 of the Arlington Redevelopment Board for the evening of March 3rd, 2014, tonight on the agenda is the hearing for the Warren Articles relating to zoning for the 2014 town meeting. Before we do that though, Carol, I'm gonna let you introduce our new. I wanted to introduce the new Administrative Assistant, Amy Fadago, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the table for a moment, Amy. Amy Fadago is our new Administrative Assistant. Have a seat for a minute. This is Mike Care, the Chairman. Hi, Amy. Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. Hi, Mr. Meech. Christine Zipinski, Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. Andrew Bunnell. Mr. Meech. And Amy West. Mr. Meech. Mr. Meech. So, since the ARB and the Administrative Assistant have worked together from time to time, I wanted to give you a chance to meet each other. And Amy will be helping out from time to time in meetings with minutes. So, you'll probably be saying more of her than you saw of the past Administrative Assistant. Is there anything you would like to know about Amy? We're really happy to have her on board. As are we. How long have you been here? Oh, two weeks. Two weeks, I think. Yeah. And how do you like it so far? It's wonderful. It's still getting acquainted with everything. So, trying to make sure that I'm, you know, seeking out as much information as possible to really connect with others and certain things, that... Sometimes they don't connect. Yeah, okay. They get frustrated. Yeah. Yeah, but it's wonderful. Good luck. Well, come on board. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. No problem. Thanks, Amy. Thanks, Carol. Thank you. So, I think we will now open the hearing for the Warren Articles relating to the zoning for the 2014 town meeting. First of all, I'd like to welcome the proponents of the different articles tonight as well as the members of the public. Before beginning, I want to take just a couple of minutes to go over a few important points and ground rules. We will ask each proponent to present their article in their language for the recommended vote. They would like the board to act upon. Members of the board will ask questions or make comments as they wish on that proposal. After which, we will open the proposal up for public comment before moving on to the next article. For the public comment portion, I would point out the following. Please wait to speak until the chairman recognizes you. Please state your name and address when you begin your comments. Please address your remarks to the board and not to other members of the audience. Please be respectful of others when they speak by listening quietly. Please note that there is a limit on time for each speaker, but the best rule of thumb, and what I would ask, is that those who want to speak be respectful of everyone's time in making any comments. If a point has been made, please consider whether it needs to be made again in the exact same way. Any intentional disruption of other speakers will not be tolerated. As a reminder to people in the audience, the short lurb, for lack of a better word, that is included in the warrant itself is a placeholder. The actual language of the zoning by-law addition or change is developed by the proponent and then considered and potentially changed by the board. In the end, the board needs to vote on specific language and determine whether to recommend the language, recommend that language, or no action to tell me that. Finally, and yes, I'll make this point. I believe that the proponent for article eight, the dark skies or outdoor lighting by-law change is not present. I haven't been informed by the chairman of the selectman that he expects the board of selectman will take up this article as it relates to a by-law in the general by-law and not the zoning by-law. As such, the town moderator has informed me that he will use the recommended vote for the board of selectman and not any vote by this board as it is not in this board's purview. So if anyone would like to comment on article eight, they can do so, but this board will not be making a recommendation with respect to that particular article. So with that as background, I would like to start the hearing. The first warrant article is article six relating to medical marijuana treatment centers. And that one is actually proposed by the board itself. So I will make a short presentation with respect to that. And Carol, you can fill in any blanks that I might have along the way. I'll just read from this as well. This article was submitted at the request of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. In November, 2012, the voters of the Commonwealth adopted a law permitting qualifying individuals to obtain and use marijuana to address medical issues without threat of state criminal prosecution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health then began to develop regulations for medical marijuana treatment centers. Annual town meeting 2013 adopted a temporary moratorium on citing medical marijuana treatment centers until the dissolution of the annual town meeting 2014 in order to allow time for the Commonwealth to issue its regulations. During this winter, Fred Ryan, the chief of police, Christine Barnjornow, director of health and human services, Mike Byrne, the zoning enforcement officer, Adam Chapter Lane and Andrew Flanagan, town manager and assistant town manager, Douglas Hyme, town council, Cowell Kowalski, planning director and myself got together on a couple of occasions to discuss the article and what, if anything, we learned from last year when it was put forth. It was suggested that zoning the centers in only B-5, as happened last year, was too limited at which point other districts were considered. After deliberating and seeking the input of all of the above, zoning in B-3 and B-5 was put forth as the recommendation. This was felt to be far less limiting while keeping the centers in public places with which the group and especially Chief Ryan felt comfortable. So the recommended vote in front of you has, well, first off, I want to also mention that one change was made to the original vote that you got. The original vote had, it's fairly technical, had us amending subsection I under the uses and what we've done instead is we've added a whole other, we've done it down to, we've added a new, sorry about this, 11-06-B, a new numbered paragraph four. So instead of amending 11-06-B-1 and adding subsection I, we actually did it to number four. And I think if you have it in the audience, it's on the last page, you will see the change made to article four. It's fairly technical and that's just in making sure that the by-law reads correctly. That change was made last year, we just didn't pick it up from the first go round. And so we did that. I want to show folks where B-3 and B-5 are before we do that. If you have any questions or anything else. So last year we went to town meeting with B-3 which is this kind of bow tie right here, right in the middle of town. What has been added by taking up B-3 as part of the new vote is the brown section. So you have that, this, the dark brown right there and down to down here. That part too. So in the thinking, as I mentioned, the different folks who were consulted on this believe that this was the best way to give the dispensaries the ability to have a bit more area to work with. But at the same time, keeping it in the public spaces that both the chief as well as the director of Health and Human Services would like to see it. So that's where it is right now. So anything else that you'd like to add? Yeah, you'll notice that those are the three primary community centers. Right. And it was also felt that it makes sense to have them in those locations because that's where there's a lot of activity, normalizes it, it also allows there to be the same amount of attention from law enforcement, if necessary, as there would be for any other commercial use. So we also looked hard at what other uses were around B-3 and B-5 and we're satisfied that on that level too, it also makes sense because there weren't as many schools in those areas. So. Correct. I will mention that state regulations have built into them a 500 foot buffer from, it's not just schools, it's buildings that have as their main focus children, I think. I'm not getting that language exactly right, but essentially there's a 500 foot buffer under state law. And one of the reasons we didn't play around with it in the reg was because we didn't wanna lose the benefit of that by either countermandering or countermanding it for some such thing. So we get the benefit of the 500 feet. We checked with the AG's office and by not putting it in here, we get the benefit of that 500 foot buffer. James Feeney from the Department of Health and Human Services here in Arlington is with us tonight. If we have questions that are specific. Thanks James, that's great. Thanks for coming. Questions if you mind? Okay. I have one question. Yes, please. Just in reading, I haven't had a chance to look this up. Does the Medical Marijuana Treatment Center include all uses? Yes. So the way that it's defined, the way that it's defined, it's actually, I think it's in the vote itself. The vote is cribbed right from the actual any piece of the figure here. Yeah, I wanna just grab it also. Okay, focus. Yes, it's this definition right here, I believe is the theme. And it is everything, both the growing as well as the distribution. Cultivation. Yeah, I do see here cultivates, processes. Those are the two I was thinking of. So there's no restriction in size of this facility, right? That would restrict it is the market and environmental design review. And available space in those districts. Right, if they're intending to build new and they have a real estate opportunity to build a new structure, it goes through EDR. So you'd have some control there. Yeah, and Chris and Carol, that's a great point. I mean, something I should have brought up, I'm just probably too close to it. So if the zoning bylaw recommendation is also to make these treatment centers subject to EDR. So by definition that was the last page, that correction there. So that would be EDR. Just for people who may not be familiar with EDR, that's a special permit that requires environmental design review. So that would mean that would be coming before this board and since none of these would be allowed as a right, you would have to apply for a special permit. And it would be subject to the ARB's higher level of scrutiny that comes with environmental design review as opposed to the special permit process that the zoning board of appeals follows. Thanks, Chris. Have any towns tried to split up the uses into different districts? Not that we know of. And I think that the concern would be is that you would, in essence, be splitting the state law. And the concern would be that, what does that mean? Can you do it that easily? You mean to say that growers can go here and dispensers can go there? Exactly. I've talked to town council specifically about this. And he advised against doing something like that because of the fact that if the state changes the law, then you have to go back and change your bylaw number one. And the other problem with it is that you can't necessarily get every use correct by splitting it like that because the definition is all in one. So if something is considered a medical marijuana treatment center, I really have trouble with that phrase, that you would then have quite likely dispensing going out of cultivation or cultivation happening where dispensing is because it would be too hard to divide that definition into clean parts. So the town council advised against that. OK. That's just my concern. So the article would include this use in our zoning bylaw. Correct, in B3 and B5 as presented. And how do the state regulations relate then to going ahead and building one or starting So this is an all the facility would need to do. It would first need the state license. And then the Department of Health and Human Services here is coming up with a slew of regulations as well that the dispensary would need to meet based on the state regs as well. So the first thing it needs to do is get a license from the state. And then after it gets a license from the state, then it has to meet the town ordinances. So both the zoning as well as the Department of Public Health. And then just to make sure that we've all got it on. And I appreciated your speaking to it directly, Mike. But on the vote which were on page two, we're getting rid of D as it appears there. Correct. And we're going to add it from the last page. So correct, so that's a new D. So this is the vote in the beginning. This D. The vote is right. And then you have A, B, and C for pages one and two and then D from the last page. So this whole last paragraph is gone. Yeah, the last paragraph is gone. And this whole page is added. OK. All right. I think I'll open up the comment at this point. If you want to raise your hand. Yes. John Word and Jason Street. Just a question. I only know what I read in the papers. But it seemed to me from these licenses they were handing out without vetting the info very much is that in each case they specified that they had a location. And then the people who allegedly were in favor of the location said, well, no, I never said that. So I just wondered about your comment that they have to get their license first. Look to me from the license application had to say that we have a location lined up. That might be, I don't think, nothing I've been told says that you will go through the EDR process before you go to get your license. It might be the fact, and I think what I've seen in the paper, and this is all I've got on that as well, is what I saw in the paper was that certain city counselors had said that they asked around and no one had a problem with it. It wasn't a process that they were citing. They were simply citing people who said that they wouldn't mind it is what I saw. I think there were pictures in the paper that they said this is a proposed. Yes, I think before, well, two things. Number one, you can only get the license if you say which town you want the license to own. So that much. And then I think from that perspective, what people then did is they tried to get a natural site and go around to the neighbors and say, would you mind it? And then those neighbors would say that we don't mind it being there. And maybe from a commentary perspective, they asked, I don't know, the local planning department or what have you. But I have no, the EDR process would happen after the license, that I'm sure of. John Bell, this is for sure. Are you all set for the story? Yeah, yeah, so I was just curious about that. John Bell, St. Paulston Avenue. Listening to the dialogue, the state will issue the permit. The state will issue the license to be able to have a medical marijuana treatment center in a specific town. That's what they say. Then after they've done that, the proponent, the dispensary, will need to go to the local governmental agencies and meet either the, well, not either, all of the bylaws and the Department of Public Health's regulations with respect to citing a dispensary in town. Do we feel that's fairly specific in the state? Yes, that means that's just what is going to happen. Yeah, my concern is once it's turned loose, what are your options as far as if you're not happy with it? Can the state overrule? No, we're putting it into the zoning bylaw, and that's allowed, is to limit its use pursuant to zoning. I guess if we limited it so much, but I think I'm not exactly sure what the question is. But yeah, Carol, I've seen occasions where the state would issue, well, a liquor license. And the town has no say outside of they have control of it after it's issued, but it is issued. And you wind up with a liquor license in the town. In a way that is analogous, in my opinion, in that the state would then have jurisdiction over the operation related to medical marijuana, whereas the ARV would continue to have jurisdiction over the special permit terms and conditions, just as they do with any development that they approve through the special permit EDR process. So if it has to do with zoning or the terms and conditions of their EDR, this board would continue to have jurisdiction. But this board will never have anything to do with regulating their dispensing of marijuana or cultivation of marijuana. Those jurisdictions are quite separate, state and local. You're just going to make this as part of the existing zoning to allow for medical marijuana. The only danger I see is it almost says, OK, we could have three of them in town. If we wanted 20 designated three areas, would we like to be more specific about we want to keep the cages in one place? And I can respond. Yes. John, I think the problem is that has a planning board, has the ARV oversight over the zoning bylaw. We have to crap the bylaw in a way that addresses it at the district level, at the zoning district level. And if you begin to get prohibitive and say, well, B5, but only this parcel, or B3, but only in the heights, as opposed to the other B3 districts, I think that would be subject to challenge in the court since spot zoning. So you have to select a district. You can't prohibit it by reading the state law. You can't say there's no district in which a dispensary could be located. Yeah. And I think it is important to zone it because if it's not zoned, then I think it can probably go anywhere. It would be like this. It would be an interesting court case. If you didn't zone it, then someone who might have taken a license could say, I really want to be in Arlington. Their bylaw doesn't specifically prohibit it or allow it anywhere. So a court tell the town where to put it, basically. And then you wind up, perhaps, in a place that you really don't want to be. Wouldn't the building inspector have to determine what part of our bylaw really would cover this so-called medical facility? Yeah, I mean, you would. But the choices are retail. I mean, you're right. And I'd like to leave it there. The choices are ones that you'd necessarily want to take advantage of. So yeah. Reminds me of a little Chinese curse where you live in interesting times. Michael Ruderman, Alton Street, precinct nine town meeting member also. I have three very brief questions about this. It bears repeating. We do not have the authority to simply say medical marijuana dispensaries are not compatible with our town, and we do not allow them anywhere. Correct. That has not been allowed by the AG's office. The can we have by town meeting a more specific designation of what the child-related use properties are that would create the 500-foot buffer zone around them? The simple answer is I don't know, but it was determined with town council that it was probably best not to, for fear of not getting the benefit of it, and it coming up as, OK, you didn't put any buffer in there. No, what I'm asking for is I'd like to know, can the board provide us with such properties as would qualify for that buffer zone? Because it's very important to be specific on which ones we're talking about here. Does a school count? Does a youth center count? Does a place that has a primarily youth audience like a dance studio or something like that? I understand your point. I think, yeah. Some cities and towns are ignoring this aspect completely because it's so hard to, you could go through the exercise you're describing, and then one of them could move away, and a new one could move somewhere where you didn't anticipate it. After deciding that margin of where you can't have it, the board and the town have so little control over who would lease to a child-oriented use, like a dance studio, to use your example. So it's probably not worth the exercise. We know where the schools are, and some thought was given to that public schools when we were considering which zoning district and the two that were proposing no to B3 and B5 are far enough away from a public school so that it passes the test in the group's field. So public schools seem to be the only ones we're certain about. Is that true? This is all Greenfield, so it's all no. And everyone is going through it at the same time. I will give you my own thoughts on it, which have nothing to do with what kind of council is said or anything else. I'll say the members of my precinct want to know this specifically because they are surrounded by B5 and now B3, and they will want to know specifically where the line goes. But the problem is, is if you draw the line and then you don't capture something, then you've drawn a line. Rather than being able to argue at a later date that something is child-oriented, and therefore, during the EDR process or whatever else, it doesn't make sense and is protected by the buffer. If you start defining, you've defined. Do you see what I'm saying? And you're stuck with whatever it is you've defined. Personally, my own view of this is you're better off with a somewhat amoebic definition so that at a later date, you can make it work for you versus the opposite. And don't forget about the EDR process, which allows appropriateness in the community, usefulness in the community, and so for all the things that we have to go through. And we can't wield it like a club, but we certainly will do our jobs with respect to the EDR process. I get your point, because at least we'll have that club. But if you say this is defined, then I'm already excited. OK, well, it's not a dance studio, so I can do it. So just from my own experience as an attorney, I'd rather see things that are somewhat ill-defined so that I can make whatever I want it to be later on. Client like that, too. Or sometimes they don't, after the fact. Thank you, that's all for me. OK, thanks. Anybody else on this? OK, well, thank you. So I think on all of this, we're just going to have a hearing tonight. I think we're going to take all of these up. Most likely, we're going to take the comments. Everyone can think about them. And we can have a discussion and a vote at the most likely at the next meeting, well, my guess. So if that's OK with everybody. OK, I'm going to move on now to political seven. And I'm just going to read it. This was put forth by John V. Velkis and 10 registered voters to see if the town will vote to or take any action related there to amend section 11.08d of the zoning bylaws to increase the required percentage of residential units designated as affordable units within any new project. Once again, Mr. Velkis, would you like to move forward? Do you want to be close by so you can whack me? No whacking. For each of you, the testimony even knows as we go along. I like what you said about leaving it loose. The intent of the article is to establish a provision for an increase in the number before the housing units required consideration for a comprehensive permit application under our existing zoning bylaw. It does not specify a particular number as there are considerations of an appropriate number that must be reviewed and determined. I left this open in anticipation of future changes to Commonwealth and Mass Regulation 760, 56, section three, which is the computation of statutory minimum under F2-Senor Law 40b. Since then, I've had discussions with our planner and with our town attorney. And he said, you may be left a little too loose and should have been more specific. My thought since then, and I don't know if I can do this, I've run into trouble with this before, is possibly amend that so it does read a little strongly. Let me cover some of the details why I'm here with this. Primary concern, there's a bill before the Massachusetts State Legislature that was filed January 22nd, 2013, concurred by the Senate, is now under consideration by the Joint Committee on Housing. It's House Bill 3350. Public hearing was held last May. I've got a copy of the bill attached. Interesting enough, I testified on behalf of the bill, which I had represented the Gavily issue with Flamie. What the bill focused on was increasing the number of units required for eligibility for POTEB permit. My rationale for that was the fact that in the past five, six years, we are finding that developers overstated their costs and have had excess profits. The law is very specific. Your profits cannot exceed 20%. So then Inspector General did a series of audits and found, in fact, that some of these were running as much as 50% over in profits. And in the FWATI, some ideas of its existence, Massachusetts General FWATI B had never had one dime returned in excess profits. And this was not small numbers. According to Greg Sullivan, the Inspector General at that time, he projected at least something in the area of $110 million had been denied to Massachusetts cities and towns. And that money is specific. It goes back to the towns for their use in affordable housing projects. So it's basically taking money out of the affordable housing opportunities from cities and towns. One of the audits he did, strange enough, was on Arlington, maybe because I spent a lot of time with Greg Sullivan. The one FWATI B that we've had in town was Mark as having excess profits. The exact number, I'm not sure. I've never heard any more of it. It had the potential for something like $700,000. It was due back to us and the developer, how factual it was. There are letters on file that show that occurred. So with that in mind, I presented the bill. Strangely enough, there was no opposition to the bill, but that happens a lot. It has to come out of committee. Will it come out of committee? We don't know. But that's one of the points I make in presenting this. If that bill is approved, we then have a greater difference between what we have today here in Arlington with our inclusionary zoning with 15% where NGL, FWATI B is either 20% for rental development, 25% for ownership development. So now our window expands. Might be very desirable to a developer to have that bigger difference. But my concern is we have the potential of losing our edge in housing development. And what's even more frightening and have provided the details in this testimony, the Department of Housing Community Development has put forth a report and titled Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. In that, there's some very specifics and you have included in the package here what they intend to do. They intend to change the manner in which you count the affordable units. Some examples, they feel that some of these projects where, for instance, rental development, you only have to provide 20% of the units affordable, but they're counted as 100% towards subsidized housing inventory. They want to make adjustments to that, which in effect makes the 10% even more difficult because now you've stopped losing units that you would acquire through the regulations as they exist. It has not been heard yet. Will it be heard? And when? I'm not sure. But anyhow, you have an excerpt with some comments as to the intent of these changes. Some of them are rather frightening. I provided this so you'll attempt to digest a little bit afterwards. I just want to bring it to your attention. So there's a couple of views I'd like to present. You all know of my efforts to reform 40B. A lot of people tell you I'm trying to kill 40B. I get into this because I found that 40B is ineffective, as far as I'm concerned. It's been around for 43 years. We have not had any great improvement in the quantity of affordable units developed. We've gone before three sessions of the legislature with bills seeking to improve 40B. Well, how do you improve 40B? The example I use mostly is what we have here in Allington. We have inclusionary zoning. All the units that are considered the affordable units in one of these developments, a deed restricted in perpetuity, they don't go away. Harvard did a study almost 10 years ago that showed that of the thousands of units that were created by 40B, 22% of them at that time, or it's less now, it's down around 18,000 of the units, are going to go away. They're not going to be affordable any longer. They go market rate. And they say, well, how did that happen? Because the stage is never adopted, de-restricting the affordable units in perpetuity so they don't go away. I define it as a developer's wealthier program because they'll never stop building 40B units. We have some of those at risk here in Allington. Well, why do they expire? They expire because the original funding, federal money, state money, has been returned and paid back. And it's happening. And it's happening with regularity. The state has a solution. We buy and back. Now, wait a minute. We gave the developer a 20% profit margin. We gave them the ability to break all of our bylaws, the ability to change our density. And despite that edge, they take these to market rate. And we have to go back and contract with them to extend the market rate. There's $362 million in this year's budget to take care of things like that. Not entirely. Some of it is going to go for new development. But a huge chunk of it is going to try and rescue these 18,000 units, which is horrific. I have a member in our organization that lives in the Mandela project and the development in Roxbury. She came to me saying, nothing to a 40B. It wasn't created under 40B. She came to me because they had gone expiring use. And they were now raising the rents and all those folks. Mr. Velskis, I don't want you to use all of your time on maybe just what it is you're looking for this board to do. Well, unfortunately, the way it's written now, it's very difficult, but I'll leave that to you. My concern is, yes, we have right now, and I don't know what the final number is, we are, the last I heard was something like 1.475 or some such thing, total land area. Oh, I'm sorry. Total land area are already occupied by affordable housing. That's to get out of jail precad. That doesn't stop 40B, but when the 40B comes to us, we have the power to say, look, you either do it our way and the way we want it done, or we'll deny the comprehensive permit. That's a 1.5, that's the only escape from 1.5, 10%. Our ability to make 10% as far as I'm concerned is almost impossible. So last but not least, we've done extremely well in order to provide affordable housing availability. Unfortunately, it's not recognized by the distorted measurement that the state used. There's 352 cities and towns. Only 10 have a greater number of affordable public housing authority units. 10. OK, and they're not cities and towns, and I've provided that in the attachment. We also, like I say, have the housing corporation. We have inclusionary zoning. The units indeed are restricted. On a per capita basis, Arlington is number one in the state for public housing, number one. And that's all included. So what I'm saying is give us the advantage of deciding to increase the percentage contingent on these things. Mr. Belsos, let me ask you a few questions then. So are you asking us specifically to move 15% up to, you're not saying what? I didn't say what. Originally, if you read my bill, you'd go to 30%. You'd go to 30%. If you'd go, if you'd follow the state. OK, but you're not going to follow the state. Well, I'm not necessarily following my question regards. The relation between our number in the affordable housing and the number that you're talking about, why are you saying that it should go up? If my bill gets passed, the state goes to 30%. Connecticut's already done. The state goes to 30% for what? For a 40-b. So that 30% unit's affordable and to be eligible for a 40-b? 30% need to be eligible for 40-b. How does that then affect the 1.5 that you're trying to get to? It doesn't really impact the 1.5. What it does, it contributes to our ability to maintain and stay ahead of that if we increase the number of affordable units we want in this town. But the 30%, but just to be clear, the 30% doesn't move the mark that folks have been trying to get to as far as affordable units under state law. It moves it in favor of the cities and towns that are trying to get to that magic 10%. If there's 40-b within that town. Yes, OK, OK. But that's the only way, not OK. So when you say you're leaving it up to us, so you did hear my comments with Mr. Ruderman with respect to keeping it vague with respect. However, that's not our bylaw. Our bylaw is not vague. That is a state reg that he was citing that's vague. And my inclination was not to keep bylaws vague. And I think it would be, we'd be hard pressed to do so. All right, to put it in perspective, the original version of this has the same numbers that are in my bill before the state. So 30% is right. And then Vice-Councillor, wait a minute. Why would a developer bother coming to Arlington on an inclusionary zoning basis to do a development when he can have whatever he wants by saying, I'm going to go 40 b. It's the same percentage. So we shrunk our required percentage in our inclusionary law, so it made it desirable for a developer to say, yeah, I'd like to talk to you about this. So I don't have to go through the hassle and the court cases and the hack hearings, et cetera, to get my development accomplished. And it works quite well that way. So I'm saying, OK, can we protect that number so we still have that advantage? So one last question, and then I'll turn it over, sorry to hijack it for the rest of the board. But you don't know whether this bill is going to come out of the legislature or anything else. So I guess my other question would be is, why would a DHCD well, you have to respond to that. But the point is, is that why not wait for it to go up if it goes up? And bring it up to the next town meeting, which might be at worst one year's worth of 15% versus, I don't know, pick a number, 20%, 25%. So in other words, you've only lost one year. It's lost, right? One year of what it is you're talking about and you'd have a firmer foot for moving it forward. Because then you could show the disparity of the 20 to the 30. But right now, it's nebulous. I mean, we could move to 20. And the state never changes. And you've just invited, you haven't given them any incentive to play ball with the inclusionary zoning versus. That takes us a year to accomplish if it changes. Tonight, you get a 40p development. Oh, you get a development. You always have that policy. Let's be clear. That's always there. I guess my main intent was to be sure. I waited for a red flag in front of you in town meeting, et cetera, that performance and affordable housing is exemplary. I think it's almost a physical impossibility to make 10% of this town. You're out of land. Yeah, this is not the point. And yet, that is still hanging over our head. And a lot of people don't realize the number of units you have to create to make that 10%. If I got six, you'd have to build something like 8,000 units to approach 10%. And oh, by the way, the next census, all the 8,000 units you built to make 10%, they become the base again. And now you're falling back to 9.4, 9.6, something like that. And it's the closest thing to perpetual motion I've ever seen, and not to the town's advantage. I guess my sincere effort is to do something to make sure the town is protected. If you want to do it no action, then fine. I'll provide a specific number of town meetings in an amendment process. But I just want to be sure that everyone is aware of it. It's a concern. If you was a redevelopment board, you should be aware of it. It's in your hands. Any other questions from Mr. Belsky's? I think most of my questions have actually been discussed between, in your question, and Mr. Belsky's response. And read the touch tomorrow in detail. And I appreciate your giving us all the background information. I haven't had a chance to read through the material yet. But I think my biggest concern is that, and this was articulated already by Mike, but we're essentially reacting to an unknown, because we don't know what the state is going to do with this bill and where they're going to set that limit. But the closer you go to trying to mirror what the state's doing, I think you're disincentivizing the developer from going through the usual permitting process. You're sort of sending them into the arms of 40B. And that's how we establish the 15%. We want to stay below the state 20 and 25%. Yeah, and when I'm saying the closer you bring the inclusionary zoning requirement up to the 40B requirement, the more likely you're pushing the developer into 40B. I don't want to change it to that extent. I want to keep that window so that you still have that option. Yeah, I just think that this is, it's hard to find that sweet spot, though. Mr. John, at what point have you said to the developer, I'd rather go to 40B, because I'm sure you know what the statistics are at the HAC. The developer wins most all the time, right? On the ones that make it to that. That's a hidden number. You'd be amazed how many don't make it, because the developer doesn't want to undertake the expense. As a matter of fact, that's an MIT study that shows that a vast majority of the 40Bs that were denied locally never made it to the HAC, because they didn't choose to spend the money. It's a very expensive process, and you can really drag it out. I mean, I've got towns that have dragged it all the way up to the state's Supreme Court. And that's a considerable expense for developers, so it has to really be lucrative. The last comment that I have for you, just my recommendation, if you do put this forward, I think that you do need to actually fill in the blank in terms of what that percentage would be, because otherwise, it's so vague. I don't know how the board could ever enforce that. Is there any election when we deal with the town meeting? And I just take it as an opportunity to educate the town of Allingham's town meeting members as to what's going on with the portable house in Allingham. We've had three 40Bs in this town. If you look at the current master plan, it talks about the one that was done. But you have to talk a little bit about the other two that didn't make it. Why didn't they make it? Some interesting pieces to that. Why the developer never went forward with them. If you like someday, I'll tell you the whole story about the other two that are all a matter of record. Yeah. And that's why I brought this to you. That there is something on the horizon. Yeah, it'll probably be. But we do ask proponents to provide something that we can act upon. And so do you want to fill in that blank for us so we can actually act upon it? Because otherwise, we haven't had anything to act. We don't have anything to act upon. Town council wasn't sure where we'd go with this. She was going to talk to town moderator. The original warrant was filed with the 10 signatures and didn't have the number in it. If I do apply a number now. Oh, no, I think you can ask whether it's in scope or not at the meeting itself. Or I haven't heard anyone say that it would be out of scope to fill in the blank. So I guess what I'm asking is, do you want to fill in the blank now so that we have something that we can actually act upon? This evening? Well, I guess you can do it before we both. Yeah, which would be at the next meeting on the 17th. Yeah, right now, it is not a desirable thing, because we don't know what's going to happen on Beaconville during the next month. The next how many months? That's all right. Six months. Six months. Because they have to do something with these bills by May. They have an escape hatch. They'll put it in a committee and that keeps it on the stove until December. And then they don't act on it until December and it all disappears. I've been through this in three cycles. 300 bills a session. It's high. I'm hoping I have a little more support on the housing committee this year. I've met with them. No one objected to it. It's in their lap. I have a number of members of the board that I'm hoping will at least put this on the floor for consideration and a recorded vote. A few people all familiar, I hope, with 40R and we haven't done a 40R in Arlington. We want to have a district established. That was not done on legislation. That was done on an outside section, on amendments to the budget. No recorded vote. We don't know who put it in. We don't know how it was voted on. And yet it equally is enforceable as 40B. It's scary. That's why I'm here tonight. Is this the same information we had last year? Is this the same information you brought us last year? You were before us last year, right? Around this time. That was a little different one. The one that I brought before last time was the one requiring an oath. I don't know if that came before. Oh, right, right, right, right. Oath before the zoning board. OK. And that passed the downvading. OK. Which is very good. It was also similar to this, but not the same. OK. How I think you and Bruce Prewell articulated any of my concerns and questions. Just a quick question. So the bill in front of the house is going to increase the number of affordable units required to qualify for 40B. But our rate is down around, what is it, 15%? Your 15 was state is 20 and 25. So why would it not be more incentive to not do a 40B if it's higher? The developer wants to do less 40B. Less, potentially less, the 40B. But the lower rate, true. So why is it pending on a 40B? The spread is going to be difficult. The only problem is. Why is it difficult? It's more likely that the higher the 40B requirement goes, the less likely the developer is going to want to do it. It's a double-edged sword because if we're not getting sufficient units designated as affordable, we start eroding 1.5%. OK. All right. And I'll have to talk to you offline and know more about the sensitivity of all these numbers. Then I'll really understand a little bit better because of that. That's not the biggest problem there's too many comments. Because you said you wouldn't reach that 10%. We are not going to reach that 10% that will allow us to fend off a 40B. I don't know if I still have the program I did for Alan. A spreadsheet that you can plug in numbers, it'll take you something like 20 years, if not more, to even come close to it. And then the expiring use will make it go away. Under our inclusionary, we don't have expiring use. 40B, you have expiring use, and we can't get that change to escape. That's why I try to get the law repealed. That's right. OK. Thank you for the time. I just want to add that, since Mr. Belski has went to the trouble of presenting some interesting facts, the public and the board may want to know that the housing working paper for the master plan is expected this month. And it's online now. It's online. Good. I read it before it came here. Thank you. Also like on it. Yes, please do. I mean, that's absolutely imperative that you work with us. We've been working on this for some time. And the working paper will highlight some issues and opportunities for housing in our literature. So it's a good opportunity time to take a look at that online since the final master plan will come to support for adoption. Great. Thank you. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments from the public on this? OK. Thank you. It's always fun. Thanks. Actually, Mike, can I just say one thing? Yes, please. In preparation for this discussion, the staff did a little bit of research just to check in with other cities in town. Yes, please. It did the every place that we discussed pretty much had between 10% and 15%. 10% and 15%. Just for your information. I wasn't aware of the legislation that you were talking about. I didn't know about that. But we just wanted to see what the norm was. I thought I'd share that with you. I didn't. No. I did. Well, now I got it. OK. Thank you. Now we'll move on to warrant article. As I mentioned, warrant article 8. We won't be taking up warrant article 8. Question? Yes. Since the warrant says that it's to see if the town will vote to amend the town and zoning bylaws, do we need to respond to that with respect to the zoning bylaw? Well, I can tell you that the town moderator said that he wasn't going to consider anything from the board. You mean as far as a no action is concerned? Yes. That's a good question. So I mean, I guess we can open it up to public comment, regardless that way we're sure that we can act upon it on the 17th just to make sure it can be. Yeah, I understand that this is going to be treated as a post amendment to the town bylaw. Correct. But because it has an end, I understand. You're talking about with respect to an end. Yeah. I don't have the answer for you on that. So did anyone come to comment on this article? I just had a question in your environmental design review and perhaps in other special permit situations. You also govern lighting. If this draconian bylaw were to be passed, would that overrule some of the provisions that you have? I mean, you already deal with the light can't shine into the next guy's property and stuff. And I mean, I've been a lot of hearing for you've been very concerned about where the light is going, et cetera. And I just thought this would supersede health. Right, but maybe I'm wrong on this. But that's just as an overarching view of the environmental design review. I don't think we've taken it as where the arbiters of any particular bylaw with respect to it. I think they would be separate. That we would still have the ability to, under our EDR, to make the recommendations that we or require what we need with respect to outdoor lighting, regardless of what might be the town bylaw on the other side. I gather that Mr. Warden is asking whether if Article 8 were a zoning bylaw, would the applicants also have to adhere to that zoning bylaw? And they would, if I understand you. No, if it's a town bylaw. Like we have a town bylaw that regulates and plugs zappers, for example. Well, I think even a better one, though, is there's a town bylaw with respect to noise abatements. And yet, we will, as part of EDR, if there's a blower on the top of a building, we don't look at that as in, OK, that blower is how many decibels with respect to the town bylaw. We look at it holistically with respect to the neighborhood that it's in and everything else. So it's not as defined as the town bylaw is with respect to noise abatement. Does that make sense? Yeah, I guess. It's a possibility for confusion. I don't think it would be confusing to us. Because we wouldn't necessarily, you know, maybe we'd look at that for guidance. But I don't think there's any reason that we would need to be the ones to enforce that. We're not the enforcers of the town bylaw. Some of this language is involved based on some of it. I mean, standard type of some of it. Unfortunately, the proponent isn't here. And I'm not going to be able to probably answer what's what. I just wonder why all this stuff here. I think what, well, I don't want to answer for him, but I believe it was amending the original bylaw. So I can't speak for him. And I'll lose it after four points. With the realization that the Selectman's Meeting is probably a better place for it. Do you know when the Selectmen are getting this out? I don't. I don't know when they have it on their agenda. But I'm happy to take your comments if you'd like. Sure. Christian Klein, Newport Street. The only night came specifically on this one as in subsection D number four, which is lighting during special events, such as fairs, concerts, heldings, and sponsored by the town of Arlington, or approved by the Board of Selectmen. Most events that occur in parks are not licensed by the Board of Selectmen, they're by the Park and Recreation Commission. And so special events that occur in parks would pretty much be eliminated by this bylaw in that regard. So that was my only primary concern. Thank you. So we'll find out. I'll check in with the town council on that and understand what they get some final. It sounds like we've taken public comment. So we've gone through. What do you think we've gone through? Does anyone else have any comments or should we? So OK, great. Thanks for such a great point on the end. OK, now article nine is to amend the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington by the creation within article 11, special regulations of a new section 11.10 entitled outdoor seating for restaurants or take any action related there to. Before we start on this, I do want to mention something that I received from town council with respect to this article. Ms. Rudman's article is oriented toward outdoor restaurant seating and around public ways. As such, the urban zoning bylaw are neither the appropriate form nor the appropriate regulations to address such a concern. Among other things, the board of selectmen maintains authority over the use of public ways pursuant to MGL chapter 40, section three, as well as most regulation over private ways pursuant to chapter 40. Accordingly, the town bylaws contain a variety of regulations on public and private ways, title three, which are related to Mr. Moe Ruderman's concern, including public music, onings, and prohibited use of sidewalks and streets. In sum, the zoning bylaw is not the proper place to insert regulations contemplated by Mr. Ruderman so far as I understand them. So I wanted to make sure that you understood what town council had said with respect to what's been put forth. Thank you for that. When did you see that? I shot it 10 minutes before I got here. So well, that's a couple hours before I did. Well, I think it's always suggested to check in with town council on purported or for impossible articles. And I'm not sure that that was done in this situation, as I understand it. Are we still on the agenda? Absolutely. Yes. No, I'm just giving you what I've been told. The use of portions of public ways outside of restaurants and cafes for placement of chairs. I'm sorry, could you say your name and address? My name is Michael Ruderman. I live on Alton Street, and I'm the proponent of Article 9. The use of public ways for restaurants seating is something fairly new in Arlington Dining. And I did not see in my look at the bylaws that there was a place that addressed the fair and orderly use of this portion of the public space. So I was proposing what I thought were some common sense, reasonable regulations to ensure safe passage, to prevent overcrowding, to continue the town's authority to see and monitor and comment upon what would be considered inappropriate uses, and to make sure that the sidewalks, portions of public ways that are being used for such seating in table areas, do not become simply storage for the off-season pile of tables and chairs that aren't being currently set upon by anything but snow banks. I'm not being hypothetical here. There's at least one cafe in town where the tables and chairs never came in. And they appear or disappear according to the snow level. They're poking out now in another good snowstorm, and the snow bank will simply grow around them. So I was offering some suggested language here for dealing with these situations. And as it's printed on pages 4 and 5 of tonight's handout, I believe everyone passed it in front of them. So that's really all the explication, but I think it needs from me. I'll hope to be able to entertain your questions. I think that maybe the reason for framing it, and I'm sort of stepping into your mind, Michael, so hopefully, and you can tell me to butt right out, is that a few years ago, the board voted and town meeting approved a warrant article that said that the outdoor seating at restaurants would not be counted towards the parking requirement for the restaurant. Other than that, though, I can't think that we have ever really ventured into this area of outdoor seating and tried to regulate it in any way. And I think that really is under the purview of the board of selectmen as opposed to us. I think some of these suggestions are fine, but I don't think, jurisdictionally, it's something that this board can consider. This actually came up in front of this board. We weren't allowed to consider it. Common ground. If you remember with the common ground, it had to go in front of the board of selectmen. I wanted to consider it, in the worst way. And I recall the proponents had quite a well-developed plan for what they thought they were going to ask this board for. They thought that matters of how many, how high, how wide, how tall were building issues as well. And they had a quite well-developed scheme in mind that they brought before this board. Right, but we did not consider it because, as you might recall, and it was actually when I gripped my opening remarks from tonight, I gripped many of them from that night. And it was the thing I said that we couldn't consider that night was the outdoor seating as well as the common picture of those license, the entertainment license, and the liquor license, and that all of those were, as told to me by the town council just to be clear, was under the purview of the selectmen. I think it's an excellent idea to have it further defined for the safety of the public, which is why I was so interested when Common Ground came up, because there were some issues. So hopefully the board of selectmen reviewed that. Right, appropriately. Just one practical example of you have a facade of the premises is not parallel with the street curb. How do you draw the lines to say in front of this restaurant? Somebody needs to take a look at what in front of the restaurant means. Is it from a point perpendicular from the facade? Is it from a point perpendicular to the curb line? Is it whatever the neighbors don't complain about? So I was thinking that we need a little bit of definition here. And you'll still have individual cases. But this I think is exactly in the spirit of that well-respected legislator, Robert Frost, who said that good bylaws make good neighbors. Did town council offer a way to get this in front of town meeting? I think the problem that you have, and no, I don't, because the problem is that you've picked the zoning section that you want to amend. Well, this is all proposed language. But it would be out of scope to try to propose changing the regular bylaw, not the zoning bylaw. I don't know. I would talk to the town moderator. Look, I'm just giving you my own view of it as I look at it. But I can't tell you. I didn't go that. I did not ask that next question because I got it 10 minutes before I got here. There is a process in regulations. Actually, I don't know how detailed the regulations are. But there is an application that is followed every time someone wants outdoor seating. And it's pretty detailed. And they do always ask the dimensions, how much sidewalk they want to use. They ask for a layout to see where the tables are. And they do ask other departments, including planning and community development, for input on the proposal before the board of select management votes on it. I don't know if anyone provided you or if you spoke with someone's office if they gave you the application to see what it is they request, what information they already request for outdoor seating. But if you haven't seen that, then you might be interested in relieved somewhat to know that some of the things you're asking for in this language is already required before outdoor seating is approved. And that would be as a matter of procedure. But not, well, it would be up to the decision of the select, whether or not to adhere to that, change it, abolish it, or whatever. That's right. Any other public comment? Yes. Christian, I'm Newport Street. Unfortunately, I'm over two, I think, tonight. What I came here to talk about. My only concern that I appreciate the effort in here is the four foot minimum width. I think it's too narrow, especially in the area of Brattle Square, where there is far more area and far more activity. I think a four foot minimum requirement is its insulation for people to pass normally. Surely within the ADA, it's the 60 inches for full accessible passing. And with people with strollers and stuff, a four foot is never going to work. Obviously, on the opposite side of Mass Ave, where it's a much narrower sidewalk, and I know that there are stores there that are trying to get some kind of outdoor seating as well, that there may be some kind of accommodation for that. But I think, in general, that we want to try to provide as an accommodating a pedestrian way as we possibly can that's not choked up with tables, et cetera. Anything else? Well, thank you. Any other comments, generally, about the warrant articles that actually bring us to the last warrant article? I don't really have to consider it. So hearing none, I'll close here and close. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Oh, sure. I move that we close the public comment portion of the warrant article consideration. All in favor? Aye. Thank you all for coming, and thank you very much for putting everything forth. Appreciate it. Next item of business is actually just notes. You've been in Halifax? I have not. Well, in Halifax, all the restaurants are about to have seating right next to the pro-campaigns. But in the rest of the answer, the warrant. They can't go to the whole sidewalk because that's the intent of the warrant. Oh, gosh. We'll try to bring that back. Yeah. OK. I'm not. Yeah. I wasn't joking about it. $5.76 this evening, so that's it. My town council's. My town council email was $5.56 this evening, so. So the minutes to the meeting of January 13th? January 13 minutes. You're all second? Yes. I have some changes that Bruce offered. So I'm going to work from them if I may. Sure. Is that assistance? Sure. Actually, I'm going to let you take it because I wasn't here for it. Oh, OK. OK. So feel free. So my first change, and Carol has this already, is on the approved date. That would be March 3rd, 2014. Right. OK. In the third paragraph, the third line, just a little sort of stylistic change here. So Mr. Max Tussis said, instead of reviewed, that the Mill Street beacon with a small b on beacon was still being reviewed and that he didn't know results of tests. And then in the next sentence, tack him up with a list of measures consistent with the tool report for sign and pavement markings. I just struck the inconsistent recommendations because it seemed like the sentence would be better without it. And then down in the next paragraph, this is the third line. Well, actually, up to the fourth line, Cape Cod, the first word Cape needs to be capitalized. And in the third line from the bottom, emergency vehicles and removed by snow removal instead of from snow removal. So the sentence reads that Mr. Tonkin said that the ballers also prevent cars from driving up the bikeway, but they can be driven over by emergency vehicles and removed by snow removal. For snow removal. Or for snow removal. OK. Yes. For snow removal. That's what she meant. You had from. So she was tonight. OK. And then continuing on the next sentence, or second sentence after that, because Mr. Miller replied that there were supposed to be ballers elsewhere, but they get removed or run over by vehicles and are not replaced, if it reads more clearly. And last one was in the paragraph in the middle of the page. The last sentence would be better if it said she would also report if the owner of the ALTA project will extend the asteroid deadline. Deadline. That's it. I thought it would be helpful if, right in the documents used, the first one that's the document from Jason's Sylvail, did it say Green International? So we know where he's from. They didn't say it initially. And then I discovered it later in the notes. Oh, really? At least I didn't catch it in the minutes. And then later on, I saw that someone referred to Green International, so I'm glad to talk about that. It didn't say it on the top of the document somewhere? The documents weren't in front of me. I don't have the documents when I'm doing the meeting. But thank you. That's going to be a lot better to have that there. And then we talked about using the full name of the intersection. I know it's really lengthy, but instead of saying this, reported to the board on the Summer Street signal optimization, what we're going to use, oh, in the very first paragraph, the third line, because we were talking about that full intersection. Oh, right, whatever you think I should write. I forget the full name. It was Summer Street, Sims Road, Brattle. This was in there 4th Street, Oak? No, I'll tell it's for the team. The title of the report had it in it. And we were talking about using that full intersection name to be consistent with the title of the report. I think if you looked back in the report, just what you wanted to do. I might feel like the arcs are one of those. I can figure that for the moment. Yeah, it had a full name. What happened to us before? It's Hemlock. It's Hemlock. Hemlock, Hemlock. Hemlock, Brattle, Summer, Sims. Intersection. OK, and then after the Mill Street crossing, let's see, the same first paragraph, the next line, where Mr. Maximus is starting. I thought it would be helpful to say for the first intersection in question, Mr. Maximus reported that the signal detected loop. So we knew where he was starting. And most of us here know that that's the one he was talking about, but just for somebody else reading it. And then again, in the beginning of the next paragraph, you would use the full intersection name instead of just for Summer and Mill Street. It would be for the Summer Sims. Where? The first line of the second paragraph. So Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to accept the traffic mitigation for the Summer Sims road, Hemlock, Brattle intersection, and Mill Street. And then should we say that somebody seconded the motion and all approved? I didn't have that, so I'm hoping someone else has that. You can always say it was seconded. It wasn't me, because I was the chair. It's not a requirement. We always do. Oh, you don't have to. Our practice is to always say who seconds, but if it's seconded, you don't have to. As long as we know what seconded, we do know it was. So we should say it was seconded and all approved? Because we did take a note. Do you remember, is it possible that you started a motion and then we waited until later? Because I also thought from my minutes that I recall that there may have been. You may have started a motion. And I can't look at Mike, because Mike wasn't there. And then we said to wait until they, no, because on this one, Jake was here and they were ready to do the work, right? Correct, because if a single time it changes. Just odd that I don't have. I usually say what the vote was in my notes. Although at the very end, too, we had a, well, that's just to adjourn. Usually say something about so-and-so moved to adjourn. I'm going to be seconded and all voted in favor. Yeah. Not that that's that important either. Carol, in your notes, did we wind up eventually moving and approving, seconding and approving the mitigation and then they- Not in my notes, but it doesn't mean anything, but it's not in my notes. I'm not infallible. We did have to make a motion and accept it to release the 40,000 escrow. So we must have made a motion. Does it say 40,000 in there? Yes. Well, I may have said 40,000, but it's 15,000. Can you correct that now or is that, you have to say what it says. It's not 40,000, definitely. That was the CVSS scroll. Well, no, no, no, it's a little different. There was a 40,000, oh, wait. A $40,000 escrow from Brigham? No, for the traffic signal at Sims. For the Sims, yeah, those are the Sims one. No, I think it's right. We're still at Sims. I think it's right. So we had to make a motion to release that, right? And that's what this is discussing. See what happens when you're not here. I live a lot of activity, actually. There were documents being documented and I was busy documenting the documents so I don't have any record of the vote beyond the beginning of the motion if a vote was, but I do have a vague recollection that there was a, I thought someone started a motion but then stopped because it wasn't ready, that the board wasn't at the point in the discussion where the motion was complete or where the discussion was complete. I thought that was with the Mill Street intersection. We didn't make any motions there. We asked them to come back. And maybe we started to make a motion at that one but then we said to come back. I'm pretty sure we made some kind of motion. I can look at my notes tonight. If you recall that we voted it, we can just say it was seconded and all voted in favor because you did not have a vote that night where there was anyone who abstained or voted against it. Yeah, and I know we had a vote on something because Mike had told me we weren't gonna vote on anything and that. And you were upset. And you were upset. Oh my gosh. And this must be. And you were upset. You can just say that it was seconded, duly seconded and all voted in favor. Yeah, I remember cursing Mike's name. We did all approve and then we let Jake leave. Put those in a minute. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, he was waiting for some type of resolution on that. Okay, in the third to the last paragraph, in the middle of that paragraph after the sentence Mr. Fitzsimmons also asked the tack return with proposed reading of the intersection signage. I wanted to add something about tack will try to come back to the board within a month to discuss their findings because that's what was settled. We were asking them what was the reasonable time so that they would have some time. So anywhere you want that? Right after that intersection signage sentence. Okay, so before midwieners? Yes. Tack will try to come back to the board within a month to discuss their findings. Okay. And then just the ending if we have to add, so-and-so move to adjourn. If we don't, we can leave that. I think you usually have that at the end. I move to accept the minutes of January 13th, 2014 as amended. Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. And abstain. All right, now I have to apologize because I forgot to do one thing during the open portion of the hearing. So I'm going to ask for the public comments to be opened again on the hearing, if you could, please. So moved. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Sorry. I'm still writing down the comments. Okay, sorry. Wait, so, I'm almost there. Oh, I just, I had it wrong. It's your fault. I had it. Okay, and then Mr. Kerr? Well, actually- You said what? I moved as we reopened the public hearing comments portion of our meeting tonight with respect to the warrant articles. If I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, what I should have done near the beginning of the meeting and certainly during the comment period is received into the record, the comments of Christopher Loretty from whom we received written comments because he couldn't be here tonight. So, Carol, you have a copy of those that you can include in the minutes or as an attachment? Wait a minute, Mr. Kerr says that he, I'm sorry, I- Yes, I will entertain a motion to receive. Okay. The comments, the written comments of Christopher Loretty, which we received by email, maybe a day or two ago. March 3rd. And make them part of the public comment record. Who received them today? Maybe you received them. Yeah, no, I got them all. Oh, March 1st, I see it. Okay. Thank you. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. You know, what I should do before we move on is Carol, did we receive any other comments from anyone else? No. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close the comment here at the end of the hearing. Second. Oh, out of the blue there. I'm trying to be proof. Exactly, out of the blue. Great, that was Steve and Andrew. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Sorry about that, folks. Just put my mind as we were going through it. Good to remember. Yeah, I'm happy I did. Anyway, so I think that's all the business for this evening unless anyone has anything else. Okay, all in favor? Motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Here we go. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye.