 So good evening. It is Thursday, June 10th, 2021, 733 p.m. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. So I'd like to call this meeting of the board to order. As we begin, I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. So from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Kevin Mills. Here. Sean O'Rourke. Sean is on by telephone from that minute. Aaron Ford. Here. Thank you. And Stephen Revlack. Here. Thank you. From the town, Rick Fallerelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm here. Perfect. Vincent Lee. Here. Thank you. I believe Jennifer Rait is on from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Here. Thank you so much. Are there any other town staff in? Susan Chapnick from the Arlington Conservation Commission. Good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Outside Council and Consulting Engineers, Paul Haverty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Haverty. On behalf of Beta Group, Marty Nover. Good evening, Mr. Chair. I also have with me tonight, Bill McGrath and Tyler DeWooder. Wonderful. Thank you all. And appearing for that applicant, Stephanie Kiefer. Good evening. Kiefer, good evening, good to see you. And I believe I've seen John Hessian is on, Gwen Noyes is on. I believe our clip follows on as well. And I believe I saw Scott Thornton and Scott Blasek. Are there any that I've missed? I believe Kyle may be on. I think that I saw him. Yes, I'm here. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Kyle Wheeler. And then also we have Ambrose Donvan from the Cale. Thank you. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020. The order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged 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. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom 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 is being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name, or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain to form during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. Ms. Chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order, needing to promote an orderly meeting. But we only have one item on our agenda this evening, which is the Comprehensive Permit and Hearing for Thorndale Place. As we begin, I'd like to review some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. So at the May 23rd hearing, the applicant presented their revised design, including six duplex houses on Dorothy Road for the combination of senior independent living and assisted living with a combination senior independent living and assisted living building behind. Following up on that evening's hearing, the applicant submitted revised documents to the board on Tuesday, June 8th. Those documents were posted to the agenda for this evening's hearing. This evening's discussion will focus on the revised proposal from the applicant. We will open with a presentation by the applicant followed by questions from the board. After board members, members of the public will be invited to provide their questions and comments. So with that, Ms. Kiefer, if I can ask you to explain to us where the application is at this point. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Just as an introductory, if we could also allow screen sharing for Scott Glastick, so that when it comes time for him in the presentation to pull up material, he's able to do that. Rick, can you hear that? He is good to go, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rick. Thank you very much. So with that said, and I just wanted to do one quick update in terms of the project team here that's today. We have a full slate of folks, hopefully, to answer any questions that you have. So in addition to myself, we have our clip followed by noise. We have Scott Glastick and Kyle Wheeler from Bruce Hamilton Architect. We have the civil engineer, John Hessian. We also have Scott Thornton from Vanessa, Bob Angler from SEB Housing, and then Ambrose Donovan from McVeil. So I think I accidentally forgot to double check that Bob was on the call, but I saw his video pop up. So with that said, as you said, Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing on May 23rd, we had come back to the revised concept, building upon the board's request for us to take a look about as to the reintroduction of those six duplex townhouses, which we did. And then behind that, there would be a senior building, a four floor senior building. And based on the input that we received from the board and at the last hearing and further questions that they had, we went back and further assess our building plans, our civil design, our traffic, and those reflected as you made reference to in our submittal of June 8th to the board. And there was likewise, according to my notes, there were some comments or specific areas that the board had kind of asked us to take a look at. And so we hope to provide greater clarity or responses to that this evening. So with that said, in somewhat in the order of our presentation this evening, first we're going to start off with the submittal of the updated architectural plans and elevations and perspectives for the project. And as GreenStacks and Bruce Hamilton will be describing for you in greater detail as to modifications or additional information, maybe it's more appropriate for both the duplex structures as well as the senior residential building. And then with the senior residential building, we've also included a set of floor plans for the board to review. And it'll be a combination of studio one and two bedrooms as it will present. One of the, just to highlight, and I'm sure that Art and Scott and Gwen will underscore these, but a couple of the highlights of the changes or the topics that we'll discuss tonight is the senior living, the counts, and it had been presented as 126 units. It's actually been revised downward by two units to 124 residential units with the balance of the space within that building to be common areas. And likewise, in further consultation with our senior living consultants, the market really, the need to be out there is for senior living with services. And so the senior building will be dedicated to that senior independent living with services. And so those types of services and amenities generally are intended to, they provide socialization on from this entertainment or education, physical activity, coordination with healthcare providers for one site medical health checks and optional meal plans and other related services that I think that they'll get into. And then just quickly touching on that senior living building as well, it had, there had been a little bit of confusion at the last hearing relative to the, on the southern side of the structure, there's a part of the building is within like the outer 10 to 15 feet of the aura. And there had been confusion and we tried to resolve it that under the prior multifamily, the 172 unit project, there had always been structure within that small portion of the aura. It had been the parking garage structure and then maybe some courtyard. And I think that that issue or that question that had been raised at the last hearing has been resolved. The conservation commission submitted a letter to the board dated May 28 confirming that small area of impact was not objectionable and that area had been consistent with what had been part of the prior program when there was a multifamily building that there had been impact to that same area. And so that has not changed at all that small impact into the aura. Likewise, with respect to the duplex units as Art and Scott and Gwen will be presenting to you, the board had asked us to take a look at the duplex structures. We have reduced the height slightly by a couple feet. And what it does, we think is it is consistent with the neighborhood, but it also continues to help provide the buffer to the senior housing behind that. And while our property isn't within the more restrictive R2 zoning district, there's slight differences between what allowable building heights are about what we've done if we tried to make an adjustment to make a nice transition if you will. And I think the last thing I'm going to just speak to in terms of the architecture with the duplex buildings, there was a question that had been posed us within the conservation commission's May 28 letter basically just asking us to consider whether or not we could exclude basements in the two eastern most duplexes which are located in those chappable fingers on flood plain. And we considered this and we took a look at this. And just to be clear that that impact to that flood plain area has kind of always been an issue. But I think what's important to underscore and probably John will address this more eloquently than I'm going to. But the impact into flood plain has already been addressed through the compensatory storage, the two to one compensatory storage. And so whether it's just foundation or whether it's foundation in a partial basement, it doesn't quite make a difference there. And then in terms of ensuring that the residents of those two buildings, so the four units of those, we have, I think, our architects as well as we have McPhail here that can speak to the fact that there would be a waterproof barrier along the floors and the walls of that structure. So at this point, we'll continue to discuss with the board, but we think that based on the amount of compensatory storage that's already been provided for, we're not that there's no additional storage that's being lost. And also that there are sound engineering ways to make sure that it's waterproof, that removal of those two partial basements doesn't really make sense. In addition to the fact that the convenience to the actual occupants of those buildings, it provides a place to store whatever, bikes, skis, equipment. From our architectural presentation, then I think it will move to a combination of McPhail, simply to address any questions that the board may have relative to those basements. And then also there had been a question about pile driving and we had said that we don't anticipate pile driving at all. And that if necessary, the construction for the senior building may include aggregate piers. And I think that Mr. Ronovan can just briefly explain that to the board so they have an understanding of what that means and how that differs from piles. Or yeah. And then lastly, after our civil and kind of geotech issues are addressed, Scott Thornton from Vanessa has updated traffic. As the board had asked questions about how the traffic would be impacted by the revised program. And Scott will give a brief presentation on that. I anticipate our whole presentation will last somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes. And we're very happy to take any questions that the board may have. And with that being said, if I could have Scott pull up the plans. And so this first screen as I turn things over to Scott and Art is just the revised concept that we presented on May 23rd, just so everyone has that in their mind. And now there have been some slight adjustments to this. But just so in case anyone missed the May 23rd public hearing, you see the six duplexes along the front of Dorothy Road. And then behind that would be the senior living building. So with that being said, Scott and Art, do you want to move forward with your updated site sections and architectural plans and draws? Sure, and Mr. Chairman, my name is Scott Blasock from Bruce Hamilton Architects. I guess Art and Gwen, I'd like to first ask you if there's anything that you'd like to start off with or say I'm happy to go through the plans but wanted to give you the first bite at the apple. Maybe they'd like me to continue. So feel free to chime in Art or Gwen at any time. All right, I'm sorry, we were on mute. I was just saying that we wanted to show this briefly even though it has been updated since our last meeting. But there are just a couple of things. One is that we wanted to emphasize how much landscape area we are introducing to the plans that weren't there before and to reiterate how of the six duplex townhouses, three of them will be designated to be affordable. That is, they would for the owners who take possession of them, they will be, as we've talked about in the past, something that would be a means of generating wealth that has been not available to many people in the past. So that's one of the major benefits that this whole scheme does provide. And as we've talked about, the amount of area that is now available on the West End for landscape benefits for the residents of the community, as well as what will be going on in the area surrounding. So, well, that Scott can deal with the cursor. But anyway, there were just a few things that we wanted to make sure that anybody who wasn't in the hearing last time would see that we have really appreciably increased the amount of arable land that will have a benefit of being absorptive of whatever rain falls on it. So that's just, we can go back to that later if you want. If you go on to the next slide. So, do you want to talk about this? All right, Scott, you get to talk about this. Okay. Thank you very much. So I'm going to just briefly go back to the site plan. I think Stephanie gave a really great kind of overview. And I'm going to try to keep my presentation pretty brief tonight because I do think what we're presenting tonight in terms of the architecture is really just minor revisions through notes that we heard and things that came out of the last hearing. But what Stephanie was talking about the two, just for the benefit of those who, you know, we're trying to follow along, these two duplexes, duplex buildings, which are comprised of four separate units. Those are the duplex units that Stephanie was referring to at the beginning. So what I'll show you tonight, and I had a really good point too that, you know, we wanted to show this for the benefit of anyone who maybe wasn't present at the last hearing. So like I said, I'll go through this fairly quickly and then certainly have to answer questions at the end. So in the next slide, what I'm going to show you is the perspective down Dorothy Road. I think maybe most people have seen this before, but where my cursor is right now is approximately where I'm standing in that next perspective view. And I'm looking west down Dorothy Road. So we'll be really looking at what Stephanie was explaining about how the duplexes along Dorothy Road are, you know, more or less screening the four-story senior living building behind. So as I go to that slide here, the perspective has been revised lightly from, largely it's unchanged from the last version that we saw back in May. But as Stephanie noted, we did reduce the height of the duplexes by two feet. So it still allows plenty of screening, but it fits in better with the neighborhood and the scale. We also made some minor architectural adjustments to the duplex here. And I can show you a little bit better on the next couple slides here. So this is a north elevation, a streetscape elevation, if you will, of Dorothy Road. Along the top of the page here are all six townhouses, I'm sorry, duplexes. And below that, we've just kind of enlarged three of them. And then in the background, you can see the scale of the senior living building behind it. Now, this is, of course, a two-dimensional view. And, you know, so of course, the four-story building is taller, but again, looking back to the perspective view, you can see how the duplexes will surface screen that building. This is the individual view of a typical one style of duplex that we have. And this is the other duplex. This is the one that we made a few tweaks to the architecture, primarily up in this area where the dormer sits in the roof here. But inside the floor plans of these units would be more or less identical. This is a west elevation. This is actually a new drawing that we hadn't submitted the last time, but you're standing to the west of the site, western part of the site, and you're looking east. So this right here is the main entrance to the senior living building. This is a duplex unit out near Dorothy Road. So this view kind of gives you a sense of the scale. And again, if you're to kind of trace a sight line here, really get a sense of how these duplexes are screening the vision to the four-story building behind from the ground level. But you can see here the approach to the building would be per the site plan, you know, would kind of have an entrance driveway here. There's some parking. There's a turnaround for easy drop off and pick up at the main entrance. And here you see the entrance to the parking garage down below. These are two site sections. Again, we were we showed these last last month. And if I zoom in, you can actually see kind of the sight line that we've drawn here to illustrate the screen of the building. So these are really diagrams to show more of the you know, the relative heights of all aspects of the site, really. How the buildings sit in context to the road and to the rest of the site. This one shows a cut through the western wing, I guess we'd say, where the building is farther from Dorothy Road. And this next one here is cut through as you move further to the east. The building does jog and gets a little bit closer to Dorothy Road. None of this is really changed. With this section, Scott, you might point where that car is and point out that we did. I think we talked about it before, but we raised the floor of that garage by three feet. Thinking of the hydrologies. So that's actually up three feet from the year 172, Burton. That was the same as last time though. Yeah. Yeah, no, but I agree, Art. That is good to, you know, kind of underscore here. So the garage from the, you know, multi, as compared to the multifamily proposal, that's absolutely correct. The garage has been raised approximately three feet. And you can see that the garage on the backside here is not very far below the surrounding grade. It looks as if the grade is higher on this side. And it is. However, that is more or less than the effect of the land that will be actually bermed up intentionally because we wanted to be able to have a nice entrance into the main entrance of the building. If I go back a couple of slides here. So what I'm trying to say is this is the predominant grade surrounding the building. The garage has only set a couple feet into the ground. When we go to the West that we were looking at a couple of slides ago, this area is what I'm referring to. The land will be burned up so that there's an upgrade entrance at the main entrance. Well, the next few slides that we have are new and they are an attempt at, you know, kind of giving the board a little bit of an idea of what the floor plans for these, for the multi-family, I'm sorry, for the four-story senior living building could look like. So we've actually started to lay out units here. This is all fairly schematic, but I think the main point to make here is the main entrance to the building being right here. We've kind of kept this area just as a shaded green area to indicate the common area. And that common area would contain all of the amenities and the spaces that Stephanie was mentioning in her presentation. So what we really end up with is in the context of a senior living with services building, you know, you're talking about a building that has a larger percentage of common space in it compared to a typical apartment building. So you may be talking about up to 35% of the building area across all the floors is devoted to those amenities and common spaces compared to, say, maybe approximately 20% in a typical multi-family building. So there's certainly more common space. You can see that common space would be focused kind of toward the core of the building. We've still got circulation, like elevators and stairs going up and down, but that area would actually be programmed in more detail once we know a little bit more about the spaces that would be needed by these particular residents in this community. Or anything else that you wanted to add? Well, I think it's possible. If you look at the second floor, you'll see that we have the same amount of common area and that could change, you know, where we have more on the first floor and a little bit less on the second floor. But I think as we're saying, we are talking now to a very experienced senior housing consultant and somebody who would probably be very interested, shouldn't say probably is interested in working with us on this project. And the specific design would be an interaction between them and us allocating these common spaces in a way that works for them. But we have obviously consulted them and we have the right amount of it. It's the question of the disposition of it that is TBD to be determined. Yep. Excellent. So this, as Art was saying, is the second floor plan very similar to the ground floor plan in terms of allocation of units in common space. Third floor plan is here, would be primarily devoted to units. And the fourth floor plan is a little bit more of the same, however, we do have allocated. Being on the fourth floor, you know, anticipate there may be some fairly nice space in this area, particularly on the side of the building that faces to the southeast toward Boston to have a little country kitchen, you know, gathering type common space. So we have that allocated on the fourth floor. One thing, if you go back to that ground floor, Scott, it might be worth mentioning that just on the south side on the ground store, right behind the elevators, there'll be a 13-foot by 62-foot open balcony, which I think would be, it's not, it's not the whole thing actually, it's just 62 feet. So it's next to the kitchen. So you can, you know, we're kind of setting that up for, it's facing south, obviously, it's looking out over the wetland and I think it'd be a really nice thing that can come down the elevator and, you know, the sunny side of the building and look out at the trees and other aspects of nature. Yep. Yeah, thank you, Art. I forgot to mention that. So I think the last plan we have is the garage plan. This is probably, you know, very few changes from last time, although we did allocate, I think, some of this space over here as common space. So you can see the layout of the parking, again, access to the elevators from that garage level as well as stairways that lead you up to the lobby and the main entrance to the garage at the west end here. So I think with that, that's everything that I wanted to say, Art and Gwen, is there anything else that you wanted to add to that? Well, one thing, just a thought, I think, you know, we've talked many times now to the fellow we're working with on the senior living with services and I think it's worth noting that these people are not necessarily an assisted living, certainly not in a nursing home, but they do tend to be 80 to 90 years of age by sort of average. And so that has something to do with the use of the building. And I think Scott will talk a little bit about the impact on traffic because some of these people might even have a car but they sell and drive it. And I think another thing that really is worth keeping in mind as we go through this is that the senior living consultant and hopefully at some point our partner in developing this is, has stated flatly that the deliveries to this building can be controlled by them as a company and be between 10 o'clock in the morning and three o'clock in the afternoon, avoiding peak traffic. So I think the impact on traffic is significant and obviously Scott will have a lot more to say about that. I think I'll just mention a couple of things about when we say senior living with services, that means that there would be wellness and security and exercise room and services that are available on a kind of all a cart basis. It is not assisted living. So but many of the things that would make it comfortable for a person to be there cleaning and laundry service and stuff like that can be available. This is all just based on a preliminary analysis and of course this senior living specialist his take on what the market is. We're, you know, he's believing that this is where the market and this particular site at this particular time is. So he'd be meeting the demand as he sees it. I don't know, Scott. Scott just put that the site plan up on the screen. Yeah, I mean we have, we're talking about spaces outside that would be pleasing for people to have, you know, if they wanted to have a little vegetable plot or sit out in the garden area for on a sunny day or have a family picnic. Who knows, there are lots of options, but this is a space that we've been able to gain for landscape rather than parking given the change of use. So that's something that one of the benefits of senior housing. So I think, sorry. I was saying just to somewhat build upon these plans. If you could, Scott, maybe go to just even the next plan. Oh, I'm sorry, the go maybe two more. Okay. Yeah. Well, this is good right here actually on the north elevation here. So as I had referenced in my introductory remarks, the intention for the six duplex units is to also include partial, not full basements, but partial basements in each of the six. And I think that this may be a good time. Ambrose, if you would like to provide comments, both as to, as we talked about, the finger of floodplain on the eastern two duplex buildings as well as then with respect to the construction of the senior living and whether or not aggregate peers would be necessary. I think maybe now is a good time to kind of talk about basements and how that impact or doesn't impact the surrounding community in terms of groundwater. And then also just in terms of methodology for construction, if aggregate peers require, what does that mean? I think that sure. I mean, just by way of brief introduction, I'm the president of McPhail Associates. We've been around for 45 years. We're located in Cambridge. We've done a lot of work in Arlington, Cambridge, North Cambridge, Arlington area. Some of the projects in Arlington that you might be familiar with are Arlington 360. Thompson Elementary School, renovations to the fire station. And we're currently working as the geotechnical environmental consultant on Arlington High School. We've done work in this area in particular in the past. We did a pumping station nearby at Russell Field back in the mid-80s, but the soil conditions are still similar. Based upon what we expect for soil conditions out here, there's some fill material, probably five or six feet of fill material, some organic soils below that, and then a natural marine sand, marine clay deposit. Groundwater is present down at a depth of about six feet, five feet below ground surface, roughly around elevation two and a half to three ground surfaces at elevation plus eight to plus 10. The basements are designed to be above, at or above the groundwater table, or the partial basements, I should say, are designed to be at or above the groundwater table, so we don't expect that they would have an impact on groundwater. We plan to design these basement areas, or I should say partial basement areas, as waterproofed, such that they don't affect the groundwater table. The slabs would be waterproofed and the walls would be waterproofed. We would expect that the groundwater in this area, given that it's a relatively flat area, that the groundwater is relatively flat, that there is not really a significant groundwater gradient, and that means gradient is flow of groundwater. That the groundwater is pretty flat in this area and pretty much models the ground surface elevation. And as such, it may seasonally come up and may seasonally go down, but there's not a significant flow to the groundwater table. As such, we don't think that these buildings really affect any groundwater movement in this area, in that there really is not a significant groundwater gradient that's causing the groundwater to move. The soils are relatively silty. The permeability of these soils is pretty low. And as such, water does not move readily through these types of soils. It moves pretty slow. It's probably on the rate of a couple of feet per year, in terms of movement. So it's not like a river, in terms of your imagination of what groundwater might flow might be like. This is more like a vast lake. And I think probably at one point in time, this area might have been a large lake, going back in geologic time, but that's because it still looks pretty flat. So I think if you visualize it more as a lake, then like a river and that water really is not moving, it may go up and down seasonally, but it's not really moving significantly. In terms of the foundation systems, as I mentioned, there's some fill, some organic soils, over-natural sand and clay deposits. We anticipate that we may well be able to build all of these buildings on just a spread footing foundation system, which is probably the simplest foundation system you can use. However, depending on the thickness of the organic soils, we may need to use some aggregate piers. These are not pile foundations. I've heard that people are concerned about pile foundations. And I know that a number of the buildings on the other side of Route 2, not too far away, use pile foundations. I might have been involved in one or two of those. These are not pile foundations. When we use aggregate piers, basically what you do is you auger a hole in the ground that's probably about a foot or two feet in diameter. It goes down through the fill, organic soils, and maybe a foot or two into the natural soil, the sand and clay deposit below that. And then basically that hole gets filled with aggregate stone that is mixed with some cement to solidify it. And that gets tamped in place, similar to the way you would compact gravel if you were constructing a sidewalk or a roadway. It's the same sort of compaction effort that you would use. But we don't know exactly where we might have to transition from a spread footing to an aggregate pier. But the aggregate, you would still use a spread footing. It's just the aggregate pier would extend below the spread footing to the bearing stratum. I think that's about all I've got if anybody's got any questions. I think if there aren't any, we can circle back at the end and perhaps move next to the update on the engineering and the civil. There were two updated civil plans and the updates of the stormwater report that I can turn it over to John Hessian. Thanks, Stephanie. Good evening, everyone. I also, as Scott said, I believe I can be fairly brief this evening. I have two revised plans to discuss briefly and to talk a little bit about a revised stormwater report that's been submitted. It was just, everything was just submitted this week. I fully understand that beta probably hasn't even had a chance to look at it. But I can say that what's been submitted substantiates what was presented at the last hearing back in May, that I made a statement that with the reduced density of this development, the senior living with the townhomes, obviously from Gwen's hand-drawn colored sketch, there's much more green area, which equates to more pervious area, less impervious area, that we were able, with the previous multifamily project, to make the drainage work and meet the stormwater management standards. And my comment back in May was that with this reduced density, reduced impervious area, that would likely have a fair amount of flexibility and be able to handle that. So just the first plan here, the layout materials plan, actually very, very minor changes. This plan was updated and submitted back for that May 13th hearing, the last public hearing. A couple of fine tunings on this. There was a sidewalk added to access the bike storage area. Scott, if you could use your cursor, if you would please, to the bike storage area on the north side of the northeast side right there. That was mistakenly omitted from the plan in May. We've added the senior living building egress doors. Obviously the main entrance, and going clockwise, there's a door to the loading dock area. There's an exit door from the garage level, the northeast corner, an egress to the southeast, that's right on the east wall for the upper stories of the building, the southeast down there for the upper stories of the building. And then the last one, which is on the northwest portion of the building adjacent to the access driveway. With the exception of those couple of minor changes, I believe this site plan really hasn't moved much at all. Most of the design effort was with the architects this past go around refining the senior living building and the Duplex town home buildings. So the most of what I have to discuss really is on the updated grading and drainage plan, which is the next drawing, Scott. Okay, thank you. So it was requested, I think it was requested in the kind of the closing remarks of the last hearing primarily by Mr. Hanlon that he was going to want to see, you know, that the stormwater management would work. So really the first step in, you know, completing an updated stormwater management design and report is grading the site and making sure the site can adequately grade to drain to stormwater management structures and facilities on the project. And the grading plan, although this is quite a different design than the multi-family plan, it has a lot of similarities in the grading and ultimately the stormwater management approach. The front portion of the site, really the Duplex driveways and front yards will all drain to trench drains located in each of the Duplex driveways with individual infiltration systems, below ground infiltration systems size to handle the runoff from the front yard areas in the driveway areas. In the previous multi-family plan, we essentially had a trench drain going all the way across the frontage of, you know, Dorothy Road to pick up the courtyard areas, both the passive courtyard area and the courtyard that contained the five or six parking spaces and vehicular drop-off and pickup area. Moving south on the plan, the townhomes and the carport roofs will be designed to convey runoff to the rear. There's individual downspout connections that are dashed lines from each of the Duplex buildings that will connect directly to a subsurface infiltration area, which is that shaded area under the access driveway that Scott is highlighting. Thank you very much, Scott. And then if folks can remember the site section that Scott showed earlier in his presentation, there's some grade change that happens. The first floor elevations of the Duplex units elevation 12, the first floor, the residential level of the senior living building is elevation 16. So there's four feet of grade change from the Duplex backyards to the front entrance of the, you know, the four-story building. And in that landscape area in between the backyards and the senior living building, we've got a couple of area drains and things are graded to drain to those area drains, the landscape areas, which will also discharge to that subsurface infiltration area, which I think it's important to note too, it's previously that infiltration area was a smaller footprint. It's the footprint has been expanded by about 50 percent and it was previously located under the parking that was to the west of the main site drive, which is now where there's going to be outdoor passive recreation garden areas to the left there in that area. Scott, thank you. So we've moved that infiltration area further away from the neighbors and I think that's a benefit. And then you know, there's an emergency overflow from that subsurface infiltration area that is routed around the west and south side of the senior living building and will discharge to the floodplain wetland area, outside of the wetlands, but discharge to the south at the rear of the building right there. Thank you, Scott. I think, you know, ultimately, data, we expect the board is going to pass beta to take a look at this, but we're confident that I think beta will agree that the system works similar to the previous design. A couple other highlights, I think, to make are, with the raising of the senior living building three feet, raising of the garage level, it's allowed us to raise the site, which is also allowed us to raise the subsurface infiltration system, providing greater separation from groundwater than what was provided in the previous design. And also with the reduction in impervious area, we have been able to incorporate the NOAA 14 plus precipitation data in this revised design. And just to highlight, the state standards, the town of Arlington wetlands regulations require the use of the Cornell rainfall data, which is more conservative than what is required under stormwater management standards. But there's been a significant amount of dialogue with the conservation commission and with the zoning board about the opportunity or the, to address climate change resiliency to incorporate those NOAA 14 plus precipitation rates. And we're happy to say that with this revised design, we've been able to do that. So without getting into any more detail, I do think that the report will prove out and look forward to beta's review if the board requests that. Thank you, John. And then I think for the last piece of our presentation this evening, if we can turn it over to Scott Thornton, he provided an update on the traffic and how it relates with the new program of the duplex units and then the senior only building. So Scott, I don't know if you need any visual, but. Yeah, that's fine. I can stay up there. Thanks, Stephanie. Again, for the record, Scott Thornton with Vanessa and Associates, we did prepare a traffic memorandum identifying the differences in trip generation between the previously proposed 176 unit in the traffic study. It was analyzed as 176 units since downside to 172 unit apartment building compared with this new proposal for the 12 duplex units and the 124 units of senior housing. So I think the main takeaway is that this new proposal should result in about a third less traffic than the previous proposal. And again, that's based on codes for ITE and the census data for the track that the site's located in. One thing I noticed when I was looking through the memo tonight is that some of the census percentages are incorrect in the memo, but it doesn't materially affect the trip generation or the percentage differences. I think we had in the memo, we talked about a 33 to 39 percent decrease in vehicle trip generation, but using the correct census numbers, it's more like a 29 to 36 percent decrease. So I did want to make the board aware that that was just an oversight on our part. In terms of some of the other development details, it looks like it's a senior living with services development. So there are going to be some staff on site. It's likely to be maintenance, group preparation, some laundry housekeeping staff. Based on the information that we have, it looks like it'll be somewhere between 10 and 20 persons on staff at any one time and probably less during off-peak hours, during the during nighttime hours, if there are any during those hours. The other item that Art had mentioned was the deliveries for food items and other types of service or materials that the site might need. We're expecting those to be transported to the site in smaller trucks. There shouldn't be any of the of the large, large tractor trailers coming to this site. And those, as Art mentioned, those can absolutely be delivered or can be scheduled so that the deliveries will be made during off-peak hours. So probably looking at between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. so as to present an even smaller load or a smaller effect on the peak hour traffic conditions in the area. We also, you know, looking at the need for senior transport services, we reached out to the Arlington Council on Aging and obtained some information from them regarding the services that they provide. There's a number of on-demand services that are available to residents in Arlington that are 60 and over. There's the service that can go anywhere in Arlington, the round-trip cost of $6. The Council also contracts with taxicab providers for medical services for seniors that need to go to locations that are outside of the town. So that service is also available. And finally, there's another service that will transport seniors to Council on Aging programs within the town. And that's a nominal fee, $3 per round-trip ride. So these types of services are currently available. And, you know, we contacted the Council and the transport coordinators and they made it clear that these services would be available to residents of the projects that are over 60. And again, with, you know, like many of the other disciplines that were discussed tonight, there's not really much to tell in terms of traffic. We would expect that the decrease in traffic would have an even smaller, would result in an even smaller impact on the traffic flow and the conditions of the intersections in the area. So I guess with that, I will turn it back over to you, Stephanie. Thank you very much. At this point, if the Board has any questions on anything that we presented this evening, we're happy to give you our responses and our feedback and answer your questions. So Mr. Chairman, is there anything that you or the other members may wish to ask of any of the team at this time? Thank you, Ms. Kiefer. Just in advance of having the Board ask, I did just want to ask Marty Nover from Beta Group if they've had an opportunity to review any of the information that came in on Tuesday afternoon. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did have a chance to take a look at the materials and we would be able to answer some general questions from the Board on the new materials. We don't have anything in writing yet, but we would be able to answer some questions. Perfect, thank you. Then with that, I would turn to the Board. Are there members of the Board with questions? Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Ford. I have a question for Mr. Donovan. Mr. Donovan, one of the concerns that we have on this side is doing work in the floodplain buffer zone. So I really have a question for you about the excavation and the extent of excavation beyond the face of the building. I'm assuming the excavation will be laid back maybe at a two to one and assuming that the bottom of the footings are 17 feet below the finished floor that the excavation could extend maybe 34 feet beyond the face of the building. Is that what you would envision? No, I don't think so. So for instance, the main building, the larger building, I'm not sure what we're calling it, but the finished, the so-called garage floor level is at elevation plus six. Existing grade is at about elevation plus 10 in that area, I think. We would expect that the footings, the foundations for that building would go down perhaps another two feet down to about elevation plus four. So it would be about a six foot cut, not a 17 foot cut to get to the bottom of footing grade. If we were to put in the aggregate piers, they're installed within a localized hole that's just drilled out and then filled with aggregate. So it's not an excavation. So I don't foresee any excavation to any kind of depth much greater than six or perhaps maybe seven or eight feet. Fair enough. So now if we go seven or eight feet down and I would assume the plan would be to lay back the soil to the right of that building because and if so, how far would the layback happen? I'm trying to get maybe my question to you is how far from the face of this apartment building could the excavation occur assuming that you lay it back, lay the soil back as opposed to use any sort of supportive excavation system? Yeah. I don't think we will need supportive excavation here. I do think it would be a layback. Two to one is probably more than what we would need. It would probably be more like a one and a half to one. In other words, if we're six feet below grade, we would be nine feet out. Fair enough. Okay. So maybe we're about nine feet plus or minus. And all right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question then for Ms. Chapnick. I think one of the things that I heard Ms. Kiefer say was that Ms. Chapnick had written a letter and said that they were okay with the location of the basement that landed in the aura. Did I hear that right? Ms. Chapnick, can I ask you to comment on that? If I may just clarify what I stated. It was that the commission's letter of the 28 was referencing the not the basement but the portion of the building. So it includes like, you know, the garage and above that. So there's something separate speaking about basements. So I didn't want anyone to get confused because that was basements with the duplexes, but just to clarify. Thank you. Got it. So Ms. Chapnick, maybe my question then turns to you that just says we have a basement. I mean, the concern obviously is a building in the aura. And we've got a basement that sticks in the aura. I'll have to ask the design team to tell us how far it sticks into the aura. But I know it sticks into the aura some dimension. And from the face of that building, and I'm just going to use 10 feet into the aura. I don't remember the exact number, but for a reference, assume that we're 10, the basement's 10 feet into the aura and we're another 10 feet to lay back the soil. Now we're 20 feet into the aura. Can you comment on your opinion of this? Because, you know, if we're trying to protect the floodplain, it feels like we're starting to encroach. So I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint on this. Sure. So the buildings in the floodplain, it would be great if we had a picture of that where the floodplain is, the fingers of the floodplain. I don't know if that's something anybody can pull up quickly. Because it might just help with the conversation. I think it's right there. Did it show any other plans? It should be part of the building. It should be on the building, not the duplexes. On the, you need to go further down page. Yeah, somewhere in that area. Okay. So you can see the flood zones. They're very, very faint kind of gray area. Yeah, I think he's talking about the ones on the towards Dorothy Road, though. Is that what you're talking about, Mr. Ford? No, on the back side of the building. Yeah, everybody, if we recall, the basement isn't showing up on, maybe it's this plan. And that was where the confusion lied before, that the basement didn't show up on the floodplain plan, although the basement actually extends beyond the face of the building. So what we have is the basement into the aura. And my question, so I agree, I would like to see a plan. It would be helpful to see a plan that showed the basement encroachment onto the aura so that we can all get a sense of if you have the basement into the aura, and then an additional 10 feet of excavation beyond that to get your opinion on the impact of that into our floodplain or our buffer zone. Right. I did discuss, so based on the plans that we looked at from the last meeting and to the best of our knowledge from looking at those plans, and we concluded that there was approximately a 15 foot intrusion into the aura from the building. We had not considered any grading at that time. That was a disgust. So we were unaware of that. All we talked about was the 15 foot intrusion into the aura. And we determined in the conservation commission that in consideration of the woodland restoration and other onsite mitigation that we were agreeable to this minor intrusion. And that's consistent with decisions we've made on other projects in the past, minor intrusion on the outer, the outer kind of 75 to 100 foot of the aura. However, we did not consider another 15 feet on top of that 10 or 15 feet on top of that. Best of four because we were not aware of that. And I won't put you on the spot to answer right now, but I think it would be helpful for us to understand the implication of that in your in your opinion, you know, in light of the fact that we're learned, you know, that we understand that we're partially in the aura, the excavation is going to get laid back and go further into it. Does that give you any heartburn or should we have any concerns about that? Right. Thank you. Thank you for asking. I think generally, and the way we interpreted with the mitigation and the restoration that we've seen onsite, that the outer 75 to 100 feet, so that 25 feet way on the out of the aura, that would be agreeable to us generally. Now, we didn't discuss that in the commission, we discussed 15 feet. So I want to be fair about that in our public discussion. However, in terms of weighing the mitigation and the restoration on the rest of the site versus the intrusion in the outer 25 feet of our aura, it's consistent with other decisions we've made. So that's a long answer. And the short answer, putting me on the spot, is within the outer 25 feet of that aura from the 75 to 100, I believe that would be considered agreeable given the mitigation that that's happening on site. If it intrudes further into that, I think we're going to have a little trouble because then then we start being much more concerned about the habitat impacts and environmental impacts of that intrusion. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Miss Keeper. If I just may, just in case there's any confusion about various terms, so floodplain or watering land subject to flooding does not have a buffer zone. Just so everyone understands that the floodplain is the floodplain. And then the aura is what normally one calls the buffer zone. And that is two areas such as bordering vegetative wetland, BBW or IBW. So there's a difference just if there's any confusion between floodplain and then impacts to buffer zone. Under the State Wetlands Protection Act, the buffer zone is not a resource area. But under, as we discussed under your wetlands bylaw, the aura is, it is a resource area. It doesn't mean that no work is permitted within it. But as Ms. Chapnick was just referencing, but just in case there was any clarification or any confusion as to those terms. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, Mrs. John Hessian, if I could add a little clarification too that might be helpful with your permission? Please. Scott, would you mind scrolling to the next drawing, the grading and drainage, the same kind of the same viewport you had. Yeah, great. There you go. So, and then can you see that that is the 100 foot buffer or that's the limit of the aura. So that little semicircular wedge is the footprint of the building that's proposed within the aura. And Mr. Ford, I thought I heard you saying that you thought that the garage extended further beyond the building footprint. That's not the case with this revised project. In the multi-family, the garage extended to the exact limit of this building, but the living spaces above the garage were set back about 10 feet. So it's the exact same amount of structure in the aura as was with the previous plan. And so that's the limit of the aura. And with respect to the layback area, whether that's nine or 10 feet, south of the building, you can see the forest asphalt walking path, which is centered on the emergency vehicle access drive. That is also within the aura. It has been that way since the revised plans submitted on November 3rd last year. And we held that and when we first presented this revised development program, we indicated that we held that line, held the limit of that emergency vehicle access as our limit of work, if you will, that we went no closer to the wetlands or no further into the aura than dating back to November 3rd. So the layback area that would be required for the foundation construction is going to be totally located within the limits of what is going to need to be worked as the emergency vehicle access drive. Thank you. Thanks. Anything further, Mr. Ford? No, no, that was it. And thanks, Mr. Hessian for clarifying that. You're right. I had it misremembered, but the point I was trying to make was just how far off the building the layback was going into the aura. But as long as I think everybody, including me, understand that it's common practice and acceptable to work within the 25 outer feet of the aura, and that construction doesn't extend beyond that. But I'm okay. That was just been a point of discussion the whole time along. And as things move, it's hard to keep track of it all. So I just wanted to make sure I had it square. Yeah, I appreciate that. And that's why we tried to minimize movement on that to not have it be a moving target for everyone. Thank you. Ms. Javnick, you had a question? I just wanted to clarify one statement, Mr. Ford. When you said it's common practice that we work within the 25 outer 25 of the aura, that's not necessarily common practice. It's just allowable by or agreeable to the conservation commission with appropriate mitigation and restoration on a site to balance out that potential impact. So I don't want to have it on the record that the conservation commission agrees that it's always okay to work within the 25 feet of the aura. That's not the case. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Understood. No, I'll stop putting changing the terms and let you guys describe it. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to Ms. Chapnick's point, there's probably not a set number. But for instance, the conservation commission approved 19 R Park Avenue that half of the building is within the aura. And I think it's even more than the outer 25%. So they're looking at each one. But 19 R Park Avenue was a 34 unit building that there's a significant amount of work in the aura. So it's not an unheard of thing in Arlington. Absolutely. Certainly. Just a sort of a semi follow up with Mr. Hessian, is there regrading behind the building that impacts the amount of area in the flood plain? There's a little bit of grading, as Ambrose described in part of his comments, that on the backside of the building, we're pretty much meeting grade. So there's some minor grading just to make sure that that asphalt walkway is accessible. And just to create that, you know, to level off that emergency vehicle access, but no significant grading. And what grading is in the flood plain has been included in the compensatory flood storage calculations. Perfect. Thank you. And just one for the clarification. So the poorest asphalt that we keep discussing, that's part of the pathway around the building, is that, can you describe what that material is and whether it's something that is capable of leaching any chemicals out of it? I can tell you a lot about it because the Canton Conservation Commission where I live required that I do my driveway with it. So it's really, it's an asphalt paving product that really it's the aggregate and the asphalt mixture, just like your own driveway or the pavement on the street, or if you have an asphalt sidewalk. And what it's really missing is the sand. So water is able to just infiltrate through the voids that are, you know, between the pieces of aggregate and the asphalt that's binding it together. And it's oftentimes referred to as popcorn pavement. I will say, you know, it's, it's on my driveway, it's great. It actually helps thought ground temperatures travel up through it. So it helps reduce kind of snow and ice build up a little bit, not a, obviously you have to shovel, but it drains very well. And there's just like any other paving product, it doesn't leach any hazardous materials. Hey, thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This is probably going to start off with, with Mr. Thornton. I noticed in the duplex analysis, we have basically assume a total of, of I think it's six person trips from the 12, the 12 duplex units in the peak hour in the morning. That is, those are the exiting trips. And in the evening, the exiting trips total, I think five, two through cars and two through transit. And this, I gather, comes from a low-rise multifamily. And I'm wondering, that seems sort of little. I'm guessing that maybe people living across the street might think that's a bit little. And I'm assuming that the same ITE generation figures that are applicable to these duplexes also would be applicable if you were called upon to analyze the two family housing that's in the immediate vicinity. Is that right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, those numbers are right from the ITE manual. If we were to run similar calculations for the, for similar units in the neighborhood, we should come up with similar numbers, correct? Okay. So looking at the seniors, I'm a little perplexed. I take it that the, that because they're senior, first of all, when the ITE does this, how do they define what a senior is? So, so there, there are different categories of, of senior slash assisted living developments. And what they go by are probably the, the, you know, how the sites are, are categorized or how they're known. So if they're, if it's known to be a, something like a, it's known to be 55 plus, then it's, that it's counted as a senior housing, then it can be counted as a senior housing development. So there's, there may be some that are, that are higher than a higher average age or some that are on the lower end, but they, they should be 55 and over for senior housing. So I take it that the peak hour traffic generation when you're doing the independent living is, is probably pretty sensitive to whether people are closer to 55 or whether they're closer to 90. I would think so. The data is not that it's not that finely grained. So that, you know, when they, when they do the counts of these facilities, you know, they, they do, they get the, they get the, the numbers of units for development and count the driveways. And, and, and that's where they come up with the trip rates. And, you know, they do this over, over a number of, a number of developments and, and come up with, with, you know, in some cases it's a weighted average trip rate. In some cases, if the data fits well, there's an equation that's, that's produced, but it, it doesn't get the data that they have to date does not get into the level of specificity that you're, that you're driving at. So it doesn't, we don't, the data doesn't get down to the, to the level of the, of the ages of residents or, or how the trips, how the trips decrease or how the trips are, are correlated with the age of the, of the residents. And so I would, I would think that, that all of the residents are the, the fewer trips that they're, that they're making. But again, that's, that's not something that's, that's sort of clarified in the trip generation manual. So if, if it's true that, that it turns out that the, that you're dealing with largely people who are say in the decade between 80 and 90, as Ms. Noyes, I think indicated earlier, those people probably are not on the average making as many peak hour trips as the general population of people 55 and over, that would be fair to say. I think that would, that, yeah, that's fair to say. I would say that of the, of the, of the categories that we looked at for, for the, for the senior housing component, there, and again, there's, there's, there's four, but this, the one that we looked at for this comparison generates the highest amount of, of traffic for the number of units. And again, that's just, that's just trying to provide a sort of conservative starting point. If we were to, if we were to look at something, say congregate care, which has a, has a range of facilities or continuing care village, which has a, has a range of facilities associated with it. And you would think that they would have older residents there. The baseline trip generation drops down even further. But again, we're starting with a sort of a conservative base point, thinking that the traffic level should only, you know, if the, if the number, if the ages of the residents are higher than 55, you know, 55 to 60, then the trips should go down. If there's, you know, if there's some other, some other qualifier, you know, more, you know, more, more of an assisted living than independent living, then, then the trips would go down. But again, looking at this as a independent living with services facility, the trips are, the trips are lower than what we initially expected. So the, now if, but you take the same group, it's sort of conservative. I gather to, I'm guessing to take the trip generation figures you have, but the, the transit mix seems to me to be the opposite of conservative because your mode split is based upon the, the data from, from the census that includes everybody who's all commuters over the age of 16. And I'm guessing, again, that 16 year olds will find the three quarters of a mile walk to the transit station, a lot easier to deal with than the, the 80 year old. And so probably at least when you're just looking at the residents of the facility are how confident are you of a 35% mode split. Yeah. And I think if when you look at all the types of transit that are available, and again, we're specifically thinking of the, of the, the, the council and the aging carpool, vanpool type service, not necessarily the, the red line, but it could be that it could be the, it could be the council on, on the aging bus transport that would, would result in a, in a higher transit level. You know, it may, it may not get as high as, as 35%, but again, I think that there's, it doesn't seem, I mean, we're certainly not thinking that it would be anywhere near the, the, the box on two data, but, but, but seems like it should be something akin to the, to the existing census track data for the area. The, is the, is the applicant actually planning on, I mean, this may be for Stephanie, but we're being, this is being described as senior housing independent living. That's, that's the category in the ITE manual and it's sort of independent living with services. Is, is, is this something that we should assume that, that the applicant is committing to and that this is definitely what we're looking at? Or is this something that could change as market conditions change so that we should be conceiving this as potentially involving involving less, less benign uses? Can, can I make a comment about that? In conversations with, with the consultants that we're working with, we originally wanted to preserve the possibility that it would possibly have assisted living in further conversations. What he's said is that right now, and maybe this is COVID related, the market for assisted living is, is way down. And that the, the real need is in this assisted living. I mean, independent living with services. And he's, he's quite confident that further, further investigation will continue market studies and so on, but we'll continue to bear that out. He's, he happens to be, he happens to be very experienced in the area and operate several facilities within five miles of this site. So we're, we're, we're pretty comfortable relying on his judgment about this at this point. Could I ask you if Mr. Chairman, while I have this noise, I wonder if, if she could answer this, you'd indicated that, that this, the services would be sort of on an Alucard basis and not included in the rent. And I'm kind of wondering what will happen with the affordable units and whether the people who have those units will be able to have their apartments, but will be unable to afford the services. Again, there's, there's, there's a lot that I can be learning about this, but the Alucard is, it's not meant to, that one meal a day is considered part of what the, what the baseline would be, but things that are additional would be such things as transportation that we're talking about, or if, if extra meals were wanted, that's possible. If there were particular visits to doctors and, or there, you know, there would be extra services that are, that would be available to laundry and things like that. But those would be bought by the residents whether affordable, of the affordable units are not on a market basis. Is that right? That's correct. But it is, so right. There would be, there would be sort of a concierge capacity, but, but people who are in the affordable category would have a baseline of services that, that would be still meals and, and, and you know, access to, to healthcare and stuff like that. Could you, could you remind me what the definition of affordability is for ownership units? I have now forgotten. Yes, Stephanie can answer that one. Mr. Hanlon, I'm sorry, the, you want to know what the definition of affordability is for the ownership units? It's for persons earning 80% or less of the area median incomes as adjusted for household size. So that's basically the same as the rental system, the rental units? Yes. And if there's further clarification needed, I think Bob Angler, are you here? Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, I don't know where my picture is, but I'll answer. On the home ownership side, the 30% of income includes mortgage, interest, taxes, insurance, and any condominium or homeowner association fees. When you add all those in, they can't be more than 30% of your 80% income. So when you're renting, you don't have condo fees, you don't have insurance like you do as a homeowner. So effectively, your rents cover pretty much the 30% that you're looking at, unless you've got a utility allowance, that's also included. So the rents and the utilities come out of your 30% as a renter. And on the home ownership, also the condo dues and insurance comes out. So there's still a gap of what you have left to pay on an a la carte basis because you have the 70% of your income left to cover those services. And it's worked out in most of the affordable or assisted or I should say elderly with services, there are all the affordable components there are able to carry those a la carte services. Maybe you don't get all of them, but they get close to them. You can ask around. Okay, thank you very much. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Other questions from the board? Steve Revelak, Mr. Chair? Mr. Revelak, good to see you. Yeah, good to be back. Thanks. I'd like to just start by stating a couple of observations I made when looking through the January, June 8 submission just to make sure I have them clear in my head. First is that we're still providing compensatory flood storage at a ratio between 2.2 and 2.3 to 1, depending on the elevation. The stormwater, latest stormwater calculations were done using NOAA 14 plus rainfall data rather than the Cornell data that was done earlier. The garage has moved up three feet. The main building's first floor elevation is 16 feet. So which I think are the things I'm happy to see. And finally, just a quick question probably for Mr. Thornton. So based on the last traffic impact assessment, we're generally looking at a peak hour reductions of between 37 and 39 percent relative to the prior design. And that is without using a transportation demand management plan? Yeah, that is correct. Okay. And the prior one did use a transportation demand management plan, correct? Right. Okay. So one of the things that we discussed earlier on with the multifamily configuration was that the building would probably be electric, fully electric. And I'm wondering if there's an intention to do that with this, with the senior housing? This building would be very energy efficient also. That's 100 percent electric. That's right. Very good. The other thing I noticed on one of the side plans, the duplexes have a first floor elevation of 12 feet, is that correct? Yes. Okay. That's one of those numbers that happens to be important to me just because I live in a flood plain and I'm conscious of things of where the elevations are. Cambridge's climate change vulnerability assessment puts the 100-year storm surge event in 2070 at 11.1 feet. So I'm glad to see them at 12. So finally, there are, I'd like to toss out three potential conditions for the board and Mr. Havardy to consider just, I'm tossing them out now because I'm thinking of them now and want to just get them down somewhere. First is that because we're planning on the duplexes having first floor elevations of 12 feet, I'm wondering if we could write that into the conditions that the first floor elevation of those shall be no 12 feet or more. My second request for thought for a condition would be that in the duplexes, the electric panels and all of the building mechanicals, the hot water heater, heating and cooling, be above the first floor elevation. And actually one final question. The partial basements for the duplexes, would they be finished or unfinished? Unfinished. Okay. All right. That's, I was, yeah, I was going to suggest that as a third condition that the buildings, the duplexes be constructed with unfinished basements, you know, at least, you know, for the first sale. But if that is the plan now, I think that is fine enough. One final thing. I know the service road around the building. In the past, we had modeled the turning radius of fire of the town's ladder truck and to verify that it could get around. Have we, has there been a turning radius analysis done for the, that piece of equipment to pull into the driveway near the main entrance? Is that for you or not? I think that's John or Scott? I'll take that. Yes, but we, a turning movement analysis for the fire truck has not been run on the main driveway. Trash and delivery vehicle, turning movements have been run on that driveway, but the fire truck has not, that not intentionally, probably just an oversight. If that could be done at some point, you know, it'd be a useful piece of verification to have. I guess, probably tell you before we run it that it's not likely that the fire department's largest truck is going to be able to turn in that cul-de-sac area, but that's a relatively short driveway and it would be able to back out and do kind of a three-point turn on the driveway. And then go around the axes. Yeah. Okay, no, that's, I think that's entirely reasonable. And that, those are all the things I had to, those are all the things I had to ask about and suggest. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Revolac. I did just want to follow up briefly with Mr. Haverty on the three possible conditions that were just mentioned by Mr. Revolac, one being including the elevation of the first floor, the second being the location of electrical panels above the first floor level, and the third that the basement's being left unfinished. Are those kinds of things that we can include in conditions? Mr. Chairman, certainly the first condition is consistent with the plans that the applicants have submitted. So you obviously can note that in your decision and included that condition. The second one, I mean, I think that you have a legitimate issue of local concern that supports that. I don't know if that was the applicant's plan or not with regards to the location of the mechanicals. It would seem to be wise to have them above. With regard to number three, I think that that, you know, is something you probably need more feedback from the applicant on it. They're planning on finishing those basements that I think we need to get some information as to how they intend to prevent flooding within those basements. And then just another question sort of to get back at an earlier question was so obviously the use of the building that's included currently would be a part of any decision going forward. And so if they use the building was to be changed in the future, that would require a new decision by the board. Is that correct? It would require a modification of the board's decision. Thank you. If I may interject one more question. I believe I heard Ms. Noyes say that the plan was to do unfinished basements initially. I think Mr. Haverty said finished and I just want to clarify that it was unfinished. Ms. Noyes. That's correct. In fact, we don't have really any plans for mechanicals down there anyway. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. So that it seems like all three conditions would be appropriate and consistent with the plans that the applicant has submitted. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Mills. Yes. I'm not sure who would take this question, but I find the drainage plan from the duplex is interesting in that all their drainage would be routed to the infiltration system on what would be then another piece of property. I mean, if this was all going to remain under the control of one entity, it would be not an issue. But now the duplexes are going to be sending their runoff across property lines to somebody else's drainage area. And how is that going to be working perpetuity? I would see maintenance being an issue. I would see maybe deeded rights that they would have this deeded right in perpetuity. I would see easements being necessary. Could somebody enlight me about how this will go forward legally? Ms. Keeper? Sure. So I think Mr. Mills, it would probably be set up as a condo. So it would be a common area of the condo. But if you look at it as two separate properties, you would have as you referenced cross easements, which are relatively, or maybe not a cross easement, but an easement, if you will. And in terms of maintenance, I don't know if there's anything that John, you can provide further clarification on. But those are, I think, fundamentally easy things to resolve, to paper, if you will. John, do you have anything further to add on that? Mr. Mills, there are no property lines proposed between the duplex units. They are all on one lot based on the current plan. So as Stephanie mentioned, they would be all six buildings, 12 units, would be part of a condominium. So the operation maintenance, repair of any of the drainage facilities, subsurface infiltration, repair of the driveway and repaving of the driveway if repair is necessary would be things that would need to be written into the condominium documents, which is would be common for any other type of condominium development where there are multiple buildings. I'm also with my questions. And I would just like to add, I for want to appreciate the changes you've made to the design and try to address some of the concerns of the town, the board in a particular, the neighborhood, I think. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Any other questions from the board at this time? Just follow with Ms. Knowover, are there any any comments from Beta in regards to the discussion we've had so far? I don't think so. At this point, we're going to provide written comments on the drainage and stormwater. What was talked about by a few people on the floodplain compensation as well as the work in the aura, we will be looking at the compensation areas, the locations have changed. So we'll be taking a look at that to make sure that it is two to one compensation and also we'll take a look at our notes from our original site inspection that we went out there and we took a look at the aura relative to existing vegetation and the wildlife habitat value out there. So we're going to make sure that the new floodplain compensation area is in the same location as the area we determined to not have significant wildlife habitat so that the compensation area can be planted to provide better habitat and restoration of the area. So we're going to be taking a look at all that. I don't know if Bill McGrath has any comments, level comments he wants to add on the drainage at this point. He did take a look at the plans and then Tyler did take a look at the traffic information but again we're going to be providing written comments on it. Okay. If I might Mr. Chairman just a couple of things. The stormwater management system is similar in concept to what was done before so I think we just need to verify that the analysis is reflective of the proposed design. We had suggested previously that some new test pits be conducted just to verify the groundwater elevation in particular because there was some variation in previous test pits so I think that would still be a recommendation that we would make. And then just on the question of emergency access in addition to the driveway access I would also verify with the fire chief that he's comfortable that he has enough access to the entire front of the building because there's probably more than half of it beyond the driveway. So I think it's important that the chief is comfortable with that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes. This is Pat. I had two quick things. One is that in the ACC letter to us like every other ACC letter we've actually had we've urged not to grant any waivers that relate to the kinds of things that the ACC is looking at with lands and so forth. And at this point I've now gotten so much has been done to accommodate the ACC's original comments. It's unclear to me what waivers are still in play and I appreciate it if the applicant could look at this and we could figure out pretty soon whether there's actually any disagreement left between the ACC and the applicant and if so exactly what it is so that we could focus on it next time. The second thing I wanted to raise is I want to endorse the excitement of Mr. Revolac over the energy efficiency of the building and the commitment to use to make it all electric. This is a really big deal in this town. We have a net zero plan and this is a big step in terms of actually achieving the objective of that which of course is tied to climate change and is an important part of town policy and a significant local concern. And I know this has been in the proposal for quite some time and it never has really gotten the attention that it deserves and I just want to do a shout out that not every applicant does this and not everybody who is building a new building does this. This is a pretty good commitment on the part of the applicant and they should be recognized for providing it. Thank you Mr. Hamlin. One last look around the board, seeing none others from the where itself Ms. Chapnick. Thank you. Just if I may I just wanted to make two clarifications. One was the conservation commission obviously did not take a look of the new materials that were received this Tuesday. We didn't meet following that submittal. We do heavily rely on Bader's review to assist us in our evaluation and generally agree with them. So we will await their review and may have further comments or not depending on that. We are concerned about the compensatory flood storage area, the calculations because things have changed as well as the location. So we would welcome that information from Bader and I just wanted to make a clarification as well from something that Ms. Kiefer said at the beginning of the introduction when talking about the recommendation from the conservation commission that the applicant consider no basements and I understand that's off the table now and consider flood vents for the duplexes that are in the flood plain. And this recommendation was not necessarily for compensatory flood storage. We understand that. We understand this compensatory flood storage. We appreciate that the applicant has met two to one at least compensatory flood storage on the site. We're talking more about flooding itself and climate change resilience strategy. So I just wanted to make that statement. And we have made that recommendation that the conservation commission has at other properties that have come before us that are within the flood plain. And then the final point I want to make is another point of clarification. We appreciate that the applicant has managed to achieve the NOAA 14 plus precipitation numbers in their calculations for their storm water management. We think that's awesome. That's really great. And actually that's a change that's going to be made in our local regulations as a requirement. However, I just want to make it clear that MAST DEP and other scientists consider that the NOAA 14 plus precipitation numbers actually just represent the range of extreme weather events we are experiencing right now. They do not give you that extra climate change resilience. That extra climate change resilience, if you want to look ahead, that would be considered the NOAA 14 plus plus. I wish they didn't use that language because it gets confusing. But in simple terms, what that is, is if you go and look at the NOAA 14 data online, they give you a range. NOAA gives you a range. And the plus plus, the number that is climate change resilient for 2050, 2070 is the high end of the range. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you for the clarification. Yep. So with that, I would like to transition to the public comment period. So just before we do. So in a moment, I'll be opening a public comment period on the this revised design for the proposed project. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision to provide for an orderly flow to the meeting and to allow the inclusion of many voices. The chair asked speakers to limit their individual speaking time to three minutes and encourage them to use their time to provide comment related to topics at hand. Additional time will be provided at the discretion of the chair to provide time for questions to be addressed. The chair encourages the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board included in the record. This is especially through if you have specific recommendations in regards to the project. Procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as for previous hearings. Please select the raise hand button from the comments tab on zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps us generate accurate minutes. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chairs ended, public comment period will be closed. The board and staff will do our very best to show documents being discussed. If you'd like a specific document to be pulled up during your comment, please ask us to do so. So with that, the first name I have on the speaker's list is Matt McKinnon. Hi, good evening. My name is Matt McKinnon. I live at nine Little John Street in Arlington. Thank you. Please proceed. I have a personal statement I'd like to read to you. I want to make it abundantly clear. I agree with everyone who has been fighting against development on this land for so long. The Arlington Conservation Commission, the Arlington Land Trust, the Arlington Select Board, our state representative Dave Rogers, and our fourth Middlesex District State Senator Cindy Friedman have all opposed development on this land. However, we're still here fighting, still putting up with the complete and utter lack of stewardship of this land. And it seems that all pleas to not build and all pleas to take care of the land have fallen on deaf ears. If this fight fails us, I have one more plea. No densely packed housing units, no parking garages, and no businesses in our residential neighborhood, please. I would still welcome our new neighbors living in the duplexes along Dorothy Road. This would be a reasonable addition to our neighborhood provided that the land is adequately cleaned up prior to any construction. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much for letting me speak tonight. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. Mr. Yerowitz? Hello. Can you hear me? We can, sir. Good. My name is John Yerowitz. I live at 47 March Street. I'm a 53-year resident of the town. And I go back many years opposing any and all development on this mutile property. We've won every time. 2016, 17, and 18 going through the meetings at the Town Hall, the library, the Hardy School. We've always had meetings where we've been very energetic against the development. The whole neighborhood, Kelvin Manor, all up and down Lake Street. No one wants this. The select board doesn't want it. Something happened between 2019 and 2021. All we're talking about now is they're going to get one meal. We've got porous pavement. We're going to cut a couple of feet off the roof. Whatever happened to our against opposition to development? Why are we still talking buildings? We want no buildings. I firmly oppose any development for the negativity it provides to the neighborhood. It's an invasion in our neighborhood. You're going to change our groundwater. Those infiltration setups are going to just push the water through the ground further. The roof drains are going to put water on it to the back. It's going to be insect-borne. The fire department can't get in there. The fire department can't get down our neighborhoods fast enough. We're going to be getting three years of construction with the invasion of contractor trucks, big concrete trucks, bulldozers. We're going to lose our green space, animals. There's nothing good that can be said about this. I do not know why the zoning board is considering building all this stuff in any size, in any quantity of units or people. I want to recognize being very against any kind of development on this site, and I wish the CBA would shoot this down. Thank you for your time. I appreciate this. Thank you, sir. Next on the list is Keith Lucas. Good evening, Chairman Klein. Heather Keith Lucas of Tenmont Street. Thank you for providing the time for a public comment tonight. I do maintain that it's not appropriate to build on this land. It is a wetlands and area that I remain concerned that flooding and the other local concerns may not be able to be remediated from any type of development here. Having said all of that, my understanding is the CBA uses the formal document submissions from the applicant to assist you in making sound decisions for projects that are under consideration. There have been many changes to the plans and also corrections that are made verbally, including one tonight about the traffic study, whether or not that significant or not is up to you. What I'm worried about is that members of the CBA will not have accurate information to reference as they make decisions moving forward. So Chairman Klein, my ask of you is to consider requesting of the applicant to resubmit materials that also clearly highlight the inaccuracies from prior submissions. So you and your team have clean documents to use in your review and to also consider asking the applicant provide you a side-by-side comprehensive summary of all of the changes that are made out of respect to you and your team so that you have clear documentation to make sound decisions by. The next start I have two questions if I may. Absolutely. Would the applicant be willing to describe any differences between the design and the building material plans for developing what I'll call the standard buildings versus the affordable housing units? Ms. Kiefer or Ms. Noyes, I don't know if it would be better for that question. Hi. Under the 40B regulations, the exterior of the buildings are required to be exactly indistinguishable. Thank you. Does that answer your question? That answers my question for the exterior. However, the interior, I would be concerned about the structural integrity of the building as well as any water permeability that could occur to the unit as well. Thinking about the three conditions that Mr. Revolic had posed as well if those would also be applied to those affordable housing units so that those who wind up being owners of those affordable housing units are not unduly impacted by poorer quality build and therefore incur additional costs in the maintenance of their homes. Okay. Thank you. Kiefer, if I can have you address that then I think I'll ask Mr. Haverty to make a comment as well. The quality of the workmanship remains the same and so in terms of flood proofing and whatnot, that's not changed. The 40B regulations allow for interior sources like maybe the choice of countertop materials that those are not required under 40B law to be exactly the same. But in terms of the quality of the construction itself, those would be the same. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to this also? This noise? Yes. I mean it is our practice that the quality of all the units will be the same. The finishes will be the same. There will be no distinction between affordable and unaffordable. Thank you. I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask Mr. Haverty if he could just comment on this question as well. Certainly Mr. Chairman. I mean it sounds like the applicant is committing to having all of the finishes be the same for both the affordable and the market rate units. However, the subsidizing agency is really the entity that has oversight over that issue. They do allow some differences in finishes between the affordable units and the market rate units. They are required to be indistinguishable from the exterior. In terms of building quality, they still have to comply with all of the state building quality. Okay. Thank you. So you're saying essentially from the outside, they have to be indistinguishable from the interior. The applicant has stated that they would want them to have the same finishes, but that it would be up to the subsidizing agency to enforce it. Is that what you're saying? Is that am I hearing that correctly? Correct. The subsidizing agency has the authority to allow the differences in the finishes between the market rate and the affordable units. That's an issue of programmatic concern. That's within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidized agency. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Kibluks. Thank you Chairman Klein. I have one final question and that's whether the affordable housing units, there's one section that I believe we talked about of that front duplex housing units where one side is more prone to flooding than another. And I'm curious if the affordable housing units will, how the decision will be made of whether they're affordable housing units or the normal retail, if you will, units would be in that space? Ms. Kiefer. I think that the answer to that is that they're all being designed that they're not going to be subject to flooding. And I'm not quite certain exactly which units she feels are prone to flooding. But the design is that they're not to flood. Oh, I think that it had been identified in the flood maps that the units that are toward the eastern end are in an extension of the existing flood plain. Is that correct? Yes. There is that finger that goes through the eastern two buildings. That is correct. And so I think the question is, so those two sites, given the existing conditions, could be considered more prone to flooding because of the existing conditions of the site. And so I think that the question that's being asked is, how is it determined which units become the affordable units? And I think the concern is that those would be the ones selected for that purpose. So there will be 25% of the duplex units are going to be affordable. So there will be an affordable unit in there. We can say that. The affordable units are generally interspersed throughout. And with respect to those two eastern most being within the finger of the flood plain, I think maybe, John, if you want to add clarification as to the flood proving if you will, or is Ambrose still on? No, I'm still here. Yes. Can you respond to that? Well, I think it's a flood plain issue. It's not a groundwater issue. Right. That's correct. So this is John Hashten. I can speak to that. So today, that area is flood plain, that little finger. It's very shallow, less than a foot, generally less than a foot deep of flood plain. But our proposal is to fill that. That's part of our flood plain impact. So we're going to remove that area from being flood plain. We're going to take that, the volume of flood storage that will be lost and replicated at a two to one ratio a little further to the south. So we're essentially removing the flood plain, relocating it and building those two eastern most duplex buildings on similar high ground to the rest of the front of Geelong Dorothy Road. So it may be flood plain today, but once we fill that, and with the grading around the building, that flood elevation will not come up to the building or under the building. Great. Thank you, John Hashten. You're welcome. Ms. Keith Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Klein. I appreciate your assistance with the clarification of my question. I have no further comments at this time. I defer to my neighbors. Thank you so much tonight. Thank you. Appreciate that. Ms. Ide, or Mr. Ide? Hello. This is, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Nicholas Ide. I live at 152 Lake Street, which is the corner of Lake and Little John. So I first of all, I want to acknowledge that there have been changes made to the plan, and those do seem to be in a positive direction, but I have to admit that sitting in these meetings, it's a kind of lather rinse repeat. So tonight we've talked about the flood plain. We've talked about how the water doesn't move and there's a lot of assumptions. I mean, a question from Mr. Donovan is how his explanation of how the water doesn't move and it sits still meshes with the water that gets in people's basements. I don't understand that, but that's, I'm not a geologist or hydrologist or any of that, but we've talked about the flood plains. We talked about the fire truck, whether the fire truck can actually get where it needs to and turn and access where it needs to access. We talked about the ITE traffic study and whether that is actually valid and meshes with what actually happens in the neighborhood. So theory is great. Practice is even better. And I think that there's always a lot of assumptions and there's a lot of suppositions that come up on this call where people explain things away as, yes, that's how it should happen. Well, sure. Plans are great. Reality is a different thing. Today we didn't talk about the WB-67 trailers, which were mentioned last time. These units for green stacks come in on the WB-67 trailers. How in the world they make it around the corner of Lake and Little John and into the neighborhood without running over everything. I don't know. I would love to see a video of how that happens and how they get nine of those or whatever it would be in a day on an hour-by-hour clockwork basis with dealing with John's landscaping and everybody else that has businesses and parks and everything else. It's amazing. All of this is leading up to what I'd like to say, which is I think that in the past when this site came up for construction, it got shut down by the town, by the ZBA, by the locals, etc., etc. What's different now is 40B. And 40B allows for certain dispensation, certain changes, etc., etc. I really feel like every time we're in these meetings, what I hear is us pushing the envelope of what is possible in a practical sense, what is physically possible to be done on that site, what is allowable within the bounds of 40B, and it's all in the spirit of what is profitable for the landowner and the developers. They're running a business. I understand it. Someone has land they've owned for 50 years. They want to profit from it. Someone has a business they want to profit. I completely understand that. However, the spirit of 40B is to get affordable housing in. And I don't see us maximizing on the affordability. I see us maximizing on the profitability, but not on the affordability. We are not maximizing on the amenability. Every meeting, people stand up and they fight against this because there are so many things that we are so worried are not going to go to the cookie cutter plan that is laid out and that these suppositions that are made might not come true. And it worries us, which leads to my last point of the thing I worry about, which is whether it is sustainable. There is what you build on day one, and then there is what happens to it. So you build an unfinished basement. Someone buys it and they finish it, and then they have problems. You build things with certain intent, and then there's what people do with it, right? And how things evolve over time. I heard someone say about that we would micromanage the trucks that come in and out. So I don't know if someone is going to be on a contract in perpetuity to make sure that no large trucks come through the neighborhood to deliver anything to the housing unit. So I find it very troubling, as always. And I've written letters to this effect, and I agree with the things that my neighbors say. I very much appreciate the things that Mr. Hanlon says, and some of the other speakers, name I can't remember at the moment, but there are many people on the ZBA who are very proactive and say things that we as neighbors wish we would have said, and we're so happy that you say them, and we appreciate that. And to be honest, if this weren't a 40-B project, it would probably just be a bunch of townhomes like Mr. Erwin McKinnon said. And there would be no complaint with that. They're townhomes. It fits in the neighborhood, but that's not profitable. And that's why no one wants to build that. And so we are pushing the envelope of what is possible. We are pushing the envelope of what is allowable, simply for the sake of profitability, not for the sake of the affordable housing and more affordable units for people, not for the sake of what the community is amenable to, and not for the sake necessarily of what is sustainable. I don't see how it's all going to be sustainable. Hopefully they're going to hire somebody to clean up the wetlands to keep them nice. I've heard someone on this meeting before explain how many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes per year to keep those wetlands in proper condition, which has not been done for 40 or 50 years. I would love to see that done. But how is that sustainable? Is that part of the sustainable plan? That is all I have to say. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on a couple of those questions. In regards to the truck trailers, I believe Mr. Thornton, you have provided, have you provided diagrams on those? Yes, we did provide those diagrams. So hopefully those should be available on our website to confirm those. And then, so the question about the sort of the maintenance of the remainder of the property, so this is an ongoing concern that we're working on. So currently there's an effort between the town and the applicant and the board to discuss specifically how to address this in conditions in a way that is enforceable through and beyond the 40B process. It is a little bit tricky. It's very unusual, I think, in a lot of ways. But if I could ask Mr. Haverty just to speak to this briefly. Paul, sorry to catch you off guard here. Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to speak to the issue? Just a little bit about, so the board and the town and the applicant have been discussing how to address the remaining portion of the site beyond the uplands that's being developed. And I sort of commented that it's it's tricky because it's not part of a normal 40B process to do this kind of wetlands doing the testing and doing work to try to restore the site. And some of the other outstanding issues on that portion of the property that are very unusual in a lot of these cases. I just wanted to see if you had anything specific in regards to sort of how the board can work this into the decision in a way that addresses the concerns that have been raised locally, but also is enforceable moving forward. Sure. And so as I think we've discussed previously, the board is limited in the types of conditions that it can impose in a comprehensive permit decision to the types of conditions that other boards would be allowed to impose under local rules and requirements and the local permitting processes, because the Board of Appeals is acting as all other local boards as part of the comprehensive permit process. Some of the ways in which the board really wants to make sure it is ensuring the cleanup of the remaining area to be put into a conservation area sort of goes beyond what may otherwise be allowed to be included in a comprehensive permit decision, but the applicant has made an offer in terms of financial contribution to the cleanup of that area. And they have also made commitments with regards to what they wanted to do in terms of getting that area cleaned up. So the idea is that the board would obviously include some conditions in its decision that would address this, but also hopefully be able to do a separate side agreement to the memorandum of understanding with the applicant that sets forth all of the terms and conditions that the applicant is going to do with regard to the cleanup and long-term maintenance of this area. So it's sort of a belt and suspenders approach. It does require the cooperation of the applicant. And is the board able to specifically condition various aspects of the construction projects, like in terms of issuance of permits and things like that? Are we allowed to condition things that would be covered by a memorandum of understanding as applying to the main process of the permit? And again, I think that it presupposes that the applicant is willing to live with any such condition that the board includes and is not going to appeal that for the Housing Appeals Committee. I think that if we're in a situation where the board is reaching a little too far in its decision and the applicant decides it's going to appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee, then it's going to be more difficult to get that sort of condition upheld on an appeal, whereas if the applicant is agreeable to whatever provisions the board includes in the draft decision, then you're on much sturdier footing. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Eyed, anything further? That's all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Seltzer? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer, Irving Street. I have two issues that I'd like to address. The first one is parking. If I recall correctly, last month the applicant was justifying the reduction in the number of parking spaces by the fact that after residents were going to be in assisted living and probably very few of them had need of cars. Now that we're back to 100% independent living, I wonder if the 86 spaces in the garage is sufficient. In particular, there are only four handicap spots in the garage. And with an average age of residents expected to be above 80 years old, I suggest that four spots for 124 apartments is not nearly sufficient. And I hope there'll be some consideration given to increasing the number of these labeled spots and their dimensions. The other issue was a question that I asked last time and no one knew the answer. That is that our bylaws require the posting of a bond to protect against flooding problems that arise in the first five years. What I'd like to hear from the applicant is whether they tend to monitor the spawned or whether they're going to be seeking a waiver of this provision. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. Take those two in order. On the parking question, Ms. Kiefer, I don't know if this is specifically from Mr. Thornton or Mr. Hessian, but switching from having half assisted living to being all independent living, how does that affect what the anticipated parking demand will be and how is that being addressed? Thank you. I think maybe first we should turn it first to, I think, Scott to address the parking. Yeah, sure. So I think that the, you know, the, so if we've got 124 units and we've got 80, 86 or so spaces in the garage. So that's, that's about 0.6 space ratio. So, so there's, we need to probably set up some type of system to which, which Gwen and Art will need to identify as to how the spaces get, get released to, to the residents. Again, you know, with, with some of the older residents, we would expect that they, you know, they're, that while some may come with their cars and may not use them, there's likely to be a lot of residents who, who don't have cars and who would not be expected to be, to be driving, particularly those that are, you know, that are, you know, in the, in the upper ranges of the, of the, of ages that we would find at this type of site. But I think that that's, it's a, it's a good question. And I think it's, it's something that we, that needs to be worked out with, with the senior living consultant, so that we have, we make sure that we provide adequate spaces for, for the residents and also for the staff that are going to be there. I don't know if Gwen or Art, I don't know if you have anything to, to add on that. So talking to our consultant about the fact that many, many of the tenants, the clients in this kind of facility, they, they do bring their car along and then not use it. So to discourage that and taking up a space, one of the things they sometimes do, I guess, is to start charging a fee for holding the parking space. And obviously that encourages somebody to think about whether if I'm not using a car, why indeed am I keeping one there? So that's just one, one thing to keep in mind. But also one of the services would be having a Jitney service be, be the way in which taking several people to go shopping and so on at the same time as part of what is anticipated as a service. Thank you. And then the question about the ratio of accessible spaces. I know that I don't believe the, either the state architectural access support code or the, the federal ADA have different ratios depending on, on age group. But I think that would be something else to discuss with the, with your consultant as to whether that, you know, that is an appropriate distribution of spaces. And then as was discussed previously, the expectation that there would be between 10 and 20 employees operating on site. Does that eat into the 84 to 86 spaces that are planned for residents leaving, you know, only, you know, 44, 46 spaces that would be available for residents? Yeah. And Mr. Chairman, I'll take that. I think it, you know, we're, we're expecting a certain range of, of, of, of staff there. But we would, we would not expect to have, you know, 20 would be at the upper, upper range. And that's sort of a full time equivalent. So, so we would expect, you know, over, over a 24 hour period, there may be as many as 20 employees that have, that have come to the site and, and gone. They wouldn't be there for the, for the entire day and during, during the same hours. But, but absolutely it is, you know, we, we do have to make some space for those, for, for staff and, and maybe it's, maybe it's 10 spaces, maybe it's 15 spaces that have to be made available. And, and I mean, it would, it would take away from the total. But again, I think it's, as Gwen mentioned, you know, the availability of the, of the type of service, the vanpool service, the council on aging, demand service, I think that reduces the, the, the propensity or the, or the requirement for, for residents to have cars on site. And we would, I think we would encourage people to not, not bring their cars to the site, because it's just, you know, the vehicles aren't going to get used and there's, there's no reason for them to, to come. But it's absolutely something that we need to put some more thought into. Is there a specific differentiation between spaces that would be allocated to the residents, to the employees and to the guests? Yeah, I, I think that the, the surface spaces would be mostly for, for guests. There's still, I believe there's still 10 spaces that are, that are proposed at the surface and, and other spaces, you know, there'd be staff spaces and, and the residents spaces in the garage. Mr. Chairman, could I add one other. Please. Yeah, thank you. We, as I think most of us may remember, we had parking spaces at the, at the west end, which has now become gardens and kind of an area to be outside, enjoyed by the, by the residents and that sort of thing. And I think there were, we felt like we had enough parking, but as Scott said, we can go back and take another look at this, but it is a function of, of trying to preserve that public space. What all do we have there? We have gardens or a croquet court and some things like that. Flower gardens, vegetable garden, long. And I, you know, we'd like to keep those for obvious reasons. But if they're required for parking, that we feel that, so there is kind of a backup, you know, even, you know, for near five in the project, you say, oh my God, we need more parking. There is, there is a way to back into that. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just want to emphasize the special problem of handicap parking having, as Mr. Seltzer points out, four handicapped spaces for 124 octogenarians is probably not enough. And I just want to encourage us to look specifically at that and, and whether we have spaces of the right kind. It also seems to me that this is the first I've actually heard of the Jitney service. There had been mentioned earlier of services provided by the Council on Aging. But, you know, this is a, the parking is a problem. It's a, it's a broad, it's a problem with lots of facets to it. And I think that, that I just encourage the applicant to provide some information to the board on what is what they're proposing as part of the solution to that problem. I, I think there may have been a reference that a Jitney service may be one of the things that, that is one of the services provided here. And I may have just overlooked the importance of that. But really, you know, all of this needs to get, to get summed up so that we understand what all the facets of the solution are when we think about what the local need is. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And to get to Mr. Seltzer's second question, which was about the, the posting of the bond, Ms. Ms. Keeper, I can't recall if that's on, if that's addressed in your list of waivers or not. So I'm not entirely certain what Mr. Seltzer, what bond he is referencing. However, relative to a local bylaw, relative to work in public ways for construction or whatnot, we had asked for a certain waiver with the exception of bonds. So I'm not entirely certain what he, which bond he is referencing. So if there, if it's a different bonding thing that he's thinking of it, and sometimes people get confused with, or, or they cross-referenced kind of like bonds if you're doing like subdivision roadways, which wouldn't be applicable here. So I'm not entirely certain which, or what specifically he's talking to for a bonding requirement, but for the work within public ways that there's a bond requirement, we had not sought a waiver for the bonding requirement. I guess if I could just raise the question with Ms. Chapnick, is there a bond that is a part of the, the conservation bylaw? Sorry about that. Yeah. There is, you know, we've been talking about that in the other 40B. And I think beta has a better handle on this than I do. I'm not sure if Marty remembers. I can look it up. But there is one in the local bylaw. And I'm not sure if the applicant has asked for a waiver of that, because really the truth, I lost track of which waivers or what. Marty, do you remember that? I do know that the other 40B has asked for the waiver of that, but I don't recall that they have asked for a waiver of the bond in this one. Yeah. So I don't remember either. Yeah. And I do appreciate Mr. Hanlon asked, whoever asked for an update of the waivers, I think it is important that we understand what's actually being requested now that the projects change so much. Certain waivers may not be necessary. However, I will state that the conservation commission is very reluctant to waive that bond because that bond is kind of insurance on making sure that the mediation and the wetland mitigation is done correctly. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was fairly specific last month when I asked this question. I did specify specifically Title V, Article 8, Section 11, which seems to apply to this project. And I was assured at that time that they would look into it and have a response to that. So I'm disappointed that it hasn't been looked into. And as Ms. Chabnek said, I think this is something that's really important, since flooding is a major issue and we're being assured that it's being handled properly. The bond is sort of putting your money where your mouth is guaranteeing that you are coming up with a good solution. And if you don't, and in a couple of years there are flooding problems, you're expected to take care of them. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. Ms. Keeper. Hi. Thank you. And I think the last meeting, I didn't have the waiver list with me, but that provision was requested a waiver from that within the previously submitted waiver list. And as a couple of commenters have referenced, as well as the suggestion by Mr. Hanlon, you're absolutely right. And we are intending to update the waiver list. I think that with the presentation last month with the revised concept, obviously it was premature. And then the updates today or from Tuesday that were submitted that we are discussing this evening, I think we're in a good position now to get that update to the board to reflect that. And I believe that the reference was dealing with the local wetlands bylaw and a waiver underneath that. And again, it has been requested under 40B, there shouldn't be a distinction drawn between affordable housing projects versus non-affordable housing projects. So if it's a common practice that the commission imposes for every development, then they may not wish to waive it at this time or may not wish to encourage the board to waive it. But it has been requested. And I think that responds to your comment. Thank you. Is there anything further, Mr. Seltzer? No, thank you. That was the only two issues that I wanted to raise. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, point of information, one question. I was going to say, I'm one of the next person on the list. Oh, well, then I'll just want to mute. Thank you, sir. Please proceed. Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, this is Steve Moore. I live on Piedmont Street. I was unable to join with Zoom tonight. And I'm not very familiar with how the telephone raising of hand works. So I'm glad that worked out. Yes, I have a couple of questions. First, I wanted to applaud the applicant for including the McPhail organization on their analysis team. I'm familiar with their work and have been very impressed by the thoroughness of their work and the completeness. So I think it's an excellent addition to the team, particularly in this very sensitive area when it comes to groundwater and flood stormwater. My one question for them is, as the excavation is accomplished, if it's discovered that conditions on the site are different than what the analysis currently says it currently is without having done the excavation, is it possible to still change the remediation approaches and the foundation implementation to reflect the changing site conditions when the facts on the ground prove to be different than what currently is thought is going to be there? That's the first question. Let me go ahead and ask Mr. Donovan if he can address that question. Yeah, you know, it's a little bit of a hypothetical. I think, you know, like I said earlier on, we anticipate some fill material, some organic soils, and a natural sand and clay deposit beneath that depth of probably like six to eight feet below ground surface. If it turns out, for instance, that the fill is thicker or that the organics are thicker and that the bearing stratum is deeper, it would basically, the foundation system would stay the same. The aggregate piers would become deeper. They would extend deeper into the ground to support the foundation system. So the spread footing foundation system itself would stay the same. It's just the piers would that extend below that would be longer. Okay, Mr. Chairman, please have an additional question related to that. I'm more concerned about discoveries, unexpected discoveries about the water table. The, you know, the water table, if the building is designed as being designed as a waterproof partial basement, I mean, this basement is barely below grade, and it's being designed as waterproof. So if the water is any different, it really, it doesn't make a difference to the building because it's waterproof to resist letting water come into the building. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my point is more at, I'm sure the building will stay relatively dry. I'm more concerned about the building's impact on the neighborhood and what happens to all the basements which are nearby as water is displaced or discoveries are made about groundwater, which are remediated to keep the development dry, but then has implications for the neighbors. Yeah, I'm not sure I really understand how that would possibly happen. The building is being built above the water table. It doesn't displace water. This is not a ship going in the ocean. This is basically, if you think of this as a lake and it's a very, the water table is a very expansive area. It doesn't affect, it doesn't, putting a building on top of it doesn't affect the groundwater and make it come up. Water, you've heard the saying water seeks its own level, that water levels out over a very large area and this is a very large area and the size of the building is very small and it's above the groundwater table. Okay, I defer to your expertise, sir. I don't, I don't know enough about ground mechanics and hydraulics. I'm just wanting to make sure that if the water tables discovered to be higher than expected in places, it doesn't impact the rest of the neighborhood, which sits also in the same flood plain. So, thank you and you're right, it's all hypothetical. We'll have to see. That's my first question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The second question is, when you were talking about the permeable asphalt for paving, when that was being discussed, they were saying it was a mixture of aggregate and asphalt and it lets, there's no material bleaching from the material itself, but clearly water and anything the water is carrying can move through it to the ground, including all the salt and that kind of situation. I just wanted to understand that that's normal expectation, right? That salt and water will move, but that'll be pretty much get through this permeable pavement. Thank you. Mr. Hessian, is that your expectation as well? Yes, it is. And I would actually, you know, we would likely include a note on the design plans or, you know, in the operations and maintenance plan. It may be in there. I don't have it in front of me, but to not allow the use of salt or sand on that portion of the walkway that is porous, which is only the portion of the walkway and sidewalk system that runs around any side of the road. Okay. I think that's a smart move, Mr. Chairman, to make sure the porousness of the material doesn't get filled up with sand and such. Third question is the use of, you were talking about the use of the space currently, we're talking about senior facilities plus duplexes. And somebody made the comment, I don't know who it was, about how that if the use was to change, what would be required is a modification to the use plan. I don't know anything about how that works. If someone fill me into how complicated a modification is to do and how long it takes and what it would do to the existing plans, if a modification was suddenly desired by the applicant. Mr. Havardy, can you address that? Certainly, Mr. Chairman. So a modification is allowed pursuant to 760 CMR 56.0511. And the standard for granting a modification, first the board has to make a determination as to whether the proposed modification is either substantial or insubstantial. If it's insubstantial then it's just deemed approved and you don't have to go any further than that. If the board determines that it is a substantial modification, it's then required to conduct a public hearing with newly noticed hearing for butters. And then at which case it needs to determine whether or not the grant of the modification or the denial of the grant of a modification would render the project uneconomic. If the board determines not to issue the not to approve the modification and the applicant took an appeal of that, they would have the obligation to show that either the modification, the denial of the modification renders the project uneconomic or if the project is already uneconomic that it is substantially less uneconomic with the modification than it is without the modification. Right, that makes sense. Mr. Chair, once the project is built, and is it possible for the use to change then after it's built and the units are rented and sold and then the owner decides they want to use as part of the space for a different use than was originally planned under the 40B permit, does the GBA have to approve that? Yes. Change of use? They would, yes. So, Mr. Chairman, again, once it's up and running, it's much more difficult to get a modification that would render the project uneconomic. I mean, if it's already going and the project is already successfully operating, it's very difficult for an applicant to be able to prove that a denial of a modification renders the project uneconomic. And there is some housing appeals committee case law on that issue. Okay, so it's not, so, sir, it's not just uneconomic. It isn't, I guess the word would be less profitable as opposed to more profitable. Uneconomic is the key term, right? It's correct. Okay. And there's two different standards based upon either a rental or a home ownership. And this is a combination, right, okay. Correct. And the last question was, Mr. Haggerby, this is a point that you had made. The point of 40B is to consolidate all of the various boards and commissions that would weigh in on project specifications and such. Um, does that include the Board of Selectment? Does the Board of Selectment have any role in this project once for it, once the ZBA approves or let's say the ZBA hypothetically approves it? Does the Board of Selectment have a role? So to the extent that the select board issues local permits was subsumed within the comprehensive permit issued by the Board of Appeals. Okay. So any any issues then, Mr. Chairman, that would come in front of the select board and thanks for correcting that. I still make the mistake and called them select when that's wrong. The select board is subsumed by the ZBA's decision. So I would have to assume that any discussions related to the dealing with the rest of the parcel and who's going to pay for the cleanup and how much, you know, whether or not the offer is large enough and correct to sustain that cleanup post the development being complete. The select man usually would weigh in on that. The ZBA is going to weigh in on that and I assume that conditions that the ZBA would put on or potentially would put on the applicant related to that would be in place of the Board of Selectment. So I think they would have a relatively wide range of conditions that they therefore could put on related to the maintenance of the property post develop. Just to clarify, to the extent that there is a separate memorandum of understanding between the town and the applicants, that's really sort of, although tied into the 40B process, it's really outside of the 40B process. Okay. I understand. I don't know off the top of my head whether that's something that will be executed by the Board of Appeals, whether it's the Select Board or some combination of both or whether it's the Town Manager, that's really not a question I think that's capable of being answered at this point. But in terms of the issuance of local permits, that's all within the purview of the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals is all local permit granting authorities under chapter. Okay. Okay. Mr. Hagen, I appreciate the extent of your knowledge and the fact that I ask some side-ball, sideways question that you don't have off the tippier, tippier tongue is just fine. Not to worry about that. And finally, I want to say I haven't heard the term Jitney used in a while, and I'm wondering if that's an official development term. I love that term. Thank you. Maybe now. Thank you. Thank you. Next on my list, Ms. Brown. There we go. Hi, Patricia Brown, 49 Mary Street. Good evening. Hi. A couple of questions. We keep talking about partial basements. Are we talking crawl spaces or are we talking like half of a basement with full height? We get a quick answer on that one. Ms. Noyce, can you address that question? It would be half of a basement full height. Okay. Thank you. The second question, the more when I first read this proposal, it sounded like it was senior housing with services such as food service, medical services, housekeeping, things like that. Now it's beginning from all this presentation. It's beginning to feel like it's just age-restricted housing. Can you give me a better sense of what you anticipate? When I think of senior living, I think of people having a common dining room with food service, with medical services, nursing staff, things like that. Can you give me a better sense of what you're anticipating? Ms. Noyce, can you address that? Yes. The optional services and amenities, this is a draft. We are a little bit getting ahead of ourselves, but this is what our colleague has sent as a draft. Staff, optional services and amenities, residents will have available certain optional services and amenities subject to availability and additional charge. They will include staff escorts to outside appointments, private transportation in the van, personal clothes, laundering extra housekeeping services, guest meals. But I should say that the resident services here, the project will provide seven-day-per-week security concierge coverage. This will include screening visitors and vendors, mail and package drop-off, drag-cleaning pickup and delivery, assisting residents with the scheduling of taxis, local restaurant reservations, local entertainment and social activities, and other community involvement. It's also possible that basic errand running and local shopping package pickup will be offered to residents on an optional basis. The service will provide site security and interface with municipal emergency service, so this is not meant to be, we're promising all this right now, but this is typical of what this service or operation that we're talking about. Emergency response, the project will inform residents and their families of locally available emergency response equipment and service providers. Social and recreational project will include common areas within the project to promote community and social recreational opportunities. Local clubs and service organizations will be invited to use the project community space for gatherings and meetings in order to promote continued resident involvement in the greater community. The project will likely provide exercise areas as well as an outdoor walking trail for residents to maintain level of activity that promotes health and general well-being. That's, I mean, I can go on. Let's hold it there. Okay. That's, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brown. So none of that is what I think of typically as senior assistant living with food, with food preparation, medical staff on site, nursing staff, things like that. This is more age-restricted housing than with some, you know, with some community stuff, but it's more age-restricted housing than senior assisted housing. Is that a fairly? Well, I didn't go through the whole list, but a male dinner would be provided also. So you do a food service? There would be a food service. All right. Just one meal a day, you're saying? I think, well, no, but I'm trying to get, and I'm trying to understand the extent because my thinking is if you have, if you've got food service one meal a day, it's a different amount of staff coming in, different amount of food being delivered. You know, going back, that's where I'm going is not, you know, like what you're serving for meals. But what I'm thinking is, you know, do you have staff doing food deliveries that are, you know, for 150 people, three meals a day, seven days a week, is a lot different. Yes. That's what I'm trying to understand is what you're, how you're envisioning this. So it's called independent living with services. And the services do include one meal. And I believe that he said that there are things like, you know, some kind of a buffet breakfast could be available. Also, people can ask if they need more, more service, they can, they can get it, but that everybody will have a kitchen at it, you know, so that if they want to cook, they can. And, you know, I think, as I said, this is something where we haven't gotten very far into that. We're still working with the ZBA about what's possible. But if we keep moving along, we'll be defining these things much more clearly and doing a study that will give you exact details of what this particular community needs and would like to support. Thank you. Can I, following up on that, for people moving in, do you envision this is going to be more senior luxury where there would have to be a buy-in, like on assisted living things, or is this going to be strictly more affordable middle class affordable apartment, or are these going to be high-end rentals? I'm going back to 40B. I don't think that there's any sense that this is going to be high end, but it's going to be a pleasant place, you know. Talking in terms of cost, not in terms of amenities. That I can't say. I don't know, I don't know what, you know, it's not going to be high-end, but it will be, you know, there's competition in the neighborhood, and sunrises there, and nevel manners in the area, and so it will have to be working within the same kind of market range, I believe. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Anything further? Yep. Will Arlington residents and neighbors get priority in terms of any kind of ability to move into this? In terms of the affordable units, or in general? In terms of the affordable units, yeah. Mr. Havity, can I ask you to address that point? Sorry, Mr. Chairman, what was that again? So the question was raised about the affordable units and whether they can be, or there are certain set-asides for Arlington residents. So the town can have up to 70% local restriction, but that's a not-to-exceed number that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to be allowed to have that level of a local preference, and it's something that has to be approved by the subsidizing agency. So typically what I'll do is I'll include a provision in a decision that'll state that the local preference shall be up to the maximum allowable 70% subject to the OK of the subsidizing agency. The subsidizing agency is going to require the town to provide information that supports the need for the local preference, and I'm sure that Arlington will have substantial amount of information that will help to support that. Usually if you have a housing authority, it's got a waiting list of people that are looking for apartments or people from the houses or condominium units or whatever it may be. That's usually the sort of information that the subsidizing agency would be looking for, and presuming that you're able to satisfy subsidizing agency that there is a legitimate need for that level of local preference, then we'll be able to get to 70%. Mr. Chairman? Thank you. Mr. Hanlon? I would like to at least have stated, I think I did last time too for the record, not every member of this board is excited about local preference. Local preference in a town with a 3% black population has an obvious problem with it, and I understand that the purpose of the 70% maximum is to address that, but I'm not entirely confident that it does do that. Some other communities like Brookline have reduced that percentage, so I just encourage us not to take it as a given that we would either ask for any of it, or that we would ask for all of the amount that we might be entitled to if the agency where the subsidizing agency were to agree. So all I can say is that at least as of right now, for this board member at least, it's an issue, and I wouldn't tonight want to give any assurances that that's what would happen. And Mr. Chairman, the concerns raised by board member Hanlon are very legitimate. They are something that the board should take into consideration. Okay, thank you. Ms. Brown, is there anything further? Last question. On the affordable housing to the ownership, is it going to be a one-time affordable thing, or will they have an affordable deed going forward so that the next person who's buying that unit would also be able to afford it? Mr. Heverty? Mr. Chairman, there'll be an affordable housing restriction that will be placed on the unit, and they will be de-restricted as affordable in perpetuity. Great, thank you. Anything further, Ms. Brown? No, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Hakim? Yep, hi. I'm GM Hakim, 10 Edith Street. I'm wondering, seeing that the building's footprint extends into the aura, the buffer area, what is preventing the applicant from reducing the footprint of the building so as not to infringe upon that area? Ms. Heverty, is that a question? Do you have someone to ask that question? Well, I think that the design that's been provided, there's been a lot of work that's been put into this, and we're really talking the exterior 15 feet of a small portion of the aura, and as John had referenced, the impact has been around on the plan since November of 2020. We're not increasing that amount, so if there's any confusion, I'm just sort of going to understand on the board that there's no increase into the amount of structure within the aura, and as I referenced previously, there are a number of projects in the town that have a substantially greater portion of the building within the aura. This is on the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor, and I'm not trying to minimize the town's decision to make the aura a resource area under its local bylaw, but just to know that there is flexibility, and in terms of the design of the building itself, I'm not going to profess to speak to that as eloquently as probably John or Scott or Ken, the architect and the engineers on it. Can I just ask, the idea that the 15 feet that you mentioned, Ms. Kiefer, is insignificant in the grand scheme of things? I could just also say that it's just as insignificant to remove that 15 feet. Like logically, that would be basically the same argument, so just the design of the building, is there a reason like the profit basis or like the floor plan, or is there some reason why that the building had to be planned in that area if it was just as easy or insignificant that it could have been left out? Kiefer, I don't know who, you know, in doing the site layout would be other, I don't know if that's a question from Ms. Rahashen or not in terms of the site layout staying beyond that line. This is John. I'll start, but I think, you know, maybe Scott and or Art can chime in from, you know, the building is designed as, you know, if you recall back when Scott had the floor plans up, it's a, you know, a center corridor down, you know, the middle of kind of each of the wings of the building with, you know, residential units on either side of that corridor. So kind of a double-loaded corridor, if you will. You know, it's not easy to just kind of chop out that 15 feet, you know, then you'd end up really losing the units on that south side. It becomes inefficient. This is where I think Scott and Art could, you know, chime in. Very inefficient for construction, taking that down to the lower level in the garage, the basement level. Again, it's a 62-foot wide bay, which allows you to have head-in parking spaces and a 24-foot dry vial. It really, trying to just cut that area out does have a significant, you know, constructability and efficiency of construction component into it. So maybe Art or Scott Blasek would like to weigh in on that. Scott? Go ahead, Scott. Okay. I was gonna just say, I think John did a great job kind of outlining the main issues there. So the, I agree, the floor plan, you know, would become somewhat inefficient. I think the other thing that, you know, maybe we could have looked at was pushing the whole building closer to Dorothy Road, but we really wanted, it was very important to us, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Art too, and John, to keep the building as far back from Dorothy Road as possible. So balancing those two factors, I think what we decided was to favor the distance of the building from Dorothy Road, given that perhaps, you know, just going into the ore, that small distance seemed to have been discussed, you know, previously and was, as John had outlined earlier, was always a part of the multifamily proposal. So that's kind of how in this scheme we came up with holding that line. That's my take on it. Yeah, that makes sense. And definitely, I think the town out there, the duplex is shielding that building from the road is the right choice. So just to be clear, the loss of those units, if the building were to be moved out of the, or just to carve those units out of the backside of the building, would that make the construction not profitable for the applicant? Well, how does that, my two cents to John and Scott, they're a great job of describing this, but to come back to the basics of laying out a building of this type, you have a double load of corridor. And as I think Scott said, that's 62 feet. Parking bands are about the same, and they actually fortunately fit together. So you can have parking below a standard building layout. And I think what you're suggesting is maybe you could take out one side of the parking or one side of the corridor, and that couldn't be done, not to make any kind of financially viable building. You'd have kind of half a building. And if you push it the other way, of course, you try to keep your corridors and the building layouts and your parking layouts, then you push toward Northy Road. And that means that you don't have room for the duplex townhouses, which of course was our whole point of was actually taking off a lot of the northern parts of the building to put in the townhouses. I'd like to add that we appreciate that how important it is to recognize the 100-foot buffer zone that Arlington has. And we've tried very hard to do that. It is not unusual for the there's a really on the bigger scheme of things. It's a sliver of land that is has been carved off. And as this keeper has said earlier in this hearing, a recent project had considerably more area carved off. And it is our intention to do a lot of landscape restoration, woodland restoration, over years in this project. And it seems like in the larger scheme of things, the 200 and some square feet that are involved is really not a very significant incursion. And maybe Ms. Kiefer could repeat her investigation as to the extent to which it's been recently a similar but I think we get the understanding of it. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you for your answer to the question. I understand the points made. Some of them are logical. I don't think that well another project did it so we can do it too is good justification. Some of the other reasons even do seem more justified. Not that one. But I appreciate your detailed answer. Anything further? No, sir. All right. Thank you. Hello. Shona Gibson 107 Mary Street. I'm at the end of Mary Street by little John. I wanted to share with the ZBA my perspective as a nurse practitioner specializing in care of the elderly for Cambridge Health Alliance. I spend a lot of my week going in and out of assisted livings and independent living buildings. So I'm very familiar with the folks who live in these buildings. I wanted to share my perspective that most people are not moving into these types of buildings unless they have they're they're becoming frail in some way. I don't see many people moving in at the younger end of the age range the sort of closer to 60. Most folks I see are moving in kind of over the age of 75 or if they're younger it's because they have some sort of health condition. That's very commonly a trigger for people to move housing. So I wanted to maybe just point out to people that it's quite possible that the population of this building is quite frail if not immediately upon the building opening at least within the first few years of it being opening that's just a sort of a typical scenario. And so the reason I point that out is that people naturally as they age often need more services. I've heard some of the services listed. I can tell you from my experience of close to 20 years working in these types of buildings that folks will require three meals a day being provided. Very infrequently do people actually use the cooking facilities in their buildings in their apartments. Some do most don't some end up having their appliances in their kitchenettes actually closed off for safety reasons that's not uncommon. Many people require a lot of assistance with personal hygiene bathing etc a lot of people require assistance with laundry usually there has to be common laundry areas people have to have aid services coming in. Some of these services I've heard will be provided by the building. I know in the independent building sort of that is called independent living with services that is I find to be a little bit of a notional difference between assisted living and independent living. I think it often is is intended to attract a different type of clientele but people kind of age in place and end up needing more services than the building might provide then those services end up being brought in by vendors. I just want to point out that that it does create a constant flow of traffic perhaps not high volume traffic but a constant flow of traffic all day long. Home health aides people getting rides to and from doctors appointments or others appointments certainly family members and lastly I think the last thing I would just mention is also quite a significant volume of emergency service visits. People fall people have medical emergencies for one reason or another emergency services are called. They often arrive at the building with blue lights flashing the police come first or the fire comes first eventually the ambulance gets there and the situation gets taken care of. I just want to point out that this happens either day or night. We're tucked in a little corner here with no direct access onto a major major street so all these all these cars and fans and emergency service vehicles obviously will be coming through the neighborhood. I think that's just another reason to reconsider whether a building of this size and scope should be placed in this location. Thanks very much. Thank you appreciate that. There are three names on the on the list and all of them have spoken before so I'm just trying to figure out if you're have a second comment which I would ask you to limit your time on or if you just left your hand up by accident. So I will start with with Mr. Ide. Yes thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a just a quick follow-up. So I mentioned the WB67 and how that trailer would get around from Lake to Little John and it was mentioned that that has been posted. Could you please tell me where I would find that what the name of the document is and what date it was posted with please. Great question. Mr. Thornton can you go ahead and forward that that comparison to me. I can't recall if it was specifically something that you had submitted to be posted or if it was just something you displayed during a meeting. Yeah that that is a great question. I will I will look for that document. I believe we sent it to the town as a response to Betas comments. I'm just not sure which which set of comments that was included in but I will I will look for that and send that to you. Okay. Did we discuss that at the at the previous hearing? Wasn't the previous one it was probably maybe the one before that or or even two before that? Okay. The reason I brought up is my recollection was at the last hearing on May 27. It was mentioned that I think it was still an ovation that so thank you very much. Thank you. It may be it may be attached to to the agenda for May 1st. I'm just trying to recall at the top of my head. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. As long as Mr. Ida is up he had mentioned in going through a list of of issues that he was laying out a question about how it's consistent to say that this is really just a lake and the groundwater doesn't move but at the same time everybody knows there's lots of flooding that is going on and the water is coming from somewhere and I imagine that there are probably a lot of people who have that question and I wonder if as long as we're here somebody could Mr. Donovan or Mr. Hessian or whoever could explain why it is that that makes sense. Mr. Donovan. Sure you know it's very it's hard for me to comment on people's individual houses and what might be happening there but you know a lot of this from my experience is it's rainwater it's the depth of people's basements and it's the design of the slab and the material underlying the slab in these basements and if they have a sump set up how that is set up how deep it is how well it's connected to drainage materials underneath the slab and around the building I've been doing this for 40 years I've looked at a lot of people's you know basement drainage issues and all of these factors come into it and one of the most common ones is rainwater coming down next to people's houses that seems to be one of the most influential factors yes groundwater can be a factor but rainwater when you see water coming into your basement pretty soon after a storm more than likely it's a result of rainwater than groundwater when water falls on the ground it takes some time before it reaches the groundwater table it's not immediate it's not even the next day it may be a week later before it actually gets to the groundwater table and affects raising the groundwater table as a result of rainfall so I can't tell you why these people are having particular issues at their houses but we've the way we've designed these particular buildings is to be above the groundwater table and to be waterproofed such that water isn't coming into these buildings Mr. Chairman I wonder if Mr. Heshen has also been living with this issue now for about a year and I wonder if he has anything to add to that Mr. Heshen I mean with with respect to that specific question Mr. Hammond I think Mr. Donovan you know he answered it and just as an anecdotal story my house where I live I am my basement is basically right at groundwater just above the slab it's just above because I did an addition and I have a some pump pit that I never have to use but I can see the water but I lately have been having water come into my basement after heavy rains because I had a downspout problem and the water was discharging right at close to my foundation and migrating down and then into and at that you know at that place where the the foundation wall and the foundation and the basement slab join as you know limited but I think Mr. Donovan you know his he said it much more eloquently than I have been able to do over like you said over the past year that I've been living this thank you if I may Mr. Chairman I think right one of the comments that has been made by neighbors and I live far further away I don't see it as much as they do but beyond rainwater getting into people's basements from their downspouts or what have you the street actually floods you know so that there is water that comes up and lays on top of the space on the side of Dorothy Road so I don't want to get into it too far but thank you Mr. Hamlin for bringing that up it's a great question I really appreciate you digging into it thank you thank you um uh Miss Keith Lucas I wasn't sure if you had a second comment or if your hand was just up thank you Chairman Klein I do have a second comment if I may uh Heather Keith Lucas of 10 Mott Street Mr. I had previously brought up the concern about maintenance on the property I'd also like to address the safety on the property the town of Arlington and surrounding towns has spent significant resources uh both financial personnel volunteer hours from the community to support the homeless people who reside on the applicant's property this is a complex public health problem it's a community problem that requires sensitive and thoughtful humane approach and the applicant has made a financial proposal that ties converting a portion of their property to conservation while also using the 40B to build a financially lucrative business for their client converting a portion of the land to conservation and building on the remainder does not address the needs of the people who are homeless that have lived here for so long on the applicant's property and there is heroin use there have been fires there have been explosions residents for a long time have expressed a growing concern regarding a situation where someone would get hurt and I want to make sure the applicant is aware of the recent alleged assault that was made on our own Officer Kniff last week Officer Kniff allegedly had a weapon drawn upon him and due to his excellent training he was able to de-escalate this situation commendable police work later in that situation multiple rifles were found during a search of the area so I want to make sure the again the applicant is aware of these ongoing and escalating safety concerns from Mr. Havardy's prior comments I understand that contingencies such as maintenance and I imagine and hope that would also expand to safety contingencies are dependent upon the applicant not appealing such conditions irrespective of whether the ZBA approves the build in in any particular way I implore the applicant to engage in ensuring the safety and security of the neighborhood and residents to to truly engage in good faith discussions about the safety and maintenance and to consider have the ZBA consider conditions in collaboration with the applicant to reasonably address the safety of the neighborhood both current residents that include those people who are homeless and living on the applicant's property as well as our potential future neighbors as well thank you Mr. Chairman Klein thank you Mr. Moore I wasn't sure if you had an additional comment or your hand was just still up I'm Mr. Chairman I'm sorry I don't know how to on the telephone put my hand down so my bad thank you no no it's I admit I haven't the faintest idea how you would do it either so well let me try it I've gone ahead and done it for you um uh oh no I'm sorry I got never mind I gotta thank you uh Mr. Tinoleo hi yes uh Mr. Chairman can you hear me I can answer yes I'm Diego Janolio I live at 85 Dorothy Road so Dorothy Road close to the uh little john intersection facing the uh area where the project is um supposedly built yeah so I heard the conversation about the water table and the sun pumps so yeah I just wanted to share my experience about my basement the floor of my basement it's less than four feet below Dorothy Road and so there's something I experienced when it rains uh it doesn't so it doesn't necessarily relate to the uh rain but even a few days later the sun pumps keep working non-stop so I think this is speaks to the underground water table that we were mentioning before so just hearing my experience that's what happens I live uphill from this project and again my basement is less than four feet and I do experience uh the sun pumps working for days on a roll not necessarily right after it rains but you know it keeps going for several days so I just want to make sure that my experience is shared as a perspective of this project thank you thank you let me just ask the applicant to keep that in mind as well um so at this point uh we have run through all the people with raised hands so I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period for this evening um we'll thank everyone for for all their input and especially for for being patient while we've made our way through the list um so at this stage um here we have a a fair number of points that were raised um we certainly have a lot of a lot of questions that have been asked um and we're looking for clarification on a fair number of points um I think one of the third of the most critical questions that was asked um is really sort of because we've had multiple iterations of the project we've had multiple um additions and deletions and modifications um it is there are some aspects of the project that's a little unclear as to exactly what is being proposed and what is being requested um of the board and so I think um the it would be certainly very helpful to the board and to the you know to the town in general we could sort of have a a revision to the plans that is a little bit more sort of definitive as to exactly what is being proposed and to link that with um specifically with with a a proposed set of conditions so we can sort of better evaluate what exactly is before us at this stage um and then that's something that we can ask to have uh yeah we can ask beta to take a look at the current proposal that came in I have forwarded a copy or forwarded a request to review the documentations both to the fire chief and to the director of health and human services to review and so I'm I'm waiting they've only had a couple days to look at it so I'm waiting for a comment back from them which I'm hoping can address some of these questions about emergency response and about sort of scope of services and how that how that would impact the town um and then we had touched briefly earlier about um sort of the disposition of the lowland areas so the the portion of the site where the building would be constructed is sort of the high ground um at the northern end of the of the the large the much larger site and the the disposition of that remaining portion um there is an ongoing effort between the town and the board and the the applicant to come up with um an agreement that um that can be put forward and so that would be tied to conditions on the um on the project itself and then going back to conditions um you know the obviously the draft decision that we had had started on earlier we sort of need to to scrub and start again in a lot of ways um so there is a fair amount of work that needs to happen both from from the applicant side and from the board side from the town as well so the at the moment the way that you know we have until currently we're scheduled to close the hearing before honor before June 25th um which is feeling awesome soon at this point um and so I would like to briefly ask members of the board to where where they stand at the moment in terms of um you know what how do they feel about the level of information we have so far what are their outstanding questions and you know what sort of timeframe do we need in order to be able to you know properly address these questions and concerns chairman mr handlin um I think that we need to we need to slow down a bit um I I understand we've so far we've basically extended the hearings meeting by meeting with the extension of the closing date which always being sometimes as little as the day after when we have the hearing but at this point I think that we are really close the general the general outline of what will be the proposal is now before us um today there were a bunch of questions that came up beta has looked at but it has not really had an opportunity to give us advice as to what the issues we should be concerned about are with respect to both wetlands and flooding and that sort of thing and also with respect to traffic so we have a very general idea but we're now at the point where we need to make a decision we need to think about coming to conditions and so forth and we really can't I mean I can sit here and and sort of repeat the things that came through my head during the course of today's hearing but that's really doesn't substitute for having our peer review engineers looking at all of this and telling us what the questions are and what possible answers are and getting clarification and so forth so I don't think we're at square one actually I think that we're very far along and we have a good framework that we have to work with but I think that we need to proceed in a methodical way starting with a restated application that enables us to say well this is what the proposal is this is what's in it this is what isn't in it and this is what might be in it depending upon further discussions between the board and the applicant I also think that it would be helpful going forward when we get to the point where we can actually are getting to conditions in sort of our our second effort to to put together a draft decision one of the problems that we had before was that we were doing this kind of in real time with a deadline looming over our heads and the result of that was that the applicant never really got to see more I mean they were just seeing work in progress bits and pieces of things and the conditions themselves didn't really have the input of the applicant on them and I would like to make sure that when we get into the point where we're actually having conditions that we understand where there's a disagreement on the part of the applicant and we can get those things resolved before the hearing closes because once the hearing closes and we're down to just writing the decision we can only guess about what the applicant's reaction is and we're not in a position of accommodating what might be completely reasonable concerns now obviously there may turn out that what we approve if we approve anything is going to be either in the applicant's view uneconomic or they may appeal for some other reason but surely we don't want to do it because we did something that we thought was okay that turned out not to be okay and that the everything is then comes unstuck because we didn't have enough of a conversation so I think that we need to carefully think about how much time we really need how much time beta needs to get back to us how much time the conservation commission needs to raise the issues that came up today and anything else that that beta may come up with and then to really have a consultation with the applicant to figure out what kinds of things we should can fit into this and what can't and that also is a time period that may allow us to make some progress on figuring out what to do with the lowland parcel and and how that should be dealt with both in terms of how it's disposed which we've talked about but also in terms of some of the other issues that that relate to it both the quality of what's what's there and dealing with with the other situations that require a lot of sensitivity we're not going to solve all those things and other agencies of the town government are going to have to be involved and so it's not entirely up to us but we need to make we need to allow ourselves to make progress otherwise I'm afraid that by running lap by lap rather than running the whole race we're going we're just we're really sort of not coming together as quickly as we otherwise could thank you Sam I appreciate that Mr. Chairman Mr. DuPont so I um I think that there's been a good deal of effort made at trying to respond to the concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors and by the town at large with respect to the type of building and I think that the engineering questions that have been raised I feel like those have been fairly well addressed my concern is more that I feel that I'm operating in the dark in terms of what the proposal actually is and I'm a bit disconcerted at the lack of specificity and I understand that when we came to this where it was being introduced as independent living and assisted living together and I believe it was Ms. Keeper who rightfully so said well you know what were your thoughts addressing the board what were the thoughts and feelings that the board might have with regard to this type of a proposal and I think that our response was generally speaking fairly positive but as I sit here tonight and it's been moved from the assisted and independent living combination to the independent living with services I paid very strict attention to what Ms. Gibson had to say because of her experience dealing with elderly populations and I realize that you know this is as I think she indicated you start out with a certain population in a certain condition and then that can change pretty quickly over time and and I think that you know when the question was put to Ms. Noise she made a reference and said he says and I believe she was referring to an expert that they have employed but what I am looking for is some much greater detail much greater specificity and a commitment to a specific plan which can tell us more about well how many people do you envision are going to be employed there providing meals and how many deliveries do you expect to have per day and how many people as they move sort of on that spectrum from being independent to more like needing assisted help how many people do you anticipate are going to be coming in to deal with those issues because I think what Ms. Gibson was describing is that you have a population which has in fact moved from independent to assisted living but not with the help of the necessarily with the help of the owners of the property because they're sort of doing it on their own so I really have very little feel for what it is that's being proposed and I think the suggestion is made by the applicant that we're the ones who should be supplying them with more direction as to what it is that we want to see them do and I look at it conversely I want to see them come to us and say you know here's what our expert says this is what we can expect to happen to a population of people between 80 and 90 here's where we think that you know they're going to cross over the boundary from independent to assisted living and as a result this is what we expect to see in terms of the numbers of people who are going to have to show up and attend to these people over time I mean that's the information I want to have because that impacts all of these suppositions that are being made about whether parking is adequate how many people there are going to be coming and going on a daily basis and the point was also made about the numbers of trips of emergency vehicles that are going to be coming into this area potentially at all hours of the day and night so I would like to know in much more detail and with some greater level of commitment what that is supposed to look like based upon the representations of the expert who they believe you know that has a great deal of information to share which raises another point which is how do we then take information like that and how do we assess that information because at this point we haven't had an opportunity to have someone who is familiar with that type of you know project and that type of a population which begs the question about should we have our own expert looking at the sorts of findings that I'm requesting be shared with us by the applicant. Thank you. Mr. Chairman can I speak to that issue because I think I have something that could be helpful. Please Mr. Clifford. The person we've referred to tonight is our consultant or whatever we have we know we know the organization very well and we know the person very well and I went back and looked at some of my notes and he knows how many trucks arrive for bread, for fish, for here's a lot of information that I'd like to bring you into this because I think you're making a very good point I really appreciate your point Mr. Devon and I think that you know the ball is in our court to speak to this because it is an issue I mean the people there are sort of predictable but it's all the services that come the trucks the food the medical services and this group it's a company it's a fairly large company and they manage or own a number of facilities that you all know of in the area so he has facts and figures about all these things and so this is this does not need to be a mystery and I think I certainly wouldn't you know take away your your thought to hire your own person but I think you need to see how credible this person and this organization's information really is because they manage so many highly respected facilities of this type in the area and we've worked with them over a period of 20 years we've owned as developers a facility with them for a number of years and so this is this could be I think really speaks to the issues you just brought up which I think are are quite legitimate thank you I think that would be quite helpful Mr. Chairman can I just want the other thing that I that just to add to Mr. DuPont's list is as I listened to Ms. Gibson and began thinking about what happens when people who start at roughly my age and get older and failure and the underlying structure here is basically that a basic level of service is one meal a day and and your rent is covered essentially within the scope of the of of your buying the apartment but at least the business model that's been described means that increasingly services that people may require as necessities were at least a very valuable very valuable things student get beyond doing the laundry into lots of other things as well and I would like to understand better the sort of the social position of the people who occupy the affordable units once so much of the cost of maintaining themselves in this or maintaining oneself in a facility of this kind is coming from what you pay over and above your rent which by hypothesis many of these people would be hard put to afford and you get the emergence of a potential discrimination or not discrimination but just a sense of difference where the policy is supposed to be that people sort of blend right in that that they're not isolated as the affordable people but the ones who don't have aids may turn out to be the the ones occupying the affordable apartments and I don't have a pre I don't really know enough about how this all works but and I would love to have to have the opportunity to discuss this with with someone but it is giving me some pause that that there's something about the underlying supposition of 40 b projects that seems to be slightly askew in the proposal and I would like to understand a lot more about that thank you Jim for the question from the board at this point okay so I guess that there's a couple different questions in front of the board at the moment so one there was very specifically obviously we have to continue hearing that's Mr. Handlin's earlier point you know we can we can continue for two weeks but then we are basically a day shy of the the closing period so I guess and you know are we I guess a question for his keeper to discuss with her with her client is you know what sort of a time frame do we do we really you know what sort of time frame really makes sense in order to you know be able to fully that that these questions to be able to come to a much better sense of what what exactly the request is of the board and you know enable the board to to reach a decision that where the board is comfortable knowing um both what the what the applicant's opinion is of the of a potential decision and knowing that the you know the board having a set of confidence into what the outcome will be with the uh what once the decision has been rendered as to whether you know what the you know that that what we're agreeing to is what what is actually before us on the table um if we're if we are um going to be agreeing with an application um and so at this point yeah I think we would be I don't know if we can you know specifically requested this you know at this evening I don't know if you guys would even have a sense as to what sort of a time frame would be appropriate not for the board necessarily has a sense as to what sort of time frame would be appropriate um but I think what I would propose this evening is if you know obviously we would request a continuance and then at that next hearing I think we would one of the first topics we want to discuss would be you know what is a realistic time frame to to fully vet you know all the outstanding questions on this on this new proposal um so that we can come to you know come to a more final agreement um without as you know as Mr. Hanlon said you know sort of constantly kicking the kicking the can slightly down the road Mr. Chairman just as one additional thing if if we wanted to one possibility might and again this is depends upon it's up to Ms. Kiefer and and Gwen and the applicant um but it has been raised to talk to the consultant uh that that art did if that is doable in a hearing that has basically two per person two purposes one is to deal with those issues and just to have that out and if that can be done in two weeks and the second purpose is to agree on a timeline um that might provide a way of moving things along and giving us giving ourselves the opportunity to proceed in a more deliberate fashion does that sound amenable to to Ms. Kiefer and to pardon Gwen well the one uh Stephanie the uh I think what you're proposing uh is that we we somehow bring the information that are that our consultant would have and bring him bring him in yeah so we need to talk to him so I I think what we have to do before he's at a time frame he's a very busy fellow because he's uh so let us talk to him yeah I'm you know 100 with you on this and uh see what we can do to get him to come forward and uh you know I've grilled him on a lot of this stuff you know how many trips and who brings the fish and that kind of stuff I know he knows all this stuff but I think you want to know it so you know we didn't bring that tonight yeah uh so uh let's see if we can get in here because I think it's important um I mean why don't you I don't know how you handle that but we can't guarantee anything until we talk to you know our mysterious fellow that we haven't had but well I think we can certainly um continue you know continue to joy date certain and then determine specifically what the the topic will be as we get closer to that date um but obviously knowing that you know this is what we would prefer to be able to discuss because this I think we'll get at a lot of the questions that are still out there in regards to parking and traffic and you know use of the site in the and those kinds of issues um so the the two dates that I had sort of in mind um so the board does have uh hearing coming this afternoon Tuesday um but we could either look at either Tuesday June 22nd or Thursday June 24th um you know the the board typically meets on Tuesdays but we have for this hearing we have slowly shifted to meeting on Thursdays and I don't know if Tuesdays or Thursdays are better for um for anyone where are the ones I've seen in your phone there's a pencil in the 27th Mr Chairman I'm not available either the 22nd or the 24th ah okay I am available on the 29th if you want to do a second I believe we have so we have two other hearings on for the 29th as well Mr Chairman if if it turns out that the hearing I mean it's it's 1130 and we've we've really dealt with practically everything tonight if we have a delimited topic which might actually just be timing if nothing falls together uh but if we had a hearing just on the issue of of how you what and what a uh independent living with services means and and and that sort of thing we might be able and we hold everything including the comments from the public to that subject matter we might be able to do that in in an hour hour and a half and still be able to handle the cases we already have for that night okay um if that's the case um would it make sense do you think Mr Hanlon to to start the hearing at 630 with this topic and then move on to our the other two hearings thereafter well it might enable us to go to bed earlier certainly and I I'm fairly I'm fairly certain um and Rick you can develop really I think you probably know this that the hearing notices have gone out for the June 29th hearing correct I have Mr Chairman okay for 730 730 okay there would be no issue there if we were to put this in for 630 on the same evening no we can do that I believe one of the cases on the 29th might take some time uh the other one is not so can time consuming should be straightforward okay because June we're going to June 20 we'll see if we can give us would those be amenable with 630 with 6 30 p.m on the 29th of June yeah we we we can we can work with our schedule we have we if that's the the best time uh what we can I think it's really an issue of uh our the person that we'd like to bring in so absolutely so I we will do our best to to do that and then try to do that in the next couple days okay I appreciate that okay so then um Mr Chairman I think one thing that the board needs to take into consideration is the potential that the ability to hold these remote hearings will no longer be in place very good point the legislature is working on an extension authority to to conduct the remote hearings but I am not heard that anything has been passed just yet and otherwise I think uh June 15 marks the end of the emergency order yeah I think the we've we've been advised since the 15th is the last date we can hold a remote hearing presuming it's not extended there's no extension correct but I think at minimum you need to when you do your continuance continue to town hall that may very well be true there's a possibility that it may also be removed right and the the advice from council has been to essentially sort of you know to indicate that you know if the that it will be held on zoom unless that is no longer an option in which case will be held at town hall and to refer to the town website for additional information um so if we were to continue to the to June 29 that would be after the close of the hearing on the 25th so we would need to push that out now um how far should we push that Mr Chairman I think that the so to the purpose of what we're doing right now is to give us our time give us a time I mean I would be willing to kick the can down the road on this one because the main point it's sort of like a temporary injunction you're trying to just basically give yourself time to actually work out what the real final date is after you've learned more about what the scope of the project is so I I mean I'd love to hear what Ms. Kiefer has to to say about where to do that but I don't think that we necessarily have to to know that tonight I think that what we need is to know on the 29th if that's where we're going what we think the schedule is that brings this to a conclusion so um thank you Mr. Hanlon I think that I mean there's been a a number of points that were raised this evening that we're very happy to um your clarification on our further address um there was a comment I think I think Mr. Hanlon you may have said something about um the applicant to submit a reapplication I just want to clarify that there was something you said along that line that I was like no it wouldn't be a reapplication um but and I don't think that that's what you meant um no I don't recall that I that I said that but I think that that the chairman is the chairman in starting it sort of was looking for some sort of a restatement I think is maybe the words that he meant so that we knew exactly what so we knew what the application is as of now given that there have been so many moving parts over time I think that was the idea yeah and I think that's a very fair point we're very happy to um um provide you know what what the proposal is what it is not in case there's um concerns um of prior um project proposals and how they play with this um and and to do that and to provide updates um with respect to the specific questions that were asked for this evening and then the other component obviously is you you want to have a little bit more detail um as to what is seen living with services what does that entail and and things like that and um Art and Glen are very much in favor of providing that for you um and and another piece of this is obviously um the the timing of when beta has an opportunity to review the updated traffic and that because I think that um everybody here the board the applicant the community um we've been at the steering process for a very long time and at some point we need to just say let's let's make sure we wrapped up all of the real loose ends and and you know at some point you're not going to have 100 precision on every single thing but it's going to be subject to a condition that you know that something is further provided within the final plan that are consistent with whatever so um I'm giving you somewhat of a long answer to your short question I apologize for that but my suggestion would be that um with somewhat similar with your you know short term kick the can if we are back before the board in the 29 um with the with the intention of um kind of flushing out better detail for the board um the limited scoping what is um what are the various components of what does senior living with services need um but I think it would also be helpful if we could build into that um a time when we're going to get responses from beta because I think that responding to comments that were received this evening together with the kind of peer review comments um we if we could do that in one fell swoop we would it would help you know in addition to um kind of restating what things are but then to be able to do one kind of concise set of we're responding to what we heard the um uh this public hearing and then we're responding to or we're you know taking into account what the peer review has said so I'm not trying to put beta on the spot but if they potentially have a time frame when they can get back to us I think the information gathering can can end maybe sooner than we think um because I think that a lot of information has already come forward and a lot of it is just fine tuning or or clarifying so everyone knows because as you said there's been a lot of information there's been a lot of iterations to the project so um if we can kind of dovetail our our efforts into you know something on in terms of the the program of the senior living with residences and then responding to the additional questions and um having an ability to absorb peer review and respond to it or to address their concerns or say we agree with that we would agree with that as a condition you know or oh they haven't understood this let us provide as good information that perhaps is missing so um with with that said I think that maybe if we just continue the dates the hearing date um which was the first question so we have the the 29th for the next hearing and then the conclusion of the hearing if we just do that to like the beginning of the second week in July and I think that by June 29th we're going to have a good sense of what additional information needs to come in and and really where we are okay so if we were to extend the hearing to say July 13th sorry to continue the hearing sorry extend the extend the peer the review period right I understand what you meant yes I'm okay with July 13th um Art and Glenn if you have a just one thought and trying to move this forward is I think in the next few days I'll try to get you out the uh the name and organization that we're talking about here and a list of their projects which are local and I think uh you know get that out to people to you all in time that you know you could maybe check these out I think they're all well established projects projects with a great track record the company has a great track record and I think it would it would aid when you when you do listen to this person speak you know we'll add to his credibility which of course is what we'd like to have him be able to demonstrate uh if you had that information so Stephanie I think we should try to get that lined up as quickly as possible and get the names out and the places not um so they can be circulated Mr. Chairman yes please could I raise I mean July 13th is a Tuesday and uh I thought I remembered that Mr. Haverty has advised us in the past that it's not a good idea to set the date for to extend the date for closing the hearing to the very date that you may intend to to meet on account as you never can tell what might happen um and so I wonder if we're planning on thinking about wrapping everything up on the 13th if that's something that is a serious possibility we probably ought to pick say the following Friday the 16th as as the closing day just to give us some some flexibility uh and make sure that that I'm just done make sure that I'm foreseen things don't suddenly put us in a very awkward position thank you uh would that be a benelope Haver I'm amenable is it July 16 okay okay then so with with all that um so we would be extending the review period to uh Friday July 16th and then we would be continuing the hearing um to June 29th at 6 30 p.m right um then with that um I have a motion to extend the statutory 180 day period for conducting the public hearing to Friday July 16th so moved or seconded whichever is more important it has moved have a second second um mr. Dupont hi mr. Hamlin hi mr. Mills hi your work hi mr. Revolac I know mr. Revolac was having technical issues earlier he may not still be with us okay mr. Ford hi thank you and the chairs I um may I have a motion to continue uh this public hearing until Tuesday June 29th at 6 30 p.m so moved thank you second second second thank you mr. Dupont hi mr. Hamlin hi hi your work hi mr. Ford hi chair votes aye so we are continued on this hearing until June 29th um so then just to um next time a visit is why I typically do is just review our upcoming meeting edification just we have most great so the next hearing of the board is Tuesday June 15th which is at 7 30 p.m which is a continued hearing for 11 65 armaments Tuesdays afternoon um then we will have a hearing on June 29th uh at 6 30 p.m which will be a continued hearing for Thorndike Place will also be a first hearing for uh projects at 10 Sunnyside and 55 Sutherland and then those are the hearings that we have currently scheduled then on Friday July 2nd is the close of the public hearing on 11 65 Armistice Avenue and Friday July 6th will be the is now the scheduled close of hearing for Thorndike Place everyone has those dates and those dates will um it should be up shortly on the Zuni Board of the website and on our online calendar and agendas so we are at the end of tonight's hearing thank you thanks to everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zuni Board of Appeals I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting especially wish to thank Rick Valarelli, Vincent Lee, Kelly Linema and all the others who um constantly assist us in preparing for and hosting our online meetings uh please note the purpose of the board's recording of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings it's our understanding the recordings made by ACMI will be available on demand with ACMI.tv within the coming days or weeks um if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba at town.earlington.mni.us that email address is also listed on the Zuni Board of Appeals website and so to conclude tonight's meeting I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn so moved thank you can you have a second thank you Mr. Rourke world call vote Mr. Dupont aye Mr. Hanlon aye mills aye your work aye Mr. Ford aye the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you mr chairman thank you thank you everyone thank you