 Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present So members of the zoning board of Appeals, Roger Dupont Patrick Hamlin Kevin Mills. Yeah Aaron Ford here Steve Revlock here. You're trying to work here Excellent. Thank you. Officials from the town, Rick Ballarelli. Yeah And is Vincent Lee here helping you as well? He's been joining us in about 15 minutes. Oh, you're here. Great thing. Okay, and I don't believe either Doug Hymer, Jennifer Ray are joining us this evening. Representing Thorentine Clay So outside council consulting engineers. Um, so Paul Haverny here. It's here. Wonderful. Thank you. Um, and Todd Unzis is here. Oh, wonderful. Um, and on behalf of Thorentine Clay's Stephanie Keeper. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. And John Hessian I'm here. Could you be wonderful? Alright, there's no one else in the waiting room. Okay, so this meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th of all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so a lot of reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during the public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being reported and is being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, other participants are participating by computer, audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or other identifier. Please take care not to share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the reporting. We ask you please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As a chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. That brings us to item two on the agenda, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from December 8. So, I really had to spread these around to the members of the board for their review and I know some comments had gone back. Are there any additional comments that have not already been provided to Rick? I'm searching the face of the board to see lots of shaking heads. With that in mind, can I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? Thank you, Roger. Second. Thank you, Pat. Let's quickly run down the roll call here. Steve? Hi. Kevin? Hi. Aaron? Hi. Roger? Patrick? Hi. Sean? Thank you. I missed myself. Those minutes are approved. We'll bring us to item number three. The decision. Proving the decision for 5052 Newcombe Street. So those were again, wonderfully written up by Mr. Hanlon. Are there any further comments to Mr. Hanlon? Seeing none. Mr. Hanlon, can I have a motion to approve the. Decision? Mr. Chairman, I moved that the. Board of Appeals approves the decision in. 5052 Newcombe Street. That was distributed earlier today and that. Has a. Header of 5052 Newcombe decision draft 122220. Perfect. Thank you. So second from the board. Thank you, Kevin. Okay. Going down the list. Mr. Dupont. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. Rourke. Mr. Revillac. Mr. Ford. Thank you. So those are approved. And the next item is. Item number four. Which is the continued comprehensive permit. Hearing on Thorndike place. People from the waiting room. Okay. Now turning to the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndike place. I want to review some ground rules for effective and clear conduct for tonight's business. This evening's discussion will focus on the wetland and floodplain process. And then we'll move on to the next item. We'll open this evening with a review of the comprehensive permit procedure by attorney Paul Haverty. We'll then review and clarify the waiver requests that are being made by the applicant. The board will not be voting on any waiver requests at this hearing. The board will then discuss any outstanding questions with the applicant before we move on to the next item. We'll open this evening with a review of the comprehensive permit procedure. The board will then discuss any outstanding questions with the applicant before we open the hearing to public comment and questions. Public comments and questions will only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Due to previously demonstrated interest in this project and to provide an orderly flow to the meeting, the chair strongly encourages individual public speakers to limit their comments and to use their time to provide comment related to the topics discussed at this and the meeting. Please note there are multiple hearings scheduled for this project. Each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment. Chair also encourages the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board and included in the record. Procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as that the previous hearing. Please select the raise hand button from the participant tab on Zoom or dial star nine from your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the allocated time has been expended, public comment period for this evening's hearing will be closed. As noted previously, there are multiple hearings scheduled for this project and each hearing will have an opportunity for public comment. The board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. If you'd like a specific document to be pulled up during your comments, please ask us to do so. Thank you. With that all in mind, I turn to Mr. Haverty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what you would request it of me was to provide a quick overview of the chapter 40 process. I know that we're fairly well into this particular hearing process, but it's been quite a long time since we actually formally opened it. So this is just sort of intended as a reminder as to how the board of appeals process works. So I'm not really going to get into the process with regards to the subsidizing agency, which occurs before they get to the board of appeals or the appeals process after the matter leaves the board of appeals. So general laws chapter 40B section 20 to 23 allows an applicant to obtain a comprehensive permit from the board of appeals that subsumes all of the local permanent requirements. So what this means is that it's a one-stop shopping process. The board of appeals acts as all other local boards in issuing local approvals. It doesn't require multiple applications, multiple hearings. Everything is done in one hearing process through a single application. What this includes would be things like local wetlands bylaws, stormwater, earth removal, another local permitting processes. What it does not include would be processes in which a local board is acting under a state statutory scheme. So that would include orders of conditions by the conservation commission under the wetlands protection act, disposal works permits by the board of health under title five or building permits by the building department under the state building code. None of those are subject to chapter 40B. The board doesn't have any authority to act or grant any permits with regards to those issues and will not be doing so as part of this process. In addition to providing for a process in which an applicant can get a single permit, the applicant is also allowed to request waivers of local rules and regulations as part of its application in which the applicant has done as part of this application. In the filing of their application materials, the applicant is only required to provide preliminary plans to the board of appeals. They're not required to submit complete design plans. And the purpose of that is so that an applicant is able to go through the process and know that they're going to get a permit before they engage in the expensive process of completely designing the project. The DHCD, which is the state body that oversees chapter 40B has set forth regulations as to the way that chapter 40B operates. And in those regulations, they have submittal requirements. The applicant is required to submit a site and architectural plans, utility plans, and a building calculation. And while a town can impose requirements for submittals that go beyond chapter 40B, of course the applicant is within their rights to request waivers of those requirements, which has happened as a part of this process. One thing the board has to keep in mind throughout its process is that presumed to generalize chapter 40B section 20, it can't treat subsidized housing applicants differently than it would treat an applicant for unsubsidized housing. So that means that local rules and regulations have to be applied as equally to a chapter 40B application as they would be to a regular market rate housing development. Once the board opens its public hearing, it has 180 days to close that public hearing unless there is an agreement to extend it that is mutual between the applicant and the board, which has occurred in this instance. Once the board closes the public hearing, it has 40 days to render a decision. The board needs to keep in mind as part of its scheduling process that it is limited in its ability to review financial information from the applicants until it has actually provided that applicant a draft decision that contains proposed conditions and waiver decisions. And it has to be a complete decision that has to have all of the proposed conditions and waiver decisions so that the applicant is able to completely understand the impacts of the board's determinations and determine whether or not they believe it renders the project on economic. If the applicant informs the board that the proposed decision and waiver decisions render the project on economic, the board can then request that the applicant submit a pro forma and the board can then conduct a peer review of that pro forma submittal. I'm not necessarily suggesting that's something the board wants to do with regard to this project. Ultimately, you're not going to reach a complete result and end result of that submittal. If the applicant submits a pro forma and the board gets a pro forma review, you may wind up with two different interpretations as to how the decision impacts the project and you're not going to get that result locally. So there is limited utility for doing that pro forma review, but to the extent the board has in its mind that it wants to do it, it needs to be cognizant that it has to be done prior to the end of that 180 day period. And in fact, it needs to be done at least 30 days in advance so that the applicant has time to review it and inform the board and then the board can actually engage in that peer review process. The applicant is not obligated to extend the hearing to allow the board to conduct a peer review if the board waits until the last minute to get them that information. So when the board is preparing a decision, it has three options. The first option is to approve the project as submitted. I literally have never seen that occur in nearly 20 years of practice in this area. The board can also issue an approval with conditions or the board can deny the application. If the board issues an approval with conditions or if the board denies the project, the applicant has the right to appeal that decision to the Housing Appeals Committee. If there are butters that believe that they are aggrieved by the decision of the board, their right of appeal actually goes to either the land court or the superior court pursuant to chapter 40A section 17. The standard of review for the board's decision if there is an appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee is whether the board's decision is consistent with local needs, which means are there legitimate local concerns that outweigh the regional need for the affordable housing? And the burden of proof is going to be on the board with a denial to show that there are local concerns that outweigh the regional need for affordable housing. On an approval with conditions, initially there will be a burden of proof on the applicant to show that the board's decision renders the project on economic. But presuming that the applicant is able to make, meet that burden of proof, the burden then switches to the board again to show that its decision is consistent with local needs. Local concerns are broken down into health, safety, environmental, design, open space, planning or other local concerns. And I will tell you from my experience, there are different levels of success when boards bring up these particular items. Health and safety concerns tend to be the area where you get the infrequent, more likely to be unsuccessful. And environmental design and open space are very rarely successful at the housing appeals committee. When you need to be able to show a local concern that is much stronger, you can't simply state that we're going to condition this or deny it because it doesn't comply with local bylaws. And there's a case out of Hollister. That states exactly that. And that went up to the appeals court. Both of appeals of Hollister and lost this case. And essentially what they said was. We're denying this project because it doesn't comply with our local wetlands. Bylaw. And the housing appeals committee on review said, you need more than to simply state, that we're going to condition this or deny it because it doesn't comply with local bylaws. There's a case out of Holliston. That states exactly that. You need more than to simply state, it doesn't comply with the bylaw. You've got to show why the failure to comply with the bylaw is consistent with a local need that outweighs the regional housing. And again, that's a very high standard. And it's one that's difficult for a board to meet, which is why the vast majority of approvals with conditions that are challenged or denials that are challenged are resolved in favor of the developer. And that is because that's the way the process is set up. The intention of chapter 40 B in the role of the housing appeals committee in that process is to foster the creation of affordable housing in the common law. It doesn't mean that it's an absolute certainty that a decision of the board will not be upheld on an appeal. But certainly the board has to keep in mind when it's rendering its decision that it would be an uphill battle that there is an appeal, which is why the board should always have as a goal to issue a decision that it believes is consistent with local needs. So it needs to identify aspects of an application. That it believes give rise to concerns that support whatever condition the board wants to issue. The board shouldn't simply be imposing. And that's really how chapter 40 B works at the local level. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Just briefly before that. We need to issue a correction in regards to the 180 day schedule that was posted previously. Back in at the end of October. Or excuse me at the, in the middle of October, we had reached an agreement with the applicant to extend that deadline. That deadline was extended. Through a written memorandum to Monday, April 5th. I had errantly written that down as a Friday, April 9th on the, on a previous document that was posted to the website. That document has been taken down. And a corrected version is on the website. That document has been taken down. And a corrected version is now in its place. As is the, the letter from the applicant agreeing to the extension. So the, the 180 day date is Monday. April 5th, 2021. Just wanted to put that out there. We do have a question from. Clarissa row. Nope. Shaking your head. Nope. Mr. Chairman. I have a question. Yes, please. Would you just explain in a little bit more detail. The process for looking at the financials. In terms of the timing. So we have 180 days for the whole thing. And we have 40 days. Is that correct from the close of the meeting. To render a decision. So if you are looking at doing a decision with conditions. And there's the possibility, if not the expectation. That there's going to be an appeal. Clinging that whatever those conditions are rendered the project on economical. What is the timeline like. Specifically for us. If we're expecting that to require. To render a decision. So if you are looking at doing a decision with conditions. And there's the possibility of not the expectation. That there's going to be an appeal. If we're expecting that to require. The, you know, the information. So that we have enough time to do the peer review. So I guess I'm trying to. You know, figure out the chronology of that. So you're actually sort of sort of looking at, at the close and moving forward when you really need to be going in the other direction. Okay. You need to look at how far in advance of closing the hearing. Do you need to provide a draft decision to the applicants? Because the way it works is you've got it. This is public information. It's got to be done as part of the process. While the hearing remains open. And the board is not entitled to do. A review of financial information until it's provided a draft. Decision to the applicants. And then the applicant has informed the board that. The board is not entitled to do that. And then the applicant has informed the board. That decision renders the project on economic. So is the draft to go in advance of closing the meeting? Correct. If you want to go through this process. Yes. Again, my recommendation generally to boards. Is that the pro forma review process is not that helpful. Because again, I don't know that you're necessarily going to come to an agreement. But the board is on the fence about certain conditions. And it wants to get a sense as to, you know, whether the applicant believes they render the project on economic, but that's only helpful if the board is willing to remove those conditions. If the applicant provides information that show they render the project on economic. What I generally advise boards is to look at. Why you need the conditions you're imposing. And if you believe that those conditions. Are consistent with local needs and that they should be imposed irrespective of whether they render a project on economic. There's no need to do a pro forma. The only time. There's any benefit to the board and doing a pro forma review is if it has proposed conditions that if the applicant. Submits pro forma evidence that shows they'll render the project on economic, the board is willing to eliminate those conditions from its decision. And if the applicant wants to stick with the conditions one way or the other. The pro forma review is superfluous. And does that include the number of units that would be approved? Well, that is the sort of condition that may be imposed. But again, there is a regulation. In the DHCD regulations that state the board can't reduce the number of units unless it's tied to an issue of local concern. Understood. Yeah, so you can't just reduce the number of units because you think generally it's too many. You have to be able to show. We're reducing the number of units because of this specific concern or this group of specific concerns. And therefore they support. The decision to reduce the number. Which again, if you have those issues of local concern, which you believe are appropriate and imposing. I don't know that a pro forma review really changes your mind on. Welcome. Mr chairman. I have a couple of questions. The first is following up a little on the discussion that Paul, that you just had with Roger. I suppose that one of the possibilities isn't whether you remove a condition or whether you don't, but whether there is some way to massage the conditions so as to. Make them not make the project non-economic if we thought that that's what they did. And at the same time protect local needs. And that too would be a reason to go through this process. Wouldn't that be right? That's possible. Yes. I wanted to go to go to talk a little bit more. About the. About the local concerns. We've your discussion so far really talked mostly about our role as a one shot. A one stop shopping. In issuing permits. And the possibility that we could waive certain requirements that otherwise would be permit requirements. And the question I have is. What about the situation where. There is no regulation. Involved. That goes beyond the state. State rule. And often in some of the items that we are expected to look at, there aren't usually. Regulations. For example, figuring out local circulation and so on is not really a matter of finding a question of. Regulations, but I'm especially interested in stormwater management. Because that has become a significant issue. Are we limited. In what we can do in connection with stormwater management. To either enforce a regulation or to give waivers from the regulation, but not to go beyond the terms of the regulation. Even if the evidence makes it abundantly clear. That with the forces of climate change. That the factual underpinning of the regulation. Is not adequate to add to. Provide adequate protection to the public. Against flooding. And I'm not saying that I believe that that, that, that has not yet been shown. And we're at just at the beginnings of having that discussion, even though we've been at it for a while now. But what I'd like to know is whether or not. That is legitimate for us or whether we are bound by. The regulations and have to just assume that whatever local concern is, is what the local bylaws says. And what's more is what it said a couple of years ago. And that anything more than that is outside our bailiwick. What is the, what is the zone of freedom we have to consider those arguments? And I wish I could give you a definitive answer on that. What I can tell you is that the HAC has seen many, many cases. In which boards have imposed conditions. That are not based upon a local regulation that go above and beyond. And I think that there is a scenario. That a board could show that with regard to a particular project. That there are particular concerns that wouldn't necessarily apply. Townwide. That are enough of a concern that would support a condition that a board imposes. But again, that's an extraordinary circumstance. And I think. Factually going to be very difficult. To support because generally as required by. Chapter 40 B section 20. You're supposed to treat unsubsidized housing the same as subsidized housing. So if there is a concern with regards to the inadequacy of your local regulations. I think that the housing appeals committee is going to look at that and say, well, then it would have been incumbent. Upon the town to change its regulations to address these concerns. And make those regulations applicable to all. Applicants, not just an affordable housing applicants. So unless there's a way you can show that this one particular site. And gives rise to issues and concerns that aren't applicable everywhere else, but need to be addressed. That would be pretty much the only way that you could impose a condition that goes beyond what you have adopted locally. And again, it's going to be a tough. Condition to get up. Suppose we had. Suppose it were true that the conservation commission. And I'm, it's not clear to me on what basis this would be done, but suppose they actually did either require, or as a matter of practice, induce people to. In other projects. To accommodate up to date information on, on precipitation and climate change. Would, would that be helpful? I mean, that sort of tends to eliminate the discrimination aspect, or at least to reduce it. Would that be a helpful fact? Well, first, you'd have to be able to show that they've required it under the local bylaw. Rather than under the wetlands. Protection act. And that can be somewhat difficult to differentiate because generally a conservation commission will run both. Application, you know, hearings simultaneously. But presuming that you've, you have evidence that supports. The fact that you're not treating a project differently. Then that might be sufficient. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Thank you. I'd like to follow up briefly. Please. Yes. So, Mr. With respect to the master. Stormwater advisory committee. For the proposed regulations. So sort of following along the lines that Patrick was just outlining, it seems to me that. Regulations are, are proposed to be changed because they're in, in sufficient for the times that we find ourselves. And so what I wanted to know is. Those advisory of regulations. Even though it says in Ms. Chapnitz memo from last week. That they would not occur until next spring or spring 2021. Is when would those be mandatory for an applicant to follow. Do they have to be in effect at the time? What point in time do they have to be in effect for them to be binding on the applicant? Well, so those are under the wetlands protection act. So this board doesn't have any jurisdiction. Over that, as I noted at the beginning, the wetlands protection act is still fully within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. With regards to the specific question, it's going to depend on what DEP says when it issues the regulation. The regulation should have an effective date. And that effective date. If the applicant hasn't filed. For their notice of intent prior to that effective date, they'll be subject to the regulations. If they have. Already filed before the effective date. And I don't know when the DEP will start. The effective date either. But it's really sort of outside of. An answerable question at this point. It's. I think that it's. Possible. DEP quits set a date, you know, that was. Previous to, you know, the date they actually. Issue the regulation. They, you know, this is an emergency regulation. Effective as of January 1st, even though they didn't adopt it until March 1st. I don't. But I don't know that they would do that. Okay. I'd like to. Move along if we can. Thank you. Paul for answering all those questions. So the next item. To come up with. A review of the proposed waivers that are being requested by the applicant. And so there's key for if I can. Ask you to do that. And I guess I think I can bring up. The document in questions. Let me go ahead and do that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Paul for answering all those questions. So the next item. To come up would be a review of the proposed waivers that are being requested by the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. And good evening. Mr. Chairman and members of the board. We are back here this evening for a continuation of the public hearing. And somewhat of a. The second hearing dealing with specifically wetlands and flood plant issues. And. What I've been requested to do is just to walk the board through the waivers that we requested. And so to launch into that. And perhaps to dovetail onto what attorney Havarty. Did in his presentation. Just as background. And as Paul had mentioned that. Under chapter 40 B, the ZBA has the authority to grant all of the approvals that otherwise would trigger separate applications under local. Bylaws or ordinances. And the mechanism that this is done, obviously is the single comprehensive permit or one stop shopping is as they like to say. And the purpose of that under 40 B. Is both to expedite the approval process. And also to facilitate the construction of low to moderate income housing. So it's a. Two pronged. Reason why. And hand in hand with the board's authority. To issue that comprehensive permit. And it also has the authority to grant waivers. As Mr. Howard mentioned. From the local requirements where the waivers are requested by the developer. And they're necessary to construct the proposed project. And in accordance with the DHCD regulations. 760 CMR 56057. The applicant can seek waivers in the application. Or from time to time as they may arise. So that's what we're going to do. And that's what we're going to do. And that's what we're going to do in the hearing process. And under the regulations, the board shall grant such waivers as aren't consistent with. Local needs. And so with that being said. I'd like to kind of touch upon. The waivers that we requested in the application. You pulled up page two of our waiver request sheet. And it references. The wetlands bylaw and then the tone in the towns, what the protection regulations where the, the heart of this is actually in the regulations. And specifically what we have requested waivers for. You see in the column on the far right. Our under section is 2324 and 25. To the extent that such. Regulations differ from the wetlands protection act requirements. So under section 23, section 23 of the local wetland by, local wetland regulations, excuse me. Addresses land subject to flooding, bordering or isolated. And. And so if I can walk you through the, the three specific provisions that I referenced. So under section 23, section 23 of the local wetland by. Look, what in the regulations? Excuse me. And section 23 C provides that activities that involve buildings within or removing, filling, stretching or other alteration of land subject to flooding require permission. And as I said before, this permission in the 40 B scenario is subsumed within the board's authority to, to act. And so this under the local regulation, the conservation commission doesn't address this. The board addresses work that would be. Within land subject to flooding. Under the local regulations under 23 D. The, it requires that activity within a floodplain. Provide for a two to one compensatory storage. And that differs from what's required under the wetlands protection act, which is a one to one compensatory storage. And the regulation also prohibits that garages or parking lots are maybe used to provide for compensatory storage. And. At the time that the, this project was initially applied in the original design for the project is to remind the board because it's, it's been a while. The, the total size of the project was a total of 219 dwelling units. 207 were multifarming family apartments. And then there were 12 townhouses that were going to be right up on door at the road. And the applicant has since. Come back and done a substantial redesign of the project. And the redesign basically removed the townhouses that were on Dorothy road, condensed the size of the multifamily building and moved it further to the north and the west on the site. So reducing the footprint. And as a result of that, I think that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, one of the, one of the many benefits I feel is that it allowed us to provide for the two to one compensatory storage. And so at this time, it appears that the project does meet the two to one compensatory storage. And so a waiver under that section 23 may not be necessary. With that being said, however, we're keeping it on the waiver list. We're keeping it on the waiver list. We're keeping it on the waiver list. We're keeping it on the waiver list. That that may. Require alterations. And if, if the two to one isn't met, but it's close to two to one, we're just keeping it there. Somewhat is up as a placeholder for the present, but as presently designed, we have the two to one compensatory storage. And so then moving along to the next section, section of the regulations section 24. And then moving along to the next section, section of the regulations section 24. To the extent that it exists within a resource area. And so on the, on the plans that have been revised, the impacts to resource areas are, are, are limited to, there's a limited amount of flood plain alteration. And that is in the kind of northeasterly sections of the building. There's two fingers of shallow. The first is the water. And then the second is the water. And what we'd be known under the state wellness protection act as, as buffer zone, which is not resource area under the state act, but under the local by law is known as the aura. And adjacent upland resource area. And locally that's protected as an, as an independent resource area. Whereas it's not a resource area under the weapons protection act. And to the extent that the project design, the, the lower part of the, the southern way part of the building on the westerly side, there's a limited amount of work in the outer buffer zone. So probably don't, don't hold me to this being exact. I'm not an engineer, but it's probably around the last 25 out of 25 feet. There's a small area where it's going to involve grading. And then part of the emergency access road. And a little bit of the, of one of the, the courtyards or the patios to the building underneath that there's a few parking spaces in the underground garage. And if, if you consider that the area to the east, that had formerly been designated as an isolated area. And if there's aura to that there, if there's any impact there, it's that we had proposed flood to the storage. So I think that that would be about that. And so going back to what the regulations. Require in terms of the vegetation removal and replacement. Under section 24 B of the local regulation, it provides that vegetation isn't to be damaged, extensively pruned or removed without, without approval and some sort of in kind replacement. And sub part C of section 24. Defines what in kind replacement is. And what in kind is. And, but there's a caveat within that section. The caveat is unless there's compelling evidence that explains why the resource area values are promoted through an alternate proposal and whether they're planted within the same resource area or another one close proximity. So it's, it's not a. A completely a complete requirement. There is flexibility there. Sub part D of that regulation. Outlines at the, the reasons for the removal or to be somewhat identified. And then sub part E. Provides that there is to be an application to describe. An application for removal to describe the existing conditions proposed plantings. And, and reasons for the removal and how you're going to maintain the land. And then within that sub part E, there's a few parts, but there's a requirement for a species inventory to be provided. And then there's a table. Lower on to address. The replacement species and how you're to determine that. And then sub part E requires replacement plan. And the one thing though, as I, as I tried to point out here is that there is no exact performance standard that's applicable under section 24. It's, it's, it's an analysis of kind of what's there, what's the reason why you're doing it. So it's not, it's not clear that. There's a set performance standard, like I said, that you see in a lot of wetlands regulations. And so with that in mind, the applicant has sought a waiver. And so for a number of reasons. Basically from compliance with these procedural requirements in the, in the filing type of requirements. So list, list all of the species. And to comply exactly with the replacement and kind requirements. And this is supported. For a number of reasons. One is, is Paul had suggested. that first of all, we're proposing that we would like to work on our landscaping plan and then have the permit condition subject to for the review and the landscape management plan. But somewhat more important than that is the Board may recall, we had previously submitted the wetlands assessment and habitat assessment report. And within that, there was some information and I believe it was also supported by beta that the functions and values of parts of the aura really weren't that high. And so there's an opportunity here, I think, that with flexibility, the applicant can actually help provide a better sort of restoration and replanting plan. And so rather than killing that one, I'm gonna move on to basically the final sort of requirement and that deals with regulations as to work in the aura. And as the bylaw defines, as the regulations define the aura, there's two parts, there's the first 25 feet. So that would be the area that's closest to the underlying resource areas, OBBW, for instance. And that is a no disturb zone. And then the outer beyond that first 25 feet from 26 to 100, I guess, that's a restricted zone. And the requirements there, somewhat similar to section 24 is there's no exact performance standard. It's somewhat of a sliding scale as to what are you proposing to do? What are, how does the area function anyways? And here too, we're simply asking for a waiver of the provisions that the bylaw sets forth, and I think it was brought up previously. There's four different types of alteration, permanent, temporary, that the board can consider. But again, there's no set standard that's to be met. And there's also no set criteria that you necessarily fall within one or the other. And just in comparison, this local provision, as it relates to the State Wetlands Protection Act, that as I previously mentioned, buffer is not a resource area under the Wetlands Protection Act. You do have to file a notice content under the State Act. And basically you're showing that you're not going to negatively or adversely impact the underlying resource area. And this wetland bylaw provision, a number of municipalities have adopted similar ones. They make the buffer itself a resource area. But I think it's important to keep in mind that all of these, what they seek to do in large part is really make certain that you're under, that you're protecting the underlying resource area. And also maintaining that the buffer is healthy because a healthy buffer helps protect the resource area. And as applied to our project, as I mentioned before, the work that we have proposed within any aura on the site is really limited to this outer stretches. So it's the farthest away from, for instance, the DBW. And so if I could like somewhat tie this into zoning, under 4DB, when one's seeking a waiver, they don't need to seek a waiver from a special permit use because it's discretionary. In contrast, one needs to seek waivers from as of right requirements under a zoning bylaw. This provision of the local wetlands bylaw or regulations is somewhat akin to that because it too is discretionary. There's no exact performance standard. And so I think that the applicant intends to protect both the resource area and the aura as a resource area. But there are considerations that limited alterations I think can be performed in a way that protects both the aura, the important functions of the aura and allows a project to continue. So if the board has any questions on any of that, I'm happy to take that up. Thank you very much for that. Just had, I had a quick question first for Mr. Haverty. In regards to the format for the waivers, is this sort of a typical format that we were, or should we be, it feels somewhat difficult to make, to render a decision on the waiver requests because they seem very broad and not, I feel like they ought to be more specific. And I just wanted to ask you if in your experience if that's the, if my interpretation here is correct. Oh, you're on mute though. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I do think that these may be a little bit broad. However, mostly where they are overly broad goes to the procedural aspect of the waiver requests and procedural waivers aren't actually necessary. This is no, at least this portion of the waiver requests isn't more overly broad than I'm used to seeing. And when I get to the point where I'm drafting a decision, I am going to narrow the focus of the waiver requests down greatly to make it very clear what specific provisions are being requested to be waived and what's being proposed to be done in lieu of the specific condition. So for instance, one of the waivers that I do believe gets to a substantive waiver request has to do with the work within 75 feet of the aura to require an alternatives analysis. But although it's substantive, it's also procedural. This is something that the Conservation Commission has the discretion to approve as part of its process, but its process would require the alternatives analysis. But for the Board of Appeals, your role in this process again is to make a determination as to whether or not the grant or the waiver would be consistent with local needs. And that's different than what an alternatives analysis would review. So there's sort of a mix of substantive and procedural in there. So I think we need that to be clear when we write down what the waivers are that are being granted. But for the most part, I think the format that they're in right now is something that I can work with. And again, if we're providing the applicant to draft a decision ahead of the close of the hearing, they'll be able to review the revisions I've made to the waiver list and let me know if I've captured everything that they want on there. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up on that. Sorry, I got muted. Please go ahead. Just to say that I agree with what Attorney Havardy has said that there is some sort of broadness to them. However, in getting back to the process of the 40B, they tend to be this way until you really do get down to the part of the process where the board is considering drafting a condition and really fine tuning because then you hone down your project to that. So we're happy to, and we expect to that within this process. I should have mentioned that as we continue on, there'll be refinements to make it more narrow. And then just quickly on the, and I forgot to mention this to you, but vis-a-vis the alternatives analysis, I feel in part that there's been some sort of an internal alternatives analysis that's already occurred because the project, the original project, as I mentioned, was a much bigger project. And then looking at the work that was going to be in the aura, it really was shrunk down to, and we came back before the boards and we think this is what we're gonna do. And then we had the ESC go and redo all of our plans to do that. So we did look at the alternatives from the original project and responded with trying to keep with the intent of the project to provide multifamily housing. We kept that core essential thing, shrunk down the footprint and then remove pieces of it that maybe gave the town the least benefit. The townhouses that are right on Dorothy Road, one, maybe you don't need more townhouse structures in town, but also in terms of being able to get the best account for your SHI of full multifamily housing allows Arlington to increase its housing by 170 units. So we're happy to discuss that more within the process, but I did just want to point out that there has been a real alternatives that was looked at and then we chose the alternative that had reduced impacts. Okay, thank you. Please, I was just gonna ask if there's any questions from the board. Yes. Please, Mr. Hanlon. I had the feeling, Ms. Kever, from the discussion you have of page two of the waiver list, that at some point when you get to the, figuring out what you actually will do to limit work in the buffer area or in the aura, the things that at this point you're asking waivers from that you envision that there may be a set of conditions that would make that precise and that would protect the values that the bylaw is intended to protect. Mr. Haffnerty earlier made it clear that we have a very unclear process sort of towards the end as to when conditions come up, how they work and the back and forth to fine tune them and make sure that there's something that everybody can live with. And what I'm wondering is where in the process you envision being able to get to the point, if you do intend to get to this point where you could have a productive conversation with Mr. Haffnerty about just what you do propose to do and what you would want in a condition. This is not something that's going to lead to your attention. But what I'm thinking about at the end, they were getting near the end of the hearing, leaving time enough to make sure that we don't have, I mean, there may be necessary conflict because there won't be just an agreement on what should be done. But I'd like to understand that our process, at least provides the opportunity for avoiding unnecessary conflict that's there just because we were unable to have the appropriate back and forth before the hearing ended. Okay. I'm not certain if I'm going to be able to fully answer the question as I understand it. But I generally understand what you're asking. And at this point, we're actually going to be dealing with, I feel it's going to go somewhat in hand with the stormwater. And I think that once we have the discussion in the public hearing on the stormwater, I think that those impacts in wetlands floodplain will all somewhat dovetail together. And because the board is going to have more complete information to evaluate all of that. The one point though, and I think that the board can somewhat raise questions or suggestions at any time is for instance, the work in the aura on the backside of the building. As I stated, there's going to be probably some grading work and then there's the emergency access road and a very limited part of the courtyard. And I think that if we turn our evaluation from can you do any work in the aura, which it's clear that there is work that is allowed, that work is not prohibited in the aura because the local by-law would have stated that if that were the case. He would have said there's no work in the aura. And it doesn't say that. It just provides considerations that should be made. And here the board, since it's acting as the conservation commission, if there are considerations that, for instance, for the design, I think that we already have like the access road to be permeable, but things of that nature that the board has questions on and said, well, if you have this, but have you considered either reducing the impact of the aura or making certain that the aura functions as it is or those can be discussion points in the course of the hearing. And like I said, maybe you want to hear the storm water before you start looking at all of those benefits and values, but that in part was also why the, I think that the assessment and the habitat assessment report was helpful to look at the functions and values that the aura provided. And I'm sure that our engineers or Vedic can weigh in on any questions that the board has on that as well, potentially not at this evening's hearing, but when the board wants to look at that in relation to the storm water. Thank you. Any other questions on the board? Is that the waivers? Okay, being none, I did want to go ahead. There were a couple of outstanding questions that came out of the previous hearing. And I just wanted to take a minute to address those as well. So one was a request that had been made of Vedic Group who is the board's consultant, peer review consultant to perform an additional soil investigation at the site of two previously identified isolated vegetated wetlands, which are these sort of very small little pocket pieces of wetlands, which are protected under our local bylaws. And there was some level of testing done to try to determine their location. The results that came back were between negative and inconclusive. And so we had requested that Vedic go out and look at those again. That is actually not within the scope of what we are allowed to have our consultants do, our consultants are there to review the documentation that's provided by the applicant to determine its validity. They're not to be their own investigative branch, but under the bylaws and under 40B, the board is able to request that the applicant has or has not done an adequate job in the investigation of those isolated vegetative wetlands and that the board is able to request that they perform a further investigation on those sites and whether and to provide more evidence proving that those isolated vegetative wetlands that were previously identified are no longer in existence. And so I just wanted to clarify that and that's a decision the board is gonna have to reach as to whether they wanna request that additional that additional investigation from the applicant. And the second one that had come up was, we sort of alluded to it a little bit tonight is a discussion regarding rainfall, the use of alternative rainfall models to determine the stormwater and future flooding on this site. And to the bylaws that govern, the local bylaws that govern this project are the bylaws that were in effect at the time of the application, which is September of 2016. And at that time, there was very little mention of climate in a lot of the different bylaws and the local bylaw used a model referred to as the Cornell model for rainfall and the state I believe uses an older model. And as was mentioned tonight, the state may be changing to a newer model. There are a variety of names out there of a variety of different models, which all predict much higher rainfall accounts than our weather current. And as Mr. Hanlon sort of was asking earlier, whether we are allowed to apply those and the question as to whether we're allowed to apply those really comes down to the question of would they be applied to other projects that are coming before the conservation commission or before other town board? Or are they just being asked of this project which includes affordable housing? And if it is the latter, then that falls a fall of 40B section 20, which requires that we provide equal standards. So those were two items that had just sort of come out of the previous one, which I had just wanted to mention. Mr. Revillax. Just if I could ask for a clarification, Mr. Chair. So I realized that the, you know, the law local regulations that apply are those in effect when the permit was submitted. So 2016, does the, do the practices of the time the permit was submitted play a role in this at all? So does it, in other words, is the question not whether we were looking at alternative at other models, you know, beyond the Cornell now or is the question whether we, it was routine practice to do that in 2016? And Mr. Chairman, to respond to that, it's as of 2016, the way the regulations read, the decision determining whether a project is consistent with local needs is based upon local rules and regulations and practices that are in place as of the time the comprehensive permit application was filed. So for instance, you know, this is certainly a very unusual hearing process because of the safe harbor litigation that occurred, you know, where four years into a hearing process, which is, you know, obviously not the norm, but certainly DHCD and Housing Appeals Committee are not in a position where they want to incentivize municipalities to adopt practices after a comprehensive permit application has been issued in an attempt to try to be able to use them against the applicant after they have submitted their application. This is the reason why that the date for determining consistency with local needs was set up as of the date of the application and that hasn't always been the case. But the reason that they did it like that was so that applicants know exactly what local rules and requirements are going to be applicable to their project when they file. It used to be that they looked at consistency with local needs based upon the time the board closed its public hearing, but when they changed the regulations back in 2008, they changed that date to the beginning of the process instead. And as you had, I believe Mr. Advocate, as you mentioned earlier too, state regulations are also at the time of the application, but as of yet, the application to the state has not been made for the wetlands by law in the state. Correct. And again, there's no way of knowing what any revision to the DEP regulations is going to say. When a state agency changes its regulations, it will have transition rules that will determine when specific requirements are applicable. When DHCD changed its regulations in 2008, it had some pretty intricate rules and it depended on what stage your project was in, whether a certain provision of the regulations would be applicable. And there was circumstances in which some portion of the new regulations would be applicable, but other portions wouldn't. But there's really no way to know what DEP is going to do until it passes its regulation and it provides those transition rules and it lets us know what projects the new regs are applicable to and which project they're not applicable to. Right, but certainly at this point because the application has not been filed, it would be the current version at the time of the application. Sure, but again, if the regulations change before they file a notice of intent, I'm going to presume they'll be subject to the most recent version rather than the old version. Right, thank you. Were there any other questions from the board in regards to either things we've discussed this evening or in regards to the wetlands and floodplain aspects of the project? Yes, Mr. Revela. I do have a question. This is, I do have a question. It basically straddles two areas, two issues. One is transportation and one is wetlands. Since we are talking about wetlands tonight, may I bring up the wetlands half of the question? Absolutely. So a few, well, maybe a week or so ago, there was a working session between our Transportation Advisory Committee and Vanessa, who did prepare the Transportation Impact Assessment. And during the course of this working discussion, and I'm going by my notes here, Scott Smith of the Transportation Advisory Committee asked if the applicants, Arlington Landlock Realty, had considered providing a direct route between the housing and the Minuteman Bikeway. Mr. Thornton responded to the effect of saying that the topic had been discussed, but the challenge is making that connection through an environmentally sensitive area. Now, in terms of things that connect to the Minuteman Bikeway, one of the connecting points is ELWife Greenway Path. So this is a long boardwalk that runs along Route 2 through basically a Cattail Marsh and intersects with the Minuteman Bikeway. So I'm just curious in terms of how the environmental impacts of installing that boardwalk would compare to the environmental impacts of providing a direct connection between the proposed housing and the Minuteman Bikeway. That is a great question. I'm not entirely sure to whom to refer your question, but Ms. Chapnick has raised her hand. I'll call on Ms. Chapnick. Thank you, Chair Nankline. We have looked at this information and I'd like to introduce Chuck Taroni, who's the Vice Chair of the Conservation Commission to just talk a little bit about process, about how that would be done and just so we all understand in context, it might seem like an insurmountable obstacle, it's obviously not, we did it for the ELWife Bikeway. So I'd like to introduce Chuck to answer that question. And then after that, Chairman Klein, if you have time, I would like to address some of the waivers that Attorney Kiefer discussed that she requested for the weapons. I would like to respond to that. That's the point. Absolutely. Mr. Taroni? Sure, hi, and thank you. So, you know, we received that email and it asked if we would consider or has the Arlington Conservation Commission ever considered, you know, boardwalks? And I think boardwalks are, you know, public use and it's something that the commission, you know, would look into. I think that the request has to come from the applicant or be brought up at a public meeting. But we've, we looked at the ELWife Bikepath and that came through our commission. And there's a bit of process that has to happen with, there's a 5,000 square foot rule and you can't go over that amount of disturbance and you have to find replication for that disturbance. And that's broken up between what happens with the developer's site and the boardwalk site. You know, the commission's always in the position to review projects, not to design them. And there's no design in front of us at this moment. But I think that that would be something that the commission would, you know, look at favorably and, you know, try to consider it. Yeah, I don't know what else to say. We, the commission sees bordering vegetated and out there, isolated vegetated wetlands out there and flood zone. You can engineer your way out of the flood zone. You can compensate for the other impacts. And I think that if we were to be in a position to consider this request, it would be worthwhile to, I don't know, to discuss it at one of our conservation meetings. Is there any questions about what I said? That makes sense. Mr. Revelak, any questions? No, thank you for, you know, thank you for responding, Mr. Taroni. And then again, Ms. Chapnick, you had some points in regards to the discussion leaders. Yes, if I may. We also provided an additional letter on December 18, 2020. I know that was recently, just to kind of focus on the conservation commission suggestions to the ZBA on potential permit conditions. And these dovetail with what Attorney Kiefer was discussing. So I'll go over what she discussed first. So she was talking about waivers. And section 23 subpart C, where we discussed the fact that the applicant is meeting the two-to-one compensatory storage. The way the project is proposed currently and with the compensatory storage that Beta Group has verified in their peer review, we don't see the need for a waiver of that section. Right now, I understand Attorney Kiefer wants a placeholder, but as we get forward in this process and we really need to narrow down, what are the real waivers that are being requested and not? So we know how to condition the project from the conservation commission's point of view that waiver isn't required for that section. For section 24, and thank you, Attorney Kiefer, for being very thorough in explaining what the conservation commission's local regulations are that we're implementing, and she got it all right. And though Attorney Kiefer is correct, that it's not an exact performance standard because we do use judgment on the conservation commission, there's flexibility. However, there's very specific guidance in this section of our vegetation replacement. There's very specific tables on what tree replacements are for deciduous trees, for evergreen trees, for shrubs and bushes. So though we do have flexibility, that is correct. I would caution the ZBA that we do have standards and we implement those standards for the benefit of the resource area. I applaud Attorney Kiefer's statement that there's opportunities to provide restoration in planting designs, and we'd love to see that. Right now, the applicants ask for a waiver of this section and the conservation commission recommends to the ZBA that you do not grant this waiver and that instead include as a condition for approval that the applicant show the species, numbers, locations and care instructions of all plants in the design that the applicant describes how these plants will compensate for the numbers, density, species and variety of vegetation that will be removed in compliance with section 24 of our local regulations. So that's our recommendation for the waivers requested for section 24. In terms of the aura, which is section 25 and again, I appreciate Attorney Kiefer's thorough summary of that section. Again, she is correct that there's flexibility in the application of the standard but it's not totally discretionary. We have specific standards listed in this section. Besides doing an alternative analysis which Attorney Havity discussed, we also have the requirement of defining different zones of disturbance. The zero to 25 is a no disturbance zone and then we have the opportunity to define three other zones. This is in our standard, it's not arbitrary. And we recommend at an application of this standard that the ZBA put in a condition that the no disturbance zone for the zero to 25 be maintained, which is consistent with the plans as they are now, that no disturbance actually be allowed from zero to 50 feet, which we feel based on the plans as they're shown now can be met. That limited activity only be allowed within the 50 to 75 feet. Limited activity is defined in our regulations. It includes removing face of things like that, not building. And then for disturbances in the 50 to 100 feet, so that's that outer 75 foot zone that Attorney Kiefer was talking about where there is disturbance require mitigation for any disturbance in that area. And mitigation is generally vegetation replacement. So then a dug tails with that section. So we recommend not approving a waiver for this section but instead conditioning it. So those are our recommendations. Going back to the isolated vegetative wetland that Chairman Klein talked about the fact that it was inappropriate for us to ask Beta Group to do sampling of this area. That's our misunderstanding of the process. We're getting an education here, which is wonderful. But at the same time, the conservation commission at this juncture recommends to the ZBA that you just assume these isolated vegetative wetlands don't exist. We have no reason to believe they don't exist based on the evidence. The applicants investigation of these areas included two soil borings. One of the borings showed hydric soils, which is evidence of isolated vegetated wetland. The other soil boring did not. That's inconclusive. The applicant stated that no wetland vegetation was found. However, the vegetation that was found were invasives. So invasives are also inconclusive because it's just evidence of a disturbed area. Therefore, we recommend the ZBA assume that these isolated vegetated wetlands as appeared on the applicant's plans up through the September 2020 plans. This is in the northeast corner of the site behind Dorothy Road. That these exist and that there should be drawn on the plans again, these wetlands as well as a buffer around them, which we call an aura and attorney Keefer was correct, that we consider the 100 foot buffer under the Wetlands Protection Act. We consider that a resource area under the local bylaws and that is part of the resource area and again should be counted in terms of any disturbance of that resource area in terms of mitigation as we just talked about vegetation replacement. Then in terms of stormwater, and I know I do appreciate the fact that when we do get to talk about stormwater and wetlands floodplain in more detail, a lot of this will come together and maybe make more sense. But I just want to make a few points about that. The stormwater management plan we recommend the ZBA ask the applicant to make it responsive to the concerns and comments raised by the conservation commission previously and the engineering division and the data comment models. Seasonal high groundwater, we feel is not been established. We also feel that the stormwater management design and system must account for discharge from the site building, which it does not at this point. We understand that data group has been working with the applicant about these deficiencies and there are going to be some changes, but we haven't seen them. And if the proposed stormwater management system must be resized or relocated in order to address these issues, this could have bearing on either the footprint of the proposed building or enroachment on wetland resources. So we would need to see that. The commission understands that the applicant has used the Cornell method to derive precipitation values. Chairman Klein talked about that a bit. The Cornell method for precipitation data was in our local bylaws at the time. And we changed that in, we didn't change that. That exists at this time. The new stormwater regulations that are going to be coming out of the state in the spring use what's called the NOAA Atlas 14 plus numbers, which can be found online. And those are not climate change numbers. The NOAA Atlas 14 plus numbers are just a better representation of what's actually happening now with severe storms that we're seeing. And that's what's coming out of the DEP. Advisory Committee, that's what they're saying. They're not climate change. They're what's happening now. And so though the commission understands that the applicant is not required to use these numbers at this time, we also understand that the applicant has presented this project as being sensitive to the community, to the environment, to the wetland area and in as much. As the applicant has presented that this would be conservation focus, wetland focus, we'll take care of the area. We won't, you know, we'll take, we'll mitigate resource area value impediments. We strongly suggest that the NOAA 14 plus numbers should be used. And so those are a summary of our comments and also in comment back to the waivers that will be requested. Thank you very much. At this point, I would like to open the conversation to the public. And so just again to click right over. If you'd like to speak, if you could use the raise hand button from the participant tab on the bottom of your Zoom screen or if you're on the phone, if you can use star nine, let us know. Please, I make sure you identify yourself by name and address. We have that properly in the record. With that the first name is Clarissa Rowe. Thank you so much. My name is Clarissa Rowe. I live at 137 Herbert Road in East Arlington. And I'm raising my hand tonight as the founding founder of the Arlington Land Trust. And we have been listening to the comments about wetlands. And so we have hired a climate change resilience person to from Weston Sampson to also look at the data. We know that the town couldn't get the resources from the proponent. So we decided to do it and we will release everything that we have gotten. I got some talking points late tonight and I forwarded them to the ZBA and to Emily for distribution. We will make it part of the recreation, I mean part of the record. One of the things about climate change which to me is equal to the regional need for affordable housing which I completely understand and applaud. There is a regional need for climate change especially in this particular location because of our flooding. And we wanted the ZBA and the conservation commission and the town of Arlington. And in fact, for those of butters that will probably go to the 40A route to have the information in front of them so that they know what an outside expert is saying. I think that the talking points are excellent. There are lots of charts. It's hard to talk about a chart but we will be forwarding that to everyone that wants it. We're not gonna argue about whether this subject of sea level rise and the surge is something that should be part of the conversation. It most certainly has to be part of the conversation. It has to be part of the conversation for our town and for our region. And one of the things that's happened around us with the cities that have a lot more money than we do they have already been engaging in this kind of look at 2050 and 2070 for a while. I have worked in the city of Lynn and the city of New Bedford doing this very same thing. It's something that every town and city will have to do soon. But I am just a landscape architect. I am not this wonderful person from Western Samson who will spell out what they think of. I went to the city of Cambridge to ask their opinion. We've also been working with the Mystic River watershed and we can't really think of ourselves as an island. We're not an island. We're part of a system where in 2050 if the Amelia Earhart dam over tops the water is gonna come right into this site. It has in the past, the man cover tops view out of the East Arlington neighborhoods and everybody has their pumps going. This is something that has to concern us. It concerns us in the last 10 years. It's concerned us for the last 30 years and we really need to get a handle on it. I think that the information you'll be getting tomorrow will really help everybody involved because while I know the 40B regulations I think in the long term, these regulations are gonna change. They have to change. This is a new world. And now I'll get off my soapbox. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Ms. Roe. Ms. Hadel. Hi, I'm also a member of the conservation commission and been involved in the stormwater. And I just wanted to, Susan mentioned it but I also heard people refer to the NOAA as modeling and it's not modeling. It's based on data from 1816 to 2014 and it has 265 Massachusetts stations. And so it's real data. And just to say show why we probably shouldn't just be relying on like DP or something like that. DP, the existing standard is based on data published in 1961. So people are catching up but it's a real reality on what the data is. And then I also wanted to say on behalf of the conservation commission that we have been following what DP has been doing in the stormwater discussions. And as a result have been requiring larger developments. We don't require someone with a debt but we require larger developments to look at NOAA plus and to provide us a stormwater report on that. So we have been requiring that. We've asked that recently and it's being done. And obviously we recognize that it could result and it would result in larger stormwater management infiltration chambers but given the sensitivity of the site and people's concerns with flooding, we think it's warranted. So thank you. Thank you. Next, Jennifer Griffith or Griffith, excuse me. Hi, my name's Jennifer Griffith and I live at Four Edith Street which is very close to this property. I wanna encourage all my neighbors that are on the phone on this Zoom to also speak up because we really need people to talk about their experiences. But I will say the biggest issue here is groundwater. The groundwater level is high and when it rains a lot, the groundwater just keeps coming up. So it's main stormwater of course is important and anywhere that you are putting stormwater is gonna impact the groundwater and any changes, you put a big building in there and you're going to impact the flow of groundwater. They said last time it's not gonna back up but it's gonna go kind of around the building. Well, when it goes around the building that just means they're gonna add more groundwater to the people that are in that area. And like I said, it's groundwater. We have basements in today's world we would not be able to build these houses but they're here already and we have significant impacts from groundwater. So that is the main issue and anything that you do on this property and the stormwater management is gonna impact the groundwater level and where it is. So I will try to put this in writing as well but I hope this is making some sense and that the applicant can address this and yeah, just not build this thing that's gonna make things worse. Thank you, anything further? Yeah, not on this topic right now, thanks. Thank you. Are there others who wish to speak at this time? I have no hands on the list. Is it to the bottom, is it back to the top? Not see any additional hands at this time. Do you have a question from Mr. Havarty? So at this stage, how would a board typically move from the information we have to putting together responses to the waivers that have been requested? We really haven't covered the rest of the waiver list. Well, certainly, no, no, no, understanding that we have a lot farther to go but just sort of just as a general thought process. Well, typically the way it works when I'm representing boards is I'll actually do a draft decision with guidance from the board in terms of how they intend the decision to come out. Obviously if the board is thinking of acting unfavorably they're not gonna ask me to draft an approval but usually I'll draft a pretty bare bones decision that has a bunch of standard conditions and suggested conditions coming from the peer review and then also go through the waiver list and parse that down into the waiver's requests that are procedural, which I would recommend the board not grant because they're not necessary and then the waivers that are substantive and with regards to those waivers I would generally give a suggested determination and that suggested determination is really based upon if you're presuming you're going to approve this they're going to need this waiver to move forwards. So I'm gonna presume you wanted to be granting this waiver because it's necessary. And then there are waivers that I may think are not appropriate and they may suggest that the board deny them whether because they're not necessary whether they're overly broad whether they ask for waivers that I don't think are of the category that the board should be granting. I just in noticing the first couple pages of the waiver list here there's a number of requests for waivers of local fees. And with regards to application fees for other boards those waivers aren't necessary because again as stated right up front tonight the applicant's not required to go through those permitting processes they're not subject to those application fees and therefore they don't have to specifically request a waiver. However, these waiver requests are getting a little bit further and asking for some substantive fee waivers including building permit fees and things of that nature. I don't believe the board is obligated to grant waivers of local fees. I've never seen a housing appeals committee decision that has required waivers of local fees where a board has chosen not to grant them. On the other hand I have seen boards use the ability to waive certain local fees as a way to get some concessions in other areas from applicants. So with regards to those we would need a little bit more feedback from the board as to what they would want to do with those. Okay, I have not seen any additional hands raised on the public comment list. At this point I will close public comment. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Hamlin. Sorry. Dr. Evelyn. May I make a brief remark in regarding something that Ms. Rowe mentioned? To me, you may, yes. Sure. So there's, I would just like her to just like to let her know that the conversation regarding sea level rise in storm surge events and Cambridge's modeling of the 100 year, 2070 flood elevations have come up at a number of occasions in this hearing and to the best and to at least the best of my understanding the first floor elevation of the proposed building is above that 100 year, 2070 sea level rise storm surge elevation. So yeah, it's something we've been talking about and I just wanted to let you know that. I know that. I've been listening, Steve. I think that you'll find a disagreement in the elevation. Well, I look forward to seeing with Samson and Weston have to say. Thank you. Okay. And Weston, Samson too. Thank you. So there's no particular action that the board is gonna take this. Nope. Since I know has a hand back up, or it's down again. So there's no particular action the board needs to take this evening in regards specifically to this action. So I want to move ahead to the schedule of subsequent meetings and hearings. So the next comprehensive permit hearing will actually not be on Thorndike place. The next schedule comprehensive permit hearing which will occur January 5th is on 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. This is a new comprehensive permit application that was filed earlier this month. The board is required to open the hearing within 30 days and essentially in order to fit that in the only date that makes sense in terms of doing the proper public noticing and to not interfere with holiday plans would be to put it on January 5th. And so that is the reason for that date. The next scheduled hearing on Thorndike place is set for Tuesday, January 12th. Also at 7.30 PM and we will be discussing the traffic impact study. The study was released back in, I believe the end of November. It was reviewed by beta and it was discussed at the TAC hearing that transportation advisory committee in December. And so we should have comment from them by that time. And so we will be discussing that on January 12th. And then the intent is on January 26th to discuss the architecture of the building and the urban design features and some of the civil work. So the civil design implications of that project. And so that's coming up on January 26th. And then the schedule will move on from there. So is there anything further from the board on Thorndike place for this evening? Being none. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just, there are aspects of tonight's hearing. I mean, which I think has been a very productive hearing actually that are somewhat disturbing. And I just would like to put it out there. And obviously everybody on the board has will have his own opinion on this. But I'd like at least the applicant to understand where this member is coming from. And it relates to all the way back to question I asked Mr. Havity to begin with. I would be acutely uncomfortable to say to myself that I need to vote to approve this project if I believed that in fact it would have the adverse consequences with respect to flooding in particular, that it may because of the rules about paying attention to the application being filed in 2015 and somehow legally we're just not entitled to look behind the screen. It may be the state will look behind the screen but nobody knows exactly what the state will do. But eventually something is gonna happen on the ground, a building if it is approved by us or the housing committee and if all that's sustained, eventually something is going to happen and that something could be flooding that we will deeply regret for many years to come. And I think that we have to think about that seriously. And it would not be an adequate answer for me to say, well, but if you look as a lawyer and the way all this works together, we just have to suck that up. I would try really hard not to violate the law but to look hard at what the legal obligations are and what people are willing to do voluntarily to do the right thing for the project in order to make sure that that doesn't happen. So I spent my life as a lawyer, I'm really into law. I love the way all this fits together and so forth, but at the end of the day, water is more powerful than law. And I think we have to consider that. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, can I have a motion to continue the hearing to Tuesday, January 12th at 7.30 PM? So moved. Thank you. Go ahead a second from the board. Second. Thank you, Roger. We'll run down the list. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mills. Oh, he's on mute, but he says yes, I can read the lips. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Hi. Mr. Revelak. Hi. Mr. O'Rourke. Wonderful. We are continued back to the initial for this evening. All right. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting, and I especially wish to thank Ricca Larelli and Vincent Lee for all their help and assistance in preparing and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording for the meeting is to ensure the creation of accurate record of the proceedings. This is our understanding of reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. All correspondence received is attached to the agenda for the upcoming meeting. And so to conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. I'm moved. Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you. Do an approval by voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The unanimous vote, we are adjourned. Thank you all so very much. Thank you. Happy holidays. Thank you everybody. Happy holidays. Thank you. Take care everyone. Thank you.