 Good evening everybody. It is 8.03 PM on Tuesday, May 30th, 2023. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. I'm calling this meeting of the board to order all attendees who are not recognized to speak or requested to mute their connection for the remainder of the evening or until such time as they are recognized by the chair. I would like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Handlin. Here. Daniel Rickidelli. Here. Venkat Holley. We see you but we can't hear you for some reason. Venkat. Here. Perfect. Thank you. And animal blank. Here. See you. Elaine Hoffman will not be able to join us this evening. You're back in town. We have Colleen Ralston, our zoning assistant. And our, our outside consultant, Paul Haverty from VVHS law. Paul, good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. And this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2023 to provide supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects signed into law on March 29, 2023. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2025. The remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. 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. For this meeting the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it is being brought. It will be broadcast by ACMI all supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. The first item of business this evening is just a small administrative item as this item relates to the operation of the board and as such will generally be conducted without input from the general public. The board will not take up any new business on prior hearings nor will there be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. What we have is a vote to approve the written decision for 84 Oakland Avenue this is a case that was heard by the board at its meeting last week. We have a decision written by Mr. Hanlon distributed to the board for comments, and then a final draft issue late this afternoon. Are there any additional questions or comments as they relate to the draft decision for 84 Oakland Avenue. None. May I have a motion to approve the minutes or excuse me approve the written decision for 84 Oakland Avenue. Mr Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. So this will be a roll call vote of the board to approve the written decision for 84 Oakland Avenue. Mr. DuPont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Holley. Hi. Rick Adele. Hi. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. Thank you. And the next item on our agenda, which is the public return to the deliberations and the draft decision for the comprehensive permit for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. And it's April 25, 2023 public hearing, the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue. At the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project, and it also initiated a 40 day period for the board to consider and render a decision. On May 11, 2023, the board opened its discussion of the draft decision. The deliberations continued on May 25. The board will continue its discussions and deliberations. These are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment from the applicant, the board's peer review consultants or the public. On behalf of the board, I ask everyone who is not a member of this board to please meet their connection, turn off their video and not interrupt the proceedings. I appreciate everyone's understanding. The board will begin its discussion using the draft decision available on the ZBA website for 1021 1027 Massachusetts Avenue as it annotated during the previous meeting on May 25, 2023, with additional comments submitted to the chair. The board will proceed through the draft in the following order review all outstanding questions from sections covered last time and then any final edits. And at the end of tonight's meeting, the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting continuous deliberations, but under state regulations the board must issue a decision by Sunday June 4 or request an extension to the applicant to further continue its deliberation. And should the board decide to, it is prepared to vote on the final decision, there are three possible votes the board may take. We may need a motion to approve the comprehensive permit without conditions, we may move to approve the comprehensive permit with conditions, or we may move to deny the comprehensive permit application. So with that, let me go ahead and share on the screen. draft decision. Most of this we have gone through. A couple of edits you're going to see when I stumble across them. So first, we're just trying to clarify how numbers are noted in here. And there was a question about the riverfront area, which is the what's defined under the state law and then the riverfront area where they're actually doing work. So, we're just proposing to consolidate the language so if it says riverfront area in lower case that's the state mandated 200 foot buffer and then if it's the actual work that the applicant is doing within right along the shore that is referred to as riverfront resource area and that is capitalized. So here the proposal is just to hear it just changing this. So I remember one way summer and other lens and then here was capitalized or it's just referring to the outer region so we're just going to go ahead and make that lower case. And then so in 33. So I believe, Pat this came from you. Yeah, I did I was attempting here to expand a little bit on the rationale for the heat trees for not the heat trees that for the street trees. Along the Massachusetts Avenue which is something that will discuss that we have not really gone we have mentioned it in other places and in conditions but had not. We made all of the effort to make the underlining find findings of fact in this section that we should have in order to do what we have been talked about doing last time with respect to the street tree condition. Thank you. I'll go ahead and leave this as it is for the moment just until we discuss the other underlying issue for this. So this is under D to be and Roger I believe these were. Sure. Yeah. Correct. So if you could go ahead and just explain briefly. My experience condominium master deed is the term not condominium association master deed condominium association in and of itself is something that's typically created after the master deed is created so there, and it's usually the term condominium association is created by the condominium trust, although there are other ways of doing it but what I was just trying to do is simplify it to say condominium master deed take out association, and then add condominium to what we're referring to. And then because I think the use of the term condominium documents is made later on. I just made that insertion here and after collectively referred to. And I pointedly put in to ensure such documents including with a limitation the master deed contain a provision, you know that it's subject to the decision because for the most part, you know the condominium master deed is what creates the condominium and is where it sets out the sort of the rights and responsibilities and restrictions that are imposed upon the condominium so I just wanted to clarify and make sure that the reference to the decision that this is subject to the decision, the condominium is in the master deed. Oftentimes, there's overlap between the condominium master deed and the condominium trust. Sometimes things are just reiterated in the trust, but the trust usually is really just the operating agreement or operating manual for the condominium so again I think that the reference to it being subject to the decision should appear first and foremost in the master deed. And then later on, it was just where it says, at a minimum the condominium documents shall specifically address issues relating to and then it goes through, you know, up to maintenance, you know, of the restored Woodland and meadow. It says at a minimum you shall address the phrase at the end where it says and other issues addressed in the conditions here in is non specific and it seems like that's discretionary. So, my sense of what this is supposed to mean is that you have to include those that are specifically cited, and you may include those that are other issues addressed in the conditions, because I don't think that you can say you shall address other issues addressed in the conditions, because I don't think that gives them enough guidance. So, my sense was that it should say and may address other issues or may include other issues addressed in the conditions. If that's what other people agree is the intent of that last part. But if you take my point it's really that there's a mandatory part of this sentence, and then it looks like after the comma and other issues is more or less discretionary because it doesn't tell them exactly what they're supposed to do. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So, as I understand it. We started we started off with. We started off with the sentence here saying that the master deed is supposed to make clear that it is subject to the condition well to the conditions of the permit right so all of that is sort of mandatory in its way and if I understand Mr. If I understand Roger correctly. Here, when you say at a minimum specifically address you're really talking about things which ought to need to be sort of called out and dealt with explicitly. The rest either might specifically find their way into that document or not but whether they are not all of them are implicitly addressed by the comprehensive permit because the entire condominium deed is subject to that is that a fair way Roger. Yeah I think so and when we first spoke to Mr. Feldman, you know I had suggested to him that they have some sort of a digest which sort of laid out those things that are specifically required of the condominium. His comment was that he didn't know if the applicant was going to use his firm to do the condominium documents because they were expensive. His firm was expensive. And, and he said but he usually did in fact do something along those lines where he had an outline where you could just follow through and you know specifically what it was that would be my suggestion in any, in any sense in any, you know case. If I were drafting those documents but you know I think that if you want to just say, including and then Woodland and Meadow, you could just say period and in the sentence and they can include anything else that they want to add after that. The only thing Mr. Chairman I would remove the beginning at a minimum and just start with the condominium documents shall. And then yeah I would eliminate and other issues addressed in the conditions here and the condominium documents so and accept all the years. Mr Chairman. You're accepting those things which are which I endorse you're doing. I wondered if Mr. Haverty could say, whether he has seen in in other cases of the suck kind, the sort of index to the conditions that relied on. It seems to me that that that's probably a very helpful thing. I mean as somebody who's various times been the head of a condominium association, figuring out what what it is that you're even without a 40p process figuring out specifically what it is you're bound by when you have a document that is as formidable as this document is growing into is would really be helpful and in the absence of it. Things are going to get overlooked and I was wondering whether there's some kind of a form for doing that or whether there's a general practice. I don't know that I would I wouldn't slow this down just this may not be the first time we see this and I'm just wondering whether there's some way that that we could just sort of make it that this is this is part of what would happen if you if you have a condominium maybe that happens so rarely that that having a standard procedure won't won't help but I was wondering if there is a best practice in this regard. And Mr. Chairman I have not seen condominium documents drafted with that sort of provision in it. I think it would be a really good idea because it does help to highlight, you know, exactly which provisions of the decision, you know, they should be looking at and making sure complied with. But I have not seen that as a requirement of a decision, and I have not seen documents that actually do it. Hopefully the applicant will retain Mr. Feldman's firm. But I think, moreover, the purpose for including this language here is really to provide some guidance for council in reviewing the condominium documents so that they know exactly what to be looking for in terms of specific provisions being addressed. Right. And then the D's ease. So there's a question about Austria site utility work shall be coordinated and approved by and it's actually approved by the Department of Public Works and not the building department. Just making that adjustment. And within the Department of Public Works it's usually the engineering division but sometimes it's the water department. So it depends on exactly what utility it is so just easier to say to public work the F so F eight. One has to do with the vehicle charging stations we've gone back and forth a little bit on this night exchange a couple of emails with those are having earlier today. I think what the board was intending was that we have a statement in here that the condominium shall be we want to, we want that in the future if we if the residents for resident wants to have an electric station, and there isn't one available, that the condo will be amenable to adding one or you will help them achieve that. We have sort of belabored this a lot last time. And I would note that the original language we had was acceptable to the applicant. So the both sentences here. So, as both of them. And speaking in exchanging emails with the stability earlier today he doesn't think that leaving the second sentence in creates an issue so I just wanted to check with the board and see what people wanted to do. Mr. Mr chairman. I was the primary mischief maker on this and developed all kinds of reasons why it is that that is vague and ambiguous and that something that would be more specific could raise lots of problems. And I continue to believe that that's the case and under the circumstances I think being ambiguous is preferable. And so as long as this is simply as long as the applicant has thought it's fine and I'm probably confident that they think it's vacant ambiguous too. There's, there's a general effort to encourage being able to expand the number of EV stations and, and I think that it would be hard to get things much more specific out of that when hard questions come up. So I'm perfectly content to leave it in and move on. Anyone else. I agree. I, I might suggest that the requirement that the condominium documents include this provision, you may want to bring that up as well to the last topic that we talked about about the condominium documents. So that it's all right. I'm not saying that you take it out of this section, but just repeat it in the other section should be part of the list. Yeah. Right. I mean, if we've taken the, you know, the, the initiative to, to note it in that section, it should be in the list. You know, when we're talking about the condo documents as well. All right. People like electric vehicle charging stations or additional electric vehicle charging stations, potential additional electrical vehicle vehicle charging stations. That was F eight. We're now okay with the cheese. H is eyes. So I too. So this has been a blank. At the end of last time, I had gone back through my email and there was an exchange that was copied through to to myself and to Pat and to Colleen from the conservation agent with a question from the conservation commission about, you know, thinking that $10,000 sounded like the right amount for a bond. And what do we think. And honestly, I saw that email and it just went right by me and I never came back to it. So, you know, we never had a conversation with the conservation commission about that value. It just appears once in one email. And it was not an email that was forwarded to the applicant. Nor specifically entered into the record. But it's something that we had received. So I know Pat and I have gone back and forth about this a bit today. Whether we should include this value or whether we should just drop this condition in its entirety. So my sense is that with or without this. If we did not have a bond that would require them to complete the work that they're required to do. If they don't do the work there in violation of the comprehensive permit decision anyways that correct. That is correct. And what would be the. What would be the outcome of that for the, for the applicant and what would be the remedy for the board for taking. The board through the zoning enforcement officer could initiate, you know, a zoning enforcement process, which could include fines. I don't anticipate that this, you know, would be something the applicant would not complete. And that's sort of part and parcel of the process and, you know, at the end of the day, you do also have the ability to not issue certificates of occupancy if they have not completed all of the work that they're supposed to complete. So that's a pretty powerful. I would say it's, you know, you have a lot of leverage, you know, with the CEOs, the $10,000 bond at the end of the day isn't going to be as significant of a lever for you as the CEOs would. Yes, sir. So I'm just curious. So when you said the conservation agent, did you mean. Was it somebody that officially on behalf of the conservation commission was making a recommendation or no. Yes, well, so this was so I had been going to the conservation agent David Morgan is an employee of the town works in the department planning community development needs the sort of the principle liaison between that department and the conservation commission. I had reached out to him about a bond amount at some point and he had sort of forwarded the question to conservation commission. We had gotten what I think was sort of an unofficial response from them with a dollar amount, sort of saying this this seems like it might make sense, what do you think. And then unfortunately, I didn't get back to want it so we never sort of close that loop. Um, I'm with Mr have already on this I just think that at this point given those facts and the fact that the applicant we didn't have a thorough conversation if I understand correctly with the applicant about this, you know where we said you know this is what it's going to be. Is that accurate. So if that's accurate I don't think you can drop this on them personally. Chairman. Yes sir. As you know I'm in agreement with Mr Dupont but I'm wondering whether we just, if we don't say anything then there's no bond I'm not sure that we need actually to say that we're not doing it. Okay. Yeah, I would just delete the condition. I have to go back and change all the other numbers. We're not getting automatic numbering into the format. Remember that was often said last time is that we don't have to watch you do this you can. You are pretty quick with it. It's longer if it was me doing it. I had I think Mr Alvin actually said, Christian didn't have to do it I think he said you could have somebody else do it. Yes, that's correct. But I did not wish to put Colleen on the spot and I certainly didn't want to volunteer. I certainly didn't wish to volunteer so. I think that would fall to Mr Havity unfortunately. I'm sure he has an employee you can help. Yeah, Chris. All right. Okay, so I 17 soon to be I 16. This was the offsite and we had been referred to as an enhancement on the bill for condominiums but we're referring to it as the riverfront restoration area, and it's referred to elsewhere as that so just so that we're being consistent with what it's what it's being called and not to be confused with the riverfront area which is something else. There we go. That's all nice and pretty. And this is all part of that same as the riverfront restoration area restoration area. The end of that. I so I 24. Then is the. How we want to deal with the additional trees that we very specifically want to make sure are included in the project. Mr Chairman. Yes, sir. So I kind of like this language it's a little bit different from what we, what we saw last time. I could probably go with it as it is but if I were Mr Feldman I would be feeling very unhappy about the notion of an appropriate contribution to the tree fund. And I guess it may be okay to leave it the way it is I don't think that a disaster will come because of the vagueness of that. I'm not sure if it would make sense to measure the contribution to the tree fund. As in terms of like the value of three cheese and other words the idea is to either do it or to provide funding that would be sufficient to allow the town to do it. And that that would be at least in my mind that would be the obvious. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea of what appropriate would mean under the circumstances and I just one wanted to see if the rest of you thought that that would be appropriate and appropriate measure of appropriate and whether it would be better to be more specific than leave it bank blank term like this that might be a little cause some problems down the line. I think that would be a good idea to do it. And that, but. To probably think of the intention or provide some sort of a direction to the, to the whoever is managing the tree fund to use to use this if possible and the vicinity of the site to link up to geography, geography, but I, I don't feel comfortable making up how to do that. would to do that. So I would hope that that they would follow that direction. Mike, please. If I could just ask one other question. Just adding not answering that's question but adding on to that's question. So, if I read this. Since the applicant is to provide three additional street trees. Would that mean that they would. You know, if they purchased three trees and gave them to the town is that their obligation is their obligation to install, you know, plant these trees. Within the sidewalk and, you know, do deal with the concrete work and all the associated stuff that goes with that. I would interpret that as requiring them to provide the trees not to actually put them in. I think you have a problem if you try to require. The applicant to do work off site. Okay. So, I guess, I guess the question is, if, if they comply with that and they buy three trees. Is the town okay. Is the town going to be mad at us that they just have three trees and they don't have a place to put them or. I guess just asking the question. That's a very good question. Okay. Remember, they only have to provide them if, if they will be planted by somebody. Right along Massachusetts Avenue. So they don't have to provide trees to be planted. In my backyard. And so. In the absence of some sort of an undertaking by the town to put the trees where. Where the provision says they don't have an obligation to provide the trees at all. If they're not required to plant them. Then they could still provide the trees and it's up to the town to. Find a location for them. Oh, the thing is, is that they're not required to provide trees in general. They're required to provide trees to be planted here. If the town doesn't plant them there and has no intention of planting them there. Then either they'll just sort of wilt on the street or you can donate them to. Some, I mean, I don't even know what you would do, but. You know, they'd be obligated. They'd be able to ask for their trees back, I suppose. Yeah. As a practical matter of the, I, I think the way this would work out if the town said, look, there's no way we're going to do that. And they would say, well, then that satisfies the condition for. We don't have to give you the trees. So in that case. Mr. Hanlon, if. Once, you know, if, if we went with the condition that's written. And if we went with the, if we went with the condition that's written. I'm just sort of gaming it out. Maybe the town would be on notice and have an idea and have an ability to provide spots for those prior to construction and. Or, you know, during construction so that they can accommodate these three trees. And otherwise what you're saying is. They would basically be off the hook because. There would not be a spot to. To accept those, right. Well, that's the way I read it. I didn't. I didn't write it that way, but, but yes, I mean, you could write it. And the way that Mr. Haverty didn't. And then you have the risk that. That he indicated that it wouldn't be valid for that thing. Conceivably, just I'm thinking aloud, you could have. I mean, we do have lots of language in here about encourages and so on and so forth. And. So conceivably. You could say, you know, the applicant in coordination with the town will provide three additional street trees and so forth. And just make clear what we've just been saying. And then if the town isn't willing to dance, then they just are going to have to have a different kind of party. I mean, we're doing the best thing we can with getting the applicant to do what is to pick up a burden, which is useful for them to do. And there's good reasons why they should do, but it, it is a, it is an extra step. And if the town isn't willing to back up its own demands here, then maybe the answer is we should just leave it the way it is. In the way I read it here. It's saying that the applicant is to provide. Three trees. And then the applicant is to provide the three trees. On the direction of the. You know, the tree warden or provide an equivalent contribution to the tree fund. It's not like either they provide the trees that they're providing the funds, but they're doing one or the other. There's not sort of a third. We do nothing probation. No, but the, the, at least the way I read it is providing the three trees. To be planted along mass avenue, the three trees. That describes the trees they're obligated to provide. If those trees aren't going to be planted there. If they're going to be planted in town hall or wherever, then those are not trees that the applicant is obligated to provide. It's, it's limited to that. So. But Patrick, I would interpret that as they're required to provide three T three trees to be planted along Massachusetts avenue. So if the trees are not going to be. To be planted along Massachusetts avenue, then the alternative would be to provide an equivalent contribution to the tree fund. I don't, I don't think it's. You don't do anything. I think it would be, you know, the direction of the tree warden, if the tree warden says. It doesn't make sense to put three trees in this area of Massachusetts. Then you go to the alternative, which is to provide an equivalent contribution. Yeah, but. I can see how you would do that. I don't know exactly that. I'm skeptical as to how exactly that would be interpreted. I certainly, if I were Mr. Feldman would take the position. That that I can elect whether to pay the money or provide the trees. I'm providing trees, but the trees have a restriction that come with them. They have to be planted right here under the direction of the tree warden would say exactly where and so forth, but it has to be in this general vicinity. And if you're not ready to step up and do that. Then there is no tree that is required by this, because trees that are required for some other purpose. I'm not required to give you. Maybe that'll win or maybe that won't win, but it's a big fuss. To me, the whole thing is disconcerting because it's a big fuss. To me, the whole thing is disconcerting because I don't want the trees in my backyard. Or in my front setback or any of lots of places. I want them here. I think that the, that the policy that we're attempting to implement is not. Gee, the town needs more trees, but. But this is a place that is, that is partly because of this project. Is subject to heat island effects. And we're trying to get the applicant to step up and help support. Providing additional trees that would be beneficial to this project and the people who will reside in his building. And if this ends up being just three trees worth to the tree fund that is wherever the town wants to put another tree, then I don't see the whole point of doing the, the whole point of doing this condition to me is lost. Right. But unfortunately we don't have. We don't have the ability to enforce the, the location of the trees on property, not under control of the applicant. Well, that's possibly true, but at least from my point of view, since I'm not looking at this as a, I mean, if we wanted to get a general connect, we just eliminate this and then not give them the waiver down below, but that would be a very big thing to do here. I'd be perfectly happy to say. That these are three trees. And I don't want to, I don't want to, to be planted along Massachusetts Avenue. And if the town. Rejects those trees. If it doesn't want to plant those trees there. Then the condition is satisfied. I don't care. That they're about money and I don't care about playing planting trees and capital square. I plan them right here is where we want them. And if they can't go here because the town says they can't go right here, they can't go here. And I don't want to be touched by the citizens who presented this idea to us to have them plant three trees willy nilly. It was three trees because this area cried out for it. And because of the nexus to the project. And I don't see the point of, if we don't have that much, then I don't see the point of trying to get an extra few trees worth of contribution out of them. It misses the point. Mr. Termin. Yes, sir. I don't see the point of actually with ending it at. You know, warden of the tree warden period. Because if as Mr. Hanlon is saying, you know, we really aren't trying to engage in this. You know, getting them to drop some money into the tree fund. The other thing is that when you say the applicants to provide three additional street trees. You know, to be planted along Mass Ave in the area of the project. That they actually drive up with a truck with three trees, or they say to the tree warden, here's, here's the money you go buy. You go to Mahoney's and you can buy the three trees. I think that's ministerial. I don't even think you need to necessarily worry about how that works out. You know, between the tree warden and the applicant, you know, they could either say, here are your trees or here's the money. I don't think we should even be worried about that part of it. And if as, you know, Mr. Hanlon says, you know, we're not trying to get them to put money into the tree fund anyway, you know, for general purposes. I don't think we need to have that language at the end at all. The only thing that I would state is that we don't want to put the applicant in a position where we're imposing a condition that cannot be complied with due to factors outside of their control. So I would recommend an additional sentence, you know, something to the effect of if the tree warden determines that trees cannot be placed, you know, along Massachusetts Avenue and the vicinity of the project, then this condition is void. Yeah, that's fair. That's good. So to mitigate the increase of impervious area on the site and the significant, significant loss of existing tree canopy, the applicant is to provide three additional street trees of the same size of the speech. She is the street trees provided on the project site to be planted along Massachusetts Avenue in the area of the project under the direction of the tree warden. If the tree warden determines the trees cannot be placed along Massachusetts Avenue in the area of the project, this condition shall be void. That would be satisfactory. I think that's, I think that's good as well. And I'm glad you added size because we hate to show up with a to satisfy our conditions. So when somebody say go to Mahoney's, I'm like, wait a second. Okay. So I 24 were good with that. Just in time to turn it into I 23. But all right. And then the Jays. So the Jays, these are all. Just straight out. Okay. Okay. So we're going to move on to the order of conditions from the conservation commission. And I was going to leave it absolutely as is, but I think Roger had a very good point that he saw a typo, which we might as well fix. Which is for some reason the characters BN after the number 49. No idea why they're there. We would just go ahead and strike those because I'm sure that they have strickened them themselves. Space. So I'm going to give that a little bit of a sneak peek at the question, but. Yeah. Okay. So in the order of conditions to be the Cays. Get down to decision. Before going out to Sesame or does the Apacera, has a permit for the construction of 50 homeowners, kind of many units in the single structure along with approximately 1700 square feet of commercial space for so into 40 be 2323 Here in this notice was pointed out that it says grovelin. So just putting in the office of our town hall. I'm sure grovelin would love to have it, but we should probably put it into Arlington. So. 730 masks. I'm very sympathetic with that kind of mistake. I make it all the time. I try to do a find and replace to make sure that doesn't. Doesn't always work. That. And then that moves us. Into the waivers. Only ones here. So one again, this is again that same riverfront. Board. Action. So we hit. So this was. I'm going to go back to that. I'm going to go back to that. The additional. So he says based on the. So waiver granted based on very front restoration area. The restored woodland. And the tree street trees to be provided at the front of the building as proposed in the approved plans. Together with the additional street trees required under condition. I-24, which is now going to be. I-23. Does that sound good to everyone? Good. Make sure there's nothing else. Missed. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that's problems that will come up when you. We've done all of the renumbering. So, but we don't. I mean, the board doesn't need to deal with that. There just has to be a proof reading stage after here. That. That makes it all work out. That was just green to remind you of where I stopped renumbering. So that's the only reason that is highlighted. I think it's probably a, would be a subject of impeachment if I pointed out, but I think there's a little bit of a margin. I think there was a possibility that, there could be a difference between the letter and the member and sometimes there isn't. Yeah. So we had left this open. We will go ahead now and accept this. Which was the finding, which is the basis for the additional trees. All right. Save. Saved. All right. So are there any other. Changes. Anyone would like to make two. the proposed decision. Mr. Chairman, other than in a moment, we might change it to May 30th. That is our next decision we have to make. So as we said before, the board has three possible decisions that it can reach under law. So the first would be to approve the comprehensive permit without conditions. I think we all agree that that is not an option we wish to pursue. Another option would be a motion to deny the comprehensive permit, which I think we are likely in agreement. It's also something we are not prepared to do at this stage. We could continue again, which despite as much fun as this is, I don't think we are at a position where we need to continue anymore. Seeing some firm dissent on that. So then I think what we would be looking for we would be a motion to approve the comprehensive permit application with the stated conditions as they appear here in the draft decision. So I think with that, unless there's anything further, I think the chair would accept a motion to approve the comprehensive permit application for 10-21, 10-27 Massachusetts Avenue with the conditions noted in the written decision. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So moved. I wonder if before we take a vote on that, is the vote on the waiver in Mr. Havardy's view a separate motion or is it included in this motion? It doesn't have to be. I mean, in particular, the waiver is part of the decision that you're voting on. Okay. So this includes the whole business. Okay. Seconded by Mr. Dupont. Mr. Havardy, just make sure that motion is appropriately formed for what we're intending to do. Christian, can you repeat that please? Oh, sure. Just making sure that the motion that we have presented is appropriate as intended. It is, yes. Perfect. All right. Then with that, I'll take a vote of the board. What we've done typically in the past on comprehensive permanent applications, if anyone wishes to say anything in regards to their vote on the application, they should feel free to do so when they are issuing their vote. So with that, Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Holley. Thank you. Mr. Riccadelli. Hi. And as chair, I'll just take a minute to say, I think this has been a long process for the board. There has been a lot of very good conversations between the board, with the applicants and with the public. And while I understand that there certainly are some concerns to the public that were not specifically addressed in the totality of the decision, I think we have achieved a project that is better for the town than when it was initially proposed. And hopefully a project that the residents of the town will look favorably upon as it goes forward. So the chair does vote aye. And with that, we have an approved comprehensive permit application for 1021, 1027 Massachusetts Avenue with the conditions as noted in the written decision. Mr. Chairman, are we going to vote on raising the debt ceiling this evening or not tonight maybe next meeting? If only that was within our purview. But at the conclusion now of this process, I would like to thank many people for their assistance in helping the board here deliberate and make an informed decision on the matters before the board on this comprehensive permit application. First, foremost, I'd like to thank Colleen Ralston, Arizona Administrator for keeping us on schedule and having all the hearings set up for us and all the proper notices going out and everything. It's a large task we greatly appreciate. You're stepping in at high speed to work with the board. We appreciate that. We'd also like to thank Rick Valorelli, our former zoning administrator who was with us when this all started. Like Mike Ciampa, the director of Inspectional Services, Claire Ricker, the director of Planning and Community Development, Kelly Linema, the former director, a former assistant director of Planning and Community Development, Marissa Lau, the senior planner, David Morgan, the conservation agent, Wayne Shenard, our town engineer, Susan Chapnick and the conservation commission. I would like to thank the tree committee, the transportation advisory committee, redevelopment board, the historic committee, the affordable housing trust fund board, the select board and all the other town employees, boards, committees and commissions who lent their expertise to this board. I'd like to thank Sean Reardon at Tetra Tech and Cliff Boomer at Davis Square Architects for all their assistance. I would like to thank Paul Haverty and Chris Elfin for their steadfast support of us throughout this entire process and keeping us on the street narrow. Would like to thank Matt Mejuri and Paul Feldman from their entire development team for their willingness to work with this board and to accommodate the concerns of the residents and neighbors and would especially like to thank the residents of Arlington who took their time to participate in this process. There are many of you who have participated in many of the sessions. There are one or two of you who have been to all of the sessions and we really appreciate your attention to this and your comments and your guidance as we move through. So thank you to all of you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just, and just as a footnote to what you've just said about the citizens, sometimes as we have experienced that these cases can be highly controversial and we might have on the basis of what we heard the first day imagine that this would be similar. But it was a very productive process from the beginning to end. And citizens, regardless of the place from which they started seemed to me to contribute a lot to making the project better. And I think even the applicant would admit that that happened. I just like to single out three people who we saw quite a lot of. One more in the beginning and the end. One was Zavod Prezler who is a near neighbor of this and who was often with us earlier on. And then all the way through with L. Evans who lives across the street and Steve Moore who was with us almost always had an enormous amount of good stuff to add. They were, those two were not necessarily enthused about the project, but they pitched in to make the project better and produced a lot of interesting ideas. And it was a real privilege to work with them all and with all of the others who stepped up at their time. But the citizen participation in this case was particularly distinguished as it has been in many of the cases even with that are more controversial than this one. And I just commend the folks who carried it through and the spirit in which they did. Well, thank you, Mr. Hamlet. All right, so with that, we are concluded prior to the June 4th end of the 40-day deliberation period. So that brings 1021, 1027 to a close. But for those of you who love comprehensive permit hearings we have one coming up on June 13th which is the continuation of 10 Sunnyside Avenue. We will have a regular hearing on the June 20th and then on July 11th should be the follow-up comprehensive hearing for 10 Sunnyside Avenue. All right, well thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I'd especially like to thank Colleen Rawlson for her assistance in preparing for and hosting our online meetings. Please note the purpose of the board's recording this meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It is our understanding that recording made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zbaatown.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. Mr. Hanlon. I move that we adjourn. Second. Thank you Mr. DuPont. So a roll call vote of the board to adjourn Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Holley. Aye. Aye. Mr. Rickidelli. Aye. Mr. LeBlanc. And the chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very, very much. All thank you so much for everything. I appreciate it. I will have that draft file shoot later tonight. Great. Thank you everyone. Good night. Thank you. Good night everyone. Good night everybody. Good night. Good night, Colleen.