 All right, good evening. How do I get this thing to work? All right, then we're good. I'd like to call the July 25th, 2022 meeting of the town of Arlington Redevelopment Board to order. Please note that this meeting is being recorded by ACMI. So I'm Rachel Zenberry, chair of the board. And I'd like to do a roll call to confirm the members of the board who are here with us this evening. Starting with Kin Lau. Present. Jean Benson. Present. Melissa Tintacolas. Present. And joining us via phone, Steve Revolac. Present. Great, thank you. So the first agenda item on our agenda this evening is the public hearing for docket number 3707. Do we have the applicant here for 611 Massachusetts Avenue? Wonderful. Thank you. If you could come forward, that would be fantastic. We're looking forward to speaking with you this evening. So before, thank you so much. So before I ask you to begin, what I'd like to do is ask Kelly Linema, who is the acting director of the department of planning and community development to present an overview of the memo that was prepared by the department. And then we'd love for you to share your application with us. Great. Kelly. Thank you, Rachel. Kelly Linema, acting director, department of planning and community development. So this docket is an application by the Sears-Dallin Museum for a post sign to be installed at in front of 611 Mass Ave, which is right set behind Whittemore Park. There previously was a post sign at this location. That post sign was removed as part of the Whittemore Park revitalization program or plan phase one that was completed last summer. I did a little look, searching into the history of the sign at this location. It appears that everything at this location, both the museum use the occup the offices by the Chamber of Commerce and then the Cotter Gallery date back to when the building was moved in 1989. So shortly after that, we have several leases that were made between those three institutions and the ARB for renting of the space. And it appears that under Allen MacLennan, the former planning director, those uses were permitted at the site and it's run and managed by the ARB and then the sign was installed shortly thereafter. So there isn't evidence of a special permit for that sign beforehand. And this is all dating back to like the 1989-1990 zoning by-law. So it's a little bit of a different construction. Right now, the applicant is looking to install a post sign. Because the zoning district for 611 Mass Ave is the single family, the R1 zoning district, that post signs are not allowed in that district. However, it's kind of unusual because this is completely surrounded by the B3, B5 and R7 zoning districts. It just happens to be R1, I believe, because it is a town-owned property. It's a municipal property. So the ARB under, I believe, section 6. Sorry, I'm going back down to the signage section here. Per section 6.2.2C, the ARB has the flexibility to grant a special permit to allow signs in a location other than what is allowed. The proposed sign is about 8.29 square feet in sign area. It's about four feet tall. It's designed out of fairly natural materials and fairly neutral colors. And it's very similar to the sign that was previously there, although it's a little bit smaller. That is pretty much in us what is being proposed. And I invite Heather. Everything I was going to say. Okay, sorry. Before we begin, can you all hear what's being said kind of? Great. I'm going to see if I can turn this down. Give me one second. Test. Can you hear this? Absolutely. Great. Thank you so much. So if you would mind introducing yourself and then making any presentation that you'd like to the board this evening. Yes. Thanks so much for having me. My name is Heather Lavelle. I'm the director and curator of the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum. And just as Kelly said, we're looking to replace the post existing post sign that we had with another one that's of comparable dimensions and a little bit closer to the house. So the overall dimensions of the sign we're proposing is 58 inches by wide by 44 inches tall. The designer is a board member named Chris Costello. He's a professional designer, works with the trustees and on site museum signage for for his job. He took into consideration a number of factors, the architecture of the house, the surroundings, the surrounding neighborhood and some of the design principles that were discussed as part of the Whittemore Park project. So the shape of it reflects the actual, there are some curved portions of the door of the Jefferson Cutter house, which is very unique for its door, its carved wood door. So that shape of the sign sort of reflect, it's hard to see in that photo, but there are these curved decorative elements on the front door. So the color scheme relates to the house as well as the Dallin Museum's logo and branding and matches the wrought iron accents that have been chosen for the benches in the park. The material would be what is proposed is wood posts with dive bond, three millimeter dive bond panels, two different panels, the large one for the Cyrus Dallin Art Museum and then the smaller one across the bottom for the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. So we would like to see if we could have permission to have a wood style sign. The original sign that we had in the park was made out of wood and it was determined to deteriorated to contain once it was pulled out of the ground for the project we weren't going to be able to put it, put it back. So we're thinking long term and cost. So we were hoping that we could perhaps go with an ASAC or some sort of wood like material. Location, we worked with the Department of Planning and Community Development to select a spot to the left of the front door centered underneath the two windows so it's not going to go higher than those two, the sills of those two windows. And that was in consultation with the landscape architectural firm, Crawley Cottrell, who suggest helped to find a more favorable location. The preexisting sign was in the park itself and no one knew that the house was associated with the sign so it didn't really help us draw visitors to the museum but this sign in this location will. And just see if there anything else I want to mention. Just based on need and we've had as everyone has had a tough couple of years. A lot of factors played into that COVID of course, some of the disruption associated with the Windward Park project, and also not having a sign our visitation is very, very down and having that sign will be will make a huge difference for difference for us and for the Chamber of Commerce. We do have the sign off of the Chamber of Commerce on the design. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. At this time, what I'd like to do is turn it over to members of the board to ask any, ask you any questions they may have. Sure. We'll open this up to the public to see if they have any questions or comments and then we'll come back to the board and deliberate and see if we can move to a decision this evening. And also I should say that I am an employee of the nonprofit Cyrus Dale and Art Museum, Inc. and trustee care of the board of municipal board of trustee Sarah Burks is here as well. Great. Thank you for joining us this evening. Great. So at this time, I'd like to start by asking Ken if you have any questions or comments for the applicant. Just two questions. I think this is a good sign fits well. Thank you. You said you want to make the post out of pressure treated wood or something like that. We were quoted. Yes. So the original quote is for the posts themselves being pressure treated wood four by four inch posts. The panels would be a weatherproof aluminum called Dibond. So the panels where the names go. I may suggest maybe instead of hoping within your budget instead of a pressure treated four by four post goes like a Cedar post that's also resistant to rot. Yeah. And it'll look nicer. I'm not going to base my decision on that. I'm just that's a suggestion on my part. Do you see it or that's a little nicer and it will stand better than your regular pine or anything else you might put in there. And the other question is, is this thing lit at all? Is any lighting on this? Oh, Kelly, can you answer that because there is lighting being installed as part of phase two? Yeah. So there's lighting being installed. One light along each front end of the building here, but that separate from lighting for there's the sign itself is not illuminated. It's part of the up lighting for the house and it will catch the it will probably catch the sign, but it's not an illuminated sign. Okay. So the signs are illuminated and there's no designated sign like this shining on the on the. No, that's a good question. Do you. So if could we do that as part of this or would we have to come before the board again? How does how would it work if we wanted to light it? Well, I'm not going to speak for the board. I may, if we decide here, I would probably turn it over to discretion of community development, community. The department. The department and have it have it reviewed instead of going through the whole process. We're just going through it right here now. They generally know what we want and they can approve that. But for now, we're not approving anything with lights on it. Yep. Correct. That's all I had. I'm going to go to the board again. Jane, I'll go to you next. I don't have any questions. Great. Melissa. I'm sorry. Is this I'm going to have to be approved by the historical. It does. The, the, um, the down is on the, um, the August two agenda for the historical commission. So this is a, this is on the local inventory as well as the national and state inventory for historic. Thanks. That was it. Great. Thank you, Jane. Melissa, any questions or comments for the audience? Um, yeah, I guess I was thinking, um, about the wording in terms of creating more invite, you know, an invitation to the art museum or the art gallery. Did you guys consider including something like, you know, open to the public below or, um, anything like that? We have, um, a couple of different strategies that we normally use. So, um, because below it is the Chamber of Commerce's sign. And we wanted to get our logo out there and the Paul Revere statue make that very visible because we, Dalin is, um, you know, he's, his name is not a household name, but the Paul Revere statue is. So we wanted to make it graphically very obvious and interesting. Um, and then we put out open flags. And then we also, when the museum is open 12 to four on Saturdays and Sundays, we have a sandwich board that we put out saying museum is open today with an arrow right to the door. So we have a couple of different strategies for drawing in the public when we're, um, when we are open. And we used to have our web address on the sign. The old sign had our web address, but we felt like if someone were to Google us, they'd find us right. We are pretty high up on the SEO. So that's great. I think my initial read of it just seems to me that it looks like the art museums run by the Chamber of Commerce. So I don't know if you want, you know, that's my initial read. I know most people think that, but, um, from my experience working at some of the visitor center in Lexington and so forth, you know, working on these strategies and trying to communicate exactly what you want on these signs are important. Right. For your consideration. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Steve, do you have any questions or comments for the applicant? No questions, Madam Chair. Sorry. No questions. Thank you. Um, and I also don't have, uh, any questions. I appreciate the presentation. I thought it was very clear and straightforward. Um, and I look forward to, uh, deliberating with my colleagues. Thanks so much. Great. Um, so at this time I'd like to, um, open, um, the hearing up to the, uh, for public comment. So any member of the public joining us this evening who would like to, uh, ask questions or make a comment, um, please indicate so by raising your hand. And I'll ask you to join us up at, uh, the microphone, please. Um, so, um, any member of the public speaking this evening during public comment, please note that you'll have up to three minutes to address the board. And we ask that you, um, identify yourself by your first and last name, as well as address in Arlington. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam chair and members of the board. Uh, my name is Sarah Burks. I live at 993 Massachusetts Avenue in Arlington. And I am the chair of the municipal board of the museum, the board of trustees. And I just want to offer my support for this application. Um, we have been without a sign for a number of years now. Um, in addition to the sign that this would be replacing. We used to have a sign, um, that the, um, tourism committee, uh, got placed in the park, but it blew down in a big windstorm and was never replaced. Uh, it was similar to the one at the Jason Russell house and the old Schwann Mill. So I feel like we really need a boost here. Um, I can't tell you how many times, um, that we've had, uh, that I've interacted with people and, um, mentioned the museum. And they have no idea that it's in town. So that's our, um, biggest, um, challenge as, as a cultural institution in town is just visibility and name recognition. Everybody knows this house, uh, you know, by another name. So having the sign is very important. And, um, our primary, uh, visitors that walk in the door say that when we asked them to sign in and how did you hear about us? Um, I'd say 75% of them say they were just walking by. So seeing that sign is really what draws people in. So we would appreciate your support. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Are any other members of the public wishing to speak, uh, on this docket? All right, seeing none, we will close public comment for docket number 3707. Um, and I'll turn it over to, um, members of the board, uh, to see, um, any thoughts on approval or any discussion topics starting with Ken. No, I have none. Okay. Motion to approve this. You're in support. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I'm supportive. Also, we had a precedent for this a few years ago on River Street. Yeah. There was the, uh, automotive place and R1 and we allowed them to put in a sign that was consistent with the business district. This sign is consistent with the districts next door. And it's a little odd that it's in a R1 zone. So I'm very comfortable in approving this. Great. Thank you, Jane. Melissa. Um, seeing. Great. Thank you. Uh, Steve, your thoughts? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I have no concerns in my favor of approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, I also, uh, am in favor and agree with, um, Jane that we certainly have precedent for approving this type of sign in a, in a district that is adjacent to a business district, um, but happens to be in an R1. Um, so at this time, um, wanted to see if any member of the board, um, had any special conditions that you wanted to see as part of, um, a motion for approval. Just if, if light you're at it, it has to come back to the planning board for review. Okay. Great. Not, not for us, but for, um, uh, planning what we, what we wanted to do. Great. Department of Planning. Department of Planning and Community Development. Yes. Great. And they would have to come back to us if the lighting is inconsistent with the bylaw, though. Correct. If, if the department felt that they could not approve it because it was inconsistent. Right. Okay. Um, so, uh, is there a motion to approve docket 3707, uh, the sign for 611 Massachusetts Avenue with the special condition that any, uh, additional sign lighting, um, be reviewed administratively with the Department of Planning and Community Development for, um, adherence with the, uh, provisions of the sign bylaw. So motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a comment on the findings. Yes. Is in here. I'd like the findings to say the nature of the use being made of the building and the location of the building. I'm sorry. I'd like the phrase and the location of the building be added to the finding. So it's the use being made of the building and the location of the building is such that allowing the proposed sign. So I'd like that added to the findings. That sounds good. And I will re-motion again. Thanks, Jean. Okay. Uh, is there a, uh, second on the amended motion? I second that. Great. Thank you, Melissa. Uh, so we'll take a roll call vote starting with kin. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm the S as well. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming in. We appreciate it. So docket. Thank you. So docket 3707 611 Massachusetts Avenue, uh, has been approved. All right. Um, so because we have the, uh, continued public hearing for docket number 3704 posted for eight o'clock, what I'd like to do is take agenda item number four out of order and, uh, review the meeting minutes from April 7th, 2022. So Kelly, if you could bring those up for us. One second here. Great. Thank you very much. Um, so we'll, uh, run through and see if any members of the boards have any, of the board has any, uh, additions or corrections for the meeting minutes from April 7th starting with kin. No. Nope. Uh, Jean. Uh, one, there was a period missing at the end of one sentence. I need to just find it. Okay. Move on to Melissa. Sounds good. Melissa, any additions or corrections? No. Steve, any additions or corrections for the meeting minutes? Uh, no additions or corrections. Thank you. And I do not have any either. So Jean, take your time. We have until eight o'clock. Um, oh, in the, let me see. The first page. The paragraph that starts with the chair introduced the second time. There's a paragraph introduced item number three on the agenda. The second line after nine p.m. There needs to be a period. Okay. You see that? Yes, I do. I'm going to have to change it in on this computer. Sorry. Okay. That's, that's it. Okay. Great. Thank you, Jean. I have a motion to approve the April 7th, 2022 meeting minutes as amended. So motion. Is there a second? Second. Uh, we'll take a roll call vote starting with kin. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yeah. And I'm a yes as well. So the meeting minutes from April 7th, 2022 have been approved as amended. Uh, let's see. So, um, at this time, we could start the hearing and start with the department, uh, any update from the department. Unless you're ready to run out and see if they're waiting downstairs. Are we still waiting for a few people? I saw attorney an SC stick is here. Yeah, me too. Oh, why don't we do that? Why don't we take the next couple of minutes and round up the applicants? Let me quick check. That would be great. We'll just take a quick pause. Good evening for those of you just joining us. Um, for those of you who are, uh, planning on presenting as part of docket number three, zero, three, seven, zero, four, 18 to 20 Belknap street. Um, if you wanted to join us at the table, we can certainly help. So rearrange some, some chairs. If, if, if you're, uh, one of the presenters, one of the applicants, we just would like them to sit at the table. Yeah, I think that's helpful. Sean. Sean. Hi, Sean. Thank you for joining us. We wanted to just see if that, um, placement of the microphone would work for all of the applicants. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Great. Thank you very much for joining us this evening. Um, so at this point we'd like to move to agenda item number two, the continued public hearing for docket number three, seven, zero, four, 18 to 20 Belknap street. Um, so, uh, attorney an SC, we're glad to see you back with us. Before, before you do start, what I'd like to do is I'd like to turn it over to, to Kelly, um, for any update that she'd like to provide for us from the, um, memo from the department. Sure. Um, so just as a reminder to anyone who may be new here, who was another prior hearing, um, the applicant is seeking a special permit for a resident residential renovation with for property that has some existing prior preexisting nonconformance rights. Um, and then we have, uh, two reasons for the special permit and the first being the use, um, because the, and again, this goes back to the discussion about prior preexisting nonconformance rights, even though this is in our two district. Um, the property was developed in the 1920s before zoning bylaw as a, as a four family structure and then illegally converted to a six family and then brought back to by this applicant, it's prior legal nonconforming use. Um, and then the other reason for a special permit would be for the size. So in the last hearing, um, the board had asked for a number of clarifications, um, including a site plan, uh, many clarifications regarding some of the dimensional details. The applicant has responded providing updated site plans, um, with dimensional details, um, with building footprint dimensions with, uh, their calculations of the floor area ratio, the FAR, um, as provided on sheet a zero four and a zero seven. Um, they, uh, I had noted that, um, building heights had not been provided, but the applicant, um, pointed out to me that they had, uh, the survey had provided a roof peak height of 33.8 feet in his as built calculations on the site plan. So I, I need to open that up again just to take a look because I think it's, it's somewhere off to the side and I wasn't able to see that in my review. Um, they also had clarified the definition, whether the property conforms with the definition of a, um, half story. And so they amended the third story to show that less than half of the square, less than half of the floor area on that third four of the second floor floor area, less than half of that is provided at a height of seven feet or more on the third floor. And then they also demonstrated that the roof slope had, did meet the minimum requirement of two, of a ratio of two to 12. Um, there were a number of additional updates. They had provided a location for a bike parking pad and I've clarified back with the applicant provided a copy of the bicycle parking guidelines so they can understand the types of short-term and long-term bicycle parking that is approved through the zoning bylaw. Um, and they also clarified to me via email today that the crush stone buffer for the usable floor or the usable open space in the rear yard, the buffer is five, five and a half feet. Um, the one thing that I was not able to determine is that they had met the requirements for a parking buffer. So it still looks like the parking area is a directly adjacent to the parcel line, um, both in the rear and in both side yards of the parcel. Other than that, they have provided clarification of the dimensions that were requested by the board. Great. Thank you very much, Kelly. I appreciate it. This time I'd like to turn it over to, uh, you attorney NSC and, uh, your colleagues who are here with you this evening. Good to be here. Thank you. Uh, I have a procedural question, uh, before we start. I note that Mr. Revolik is not here and he was here for the first hearing. How is this going to work now? He is actually joining us, uh, remotely. Oh, he is. Yep. So he's participating in the hearing. He is. Steve, if you'd like to say hi. Steve. Thank you, Steve. All right. Good to, good to hear. Yes. Um, good. Underwater. We have tried our best to respond to the questions posed to us, uh, by the board. And, uh, as Kelly has indicated, uh, we've given written, uh, uh, submissions to the members of the board with respect to many of those requests. Uh, Chris Manning is going to talk about some of the other items on that request list at this point, uh, for the education of the members of the ARB. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Yes. Let me, to go through, um, all of the notes that Kelly provided or any ambiguities or questions that had arisen from. I think, um, again, from the memo that Kelly provided, if there was anything that she questioned is whether or not, um, that information had been provided. If you could top line that for us, that would be very helpful. Certainly. So regarding building height dimensions, Kelly addressed the fact that it was on the survey. Pardon us for not providing that on the actual floor plan. Um, today we, uh, we briefly emailed about, uh, details of the bike rack. Um, we had never provided a bike rack before, so we were almost, uh, deferring to the board for that. And if you would like us to provide any specific kind of fixture, we will. Sounds like a U shaped, um, a reverse U shaped bike rack would be amenable and we're happy to provide that. On the, um, site plan regarding screening, and this is more of a question, um, that I posed to, um, my attorneys because I, I, I admit that I'm not so well versed in the bylaw. Um, and I'm just, I'm still learning a lot of this. Uh, I noticed that the five to six foot high fence, um, essentially requires the five foot setback. And what I had done is I had, I had gone through the bylaw to try to do my best to understand that on my own. Um, I found exceptions to that in six dot one dot one D. Um, exception, excuse me, exceptions to six dot one dot 11 D, um, in section E. And what I was posing to my attorneys here was whether or not we, um, our situation applies for that, uh, complies to that exception or qualifies for that exception. Um, when I looked through it, it says the landscaping standards can be modified. Um, if, as long as two conditions are satisfied, um, as findings of a special permit, um, one is reasonable alternative measures have been taken to meet the intent of these standards. Um, I do have a print out here if, if anyone would like one, um, regarding parking a lot. So, uh, that we've tried to minimize traffic congestion entering and within parking lots. Uh, we've separated parking from pedestrian spaces. We've provided adequate drainage. Um, and we, we've screen parking lots from adjacent residential uses and from street frontages, um, preferably with landscape spaces and facilitate snow removal and storage. Um, I feel like we've, I mean, I know my heart as a member of the team that we've done our best to reasonably accommodate, um, these stipulations without even ever seeing them before we try to accommodate those. Um, number two is all landscape space required by this section is provided at some location in the parking lot, including required landscaping, which may be lost in setbacks reduced in size by the provisions of this subsection. Um, um, it seems like we have, based on the survey, more than enough usable, excuse me, um, landscaped open space to accommodate that. When I did the math of, um, the five foot buffer on the left side of the lot, the rear side of the lot and the right side of the lot, um, adjacent to those parking spaces, I measured approximately 350 square feet and, um, if, if you see on the site plan, we have a lot of landscaped area, including the usable open space and space on the front of the lot that I feel, um, accommodates that. And we were hoping that we would again, um, that we would qualify for that exception. Um, we, the light, the lot is very tight. I mean, there's, there's really no way to accommodate that five foot setback just based on the open space we need to provide or that we're trying to provide the parking that we're required to provide. And, uh, we're hoping that the board would be amenable to that. What this, you know, the improvements we made over what was existing before. Correct. That's a good point. Um, as Don pointed out, we're coming from a completely paved parking lot before. Previous to this, there was not one bit of, uh, green space or per permeable area on the lot. When you drove to the, to the rear of the property, um, you had a, a two car garage and the rest of it was, it was bulkheads. It was a fire escape, but the entire area was paved with vituminous impervious asphalt. Was there any screening to the neighboring properties? Um, nothing that doesn't exist. Uh, there's nothing, there was nothing, uh, existing on the left side of the lot up into the vinyl fence of one of the neighbors. There's an open chain link fence, um, between the flat end of the lot and the slope down to the bike path. And there are chain link fence on the, on the fences on the right side of the property, but there is no screening as far as I can tell pro the bylaw and no shrubbery. Uh, maybe some shrubbery on the right side of the lot, more of an overgrowth. Um, but nothing by design, nothing by design that would screen parking in any way. Thank you. Kelly also covered the dimensions of the buffer area around the, uh, the usable open space. We are totally open to any kind of type of shrub species. If the air be has recommendations, we would likely use some kind of native species that's readily available that doesn't grow too tall. Uh, that would provide a nice tasteful perimeter to that open space. Um, we're happy to take any, any recommendations, any referrals at all, but we would defer to our landscape designer or a landscaper on that. Um, something that's readily available that would, that would, um, live through the four seasons, you know, that would be perennial in nature. And then, uh, details of the modified fencing. I felt like we should address that. I mean, we've done a few different projects and right now we didn't provide specifics because we're touring with the idea of doing a modified, uh, wooden fence on the front that has more open slats to it. Um, something that's short. Um, I don't want to, you know, necessarily speak out of turn because I'm not the one who actually builds the fences, but we're thinking three to three and a half feet. Um, I did see another design just yesterday that was more of a wrought iron look and it's almost completely open. Uh, it just has those slats. We just want to provide some privacy and some security if the new residents have pets or children or something like that without it being obtrusive to the neighbors. So, um, we're open to suggestions and, um, we, uh, we, it was great because it, um, this item made us think a little bit more about that. You know, so thank you for that. I believe that I've addressed those items. Kelly, correct me if I'm wrong. Great. Thank you. Members of the ARB, Don and I are both here for, uh, any questions that may come up that, uh, are within our purview. Uh, and Chris, of course, is here with respect to design and architectural and the like. Great. Thank you very much. And I appreciate you returning this evening, um, and sending these updates ahead of time. Much appreciated. Um, so at this time, I'd like to turn it over to the members of the board for, uh, any questions regarding the updated, um, plans and application materials that were received starting with Kim. All right. Thank you for sending that information back to us based on, uh, your, uh, civil engineer giving the elevation of the top of the roof. Uh, I calculate, and I want you to confirm that, that from ground level up to your top of your roof, you're at 34 foot four inches. Is that what, because it doesn't say that. You give me the elevation from grade and all this stuff. So I had to sit there and do some math. Uh, it's actually 33.8. Interesting. So the way the survey does it was confusing to me at first to date. They measure, um, using, like the first floor. Uh, thank you. Sean reminded me to please, um, to please move the microphone towards the speaker. I have one job tonight. I neglected it. I appreciate that's a very important job. Can we ask what page? Yes. If you could please, uh, is there a page in the application materials that you can refer us to? Yes. It's the actual survey, um, which has some existing conditions as well as proposed conditions on it. Sure. Kelly, do you know what page that is in the package? That is, um, is this the one that has the parking on it? Yes. Yeah. So that is the, it's, um, 18 to 20 bell nap in all caps, bell nap Arlington. It's 46 of 575. If you guys. Oh, it's. Oh, so, okay. Got it. It was, it was in the first package. It was in the first package. Oh, in the first package. Okay. Great. Well, no, it's, it's in Kelly's rate. It's, it's a standalone document. Just standalone document. Yeah. And the, um, agenda materials for tonight. Right. Deleted or dated July 18th. Yeah. And it's all bell nap all in caps. Great. Thank you very much. It's, it's pretty challenging to see, um, under elevations on the left side, you'll see a roof peak from average grade. It's 133.8. Um, which is, for in surveyors language is 33.8. I don't pretend to be an engineer, but that's how they, that's how they do it in any of our other surveys that we've had. All right. Cause I didn't look at that. How I got there is the roof pitch, uh, from first floor is 130.5. And you assume, uh, the first four elevations 100. So I'm saying from the first floor to, uh, roof pitches at 30.5, which is 30 feet six inches. Then I go back to your, um, your building section, your building session calls it off as three foot 10 from top of first floor to grade. So if I do the math, it's 33 34 foot four inches. That's how I got there. So, and then I looked at what you said at 33.8, something's off. So I swore a clarification, which is more accurate. I'm not saying one or the other. I just, it doesn't make sense to me right now. Okay. If you can tell me which is, which is the one to go by. It goes by, um, this surveyor is using, um, he points out that the lot is sloped to more than 5% and on a slope of more than 5%, the average grade of the lot is used. Yep. Um, so you're saying to go by the survey dimension. That's the most accurate. Yes. Great. If that's true, you're saying and stating that it's, uh, 33 feet eight inches to talk a peek. Well within the 35.8 33.8, but it's well within the 35 feet. That's just done by zoning. Yes. Okay. And Rachel said it better than I, I just, I did, when I did the math, it just didn't make any sense to me. And that's, I guess, I'm saying that the, the thing is sloped and there's, he's taking an average of the slope, highest and lowest. Okay. I can see where that might come in. Okay. Um, and then if I can go back, stay on the same page. And if I can go back to just, uh, the parking lot. Uh, you have this five foot, six crushed stone. Is that part of your open space? Yes. Okay. So, and you're, so are you asking for relief? Um, from the fence to the cars on the side yard and the rear yards? Or you're saying that it's not required. And that's, I feel like my attorneys are more qualified to handle that question than me. It seemed to me based on the exception that it was not required. Um, we certainly don't have the buffer on the fence lines. Sure. So I can chime in briefly on that. And Chris, Chris touched on it a little bit in his original presentation. Again, Don Bornstein, attorney Johnson and Bornstein, 12 Chestnut Street and over. Um, I represent the applicant. The, um, Chris had pointed to section six, point one, point 11, subsection D. E. Yeah. And it goes down to E. And it provides for, so there's a built in, we'll call it a waiver and exception, whatever you want to call it. There's a built in way for the board to make findings to reduce or eliminate that five foot setback, a five foot, um, um, you know, distance between the fence and the, the neighboring property. And so I think Chris explained in his, in his opening statement, the ways in which we've met that test. I think alternatively, the board could also just elect to wave it with the, under the standard that we talked about at the first session, which this being an alteration of a preexisting, nonconforming use. Chris provided the facts for that, which is the rear of this property was basically paved out to the edges. There was limited or very little screening. This is, I think, um, difficult to argue that this is an improvement over that and certainly not substantially more detrimental. So the board could elect to wave it by finding this, the change in that respect is not substantially more detrimental or the board can make the finding under 6.1, 0.11, E that, um, that we've met all those things. Basically we've done the best we can. That, that's what I look at that standard as we've done the best we can and we've met sort of the purposes that that five foot provides. We've met it in other ways on the lot. So I think you could do it either way. Okay. This is my last question and then, uh, let the rest of the board ask. Um, on your site plan there, uh, you show a six foot high privacy fence. Um, where does it start and where does it end? Unfortunately, I'm sorry, could you, thank you. Um, the best designers, um, you'll see that the privacy fence is donated by X's. Um, okay. So we're start. Sure. Did I just point out on the, uh, yeah, um, since we have someone joining us remotely, if you could, um, describe that would be helpful. Sure. So as I drive down the driveway, um, on the left side where you see the 147 foot marker, that's a building. The building ends approximately where the first X is denotated. And that's the beginning of the fence. That's the approximate area. I told him I want the fence to start at the neighboring building and go between the two parking areas to the rear lot line across the rear lot line to the right, forward, all the way until we get to, you see the 3.1 measurement there. Um, and that'll stop there and cut it, most likely cut into the building at a 90 degree angle. And the rest will be open and or, um, low fencing for the front yards. Great. So the fence starts. I, I, I understand. Okay. Cause I couldn't tell by your axis and whatever or lines. There's no indication where that started or ended. Right. Um, So the lowest X on either side planned south. Yes. It's a start. Okay. On both sides. Yes. You okay with that, Steve? Did you hear that? Steve, your audio seems to, uh, have cut out. Can't hear you. I'm done. My questions. Okay. Uh, while you work on your audio issues, we're going to move to Jean. Thank you. I have some questions about the disparities between your application that you submitted initially and the materials you submitted for tonight. So I want to walk you through, and I'd like an explanation for each one. Um, in your first application, you're pro, you're proposed the first floor to have 2,382.04 feet. In the revised application, it's 2,229 feet, about a hundred and 50 odd feet less. Please explain the disparity between the first floor in the first application and the first floor in the second application and which is the correct amount. Sure. Uh, the disparity is on the first floor is, uh, the fact that we originally had bump outs on the first floor in the middle as two mudrooms and on the rear of the building as two mudrooms. Um, I, I'd be remiss if I could tell you exactly the square footage. Um, but it would be approximately, I'd say about a hundred and square feet, 100 to 200 square feet, because I remember some of the dimensions being five to six feet. Um, and we abandoned those mudrooms. So we abandoned the mudrooms on the front. We realized that we would be in violation of the front setback, and we abandoned the mudrooms on the rear. Um, since we ended up in a situation where we were discussing FAR with, um, potentially one board or the other in Arlington. So between our first hearing and this hearing, you've revised the plan for the building. On the second floor, the initial application had, um, 2,223 square feet, and this one has 2,229. Can you explain that for the second floor? That is not something I can readily explain. Um, it's six square feet. I imagine that could, that could almost come from anywhere. Um, in terms of maybe slight changes to the floor plan. I wish I had an answer for that, but I, the only thing I can think of is that we may have modified, I do remember modifying the front of the building, um, where the decks are. Well, I'm going to need an explanation that shows the difference between the two. And I'd like something that shows for the first floor, the before and after also. Okay, we did submit a plan with, um, the proposed in the initial packet that showed the bump outs on the first floor. And they're gone from the second packet. And they are not there on the second packet. Um, the bump outs in front. The mudrooms on the front. So the enclosed mudrooms, they were actually living area on the front and the rear of the building. We've abandoned those. Yeah, can you put up the first floor plan Well, I think it's the next page. I think that's the second floor. Sorry, I'm trying to read this here. Okay, here's the first floor here. Can you go up there and show us what's been changed? Sure, please. It's almost the same shape as, you can see there's two lines in between the building, the dividing line between the building here. That's two mudrooms. Approximately the same area that bumped out here. And they weren't close to the living area. I'm sorry, the microphone's not going to be able to pick you up from there. Okay, you can go sit down now. Thank you. So in the area between the two front porches that you see now. That was enclosed prior? That was enclosed before. There was a one story, um, the area there that was divided into two mudroom foyer entry areas. And those mimicked the ones that were on the rear of the building. They were essentially the same design. Okay, in the, um, first application for the current situation you had zero for the basement and you, in response to my question, you said the basement was only used for mechanicals and there was really no living space and nothing in there. In the revised application, it shows 1,963.74 feet currently for the basement. Can you explain the disparity between those two? Considering if it was only mechanicals under the bylaw, it should not be counted as gross floor area. Correct. And I misspoke because it was mechanicals in storage. So it was a regular New England style old school basement. We get pictures of that. Um, you know, the old field stone walls, open areas with mechanical scattered throughout. Um, and the reason why we had zero before was because I misinterpreted the bylaw where I was reading language regarding stories and what applied and what didn't apply and then you helped educate us on in the last meeting regarding what actually applied for the ARB to consider. Do you have anything that you can provide us to show that indeed the basement in the old building was used for storage pictures, affidavits from former residents, something of that nature so that we can credit it with a number and a diagram of the basement that showed the part that was mechanicals and the part that was storage. And the reason I'm asking this is because you're asking for an increase in the gross floor area from the old current to the new and in order for us to determine whether to do that and what it would be, we need to know with accuracy what the gross floor area was in the building before you owned it, basically. So, um, we need to see that. Let me go to the attic now. And both of your numbers for the attic, I find difficult to believe. Okay? Because you say currently, well, your proposal will have 1,112 feet in the attic, gross floor area, but you claim now, before you got the building, it had even more, 1,247 gross floor area in the attic. And I know you've done a lot to make the attic larger and if my colleagues can take a look at the material that I suggested be added to the record, there's a photo of the building before they started working on it and there's just a little dormer window in front and a hip roof. And if you look at the, um, the property card for that, which still has the old building on it, you'll see that the, um, attic, upper attic, 421 square feet in the property card for the upper attic. So I'm wondering how we got from in the neighborhood of 421 square feet for the attic before you started working on the building to what you now say was 1,247.34 square feet in the attic before you started working on it. Sure. It seems like, I mean, I've noted, I've been a real estate agent and a developer for a while and I've noted and an appraiser in my lifetime and I've noticed public record is great for general reference but it's also not always accurate. On page A03 of the new plan that we submitted, which is excuse me, A04 of the existing conditions that we submitted, the architect notes 1,247.34 square feet in the attic. I mean, there were, these were four apartment, excuse me, there were six apartments and I recall being up there, I've toured this building myself. We can address the basement no problem as well and the attic as well and we've walked up there. I mean, you can see that they had two bathrooms and kitchens and bedrooms up there. It was fully used as an attic, as a finished attic prior to our purchase. I don't understand how you could expand the third floor and yet end up with less square feet than was there before. You need to explain that to me, how that happened. For us, I guess the easiest way for me to simplify the answer, the way that I think of it is there's a half story definition in Arlington as we all know and the half story requirement is such that the area that's counted to a GFA is above seven feet and the area that's not counted to a GFA is below seven feet and there are creative ways to create space to add space to a third floor to make sure that we comply and that we have a generous amount of area for storage and mechanicals and such. We've consulted with our architect and we've done the measurements. We've actually had ISD in the building so Mike Champa himself has been through the building and measured the half story as well, at least generally with the tools that they have. I wasn't there, but my team was. I mean, in my own observation, my own experience and I likely... I don't know if I have pictures. I don't want to promise that I have pictures of the third floor. I know I have pictures of the basement. I don't have as many pictures as I can. It was very much a quote-in-quote what I consider a full story, fully used story. It might have qualified for a half story, but... Yeah, I think I'd need to see pictures or something of the like to be comfortable with the number that you've put in here and let me see if I understand the way you're saying this if I understand you correctly is your proposed building has an attic of 1,112 square feet because you're not counting any area where the ceiling is less than 7 foot high. Is that what you're saying? In our GFA? In your gross floor area. So if we were to count in your gross floor area anything that's under 7 feet, what would be the GFA for the attic? I don't have that overall calculation. I don't think I have to double-check the numbers. Okay, now, when I look... Well, yeah, you'll need to get back to us on that. When I look at... And I'm not sure that's right, by the way, and I'm going to need to sort of take a look and see whether anything that's under 7 square feet in the attic is not counted as GFA. And if it's not counted as GFA, I'm not sure you're allowed to have it as livable space. So we'll need to talk to the building inspector about that, to straighten that out in trying to figure out what the GFA was before and what the GFA is that you're proposing because looking at the roofline of that building, if you're claiming that things under 7 feet high aren't counted as GFA, it seems to me that most of that attic before probably wouldn't count as GFA. So you're going to have to help out with that, too. It's a pretty steeply pitched hip roof, and I'd suggest that much of it was not 7 feet high. So we need to fix... Understand what the GFA was on the building before and what the GFA is that you're proposing. In addition, just for general knowledge, you can't count the garage toward the GFA of the previous building because it's pretty clear under the rules that an accessory building used for transportation is not counted. So the 448, 68, which is pretty close to accurate size of the garage, is not counted toward the GFA of the previous building. I just want to... I should have mentioned this to my colleagues. When we last had the meeting, we had a discussion about wanting to find out how the zoning board of appeals would look at this. And at the time Rachel said she would contact Christian Klein, the chair of the board, but afterward Rachel and I spoke and I agreed that I would contact Mr. Klein. And I had a conversation with Mr. Klein about this. And in brief, this is what he told me. How the zoning board of appeals would look at this. They would look at this under 8.1.4 nonconforming structures other than single family or two family dwellings. If it were a single family or two family dwelling, they could, within the confines of 8.1.3, increase the nonconforming nature if it won't be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. However, according to Mr. Klein, that's not the standard you use for things that are more than two family buildings. You look at 8.1.4, and there's nothing in 8.1.4 that would allow the structure to further violate the dimensional and density regulations of the district in which it is located. Which basically means the way that they would look at it is that you could not increase the FAR beyond what the FAR was in the previous building because the FAR for this building is maxed out at .35. The other building was more than .35, although we're not clear what it actually was. But the proposal cannot exceed the FAR of what the current building was at the time. So what Mr. Klein said is that the applicant would, under his view of what happened if the ZBA got it, and of course it couldn't speak for the rest of the ZBA, the applicant would either have to meet the FAR of the old building or would have to ask for a variance to increase the FAR of the old building. So that's true for that, and of course it's also true for open space, both landscaped and usable, in that they cannot have less landscaped open space or usable open space than the previous building had or else they are also increasing the non-conformity. So the other thing that we need to find out is what was the usable open space and what was the landscaped open space in the previous building so we have something to compare it to. So I'll now go into what was the open space in the old building. Now some of you may have seen, and if there are people here who know this when it's time for the public to speak, I would love you to say something about this. We, I'll let you speak in a moment. All right, thank you. We got an email from Mr. Don Seltzer who included a overhead photograph of the property that was taken in the year 2020 and in the overhead of the property taken in the year 2020. Have you seen it? No. Have a couple of the tables seen it too? Kelly, can you put that up on the screen? Let me see. It was added and this came in today so it's listed in court. I know it's, when we get things late, that's why Kelly's going to pull it up. I don't expect you to, and I don't expect you to have seen it. I mean today we're being ambushed. Nobody, this is not coming from the board. This is coming from an email that we received today so that's why we're pulling it up. Nobody is trying to ambush you or anything else. It's just correspondence that was received. The email from Don? Don Seltzer. It's near the end. It's near the end. There it is. That's it. Mr. Seltzer claims that this was the way the property looked in back in the year 2020 and the whole area in back of the garage was green space and not paved over and that the owner of the building paved over the space sometime between that photograph in 2020 and now because I did a Google Maps and if you look at Google Maps which is now 2022, it shows it looks like brand new hot top. So I'm just wondering if you were aware that there was this green space in the back yard prior to or in the year 2020? Absolutely not. I've never seen that before. Okay. Let's go to the front yard then. If I remember correctly from the last meeting and correct me if I'm wrong, you've basically pulled up the building five feet toward the front line beyond what it was before. Is that fair? I'm not the one who actually constructed it. I've got my team here but it sounds about right. But it depends on where you're measuring from because we had different sections of the building. So the building comes up to, there's an edge of the building, then there are bay windows and then there were porches and stairs. Go ahead. But I didn't measure the actual additions myself. I believe that they were about five feet each. Okay. And I'm not questioning that what you've said in the revised application is that you have landscaped open space of 1,467 square feet and usable open space of 1,428 square feet. But I didn't see anywhere in your material a chart that broke that point. So I tried to figure this out and you've got about... Can you repeat those numbers again? I couldn't hear you on the numbers. This is from your revised application. You claim that you're going to have 2,376 usable square feet and 2,097 landscaped. I'm sorry, someone just coughed over the number. 2,090.07. And you don't have any chart showing me how you came up with those two numbers. Now I tried to figure it out and I see you have the little square in the back by the parking 1,350 square feet. So that's partway there, but I couldn't figure out how you got to the rest of it. So can you tell me how those numbers were calculated? Yes. The way that I got the usable open space number was on page A07 of the floor plans that we submitted. There are calculations and I apologize for not delineating the usable open space versus the landscaped. The rear proposed green space is the way... Which page is it on? It's page 7 out of 16 on the revised plans that we received with today's application. You're welcome. Okay. So what we've done is we have proposed... They label it as proposed green space, but it's usable open space in the rear of 15, 22.01 in the front. We've got usable open space of 9,54.5. I added those two numbers together to come up with the 23,76,51. And if the landscaped open space is also a question, I added those two numbers as well as the 193.56 on the right side of the building. To come up with... To come up with the... Oops, excuse me. Oh, you know what? I subtracted the path... What I saw is walkways in the front yard to come up with the 2090.07. I estimated those walkways to be four feet wide each, so eight feet by... There's a measurement. So you added it in the side and then you subtracted out the... The walkways. The hardscaping. Yes, thank you. Just for clarification going forward, can we all agree to drop the point, the portion of the square foot? Maybe we can... If we're talking in thousands, we would use four places rather than six places, so we're just... I was just... I'm happy to do that. I was just repeating what was in the materials that were presented to us. I think we'll all accept as accurate that we'll just stop at the decimal point. That's fine. Jean, are you satisfied with that explanation? That makes sense. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Can you then explain how on the original application, you indicated that current was 1,268 square feet of landscaped open space, 1,268, but in your revised application, and I'm leaving out the decimal, 727, so it went from 1,268 to 727. Can you explain the disparity between your initial application and the current application for the current conditions? I hadn't subtracted the walkways in the front. I didn't have the... I actually didn't have all of the existing, all of the existing measurements in the proposed on the same exact plan. I can only account that to my error. Open space landscaped includes walks and terraces. That's the definition. So you're not supposed to be subtracting out walks. Okay. Even if it's concrete impervious? Okay. And that was one of my biggest errors in the understanding of this whole thing with usable open space. What I would like you to do, and my colleagues might disagree with me and Kelly might get upset at me, but I would like you between now and the next hearing, if there is a next hearing, to try to work with Kelly or with Mr. Champa so that Kelly or Mr. Champa and you come to a current understanding of what was the open space, what you're proposing to be the open space, what was the gross floor area, and what you're proposing to be the gross floor area. Because there's too much discrepancy, too much shifting sands for me to be comfortable with this at the moment. I'll save the rest for our discussion. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Steve, do you have your audio? Perfect. You sound great. So if you have any questions for the applicant, if you could please address those at this time. Yes, I do have a great question, but I also would like to make a couple of, just to share some of my experiences on the ZDA regarding a couple of the areas that Mr. Benson mentioned, because I think it might help to clarify some of them. So starting off for questions with the applicant. Between the first iteration and the second iteration, the outer part of the roof went from having a 1 to 12 slope to a 2 to 12 slope. Was that a correction, or was that going to be, or was 1 to 12 an as-built number and 2 to 12 will be a modification? 1 to 12 was a permitted as-built, and 2 to 12 is a modification. Okay, so 2 to 12 is a modification. All right. And regarding, so let's see is the, which sheet is this? This is on sheet A07 in the plot plan, and I'll give the folks in the room a chance to bring that up so we can all look at the same thing. There are two dimensions shown in the front part. It looks like 25.3 feet to the front exterior wall, and then there's also a front exterior wall of the old, what used to be the front exterior wall. And the, there's also 23 feet from the front lot line to the new wall. Now is there, what is the setback of the, what's the distance between the front lot line and the porch? The front lot line and the existing porch or the new porch? The boat. The original porch, the existing porch is 19.5, and the existing is 25.3. I'm looking at the survey. The red lines are actually something that some of those carry. It's on the new site plan they submitted in those dimensions that he's mentioned. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. The standalone plan. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So the distance between the front lot line and the current porch is 19.5 feet. And with the old porch, it was 25.3. The original porch, it's, it's pretty busy in that front area. The original porch setback is 19.5. Okay. And the, because they, okay. Please continue. Go ahead and continue. He, he felt like he cut you off. Oh no, no, that's fine. It's, it's just a busy area there. And I had them, I thought I was being smart by adding, you know, as much illustration as I could for paver walkways and such. And I feel like I could use the issue. Okay. So just. Typically on when, in my time on the zoning board of appeals, when we would hear cases under five section 539 projections to minimum yards, we would ask the applicant, you know, we'd ask them a series of questions to verify that the addition of a porch would not result in an open space, not conformity. So although we, you know, our bylaw doesn't specifically say whether or not porches can be included in open space. My, you know, my, you know, experiences on the ZDA, would lead me to say that no, we don't include them. So I would actually say that there is no usable open space in the front of this property. I mean that 954 square feet is probably, well, you're the, it looks like it could be counting part of the porch and it could be counting part of the stairs, neither of which should be counted. But ultimately, what you need for the growth flare area given is 780 square feet. I suspect that, you know, if you take that, what's on the side, the 309 square feet in the, you know, immediately behind the proposed addition, you probably, I think there's a, there's a high probability that, you know, the landscape open space requirement is met. So with respect to usable open space, you know, the, although the dimensions are not called out explicitly on page A07, um, judging by the two 9 by 18 parking spaces, um, you know, that proposed green space of 1,422 square feet, uh, to, I would, I would expect that to have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet, which are, you know, by law required. So I'm, you know, I'm convinced that that, at least 1,422 square feet, assuming those are, you know, that, that dimensional area is accurate, does, does count as usable. Um, as my colleagues said earlier, areas like patios, walkways, those are, those are all, you know, perfectly good forms of landscaped open space. Now with respect to, so yeah, for me, in terms of, you know, the open space question, um, I, I think there is, I think you probably comply with, with, with the landscaped open space requirement. Um, now the question is whether or not there is a, um, there is a change in, you know, there, whether or not there was open space on the property beforehand, and we're either adding more, reducing it, or, so on. So back to the, um, back to the aerial photograph that, uh, was in Mr. Seltzer's correspondence, was, does, at the time the applicants purchased the property, did it look like that? There you are, did not look like that at all. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. It was fully paved. See, I mean, I mean, I mean if you, so, I mean, although there may have been landscaped open space, or usable open space, and a lot behind, you know, at some point in the past, like, 2020, um, is it, is it fair to say that there was, you know, that space, that space did not exist, when you purchased the property, and meaning that there was no usable open space? Yes, in the rear of the, the property, that green grass, that green grass area was not there. It was fully paved, and from what I recall, it was relatively new, but it was fully paved. Okay. All right. So, I mean, the, you know, with respect to, you know, having a nonconformity, I feel comfortable in, you know, believing that there was no usable open space at the time you purchased the property, based on that, and based on what the setbacks, you gave me for the, for the porch a minute ago. So you're actually, so you're, you know, you're not conforming, but you're not increasing the nonconformity, you're getting it closer to being conforming. Now, with respect to gross floor area, um, you know, typically when the zoning board of appeals would hear stories for, or hear cases for, half stories, as I read, my recollection is that we counted GFA to be the area that was over seven square, over seven feet. So that, like the number that you would, you know, like that, you know, must not be greater than 50%, whatever number that was, that was what we, what we can, considered to be GFA and based, um, landscape and space requirements on it. Um, the property card is sort of interesting. Um, I don't, I met a loss to explain why that has 421 square feet in the table, but 1685 square feet in sort of the, um, you know, the, the sketch, uh, immediately above that. Uh, I don't know what the assessor is measuring, but I don't think, um, you know, I, I can't, I can't make much sense of that one way or another. Um, so, but yeah, in, in terms of half stories, we would count, you know, at least my experience on it, my recollection of cases on the ZBA, you know, the area above seven square, a seven feet in height would be counted and the shorter areas would not. Um, with respect to the basements and the mechanicals, I mean, the, um, you know, this, although the question of, you know, what part of the basement is used for mechanicals? Uh, the bi, our by-law says, and you know, this is by 322 D 2, based in area, areas devoted exclusively to mechanical use as accessory to the operation of the building or to be excluded. Um, I don't know if, I don't know of any, you know, that we've had a, ever had a solid discussion about this, but, you know, a basement that was a combination of, you know, an open area where you might have a furnace over here, hot water over, heater over here and some boxes and storage. You know, those, there's certain mechanical uses in that, but there aren't areas that are exclusively devoted to mechanical uses. So I'm, you know, I'm, I'm inclined to, you know, my first inclination, absent something to the default, something to, absent evidence to cut to the contrary, would be to assume that the entire basement, both before and after would qualify as, um, growth for our area. And let me see, do I have any other questions? No, I think the only other one I had was with respect to the, uh, roof height, but that was clarified earlier. And, um, I will turn it back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Steve. Any questions or comments for the applicant? Um, just, if you don't mind to remind me again the size of each unit, there's four units, correct? Yes. As it stands, do you mind to tell me the total living square footage? Sure. I'll be on page A07 and, are you looking for area by floor or area by unit? Per unit. Per unit. Are they all about the same or the? Unit one. Yeah. Pardon me, this. Oh no. My glasses. That's a little blurry. Um, I think I have it. 1866, looks like. Unit two, 1866. Right. You have it there. If you don't mind to repeat it, just for the record, because I'm trying to get a sense of each unit size based on a lot of the conversation we've had, kind of drilling down into gross square footage. Sure. Unit three, uh, two thousand thirty three. In unit four, two thousand thirty three. Okay. Thank you. Um, which I deem pretty, uh, you know, reasonable in terms of size and modest. I forget what is the starter home again, Jean? 1850. 1850. So a little bigger than that, maybe for a starter home. Um, I guess I wanted to just say, um, I appreciate my colleagues, uh, attention to detail with regard to, you know, monitoring kind of what's been submitted and going forward. I think, um, you know, as a developer and real estate agent, maybe it's just kind of knowledge gain, going forward with your projects, uh, being attentive to these areas. Um, and my kind of, my opinion based on what we're, you're providing a special permit for, I think, um, it's all within reason. So I'm, you know, leaning forward to support the special permit, both for the, um, the size related, the open space and the gross, uh, GFA. Um, I think, um, you know, my issue is a little bit more on the very kind of how it was presenting with the, you know, the fencing. I think, Ken, you brought up, um, the privacy fence. If that was, it was six feet, which is pretty standard. Okay. Um, in context, are there other fencing like that behind there, or would you be the first on this project to have a fencing six feet tall? Just curious. There is a vinyl fence that's at least six feet tall, in my opinion, um, that runs, I don't know the address, but it's on Marion Road. And it, it comes across the, the property beside us, 1416, and, uh, and comes at an angle, um, between, you know, into our lot, about six feet, approximately. Um, it's, we typically will use a six foot fence just for the privacy of the new residents. Um, it's not, it's not out of the question to drop it down. I read that it should be at least five feet and no more than six feet. That's, I mean, and we just typically use a six foot fence. So that was, that's just our default with any kind of, um, project. In there. And then there, is there access to the Minuteman Bikeway since it's, you know, a budding there? No, there's a solid chain like fence there. There's a great differential. There's a great differential. You don't want to go there. Yeah, you don't want to go there. Um, and I guess as it relates to the front, in terms of the fencing in the front, I mentioned at the start of the meeting, there was some rod iron that you were looking at and something else. Um, I guess looking at the context of the house, I was looking at the other project that you presented earlier that had the stockade fencing. And then you had the fencing or kind of barrier at the, um, I think it was a second or third level. The one that already exists that was developed. That one maybe? This one here? Yeah. Um, it's 1315 Belknap. It looks it has like some, you know, the barrier on the top levels and the bottom level. If that could kind of start to, you know, if there was some relationship to those that you're going to be installing on this building, I guess what I'm trying to say is in relation to that, there's no relationship there to the stockade fencing and up what you did install. So in the proposed project with any of the barrier fencing that you're putting on the balconies or porches for your consideration to put it around, um, the perimeter there. That's what you're proposing. I'm ashamed to say I haven't thought about that. And I love the idea. So yes, we would absolutely like to do that. Um, we would aim to do that. So I think with that, you know, those are all my questions and, you know, my concerns have been addressed through the conversation. Great. Thank you very much, Melissa. Um, I'm, uh, I don't have any further questions. I have some comments, which I'll say for discussion amongst the board. Uh, so at this time what I'd like to do unless there are any other questions is to, uh, open this hearing up to public comment. We'll take public comment and then, uh, return back to the board for deliberation to identify whether or not we'll be able to get to a vote this evening. Okay. Uh, so at this time I'd like to invite any members of the public who'd, uh, wish to speak, um, related to the new materials that have been presented this evening. Um, if you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. You will be allotted up to three minutes. And I ask that you identify yourself by your first last name and address. Uh, when I call on you, please come up to the microphone here at the front of the room. Uh, is there anyone who'd like to speak this evening for this case? Please. All right. May I use some of this table? Sure. Thank you. And again, if you could introduce yourself by your first last name and address. Sure. Thank you. I'm Austin Brown, and I'm a resident and representative of 10 Belknap Street. So, um, is it alright if I ask a question and then make a statement? Absolutely. Okay. So question number one is, so these guys have shown that on their updated plans, they're going to make a two to 12 slope and make a, you know, make some height or whatever. I was wondering who's in charge of actually measuring the final structure. Uh, the building department is responsible for, uh, confirming that the building has been constructed, um, in compliance with the plans that will be revised and submitted. Okay. All right. So number two is, I actually went to the Arlington Public Library and I got a copy of the Massachusetts State Building Code. And I've been reading it. So unfortunately it's not the most modern version. It's the seventh edition and the ninth edition is the current one. But anyways, um, so, so on their plans, on the plans that these guys have shown, they did modify the top story to be, uh, compliant with the 50% limit. Um, and in fact, I noticed that it was 49.8% compliant. Um, which is like, that's to within the inch, right? So I mean, these guys are cutting things close. So also I'd like to talk about, um, the bathrooms on the top floor. So in this version of the code, it says that the bathrooms, blah, blah, blah, habitable, habitable rooms, corridors, bathrooms must have a height of not less than seven feet. These bathrooms are less than seven feet. There's an exception though for a sloped roof. So it says that, okay, again, in this version of code, you guys should check the most current version. I don't have access, but it says that not more than 50%. It's a, there's an exception for a slope roof. You've, you're allowed 50% to be less than seven feet. The plans that these guys have submitted do not meet that. So maybe that's different in the more modern version, but you have to look at this. Um, if this is true, then these plans do not comply with the building code. Um, so this goes into sort of how a lot of neighbors, I think, are feeling. Um, there's been, as Mr. Benson said, a lot of sort of number fudging and things that just don't quite add up. Um, so for example, uh, on the first meeting, they just forgot about the basement and the FIR calculations, but they made sure to include the garage and other calculations. Um, they forgot about the two to 12 slope, which is rookie mistake. Like what's going on there. Um, and there's been just a lot of number fudging in general. Um, it feels just very disingenuous. And I think that's why a lot of us neighbors are unhappy. Um, I would like the board to consider these feelings and their, their decisions. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Uh, there are any other members of the public wishing to speak? Please. My name is Peg Abiti. Let a hand. I'm at 12 bill map street, long time Arlington resident. Very grateful for your time and your concern and your attention. I'll hear technicalities from other people. I like to contribute the reactions of a neighbor. First, it feels the developers have not been acting in good faith. They measured the height starting at three feet off the ground. Nobody has mentioned that the height was at the base, bottom of the first floor, which is three feet off the ground puts the total height more than the allowable height. They claim that the front of the building is in alignment with the front of the buildings on either side, but I can stand in my yard at 12. Belknap and look across 14 16 to look to the front of their building, the mass of their building aligns with the open and airy porch of 14 16 creates a very different feeling in the front. Um, I can look at the third floor just common sense. It's not a half story. It's a massive third floor. They found a way to game the system. They found a way to cleverly get around the requirements. They're following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Several neighbors met with the developers. We had a little sidewalk meeting at noon the day of your last meeting and the developers represented to us that the building department had followed. They had been there every step of the way, measured everything left us with the impression that they were in full compliance. There was almost no reason to show up because there was no basis for appeal. I was shocked to find out that you, the board had the same concerns, for example, about the third floor that we had. I honestly felt betrayed. I felt that again, the developers were not acting good faith. I feel that they have been both duplicitous and disingenuous. Second, the building is simply too big. It encroaches too close to the sidewalk. The third floor is massive. It looms over us. The effect on me is to feel bullied by the building to feel powerless at a time when in the world at large, I think there's a tendency for citizens, for public democracy to feel there are forces at work in the world that are too big for us. It doesn't help to have this massive bully of a building on our street and perhaps setting a dangerous precedent. In one way it would be great if the board requires the builders to tear down and rebuild the third floor. It would create an important precedent for other builders or the same builder trying to wiggle around the code again. In another way that would be wasteful and noisy. I wonder if the board could impose a fine so onerous that it would also serve as a precedent and the funds could be devoted to affordable housing, which we certainly support. Well, that's a big ask. So I'm going to end with a small ask. Could you let us know how we can keep informed in a timely manner of the developments on this case? And thank you so much again for your time and attention. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? Please. Hi, thanks so much. My name is Beata Manstad. I'm living on seven million circles on the backside. So I'll see it square over through my yard. I've been living there for a little bit over 20 years. I walk by on the house at least twice a day with my dog. And I remember in 2020 that the owner has paved all his driveway to the back newly because he refurbished the whole first floor. He put new appliances and he wanted to rent it. So I guess he paved all the open space. I remember there used to be green space in the back next to this garage building. I also noticed that the front now is much closer to the street. You know, there were these two green big patches where the realtor sign was, you know, the dog rolls around there. So I know exactly kind of how much space there was. And it definitely doesn't feel like that anymore. Also, I watched, I was not here the last meeting. I just watched the video from Acme and, you know, someone said that it was not safe to walk by. I walked there by late at night with the dog and midnight alone in the morning. I never felt threatened at all there. Yes, the old building, you know, was not, you know, there were no tenants in there. So it felt a little desolated. But, and it was, you know, not as beautiful, but I never felt unsafe in that area. That's what I just wanted to say. Thanks so much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Deb Bermudis. I live at 19 Belknap Street. First, something that's not in my prepared notes that I just need to say is that the crew that is doing this project is not new to development. They have done many projects. Chris pointed out that they haven't come before the board before. They're well respected in town. They know, you know, they know what they're doing. So it shocks me to hear some of the inconsistencies and some of the, oops, we just didn't know how the building code worked. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this project and of the concerns that are brought to your attention. I appreciate how challenging this must be for the board and I understand your work is typically into consideration of projects in commercial or industrial areas with different issues. And thanks to ACME for providing video, which allowed me to see the proceedings last time since I wasn't able to attend. I submitted my input today with the details of the projects that many of things that we've already discussed here tonight, but I wanted to take this opportunity to briefly speak to the concepts of value, benefit and improvement when talking about neighborhoods. I've lived in Arlington and in this neighborhood for over 30 years. Raised my family here. I work in the Arlington school department. The investments that I and my family have made in Arlington as a town and more specifically in this neighborhood cannot be quantified with a dollar sign and yet have enriched the community and supported Arlington's town goals and master plan that value community, neighborhood, diversity and affordability. Asking if this project is quote of benefit to the neighborhood severely oversimplifies the issue. The idea that development increases property values has been mentioned as one positive, though in terms of that my property values doubled in the past 15 years in the absence of large scale development. And while updating and maintaining a property certainly adds to the value and referencing the decision criteria in bylaw 3.3.3 that the board needs to consider, the addition of luxury condominiums is in no way quote essential to public convenience or welfare. According to some realtors, our neighborhood has been one of the most desired in Arlington for years not because the buildings are all upgraded, but because of the community of people, the connection between neighbors, long standing neighborhood events like monthly potlucks and the decades long neighborhood circus each summer that makes people moving in feel welcome and engaged. Interestingly Arlington's master plan talks about tear downs and mansionizations. It says quote high residential real estate values has led to demolition of smaller scale houses and their replacement with large houses out of scale with the existing neighborhood. Changes to setback requirements and floor area ratios might be considered to control the size and scale of replacement housing. Whatever you decide regarding this project, I hope you will weigh the impact on the neighborhood at least as much as the impact on the non resident developers because the decisions you make is a board matter and they set a precedent. They impact real lived experience of families who live in real neighborhoods in real community with each other. This is not about whether we like the neighborhood or not, but if there are clear violations of building codes or bylaws that have been vetted by town meeting, even if they were approved in error, it's important that conditions be put in place to remedy those. Thank you again for listening and for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. Are there other members of the public wishing to speak this evening? Please. Thank you Madam Chair. Crystal Reddy 56 Adams Street and former member of the Arlington Development Commission. I have a memo from Council before your July 11th meeting and there are number of points I would like to raise about it. First I agree with Council that this project doesn't belong before the ARB. The ARB only handles items that require a special permit and this is not a special permit use in the R2 zoning district and never could be and therefore it doesn't apply and it doesn't apply section 8.1 point in the bylaw doesn't apply and should be before the zoning board of appeals and the ZBA needs to make the finding that this is not significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformity and it also has to look at section 8.1.4 of the zoning bylaw and 8.1.4 is nonconforming structures other than single family or two family dwellings. That's what we have here and what the bylaw says is any resulting alteration shall not cause the violation of the zoning board or its application to the zoning board. That's why I would like to ask you to further violate the dimensional and density regulations of the district in which it is located. That's absolute. If it doesn't lead to that increasing violation of variance as needed. My second point is the applicant incorrectly cites the Byalta court case to try to special treatment both under state law and under our zoning bylaw. It is completely irrelevant to a four-unit apartment building and you only need read the first paragraph of the ball to decision to see that. Finally the app can also reference his town council's August 2020 memo to your board which tries to argue that your board can grant relief and make exceptions the dimensional requirements the zoning bylaw even when not specifically authorized by the bylaw. That's wrong and he includes numerous errors of fact and law in his opinion. One of them is that section 40 I'm sorry chapter 8 section 49 of the zoning act provides for you to do just that and it does not. What it says is that zoning bylaws may allow special permits to specify that or allow that and ours does. It does that both for the ZBA and for the ARB and it also states the maximum extent to which you can relax the standards you can't go beyond that without a variance similar thing for parking it applies both to the ARB and and to the ZBA it's got nothing to do with EDR. Town council tries to argue that EDR allows you to relax the dimensional standards it doesn't. EDR is very flexible with result with respect to the EDR standards themselves you can relax them you can wave them but that does not give you to the power to also wave or relax the dimensional regulations in the bylaw unless the bylaw specifically says that you can do that. You're a time. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak this evening. Okay. At this time we'll go ahead and close public comments. Thank you very much for adjusting the microphone again. So at this time what I'd like to do is I think we have a couple things to discuss and I'd like to throw out a few options. I think that Jean brought up a couple of really important points about trying to better understand the gross floor area and thus the differential between the FAR in the existing building versus the newly proposed building. I think personally that is my biggest concern. I could see where I could get to a waiver of the buffer in the parking area personally and for some of the other items. I'm also concerned about the I'm still concerned about the half story space and I think specifically one of the citizens who spoke this evening talked about the usability and the the allowability of some of the uses that are proposed in the sub seven foot square footage of the third floor space which I think we should look into more. So one one option we have before us is to provide a list of items for the applicant to come back to us with in an additional hearing. One option we have is to identify the items that we may be able to prove to approve and if in fact under 8.1.4 we think that to extend any increase of the FAR we may send them to approve what we decide we can approve here and send them to the ZVA for a variance for the FAR if that's something that we decide to do and I'm open to other options. So Ken we'll start with you. Well my question is a little different from yours. Sure. As far as the actual factual FAR I think because we're reviewing this as the ARB and because it's under our jurisdiction because it's along the bike path just like any other project that was along Mass Ave or along Broadway would give in certain amount of powers to give relief or not relief to encourage development that we see fit in those areas. I like the fact that they reduced the units from six units to four units so it's less dense. So that's why I can see giving them relief on the FAR. The part about the height of the building and everything else they made a story saying that's the height. I'm going to rely on the building commissioner to verify and that's what they do. That's their power to do that. I'm going to rely on them doing that making sure that they comply with their number of whatever they said that the thing was you know so I have all the faith to Mike Champa from from doing that. The issue that I have a little bit I want to talk to them about they want to give a little I don't like the parking in the back. They shoehorn eight parking spaces in there and I don't like that. I'm willing to give you relief on the number of partners required per unit but I'm asking you to really give some to eliminate some of the parking spaces and have more buffer zones and stuff like that so you're not crowding your neighbors. Those are the three things I think are the main topics we're talking about. I think I'm open to either having them come back come of answers with that or vote on today. I'm okay to vote on that today with just based on what I said and I would probably vote on the positive for this based on what I've heard so far. So just to top line we have far we have the half story use. Yep. And we have the buffer the buffer slash parking. Correct. That's the only show I have. I think the other two can be we can get relief on as far as the FAR as far as the height half story. I have all the faith in the building commissioner and what we would follow through on that and make sure that's built correctly. Okay. Thank you Ken. Jean your thoughts. I would not approve this if the far is greater than the far of the current. Because of and I said this last time 8.1.4. I understand that we have the memo from town council that talks about our extraordinary powers. But I think that they are limited by looking at what are we trying to do. And what we're trying to do usually is in the business districts the industrial districts. So this is very unusual for us. As I mentioned last time too this has just the smallest little few feet of the backyard on the bike path. The great majority of the backyard backs on someone else's residential property. So it's just by dint of a few feet that it's here rather than at the ZBA. And I feel like it would be a mistake for us to handle this differently than we think the ZBA would handle it because this building shouldn't stand out differently somewhat simply because it has about four feet that border the bikeway. And can you put up that one. I just want to show you the the plot plan. Sure. I realize the fact that it's the four feet. But we wait wait wait let me let me finish. So if you look it's just thank you. That's it. It's just the tiniest bit that backs on the bike path there. If so let's say what I said doesn't make a difference and we treat this differently than the ZBA would treat anything else in this neighborhood because we have the authority under environmental design review. What are we trying to accomplish with environmental design review. And could we accomplish it if this had the same FAR as the existing building. And I would say yes it would. It would accomplish the same thing. So I would say if we have the authority to do this it's not the place to exercise the authority. So I will I would not agree to an increase in the FAR because I feel like I'm bound by 8.1 point four and what Mr. Klein said he felt the ZBA would do if it approached it on the parking. If we get let me do the whole thing on the parking if we get to that. I would I would trade the buffers for fewer parking spaces as you're suggesting. The warrant article that was passed in town meeting which will be effective very soon would reduce the required number of parking spaces required here for right. And if we did some things which we haven't done yet it would be an effect now because zoning by those can be effect before AG approval. So I would be comfortable in trading off parking space reduction for some more open space and the buffer and the fence. So I agree with you on that one. I agree with you. I agree with you on whether the third floor violates the building code or not is really the building inspector's call. It's not our call to determine whether something violates the building code. I would certainly want something in our decision if we are favorably to say it's contingent on the building inspector finding that you know the third floor is proposed. It's the building code on the height. I think that's our responsibility first. And I don't know where to go from it because one of the one of the public members said look they're not starting from the ground. They're starting from two or three feet up. They did address that. That was based on the very they did have a three foot ten and that was done. The height is based on the variable slope the average. Although it wasn't clear to me and maybe you can help me this. It should just be the slope adjacent to the building not the entire slope of the lot. Correct. But so what I would also suggest we would do is add in the contingency there that the building inspector would need. So then I think I think we would have to do something about that with the height because we here can't figure out exactly what to do about the height. Yep. Either. So so those are my thoughts on it. And I think the far of the old buildings will be less than they said at least because they can't count the garage in the old building. That's very clear from the regulations. It's probably also going to be somewhat less than they said because I think they've significantly overcounted the attic. So I have the original building of the original building. So I'd like to know what the original far should be. And I would limit the special permit to not exceeding the far the floor area ratio. Excuse me. Of the previous building. That's where I am. Thank you, Gene. Kim, did you want to reply before I go to Melissa? Yes. The only thing to disagree with you, Gene, really, okay, is your statement saying that only four feet of the property is touching the bikeway. That's why we have to that's why we should not give it the consideration we should. I've been on too many other projects where we're reviewing other projects. The same thing occurs where there's an overlap of a property by a couple of feet or something like that. And we don't give it, say, well, you only touch it by a couple of feet. So your value to us is not, your, your importance is not as important to us. If it touches, it touches. And you have to give it the same consideration. And I think what they said to the zoning bylaws up when they say, okay, if it's on the bike path, it's on the bike path. I don't care if it's two feet or 20 feet or 100 feet. Tell me if you're right. And let's say you're right, even if it's four feet. That's my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right. What part of EDR and you're going to apply EDR, right? What part of EDR says that they should be able to increase the FAR? What does that get us in any development, any housing that they wouldn't get by keeping the FAR what it is, redoing this building, it's still going to be four units. They're still going to be expensive condos. They'll just be a little smaller and the building will be slightly less massive. So even if I were to agree with you and I would go down the EDR route, I would come to the opposite conclusion. That's, that's perfectly fine. But I just don't want to say because it's only a couple feet. Okay. We're not in, you know, and so that's really, and then the other one is I have to give them credit for reducing the number of units down to four. Yeah. And I personally don't find that building a blight to the neighborhood. I think it's, it increases the value of neighborhood. It's, it falls in the character of the neighborhood. It's nice building. It is a nice building. If it wasn't, if it was a building that was like really obnoxious and, and, and they'll say that I would, I would say, okay, it's within our preview to say, make it better. We're giving you some relief, make it better. But that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to reward people who make it better and give us, and they, and they made the reduction from six to four so that if there's other buildings along the street, there are six units or eight units, that they say, oh, well, if we just make it better, we, they're gonna say, they'll give us some relief where they ask for it. That's what I'm trying to set up. Okay. I just want to mention, I'll change it. One more and then, and then I'd like to put a Melissa. This has to do with the fence and fence. Yes. So the EDR standards are pretty specific about that. All open space, landscape and usable shall be designed as to add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing the site or overlooking it from nearby properties. So you can't have a fence that basically doesn't allow passersby to look at the open space. So that's when the EDR standards. So they're going to have to have some sort of fence there that meets that criteria. Thank you. And I believe that fence was not requested by any of us on the board at that meeting, but no one came out of discussions with one of the neighbors and they addressed it. And I applaud you for that. Listen to your neighbors, but it was not a request on our part. I'm done. We're getting to what are these stipulations? Should we get to a vote this evening or to an ask for them to return? What are the items that we would either add to a decision or that we would like to understand more of? Well, I guess in terms of the dimensions, I guess we do the final revised numbers that we're all comfortable with from the applicant that can be then verified by our building inspector, correct? I mean, that seems pretty straightforward to me. We need the previous ones, the FAR based on how it's calculated, the open space, and then we need to just double check that what they provide by our building inspector. Is that correct? I think what I agreed with, so Steve identified that from confirming the open space calculations with the applicant, he felt comfortable with the way that those had been calculated and he explained how they typically review that in the ZBA. I feel comfortable with that too, but if that's something you felt that you needed, we could potentially ask for that. So that could be something if you felt that they needed to return with additional. I guess what I'm struggling with is just what I need versus what we need, Kelly, as to be kind of on the same, like the benchmark of what we all agree to, less me, less Steve Rebel. I think that's what I'm trying to get to. So I don't know how to best communicate that, but I would expect the applicant to provide the baseline that has been verified. You've provided that in the updated documents, and then maybe if we have some kind of confirmation from our building inspector that those are accurate, that would make me feel comfortable. Okay. With regard to the parking, I have to, I think I understand what you're saying, Ken. I actually, I would kind of be inclined to that proposal as a concept. The reduction to four parking spaces, if they include the parking buffer, right, or some reduction, and not I would give the, I would probably allow some flexibility on the developer's part with the parking reduction. I mean, if there is does it, Ken, I don't know, does it, in your opinion, do you feel like it has to go down to four, or there could be one with a flexible space or something like that? So that maybe there's, you know, easier tandem. So I guess the idea is to reduce the parking space to allow for more open space and, you know, pervious surface. And I think that's the goal there with trying to reduce some of the parking. So I could see it, me being amenable to that. And I mean, I think that's where I stand. I think I kind of feel along your lines that if, you know, this abuts the bike path, you know, we are, we are in a position based on my understanding from council to provide some, you know, kind of come in some room for understanding on this project. And depending on how you see, you know, housing, I hear the people who came up to the microphone, obviously, you know, six units versus four units, home owner occupied versus renter that we can continue to have those conversations, you know, what is best, what's providing housing options. But currently, as the owner stands with the proposal before us, and the investment, I'm inclined to, you know, kind of move it forward with outline what I've said, leaning on what Ted said about the parking. Okay. Thank you, Melissa. Steve, your thoughts? I would be willing to make a, you know, to sort of make a finding under 6111E with respect to the buffering requirement, if the applicant were to reduce the number of spaces, you know, I would kind of prefer four, but, you know, six would also be okay. I'm willing to leave that at their discretion. In terms of the open space, I'm comfortable that they, you know, meet the requirements for landscape and have reduced the nonconformity for usable with regard to the current plants in the middle. The one of, and with respect to the third floor, I would also like, I would like to see a condition on the permit that the building inspector verify or affirm or verify, confirm that the third floor does meet the building code. You know, as Mr. Benson said, that's, you know, their area of enforcement. And, you know, I think a condition would just raise this as an area to check out. The one area where I'm having a little bit of difficulty or struggling with is the FAR increase. And I mean, because they've extended the building, there is an FAR increase. And, you know, this is sort of why I, you know, bust over the word permitted at our last hearing. You know, it's not clear, right? It's not really obvious to me where if that .35, you know, the applying to any other permitted structure is intended to, was intended to apply to new construction and grandfathering preexisting nonconformities or if it was intended to apply to all construction. You know, and the way we handle usable open space, not conformity is just, you know, I think Muddy, you know, puts a big question mark over that for me. So I guess, you know, I would, you know, I mean, if we're going to ask the applicant to come back, I would hope that they would consider a parking reduction and possibly, you know, to see if it's even possible to come up with a conforming amount of usable open space. But I'd also like to have, you know, you know, to get some feedback from my other board members about how to interpret that FAR regulation. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. So where I am coming to with this is that I would like to get to a point where we could approve the reduction in parking to four to six spaces where it sounds like we're coalescing around that to include the parking buffer. Add the condition for the building inspector to confirm the height of the building and the usability of the area in the half story, the non seven in the below seven foot half story section of the building. Add a condition regarding the fencing in the front and to require that for any increase to the FAR that they go to the CBA for a variance relative to one point four personally. Can I add one more thing? Yes. To waiver and to say if we were to postpone this for another hearing, okay, it's going to be another two months because we don't need in August. It would be in September. Okay. Bob, wait. I think we're generally all hung up on the FAR. Yes. In one point or the other, varying schemes. Okay. And I can, I appreciate that. If we told them that the family room slash flex room. Okay. It's not an occupied space unless they get a variance from the zoning board. What, what plan? Yeah, look in the basement in the basement. It's like 220 feet in each unit, which is a flex room family room. Thank you. Second. I'm trying to propose something. I appreciate that. I'm just trying to find it on the plan. No, no, I'm trying to explain. He's very big. Thank you. But if we say that is not an occupied space, it's going to be storage space because you have no basement storage. And this project here, okay, which is fine. But we dedicate that as basement storage is non occupied space. You get your project moving and you go to the CBA and get your variants to get increased FAR with the board be okay with that storage would still count as FAR in the basement. Yes. Okay. We're just talking about with regard to how they need to recalculate the I'm just trying to mix. I understand. I understand. And again, I'm trying to propose because if we delay this thing here, then this gentleman here is project here is going to sit for another two months of doing nothing. And that's not our fault. We can't rely on the existing calculation because I completely agree with Jean that the way that that picture is showing it. There is no way that the FAR is what it what he's claiming it is for the original structure with the pitch of those roofs. There is there is no way that it's what it what it is in this revised plan with all of the large dormers that are at it. I don't know how to get that answer because it's gone. That space is gone. I mean, if it's gone and they can prove it, then I would use what's in the property card. I would agree. The property card is not the be all and end all. And as other people said, there are some problems with the property card. But I would I would default to the property card. You would use that amount. You'd use the amount and you'd get rid of the garage because they can't count that toward the FAR. And then we'd line them up and see what the FAR would be with those. I'm just trying to work something out where all of us I understand what we all meet somewhere in the middle. And by the way, I'm okay with the open space because I think in for both the usable and the landscape, they're going to have more than they did before. So you know, so the only no is the FAR. Yes. Okay. Plus the other things we're mostly agreement. Okay. That's that's a good thing. We're down to one thing. Yes. All right. Well, can you so we're in terms of the FAR? I understand and appreciate your proposal for that basement space. Where? Where are we right now with the FAR? So I'm that's the problem is that we don't we don't have no one knows. We don't have a if we could ask them. Well, it's it's don't have a reliable calculation for the existing. The property card seems inaccurate. The property card could get accurate. But what seems inaccurate is what's in this latest table that we received. Yes. And I don't disagree. And remind me how the garage plays they counted the garage toward the gross floor area for the previous one, but under the rules, you can't count it. So that has to be deducted from the gross floor area of the previous matter. Yes, Steve. So what's your theory that they are in a very, um, suggest I just like to point out that, you know, various conditions are set through the or set through state law. There are four of them. And one of them is that, you know, the CDA would need to make a finding that a literal enforcement of the zoning by law would result in a hardship owing to conditions of soil and shape or topography that are present in the property for which the variance is being sought, but are not present in the district is zoning district as a it's a very high standard to meet. Um, and you know, just my I would be hard pressed if I were in the applicant shoes. I would feel that I would be hard pressed to make that argument in a convincing way to the CDA. So I think rather than if our proposal or if our current thinking is well, then they should go to seek a variance from the CDA. I think we should, you know, be of or what I think we're effectively asking them telling them to do is we need you to reduce the floor area. Um, and maybe and maybe that we should just cut to the chase on that. Yes. Sorry, let's go back over to you. I was not here, but we're beginning to feel like a tennis ball. I filed with the zoning board way back. Get a memo made the application with the zoning board and it was sent back and I was told they did not have jurisdiction. We have now filed with the ARB. Now we're losing sight of one issue here and the one issue is the building is built. Okay. So no fault of Mr Manley. The building got built because he got a permit from the building department. So before first of all, I'd like you to lower your voice when you speak to me. Second of all, building something that is not in conformance with state code or with the zoning code is the fault of your design professional. Yeah, when you build something, no matter when it is found to be not in compliance during after plan review during construction, whatever it is, even if it's the day before your final, excuse me, I'm still talking to you. Yeah, even when it's during your walkthrough of your final C of O, you are required to bring that back into compliance. But that is not an argument that I would like to go down during this hearing. But I think it's important for the equities for the members of the board and Jane Benson to know that the building is up. We understand that. We understand that. If the FAR is going to be reduced, okay, then something substantial is going to have to happen to that building. And guess who's going to pay for that? Mr Manning. I completely understand. And again, that that is that does not preclude that is not preclude the design professional or or the owner from complying with the law with the state laws. No. And but he doesn't he does not have a remedy. I understand. And it's unfortunate. But it does not preclude them from complying with state and local jurisdiction. Listen to Mr Rivlett, who is well versed in ZBA matters. I've tried many cases before the zoning board. I would never take this case before the zoning board to seek a variance for FAR. I would never be able to satisfy the hardship requirement. Now the difference with the ARB is you don't have to look at hardship. That's not one of your that's not one of your burdens. Okay, looking at hardship as a ZBA has to under chapter 48. So my suggestion is and we were told by the way, I was told the matter should be before the ARB. Kelly's mental to the board basically directs everything to the ARB. The section that is cited is 8.1.1 to be and that talks about the fact that if a non conforming use is changed from one use to another, then the board does have jurisdiction to a fact grant relief. Now here we have, here we have, we had six units, not four. We understand the facts of the case. So if that is the case, then I think Jean and I are probably in the same boat in terms of wanting to understand what the existing FAR is, and we're going to need to get closer to the existing FAR. So if that is is where we are, then I think that what I would like to propose is that the applicant return with a accurate application indicating the existing FAR and how they propose to bring the building closer in compliance to the existing FAR. Jean, do you have other thoughts? No, I think that's right. I mean, I agree with Steve and I agree with Mr. Nessie that the chance of getting a variance is probably zero or as close to zero as it could be. But yes, I think they need to come back and with a real FAR for the old building and show how they and show what they will do to meet that FAR with the new building. Can I make a suggestion, Rachel? Please, Ken. Can I request that we hold a special meeting in August in our month off just to hear this so that we can move them along? We would have to find a date that works for that and add that to the schedule. I agree to find one. I'd be amenable to to trying to find one. I will say that the only dates that would to give them more than a week. Can I ask my question? The only the only date that would work for me is the eighth. Can I ask them a question? Yes. Would you with the eighth work through you guys to get all your FAR and all the questions we have together in that timeframe? Or do you believe you need more time to sort of, I mean, like Bob said, the building is built. You can take numbers and measurements or whatever and say, Hey, this is what we have. If it's over, here's what we can cut back or no, we need it. I don't know. I'm just asking you, you know, can that work? Sure, I'll respond to that. Again, Don Mortstein, attorney for the applicant. So we left the last hearing session with a basically a list of homework. You gave us a list of things, information you wanted. Yes, information added to the plan changes to the plan some design changes and considerations. We thought coming into this meeting that we had actually answered those questions and done those things. And I think the only the two questions I'm hearing right now that would trigger a further meeting are you want you want to seem you want to see a calculation of the pre existing FAR. I think that's that's at the at the previous meeting. And again, today, we still don't have an accurate calculation of the existing FAR and to in order to compare the recalculation that we received today of the new buildings proposed FAR, which changed from the last time we met the FAR calculation. So we're still wrestling with what was existing? What is proposed? And what's the delta between the two? No, no, and I see that I see there's a lot of confusion on those numbers. But I think what you have in your record is that thing. So there were some there were some problems with those FAR calculations that were noted during the course of our first hearing session, we were asked to correct those and submit plans that had those calculations correct. I think we've done that what's been called into question. Correct. If I could complete what I'm saying, sure. The I think what's been called the question is we have an assessors card that has multiple errors in it. One of them may very well be the third floor, but we have we have the architects prepared at pre existing FAR plan that shows all the different FAR measurements that he's calculated that. So we have that information, where have questions about construction under seven feet high, and we've been presented with a seventh edition building code to base that on, but it's clearly a building inspectors determination. I'm just I want to understand that if this if this hearing is continued, like what do we need to bring to you because we thought we've already brought these things to you. We have our architects plan. I understand there's a reference to the assessors card and we're not sure they match. I don't know what we come back with you on the eighth other than we think the assessors cards wrong. We've been very polite tonight, but I think just the assessors cards wrong. Your architects calculations were incorrect because as Jean pointed out, they counted the garage as part of the FAR that is not part of the FAR. We also I don't think that's correct. I think that was in the first that was in the first iteration. That's not both both both iteration but it's in the GFA not the FAR. But the GFA is used to calculate the FAR. Well, this I guess this is going to get in the weeds, but that is not how your code works. So your definition of of FAR is based on GFA. So if you follow the definitions of your code, FAR says it's GFA over a lot area. You go to GFA and GFA says it's area within a story. The basement is not considered a story. So it's not included. But you have another section of your bylaw on section five, which says you do count those areas. And that's why you could count a garage as GFA, but not count a garage as FAR. So I think the way the architect has spelled it on the table is actually consistent because you have these two competing portions. Just the way you have two competing portions of the test for extensions of nonconforming use, we'd have reference to 8.1.4 saying you can't make a nonconformity any worse. But you have 8.1.1, which says you can and not and it doesn't limit it to one and two family homes. In any case, your third floor, there is no way that that is that that is calculated correctly in the existing use. Yes. I can understand on the dimensional forms where the accessory building was identified incorrectly by fault. I apologize for that. On the architect's existing conditions, page A04, FIR is calculated without the accessory building. The third floor of that building, I heard the steep roof pitch and a hip roof. If you look, the outline of that diagram has a ton of space for eaves, which is roof area. I mean, we sent an architect in to capture existing conditions. These are from context and they're brought into MF Engineering and Designs plans. We have them. I have an email directly from the architect that I could send. These are the existing conditions. I can't imagine what else we could provide that would prove that this third story is accurate. This half-story third floor is accurate. I mean, I can look back to when we originally purchased the building and see if I can find basement pictures and third floor pictures. I cannot guarantee that I have them and I cannot guarantee that they would satisfy you, because that would be subjective. I believe that this is a second floor kitchen. I don't believe Chris that it's a third floor kitchen. These are existing conditions from my architect. I'm not an expert at, you know, architecture or zoning codes or anything else. That's why we hire professionals to do it. We had two different architects on this. One did the existing conditions. One did the proposed conditions. Do we have some discrepancies in our half story? Yes, we do. We're working directly with Inspector Champa on that. But we are no way intending to violate anything regarding a half story, anything regarding, you know, the zoning bylaws or anything else. The assessor's card is inaccurate. I mean, it had 8824 as the lot size. We would love for that to be our lot size. It was 8824. It's actually 7824. I mean, we're representing things as honestly and transparently as we can. Am I making mistakes as my team making mistakes? Yes, we are. And you know what? It's embarrassing and it's really stressful. What I can tell you is that a lot of what I'm hearing is is not going to be possible for us. I understand that our financial issues are not your problems and necessarily your purview. But we're in this position because we secured a permit and we built that, and the economics don't work as much as I would love to say no problem, let's just get rid of the parking. Arlington doesn't have overnight parking. We've got four bedroom units that we would have never built if we were going to have one parking space per unit. We build single-family alternatives. And set aside the fact that we're meeting, we feel like we're meeting a need. We're trying to meet a need. We're doing our best to improve circumstances. And I really I agree with Dawn in spirit that I I know that I did my best to answer the questions of the ARB and I felt that we had responded in a way that at least clarified the existing conditions and what we have now minus the garage which I'm happy to you know be corrected on because if I make a mistake then I'd rather it be out in the open and we deal with it. The economics don't work to reduce the FIR on this building down to what it was yes the economics don't work with reducing parking areas because people won't buy a four-bedroom townhouse with one parking and if we reduce it down to three or two bedrooms the economics don't work on that either. We're really in a jammed up space here. We've been turned down for refinance on the building already. Another lender that'll be more expensive told us that let us know if you get the approval because that's going to play into our decision. I don't know if this goes on much longer and I'm being sincere because I really don't know if we have future hearings if you'll be meeting with our lender who takes over the property or if you'll be meeting with us. We're trying to move forward and have some kind of a combination with what we were also told by Doug Hyme is the ARB's discretion with regard to this matter and it's not like we got our hopes up but we're encouraged by the fact that Doug Hyme had that opinion and by our meeting last time. I understand some of the residents' concern as well and it's not been straightforward. I personally feel like the Arlington bylaw is very challenging to read. I'm a lay person at this point but I've heard a lot of debate between the interpretation of it and I can only imagine what some of the residents think and thinking about what we did and how maybe we tried to manipulate the system some way. We try to maximize our developments because these days you have to pay all the money to buy something in Arlington and then we have to pay all the money to develop it because of materials and labor costs. We have to hope and pray that we find somebody who wants to pay all the money to buy it. The economics purely don't work for what I'm hearing. I understand. I feel like I'm just praying for another solution. I understand you're in a difficult position. We're in a difficult position as well with being able to review this relative to what is allowable under our zoning bylaws. Jean, your thoughts on the recalculation of the FAR? Well, I don't know what to do because if they don't have any other numbers because they've already done the building, then I don't know what to do. I don't think the attic number is correct as I stated before because if there's only way they can fit those in with that roof line is if they were lower than seven feet and if they're telling me that that doesn't count for GFA for their attic, then it shouldn't count for GFA for the attic in the previous building. So I don't want to mix apples and oranges. It's either all apples or oranges. So I don't know what to do with the gross floor area for the attic. I don't know what to do with the gross floor area for the basement because they're counting. Are you counting the whole basement of the previous building? What I did without having somebody mentioned it, I believe it was Stephen. He mentioned something about mechanicals being spread around and not being able to determine exactly what was being used for mechanicals. That's very much how the existing basement was. You'd have a couple of water heaters over here, a couple of water hues over here, gas meters over here. We have dedicated mechanical space but what I didn't try to do, I'm not trying to fudge the numbers and say we don't have mechanical space in the basement but we do in the attic. I left them clear. So I left the basement clear. You'll see the calculation on page A03. He shows a wide open basement and relatively we calculated the proposed basement the exact same way. In the attic we have mechanical areas and they may be in the area below seven feet so we're not calculating them. So I'm not saying we're giving them away or anything like that but we're doing our best to be as accurate as we can on the plans. I also feel like with all due respect on the parking setback, I feel like we meet the exception for that. I feel like we've done everything we possibly can reasonably and I feel like we secured the created even the landscaped open space on the lot and that will dramatically impact us. As much as I really appreciate the creativity and the solutions, I just, I don't know, it's really challenging to look at any one solution and feel like it's going to work for us because it's the building's already built and I understand and I'm sorry I need to keep moving this long we still have another Kelly look like you were going to say no it was just a clarification that even though the garage is included on the worksheet it's not actually a double check the calculations from sheet A04 and the calculation of FAR. What may be incorrect here is that the calculation of the attic like how much that contributes to the pre-existing FAR but the overall like the garage was not included in that 0.92. Thank you for clarifying. Yes Steve. Yeah I guess regardless of you know questions or ambiguity in the FAR calculation. What I've been hearing sort of hearing the conversation go is that you know we as a board are uncomfortable with the increase in FAR so they that the applicant has added five has extended the building by five feet in the front five feet in the back so there's no way they can do that without there's you know if they having done adding 10 foot to the overall length of the building they've increased the FAR and if we're telling them that you know if our position is that we want you to be closer to the original FAR regardless of you know ambiguity or not we're really telling them we'd like you to take ten feet off the building and if that's correct you know we should I hope that we could say that directly or ask the applicants if they would prefer to have a vote tonight. I'm not really what I realized that you know there were like to be clear you know we want the numbers to ensure we want to ensure that we have accurate numbers but if the applicants double check they come back to us and you know the FAR is still point zero point nine you know just say it goes from instead of point nine two to point nine nine it goes from point nine two to point nine eight. When that happens are we going to tell you know want to tell them we you need to make the FAR smaller. I'd rather save them the half full of you know coming before us again and just you know be really clear about what we you know what we want. Thank you. That's fair. What I'd just like to can I just finish the conversation with Steve. So what are your feelings on that Steve? You know again this is this is this is a difficult one. You know and there I have I'm torn on one condition on one hand you say that you can say that the if you were to say that the point three five FAR limit is applicable to this building and we're asking them from an FAR for an FAR reduction then you know I think we have to tell them you need to go back and make the building smaller take off the addition. On the other hand if we think the FAR regulation is not applicable to this pre-existing non-conforming structure but I would be okay with the FAR that they have submitted. Thank you. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. I just want to I guess say to Steve I agree with your thinking and how you're proposed you know how you're laying it out because I think thinking through what the next steps would be coming back with a recalculation is very important for us to think about what what is that request with even the the change in some small which I would almost deem kind of de minimis in my opinion but um so you know Steve you had said something like where everyone's falling you know having and taking issue is with the FAR I just wanted to say that that's not where my you know my concern was so I was comfortable where the applicant was with you know kind of the FAR on this and comfortable with the ARB having some ability to wave that under these conditions. And I say also I agree with Melissa or that's how I stayed first time around. I believe that we're all in alignment though on the parking space reductions. Yes well I think we're in agreement to have some more have the buffer zone I'm not willing to give relief on the buffer zone but everything else I am I'm okay with. I would have you guys take a look at it again and see if you can keep it if you guys feel strongly that you have to get the eight parking spaces then you have to tell me exactly what the square size that open space is that you got there. You guys don't have any dimensions there at all and so if you can tell me you can work of that a little bit. I'll work with you on a little bit on the open space but but I think you cannot I don't want to start down the road where you can just butt up against the neighbor's property and put your parking car there that's that's I feel strongly about that. Everything else I'm fine with. Can you say that again please? Not having a buffer zone against a property line okay your car you're parking your cars right against your property line okay and I prefer if you had a buffer zone there and if you want to give some if you want if you're asking for some relief maybe we'll give you some relief on the open space but not on the requirement of the leading buffer zone okay. I understand. Sorry. No problem. That's my feeling and I'm not sure what you guys are but that's you know I if it sounds like Steve's correct we should I mean I think extending things out for better or worse is not going to help them at all or whatever and I don't know what they can say any more to us to change our feelings. So we could craft a motion this evening. I just don't know where the vote is going to go on the FAR. Jean do you have any thoughts on is there anything. Yes so here here's the strict way of looking at this. I would make a motion to reject the special permit because the even if we take their numbers which we doubt the FAR that they're proposing is higher than the FAR in the old building. So we technically don't need to know right what the FAR was just to say they're they're making the nonconformity greater and for those of us who believe that they should not be able to make the nonconformity greater we would vote when we're going to deny the permit then that will only get two votes so then one of the other people vote to make a motion to grant the permit you and I will vote no and the motion to grant the permit will fail. So again my challenge here is that if to Melissa's point there was a way to prove the delta really is a minimal increase in the FAR as they are attempting to show in this revised calculation here which again I do not believe is accurate I would feel one way because I don't feel that this is accurate I have a hard time supporting the proposed increase in FAR and I don't know how to ask them. Well I'm saying that like she said it's not asking to prove it but us as on the board say incremental difference is minor. As it's shown but again I don't believe it. But let's say if it's twice the full still feel the minor. Okay so you're just your issue is that it's wrong. It's wrong. Okay and I'm trying to say can we overthink that and say even though things wrong we're proving this because I'll go back to my original see that's all I'll say there. Yeah I understand you have your feelings and I respect it okay I'm not gonna. What I'd like to try and do is get to a place where we do not need to rejecting the special permit does these folks no good we have to get to something that we can approve that works them because the building is is up it's it's built right. So we need to offer some sort of suggestion for a modification that would be acceptable to the board so that they can continue moving forward. So if we credit their attic number is correct. Right. If we go there they and subtract the garage then the gross floor area of the old building was seven thousand two hundred five I got rid of the decimals yeah seven two oh five square feet the gross floor area of the new building is seven seven nine eight square feet so they would have to reduce they would have to reduce the gross floor area of their building by five hundred ninety three square feet if we credit their numbers is correct. And I agree with Melissa saying that for five hundred ninety three square feet is this worth right causing such hardship that's where I'm at right now. Steve where are you with that right now. If we agree that five hundred ninety three square feet is the delta. I would be comfortable saying that the delta is five hundred ninety three square feet. I would also be comfortable reading the FAR requirement in the my law is not applying to increase the non-conforming structure. Now I guess if so the question is do we ask the applicant to remove five hundred ninety three square feet or do we think that the requirement is not applicable in this case. To me that's a question. And do you stand on that question. I think it's not applicable. So I could also if it's five hundred ninety three square feet. Can I make a request. Yes please. Kelly do you happen to have the table that you provided in the original memorandum. Yes we talked we did some we had some discussion about massing of properties and gross building area to lot size and our building fits the neighborhood. It fits right in the median. The proposed that's how we're talking about though. Right. We're in agreement that your building fits. Right. I I'm just referring to general massing and the fact that it's not detrimental. I realize that the technical calculation is FAR. I think the building is over scale. Sorry. OK. I just wanted to point out the table that Kelly had submitted the 18 to 20 bell not proposed is that one point zero four gross area to land area. It's right in the meat. It's it's actually right at the median. The median is one point zero three five in that neighborhood. And that's the proposed that's the gross area. That's not even the GFA or the FAR. That's the gross building itself. And it fits perfectly in the middle of all of those other buildings. And a lot of those most of those are two families. So the two family massings are huge. And I realize the regulations are different for two families. But just in terms of it being not more detrimental to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not our standard because we're not using that standard because that's not the right standard under the zoning bylaw. That's the right standard if you were a one or two family house. But that's not the right standard for anything other than a one or two family house. So that's not the standard to use. The other thing I'll point out is you know the whole point of zoning is to you know allow non conforming uses to continue as long as they don't change their use but not to make them more extreme. Not you know every time we allow a non conforming use to get greater than the next person comes in and the non conforming use gets greater again and greater again and greater again. So you know my my feeling is that we have an obligation and the obligation is to apply the bylaw. And the bylaw as I read it says the F. A. R. of the new building or the reconstructed building should not be any greater than the F. A. R. of the building before. And that's just where I am. Now if I could just jump in for one second. I'm sure I just want to note that we don't necessarily agree with that that the non conforming use test doesn't apply here. They're not substantially more detrimental. That was noted in my original letter. I just want to make sure that's on the record. But I think we do have we might not have agreement but we might have consensus and people might get there in different ways and everyone every board member can have their own way of reaching the end goal and still have a consensus on the decision. So we're hearing some folks that are saying you know what I think that F. A. R. applies. But you know what 570 odd square feet on a you know a much larger building than that is de minimis and we can we can let that ride. And I'm also hearing that that at least one member doesn't think F. A. R. applies which was where I started on this wing when Chris first approached me because a non conforming a non conforming use or non conforming structure is not a permitted structure. It's it's not conforming specifically not permitted. And I think member Benson statement just now about how we should treat non conformities and we're against those just adds weight to that is that is not a permitted structure and it's other structures that are subject to F. A. R. at all. So I think between those combination of those 2 things I think you potentially could reach a consensus of the board that gets us to an OK on the slight increase on F. A. R. and then there are a lot of other conditions about design and and layout that the that the boards kicked around. So in terms of the massing one of my biggest problems with this project is the mass the 2 massive dormers on on either side. I could get to a place where I could improve the increase in the F. A. R. they are going to need to reframe those dormers in any case because of the pitch which was originally 1 to 12 they've taken it down to 2 to 12. We could get to a place where those were significantly reduced in size whether in depth or the pitch came down even further. To me that is what throws this entire building out of scale and I could get to the increase in F. A. R. if we could relook at those dormers on either side that you already need to reframe. Is that something you would be amenable to. Yes. Okay. Do we need to see that. Give me a minute. So you proposed taking this to a 3 to 12. I would need to see a significant reduction in those 2 dormers on either side. Again whether it's in how how deep they are in the building how long they are the pitch of the roof. They're completely overskip oversized. I'm not sure exactly how possible it is to do what I don't I the last thing I want to do is make any promises I want to be conservative. But what we did across the street was we we dormant it more and I had a had a different look to it. I'm hoping that we could achieve something closer to that and make it not as as pronounced. I don't know exactly what we can do. There's a lot of structure there to to rework. But we I'm trying to get a place right. We're asking you to open totally open. But I think I need to understand. I see your point here. My suggestion to you is you have this hallway that goes down to the door. It goes up to the up to the deck. Okay. If you got rid of the hallway that that would shorten the that dormer by I don't know 4 feet on each side so that she's a little whole dorm with 8 feet smaller in length. Is that what you're talking about Rachel. Then you just move that. I'm sorry I'm trying to get to there on my. Oh sorry. No. No you're fine. Floor. Third floor. Yes. See the see that they have a hallway that leads right out. If they were just bring that outside wall to the closet wall there and then do you have a have it up here. Is this up here. Sorry I'm in the wrong. I'm sorry. It's sheet A05. You're talking about this hallway here. Yeah. If you would stick this hallway and bring it across and put the door swing in this way here and then that HVC is now in that slope roof area there. So all you do is give it a this spot right here. And this thing here now is shrunk down about 4 feet on the side of the dormer. Now the door is quick. This week or less. So it's pulled back from the edge of the building. So the notch about that is bigger. Okay. So am I am I clear enough or no really. We're going to read something out to make sure we're clear. Absolutely. So this here would be called a steeper pitch. No. It goes away. So this is the outside wall right here right. Continuing outside the wall here. And then see what this right here is end of the dormer and the dorming right here. Okay. And then the door was just way up into the deck. And then this is all decked. You figure out. Yes. They can take a chunk of the closet out and that's a huge match of closet. Okay. I'm not sorry. And that's a small reduction. Oh and all four corners. Oh yeah. Oh yes. Yes. That that I would. Yes. That I would support. Steve are you following what we're suggesting here. Steve. It's okay. So let me see if I were so if on the third floor if in all four corners and you pull out where the HVAC closet and the hallway to the decks are which effectively removes about four feet. So eight feet of the dormer on each side of the building. I think we've lost. I think we lost your audio against Steve. No we're still here. So in other words the front the face of the building with the roof line would have a continuous slope and there would be a shed dormer a few feet back from the from the facial board. Are you okay about that. I apologize. I'm not following. No we're talking the same thing. Yeah. What I explained to you are you okay with that. Are you on the project team. Can I can I tell Steve why he's I think he's incorrect. Sure. Steve the reason I think you're incorrect by saying that it's not subject to the FAR is take a look at that if it weren't subject to the FAR under your reading which I think is incorrect. It wouldn't be subject to a maximum height. It wouldn't be subject to a maximum stories. It wouldn't have any landscape open space requirements. It wouldn't have any of those things. We're issuing the permit for this thing. It will be a permitted structure. I think you're wrong by saying that the FAR does not require it because if you were to say that you'd be blowing up this whole part of the zoning bylaw. And it does apply and you might agree with my colleagues here that you're going to give them a pass on the FAR if they make the dormers a little less imposing. And I'm not going to agree with them. But I just want to make it clear that I think you're going in the wrong direction by saying that the FAR does not apply because all sorts of other things wouldn't apply to it. And that would really be a mistake. Yes. If I could respond to that. In that case, yes, your example of height I think solidifies that for me because we use the same language as any other permitted use there as well. So I will change my opinion to the FAR does apply but I would be okay with a small increase. And the FAR would go down by say four by six. Let's say that's six, about 24. So it's about a hundred. Well, that's in the half story. That wouldn't affect the FAR. It just affects the mass. It affects the massing. So I'm all for two right now. That affects the basements. That created tries though, Ken. Is this the most accurate rendering from the front still? Yes. With the increase in the rear? No, that's the front. That's the front. Yeah. I mean, I'd argue like the overall massing is most effective because they include the change in the roof. So it's going to be smaller anyway. Oh, no, that's accurate. We're getting closer. Yes. So I think we do have consensus here on the applicant team that of a willingness to accept a condition that the floor plan for the for the third level, the attic story of the or the attic height of the building in four locations, one for each unit would eliminate the HVAC. We'll call it HVAC room or HVAC space in the adjoining hallway area. So there'd be four segments of the one in each unit that would be eliminated to reduce the massing of the of the dormers. The other part of this proposed this proposed plan is stepping back the entire third floor on each end. So that's our goal. We we reserved our right to change third floor plans and elevations just in case, but the team's been working back and forth with trying to make the the front of the building less pronounced. And I feel confident that we've achieved that with this design because it'll look a little different than this. Our goal is to step this section back so that it looks a little like I said a little up and down which is what's currently reflected in your rendering or beyond what's currently reflected on the floor plans. What we did on 1315 home map was we went straight up with this right, which I do not. Yes, want to speak again rendering shows this being straight up, but the floor plans actually show the front of the building being set back on the third floor. So that was our that was our intention was to set that back so that it was a little bit more reduction on the third floor is Jean that you had asked about previously. Correct? Wasn't there a question about what's here where that was set back? I don't think I did, but that was the second floor you were asking about. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I can. I can get behind that. Do you want to make a I do you want to make a I motion to approve this project with the following consensus. So we were going to add a condition for the building inspector to confirm the height the height of the building to be below 35 feet. Oh, you're capturing that please. Okay. That the condition that the building inspector review the use of the area proposed in the half story area in the half story area of the building with a height below seven feet. Qualifies just for half story. Correct. He's going to certify that. We're going to reduce the parking spaces to between four and six to include a buffer the required buffer zone. Subject to administrative review and approval with the Department of Planning and Community Development. There will be a reduction in the four corners of the third floor to reduce the overall massing of the third floor dormers subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Community Development. So you'll need to resubmit those plans. The there's an added condition that the fencing in the front of the property be no higher than three foot six. I believe you proposed. Correct. And open right open with open slats. Did I miss any conditions? Steve, did you have any additional conditions? I think that covered it. So nothing further for me, Madam Chair. Okay, Melissa, did we miss anything? Okay, Jean, did you have anything to add? Ken? So motioned. Is there a second on docket 3704? Okay, we'll take a roll call vote. Ken? Yes. Jean? No. Steve? Yes. Melissa? Yes. MES as well. Congratulations, it's been approved. You will need to follow up with Kelly, the Department for the modifications we discussed this evening, as well as with revised plans to the building inspector. Thank you very much. Thank you for dealing with a very difficult situation. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right, so that now closes the public hearing for docket number 3704, 18 to 20 Belknap Street. We will now move to the open space and recreation plan update, which is agenda item number three. Thank you very much for your patience this evening. I know that this is much later than we had originally scheduled the update. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. I try to, you know, thank you for all of you who came this evening as well. Who's presenting this? Okay. Timing wise, I couldn't move them out of order. No. Thank you very much for bearing with us. I appreciate it. Thank you. So thank you very much for joining us this evening. I very much enjoyed reading the incredibly comprehensive plan that was presented and we'd love to take you through any highlights that you'd like to recognize and, you know, then I'd like to open it up afterwards to the to the board for any comments or questions that they might have. And my understanding is the request is for the board to be able to vote to adopt the the plan ultimately. Correct. Yes, and provide a letter of support that we can submit with the application. Great. The final application to the state. Great. Thank you very much. We just ran a letter of support. We would vote to endorse the plan, which is what we did with the housing production plan. Correct. That's the technical verbiage. I also have a letter that was submitted from the from the ARB as part of the 2015 to 2022 open space and recreation plan. So perhaps you could vote to provide or give Rachel the authority to review adjust and sign the letter. Great. All right. Thank you very much. If you could introduce yourselves for record and again take us through any any highlights of the plan that you'd like to. Okay, thank you. I'm Ann LaRoyer, the chair of the open space committee. I'm David Morgan, environmental planner of the town of Barlington, also the conservation agent. And our liaison to the planning department from for the open space committee. So thank you for having us here tonight and thanks for changing the date from July 11th when I know you were originally going to do it so so I could be here. Most of you I think are new to this open space recreation plan process since the last one was approved in 2015 although I think Jean maybe was involved in one of the very first ones back in 1996. Yes, I'll tell the story when we have more time. I'll tell a very short version. Okay. So you have some sense of the what's involved. And I also wanted to thank Steve who's I guess at home or somewhere else. He sent me a list of a lot of comments and questions which were very helpful and I have made note of those and incorporated some of the the things that were able to be incorporated into the the final final draft. What you had was a nearly final draft but we're we're going to make you know there's number of corrections and various things we have to continue to do. I also wanted to thank David and Kelly who have really worked a lot with the committee on this and of course Jenny Raid and Emily Sullivan who was the previous environmental planner who worked with us when we started this in 2020. So as you as I think you know the Open Space Committee also did receive funds from the Community Preservation Act Committee and was approved by so we were able to hire a Horsley-Witton planning firm to help us with the entire process. They did a lot of the work on the required demographic and environmental data using the state and federal resources, census data, all that kind of stuff. They led the public participation process which was very broadly based and they have designed did the final design and layout of the actual report which will be printed. A small number will be printed but it will be of course posted online and broken out into all the different sections the way the current one is now. So they've been they've been really helpful. Chris DeMaravec was the person that we've been working with there. So the same draft that you received we sent at the end of June to the Division of Conservation Services which is the or the entity in the state that establishes the guidelines for open space plans and has to give the final state approval. So this what you're doing is endorsing and adopting it for the town but the state has to also approve it. So we've already actually quicker than I expected received conditional approval. We had a letter from the state that is conditionally approved so there are some things we have to update and continue to provide including the letters of support which is a required part of this. But they they seem to think it was a good first draft and there's just a few things that we'll work with Horsley-Witton on to address their concerns or just a few things that we're missing. So as we worked on this process we really the main thing was to listen to residents and town staff and other committee members and the more than a thousand people that's filled in the survey that we had put online back in 2021 and so that was one of our main goals is to listen and see what needs people were expressing and then to turn those into the goals and objectives that are that are in the action plan. So some of the there were three themes that I just wanted to mention that came out you know throughout all this process and that we tried to incorporate throughout the plan and all the various sections of it. And those are sustainability accessibility and collaboration. Just three terms to think about. So sustainability of course addresses mostly natural resource concerns climate impacts and vulnerability preparedness, nature-based and green infrastructure kinds of planning and development, management of water bodies, public street trees, native plants, pollinator pathways, invasive plants all these kinds of primarily environmental concerns that have to do with our open spaces. Accessibility relates to both social access through special attention to diversity inclusion and equity issues as well as physical access both for the disability community and for all residents through things like safe pedestrian and bike routes, ADA walkways, signage, translation services, public and just public information in general to make the open spaces more well known and accessible. And then collaboration highlights the ongoing need to work closely with the town, town staff and the other boards that we work with. Park and Recreation Commission and Conservation Commission especially DPW and of course the planning department and all of the other plans and initiatives that the town is working on in terms of the bikeway in terms of other transportation issues, housing where it applies and also to work with local businesses. And then a little broader range is the state and regional entities that we also work with already and continue to work with on things that go beyond our borders. An example of that right now is around A.O.I.F. Broke is one of the things that's a lot of people are that working on and concerned about. So those are three kind of overall themes but other things that are kind of constant concerns that have come up in probably all of our plans, past plans, have to do with maintenance of parks and playing fields and other kinds of open spaces. Maintenance is always a big concern. There are a lot of challenges that come up from time to time about conflicting priorities and uses of our limited open spaces. Staffing and funding needs are of course another constant that needs to be addressed and so that we can all continue to to make things better and address the needs that the community has. Another constant theme or concern is public education and awareness. Again like I said just making making information about our open spaces and recreation facilities available to people and well known to them through social media and other ways of communicating and helping people understand the importance of their own work on their own properties in terms of doing sustainable kinds of landscaping and work and just trying to educate people about open space in general. Finally acquisition is of more open space. People always want more. We always would like to have more but we all know that Arlington is pretty much built out and there aren't that many opportunities but we also want to try to think and we addressed some ideas about trying to think and work creatively about non-traditional open spaces and try to think more since we are limited in what we can do with new open spaces to try to find new infill opportunities. There are like broadway plazas and an example the restaurant parklets are an example. There probably are other things that as new developments come around to think about how to create open space in a sense of and just to you know try to try to help address streetscapes and the ways people experience the community. Of course the elephant in the room I can't not mention is the Mugar property because that's such a complicated situation. It's been difficult to try to figure out how to talk about that but I'm happy for any suggestions and we we also did talk with the select board about this as well and so that's that's that's where we are. Acquisition is you know is not going to it's going to be a difficult process but there's lots of things we can do creatively I think and we've tried to outline some of those things to address these other themes and things that we have so I'll leave it there and David or Kelly can say anything they want. So the conditional acceptance letter I have in front of me from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs it refers to this plan as particularly thorough and I just want to underscore how different it is from other municipalities. We got some feedback from Horsley Whitten who had done some comparisons with other municipalities plans and those were cursory and best you know these are rubber stamp kind of submit to fulfill the letter of the law and not meet the spirit and the open space committee has gone above and beyond to provide us with a very comprehensive plan. As the environmental planner I can't say how valuable that is to me I mean we often joke in the department that all the other planners sort of have a checklist you know there's a plan with a set number of action items that they can accomplish and they know what their agenda is. I think that the open space and recreation plan serves in large part to be my checklist and this version connects with all of the existing plans that builds on the shoulders of the transportation plans the hazard mitigation also touches on ongoing work like our public land management plan our MS4 requirements under the stormwater requirements of the engineering division and how we work together inter-departmentally. So I will really just leave it at that I think it's a very forward-looking plan very significant to my work and I could not be more grateful for Ann's effort to end the open space committee. Great thank you so much. Thank you. I'd love to open it up to board members for any questions comments that you might have and Ken we'll start with you. I'm not sure you guys are about spearheading this we did DUP it was creating sort of water or stormwater recharge these dog ears on streets and we did a couple of pilot ones the rain gardens yes we're at the end of the streets yes and where you would have this rainwater go into these little dog ears and we've recharged the groundwater in the neighborhood and unless it overflowed and there's a sordring there that then it was back in there was that part of your preview I it's been such a long time since we talked about this two two years ago I think there was a presentation about a pilot program I think in East Arlington yeah and I thought that was something really unique but then I'm not I've seen in two or three cases and I said wow that's good it's working but that's it were you guys doing that well maybe I can should have explained that the open space plan in the open space committee is is a policy document we we're not we don't own any land we don't manage any land we don't build rain gardens but we but we do address those those goals in the plan they are listed in the plan and that's that's actually one of the important sort of green infrastructure kinds of things that I talked about that would be the DPW I think in that case the the mystic river watershed association was also involved in some of the planning for that probably the conservation commission so so that's why collaboration is such an important part of this whole process because this is a plan that kind of lays out goals and ideas but other organizations and other entities have to implement them you know something could that be something like mentioned in your plan that it is yes it is quite a quite a few times dog year rain gardens yeah yeah okay one of the goals is to increase the biodiversity of those rain gardens and while we're in process of updating the plan I started having a conversation with the engineering division about how we go about that and so it's an ongoing conversation okay it's just a live by especially this week since it was so hot and you know the asphalt concrete it was just like an island of just heat it just was you know well having those little patches to break it as small as it may be I think it's so nice I mean again that's that's you know this idea about trying to think about non-traditional open spaces I mean those are very tiny but they're important for both for a stone mortar as you said and for pollinator plantings native plantings and just just improving the the neighborhood you know reducing some of the large street intersections and creating more rain garden corners or whatever you call them you know those are listed as goals here or as objectives I should say not in not in the specific sites sites or locations but I mean that's something that I think the town wants to think about doing whenever opportunities arise to be able to do that funding of course is you know becomes the problem but but that's that's something that a lot of neighborhoods would like to see I think a lot of people in neighborhoods would like to see thank you anything else no I think this is a really nice report joy reading it yeah it was a really nice job I have to admit I didn't get to read the whole thing in detail because I was trying to figure out what to do with that you know 18 to 20 bellnap street which took up an incredible amount of my time but I did you know skim it the best that I could it looked really terrific and as Ann said I have like a special place in my heart for the open space and recreation plans cost in the early 1990s the town didn't have one and you don't get opportunities to apply for some state grants which I think is still true if you don't have them so I was chairing the environment test group of what was then called vision 2020 and I said let's pull together some people and get the plan written and the town gave us a little money to hire somebody to do it and one of the things that came out of that was let's create an open space committee so we never again fall into the situation of nobody doing it and somebody can do it and monitor it so yeah so I do have a few questions and some of and some of them have to do with what you're talking about about competing priorities and I can't figure out whether they were in this and what to do about them if you were so for example there's a proposal now to put a dirt bike track at Hills Hill mountain bike here right where was it Hills Hill right mountain biking that mountain biking a well dirt bike is um does this say anything about how that decision gets made or not no not I wouldn't say that it it addresses that per se it um one of the problems is mountain biking has become a popular new activity not so new anymore right not so new maybe but new for Arlington so I the park and recreation commission is the entity that is kind of in charge of that let both they they're in charge of Hills Hill which is the area that's been designated as the place to to do a feasibility study well they did the feasibility study but now they're trying to continue you know how is that going to be developed further I think that the there is a hearing already scheduled on April I mean August 2nd I think and I I think that there will be a lot of conflicting opinions about how how or if that should be done yeah yeah I mean Laura and I think I don't know how you do that but the plan I think is an opportunity if it can be done to say how the town should the open space recreation pieces I'll just leave that as a yeah thing to think about we're going to we have a meeting on Thursday um and that's one of the topics on our agenda is to decide or see if the open space committee as an entity wants to write a letter to the board of the parking rec board to about what our opinion is about whether is this a good idea or how they should try to craft the design of it to make it as ecologically you know less least inclusive I mean they're clearly going to wreck part of Hills Hill I think there's clearly going to wreck part of that if they put in the dirt bike trail but you know part of the open space and recreation plan is also to meet the need the recreational needs of the community and there are a lot of teenagers and a lot of kids and a lot of even parents yeah another really love bike mountain biking and so yep yep yep this is exactly the kind of struggling a very small town like ours that has their little open space how do you balance another another we can't we can't single-mindedly decide no no but you can put stuff in about yes how the balance might be considered I'm just suggesting that as something to think about yeah I mean other examples you know the the town day road race for the first time in history is going to run around the res just after they redid that entire path that's not particularly smart in my personal opinion but that's sort of another example of you know can there be something in there about balancing recreation use with you know other recreation types of recreation as well as sort of conservation and ecological pieces another thing I this may be in there and I didn't see it I I hope there's something in there that says the town is against artificial turf fields because I think they're really bad um again that's not it's not in there directly but I would urge that it be in there I just this says I invite feedback from the board that was on the agenda so that's another one of my feedback from from that um it it's interesting to think about the type of open space too which I don't think this gets into in any real great detail other than to say we have water and we have trees and we have have parks and I wonder if it's worth saying a little more about what the town's goals are for different types of open space and different types of wetlands and things like that um the the other thing that's interesting to think about is is the the plan talks a little bit about um access to recreation to the recreation areas but it'll be interesting to think about if there are um need to be additional recreational opportunities those places clearly the sort of the mountain bike thing is one but you know when I used to teach this stuff I would I would say imagine you know you're in a community you have to build a park and blah blah blah and the students always forget that there are a lot of recent immigrants from from South Asia and they need to build a cricket pitch so you know part of diversity and thinking about is as the town diversifies more are the current parks meeting the needs for the the different diverse populations we now have it even comes down to like picnic areas and and things like that so um yeah I thought it'd be interesting for you to think about whether something like that could amplify the diversity section a little more um water the mugar property I didn't see what you wrote in there about it can you just mention the number of times in different contexts um about well in some of the background areas in terms of wetlands wetlands areas and so forth um in the goals it's it's kind of vaguely referenced um because there used to be one in one of the previous ones about you purchase it if you can is that still in there or not well um it's kind of it's in there yeah well well the ship has sailed in part right but once they've assuming they build the housing right then I think the property value of the rest of it is going to be pretty low right because it's not buildable anymore so if there were a time for the town to think about purchase and it would never happen before right but maybe the two times going to be ripe for the length of this next open space plan to think about it a little more because if that's built then the rest of it's non-buildable space I'm not saying the town should buy it I'm saying it just might be thought of that way so those are my feedback those are my feedback sorry for the time it took to no no that's fine thank you get that out to you melissa thanks jean thanks jean yeah no this was a great report thank you so much I think um some of the stuff that I kind of looked to was just the you know implementation and the action items so I was just curious when you do have the collaboration and the departments listed is there is it kind of listed in priority is that the first who's like the point person no do you think of it like that no it's it's not always I mean the the responsible parties list yeah it's it's a little bit happy as no it's not specifically by priority it's just all of those are entities that should be involved in that particular item collaborate yeah because I mean I think sometimes it's just helpful to put like some emphasis on who's running point on some of the implementation well once when we you know this is just like I say the pilot sort of the plan yes and then part of our job in the next seven years you know while this is being well implemented and David will be you know working on this to you know go sort of hide and buy item and try to work with the committee some of its staff some of its town departments some of its just committee some of its volunteers you know so it's kind of a mixed bag depending on the but it gives you a blueprint right but but it gives you a blueprint yes exactly you know who to who to kind of go to and so each one will be you know kind of elaborated as we you know as things come up and as we work with them um yeah no that was great and I guess I just was curious you had mentioned um in your comment and about maintenance that it's been ongoing concern I don't know if you could just elaborate a little bit for me to understand is that in relation to me obtaining recreation or is that just overall open space everything everything is it is that just um and because DPW does ends up doing most of the work and and a lot of times you know there are a lot of volunteer friends groups that do a lot of work on certain projects and so there's volunteers but you know that has to be managed and sort of what we're seeing there has to be a management plan and that David mentioned the public land management plan which is a another plan but is looking specifically at deep really detailing what management steps need to be done in each different location do you want to talk more about that or public land management plan will essentially be the operations and maintenance manual for a select number of open space properties they're all town owned properties right now there are sort of inconsistent ownership and management responsibilities spread across different departments I mean you can think about coax hollow belonging to in part the select board and in part the conservation commission so it's it's a mix of responsibilities there and yet we need to proceed this year with CPA funded feasibility study for coax hollow and what that entails so the public land management plan is designed to lay out a baseline what are our existing contracts what are existing practices etc how do we find commonalities across different properties or different sites maybe and then start writing contracts that speak to that you know we have shared need in x or y types of fields and can we get the mowing contract for all of those under the same umbrella so we're treating things of a light kind in a similar fashion so that's underway right now we are I would say roughly halfway through it maybe 60 percent of the way through it kcla landscape architecture firm working on it with us that's the run of it no great thank you um and then the mvp you guys had the municipal vulnerabilities plan program is at um does that complement this or that did that already kind of stay and it's like kind of contained plan or is this kind of incorporate elements of that uh well it addresses that and we the town got some significant funding for for wellington park work in wellington park of several years ago and did a well vulnerability planning process I think it was 2017 maybe yes it started and then as a result of having a vulnerability such a hard word to say plan in in place we were able to get that funding you know and for wellington park which was already underway to deal with flooding because that was found to be one of the major concerns climate related concerns for the town so um I don't so it we do mention the that plan in here um there's I'm not sure what if there's another phase in that that's going to come in the future um I know that um facilities and both through Jim Feeney we're actually working on finalizing the implementation of of the wellington park project and then we continually apply for funding through mvp grants um related to that but it's sort of tangential to the open space and recreation plan great thank you very much okay thank you thank you uh Steve any uh I know that you sent through and I and I saw the list of of great questions and suggestions that you sent through did you have anything um in addition or anything from that that you wanted to highlight um yes um I would like to to say that I thought it was a very comprehensive plan and um I really like a lot of the ideas uh or a lot of the goals that were sent forward there is one question I had that I would like to ask and it's just because um I I think it's a a hard question and relevant for boards in general and I'm just curious to to hear um you know to see how it was approached in this case so according to the the appendix which discusses survey participation um has a number of questions about demographics and um helpfully break down the number of survey respondents along certain demographic parameters and also compare those demographic parameters to like you know ac American community surveys so one of the things that you know you kind of notice is that well the you know the longer you a longer a resident lives in town the more likely they were to take the survey or you know the number of respondents was heavily biased towards our it was more common for people who lived here 20 years or longer to take the survey than it was for people who lived here for one to five years likewise income also seems to be a predictor 40 percent of the respondents reported in income of two hundred thousand dollars or more whereas you know the acs uh says that that's about 22 percent of the population now i mean as a board member i'm aware of you know research that's been done recently that you know talks about biases you know that certain you know people are more likely than others to um participate in local government and i'm just as you know as i try to figure out like how do we what's the best way to sort of acknowledge that uh participation bias and adjust for it or compensate for it i'm wondering if that was done in the preparation of this plan or if uh it's helping the open space committee talked about yes and yes i guess um that was one of the things that we worked very concerned about in planning and working with horsley witton on the whole publication public participation process and um so we we did a number of different things they're they actually are described i think it's in the first section pages five and six or so where it talks about the public participation process but specific outreach we did we work with arlington eats to provide information into the their distribution process to get information about going to the survey to their users and clients we also work with the arlington housing authority and had um posters and information put up in their sites and um we also did a number of what we call listening posts in actual parks and at the farmers market other places around town to um to be members of the committee were there in person to talk to people directly as they you know walk through and on the bike path and stuff like that so i mean you're you're right that it is very hard to to really get consistent or good feedback from the whole range of people in the community but we did try and we worked with um jill harvey and um to to try to do some outreach as well so we we did did our due diligence i don't know in terms of the statistics how that came out but um we tried and that that as i said is will continue to be a goal um throughout all of the projects all of the objectives that we have to work on the the different goals that are outlined is to continue to try to provide access to the entire community and to figure out better ways to reach out to communities of different languages different you know parts of town and so forth now i i you know like i said before i didn't need to put you on the spot i just you know i think that's a tough issue and i appreciate you in your perspective and thank you very much okay thank you thank you steve and i just had um two items i wanted to to ask about um like like steve and and my colleagues again i thought it was incredibly comprehensive i actually also really appreciated some of the historical reference within the within the plan it was um it ties into a lot of a lot of the education that i think we're trying to do is a board too to help people understand how we evolved as a as a town so that was wonderful to see um like melissa you know i i think one of the things that really struck me was the challenges around um around maintenance and you know some of the observations i think there was an assessment of recreation facilities that listed them either in the port of fair the majority of them as as port of fair in town in terms of their condition which is um the playgrounds was that the it was a playground that also talks about facilities as as as well in terms of recreation so um i mean that certainly is something to me again as we invest in um as we look to events invest in more programs really ensuring that we are funding the proper maintenance and and care of what we do already have to me is incredibly important and i think that was under objective number three um i don't know if the intent was for these to be in some sort of you know sorted level of importance but um i think it was actually 3.8.5 um was where the the maintenance piece came came in um which is an evaluation of overall town property operations and maintenance but to me that's something that i i would absolutely highlight um you know it's hard to get behind investing in in other um avenues when we're not maintaining what we already have right um so i just wanted to to highlight that um and i certainly understand the challenges in terms of who owns what and there you know in some cases might be multiple municipal bodies that are responsible for for that maintenance um and then something else that i i just wanted to highlight as well which is something that came in front of this board actually as a citizen petition is um the way that some of our open spaces are currently used in programs and the availability both for um bodies within town and nonprofits but also for-profit um entities to use some of the open open spaces to bring people to our to our parks and to four more community building um one of the things that we just did is one of our warrant articles was to take away some of the requirements for for folks to have to come in front of the ARB additional permits exactly and so i think that came in in four point c point four and five um in terms of ensuring that we're coordinating and supporting community events and i and i would also add to that not just the nonprofits but also for-profits really encouraging people to want to rent and use our parks and bring people together um in in multiple ways so i was i was happy to see that because i think in the discussions we had around the warrant article that was something that was really important for people um you know coming out of the pandemic people want to be together and it's it's not just the nonprofits but also some of the for-profit entities which bring people together in some of these spaces and could be revenue generating for maintenance for the town as well again that's the park a recreation commission generally that supervises yeah most of those properties maybe the select board has more park i think yeah but i think it's important for them to hear that this board thinks it's important to support a wide range of activity within the within the parks those are the only comments i had again i really appreciate all the work they wanted to do great okay well um i guess we'll we'll look for your letter i don't can you vote yes so um what i'd like to do is see if there is a yep a motion to um endorse the plan with um i'm assuming that you know some of the um suggestions that we brought forward um will be will be considered um and uh for the board to um permit me to work with kelly on a letter of support um for for the plan unless there are any other suggestions i just i mean we should do that i just want to say the agenda didn't say we're going to vote the agenda just said presentation and we were going to provide feedback that is a good point so um can we vote on it still jean i'd be happy to vote but i think we need to be more specific when we're going to take a vote i'm sorry that's not what i wrote in the draft agenda um let's let's see the agenda i have no it is it is it was supposed to say and may vote to adopt the plan but i think we can still okay yes i think we still can we will just ensure that we are specific about that going forward so thank you for the for the call out i did miss it it did not say that in the agenda as well um so is there a motion to um uh endorse the uh open space and recreation plan update and to um to support um me on behalf of the board working together with the department of planning and community development to craft a letter of support so motion to authorize you and to endorse the plan yeah okay second go second okay so we'll take a roll call vote starting with kin yes jean yes melissa yes steve yeah and i'm yes as well thank you so much for being with us this evening thank you really appreciate sticking around till midnight or is it quite yet we're not quite there i hope this was a little more fun than your previous uh thank you so that closes agenda item number three and we'll now for the record um move to agenda item number four number five which is open forum um seeing no members of the public here unless you all have something separate that you would like to address with us nope david's a resident okay now's your chance okay seeing no one here who wishes to address the board we will close open forum and i'm here yes actually um i would like to just um let all of my fellow board members know that you would have um very positive careers on the zoning board of appeal but you ever chose to do um yeah the the hearing we had earlier was difficult um and part because i i think there are some ambiguities in the bylaw i would just like to note that this is something that the vba yields with on a regular basis so to the extent that we continue the process of clarifying the bylaw where we can and making their process more predictable and easier to read about it is worth doing thank you madam chair and something that i think we should add to our retreat agenda in terms of identifying um opportunities for potential warrant articles where we have now experienced some of the yeah just eight point one is a complete mess right yes so um i'm not completely partial mess i want to be i have a question i don't know if i can ask okay okay um one other thing are we gonna meet are we gonna meet in person at the next meeting what are we gonna do about that so uh i think our our our goal is to meet in person what i'm hoping is that the hybrid meeting setup will be ready to go by that point so i will check um our next meeting of the remote participation study committee which is working on the pilot is um i think in another week or two so um i hope to get a better sense then um right now the equipment and is is the limiting factor the um the structure for the pilot program is is pretty well drafted um but um i i need to first of all we need a room which i know we're working on and second of all um i like this room equipment too but we can also work that out with a select board so unless unless other members of the board would like to weigh in i think the intent is for us to continue to meet in person hopefully with a remote participation um for the public as a hybrid meeting um soon to soon to be so we got at least two emails about that are we gonna respond i have responded to i've had three um the third came from james plumbing which will be posted to correspondence and yes to all of them i have responded that it is our intent to participate in the hybrid pilot program um as soon as it's ready to go which we great expect in the fall great great get the portal up and running right uh any other new business all right with that is there a motion to adjourn so motion for a second all right we'll take a vote kin yes gene yes melissa yes steve yes i'm a yes as well uh meeting is adjourned thank you very much