 Great, I think we are going to go ahead and get starting started this evening so welcome everyone to the April 5th meeting of the town of Wellington redevelopment board. This meeting of the redevelopment board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker is executive order of March 12 2020, due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth through to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. In order to mitigate transmission of the COVID-19 virus we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings, and as such the governor's order suspense 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. For this meeting the redevelopment board is convening via zoom, as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that the meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. I'll now confirm that all members of the redevelopment board are present and can hear me by taking a roll call. Kin Lau. Jean Benson. Present. I'm here and David Watson will be joining us at eight o'clock. And we have three members of the Department of Planning and Community Development with us. We leave Jenny rate. Here. Erin's work here. And Kelly line. Here. Thanks. Before we move into the first item on our agenda, which is docket number three, six, five, zero, I will just like to let everybody know that we will be making all public comments and discussion on this docket number by 755 so that the board can decide with the applicant on the next steps so that we are ready to begin the zoning warrant, the continued public hearings for the zoning warrant, warrant articles for 2021 town meeting right at eight o'clock as posted. I just want to make sure that there is no confusion on that. If there is anyone waiting in the queue, we will ask at that time that you please submit any comments that you would like to, to, to bring forward via the written communication, or at the end of the meeting at open forum. So that's that. We will go ahead and open docket number three, six, five, zero, which is 198 and 192 to 200 mass Avenue. And do we have the applicant I believe attorney and SE I saw you in the participants list. Yes, I am here. Fantastic will you be doing the presentation this evening or will somebody else give me an initial opening statement. And I have a team here who will be discussing the plans themselves. Fantastic and if you could. I know that this is a complex site development that you're going to be speaking to, you know, we all have the, the, the plans if you could keep this to five minutes to the highlights I'm sure that a lot of the nuance will be discussed in the, in the, the detailed questions that we'll be asking you. I am going to be brief. Thank you so much. What I am going to do is just indicate that the petitioner is once again the Piscota family. They, they're Arlington of course through and through. The development at 82 mass have they they are doing the development at 402 mass have as well. And I need to say this, that I have had discussions with the family about the possibility of going 40 be with respect to the site. The reason I've had those discussions is when I looked at what we're proposing, and I see that we are going to have 37 units and 21% of those units are in fact going to be affordable that is eight. And that we could do 40 be if we went 20 to 25%. And of course at that point, not be subject to some of the rigorous standards we'd have to meet with respect to zoning because we could ask for waivers. I've discussed that with the clients, but nevertheless, we are going ahead with this mixed use proposal at this point. The team I have with me will be the project manager, John Murphy. He will be introducing each of the individuals talking to the plans. If you've looked at the plans, you know essentially what we are proposing. We want to stay with the ARB. We do not want this matter to go to the zoning board under 40 be, and we'd like to work with the members of the ARB to come up with a plan that makes sense not only for the town, but also makes sense for the developer who's spending money to develop the project with that I told you I'd be brief with that over to John Murphy. John Murphy introduced the members of the team, and we can discuss the plans. John. Thank you Bob. Good evening everyone. I will be brief. I just have a couple of highlights and then I'll turn it over to Aaron Mackie from Allen major to briefly talk about the site. I'm going to turn it over to Peter slow look from market square architects he can answer some questions about the overall floor plan and then we'll be we'll turn it back over to you all. So a couple of things. We tried to go above and beyond to give you all a very complete package so we can have a very in depth discussion answer all questions and, you know, at the end of the day we wanted to be known that what we are trying to accomplish here is to improve so I know sometimes that can get lost everyone has a different idea of what that means, but what we've come back with at this point is a five story board, five story building, 37 total units, mixed up of ones, two bedrooms and studios. Bob mentioned we have eight affordable units, which is more than 15% after logging into many meetings over the last year we do know that new constructed affordable units is very important we took that into account. One thing to vary that is very important to note this building as proposed here is not moving it is essentially a same footprint same foundation it's actually shrinking in the rear, in order to add some shrubbery. You know, one of the challenges of this building in the site from a development standpoint is what you see is essentially the property line we're surrounded by three streets with a little alleyway in a building behind us. And because of that it can become difficult to hit every single ratio guidelines that back, you know you name it. In this area you have to work with the harder that becomes. So what we have is on the first story we have parking in the rear, about 15 spaces the whole front part along Mass App is designated commercial space. I know that it is less than it was there before. I'm happy to talk about that later when I'm sure we'll come up but we can move on from now but the important thing to note is it is the entire frontage of Mass App. We walk through, we walk tenants through spaces all the time and we can talk about this if you would like. Tenants want the frontage on the streets they don't like very deep spaces because it's the same type of human nature you have even in your home. The more space you have you're just working with the more you'll spread out even if you don't need it. The difference is, you know this is a business expense for a tenant and they have to pay for that square footer so happy to get more into that. The front of the facade of that commercial space is brick. I know a lot of has been talked about brick in the past that people like it. It's a good look it does kind of carry. I think the general look of the area. We like how it looks it's a little more difficult to make happen but you know we think we can do it. In this building we do have our step back on the upper stories which we actually genuinely think is a great amenity for the tenants and account and we also believe it accomplishes what the goal of creating that step back in the first place was. And lastly we do have the 15 spaces, we know that that's not technically what the required spaces would be. We do have a lot we do have our electric vehicle charging station we have all of our long and short term bicycle required parking. And I will say to that we are pursuing a zip car partnership which is something we've seen used very successfully in other places, meaning not just people from the community to be able to make use of it but people from the general, you know, community right there in the area if you're approved through the car and you need a car for a little bit and that's there and it's available you'd be able to use it as well. With that said, I'd like to pull Aaron Mackie on to kind of keep the train rolling and he will make some notable site comments and walk through the table with you. Yeah, Jenny if I could just start at the existing conditions plan that would be great. Just to give a quick summary of the existing site. Yeah, one more. Yep, that sheet. So yes, my name is Aaron Mackie I'm with Alan a major associates with the civil engineers on this project. And as you can see here the existing conditions plan the sites bounded by frontage on three sides with Main Street Lake Street Chandler Street, the sites approximately 11,134 square feet point to six acres. The existing building is approximately 9,915 square feet in the existing building and the site is all pretty much all building and the remainder of the site is paved. So in B three village business, and the Western for along the Western property line along the alley there. That line is the R five apartment district is right on the other side of that line so we're abutting that in the back. The sites existing sites are by service by municipal water sewer gas teleelectric it's all available. The existing curb cut along Chandler Street that we are proposing to maintain in the proposed condition. You could just scroll to the layout sheet now Jenny sheet 102 yep that's perfect. So the proposed building is approximately 9,764 square feet, it's slightly reduced. So that's about the odd jogs. And we have set it back, as John had mentioned in along the alley there. And that was to maintain a 7.5 foot wide buffer with Abravity plantings and five foot screen fence. Because this is a requirement of section 5.3.21. It's probably a 15 foot buffer but we can, it can be reduced to 7.5 if we do provide those planting isn't an offense so that was the goal to achieve with with with that property line and that and abutting the our five district. So the table up there we could walk through that a little bit in the top right, it's going to be tough to see but I could just speak to a couple points. So that's the parking table there. We are proposing 15 stalls where 45s require john had touched on that. This is the bicycle parking table. We are going to be in compliance with the bicycle parking bylaw, where short term stalls are proposed along. Next to the entrance to the garage and in interior the building which Peter could touch on we have provided some long term 60 long term bicycle parking spaces. And these spaces were again provided to be in compliance with the bicycle parking guidelines. And if you just keep scrolling to the right there plan right we could just take a quick peek at the zoning table that we're providing. The zoning summary table. So of course the lot areas remaining unchanged minimum lot area per unit. It's not a requirement but we, it's going to be 301 approximately square feet minimum frontage unchanged it's going to remain at 102 along main street minimum back. It is zero feet and we're going to keep it zero feet because we are keeping a portion of the existing structure there that's right on the property line, the minimum side yard is zero feet. And we're going to provide 7.5 feet as noted along the alleyway there. We've factored that the rear yard is not required. The building buffer as I touched on previously 7.5 feet, we're going to propose the landscape open space. There is point nine existing and we're going to increase that to 4.8 with the plantings in the rear. And the usable open space will be improves with the installation of a roof decimality. With that, we could take a look at the drainage plan. You're actually at double the amount of time that you were allotted already so wrap up. I'm sure that we'll have, I have questions going forward. That's that sounds good. I would just say yeah the drainage where we're increasing the impervious. I mean the previous area so we'll be in compliance with the Massachusetts stormwater standards. With that, I think that's enough for me. I'll kick it over to Peter who can just touch on the building. I'd ask the please be free. Like I said, you're at double the amount of time that we had allotted for the. Alright, thank you, Rachel. I'll go through it very quick. Jenny, if you could just flip to our sheet 9.01 something for me to talk over. So just to reiterate reiterate real quick, we're proposing five stories, four stories of residential one story commercial. A few key features on this proposal, we exaggerated the third story step back requirement, which is only seven and a half feet. To make it a usable roof amenity. We preserve the aesthetic of the old savings bank in the corner of Massav and Chandler. We provide copious centralized bike storage for the tenants. And the entirety of Massa frontage at grade to commercial use. So you'll see at the end of this set. We explored the context a bit through street elevations which are looking at now, particularly the mass have elevation and what we're going for years to look at the relationship in massing proportions and fenestration pattern and how that harmonized with the very important capital theater. Later on in the set we provided solar studies which were conducted to demonstrate the relatively minimal impact to the surrounding residential zones. So I'll turn that back over to john if he has any further comments. I'll set thank you Rachel. Thank you, Peter. Thank you very much. I will actually turn this over to the department to go through any points that they would like to highlight from the memo that was put together so Jenny I don't know if that will be you or Aaron or Kelly speaking. I'm going to see if Aaron would like to speak to the points that we've raised in the memo. This is Aaron's work of assistant director. I don't have much more to state than what has already been stated. This is a mixed use building. We are interested about the additional affordable units, because they are offering more than what is required by section 8.2 of the zoning by law. The ARB may consider that in their deliberations on this project. But with that, I won't take any more time from the discussion and public comment in this meeting. Thank you, Aaron. And thank you to the applicants for the thorough materials and the presentation this evening. I think you set us up for a very good discussion again thank you. So we will start with Ken for any questions or comments for the applicants. Yeah, let me start off with a couple of comments to start off with first. I wish you would include some more documentation on the third floor terrace. You're saying that is outdoor amenities for the people living there. Well, I like to see what you want to do that we're not just showing you a new plan. It would be great if you would show. Is there a walkway there. Is there any vegetation. Is there a fire pit is a grilling areas. All stuff that you know you would you say you're doing but let's show it so we understand what you're doing there. That'd be very important to us. My second point is, if you can look at the, can you get to the garage, Jenny. The parking stalls. I think it was the civil drawing showed the best because it shows the stalls and so forth. Essentially you have to keep on going Jenny. Essentially you have two stairs coming down to the ground floor, one stair empties into the lobby, and the other stair empties into the garage. The stair emptying into the lobby can be done. But the state empties into the garage. You have a walkway path that goes across the parking lot. Then you have a rear door there. And then then you exit out through the alleyway out to the street. I don't think you can do that by code. You're going from one has one less hazard system to a more hazard system. Confirm that with the building department and verify that that you can do what you're showing, but I don't think so. So, if that's the case, then you would probably lose that walkway along the back there you may be able to gain a parking space of another miniature parking space. You may lose a space up front. So you have more of a direct walkway out into the sidewalk. And it may, it may make the commercial space a little deeper. You're not in a corner there so so it's not so tight, and it will probably activate this, you know, that sidewalk a little bit more because it seems a little barren to me right now. That's that one area there. The other thing I want to talk about is you're saying this could potentially be retail or restaurant. You have to incorporate duck work from the lower floor all the way up to the roof, showing that you have allocated space for a restaurant, namely that restaurant exhaust. So it can be done if you if a restaurant was to go in there. I don't want to say later on all we have too many units above we have to rearrange everything. Let's let's incorporate that in I think you'd be done now easily. That's another one. I want you guys to address. And lastly, along, I believe it's Chancellor Street side, you have all your stairs and elevators aligned on the outside wall there, and that pretty much makes a dead elevation. I really like you to look at moving those amenities in board a little bit more and have more windows, because right now I don't believe your windows are coordinated with your four plans. If you if you look at the lobby and look at where you have the mailroom and in the lobby it's not coordinated with the outside windows you got these big huge Archie windows there, and they're not coordinated. That space should be moved to the side of the outside of the lobby. So you have those grand windows that give you more light. That's, that's, you know, that's more advantageous to you guys. And then if you look at the upper floor plans. I think if you move these structures in board, you may get a studio unit may become a one bedroom, which adds more value to the project. So, I would advise you to do that. And in return, it would bring more life to that side of the elevation, so the windows are no longer blank, or looking into a stairwell, they actually looking into a bedroom. And that's, I think that's advantage. And you can, you probably have to lose a little bit of your storage space, but you gain a bedroom. I think that's, I think that's a good trade off. I think that's, that's, I think that's enough for now. I'll let my other board members pick up some other stuff but that's, that's essentially what I, I've got so far. Great. Thank you, Ken. Did you want them to respond to any of those, those questions or just know those four points right now. If they want to respond, they can, but I don't think I don't think so. And in the, in the fact that we don't have that much time. I think they can address those items that we probably want to discuss internally ourselves right now as well. John, would you do that. Yeah, just real quick third floor terrace we can show all that that's not a big deal we can deal with the code staircases look at the parking show the doctor for restaurant we can do that. Moving some of the elevator and that type of stuff we need to look at more, but the other things are easily done. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Gene will go to your next. Thank you. As long as we're on this page to see the elevator come down to the basement to the level where the parking lot is so if someone needed to use an elevator to get to the parking lot how would they have to do that. Yes, it comes right down. It's to the left of the staircase. That little box right there. It's a two sided elevator gene. Yeah, that's correct right there. I see, I see so they from the rear side, there's a way out into the parking area. Okay, thanks. And where is the entrance for the residents into the building. Nope, it's right where you just wear that elevator or there's the right to the yep that's an entrance right there from outside you have the elevator and another door across from her cursor. So the entrance on the front that faces massive is for the commercial space only. Yes, to there be two entrances the and we would look at, you know, actually reusing the same bank door that we have to recreate that entrance both the retail commercial restaurant whatever would be at least two entrances there. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciated that you're, you're saving the facade from the bank building. I think, I think that's a nice touch. The things that the staff mentioned in the very nice and well, put out memo is the net loss of about 9300 square feet of commercial space. Can you talk a little bit about whether or how you could increase the amount of commercial space that's available here. You know, I don't think without, I mean, theoretically you could take away parking spaces, which we think we want we would really like to have some for our tenants as we only have 15. But, you know, just, you're just adding space into the rear of your space. I'm not really sure. You know, one thing to keep in mind is this isn't a destination like a stop and shop Plaza. You know, retail restaurants a very good example because it can, it has a different type of audience with it's a very strong destination people will walk there. But the type of retail that you in commercial you need here really is not necessarily destination specific like a, like a T mobile or AT&T store like a CVS like something along those lines where you might find in a shopping Plaza. It really is probably a restaurant will probably be here that's really what we envision, because we think it's a very good size for a restaurant they take the whole space. It would be a, it would be good for them to be below the units it would be a good staple in the community we don't really view this building as three chopped up different commercial spaces that are long and deep. That's just our opinion on what we've seen as leasing or not leasing but I just don't know if adding in the rear and taking away parking really actually gains anything from a know that tenants would say oh that's amazing we want a deeper space and less frontage on a mass app. By the way, I have spoken with counsel for the existing restaurant owner, and that owner is willing to consider coming back to the property. Once we build out that commercial space, and presumably we may well build that out for restaurant space. But keep in mind this building only has two active. It's essentially, you know, two active tenants and at one we already have we think a home for hopefully down at 802 mass have and other one. I'm not sure it's completely operating at the moment but we'd like to work with them to make this their new home when the building is built. Other spaces are empty and need a lot of work. Did you give any thank you that's helpful to understand. I have a little trouble and I'm interested in the other members of the board on this. I don't have trouble with how the building looks above the first floor. And it also doesn't seem to blend in well with the other buildings in the immediate neighborhood of capital square in terms of the look. And I just wondered if you gave any consideration to have it being a brick building the entire way up. I've noticed that in Cambridge, especially some of the mixed use buildings after getting built in North Cambridge along mass have they seem to be all brick faced at least on the front. And I wonder if you've given any consideration to doing that so it would be a better neighbor to its neighbors. I mean, to be honest, we did look at it. Peter, Peter wants to feel free to jump in here but I think we did want to separate a little bit the, you know, restaurant space from the rest of the building not only that, you know, I'm sure I think I've heard it discussed before. And the meeting masons are a rare trade these days. It is extremely extremely expensive. It's hard to do it. I'm just going to be honest when you're talking about a podium parking building, and a five, you know, multiple stories and in brick. It is very, very expensive not saying that's an excuse but I will say we looked at it and we thought that it made more sense to go with, you know, one story as brick for now. Rachel can help but I've seen some of the new buildings I seem to have pre pre made panels somewhere else that are then just hoisted into place. It's not like you had brick masons on the site. You know, building up 304 stories but when the building is done, it looks like it's faced with with break. So, you know, I'm, I guess, you know, Ken and Rachel deal a lot more than I do with this. So I don't deal with it very much at all and building buildings. So I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say about that. This might be for Bob. Bob, it's not close to the floor area ratio. What's your explanation about why we should allow something that's so much greater than the what's allowed by the zoning by law. It is mixed use we know that. Okay. And I think the planning memo makes a very interesting point. The planning memo indicates that in a beat three zone, you can go five story. You can go up to 60 feet. That's totally not compatible with what you would be allowed to do in with the property in that beat three zone with respect to complying with the fr. So I think we're faced with the situation here. Yes, we are seeking for an expanded interpretation of the FAR. I've explained before, particularly in the 802 development that in my view, the ARB has the authority to do that. And again, this is a consideration for my client. If my client went 40 be on this project and went before the zoning board. And of course at that point the ARB would lose jurisdiction went before the zoning board, we'd be seeking waivers, and we would not necessarily have to comply with the rights of the black letter law in the zoning by law, but in fact, we could seek waivers and under 40 be it's likely if we weren't being greedy about it, we could get them. So I'm suggesting to the members of the ARB that this is an opportunity for you folks to be able to work with us to come up with a project that makes sense. Okay. And yes, I'm asking you to exercise expanded authority, which I think again you have under environmental design use and mixed use. I would just add that that's one of the reasons why from the get go, we jumped out with more affordable units than we know that we then is required because we know we need relief on a few of these things and we know this is a collaboration. And so that's one of the things we wanted to offer from from the start. We're not coming to this project with empty hands gene will come to the project with offering and a number of things offering to extra affordable unit so keeping it before the ARB. Okay. I'm sorry to catch up before we go any further I just want to be mindful of the time it's now 735 and I do want to be able to get to comment. If I could ask that if you could just maybe run through the points that you would like to make. I certainly expect this to come to another hearing I'd like all of the board members to be able to make their points. Yeah, yeah, just a few things. I think when they come back it would be very helpful for them to respond to the various comments in the staff memo. Some had to do about traffic and someone had to do about site circulation, things like that. I'm interested as I said about the brick facing on front. This, the step back in front is very nice. The zoning by law requires a step back on each street frontage and this doesn't show one on Lake or Chandler. So I think it's worth thinking about how you might accomplish that also. And I mean, thank you for anything else. No, I think, I think I'll, I think I'll stop there for the moment. As a sign of our track traffic consultant on the line to answer those questions if you did have those questions and the board one of those answered now we're prepared to do that. I think next time, because as Rachel said, there's not much time. The other thing is 37 units and 15 parking spaces. When you come back next time, it would be really helpful for you to have us understand how those 15 spaces are going to be allocated among 37 units. Good point, Jane, we'll do that. Okay, that's it for now. Great. Thank you, Jane. Melissa. Thank you. So I'm the new ARB member, and I'm not as familiar with you. So if you don't mind to introduce yourself, which one's the owner and the architect and if you could just help me out. Just introduction wise. The owner has not spoken. I'm the attorney Robert. Thank you, Bob. Project manager is John Murphy. Okay. Are you working for the market square? Are you the one of the architects John Murphy or just that I work for, I work for summit real estate strategies and we were hired by the prosciutto family work we work directly for them. Okay, and have you worked with them on the other projects. Yes. Yes. Okay. And what's their motivation for redeveloping the site. The motivation is that if you've been in and around the building ever, I mean, it needs many, many upgrades. Everything from electrical to some structural to, you know, HVAC all mechanical systems, and it's getting very close to bacon as it is right now. We think with one tenant essentially left that we'd like to recreate a home for so at this current state given everything that's happened in the last year. It's a good opportunity to to redevelop the site. Now, when you do that, you really have to at the end of the day convince the bank that you have a good project to get the funds to do it. And so our motivation is to take this time to bring back something better. So hopefully only get out of this entire pandemic. We also have a new and improved site. Who's the tenant that's there. Little Q hot pot and mass holes. Okay. And the right on the other side in both of them. You said only one of them will be rehoused and you're really locating one. I'm just curious who those guys are. Yes. Little Q is the one that we would like to bring back in the space if they would like to, and mass holes has a different opportunity we're looking at with them. Okay. Let's see here. Well, in terms of some of the, you know, kind of the density and FAR, I'm comfortable with the mixed use component. I think I'm comfortable with the idea that you're bringing some affordable housing from the get go. And that's, you know, from the short time even on the board hearing a lot of the town meeting articles, a lot of people are concerned about how that is presented and kind of gets fit into redevelopment projects. I'm think I'm also interested on the parking. I probably lean towards less parking myself when it's on MBTA route like this, the 77 and so close to the bike path. I'm just curious, even with the reduction in the parking, how that 15 is working is it exclusively for the residential or is it shared with the retail at all. It would be just for the residential and it's in it probably something that is like most other residences you pay extra for it. Okay. And there's one spot dedicated for a zip card now is that I remember. Yes, that's correct. And then I probably need some in terms of some language also a Rachel probably be curious in terms of your thinking on this. I'm keeping that first building but when I see some of the material chosen for the second portion it does seem. It doesn't seem to have like the same gravitas as that kind of first level bricks so in terms of having a relate better to one another. I don't know if it's the fenestration or just kind of the cladding that's kind of proposed at this point, but it has a look that I'm, I have to kind of work with so there is that. And I will stop there at this point and let my other members go forward. So I'm just going to make a couple of quick points in terms of things that I love for you to take a look at Jenny if you could go to I think it's the next slide which is the perspective elevation. And I'll just echo what a few of my colleagues have mentioned. I just don't see any relationship at all currently between the first floor commercial space and the facade treatment and the the upper stories and that that needs to be addressed. The other, as Jean was suggesting the two story section above the above the commercial spaces goes to Masonry and perhaps the rest of the building is a different material that one thing you could look at, you could certainly look at, you know, whether we're doing or adding any brick column your elements, or perhaps a different more modern material altogether above but right now there's just zero relationship, and the two sections definitely need to speak to each other. Another question I would have is really about the space that you're creating the retail space that triangulated space is very challenging for a retailer restaurant. I was thinking too about, you know, how much street frontage there, there is and in any retail or restaurant space trying to carve out a kitchen or a back of house just becomes really challenging without actually cutting off a certain amount of that, that long front facade, and having to cut out windows because you make something of a back of house because there just isn't currently a space for it. So that's something I'd like you to to take a look at is whether there's a way to to make that space more more usable and you know perhaps as Kin was suggesting, when you look at activating those three windows that we're looking at on the side the arched, the large arched windows and relocating some of the brick elements that are shoved up against it, you know perhaps that allows you to reorient some of the space to make that more useful in the commercial space. I am disappointed with the amount of commercial space that was lost here. I don't know if looking at the second floor as perhaps commercial office space, co working space or something of that nature for a portion of it is something that you've taken a look at but I think that that's something that I'd like you to address when you come back. It's really a shame that the amount of commercial space that was there is lost and if it's not possible because of the parking requirements on the first floor I'd like to see you at least consider a creative use of some of the second floor space for commercial or office space as well. I talked a little bit about the design approach, the building lobby as as well. You know I think it's certainly a challenge or challenge for visitors right now there's there's no demarcation of the entrance for the residential units at all so that's something I'd like to see addressed. Are you signing that is that anywhere here on the building. I think the department mentioned this a little bit in their memo as well. And I think that's funny for to go through for our next conversation. So with that, I would start go ahead Ken. Just before we close off a bit. One of the things that you guys are totally correct is there's a bottom building in the top building. And one of the things I might look at suggest they might look at is integrating colors. They may they may work better. So if window frames and trim is the same on both buildings, or the siding is in more earth tone colors as the brick, it may, it may look like a more homogenous building there as opposed to just one building setting on top of the other. So I would like to make a suggestion for you to look at okay. And Rachel, I can add I mean I think maybe even this graphic kind of gives you an idea like the roof line is so stark in contrast with the capital theater building. And even if you can kind of get a little bit more creative with what you're doing on the roof line, so that it has that feeling that part of the massing and part of why it works here I think is because you have some history of height down this corridor, but you want to have it relate to that history and one terms of that the son. Thanks Melissa and can I think those are excellent points I think again looking at that corner there at Mass Ave and Lake Street and that's a prominent corner and it's not being treated as a prominent corner in the way that the facade is currently designed right now so that's an opportunity. Any other comments before I open this up for public comments. Yeah, I just like to say one thing of the town came out with this net zero action plan. And there are two pieces relating to this building that I like you to take a look at and report back next time. And the whole point is so that new buildings are basically net zero carbon. One is required. It's not a requirement yet but it's in the net zero action plan that the buildings at least be so ready. So I'd like you to take a look at what it would take to make this building so ready if it doesn't actually have solar on it. And the second is so that there's no internal fossil fuel combustion used for the building so I'd like you to report back on that next time. Great. Thank you, Dean. And the action that's our action plans online if you'd like to get a copy town website. Thank you very much. So with that we will open this up for public comments, any member of the public wishing to speak about this to ask any questions or make any comments please use the raise hand function in zoom. Please also if you could keep your comments brief I would like to get to as many of you as possible and I'm going to apologize in advance when I need to close this public comment there will be future hearings. And we will make sure that this is placed on an agenda we have more time for public comment at that time, but I will be closing public comments at 755. When I call on you please remember to state your first last name and address for the record. The first speaker will be Don Seltzer. Thank you Madam chair. Before I get begin I have provided some visuals which I'd like to be shared at this time. If you could please start while Jenny pulls those up your time. Don Seltzer Irving Street, a 37 unit department building is development that is appropriate for our seven lot of more than 20,000 square feet, not in the B three village business district on only 11,000 square feet. It simply can't work except by resorting to some very strange mathematics. If you have to step the subtraction, you have to subtract out all of the certainly by law references to open space whether usable or landscape. You have to subtract out the requirement for rear yard setback based upon building size, in this case about 32 feet. I'm sure the next door neighbors in the garden apartment won't mind this submission. We've tracked it out as the requirement for upper story setbacks on Shannon street and in late street. And then we just throw out the bylaw for corner lots and minimum side street front and setbacks. The final trick is trickiest operation is multiplication, how to convince this board that is perfectly okay to take the maximum permitted for area ratio of 1.5 and multiply it by a factor of three. Next slide, Jenny. Moving on to geometry. I provided the board with some perspective views that are not based upon some unusual non Euclidean geometry. They're crude, but they are scaled realistically according to real life objects, specifically the 30 foot utility poles on the street. Next slide. One view, which I just showed is from NASA of near the Fox Library. Here's what the applicant has provided for late street. Notice that that's a 30 foot utility pole, and it's a 60 foot building. Next slide. This is a view of what it's going to look like from light street showing how the 60 foot structure stacks up against its neighbor. Next slide. I'm going to turn it off there and let other people speak. Thank you very much. So, looking at time. I am going to go ahead and take all of the people that have their hands raised. So, the last speaker will be Stephanie Hansel. So, we'll go ahead with Steve rebel next. I realize this is a first hearing for the proposal but I like the general direction of the project. There are a couple of specific comments I'd like to make. First, I see this would be a five story building situated between two three story buildings. I'm pretty, I'm fine with that configuration. I think there's, there could be a nice symmetry there. Going back to what the board mentioned earlier. There's a relationship between the surrounding buildings. So on one side we've got the Capitol Theater which is one of Arlington's more iconic buildings it's three stories mostly red brick, quite a bit of decorative trim hemispheric stone ornaments and so on. And on the other side you have 180 Mass Ave. Again, it's a three story red brick building but it's got very little trim or ornamentation. So, I'd suggest going with a brick facade at least on the first three floors, either real brick or if you could get, you know, brick in fiber cement panels that would be fine too, but just something that blends in better with the surrounding buildings, doing something different on the upper two stories might be fine but I would really like to see brick on the bottom three. I would also like the applicants to consider trim detail. So 180 has very little trim. The capital's theater has quite a bit of trim. So having, you know, less trim than the capital but more than 180 just so that there's a transition from building to building to building I think that would, would help with the look on the street. And finally, I'd like to suggest putting the entrance or one of the entrances to the first floor commercial spaces on the corner. I think that would do the way the entrance to autos is situated on the other side of Lake Street. So the idea is to have some symmetry of those corners on either side of Lake. Thank you for your time, Madam Chair. Thank you. The next speaker will be Chris already. Thank you, Madam Chair Chris already Adam Street can you hear me okay. Yes. I guess what I, what I would say Madam Chair first off is I appreciate that the applicant's attorney does not want to go before the zoning Board of Appeals, but it seems to me that's exactly where this proposal needs to go. And it needs to go there first of all for a variance if the applicant wants a special permit from the redevelopment board, because this application blatantly violates the zoning bylaw. As Mr Benson pointed out, it is about three times the allowed floor area ratio. There is zero usable open space. It doesn't come close to meeting requirements to the bylaw. And in order for your board to get granted special permit, it needs a variance first. Otherwise, the applicant can go before the zoning Board of Appeals for a 40 B permit if they wish. And I understand the attorney for the applicant has played that card. I suggest you let them play that. Otherwise, they need the variance and Mr Benson posed the question of whether your board has the authority to allow the zoning bylaw to be violated. I suggest it absolutely does not. And simply hearing from the attorney that he thinks that you can do that is not good enough. I would like him, I would like town council to cite any case law that allows planning boards to grant variances, or allows the process of site plan review to provide a variance, because they will not be able to do it. And I say to the butters who receive the legal notice in the mail for the ARB to approve this project as it has been submitted will be a blatant violation of the law. It could very easily be overturned on appeal. And you should know that because you have the power to stop them from engaging in this kind of volleys now. Thank you. That will be filled off. Yes, thank you madam chair I appreciate it. My name is filled off I live on Grafton Street which is just a couple blocks from the site and I, I do visit capital square typically couple times a week so I'm there a lot and I'm certainly very familiar with the site. I think, you know, generally the massing strategy, you know, despite some of the issues some have said and just the overall development program I don't think they're, they're too bad. In many ways I think, I think what's proposed here is really what a lot of people in town have been saying they wanted over the years that we want to have mixed use higher density buildings on Mass Ave and here we were here we have a mixed use higher density building on Mass Ave. And the strategy that strategy is it's in the master plan. It's been discussed at town meeting I know a lot of people who support that concept. And I also, I like that the parking ratio is low so it cuts down on traffic issues that a fifth of the building 20% of the building will be affordable units. The bank facade is retained. It's promoting walking and walking and transit obviously. It's a nice unit mix that will that will draw, you know, basically singles and couples and it'll have really minimal impact on our school so that sort of saves us all money so I think that's something that many in the neighborhood and really throughout town, very much are supportive of so I also wanted to say it despite those positives about the overall program I do have some concerns about the design. I would like to relay to the folks here they are be in the developers in the architects. First, the ground floor plan I think the reduction of the commercial retail restaurant space from the 9,000 square foot there today to 2000. It's a bitter a bitter pill to swallow given how important the site is the proposed reduction of the parking ratio. I appreciate it but you know the parking still does generally dominate the ground floor. So, but I noticed that as shown the curb cut to the parking area is already for maybe even five feet below the grade of Mass Ave sidewalks so really just providing a modest ramp within the middle of the drop of form four to five feet so that the parking area could easily tuck itself under the first floor, given that the grade differential with Mass Ave, that would allow the parking to be sort of partially underground I guess so obviously there's that cost but you could probably easily double the retail square footage by putting by tucking the parking in under it and taking advantage of being creative with the, the slight grade change that I think could really make a big difference and I think the developer and owner will make a difference from the lease rate from the retail and offset the cost of some of that excavation. I didn't want to talk about the design that I think has been covered pretty well I do to me it looks like a two to four story building kind of flown in from the suburbs and kind of plopped on top of a pretty nicely designed urban base so I won't talk about that anymore. Last thing I did want to just quickly mention is the bike parking strategy I think it's great that the project includes the bike parking rooms on the second and third floor. I think they'll be great if someone for those that own expensive bikes mountain bikes road bikes, e bikes but I think for those who live in the building and many of them won't have cars, they're going to have their kind of day to day computer bike, and I think it will be more of an annoyance to have to go in the elevator up and down into the locked bike room so I would suggest more bike racks, long term bike racks within the footprint of the parking area that's at great or hopefully halfway below grade so great start and I appreciate it and I hope those modest changes could be made. Great. Thank you very much. The next speaker will be Adam Oster. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. As Phil just said, oh, I live at 10 cottage app in East Arlington and walking distance to Capital Square. I go there almost every day. As Phil just said there's a lot to like about this project. I'm a town meeting member and in many respects this is the sort of thing I voted for when I voted for the mix use by law. I guess on the thing I dislike the most which is the loss of the retail space and particularly the street experience of walking by what's essentially a parking garage. I realize this is a constrained site. I know there needs to be parking. I don't know what to do about it, but I really hope that in the give and take that is this process that the applicant and the redevelopment board can fix that can improve that. Thank you for your time. Thank you. The next speaker will be Elaine. This is Elaine Maynard, and I live at 13 Chandler Street, which is the home directly in back of this building. And I had a couple of comments of things for consideration and to raise a couple of concerns. The neighborhood behind this building. So I recognize that a lot of the talk has been about Mass Ave and about Lake Street. But we have had less of a conversation about Chandler Street and the residents on Chandler Street. And particularly those of us who will be looking at this building as part of their day to day life. So I have a couple of concerns about Chandler Street in general. One is the impact of traffic. I recognize that the, the parking footprint of this is low. But I also recognize that 37 units at some point or time is going to bring visitors. And my question is where is where are those visitors going to park. And I fear that the answer is Chandler Street. I think there's also the impact of trucks and just services that are being provided to the building. And again, how that affects Chandler Street. I read in the documentation, but there hadn't been a traffic report done related to Chandler Street. So if I have that correct, I would, you know, like to ask that some sort of assessment of that be done. Obviously, we also have concerns about general light and noise and how that affects the experience of people living behind the building. And then just lastly, I think that this has been addressed previously. But there is the aesthetic of the building, and particularly the backside of this building that essentially abuts to my home. I think one of the gentlemen mentioned having something that was more attractive than just a kind of a flat back wall. I would like folks to look at an alternative to make the backside of the building something that is more attractive and in line with the fact that there is a residential neighborhood behind this building. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Kelly Doherty. Hi, can you hear me. Sure. Thank you. Great. Kelly Doherty, I'm at 12 Chandler. And basically I agree completely with the points that that Elaine has broached. My home is opposite hers so I don't abut the property but it is the view from my front yard so it's definitely of great interest to me. I do appreciate those on the board that commented about the brick facade I think it would be a far more aesthetic appearance wise and consistent with the existing neighborhood structures. If that were looked at, I also want to reiterate that my concern is not just the traffic for the residents, but also the visitors and the loading and unloading, which I don't believe is going to be happening on Mass Ave because of the presence of a bus stop. It's happening on Lake Street because of the intersection. So that means anybody who's getting an Uber or a Lyft is likely to be meeting that car on Chandler Street. And remember there is a big parking lot behind the adjacent Cambridge Savings Bank building that is the more plain brick building. So there's already a lot of activity behind these buildings in terms of parking, offloading, dumpsters, the commercial trash and recycling pickups do not jive with the residential. And then I also want you to consider that with 37 units, especially if they're rentals, these people do not stay for decades at a time. They move every three years. So if everyone moves every three years, that means we're going to have a moving truck basically in my front yard and probably Elaine's front yard once a month. That's typically on the weekends. And that's that's assuming the whole apartment moves, not just to roommate splitting up and that doesn't count the new people moving in. So there could really be double that. So there's a lot of very urban activity that is being sort of forced onto Chandler Street, because Lake is not viable, and because of the bus stop on Mass Ave. So I just want the board to consider that in, in what they're reviewing. The other thing I did note that with the parking garage entrance on Chandler, the flashing lights and the warning sounds for the sidewalk protections are basically right in the residential homes. And again, we get the backup sirens in the winter for the clearing of the parking lot next door. So we just want people to understand there's a cumulative effect that is really strongly affecting the Chandler neighborhood. I do think that a mixed use is appropriate there. I do think further development is going to happen there we all acknowledge that we want it to be aesthetically pleasing and we would like to see a lower density. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Matt Fernandez. Can you hear me. Yes. Thank you Madam Chair, I am Matt Nanda's I am at 15 Mass Ave across the street, the summit house some of you might know by that name. And just a couple questions that were addressed against in the presentation, and mostly hovering around the construction timeline, how long will it take, how will impact us living here in terms of taking a bus where will the bus stop be located during this construction, what will happen to the sidewalk. And will this be owner or tenant occupied. So just a couple of questions on like the logistics and how this is going to happen, and how this can affect people in the building and surrounding communities throughout the construction and the, and the development. Great, thank you we will ask the applicant to address those when they return for their next hearing. The next speaker will be Laura Hayes. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, great. Yep, my name is Laura critiques. I live at five Cleveland Street, immediately behind the capital square business district. So I can see the property from our front windows. I was 15 years in the planning profession and the greater profit area. I'm generally supportive upper story development centers that makes a lot of sense. And as with most things, the project that depends on you know overall design and organization. And on those points, I am opposed to the way it is currently laid out. The project is too large for its lot. I don't see any relations between a lot of one point five and a proposed PR point one, and it's a significant disconnect that basically shows that the project is trying to too much on that lot. The 37 unit residential project is not a small project. And a property zoning requirement should give both the property owner and its neighbors the sense of predictability when it comes to future development and 4.1 f a r seems way out of line. Everybody has talked about the reduction in commercial space. We don't want to talk about that too much except that it does kind of seem like it was a residential project that's kind of fronting as a mixed use project. I think such a small amount of commercial frontage on Mass Ave. I really do not like the removal of commercial storefronts on Lake Street and replacing those with garage ventilation openings as somebody who walks in the square daily. This is pretty upsetting for me, and I think that speech should remain commercial storefront either by removing parking along the edge or some fashion. One of the main amenities of the capital square is how walkable it is, and I think that any new project should support that pedestrian experience. The new garage opening on Chandler Street, I think, since it has no setback from the sidewalk doesn't really create a safety hazard. There are many school children, including mine, who use Chandler Street as a main thoroughfare to go to Hardy School every day, and not having any sort of setback so that vehicles entering or exiting can see them really is concerning and is for a new building. It really shouldn't happen. It should be recessed in some fashion. I don't think a warning signal really needs that standard. Finally, along the front of the building, the existing building has recessed storefronts and door openings and detailing between the storefronts. And this one basically is just flat windows. I think it really needs better articulation, maybe some recessed doorways, something along those lines. Which leads to my last main point that besides being overly large for the site, I believe all that I don't think this is an attractive building design. There's no cohesiveness between the first floor and the upper levels, and there's nothing to relate it to the rest of the square. It kind of just looks really out of place. And I don't think anybody would want that in such a prominent location. I'm excited to see the next redesign. The next speaker will be Stephanie Hansel, which will be our final speaker James before Stephanie speaks I see that you raised your hand, but I closed the speaker list so if you would like to address us at the end of this meeting or at the next time or in written format we'd love to take your comments that way. Sure, so I translated so my fault. No problem James. So Stephanie Hansel. Thank you. My name is Stephanie Hansel I live on three Cleveland Street. I live literally steps from Mass Ave and from the building at number 190. I grew up here in East Arlington and I went to Hardy School and I feel very connected to the past, present, and future of Arlington in particular East Arlington so I feel really honored to be able to make these comments. I'm here tonight to voice my strong opposition to the current design and proposal. As others have noted this space is located in a village business district of which there are only three in Arlington, and the proposed development is clearly a residential project in a business zone. It does not fulfill the bylaws for this zone, which are to, which mean that the predominant use of the zone is for commercial and retail space, and the reduction from 10,000 square feet to the proposed 2000 square feet is a tragedy. The town really cannot afford to lose this precious business space in the heart of one of three village business districts. I do believe, as many others have stated and I'm very concerned about the gross manipulation of the FAR. I don't see how a 4.1 FAR can be approved when 1.5 is the maximum allowed. I know the planning department staff letter referenced the capital square, or the capital theater building as being 2.6, the floor area ratio. That was of course pre-zoning bylaws and so I actually looked to the adjacent building for a more contemporary FAR and so the 180 bank building, I called the assessor's office and it seems that that FAR is one. So a building that is massive as being as massive as the one proposed with such a high density is just completely out of place in this square. And I don't believe that the number or that the housing being proposed is really quality housing. So affordable housing is desired, but an extremely high density building with a predominance of small and undersized units really doesn't meet the needs, the housing needs of Arlington. Some of the units are even less than 400 square feet. I really would encourage the board to consider that this is a massive out of place building as others have noted the aesthetics are awful. It doesn't look like it's it belongs in capital square we've worked really hard as a community to make capital square a place that is really special and that is unique in Arlington, and I don't believe that this building in the heart of that zone accomplishes that or adds to that at all. This is a golden opportunity to revitalize this valuable space. Let's use this opportunity wisely for present generations and and those to come. Thank you. Thank you. And with that we will close public comments for duck number 365 zero for this evening. Okay, so I will turn this back to the board to see if there are any final comments that you would like to make to the applicants, and then we will identify a time for a continue continuation of this of this public hearing. And any, any final thoughts or questions. No, I'm fine. I think the opponent heard quite a bit, and they should be able to come back with much richer and better projects. Great. Thanks, team. Let's just say I think a lot of the comments from the public were spot on and, and either added to or amplified some of the comments that the board made and come back with something with a much smaller far I'm going to have a very difficult or impossible time with a far for where the mixed use specifically says it can't go above 1.5 so the fact that this is mixed use has nothing to do with our ability to go so much higher. Melissa. I think I'll just reiterate I guess the rethink on how we could look at the commercial space loss. I do think that is important, as everyone said, and then also, I would be curious about, I'm just, I think I'm, I need to talk to staff a little bit I'm curious more on how the parking is situated I think it just feels like we're not sharing the parking and if we're reducing it, maybe we should be a little more creative with how we're considering that or undergrounding the parking. I want to know a little bit more on how this kind of the poor form on something like this. Bob, did you have any questions on any of the, the comments before we before we close and continue this to a future date. No I do not I think we have some homework to do so I'm looking forward to the next date. Great and we really look forward to working with you to continue, hopefully, finding a way to bring this project to life so thank you. We are looking for a date, Jenny and to continue this this hearing to can you speak to what our next available date would be. Yeah, May 3rd. May 3rd. We're free you and your team. John. Also with that sounds good. Thank you. So do I hear a motion from the board to continue docket 3650 to May 3rd. So move. Is there a second. Second. Great. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. And I am a yes as well. So thank you all. And we will see you again on May 3rd. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. So with that, we will move to agenda item number two, which is the continuation of the zoning warrant article public hearings for 2021 annual town meeting. Our fourth of four nights of hearings as published in the schedule on novice agenda for the total of 22 warrant articles consistent with the past the ARB will be hearing from article applicants and the public wishing to speak on each of these articles as scheduled. Applicants will have three minutes to address the board. The board will then pose any questions to the applicants followed by a period for open public comments. The board will be reserving final discussion until after we've closed the public hearing, which will be this evening. And before we begin, let me run through the procedures for anyone who wishes to speak at the public hearing for either of the two items that are on our agenda for this evening. The scope of the public hearing is a subject matter as posted in tonight's agenda. Any person wishing to address the redevelopment board on the subject matter shall signify your desire to speak by raising your hand when I announce consideration of each item to raise your hand and zoom go to the participant section and select raise hand, or on your phone press star six to unmute yourself after being recognized to speak, you will be your purpose your comments by giving your first last name and street address. Each person addressing the board on the subject matter of the agenda items shall limit their remarks to three minutes. You may be allowed to speak more than once at the discretion of the chair, if you have a new and different point to make or question to ask on the topic. The board may receive any oral or written evidence, but such evidence is restricted to the subject matter of the agenda item immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded. As people president public hearing are requested not to applaud or otherwise express approval or disapproval of any statements made or action taken hearing participants shall refrain from interrupting other speakers and conduct themselves in a civil and courteous manner, manner, and all speakers should address questions through the chair, speakers shall not attempt to engage in debate or dialogue with ARB members or the hearing participants questions may or may not be able to be answered during the public hearing. So with that, we will move to the first article for this evening which is article 35, which is the zoning bylaw amendment relative to industrial uses. So I will turn this over to Aaron, are you going to be doing this. Yeah, I have a short presentation. Rachel, I just want to let you know I am now present. Thank you so much, David I appreciate you announcing that. Thank you. Great. Eric, do you, does Eric also need to, is he on Eric Alberson? He is. Okay. He is on. Okay. We do not have slides so I'm just have a short verbal presentation. So, thank you Rachel for the time to make a statement regarding the proposed zoning amendments for the industrial districts I would like to thank the staff at RKG and Harriman, who guided the department in the zoning bylaw working group through this project. Eric Alberson from RKG is in attendance tonight as well to provide additional response to questions or expertise on market and fiscal analysis is helpful. Thank you also to the zoning bylaw working group members who are here as well. The proposed amendments for the industrial district are first and foremost to address the antiquated table uses and density and dimensional requirements that are preventing the attraction of new and modern uses, such as biotechnology research and development and food and beverage production. The proposed zoning amendments come directly from the master plan which recommended updating the industrial district to adapt current, current market, to adapt to current market needs and, and included specific action. The zoning amendment adds new uses to the table uses to include such uses as flex uses artists live work spaces food protection production vertical agriculture breweries and the similar larger restaurants and storage facilities. These uses are in addition to the existing artistic and creative production uses that are currently allowed either by right or by special permit in the district. The zoning amendment includes development standards for any new construction or additions greater than 50% and acknowledge and support other efforts that are important to the town of Arlington, there is a significant emphasis on incorporating sustainability measures and stormwater management measures as recommended in the net zero action plan, and then will brook corridor report, acknowledging the fact that the industrial districts are in close proximity to residential districts the standards also emphasize the need for develop to develop human scale buildings pedestrian amenities amenities and consider building height within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. What's can address though is Arlington's lack of access both to highway and rail and to rapid transit that many of Arlington neighbor and communities have and are seeing growth in life sciences and other emerging industries. Since the first quarter 2017 no industrial properties have been listed for sale in Arlington with so much owner occupied property and so little turnover in our industrial districts, either through sale or lease. It is imperative for property owners to consider redeveloping their property to create opportunities to bring new and modern light industrial research and development manufacturing and the creative economy to the industrial districts by allowing residential and mixed use projects that turnover maybe incentivize by balancing the investment and the requirements with some profitability, avoiding long term stagnation in these districts, but the proposed zoning is not just about allowing residential uses. The flexible uses breweries and the like food production and carefully eliminating unnecessary constraints that exist in the zoning by law to meet the needs of the end user by allowing greater first floor ceiling heights within reason and eliminating restrictions on how floor to be used by offices, manufacturer is in late industry. The DPCD memo on the proposed zoning does concede that the amount of residential could be reduced to a closer to a 5050 split between industrial commercial and residential. So the main driver profitability for redevelopment then becomes the size of the parcel when considering all of the aspects of the proposed zoning as written the residential floor area cannot be two more than two times the light industrial floor area on the ground floor. Industrial is written to include breweries, distilleries and wineries, flex space food production, in addition to what is already allowed in the zoning. And please note that self storage facilities are in the use category of commercial and storage uses and is not considered light industry. In response to comments that were received via correspondence on this matter the cost for people noted does not deduct the state aid and grants received by the Ireland School Department. The school department provided RKG with an actual number of just under $7300 per pupil, which was confirmed through RKG's fiscal modeling efforts. In the example and recent correspondence it results in a total of 189 722 for costs from the Brigham Square apartments, not the 668,000 stated by comparing that against the Brigham property taxes, it actually generates more tax revenue in total than 22 mil street. Further 22 mil street was not overlooked in the analysis as noted in recent correspondence RKG provided significant detail on the office condominiums at 22 mil street. Following the first zoning bylaw working group meeting on this project. The proposed zoning allows office spaces in the industrial district and removes the restrictive floor space requirements in order to provide flexibility again for the end user. Overall the proposed zoning seeks to balance the needs of a modern industrial zoning with the realities of Arlington's position in the region to attract new uses. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions and again, Eric Halvorson from RKG is here to support if questions in his expertise come up. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Eric. I will now run through the numbers of the board for any questions and we'll start with Ken. Thank you. This is a pretty good summary of a lot of work and you guys did a good job at this. I appreciate this greatly. Only question I have right now is, when you guys looked at the industrial zone. If we're trying to transform this into say a community or a sort of a village, something like that. How much of that zone that's there right now have sidewalks and curbs. So it's, it's pretty scattered throughout the various districts. Certainly in the Dudley street area, which is one of the industrial districts that also includes quite a bit of existing residential the sidewalk condition is relatively non existent. There's a lot of driveway entrances, where the edge of the property just blends into the street, which is why the zoning the proposed zoning does focus on creating better pedestrian amenities and also does set a setback from the property line to, to provide a little bit more relief from the edge of the street where it meets the property. So where there is no sidewalk and curve. Is there a responsibility of the owner of that property adjacent to it or is it the city will look into potentially helping out with infrastructure there to encourage more in this. I'm just wondering how what we can do here to support this. This sidewalk is typically in the right of way, which would be the town's responsibility. However, I think that there could be some room for discussion on that because of the fact that the edge of the property and the road sort of all blends together. The example on Dudley Street is just one example, the industrial districts are throughout the town and the condition does vary in different districts. All right. I think that's all I have for now Rachel I mean I think this is a good example what to do there. I just want to, you know, look back at some of the edges the fringes where we can do to encourage this. I think sidewalk and trees along those areas would help a lot. Thank you. Jean. Yeah, thank you and thank you to the staff and consultants and the committee is working on this I think this is a really excellent work and will, I think very much greatly benefit the town going forward. There are questions and suggestions. So the first has to do with the split between residential and industrial and I know some of us at the last presentation about this, has to go back and look at that it looks like the work was done. My question is, since there does seem to be a split between large parcels, which probably could work financially with 50% residential 50% industrial and the small ones which probably could not. Make that distinction. I'm not sure what the exact square footage is, but let's just say for example, you know, any parcel less than 10,000 square feet would have exactly what you have in here for the mix of residential and industrial, but any parcel larger than that may. That may be not the right cut off would be limited to no more than 50% that I just wondered if that was considered based upon what we've now read about the size of the parcel making difference. So it could be a consideration. I think it potentially over complicates the zoning amendment, and to be clear the smaller parcels could support the 5050 split it just it makes it the development pro forma work out better when you're when you are able to add that second floor of residential. So it's, it's more to keep the zoning streamlined and consistent across the different sizes of parcels. And to be clear, it would be feasible for a smaller parcel size it just drives the type of development that might be considered in a different in a different way than say some of the larger parcels. So does that answer the question gene. I can also see if Eric has anything else to add, but also move on as well. I guess, if you're Eric and say if you did have to draw a line between, you know, parcel size ones where we would limit it to 50% residential maximum and ones where we will allow the two to one. Where would you draw that line on parcel size. So I would say that the based on the average size of the parcels being that it is just looking for that note. I believe that the average size is just over 6000 square feet. That are not improved for commercial or industrial uses. I would say that that probably would be the threshold to consider parcels that are larger than that could likely support the one story of residential spaces but those smaller size parcels around that average would be where the line might need to be drawn. Yeah, that's helpful I think if that's the average some might be a little larger some might be a little smaller so maybe like 10,000 square feet would give some margin that might be necessary. I'd like to hear with the other members of the board have to say when they talk about this because I don't think it would complicate this a lot to just say if the parcels above 10,000 square feet. It's no more than a one to one. And if the parcel is 10,000 square feet or less, they can go up to two to one. So I sort of interested in what the other members have to say about that. If we could go to page nine next Jenny. Where it says, all new commercial and mixed use building shall be so we're ready. I have two questions about that. One is, how about if there's substantial renovations to existing buildings why aren't we requiring that for them. And I'll wait to you respond to that. It might be. I believe that it's, it was just an acknowledgement of the fact that the additions may not be vertical additions but it's certainly something that we could add in. I think it would be helpful because, you know, if you're going to not do a substantial renovation then I understand that it becomes difficult to do it but if you're doing a substantial renovation, then it probably makes sense. And it should probably say be so already or also have so around them. You know, the next one I have is also on that page. The lighting, which is down at the bottom of that page, which I think is is fine I just wondered if there's any consideration to require the outdoor lighting to be certified as dark sky friendly because there is a process in which outdoor buildings get certified as dark sky friendly which I think might be a little bit better than the downcast cut off or fully shielded. So, I'd like to have consideration of that. Now, the next page which is 10 exceptions to maximum high regulations in the industrial district. It talks about new development or additions otherwise subject to a maximum height of 52 feet of four stores is allowed subject to the following development standards. I'm a little concerned about that because that happens to be shading a residence that has solar on it 50% of the time. I think we've defeated the purpose and I think the two options to deal with that are not allow it if buildings currently have solar because we don't want them to be shadowed at least 50% of the time by a new building, or there needs to be a method in which the new building recompenses the building that has solar for the fact that they've now taken away or large percentage of their solar gain. So I'm not sure what to do about that, but I don't think this specifically gets at what I think would be a problem in some circumstances. And I think it does need to do that. And then when it comes to starting on 10 provide one of the following sustainable roof infrastructure components, and it lists four of them, but earlier in the regulations and talks about at least 50% of the roof, being at least solar ready. So having vegetated our green roof over more than 50% of the roof area. It seems to me that contradicts the earlier statement elsewhere in the regulations that at least 50% of the roof area needs to be solar ready. So I think the way to fix this because I think solar ready is more important is something like the remainder of the roof or something like that would be able to do this. And page 12 down at the very bottom, I don't think you need the parenthetical ARB. It's not really necessary. It's not the New York house in the bylaw. I'm curious also on the next page. Work only artists studio should not be used by more than two artists. I familiar with some other places in the area where you have more than two artists sharing an artist studio. So I'm wondering what was the thinking to limit this to know more than two artists. So the thinking here was to be able to was to be able to provide more spaces for artists to work, but and that is, that is something that did come up it was expanded. And the occasional and time limited collaborations with other artists were to expand upon that, but we can certainly, you know, delete that I don't think that it is would change the intent of the requirement. Well, you know that are maybe talk to ACA and see if they have a suggestion on how to deal with that or I would say, you know, not needed on on page 14. About halfway done, it's something described as his owning board of appeals when in the bylaws, they're really just called the board of appeals. The last line in 14 should say in this by in in these but this bylaw not in the town of Arlington bylaws to see where I am there. Okay. Page 15. Page 15 number five words as all parking services shall comply. I think it all has to say is comply with the requirements of section 3.4. For open parent, he closed parent period. Needles other parts in there. The only other thing and this related to one of the things you pointed out Aaron, in that this proposes adding a same section that the ad use proposed adding the same number, but I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to put the section this section on industrial zoning that you mentioned there. At the end of the section on industrial zoning so it'd be, it would be, you would, you could add it as after the development standards. Yeah, after the development standards. Yeah, so we, we did go back and forth on the positioning of this section that the 592 or yep 592. Originally those standards that you see were in the definitions and we moved them out of the definitions to be consistent with how we write definition. 599 is additional standards for permitted uses so it did feel like this was the best spot for it. I think that I think that this can be dealt with administratively, you know, depending on where the two discussions go relative to the two articles. But it does the selection of putting it in the section 59 was deliberate. And I think is the right location for it based on, you know, other usage of that section. Yeah, because again I think creating a 5.6 point four would be another place for which is right after the use regulations. So I would say just consider that. And, you know, I know some of these will pick a comment I'm sorry to be taking this overall I think this is really, as I said before, great work and you really benefit the town. Thank you, Gene. Thank you, Gene. David. Well, having spent a lot of time on this with the zoning bylaw working group. I very much appreciate genes detailed in astute comments from his having taken a taken a fresher look at it. The nose of us who have have seen it for quite some time. I think the only thing I wanted to highlight was. I was one of those with a concern over the inclusion of residential use in the industrial districts and while I recognize the necessity based on the economic analysis. I would be supportive of an idea like Jean suggested of perhaps applying a, a stricter standard to larger parcels. So that we could potentially maximize the the commercial space in those parcels to a greater extent. Thank you, David. Melissa. I don't have much more than I think that this is, you know, great work and it's, you know, the, the move, even though it's kind of later than the master plan, you mentioned, you know, a few years out, it's been great to see the implementation. So I think this is good work. Thank you, Melissa. The only question I had and now of course I'm starting to find exactly where it was there was a reference to the step back requirements. And I believe, did you cover this already Jean. No they just, we just get rid of them for these buildings. Okay, great because there was a reference that, you know, for those over those that are four stories. So I'll start at the third story and again I think that that's something we had, we had my question was was that in the intent I know that we had changed it because it was an incorrect reference in for the setback requirements in other parts of the zoning bylaw, or, or do we just eliminate it here as, as Jean was, was referencing. So it's actually on the bottom of page eight of our memo Jenny there in the existing zoning. There is two different levels of heights and stories. So to achieve the 52 feet and four stories. There was a footnote see that required the upper story building step back. It is replaced with subject to the amenity requirements of the new standards instead. So it does eliminate the need for the upper story building step back for these types of buildings to, to be able to accommodate that greater first floor height. So if the applicant wants to pursue that with with appropriate development above it as well. I think I think that's not what Rachel was asking for if I understood it, if you went to the top of this page. Yeah, there was another section. Can't we fix the problem that it says third floor for outside the industrial district where it really should be fourth floor, but I don't think we can do that in the smoke of this article. Okay, it's the amendment that we, we said we would update Aaron. Yep. Yeah. Great so I, and again I think it was just whether we fix it in this so that it's consistent with what we had said we were going to change. And Jean, I'm in favor as well of finding an opportunity, as you suggested to reduce the residential ratio for larger parcels as well. So I like the one to one for larger parcels and two to one for the smaller parcels. I agree. Okay, any other questions for Aaron or comments before we open this up for public comments. Rachel. Ken, did I skip you know you know I want to have a comment. Thank you. Okay. Jean you made an earlier comment about solar ready on the roofs on. Totally with you on new roofs, but you said we should make that also apply for existing roofs. And is that, that must hurt you. I said if there was a substantial renovation of an existing building. And I'm saying that that may put undue burden on that and may eliminate it because the fact that you know what to make it solar ready you're adding 15 pounds of dead load onto an existing roof that may not be designed for it. And even though it is substantial like they change the gutting the whole thing, but even the structure there, you're not allowing them do so because the structure can't hold up the added weight. So I was thinking, would you be able to look say one apical or one, one, one, one feasible or something along those lines for existing sounds perfect to me I accept that amendment. I used to want to limit the board and put undue burden, you know, but that's only for the existing is the new only for existing gene. I'm 100% on board with the new but I said I want to put too much of a burden on existing. We're there, we're there can I agree with you. Okay. Thank you. I won't say nothing more. Rachel, may, may I ask a number of the ARB members have had some comments relative to the amount of residential. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask Eric to provide additional input. We only heard from me he might have something to add. Absolutely. And if you could introduce himself again for the public listening that would be fantastic. Sure. Hi everyone. Eric Halvorson vice president and principal with RKG associates we were the prime consultants working with the town on the project. I'm actually going to raise my hand to see if I could get recognized really quick before they move to public comment just on that I actually wanted to make sure that I understood Jean's point about the small versus the large parcels and it sounded like for the smaller parcels, the gene or the Airbnb not to speak on behalf of the board but would would want it would be in favor of the two to one, but on the larger parcels be more in favor of the one to one did I understand that correctly. Yes, I suggested him. Okay. So my only comment on that was, we didn't do kind of a sensitivity analysis in the pro forma by parcel size. What we did was we took the four test fit parcels that Harriman had done the build out analysis on which was one parcel for or an agglomeration of parcels for each of the four industrial districts. One parcel size that was tested as part of the test fit process. So the build out process was just shy of half an acre is about nine, a little over 19,000 square feet in size. And that was in the mystic area. And we did test the two scenarios we tested there one was first floor manufacturing second floor office the other was a series of I think like residential town homes that kind of went in a line. All the other parcels were over two acres of the three parcels that we tested so we didn't test something. I just wanted to throw this out there we didn't test something as small as 6000 or 10,000 square feet and I think if we were to go to something as small as 6000 which I think Aaron might have mentioned at the beginning, the only concern I would have would be to do a test fit on that only because I want to make sure if you go up three stories and you're including both either a commercial first floor office or industrial with residential above that you could actually park it, and also get you know appropriate open space and be able to make the site work. That's the only concern. I think where would you, where would you set the break point for parcel size, based upon all the work you did. Without doing kind of a sensitivity analysis around the more on the test fit I'm not sure I feel comfortable throwing out a number today. I'm happy to talk more with you all our town staff on the side. I'll just say the smallest parcel we tested, just from a test fit perspective was about 19,000 square feet and, and you were able to get a building on there plus the plus surface parking and the open space requirements and the setbacks according to the zoning. So, at a parcel of that size it did work. I just don't know if we were to go same below 10,000 square feet, if it, if it would work or not. Yeah I had suggested 10,000 as the, as the, as the demarcation so 10,000 unless you get two to one residential more than 10,000 you get one to one. I don't know if it's possible for you to, I don't know I can't authorize you to do anything Eric, but if the staff could authorize you to like do something to sort of see if you could come up with, you know where the number would be. Yep. Yeah we can. I'm not going to speak on behalf of the staff but I'm happy to talk offline about that Jenny and Aaron. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Aaron. Okay. So with that we will move to public comment for article 35. Any member of the public wishing to comment or ask questions please use the raise hand function in the participant section of zoom. I'll give you a minute or two. Oh, okay. The first speaker will be Don Seltzer. I might as well get started since no one else has raised their hand by Don Seltzer Irving Street. A little bit ahead of the street in 2019 town meeting appropriated funds to hire consulting to recommend how we might invigorate our small industrial districts, bringing in new and emerging industries such as life sciences. This is the first important way I want to emphasize of this, bringing in good paying jobs that residents could walk or bite to. So we hired RKG and Harriman, and from December of 2019 through last May, they gave a series of reports to the zoning by law working group. There are some interesting ideas presented, but they tend to be more about the kinds of density trade offs that could be made to accommodate a sudden boom and growth with large office and research buildings, going up vertical farming, accompanied by amenities to the town such as Michael breweries and find restaurants. By May it seemed that the work was nearly done, and there was zero mention of mixed use residential. A small survey was sent out to residents over the summer, which included one question that showed that residential use of our industrial districts was at the very bottom of the list of desired uses. On October 19, these findings and recommendations were presented before this board. At this time, did any of the presenters mentioned the huge change that would make most of the report irrelevant. It was left to a few residents to ask about a tiny little footnote in the background materials. It was a small rewarding that struck out the existing prohibition of residential and mixed use development, instead allowed it as an accessory use of less than 50% area. The explanation was provided at the meeting for this unmentioned change. The version is now before you has taken another unexplained quantum leap residential can now be the primary use twice as large as any secondary use. It doesn't even have to be in the same building. It's hard to imagine the kind of redevelopment that this will spur picture the my rack or golds gym sites dotted with apartment buildings built over or next to the very simplest type of token light industry that the developer can come up with. There's very few new jobs and no emerging industries, such as the life sciences boom that is exploding on a doorstep in our life summer mill, Watertown, and other neighboring communities. As it stands this proposal with the residential included is ill advised and will not generate the kind of growth that is needed in our industrial districts. One other thought that I want to read you with the pro forma analyses that have been included in the study. Do not look at the benefits to the town. They analyze the best rate of return for the landowners. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be see Breville. Rachel, Rachel. I hear you and I will call on you in due turn. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Steve, thank you. Steve revelac 111 Sunnyside Avenue. I was a member of the zoning bylaw working group that worked on this proposal. I would like to remind everyone that our administrative districts are only about one percent of our linkedons land area. So there's small that limits the amount of property tax revenue that the industrial district can generate. The proposal before the board tonight will not turn these districts into big money makers, which is to say that we did not go down the route of allowing development at the scale of say Kendall Square or Boston Seaport District. We kept it smaller with the goal of attracting some newer and more contemporary uses and perhaps with the ability to add some additional jobs and some amenities to pedestrians and so forth. One part I really like about the proposal is the performance standards in exchange for a height bonus. I think that's a good way for a community to state what it's looking for. And I think the bonus structure increases a chance of, you know, you actually getting what you want. So after developing this list of performance standards, we asked the consultants to put together a few pro performers. So we wanted to make sure that the standards weren't going to be prohibitively expensive. And this is where it sort of came to light that, well, if you without residential component, some of these it's just not worth redeveloping. It's not financially viable to redevelop them. But if you allow a certain amount of residential, then it would become financially viable. I mean, our land is expensive and this is true even in the industrial district. So I'm personally fine with residential, but you know, among the working group, I do have to acknowledge that there was not unanimous agreement on that point. So I hope you'll consider moving this forward. But you know, the worst thing that could happen possibly is things stay as they are and we'll just, you know, circle back, circle back in a couple of years. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Chris Loretty. I do see you, John Morton, and I will call on you. You'll be two more speakers and then you'll be able to speak. Thank you. Chris Loretty. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris Loretty, Adam Street. I'm going to go through some more specific comments and then end with some more general thoughts on this. I don't like the things related to reducing or allowing the greater height for the reasons in part that Mr. Benson stated. And I think if you're going to provide guidance in the bylaw about things that fall from the height buffer district or areas where you're going to allow greater height, it should be consistent across the zoning districts and it shouldn't be specific to one zone or another, in this case, the industrial zone. I find the standards ambiguous because it says it has to meet these standards. It doesn't say whether it has to meet any one of them or all of them. Under 5.6.2A, I don't think you need to grant that exemption for renewable energy because it's already an exemption in the bylaw under 5.3.20A for things like that that are on the roof. I don't think you should be limiting the census to 5.6.2 and 5.6.2.2 to 4 feet. If I'm going down the bike path, I really don't think I need to look into the backyard of a auto body shop and see a bunch of dented cars. And then I also find very confusing the description of mixed use buildings in the industrial districts under 5.9.2A. In one case, it says the ground floor has to be industrial or commercial. And then it says it has to be light industrial. But commercial is not light industrial. And I'm unclear you have expanded the list of light industrial, I think it's expansion into what I call sort of the gentrified or fashionable light industrial uses. I don't know if that's to replace the existing traditional light industrial uses or to add to them. And the traditional ones are like auto body, commercial laundry, truck repair, stone cutting and things like that. And I want to tell you how I would gain this if I lived in or if I own property in the industrial district. Because I think allowing residential there is a great way of destroying the industrial district. As a previous speaker said it only constitutes about 1% of the land area in town. If people want to have local businesses to repair their car, to do landscaping, to serve in the building trades, you should not be allowing any residential in the industrial district. What I would do if I owned a machine shop there is I would put say a 3,000 square foot machine shop on a 9,000 square foot lot. I'd put a second floor condo on and then I would build a separate house and a separate building. And so that the residential takes up two thirds of that buildable potential for that lot. You will never see any more industrial use. You'll never see any more commercial use on that lot after that. It's gone. And I also take great exception to allowing, giving a special treatment to artists in other cities and towns where that's been done, industrial districts dying. You don't have enough land in the industrial district to support the current demand for the existing use. Thank you very much. I'm going to be brief and sent in writing. I'm just tremendously excited about this possibility. I think it adds to the fabric of life in Arlington that brings us into what I would like to see as a more diverse community with places to walk to places to live places to view that are interesting and exciting. I am a big fan of keeping artists in Arlington. I think it contributes to the life and the diversity of this town. And I think this is a step forward to physically be able to make our town more vibrant and more interesting place. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be John Warden. I can hear you now. Okay, thank you. The reason I didn't do the raised hand thing is because there's no raised hand icon or possibility on the display that's on my computer. Okay, what we were able to hear you. So I appreciate it. If you could just get your name and address for the record, we'll go ahead and start your time. John Warden, 27, Jason. Thank you. I'm also a member, not only a town meeting member, but member of the Zoning By-law Working Group and at each meeting of that group. When this industrial study came up, I pointed out that basically the appropriation for the consultants was sold to town meeting on the basis that we were doing an industrial study that we were working on the commercial and industrial uses in this tiny percentage of the town. And that residential was not part of the equation. And as I've quoted several times to the working group and your board, Mr. Tosti spoke very eloquent in the subject and was very adamant that there was no residential should not be included. I would accept the artist's work sleep space or whatever you call it. I think that that's all right. But the general turning it into a residential area is absolutely bad. It's bad enough that Myrack has put a big 40B in the middle of the largest section of industrial zoning or he's about to put it. But you've got a very large percentage of the town, at least 95%, that is already zoned for residential. Plenty of other places to put it. Putting it here is, as Mr. Reddy said, this will destroy the industrial district. And I'm afraid, you know, if someone disagreed, if someone on this board or someone in the planning department disagreed with what Mr. Tosti, the argument Mr. Tosti used to sell this appropriation of town meeting, they had a moral obligation to stand up and say, wait a minute, Mr. Tosti, we are not going to limit the products of this study to just non-residential uses. We're going to do other things. And nobody did that. They let that sale by and a lot of us who are going to vote against that appropriation voted for it on the basis that the board and the planning department accepted what Tosti was saying as the purposes of the study. And I think the redevelopment board puts itself in a very poor position with respect to the town if they're going to say in words or impliedly one thing to town meeting members to get their vote, the vote they want and do another thing when the products come down the road. And I look at mixed use as a classic example of a bait and switch. So I hope you will not do this in this case. This should be sent back for further study or you should remove all the residential uses. The initial draft of the proposed bylaw amendments said mixed use per end, no residential. And then somehow that disappeared and there was a claim or there's something in the footnote or blah, blah, blah, blah. Next thing it's basically turning it into a residential area with maybe a few shops on the ground floor. Thank you. Thank you. Your time. The next speaker will be Kristen Anderson. All right. Kristen Anderson, 12 upland road west. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 13 and I run a business at 60 Lowell Street, which is one of the buildings in the 30 park of Gold's gym lot. And we are doing warehousing and distribution there. We get along very well with our residential neighbors and our commercial neighbors. And I am speaking tonight in opposition to changing the zoning definition of industrial to include residential use. I don't think that you're going to have, you're going to be encouraging businesses to stay in Arlington if you allow for residential use in the small amount of industrial space that we have in Arlington. And our business used to be located in Malden and before that it was located in Somerville just a mile outside of Davis Square. And we really love being in Arlington. And yeah, that's that is about all that I have to say about that in terms of some points that have been made about allowing for artists live in space. I'm generally in favor of that. I for 10 years I lived in Sullivan Square in a commercial artist loft space. And where half of the building was occupied by artists who live there 24 seven. However, it I find it very difficult to believe that artists will be able to afford rents in Arlington. All of the artists that I know have moved out of the greater Boston area because of the cost of industrial space and also the declining amount of it. Many moved to Providence at one point. And there seems to be a movement towards cities like Detroit for artists because it is very affordable to live there. So while it sounds really nice to be encouraging artists live in space, I think it's completely unrealistic. And I'm not sure how you can encourage that really, especially when you're talking about using mixed use residential use in order to get developers to want to develop these parcels to make it more financially viable for them. Thank you. Your time. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Do we have any other members of the public? It looks like Aram Holman just raised his hand. Aram. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Okay. Fine. Give me one Give me one second, please. I'm sorry. No. Okay. My name is Aram Holman, 12 Whittemore Street. I believe. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Aram Holman, 12 Whittemore Street. I want to note a comment on the DPCD report that resonated with me. Due to low turnover, there has been limited recruitment for industrial use since 2016. I am paraphrasing. That's not an exact quote. Let me translate the bureaucraties. We haven't bothered to try. That's Arlington's attempt at getting more business. I believe that Arlington needs to maintain its 5% of a commercial industrial tax base, not further diluted with more housing. I think the last 20 plus years have shown that building more housing in Arlington has, for the most part, neither improved municipal finances as the budget continues to rise year after year at 3 to 4%. Similarly, with the exception of a few truly affordable housing units built by nonprofits, housing construction has been mostly not just market rate, but top of the market rate. That includes 40Bs. To that end, and relevant here, Arlington should not be mixing more residential in with industrial. As we can see with 1165, our mass have. This is the residential camel sticking its nose in the industrial tent. Arlington's industrial property owners have been waiting for decades to do this, to cash in. And except for owner occupiers, have let their properties deteriorate for what kind of blind neglect. Their properties are perfectly leasable or sellable, as is under current zoning without changing. The owners are not interested in selling under these terms because they want more. Nor is the town interested in preserving these properties, as is on the contrary, both are hoping to cash in on more housing. Now it may be in these property owners best interest to allow this. It is not in the town of Arlington's. And Arlington town government needs to act on behalf of the entire town, not just a few property owners. Arlington needs more jobs, more than it needs more housing. And the housing that it does need needs to be affordable housing, not more market rate. This proposal will neither help bring more jobs nor more affordable housing to Arlington. On the contrary, the creation of market rate housing in the industrial area will make industrial uses even less economically competitive in a self-perpetuating cycle, the end of which will be that Arlington is entirely a bedroom community. A comment was made earlier that Arlington's industrial district comprised 1% of its land area. That may be so, but even in this minimally valued state, it pays roughly 5% of Arlington's tax base. In other words, one quick comment and then I will stop. Thank you. It pays roughly 5% of the tax and that's without a split tax rate. Great. Thank you so much. The next speaker will be Susan Stamps. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. So I'm sorry, could you just state your first last name and address for the record? My name is Susan Stamps and I'm a town media member from precinct three and I am a member of the tree committee and speaking for myself and not the tree committee because we have not discussed any of these warrant articles. And I will confess that I have not studied these warrant articles. I want to just preface my brief remarks, which I just thought of. I wasn't going to speak with as a town media member for the last several years. We've gone through many cycles of having zoning bylaw changes come before the meeting and I have expressed frustration and many of us have many times with the fact that it's very hard to understand what the changes are, especially for those of us who are who learn visually and I personally have asked many times over the course of several years if we could please be given the information and verbal is written is obviously got to do that, but be able to for example for this bylaw change to show under the current code what a development might look like or what you know an industrial development might look like and what it might look like the same one might look like or several examples of what it might look like under the revised code. I really think that if you give people the opportunity to see what you guys are spending a lot of your valuable time doing that people would have greater appreciation because they would understand it and I think that it would make for a better process for the town. So I just wanted to say that and say it again. The town has recently undergone several planning projects which have addressed the heat island effect in town. The way is to reduce the heat, increase trees to for carbon capture and generally address the issue of climate change. We have a zero plan that we just produced is the municipal vulnerability plan that came out recently. The town is a member of the mystic resiliency coalition or whatever it's called 20 of 21 towns in the Mr. River watershed and what I'm seeing in this bylaw which I've been seeing in others too is that there's an opportunity here to do things, to require things based on the new paradigm of having to do everything we can to address future flooding which is going to happen worse heat islands which will happen worse carbon pollution which will happen. So for example in number five where pedestrian amenities a new development or additions over 50% shall provide the following either one of the following. That's number five. I don't have the previous page so I hope you know what I'm talking about. It says a shade tree every 35 feet or planter boxes every 15 linear feet. Now I love planter boxes as much as anyone else but a shade tree provides a lot more benefit for the environment and so I would like to see you require a shade tree every 35 feet and encourage the planter boxes but not you know have it be either or so that's best. You're at time. I would love to have though that Erin just respond to your question and request regarding visuals. I know that that was a part of the initial presentation of the industrial zoning bylaw's working group to to the to the redevelopment board several meetings ago so Erin if you could just address some of the visuals and the ways that that the the RKG and the planning group took a look at this that would be great. Sure. So I'm Erin Swarco. I'm the assistant director. Throughout the process we completed fit up scenarios. Harriman provided fit up scenarios which are boxy sort of massing structures which is not fantastic but it gives a sense of what could be allowed under existing zoning and what could be allowed under the future zoning in addition to the memo that is provided here with this agenda we also provided a diagram to explain how the uses could be shown on the site so while we didn't get into detailed drawings of before and after the the process through the entire project did provide descriptions and drawings that showed visually what we were talking about in narrative format. Thank you Rachel. Thank you Erin and I think if this does go forward to town meeting we will definitely incorporate some of those visuals into any presentation that goes forward. So the Don Seltzer I see that you have your hand raised again. Do you have a new or different point or question to ask? Yes I do madam chair. Okay. I would appreciate this second opportunity to speak. Thank you for that. Don Seltzer Irving Street. I just have a short remark to make to the ideas that Jeannie Benson presented regarding dividing into large and small lots for certain rules. I think it has potential but you do have to protect against the possibility of a large landowner subdividing down into 10 or 20,000 square foot lots to take advantage of better rules for smaller lots and in fact you'll find that if you look at some of the larger parcels such as owned by the MyRex they really are actually already a mixture of contiguous lots of various sizes that comprise the larger parcel so just be careful putting safeguards in for that situation. Thank you. Thank you and I see Chris Loretty with your hand raised to speak again. Again do you have a newer different point to make from your previous? I do madam chair. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Chris Loretty, Adam Street still. I just wanted to clarify a couple things some of the background information in the memo you received from staff. There was a statement in there that one in two family homes are allowed by right in the zoning district. I don't believe that's correct at all and if it were correct you'd be seeing a lot more of them being built in the industrial district where there are one or two family homes there now as with larger apartment buildings in the district they're all pre-existing non-conforming uses and the only exception or the only new construction of residences in the industrial district have been 40v projects so you know there was a conscious decision back in the 70s when the zoning bylaw changed to concentrate some of the more industrial or less desirable uses in like the Dudley Street district and so over time you've seen more automotive uses there and in some cases replacing the residential uses that were previously there so I just want to want to point that out that the that the current residential use in the industrial district is really unknowingly. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Seeing none we will put public comment for article 35. Any other points of discussion for the board before we move on to our next article? Ken, Jean, Melissa, David. Okay so we will now move on to article 36 which is a zoning bylaw amendment an update to the zoning map with the new date of November 16th 2020 and Erin I will turn this back over to you. Sure thing thank you Rachel. So in as the screen chose at the November 2020 special town meeting there was a zoning change that was adopted to rezone a portion of the DPWR from R1 to industrial. We noticed post that that we should update the date in section 4.2 so this this zoning article makes that amendment. Thank you. Thank you Erin. We'll move on to questions or comments from the board starting with Ken. No I have no questions the zoning map does not change all we're doing is changing the date. Great thank you then move on to David. No questions. Jean? Yeah since fine to me no questions. Melissa? No questions. Great thank you. With that we will move to public comments and Susan Stamps I saw your hand go up right at the end after I closed for the previous so if you have any items I'd be happy to take your comment now or if any other member of the public wishing to speak would like to speak on article 36 please use the raise hand function and I'm just going to cycle through making sure. John Warden is waving. Just looking for people waving at me okay John Warden go ahead. Can you hear me now? I can hear you yes. Thank you. John Warden still 27th jade street. Just two things about the map actually the map will change because of the the switch of the the soccer practice field at the high school to industrial uses so you could see EPW people could park their cars there or something so that is a change in the map but what the change I really wanted to to to ask about what goes to up sorry it goes to the the presentation of the map itself and I'm folding out the map and I'm sure you all have this memorized and you know what it's like but the the problem is that we have a large number of small zones it's a real patchwork quilt as you know and it's awfully hard to make them out a lot of the streets aren't identified and sometimes it's very difficult to figure out where a zone begins or ends and what I'm suggesting is that the the the the the index of streets across the top in micro type that could be put on a separate page and then the map itself could be maybe 30% bigger and would make it more useful not only to the public but to property owners and and and planning department and you folks just the the list of zoning down the side I guess that's important to have that but but I think if the if the map were bigger the map used the old maps used to be bigger and I don't know where they kept the street index but they didn't use it to take up 25% of the size of the map so I just suggest make that suggestion that for the benefit of all you you put it in a larger and more readable format thank you thank you any other comments on the change of the date of the zoning map okay seeing none we will close public comments on article 36 are there any other comments or questions from the from the board on article 36 okay with that we will close public comment for the for the public hearings for the annual town meeting and we will now move into a review of each of the individual articles um and we'll go through those one by one and the redevelopment board will vote on whether to recommend action or no action on each of the articles Jean I see did you have your hand up yeah actually if uh if I might Rachel um we we actually need to accept comments for all all of the articles just to check to see if there's comments on any of the articles I've heard before you close the public comment I'm guessing that's what Jean was going to say since we talked earlier um so yeah we need to do that then close public comment then you can deliberate I was going to actually pull up the document with all of the all of the articles in it so okay thanks thank you great so uh we'll have one last call for any public comment on any of the uh articles that have been presented uh before we close the public hearing so we'll start with uh Eric hello thank you I appreciate your patience I'd like to make a comment on the I'm sorry I'm into interrupt if you could just identify first last name and address certainly thank you Eric poll 285 massachusetts avenue um our linkedin massachusetts but I'm um I'm reading uh as part of the public comment and part of the record a letter in tied with the subject affordable housing letter for the um more an article Laura Kiesel was a proponent of last meeting um regarding inclusionary zoning um the the email goes hello I hope you're doing well I want to submit a letter on behalf of the Boston Center for independent living and support of the warrant that would amend section 8.2.3a of the zoning bylaw to increase the percentage of affordable housing units required in any development subject to section 8.2 the zoning bylaw from 15 percent to 25 percent or taking the action related there too would you be able to attach it to tonight's agenda my apologies for the late notice thank you so much shia french and that is um once again uh uh approval or um exhortation by the um Boston Center for independent living to support that warrant article proponent Laura Kiesel discussed last time regarding um percentage of affordable housing units thanks for your time thank you any other uh comments from uh the public before we uh close public comment on the public hearings okay uh seeing none I will ask for a motion from the board to uh close public comment for the public hearings for 2021 zoning warrant articles for tom eating so motioned do we have a second second I'll take a roll call vote kin yes david yes dean yes melissa I got a physical yes there yes thank you and I'm a yes as well okay so now we will move into the deliberation for each of the articles and jenny I think it would probably be easiest if we took these just a numerical order if that works for you so we will start with article 28 which is the zoning bylaw amendment for uh affordable housing requirements and I will open this up for um for each one of these I will open them up for comment from uh the board members and we'll start with uh kin on this one no we will comment all I do want to say that as written I do not support this so this is the uh this is the zoning bylaw amendment to um increase the affordable housing requirements from a two to a three-year period um that was this is the administrative change yeah this is the this is the administrative change filed by the board sorry rachel oh it is yes well I apologize I thought it was right there are two that are that are similar right this one is in terms of their name but this is very different in its um in its scope so this was this was the administrative change to go from two to three years the extension of the term of the special permit I'm fine with that one there okay uh gene yeah I'm I'm fine with it too it just lets the um bylaw catch up to what uh the state law is great thanks uh David yeah I I agree I'm fine with it okay Melissa yes fine with that and I am as well so uh we will go ahead and um see if we have a a motion to um motion to uh recommend action on uh article 28 the zoning bylaw amendment uh related to affordable housing requirements so motion to be the second second I'll take a roll call vote this again is to recommend action to start with uh kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yeah and I am a yes as well just a clarification is that favorable action is that favorable action yes I will say no action yes I know if I just say recommend action it will be favorable okay okay um the next article is article 29 which is the zoning bylaw amendment for apartment conversion which was inserted by the request of the board um this is again an administrative change uh for the update to the uh useless it in the table of uses so I'll go through again for any questions or comments starting with kin I have no questions gene are we voting on the article or also on the actual little amendment here too you're voting yeah you need to vote on to move to recommend action but on the way that it's amendment amended here so that is to add a definition by the way um and this is what I've highlighted here okay thank you um go to go the other members of the board I need to think about this sentence okay David um I I don't think I have a question but now that gene's hesitating I'm wondering if his hesitation has to do with duplexes well we'll get back to to gene's question we won't speculate we'll let him that was what his hesitation is uh so we'll go to Melissa any questions or comments no questions all right gene back to you so let me ask the staff about whether this would be better just says the conversion of a single family two family or duplex dwelling to an apartment building etc etc etc without the conversion of an additional existing structure originally designed for because some of these things might have been designed for something else a long time ago or redesigned so I was just thinking this would just say the conversion of a single family two family or duplex dwelling um to an apartment building with no addition to our expansion of the interior of the structure I'm just wondering what the staff thinks about that as opposed to this wording that's here gene um actually erin did was there a reason for existing structure originally designed for because I feel that came from some original discussion yeah um that we had about this yeah so it um the single and two family uses are um that phrase is used elsewhere in the bylaw when referring to apartment conversion so I didn't want to depart from that phrase that is used elsewhere and to be clear it's the building is not converting to an apartment building which is a is a use in our zoning bylaw it's an apartment conversion which is a is a use as well with its own dimensional and density requirements that are different than an apartment building so I so I would be hesitant to first include any reference to apartment building but then to stray from the language that's used around apartment conversion elsewhere in the bylaw but how about the conversion of an existing structure originally designed couldn't it say the conversion of a structure used for one family or two family use to an apartment building why is the existing structure originally designed for in nice again that phrase comes from the description of apartment conversion it's lifted from the description I believe of the r4 but to my ears your edit does not sound like it would materially change that description jean do you want a second to look that up um yeah I was trying to find the r4 definition I'm sorry I should have done this before so I apologize I have it jean if it would be helpful for me to read it off okay great thank you so much so r4 so this is section five want four one b want uh b2 r4 townhouse districts the predominant use in the r4 district are one and two family dwellings in large older houses conversions of these old homes to apartments or offices are permitted excuse me are allowed to encourage the preservation and then it also is in the b the b1 district which says in the neighborhood office district the predominant uses include one and two family dwellings houses with offices on the ground floor or office structures which are in keeping with the scale of the adjacent houses so that's where I took some of the discussion but again your proposed edit does not sound to be changed the actual materiality of the amendment what is your objection to an existing structure originally designed for it that it's too specific it's too specific and there may be some really old structures in town that were that would be subject to this but might have been designed for something else and at some point along the way got converted so I think it would better say the conversion of an existing structure used for one or two family used to an apartment building I know issue with that so that's to change originally designed to used so it's a the conversion of existing structure used for right if that's okay with the staff if they think not I am okay I think as Erin was saying we were just trying to be consistent with other other references in the bylaw this is also only r4 and r5 and b1 but I don't I don't have a very I don't have a strong reaction to your to your edit so well I don't think any of those Erin mentioned use determine existing structure originally designed so I suggest changing it used for I agree I didn't hear any reference to originally designed so I would approve this with that amendment so okay is there a second to recommend favorable action as amended by gene second by Ken second okay I'll take a roll call vote Ken yes gene yes David David he's on mute oh sorry I can't see him on my screen David if you could sorry there I just did a search and there is a reference to using that exact language in the table and it says in an existing building originally designed for single or two family residential use so let's go back to the previous one I withdraw my amendment okay so is there a motion to vote for favorable action for the for article 29 as submitted I move for that as submitted okay second great uh Ken yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I mean yes as well right moving on to article 30 this is the zoning bylaw amendment relative to gross floor area clarifying how landscaped and usable floor open space is calculated inserted at the request of the redevelopment board as well and gene I will start with you for any questions no I think it's fine we actually got some suggestions from the public to do this also and I think it's a necessary clarification great David I hate to do this but I think I was an error on the last one it's it has that language in one part of the table related to some uses uh conversion of some uses but when it's strictly residential it does not say originally designed for okay can we finish this article yeah so let's let's finish article 30 and then we'll go back to article 29 if uh yeah I do not have any any further questions or comments on that one okay um Melissa any questions on article 30 now Ken no okay so is there a motion to approve article 30 as uh approve action favorable action on article 30 so motion is there a second second I will take a roll call vote Ken yes yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm against as well so that moves forward recommended favorable action we'll go back to article 29 so just to just to explain what I'm seeing in uh section 5.4.3 in the use table in the first section under residential it references conversion to apartments up to 18 units per acre with no alteration to the exterior of the building later in the table under um office uses it says uh business professional or medical clinic offices in an existing building originally designed for single or two-family residential use uh so I think that's that's the section that language came from but it does not specifically apply to the residential section of the table the residential use section I'd say we took a vote already and there's no problem with it it is written yeah it's fine I don't either but I just wanted to clarify because I wasn't quite correct okay so with that let's move on to uh article 31 which is uh another administrative change there's only by law amendment uh relative to prohibited uses which was also inserted at the request of the redevelopment board this is clarifying uh those designated with a y or an sp any questions or comments starting with kin no gene no again this is a clarification that makes sense and I think it was also suggested to us by members of the public great David no comments Melissa no comment okay uh do we have a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 31 as submitted what if you want to make that a second a second gene has a second okay uh uh kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I am a yes as well recommend favorable action on article 31 article 32 is the zoning by law amendment um related to other districts dimensional and density regulations uh this is a um amendment relative to I think adding the let the legend for the tables we'll start with any questions from kin none gene looks good David no questions Melissa no questions is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action has submitted some second all right uh take a vote kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well all right moving on to article 33 this is the uh zoning by law amendment this is multiple administrative amendments inserted at the request of the redevelopment board and I'll start with any questions from kin none gene none David no questions Melissa no questions right we will take a uh do I have a a motion to recommend favorable action for article 33 as submitted so move second I can't roll call vote kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well that moves forward with favorable action we'll now go to article 34 which is uh a zoning by law amendment relative to marijuana uses for marijuana delivery only retailers which was inserted at the request of the redevelopment board any questions starting with kin no gene no David no questions just want to note that this was necessary for compliance with uh new regulations from the state thanks for the clarification uh Melissa no comment okay is there a uh motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 34 as submitted some motion second second all right uh kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well the next sorry let me get we're next uh with article 36 excuse me one second all right all right so we now go to article 35 which is the zoning by law amendment relative to industrial uses that we just um heard this evening uh so we'll start with any uh discussion points starting with uh kin that's going to include what we talked about today in gene suggestion right so we should talk about tonight yes no I have no questions I'm not sure I'm not sure we do about this at this point because we want to see or we suggested some amendments to this I'm not sure how we can vote for without seeing the amendments maybe jenny has a way for us to do that and gene weren't were you hoping to see some additional analysis uh with respect to uh the what the size cutoff might be well I had suggested 10 000 and then there was the idea that maybe there would be a quick analysis done to see if that was the right cutoff well there's certainly that that would not allow us to move forward with that um gene if you wanted to see any analysis well and even if I didn't this would need to be slightly redone to create that rule that less you know 10 000 square feet or less there'd be a two-to-one residential for industrial and more than 10 000 there'd be two one-to-one backs plus I had suggested some other um changes and I liked um Susan stamp's idea about making the trees mandatory and the planter box is optional so I don't know what to do with that because there do need to be some things added to this can can we vote on it when we meet on Thursday not really uh so to basically tomorrow morning we have to finalize the draft report to town meeting post it for the meeting on Thursday night when you have to vote for that report so it'd be challenging to put this to the side and also while I appreciate the desire for further analysis we will not be able to do that in the timeline that we've got going on here it is not conceivable to have that happen I'm glad to consult with RKG and staff about this and provide some answers in the coming weeks but and perhaps at town meeting if needed but I'm I'm unable to do that in the timeline that we have right now I would suggest that if you have if you feel strongly about any of the edits you suggest them now um and we lied that while we're here if you want to one other suggestion could be Rachel that you take this out of order and if you want to you know wait come back to it move on to other things we do have petitioners here tonight um so that might be another way to handle this come back to the board issues um just a suggestion and maybe we can do it last uh I'm fine with that if uh if the other board members agree with uh pushing this one we can certainly come come back to this one at the at the end that's fine with me I'm okay with that any objections okay let's go ahead and move on to article 36 and I'll put this one to the side so article 36 is a the zoning by-law amendment for the zoning map adoption that was uh changed during town meeting last year which was started by the request of the redevelopment board any uh questions or comments starting with kin no team and Jenny just explained why we're doing this at this point in november town meeting you moved to and it was adopted to change that parcel from the uh residentially zoned r1 to industrial to allow the dp the dpw campus to expand with uses that are not allowed in r1 so you made a you made a change but that change had an impact on the map so now we need to change the map um date that is in the by-law because it was actually changed we didn't do that so that is what's needed at this time the date in the by-law is may 19 2015 which was the date that corresponds with the master plan endorsement by town meeting that's administrative change okay so we're not re-adopting the zoning map which is what article 36 says we're just changing the date it just says to update the date actually yeah okay thank you yeah David any questions no no okay uh so is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 36 as uh submitted so a motion i'll second great kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article six goes forward for recommended action next is article 37 which is uh the zoning by-law amendment for multifamily zoning for mbta communities which we had previously discussed um recommending no action given the lack of uh guidance that so far we've been given by the state uh for this new requirement uh any discussion on this article starting with kin no jean no david no melissa no no great is there a motion to recommend no action for article 37 so moved i can and we'll take a vote uh kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so this has recommended no action for article 37 okay uh the next is article 38 which is the zoning by-law amendment for energy efficient homes on non-conforming lots that was inserted at the request of the redevelopment board um any discussion starting with kin no jean no david no melissa no uh is there a motion to recommend action favorable action for article 38 as submitted yes so moved second we'll take a real call vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so that's favorable action for article 38 next step is article 39 which is a zoning by-law amendment for the clarification of the definition of mixed use inserted at the request of chris already we'll start with discussion starting with kin no jean any discussion uh i would i would just say that um i think the zoning by-law is very clear on this it doesn't need any clarification at all and what this would do is reduce the ability to have good projects in some places in town david uh no discussion uh melissa no no further comment great and jean i agree with you is there a uh motion to recommend no action for article 39 yes so so so yes second uh we'll take a real call vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 39 i think the vote of no action next is article 40 which is uh a zoning by-law amendment for the conversion of commercial to residential inserted by uh john warden so any uh discussion starting with jean um i just think this is going to result in no new affordable housing but will prevent some small places from being renovated and rehabilitated so i i don't think it's a good idea kin i agree with jean david i also agree with jean melissa yes no further comment on this i agree as well is there a motion to recommend no action for article 40 so motion second take a roll call vote starting with kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so that's no action on article 40 move to article 41 which is the zoning by-law amendment for the definition of a foundation inserted uh by patricia warden we'll start with uh kin i disagree with this one here i think this is just adding more confusion so i don't support this jean i think the staff discussion gets it exactly right david uh i have no further discussion on this melissa no further discussion okay is there a motion to recommend uh no action for article 41 so motion we'll take a vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes let me guess as well so that's no action for article 41 next is article 42 uh zoning by-law amendment for affordable housing on privately owned parcels of non-conforming size inserted by barbeth orton she actually requested removal of this so we would just need to formally take a vote of no action so is there a motion to recommend no action for this for article 42 i'll move take a vote uh kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i am a yes as well so that's no action on 42 the next is article 43 which is a amendment to propose the adoption of accessory dwelling units uh we'll start discussion with kin no question jean um yeah i think this is a good article i was just reading it this afternoon and i i saw something in it so if you can pass me by for a second let me see if i can find it again sure we'll come back to you davin uh i i have no further comments on this i think it's a good article there have been some changes made in response to comments from the board as well as members of the public and i think uh with those changes incorporated as as submitted it's acceptable thank you melissa um yes i support this going forward i feel like they have done their research and collaborated with staff on this so thank you kin i agree with others that i really have nothing to add i think it was a a good collaborative process and the project proponents did their homework very well great and i also want to applaud them for being so um responsive to the comments from members of the public board and the and the staff as well so is there a right sorry before you before you do that i just want to make sure that um the language um i think that we need to update the language that's here because the petitioner had actually provided us with some updated language but i'm just confirming i'm in a shared document right now i don't think that um i think a couple of things have changed so could you just pause for a moment and uh i know erin is is working on the industrial use is actually right now but i want to see if she would mind just coming on briefly to see if we could just identify the sections that need to be updated sorry we're tagged here yeah um so the petitioners um submitted updated language um it was appended to the um agenda um which is reflected in um this version um i can pull it up real quickly i made that edit after we received it from the petitioners um so for example in just pulling it up on my other screen under b requirements the third the second bullet under one should say any alteration causing an expansion of or addition yep that whole section is um was inserted um in their final motion um three bullets down a parenth a parenthetical statement was removed and language at the end of the sentence starting with provided that if such accessory building is located etc that is new language um in the yep all of that sorry it's tiny on my screen because i have a lot of things i'm sorry i'm like eyeballing the screen at the same time exactly all that that jenny highlighted is new um keep scrolling down that last bullet before two um there was an edit from the state um from fire department regulations to state fire code yep so what we what we saw today what jenny sent us is the final version correct yes yes okay yes i um edited myself yeah review the updates so everybody was on the same page yep i i have no further questions on the updates that were that were added any any other board members with questions on the final updates now okay okay so is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 43 yeah so second there's a second second okay uh we'll take a roll call vote kim yes gene yes David yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 43 moves forward with favorable action now go to article 44 which is the zoning bylaw amendment related to parking minimums inserted by james slimming this was related to the balance of the zoning districts which were not addressed during last year's zoning amendment and was um amended between our last meeting and um and uh this meeting to remove the uh reference to size of the lot jenny were there any other changes there i think that was the only change he made that was it nothing else any discussion starting with kim no sorry i just had to finish reading it no problem right gene um no discussion i just want to say just for this article and the previous article i found it really helpful that the proponents of the article came to us sometime before they had to file the article so that we could have some give and take with them so even though the article went under went a little more changes we had an understanding of where they wanted to go and where we thought they could go and i think that worked well for both of these articles so i thank both of the proponents for that thank you gene david i also wanted to say that i thought the process of bringing these forward was was very effective and i hope to see it used more frequently in the future great melissa uh no comment i support it going forward great thanks and i um echo gene's uh and david's comments as well but it was a great process so do we have a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 44 so move second start with a vote with uh kin yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i mean yes as well so we vote favorable action for article 44 the next is article 45 uh zoning bylaw amendment to increase the percentage of affordable housing units this is from uh 15 percent to a percentage between 25 and 30 percent but what just the 25 percent is 25 percent yes sorry i was reading the top and not the bottom part uh we'll start with discussion so uh kin uh no i don't think i can support this as written i think without uh with these uh requirements i think you need some sort of accurate okay uh gene i had some conversations following up on the um on the public hearing about this with some of the project proponents and and um we were all very open to see if we could find um some compromise that would work and unfortunately we couldn't um i know a lot we got a lot of um comments and letters in support of this but i can't vote for this because of a few reasons one is if you read the literature you don't want to set the number without doing some significant studies to see whether the number will actually work in the specific area in this case earlington considering lot sizes demographics etc or will backfire and we don't have we don't have those studies to support it um secondly we did get comments from at least two people who are involved in creating affordable housing both advising us not to support this because they felt it would actually backfire and maybe result in fewer units um being done and i also feel like it wouldn't work without as kin said at carrot whether it's a density bonus or something else so i very much support the idea that we need to get more affordable units and what i'm expecting is that as part of the housing production plan update and this is in the staff report that there'll be a look at what can we do with the inclusionary zoning bylaw do we combine it with some carrots can we increase the percentage so um i would vote no action on this but i expect in maybe a year we should be coming back with something more comprehensive about what to do about this great thank you gene david i'll say i very strongly uh support the development of affordable housing in orlington that said i agree with everything gene just said and my my concern is that if we move this forward knowing that there's a serious risk that it could backfire um and um and uh town meeting goes ahead and and adopts this and it does in fact backfire then in order to fix it we would have to go through uh a new um a new um bylaw amendment processed at a future town meeting that is fraught with all of the difficulties that that we see um when we try to make changes like this and which we we saw two years ago when this board unsuccessfully tried to increase the percentage of inclusionary zoning together with a package of incentives to balance that out and and that was not that did not go over well with town meetings so if we were to move this forward and it backfired as is likely uh it may be very difficult if not impossible to change it anytime soon and fix it so i i think the risk of getting it wrong is is just too high in this circumstance thank you david melissa um no further comments i feel like what gene said pretty accurate in particular support you know affordable housing but want to look at how you can be a little bit more nuanced with this and look at density bonuses and so forth thanks melissa and i and i think um i too agree with everything that my colleagues have said that um and when one other municipalities have increased their um required percentages it has been a much more nuanced um you know sometimes a tiered proposal and that i i sincerely hope that the proponents of um of this article will will participate um actively in the housing production plan update and the other conversations around affordable housing that we will be holding following town meeting um in preparation for next year's town meeting uh so is there a motion to recommend no action for article 45 so motion second we'll take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david you're a moot oh sorry yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 45 uh receipts a vote of no action next is article 46 which is the zoning bylaw amendment relative to a tear down moratorium and we will start with um ken no i have no questions on this i'm not supportive of this i believe uh this well um um correct homeowners uh gene i i think the staff got this exactly right which is similar to what we said at the at the public hearing um this is not an appropriate way to go about determining what to do about the tear down of houses and there are also a lot of wording flaws in the proposed motion that would make it very difficult if any and the town might well get sued if anybody couldn't go ahead david uh yeah i i agree with those thoughts melissa um yes i agree with those the same the same thinking so not to advance this at this point okay i do as well uh is there a motion for uh recommended no action for article 46 second uh we'll do a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa and then me yes as well so that is a no action on article 46 the next is article 47 which is uh zoning bylaw amendments for establishing requirements for off-street handicap parking uh we'll start with um gene thank you well um jenny and darsie divaney um who filed this for the earlington disability commission and um david and i had a really long and fruitful conversation this morning and um i think other people can help me if i get this wrong a little bit but we decided there are other things to explore in how this could be recrafted that we really didn't have time to do between this morning and this evening and we reached a consensus that the best thing to do would be to vote no action on this and that the um redevelopment board and disability commission or its representatives would get together over the next few months and hopefully craft a um warrant article that accomplishes a lot of what we talked about this morning david or jenny want to enter that well i think we we uh would want to um revise the discussion here in the report slightly to to reflect uh that that's the direction that that we've agreed to go in right exactly great thank you uh ken any comments a lot of that discussion happened uh that's to here and um i have no questions any one of that um no further questions yeah i think um for my experience looking at how we're managing the whole system versus um setting things on site especially for smart parcels like this um we have to kind of look at the whole great david did you have any i'm sorry i didn't mean to cut you off if i did did you have any other comments uh no no gene captured it thanks and i um appreciate all all of you getting together to discuss that i really do look forward to working with the disability commission to um craft a comprehensive article as you've discussed so is there a recommendation to uh for no action for article 47 well do do we need to work no i was going to say just um please note no the discussion part is for the draft report to town meeting which we're going to discuss in greater detail on thursday night um so i we you know we just wanted to fill in as much as we could because we have to get a ton tomorrow morning um so no we don't i mean this was the proposed vote um but you're going to vote no action that's all you need to do okay thank you so is there a motion to uh recommend no action so moved second i will take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm yes as well all right the next is article 48 which is um uh zoning bylaw amendment to integrate ada and maab standards into uh the zoning bylaws um also inserted at the request of the select board by request of the disability commission start with jean i believe you were speaking with um darcy and jimmy on this one as well well um we we um revised a little bit the main motion and darcy was comfortable with the revision has am i and i think the staff discussion captures captures that it's fine to add this to the zoning bylaw this captures that those updates correct yes it yes it does great any discussion uh david uh no nothing ken so jean is that the only uh session these which only thing that's been added uh to this proposal yeah it's it's a slight rewarding of d can i can't remember exactly what it said before it accomplishes the same substance but it was rewarded it had previously it had references to ada and um a few it was um broader okay i have no questions this is more specific and also notes that they're regulations the maab regulations no i have no questions these these are state laws anyways that needs to be followed melissa same no no further questions great um you know i think my comment was again i i think it is um redundant but again i i don't oppose it i certainly support the intent um it's not my preference in policy writing but i certainly won't oppose it um okay is there a uh motion to a to recommend favorable action for uh article 48 second let's take a roll call vote ken yes jean yes david yes melissa yes i mean yes as well that was for the favorable action uh the next is article 49 um which is a zoning bylaw amendment relative to side yard sky exposure planes and this was um revised um a bit from our last meeting jenny um i don't know if you have are able to to highlight or if anyone has any questions on what the the updates were specifically for jenny perhaps i could start with with that i'll start with ken i'd be curious to see what the updates were there were quite a few questions on there i let me open up a different document then which outlines the updates by the petitioner thank you this is actually the fight this is i think this was uploaded um with all of the documents today um for the meeting so i my understanding is uh that all of the issues that have been addressed are in red um so i can run through them if you want or i'm just gonna roll through them about that we can stop if you have a question yeah these are all i think i don't think he addressed every issue that the board raised during the hearing discussion but i think he addressed the majority of them the major one i had jenny was the topo because arlington has set so many conditions of uh of non-flat loss and how do you how was this how was that addressed i don't think that was really addressed um and i'm gonna um i don't i'm gonna ask erin if she can also jump on because i don't think he felt he could address that one in the time that he had since the hearing oh he's here i see him actually but i don't know if you want to have him speak to this right now or not rachel um i think we should just go through what you know whether we feel that we have the time to review this and that the um there are a lot of questions about the space in the in the in the edges and the topography that i i just want to make sure this board feels very comfortable with or what you know or proposed to that much like we've worked um with other proponents of articles over a period of time if this again being such a nuanced article is something that warrants that type of um back and forth uh with with the board to develop something that that we all feel really comfortable with so i'd like to throw that question out to the to the board and i'll start with you ken i i just want to note that um in these two that are in red here there's commentary about the grade of the lot as well as differently shaped lots so i mean it's it's getting at the types of issues that were raised by the board um i come i'm kind of on the fence of this right now i mean i i i agree with uh the intent of this i'm just not very comfortable understanding all the ramifications of what this might what might they call all unintentional consequences and um i don't know what the rest of the board thinks but i would love to say that we'd like to we would like to take this on the revised and study it some more then maybe come back to it and we have a better understanding of it because it it i agree with uh in in theory just i just don't know all the consequences that come from it that's what i have to say gene well first it doesn't have something that i suggested was essential to get my vote my concern is that if you had um a new house getting built that was no taller or the top of the house was no higher than the other houses this that the sky plane regulations would prevent that from happening and it didn't make any sense to me that um somebody could be forced to build a house that was lower in height than the surrounding houses which would likely happen because of this i took time walking around town looking at houses i looked in some of the r2 neighborhoods and districts and i think whole blocks more than whole blocks whole areas could not have gotten built at all if this had been in place back when those areas were built i looked in my neighborhood i live in r1 and i'd say some percentage i'm not going to tell you exactly what but a pretty high percentage of houses wouldn't have been able to be built under the sky plane so we're talking about something that would not force all those houses to get toned down of course but would have a remarkable change in housing in how neighborhoods would continue to look or not look and i think that this is a blunder bus when you just need a little surgical switch for a couple of things the one thing that i was um i'm sympathetic to was something that would prevent a new house from shading the solar rays on an existing house and you can do that without having to put all these sky plane rules in which it sort of seems to me um is difficult in a lot of other ways and you know when i asked the proponent you know what this would solve one of the things he said so you don't look out on a blank wall but you know you can look out of a lot of houses now and you're looking out on the wall of another house or you know you don't get the same wind as if the house next door wasn't there well that's true too we're living in the 21st century we're not building up in a rural area so for all of those reasons i just cannot support this article i think it is goes way beyond what needs to be done thanks gene david i think the proponent has acknowledged that there are perhaps other ways to approach this problem including potentially modifying the dimensional requirements that already exist one thing that i felt like i really needed to see to get any kind of a comfort level with this proposal was not only visual examples of what what could be built if this were put in place but i also wanted to understand a much more thorough analysis of existing structures that could not have been built if this were in place to really understand what the impact of this might be on our neighborhoods and i just really it's i don't have a i don't feel like i have a good understanding of what the actual impacts of this will be and given that i i don't think i could vote to move this forward as it is currently presented i would however like to see the arb and the proponent have a more collaborative and ongoing discussion about exactly what problem we're trying to solve and what the options are for solving it whether it is the skyplane approach or changing dimensional requirements or perhaps something else but in any event coming to some sort of agreement on on where to go with this and what the actual implications of it would be thanks david melissa hi i'm here i'm just have to had to move around um as much as i like the kind of innovation and trying to be creative about some of the massing i think i'm not feeling ready to move it forward at this time thanks melissa and uh i agree with my with my colleagues i would very much like to work together with the proponent to as david i think said very well really understand the problem we're trying to solve and to um create a comprehensive solution where we do understand the the implications um and the impacts so uh is there a motion to uh recommend no action for article 49 i'll move back in take a roll call vote kim yes jean yes david yes melissa yes so article 49 receives a vote of no action you didn't vote rachel i'm sorry i am a yes as well thank you jenny uh we will uh now go back to article 35 let's see so back to the uh industrial uses article um so i think we left off where gene you and um and erin was starting to speak to uh potential amendments so uh rachel did everything yeah if i might um this is a shared document on the cloud so while i was off camera i made the amendments um so i'm happy to step through them i believe that they're responsive to gene's questions and i'm welcome to uh address it further so jenny everything that i did is highlighted in yellow um because uh the so um in this updates the this was the comment that i misunderstood for me rachel um updating the correct language for the upper story building step back thanks um if you keep scrolling a little bit further oh right there so um gene and kin suggested that additions over the 50 percent um additions over 50 percent of the footprint of existing building shall be solar ready to the extent feasible i think that addresses that i don't wait wait let me look at it for a second um no no no no i think it was substantial renovations to existing buildings shall be solar ready to the extent feasible correct gene yep so these um these development standards are triggered when 50 percent um when the addition is 50 percent or more of the building um which is why i use the the reference of additions over 50 percent of the footprint does it have to be an addition or can it be a renovation over that of 50 percent of the footprint right the development standards kick in when it's an addition or a new building but it states right here that all new construction uh it um has to be solar ready to the extent feasible i think that i think we should cross that out should be solar ready period and then only um renovations to existing buildings that's what i was trying to get at i don't know um i was clear enough i was saying that all new buildings should be solar ready right that's there period and then only existing buildings that are that require it to be extent feasible it does not to give it uh too much of a burden you can worsen with that gene that you have you well i i mean i think additions over 50 percent of the footprint is good but are you saying erin that we couldn't put in if there's a substantial renovation to an existing building so jenny scrolls up a bit this section is triggered when it's a new building or our 50 addition it does not reference renovations okay okay that's good i'm okay with that okay thank you erin got it yep i i um i okay can um can you see that i made two bullet points do you want it that way or do you want it back to the way it was before sorry i have no preference i'm okay with that okay great um so if you keep scrolling um so gene um you had referenced dark sky requirements um for this first highlighted here title five article 14 of the town bylaws um does reference the dark sky requirements okay great thank you so so i just cleaned up the reference there um to be title five article 14 um this was uh miss stamps's suggestion um i think i think it is successful um and responsive to that suggestion yep looks good um whoop so um this was the the first highlighted piece in this first bullet is where genie might want to tinker with this a little bit further tonight um but that looks that looks fine erin okay great um shouldn't it say our linkedin redevelopment board oh yeah i apologize uh yeah yep so this uh the second highlighted piece that's on the screen um i think is responsive to the comment that you could have more requirements than roof space right okay that makes sense um so if you keep scrolling a bit more uh oh uh oh um this highlighted under a three um i think this was caught as uh it either was the parent that i'll go with the arb but i just updated that and then so this b section i would recommend just deleting it which part will you delete the the whole paragraph how come you'd recommend deleting the whole thing all right the comment um from earlier this evening seemed to suggest that it would be uh limiting in some fashion to have a reference to two artists only um except for time limited um engagements um so it two three five ten it would be essentially an arbitrary number then why wouldn't you just keep in work only artist studio and get rid of the second sentence that's stated above those in the chain so these are just this is the standards this there's a definition that still exists for this or work only artist studio correct yes so in other words it's and it and it's not listed this way correct no no do you want me to go back to what that how this is defined is that of interest as long as as long as if we take that out work only artist studio is still an acceptable use in the industrial district it is they're just not further constrained by saying it can only be yeah then take it out it cannot be more than two sounds good you need to re-letter yeah we'll do that i'm gonna highlight that for some reason it's not updating probably because there's a lot of um lists in this document that are um manually inputted um so if you keep scrolling down a little bit more um we'll get to mixed use all right there's in vertical farming i made that quick update um so uh in the background um kelly also ran a quick analysis for me um of the uh 60 uh 58 distinct parcels um 39 of the parcels are below 10 000 square feet um and if you wanted another reference point if you did 15 000 square feet that would encompass 52 parcels um so that would end up encompassing most of the parcels in the industrial district with the exception of some of the largest ones some of the largest ones are town owned of course um so uh this was my attempt to address your comment jean i also heard that this section might have been confusing um i don't know why it's duplicated on the screen that oh that yeah it's saying this is locked by you right now probably could i i think this is what we had before though right yes okay and this so this is the edited i think your wording is fine erin do you and kelly both think that 10 000 makes sense in terms of the number above and below i i think you're going to get basically it's going to be 50 above and below half and half um again it's uh i think this is uh an attempt you know a good mile marker i think it could be loosened in the future if it's seeming like this is not working seems arbitrary to me well you have to set it somewhere so yeah by saying 10 000 like this evening it feels a little arbitrary to me jean where would we put it melissa we have to have some that's why i was hoping we could sort of say 75 percent would get to do you know two to one and 25 percent we get to do one to one so the largest one something like that well and what is the risk of not putting that in then the risk is the risk is some of the largest ones may end up with twice as much residential as industrial and the reason that this came up was the performers that they did said the larger ones could survive and you know and financially would pencil out well at one to one but jean what i heard was that they didn't actually run to this on any of the smaller parcels so right if that's the case should we and we feel strongly that residential should not be the principal use in these spaces should we take this out and instead of a two to one ratio move forward with a maximum one to one ratio all together rather than create an artificial and basically preclude um residential completely in the smallest parcels no no it's one to one all right but if it if if you can't i i don't mean i don't mean legally precluded but financially precluded based on what i heard and erin please correct me if i'm wrong and i misinterpreted what was said but there were no performers run for a parcel for that size parcel i believe the smallest was significantly larger i think it said like nineteen thousand right you are correct rachel so we don't have any data to say that it doesn't pencil out without the two to one residential requirement and we do have we do have data that it would it would work out for the larger parcels at one to one we put something in there saying that there's an option uh if the proponent proves to the uh the a or b that uh one to one doesn't work and they need to get an exception for a two to one on some of the small locks then that's okay but they have to prove to us just for now unless otherwise approved by a special permit something like that yes so we'd keep the 10 000 as a cutoff but we'd allow but we remove that we remove the 10 000 and just keep it as one to one unless otherwise approved by special permit of of hardship whatever and then it gives us a chance to value that okay you know you have you have a very small site it doesn't work so you need to two to one i think that makes sense if it would be one to one you know unless the a or b finds that financial hardship requires up to two to one financial hardship or financial infeasibility infeasibility infeasibility correct dave sorry yep you're right david yeah yeah so it would be one to one except that the a or b upon a finding of financial infeasibility made by special permit increase with up to two to one erin are you i'm gonna let you at it i'm like warring over the the cursor you go does that sound good melissa i i think that sounds a little more reasonable because i mean you're trying to you're trying to get the the residential in there as kind of the incentive to move things along keeps keep the mix of uses right but we're not trying to on the fly without the data set the square footage i feel like this gives us more of a balance to that yeah i think you're right melissa i think this is a better way to go about doing it with kin's suggestion of the special permit for economic financial infeasibility and then you could up it to up to two to one so we could just leave it to erin to figure out how to do that after this you got till tomorrow morning erin oh i mean don't we know we have to vote on this tonight we can vote on it with that change that she's going to insert after yeah do you want to roll through the rest of the highlights or was that would be great yeah let's roll through the rest of them was was there any other place in here where there need to be an edit to accomplish this this change that we're talking about no no that would be the only location um so these last two items um uh i i think in the installing trees within the landscaped areas it said section six one eleven d six of the town of arlington zoning by law so i got rid of the town of arlington zoning by laws and the last highlighted section is um i just made it less wordy correct um and i believe that's it i think if you keep scrolling there might have been just some other um updates uh nope i guess that's it um interestingly um uh oh i did update um so further residential uses may be a component of a mixed use development are limited to no more than the gross floor area of the ground floor principal ground floor light industrial use the redevelopment board may allow an increase to no more than twice the gross floor area of the principal ground floor light industrial use upon a finding of financial infeasibility financial i think it has to specifically say may allow an increase in residential use right correct it's slow to update on my screen for some reason usually i shake it it works faster maybe i have too many things open on the screen there there while we're waiting for that there it is yep so there's this and then the residential floor area so i just um i just want to address also um uh a point of confusion that might have um occurred as well we just need to delete this paragraph by the way yeah i don't know why it's showing there on your screen jenny oh okay it's it's telling me it's locked um sorry go ahead um so the the ground floor of these mixed use buildings can be industrial or commercial but the allowance for residential specifically tied to the light industrial use categories i just want to be very clear about that thanks for the clarification i think that's important very important um and then the last thing that i didn't address um because um you know i i would appreciate the input is the duplicative five nine two section um again i i feel like the arb has handled some of that similar um overlapping sections at town meeting um i um my preference is to put it in five nine but i'm also um i'm not so uh crazy to say it has to be there um so the other suggestion was to put in in five six uh five six four if i remember correctly yes five six four which would follow basically the use table which can be an appropriate location for it as well if we keep it where you want it we have to move it you have to come back from main and work on it be happy to do that i'll i'll zoom in to town meeting um but i think you know should it go into five six six four it achieves the same the same goal it's just seems a little weird if we go to like favorable action on two um warrant articles that have the same you know addition to a section of the zoning bylaw but if you switch this there about a dozen places where the reference would have to change that's easy yeah i i don't know i i think either place would work but i think i don't know to me i wouldn't have noticed it except when you pointed out and that's when i thought it would be better at the end of the uses thing so it could be what did i say it was i forgot five six four yeah five six five point six point four at least you wouldn't we wouldn't have to deal with it after what all that has two things with the same you know yes it cuts down on confusion gene what's your preference five point six point four let's go with it so if we do that we just just note that we we just need to update all these references which we will do of course perfect excellent um so i think in some that addresses the comments that i heard uh from the members um and through the public comment great work erin i don't know how you did that when we're all this much your magic the magic of the cloud all right any other discussion i mean i i think i think these changes are responsive to the boards and the public's comments um you know with um with um an eye towards making this actually work great is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action on article 35 as amended this evening so second we'll take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well that receives favorable recommended favorable action and with that that closes our discussion and voting on the warrant articles uh so jenny do you need us to vote to uh i think since we voted on the individual ones we don't need to vote any more until we receive on thursday evening the draft report and then we just need to vote on that correct right yeah and we're gonna post that by tomorrow thank you all okay okay uh so the next item on our agenda is the review of meeting minutes we can get through these quickly we'll start with uh the meeting minutes from february 8 2021 and uh i had a couple of items so um on page one i think it was near the bottom um it's in that second to last so it's five uh five uh lines up from the second to last paragraph um i'd like to see it should be i'd like to see um this map not if this map if you go down down there you go i think if you need to get rid of oops above two lines up sorry for some reason my computer is being very extraordinarily slow at the moment section that says um i'd like to tell me so um it's the the sentence it says i'd like to see if this map if it should just be i'd like to see this map reflect it um the if doesn't make sense there and then which one are we looking at now uh february 8 okay and then uh i'm making the edits i just it's not on the screen that's fine um on page two the section um in the middle of the page the the sentence with carl wagner said the sentence doesn't make sense uh carl wagner said he thinks that this is a laudable goal at the same time the people who live in east darlington because that area um something's missing and i and i don't know what jean i don't know if you saw that i i didn't i couldn't figure it out i think maybe it's um this is a laudable goal and at the same time maybe if you just removed the people who live in yeah i think it's just because that area yes so i think you could just remove the people who live in east darlington and then um in the next section um chris lorette uh section uh so last sentence the chair said she would like to clarify that this report was um requested to be um to be prepared by the department it was requested by the board to be prepared by the department it's it's not clear what it's referring to and then um on page three am i going to have to search to find that reference that's all i have for right now jean oh i had a couple things but i was scrolling on yours and i was one thing is i think steward borson's name is spelled incorrectly i think it's bor but somebody might want to check on that um i don't know what this means but in on page two it says miss lorette said he's concerned about the lack of setbacks and 40 foot walls what's the 40 foot walls walls i think it was and 40 foot walls why do i don't understand the lack that there would be just a wall at at the side of a property that's 40 foot straight because of not having a setback i remember okay yeah okay okay and there was one other thing but i can't find in that but it wasn't really important so the only other one sorry i found the one that i was looking for it's on page three in the middle of the page um the set the paragraph with the chair um in the third sentence mr or the third line mr benzin asked it should be if there are handicapped accessible entrances instead of is uh david any corrections uh no i don't have anything ken nope none of this one melissa no any others gene no okay uh is there a motion to approve the february uh 8th 2021 um meeting minutes as amended so moved second and melissa i don't believe you were at this meeting so i will skip over you during the voting ken yes gene yes david yes and i am a yes as well okay the next uh meeting minutes are the march first 2021 meeting minutes and i'll start with uh gene any corrections i just you know this is the one where they don't have you starting off by saying you know COVID-19 oh right you just add that line in yeah so i think whatever it is needed to be it and i don't think i found anything else on that david i didn't have anything okay yeah on the on the first page i think like third paragraph down mr lao was concerned about the close to zero lot line and i should say the exhaust ducts from the garage was close to the close to the line period and then the second one is he also suggested the top level could be less heavy uh i want to say he suggested moving the stairs and elevators away from uh from the lot line to uh i guess i used the word heavy but make it less um less massive thank you jenny and then this one i think i got a little trouble with as miss understood on the third second page near the bottom miss l say that the town needs balance develop development housing should include market rate workforce and affordable housing affordable housing i think you had uh stated it better rachel last time when you uh wrote that your response the variety of needs yeah what you want to say david oh sorry i was just thinking about that and thinking whether saying mid-market housing might be an alternative to workforce but that's true but i didn't say that so uh right but i think that's what you that that's what i meant that's what you meant yes you're absolutely true david but i don't know i'm sure jenny's gonna edit and i'm fine okay uh let's see who have i not gotten to uh david any no i had nothing on this one okay melissa no okay so i just had um one uh on page four uh near the bottom i think it's one two three four paragraphs up from the bottom or starts mr benson requested the condition of the basement office be constructed and rented um after that mr anessi clarified that the basement office exists right he did say that he did sorry can you repeat that sentence uh uh so after the sentence with mr benson requested the condition that the basement office unit be constructed and rented after that period mr anessi confirmed that the basement office already exists and then on page five somewhere here there is a reference to fiber uh right in the middle in the uh paragraph with mr revelac instead of fiber paddle boards it should be fiber panel boards there you go that's it i do have one one more thing and i'm not sure how the uh on the same one on the page number three i guess or four uh it says mr lau requested uh mrs uh uh we'll ask jenny to clarify locations that elevated shafts and stairwells you say that they are yeah basically that i think the claire i think you were asking me to clarify something else yes i don't know what not the location um but if they counted towards a formula um but i'm not sure i'm not sure that this is stated correctly i think i asked the question that i know i remember now i think i asked the question that is only the ground floor for lra shafts and uh stairwell shafts count for gla or is it count on every single floor and then you said that uh the it's already uh existing uh they count on every single floor someone that is not correct jenny yes um so i wish you okay uh not already yeah okay i think i'm gonna say counted that's fine i think that was more more to the point um rachel my power is gonna go i have to go get the chord but that it's hard to get to right now okay we're almost uh that's fine let's let's take a quick vote if most there's any other comments nope okay uh is there a motion to uh approve the uh meeting minutes from march 1st 2021 as amended so so motion second i'll take a vote melissa yeah ken jean yes david yes and i may guess as well all right so we will now move to uh open forum so any member of the public wishing to speak please use the raise hand function um which is in the participant section in zoom um i'll call on you and you'll have three minutes to speak christian kline you'll have three minutes if you could introduce yourselves by first last name and address please for christian kline um for newport street um i've served the town in a variety of uh different positions uh most recently on the zoning bylaw working group um alongside erin superka who is leaving us at the end of the weekend we don't have a meeting um this week of our group so i just wanted to take a brief minute to just thank her very much for her service to the town her service to our group and it was a tremendous pleasure uh working with you these past few years and really appreciated it thank you thank you thank you any other uh members of the public barbecue yes well uh i want to duplicate what christian just said uh ditto uh erin working with erin and jenny both were just a tremendous uh experience and i want to thank the entire board but i think we really i feel like we moved i'd learned a lot in this process and i and i appreciate the comments that everybody made about the working process on the ad use and i and i hope that we all learned how to navigate a a more collaborative process between the citizens and the and the board and uh the staff and um erin you'll be missed thank you thank you all i'm pretty happy thanks barbara uh the next speaker will be james plumbing hi james plumbing here at oxford street uh thanks for helping me with the warrant article uh it was really really useful and uh you should expect more like that in the future thank you looking forward to it james thank you any other members of the public wishing to speak right with that we will uh close public comments and all thank erin so much for all of the the hard work that she's uh given to the town over her time here we've loved working together with you he'll be so missed i'm sure that others have gene and david kin and melissa probably have things they want to say to you so there's still one more meeting that i would attend um but thank you so much really really appreciate it um all the kind words from everyone that i've received in voicemails and emails and on zoom meetings it um it it's really wonderful to hear thank you so much yeah you've been a real asset to the town and uh hope you enjoy and do great work some are up there in the pine tree stink thank you erin and your grasp of the details of every zoning proposal at your fingertips has been truly impressive thank you all right well we won't keep you any longer because we know that uh there's the report that you'll be feverishly working on too so thank you in advance for that and uh with that we will uh take a motion to adjourn so motion second uh kin hi gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm against as well thank you everyone have a good evening everyone bye bye thanks you hey thank you