 Good evening everyone. My name is Patrick Hanlon. I'm the vice chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and has been designated as acting chair for tonight's meeting. And I'm calling this meeting to order at 734 p.m. At the beginning, I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. I'll just go through the role. Christian Klein. Here. Roger DuPont. Here. Daniel Rickardelli. Here. Venkat Holley. You were here a minute ago. There you go. Venkat, are you here? Yes. Hi. Sorry. This I'm in queue with my internet. I'm here. Okay. Miss Hoffman unfortunately can't be with us. Adam LeBlanc. Yeah. And as far as I know, I'm here as well. The chair. Town officials. Colleen Ralston. I know you're here. I'm here. And the board's 40 B advisor, Mr. Havarty. Mr. Chairman. Great. So this is the roster for tonight. As, as you know, this is a. Deliberation session and we won't be having actual public participation except. Following along. So this is open meeting of the Yarlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with the supplemental appropriations act signed into law on March 29, 2023, which extended until March 31st, 2025 the suspension of the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the body physically present at a meeting. So long as they provide adequate alternative access. To the further remote meeting. So this meeting the Yarlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference by the zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda appointed to are posted to this town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI all supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available on this meeting's agenda or on the town's website. Unless otherwise noted. Public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. There's only one matter on our agenda tonight. The second deliberation session on the request for a comprehensive permit for 10 sunny side avenue. The record on this application was closed on August 15th, 2023. And as a matter of law, we are not permitted to accept new application at this point. Therefore, we will not be taking comments from the public, the applicant or anyone else. Although we will, of course, consult with our legal advisor. Mr. Havarty. Having gone through those preliminaries. You all have before you the draft that was circulated. Earlier today with. Which reflects the changes that the body. Has this body agreed to. Last week on September 5th. And, and with some additional amendments, and there's some agenda that is left for us to cover. So last week we covered the findings, we covered waivers, and we covered all of the conditions until we got to. Part, I guess it's part E. And I'd like to start there tonight and pick up with where we left off on party. Even though there are some other amendments and changes that will on the matters that we already dealt with, but it will go through E to the end. And then we'll turn back to looking at the facts. And some earlier conditions that have some changes in them. And the waivers, which generally are just a few odds and ends. And then I hope that we'll be ready to begin the process of winding up this here, the winding up this proceeding, which began with a hearing back on May 2nd. So we've been at this for a while, although by 40 B standards, that's I guess not that long. That being, if there's no objection to that procedure, I'd like to draw our attention or turn our attention to. Party project design. And construction. I'd need to ask Colleen to make me a co host again. When I crashed out, I lost my privileges. All set. We'll follow the principle that was procedure we did last time as we go through all of these things and make decisions on. Individual potential amendments. Mr. Klein will. We'll put those into the. We'll make those changes there so that at the end of the proceeding of our discussion tonight, before we look at the. At the proposed permit as a whole. We'll have a complete draft that doesn't need to have anything else. Enter into it. Mr. Aberdeen. Did you want to. Your, your box just turned. You had a yellow border. So I thought. Okay. All right. So we're at E. And the first place that we haven't indicated a change was at the bottom of the one, but I've never been able to figure out what that proposed change was. I think there's an extra carriage return. I see. Okay. Well, I assume that we'll accept that one. I'm worried that if I fix it, it'll change all the numberings. I'm going to wait. That's, yes. That would be, that is a danger. The next one is has to do with his. And it has been here as in here for some time. It addresses the. Procedure for a pre-construction conference with members of the public. And with others as well. And is sort of similar to the, what we did in 1160 far five R. 1165. R. This also. Make sure that I'm correct about this, but this also includes the provision that was suggested by the applicant. About maintaining a open website. That would. Keep people informed of the nature of the activities that are taking place in real time. And that this would be open as the last sentence says. Access will be. Prominently posted at the construction site during the construction period. So people who are interested can log on. And. And get the information that they want. So I wonder if there's any, does anyone have any comment. When we're the other on this one. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So as I am looking at that, I just sort of flagged. The middle of the paragraph where it says additionally, the applicant shall prepare. A list of additional parties interested. In notice and shall provide notice to such parties. I wasn't exactly insurer. Exactly sure what that entails. Because the provisions of 48 section 11 are really clear. So they say. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. So as I am looking at that, I just sort of flagged the middle of the paragraph where it says additional parties interested. I didn't know how to define that. So I think if we're, it's prescriptive. And if you're telling them, they have to do this. I'm not sure how they identify those additional parties interested. And how notice would be given. So perhaps that's already figured out. And I just. Had missed it. But that's the question I have on that. So the applicant. Whoops. The applicant. Hold on. We seem to have lost Mr. Holier. So this was intent. Okay. Great. The. The applicant. The applicant's lawyer. Had indicated that. Basically they were. Including a. That basically the focus is basically going towards. Hold on a second. When that was drafted, I was thinking a lot about the. Applicant statement that the. Website. Would be open to. Anyone who wished to. Who wished to. Have it that basically it would be just quite free to anyone to sign up. So in that included. The question originally was to that include everybody on Michael Street. And the answer is yes. And it includes the whole world if they want. And so the point there was simply. To address that. I guess. I'm not wholly clear that. I mean that it's position there is just before we get to the website. And so it looks. It's. It's in an odd. Spot. For that. And I, I, I agree that it would be very difficult. It would be. That's a little bit different. I guess. The question I have here is what happens. What happens. If it turns out that. That people who are other than parties and interest. Express the. I mean, maybe the right thing there is that the applicant should also provide notice to anyone who requests it. In other words, they don't have to reach out and identify people to offer to notify. But if people call. If people say we want to be notified of this. Whether we're in a party of interest or not, that they are also entitled to get the notice of the meeting. That's what I was thinking. So that it's the. Sort of the onus is on people who may not be parties in interest. If they want to be included in a list, then they're the ones who have to say put me on the list. Yeah. I guess quit because to be notified is that the. If that would be an improvement, I think. Is there any other comment on this one? Is it generally acceptable? Works. Looks fine to me. Okay. Why don't we move on then to the. To the next one. Here. The next one is. E six. On E five is essentially the same. Addition. Provided advanced notice to butters and other residents expressing interest for the town. Correct. And that's more or less resolved in the same way. Now E six has got a question from Mr. Haverty, which is a very short question, which I'm not sure has a short answer. And I wanted to raise this with you. The. I don't think that it is true that appropriate signage. That the approved plans. Actually have anything on signage. And I wonder, Mr. Klein, if you can. Address that. I'm a little bit concerned with. With. Both the pair with the paragraph and ultimately, if we don't have a paragraph like that, there's a permit requirement for some signage provisions in our bylaw, which is. It raises a complication. So. How would, how do you think that we should be dealing with the signage issue. So I'm going back to the. Let's take a quick look at the documents that were submitted. By the applicant. See if. Any of the renderings included. Signage and they did not. So then we have a couple of. Options in that regard. So thinking back to other projects. There were some comments that we had to include about site signage. At Thorndyke place because they had substantial site signage. Right. For traffic and stuff like that. That's not really the case here. I don't recall us doing very much in terms of 1165 bar. Or. 1021 1027 mess out. I think here we could. So this is like, this is. The street rendering that they provided to us. We could, if we wanted to, we could limit signage to the horizontal band. To the area of the horizontal band. Sort of place where it is. You know. We could do something along those lines. I think the safest course of action is to just simply require appropriate signage to be shown on the final plans. Consistent with the Arlington zoning bylaws sign requirements. So then as long as whatever they show is consistent with the bylaw. It's, you know, not really a, of a concern. And it's covered in the permit. If they want, if they come back and they want something, you know, that requires relief, then they're going to have to request a modification. So. Right. Is there anything that. Because the board no longer has jurisdiction over signage. It's not something that I paid much attention to. I do notice that there's a permit requirement. Is there anything that needs to be said to say that. Well, this, this is a comprehensive permit. Right. Local permits. So the only thing we want to do is make sure that we're stating that it has to comply with the bylaw. Okay. So would it be helpful to say the substantive provisions of the bylaw? Just to make clear that we're not. Mr. Chair. Mr. Blank. Would it be appropriate for us to add eggs? Exterior signage. In between appropriate and signage. Just to make clear that it's. Yeah, sure. Because there's a whole lot of interior signage that needs to be done as well. I think that's fair. And I think the last sentence of that paragraph is still just fine. Yeah. Does anyone have anything else to suggest about signage? All right. If there's no objection, we could. Treat this one as done and go on to the next. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Depa. Could we just go back up to E five. I didn't. I may have lost that. Change. I don't know. Because where it says, and other residents expressing interest. Are we going to change that. To other residents requesting such notice. Is that was that the thinking sort of consistent with the. Prior. Comments on the. Do requesting notice again. Yeah. Yeah. Here I imagine this is actually all kind of a post website sort of thing. So if they're doing what they say they're doing on the website, they will have automatically addressed this one. Okay. That just matches the language now. Yep. All right. The next, the next one I have is the eight. Does anyone have anything else I'd like to raise before we get there. Okay. This is a great. This is actually a great thing about the project. The fact that it's all electric. The applicant. Yeah. So basically we all along there has been a question about whether or not domestic hot water would be electric. And the applicant's final position on that is that. They would probably make it gas. But they'll also, you know, make it convertible to electric when it becomes. When it becomes feasible. So the applicant had suggested a condition would have actually required them to use gas, which they disavowed. And so this draft here is, is an effort to sort of capture where I think that the applicant finally was. So it requires the project to be all electric, which is similar to where the draft we started with, except that natural gas may be used for domestic hot water. If electric domestic hot water is not reasonably feasible. If the project uses natural gas for domestic hot water will be designed to provide future electric domestic hot water service. So that basically, I guess the only thing that is in there and in fairness is that while they have repeatedly said that what they're looking for is whether or not the domestic hot water is feasible that that was a problem that they were trying to address throughout the course of the proceeding. We haven't really directly address that and I kind of took that from the tenor of the discussion as a way of determining when they would or when they wouldn't use natural gas. I think their underlying position is that if, if, if, if, if they can afford it, they would prefer domestic hot water, it's a struggle for them and for, and for many others who are doing multifamily as well. Mr. Chairman, I just have one sort of question of language. Sure. So, so where it says to be designed to provide future electric. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to say to provide for conversion to future electric and the, and the only reason I asked the question is because I don't know if when you're designing a system, you design an either or electric or gas. And whether or not there's some sort of way that you can actually sort of design it in anticipation of converting over. So it's probably not a big deal either way, but I just thought to provide for conversion to future electric. Wouldn't harm, wouldn't hurt it. Or maybe even enable would be a better word. Sure. To enable future electric. Because this is really a lot like the wiring for EV charging and things like that that are going on in the hell of this. Yeah. Mr. Mr. LeBlanc. I was just wondering maybe we wanted to. I don't know the specific language off the top of my head, but the new specialized stretch code that the town adopted in the town meeting has some language around this. Because it is kind of a. A compliance path with the, with that code. So you can have a mixed fuel building. And they have some, some good language, I think around that. Yeah, but the applicant is. Not is doing an all electric building. Well, I know it's, that's true or they're not because they're the, it's. It's because the domestic hot water, if they use domestic hot water, it won't be all electric. But I'm not 100% clear what. What. I mean, there, if you have domestic hot water. I mean, if you have a mixed fuel building, there are other implications about other standards that are applicable and so forth, but I'm not sure I can think of anything that, that would relate to this. I mean, you're not required to do all electric by definition. If it's a mixed fuel building. It's a little bit dodgy figuring out how the specialized rich code applies to multifamily and on, on this part as well. But what would you, what would you suggest? I mean, I know that there's a lot of language in the stretch goes or deals with this, but I'm not sure what. I mean, there's no point in our restating that and what is the point from the stretch code that you think we should be, we should be in the permit. I think the words conversion to help make this more solid. Because I think, I don't think that the thought of eventually current converting to electricity is in the mixed use pathway. I mean, the, the, the obligations that come from being mixed use have to do largely with your building envelope and that sort of thing, solar and, and various other things like that. But I don't think that, well, there is a general requirement for what you're right. There is a general requirement for wire, for providing wiring pre-wiring for conversion to electric. Yeah. Mr. chair. Yeah. Mr. Rickardelli. But I think, I think the language that we just reviewed and what's on the screen now, you know, if they're, they're following the specialized stretch code anyways, they, they're already beholden to that. So we don't need to restate that they need to prewire and do all those, all those things that are part of the, the code. I think that this stating that it enables the future conversion to electric is, is good enough because they'll be following that, that new specialized stretch code either way. Yeah. Well, at least they will. If they get their first firm building permit after, after January 1st. Yes. Okay. So are we satisfied with the languages that now doesn't have any red in it anymore? Yeah. Okay. The next. Yes. If I may, if I have one small thing, wouldn't the way I was, I'm thinking is current any project be able to convert to electric respective of what the system currently is. So it could we just say that the current design to enable future conversion so that the current design incorporates things that will enable or make it more ready to pick up the word that you said on the solar readiness. Well, yeah, they actually will have solar, but I don't, I mean, this isn't intended to insist on solar residents. No, what I'm saying is that any project could be converted in the future, right? So how is this different than any other project is that the current design should have some features in a way that that would enable the conversion, right? Right. So how is that correct? I mean, basically, we facilitate isn't quite enough and enable is too much. But what you're aiming at is conceivably. We really actually, Mr. Holy, this is similar to the point that Mr. LeBlanc is making and attempting to find a way to do that. I mean, with in the stretch code, it's pre, it's pre wiring. Right. And I frankly don't know what it is with domestic hot water. Because that involves a different set of problems than the problems that come from changing heat pumps. So I, I don't really have the knowledge and I don't think we have in the record the knowledge to be able to be more specific. So I guess. We want to leave it at enable or do enable and facilitate. I would, I don't mind saying enable and facilitate. I think that, that works. And we remember that this is actually one where we're not feeding on their head. We're just basically accepting their, their offer. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. E 10. E 10. This is the essence of E 10 was the request of the applicant to say that the undergrounding only is the. Is only in the. Was when you're has to do with utilities that are entering the property that they don't have an obligation to. Change overhead lines and so forth that already exist in that property. And it's a request. That comes from the applicant. Does anyone have any comment on that? Okay. The next major change is the 12. So this is a lot like the federal budget where we add four or five conditions, but then we have to subtract one in order to balance it. But they're not doing soil testing and they're not doing infiltration. So. I think it's superfluous. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is relates to the. The concerns that were expressed by the applicant on the. The need for going outside the ordinary hours of operation. I wonder, Mr. Klein, if you could explain this one. Sure. So essentially the could be waiver request was to change the, the weekday hours from starting at eight a.m. to starting at seven a.m. And then the. And then what we are doing here as well, what is more enumerated in the, the waiver request is that we are removing Sunday and the holiday hours. Sort of as a, to balance it out. And then the part that's. Here in blue and red, the hours may be extended on a temporary basis as necessary by written agreement with the director of planning and community development. It's a little more affirmative than the request from the applicant, which was just. That upon notice. Of the director of planning and if that. If there's no response within 14 hours or 14 days, it's assumed to be accepted. I think it's more important that it. There be an affirmative response. Just to point out that there's also nothing in here about extraordinary circumstances or anything like that. But it's essentially, if it's reasonably necessary, the example that. Ms O'Connor gave us had to do with pouring concrete and. Where you can't just stop in the middle because it changes its nature overnight. So is there any further discussion? Is there any discussion of this one? All right. If there's no objection, we can proceed to he 14. Okay. So with, with the 14. Mr. Klein, maybe you should start by sort of explaining this. So he 14, the, that, that first line, the one that's highlighted used to be a part of E 13. But we had. It just sort of felt sort of tacked on. So I had pulled it off, but then we did have some conversations about where. About parking and not having construction people to park on the street. And so I just wanted to add the second line. That the contractor may make arrangements to park vehicles on adjacent private property, but public ways only. But public ways may only be used for deliveries. By a prior arrangement with the town of Arlington and less included in an approved CMP. So that basically. When they're developing the CMP with the town, they can include in their provisions about parking and whatnot. But it's. It's just that they know that they can't just assume they can park on the street. It has to be a part of the CMP. Okay. So what. There's a. We, we dealt with this on August 15th. And Mr. Gross handler. Addressed all of this. And I think that the provision that is in the orange sentence. And Mr. Gross says that he's not participating in the parking and parking. He's not participating to arrange Mr. Parking vehicles on adjacent property is one of the things that he said that they were trying to do. He. Was also agreeable specifically to. No parking on Michael street. He wanted, however, to be able. To allow. I think the context here was basically controlling employee parking rather than sticking earth moving equipment there. That's what he was trying to do. And that's what he was trying to do. And that's where parking was otherwise permitted or in front of meters. So this is. You know, Somewhat narrower than Mr. Gross handler thought. He wanted and, but it is less specific in that. The applicant is perfectly willing to. Commit now that no matter what, they won't let people park on Michael street. And I guess for me, at least I'm not quite sure what works or what doesn't. And, and whether they need anything beyond the. They need any to be able to do the parking that would be prohibited by this. I would sort of like to have. Some a bit of language that says that, you know, that. Whatever happens to people on Michael street are protected from this thing. There may be some discussions about other things and I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what the agreement is with the town. But I'd like to have Michael street have. The protection that the applicant was. Had agreed that they would be provided to them. And I wonder if maybe such in no event. Shall. In no event will employee parking be allowed on. Or would construction parking be allowed on Michael street? Is that. I think that both gives the Michael street people, I think that would be a good idea. And. Also the flexibility that Christian has put into the orange language of being able to. You know, we lead a hardship of if we've got, if there's a problem in some way or, and you, and, and in any event doing it in the CMP provides enough flexibility that. I think it's highly unlikely that this will prove to be a problem with the applicant. Anything further on this one. All right. I'll fix the numbering later. Okay. Okay. The next. 18. I think it's, it's evident what that. Relates to, is there any. Discussion. Okay. If there's no objection, let's go on to the next one. I have 22. Mr chairman. Yes. I have a question about each 20. And I. I was just wondering as I was reading that, I was thinking actually of the town's bylaws with regard to. You know, I think there's no removal on sidewalks and such. And I didn't know. Because I think that, you know, the premises that they are obligated to follow whatever those bylaws are anyway. But I didn't know if it was worth mentioning because one of the things in particular, this is a narrow street. And one of the sections. So it's, it's actually. Title three article one. And I think that's one of the things that would relate to this building would be 2526 and 33. And 33 would have to do with not. You know, shoveling snow into the street. So I mean, I could take the position that it's totally unnecessary. To make any reference to the bylaw, which is binding anyway, or I didn't know if people felt that it would be. I mean, I don't know, I don't know if that's a reference to that just to remind them. So it's a, it's a question. I don't really have a suggestion one way or the other. There's just wanted to know what other people thought. Did the. Christian, did this originally have, there was some language about public ways also. And something we just looked at. And that deals with snow also. And that's just the requirement that you have to. You have to shovel the sidewalks and again, I know that that's an obligation that. Stands whether it's stated in this or not. I just. Didn't know if anybody wanted to add it. Just. Does that language take care of what you're looking for, Mr. Yeah, so that's that takes care of section 33 and then 25 and 26 are for apartment buildings and businesses. And that's just the requirement that you have to. You have to shovel the sidewalks. And then, you know, You can add it just for emphasis. Would it. Would it work? We could do it the way that is being suggested. Here where we actually. Where would you prefer having something that would say. In effect, the applicant is required to. of the town bylaw or with the town bylaw regulating snow removal or some and give the citation to it? Yeah, that would work too. That's kind of how I had it written. But I think, you know, sort of putting it in text is also fine. So I don't mean to be wishy-washy, but I think what Christian just wrote is also fine. It just states, don't forget to do the sidewalks. Okay, that sounds great. So we're fair, everybody? Any objection to it? All right, let's, why don't we move on then to 22. 22 is just basically, I think, of course, recognizing that there's a waiver of fees, which happens in the waivers. So after that, the next I have is 26. So this actually, I guess, was my suggestion. This began saying that they have to pay all the fees and then we, including and listing a bunch of things, and then excluding inflow and infiltration fees, which was all in the case. And now excluding and the things that you are excluding with that blue language is pretty much everything that was included in the including language. And I figured it would just be simpler and easier to understand if you just eliminated that specificity and stated it more generally. So this is basically in a way stylistic and attempting to make it a little simpler. Anybody have a discussion on this one? All right, E29. I can try. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Kline. I was to say, so essentially, on the prior project, we had received CMP information ahead of the hearing, close to the hearing here, we did not. But this one here was specifically about truck path diagrams. And so had wanted to include in here that the applicant shall submit truck access diagrams to the board showing turning paths for construction vehicles, approaching, accessing and departing the site. These diagrams shall be included and approved as a part of the CMP. And then we could further add the last one there, the truck access to the site and egress on the site shall be from Sunnyside Avenue and shall not use any neighborhood residential street, including Michael Street. I just don't know turning radius of trucks and all that, how practical that is going to be. It's very possible that trucks will need to, they can come from Broadway down Sunnyside, but I don't know if they can, if they would actually have room to U-turn or any way turn around before and whether they would have to leave straight. We could exclude them from Michael Street, which would include them from a larger part of the neighborhood. And then they would need to stay essentially on Sunnyside until they get out to Mystic Valley Parkway. Oh, but to do that, I mean, how would you get out to Mystic Valley Parkway? Sunnyside doesn't go all the way through, although there is a later street that connects you up with another street that does. I guess I think, I'm the one who raised this, I did think it would be, it was useful to try to keep people off Michael Street, since that could get to be a significant thing, but we don't have a much of a record here that shows how feasible that is. I was kind of depending upon the five architects on the board to have a judgment on that. And at least Mr. Klein does have a judgment that it might be problematic. And so I'm willing to back off from this one. Mr. Chair. Mr. Riccadelli. I agree with what Mr. Klein just said. I think we might be overly limiting them. And then, you know, if we do that, we may be forcing all the trucks onto another small residential street that may create another issue. So. Okay. So if nobody is too nostalgic in seeing that go, we can get on to the next one, which I think we get over to F. F1 looks to me a lot like a stylistic change, but Mr. Klein. Klein. So basically it's just a clarification that access and access from the site, it's going to be from sunny side that people are not, it should be obvious given that we don't have multiple entry points. Okay. Sure. Any comment on that one? All right. Why don't we go on to F3? The 11 is the number that was requested by the applicant. Right. And this corresponds with the waiver request. Great. So the next ones up are F5 and F6, which both deal with the bicycle parking. It relates to what we had, we had a discussion in connection with the waiver on this point. And we'll get to that again when we go back to that. So the applicant's proposal, leaving the waiver aside, the applicant originally proposed I think 72 overall spaces. And in order to obtain additional flexibility, reduce that to 60 long-term and five short-term. The long-term spaces, if I'm mistaken, Mr. Klein correct me, but I think the by-law would require 66 of those and six in the short-term so that this involves a slight deviation from what's in the by-law, but not very much. And it was part of what the applicant felt it needed to deal with with the sort of difficult problems of allocating space on that garage level. Mr. Klein, do you have anything more to say about that? No, 66 and six are the requirement and 60 and five is what they have expressly requested. Any other discussion? All right. So let's accept those and move on. F-8. F-8. So I've learned a lot about F-8 in the course of the afternoon, and I'm going to keep my mouth shut on it because I haven't really necessarily studied it up for the exam yet. Mr. Klein. So the applicant is showing on their plan, starting with two vehicle charging stations. So that's the two electric station serving four vehicles. And then they show provide future expansion for five additional parking spaces per the EV charging stations plan. So they provided a plan that shows nine total spaces being having EV chargers. And that's a plan that they had submitted to us at one of the subsequent hearings. So they had said that they were looking to add five additional EV chargers. So there was some question as to whether that meant 10 spaces, 10 additional spaces, but they definitely don't show 12. They definitely showed nine. It seems to me pretty clear from the EV charging stations plan. And Mr. Rikardelli will no doubt take an interest in this because it was in a colloquy that if I confused myself, it was in a colloquy that he had with the applicant that where the applicant's answers led to my confusion. But as I understand what they've really shown, the business about charging stations happened was discussed briefly, very briefly on August 15th. In fact, if you forgot about the charging stations and you just stuck with what they said, then and later, it would just be that it would serve four parking spaces. You would be EV ready on four and you would be EV capable on five. And the EV capable is intended, at least my interpretation of it, when they used the language EV capable, what they mean is what's required under the updated stretch code and the specialized stretch code, but which is essentially pre-wiring. And I think this language does that. It may have too much of a concession to my original idea of trying to clarify what charging stations were, but the essence of it appears to me to be there. And I also think it's not going to be a practical problem because this is so closely aligned to what is always going to come up as a building code matter in future developments. Mr. Chomp is going to know exactly how to enforce this. And after there's a comment. All right, so the next one. Yes. Oh, just just confirming that that makes sense to me. I agree with that's what that's what I heard to just echoing what Mr. Klein said that up to nine in the future. Great. Okay, the next one we have here is 10. Mr. Havity is, are you trying to? Oh, I think it's just background. All right, I'll put it on mute. I didn't see that it was you either. I just heard something in the background. So number 10. I guess I ought to address this. As you'll remember from the what we've done in connection with the waiver is we wanted to pay some attention to the need to do some kind of a transportation demand management program and the language that is here is in and it is true that much of what is listed in the bylaw is the kind of thing to consider in deciding and having a transportation demand management program is are things that the applicant can't do like charge for parking because of the nature of the financing that underlies the 40p process. And so or at least that does in this in with their kind of a proposal. We had a long colloquy with Mr. Connor. They're really interested in providing things like notification to people and so forth. So the purpose of this is really to uh require in more detail a transportation meant demand management program which already was required by the draft that Mr. Havity developed originally but which elaborates a little bit more and emphasizes their willingness and ability to do to do certain things and to provide some basis in the decision for the view that we take in the waiver section that we think that what they're that the the transportation demand management program that is envisaged here would be sufficient to justify the exercise of our discretion to reduce the number of parking spaces from 39 to 21. And so that is kind of what the purpose of that is. Any discussion? All right. That would bring us to 11. This is something that was discussed on the 15th as well. Everybody thinks that this work ought to be done to repair sidewalks and improve the producer's safety. The sidewalk that is just to the south of the site is is something that the residents of this project are going to be walking over all the time as they try to get to transit options and it's not in great shape and the applicant can't do off-site improvements consistent with the financing as they've told us several times. So this is what they've asked for as a way of defining their commitment to help solve this problem. Mr. Klein, do you have something to say about that? So the request from the applicant was to say to repair the sidewalk from Broadway the project site at the town's expense. I had originally put in the language to the extent allowed by the applicant's funders and lenders which would say so that if you know that if there was anything that the applicant could do that they could do so whereas here if we say to the town's expenses or take some completely off the hook for any possible funding of any kind of repairs but they were very clear that they couldn't pay so I think this may just be two ways of saying the exact same thing. So it could just say to the extent allowed by the applicant's funders and lenders and at the town's expense we could do or if that makes more sense. I wonder if it would make sense just in an abundance of caution to say at the expense of the town or other third parties you never can tell whether there's somebody else who might be able to step up to this foundation foundation or something like that that isn't the town it could be the state even I would say third parties not interested parties. That probably doesn't make any practical difference but at least it expands it out notionally to include other potential people who could fund it. That way it would look. Yeah so any further discussion of this one? Mr. Rickidelli you look like you're yeah may I just ask one question? Sure. So if I'm reading that correctly um support efforts so are we are we asking them to do the work or just coordinate with potentially the town who would do the work off off of the property of of the project site? I think it could be Christian I'll just quickly I think it could be any of these things but working with the department I mean it is conceivable that the department of public works would say we'll throw in a few extra dollars and as part of the same construction program that you're starting in it would be efficient for you to do it while we do this and that would be I'm sure one of the things that might might do that might happen but there could be others and and the second sentence might very well be that they'll support the neighborhood the local neighborhood corporation in getting it done or remember that sidewalk is in front of another building right maybe that person is is willing to get together and and get it done so I think that the idea here is to make it as broad as possible that they should look at the opportunities that there are to to make this work. Mr. Klein? Yeah I mean essentially it's not to encumber the applicant to have to do something but that to the extent that they're able to assist they ought to assist you know so this is reminding me of our tree discussion on the last 4db where what that was off the site it got kind of tricky to ask someone to do anything so right and I understand how why this is a little bit vague in terms of how we phrased it some can extend its aspirational I mean if all of us and all of the people who spoke to us were willing to write to the Department of Public Works and saying please help do this pay for this or you could do something at Tom meeting but it's it's hard to deal with these situations but it's better to deal with it this way I think than to let it go. Yeah I understand. All right number 12 we're in a heavy there's lots of red here in 12 and 13 so this one you'll remember that one of the require one of the things that we've been talking about right from the very beginning is the safety of the entrance had had the garage and it has always been agreed that there'll be some sort of visual or auditory warning that is designed to to reduce the chance of accidents and injuries as people go in and out of there and this is just a simple sentence that's designed to capture the gist of what that discussion was obviously we don't we that we did not get into the details and ultimately the town's Mr. Alessi is going to be the person or his successor will be the person who has to decide whether this is an appropriate system or not. Mr. Chair may I ask you does the town have a do we have a regulation for that or is that just do we have a requirement for auditory and visual warnings? I don't believe we do but I don't believe we do okay I only ask because and just having worked in you know Cambridge and other towns in Boston sometimes the the the bylaw explicitly asked not to have the auditory warning because it's very disruptive to residents because it goes off so often during the day and it sounds like an alarm bell so just just posing that question to the group that that's why often urban settings you'll see the flashing sign but not the beeping yep and or that's what I was thinking too that presumably we'll we'll capture the attention of the senior transportation planner okay number 13 I'll let Christian Mr. Klein why don't you take this one is mine so it has nothing to do with the garage door anymore the applicant so this was basically we had discussed establishing a loading zone in front of the building in front of the project and there was also some discussion at a prior hearing about the narrowness of the street and the inability to um that currently there's parking all the way to the corner and so it makes it difficult to see around the corner when you're trying to leave the street so essentially what this is is the just saying that the applicant shall propose to the transportation advisory committee that the town establish a loading zone on sunny side have and in addition shall request that the no parking zone be established at the corner with Broadway to better accommodate vehicle queuing at the intersection so all it does and the applicant has already said that they would be willing to do it um is just to basically write a letter to the transportation advisory committee requesting that they investigate making these two changes to uh the street certainly having having no parking at the corner given there's there is a lot at rush hour there's quite a lot of traffic that comes from the neighboring the parking lot of the building immediately next to them to the south uh and that turns there and it's it's all kind of hard to see but it'll come out there and then you'll make a right turn to get up to Broadway and clearing that area out will make that an easier maneuver than it has when under some circumstances where there's lots of parking there all right is that seem acceptable to everyone all right that any that means we've graduated from f and we're willing to and we're able to embark on g and there's a surprise at the end i'm not going to tell you what it is but it will you'll you'll no doubt be delighted to hear it um the first one is to is just to make sure contact information there was regularly updated sorry discussion that okay on g five we we we talked we talked a little bit about this in general about what they could do and should do and so forth they obviously don't have a lot of room around the consensus i think from everyone is that inevitably the fire chief has got to decide what's accept acceptable and this is entire is intended intended to effectuate that christian is there more to it than that or paul there was a request from the applicants um to start to make that change as required by the fire chief i think determined is a better word just because that the fire chief will make a determination they won't establish requirements yep that's fine with me great okay if there's nothing else we're ready to go to g six and g six adds in the approved lighting plan which which we'll talk about in a little bit but the idea is to give effect to what they've already provided and as you'll remember there was a lot of discussion about lighting strategies and whether you light things up or in order for you have safety or whether you don't light them up in order to and the approved lighting plan was worked out as i understand it with the community so that including in here at least links back to the discussions that we had so anyone else have any comment on that all right so we're now down to eight wait a minute there's missing a g there was something i expected to be in g that oh what are we seeing something let's see if i can see what i had well apparently not i'm not seeing what it is that i looked at and i'd have to go back to an earlier draft to try to remind myself what it was um oh i yeah i guess that's now i just realized it it was a note i had on g six um i don't feel really strongly about this but everything else on here has to the heading here has to do with the police in the fire department so anybody reading this opinion is going to look at police fire department sorts of things um and it's when i on the lighting plan it seemed to me that that's more a design issue than a police issue uh and that while you could put it anywhere that it's not the first place somebody would go looking for something that has to do with lighting uh and i wanted to raise with you the possibility that it would be appropriate to move g six uh to the portion that deals with design that we already dealt with i don't feel strongly about this uh it's really just a matter of of trying to make it a little bit more user friendly but i and i don't think that christian necessarily has to immediately do that but i wonder whether there's anyone else who thinks that that this might be better located in a different place and this is sort of couched in the being for the to ensure the safety of the residents of the project so it is right it's there's a logical sense to it yeah actually we actually i don't know that if we said if g were to say police fire emergency medical conditions and public safety that would solve my problem because it's just a million matter of alerting people that this is a place where you might find a provision of this kind easier adjustment to make yes that's right and at this point that's a significant consideration are we into the h's yes we're ready for it to get into the h's the only thing is h five this is at the request of the applicant to have public works work with them on the disconnects mr chairman mr japan so on each five when i saw that um where we we're saying the arlington department of public work shall work with the applicant so it seems like we are making it where we're directing public works to do something and i i wasn't sure whether or not and now that you've said which is said by the way it gives me pause but i didn't know whether it would be better off reversed saying the applicant shall work with the department of public works on permitting disconnects but maybe if it was requested by the applicant and they want to emphasize to the town that they need the town's help perhaps it should stay as is but when i read it originally we're we're may we're directing the applicant to do all these things and then all of a sudden we're directing the department of public works to do something which seems out of keeping with the rest of what we're we're doing so i actually raised that point on august 15th and mr haverty addressed it uh and so i'll give mr haverty a time to catch his breath and then if he can remember what he said i mean the the applicant does have a fairly persuasive thing that they really need the assistance to do this in order to get the job done and sometimes there are moratoria that otherwise happens so you can't do this work and it can lead to long delays that was as i recall that was the basic rationale for it and mr haverty had when i raised the same point you did mr depont mr haverty had what i at the time thought was an acceptable answer but i don't remember what it was we need the toy would people be more i mean this seems to be appropriate as drafted i'm okay with it i just it just sort of stood out that's fine onto i wetlands and floodplains there's only one major change in i that i can see off the end yes it is in i or i wonder if mr haverty if you could excuse me mr kline if you could address that one yeah essentially this this was originally written for uh the projects we had where there were landscaped areas that were within the under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission um and we don't have those kinds of things here neither do we have lawns um and so just saying that the application of plant nutrients shall comply with you know state law no other herbicides or treatments are approved just leave it that is there any discussion of that okay so the next section section k is what has the nice surprise because actually there's not going to be a section k because we skipped over j so now we're going to make it all j instead which makes it at least notionally shorter um other than changing the numbers the major change here is in what will become j five and i think that mr kline correct me if i'm wrong but that basically is on came originally from from i think either 1165 r or 1021 mass av and is not really appropriate given what is what is happening here yeah this was more for a more substantial system than is being proposed here i think that's it oh with with this exception um assuming it turns out to be true uh there's a blank on the record of the vote and i'm hoping that you will agree with me that that should that in the decision it's in the last part record of the vote that which we would be able to enter 12 there all right so we can go back if if there's no objection is there anything else on any of the things that we just covered we have a few more things to raise at the beginning uh to including the sort of numbering of the of the uh of the exhibits of the approved plans uh and so what i'd like to do is go back go through those and that will cover the findings in the first few of the uh up to f t e did through d and then go back to the waivers where there's there's a little but there's not very much this should not take long all right so off i'm sorry oh it's just taking a highlight off of number 25 um 31 this is i think just a numbering issue with 31 i had written something that was supposed to go in that i promised last time that is now 32 mm yep 31 there's something i think when we accept 32 it'll 631 but okay good so last time we had had a discussion about uh providing a little more information about the the uh sustainability of the project uh and particularly i focused on the well you can see what i did it basically uh it aims at discussing um the approach they have to almost all electric passive house and with a phrase describing in a set in a phrase what it is passive house is and the fact that there would be rooftop uh PV cells run for on-site generation all of which except for the slight elaboration on what passive house is is is taken from their their submission so it's it's really intended to just be a straight a straightforward discussion um there's a footnote there i think it may be the only footnote in the entire thing but it refers to the specialized stretch code because i think one of us at least had suggested last time that they thought it was appropriate to mention that they would be required to do some of these things anyway and that would be true of passive house so that's they went as 632 yep mr chair yes mr akedeli mr um so that this is this is a technicality but um so there there's two passive house versions there's fias and uh phi both both are allowable under the code so i wonder if we should not be putting fias in parentheses once the international standard once the u.s standard this is the u.s standard but wasn't the problem with we'd be specifying which one they chose they've already told us which ones they're choosing they're choosing fias oh okay this of course there's only a finding a fact right so it's not like it's a condition that they have to do it but that that is what they've said they're using so those are all the blasted a little bit in the findings and then we're on to conditions again um so this is 8 except in august 1st let me just turn it off the highlight all right then a 2 a 2 mr cline so i have confirmation that we so we have revised civil plans that are dated august 1st we do not have revised architectural plans for anything neither do we have specific lighting plans and specific landscape plans those all that information was included in presentations that were provided by the applicant um and so in working back and forth with myself and pat and paul we sort of came up with this notion that um so we'll still say that is the drawings dated march 9th was the revision through august 1st and also includes the supplemental materials prepared by utl ink samiata's consultants and offshoots and submitted to the board on may 2nd may 16th june 13th july 10th and august 1st and consisting of the following sheets and then so the sheets here these are the dates that are on the various sheets so you'll see the c's do have an eight one um the a's are all still three nines and then so enumerating what is in the other packages so project introductions like context sheets 2 through 19 of the 5 2 package the bicycle parking information which talks about you know where the parking is going to be how much parking and has some uh indication of how they want to do the stacked parking so that's included in that information uh the material diagrams um that's the materials for the exterior of the building uh the lighting plan which we go back and reference is on the june 13 the ev charging station plan is on the june 13 the landscape plans are on the june 13 and then the solar impact study uh which we reference in the findings that's sheet that's also um in the august 1st so this is sort of the best way we could find to sort of handle the difficult situation of not having a final updated set of drawings from the from the applicant right and and it's it's helpful that the not only is the date but uh sheet number will make it easier for to find i mean the point ultimately is that the people who have to look at the final plans need to know unambiguously what to look back at and i think adding that helps helps helps do that as well so i guess i should ask the question does anybody have a better idea any any suggestions or um objections to doing it this way all right let's let's take it is done so i i don't know if we have anything else before we get before you where we i don't have anything in my notes christian do you anything um i would just go through just to make absolutely sure means uh so d2b um the request from the applicant was that the plan shall be this is about the management plan and then they had asked that it be submitted after its approval by the executive office of housing and livability i had just wanted to recommend adding submitted to the board because it's unclear as to who it's supposed to be submitted to okay is there any comment on that all right seeing none all right and then the ease we just did i just haven't found out yeah all right so we can jump forward all the way pat all the way to the waivers at this point if five yeah we did that we did six and i'll go back and verify the numbering one last time before we have the final version um i don't know why that what that is about mr havardy is true that isn't it that once we can vote on this and if we need to if the numbering changes and so forth that's the kind of administrative correction that wouldn't require an additional any additional action from the whole board is that correct absolutely correct yes we'll make sure that the names flow properly too all right that brings us back to the waivers again right so the first waiver is what is is e3 is that mr calling uh so waiver area so waiver one we were fine with is the step back waiver two has to do with 24 foot rear yard there was only gonna be five uh number three has to do with landscaped open space and usable open space um unfortunately in the august 15th hearing the applicant agreed to calculate those figures and then we closed the hearing so we don't have actual numbers from them um i tried to run the numbers myself um and i was coming up with um so the building gfa gfa is listed as 49 000 square feet i was coming up with around 4900 square feet between the ground floor level and the upper level patio for landscape so they're actually close to complying with the 10 percent they may actually comply with it i just don't know for certain we are certain that they don't comply with the usable open space um week uh so the sort of going back and forth rather than necessarily plugging in numbers to say the applicant proposes landscaped open space approaching 10 percent and no usable open space right um and that's just the best information we have and then we just say the waiver is granted consistent with the approved plans and just leave it at that so what's operative here versus that last the waiver granted consistent with the approved plans which is sort of what the applicant had wanted having more precise numbers or having actual really wouldn't affect the bottom line particularly we might conceivably have said you probably meet the landscape over in view of any of the of the in view of the fact that we can't be sure that that's true we would not be on very solid grounds denying the waiver on the ground that they met it when we're not quite sure that they do so i'm not i think that this ends up taking us in a some in a more rigorous way but pretty much to the same place is that basically right yeah so then not having any better information this is giving what our understanding is so anyone have any any suggestions other calculations all right so why don't we pass on the next one i think is number four correct it is here here one of the issues the issue we struggled with last time was that the the the presentation to us was somewhat unclear as to what it is that the applicant actually needed from the beginning they've been asking for an undifferentiated number of 43 bicycle spaces but they've always been maintaining that they plan to provide much more than that and they uh uh and they specifically saw it at our meeting on august the 15th uh to encourage us to reduce they give them more flexibility by reducing down to the 60 and five that we discussed earlier as part of the conditions um and that seemed to be what it is that they really needed and what it is that they really wanted and obviously the 43 would be hard to justify because and they had suggested at least that they wanted to go down to 21 which happens to be the number for the vehicle parking spaces that is just miles away from anything that miles away from anything that that they actually proposed to do or ever justify to us that they needed to do so we have we're a little bit unclear as to what it is that we ought to do about that uh one option is to sort of stick with the 43 and another is to just wave wave it to the extent that they actually are requesting of us and the plans that they've provided uh Mr. Havardy's uh advice to us was is not to grant them with a waiver that is not reflected in approved plans um the 60 and five are not really reflected in plans itself because those were those were orally requested and on august the 15th and there's no plan that shows them but the earlier plan lays out where they would be and and a great deal of information about them and we're sort of we are what we are on that because our conditioning has the condition that we approved a few minutes ago uh focuses on the the 60 and five I would be comfortable approving a waiver that is limited to the extent of what they said they needed the flexibility to do um and would be reluctant especially given the dramatic reduction in in the in the parking and that that and the the unusual nature of the TDM plan I'd be very reluctant to to go more than they indicated that they wanted to do so that that would be the view I take it's a little bit stricter than what I was toying with last week uh but as time went on I I felt increasingly that they have a proposal they need a waiver to do that proposal and we should allow them to do that and not allow a great deal more that we have no justification in the record for um so that's me trying to trying to persuade you but I've been in a minority before I can handle it if anyone else have it for the discussion on this and the next part is a total departure I'm sorry say that the the next section of this is a sort of a total departure from what we had proposed last time so um but basically this is just saying that this they are we're here confirming what they have specifically requested um and we had originally said that we would provide the waiver I'm suggesting that we deny the waiver um they say waiver denied a waiver from the requirements of the bicycle parking design guidelines in section 6 1 12 bicycle parking and the zoning bylaw is unnecessary as the board may modify the requirements of the bylaw based on specific conditions unique to the proposal that's in the bylaw uh the bicycle parking indicated on the approved plans providing 60 long-term and five short-term bicycle parking spaces accepted stacked bicycle parking is also approved per the approved plan um and the reason I'm recommending this is that we are exercising our normal uh actions that we're allowed to do but I'm I'm very nervous about doing a blanket waiver of the bicycle the the bicycle section because it then they can get a then they don't have to do any parking at all um and there's other provisions about like the size of bikes parking spaces and things that have never been at issue that would also just be be discarded so I think it's important to maintain that the only thing they've really talked about is the stacked parking um so I did want to make sure that we indicated that that would be approved um but otherwise everything that they're requesting is stuff that we are allowed to grant them the only suggestion I would have for a change on that is to actually have the language state that uh rather than to parking be accepted that it's approved just to make it very clear that the board's granting that approval so what so what would you have so in in five short-term bicycle parking spaces is accepted I would just change accepted to approved okay okay yeah just to avoid any confusion and that language is already there in the approved plan to it's already there in the next sentence as well correct may I ask a question about this one absolutely Mr. Drisodelli so uh this is referencing the approved plans and after our last session I was trying to track down the numbers and when I look at the the latest architectural plan set which uh like Mr. Klein pointed out is you know has not been updated in quite some time now the the front page says um 37 long-term bicycle bicycle parking spaces and six short-term spaces so uh I I tend to agree with uh Mr. Hanlon that I don't think that that would be adequate but by saying based on the approved plans are we contradicting ourselves or is that okay well it raises an interesting question the because the there is a specific bicycle plan I think in the June 13th hearing yeah which again which doesn't have the it has numbers that are that were what the plan was then and before they sought to reduce it uh on August the 15th Christian do you have the ability to bring that up yeah I am I will have it for you in a second here well that's the EV parking maybe it's it's it's near the same one that shows the stacking yep um if I reference the drawings where I said where exactly that could be found so bike park information is oh May 16th May 16th 25 okay open May 16th it's called bicycle parking capacity study you share here they they calculated there that they the total required was 64.8 spaces and that what was being provided was 64 spaces that's the long-term and at that time they were at 4.8 spaces and 8 spaces and this shows sort of where it is everything was supposed to be now what we don't have it would have been great to have but all we got was a request to take what they had before and to reduce it down to 60 long term and five short term but otherwise and it's not of course completely clear exactly where that would happen but this is probably more it's later and and I mean this is where they were on May 16th that's as opposed to March 9th is there any additional note this is just the ground floor so we could go I'm a little bit one of the things that's clear to me just before we get I know that it's I mean it's quite awkward that the plans are as irregular as they are and I'm sure that's that's all my fault because I wasn't really paying enough attention to making them formalized the very in real time the things that they were proposing to change but the fact is they're proposing 60 and 5 and we actually are requiring 60 and 5 that's a condition if we alive if we waived it up to 43 then we still they have a condition that it says 60 and 5 so all that we're all that I think of that we're doing in connection with the waiver is making a degree with the conditions and that that might make some of the difficulties of making all of the drawings to match up seem less important then now if I go back to our document so we could say bicycle parking bicycle parking providing 60 long term and 5 short for bicycle parking spaces I can say is approved per conditions 5 f5 and f6 I guess they were f5 and f6 do we want to list the findings as well I don't think so I I guess I mean my sense of it well the findings are there and what they are I guess the the thing is they're not regulatory and the conditions are but I don't know that there's any harm in it the bicycle parking information plans that's what I called it in a 2 bicycle parking information just by though this would please clean this up so waiver from the requirements of the bicycle parking design guidelines in section 6.1.12 bicycle parking in the zoning by-law is unnecessary as the board may modify the requirements of the by-law based on specific conditions unique to the proposal the bicycle parking so I think it just says bicycle parking bicycle parking providing 60 long term and 5 short term bicycle parking spaces is approved per conditions f5 and f6 stacked bicycle parking is also approved for the bicycle parking information provided bicycle parking consisting of 60 long term and 5 short term bicycle parking spaces is approved for conditions f5 and f6 stacked bicycle parking is also approved for the provided bicycle parking information read well to people looks good it does okay Paul does that seem appropriate yes perfect that brings us to 6 so the applicant requests a waiver to allow 11 spaces they had said 60 percent or 11 that wasn't sure if we wanted to include the term 60 percent or not I think we don't we're just saying 11 spaces and we're not in any jeopardy any either way right there's a certain cognitive dissonance that comes from the fact that they're providing 21 spaces and 60 percent of that is 12.6 and I mean does that really mean that we're just doing 12.6 and what does that mean from the 11s I kind of I'm not sure that I'm not sure to what extent I care about that because I'm not one of the architects and I'm not quite sure how problematic it would be to have 12 rather but I think I would tend to go with the lesser number that they ask for that's a million seven during the hearing they had specifically talked about 22 not 21 so now here just to recapture the chair for a moment Dan had had ideas that we were very attracted by on this Mr. Rickardelli last time if I'm not mistaken and I wonder if there's anything that would need to be done to sort of open things up to to his thoughts on the matter or maybe I'm maybe I'm just misremembering Mr. Chair I think I think just if I could reiterate I think you know I was supposing that the single-sided aisle didn't need to be quite so large but but I think Mr. Havardelli pointed out the time that we we should be correcting what is proposed on the plan which is 22 so I I think that's where we went okay that sounds great now one thing we could do is a compromise is say 21 and then put 22 in numbers so that that everyone's confused they know that we were ambivalent about it there you go all right so they hit they had requested 21 we're leaving it at 22 per the approved plans okay well actually it's 21 now right oh no we're really I get it yep 22 is on the drawing so that's what we're that's what we're doing and then I just thought at the end of the decision it should say it's the end of the decision so people don't go looking for another page that's a good idea the end with with fancy gothic type I just to get that out there so there are no more comments or track changes that's everything all right so we are now we're now at the at the point where we've we've reviewed the entirety of the decision that we can put in 12 which which makes me feel very happy although we haven't achieved it yet so what I was in just in terms of a procedure we've usually gone through and given each of us an opportunity to say as much as they feel they have to say on where they stand on the stand on it and I would would call the rule allow us to do that and then at that point accept a motion to approve the the plan that we have before us as we've amended it this evening so having done that I guess I let me just just call call the roll and and and you all know that you you you get to do Miller the amount of time it takes to finally get to Miller time at the end is indirectly proportional to the amount of time we spent talking about it so the first person up is mr. Klein well thank you very much um so as we had sort of said at the we're reviewing initially that the amount of time we spent on this application you know it was opened on May 2nd we've had a consolidated set of hearings I think we've had some very good discussions and conversations with the applicants with the neighbors with the butters with those who are likely to be impacted both by the construction and by you know this change to their neighborhood but I I hope that everyone sort of comes away from this with a sense that what the what the board is really looking to approve here is a project that is put forward by the housing corporation of Arlington to provide residences for both current and future residents of Arlington who don't have an opportunity to share in the you know the benefits of living in in our community and in our town and I think that the the package that has been proposed by the housing corporation of Arlington is a is a really strong package I understand that they still have a ways to go in terms of funding and we wish them the very best with that I think that what we have come up with as a decision meets the not only their requirements for providing a facility that they are able to actually construct and manage but also serves to minimize the the impact on the the residents both short term and long term who currently are in this neighborhood and would like to really see their neighborhood continue to flourish in the way it has to date so I very much look forward to providing my vote in favor of the um the special the comprehensive permit application with conditions thank you mr. Klein mr. DePont so I would just second what uh mr. Klein had just said very comprehensively and eloquently and and add that I was really gratified um in being part of this process I think that all of the people involved the applicant all of the consultants on both sides um and the and the public who I thought expressed their concerns in a way that was very were very constructive uh and very supportive even given some of the concerns and doubts that they had about it and I just really appreciated the collegiality and the collaborative um nature of the process through all of this and and really would like to commend the other members of the board as well as the other participants as to the amount of attention and um and and focus that they gave uh to the process even thank you mr. DePont uh mr. Riccadelli yes you know I'm happy to echo uh what the previous two speakers said as well and I'm looking forward to you know voting for this uh especially like a couple of you as a uh East Arlington resident looking forward to having an all affordable housing development on our side of town and I don't know if many of you know this but I'm actually one of my projects with my day job is an all affordable development that's also passive house I know how hard it is to make these projects work um and I've been impressed with everyone who's been involved in this process so I'm really looking forward to seeing you get built thank you thank you mr. Riccadelli mr. Holy um yeah I'm positive and I'm going to vote yes to the to the project and you know as mentioned by previous speakers you know this affordable housing is is important for the town for the state in general and most of the town and all the units are affordable that's a welcome I don't think I've done or worked on a project where all the units are affordable so it's uh and it's well deserved all the comments were addressed you know very um and with great um it's not just addressing the comments that went over and beyond and some of those and that's very impressive of the team so yes um great that good luck to the team too um for this great project thank you mr. Holy uh miss Hoffman isn't here I'd like to where we're now at the point where we're dealing with associate members we who will not be in a position to vote on this but but who uh who certainly are appropriately could can comment on on what they believe they think about it so mr. LeBlanc I'm afraid you're going to end up being a non-voting member when we go down to the brawl again but but you're still with us on this one yes um I think everyone's kind of said a lot of this you know same thoughts that I've had on this project um you know kind of in the the same vein of uh mr. Riccadelli I'm over in East Darlington as well kind of right down the street from this project not that far so it'd be really great to to see what I think is a pretty well-designed uh project going up you know based on what we have so it's really nice to see a nice well-designed piece of affordable housing going up it's kind of a rare feat um uh and around Boston so it'd be great to to see this go up and uh if I was voting I would be in favor of um the pros that we have with the conditions okay thank you mr. LeBlanc so that that just leaves me I think I I agree with what almost every well with what everybody has said I just like to underscore in some ways what a great place this is to have affordable housing if you were looking at 15-minute cities this is a five-minute city and it it's easy to get to the transportation not just the 87 bus but if you venture across the river you can go to uh really get into the transportation system even more um there's shopping there there's lots of ways of relating to the town and I think it'll be a great a great addition to the town uh to have this there uh I I agree completely with the with the commendation of the constructiveness of the neighbors it's been a lot of peace a lot of people participated early on but some people stayed with us they didn't even imagine that we were building a relationship with them I'd like to particularly to call out mccartney who uh hon showed the neighborhood letter that was submitted to us and who was there uh raising questions that that we got answers to or we tried to get answers to and making the deliberations a lot better than they would have been without her participation and those of of her neighbors that were also looking to her for leadership um it's been my experience in 40 b's that even in the ones where there's a considerable amount of hostility and antagonism and uh feelings are high and that isn't necessarily true here but when people basically settle down to the public process the public helps us through and I think that every project that I've been on has been better because of the public participation and I think that that's probably uh that's probably uh true here as well and finally somebody on our side who has not gotten a mention yet but who should be mentioned is uh Sean Reardon who has did a great job of of helping us through uh everything and dealing with all of the potential civil issues that he dealt with in a sensitive and a wise way and I thought uh that uh if he can click clip this out and put it on his website uh I'd like to say it was great to deal with him again and uh I look forward to a chance to doing that at some point in the future so like the rest of you I will vote on this when I get the opportunity but in order to have that opportunity somebody has to move to a proof I will uh do that with the uh with the oversight from Mr. Haverty uh I would move that the board approves the comprehensive permit with conditions for the application by the housing corporation of Arlington for their property at Ten Sunnyside Avenue in Arlington so Mr. Haverty do we need to explicitly include the waivers in that motion or should that be a separate motion? I don't know that can be part of the motion and I would just also reference with the changes discussed tonight with the changes discussed this evening. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Dupont uh we'll call the roll Mr. Klein. Aye. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Riccardelli. Aye. Mr. Holy. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So the application uh is approved. Mr. Haverty uh what what are the next steps after this? Be filed well you gotta finish making the corrections discussed tonight and then it has to be filed with the Tom Clark. Okay so we will undertake to do that we need to get it signed as well. One yes once you've made the changes. Right. Okay well we will endeavor to do that and get that get that filed uh and so I think the one thing that we haven't had I didn't have a chance to do is thank you for your participation Mr. Haverty particularly who's always been at our side on these things and I have no idea how we'd handle the 40B process without him. And so uh and thank you for you all for the thought and and wisdom that you brought you brought to bear from this. So we're at the point where we're ready to we're ready to say goodbye to one another but I wonder if there's some other announcements that focus that might be made now in terms of our future schedule and where we're going next. Mr. Klein do you have something to say about that? So we do have a hearing scheduled for August 26th there are five items on the agenda. We currently have two members who are unavailable for that date so we do have just just five who are available that night and as I had spoken Mr. Hanlon earlier there's a possibility that his availability might be might be difficult so I'm going to go ahead and talk to um talk to Colleen uh tomorrow about the possibility of another date whether that might make more sense for us um and then reach out to the applicants and explain the situation and see what what they would prefer to do because it may just be that we only have four members present and then all that means is that all four members do need to vote uh in favor in order for something to be accepted and some applicants may be willing to do that and you know because of the timing issues but others may not want to do so and but the following week uh October it's October 3rd we do have a hearing that evening it is an appeal of the decision of the building inspector in regards to uh 106 Mount Vernon Street so we'll be getting more information out on that and then um working with uh with Colleen earlier today there's going to be another hearing at the end of the month um at the end of October so those are the upcoming dates um but we won't have any more comprehensive permit dates at least you know knock on wood for the for the near future I have not heard of any other sites that are pending and uh with the start of construction of uh 10 10 10 21 10 27 the board now has another uh does have the safe hardware provision that it can can quote forward in discussion with the planning departments we'll have to look into that but otherwise we are back to our regular business but to to echo what Mr. Hanlon said again you know many many thanks to uh to Paul Hoverty again for all his assistance in helping us for this now fourth uh fourth set of hearings on comprehensive permits so I appreciate all of his efforts on our behalf absolutely Christian I I just wanted to add on the 26th I'm going to be out in the Worcester area in the afternoon okay so it could be difficult for me to get back okay I don't know I mean if we only had three people but people had scheduled what would happen to that would we just not hold a hearing or I mean we would need to cord I would need to talk to council and coordinate on how exactly we would do that um I can make best efforts I just I know what that day looks like and it's going to be a little packed if all we were going to do that day is gathered enough of us together to move to continue all the cases to say October 3rd or whenever the the next opportunity would be I'm sure that I mean I could just call in on a phone and and stay stay for that long even if I were if I were in somebody's hotel room uh hospital room so uh that shouldn't pose a huge problem as long as we know we have it and take care of it in advance yeah I have nothing further all right then so we've gotten through this and thank you again for all of you we just can see where we're going going forward I should add that we have two outstanding decisions that need to be presented to the board and adopted to let some people go forward who the whose cases we did we did do at our last general meeting so those will be forthcoming and at that point I'd invite a motion to adjourn no move mr chair mr kline seconder mr depan uh we'll go through the role uh mr kline hi mr depan hi mr rickardelli hi mr holey hi mr leblanc hi and the chair votes I so good night and good luck some of you thank you everyone good night good night