow that to happen. What I think is good about this language is that it provides a hammer. It's not best efforts and things like that. It's not good. It's not good. It's not good. It says, look, you have to solve this problem. It's not good. Sometimes the college, good old college try just isn't enough. You have to actually score. And I think that that's the position that we ought to take here. Now, obviously, if they've done everything they can, and they can show that it's a serious inconvenience to the residents and they have some other proposal that is helpful. But it's not a good decision. So it's not good. It's not a good decision. And it is. And, and we, we have the, we would have the responsibility to take their argument seriously. But I don't want to make it too easy. I think that. It would be better to take a hard line on this. And then if we have to reconsider it later on. We should. We had a sentence at the end of this, but I don't think it's a good decision. I don't think it's a good decision. I think it may seek a modification of this decision. Pursuant to 760 CMR 56.0. 11. Right. They, they of course can do that. I imagine whether we say that or not, but. Correct. I would recommend changing the word decision to condition. Well, it would be a modification of the decision. Oh, okay. You know, it's only addressing a particular vision. Got it. Okay. Yes, Mr. Chairman. How are we actually going to limit them? And we just got to tell them you can't use it and they're going to be on their word of honor. And promise not to use it. All several hundred residents. That's. I mean, physically block it off or we just can tell them they can't use it. I mean, certainly if it was. The enforcement in an issue. You know, as the, you know, as the residents of writer street rightly pointed out that, you know, it's. One thing for us to say these things and. To do it. But it's another to get the residents to actually abide by it. So I don't know if we would. You know, we would have to request signage to indicate this or how do we. How do we try to make this enforceable? I think the, the challenge of enforcement is not going to be very different than the no turn on no right on writer restriction. You know, the applicants have stated. Well, there, we know, we've already discussed signage. And the applicants have stated their intention to make it part of the policies. You know, I mean, at the, I think the best we can do. I think it would be reasonable to assume the applicants would do a similar thing for the mass average of way, but I would not see any harm in. Some sort of signage requirement. Mr chairman. Please. I agree with that. I think that signage would be helpful there. As a kind of self enforcement. I think we'll point out that, that this isn't one of those things where violations will go. Highly unnoticed. I, I'm quite confident that Mr. Nessie will notice. Violations and we'll know what to do in order to, in order to enforce the rights that, that this gives. And so I feel less concerned about. I mean, I mean, that's not personal to Mr. Nessie. It's just that there is a particular property that is more affected than anything, what any other by this problem. And whoever with Mr. Nessie could sell that land and whoever occupies it will be in a position to complain in the event that, that is being used contrary to the. Contrary to the provisions of the. Of the special of the comprehensive permit. So that. The second. To last. Just to read through the. Read through the paragraph again, the second to last sentence reads, if it is finally determined that the poll cannot be relocated, the applicant prior to construction. Shall provide the board with a plan for mitigating safety and visibility issues related to the poll. And then we go on to say until such time as the poll is relocated. So. Is it. We sort of say, if you can't relocate the poll. You have to do something to mitigate the safety. The ability issues related to the poll, but you still can't use the road. We should be. If there's a contradiction there that we need to address. Because I think if they have a plan for mitigating safety and visibility issues related to the poll. The next sentence. Is not that we need to address. Because I think if they were able to. It seems that if the poll, if it is finally determined, the poll cannot be relocated. And the applicant does provide. That's really necessary if you are addressing the safety issues. You know what the next sentence. I'm sort of curious if the second to last sentence could simply be removed. Right. I think it could be. Does that, that second to last paragraph. The second left sentence. Excuse me. Also. Requires action prior to construction. Whereas. The. Final. Sentence. Provides time really up until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to address the issue. The applicant. They really have considerable amount of time. To address the problem before. They actually have residents and staff. So I. So just read through what we have here. Starting in the middle, the applicant shall continue to work to resolve this issue, including further exploration of relocating the poll further East. Prior to initiating construction, the applicant shall provide the board with a written summary of the applicant and utility owner regarding the relocation of the poll. Until such time as the poll is relocated and a minimum 18 foot right of way is provided. The applicant is limited to using. When road. For resident and staff. Access to the project. And I know. I believe. Mr. However, you have a revision to that sentence. Plus an additional sentence. So I have until such time as the poll is relocated in the minimum 18 foot right of way is provided. The applicant is limited to using Queen road for resident and staff ingress and egress to the project. It should be limited to using writer street for egress. Then I would also add the applicant shall install signage reflecting this condition until and then in parentheses, if ever such time that the poll has been relocated. And then finally, a final sentence that the applicant is unable to come to a reasonable resolution. If the applicant is unable to come to a reasonable resolution. On the poll relocation, the applicant may seek a modification of this decision. Presumable to everyone. Just to me. I am comfortable with that. No, it's good. Before you comfortable with that. Perfect. Okay. That moves us. Is there anything else in relation to water sewer and utilities? No, move on to wetlands flood plain and environmental conditions. Section. I. Anything on the. I one and I two at the bottom of page 28. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I'm wondering whether. We need I too. It seems to me to. To. Duplicate what we've already done in E six and E 20. I agree. This is duplicity. Go ahead and strike that. That brings us up to page 29. You had questions on I four as well. As do. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. This is one where Mr. Havity originally. I'm not sure if I'm going to answer that. I'm not sure if I'm going to answer that. Yeah. I don't have a draft, but. The beginning of E four says that the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with professional credentials to be selected by the board. And to be on site during the duration of the project. I was a little bit unclear as to. Whether or not the board is going to be. The applicant must be selected. The applicant must be selected by the board. The applicant must be selected by the board. I would include. That. Language at all. Okay. I'll be. Selecting the environmental monitor that's going to be hired. Okay. You should have professional credentials. Yes. So Mr. Havity, how would you have this language read. I would say prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant was hired a qualified environmental monitor. With. On site throughout the duration. Great. That would solve my problem. And I guess. I think that it's probably appropriate to limit it to. Having the environmental monitor on site when working within any jurisdiction. I don't think they need to be. And I don't know how much of the site really isn't. In jurisdictional areas, but. If there's no work going on. That requires them to be. Overseeing something they really shouldn't be. I think certainly they're. Their applicability of the project. Changes once. Once the construction operations have moved indoors. And so I think, yeah, if we could. Indicate that so. That we would want them on site. During phases of construction involving. The jurisdictional areas. I think that would be a better. A better way to limit it. Mr. Chairman. Could we reflect a little more on that when you read further down. One of the obligations is. During the duration of the project to submit an electronic report and to report the condition of the site. And I think that. It's not just a matter of working within the jurisdictional areas, but the possibility that something that happens in the site that might not be within the jurisdictional area will nevertheless have an impact on it. That this is part of what you want to monitor. And I'm not sure that we didn't have it right to begin with that. It would be a good thing to have these people on the, on the site all the time to, to do the monitoring and to provide impact to provide information regarding impacts. Regardless of where the construction is at any given moment. I just wouldn't, I wouldn't want to. I'm trying to find a way to, to work the language such that. You know, it's clear that, you know, we're looking to have an environmental monitor on site who is there. You know, while the site is open while they are doing work on the site, but essentially once. You know, the site has been closed. You know, once the building is on the ground and once the, you know, the ground is planted that. You know, their. Responsibilities are less than they are while. You know, the site is being excavated and such. So I'm not quite sure how we work that. Is, is does the second to the last sentence address that? I mean, presumably when the changes that you've described would be changes in site conditions that. Would allow for an adjustment if, if a decrease in the duties of the environmental monitor were called for. I will point out that as far as I remember, the applicant did not a, didn't object to this condition. So, you know, the, the, I don't want to be unreasonable under the circumstances, but it was not one of those things that seems to have set off an alarm bell on the part of the applicant. I think they did. Oh, they did. My initial. Marginal comment was from July 19th when the hearing was still open. And I think that was because the applicant expressed concern about how broad this condition was. Okay. And whether, you know, it was, it was basically requiring them to pay for an environmental monitor for times when they really needed. And so, you know, I don't think it would need to be on the site. I do think that there's really two different things going on. You obviously want the environmental monitor on when there's any work going on within jurisdiction areas. But the, the provision requiring the report after every rain event exceeding 0.5 inches. In a 24 hour period is a separate issue. And it does really address the entire site. But I think that there's no conflict between the proposed limitation language that I had suggested in this requirement. Requiring the reports for rain events exceeding 0.5 inches. And no, another question had been raised about the frequency. Of the reporting. So. There's a line, the monitor shall submit an electronic report to the ZBA weekly regarding construction progress. And then the report shall submit an electronic report to the ZBA report. And then the report shall submit an electronic report to the ZBA report in relation to resource areas and shall state whether that such work is in their professional opinion and compliance with the comprehensive permit. So the question is to whether weekly was appropriate or whether it should be bi-weekly. Or monthly. This was the, this was actually the, the point that I had noted. To comment on. I mean. Is the issuance of a report. That's more frequent than board meetings. Really useful. Right. The staff would have the opportunity to review it. If anything. That needed to be addressed. I think that we need to recognize that when we say board here, we typically are referring to somebody other than us, although there are, they're acting as our agents, but we need to recognize that. We need to recognize who do this. So if the, if the hearing were still open, I'd be inquiring as to what the normal practices. It seems to me that. This shouldn't be something that. That best practices are on our impossible to determine. I'm assuming that this language came either from the conservation. I mean, originally. Was requested by the conservation commission and or beta. I mean, I think it's a little bit reluctant to relax it. Without. A more compelling reason than, than we have. Already. It seems to me that, that. I have no reason to believe that this is unreasonable. I mean, it may be, I could go along with, I'm certainly could go along with Mr. Havarty's suggestion as long as it doesn't. As long as we can imagine that the. The conservation commission, the conservation commission, the conservation commission, the conservation commission, the conservation commission. Rain is, is a different thing. But I wonder whether it's needed to do this. I certainly. Would like to back the conservation commission up or whoever was the source of this. It would be one of those two bodies. In the absence of more of a determination than we have already that it needs to be relaxed. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but. Okay. I know what you're saying. We had some time ago, which is actually the 15th where we discussed this. And the, the couple of sentences I jotted down where the town typically requires environmental monitoring during the construction of larger complex projects. Emily Sullivan town conservation planner. And Ms. When Stanley O. Connor will work out language for monitoring requirements. So I guess this, I guess this begs the question of was this the language that attorney O'Connor, attorney would Stanley O'Connor and Ms. Sullivan worked out. I don't think it is. I think the marginal reference I have, you know, had left a placeholder for that and I don't think we have seen anything. Because this is the same language, you know, that was there for, you know, but I would note, you know, that the language goes on to state. I wanted to shall submit an electronic report to the ZBA weekly regarding construction progress relation to resource areas. So I do think, you know, that the intent here is for the impact on the resource area. So I do think, you know, the limitation, you know, to having it only, you know, during construction within the jurisdictional wetlands areas is sufficient, particularly when you bootstrap it with the reporting requirement for any rain event over 25 inches. Here we go. So there was a there was definitely a request to delete this from applicant in an earlier version. It was inserted initially by the Department of Planning Community Development. Is it possible to, Mr. Chairman? I wonder if it's hard for us to sit here and figure out with and essentially figure out what it is that Ms. Sullivan and Ms. O'Connor might have come to if they'd actually submitted the language to us. I wonder if the if it's possible just it seems to me that that what Mr. Revelax notes reflect is the possibility that these that there is more than one reasonable way to do this and I wonder if we can figure out a way of simply organizing, you know, requiring a plan that provides, you know, a frequency that is subject to the approval of the board or which ultimately would be the planning department. And, you know, if they haven't worked it out already, they can work it out afterwards the and we and the condition could try to do what it could to limit itself to the essential rather than getting too deeply into the details. We could certainly do that. Like, my question would be does that create an issue where it's difficult for the applicant to determine what the actual cost of the condition is. Oh, it does do that. I think that, you know, given given the information we have, you know, short and free opening the public hearing which I think we would prefer to avoid I think we need to come up with a way that is give some leeway to board and the applicant for coming up with a schedule for the environmental monitor I think we're in agreement that we want to have the environmental monitor really comes down to the question is to what the the frequency of their time on site is and how often they have to file reports. I have I'll, I'll throw out a suggestion. So we start prior to commencement of construction, the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with professional credentials to provide environment to provide environmental monitoring at a basically I'm well roughly. I'm taking strike the sentence and to or the strike the clause and to be on site throughout the duration of the project. So we, we say that the, the applet so that, you know, the applicant has to hire one. The monitor shall submit an electronic report to the ZDA weekly that can be fine. And there's also we also have the requirement that during the duration of the project, the monitor submitted an electronic report after every basically heavy rain event. Language, all right. I think those three things kind of get at what we want. And would provide the applicant some flexibility. I suppose we can, we could note that very amount of monitor with professional credentials to be available or onsite with sufficient frequency to prepare you know to this vision frequency to to Well, I think, should go ahead. I was going to say if you just said to be available throughout the duration of the project. I think that might do it, because, you know, they will have to be onsite to, you know, to at least prepare reports. According to the reporting frequency, the weekly reporting frequency and the after every heavy rain event frequency. So we can say prior to the commencement of construction the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with professional credentials to be on to be available throughout the duration of the project. This period shall begin when solicitation controls are installed and shall end with the issuance of a certificate of compliance. The monitor shall submit an electronic report to the zoning board of appeals weekly regarding construction progress relation to resource areas and shall state whether the work is in their professional opinion and compliance with the comprehensive permit. During the duration of the project, the environmental, the qualified environmental monitor shall also submit electronic report after each rain event exceeding one half an inch of rain in the 24 hour period. This will be related to the condition of the site during and after the rain event as well as the status of erosion controls and any additional measures to address stormwater management issues caused by said rain event. The ZBA reserves the right to change the frequency of inspections based on contractor performance, whether or site conditions all materials required. The ZBA shall also be submitted environmental monitor. We are just in the second at the end of the second line that's removing the selected by the board and and then changing the term onsite. And you might. I'm sorry go ahead Mr. Hamlin. I mean, I actually when when the chair just read the language I began getting a little bit nervous because the first duty of the monitor the first listed duty is to provide an opinion as to whether the as to whether the applicant the applicant is in in compliance with the comprehensive permit. And being available is not a sufficient guarantee that you can that you can make that judgment. I think that's why it was originally that there was a concept of an onsite onsite presence. So I'm a little bit nervous now in a way that I wasn't three minutes ago about deleting the necessity of being on site. Maybe it would be easier. I mean, I'm not sure what would we lose really if it was biweekly or even every three weeks rather than every week maybe the way to release that because, you know, the second to the last sentence suggests to me at least that if contractor performance is sketchy. The frequency of inspection can be increased, which suggests that we might not start by having a maximum frequency and adjust depending upon depending upon the performance of the of the contractor. I'm just not sure that that somebody who's merely available is going to adequately adequately be able to issue the opinion on the performance of the contractor that is required by the first condition here. Mr chair. We want to include a provision that actually states how many tell you how frequently they have to visit the site. I mean the way it reads now it's almost like they have to be there at all times during construction. That was really the main concern of the applicant and it does impose a pretty heavy financial obligation to do that, whereas they're going to have to be visiting the site with some frequency. If they're going to be providing these weekly or biweekly reports, obviously not able to prepare a report without visiting the site and observing first hand. Mr Chairman. Yes, please. This language is not unlike common inspection requirements on construction projects, such as welding inspections, which we require 100% inspections on all moment welds, for example. And it requires a continuous inspection and it's commonly accepted practice that continuous doesn't mean on site 100% of the time. It means that they're out there at a frequency where they can monitor and manage the inspection process, but it by no means means 100% of the time. And it is also fairly common for us to start a project requiring 100% inspection of welds, but there's a provision that allows them if at the beginning of the project the inspections are coming back always positive, we can relax it after a period of time. So because a lot of it has to do with the quality of the subcontractors that they hire to do the work, because it's really about making sure that the subcontractors and I'm using the analogy of another subcontractor. It's really about making sure you have quality people doing the work. That's really what we're doing. Like if we ensure that it was a good contractor, they're going to be on top of this, whether we're out there or not. But this provision really has to do with more about making sure that we're holding the owner accountable to hire somebody that's qualified as a contractor to do the work. So my suggestion might be not to deviate too much and permit the, I'll let you wordsmiths figure out how to write it, but permit that we can revisit it after a period of time. And as far as the, you know, being a continuous onsite that doesn't to me mean at least it's not common. Understood to mean somebody's out there. Eight hours a day or 10 hours a day. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Along the lines of what Mr. Hanlon said, I agree the word available is a little bit too squishy. Or that's my take. And then in keeping or in line with what Mr. Ford just said, I'm wondering if in that sentence where you say must hire qualified monitor with professional credentials. I'm not referencing the frequency of how often they're there, but to continuously monitor the site through the throughout the duration of the project. So, so it's more focused on the, the act of monitoring than it is the actual number of hours or days that are present. So just a thought. If the word monitor. Monitor the site throughout the duration of the project, then it's sort of up to them in their professional sort of judgment with professional standards, I would guess to figure out what they need to do in order to submit those weekly or bi weekly reports. And then it, I think it addresses the point that Mr. Ford made that, you know, when you saying continuously monitor we're not talking about you have to be there every second of every day monitoring it but that you have to be aware. You have to have situational awareness of what's going on. Yes, at all times. We will be looking to adjust the first sentence to read prior to the commencement of construction the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with professional credentials to continuously monitor the site throughout the duration of the project. That's what I was thinking. Yes. Again, it's the continuously that could create some problems. So how about we go with prior to the commencement of construction, hire a qualified environmental monitor with appropriate professional credentials to provide monitoring throughout the duration of the project, or how about to provide continuing monitoring. So it's a little bit different than continuously, because I think you're right I think continuously might suggest being out there all the time. And ongoing maybe ongoing. Well, just to relate it to common practice for inspections for all inspection activities on a project, the two terms are continuous or periodic. And I probably wouldn't deviate from continuous only because it is a common language for inspections and this to me is sure seems like an inspection. Because you're wanting to make sure that the quality and the care taken is stays high. I don't think they'll. I don't think they'll push back, especially if we tie it to common terminology for inspection processes during construction. I mean, that's my feeling. I don't think I would sweat that word too much. Mr Chairman if I could just add that it seems to me that if there's a generally understood meaning of the word continuous and the in the industry. I think that that ought to take care of the possibility that it would be over read by a layman that's not familiar with that. So I will tell you my experience with with similar wording in a town where I actually represented the board. The first permit was appealed to the Housing Appeals Committee, and there was a requirements for continuous video of the site. And the applicant took that to mean that somebody actually had to be sitting in front of a video screen 24 hours a day, monitoring the site in the appeal representing the board I said, you know that that was not the intention of the condition. And that just means that they had, you know, the videos had to be running 24 hours a day, so that if an incident occurs, they can go back and actually review the tape and find out what happened. And the Housing Appeals Committee said nope your decision says continuously, therefore, it requires someone to be watching that video screen 24 hours per day. And therefore the expense associated with that was attributable to the board's decision. And that's sort of why I'm having some hesitancy. I think whatever we include, we need to be precise and not rely upon a common understanding because I thought the language of that other decision was very clear and it was interpreted in a way that I never would have thought would have been. Mr. Chairman okay if I just read something maybe I don't know that this is going to help or not or or complicated but I just pulled up from the case guide and this this is just somebody a group and that over that that are are part of the the oversight in the construction industry and so periodic versus continuous inspection. The question is about periodic versus continuous inspection says the IBC which is the international building code specifies the frequency of each inspection task as either periodic or continuous. The Bokeh and the UBC codes the older codes that were replaced by the international building code left so the IBC replace the UBC and the Bokeh code so so it's answering. You know what they didn't do in the past so I'll read it again the Bokeh and UBC codes left the determination of the frequency of testing up to the registered design professional that specified the special inspection program. When continuous inspection is required 100% of the work must be inspected and it must be inspected as the work is being performed periodic inspection is indicated inspection of less than 100% of the work may be acceptable. The registered design professional when preparing statement of special inspection should indicate the frequency of inspection that is required frequency of inspection varies depending on the size and complexity of the project and I guess my point is that that there's really two common forms of inspection and this to me is an inspection and and I miss gravity I can understand your experience. And so I'm not arguing that I'm I'm just trying to suggest that I don't think I would replace the word continuous with anything other than than that because if I feel that it has a strong meaning in the inspections world. Can you read that again because what I heard it seemed to suggest that continuous meant it has to be observed as the work is occurring which would then mean the monitor would have to be there at all times during construction. Sure. The title of this particular paragraph says periodic versus continuous and periodic versus continuous inspection. The ABC specifies the frequency of each inspection task as either periodic or continuous the bokeh and UBC codes left the determination of the frequency of testing up to the registered design professional that specified the special inspections program. Continuous inspection is required 100% of the work must be inspected and it must be inspected as the work is being performed periodic inspection is indicated inspection of less than 100% of the work may be acceptable. The registered design professional when preparing the statement of special inspection should indicate the frequency of inspection that is required frequency of inspection varies depending on the size and complexity of the projects. And I will follow that a common construction technique that requires 100% inspection is the construction of CMU walls. So that's an activity that is an ongoing thing that starts in the morning and ends at night and it just you know they're laying bricks and putting reinforcing. And it is very common that that we are asked as does all of my colleagues in the industry are asked that 100% inspection does that mean that I need an inspector observing every cell and every piece of rebar that goes in the wall. And the answer is is always no the intent of the code for this continuous inspection is that they are monitoring the quality on a regular ongoing basis. So whether that's daily or twice a day or once every other day, they're familiar with the construction of the wall and the quality as it goes up, as opposed to, you know, bouncing in and out every three weeks once at the beginning of the wall and the once at the end. So, Mr. Ford I wonder you've the when you said what it really means is to monitor on a regular ongoing basis. Maybe the term regular ongoing basis itself is less subject to misinterpretation by the HAC and would and would provide a way of achieving what you've suggested without using a word that we already have some evidence that the HAC doesn't necessarily understand. Okay. Make sense. We have a graph to what that would look like. Right of the commencement of construction the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with appropriate professional credit credentials to provide monitoring on a regular ongoing basis throughout the duration. That sounds good to me. Sounds good with that in mind the submittal of the electronic report do we want to maintain that as weekly or do we want to change that period. Mr. Chairman, you know, I really like the last, the second of the last line seems to me that what we do is start off with something reasonable. That, and, you know, it can be relaxed if if it's show, I mean, for the reasons that Mr. Ford originally suggested. And if we're, and if the initial monitoring is showing problems you would want to increase the frequency and it seems to me that that we ought to leave the flexibility to adjust that. And that in a way the second the last sentence I think is intended to do just that. If Mr. Ford could look at that and see whether that seems to meet the, the need for, you know, fine tuning, depending upon the experience of the monitor. Mr. Hannah, what part did you want me to the last, the second, the sentence. Oh goodness I began to last I think it's the the ZBA reserves the right to change the frequency of inspections based on contractor performance, whether or site conditions. And I understood at least the contractor performance as addressing the consideration that you initially mentioned when you were describing inspections that if everything is coming back perfectly you can sort of dial back a little bit and if everything isn't coming isn't, and then you may increase I don't know. I mean for me by weekly and weekly I have no basis of experience to tell me whether or not one is materially better than the other. But I do think if it's adjustable we can start pretty much anywhere and and get to the right point with people are being reasonable. Yeah, I agree I think the way we have it worded right now. And leaving it at a weekly starting point. I mean it, it puts, I like it the way it is I wouldn't change weekly to anything other at the moment. I mean that may feel like a lot but as long as we relay the intent that, you know, as soon as we can see that you've hired a qualified contractor that that's, you know, has the has our interest to take care of the surrounding property, and as soon as it's proved and backed up by the reports that we're getting. You know, we're willing to relax it but not until we see that that see that it's happening on a regular basis at the beginning. So Mr Chairman, if I could just sort of add to that that maybe it would be if we just changed the instead of saying reserves the right to which suggests that the only thing what we're doing is reserving the right to make things tougher. Maybe we should just say is EBA may change the frequency of inspections and that makes it more obvious that that we could both relax or tighten up depending on the on experience. Mr Chairman. Yes, please. So I'm just wondering to if in that sentence, it could read change the frequency of inspections and reports. Yep. Okay, so we're talking about changing the first sentence, as was recently read, and then changing the second to last sentence to the ZBA may change the frequency of inspections and reports based on contractor performance whether or site condition. And we just those two changes to I for the secretary. Mr Chairman just to go from the sublime to the ridiculous but we should follow a consistent practice and whether or not we capitalize environmental monitor. That should be lower case. Mr have it can you just read that first sentence one more time for us. Prior to the commencement of construction the applicant must hire a qualified environmental monitor with appropriate professional credentials to provide monitoring on a regular ongoing basis throughout the duration of the project. Okay. That acceptable to everyone. Yep. I like it. Yep. Perfect. Thank you all. Okay. So I'm going to read this down to I five. There are any comments to I five or I six, I seven deals with fertilizer. I had previously there was a question to the conservation commission about whether, you know, if they put in, if they install the lawn at a time that is not the spring or the fall, can they still apply fertilizer at that time. And so I had asked the country, I asked the chairman about this. And her sense was that the, you know, in an ongoing basis you definitely don't want to be fertilizing outside of these times, but for the first year when you're first getting the plants established it may make sense to fertilize it other times. But I don't know if that's something that we want to address here or if we want to just leave it as it is a parenthetical at the end of that sentence, except for during the initial planting of the lawn. The application fertilizer occurs. There was a lawn fertilizer shall only be applied twice a year in spring and fall. Yeah, during the initial planting. Except during the initial planting year. Yeah. So where does the, I mean, we, we even in the initial planting year can't be in storm, right after storm minutes, correct. Correct. That would be that's a different sentence. Yes, we would just change so lawn fertilizer shall only be applied twice a year in spring and fall except during the planting year. Is that consistent with I guess I don't really understand the difference between the second sentence and the third seconds in that paragraph both of them are talking about the application of fertilizer, right. Right. Yeah, I mean, I see what you're saying. I think application of this fertilizer cannot occur in the summer in the second sentence is probably unnecessary. That would be reasonable then it would just refer to the storm events and then the season would be entirely in the next sentence that would be curious now if the first two sentences apply specifically to plantings within the resource area and then the third sentence is specifically regards to the lawn. Oh, maybe. Okay. Maybe that sentence the way it is then. Okay. Yep. I think we should kind of read it read the second sentence application of this fertilizer. This fertilizer I think of as the fertilizer in the first sentence. Mr Chairman. Yes, please. The sentence. No other herbicides or treatment methods are approved. We don't make a previous reference to herbicides. So I don't think the word other is call for. Maybe we say no herbicides or other treatment or the use of herbicides. You know, instead of instead of no other just say the use of herbicides are similar treatment methods are not approved. It's just a very rough sentence. I'm going to presume that the no other herbicides applies to compliance with 330 CMR 31.00. And if it's a herbicide that's listed in that section, then it is approved. It's just no other herbicides. If you think it's in that 330, Paul, I'm fine with it. Yeah, let me just look at herbicides herbicide is not a defined term. This does this appears to deal just with plant nutrients, not with herbicides. Yeah. But are we prohibiting the use of herbicides on the site? That sentence seems to imply that no other herbicides are treatment methods are approved. But I'm not. Yeah, I'm not clear on what herbicides are. Yeah. So do we want to limit the use of all herbicides on the site? Just within the resource areas. I think we would. Effectively the whole site is basically within a resource area. Okay. Given that 330 CMR 31 does not talk about herbicides. I agree that the word other in front of herbicides is extraneous. But how about no herbicides or other treatment methods are approved? Works for me. It's, I mean, it's interesting that the condition prohibits the use of pesticides or rodenticides within resource areas. But we're going to borrow herbicides throughout the site. I agree that pesticides and rodenticide. More of a concern herbicides. I agree. I mean, that language has been. Bless you. That language has been in all along. That's the conservation commission. All right, I have a, all right, I have another idea. Okay. So. So after 330 CMR 31. No other treatment methods are approved. And then in the next sentence, no pesticides, herbicides, or rodenticides shall be used to treat. Oh, no. Oh, that. Barnet. But why wouldn't you just, why wouldn't you just eliminate the treat pest management issues? Yes. I mean, no pesticides or rodenticides. I don't know why, what other use you would have for them. But even if you did have a different use, it wouldn't be a lot. Yeah. So we go back to Steve's comment. Just take out. Pest management. Yeah. So we would say no other treatment methods are approved. No pesticides, rodenticides, or herbicides shall be used. Within resource areas. Looks good to me. So what do we, Mr. Chairman? What does it mean to say no other treatment method shall be used there? What. The next sentence is now prohibiting herbicides and pesticides and rodenticides. And up to that, we've talked about new nutrients. What. I mean, originally the other treatment methods were, it was thought of as, as. Applying to something that is like what an herbicide might do, I suppose. And I guess I don't know when we keep the sentence in there, no. Yeah. Treatment about not treatment methods not being approved. I don't know what we're driving at. It means that no treatment methods that are not in compliance with 330 CMR 31. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, maybe. Okay. Maybe to make that clear. We could say 330 CMR 31 semi-colon. No other treatment methods are approved. Yeah. I don't understand what that adds to saying shall otherwise comply with. But. I mean, if you think that it's important. Yeah. A little nervous about drifting too, too far from. Conservation questions language. I mean, as. As written. Yeah. The conservation commission didn't flag it as being an issue. Not monkey was it. Except for then it. Potentially allows herbicides. I see what you're saying. Well, no herbicides will be allowed anywhere. Whether it's in a resource area or not. Well, it says no other herbicide. Other. Which suggests that there must be some herbicide treatment measures. I think this is probably a safer approach. Okay. So then for the previous. Recommendations of the application of print plant nutrients shall otherwise comply with 330 CMR. 31.00 semi-colon. Other treatment methods. No other treatment methods are approved and then no pesticides or denticides or herbicides shall be used to treat past management issues within resource areas. No, we're going to get rid of the pest management issues. Just say shall be used within resource areas. No, we're not going to get rid of them. We're not going to get rid of them. We're not going to get rid of them here. But do we want to limit herbicides to only not being allowed in resource areas? Do we not want them to be used. Anywhere. Absent a local requirement for hybidding the use of herbicides outside of resource areas. I'm not sure. It's really within your authority to. Okay. I feel comfortable treating the. The three things. Redenticides, herbicides and. The same. Right. I mean, basically the principle is no poisons within resource areas. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. So do we think we have that now in a form where. That's acceptable to us. I think so. If Mr. Haverty thinks so. He's the one who I think really knows exactly what we've just decided. I'm fine with it. Okay. Anything else on page 29. On page 30. I know I 13, we have stuff on, but is there anything ahead of I-13? So I-13 contains the term cultivars again. And so per what Mr. Hanlon had noted before. I think we just strike the word no. Mr. Chairman, I've got some language that I'm hoping might. Well, no, I'm sorry. This. It relates to a different issue. I think that striking. What I would suggest. That I think just striking no cultivars of native. Planning shall be allowed. That's it. If you just strike that sentence, we should be okay. Right. Okay. Yeah. I think that would be fine too. Excuse me. What does that sentence mean? No cultivars. Of native plantings. What is a cultivar of a native planting? Does anybody know? No, I'm certainly not an expert on that subject. I had the sense that what it was is that it's, is that it's sort of a biological derivative of it. And with that in mind Pat, I think what they may have been saying is some of the cultivars. Our non pollinating. Versions of native plants. So they may be native, but they don't support B populations and pollinators. So I don't know what they're saying. I don't know what they're saying. I don't know what they're saying per se. So I'm not comfortable eliminating that sentence. I do believe. There was a purpose in that. I think that. Just a. The reason for it. And the, I mean. It's awkward because of course I do have knowledge of, of things that are outside our record. So I'm trying to set that aside. I'm not sure if it was applicable here as was applicable. In an earlier change. It is apparently true. And the submission that was made to us on July 19th says. That in order to be able to do, to do the plan that the applicant gave to the conservation commission, they needed to be able to use cultivars and that that was inconsistent with an absolute prohibition. So. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I don't think it's favorable of doing that. Before it was an ambiguity about. What was native or what was it, but this is a, an express. Prohibition of cultivars. And you can't both require them to comply with the plan that they submitted to the conservation commission. And include the sentence. And it seems to me that the larger issue here is. The cult of is that they. They have to be able to do that. And I sort of leave it at that. I do not believe that there would, that would pose any issue for the conservation commission. Okay. And for the record, a cultivar is defined as a plant variety that has been produced and cultivation by selective breeding. We'll just strike that one sentence from my 13. So. I think that's a good point. I think that is more technical. But I would propose that we write that we say. After the first sentence. In the event that the AAN ceases to exist or to issue or maintain relevant standards, such planning shall be installed and maintained in accordance with standards established by a successor organization, if any. And if there is no successor organization, a limited supply chain or that is, if there is no successor organization, uh, the standard setting of the administration, satisfactory to the conservation commission. Uh, this is a condition that we're imposing in perpetuity. The standard setting bodies often don't last that long. Um, and it's in other contexts, this is sort of a standard approach for. Dealing with the situation where out a few years. because the standard setting body isn't, isn't establishing those conditions at this point. And I've given that language to Mr. Havarty. So he should, he would have it exactly, but I could read it again if you want it. Everybody else out with that? Fine by me. Okay. I-14 is the last one on page 30. Any last questions on that? Okay, moving on to page 31. Anybody have anything on I-15, 16, 17, or 18? None. Page 32, question on the, on I-21. Rosemarie could also be installed, Upgradient of the banks of the relocated right of Brooke, once the channel has been graded and stabilized. And what I was trying to remember was whether this was the condition where there was some question in, at the July 26th meeting about protection of the Brooke during subsequent construction phases. That's Mr. Revelak, if he has access to those notes. That was July 26th, you said? Yeah. Okay. All right. Got the page here. Skimming for the word writer. Remember we had a discussion. No, I don't have. Section of writer Brooke during the construction phase. That's Mr. Revelak, if he has access to those notes. During subsequent construction phases. I don't know if we specifically need to include something here or not. But I think that this, what this says is that basically is that once relocated, once writer Brooke has been relocated, that erosion control should be installed so that any subsequent earthwork will not result in sediment falling into the writer Brooke, which I should be fine. But I think in the meeting, we had some discussion about whether a temporary pipe should be installed to divert the water during subsequent phases. I found it. I think. Okay. So July 19th. Ah, okay. For writer Brooke, the concern is that flow capacity is maintained throughout the project. The applicants will have a separate NOI hearing with the conservation commission regarding the relocation of the Brooke. That works. Okay. What is the change to this condition supposed to be then? So just between the words could also be solved. Upgrading of the banks of the relocated writer Brooke. Yup. And then I don't know if banks needs to be capitalized. I think. In a sense, it probably does not need to be capitalized. Correction, I was going to recommend to I-22 has already been done because the insertion of the word conservation before the word commission. So that's all set. So anything else on the eyes being none that would move us into the J's. So J-12 and three on page 32 is there. Oh, it's now only J-1 and J-2 on page 32. Being nothing there that moves us to page 33. Under J-4, on the last sentence, I was wondering if we should change it to parking of vehicles on private ways, not under the control of the applicant is prohibited. Not under the control or the sole control? The sole control is basically they do have a private way that has marked parking spaces on it. So we should just make sure that we're not contradicting that. Now it's the only thing I had on the J's. So anything else on the J's brings us down to the decision. I would pass over for the moment to move on to the waivers. The first one is section 563, prohibits multi-family uses. FNC seeks a waiver to allow 124 multi-family. Mr. Chairman, on this, I mean, actually, if I recall the section prohibits residential use and I think we should just say that. So this section prohibits multi-family uses in the industrial design district, the applicant seeks a waiver to allow multi-family use in the industrial district. No, the section prohibits residential use in the industrial zoning district. It wouldn't single-family isn't allowed here either. And I think we should just accurately say what the ordinance says and then, or the bylaw says. Then I wouldn't bother changing the second sentence because that would be, that's fine. Well, the second- I would just add units after multi-family second sentence. Yeah. And strike the word zoning. Yes. To allow 124 multi-family units in the industrial zoning district. Yep. Okay, that is a waiver we would be voting to grant. The next article, five section 562, which has to do with dimensional requirements. I'm gonna press waiver. Is there any question with the contents of that? Okay, the next one is a waiver for section, article five, section 531-15, which has to do with height setbacks for various buildings and they're looking for a waiver for the approved plans. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I don't have any substantive thing, but I'm looking at the zoning ordinance and I don't see the one between the three and the 15 in the citation. I think it should be 5.3, 0.15. It's a section called buildings of uneven height or alignment and it's on page five dash eight of the zoning bylaw. Which page of the bylaw again? It's on five dash eight. The same issue will come up for 5.3, 0.17, the next waiver. Yeah, that's correct. Neighborhood here, five, three, 17, upper story setbacks, five, three, 15, yeah. Okay, so we'll make that change. But then while we're at it, in 5.3, 17, I think that the intent there is to say this section requires a 7.5 foot step back. Yeah, yeah, I've changed that. Okay. Rather than the semicolon. Yeah. Any question about those two waiver requests? None that moves this down to article five, section 5.7. Structure of structures within 15 feet of a waterway with the grant of a special permit. The extent of this constitutes a substantive provision. The applicant requests a waiver to allow work within 15 feet of a waterway, including instruction of provost building number two. And the recommended action is a waiver granted to the extent that this constitutes a substantive requirement. The board denies any procedural waiver for special permit requirements as such waivers are assumed as the cover has the permit process and they're thus unnecessary. Question on that? Done. The next article six, section 6-1-12 and the bicycle parking design guidelines. Provisions require a total of one and one half bicycle parking spaces per unit for a total of 186 bicycle spaces. Apprentice requests a waiver to allow a total of 114 parking spaces, which would consist of upper level stacked parking, not in accordance with the bicycle parking design guidelines. And I wasn't, I know we have some in here, some requirements in regards to upper level stacked parking, but I'm assuming that does not need to be repeated here. Actually the- It's my version it is. Am I looking at an older version? Sorry. I don't know. You have been pretty much on point with me through. In mine, I have after, which would consist of upper level stacked parking I have, which will require mechanical lift assistance for upper level spaces. I'm not sure why mine is different. Oh, oh, sorry. Sorry, I'm reading in the wrong place. Okay, perfect. All right. That's fine. Section 614 for 160 parking spaces, the applicant requests a waiver to allow 128 parking spaces. That's just for granting. Article six, section 611C11, allows up to 20% parking spaces to be compact spaces to the extent that this constitutes a substantive provision. The applicant requests a waiver to allow for eight compact parking spaces. So if we have 128 parking spaces and do they really need this waiver? They're only requesting eight, which is far less than 20%. Am I missing something? This is probably gets down to whether it's a substantive requirement or a procedural requirement. I'd say, do we need some of the 6.1 more akin to waiver granted to the extent that this concept is a requirement? Yep. I'll add that. And then the next is the Arlington design standards. Chairman, I, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. There was a discussion, I think, between Ms. Rait and Mr. Haverty at the hearing, the upshot of which was that the design standards are really part of the environmental design review process and part of the special permit process that is provided where the ARB is the special permitting agency. And it seems to me, I mean, ultimately, the result we want is that the applicant can build what the applicant is proposed to build. And it seems to me that this also is one of those places where if in fact it is a substantive condition, we should waive it. And, but it probably mostly isn't. Probably mostly is just part and parcel of the procedures that are normally used by the ARB in doing environmental design review. So I would propose using the same formulation we've used elsewhere that we waive it if it's substantive and if we, otherwise we don't waive it because it's unnecessary. That's appropriate to me. The next title nine, article three, sections 4A and 4B. The sections set fourth town fees and charges. The applicant can waive a 50% of fees related to fire safety, building permits, plan review, occupancy permits, plumbing permits, gas fitting and electrical permits. Also a waiver of 100% of inflow and infiltration fees. And the recommended action is waver granted as it relates to inflow and infiltration fees. Waver denied as it relates to the fire safety, building permit, plan review, occupancy permit, plumbing permit, gas fitting, electrical permits. Next, I want to follow regulations. Wetlands regulation section 20, restricts work in the banks of the Ryderbrook waiver granted subject condition that the deed restriction be placed on the property to protect the land under the relocated Ryderbrook. Regulations section 22, impose a performance regulation for land under water bodies restricts work on land under water bodies and within 25 feet. The applicant requests a waiver to allow the proposed work within Ryderbrook. The recommendation is the waiver be granted subject to the condition that a deed restriction be placed on the property to protect the land under the relocated Ryderbrook. The next is wetlands regulation section 24, the section restricts vegetation removal within resource areas. Applicant requests a waiver to allow vegetation removal within resource areas. Board action, the recommendation if the waiver be denied, the board is determined in consultation with the guarantee conservation commission that the work proposed by the applicant is in compliance with section 24 and authorizes such work as shown on the approved plans as part of this comprehensive permit. Accordingly, no waiver is necessary. Wetlands regulation section 25, the section prohibits new buildings within 50 feet of the adjacent upland area unless approved and evaluating the existing total impervious service on site. Applicant requests a waiver to allow new buildings within 50 feet of the aura and the recommendation that the waiver be denied. The board is determined in consultation with the Arlington Conservation Commission that proposed work complies with section 25 of the Arlington Wetlands Regulation. Board authorizes such work as shown on the approved plans, therefore, no waiver is necessary. Then, well, it's by the title five article eight, section 16 of wetlands regulation section 11. Those permitting and consulting fees totaling $15,000. The applicant requests a waiver of 50% of those fees. The board action is waiver partially granted to reduce the fees from $15,000 by 20% to $12,000. Let me discuss that prior. And then the last one is title five, article eight, section 10, 11, these sections set forth bond requirements for projects. The applicant requests a waiver to eliminate the requirement for security to ensure the completion of wetlands work. So the conservation commission had come up with a cost to replace the plantings of $30,000. And they had looked at trying to come up with a more comprehensive figure, but determined that a bond in the amount of $30,000, well, far less than the cost of the plantings plus all the work that is under, typically be under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission that just sticking with the $30,000 bond request in light of this being a comprehensive permit application was a fair way of dealing with the reduction in what a total bond value might have been. And so the recommendation coming from the conservation commission was to use $30,000 as the cost of the bond. $1,000 to cover the cost of replanting. So just that the bond would be in the value of $30,000. And that figure was set by the value to replace the plantings, but obviously it could be used for any purpose involved in the relocation of Ryderbrook. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm not, I mean, it's difficult and at the circumstances to disagree with the conservation commission, this is essentially, the bond is there to provide them with adequate assurance that the conditions that they want are actually dealt with. But I just would like to say for the record that I don't really feel particularly comfortable restricting the amount of the bond in that way. It seems to me that the bond really ought to be whatever the regulations normally require. So, and I hate to have precedents that that in some other cases would lead us to feel compelled to authorize a more limited bond and is really realistic or necessary because we've already done it in this case. So I get that there must have been a lot of discussion that I wasn't privy to and that the conservation commission is kind of the agency mostly in charge there, but I would say that I'm not entirely comfortable with the resolution that we have before us. Anything further on the bond? What does the wetlands bylaw provide for in terms of bonds? So section 10, bonds and covenants. Conservation commission may as part of a permit allowing work require in addition to any security required by any other town or state board commission agency or officer, performance and observance of the conditions imposed here under be secured by one or in part by one and in part by the other of the methods described in the following clauses in B. So clause A is by a proper bond or deposit of money or negotiable security sufficient in the opinion of the conservation commission to secure performance of the condition and observance of the safeguard of such permit and B by covenant executed and duly reported by the owner of record running with the land whereby the conditions and safeguards included in such permit shall be performed before any lot may be conveyed. And section 11 bond to secure corrections of flooding condition. Conservation commission shall require than any developer proposing to build a structure exceeding 6,000 square feet in area which structure lies within 200 yards of an existing stream or wetland. Be required to post a proper bond to deposit of money or negotiable securities and loo their sufficient in the opinion of the commission to secure performance of measures determined by the commission is necessary to correct any flooding condition on the site of the proposed development that existed prior to the construction of same or as likely to resolve the consequence of construction, the commission shall ensure the bond shall be in effect for a minimum of five years. Now to curse me of course, I should just go ahead and share that switch what I'm sharing here. With the board's decision here would be is to not grant a waiver and then say that a bond is required as set forth in condition. And I would make it I too because we were actually going to be deleting the prior I too. And that saves me a lot of formatting headaches. Then for the condition I too, I would state the applicant shall provide a bond in the amount of $30,000 pursuant to wetlands bylaw title five article eight sections 10 or 11. So you're not really setting any precedent. The confirmation commission has set the amounts pursuant to their bylaw and that's what you're requiring. Okay. Yeah, I think that addresses that appropriately. And as you say, it does resolve some other issues with formatting too. So that's good. Any further discussion of any provisions of the proposed decision? Anyone on the board who does not feel that we are in a position to take a vote on this application. Mr. Havity, how do you recommend we proceed? Recommend that you proceed to taking a vote on the decision as discussed with the changes that were discussed tonight which I have been working on and will submit. Okay. That in mind that I have a motion on the application, the Commerhands and Permit application for 1165 or Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the application in this case be approved in accordance with the decision as amended in our discussions tonight and that the, let me pause for a second. Should one motion take, do both the waivers and the decision? Mr. Havity. And subject to the, and so let me try again. I move that the application in this case be approved in accordance with the decision before the board as amended in our discussion tonight and that the waivers that are appended to this decision are treated in accordance with the, in accordance with the decision itself. Second. Thank you. Mr. Havity, does that motion sound appropriate? Yes. Perfect. With that, we have six members present. We need, we have five who are voting members. So we'll, because this, so this business or work is no longer available for this hearing. I will need one of the two associates to vote on this. I don't know if there's a good way to decide this. You guys have both put in so much work on this. I hate to. I'd like to recommend Mr. Rivlet because I didn't miss one. So he's asked me by one. Thank you, Mr. Ford. I appreciate, really appreciate that. So the vote on the motion, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revolac. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So it's a unanimous decision to approve the comprehensive permit application for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue as conditioned as detailed in the decision. But thank you all very, very much. Is there anything further we need to do? Mr. Poverty on this? I need to send you the final version and it needs to be signed. Okay. And submit it to the town park. Perfect. Thank you. So extend my sincere gratitude to you, Mr. Hoverty, to all the folks in town who from, in all the various departments and commissions and boards and committees who have put time in on behalf of the zoning board of appeals on this application, we greatly appreciate everyone's contributions. And those of our peer consultants beta group and everything on behalf of the applicant and all of their subs consultants and especially members of the general public who have taken a strong interest in this case and have provided this board with considerable input and considerable knowledge that we would not otherwise have. We greatly appreciate those contributions from everyone. As we have been doing recently, I would like to just put up our ongoing calendar, which has gotten a little bit long. Find this. So today was Thursday, September 2nd. So that was, that one is completed. So we are complete ahead of the September 4th deadline for 1165R. So our next meeting is Thursday, September 9th at 7.30, which is the continuation of Thorndike Place. There's been a considerable amount of new information that has been submitted to the board in the last few weeks. And don't encourage everyone to take the time to carefully review all those documents. And after that, our next Tuesday, September 14th, we have three new hearings, 20 A Lafayette Street, 14 Nikon Street and 53 Marathon Street. Tuesday, September 28th, we're scheduled as a continuation for Thorndike Place. We are currently scheduled to close the public hearing for Thorndike Place on October 8th. And that obviously is subject to the status of the hearings. Then we have two new dates, which haven't been made public before. So Tuesday, October 12th at 7.30, we have five hearings scheduled, 14 Edgerton Road, 18 Hurd Road, 125 127 Webster Street, 43 Fox Meadow Lane, 24 Ottawa Road. And then two weeks after that on Tuesday, October 26th at 7.30, we're scheduled for two hearings. I've been told three, but only two addresses came through, which is five Chevy Outroad and 43 Cutter Hill Road. So that's 10 additional hearings that are coming up before the end of October on top of Thorndike Place. So just to sort of keep that in mind for everyone. So before we close tonight's hearing, I want to take a couple of minutes to announce there are some changes coming to the membership of our board in our coming months. So members Shauna Rourke and associate members Steven Revlack and Aaron Ford have all indicated they intend to resign from the board at the conclusion of the two comprehensive permit hearings presently in front of the board. I want to acknowledge their service to the town and to this board and I sincerely thank them and their families for their contributions and dedications to the board. I truly appreciate their willingness to see those cases through to their conclusions and the board will honestly not be the same without you guys. So we'll be very glad to have you through the end of Thorndike Place. I appreciate that. With that in mind, if there are any town residents who would be interested in serving on the zoning board of appeals or any other town board committee or commission, you can type committee openings into the search bar on the town's website and select the link for committee openings page. I have given notice to the town manager's office that we'll be looking for additional people come the fall. But thanks, special thanks to the three of you. I know Shauna's not here tonight but to Aaron and to Steven for your service on this board, it's really been greatly appreciated. And with that, I thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli, Vincent Lee, and Kelly Landema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting at the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And it's our understanding that the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demandedACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us That email address is also listed on the ZBA's website. Mr. Havnery, is there anything further we need to do on this case? Nope. Very good. We'll email the final drafts, Mr. Chairman, to you and to Mr. Chairman. Perfect. And I guess to conclude tonight's meeting, I would look for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Mr. Hanlon, do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Go to the board, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revilak. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. Here votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thanks a night, everybody. Good night, guys. Good night, guys.