 So this is if we have a 4. So the I know myself and Mr. Handler both been reviewing things I've just sort of put them together in a single file just to make a little simpler. Pat you had suggested parenthetically describing the subsidizing agency of mass housing or other subsidizing agency. I was just to chairman that that is actually done later on it was done inconsistently and the idea is here is just to do it the first time and then talk about subsidizing agency without having to go through the qualification. It's subsequent time. Okay. It was pretty straightforward. Last time we had the 6.5 4% from April 27 2022 that was from the Department of Housing Development. Housing inventory. So that's just confirming those and word would like dashes. That appears in a few places where word is making some corrections. But I had a few sections to add. So this is factual findings on location. So there was testimony in the record that the existing sidewalk along Massachusetts Avenue adjacent to the project is in fair condition, but generally not in compliance with state and federal accessibility guidelines. That was a finding that was made by Tetra Tech as and that was the basis of their then conditional recommendation that the applicant repair the crosswalk that is nearby. Which was something that the applicant had agreed to do. So I just want to make sure that we got the finding in to justify the condition. So that's the reason I'm recommending we add that. And similarly from Tetra Tech, the traffic study indicated sight lines for traffic exiting the parking area would be diminished by parking vehicles along Massachusetts Avenue to the south of the proposed driveway. It was recommended that the parking restrictions be pursued with the town for the area immediately south of the driveway. This study also identified an existing bus stop is located immediately north of the driveway. And similarly putting that in because it was noted as a finding the board has no jurisdiction or discretion to actually change the parking on the street or to dedicate some of those bases as short term. That is something that can only be done by the select board. And so we're just including it here as a finding and then we can put in a condition that the that the applicant is requested to have this conversation with the town, but we cannot go ahead and do it ourselves. And then similarly the existing mid block crosswalk on Massachusetts Avenue located approximately 425 feet south of the site is faded and existing curb cuts do not meet accessibility standards. Crosswalk will be utilized by tenants of the proposed development to access recreational and educational resources on the opposite side of the street. That ties again to a condition later on. And here I'm not sure why there's a correction from one number to the exact same number. It's that what was number 23 is down over to make sense. 17. The project is required to obtain in order of conditions in the 19 Conservation Commission pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act. Conditions are included in the condition section J order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act. So just to explain why they're in there because that was a decree. That was something that the applicant had requested. So I just want to make sure that was there. Again, here's the first time we use the term aura for the adjacent upland resource area. They're just adding the parenthetical here. Last time we had talked about what's listed here is paragraph 22 and adding the word grading into that line of things just because there will be grading involved. Here parenthetical for NOAA and Mr. Hanlon confirmed it's Atlas 14 plus. We're just going to make sure we're keeping that consistent under transportation network. Just want to add that access to the minimum bikeway is available off Brattle Street to the north of the project just to sort of reinforce the need for bicycle parking. And then at the bus stop, the project is adjacent to the Massachusetts Avenue at Brattle Street and BTA stop bus stop and across the street from the Massachusetts Avenue at Minotomy Road and BTA bus stop. Both stops are served by the route 77. Make sure that was in the record as well. Then under civil engineering, we had just adjusted the language in the in under 29. Similarly in 31, because this is the second time we mentioned NOAA, so just move that parenthetical up to the earlier iteration. And then so here looking to add to the project will require clear cutting of trees from the site, including a healthy significant London plane tree, which is a comment from the tree committee's report. So as noted in the comments provided by the tree committee replacing replacing the lost canopy of this individual four foot diameter 70 foot tall tree would take over 30 years. Mitigation fees for tree removal were established to protect the town's existing tree canopy. And so that was added because we had discussed previously the possibility of adding a a condition about adding street trees. And so this would be the finding that would lead to that condition. And then 39 Epcot and contractor are to sign the operation maintenance erosion sedimentation control program for proposed stormwater management system located 1021 1025 in Massachusetts Avenue, Earrington, Massachusetts. Pat, was this one that you had added? No, no, it wasn't. It was something that I don't know where it came from. I did I did make an effort to try to straighten out the formatting here, but I was unsuccessful. So I decided that's fighting fighting with the with word is not easy. I'm not entirely sure where that one came from because that is that I mean, it's the thing is, is I would have assumed that the state that the concom order would have said that right, that's that's more a condition than a finding. Yeah. No, I agree. It's an order to the condition to do something. I don't know why it's here. I don't accept responsibility for it. I don't recall sticking it in either, but word does I'm just wondering if it came in somehow through the car through something that had to do with concom, because it seems like it's the sort of thing that they would have to. I mean, an operation and maintenance and erosion sedimentation control program is would be beating potatoes for them. Yeah, it's kind of a highlight on it here. Come back to it. Then under affordability and local concerns, I want to include this statement from Karen Kelleher, the chair of the town's affordable housing trust development represents an opportunity to substantially increase the number of permanently affordable homeownership units in Arlington without subsidy from the town. This is a critical opportunity without recent precedent. Good to have that there. And then we hadn't didn't have anything in there about the historic before. So I've had one to put something in the existing building at it's not 1012 1021. It's actually not 1023 either. Well, it's 1021 through 1023, I thought. Oh, that's the only thing that's on the site. OK. Yeah, the 1021 1023 Massachusetts Avenue is on the Arlington Historic Structures Inventory and it's inventory numbers ARL 612 requiring a determination from the Arlington Historic Commission, what are the structures preferably retained under the demolition delay bylaw? A formal hearing was on the AAC's agenda for September 7, 2021, but is postponed to October 5, 2021. The formal hearing never took place under mass general law chapter 40 C. If a decision is not rendered within 60 days, a certificate of hardship is considered to have been constructively issued. However, if the AAC had issued a one year demolition delay at that hearing, it would have run out before the comprehensive permit application was filed. The AAC held a hearing to discuss the property on April 4, 2023, and the official record of the hearing was not released in time to be included in the board's record. The sort of just states factually where we are in regards to that building. And then the board acknowledges concerns raised by butters and other interested parties about the project scale, the elimination of the existing tree canopy, which could lead to an increase in heat island effects in the area. And then I took out the line about the specimen sick more tree because it was mentioned previously in the new paragraph. So those were all the existing changes and then the additional proposed changes to the findings. Are there with the exception of this number 39 here? Are there any questions about that? None. We'll go ahead into the conditions. These are just identifying what documents are included. There was an early draft that we had received before the April 25th hearing from the applicant had differently identified the photometric plans. So I just changed it to what they had identified it. That's all that is. All the rest of this we have already reviewed. There was a bit of question about sub C here. So this has to do with final plans and such and particularly about the landscaping plans. So I had wanted to say I think we just need to make sure that we're covering this correctly. So this would be prior to any construction or site development activities that they would need to submit to the board for review and administrative approval the following final drawings and plans to identify as final plans for review and approval by the town. Such approval to be that the plans conform to the requirements of this comprehensive permit and incorporate the relevant conditions here in final plans so also incorporate all relevant conditions and requirements of permitting agencies having jurisdiction. So one is the final engineering drawings and plans with applicable sheet signed and sealed by the professional land surveyor of record and the professional civil engineer of record. Final architectural plan signed and sealed by the registered architect of record final landscape plans signed and sealed by the registered landscape architect of record final lighting plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer. And this is just to match the list of plan sets that were identified here earlier so that we're looking for final plans. We're not looking for to have them create something new which is sort of what the lands this former section D had included. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chairman. With respect to the excuse me when we are at the approved plans the first set of plans the ones that are that are submitted by Patriot engineering are not actually called final engineering plan drawings and plans. I think their name has got the word comprehensive in it and I guess I wasn't quite sure whether as a matter of substance the intent is that for the Patriot engineering plans to be essentially what later is called about by the final final engineering plans or whether there's somehow some overlap between categories because if there's not an overlap between categories it becomes quite easy just to designate that regardless of what it's called on the comprehensive permit plan set that that particular set of plans that I referred to in that part of 8.2 is corresponds with the final plans that are called final engineering plans in C1 here. And then that I mean if that is actually accurate that would make it really easy to then map all of the final plans back to some specific approved plan which would be nice if again if it's if it's what's actually intended. I would turn to Mr. Alphen and ask him what his sense is on how he might want to address this. Yeah I think that the way that it's drafted is fine. What you want for a decision is say what we're basing our decision on but you need to make certain changes to comply with the decision and those plans will be submitted to the town to confirm that they've complied with the conditions of the decision. So it's not so important how you phrase that. I think the way that you've drafted this probably works. Something like the applicant will submit final plans for approval and those will be the plans that will will control the decision going forward. I guess the reason I was a little bit concerned about that is that the when you get down later the some of the submission requirements for pre-construction are different depending on which kind of plan it is. Right. But again all I really want out of all of this is to there be no ambiguity when it comes time to reviewing the final plans. With the architectural plans we have something called the architectural plans. With the landscape plan we have something called the landscape plan so we know exactly which approved plan is going to be reviewed to for compliance with the final plan. I think the intent is to do the same thing with the first one here and to compare that to the patriot engineering plans that are referred to as the comprehensive plan set earlier on. And again if that's true it eliminates all possible ambiguity. You have a specific plan for final and one approval and one approved plan and you're basically looking for substantial compliance in each one. Yeah my only concern is if there's a major change that you're that that needs to happen on the plan according to the conditions of the decision. So you know it may be we have this set of plans dated you know May 1st 2023 but that needs to show that the driveway entrances in this location not that location. I think but we already have a provision to deal with that don't we minor changes things that are defined as minor changes are approved by the. Right and that's true minor changes are permitted but we want to try to avoid determination by the town of what is a major or minor change. So like I said typically the way this is handled is you know it's administratively approved typically in most towns sometimes it's given back to the board but typically it's approved by the building commissioner or the ZBA clerk to say the plans here are now the plans going forward and you can just simply state that the final set of plans will mostly comply with the planned date may 1st 2023 or whatever you have you subject to some changes in order to comply with the decision and I'm happy to work on framing that a little bit better than what we have but that's essentially what what we do with most decisions. Yeah I think there's no real disagreement as to what it is that we want here I hope there's not be it is important that the approved plans are the basic constitution going forward and that the additional flexibility comes from various other things that happen in the process and I think that is true that is clear with respect to everything other than the than the further than the Patriot engineering said and I I'm pretty content that that it works either way I think and I just and I doubt that it's going to be a practical problem. Yeah so do we need to make a change at this stage or do we leave it as is? I let it alone I guess. Okay any other questions about these sections? Mr. Chair. Mr. Rigadelli. Just one question so do we just having not done this process before do yeah do we review those plans or just the town review those plans? So the town will review them. Okay but they're technically they're submitted to the board but the town will Okay understood thanks. And then we remove any so plans submitted 30 days prior to anticipate data commencement that's the language that was there before and there was this whole section about submitting a landscaping plan which sort of read as if they had never done a landscaping plan before so that's why we took it out of here and put it in up in here. Well we have this sort of final paragraph that all planting shall consist of native non-invasive drought tolerant species plantings installed along drives and walkways shall also be salt tolerant. There was this middle paragraph middle section of the paragraph about how long they're supposed to be monitored what not and I'm recommended we just replace that with that says requirements for maintenance monitoring and replacement of plants and trees shall be as listed in the order of conditions included as condition j-48 and so that is what the order of conditions for their their state permit includes and so just instead of having it in multiple places just referencing it in that one location and then the condo condo would actually address ongoing maintenance of the landscaping features and then again as well this d here submit to the director of planning and community development the final construction mitigation plan including but I limited to and just saying it this way because we did already review a construction mitigation plan we did there was not they're not creating it for this purpose. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DuPont. So if you would just go back up to the yellow where you'd made the change I had made comments on a prior iteration of this so I think that you sort of superseded what I was wondering but do you recall what is the requirement in j-48 in terms of how long they have to care for those plants is it perpetuity or is there an actual period of time. So it's this year. Ten years. So it's ten years. Okay that's what I was wondering thanks. So there's an initial three-year monitoring period and then it oh wait a second okay we have to look at this a little more carefully because this actually I think may have referenced that earlier paragraph again. I think it's j-47 is the one that more or less corresponds with what the substance was earlier and then j-48 just to be clear this is something that comes out does not come out of the concom proceeding they're accepting the offer that Mr. Feldman made to us mm-hmm earlier on and saying in effect that our extra seven years applies as part of their permit too somewhere along the line and I thought and I do think that the way we phrased it up above with with the cross-reference to j-48 needs to be something that we are stating on as part of the comprehensive permit so you don't get you don't get a cycle that's going round and round so everybody's referring to everybody else's condition and nobody actually has a condition and so this one is sub the 48 j-48 the ultimately that is a comprehensive permit type condition rather than a concom type condition and if you go back to the language that started this discussion we should look at it and make sure that it does what we intend in that regard I thought it did when I first saw it so this is where here where the references right so this first the part that's crossed out is similar to j-47 it's slightly different j-47 is more restrictive so I think possibly what we should just say is instead of referencing condition j-48 is reference conditions j-47 and j-48 well that doesn't I mean again that doesn't that doesn't help my problem my problem is that somewhere here it should I don't what the concom says is that because of the agreement they have with us they're including our substance of j-48 there and I think that we ought to be clear that that comes from our comprehensive permit and we should be we we can say the text is the same as in j-48 but we should be clear that we're in the ones who are initially imposing that condition so in other words they're they're deferring to us we're not deferring to them on that which is a little bit different from the way it looks okay i wonder if it's possible to say requirements for maintenance monitoring and whatever uh uh shall be as agreed I mean agreed by the applicant and listed in condition 48 but I all I'm really trying to do is get rid of any implication that condition 48 of its own force is what's applying this condition but it does list it well and it you don't want to repeat it so the requirement for maintenance monitoring replacement of plants and trees shall be as agreed to be to by the applicant and as listed in the order of conditions included as conditions j-47 and j-48 I guess that's okay I think that's okay by approval of such reporting to the board and then again here the removal of mass housing is just because we put the parenthetical higher up obtain all this one of the permits they will require that will need a demolition permit because there is an existing building here so they need to obtain demolition building electrical plumbing and associated permits and then I had added a k the application received written approval from the arlington fire chief or his herd designated representative for the proposed building emergency access prior to issuance of a building permit um there was definitely some concern expressed that you know they would not have adequate access it is a part of the fire chief's part of the fire department's job to review so this is just including that I'm not sure why that got changed and then prior to the issuance this is a very certificate of occupancy the applicant shall submit to the board for review by its council copy of the condominium association master deed trust and rules and regulations to ensure such documents contain a provision that the condominium association is subject to this decision at a minimum the condominium association documents shall address issues relating to public access to the retail space snow removal trash removal maintenance of the urban park and other issues addressed in the conditions here and I think I don't think urban park is the term that they're using restored wetlands their term I'm not so sure that's right is it I think of the restored wetlands is the stuff they're doing down there by the snow you're right you're right the urban park consists of that whole area as much of which is not in the aura at all that is designed in general as as the quid pro quo for getting rid of all the the trees that eventually produces a nice forest that will take some time to establish right I would say the landscape plan must have some word I would think to use for this and maybe that's the place to look for to find the convenient moniker just again here restored woodland that was it yeah I think that's right prior to can issue as a very specific good of occupancy the applicant is encouraged to consider requesting two on-street parking spaces in front of the project be designated a short term parking or loading spaces uh I suppose I ought to indicate last time I was going to look for the designation in such a way left to be made these like forward if it was spelled correctly so I have a question here about our authority this is I mean this is basically advice I guess um I'm wondering if it's if it is possible and appropriate for us to say something more along the line is the applicant is essentially the applicant is required to ask and if granted permission to install but if the select board says no that would be the final answer that would be the substance okay so that that would work you can require them to request and if they're denied then that no big deal okay uh project design and construction we had gone through this before as well E9 uh applicant shall install lighting on the site that conforms to the town of Wellington zoning bylaws and town by-law and an approved lighting plan referred to in condition a2 above lighting should be downlit shielded to prevent light spill over onto surrounding properties and fly out the dark sky requirements so mr chairman I I'm responsible for the confusion here um in the previous draft the language was there about lighting should be downlit and shielded and so forth as I recall there was a discussion that said in effect that the lighting plan solved this problem and that we didn't have to go back into it okay the other so I thought that maybe it was unnecessary I am concerned about complying with the dark sky requirements because I couldn't find any dark sky requirements uh there as far as I know there there is nothing in the town zoning bylaw about lighting that would affect this although maybe there's something there in the signs that relates to that that I didn't see uh but the general bylaws the town yeah the town and that is what is referred by the town bylaw I did a search about of the word dark sky requirements under the town bylaw and there isn't anything there that is that uh and so it seemed to me that the simplest way to deal with this is just the way the applicant agreed to it is here's my plan we thought that that plan was okay if they complying with it that should be fine okay so you would recommend between the square brackets of deleting that yes yes it's still remains um you will be before you go over there you we haven't quite got the word delete in that next line is needs to come out also the question mark under in the second the last line of the night so this is let's see what happens if I read your suggestion does it blow everything up uh e-13 we've gone over last time so construction activities we conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays of who no construction activities Sundays in the qualities that's an easy um so in in e-23 I made the notes bound and incidental at the at during last hearing and for the life of me I can't remember what they mean wasn't sure if anybody has a sense as to what we may have been wanting to do and this was a condition that the applicant was looking to strike I hadn't strike it because I can't figure out what it was supposed to do mr chair yeah I just I just thinking back to that I think we were we were talking about the last time we we spoke about this provision about the the footings and I think that that was some somehow our relations to the footings I think what we decided was we removed that language so okay so did we so the way that e-23 is now or did we want to keep it this way or did we want to exempt the footings and foundation walls I think my recollection is we wanted to keep it this way I think the the incidental note was in relation to the footings because that was sort of an incidental amount of scope and what we decided was we'd rather it just be all encompassing got it great thank you very much for that e-27 this just is the inspection services department e-30 we had just vehicles approaching and access in the site are on the truck path diagrams just including that e-33 any fence installed along the property boundary shall be wood and installed to the finish side faces the abutting property unless otherwise specifically requested by the abutter and that was specifically in comments I just wanted to add make sure that was added mr chairman yes sir just just and an abundance of caution I wonder if this I'm a little bit nervous about making everything subject to the request of a of an abutter and I just wanted to be assured that that's not a problem yeah I can you explain that a little bit better to me what what the situation is sure so the applicant on their plans that initially suggested they were going to put a fence around the property or at least around the rear of the property and so there was some concern about how it would be what the appearance would be and so they had agreed that they would make it out of wood as opposed to vinyl or something else and then the question was well which side is it going to face and so there was some back and forth and they said well you know it's our fence so it faces the abutter so the idea was just to because they had made that notice we would want to include it but we can certainly remove the unless specifically requested by the abutter because you know it would be their fence on their property so we could remove that and just stipulate that the finish side faces abutting property yeah why don't we do that and if the abutter really has a problem with that they can speak to the applicant and I think changing the side of the fence to what the abutters want is going to be an administrative approval okay I rather do that than keep any sort of conditioned up to to an abutter very good let's say this is the spaces no change the number configuration of designation of parking spaces that's shown on the approved plan shall be made must approved by the board through a modification process emergency services moving condominium association shall provide for the expansion of the number of changes charging stages in accordance with tenant demand this is yeah this is one of my this is one of my problem look you should actually finish your sentence about why this is here I've got a question as to the appropriateness of it but I was just going to say that it was the applicant did not request that it be stricken okay so I don't know exactly I mean if you don't have that sentence then the only obligation that they have is to provide an electric vehicle charging station at the 11 parking spaces in the garage they may eventually have other obligations by state law but it would not be part of this if you add the condominium association shall provide for expansion of the number of charging stations in accordance with tenant demand that either means nothing because of course that's what they'll do or it could mean that if any tenant wants it they could demand it and I don't think that last part is what we mean and I'm pretty sure that they if they thought about it wouldn't have agreed to agree to it because it's an expensive proposition and they probably don't but in any event whatever they might have agreed to we don't really have any basis for that and as I understand what the chair just stated the real reason for this is just to make clear that that it's up to them really and tenant demand is a shorthand for saying what they do in the normal course in any event and I'm all in favor of expanding charging stations and so forth but on the basis of the record we have before us it would seem to me to be a bit much to have something that really did mean that if there's any of these tenants beyond the ones who get the first 11 however they allocate those that they automatically get an additional one I think what you could do to solve that is just say that the condominium documents shall provide a provision that allows the expansion of the number of charging stations all right because I think the the intent was that we didn't want we didn't want the condo association to hinder the expansion we wanted to make sure that you know if more spaces were required that the condo association wouldn't block that whose spaces are these so they're dedicated did to the units and are they are they the property of the unit can they be reallocated or suppose kind of you know the allocation the allocation is per the condo association I believe that the phrasing so it we're going to have 11 to start with yeah and 11 particular apartments are going to or condos are going to have these spaces and then is it so just as a matter of the law suppose I'm number 12 and I want one of these spaces is this a common area that if I gather it's not so then the condo association doesn't have anything to do with that and I can put the space in if I want to if I do I don't I need to have some other use of condo land to connect it up to the system and so on exactly and so what this is is basically saying is that the condo association will cooperate will allow all of the necessary hookups and so forth or anybody who individually presumably at his own expense is going to put in a an EV station for that person's parking space that's what the condition is going to mean yes so that because because somebody can't install electrical by themselves free standing in their own space that they would need to have there would need to be an extension of the base building system and that the condominium association should allow for that expansion so that those spaces can be provided now whether those spaces are provided by the condo association or by the individual I don't you know I think could happen either way but what's most important at least in my mind was that the condo association not hinder or not you know unnecessarily hinder the expansion of the number of spaces so I wonder if in light of that I mean the fact that I initially read this as probably more likely meaning it doesn't mean anything at all and that it's just a matter of you know I should produce widgets to satisfy market demand we might want to just reserve this for a moment and and not what I'd like to do is think about making a if that's what we mean I don't think it's clear the way it is right now and think that we ought to we ought to be able to tweak this in order to make it be more explicit of what our intention is yeah I'm not quite sure what the cost is to the applicant and I don't know if the applicant testified that they were going to make infrastructure to you know convert 50 spaces to have EV stations so if the number is 11 and that's the condition that makes sense that should remain and I think the only thing you can add to a condition without getting into concerns about the cost on the applicant um you know right off the bat is just provide that the kind of minium documents provide that if the association or or or property owners decide to expand and add charging stations it can happen and I think that that I think that that's that's how the conditions should be limited I'm concerned about them reading that condition and saying well I have to make the infrastructure prepared to you know the whole bunch of EV stations I don't know what the cost of something like that would be well if they had to prewire everything that would be a pretty I mean I don't know what the cost is either but that that is required under the new stretch code necessarily and and uh uh it would it would be a major commitment that we haven't discussed so far that's that's what's troubling me I actually think it would be a great commitment for them to make I would love to see them do it but I'm feeling a little uncomfortable racing it now okay well then we'll come back to FA Mr. Chairman yes Mr. DuPont so this may be a bit tangential but you know if you have condominium documents there are two ways that the parking spaces can go you know one is that they're exclusive use areas so they're assigned in the condominium document specifically this space for this unit sometimes though the condominium association or the trustees actually will assign spaces but they're not exclusive they're just you know we're giving you the use of this space or this space but it doesn't necessarily go with the unit it's kind of uh you know in the discretion of the trustees and as I was listening to your comments it made me wonder you know how you would demand depending on the way what right you had to the space how you could demand that now that you have that electrical charging capability there and you know once you do that too by the way you're going to have to have all sorts of easements um for the you know for the electrical to go in through the common area and it might be easy I don't know how those are set up but you know they're it's more complicated than it may at first seem yeah and and so I think that you know sort of the more general you leave the language about just as Mr. Alphen had said essentially providing a mechanism within the documents for them to address it I think that's the better approach okay all right well we'll come back to this one then so I think where we left off was after the apps last time okay just I was just checking the language here I thought there was somewhere in here a statement about how those spaces are allocated but um I have to find it again Mr. Chair it is it's the next uh it's f9 oh thank you oh there we go so each drawing unit shall be deeded one parking space to be allocated by the condominium association so I guess if somebody needed an excess in electrical space and there was somebody used had who was assigned electrical space that was not using it as such then they could allocate those until the 11 are used up and then they could try to figure out from there and Mr. Chairman if I can make an additional comment when you say in a condominium that a space is going to be deeded that sometimes is a bit of a vague reference because when you say something is deeded then you actually are making it a part of your unit okay and when I I think sometimes when people say this what they're saying is the deed will contain the right to park in a specific space so it may be that they're only saying that but sometimes you know it could be construed to mean that the deeded part of it makes it part of your unit and then the question becomes in terms of maintenance and repair because if you say something is deeded and it's actually part of your unit then the the condominium documents are going to say what the responsibility is to care for something that is owned only by you as opposed to it's an exclusive use area so it's still common area but it's only for your use in which case it would probably be maintained by the condominium association so I'm not sure that the word maybe nobody cares about the word deeded but in fact I'm not sure that I'm not sure that deeded is the proper term I'm just wondering if it should be something more along the lines of you know each dwelling unit shall have a parking space allocated to it in the deed I agree with that approach usually when you're talking about condominiums you know it is so-called deeded but the members correct sometimes in other situations depending on how they set up the condominium documents you may just have a right to use common area so I think that is the better way to approach instead of saying deeded if we just said provided yeah that should be fine that's sufficient to me Mr. Chairman yes sir just I entirely agree I'm just wondering suppose suppose somebody in the original originally has one of the electronic vehicle spaces because they have an electric vehicle and they then sell their unit to somebody who doesn't have an electric vehicle and has no use for this I assume I've been assuming that the way that's dealt with is that the condo association would then reallocate the EV space and that the people moving in would get a space that doesn't have an EV which they don't need and there would be whereas if if it was really their private property and not common space then you would have a more complicated scenario that they'd acquire it they don't need it presumably they they might or might not be able to rent that to somebody else but otherwise you have to rely on private ordering to make it all work out and I think that the language we've just come up with comes out to what I think should be the right result basically is that the condo association should be free to reallocate in that situation and that that shouldn't be something that that owners individually have to buy and sell in order to make it all work out right absolutely all right so f9 we're good with but we'll leave f8 f8 to come back to you still we're moving on to the g's um the applicant pushed back about this professional property management and such um and so the request was for it to read the condominium association shall provide an emergency contact name and telephone number for representatives of the unit owners and the earlington police department and fire department so representatives of the unit owners or would that be representatives of the condominium association or is that the same thing if this is just providing a phone number I guess I'm not quite sure what we intend here for representatives of I would think it was that if something was to happen and the police of our fire department needs to contact the yes you know contact the building who do they call and before it was easier because you know prior ones were all rentals and so there was a management company but there's not really a management company here necessarily Mr. Gardner how that works yes Roger so I mean usually when you say representatives of the unit owners the unit owners association is really spelled that's the trust the condominium trust and so typically when you're talking about dealing with representatives of the unit owners you're talking about the trustees and if Mr. Alphen has something to add to that I'd be happy to hear but I mean typically that's when you need to deal with the condominium you deal with the trustees okay I don't know if that's something that we want to say explicitly but somebody has to be in charge and again it's typically the trustees and unless they've assigned because the trustees can assign a specific person right as you know as the liaison if you will they can certainly do that right I think that's exactly right is that it is the trustees but oftentimes the trustees outsource you know maintenance responsibilities and things like this to a management company so you know keeping it the representatives of the unit owners is completely fine and you know between the applicant and the town we can designate who that is so can we just I mean if we if we go back and read the part that doesn't that isn't done this is a really simple condition it says the condo association shall be providing these phone numbers so we're not thinking about the condo association as somehow being the representative's owners what they're providing are emergency contact names and telephone numbers and I think that all that was intended by representatives of the unit orders is that in some of these the tenant the person who needs to call the fire department isn't the owner it's a tenant of the owner and so the idea basically is the person who sees the fire should be have the number to call the fire department and you know we ought to be able to figure out a way of saying that with fewer syllables I mean maybe you can just say for unit orders and any tenants and leave it at that I think the way that it is is fine because although they might be tenants the representative of the unit owners are the people that we want the phone number to so I again I think between the applicant and the town we'll get the right unit owner we just don't know whether that's going to we're going to get the right phone number we just don't know whether that's going to be a property management company or the actual trustees well we do know it's not going to be a property management company because they made it clear that that's what was planned they were planning on or at least we know as much as we could possibly know that now yeah anyway the condo association is there and I don't know it's I whatever you whatever you want to do usually finding the number of the police department in the fire department is something you don't normally look at your condo association for there are lots of ways of doing it including calling 9-11 so I'm not 100% sure how important all this is so it might actually be make more sense if we change the word and to the word to yeah that's I think that's what it meant to say sorry I missed that right it should be to exactly right that's the purpose of this condition right is that the town have these phone numbers so that's exactly right okay all right then g2 so we had written in specific numbers for the separations and I believe that there are a couple people who have pointed this out so just change it just read that the stairwells and garages must provide the required fire rated separation residential units must have a minimum one hour fire rated separation and that then puts it back on the state building code as to what those actual numbers are residential structure shall be fully sprinkled to NFPA regulations because this and this doesn't necessarily have to be in both locations but this is if somebody is looking specifically for things about the fire conditions related to fire this is where they would look I mean but they're not going to get a building permit if it's not to NFPA either so I mean there's to some extent we could not we could just bypass having it in here at all or should we just get rid of g3 and just keep g4 does g3 add anything to g4 I don't think so I guess I just I deleted yeah I had a comment here that I don't know any more why I did but there's a ce up there that I thought was also saying the same as g what was previously g3 it must have been c1e or something I don't I don't remember what the foot what the comment refers to c2e yeah yeah this one here tonight sprinkler system Mr. Chairman I just want to note that you know these clerical issues can be fixed up by town staff you know not during the public hearings okay all of theirs must have emergency battery or generator backup as required by the code they're providing a generator but it can be either product shall maintain access for fire department personnel to all four sides of the residential structure and there was a question here about on g8 so yeah so there was a question about them having to have standpipes up being operational during construction and so building code section 3311 requires it so there was just a question as to whether or not that's actually required and yes it is so that's the end of the G's water suitor in utilities we didn't have any questions that had come up prior on those those of the H's uh it's the wetland floodplain environmental conditions the prior commencement the application will provide a bond so we never received a bond amount from the conservation commission and certainly the applicant did not think that they should have to pay a bond so I don't think we should I don't feel comfortable with us assigning a number to that in lieu of that obviously that they're the app the reason for that bond is for the applicant to do the work that they're required to do and they are signing on to a 10-year monitoring program to ensure that they did what they said they were going to do so in in many ways this is a condition that isn't really required per se so I just wanted to see what the board thought about just going ahead and striking it Mr. Chairman yes sir this has always been sort of controversial but I feel that if this is a bond that's under the wetlands protection bylaw and we don't have any record for establishing any particular amount of the bond and the conservation commission whose bond it is really who's trying to get something to enforce their condition doesn't give us a sufficient basis to establish a bond uh that we just shouldn't do it so we could say the applicant shall provide a bond in the amount of zero dollars I don't know whether there's I don't really see an advantage to that and it sort of is in my mind at least taking a finger in the eye of the conservation commission I just assume not address it okay everybody else comfortable with striking I too can I just clarify does that mean that there is no bond that can be imposed under the wetlands bylaw now because it's not contained in the decision in the conditions or or is it just something that happens within the purview of the conservation commission I just would be something that we can't this is pursuant to the bylaw rather than the state so if this would be something that would be part of the comprehensive permit if we do if if it's going to be done by anybody now it has to be done by us okay that's what I wanted to clarify but if we don't know we don't know right I mean we we have our prior decisions with values included but they were kind of site specific too we had we had we went back and forth a lot about those and I just think it should the burden should be on the conservation commission to give us the ability to do this without speculating I just think that that if they wanted to do that they they've they've consciously addressed this before it's been then present in every decision up to now and and I if they let it go they let it go yeah I would just you know pay for them to feel like you know it was missed as an oversight but if it is it is we can't correct it now we we can't correct it now if the hearing was still open we could call them and ask what they meant but not they can't do that anymore yeah okay may I ask you a question please Dan um are are we able to just say that they could provide a bond in the amount determined by the the conservation commission or is that not appropriate could we could we just reference but I'm a little concerned um I see that there was some sort of agreement between you and the applicant about conditions related to an order of conditions but at the end of the day the applicant just needs to meet the state requirements and this is a local requirement um so I think this is something that should be discluded from the decision unless there was a major reason to have it right so this was something that the applicant had wanted to strike yeah it could strike it and then I three was de-watering I four that no stockpiling materials permitted within the hundred foot hundred foot wetland buffer zone or aura that's what you have to do with dumpsters heavy equipment storage dirt and debris tracked um stormwater management system about using slow release fertilizers plant nutrients comply with state law uh pervious surfaces shall be maintained so mr chairman yes sir this isn't ever changed but I just like to note for the record uh the provisions of condition i9 which uh particularly when you're talking about uh pesticides or redenticides and integrated pest management that's addressing a matter of great concern to the community and I'm happy to have it here absolutely there's no storage edge base and submit copies the reports an invasive management plan so rather than outlying they would just say in compliance with the order of conditions and it's condition j 52 all mitigation plantings and all plantings within the resource areas should be native mr chairman yes sir so um are we capitalizing resource areas that I think that we have been doing that and the other question I had because I want to clarify for myself is when we say the aura and other resource areas do we know what we are defining as other resource areas um so I you you probably do I'm just want to make sure I'm clear on that so there's the aura which is the the upland resource area but then there because they're within there's a river yeah there's the 200 front riverfront resource area but as a term of art it's something that would be ascertainable yes okay that's all I wanted to know and they said they were going to put in the irrigation system so that was included um all plantings plenty of asian species roof this project shall be monitored for three years offsite enhancement the millbrook condominium property shall be monitored for two years so that that is the the stuff that's on the millbrook condominium's property that's the stuff that's immediately adjacent to millbrook and this is now this is actually no longer correct so this is again that older language all of this here really should again reference Mr chairman I'm not sure that this is correct the the is the is the provision about I'm not sure what the right answer is for this the this goes back to the question we had before but the here the applicant asked to submit recommendations for replacements to the zba for approval I don't know whether that's in it would be a strange thing to say in order of conditions and I'm wondering if if the two are not really parallel but distinct and if that were true we see again in the next paragraph the seven-year period which is set forth in in full here as a condition and I just think that we may have I mean we we may have enough variations in some of these things that it makes a difference it makes it important to repeat them yeah but this may be what what mr. Alvin notes is a technical thing but you know we we do kind of need to to get this clear I I for the reasons I said earlier I like having something that fully sets forth the seven-year commitment in the comprehensive permit right so that it's really clear what the authority for that is and this is a clearer way of doing it than the way we did it before okay so what we could do is modify so June here is supposed to be November 15th so we can make that change we could keep this the survival rate I believe in the order of conditions the survival rate was 90% so I can modify this this to match that right number yep and then or previously where we referenced j-47 and j-48 we could instead reference i-17 yes I think that would I think that works that works better I think it does we need to we we're gonna have to sit down with the exact language and go back and forth to be sure but I think it works okay then the app can show protect all area trees on the property or the town what along protection regulations they're actually going to be trees protect probably not there was some question about protecting trees offsite but they we don't have the the right to request that but if there are no trees then they just don't do it right all onsite mitigation is proposed by this project to remain in perpetuity etc fencing I know that the there is a specific number applied to how what the clearance is that's included in the order of conditions and this is not urban forest no unleashed pets pervious pavement to be pitched best dispatchable direct water towards landscape areas instead of towards the street projects to maintain existing drainage patterns of the property boundaries so that no runoff is directed to a budding properties or that runoff from budding properties is not otherwise blocked from following the path prior to development of the project which was in the tetra tech comments so that brings us to i-23 so the second i-23 um so to mitigate the increase of impervious area on the site and the significant loss of existing tree panic canopy the applicant is to provide and maintain for three years three additional street trees of the same species as those provided on the project site to be planted along massachusetts avenue at the direction of the tree committee um so this was um this is a something we had recommended the applicant was subjected to it um but the applicant is doing you know is doing a significant amount on the site that is you know increasing the coverage of the site but also is is increasing you know is taking down some significant trees as a part of what it's doing and the public the primary thing that the public has been concerned about in most of our hearings has been the loss of the tree canopy and that the restored woodland at the rear may not be sufficient in order to offset the loss um so i would i'd like to hear from the members of the board how they feel about putting this condition back in if we were to do so what would be an appropriate wording of this condition here mr chairman yes sir could i in the answer your first question i think it is appropriate to have this condition or a condition that does what this is doing in there i see two difficulties that we need to figure out one i think is maybe easier than the other the easier one i believe is that the tree committee would not be the appropriate agency for directing anything here uh that that would be either that either with the approval of the tree warden was what i think were something of that kind but the official that ought to be supervising this should be the tree warden rather than the tree committee which is not an executive agency of the town um the second is is that i'm not 100 sure where these trees are going to be uh and but as i recall they're not necessarily on site or even on the frontage area here uh and so it may or may not be true that in the place where you want to put these trees the applicant has the property rights to do that uh it may be that the town has the property rights that would make it possible if this was like within a public right of way uh and in which case it would be subject to i mean the one part of the town saying yes and the other part having to say yes also to make it happen uh if it involves private property it's not entirely clear to me what we should do so to me figuring out how to write this in a way that that uh uh that doesn't put them into the position of making off-site improvements where they don't have the property rights to do that and i footnote that i'm not a hundred percent a thousand percent confident of our right to require them to make off-site improvements at all but we have an adequate reason for it but to say that and then make sure that we don't have something that obstructs the entire project if somebody who's necessary to to cooperate with this plan doesn't do it uh is i think uh i don't have an immediately tricky and immediately good drafting answer for deciding what exactly we think their obligations should be in that way it might be serious it might be easier if some of the rest of you remember in a way that i don't whether we're talking about off-site properties at all uh but it wasn't even clear to me that we were necessarily talking about properties on the side of the street and so i'm a little bit nervous about just sending them off to find some place where you can do a tree i will say that the applicant when we discussed this to them refused to do it but didn't say it was impossible to do right right it was just that they thought that they had done enough and they did not want to be asked to do anymore but they as i i don't recall they're making an argument i guess i could go back and look at the transcript but i don't recall them saying and in any event we don't have the property interests in doing this or we couldn't do this on the right side of the street or whatever but they may have said something like that i just don't remember so we could say the applicant is to provide three additional street trees the same species those provided on the project site to be planted along massachusetts avenue with the approval of the tree warden or we could say provide up to three trees which would then you know working with the warden they could figure out what makes sense yeah i do you have to be careful you don't want zero trees is up to three trees so i want to make you want to make clear that it's three but they get excused if the tree warden says that that's not feasible mr chair yes what would we be able to so for my recollection we were you know the the conversation around this was that um the the applicant did not want to pay into the tree fund um and so part of what we were thinking was that this would be sort of in a lieu of paying into the tree fund that we they would they would provide three street trees or whichever number we decide on street trees a long mass av that would be adjacent to the site um i i think it probably would not be on their property because i think that we sort of maxed out the amount of green space that can accommodate trees on their property so i understand mr mr hangland's concerns but i wonder uh and i'm just trying to think about how we could structure this but i wonder if you know we could sort of use the language that you started um but then make clear that's conditional you know that from my perspective it would be fine if they paid what they owed into the tree fund as as an option or they could provide these three street trees and that might involve working with the town and potentially a budding neighbor in order to coordinate you know the rights to do that i don't know what others think but maybe maybe that would be one way that we could offer them the ability to work outside their property limits um you know as as one option or they could just pay into the tree fund which is really what the bylaws would have dictated if we didn't give them this waiver yeah i think though that they're cutting it down enough trees that if they actually applied the bylaw i'd be a little bit afraid of disproportionate you either plant two trees or you cut your cut head cut off and you know if if it was pro-ratter something worse having an option to say either to pay into the the tree fund or or not might make more sense but i'm i'm a little afraid that there's enough involved here that it might make the project uneconomic i i know i know that we asked this question the last time and it's okay if we don't have an answer but do we have a general sense of what that value was for um the 77 trees that are being removed on the property i know it the value is by the caliber okay i think but it but again it also only counts for trees that are within the step required step back anything beyond the required step back you're free to take so the the actual number of trees is lower because it's still awesome so would it be possible to when we do the waiver to waive the fee under the tree fund um up to a certain extent right and then you define that extent by something that is approximates what we think would be the reasonable value of doing these just three trees uh and then provide either an alternative to pay the to pay that into the tree fund or to provide the specific trees i mean the awkward thing is is what we want is the trees here right and the if it just goes into the town's general tree fund good goodness no there's no guarantee that anything will be done here so that it isn't and so you want that kind of nexus but i don't know that we have the authority to impose that on the town right i i agree with you mr hangland i think it you know we would like the trees we would like to push them into uh providing the trees adjacent to the site because that's where they could really use them and the neighbors would benefit uh it would offset the loss of all the trees that are existing there or help to offset the loss of the trees that are existing there but it feels like if we were to provide some value as an alternate that they could pay into the tree fund that if for instance there was no i'm not saying that this is the case but if there was no uh a butter that would want to allow them to plant trees on their property or within their sidewalk area then they would not be without a a path to compliance is this an offsite location so these trees would be offsite yes so the what i'm hearing from the board is that they either want them to attempt to plant trees on this offsite location or pay a fee into the town's tree fund but already they already have an obligation to pay into the tree fund what they want is a waiver of that obligation right but we are contemplating is giving them a partial waiver to it if they provide this as in in kind so to speak rather than uh as part of the obligation the other way have we would be within our right subject to making the project uneconomic to say they have to pay the whole everything into the tree fund that's what the bylaw says they want to be excused from that okay i i think there's an argument to be made there uh my concern is that this is an offsite matter uh and that the purpose of the condition is not related to the impact of the project but it's also of parsley because they are doing a bit you know they're basically clear cutting a wooden site in order to construct what they're constructing and so there's and there's you know there's a lot of concern about the loss of canopy tree canopy and so we're trying to find a way to get them to ameliorate that they are providing this the restoration woodland at the rear of the project but that is tied directly to the issues with the conservation commission is not necessarily tied to condition tied to the issue that they're removing all the trees from the site um and so we're trying to find a way to encourage them to increase the tree can't you know if they're not going to increase the tree canopy on their on this you know they're they're putting trees back on the site as best they can but they're not going to be at full canopy status for you know 10 15 years is there something else that can be done to help mitigate the the sudden increase in the amount of area that's not that has lost its canopy okay well mr chairman i i would say i think of it slightly differently from that i mean if you the the thing that is troubling here is with with respect to massachusetts avenue in particular is that um that whole area because of the increased amount of development in it is just going to get hotter uh it's currently somewhat deficient in trees the applicant is actually doing a good job of dealing with his immediate issue right in front of his property and i i i would don't particularly criticize that at all that still leaves a small island of a couple of trees and we're dealing with really a few more that is intended to take this the area that's immediately adjacent to this property is not far away and to essentially improve the heat item effect and the kind of the kind of negative things that have you know a lot of bare concrete which they're contributing to by building such a big such a big building that that is is necessarily going to increase the amount of impervious service a lot so it does seem to me there's a quid pro quo there and it's intended to represent it's intended to benefit the tenants of this building which is to say the successors of the owner as well and of course it's much smaller than the whole woodland before but at least for me always the woodland both counted in terms of its merits it counted both for it had a relationship both for the conservation commission things but also the fact that getting rid of the native species and having a planned woodland here that is put together more an appropriate in appropriate relation to urban forestry principles but ultimately not immediately but after a period of time produced a canopy that would be much better than we would have if we even we've just left it alone in the non-built situation and so that is kind of a net improvement there but there's lots of things going on and I'm not sure that one is all the way to the finish line when you add up how far you get with the upland woodland and this as after all a relatively modest additional additional requirement but of course it is going to produce something else that's going to take some time to actually produce a canopy it's not like you're going putting in anything that's remotely like the very large trees that they're eliminating and that to some extent provide shade that cools this whole area that won't be provided once they've taken it down right so how do we resolve this I think that we should resolve this by putting it in the same sack as f8 okay and try to think about how to do this over the course of the next of the next few days this is something that we just need to have some draft language or alternative draft language to to work with making it up on the spot it's not going to okay it's too hard all right so I'll move on to the jays so these are the order conditions that under the wetland protection act so per agreement between the applicant the board and the conservation commission here after the commission the order of conditions apart from the standard conditions issued under the commission's review under the wetlands protection act are included here in the written decision for reference so under standard conditions j1 through j30 standard conditions excuse me j20 standard conditions the massachusetts department of environmental protection as recorded in the commission's written decision so we're not going to include those but then it's the specific ones so these we're not going to adjust the language on any of them because they are direct from the conservation commission uh but which and as best I could tell in my review last week and the only place where there was I saw an issue was that specifically under 47 and 48 some of these survival rate percentages that we need to adjust in hours to correspond with this and so I need to go back and make that adjustment right and mr chairman just notice that on 47 for example uh it says as determined by the condition commission and I suspect I think I remember that the language we had earlier on our own bylaw uh was unless otherwise approved by the zba uh and but 48 is entirely a zba thing because it we're and that's properly so i i don't really think that we i mean i i think we're i think we're fine we should just make sure that we understand where these things are all going but if it's by the zba that's establishing a principle that if some of this happens they've got it then file with both of us correct and certainly in 48 it requires that they be that they report to both of us right and explicitly says so before it's in 47 it's by implication because we have two parallel provisions but here it says both and that's exactly what we want yeah right and then this is the mill brook part which is two years instead of three years just goes on and on through j 72 so mr chairman just to be clear at least the way I look at this when we say that all of these things are here by reference it it means that we are not independently undertaking to enforce these so if we do want to independently take to enforce these we have to have we have to have the authority stuck in some other provisions in j so we could state at the start of j that they're included here in the written decision and then rather than say say for reference we could say our and our you know our made conditions of the of the comprehensive permit i'm not sure that we can get away with doing that i i mean this may be another question for mr alvin but these things are all under the state act and the enforcement authority under the state act is the conservation commission and i'm not a hundred percent i mean as a matter of just government practice it doesn't seem sensible for us to try to create ourselves as independently somehow an enforcement authority for state law under a comprehensive permit that explicitly exclude state law so i feel a lot happier just letting the making sure that we've noted what the position of the conservation commission is but leaving the enforcement entirely up to them yeah i think that that's legally implied i don't think it needs to be included in the decision oftentimes the terms and conditions of an order of conditions are not incorporated into a comprehensive permit decision that doesn't mean that you can't and that's what you're doing and that's just in order to create a clearer record to make sure that the applicant does what he's supposed to do and you know that the everybody is aware that this is a conditions as part of the decision but whether the enforcement officer is the building commissioner or the conservation commission that is sort of um you know implied by law so there's no need to add anything to the decision about that okay all right so then i think we're good then with section j then section k would be other general conditions most of these are fairly boilerplate so when it will be final she'll comply with local regulations of the town unless otherwise waived she'll copy the board and of course fondance prohibits parking storage of any under registered vehicle on the site service of vehicles on the site except for construction overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is to comply with the bylaws of the town of Arlington parking of vehicles on private ways without the permission of the property owner is likewise prohibited um i'm not sure if the term likewise is advisable here in the event of the condominium association or its management company fails to maintain the stormwater management system then the town can fix it basically as all this says private roads shall remain private and need to fall to the conditions and that brings us to the decision itself in consideration of all the foregoing including plans documents testimony given during the public hearing board here by grants the applicant a comprehensive permit for the construction of 50 home ownership condominium units in a single structure along with approximately 1700 square feet of commercial space pursuant to chapter 40 b section 2323 for the development described above and then a record of the vote so when the board is prepared to make a vote um this is what the vote would be filing stuff and then again back to the waivers um the project to be constructed as proposed originally it had was much more descriptive about the units and such and we had decided to just say the project construction is proposed um then the rest of the waiver those waivers were all fine waiver six is about the bike parking and so we just said the waiver was denied as unnecessary pursuant to 40 b regulations the cover has a permit subsumes all local permitting requirements accordingly this cover as a permit includes a finding of unusual circumstances unique the property under the local bylaw thus no waiver is required so it just the waiver is unnecessary because we have the authority to deal to do it um then seven we had talked about sort of tangentially the athlete request so waiver the requirement to make a payment to the tree fund for the removal of protracted trees and they said in lieu of the riverfront restoration proposed and the approved plans um but the riverfront restoration was to get the conservation commission on board it was not i don't think it was in order to not have to pay to the tree fund i'm not quite sure that that statement that i've highlighted there and fuchsia is correct um but mr chairman if it's what they asked for yeah then it is what it is right okay but then we have to decide if we are granted a waiver if we're not so right that we still have to fix i should go ahead just have the answer here is we really really want to but we haven't quite figured out the way to get there yet yep so we'll put our red flag on that one um then wetlands protection was then as unnecessary because we can act 15 the stormwater management necessarily can get act then we had added the architectural historical commission so it's just the arc is the arlington historic structural inventory um it's unnecessary because we can act uh and up lighting the app has removed all up lighting fixtures from the project inflow of trees that's granted waiver from step back requirements was granted and then um we had added about they had wanted different work hours and so we had to draft a waiver for that specifically chairman do you know i mean i'm i'm thinking back to the discussion that we had a few minutes ago uh relating to what would be covered as a fee in the in the tree bylaw and it refers to it refers to the removal of trees in the setbacks yeah does that mean the setback before we just waived it in blue oven lower fed setbacks or does it mean that the setback as it was to start with i think it would apply to the setbacks the original setbacks which includes the big stripe down the middle because it's two lots oh right so that back we didn't i don't know that that's a pretty aggressive meeting of the bylaw but maybe that's what it said yeah mr chairman we're happy to look into that issue i understand the board's concern um and i'm happy to talk to paul havery and yeah we put our heads together and come up with a recommendation that would be great yeah so it's those two sections it's f eight and i 23 yeah and then i've done it as it relates but then we would need to adjust the board's action to waiver number seven right so are there any other concerns by members of the board about what is included in this decision have we missed anything or is there anything that sticks out in your mind that we need to still consider mr chairman what did we do about number i think it was number 39 it was the filing of the operation and maintenance plan we were perplexed about that remember which the oh golly it was uh it was in the it was in the statement of facts but it read like a condition it was the one that the formatting was all screwed up but yeah um i so clearly it doesn't belong there and i guess the and and it is also equally clear that an onn plan is integrally apart and there's provisions in section j that deal with it so i guess the question that i have is whether there is a reason why it is that we want them to file this maybe so mr shanard sees it or something like that uh if there is we should put it down in the conditions i guess i guess i don't not quite sure where but the but we should stick it down there if not i'd feel comfortable uh i think deleting this because you know it's this is really mean as i think i said before meat and potatoes for the conservation commission they're all over at the operation maintenance and erosion and know what to do with it and i with with the exception that mr shanard might think it's helpful uh i don't see why it needs to be in the comprehensive permit yeah i'm just looking to see if it might be a glitch in word that kicked it up from one of the conditions but i don't see that language anywhere in the condition so i can honestly say i have no idea where that came from well i think we should just take a look at that but i'd be inclined to remove it unless there was a good reason to put it in because i no agree and i can i can take a deeper dive back through the older versions to see if it's anywhere but the last heading of it makes it look like it was a copy and paste and i can't figure out why right but i do believe that there's probably something very similar in section j yeah i mean there's other things that i know are similar to in section j but there may be something similar just to this yeah well this is the only time the word sedimentation occurs in the entire document that's interesting very operation and maintenance so that that might be the more that's not copied it's if it was yeah so i understand there's gonna be another hearing we have one more section where we're hoping to have everything buttoned up before okay great so i we can certainly make sure that that is incorporated correctly somewhere because i think oftentimes that maintenance agreement plan is incorporated into one of the plans by reference okay but i but usually i i use some sort of condition standard condition that the plan would be submitted to the town and and it's not just with the conservation commission it should be with with the town engineer okay so i can have that in okay that's good so i will i will go ahead and wrestle with this tonight to sort of sort out the bugs and word and get it to sit a little bit better and then i'll forward it off first thing tomorrow morning to everyone and Mr. Alphen and to Mr. Hoverty as well so everybody has it for the joy of reading it over the weekend because of course we're going to meet again Tuesday when Monday is a holiday so there's not a lot it looks like a lot of time between now and Tuesday but it's really not a lot of time between now and Tuesday okay you're still within your your 40 days oh yeah just as a procedural i'm sure this board already knows but uh when when we have the final you know proposed final decision practically on Tuesday uh you know if there's some final remarks you know you can still make a vote you know conditioned on you know certain final remark remarks the board has made in the hearing and then a vote can happen and then the decision can get really tidied up and then sorry okay okay you don't want to give us too many outs no we'll keep we'll keep going forever right i mean i mean this is a good decision and i applaud this board for going through it and understanding each and every condition a lot of boards ignore doing that and this is a good practice um you know some boards uh yeah approve it and you know somebody read up the decision and we're going to sign it so i applaud this board for going through it and understanding everything nothing thank you all right well with that um i think we sort of know our marching orders between now and Tuesday so i think we could go ahead and continue this mr chairman um mr handlin how's just going to call on you oh good well i'm not to make the motion but i was about i would make the motion but i i just would would like to have the sense of my colleagues whether we could start a little bit later i've got a i'll be journeying back from skating and very far off parts of boston and braving 95 and getting here just in time to to do the meeting at 7 30 and i would be a lot more i would be a lot more reliable if it was 7 45 or 8 o'clock on the other hand you might be a lot quicker if you kept it at 7 30 would the board be amenable to starting at 8 p.m on the on tuesday the 30th yeah let's go my promise will be faster so then uh with that i would look for a motion to continue the meeting for 10 21 10 27 massachusetts avenue to tuesday may 30th 2023 at 8 p.m second or so moved thank you mr handlin the second yep second thank you mr dupont so it's a vote to continue um mr dupont mr handlin hi mr holly hi mr rickard ellie hi miss hopman hi mr lablanck hi the chair votes aye we are continued on the meeting for 10 21 10 27 massachusetts avenue until tuesday may 30 2023 at 8 p.m great thank you all very much for their deliberations tonight so now our next meeting will be tuesday may 30th at 8 and we have to have everything done by the end of that week so by june 4th everything has to be in then after that meeting our next meeting is tuesday june 13th which is the comprehensive permit for sunnyside and then tuesday june 20th we have a regular meeting um of the board i believe there's now only two items on that agenda um and that's our and then as mr handlin had noted to me the other day um the next meeting after june 20th would be july 11th which would be four 10 sunnyside right any question about our schedule no mr chairman can i just before before i move to churn i just like to compliment and thank miss rollston for being on the line all of this time um i'm sure parts of it must have been terribly boring but uh but she she does a lot of stuff that goes way beyond the call of duty and is is always there for us and i just wanted to express her appreciation thank you very much mr handlin that's very well very well taken thank you um and i would also like to uh thank good for alvin for stepping in um thanks for having me good time not a problem thank you so thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the errington zoning board of appeals i appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting i would especially like to thank colleen ralston chris for alvin for their assistance this evening please note the purpose of the board's recording the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings it is our understanding the recordings made by hcmi will be available on demand at hcmi.tv within the coming days or weeks if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website and to conclude tonight's meeting i would ask for a motion to adjourn mr chairman so moved second thank you mr dupont there's a motion to adjourn uh mr dupont i mr dupont how do you move i i vote on it i mr handlin hi mr holly hi mr riccadelli hi as hoffman hi mr loblanc and the chair votes aye we are adjourned thank you all very much i will uh get you a revised draft uh first thing tomorrow morning great thank you good night have a good night everybody good night bye bye good night