 I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. So good evening, everyone. And welcome to the fourth meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board and chair Rachel Semberry. This open meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board is being conducted remotely for the governor's extension of the remote meeting provisions will be second order of March 12, 2020, due to the COVID-19 virus. From this meeting, the ARB is convening via Zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this 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. We'll take a roll call vote or a roll call to ensure that everybody's here and hear me starting with Kim Lau. Eugene Benson. Present. Melissa Tentacolas. Present, but by phone. Okay. Thank you. Steve Revlat. Good evening. Good evening. And we have two members of the Department of Planning and Community Development joining us this evening, Director Jennifer Rates. Present. And Assistant Director Kelly Lanema. Great. Thank you. And welcome all this evening. So we have one agenda item tonight, and that is to review and finalize the report to 2022 special town meeting. So what I'd love to do is ask either Jenny or Kelly to bring that up along with any revisions that have been sent by any of the board members ahead of this meeting. So if you could run through those that you have compiled and received already that will be helpful and then we can go through. So let's go through article by article, maybe we'll start with the intro and then we'll go to article two. And then at the end of the report, we'll see if there's a motion to approve and submit to special time meeting either as amended or as submitted, depending on what came in. So Jenny, I'll turn it over to you or article or first of all anything on the opening and then we'll move to article two. There is nothing in the opening now. I'm going to just go scroll. The document actually merges two sets of comments that we received from you, Rachel and Steve. And Okay, so we kept your comments in here. Okay, Rachel. Something that I flagged when I was reviewing this draft is that we said the the the article intended to add it to the I district but we actually didn't carry that through I spoke with Doug and he said that we could add it here. So I'm going to go back to the table as a why which makes sense because the types of places where family childcare takes place would be in potentially in the district because we have single family homes and private homes basically which is where this is happening. I think the reason we missed it is because there's simply nothing there right now, and we had been deleting SPs and turning them into wise. And that's what really scared us to actually add the why. So with your if it's okay with the board that was the one edit that references that particular comment if we can add that we can accept this change as part of when you accept the overall, you know, report. Actually, I don't I would object to the change. Family childcare belongs in the industrial district. And I think we need to reserve the industrial district for other uses. And I noticed that we didn't have a life there and I thought that was fine, and we voted it without the why. And I couldn't agree that it belongs in the industrial district. I think that's not what we want the industrial district to have it. And I'm not sure I want childcare next to things that are going to be an industrial district. Okay, I'm just giving you the, the reasoning behind from Rachel and the reasoning of, you know, how it came to be that we're having this discussion to give you the background. And the types of locations that this happens this type of use happens and are those places exist in the industrial district already. That said, Kelly did some research into the currently licensed family childcare facilities which are all in residential districts so just to be perhaps to your point. But just just wanted to make sure that that was also clear to to all. So anyway, for discussion. I, and that was, that was the primary comment here is there anything else. So Jean, we have to go back to article two and strike I from that from the description. No, we don't have to do that, but the warrant article is already filed. We don't, the warrant article can be bigger than whatever we decide to do and so, as Jean said we had already gone more narrow we didn't do we don't have anything in the transportation district or the open space district so we can't change the warrant article was already filed. I guess what I'm asking is if you and Rachel's comment here is if you want to consider adding it to why to the industrial district. This is the time to do it and it is according to Doug find to potentially add it here based upon the scope of the warrant article. So to be clear, I'm not specifically advocating for it. No, this is pregnancy for the, for the board members so correct. I appreciate your opinion. Perhaps we could go through and see what what others think. And I think if we don't have consensus, I prefer to have it remain as as is given that this was voted unanimously in favorable action when we reviewed it previously so can you share any of your thoughts. I'm fine with leaving it out to. Okay. Melissa. Um, yeah I don't. I don't really have feelings either way for this in terms of leaving it out or putting it in. Did I hear correctly that there was research though that it is it exists in industrial areas today. The research was that there are currently no licensed family childcare facilities in the industrial district. They're all districts today. Right. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm fine leaving it, you know, as is that. Okay, great. Thank you. And Steve, your thoughts. I am also fine with leaving it at says. Okay, great. Thank you. So we will. We'll leave this as is and I'll run through again just to see if there are any other comments related to article to starting with Jean. Um, no. Kim. No. Melissa. No. No. No. Nothing here madam chair. Okay. Great. Thank you. So let's move to article three to see if there were any. Any proposed modifications. That's the only addition, which is this language that was added to the discussion. On the screen. I'm fine with that addition. I'll run through and see if anyone else has any comments. Starting with Kim. I can't quite. Yeah, let me read it. Can you go back to me afterward? Yes, absolutely. Melissa. So Melissa, since you're joining the phone, I'll just read it to you. So. Absolutely. So it's in the last sentence of the main discussion point where it says the air be discussed that like station locations, the content of advertising or sponsor panels. Okay. So I think it's subject to select board review. And, um, and this is the added text approval. And it's not under the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington. Okay. So, and you're asking if we're okay with that. Correct. Yep. I believe Steve, you recommended this, this clarification. Uh, yes. Yeah. Which. If you have no issues with that, or if you have any other comments that you'd like to make about the discussion points that were included in. The article three report. No further comment. I'm comfortable with this addition. Great. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. Nothing further. Okay. Great. I'll return back to you. I don't know the answer about whether the content of the advertising or sponsor panels is not under the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaw. Because I haven't read the whole zoning bylaw sign section to see if that's true. Or not. So it's a little bit hard for me to make that determination without reading this. Can I ask Jenny for your, your opinion on this, given that your department works probably the most closely with the signage bylaw. I think that this is accurate. We also we at this just the way that I did this, the word approval had been here. So it's just adding this addition. Beginning after the comma. It had just said subject to select board review and approval previously. So the proposal is to add and is not under the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington. I don't know that it's necessary to state that. That would be my own opinion. I don't think it matters one way or the other, but I, I don't, I do think that that's that the, the, if it's only talking about the content. If we're talking about the content of the advertising, I think that's true, but that might not exactly be clear the way that this clause is written, it sounds like this, you know, none of it is under the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaw but we're talking. You know, it reads that way. So we might want to think about that the gene looks like he wants to talk. I agree that it's not really necessary. That's what we're saying here. And I'm just quickly skimming through the zoning bylaw. And it does say that signs that are prohibited and considered illegal includes any sign, which advertises a business no longer in existence or a product or no longer being sold except landmark signs. So theoretically, content of advertising or sponsor panels under some circumstance is within the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaw, at least, according to that one provision. And then. Yeah, so I'm, you know, I'm not really completely certain about that. The zoning bylaw makes a little distinction between non-commercial and commercial messages. So I can't say for sure, but I'm concerned and I don't really think that clause is necessary. And I'd hate us to put something out. And then later find that we do have some limited authority over that. Sure. I mean, I believe in Steve correct me if I'm wrong that your intent was really specific to the advertising at these shared mobility stations as opposed to advertising in general across the signage bylaw but I'm with Jean. And then I think that the intent is clear without the modifier. I was fine with the modifier with the intent that I assumed that you were pushing towards but if you're okay with us striking it if you feel that the intent is strong enough. We can certainly do so so that it doesn't add more confusion. So I brought that I suggested that change based on our, you know, the discussion during the hearings over time place and manner. And, you know, our, our ability to regulate being limited to those qualities. Having said that I, I have no objection to striking it. Okay. Any other discussion on article three. All right, let's move to article four. Is the decision to strike that I'm sorry to strike. Okay. And there's no, there's nothing further just so everybody is understanding there's no, there were no other edits. Right. I just want to run through and see if anyone does have any edits for article four who may not have submitted them. I mean, I mean the, in general, what's in this document that I'm sharing. So we've actually struck all so there is actually currently no amendments that we've accepted. Okay. Yeah. So, go ahead. Do you want me to talk through this one. Please. Okay. So this one, it, we have a little clarification here in the discussion. Some minor type of graphical and, you know, additions changes. And that is it. Can you go back to that one? Can you explain that one? The one that's the zoning specified. Steve, did you add this? Yes, I did. So any, let me just let me think back to what the original was. So yeah, the original, the original sentence was zoning has not codified existing conditions with regard to lot size. And I had to read that a few times to get my head around it. And I just wanted to, this is just an attempt to make it clear to for clarification where, you know, because we're talking about nonconformities here. So, you know, zoning bylaw specifies what you can do in the future when you build something, but it doesn't the what's in the bylaw doesn't necessarily reflect or align with what has been built prior to the bylaws passage. Do you have questions about that particular wording? I agree that would see that that was a challenging sentence to parse through and I think if we can make it clearer for the audience at a meeting, it's probably a good thing. And you have any other wordsmithing that you want to do. I agree with Steve the only word I'm not sure about is reflect. But we can we can run through and see if any anyone else has has thoughts on this can. No, Melissa. No. And Jean. So, I don't know. I see where Steve is going on this. The word future bothers me a lot because it covers because zoning is for current and future development. Not just for future development. I'm not sure the if a you could think of a current, you could think of current a current nonconforming use since this is about this is a section on nonconforming uses. So the, you know, a current use could be either conforming or nonconforming. Yeah, but if that use was begun prior to the adoption of the bylaw, then it's essentially allowed to continue. Would you guys be okay to take out the word reflected putting pre or something like the pre existing conditions. Perhaps we could modify this all throw something out here and specify requirements for. Let's just take up future develop, you know, development and does not necessarily reflect pre existing conditions. Well, and does not necessarily require changes to pre existing conditions, rather than reflect or reflect or require changes is fine. Or require changes to pre existing condition. The other thing that you could do is you could it's about nonconformities and why there's nonconformities so the sentence could actually start with nonconformities exist because and then it's explained and the rest of the sentence. A little bit differently. And I'm, I'm, I'm tripped up on either version of the, the prior one and then the new one might not exactly get us there. And I'm thinking about the town meeting member reading this. So it would be nonconformities exists because pre existing conditions with regard to da da da da da are not codified in the zoning by law in current in the current zoning by law or something I don't, it seems too much still. I think you could say non nonconform nonconformities exist because zoning does not reflect or require changes to pre existing conditions with regard to them and I think you could just take the whole what the zoning by law does for the future out of it. And just know to just note that this isn't backward looking period the end. I don't want to repeat that. Sorry. Because the zoning by law does not necessarily reflect or require changes to pre existing. Sorry, sorry, you can. Yes, and then. Yeah. Well, can we say nonconformities may continue to exist. I think we can make it simpler but people may disagree by saying nonconformities may continue to exist, because the zoning by law does not. And then take out everything before the word require sources does not require changes to pre existing conditions. I'm in here that makes the most sense by just listening to this and more so than reading it because it's too tiny on the screen. Yeah. I would agree Jenny do you have any concerns with. No, I think that's perfect. I think that's what we were trying to describe and it was and now it's much more clear. Great. Thank you, Jean. Can you have any concerns with that new wording. Fine by me. And then I think the other amended wording here was was just about type of graphical changes. All right, anything else on article four. All right, is there a motion to approve the, the ARB's report to special town meeting. As amended. A motion. I'll second the motion. All right, we'll take a vote starting with Kim. Yes. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Thank you all. We will this, the report to special town meeting has been approved and we will submit it. It will be officially submitted the night of special town meeting is next Wednesday, May 11. So we will submit the special report to special town meeting at the beginning of the meeting and then we will review those articles as they come up that, that night. Rachel, you're going to do little videos for each of them. Yes. Yep, I recorded those yesterday. Yep. And so the other one just so that you're all aware that I recorded that we didn't specifically vote on, but was in our was in our goals for the year was the appropriation request I think it's amendment six, or excuse me, article 65. That wasn't started at the request of the redevelopment board through the department of plenty of community development for an appropriation for the design guidelines for business districts. So that I did record today. So there will be a video for that as well, but I wanted to make you all aware of that. Great. Yeah, that's good because I was taken out of the consent. Sure was. Yep. Yeah, so we recorded all of them just in case things were taken out. So even those that have been taken out of the consent agenda from the zoning bylaw proposed amendments have been recorded to. Right. All right. Any other questions just about logistics for town meeting and special time meeting. Before we move to adjourn. What are we going to be in person we still meeting remotely for the next couple of weeks. Unfortunately, while town meeting is going on we're going to need to because logistically it's just too much of a challenge for Jean and Steve and if I need to and Jenny and Kelly and myself or whoever needs to attend town meeting. But as soon as town meeting is over. I think the plan was to begin meeting in in person again so that will most likely happen at one of our June meetings I'm not sure this at this pace what meeting that will be but we'll keep everyone posted. Okay, thank you. Yep. All right. So if there's no other business. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn to town meeting. So motion. I'll second. All right, we'll take a vote. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. Yes, as well. Thank you all and have a great night. Thank you. Bye.