 It is 733 p.m. So I will go ahead and call this meeting of the zoning Board of Appeals to order. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals calling this meeting of Tuesday, August 3rd, 2021 to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Kevin Mills. Here. Donna Rourke. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Stephen Revillac. Here. Wonderful. On behalf of the town, our administrator, I know Rick Valarelli. I believe he's going to be joining us a little later. But Vincent Lee is here to helping us out. Vincent, good to see you. And Ms. Sullivan is joining us from the chair of the conservation, not the chair, but from the conservation commission. She's our environmental assistant. Consultants to the board. Paul Haverty. Paul, good to see you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And from Beta Group. Marty Novers here. Marty, good to see you. You too, Mr. Chair. And I believe you said Tyler was joining us this evening. He's not in the meeting yet, but he is coming. Okay. And I believe Laura Krauss and Bill McGrath are not coming. That's right. Actually, Laura is not on this project, Bill. But Bill can't make me correct. Okay. And then on behalf of 1165, excuse me. I mean, no, it's wrong. I'm going to have to thorn that place. Stephanie Kiefer is here. Good to see you. And I saw Gwen Noyce and Art Clipfeller both on the call as well. Good to see you both. And then Scott Blasic is here. And I see Derek Roach is here. John Hessian is here. Are there others who I'm missing, Stephanie? I'm not certain if Bob Angler is on. I don't see him here yet. I haven't seen him either. Okay. That would be the last one. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation is provided during public comment periods. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to 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. Public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As Chair, I reserve the rights to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. The first item on our agenda for this evening, item number two, members' voter approval meeting minutes from May 13th, 2021. Moving on to administrative items, these items relate to the operation of the board and as such will be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After introducing the item, I'll invite board members to provide any comments, questions, or motions. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you're not speaking. Please remember to speak clearly. If members wish to engage in a discussion with other members, please do so through the chair taking care to identify yourself. So the item is the approval of the meeting minutes from May 13th, 2021. Rick Fallorelli had distributed these to the board a couple of weeks ago and hopefully everyone has had a chance to review them. I know that I saw the comments had come back from a few members. I had sent some to Rick as well. Are there any further questions or comments on the proposed May 13th, 2021 meeting minutes? Seeing none, may I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes of May 13th, 2021. Thank you. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. And a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. There we go. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Burke? Aye. Black? Aye. Mr. Ford? Aye. And the chair votes aye. So those minutes are approved. So that moves us on to the next item on our agenda, which is Thorndike Place. I'm now turning to the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndike Place. Here are some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. So at the prior hearing, the board had requested the applicant consolidate and revise documents before the board to clarify exactly what is being requested. This was necessary to clarify what was to be included in the project after several revisions to the program and to the plans. The updated documents were to include not only the plans for the project, but also requested waivers, updated traffic information, review of the applicability of provisions in the prior draft decision, and review of the proposed terms for the final disposition of the conservation land. The information submitted to the board for its review was received within the last 24 hours, much of it late this afternoon. Since the board, its consultants, the town, the public have not had an opportunity to review these updated documents ahead of this hearing. The board is requesting that the applicant very briefly explain what has been provided to clarify what documents have been added for the record. Members of the board, the board's consultants and town staff will be asked if they need any clarification on what has been included in the submission. There will not be a discussion about the contents of the submission itself. In order for the board, its consultants, the town, the public to review and comment on the submitted materials, the board will be requesting a continuance to Thursday, September 9th. Initial comments should be received from beta and the town within two weeks to allow time for review and response from the applicant. Final documents should be submitted to the board no later than September 2nd to allow time for everything to be publicly posted well ahead of that next hearing. The focus of that hearing will be to review all aspects of the proposed projects. It will include ample time for public comment. At the close of that hearing, the board's technical consultant will be tasked with preparing a revised draft decision. The draft should be made available within two weeks to allow for a full review ahead of the following hearing. The focus of that following hearing proposed for September 28th would be the review of the proposed decision, the impacts of any requested waivers and a review of the project in relation to local needs. It's the board's intention, should the full scope of the project be discussed at that hearing, that all questions are answered and that the applicant, the board, and the town agree that all aspects of the proposed project have been reviewed, that the board would vote to close the public hearing at the end of that hearing. After that point, the board would no longer be able to accept any testimony. It would have to rely on the public record that has been compiled since the initial submission of the project application in 2016. That will then begin a 40-day period in which the board is to render its decision, and that would close on November 11th, should the vote be taken on September 28th. So I will now ask the applicant to use not more than 15 to 20 minutes to explain what is in the project and what documents have been submitted. This is not an opportunity to express opinions about the proposal, nor is it time to argue its merits. It is intended to assist the board, its consultants, the town, the public to understand what has been submitted. A discussion of the project itself will take place at the next hearing. So Ms. Kiefer. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the board. As the chairman referenced, in the past two days, actually, there have been kind of two tranches of additional submittals that have come in. On August 2nd, there was an 18-sheet set of architectural plans. And then earlier today, there was, as the board requested, an overview narrative, an updated waiver list, responses from both VAI and ESC to the beta peer review comments for civil and traffic. There was also VAI's submittal of its traffic analysis. And there were four sheets set from BSC, grading and drainage, layout and materials, utility plan, and proposed conservation parcel. And I'll just pause there for one second to make certain that the board got that proposed conservation parcel. And if for some reason it didn't come through, I'll submit it immediately to hear after. And then the last piece of the materials that were submitted were three auto-turn analysis exhibits that had been performed by BSC. And what I would like to do right now is just to have Bruce Hamilton architects and then BSC and Vanessa just briefly walk the board through just kind of what the submittals are to help guide in your review. Mr. Chairman, at your discretion, we can either just have those put up, or if you'd prefer to just have that be verbal, our team's willing to do whatever you prefer. If we could just keep it verbal, that would be fine. Okay, that's fine. And just to respond to your earlier question, I'm not seeing specifically the document that delineates the parcel line, but it may be under a different name, and I'm just not seeing it readily. Okay, well, as an abundance of caution, I'll resubmit it once we get off there, then just to make certain that it's in everyone's pocket. I appreciate that, thank you. Okay, absolutely. With that, I'm going to briefly first turn over to Scott Flassock to explain the architectural set that was submitted and kind of to highlight, some of them are resubmissions of what you've seen, but some of them were what the board had requested, so you just have that reference point. So Scott, if you would for a couple of moments. Sure, I'll keep it very brief. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. So as Stephanie had just mentioned, the recent submission is 18 pages related to the architecture. The majority of that information is resubmission of previously submitted material, so what I'll do here is just briefly indicate what the new information that's provided in this submission. So since we're not going to pull it up, I'll just describe. So page three of that submission is the garage plan. There are a few edits to that plan, but the highlights include that the garage contains 84 total parking spaces. There was previous discussion about the number of accessible spaces, so we've increased that to eight accessible parking spaces, and there are also 10 electric vehicle charging stations shown on the plan, and we just want to note that that is certainly expandable based on what the market and what this population would demand. Page four also has minor edits to it. That is the ground floor plan of the independent living building. Pages eight and nine are completely new pages, and those contain duplex floor plans for those units along Dorothy Road. Pages 10 and 11 are contained minor edits of the duplex exterior elevations to go along with those floor plans, and finally pages 15 and 16 are newly submitted exterior elevations of the south and east sides of the independent living building that were not previously submitted. So that is pretty much a summary of the new and or edited information in that 18-page submission packet. Thank you. John, if you will move from kind of architectural to the civil, the sheets that you submitted, I believe that there are a total of seven, four plan sheets, and then three of the auto-turn analysis, and your microphone's off. Thank you, Stephanie. Good evening, chairman and members of the board. Very quickly, the civil, the updated civil materials that have been submitted include a BSC response to Beta's June 5th civil and wetlands peer review comments. That letter, that response to comments letter really focuses on the new 14 comments that Beta generated based on the, I believe it was the June 8th revised site plan submittal. The first five comments are kind of general site comments. One in particular that has been discussed is a fire department access. So there is a, there has been coordination between the planning department and fire department and our team, and that response is in that first portion of the letter. And then the, so that's the first five general comments in nature, the last nine are stormwater management related comments. And with those responses to all of those comments, it required some changes to the site plan. And those changes are incorporated in the layout materials plan, the grading and drainage plan, and the utilities plan that have been updated in response to Beta's comments and provided with this submission. Additionally, Stephanie had mentioned previously, in response to both Beta's civil and wetlands peer review, there were comments in the, in the Beta traffic peer review regarding vehicle turning maneuvers. So there, there are three vehicle turning exhibits included in the new information for review. And additionally, there was a question or a comment in the Beta traffic review related to the four parallel parking spaces that were previously shown on the west side of the main drive aisle. And in response to that comment, the site plan has been revised and those have been changed from four parallel spaces to six 90 degree head in parking spaces. And, you know, to respond to that question or comment, not driven by any of the peer review comments there is also in the revised plans, a modification to the bike storage area, which is located on the north wall of the senior living building. Essentially, with the change from apartments to senior living, the number of required spaces or anticipated bike storage spaces has been reduced proportionally and the new storage area has been sized to accommodate approximately 14 bicycles. And then lastly, Stephanie mentioned the proposed conservation parcel exhibit that may have not made it into your packets tonight, but that will be provided immediately after this meeting. And that shows the proposed development parcel at approximately 5.8 acres and the remaining just under 12 acres to be contained in a proposed conservation parcel with the permanent restriction placed on that for development. And so in quick summary, that's the new material that has been provided for this prior to this meeting. Thank you. You're welcome. Just to kind of somewhat dovetail on John's comment there with the parking off of the west side of the access drive that there are six head in. What that also does is, as you heard Scott describing the architectural, the basement has 84 parking spaces. So the total site, garage and surface parking remains at 96. So the total parking hasn't changed. So just to clarify that point for the board. And then with that said, we have Derek Roche here this evening and he can briefly give you an overview of Vanessa's. They submitted to one as a response to the peer review traffic and then secondly, there was an update to their traffic assessment. So thank you, Derek. Good evening members of the board. As Stephanie just said, we provided two letters today, one in response to the June 28th beta peer review letter, and one in response to request for information from the chairman of the ZBA. So in just a quick summary of the main traffic points from there, I know John just covered a couple of the points in the beta response letter in terms of auto turn. So I won't re re go over that. But in the so the main points were where we responded to an updated trip generate generation in terms of the new development program to show that the new development program does produce less trips than the previous one four to five less peak hour trips than previously. Now, now part of that in beta's comment letter, they stated we're using land use code 252, which is senior housing attached. They stated that using 253, which congregate care facility, which Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I with with all respect, I think that that the substance we're getting into now is really more appropriate for the ninth. And here we should be just dealing with the chapter headings and what is involved in not describing the argument since that invites a kind of argument and and gets us into something where we need to get further along than than we're ready to do tonight. Thank you. Appreciate that. So we're just trying to just a narrow focus on what what what we were provided as opposed to what it implies. Sure. And I'll let Derek finish up. I think I don't think he was intending to make an argument and just just to clarify that because just it was to kind of if there had been a confusion and you'll see it in the report, it explains. But just to let you know that the AI had continued to use the land use code that you before. So it's kind of a continuity. So it wasn't trying to make an argument, but I'll let Derek because this is above my pay grade kind of provides you with just a brief overview or a brief statement as to what was covered in that, not you know, not making any arguments at this time, but just to explain to you like to help you read the report basically. We'll be a better audience for him once we've had a chance to read it. Right. Right. And that's definitely what I was just stating that to just to just clarify. We were using the same land use code as previously and we didn't switch to what beta had said. Anyway, continuing on, based on the updated trip gen, we provided an updated level of service capacity analysis at the study area intersections comparison to the prior no build in the prior build condition. We also provided ITE parking chip generation demand calculations, which beta had also summarized in their comment letter. And we concur on the number that ITE says. And that's 76 and we're providing 96, which is a surplus of 20. And then we also provided an auto turn analysis on Little John with cars parked on either side, both parallel and staggered to show that the fire truck and ambulance can make it up and out of Little John without conflict. And that's the summary of the two letters that we provided. Great. Thank you. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I think that's pretty much a kind of a cursory overview just to help the board orient itself when it's reviewing the materials. And if I didn't say this previously, I'd also provided just a narrative memo of what the project is now and then an updated drop to the list. And so I think that is the summary of what's there for the board to review and beta as well. And we're happy to fully respond to any questions or comments that you may have at the next year. Thank you. Appreciate that. And just to let the board, the public know, so those documents that have been attached to the agenda for tonight's hearing and if there's anything that's missing, we'll make sure we get them adding a nozzle carryover to the announcement or the following hearing as well. Make sure that those links remain valid. Are there any questions from members of the board about materials and whether there's anything that they were expecting to see or wanted to make sure that was included? Lots of shaking heads. Mr. Sure. In terms of the applicant's pro forma, have they, I'd like to know if they've updated the original pro forma to reflect the current economics of this project proposal? Ms. Keeper. I think Mr. Havity had gone over this previously, but in terms of the pro forma and looking at it, it's a little bit premature in this process for the board to ask for that information. I apologize for stepping in. The question is not necessarily to provide it, but just to make sure that you guys are internally keeping that the pro forma that you're maintaining internally is tuned to the new plans and is updated as we go along. We just want to make sure that we don't come farther down the road. It isn't like, oh, we just ran the financials now and there's an issue. We want to make sure that you guys are following along with that as you go. Oh, okay. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. That was the intention. We're internally looking at it. Okay. So has that document actually been prepared internally by the applicant? Ms. Keeper. Again, I'm not quite certain that that's appropriate for discussion before the zoning board. So not to be coy, but I just, I'm trying to keep what is within the purview under a 40B application. Look, we have some comfort, little Mr. Chairman, that we don't get further down the road and then we hear from the applicant that they run their numbers and they're not accurate for what is economic. That's what I'm just trying to avoid. Yeah, I would just ask Mr. Haverty if he could comment at this point. Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that the applicant has probably run some preliminary numbers and is comfortable with what is currently proposed. My guess is that they haven't done a full pro forma where they actually run through all of the inputs that would be allowed in a pro forma analysis so that they wouldn't necessarily have that information. The board really isn't in a position to request the applicant to provide it, and I don't think the board is requesting that, but if it were at that point, again, we could do it with regards to the original proposal because we did provide a draft decision with all of the conditions with regard to that proposal, but with regard to the current proposal, it has not seen a draft decision and therefore can't actually put together an accurate pro forma because they don't know what particular conditions the board is going to impose and how it will affect the economic viability of the project. Okay, thank you. So right now, it's really probably just a back of the napkin calculation. If I could follow up. Anything further Mr. Haverty? Question? No, Mr. Chairman, as long as we're not surprised by any you know, retraction of the current proposal by the applicant based on the economics leader, I'm satisfied for now. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. Yeah, so I have a couple of questions actually. I'm just trying to clarify a little bit about the ground rules and the playing field, and one of the questions is, originally there would have been a project eligibility letter, is that not correct? So there was a project eligibility issued, yeah. Back in 2016. Right, so in that there was a subsidy for the project as it was described, is that also not correct? That I do not know. But I'm wondering if this particular iteration with the senior living with services qualifies for the subsidy from New England funder MHP under a project eligibility letter. I just want to know whether or not that's something that has been dealt with. Keeper, do we know if that's been confirmed? The project eligibility letter has issued. And what happens is when the project completes kind of the ZVA process, the applicant then goes back for final approval and has to submit to the mass housing that it still meets all of the project eligibility and the other materials required for final approval. So it's somewhat of a programmatic issue. Okay, but as far as I was just going to follow up, Mr. Dupont, just to confirm that so as far as you're aware, the change in the program doesn't impact the eligibility or the issued eligibility letter. And as Mr. Dupont had referenced, this is through the New England fund, so through the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. So that sort of raises a very obvious question about what is the actual application before the board? Because we're being asked to adjudicate as far as the application is that's been presented to us currently. And I have a concern because I think it was Ms. Keeper who back in May came in and said, you know, we have a revised concept. And if I'm off on this memory, I apologize because I didn't make a note of it, but this is sort of my recollection. And it was sort of this general question about whether or not the board would be would look favorably or at least consider a new concept, which would at that time it was proposed as senior living with services and assisted living. And I do believe that the response was favorable in general. I realized that the residents still have the same concerns about traffic. They have the same concerns about flooding. But I do believe that some people at least spoke favorably about the particular change of use. And then in June when you came back and you said, okay, well, it's not going to contain assisted living. I'm just sort of sitting here wondering what the application is that we're being asked to consider. And I think everyone is aware that should we not outright deny it, but if we approve it with conditions, and the applicant feels that those conditions make the project uneconomic, that they are within their rights to go back to HAC and appeal and say this is uneconomic. At that point, though, I want to make sure that we have a commitment from the applicant that what they will be appealing is the project with respect to the senior living with services. I realize that this is not a contract situation. But I do believe that the way that we've approached this, meaning the members of the board and our town committees, conservation committee, and everyone else, I believe we have dealt with the applicant fairly and in good faith. And so I would ask that the applicant in return sort of recognize that and deal with us. And essentially we would agree that there is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. So I would like the applicant to state clearly for the record that the application that they are pursuing now is the senior living with services. And should they go to an appeal, that that is what it would be confined to. Thank you. Okay, so I guess I would certainly for the first part of the question as to just clarifying definitively what the project scope is and if that is included in the narrative memorandum that you had submitted earlier today. It is, Mr. Chairman. And it is the senior living with services. It is not assisted living. Correct. Okay. And does the narrative include any description of, I know we had some earlier documents that had indicated what the appeal position was for the project. I think it was very specific that it was not going back to the 219 unit that was presented back in 2016 but was related back more to the 176 unit that was presented in November. And I think Mr. DuPont's question is sort of if this project were to come to an appeal before the HAC, what do you consider sort of the baseline project at this stage? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that as we stated in the narrative that we've put forth the revised concept being the going back to what the board had requested with the home ownership duplexes and then the and then a residential rental component to it. So that would be the 124 independent living senior services. With respect to moving forward, I think that we can't put the cart before the horse and it would be working towards a decision on this. However, I think I would be remiss if I advise my clients to give up any of their legal rights. And so I think that we can't respond to that at this point. But the law is what the law is, but my clients to give the board assurances, we've put a lot of expense and energy and time and thought into the project that's before the board right now. And we very much look forward to continuing working in good faith with the board towards an approval on this project. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. I would like to accept what Ms. Kiefer is saying at face value, and I do appreciate the sentiment that's being expressed. But I'm a bit incredulous that you could actually have a situation where there is an application which is being pursued currently, and we've all heard tonight about what the additional documents are, the additional information is, and that's what the board, I believe, is being asked to consider. And at the same time, what I'm hearing is, however, should that not be to our liking if the board imposes some conditions, it sounds to me like what's actually being said is, we might not even say that those conditions with regard to the senior living are uneconomic, but that in the back pocket, the applicant is keeping alive this hope or this desire to say, well, you know what, we're going to go the other way. We're going to go back to however many 176 units. And I'm just not aware of any form I've ever dealt with in years as a lawyer where you get a second bite of the apple by essentially just switching horses in midstream in the adjudicatory process. So I guess the question is from Mr. Havardy, is that something that can be done? And are there examples of that in your experience where somebody has essentially pursued one particular application and then withheld and reserved a right to go in a different direction if they don't get the decision that they would like? Mr. Havardy? Yes, Mr. Chairman, that in fact happens quite frequently in the Housing Appeals Committee process. Really the limiting factor for the applicant in moving forward in seeking approval of the Housing Appeals Committee in a different development, one that was previously presented, but perhaps not fully vetted in front of the board, is going to be that the board would then respond with, if you want to pursue the 216 unit project or the 179 unit project, whatever it is, we didn't have the opportunity to fully review that and we would request a remand back to the board for further proceedings. So the applicant is going to not want to get into further proceedings before the board if it can avoid it, so that is something of a limiting factor. To the extent the board hasn't actually had the opportunity to fully review a certain design and set of plans, the risk the applicant would face if they want to pursue an appeal on that version of the project would be that they might be subject to a remand back to the board for further proceedings. But they do have the right to go back to up to as many units as they originally presented at the Housing Appeals Committee and the only issue is whether or not the board has had the opportunity to fully review that plan. Thank you for that. Well, thank you. Is there anything further, Mr. DuBont? No, that's it for now. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Revillac. Through you, Mr. Chair, there is a question I would like to ask Mr. Haverty. We've extended the 180 day period several times. Would it be reasonable to assume that I guess this is a half of a question and a half of a statement, but my take is that if the applicant were serious about considering an earlier iteration of the project, they could have at some point just declined to do a continuance. Is that correct, Mr. Haverty? Of course. Okay, thank you for that. He could have pushed forward on a different version of the plan and forced the board to issue a decision based upon that version if it so chose. And then it would have, you know, if it got a decision it couldn't accept, it would have availed itself of its right to appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee. I mean, I think that the fact that the applicant is continuing to provide continuance as it is continuing to make changes to the design in response to feedback as receiving from the board is indicative of their current commitments to move forward on the project as currently designed. I can't guarantee that, you know, that if the board issues a decision based upon a particular design that the applicant won't come back at some point before commencing construction and say, you know, circumstances have changed and this is actually no longer an economic development. It does happen. So I can't guarantee that to the board that they won't come back and ask for a modification of the approval. But as of right now, the indications you're receiving from the applicant is that this is something that they are willing to proceed on and that they would, you know, presuming everything goes according to plan once the board issues an approval and they go through all of their post permitting work that needs to be done. They're going to move forward on constructing the project as approved by the board. Thank you. Mr. Everlock, anything further? Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Just again for the board, are there any other questions that relate specifically to confirming what has been submitted to the board this evening? Seeing none, I would ask Ms. Sullivan is on the call. Emily, if you don't mind, is there any, was there any documentation that Conservation Commission was specifically looking for to be submitted at this time? Well, Christian, I think, so I know it's been discussed that we haven't received the conservation parcel information. So we look forward to reviewing that. And unfortunately, I haven't gotten a chance to review the materials that were submitted this afternoon, but the commission, you know, since the design has changed, will be reviewing the civil plans and specifically just the floodplain impacts and then other resource area impacts like into the 100 foot wetlands buffer. But I think resource area impacts and conservation parcel are probably the two biggest topics the commission will review. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just to sort of say what the obvious, but, you know, most of us have only just looked to see what the title pages of these documents are, and we've heard the discussion that we've all heard. Beta hasn't had a chance to look at them. The Conservation Commission hasn't. There are other people from the town who are not here. And there's going, I think that I'm hoping that apart from this hearing that the people who need to look at these things will identify early on where there's information that they had expected to see that wasn't there and identify it so that the applicant can react sooner rather than later to get whatever missing pieces there are if there are any in so that we don't have a problem at the end of the process where there's a kind of congestion as questions that could have been answered in August or being answered in September. So I'd just like to encourage everybody to make it a priority to survey what we've got and identify any like Kunai and then get them filled early on so that we make maximum use of our time over the next month. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. That's well taken. Just to ask Ms. Nova if there's anything in particular that Beta Group is looking for that may or may not be involved. Well I did quickly read through their response and I did note that there's a drainage report that's forthcoming by August 24th I believe. So we will need that. Hopefully they'll be able to get it to us by August 24th as stated. There are some other items in their comment letter that they stated that they would provide. So we'll go through the letter and if there's anything that they stated that they would provide that we need for our next set of comments we will let the board know. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anything from the Avalanche perspective that they need from the board at this time? I don't believe so Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes please Mr. Hanlon. I was just wondering given that it's the summer and so forth if Ms. Sullivan could maybe address whether the schedule that was laid out by the chair earlier on is one that will dovetail with a meeting of the Conservation Commission so that they'll have the opportunity to view this collectively and give us their collective views on it. I'm not quite sure what the meeting schedule for that commission will be during the course of the next few weeks. Ms. Sullivan? To clarify did you said September 9th? Would be the continued date yes. So the commission will meet three times between today and then so plenty of time hopefully to review everything. So what we have before us now so the intention had been for this evening to try to keep the discussion really sort of limited to what we were you know what we've received and where we're going and then really sort of fold substantive discussion of topics to the following hearing. And so with with that in mind it was my intention to hold off on public comment on this hearing and to extend it farther at the following hearing to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to fully review all the documents that have been submitted and to make sure that we have a full review of all those comments available to everyone before we we really hold a substantive discussion on the revised documentation. So with that I'm going to go ahead and wave public comment specifically just for this one hearing date but I will make sure that there is ample time at the following hearing to make sure to make up for that. Yes. This is Steve Moore on Piedmont Street and Arlington Tree Committee. My comment isn't substantive other than to ask about documentation. And in relation to the tree committee? Yes. Then Mr. Moore please as a member of the next committee. Yeah Mr. Chairman thank you. I just wanted to ask I saw on the list the waiver list that a tree plan is planning to be submitted prior to the issue of a building permit. I have quickly been going through the documentation that was submitted within the past two days. I don't yet I have not yet found if there has been a tree plan as part of that documentation set. My guess is no but I am asking the question. Thank you. I don't know if that's a question for Mr. Hessian or Ms. Geeker if you know the answer to that if a tree plan if a tree plan is planning will be provided. Within the submittal package there was not a tree planting submission and I believe that the it was referenced that it would be submitted prior to the it was requested as a condition be required submitted prior to a building permit. So that would be like a condition of approval with the suggestion that was referenced. So it's prior to the building permit but not prior to the decision of the board. Yes. Okay. Mr. Moore does that clarify? It does. I will reserve the rest of the comments to September 9th. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Moore. Okay. So the schedule that we've discussed there that I had laid out preliminarily at the start of the hearing. So we had previously discussed a possible continuance to September 9th. So I believe that should hold for everyone at this time. Go ahead and find why. So September 9th it's a Thursday night. And then to allow time to after that hearing for Mr. Haverty to work on the proposed decision and then to have that reviewed I had proposed that the following hearing on this that we continue to September 28th which is also a Tuesday evening also at 7.30 to continue that discussion and then the hope would be on that evening we would have an opportunity if we had if we felt we were prepared at that hearing we could close the public hearing on that evening if not the following Tuesday excuse me which is October 5th would be a further continuance and so I would we would request that the review period be extended out from the current day that scheduled which I believe is September 14th is September 17th we would request that that be continued out to October 8th to allow time for those hearings so the dates we would be proposing is Thursday September 9th Tuesday September 28th and a possibility of Tuesday October 6th. I want to confirm that those dates work for the board and for Mr. Haverty and for the applicant. Mr. Haverty? I'm free on those dates. Perfect let's give it to those dates work for you. The the dates work with me I was just going to suggest an interim step Mr. Chairman. For the 9th and then the 28th and then at that point how that the the interim deadline for the conclusion of the public hearing and then you know I think maybe we'll have a better sense of where we are on the 9th to see if we should do that to extend that further to the 5th but perhaps keep that at the 28th of September. Agreed yeah I just wanted to make sure that we we had the we extended the final date out long enough that if we didn't finish on the 28th we needed to utilize the 5th it was available but not that we would be counting on it. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Haverty often has advice to us on when we should set the date for the expiration of the time to close the public hearing with respect to it and I was wondering if he could comment on whether the the method that Ms. Kiefer proposed is is suitably conservative. I'm a little bit concerned with setting as an expiration date the 28th when it's conceivable that for all I know the power will be out and will be terrorist attack by a mob or something like that and we won't be able to meet that night and but on the other hand the the time will have expired and and will be in a pickle. Mr. Chairman I agree with that I always like to have that expiration date have more than 48 hours because you need 48 hours posting of a meeting so if if we could you know do an extra three days beyond the 28th just in case not all unheard of you know to get a hurricane September and if you know there's a loss of power in the town you won't be able to hold your meeting and want to be able to reschedule it and have sufficient time to properly notice it. That's fine Mr. Chairman. Okay are you are you okay with October 8th? Where did you want to? I thought you were talking three days after so the 31st. So we first would be the first well the October so October 1st so then we would be continuing to September 9th with the understanding that we would then be further continuing to September 28th and we would be extending the public hearing period to October 1st okay nodding all around. If I may Mr. Chairman just one quick question just so I think because it's not a hearing date but if I understood you correctly so relative to the September 9th hearing documents are to be submitted by September 2nd and that does that apply to the town boards as well if there's any comments do it would be helpful if it does. Absolutely. Okay thank you. You're welcome okay with that you can have a motion to extend the public review period for Thorndike Place through Friday October 1st 2021. So moved. Thank you Mr. Chairman and may I have a second? Second. Thank you Mr. Revillac. Board of the Board Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. O'Rourke? I see you I see a motion. Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. Mr. Ford? Aye. And the chair says aye so the public review period will be extended to Friday October 1st um and then if I could have a motion unless there's any further further specific on this we will if I could have a motion to continue Thorndike Place the Thursday 2021 at 730 p.m. September 3rd. Up bigger price September 9th. So moved. I have a second on the motion to continue Thorndike Place the Thursday September 9th 2021 at 730 p.m. Second. Thank you Mr. Dupont. Voted the board Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. O'Rourke? Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. Mr. Ford? Aye. And the chair votes aye so we are continued on Thorndike Place um and I will make sure that we um issue an email to uh to the to the applicant the board the town committees and to the um to our consultants with the revised schedule dates so everyone has those and as you say the interim dates as well so when we're looking to receive documentation um so with that in mind um the upcoming dates for um for this board so the next meeting date we have is Tuesday August 24th at 730 p.m. It's a public meeting to discuss the decision for 1165 Armistice Avenue um and then we have a further placeholder of Thursday September 2nd at 730 p.m. for further discussion of the decision for 1165 Armistice Avenue um because that do that is due um at the end of that week. Then uh Thursday September 9th we have just voted uh the continuance of Thorndike Place uh Tuesday September 14th we have a hearing for a project at 20 21a Lafayette Street um and then Tuesday September 28th at 730 p.m. would be our continuance of Thorndike Place and then Friday October 1st it says uh it's the final day to close the public hearing for Thorndike Place so those are the board's upcoming dates um and so with that um that is the end of the business we have scheduled for this evening so I 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 especially wish to thank Revelle Reilly and Lee Kelly-Lanema for all their continued assistance and preparing for and hosting these online meetings. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings and it's our understanding the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba-town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website and to conclude tonight's meeting I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. You may have a second. Second. Thank you Mr. Revelle. Mr. Dupont how do you vote? Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. Mr. Revelle. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. Mr. Chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Good night. Thank you. Good night. Good night everyone. Thank you.