 All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Arlington Redevelopment Board meeting on October 10th, 2023. My name is Rachel Zembery. I'm the chair of the board. I'll call this meeting to order. If the other members of the board could please introduce themselves. Steve Revolac. Eugene Benson. Ken Well. And we also have joining us the director of the Department of Planning and Community Development, Claire Ricker. Thank you. So for those in the back, I'm going to apologize. We don't have projecting mics this evening, so we will project our voices. Let me know if you can't hear me. Let's move to our first item on our agenda this evening, which is the Redevelopment Board report to fall 2023 special town meeting. And a special thanks to Claire and Marissa and the Department for turning this around so quickly after our meeting last Monday evening. So, Claire, I will turn it over to you to overview the board report. And then my thought was that we would go article by article. We'll first start with any overall comments on the board and then we'll go article by article. Turn it over to you. Okay. Thanks very much. And thanks to the board for reviewing the draft report over the weekend. And some of the responses that, you know, we've gotten already. So essentially the report covers by article as listed in the warrant. Each of the articles that we discussed at our deliberation and discussion meeting, I took quite a few notes at that meeting as did Marissa. I hope I captured at least some of the discussion that was had that evening. I tried to put it in small narratives discussion section immediately after the language of the warrant article. Some obviously I had more language on than others, but, you know, certainly open to any edits, additions or comments from the board this evening. Great. Thank you so much. Let's see. So, let us go ahead and start with any general comments around the opening section and then we'll go article by article. So, let's start with the introduction and overview and the zoning articles overview. And I'll run through the board members to see if there are any additions or corrections there starting with Ken. I am none. Gene? On page two, near the bottom, it mentions that the ads are in the Arlington advocate, but the advocate technically isn't the name anymore. Okay. It's the advocate and star. So, I would suggest that we change that. It's the fourth line from the bottom on page two. Yep. And star. It's not Arlington anymore. It's just called advocate and star. I went online today to confirm that that was correct. We lost our newspaper. The other thing I wonder, it's a general comment and I think Rachel may have mentioned this the last time. Do we want to put in here whether the vote at town meeting is majority or two-thirds or do we want to leave that for when we get to town meeting? Thank you, Gene. I can just weigh in on that. We have not in the past included that. I think that's a great question. Unfortunately for the turnaround that we have, I know that Claire and I had put that question to Doug Hyme right as he was, you know, in his last week and Michael Cunningham is now currently looking at that and should be getting back to us any day with whether or not. There are some articles which we are confirming with town council, which require a two-thirds, a supermajority versus a simple majority vote, which affect density for multifamily uses. So once we have that, we can add it in. I just don't know if it's going to be in time for Claire and the department to submit this to town meeting. So I think that's a great suggestion for the future. If the other board members are in agreement, if we're not able to get it in this round. Anything else? No. If I do get an answer, I can include it for sure, if that's what the board desires. Yeah, we know MBTA communities is a simple majority. Correct. But it's the others that. Right, so there are open space, rear yard setbacks, step backs, corner lot requirements. Street trees are not. Those are the only four that I believe are subject to the simple majority. Could be, yeah. Could be subject. I believe that they are per the definition, but again, I'm having town council double check that. And there are specific guidelines within the Mass General Law, which relate to those two thresholds. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jean. Thank you. Steve. Okay. I have one and possibly two. Okay. The first in the, this would go into the zoning article overview where we give sort of a statutory description of how this fits into, we give it, we give a statutory description. And I was wondering if just a more, we might augment that with sort of like a broad overview. Some of the articles are oriented towards enhancing business districts and the others are MBTA communities and trees. And just some of the motivations. I provided a memo with some suggested language, which I believe was posted with the agenda. I also have copies. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. And just, you know, so my thought was to just give a little bit of the background information and explain why they're coming now because we had planned to bring them in the spring and it was, and we're asked to defer them. And yeah, that's basically that. I'm in support of that. Are there any concerns with adding Steve's proposed general language to the opening into the zoning articles overview? That's the section you wanted to add. Yeah. So the section would be zone. Yeah. Under zoning articles overview. Perfect. Correct. The other sort of more general, and this actually goes a little beyond further into the report. It's into the table of contents. I was going to suggest that we first have the articles appear in the report by order and include the article number along with the article title. I am fine with that. Any concerns with that change? Okay. I actually have a question while we're talking about the table of contents about the ordering of these. They are, they're not in numerical order. So I was just wondering if there was a particular reasoning for that. Sure. There is no reasoning for that other than it was difficult to move the table of contents around and provide appropriate draft. Okay. So the articles will be listed in the order they are on the warrant. Okay. In the final draft. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. And I also was thinking to Steve's point, there was a great general note that was listed in I believe article 10 about why these zoning, why the group of zoning articles that we've included are included this year that I wanted to propose to the board that in addition to Steve's language we might want to include. And I'll just read it out. And I will send you the notes, my notes after this. Thank you. We can include this if the board feels so. So the section was reads while the amendment to FAR by 2022 town meeting has made redevelopment of underutilized properties more attractive. Other requirements such as setbacks, stepbacks, usable open space, parking buffers and minimum lot areas and frontages frustrate the ability to reach the maximum allowable heights. So in my mind that could either be included in each one of those referenced zoning articles or again to Steve's point in the overview as to why the suite of zoning articles were included as a package this year for town meeting. So I wanted to propose that for discussion. Steve? I would include it with each article where it's applicable. Okay. Gene? I think that makes sense also. Okay. Are you fine with that? Same here, yes. Okay. So we will make sure that that is included for stepbacks, usable open space and height, which is the other one that that applies to the list. So open space, rear yard setbacks, stepbacks, any of the dimensional lot requirements basically will add that language in. Anything else on the front end, including the table of contents? All right. Let's move on to the individual articles. So we'll start with article five, open space and business districts and we'll start with Kin for any additions or corrections. I have none. Okay. Steve? So two, one, although the discussion, these are just the discussion section, although the discussion mentions, focuses on usable open space, I think the, what it's saying is also applicable to landscaped and I had suggested some edits accordingly. And the other one was I received an email from the chair of the zoning board of appeals suggesting a language change in the main motion, not really a language change, but a pair of quotations. That on here? No. It's not in here. Do you want to run through what those are? Yes. So there is, let me find it, the section in the report. Yes. So this would be in section 532.c. And the last sentence reads for calculating usable open space and landscaped open space in the business districts. See the note at the end of the be district open space and lot coverage table in section 552 a. So Mr. Klein suggestion was to put the table name in quotes. So it would be quote unquote be district open space and lot coverage and quote table. Is that consistent with I have not gone back to double check to see if that's consistent how to how other references are included. Gina shaking his head nails. It is not. Okay. Okay. Then I would say we should keep it as it is fair enough. But I appreciate the in terms of any questions or comments on Steve's proposed changes per this per his document in terms of identifying open space as both usable and landscaped. Because I think he's right. The references do apply to both. And his other wording that modification which I think is appropriate as well. Concerns. Okay. Great. Jean any modifications for article 5. I do and I apologize. I didn't send these around before. I didn't get them done too late in the afternoon. Where. Thank you. On page 6 I would suggest two sentences be added. The first is allowing green balconies and green roofs as part of open space for occupants can enhance the use of their property and provide a pleasant green building facade. And the second I think we should add is while decreasing the amount of usable open space for mixed use buildings which is not required to be green or permeable and can prevent good mixed use buildings are being developed. This increases the required amount of landscaped open space for mixed use buildings which increases the amount of green space for trees and other plantings. So I'd like to include those two sentences in the discussion. Thank you Jean. I actually had a similar recommendation that I was intending to make around ensuring that we highlight the increase to landscaped open space and not just the removable abuse. I'm supportive of both of those changes. Steve. Supportive. Okay. Great. One other on page 6. Yes. I'm not sure if Steve got to this. It says the definition of usable open space limits where and how the public and private benefits but usable open space is only private benefit. There's no public allowance on that space. So I would delete the words public and so it should just read where and how the private benefits of open space can be achieved. The private. Correct. So we take out public and public and. Okay. That makes sense. Where did you. Yeah. Where is this. I'm sorry. So that is in on Steve's memo on Steve's. Yes. Okay. Sorry. No, no. It's fine. It's also on on his memo. He has another modification to that same sentence. So on that one, Claire, if you just wanted to strike out on the next page, the second line. Public and private. Where it says public and keep private, but just public and would need to be removed. Yeah. Great. Okay. Gene, anything else? No. On this one. Okay. Ken. Nope. Okay. So what I have. I'm going to apologize. I keep moving between. Windows. Is. This is actually on each one of the. Articles. So where it says the redevelopment board voted for zero zero that the zoning by law be in here boy by as amended as follows, we need to add either favorable action or no action to what the vote. Was in this section. So if you could do that in each one of the sections, this would read then the redevelopment board voted for zero zero voted favorable action for zero zero that the zoning by law be and that will just be a general note across all of them. Great. Let's move on to the next article. So the next article is rear yard setbacks in business districts. Ken, did you have any modifications for this one? No. Gene. No. Steve. No, no changes. Okay. Great. Let's move to article seven step back requirements in the business districts. Starting with. Ken, any modifications? No. Gene. I have one modification. Okay. And a parenthetical at the end of the vote that says the parenthetical would say the ARB member who voted no was in favor of the amendments opposed in this article. The no vote was because the step back requirement would remain on the fourth floor rather than be raised to the fifth floor. I know you said something like that above. It's reference, but it's not clear. Not clear. So I wanted to put this parenthetical in. Okay. To make it clear. Ken, are you okay with that modification? Sure. It's clear. I thought that was enough. Thank you. Okay. Steve. Fine by me. Okay. Great. So I had one modification and again I will send you my Word document. So you have these here. There was a section in what we originally proposed these for spring town meeting. There was a section that was included that had to do with the review of zoning regulations in Arlington's neighboring communities. Yes. And around how most of those do not have any step back requirements. And for those that do where those began or what the step back requirement was tied to. So my thought was that before we add the board debated whether the step back requirement should begin above, you know, that we add that sentence which reads a review of zoning regulations in Arlington's neighborhood. And again, I'll send this to you. Arlington's neighboring communities reveals that most do not have step back requirements of those that do require step backs, the step back requirement either does not begin until a height of 65 feet or the step back is required as part of the community's design standards to allow planning boards of flexibility to negotiate step backs as part of the overall design review. Some communities requiring step backs require them only on the principle of the facade. So I thought it was important to add that back in again for context as part of our discussion. And then the other thing that I thought we should add is where we talk about the board debated whether the step back requirement should begin above the third or fourth level that we add in that the board came to the conclusion that maintaining the requirement for at a minimum a step back on the principle facade only at the fourth story was contextually appropriate for the town of Arlington. The board also clarified that the step back should be measured from the principle property line. I wanted to bring some clarification to the discussion around the fourth versus fifth story and also the fact that we are clarifying that this is from the property line which was unclear we felt in the original bylaw. Okay, so I have those spelled out and again I'll send you the word modifications. Okay, great. And I will note too that we will make genes proposed changes. Let's move to article four reduced height buffer area which was a no action vote. So I wanted to see if there were any modifications starting with kin. Nope, still no action. Okay. Gene. No change. Steve. Nothing here. And this looks good to me. So let's move to article nine corner lot requirements starting with kin. Nope. Gene. No change. And Steve. I would suggest adding a paragraph in the discussion noting that there is a section in the zoning bylaw that essentially gives the board the ability to adjust setbacks during environmental design review and what we're proposing is really a codification of how the board has been applying this and with the hope that it would lead to more predictability and improving the clarity of the bylaw. Thank you Steve. I think that this is a good change or a good addition to town meeting in terms of the thought behind the discussion. My other thought, and we had a question from a town meeting member saying, I just don't understand this article. And one thought I had, because I can see this one's a little bit harder to understand because there's a lot of references to underlying business district versus adjacent. I thought that Gene had a great example that during our discussion he provided around when a property is next to a, the abutting property is residential and the setback is 15, required to be 15 feet. You made the observation that in many cases those properties are non-conforming themselves so it imposes a stricter requirement than what actually exists. So again it's just one more example of why we felt that this clarification and predictability was important. If we think that that's over complicating it, we don't have to add it, but I'm again trying to be responsive to some of the questions we've already had in terms of whether or not we think it's helpful to provide an example or two for clarity. I think the other way to think about it is the adjoining lots on different blocks may have different required setbacks. So you're constraining what happens in the business district in a different way which makes no sense from block to block in the business district just based on what's happening down the side street. So I think that might be a way to say it, but not exactly the way I see it, but with some better clarity. The requirements for corner lots make all the sense in the world when the corner property and the two abutting it are all in the same district. Works very well in that case, but when they are in different, the corner lot is in a different district than anything that touches than one of the adjoining ones, then it can get awkward. I think that's a great way of saying it. So Steve or Jean, do either one of you, I could take a stab at coming up with some wording, specific wording for this, unless either one of you have something more specific. I know Jean, you've provided a couple of good examples. I'm leaving town tomorrow morning. You're leaving town tomorrow morning. So why don't I take a stab and I can email that to Claire and Steve, and I'll CC you and you can help us wordsmith. Happy to do that, yes. Okay, great. So no diagram? That would be in the slides that we'll prepare for town meeting. Thank you. Does that work for everyone? But I agree, I think a diagram could illustrate this very clearly. Would you show it right off? Absolutely, absolutely. I'll make a note of that. So the next, any other changes to article nine? The discussion points. All right, let's move to hide in story minimums. Article eight, we'll start with Ken. Nope. Jean. The second paragraph in the discussion that says within the business districts doesn't seem to relate to this article in which we're just adding, you know, they must be at least two stories high. So I would completely delete the second paragraph in the discussion. And I would add to the last paragraph, I would remove the phrase at the end with a requirement to include a second story. That's at least 30% of the first floor dimension because that's not what we're proposing. Great. And I'd replace that with what I wrote here with a requirement that the second floor be usable and allowing the redevelopment board to waver, modify the requirement if a second floor would be infeasible for the project open Perenn, e.g. for a gas station close Perenn. So those are my suggestions for this one. Great. Thank you, Jean. Steve. I just had a small wordsmithing change. So this would be in the first paragraph, striking the words intensifying development opportunities and replacing them with encouraging the development of higher value buildings. And I agree with both of those proposed changes. I also was looking at rewordsmithing that second paragraph as well. So I think Jean, your suggestion of just eliminating it entirely makes a great deal of sense. Great. So I will note here, take out my comment and note to accept Steve and Jean's proposed changes. Great. Let's move to Article 3 of the administrative correction. Any changes to this section, Ken? No. Jean? No. Steve? No. I just wanted to note, sorry, before we move on to that, is when we do the slides for town meeting, one thing that's been helpful in the past is when we identify when the underlying zoning was changed, which created the misnumbering. So not for this report, but when we get to the slides for town meeting, that the underlying zoning change sometimes is helpful so that people can see when that change was made that created. I'm pretty sure it was lost. I believe so too. So I was just going to go back and double check that. Great. So let's move on to the next item, which is Article 11, Residential Uses in the Business District. Any changes to the report sections? Ken? No. Jean? I have one suggestion to the discussion and that's add two sentences at the end. One in two family dwellings can continue to be used and are not required to be converted to any other use. They will be considered non-conforming uses of which there are many in Arlington. Okay. That makes sense. Steve? Nothing here. Is anyone in agreement with Jean's proposed changes? Great. And I think that is, I was trying to get at the same thing. It was going to suggest that we are allowing development of new single family and two family homes, but I was trying to get at the same thing that you were, that we're not saying that those are no longer, the existing uses are no longer permitted. So we'll just note then that we will move forward with Jean's proposed changes. So the next article is Article 10, Street Trees. Ken, any modifications? No. Jean? I have two modifications. Okay. In the second paragraph of discussion, I would suggest deleting the phrase along Arlington's main corridors because this applies all over town and not the main corridors. Yep. And I would suggest adding a sentence at the end that says, this is a necessary addition so that development in the MBTA community's overlay district will also require street trees. Great. Can I ask one question? Please. If you can do that. It's only, it's applies to all over town only if it's going under environmental review. So if you pull a permit to add a dormer. No. It has to be new development. New development. Okay. We haven't changed that part of it. We changed. Yeah. We made sure that the wording was such. What does it say that? It says new construction additions over 50% of existing footprint or redevelopment. We didn't change that at all. Okay. Then I'm fine. I think that that is something that we'll make sure to highlight in the slides though. That's a really good point. Okay. Yep. I agree. I think that that's an important call out. Yep. And if you think Ken that we should make that clear in the discussion, we can do that in this report as well. Yeah. I mean, we can highlight that. I think that that's a good call out. We can add that saying that we talked about that so that this only applies. I think that's a good comment. Or it doesn't apply to minor changes in dormers. Okay. Only to new construction renovations over 50%. And redevelopment. That's right from the zoning violence. Great. Steve, any modifications? None here. Great. Okay. The next is article 12 MBTA communities overlay district modifications to the discussion point starting with Ken. I like what Gene said earlier saying some points were some of the board member, well eight board member was in favor of this, but not in favor of all the changes and went along to go with this. I don't know how you said it Gene earlier, but it was quite elegant. So we can take what I did in the other one and transpose it over here. Great. So that was the ARB member who voted no was in favor, although you didn't vote no on this one. We can say voted yes. Yes. Yeah. One ARB member who voted yes was in favor of the, the, the, by the redevelopment board to the working groups original. To add that part of the discussion. Yep. Okay. Because we did discuss that. We did. Okay. Add to the discussion in favor of maintaining the three highlighted original. The study groups working groups. Yeah. The three highlighted working group recommendations. Yep. Thank you. Ken. Any other modifications? Nope. Gene. I have two modifications. Okay. Page 24, the third paragraph of the discussion. I would part way down. I would delete the phrase allowing for development of multifamily housing in the R zero and R one zones because the proposal does not do that. So about halfway down in the third paragraph, it says allowing for the development of multifamily housing in the R zero and R one zones, but that's not what's going on here. So I would just delete that from the third paragraph. Okay. Okay. And then I would add a new paragraph after the fourth paragraph and I'll read it to you. State law and guidelines require our town to rezone at least 32 acres where there would be a capacity for at least 2,046 housing units, open per end, three units or more per building, close per end. That would not require a special permit to be constructed open per end as of right close per end rather than limit the zone to one area of 32 acres, which would allow the entire area to have five and six story high buildings. This article takes the context of the town into account, setting the height of buildings like those already in the areas and placing the zones on and near our transit and business corridors. Placing the zones on and near Mass Ave. Broadway will help support sustainable walkable neighborhoods where residents can walk to local shops, services and public transportation, thereby reducing the use of automobiles. It will also provide more potential customers open per end and perhaps employees and owners close per end for those businesses, keeping them strong and help maintain our vibrant business corridors. That is consistent with town policies and the community survey responses about how to implement the MBTA community's law. In addition, the new development will be subject to site plan review, which authorizes the redevelopment board to make sure the development is consistent with an environmental design review standards and guidelines. So I'd like to add that to sort of round out what this is about. I think this is a great addition. May I make one proposed modification? So rather than make sure the development is consistent with environmental design review standards and guidelines, those were modified slightly by what we have identified in the, actually, you know, it was the site plan, the special permit requirements which were updated. So this is fine. That makes sense. Sorry. Had to work that out in my head as I was reading it out loud. Steve, any questions or concerns about Jean's proposed change? I think it's a fine change. Yes, I think it's good. Great. Steve, any additions or modifications to the section? Yeah, I'd like to propose two paragraphs after the first. Okay. So the first paragraph ends with a citation of the working groups report. Yes. I'm suggesting to add a paragraph that basically highlights the differences between the working group report and what the board's recommendation to town meeting is, specifically the reduction in height limits in the neighborhood multifamily district, the minimum parking requirements, and the map changes along Mass Abyss of Orvis Road. I think that's fine. There are several others, but I think perhaps these are the most substantive. So perhaps the, whether it's largest or... Yeah, so that's why the sentence begins. These differences include. Right. So I... That's right, because you're referencing the substantive differences that you identified before. And the second paragraph would just be to, because there's been much talk in hubbub about capacity. I'd like to have a paragraph that provides the number of acres, the capacity of the proposed district, the number of existing dwellings, the difference between the existing conditions and model capacity, and how many parcels we think will be redeveloped over the next 10 years along with a net change in units. And I'm willing to work out the numbers for the last two. In favor of that, I think that more data, Claire, what are your thoughts on that one? Sure. I'm happy to make that change. I think more data is better. Yeah. Sure. So what I was suggesting is the addition of a paragraph that would read something like as follows. The proposal before town meeting has a capacity of blank units on blank acres. The multifamily district has approximately blank existing dwellings, such that the difference between existing conditions and model capacity is blank units. If adopted, the board anticipates that blank parcels would be redeveloped over the next 10 years, leading to a net increase of blank new units. I'm suggesting these just because they're all things that I've heard on numerous occasions, you know, statistics that people are interested in. My only concern is that it's a challenge to put a specific number to the anticipated number of parcels. Oh, it would be a range. A range. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that. Oh, absolutely. The range. It is a range. Okay. Both in terms of parcels and number of net new. Some of that objective range or something like. Anticipates. That's fine. How about projects, the potential for blank range parcels? Yes. Okay. There's no way that's known. I mean anticipates is perhaps a stronger. Right. Yeah. Projects projects is fine. Okay. I think the question will be, you know, if, is it a hundred? Is it a thousand? Is it 10,000? I personally, you know, from having crunch numbers, I think it's closer. If I had to pick one of those, I would pick a hundred, but it's probably more than a hundred, but not a whole lot more than, but it's way under a thousand. Okay. Can I make one proposed change to the first paragraph that you suggested? So where you talk about the substantive differences between the working groups recommendation and the main motion before town meeting. What I'd like to do is reference why the development board made that change. And so the text I was wanting us to discuss adding was, so the differences, if I go back to again, your wording here is the substantive differences between the working groups recommendation and the main motion before town meeting add that were adopted as a result of continued dialogue between the ARB and the members of public who attended the many public outreach sessions, the Department of Planning and Community Development, the town's planning consultant, and the members of the working group. Sounds good. Okay. No. Wait, wait, wait. It was more than that. Then let's add to it. It was also for the height limits. I've forgotten the exact wording that's in the guidance, but the height limits are more contextual to the side streets than the proposed height limits. The minimum parking requirement is consistent with reports that have been done throughout the region, and the map changes because we think it's important to rezone. So the things that we talked about at the last meeting. Okay. So let's add that in now. So specifically, let's do them in order that they're in there. So Steve defines what those are after that sentence that I added in. And then I think we add in a section that says the ARB adopted these changes due to the, let's start with the height in the multifamily district, the neighborhood multifamily. So the ARB adopted these changes. So here's a language from the guidance that I think we can use. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Due to the scale density and aesthetic of the neighborhood district. Thank you. In the neighborhood district. In the neighborhoods. Yeah. In the existing neighborhoods of the proposed neighborhood. Is it existing or adjacent neighborhoods? Well, existing and adjacent neighborhoods. Yeah. It's really the neighborhoods in which the overlays go. Okay. The next is the minimum parking to maintain consistency. Across the town. And because studies have shown that one space per unit is appropriate. And because they can be reduced with a transportation demand management plan. To maintain. Okay. So of our friends. A. B. To maintain consistency across town. In accordance. With MAPC. Parking study guidelines. Or parking study. Conclusion. Conclusions. Because they can reduce with transportation. Get a whole bunch of typos. I'm really going to apologize for Claire. Okay. And see. This is the change in MAP to. To. Main. To maximize the potential in. To allow. We shouldn't have said to allow a process to rezone. That part of NASA. Without. The Arlington. The East Arlington business district right. As a. Complete. As a complete district rather than. Peace. In a holistic manner. Thank you. As to Steve. I also thought we needed to put in capacity. So I think that's the right thing to do. Do we know what they are at this point. Didn't you do that survey. Well we changed the map. Okay. So you have to redo that survey. So well there's yeah it's. You told us the capacity in the acres. What is. The capacity. Three thousand two hundred and sixteen units. Three thousand two hundred and sixteen. On one hundred and fifteen point six acres. Thank you. And I should I can fill in the other blanks tonight. Right. You send me the spreadsheet. Yeah. I think. Okay. Any other modifications to. The discussion. Section. Under article twelve. Okay. Anything else on the report in general before I ask for a motion. Okay. The only thing that I will just note for the record is that. This. We will take a vote to. On. We will take a vote to. Deliver this. Report to. Special Town Meeting. The only thing again that I'll note is that this will be amended. Once Town Meeting starts. Once the hearing is complete for. Article thirteen. On October sixteen. So we'll do an addendum. We will need to do an addendum. Okay. With that article. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll do an addendum. We will need to do an addendum. With that article. Okay. So is there a. Motion to. Approve and deliver the. Arlington redevelopment board. Report to twenty twenty three special town meeting. As amended this evening. So moved. Second. We'll take a vote starting with kin. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. Thank you again to. Rissa and everyone in the department for. Pulling this together so quickly. Much appreciated. Okay. Let's move to the next agenda item which is. New business and I'll hand it over to you Claire. Great. So. In conversation with the chair of the working group. We knew that there would have to be at some point. A vote to disband them. So. This. Body the ARB voted to establish the working group on November. Seventh of last year. And the recommendation is that. We vote to. You vote to disband. The working group as of the. Beginning of the special. Fall twenty twenty three special town meeting. Working group members wanted to still attend precinct. And other meetings as. Members of the working group. But that. Once town meetings started. They were okay with the solution of the group. Thank you Claire. So. I'll open it up for discussion and one question I would have is. Should we just. Band it at the start of special town meeting or at the. End of special town meeting in case any other questions. Potentially. Arise. Because I know that these will not be the first articles. That are taken up. You know it's probably a good idea to say. At the. At the conclusion of the special time. Okay. Okay great. Any discussion starting with Ken. No. Jean. No. Steve. Nothing. Great. Is there a motion to. Disband the MBTA community's working group. At the conclusion of fall twenty twenty three special town. Meeting. So motion. Sarah second. Second. Take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I may ask as well. Thank you. Thank you Claire. And at this time we'll move to. Open forum. So at this time any member. The public who's joining us this evening who wishes to speak. Please raise your hand. You'll have up to three minutes to. Address the board and we have a. Location for you right over here and we'll pull a microphone over. So. Please. Yes. That way we can pick up the microphone for the recording. Or your voice on the microphone. For the recording. And if you could please introduce yourself with your first last name. To address for the record that would be great. Jordan Weinstein. I live at twenty three Lennon road. Here in. Arlington. I was going to say Lexington. Arlington. This is. It's not the ultimate. It's sort of the penultimate conclusion of a long. Involvement. From the outside anyway as a town meeting member and. A resident and property owner in Arlington to be. Following this whole debate. And. I'm. Pleased that. The better angels and. The. Perceptions of the minds of the ARB were. Were. Set in motion and. Were able to see what I felt was an excessive. Plan that was handed to you and that. And in large plan that was unnecessarily large. For a couple of reasons and I'm glad that you. All voted to. Reduce the heights in the neighborhoods. And also to add parking all of which has helped to reduce what was initially. Thought to be a capacity of twenty thousand fifteen thousand and then. Ultimately probably close to the seventy five hundred capacity down to about three thousand. Which is about a hundred and fifty percent of the required capacity that the MBTA. Act which I call the MBTA gentrification act because that's really what I think it is. What disappoints me about this whole process to be honest is. The the wrapping of it the packaging of it as. Almost a social justice presentation to. Correct the injustices of. Zoning that has historically been looked on at least now in retrospect as. Exclusionary and not inclusive. And I I agree with those characterizations of. What suburban America has become and how it's used zoning to exclude minorities and. And poor people. My problem with this though is that. The way I perceive it and the language that the state has handed to us the the. Mandate has nothing to do with affordability. If our application. With the state for our own affordable overlay as it is now fifteen percent. Of six units or more is rejected and I just want to point out that Lincoln's has been rejected and they started well before we did. We're going to be. Probably most likely we're going to have a an overlay that's going to have a much reduced. Inclusionary zoning ten percent you're a time. Thank you. Okay thanks so much I think that it's just disingenuous the way this whole thing has been rolled out. You've been heard thank you. And anyone else with. This evening please. Yes. Kicking it up a notch to. Put my timer on. I think you guys have done a great job. I'm sorry Susan stamps thirty nine Grafton Street. Thank you. I think you've done a great job and the only thing that I and Green Streets Arlington is. Not thrilled about is you're not you won't be surprised to hear is your your removal of this of the planning department sites. Recommendation for the environmental bonus. Versus you put in the lead gold. I really want to be supportive of everything you've done. And I I'm not an architect I don't know about lead or sites. But I do know about Google I have been able to do some research and I'm not seeing how. Lead gold is giving us any of the environmental. Outside. Benefits that we were looking for. Sustainable landscaping climate resilience rain gardens trees bushes all kinds of good stuff in the setbacks. And I know that you're this isn't a dialogue but we are very concerned about that. We'd like to talk maybe doing a friendly amendment on the floor of town meeting. Or maybe I can just be better educated on what you're suggesting. And then I'll feel fine about it. So I just wanted to say that I very much respect all of you. And I'm open to the idea that this that that the suggestion of lead gold. Did include outdoor kinds of environmental enhancements that we were looking for. And if if if that's the case I would be an eye in Green Streets Arlington would be most appreciative. Of some communication or opportunity to find out what the thinking is on that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak please. My name is Kristen Anderson. I live at 12 up the road west and I just wanted to say that I've spent a lot of time watching how this elegant sausage has been made. And I'm really happy that the ARB has chosen to protect existing businesses and create a pathway for planning in the future for more commercial groups. And that was the thing I was most concerned about from the start. It's the thing I remain concerned about. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak please. Grant Cook Walston have on the topic of social justice. I was really gratified walking in East Arlington today to see a support every take community sign on the front yard of the Calvary Church. And I know what has been talking about targeting churches to see a church take that lead in social justice was really refreshing. I'll use another story about wealth. You know there's a house on the market right now just across the border of Winchester. It was a one so kind of what you call your affordable house in Arlington which means it's sold for a million dollars. The house most of us actually in this room probably live in about that price. It got torn down and turned into a 2.7 million dollar house least listed. That is wealth. Now six or seven people could get together in multifamily spend seven feet eight hundred a million on condos and truly afford homes and they could outbid that 2.7 million dollar wealthy person. But we've rigged the game. So the only thing that exists is that 2.7 million dollar house. That is the protection of wealth and the system we've built with our reliance on single family. And I'm glad to see the start of rolling that back. And I hope as we touch the East and touch the heights where I live we do much more of it. So good start. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak this evening. Okay. With that we will close public comments and Susan I know that you had some specific questions. And if you'd like to reach out or stay afterwards we'd be happy to go through a little bit more about the lead sustainable sites sections and also some of the alternative compliance paths which we built in in addition to lead into the proposed community's piece. So with that back to my agenda. Are there any other items from the board. Then I will see if there is a motion to adjourn. So motion. Is there a second. Second. Take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you all for joining us tonight.