 All right, the time is 736 PM. Today is Tuesday, March 11th, 2021. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. So members from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Mills, you're here, there you are. Here. Shauna Rourke. Here. Thank you. Aaron Ford. Here. Steven Reblac. Here. Wonderful, thank you all. So town officials, I don't know, were we able to get Rick back or is he still having trouble acting? Rick, I think I'm on, can you hand me a mic? You are, I see you now. We had a little problem, but I think I'm all set now, thank you. Oh, perfect, thank you. And Vincent Lee is here. Are there any other? I know Emily Solven is here from the Department of Planning and Community Development. I don't know if there's anyone else in that department here this evening. I think Jenny will be joining shortly too. Oh, wonderful, thank you, Emily. Farron Klein, this is Susan Chapnick, Chair of the Conservation Commission. Susan, how are you? I'm fine, how are you? Okay. So for serving with the board, Paul Haverty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, how are you? Good, thank you. And representing Beta Group, who is the consulting engineers, Marty Nover. Hi, I am here. Wonderful, how are you? I'm good. And with us tonight is Julia Stearns, I'm Greg Lucas and Bill Marat, Operator. Great, thank you. And then appearing for the applicant, Stephanie Kiefer. Good evening. Good evening, how are you? Well. Okay, and Stephanie, who's joining you this evening? This evening, we have pretty much our whole team. So we have John Hessian from BSC, we have Scott Thornton from Venice. We have Bob Angler from the SCB, house and consultants. And we have art, clip file, Glenn Noyes from Oak Tree, as well as Scott Glassick from Bruce Hamilton, architecture. Perfect. Hi, welcome all. So this opening, open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely, consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020, just short of a year ago. The order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference, other participants are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care not to share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain the quorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website less otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So we're now starting resuming the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndike Place. I'd like to review some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. So this evening's discussion will primarily involve the proposed draft decision released to the applicant and the public on Wednesday, March 10th, 2021. However, we'll begin this evening with a few procedural matters and then continue to the public comment period on the architectural and urban design aspects of the project, which was started at the February 16th, 2021 hearing. We will then proceed to the discussion regarding the draft decision. So the first item I'd like to discuss is the current status of the 180 day review period for holding a public hearing. So per 760 CMR 5605 section three, a comprehensive permit public hearing shall not extend beyond 180 days from the initial public hearing except by written consent of the applicant. So the current calendar that we have, the day 180 is Monday, April 5th, 2021, which would make today day 155. And with, so basically we have very few days left in the calendar where the board is available and where council is available. And so if we are to continue, the first really open date for us is Tuesday, March 30th, unless we would like to try to find some other dates, basically every other Tuesday and Thursday is out. And that's essentially unless the applicant would be willing to entertain extending the review period to allow us to consider some dates in the beginning of April. So if that's an option for you guys or not. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we had suggested previously that when we were trying to find another hearing date, I think this hearing actually, I had indicated that if we needed to tack on in a week, that wouldn't be a problem. So I don't know if that helps some of your schedule. I think it will because we have quickly flips, people waiting in the room looking at the calendar. So if we meet on the 30th, so the 30th is the according to Google calendar is during Passover. And I don't know if that is something we should consider not meeting on that date because of it being during the period of Passover. And then obviously at the end of that week, we get into Monday, Thursday, and Good Friday, et cetera. And then the following week would Tuesday the sixth be an available date? Mel says it's okay. Paul, would you be available that day? Mr. Chairman, I am not available that day. Okay. I don't know the hearing. I am available on the eighth. You are available the eighth. So if we could, if everyone's okay with us meeting on Tuesday, March 30th, and then if we are not resolved on that date, then we would move forward to Thursday, April 8th. Is there anybody on the board or representing the board or representing the applicant for whom that's a problem? Seeing none. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. If I could just, one of the things that's useful, once you have the eighth as a further day, then if there's somebody who feels scruples about participating in the meeting on the 30th, because it's in the middle of Passover, what we do will be on ACMI. There'll be more of a public hearing on the eighth. And so it gives people an opportunity not to throw away their shot by virtue of the schedule. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if that is acceptable to the applicant, I would just ask them to provide a written extension, probably to the ninth, just to make sure we don't have any confusion. That's not a problem. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the pro forma review. So pro forma review is a review of the pro forma financial information from the applicant. This takes place after the board has issued a decision, then the applicant needs to make a decision as to whether or not they feel the project is economic. And at that time, if they declare that the project is uneconomics, the board is allowed to request a copy of the pro forma for review by an accountant to confirm the assertions made in the pro forma. And the review of that is something that can be retained under 53G funding. I believe that's correct, Mr. Havary? That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And so I have received some recommendations from a couple different sources. I have talked to a few different accountants and I would like to recommend that the board retain our Robert Stankis, who's a director at CBIZ, to serve as the accountant for that review should that come forward. And as that would be under 53G funding, his budget is sort of estimated that to perform a full review would be between $12,000 and $15,000. So we would request that the applicant provide funds in the amount of $15,000 for that review. Is that something we need to vote on, Mr. Havary? That is something you would need to vote on. But Mr. Chairman, I do think, we do have a draft decision that has been submitted to the applicants, but we haven't listed the number of units that the board is proposing to allow under the first decision. So I think that in order to allow a process to move forward based upon a pro forma review, we would need to get that information into the draft decision, into the applicants before they could actually prepare a pro forma that shows the impact of all of the conditions of the board's decision. I think the board should endeavor to get that resolved tonight so that we can move forward on the pro forma review process. Is it premature for the board to request the funding at this time? Well, I think it's appropriate to inform the applicants that you intend to go through the process. Of course that also, when you issue the draft decision to the applicant in the first instance, they have the right to simply state that they accept the decision as drafted, that therefore there would be no pro forma review. So we do need to take into account that that is at least a potential response that we may get from the applicants although it may not be. But once they've determined that the board's decision renders their project on economic, then they would be required to inform the board of that and then the board could initiate that process. Okay, all right, then I will hold on that item at this juncture. But the next item is, so the applicant provided on Monday a letter to mass housing, which is a notice of project revision, which noted the revisions that were made to the project in the November 8th application of last year. And the board is in receipt of a letter from town council that to mass housing that they, that the, excuse me, the select board would like to submit written comments in regards to that notice, but they will be voting on Monday at their regular hearing to do that. But part of the, so this notice occurs under general laws under 5604 section five. And what that section provides is that there is a review that's for the applicant notifies mass housing about a change in the project, mass housing either responds back immediately or is allowed to let a period of 15 days expire before they, without issuing up any statement at which point it is assumed that it is approved. And due to the short period of time we have remaining the board, the chair feels that it is important that the board request a more expedited review from mass housing, which is something the board is entitled to request. So I did send a draft of that letter to the members of the board this afternoon for their review and would like the board to approve the sending of the letter. Mr. Haverty, does that, does the contents of that letter should I be displaying that at this time? I don't think that's a concern, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I got it, did I? That is a very good question. At this juncture, I could not be positive right now. Okay, but I don't see a problem sharing it. Okay, the basis of the letter. So in the second paragraph, I would change that to state that now the hearing would be scheduled to close on a before April 9th. Thank you, I'll go ahead and close that. So with the recommended change by Mr. Haverty, do I have a motion? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mellon. Okay, quick, go down the roll. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. O'Rourke? Mr. Ford? Aye. And Mr. Ravelac? Aye. Thank you, Paul. So I will read that letter and send that off in the morning. Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. If you send it off in the morning, you're going to have to adjust the date, the number of days left down to 28, which just goes to show how hard it makes it to put a counter in like that. Absolutely, I'll take care of that. Okay, so in a moment, I will reopen the public comment period on the architectural and urban design aspects of the proposed project. The public comment period was unfortunately cut short at our February 16th hearing due to the expiration of the allotted time on Zoom. At the time the hearing was closed, there were two speakers with their hands raised. So I will reopen the public comment period for 30 minutes. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the architectural and urban design aspects of the project. It should be directed to the board for the purposes of informing our decision. To provide for an orderly flow to the meeting and to allow the inclusion of many voices, the chair will limit individual public speakers to three minutes and encourage them to use their time, provide comment related to the indicated topic. The chair encourages the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board and included in the record. It's especially true if you have specific recommendations in regards to the project. The procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as for the previous hearings. Please select the raise hand button in the comments tab on Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by your name and address. So we give them three minutes for your questions and comments. All questions would be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. Once the allocated time has expired, the public comment period with a portion of the evening's hearing will be closed. The board and staff will do our best to show documents that's being discussed. If you'd like a specific document to be pulled up during your comment, please ask us to do so. Great, I will put up my flags. One more person waiting in the waiting room. Okay, so I will start this evening with Mr. Eric Siegel. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. Give us your name and address for the record, please. And I'll switch your hand, Joel. Sure. Can you hear me okay? We can. Great. My name is Eric Siegel. I live at 84 Milton Street in Arlington, in East Arlington in the neighborhood, I think very close to where this project would be. I've lived in this neighborhood. I moved here 37 years ago and I feel need to talk about this project tonight. I expect I'll probably lose a few friends, but I think it's important. I have lived here for a long time. I've experienced the parking and flooding issues that some of the opponents to the development have expressed, but at the same time, I was also one of the people holding the Black Lives Matter sign out on Mass Ave last year. And I think I want to talk about it from both those perspectives, kind of some of it is opinion and some of it I think is fact. I understand that there's a lot of people who are concerned about flooding and parking. For me, affordable housing is not just an essential issue. It's an issue of racial justice and that's why if you look at organizations like the NAACP and the Urban Institute, they put such an emphasis on affordable housing. Here in Arlington, we don't have enough affordable housing and the provision of 40 units in this development of affordable housing will be life changing for 40 families. To me, that's extremely important. Now I know as we're balancing environmental issues versus affordability issues, that's a difficult question. Smart people might have preferences on both sides, but I think one thing that's not a question of opinion, but fact is that this development is going to happen. The law is on the side of the developers, maybe the town can put it off six months or a year, but it's going to happen. And if you don't believe that, look right across through to at the Regal Belmont or the Royal Belmont, Belmont fought that for many years. But again, the law was on the side of the developer and it happened. In that case, they had the tallest silver maple in the world in that lot and it was cut down. And even with that, the development still happened. So I think given that the development that Thorndike Place is going to happen, I would urge the ZBA to support it with conditions and to use this opportunity to mitigate flooding, mitigate traffic, maximize affordability, instead of kind of waving our hands, running down the road and hoping it doesn't happen. And then in a few years, we can all say, well, we did our best. I'd rather see a wonderful development there that addresses these issues than just kind of try to blindly stop it. That's it. Thank you very much for hearing me, members of the board. Thank you, Barton. Thank you, Mr. Siegel. Next is Heather Keith-Lukas. Is Lukas if you can- Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name is Heather Keith-Lukas and I live at 10 Mott Street. I've lived here 15 years. I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Siegel. I believe that racial justice does not mean that we put a vulnerable population housed in a flood zone. I've attended many of these hearings and I recognize that the majority of us here are white. The majority of us here are likely in well-positioned financially. There are more appropriate alternatives for supporting Arlington's efforts to improving access to affordable housing. This is very important work. The current scope of the Mubgar development houses people in a flood zone. It's well-known and it's wrong for everyone. The intent of improving affordable housing in Arlington at this site will have detrimental impacts on the very people it's reporting to support unless there are clearly mitigated ways that can be explained. And I urge the zoning board to also be able to articulate specifically in the draft letter for approving this site to ensure that should it go through, the flooding is truly contained and that we won't have 172 units, 25% of those units being affordable housing, not having the population that we put there as white people to have their cars flooded, to have their belongings in the storage area flooded, to have the underground trash area flooded which would provide a public health issue. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for listening to my concerns. Thank you very much. The next on the list is Patricia Brown. Hi, how are you? Thank you very much. I have just three quick comments. Give me your name and address. Sorry, Patricia Brown, 49 Mary Street. I've just got three short comments and I've heard this address somewhere else but I'm not sure I've heard it addressed recently. In regards to traffic, I know that there was somebody who posted that the width of the streets we originally was measured at 40 feet but they're not, they're about 25 feet. I don't know if that's been addressed because that's a lot of traffic to put on narrow two-way streets. Second, and that's true of both Dorothy, it's true of all the streets in this neighborhood but the traffic that's primarily gonna go out on Little John and on Dorothy, it's a lot of cars to put on narrow streets. Second question I have is that with the redesign, we're talking about affordable housing but originally there was affordable ownership, not just affordable rentals. And I'm concerned that that's gone away because yes, it's great. We have some affordable rental housing but as everybody knows to build the wealth, you need affordable home ownership and that's kind of gone away. So I'm concerned about that. And the third thing is with the move toward trying to do green energy, has anyone done any kind of calculations about the neighbors? Are they going to have issues with being able to put solar panels on their houses because of shadows that this very tall building next door to these houses are going to cause? Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Mark McCabe. My name's Mark McCabe, board Dorothy Road. I went to Mass. Did you get everything? Yes, please. I just wanna make sure I got through. I do have a little trouble with this. Like everybody else, I do have concerns about the traffic, the flooding, the crowded streets and also the talk that this development reflects that the neighborhood, which I feel is completely out of control because there is no development dislodge within the neighborhood itself. And that goes back to the traffic problem. And I was unfortunately at a 40 page decision of application. I just got yesterday, very difficult to read through all 40 pages and understand the wording. But from what I saw, there was a study that showed that there would be 31 vehicles trips and in a short period of time, and 486 trips on an average weekday, going through a community of very narrow streets, parking on both sides. And I'm not sure when all this was done, but when the pandemic is over and people go back to using this neighborhood as a commuter parking lot, it is gonna be just a complete disaster to the community. I'm not sure when they did any traffic studies. If they did it during the pandemic, I think that traffic study is similar to measuring snow in the middle of July. It just doesn't handle or it doesn't show the true problems that happen in this neighborhood already without the development of Soondai Place. I was a little concerned also that the boy was granting waivers local bylaws and regulations, even though knowing that they will have an adverse impact in the local concerns. I know concerns are people who have lived here and have lived here for some short time, some long time, and appreciate their homes, appreciate their neighborhoods, and which will be completely changed by a development of the size. And it also seems to me that affordable housing, I certainly have no problems. I mean, affordable housing is like everybody knows is needed, but the idea of building affordable housing on a floodplain and also an area that is a wetlands is in a place that I think affordable housing should be built. I mean, there are other places where affordable housing could be built and- I could ask you to wrap up here. Okay, I'll wrap it up. No problem at all. Like I say, this is only gonna be a problem with traffic flooding, crowded streets, and one quick thing is, I know I was on the Parkson Recreation Commission and we were trying to make the parking lot at the Thawndyke Field a little bit bigger so that it would be safer for the people who use the field, and we had a lot of problems trying to get more of the parking space there unless we made it a permeable surface. And that was just a small project compared to what is going on. And I don't see the same concern about flooding or anything like that. And, you know, because Thawndyke Field does get flooded already, and I think we will lose the use of Thawndyke Field. And I appreciate the time for everybody on the board and anybody else who's listening, and I am done. Thank you, Mr. McCain. Mr. DeBiase, let's give you a name and address please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Robert DeBiase, 29 Little John Street. I have lived here for over 30 years. I've lived in Allington my whole life, which is about 55, 57 years. And quite frankly, I've got many concerns about this project that I've stated to the board previously as well. One of them being the excavation project of this foundation that's gonna go in the ground. Nobody has given us really a definitive answer on the depth of the excavation from street level to bottom of footings, so that we know what the actual displacement of water is really gonna be in terms of human footage entirely and what the mitigation process will be for us. Because we are gonna be looking at, you know, solid ground water underneath us, there's gonna be strong water pressure. Where is that all gonna deplete to? Where is that gonna stand for us? That's one of the biggest questions that I think all the neighbors surrounding us are because you'll see I've sent in a few photos recently of just the most recent rainstorm of Thorndike Field and around the surrounding area, all flooded. I think you may have received them yesterday or last night. One of our other deepest concerns if this project was to go through like it is, is the module buildup. When you do module building, you usually have a very, very wide street. You're not dealing with 24 feet, you're usually dealing with 25 in your blocking street lanes and you're preventing traffic from flowing through so a crane can place these items. Not only do you need a crane, but you need 18 wheelers of boxes to come through which are the basically the big module units. And I think that if you're gonna grant the permit, it also has to be proven that these things can come in without disrupting the personal life of everybody that lives in this unit in this area rather. You've got residents that have to come and go on a daily basis. Some of them elderly that need healthcare. And I feel that there's gonna be restrictions for these people to come and go on a regular basis. That is one of the biggest things, especially for the elderly. If they should need 911 services, emergency care, they're gonna be deprived of that. The last thing that I have coming across is the box. You guys have re, let's see, let's put it this way. You've used the box for your parking references, your traffic references. The box has above ground parking. They don't have below ground parking. Reason being is they're built on piles. It's an absolute swamp over there. I used to maintain that property from the Martinettis for over 35 years. So I know that area very well. They have pumps in the ground that constantly move the water to get from one place to another to prevent the flooding from the buildings. Those pumps run normally about 20 hours a day. Now, if we put this foundation in the ground next to me, because I'm a director, but I'm exactly right next door, my biggest concerns is what's gonna happen to my home? How am I gonna be guaranteed that I'm not gonna come home and find three feet of water in my basement because they're pumping out their basement into my lot? And I think that the board needs to really look at the superstructure of this and how it's feasible to actually place this in a thickly settled district that we're in. You're looking at R1 and R2 residents, before we had the buffer zone of those nice little town homes, if you will. And now they're being spread out and the building moved right up to the street. Some residents have taken pictures of the recent street with a moving truck on it. And it shows about eight feet to get by the moving truck on Dorothy Road. Other residents have taken pictures of Lake Street, most recently, with it being backed up all the way into Belmont today. And we're not even through the pandemic yet. Things aren't even open. So we... I'm sorry? I can just ask you to wrap up, please, sir. Cool. I guess we're just, as residents of this neighborhood, we're just hoping that our concerns are taken into the board and that they can sit and actually look at the whole demographics of this area and make sure that the feasibility of this can work without property damage as well. Because all of our homes are but the street. And if you've got 18 wheelers, tractors, cranes, we want to be guaranteed without incident that we're not going to have issues on our own properties because of it. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. Next thing on the list. It's truncated. Matthew, maybe... Matthew McKinn, something, I apologize. It only gives the first five letters of your last name. Oh, that's okay. My name is Matthew McKinnon and I live at Nine Little John Street in Arlington. Please proceed. Hi, Christian. I posed a question during the last meeting regarding some information that the applicant had provided to us about donating the land to the town of Arlington. My question was regarding any sort of help that the applicant or family, the MuGar family has provided either Arlington or the surrounding towns of Cambridge and Somerville who have dealt with the homeless population on the grounds who have set up task forces to clean up multiple times over the years. I was told by Stephanie Kiefer that she would get back to me on that question. I was wondering if I could ask Stephanie if there had been any follow-up for me. I can ask her on your behalf. That would be great. Thank you very much. That is my only question. Okay. Ms. Kiefer, do you have any information in that regards at this time? Sorry about that. I just asked, could you restate that question? Just so I make sure... The question is if the current owners are participants in the assistance with the homeless population on the property? In terms of moving forward with that, the homeless population and how any coordination goes forward, I think it's still an open issue that is a dialogue actually with the board, the town, the applicant in terms of doing that. It's a tricky issue. So I don't want to give an oversimplified answer, but... Well, I think the question was more a question of today, is the family involved in the ongoing efforts? Aside from the... I'm not aware that there's a coordination right now with the Arlington Police. I believe has a designated division that helps with homeless. And I don't know that there is anything that involves a public-private partnership at this point that answers your question. Well, I think that the question was just very direct as to whether the MuGar family is directly involved in this action. And it sounds like that may not be the case. I'm not aware that there's, as I said, I'm not aware that there's a public-private going on with the actions at the Arlington Police, the division of it that deals with the homeless population. All right. Thank you very much. Ms. McKinnon, does that answer your question? I mean, what I get from that is the answer is no. Rather than having just a building plopped on here and saying it's for the good of the people and the homeless or people who need housing, but the applicant and the family for the past however many years that this land has been here and open hasn't done a thing to help the homeless who have been living on this land. So it's sad. The question has been answered as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. Thank you. I have time for a few more. I apologize that the Zoom does not maintain the order that people pop up their names. And so they kind of go back and forth and I apologize for that. I will call on Jeanette Cummings. Thank you. Jeanette Cummings, 32 Dorothy Road. To respond to the concerns of the neighborhood, my one question is, have the members of the board visited the site? And if not yet, when would they be doing so? So I can't speak for the others. I was there last week, specifically measuring the width of the streets and looking at sight lines through the sites and trying to assess sort of where the property comes out on Margaret Street on the other end there to sort of try to evaluate things. And then every time I drive up route two, I take a good solid look at what's in the woods at this time. But I think that other members have made time on their own to go visit the site. We have not gone as a group obviously because of the COVID restrictions I have been trying to get an understanding with the Board of Health on another project to go visit and we're having a little trouble working that out. But I do believe that members of the board have visited the site and are very much aware of the conditions of the site. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Rao. Thank you, Mr. Klein. I appreciate you all hearing me. I am now an East Arlington resident but I really wanna speak for the town of Arlington and I'm speaking to the Zoning Board of Appeals and also to the neighbors and to Mr. Siegel. Many people know me as an affordable housing person. I'm one of a handful of people that started the Community Preservation Act. And part of that is building affordable housing is probably the most successful statewide project to build affordable housing. I'm also a landscape architect. And the reason I've been against developing the site is because it is a swamp. The people that live around it know that. My neighbors know that. I don't want anyone to live in that location. As many people have said already, why would you want somebody to live in an affordable unit to have their cars flooded and all their storage flooded? This is just, it's not the right thing. Our state delegation is against this. I know the Zoning Board of Appeals is doing the best job they can possibly do. And I applaud them for that. But I think you need to really think long-term the town has been against any development on this site for decades. The Board of Selectment, the town meeting have been against it. So I'm just adding my voice, but my voice is for all of Arlington, not just East Arlington. And it's for affordable housing. We have a very good affordable housing project in the middle of Arlington that is a friendly 40B. This is not a friendly 40B. And we need to have our waivers and the comments about this project be as strict as they possibly can be. And I thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Raub. Mr. Yerwitz. Good evening. My name is John Yerwitz. I live at 47 March Street for 37 years. The last meeting, the applicant pledged $350,000 over the next 10 years to police the property once he builds his building. Where is this $350,000 good neighbor money been for the last 12, 15, 15, 40 years? These people have been there, the mess has been there. Why now? Why not before? Kind of like a little treat for us. The letter written to Jessica Malcolm at the state by the applicants lawyer, softened the blow of this development. It made it look like they were bending over backwards to accommodate all the residents and what we want. Well, what the residents want, the pressure from the residents is not shade lines and signage and bicycle racks. The pressure from the residents don't build this thing. It's an invasion, okay? It's a quiet neighborhood on quiet streets and it's on a wetland. When they build this four acre underground garage that's gonna displace a huge aquifer and the displacement of that aquifer is gonna come into our basements. One answer I haven't gotten yet is from Ms. Noise of Oak Tree Development. I'm looking to learn is if this thing is gonna be built, are they gonna be putting in driven piles or aggregate piles? I need that answer. I can forward that question. I believe that question was answered at the last hearing but I would ask Ms. Noise and Mr. football. I believe at the last hearing you indicated that you would not be driving piles but you would be proceeding with either the pile that the gentleman referenced or helical piles, is that correct? Yes, we have talked about with a geotechnical engineer who assured us that aggregate piles, aggregate peers that would not be driven piles would be most appropriate for this construction. Thank you Ms. Noise. Matthew, you're with? Yes, I understand this too. Aggregate piles do have a compressor that pushes the aggregate down into the pre-billed a pre-argued hole in the ground. There will be some vibration even though it's not the same as a driven pile. This is the time where we look to Arlingtonians to stand up for Arlingtonians. The huge vibe, the uniform opposition to this project has been going on for years, for decades. We're having these conversations now and everything sounds like when you talk shade lines and bricks and park and all that, like it's already a foregone conclusion. I hope that's not the case. We want the conservation commission, the select board, town meeting members, border health, school department and especially the all powerful ZBA to stand up for our nice neighborhood and turn this thing down. Nobody wants it. It does no good. I also learned that something like this, if it's built within a one-mile radius of a transit hub, L-Wife station, that the state will kick back some money to the town for allowing this thing to be built. So it sounds like they're selling us, the neighborhood out to build this development. That's deplorable. I think that's gonna wrap up, please. I'll wrap it up. The 25 weeks of delivery of these modules on the back of these big trucks, these things are gonna wipe out some of the lower branches of our trees on Little John Street. Little John Street's gonna take a beating during the two and a half, three years of construction. And for the rest of the life of this building, please do not approve it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Aaron Freeburger? Lou. David Address on the record, please. Sure, but to underscore Clarice's point, I live in Arlington. I think it's irrelevant how close I am to the project, but I am. I live at 20 Parker Street, Arlington, Massachusetts, 02474. And I apologize already for my frustration, but I have a key point and a key question. So the first is thank you for your time, for giving us the time. I realized that this meeting came out of the fact that I was one of the people who raised their hands previously and was not able to speak. I do wanna underscore the fact of this ongoing, sustained collective opposition for this project cannot be emphasized enough. Every person who's spoken ahead of me tonight has mentioned a point that I agree wholeheartedly with. So there is so much concern here. And my fear is that my three minutes of speaking points may or may not be addressed in the context of this larger piece. And so where I'm getting frustrated and where I see a theme here is two things. One, as a neighbor living in this neighborhood, it feels that there's a lack of context. So Jeanette's question asking, quite sincerely and honestly, is if people have come to the neighborhood is because it feels like no one gets it. So whether it's 24 feet or 25 feet or 30, whatever the width is, I haven't bothered to go measure my street because I know how wide it is. I know that if a neighbor parks across one side of the street, I can't park on the other because a car can't get through. That's a fact. I don't need a tape measure to do that because I live here. So the concern that I have here is that we keep asking questions. And then again, to John's point, we get answers such as, I think we just heard Ms. Noy say, an expert assured us what is most appropriate. That is not an answer. So we are giving very concrete concerns. And while I appreciate in the ZBA letter that it addressed that there are concerns, what we're missing because we don't have the expertise, the time, the full understanding here of the scope of this project because this is not what we do. We are missing the point by point connection from the ZBA to help us understand that you are hearing us, that you hear us with context and that the points in the letter that of the conditions match back to that. So as an Arlington citizen, I implore everyone on the ZBA meeting, the team to help us understand that, to help us understand the connection of what we're saying and that we're heard and that it matches back through. So my particular question now is an actual question that I want an actual answer for is I don't know from the time I've spent understanding this, the height of the building in the latest rendition from the ground where a person would stand to the height of the top of the building, whatever that's called in architecture language, I wanna know the height of the building, please. And I'd like to know the square footage because what I'll then do with that is calculate that. So I have an understanding compared to the Hardy building, compared to the apartments off spy pond or Robin's library or the high school because I need the context to understand what we're talking about here. When the Oak tree development has given pictures, I don't trust them because that is not the view that I have. So my question is the height of the building and the square footage of the footprint could someone help me with that number, please? Yes, please. John Hessian from BSE, can you respond to those two questions? Possible you're on mute if you're not. I'm now off mute, Mr. Chair. I may need Scott Vlasik to lend a hand here. So the elevation of the street, on Dorothy Street is approximately elevation 10. I don't know what that means. Oh, we're getting there. Okay, thank you. We'll get there. So if the street is elevation 10, the first floor elevation is elevation 13. So the first floor sits about three feet above the street, which is similar to a lot of the homes on Dorothy Street that the first floor is set up, actually probably a little bit more of four to five feet above the sidewalk or street grade. And at its highest, it's a four-story building and this is where I may need Scott. I believe it's 11 feet floor to floor. So that would be 44 feet plus 13 is 54, 57 minus 10. So it's 47 feet above the pavement, the sidewalk on Dorothy Street. And John, this is Scott. You are correct on the floor to floor height. It is 11 feet. And then I don't have the exact number, but the total square footage in the residential building is 195,000, maybe a little under 196,000. Does that sound right, Scott? I don't have that number right in front of me. Yes, I will look that number up right now. Just give me a minute. Thank you for that. So from my understanding, for context, I believe my understanding is that I don't have that number right in front of me. I don't have that number right in front of me. Yes, I will look that number up right now. Just give me a minute. So from my understanding, for context, I believe my house has a footprint of about 1,000 square feet. And so that's helpful to know this is about 195,000. Well, just through the chairs, Mr. Chair, that's the total square footage of the building on all four floors. That's not the footprint on the ground. Oh, that's what I'd like. Yeah, I'd like to know the footprint. Okay, is it a fourth of that? Yeah, okay, the footprint, I can find a lot easier, hang on one minute. Yeah, not exactly a quarter because there's portions of the building that are two and three stories. So it's not just a divisible by four number. That's correct, John. So the ground floor footprint of the ground floor of this building is 51,497 square feet. 51,497. Yes, that appears, Mr. Chairman, on the plans that have been submitted to the board. All right, thank you. Thank you, that's all. Okay, thank you. So I had given a half hour to try to address these questions that relate specifically to the building and the site, we kind of drifted a bit from that, but the last participant here has really come back to the building. So with that, I would like to move on to the next portion of the meeting. There will be public hearing again, this same meeting, just so everyone is aware. So I'm gonna conclude the public comment period for this portion of the evening and we'll now move on to the discussion of the proposed draft decision. So the remainder of this evening's discussion will involve the proposed draft decision released to the applicant and the public. In preparation for this discussion, I'd like to remind the public of the options before the board. So the board is allowed to take three different decisions on this application. We are allowed to approve without conditions. And so whatever the applicant has provided, we are allowed to vote and approve that without any conditions and allowed to proceed forward. The board's allowed to approve the project with conditions. So we are able to take what they have requested and we are able to condition it in conjunction with what the board finds or the local needs. And we are allowed to issue that as a decision. That decision is appealable by the applicant to the housing court, but it is also appealable by the butters. And then the third possible decision is that the board is allowed to deny the project. If the board denies the project, the board can still be appealed. The product can still be appealed to the housing appeals committee who can overturn the board's decision. But if we deny a butters appeals are also not allowed. And so the decision of the HAAC, the housing appeal committee is final in that regard. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Can I ask a question? Of course, if we were to say no, there would be nothing to appeal because that's what the butters, at least some of them have asked us to do. But I guess the other question that Mr. Havarty might wanna answer is whether they can intervene in the applicants appeal to the housing appeals committee so that they can make the same kinds of arguments they're making here, invite the housing appeals committee to learn more about their neighborhood and their concerns and present whatever arguments they have as to why the housing appeals committee should affirm what the board has done. Do they have the right to do that or don't they? Mr. Havarty. Yeah, so butters or other agreed parties do have the right to request to intervene in the housing appeals committee process. However, in order to do that, you need to be able to show that one, you would have standing to do so, which would require you to be harmed in a manner of special and different than the rest of the neighborhood. You would also have to show that your interests are not being protected by the board with regards to the specific interests that you are setting for. So when the issue of a denial, I think it's unlikely that any party would be allowed to intervene in the housing appeals committee process because it would be presumed that the board would be representing and protecting the interests of the abutting property owners. In the instance of an approval with conditions, it is possible and it happens frequently that neighbors that are able to establish standing are able to intervene in the housing appeals committee. I did want to note that with regards to appealing an approval with conditions, the applicants appeal route is to the housing appeals committee, whereas a neighbor or someone who is agreed by the board's decision has a right to appeal directly to the superior court or land court pursuant to general laws chapter 48, section 17. So that's the exact same kind of appeal that an abutter would have on the issuance of a special permit or a variance. The de novo appeal just start over in the process on that appeal. The way the law works if there are joint appeals filed. So if the board issues an approval with conditions that the applicant determines under the project on economic and they appeal to the housing appeals committee but a group of abutters appeal the board's decision to the land court or superior court, the abutter appeal is automatically staid by operation of law and it becomes moot if the housing appeals committee overturns the board's decision. And then they would simply need to try to appeal the housing appeals committee decision. Thank you, Mr. Havard. Does that answer your question, Mr. Hanlon? Yes, it does. Perfect. Okay. So the board will now begin its review of the proposed draft decision. The board will abide by the following procedure to discuss the document. So the board will review the 33 items that comprise the procedural history, jurisdictional findings and factual finding sections of the proposed draft decision. The board will then invite the applicant to address those same three sections of the proposed draft decision. And the board will then invite the public to address the board on those same three sections of the proposed draft decision. The chair will like to encourage the public to participate in that section. But if the, we also invite the public to provide written comment to be reviewed by the board and included in the deliberations and in the record. So I will go ahead and put display on the screen. This document. So, procedural history. So the application for comprehensive permit received by the town on or about August 31st, 2016, application proposes a development of 12 home ownership units, six townhouse structures, 207 rental units and single forestry structure for the total of 219 units located on the property. So that was the original application. And Mr. Havity, it was recommended to me that somewhere in the procedural history, it should be noted which version of the zoning bylaw and which version of the wetlands bylaws were in effect at that time. Mr. Chairman, it would be all local bylaws. Are those that were in effect as of the time of the submittal of the comprehensive permit application? Okay. Is that noted in the procedural history anywhere? I don't think so, but we can certainly add that. You could make a note to do that, please. Yep. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. In light of the evolution of the application, would it be more sensible to use the past tense here and say the application proposed the development that is described in this paragraph since that's no longer what the proposal is, as I understand it. That makes good sense. On this to this point, number two, the board's public hearing on the application was duly opened on September. We need to find that date. It's that correct? Okay. Mr. Valorelli, do you have access to that date? I can find out that date. Mr. Chairman, you can get back to me. On October 6th, 2016, the board submitted notification to the applicant pursuant to 760CMR 56038 that it met the 1.5% land area minimum safe harbor. October 21st, 2016, the applicant appealed to the board's decision to the Department of Housing and Community Development on November 17th. The Department of Housing and Community Development issued a decision ruling that the board's safe harbor notification was an error in determining that no such safe harbor was applicable. The board timely appealed this decision to the Housing Appeals Committee on October 15th, 2019. The Housing Appeals Committee issued a decision upholding the determination of the DHCD and demanding the matter back to the board. At the request of the applicant, the hearing was resumed on December 10th, 2019. At the December 10th, 2019 hearing, the applicant requested a further delay of public hearings until April 14th, 2020. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing did not actually resume until August 25th, 2020. Subsequent sessions of the public hearing were held on October 13th, 2020, November 24th, 2020, December 8th, December 22nd, January 26th, 2021, February 16th, March 11th. And so the next date will be March 30th. And then the hearing most likely will be closed on, I believe we said, April 8th. The project is located on the property which is located off Dorothy Road and Parker Road in Arlington, Massachusetts. Mr. Chair? Yes, please. I believe that may be a Scribner's error. I'm not aware of a Parker Road in that vicinity. I think it might be little, supposed to be Little John. Well, certainly that I'm trying to think of. No, it's not. There used to be a Parker Street driveway. Parker Street is the one in East Arlington. Parker Street. It's the entrance to the homeless people. Yep. Not Parker Road. Work to get a better definition for that. That is line item number three. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. I wonder if, I mean, I think we might want to work. It's fine to say that the property is located off Dorothy Road in Parker Road, Parker Street. But so are many of the people who testified before us tonight and I would like to see us provide a more precise description of the property. And I'm looking past various things to noticing that the property consists of all of it and not just the five acres. So it would be nice to have a more precise identification of exactly what the property is. Okay. So we should bound it by our route two and Thorntike feeable adjoining properties. Right. Okay. I couldn't agree with him more because there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the rest of the land after the five point some odd acres of land. If you look at number 14 on page five. May I ask who's speaking? I can't. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? Yes, but I'm trying to find out who this is. This is Paul. Oh, Paul. Sorry. I can't see the pictures anymore. Oh, so if you look at number 14 on page five, there is a more detailed description of the parcel. The project is located on the 17.7 acre parcel of land located between Conkerturn Pike route two to the south and residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the property off Dorothy Road and Parker Road, which should be Parker Street. Parker Street. Mr. Chairman. To the east by Burke Street and the Allington Thorntike Plainfields. The property is located within the Plain Dean of Development Zone District. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if that can just be brought up here paragraph four. That was what I was trying to say. Which we're about to get to. Also has got some problems with it. Salem Street is a potential problem and Thorntike Field is actually is, if I look at it right to the east rather than to the west of this project. So you have it right in 14. It would be useful to get it right up here. Okay. You need to add a little John as well. Yes. Just to add, my name is Mark McCabe for Dorothy Road. And I think Thorntike should definitely be added to the whole process of what is going to be going on. So this, if I may, as chairman, this portion of the hearing is for the board to go through these and to make these comments. I appreciate that members of the public have very positive comments to make and very appropriate comments to make. But it's highly confusing in the Zoom environment when there are voices just sort of popping out. So if people could please respect the chair's wish to keep this with the board for the time being. And I do promise that there will be given due time for the public to make comment. Mark McCabe, respectfully so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. So it sounds like three and four we need to sort of, it sounds like we bring 14 up. It will basically address the issues with three and four. Is that your sense, Mr. Hanlon? I think that's true. If Mr. Havity agrees. Yeah, absolutely. And then it's a number five, probably consists of approximately 17.7 acres of which 11.5 consists of flood plains while 5.6 consists of buildable upland. I could ask Mr. Hessian, does that comport with what you have? I believe my recollection is that those are the numbers that were in the original 2016 application. Okay. But there, you know, the word approximately is in there. And just based on the development parcel that we've proposed and, you know, the potential conservation parcel, we're at, you know, little over five acres for the development parcel in the 12 and a half for the conservation, those numbers are, you know, close. If we need them to be more accurate or exact, that can be worked out. But for the original application, these are approximately correct. Correct. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think this is Pat. I'm concerned about, again, getting mixed up on these things. This is the board speaking. And as far as anybody reading this looks would assume that they're speaking as of today. If we want to say the original proposal was a certain thing, then we should say that. If we want to say that the property is located in a certain thing and, excuse me, and we should say that as well. Here, the numbers that we have here don't really correspond to the numbers that we would use for the existing project. And beyond that, it may very well be that the applicant maintained that some of it was in floodplain and the rest was buildable upland. But as we know on the basis of the last year of hearings, it's much more complicated than that. And it seems to me that the only thing that we need to know here is that the project, the building will actually occur on a certain number of acres, leaving over what we've been calling the unbuildable acres. And however we say that is fine, but I wouldn't as a member of the board want to say either that all the stuff that's outside the buildable area, the area that the project is supposed to occupy, not all of that is floodplain and not all of where the project is is actually buildable. So those words are really not appropriate coming from us. They were originally contentions of the applicant with which I wouldn't entirely agree. How do you think we should remedy that? I think that we should just substitute in the number. I would say that the project consists of a building that will be located on approximately five acres or whatever the number is that Mr. Hessian just pointed out, leaving an unbuilt portion of the property which is not built upon, that would be it's relatively, it's 12 and a half acres and leave it at that. Okay. Mr. Havardy, is that somewhat clear? It is. I guess my only concern is, I think it is helpful to have a finding in the board's decision as to how much of the site consists of floodplain. And I think that's an important thing to be in there. But Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to that, that may be an important thing and I don't necessarily agree with that, but to me, that's not part of the procedural history and it's not a description of where we are right now. It's actually complicated to figure out what exactly is floodplain and there are other kinds of resource areas and so forth. We've been through that with the Conservation Commission and it's just not as easy as just dividing everything between floodplain and buildable. But if we want to say that in more detail and get it more precisely, I think that actually the findings of fact here ought to be a little more detailed and more than there are, there will be a time to do that. But I don't know. I mean, I would actually have to ask Beta and the applicant to really bear down if we wanted to define what floodplain, how much of it exactly is floodplain? We could probably figure that out. I don't think that we can figure it out in conversation in the next 10 minutes. Okay, well, let's move on from this one and Mr. Hanlon, maybe you and I should discuss this one offline. Okay. Okay. Number six, the applicant provided various materials, reports, studies and revised plans throughout the course of the public hearings. Number seven, the applicant submitted revised plans on November 3rd, 2020, reducing the number of units in the project to 176 units. This revision also eliminated the six two-family townhouse structures originally proposed by the applicant in favor of an all rental development in the single structure. Number eight, the applicant submitted several, excuse me, submitted revised architectural plans dated February 15th, 2021, revising the proposed rental structure step back above the first two floors of the structural on Dorothy Road near the abutting family residences. Number nine, during the public hearing. Mr. Chairman, for number eight. Yep. I believe these are the plans that the number of units were reduced to 172, is that correct? That is, that would be correct. So we should note that in this. Okay. And then number nine, during the public hearing, the applicant was assisted primarily by principals, Gwen Noyes, Arthur Cook-Fall and his counsel Stephanie Kiefer, Small and Vaughan LLP, civil engineer, John Hedgeman, PE of the SCV group and its traffic engineer, Scott Thornton, PE of the National Associates of the Inc. Number 10, the board utilized the services of its review engineers, Beta Group, Inc. with Marta Nova, PE, Todd Unza, PE, William McGrath, its PE, handling civil engineering, a wetlands peer review and Greg Lucas, PE for traffic. Board also utilized the services of town council Douglas Hyme, planning director Jenny Ray and other town staff. Board also represented during the course of the hearing by special town council, Johnston Witton of KP Law and Paul Havardy, Flann and Bronstein, Havardy LSD as this chapter 40 of the technical consultant, Stewart Grant for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. I believe we are missing one person from Beta Group. Mr. Chair, this is Marta Nova. I am not a PE. Julia Stearns. Julia Stearns. Yes. And while we're at it, Greg Lucas is also a PTOE along with a PE. E, okay. PTOE. Is Stearns a PE? No. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah. Oh, I'm on the Zoom call. What are you doing? I'm on the Mugar Zoom call. Yes, you are. Rick, can you track that down? All right. I'm sorry. Thank you so much for bringing that wine. That was really good. You did. Thank you. All right. Number 11. During the public hearing, there was a significant public input. The board heard input from the butters and other interested persons throughout the hearing process. Board also heard significant input from town departments, including the Conservation Commission, Department of Planning, Community Development, the Transportation Advisory Committee, Select Board and Engineering Division. The board also received significant input from the Arlington Lands Trust and the Mr. Forever Watershed Association, both independent local nonprofits. Is there anyone on the board who recognizes anyone we may have missed? Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Do we, and this is a question also for Paul, can we add in the end of the first sense of number 11 during the public hearing, there was significant public input in strong opposition of something of that effect, because I believe that should be either there or in the findings at some point. Mr. Havity. I have no concerns with that, that's fine. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat again. We did receive, I think two different, two letters from the Redevelopment Board and while we didn't receive those recently and on the most recent iteration, it may be appropriate to put them here. I think it also, if we're discussing the nature of the public controversy, it would probably be useful to mention the interventions that we have received from the delegation from Rep. Rogers and Rep. Garberley and from Senator Friedman. All well taken. Moving on to the jurisdictional findings, item 12. So the applicant has demonstrated its eligibility to submit an application for comprehensive permit to the board and the development to fill the minimum project eligibility requirements set forth in 760 CMR 526041 as follows. The applicant is a limited liability company. It has indicated in its application that it will conform to the limited dividend requirements of General Law 40B, section 2023 that's establishing as a limited dividend entity. The applicant has missed the address of 222 Berkeley Street, Boston, Mass 02116. The applicant has received a written determination of project eligibility for mass housing dated December 4th, 2015 under the New England Fund Program copy of which was provided to the board with the written application. Applicant provided these dated September 8th, 2015, recorded in the Middlesex South in book 1479 at page 27. Thus the applicant has shown evidence of site control sufficient to qualify, excuse me, as an applicant for comprehensive permit. The applicant has agreed to execute a regulatory agreement that limits annual distributions in accordance with General Law 40B and the regulations 760 CMR 56 and guidelines adopted there under by DHCD. So with the most recent notice of change, Mr. Havity, does that affect this section? It doesn't affect this other than with regards to the written determination of project eligibility. Perhaps we should add something that the notice was submitted to the subsidizing agency, but we would have to leave blank to wait to see how the subsidizing agency determines that notice. You could go ahead and make a note to do that. Yep. Number 13, town of Arlington, the town did not meet the statutory minima set forth in General Law 40B 20 or 760 CMR 56 or 33 to 56 or 37 at the time the original application was filed except it's noted below. At the time of the filing of the application, the number of low or moderate income housing units in the town constituted 5.64% of the total year round housing units in the town based on the most recent publicly available copy of the DHCD subsidized housing inventory dated blank. And so I need to get that date. So is that the date that was in effect at the time of the filing? It's whatever the most recent publicly available copy of the subsidized housing inventory was as of the date of the filing. And it could be up to a year or two because they don't update it that frequently with publicly available subsidized housing inventory. Okay. I'm not gonna watch it. I just need to figure out what the copy was that was in effect as of that date. Okay. But that's something you can locate. Yep. Perfect. Number B, the board has asserted a claim that there are existing affordable housing units that are on sites that comprise more than one and 1.5% of the total land area of the town that is zoned for residential commercial or industrial use excluding land owned by the United States and the town of West Massachusetts or any political subdivision thereof. The board timely asserted this claim pursuant to 7.50 PMR, 56.038, the applicant appealed this claim to the department of housing community development which is the decision dated November 17, 2016. Reversing the board, say part of determination. The board appealed this decision to the housing appeals committee. On October 15th, 2019, the housing appeals committee have held the decision of the department of housing community development because this decision was not a final decision. The board was not able to pursue an appeal pursuant to general law 30A14. At this time, the board reserved its rights regarding this safe harbor claim. C, the granting of the comprehensive permit will not result in the commencement of construction of low or moderate income housing units on a site comprising more than three tenths of 1% of land area in town or 10 acres which have a larger zone for residential commercial industrial use excluding land owned by the United States and the town of West Massachusetts or any public political subdivision thereof in any one calendar year. Letter D, the town has an approved housing production plan pursuant to 760 CMR 56034 but is not currently within or eligible for certification. E, the town has not achieved recent progress for this housing unit minimum pursuant to 760 CMR 56035. After the project has originally submitted does not constitute a large project pursuant to 760 CMR 56036. And G, the applicants comprehensive permit application does not constitute a related application pursuant to 760 CMR 56037. So those are the jurisdictional findings. Mr. Hanlon, do you have anything else you think should be included in this section? I don't think so, no. Okay. So I think the only question we had on this one specifically was in regards to 13A looking at the date for the that the housing survey was done to the housing inventory was date. Okay. This brings us down to section three factual findings location of the project. The 14 projects located on a 17.7 acre parcel of land located between Concord Turnpike road to the south residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the property off Dorothy Road and Parker Road should be the street. The property is bordered to the east by Birch Street and the Arlington Thorndyke playing field probably is located within the planned unit development zoning district. So we wanna add something with regards to the proximity to Little John Road? I think so. Or we could say that it borders, yeah, I think you could say it borders Dorothy Road and to the corner of Little John Street. Okay, Little John Street. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it's possible. We've already talked about essentially bringing the contents of this paragraph up. Too earlier, and it seems a bit odd to repeat it. And I was wondering if there is some way of cross-referencing it so forth. So we don't have to have the same paragraph here twice. No, but I think, and that's just to have any, let me know if I'm right. I think because it's in the factual findings section because we need to determine as a finding that that is the location of the project that it does need to appear under findings. Yeah, we could take it out of the procedural history. It doesn't need to be there. I mean, it's really just sort of some background information in that section. Right. Number 15, on the Board Engage and Review of Potential Civil Engineering Society. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Yeah. I have a comment on 14. If I may. And we add at the end of the first sentence where it says off Dorothy Road and Parker Road. Do you see that? Yeah. Just to better describe the neighborhood and add which consists primarily of single family homes. Is Mr. Chair, Steve Revolac? Yes, please. Is it primarily single family or single and two family? I recall there being a row of two families on Dorothy Road. I'm going off the language by, I believe by other reports that describe that as primarily single family. I know there are some two family. Would it sound better as, or I guess would it be more accurate to say primarily single family homes or exclusively single and two family homes? Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we ought to be saying what's accurate here. And it's single family and two family homes. And that's what it is. I don't think that it's important or useful for us to try to decide what's primary and what's not. We'll point out that the two family homes are a line of townhouses built right across the street. And they may think of it themselves if not the primary homes in the neighborhood, at least they're pretty significant. So why don't we just say what it is single family and two family houses? Okay. Does that work for you, Mr. O'Rourke? Yes, it does. Perfect. Okay. So going on to 15. The Board engaged in review of potential civil engineering site design, traffic stormwater floodplain impacts of the project. Number 16, the project will connect to the Arlington Municipal Water and Sewer System. I guess that should be systems plural. Number 17, the applicant originally proposed 315 parking spaces for the project at ratio of 1.44 parking spaces per unit. The applicant subsequently reduced the parking ratio to 193 spaces or approximately 1.12 spaces per unit. The Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that as a transit oriented development, the project should not have more than one parking space per unit. So none of this is a condition. So we are not taking a stand on any of these positions at this time. We are just stating that these are what we have been, what has been offered to us in terms of testimony. Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, this is sort of a general comment that's going to work through and it's not something that can be fully addressed or even partly addressed really in the course of just a conversation this evening. But one of the things that I think is missing here is a fuller discussion of the factors that make this such a challenging site and breaking it down into pieces in the way we do here, saying how many parking spaces and so forth, it kind of emits that, not just the flooding history, it emits a lot of things that are driving what it is that we are trying to do and what others are trying to persuade us to do. And it seems to me that in order to meet the sort of level of transparency that was urged upon us earlier this evening, it would be helpful to sort of think through what kind of general background of this sort. And maybe that goes into the question about what's buildable and what's floodplains and have something that is a page or two maybe, not a huge amount, but that really gets across what it is about the project that gives rise to all of the problems that we're trying to answer when we get to the condition. So I would encourage us to just sort of put that on our agenda and see what we can do between now and the next time we have a hearing and have something specific to propose. But in general, when you read this, I think most, many of the people, you just don't have to get the feel for why it is that it's such a controversial project. It doesn't sound nearly as hard as we all know it really is. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I agree with Mr. Hanlon. You don't really get a feel for the problems that the new faces talking about the description of the property as Mr. Hanlon said, what's floodplain. And also talking about access, that how access is from Lake Street, that the issues with Lake Street. And I believe we can pull a fair and rather short summary from the reports we have that describe both the issues with the property itself and access. And I don't know if it's worth us doing that tonight because it's going to take a little bit of work. We can probably do some of it, but I agree with Mr. Hanlon. We should probably come up with kind of a quick summary that we can insert here to really capture the issues with the property. Yeah, absolutely. Let's look into see if there was a different section that it might fall under, but it absolutely would fall under this section. Maybe just an introduction, between 14 and 15, you start on civil engineering and you get into some specifics, maybe just having a more in 14 would provide a place for it. I mean, after 14. The first section is location of the project. So maybe we then just, before we get to civil engineering, so I think that's from what impact, if we could have something about like character of the neighborhood. Yeah, right, or description of the neighborhood or whatever that, and we can try to do our best to capture it. I mean, obviously you could write more in piece about this actually, but we can't and so we'll leave out important things, but we couldn't put in some more important things to make again, make the whole thing more transparent. If it's the general sense of the board to do that, I'd be willing to try to come up with some language and suggest it to Mr. Havardy who can perfect it or just take some of the burden off because it involves writing a page or two. Yeah, I was going to ask if maybe if you wanted to work with Mr. O'Rourke on that. I'm going to do that, Mr. Chairman. All right, that'd be great. I think that Mr. O'Rourke, as you said, I think that's a very important that this get incorporated into the findings because they, it's really this aspect of the property, it's the conditions of the property in the neighborhood that will form the basis of the conditions that we need to make sure that it's very fully captured. I think we left off at the end of 17 to number 18. The applicant did not originally propose bicycle parking with a reduction in the number of units. The applicant revised the number of proposed bicycle spaces to 176 interior spaces with additional exterior spaces. I just asked Mr. Hessian, was there a specific number of exterior spaces? I couldn't find a number on the plans. There wasn't certain. Mr. Chairman, there's not a specific number of outside spaces. I believe the rack by the main access in the courtyard can handle approximately 16 bicycles. We can confirm that. And then I think Scott Thornton knows the exact answer on the number of bikes that will be accommodated at the proposed blue bike station. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. This is, I'm sure it's a Scrivener's issue, but we start off saying that the applicant did not originally propose bicycle parking. And then we go to say with the reduction of number of units, the applicant revised the number of proposed. And if they never proposed it, they couldn't have revised it. I'm not quite sure what is actually meant, whether there was an intervening point where they did propose it, or whether what we saw with the revision was really the first proposal, but whatever it is should be clarified and gotten right. I think it's more the latter that with the revision came the incorporation of bicycle parking. Yeah. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, this is Scott from VAI. Yeah. As far as the blue bikes station goes, I think later on in your decision, there's a specific reference to the blue bike station. So maybe we could bring it up at that point. I think if we could indicate here, I think just for the findings that the applicant provided 176 interior spaces, approximately 16 exterior spaces, plus bicycle rental or something like that, because I think it's important that it, unless did you say it was in the findings or is it actually in the conditions that it gets picked up again? Oh, I think it is in the conditions. Okay. I mean, if you did want to add it here, it's a 23 dock blue bike station. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I think we need to make sure that we include that in the finding. Thank you for finding that. So things just to number 19, on-site amenities will include recreational areas and structures that's shown on the approved plans and reference below. And then approximately a blank percent of the site will consist of impervious surface with a remainder consistent of pervious surface. Mr. Hessian, I don't know if you've run those calculations for the most recent plan. I know it was sort of in a little bit of a hand drawn version the last time we saw it. Mr. Chairman, no, we have not. I mean, you know, we're, I think the site plan is starting to start moving, but it was moving up until the last hearing and we submitted that updated site plan today that is an effort to try to reflect what was presented schematically on the hearing on February 16th. So we don't have those numbers right at hand right now. Okay. Would you be able to run those in the near term and get back to us with that? Sure. I appreciate that. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, that would be in calculating the percentage that would be on the entire 17.7 acre parcel. I think it would be helpful to have it both for the entire parcel and for the proposed developed parcel. Okay. Thank you both. Number 21, board finds that the pre-planting and landscaping details proposed by the applicant and is conditioned by this decision insufficient in light of the site disturbance that the project will entail. Given the extent of vegetation proposed to be removed within resource area, the applicant must provide a landscape plan as described in section 24 and should include the elements described in the guidance provided in section 24. Yes, follows. I believe, I'm not totally sure, Mr. Hanlon, but is this what you had referenced to me earlier where it's in the findings, but it sounds a little bit more like- Yes, yes, I think that's right. I mean, ultimately what should be in the findings is that if we have the condition right, and presumably we will find that the landscape plan is sufficient. And I think that what this is telling us is that the landscape plan in this respect is not sufficient. The references here, I believe, are to the wetlands by-law that are administered by the Conservation Commission. And it seems to me more logical to put this in the conditions and not put it in the findings. Among other things, ultimately some day people will be looking at this as a document and what they'll look at is the conditions and they won't be looking at the findings to find conditions. So it's important to sort of separate that out and make all of the things that are in the imperative mode in the conditions part. Okay. Mr. Chair, this is Steve Revolac. I agree with this. I had the same, was going to bring up the same point about this section. And also if we could explicitly state what section 24 refers to. Ah, okay. I'll put this one on me to take a look at 21 and separate that out. 22, stormwater management has been designed to comply with the natural water management standards in accordance with 310, CMR 10, 5, 6K through Q and defined in detail in the mass depth water stormwater management handbook to system incorporates destination practices to facilitate total suspended salt removal infiltration and retention of stormwater flows. 23, board finds the applicant must provide a compensatory flood storage mitigation plan for the proposed compensatory flood storage area to mitigate the negative environmental impact. So I think this is similar to 21 and that would go ahead and look at that as well. Really 24 is also the same and so is 25. All of them are essentially conditions. Okay. All right, so I'll look at those four together. 26, the project is conditioned herein will address the lack of affordable rental units in the town. That is correct unless the board was to condition that there be home ownership units in which case we would need to reconsider that one. 27, the board heard testimony from the applicant and the board's peer review traffic consultant including the applicants traffic impact study prepared by PNS that says it's ink that the project is expected to result in approximately 31 vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and approximately 38 vehicle trips during the weekday afternoon peak hour. There will be an estimated 486 total vehicle trips on an average weekday. These figures are based upon the proposal for 176 units. So I could just ask Mr. Thornton to, if he could, not necessarily at this time but if he could just verify those numbers for us that those are the correct and current figures. I can give you the correct numbers now if you'd like, Mr. Chair. Oh, that's even better. Sure. So the 31 for the morning should actually be 27. So there was a follow up memo that changed the numbers and I tried to combine those two. Okay. So I think this is so, so if we're basing it on the original traffic study then I think it should be referencing the numbers that are in that study. Okay. In that case it would be the 27 during the morning, 33 during the afternoon and 430 on the average weekday. Okay. And then the memorandum that had come out that had recommended increasing those values. What was that? Here's refresh my memory so exactly what that was. Yeah, I think actually if Mr. Lucas is on he can probably chime in on that. But I think that was an attempt to take an alternative look at some of the way the vehicle trips were calculated using a varying mode split. I think that's where the other numbers came in. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Mr. Lucas from Beta Group. The numbers shown here under, excuse me, number 27 do represent the addition of those additional trips based on the, you know, taking a second look at the mode split in addition to what was shown in the original traffic study. By the same token, Mr. Thornton's correct that to say that the traffic impact study, the numbers were different that were in the traffic impact study. Perhaps there's a way to word this to say the applicant's traffic impact study and subsequent memoranda prepared by Vanessa Associates would kind of capture that trail of, you know, comment and response that led to the numbers. And I did take a quick look earlier and these numbers do total what we identified as additional trips from the revised mode split in addition to what was originally shown in the traffic impact study. So these numbers 31, 38 and 46 are correct in that regard. And perhaps it's just necessary to mention subsequent memoranda to clarify that that's the sum of the discussion. I thank you. That's very helpful clarification. Here's the number 28. During the course of the hearing, the applicant submitted a plan showing a reduction in the number of rental units to 176 units. The applicant further modified, introduced further modifications to it's design during the hearing process, which further reduced the number of units to 172 units. Number 29, the board finds that the conditions imposed. Mr. Chair. Please. Sorry, Steve Ravillac. So going back to the item, yes, item number 28, would it be worth mentioning the motivation behind or the reason for the reduction in order to reduce the massing at the front of the building and have it more closely resemble the height of the adjoining structures? Sure. So that's for the reduction from 176 to 172. Right. Yes. Thank you for that. Number 29, the board finds conditions imposed in section four of this decision are necessary in order to address local concerns. The board finds that such conditions will not render the project uneconomic. To the extent that such conditions may render the project uneconomic as defined in 760 CMR 5602, the board finds that the local concerns outweigh the potential benefits of the proposed affordable units. Number 30, the board finds that granting certain waivers from local bylaws and regulations is acceptable even though granting waivers may have an adverse impact on local concerns. Number 31, the board acknowledges concerns raised by butters and other interested parties about the project's potential incompatibility with the budding residential uses, particularly relating to stormwater and flood plain impacts as well as traffic and parking impacts. The board has addressed these concerns by the imposition of appropriate conditions. The board further finds that conditions detailed below appropriately address these matters of local concern in a manner that outweighs the regional need for affordable housing. The board finds that the conditions imposed below address local and regional housing needs while properly protecting valid issues of local concern. 32, the board finds the construction of the project as conditioned will be consistent with local needs. And 33, the applicant is proposed that the portion of the property outside of the development area shown on the plans as containing approximately blank number of acres will be either placed under a conservation restriction or deeded to the town. The applicant is proposed a one-time payment of $100,000 plus annual payments of $25,000 for a period of 10 years for cleaning up the existing debris and invasive species on the portion of the property. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. So it's apparent that all of these sort of, these findings are pretty tentative. I'm not sure that we're in a position to say that we can find all those things right now. So I think it's not worth it to try to wordsmith them at this point, but I think it's important to everyone realize that we may come some day to find these things, but we're not really completely there now, at least not all of us are completely there now. And there's a lot of discussion about conditions and other things that would be necessary in order to allow us to actually stand behind what we've put here as placeholders. No, I completely agree. I mean, the conditions are intentionally right now left somewhat open-ended because there are a lot of, there are a lot of issues before this board in regards to this project. And I think that those are substantive discussions that we're going to need to have and that we will have it starting in our next hearing in regards to the conditions and how we condition it. But I wanted to ask Mr. Havity, I think in some regards, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are fairly boilerplate, is that- That's correct. Okay. And then 33 was the proposal from the applicant in regards to the additional property. Ms. Kiefer, did you have a number of acres that you originally had provided for this? Not Ms. Kiefer, maybe Mr. Heshton. Hi, sorry about that. I couldn't find myself to unmute myself with respect to number 33, is that what you're talking about? Just how many acres were proposed to be placed under the conservation restriction or did you? Well, we had proposed was approximately 12 and a half and that number obviously needs to, as you indicated before, there's sometimes there's things that are moving targets. So, but we can put that in as a placeholder for now. And the monetary figures are correct, right? Those within monetary figures that we had seen, yes, and we had also referenced that for the conservation piece, we had suggested to the town or non-profits. Okay. I know the board still continue to get parts on that China. Nope. We'll take that. And I believe that you had also at the same time mentioned something in regards to some kind of like a stewardship committee. Yes, we had proposed that there be a sort of committee designed to help oversee the property or the conservation parcel and in terms of whether there's a plan to move forward with any sort of pathways through it, those sorts of things. Okay. And that would be representative. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. On 33, I know 33 is in flux and it's not set language. If we're gonna add something like 33, would we, I think we should consider adding another paragraph expressing the concerns we've received over that issue from the town, particularly the town manager's memo today and some proposed language that we've received from the boards expressing their concerns about the condition of the property that we need to go in there as well. That's well-picking. Yeah, I wasn't sure if that should kind of include that, but I think that either as a part of 33. It would be important for context. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, just as a suggestion, this is Pat. Another paragraph, I mean, this paragraph ought to say as Ms. Kiefer has pointed out what the applicant has proposed and then it would be perfectly logical to come up with a paragraph afterwards to say that the town and the land trust and whoever have expressed difficulties with that and then to describe, this is still factual findings and so we're really just describing the issues on both sides. So a paragraph that says that would be, would set the stage for what will come later on when we talk about exactly what we propose to do. Okay. And then another question for Mr. Havity. I'm not quite sure. So the volume of comment that the board has received from the public, how does that get incorporated through the record? Does it make this, is there a reference to it specifically in the decision or is it just in the record of the proceedings? So we can certainly, and that could be something that could be added to the procedural history in terms of if there's a running list of comments that have been submitted, we can include that as a document. If not, we can simply acknowledge the volume of information submitted from the public that it's available in the Board of Appeals Office or review multiple ways that you can address that. Okay. Following up on that, Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question? Please. Could we in that vein, is it possible, and maybe Mr. Havity can answer this, if we wanted to cite the specific things that were presented by neighbors in a budget such as pictures of flooding or pictures of the traffic backing up that we've received, where can we do that in the decision? Is that part of the factual findings or can we just reference that if we catch two conditions? I think that if there is a specific document that you wanna reference in the factual finding, you can note what is contained in that document. I wouldn't attach it as an exhibit to the Board's decision. I mean, at the end of the day, this is something that's gonna have to be recorded at the registry of deeds, and we don't wanna overload in the amount of paper that's gonna have to get recorded. But I think you could certainly note that it's in the Board's records and note what the concerns are in a factual finding. That's perfectly appropriate. Are there any other questions from the Board in regards to these first three sections and first 33 items in the proposed draft decision? I assume there are none. So I will turn to the start here. And I will ask the applicant to please address the same sections. And would it be easier this key for if I just, if I stop sharing and let you? Actually, no, you can keep sharing if you wish. That way, if I reference a section, you can just scroll to it. I think I'm okay with that. It just as a preliminary comment. Go ahead. Please proceed. Thank you. As a preliminary comment, can you hear me? I can. I think it's my internet that's wonky. Mr. Chairman, I could not hear her. Oh, okay. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Can I hear you now? Okay. Very good. As a preliminary matter, the applicant and our team received this yesterday. So we, as a team, I think the most prudent courses to go through it as a team to go through it. So we've not had that opportunity to do that. So the comments that I'm going to give right now are some are preliminary and perhaps more suggesting an approach than going through, as you just did, going paragraph by paragraph. And I don't want to take up too, too much time. With respect to the procedural history, generally, we can provide perhaps a red line to certain adjustments or language or something. One substantive thing though, and Paul, you can feel free to weigh in on this. And this gets into whether it's within the procedural history, or if you put it in the findings itself, but often what you have in the procedural history is, there's a reference paragraph six that spoke to the applicant and provided various materials, reports, studies, and revised plans throughout the course of the public hearing. Oftentimes what you'll see in a conferment decision is a listing of all of the documents. And it would include the peer review comments as well, from beta as well as comments that have been received, perhaps by the boards. And then there's two ways that the board can handle in terms of the public comments, because there have been a lot, and I don't know how hard that is to the catalog. I've seen some decisions go and they list kind of all of the technical things. So the submittals of the plans, revised dates, the engineering reports, the peer review, the responses to peer review, the comments from conservation commission, the planning department, et cetera. And then they may say something like, and numerous comments from the public, if it becomes too voluminous and you can't do it. And sometimes they put it in the body of the decision itself, or they say as referenced in appendix A, and then you just have appendix B. It just goes through and states that. So that may be one thing that may be helpful. And again, I don't know if Paul's considered that in that, if his preference usually is to put that as an appendix or to actually list them within the body of the decision. Mr. Chairman, if you'd like me to respond to that. Indeed. Do it either way, it really depends upon the board in terms of whether they want to include a list of all of the documents that have been submitted throughout the course of the hearing process. I think that would be an incredibly long list in this instance. However, I definitely would not include the body of the decision. I would have it as an exhibitor and appendix if that is what the board would prefer. Yeah, I think, please, Mr. Hamlin. I was going to ask if Mr. Havardy could tell us whether there's a legal reason to do that in terms of identifying what's in the record. It's a long appendix and I'm not sure how useful it is to whoever it is who has to review this later on. But if you need to do that to define what the record is or to fix what the record is because later we will have a hard time figuring it out, that would be different. As anyone who has actually gone through our website knows, it's not 100% complete and it would be an enormous task to try to get everything in there. And I'm not sure that the effort would be worth it unless there are legal consequences to doing it and getting it right. There are no legal consequences. You are not required to list every piece of correspondence that are received during the course of the hearing. You're not required to list all of the reports. The plans have been listed in the body of the decision. So that's already taken care of. It can be helpful. But again, when I talked about the appeal processes at the beginning of the hearing tonight, either the appeal to the housing appeal, housing appeals committee by the applicants, or the appeal to the land court or superior court by the neighbors, both would be de novo appeals. They would not be in on the record appeal. They would be a completely new process with a new record created. So there's no requirement that the board list all of the documents that are received during the course of the hearing in their decision because you don't have to create a record. Because no appeal would be based upon. Well, thank you both for that. Miss Kiefer. Okay. I would just want further comment on that. Paul's, Paul's right. There isn't a requirement that you do it, but I heard some comments from the board previously that they were trying to provide a bit more context to, to the background. And I think that sometimes that does help provide context if you see that it was actually a very, you know, that there was a lot of thought that went into it on both sides, you know, on behalf of the board and its consultants and on behalf of the applicant. But, you know, I will ultimately get your decision, but it's not a requirement. I think that sometimes it does help provide that context that I heard being mentioned before. Appreciate that. Thank you. And then I'm going to move into, I think the. Jurisdictional findings are. They just tend to be rather straightforward. If we have any comments, we'll provide you a red line on that. And then moving on to. The actual findings. Again, I would reiterate consistent with my prior statement that I think that in the, in the interest of having a more contextual description of the project. And we can provide this through red lining, but, you know, there's nothing in here that exactly says. You know, where, where it describes where on the property, where the property is located. And there may be a little bit of confusion, but the property is for the project, excuse me. Is, is not within, you know, vegetated wetland. And the majority of it's not even in bordering lands. They're just too small fingers. And so I think that perhaps we can work with, I can work with the BSC and we can just provide a little bit of detail to give an idea of what's on the ground for the project. And then also I would suggest some additional information in terms of what the project consists of. And I know that that's in part going to be a discussion that the board's going to have, but in terms of, you know, the number of units, the number of bedrooms, et cetera, et cetera. And so I think that, and I don't know how you want to handle this exactly, Mr. Chairman, but. Normally I would think that we would provide a red line, but I know that you've made some statements this evening that there's going to be decisions from this. So I think that it's unclear when the board would have a further revision for us to comment on, and since we're looking at really two and a half weeks for the next hearing, it may just make more sense for us to provide a red line to the current decision that's been handed to us yesterday. Would you agree with that? I think so. I mean, I think the alternative would be for the, you know, for the, the base for the, you know, the board to put, provide input and revise. But I think we would not, you know, we would be revising only these three sections. We would not be providing comment on anything beyond these three sections. So in terms of redlining, were you meeting within the, within these first three sections? Well, actually I would mean within the, within the whole probably. Because I understand that the, the board is seeking to impose conditions, but sometimes it's helpful if there's a condition and the applicant in the board may see slightly different, but by proposing something that kind of meshes both the applicant and the applicant. And so if you have any other concerns, you can find a way to be like, Oh, yes, that, that works. That gives that addresses the concern that we had and the applicant says, and that addresses, you know, a very practical design issue or something. Yeah. I mean, I think certainly to inform, inform the discussion that we have the next hearing when, when I just say it will be just speaking almost exclusively to. I think it would be helpful to have. You know, the applicant's perspective on those as well. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I think. I think that the same point can be made with respect to practically everyone who has an interest in. In this project. Next time we will be addressing conditions that. That will originate with other groups in the town. There'll be, there will be people who in, in the community who might want to have conditions that are not there now that they'll want us to consider. And the best way to consider them is either through some sort of a red line version or at least something that says insert this text here or there. If you're to do that, if that is provided to us in writing. Relatively early. I mean, I know that we've been at the last minute. Surfacing this, but just as a practical matter, if there are a lot of conditions of this kind this year, task of. Sorting them out and putting and, and getting everything together so we can see what. What's been proposed. Is going to require some effort. So I just encourage everybody to do it and to do it that way. Cause if, if you just have a question. Comments in the air are a lot harder to deal with than comments that relate to particular. Particular provisions that need to be supplemented need to be changed, need to be deleted, whatever. And so I'd encourage everybody to do what. What, what. Miss Kiefer has proposed to do. Thank you. Keeper. I think without belaboring the point that perhaps that's just the. The best way to conclude our preliminary comments. This evening. Is that, you know, we would close additional ones and also provide a bit more. I think that's a good point. Context in terms of where the development is proposed on the site, what the resource areas are, where they're located, what the. You know, what the, what the parking is, what the, what the amenities are. I need to be able to see that in the findings, you know, the description of what the project is. And you don't see that here. You don't. You don't have that in here. So I think that we can. Help provide that. And then obviously the report will review it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Following up on what attorney Kiefer said regarding the conditions and just for the public who been watching this. Just because the conditions are there, it doesn't mean we've decided we're going to impose conditions. And I just wanted to make sure that. If you think that should be emphasized to the public, we still have to. What we're going to do here. And that the proposed conditions there are there in draft form. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point on this. We'll make sure I think that's worth emphasizing. If I'm wrong. No, I think that's. Correct. Sorry. Something show up on my screen. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? Red line. There was a comment made by. In a butter earlier. I think it's important public. No. This was a draft decision that we could get things on paper and start a discussion. We've only discussed so far through the findings. We have not discussed what we're going to do as far as an approval or denial or approval conditions, even though the conditions are there. But it's helpful to see if we're going to decide to approve with conditions. What those are going to be. Especially. That's the reason they're there. And I just thought that was important to emphasize that we still haven't made a decision on what we're going to do yet. So. Absolutely. I think that's. Very well taken that the. I think if people look through the conditions, you see there are a lot of blank lines in there. And so those are all matters that the, the board needs to make a decision on. And those are all things that. The board would make, will make decisions on through the public hearing process. But my sense is that those will not be. I think we'll, we'll conclude with the, with these three, with the public comment on these first three sections, and then we'll pick up at the next hearing with a more substantive discussion of the. Of what the board wishes to do in regards to conditions moving forward. So with that, I would like to. Open reopen the hearing for public comment. Specifically as it relates to these first three sections of the decision. And if, if people could. Please try to limit their comment to, to, to those sections, it would be greatly appreciated because that's really what we're trying to focus on at this point. I'm going to. See if I can find my clock again. So the chair encourages the. The board, the board, the public to address the board on the, these same three sections of the proposed draft decision, the chair will limit individual speakers. The three minutes encourage them to use their time to provide comment related to the indicated sections. Of the proposed draft decisions only. The procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as for the, for the prior. The prior public comment period. Please select the raise hand button from the comments tab on zoom, which will indicate you would like to speak when called upon. Please identify yourself by name and address will be given time. Your questions and comments. All questions would be addressed to the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps, helps us generate an accurate record of. The other reason you were rising to this evening. Once all. Public questions and comments have been addressed. Or. The allocated time of. The. I think we have, I don't think we have a hard stop at 1030. So I'd like to go to 1045. So. We could have 45 minutes. This evening. That would work best. I'll leave this a little bit of time at the end still to close out. So with that in mind. No. Mr. McCabe. Ms. Thank you for presenting the documents tonight. I just had a couple of issues to bring up the first being that. I can just ask for your name and address for the record. Sorry. Anna Kuharski 34 Mott street. Thank you. So it seems like the 2020 FEMA maps were not being used. For this project as well as. You know, some of the. Climate change vulnerability assessments that Cambridge and Boston have been used. Have been using for their developments. And I really concerned that these climate change. Standards that project future. Precipitation future. Flooding are not being used for this development because the application was initially 2015. And it was not being used for this development. And it was not being used for this development. And I think environmental decisions without the most up to date scientific evidence. Especially when it will pose a safety and health hazard to future residents. And, you know, from a personal perspective. I only moved in for a few years into a new. Construction. And. You know, it was made with the most modern codes and. It was not being used for the next few years. But it was not being used for the next few years. And so I think that the future of the. Flooding started within months. So this was something that nobody informed us about. And you know, this is what I hope. That I can do for those future residents that no one did for me. Is that, you know, to prevent placing, especially economically or vulnerable population into an area that is known for flooding. And I think that the future of the city. And I think that this property to them will inform them. And in the sense, I do believe it is a matter of. Social and racial justice. For these future residents if they're especially if they're, this is going to be for affordable housing. My second comment is that the traffic studies. The current traffic studies on Lake street. Don't account for the new traffic light. That's now in the minute. Additionally, I know some other traffic reports that the developers presented were using box to data and that is on the other side of the highway and another town. So I don't think that's appropriate and they had their on their website how it was similar traffic flow and it's absolutely not. And if they're only accounting for, I think you mentioned 31 total extra in on the streets during rush hour for 176 units which includes two and three unit apartments. You know this obviously shows that doing a traffic study in a pandemic is completely misrepresentative. So I am concerned about a lot of the misrepresented misrepresentations and distortion of the graphics. You know the picture of the facade with that distorts the width of the street the heights of the nearby buildings which are, you know cleverly covered with a tree. You know this really questions the integrity of the developers and the data that they're presenting. I have heard that the town has offered them other locations to develop in which they have declined. I'm guessing the reason is because of the location of public transportation. And I just want to note that the Boston public transportation system is outdated. It's severely in debt. The infrastructure is not enough to handle even the current capacity. And so, you know, I don't think that's that viable of a reason. Secondly, you know, with saying everyone is just going to magically use public transport. Well, you know, I came to this neighborhood committed to use public transport and not own a car. And we did try that for months and it did not work because we are nowhere near a grocery store nowhere near any plate any doctors or anywhere to buy. You know household hold goods so it's, you know, I've tried it personally and it's not possible to not have a car we had to, you know, eventually succumb to having a car and so let's get a wrap up, please. Okay, thanks. I do think that that is also not really a viable reason to be building in this area. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Bittaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every aspect. Just get your name and address of the record sorry. Sorry, Steve Bittaker for Wait Street. Every aspect of the oak tree building proposal on the Mugar property is flawed for the 40 from the 40 be to the traffic study blending into the neighborhood ethics questions. And of course the environmental impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Let's start with oak tree getting a 40 be granted based on outdated and incorrect zoning maps. I'm referring to the zoning maps that have 100 year old cemeteries still listed as our one or single family residents and our five low density housing residents. Clearly these properties won't be built upon think poltergeist. And then shouldn't have been allowed to be used in the calculation. It simply doesn't reflect reality. Taking the acreage out of the equation, which the town rightfully did would mean there is no 40 be here. This is an example of a large corporation trying to game the system and cheat for their own profit to the detriment of those that would occupy it, the neighbors, and the neighborhood at large using these cemeteries and other areas that are incorrectly zoned is not in the spirit of being a good neighbor. Rather, it's pushing this building project through under under false pretenses. Let's talk about traffic. The most recent traffic study conducted by oak tree was during a global pandemic, where the commuting numbers are a small fraction of what they were pre pandemic, and what they'll return to post pandemic. This is not a sincere, nor serious good faith understanding or representation of the area traffic as it applies to the proposed project yet another example of using false data to game the system. Let's talk about blending into the neighborhood. Oak tree was asked to in writing, Oak tree was asked in writing to propose a project that would blend into the neighborhood. If that neighborhood was mass avenues to Arlington, they would be spot on next to the other three and four level apartment and condo complexes that line the street. Using 176 unit condo apartment complex with a massive footprint on the far side, or the far end of an established 95 year old single family and two family neighborhood with quiet streets is not a sincere, nor neighborly proposal. No oak tree. This massive building does not blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Mr chairman. Yes, please. I would appreciate it if Mr Bittaker could just make his points and not reduce everything into personal attacks on the applicant. There's a point underneath everything he says it's not particularly persuasive to be calling people names and I just assumed avoid that and get to the point. And I'll try as well taken if you could please also you just let you know you're, you're pretty much at the end of your time so if you could just wrap up. Okay, I'll try. I've been a homeowner living in the neighborhood for 20 years. I've been walking the streets with two successive dogs under over the last 18 years. Having Dorothy road included on our daily on our daily thing I've witnessed the Mugar site completely under water where oak tree would like to build specifically directly across from 73 Dorothy road. That was a couple inches from cresting from the Mugar site on to the street from the proposed building site. Now if you're not familiar with the grade there it goes down about three to four feet from the road. There's a lot. That's a lot of standing water. That was the year people had to gut their basements for feet up from the floor take out flooring, etc. And I remember the house 58 Dorothy road had water covering the lawn, coming up from the Mugar site where the proposed building is going to be on other occasions Dorothy road was completely flooded with several inches of water I had to walk a mile per hour because residents were telling me to slow down otherwise the wake in Dorothy road would wash down the driveways. I think there's videos of that out out and about. Sorry, I have nothing against affordable ownership to build wealth, but not on these, these and many more false pretenses and flaws, such that the proposed project clearly doesn't blend into the neighborhood. Personally, I feel awkward living in a such a structure amongst single and multifamily to family houses. So I just one more thing. So I asked, please sir I'm asking people to be at three minutes here at like four and a half. There's not just kind of be fair to the rest of your, your fellow neighbors. Well, thank you sir. There's a driscoll and a driscoll. Now you're still muted I don't know if you know, you have to come back to that person. Hi, Marcy Shapiro I live at 152 Lake Street. I'm at the corner of Lake Street and little John Street. So, besides my concerns about gigantic trucks trying to turn the corner at my house. I also am very concerned that we're talking about draft recommendations that I haven't even had a chance to read the conditions yet, but I do want to know if there will be a place to put in I don't know if it would be in the findings or the facts, but I don't know if it's because of the matter that this building does not fit with the neighborhood. It doesn't fit with the feel as when the townhouses were supposed to be as like a quote unquote buffer to the neighborhood. In the original proposal and this is completely different. So your draft decision is going to have that in there but I really think there should be a paragraph that states that that's a fact. That's, I don't see how you could call it anything else when you're going to potentially put a building of this length in a neighborhood that is to family homes along Dorothy with single families around it. With the neighborhood. And so I'm hoping you're going to put that in there. I also agree about the traffic studies. I think that the thought or wherever you're putting the info about the expected number of rise in cars it should be stated that those studies were done during a pandemic. I'll tell you that my children had sat and counted cars pre pandemic, about three years before the pandemic of cars cutting up Mary Street before we were able to get a sign put at Lake and little john saying no entry between four and seven, and between in the evening, there were times when there were over 200 cars per 20 minutes it was something once it's unbelievable but it's true. So I'm just hoping that certain facts like that are going to get put into the document that we were just shown. And also, like I said I haven't had a chance to read about the conditions, I am very much for affordable housing. I work with people who are very low income and help people secure affordable housing is part of my work. This is not going to solve that problem. And I don't think we can overlook the environmental impacts, and just say it's okay to build because it's kind of sort of not maybe in a swamp. I just think that really just because Cambridge built what Cambridge built on the other side of route to doesn't make this okay. And I don't think that anybody is fully listening to the residents and I feel like it's not right for the people who own the community to not hear that we've submitted many letters where we said fine you want to build townhouses build townhouses that's in line with what could help the community you could make it so that those could be a path to home ownership for people who need it. This is not going to solve the affordable housing problem in Arlington and I think it's wrong that we can't also include the developments that are underway that have been built in the last six years, Westminster. There's another one on Park Ave extension, where the food pantry is going in there's going to be a number of affordable units that are well underway are going to be done by this fall I think. And for us to not be able to include those in the numbers. It's not right. I think that we need to look at that seriously because there is more affordable housing that the Housing Corporation of Arlington has underway all the time. And I don't see how we can just say, Well, when this was submitted that wasn't a factor, it's a factor now. It's a building on Summer Street that had affordable units very recently and I don't see how we can't take those into account. So, thank you and I hope you'll take my considerations into putting some of those into the draft. We appreciate it. Thank you. Sarah. Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name's Sarah Orgud. I live at 73 Dorothy Road in East Arlington. If you will allow me I have one comment and two questions. Absolutely. Thank you very much. So my one comment is really to agree most strongly with all the comments that the residents have made so far about the unsuitability of this development along Dorothy Road. I would like to especially thank Mr Bittaker for pointing out the flooding at 73 across from 73 Dorothy Road. It's certainly a test to that seems as that's where I live and not only did it flood across the road from 73 Dorothy Road it also flooded in my basement. I'm a relatively new dwelling in one of the townhouses so as another speaker said a little earlier we have all the up to date modern technologies in place but yet we still flood. My one comment my two specific questions that I would ask the board to consider adding to this draft documentary like one to hazard mitigation and the amount of money that Oak Tree has offered to help clear the hazards from the site. I would suggest that $100,000 is possibly 10% of what it would cost to clear the hazards of that site and I would encourage the board to get some estimates of what the cost would be before agreeing to such a low figure. I would like to move forward with this development. And secondly, I would like to ask for there to be some consideration of if this project was to move forward the impact on the wildlife and specifically how pest control and wildlife will be removed from this development. Specifically, our neighborhood has lots of children. We have lots of packs. We have lots of cats that go hunting for wildlife across the road in this development so I would request most strongly that oak tree be required to have any pest control or wildlife clearance plan that we propose approved by the Arlington Animal Control and that under no circumstances, and I can't underline this enough, no circumstances should poison be used. It's going to be bad enough if this development moves forward that we lose our neighborhood. But to lose our pets and possibly our children as well is just intolerable. The board can consider this. In the interest of time, I'll finish there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. George Hakeem. Thank you very much. 10 Edith Street, George Michael Hakeem. Well, my house was recently redone by Carney General Contracting. They basically knocked down the old house and redid it. They've built a lot of houses in Arlington and they know Arlington really well. And what they did was they actually filled in our basement. So we have a crawl space under our house and we don't have a basement at all. They know, because they've built plenty of houses in Arlington that is not wise or intelligent to build a basement in this area because of the flood risk so the fact that this building with a footprint of the tens of thousands of square feet that was mentioned earlier is going to be built, you know, into the ground and displacing groundwater seems short-sighted and not really with the knowledge of the neighborhood. The Carney Contracting that's based in Arlington knows this and when they had an opportunity to build our house, they filled in the basement for that reason. So just to offer that as an example. Secondly, you know, wetlands are very important water filter when polluted water and we live in, I know it's Arlington and there's trees nearby and it looks like very nice, but we're very close to a city. It's a very densely populated area. There's a lot of wastewater and pollutants in the area. And when those pass through wetlands, water can come out clean the other side, or at least cleaner than it was. And building more in this area will definitely not contribute to the long term sustainability of clean water in the area. Or will it be a useful sort of long term place for people to live? You know, if we're talking about affordable housing, like a pathway to homeownership, this has been said before. I think that's a valuable goal and something that we should pursue in Arlington. This site is not it. I think, you know, out on Mass Ave, certainly in Arlington Center, as was mentioned by some of my neighbors earlier, there are some for to be projects that are better suited to this and fitting with the characters of neighborhood as well as being places that are not environmentally dangerous. That would also help our, you know, affordable housing issue which is an issue. So, if we're looking at, you know, a small percentage of this new building being affordable housing renting, that doesn't really provide a pathway to long term wealth accumulation. And from a justice angle, you know, doesn't really accomplish what we might seek to accomplish in an ideal circumstances to build wealth for lower income individuals in this neighborhood. So, thank you, Board and Mr Chairman for hearing me, and I appreciate the time. Thank you very much. Thank you again. Anna O'Driscoll. So you have your hand up. Try again in a minute. Mr Moore. Yes, Mr Chairman, thanks. I wanted to first. That's your address to the records. Oh yes, I'm sorry, 64 Piedmont Street. I am not in the butter, and I do feel a little odd going from the momentous points that people are making and very important points to the point I'm going to bring up. But I'll do it quickly. I wanted to make one reference to under the findings of fact point 21 about tree planting. I'm a member of the tree committee and one of the items which is a select board policy that was approved. Not not long ago, I think it was last year about how all tree plantings require watering plants to go with them now I know I see the term maintenance there listed as one of the points point G under number 21. However, we need to have make sure that we reference very specifically a three year watering plan because we have found with trees, we don't have three years worth of a watering plan the trees tend to die, because they don't get proper maintenance that they need and maintenance plan, you know that's proving and things like that however water the plant specifically is something we would like added as a requirement. Perhaps when you get to the conditions but I just found that point there in the findings effect. This is just a private citizen not as a member of the tree committee I just want to point out that I read the letter that the select board developed relative to recent changes to the thorn dyke plan. And I want to encourage the board to take that letter. And all the points made in that letter because it was quite thorough I thought into serious consideration, when it comes to whether or not the project now reflects the project that was when the permits of the 40 be permit approval case was was because it strikes me that this product this particular project has gone through some rather massive changes that might impact the decision that they made based on what the project is now. Thank you very much, Mr. Thank you more. Mr Logan. Thank you William Logan, seven, I mean, excuse me five Mary street, Arlington mass precinct to town meeting member. I would like the board to also consider the potential loss of field use for thorn dyke, as it is it's pretty swampy. So to have the extra water there will cause the field to be declared unplayable most of the time. And especially with sports resuming after COVID there'll be a lack of field use so that will put a stress on the field. Also, I'm not in a butter but I'm, as I mentioned I'm on Mary street and ever since the properties in Belmont and Cambridge have gone in. My property has started to flood in our basement matter of fact to the point we have little stalagmites growing. So we have to consider that before their construction. So the reach of this flooding issue can reach even past the butters into Mary street in that area. Also, to consider the traffic, even though the signs have been put up in those areas, people still come down there. And they fly down the streets and to add people that can actually legally turned down into those streets, added in with the people that are not supposed to be going there is going to put a heavy burden on our neighborhood, especially with all the traffic. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. Matthew McKinnon, Matthew McKinnon, my little John straight. First of like the thank you I've had, you know, two speaking times tonight so thank you very much for the opportunity. I have one question and one comment. One question is if the ZBA were to deny the project outright. And it goes to the housing authority in Massachusetts, and they allow it. Are the butters allowed to sue the applicants as individuals. I would ask our counselor to have any address that question please. So, I'm not sure I understand the question are you asking whether the neighbors would be able to appeal the decision of the housing appeals committee individually. Yes, if possible, or if to, you know, bring a lawsuit against not the housing authority, but the applicants. If you would be able to appeal the decision of the housing appeals committee. The applicants would be a party to that appeal as would the housing appeals committee. And would that only be for a butters. It would be for anybody that is able to establish that they suffer a harm that's separate and distinct from the rest of the community. So, if you are, if you are a direct a butter, or in a butter to in a butter within 300 feet, we have a presumption that you suffer that sort of agreement that's necessary to establish standing. That doesn't mean that you are completely unable to establish it if you are not what's known as a party in interest, but it's more difficult. Thank you. And the comment that I had was, I'm afraid for the town, getting donated the land without a full. You know, ecological survey of the land, I'm afraid if we, you know, if we get this land donated to us, it's going to be a taxpayer burden for the entire town. It's, you know, unfit for anything. I've heard it's being used for dumping before there's the homeless population living on the land and probably, you know, there's extra mint back there and trash, you know, cleaning up an ecological disaster is not cheap. It's never cheap and ecological disaster cleanups are the most expensive cleanups. I just want that in the back of your mind, when you make this decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate that. I'm going to call on Mr db acid, but he's raised it is lowered his hand. Mr db acid, did you still want to speak. Yes, Mr chair please, Robert db acid 29 little john street. One of the points I wanted to bring up is oak trees done multiple developments throughout Cambridge and the surrounding towns. They've referenced Brookside Square in West Concord. I took a ride out there this week just to take a look at the setting that this building was built in. And you know it was nicely done and everything but it's in a commercial atmosphere everything was the the butters were all commercial. There was no resonance. And then I took a ride through Cambridge at several of the other sites. None of the other developments really have the impact that this one truly does to us. You know, most of these developments they have done have been on Mass Ave, Chauncey Street, fresh pond, all the surrounding areas. There was one on Chauncey Street. That was really downscale only about nine units ironically I was working on the same street probably about two years later. But nevertheless, they blend to the neighborhood. The real strategic thing to this was they blended solidly to the area. This one doesn't. And it's been repeated over and over again I just wanted to make the point across that I did take the time to visit some of their recent projects. I drove around took pictures and looked at them. Demographically, the majority of them all fit in this one here doesn't. This one doesn't fit into the neighborhood structure whatsoever. And that's all I have to say thank you Mr chair. Thank you. Hi, just one quick question. What happens to neighbors who suffer real damage, flooded basements, cracked foundations, things like that. What financial responsibility does the developer have both in the short term during construction and the long term over a period of years because issues don't appear for flooding issues don't always appear right when you expect them to appear. What is the developer's short term and long term financial obligations. If I could just ask Mr have any quickly is that a question that can be answered in this format or is that something that somebody really needs to discuss independently with the council. Well, I mean I can answer it generally which is to say that they would have liability if you are able to establish that any damages were a direct result of the projects of the construction that were not done properly that were inconsistent with the plans, or somehow caused the damage to the personal property I would say that, in particular the further down the road you go the more difficult, drawing that line of causation. Mr Brown's address your question. Sorry, yes. Perfect thank you. Thank you miss Brown thank you Mr have any. My last name I have with a hand raised is Miss O'Driscoll and O'Driscoll had your hand up all evening and have not been able to call on you. I'm going to have to assume that hand is raised an error with that. Mr Rarig. Thank you Mr chairman. I have a couple of comments on the draft decision. Your name and address. Sorry Brian Rarig 28 Academy Street. The first one one one small point which is item 33 under the findings is the reference to the offer by the applicant to donate the land and some money. I'm not sure how that constitutes a finding. That seems to me that that is a bit of the record but there's nothing about it that is a finding what would be a finding. I think would be the board's determinations of the value of the conservation land being being preserved and would also be a finding would be some data about the condition of the land and the you know this unfortunate condition of the land at present. A bigger issue though and I want to thank a couple of members of the board for raising this. I think it's important that these findings include a much more extensive description of what makes this site so unique. Which is the condition of the wetlands, the condition of the dumping the general conditions of flooding that take place around the parcel and it's important to to have that be part of the findings in order to for anyone to reuse this record to understand how you got where you got. But I would urge the board not to leave the drafting of those items in the hands of the applicant, but rather to turn to the Conservation Commission and perhaps to beta as the the board's peer reviewer to draft those sections that I think are so critical. So, thank you. Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the board quickly flip through the images of other people see if anyone is waving frantically at the screen. Do not see one last call to. This is a driscoll. Okay, with that I'm going to call the public comment period closed. So conclude the public comment period for this portion of this evening's hearing. So there were a number of people who had specific comments on this which we is very helpful we do appreciate it. So those comments if you can email them to the boards the email address which is ZBA at town.arlington.ma.us is extremely helpful for us to be able to incorporate. So with that. And seeing as it is 1042. I'm going to start a new topic at this time. Yes, please. Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get one factual question in and get a meaningful response. So I remember the public have tried to get answered what is the elevation of the basement relative to Dorothy Road. And I would like a specific question answered ASAP. What will be the basement floor level relative to the elevation of Dorothy Road as it currently is. I keep getting the question answered by relative to terrain but terrain is too movable. I want to know what the basement floor is relative to Dorothy, how far below it is. Thank you. That's all I have. You have. I can answer that question, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I do want to point out that the information has been provided in all the site plan drawings and architectural drawings but as we discussed earlier, the butters question about the height of the building. The elevation of Dorothy Road is approximately elevation 10. The elevation of the garage floor is elevation 2.83. That means that the garage is seven point. My math is right one seven feet below Dorothy Road. Thank you very much sir. That's approximately seven to something like that. Yeah, approximately seven foot two inches. And just for reference. What, what is the, the, the water table height in the area. Elevation three. Okay. Thank you for that. I have a just this procedural question relating to the project eligibility letter and this one of the earlier comment public comments brought this to mind. In the event that the, the forget it's if it's the funding agency or DHCD decide where to determine that the project was not. No longer eligible under the new design. What would be potential, what are the potential next steps. Yes, a question for Mr. have any. I mean, I really would depend on the nature of the determination by the subsidizing agency I think they could. If I think it's unlikely but if they made the determination that the change was so substantial that it completely invalidates the determine of project eligibility theoretically, they could essentially invalidate that determination and require the applicant to start from scratch. I don't think that there's a strong likelihood of that occurring. What the subsidizing agency will do when there is a change during the course of the process before the board of appeals is to simply state that they are going to look at the changes as part of their final approval process. The board will request that they actually make a determination prior to the final approval process. That's going to be in what gets submitted to the subsidizing agency. In terms of the ultimate result of their determination. It's, it's more likely to be just a revised determination of project eligibility than it would be precision. Thank you very much, Mr. have it. Mr chairman. Just a, if I could address a, just to follow up to Mr have any. Am I right, would it be fair to say that the determination of project. Project eligibility and whether or not the changes have affected substantially or invalidated the previous finding is entirely up to the funding agency isn't it it is not something that we independently have any jurisdiction to look at and we're bound by whatever they decide. And there's no appeal right of the determination of the subsidizing agency. There is, there's a presumption in the regulations that determination by the subsidizing agency is valid. Okay, with that. I would like to close, not to close, excuse me to continue tonight's hearing until Tuesday, March 30th at 730pm. I have a second. Mr. Chairman, is there any possibility of our starting a little early that night. So be that we've got lots left to do and I'm concerned that that starting at 730 will all fall asleep before we managed to get to the end. Mr have it is earlier possibility for you. Absolutely. Yep, that works for me. Miss keeper is earlier possible. That's fine for me. Mr Hanlon, do you have a time you'd like to propose is 630 here sensible time. We're seven. I see some thumbs up around the room. So then, I would move to continue tonight's hearing until Tuesday, March 30th at 630pm. Second. And there's a quick roll call of the board on this. Mr Hanlon. Hi. Mills. I draw work. Mr Ford. Hi. Revolack. Hi. Mr. Dupont. I know he has switched to being on phone. So I don't know if he's. We seem to have lost. That's still a positive vote. So we are continued until Tuesday, March 30th at 630pm. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout this meeting. I especially wish to thank Rick Valerelli and Vincent Lee for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. And it's our understanding of the reporting made by ACMI will be available on-demand at ACMI TV within the coming days. And again, if anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZBA's website. To conclude tonight's meeting, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. All board members voting in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Your attendance and attention this evening. Thanks. Good night. Thank you, Chris. Good night, everybody. Thank you, John.