 All set. Great. All right, good evening. This open meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's order of March 12, 2020 due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak break of the COVID-19 virus. In order to mitigate the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings and as such, the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. For this meeting, the redevelopment board is convening via zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Excuse me one second. Excuse my little visitor. As I was saying, please be aware that other people may see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. So I will now confirm that all members of the redevelopment board are present through a roll call. Please identify if you can hear me. Ken Lau. David Watson. Eugene Benson. Katie Levine Einstein. Great. And Rachel Zimbari as chair. I am present as well. And I believe we have Jennifer rate from the department of planning community development. And Erin's work out. Joining us as well this evening. Do we have anyone else from the department on tonight's call? Okay, great. All right. Switch my screen. And we will move over open the first item on tonight's agenda, which is docket number three, six, three, eight. 400 to 402 mass. And this is a, the new opening of this, of this public hearing. And I'll first ask Jenny, if you have anything from the department. Summary that you would like to begin with. I don't actually have anything further than. What's in my summary summary. I'm not sure. Very bad. Of everyone except Rachel. Yeah. I'm getting the same thing. Okay. Sorry, everybody. I don't know what to do about that. Wait. If you. Okay, that's better. Okay. Great. So are you receiving feedback when I'm speaking? No. It was when I was getting, and you were, you were unmuted. Is it better? Okay. So I'll, I'll just make sure that I knew. Whenever anyone else is speaking, I'll just make sure to keep myself on mute except for. Not sure what's going on. So I will. Ask the, let's see, I think attorney and Essie, are you here to. Represent this. But you're on mute. Mr. And I see you're on, you're on mute. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Good. I'm accompanied this evening by the architect Ken file. And Frank Pascotto and Cynthia Pascotto will be in the background. With respect to the presentation as well. This is an application for environmental design review. Relating to property at 400 to 402 mess. And this, the, the relief zoning relief in connection with this property goes way back to 1980. And in 1980, the Pascotto family. Frank appeared before the Allington zoning board. And basically requested zone relief. And they granted him the property. To have two residential units in the building. The, by the way, the building is in the Avon historic district. We are not, and I'll repeat this again. We are not. And if there's any indication in any way. That the board feels we are, I want to hear about it. We are not making any exterior changes to the building, not withstanding what might be shown on the plans, which you may have. And Ken file will get into that in a bit. With respect to the jurisdiction. We had to go before the Allington zoning board. Because they acted on this matter back in 1980. We had a hearing before. The zoning board. And I believe that you have a copy of the zoning decision. Where the zoning board indicated. That they were going to defer a jurisdiction. To the ARB. Because in fact. The ARB basically with mixed use. Now has jurisdiction. Under environmental design review of the property. So what we are. And that's why we're here by the way, because the zoning board has basically acquiesced in our coming before the ARB. So we are proposing. Four residential units for the building. And three of which would be one bedrooms. One would be a two bedroom. So we are proposing. And three of which would be one bedrooms. One would be a two bedroom. And we're proposing an office use as well. If you're familiar with the property, the property is, by the way, is in a B one zone. And in my mind. It's on the fringe of the area that separates the, the building from the residential area. The residential area. The residential area. From the less intensive area as you go down there. Well, you have a more mixed use basis. For the building. It's okay. Which is not necessarily the case in Allenton center. It's the property. In fact, it's across from the fire station. And as you have, you've seen from the dimensional form. We've talked about it before. We've talked about it before. As far as the lot is concerned. We are non conforming in many respects. And the zone relief that we're requiring. Basically is under environmental design review. And in addition, I have asked for relief with respect to. The property of budding a public way with respect to setbacks as well. As you can see in my, my memo, the environmental impact statement to the ARB is. I invoked the transportation management act. I have been corrected by the planning department with respect to. The fact that I really do not need. Any relief with respect to a parking reduction. We need six parking spaces. And we have six parking spaces. So we do not really need. Any relief from the board. With respect to a parking reduction, nevertheless. And as the planning department memo has indicated. Well, Mr. And SC proposed that in his memo, in his environmental impact statement. So why don't we see if we can hold him to it? Well, I am going to basically. Get into a discussion of the transportation management act. We are in fact going to provide an EV. Electrical outlet. As you can see, hopefully from the plans. It's going to be in the back of the lot. That's where the EV connection is going to be. And can file can talk to that. When he gets involved in making his presentation. We are also going to provide. And we're going to suggest for bicycle parking. We're going to suggest short term and long term. The long term bicycle parking would be inside of the building. And it would not be on the same level as the street level. But it would be on the same level as the street level. Because we don't have room elsewhere in the building for the in bike storage, but we would have room in a storage area in the lower level of the building for. In bike storage. We would also provide for short term bike storage. At the exterior of the building. And that could consist of a bicycle rack. And we would also provide for short term bike storage. And I'm sure we can have a discussion about that. With respect to what your thoughts might be. The. We don't intend to go before the historic commission. Because again, we're not making exterior changes to the building. Of any kind. The, with respect to landscape space. We don't intend to change that. I'm sorry. 864 square feet. And zoning would require 555 square feet. We have no open space of any kind. So that is not something that I will be getting into a discussion about. But again, with respect to. The jurisdiction and the ability on the part of the ARB to give us relief. I believe that the ARP has. Plenty of authority to give us, give us relief with respect to that issue in other issues. The usual open space, as I say, is zero. We'll remain at zero. Traffic. Circulation. Ken can talk to that. It's got to remain unchanged. With one way traffic in and out. To the parking spaces, which are located. As you can see from the site plan. To the rear of the building. And as the planning department memo has indicated. Tendon parking is in fact allowed under the bylaw. And we are going to, in fact, have tandem parking. Now. One of the comments made in the planning department memo. That the parking and that area behind the building. And exiting the building could be kind of tight. And query. Would it make sense for the petitioner to consider. Compact parking. We certainly are open to that recommendation. If that's something that the board in its wisdom. Would like us to consider. We are willing to consider it. And adopt any suggestion that the board may have. With respect to compact parking. The, the surface water. Drainage is going to remain unchanged. As I believe you may be aware. And if you're not, I'll suggest it to you. The parking area outback is paid. So there's a not an awful and there's not landscape. Space back there. There's a parking area. There's not an awful lot we can do. With respect to how the water runs off. It's been running off that way. For many, many years since the building was first constructed. Many, many years ago. We don't suggest any changes to that. We do suggest that. That we're not doing anything. Within the interior of the building. That would change that when rain happens. It hits the roof comes down off the roof. There's into the parking lot. That's the way it's been happening for many, many years. And that's not going to change. There will be no changes to the utility service to the property. With respect to advertising features that was also mentioned. In the planning department. Memo. And we would prefer to deal with that. Administratively. We don't think that we're going to have. Any plans as far as signage is concerned. That will a necessity. Are coming back before the ARB. With respect to looking for relief. There is a sign out front in the building. There's a sign out front in the building. There may be a sign on the side as well, but we're not again. We're going to do that administratively with the, with the planning department. There'll be no new machinery installed at the building. So we're not talking about putting equipment on the roof. We're not talking about shading anything as far as the roof is concerned. A shielding anything as far as the roof is concerned. Or anything of that nature. All opened and closed spaces at the building will remain unchanged. And we have submitted a lease for report. Of the grassy the architect that's Ken file, by the way. With respect to leaves, considerations, With regard to our proposal. And I'm going to let Ken talk to that issue. And I can come back in. Oh, by the way, one more matter that. In my generosity. I proposed in the transportation management act. When I was under the impression that I was under the impression that I was under the impression that I was under the impression that I was under the impression that I was under the impression that I was under the impression that we did need parking reduction was. A shower. In the office unit. If we don't have to do that, we would prefer not to do that. If we did have to do that, of course, we would, but we would prefer not to have to do that. If we could. What are we offering in return? We're offering the EV charger in the back of the building. The indoor parking. That we don't necessarily have to offer. So we're hoping that that will be enough for the board to consider. In terms of whatever relief they feel they need to give us. As far as the play and six and sir. Ken, why don't you jump in and talk to us. About what's going to happen in the interior of the building. Sure. Jennifer would be possible for me to either share my screen or share it with you. Which would you like me to bring up? I've already got things ready. So what would you like to bring it up, as I told you earlier today? Yes. My apologies. Jennifer, if you could bring up. The document that I emailed you on earlier this evening. That would, I think, help explain. I'll give a greater visual picture, both the picture and the plan. Perfect. And then could you also bring up the plan as well? Okay. Again, my name is Ken file. Partner at the grass. Yeah. What's in file. YF architects. And in response from our initial. Submission to this board. And going through the planning board, the planning department's memo. We have located. Addressing different, different items that were brought up in the memo. As you can see. We'll start in the upper right hand corner. The potential location of a trash enclosure. That would allow trash receptacles and recycling receptacles to be stored underneath the stairs. Thank you. And we'll see, I'll show you some pictures there in a second. The electric charging station. Located right next to the, to the tandem parking. And the temporary bike rack. Off the walkway to the lower level. Right off the driveway. For temporary use of short term use of storing bikes. And then again, as Bob. A Nessie attorney Bob Nessie had mentioned. If we are needed to require a toilet in the existing office space. There is a potential location. In that, in that office to put a shower in. If we could scroll down a little bit more, thank you. And then. In the existing building storage space. We can, which is again, one level down from. The main entry. We would be able to partition off a permanent bike storage location for tenants to store bicycles. Both the office as well as the residential units. And then, we would be able to store bicycles inside the premises. And not outside. And as Bob had mentioned, we had written a lead narrative. Since all the renovations are happening internal. Offices being converted to residential units. All the lead considerations that we can consider are really more interior for all interior focused. So, we have a lot of. Low emitting materials such as paints and coatings, adhesives, sealants and flooring using post. High post consumer recycle products. And then for any HAC units that we put in the, the, the into the units for the unit limit, the new residential. Units. We can actually make sure that we have better indoor air quality for the unit limit. And we would also be looking to. Again, use 70 at least 70% recyclable. Components that are, that are in the, that were being used in the renovations. And then any toilet fixtures using low water production. Dishwashers, shower heads, toilets. And then we have a lot of, a lot of cleaning and cooling equipment for the renovations. Again, these are all internal changes. And here on the, the pictures we can start seeing on the exterior, where we're proposing the electric charging vehicle at the back. Of the building. The location of the trash enclosure underneath the steps. And then the bike rack, the temporary bike rack. For storing bikes temporarily. So I've. That encompasses. Addresses the items that were brought up in the planning department's memo. Happy to answer any questions. I'll turn it back to. To Bob and attorney Bob. Just as an addition to what I was saying earlier. In quoting from the. Planning department memo to the members of the ARB. We are looking for four residential units. Which is in addition of two, and the department memo talks about the fact that the master plan recommends. Supporting commercial areas by encouraging new redevelopment. And. New residential as well as commercial space. And again, we're going to keep this. We're going to have an offer. We can't have a retail use there. We're not going to have a retail use. But we're going to have an office use there. And we're going to have. Residential use. As well. And you will note, by the way, on the prior plan that him. Been submitted. We had showed an exterior. Shed like area for. Covered bike parking. That's not going to be the case. Because that would be a change to the exterior of the building. And we again, are not making any changes to the exterior of the building. So. If you have any questions at all for either Canada, myself, we're more than happy to respond. Thank you. And Bob. So we'll run through. Roll call of the redevelopment board for. Any questions or requests for clarifications from the applicant. Prior to turning it over to public comment. And then we'll discuss it. So we'll start with Ken Lau. Thank you, Rachel. I generally have no issues with. Switching some office space to a more desirable. Housing. In this area here. It's just a, I do question the type of housing you're creating. Ken. If we look at the. Your proposed floor plan. Let's start with the basement. Yes. I know you don't want to. I know you're saying you're not changing anything outside. Okay. That's correct. We have the living room and we have the bedroom. I just scroll down, please. Here we go. Thank you. Okay. Well, you have the living room and we have the bedroom. Yes. That living room is going to be a dark, dingy space. There's no windows. You got that one window underneath the stairs. It's underneath the stairs. Okay. Yes. Is there any way of switching that with the bedroom and just making it a much more livable space? To me is just, I mean, I don't want to do housing for sake of housing. I want to sure. Good housing up. And is there a way of looking at it? So you can maybe switch that around a little bit. And I think there, there might actually be potential. Absolutely. Yeah. I think there's. You know, yes, I do prefer to switch to the living room. The bathroom is a common bathroom anyway. So it really is just about how do you present? How do you bring the bedroom over and still have access. Out that back door. But I definitely believe we can make that happen. That would be great. That's one comment. And then if we, I'm not sure exactly what's happening. I'm not sure what's happening. I'm not sure what's happening. I'm not sure what's happening. That's one comment. And then if we, I'm not sure exactly what's happening. On the two upper units. You have these spiral staircase like right in the smack. In the middle of the, of the living room. Yep. Those are existing. Okay. But what, what, what. What kind of space is happening behind or around that? That, uh, It doesn't. If you look at the living room space. Uh, go down, scroll down. Yep. There you go. Yep. It's really just circulation around. It's, it really is just circulation around the stair because as the stair comes up to the upper loft area. Um, it comes up on the exterior wall. So that is, it's, it's the, where the existing. Um, stair is right now. We're not proposing any changes to the. Unit four unit number five. I realized that. And I'm just looking at it. Thank you. You could make those. I think those could be two very nice, nice units, especially the unit number four. Sorry. Unit number five. Where does the deck out there? You know, having a, um, A, uh, a bedroom upstairs and then having a one on the back there. That's could be, that could be your prime unit. Um, your, your penthouse unit. And, and I think you should, I'm just suggesting maybe you look at. To be modifying that stairs. I don't think a stair. Would be that costly. I'm just stating that it would make that unit that much nicer. I don't want. To have just units, you know, just for the sake of units. Um, You can talk that, talk that over with your owner and say, I'm going to have to, yes. Yeah. And then you look at them and say, look, you know, is the payback for upgrading these stairs and making that. Upstairs space and downstairs space more valuable. Will they be able to get that back in the rent? Sure. I mean, she and the owners are on the, on this call as well. So they, they're, they're being aware made aware ready. So this is, thank you for so much. Thank you for that comment. Mark that up. Yeah, I'm just trying to make these nicer units. I just don't want to do units, you know, and you squeeze them in any, which way. And. As far as if we go back to a site plan. Can we do one where it shows a site plan a little bit? Yep. That's. Yep. Go up a little bit. To be the next floor. Yeah. That one right there. The roof, the roof leaders come down on gutters outside the building. Right. Yes. They currently tied into the storm system or these, where they just dump out to the yard. As I understand, well, there, there is no storm. There is no site drainage to this building that's underground. No, I realize that it was all surface drainage. So the roof, so the roof leaders that come off the roof comes right and drain into the side, the side yard. Yes. They drain around the building. That is correct. That's, that's how the building is currently existing. Yes. Okay. So there, so there is some recharge in the open space and some of the side yard, because it does drain there and whatever absorbs into the ground absorb into the ground. Right. Some of it. Yeah. Some, some aspect of it. And the only thing I can ask is. If there's a roof leader that drains into the parking lot. Can we see if we can drain that onto. The open space first and then see what, what, what open space there is will take whatever. Initial water and then if there's overflow, then it goes back into the driveway and goes out like it was before. It's just a small, a small gesture to just try to recharge the water back into the ground. Totally understand the, the, the desire and the concern. It would definitely need to be because it is all paved back there right now. And if we try to bring it into the side yard, we're cutting across walkways. I, I would need to do some further study to see if there's opportunities to create maybe some small. Gravel location that might be able to recharge something near the building. Potentially. Or swell, you know, where it might just go there. Bring it around. Yes. Just asking. Okay. This is definitely not a demand. You know, you certainly don't have to do it. And I'm just saying that. You know, it's a nice gesture. Sure. Oh, totally understand. Absolutely. And, you know, I'm, I'm marking my plan. I apologize. I'm a quiet for a second. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Ken. David. Thanks for Rachel. So I'm, I'm trying to figure out how I feel about this one. This, this is different than other projects. We've been reviewing under mixed use. Other projects. We have either. Added commercial space. In addition to residential where there was no existing commercial. Or. In. Whether we exist in commercial. We have either. Accepted projects that. Reallocated that commercial space. Or. Or in some cases reduce the amount of commercial space. In exchange for a significant. Number of new residential units. And here. We're basically making one to one trade-offs where. Eliminating commercial spaces. And replacing them with. With residential spaces. And. It doesn't feel like it's this. It's generating. The same level of benefit that we like to try to achieve with the mixed use. By law. One question I have is. Are the. All three office spaces. Currently in use and have, have they historically been occupied? The, I don't know whether they're all three are currently in use. One is certainly current current in use. And that's in use by an attorney. Okay. But I'm not so sure that the other two are. Quite frankly. I realize that these aren't suitable for retail space. We would not be evicting people. If that's what your, your point was. No, I'm just concerned. With trying to balance. The need for commercial space. In town. And the need for residential. And. As I was saying, where we've done mixed use. In the past. We have been able to significantly add. To the residential stock. While. Either. Adding commercial space. Or. Or. Reconfiguring existing commercial spaces. And. You know, here. While these aren't, these spaces aren't suitable for retail. They certainly. Are suitable. And in fact, it looks like designed for office use. Up to this point. So I'm. I think one of the, one of the. If I could, Mr. One of the considerations from my client has been that. They have been under the impression. That the town was looking for in a need of. Additional residential space. And that has been one of the motivating factors along with the idea. That they could, in fact, of course, lease or rent the, the spaces. Okay. By the way, the family is not in the business of developing property and going condo with it. Okay. That's not what they do. What they do is they develop property and they keep it. So their intent would be to. Maintain this family. With respect to. Again, the residential and commercial mixed use. I think historically, if you went back with respect to the building. You'd find that the building was in fact used. For residential purposes. If you go way back. Okay. And not office uses. There are office spaces available in town now. I know that. Okay. For people who are looking for office spaces. And again, my understanding is that. Additional residential spaces. And again, my understanding is that additional residential spaces. Would be something that the master plan. Contemplated. And that has been a motivating factor for my clients. Yeah, I agree with you that the master plan does contemplate. Adding. Residential, but it also. Contemplates. Expanding commercial opportunities in town. And, you know, here. Instead of. Growing kind of growing the pie and getting both. Where we're trading off one for the other. And. I'm not as excited about that. I'll. Let me think about it a little bit. With respect to the tandem parking. You know, having. Seen that in, in action. In, in. In other places and knowing. That it can be somewhat awkward when you're dealing with. Residents. Or occupants of multiple units sharing tandem spaces. So that's, you know, I'm not sure how that's going to work in this context where you've got. You would have a five completely unrelated parties. Sharing essentially to tandem parking spaces. We're going to, we're going to assign parking for the texts. So that they are going to know which space or spaces. They're going to know where they're going to go. And so. In space. Leave and space for. Is still there. In terms of moving the vehicle. Yeah. Well, that's something that happens all the time. David, if you go down into East Arlington right now. And you go down any street in East Arlington. And you look at the tandem parking in East Arlington. That's exactly what happens. Okay. There's tandem parking in driveways. And what has to happen is. One of the owners has to go to the other one and say, we'd like to move. Okay. We'd like to get out. Could you please move your car? Could you please allow us to do that. That happened all the time. Yeah, I understand that, but I think that's certainly not a desirable situation. It's also not a situation that I think we typically see. In. Was that our larger than. Than a two or three family. Yeah. But we're dealing with a, a peculiar site. It's not a large site. David. Okay. It's a small site. And we, we're dealing with the hand that we've been dealt. As far as the parking is concerned. And we're trying to get the parking. And again, the zoning by-law does allow for tandem parking. If it did not, then a lot of people in East Arlington would not be able to have. Yeah. I appreciate that. Let me ask another question with respect to the indoor. Bike parking that's proposed. How would that be accessed? Exactly. If Jennifer could scroll down real quick. Thank you. Ken. Yep. And so this is the main. This is the, it's accessed off of the main front entry stair. And there's a. That is basically common that can be accessed by the office as well as the residential units from the outside. And, and going up that main stair. And take the bike storage where you write off that main stair going, you come in the main stair. You can go down to the bike storage. Through its own. Doorway. That's, that's that can be locked. That can be locked. And then you go back up to your unit. So I'm just trying to, I'm not sure I'm understanding the flow. So you come in the front door of the building. Yep. The next plan up. Yep. And then where do you. And then you go down on the left. That's correct. You come, you go down the stairs. You go up. Yeah. There you go. Yep. Down the stairs. And then you go down the stairs. You go up. Yeah. There you go. Yep. Down the stairs and then you end up right at the door of the building, the building storage. So you have to go down, down the stairs to what an intermediate landing and kind of. Right. And then go down again. Yes, it is a, it's a use. It's an existing U shaped stair. That goes down to that lower level. That is the, that's the only storage space that's available. Going up the building. No, I do appreciate that. I'd say having requiring people to, to carry bikes up and down stairs is definitely not, not preferred. And here it's even more awkward because they have to make a turn. With their bicycle while they're, while they're maneuvering up or down the stairs. So it's, it's definitely not optimal. I mean, yeah, I recognize there. There isn't necessarily another interior space where that would work. And I know, I would say, I know you, you really don't want to get into. The, the complications of adding anything outside. But, you know, I think in a situation like this providing some kind of. Covered secure bike parking. Outside might be preferable. And if you only, if you're actually only required to provide. Five parking spaces. I'm wondering if it's feasible to. Repurpose one of the parking spaces as. An enclosed bike parking space. So that people could roll in and roll out and not have to deal with the carrying bikes up and down the stairs. I mean, you're talking about an exterior change to the building data? No, I'm, I'm talking about, well, I'm. I'm not sure of the implications of this because this would be. Doing something. In the parking area that's now paved and. Repurposing one of those spaces and necessarily building something on the other side of the road. I'm not sure. Yeah. It might. I'm not sure it probably will. As a matter of fact. Yeah. So. But I think from a usability perspective. Doing something like that might be, might be preferable. I'm just trying to think of options that don't involve. That is not. A preferred way of providing indoor bike access. Excuse me. Hi. This is Cynthia. Yeah. Mr. Watson. I think I can answer some of your questions. The tenants that are on the units four and five have bicycles. They've been keeping them actually in their apartments. So they are accustomed to taking them up and down the stairs. For them as we spoke to them about this. It would be a bonus to have them in the basement. In a secure location that would. There would be a lock where you had to punch in a code that only they would have. So that, that would be a big help to them. Yeah. Yeah. I can definitely see how that could be an improvement over. Yeah. Having them in their apartment flights. Yeah. Exactly. They said it would be much easier for them. And for something they would appreciate. As for the tandem parking. The tenants within our leases. We actually assigned parking and within the lease. We actually tell them they have to work it out together. So, and that's the best part of the plan. They've been doing it for the eighties. Because as you can guess with the person that's in the commercial space in the office space. They're maneuvering more than the residents. So they've always worked that out amongst themselves. Without complaints. We've never really had to get involved with that. They all shared their numbers. John Hurd is a long-term tenant. We have had the basement unit available for more than two years. The town, as you might know, does not allow body workers for a very good reason. And that seems to be what is attracted to that building. And so we are trying to, of course, avoid that and comply with the town. As for the first floor unit, that has been vacant for a year. And that was the decision of the tenant to leave. OK. That's useful information. Any additional comments, David? The only other thing I think I would say is I wouldn't, I don't feel strongly about holding you to installing a shower in the remaining office unit since it isn't required, in this case, for parking reduction. And also, since it sounds like there's an existing tenant there who is content with the way it is. So I think I'm feeling like this isn't the most exciting project. And I'm not sure it really advances the town's goals in any meaningful way. But I don't find it particularly objectionable. OK. We'll move on to Gene Benson. Thank you. And good evening, everyone. Thank you for the interesting presentation about the proposal. I have questions and comments about parking, about the amount of office space, about the lead checklist. And before that, I want to weigh in on Mr. Lowe's suggestion of perhaps flipping the living room and the bedroom in the basement unit. I would hate to see a basement unit where the bedroom has no windows. I much prefer to see windows in the bedroom. And I'm not sure what those things are called. Transoms or something where the light transmits high up in the wall from the bedroom into the living room. So yeah, I think to me that would be preferable to ending up with a bedroom with no windows personally. So let me get to my other issues. Parking. So I mean, people have talked about the tandem parking and the issues with the tandem parking. I wonder how you respond to this part of the town zoning bylaw, which says parking and loading spaces, other than those required for single family and two family dwellings, shall be arranged to avoid backing of vehicles into any street. I can't figure out how these cars are going to get out of the parking lot without backing into the street. So can you respond to that? You know, the last parking spots, 5 and 6, they move out into the street. They're all assigned and if there's opportunities for them to move forward to allow other cars to park, obviously they would do that. Cynthia, how do they presently do it and how have they been doing it for years? Cynthia? Right, I mean myself. They have been pulling in and then they back out is how they've been doing it for years. We can tell them to park facing forward. So that they're not backing out. But they've been doing that for years. Yeah, I mean, I appreciate how difficult the parking is there on trying to fit in the numbers that you'd like to have or that are required. On the other hand, I'm sort of sensitive that if we're going to give us a special permit, we have to be sensitive to what the bylaws currently say about parking, which is the avoid backing of vehicles into any street. I don't know if it's possible to do this. You really only need five parking spaces, not six, under the bylaws. So I'm wondering, and I don't know the answer, but I'd like you to come back next time and think if there's a way to do this, if there's a way by reducing the number of spaces to five to either make it easier for people to get in or out or less likely they have to back out into the street or something of that nature. Because you only need five for the residential. You don't need six. There's no requirement for parking for the commercial business space. So if you could at least look into that, I think it would be helpful, although I'll tell you I'm having a little trouble figuring out why we should give a special permit to allow backing out into the street when the bylaw pretty specifically says arrange parking to avoid backing of vehicles into the street. And you can understand why they prefer not to have that happen. The second one is about the bicycle parking. And David brought this up, but I'd like just to sort of amplify what he says. The bylaws say bicycle parking must not require lifting bicycles off the floor or carrying bicycles up or down any steps or stairs. So I think that's a bit of a problem. And I understand how the tenants would much rather have the bicycles in a basement storage area than in their apartments. But they'd probably even better prefer a storage area where they don't have to carry the bicycles up and down a set of stairs that have a turn around it. So I think one of your challenges and David suggested one option, I don't know if that's a good option, maybe there are others, is to see how you can have bicycle storage when they don't have to carry bicycles up or down stairs. So I don't know the solution, but I will point out that the bylaw says you can't require bicycles to be carried up and down the stairs. The amount of office space, I guess I'm having a little bit more concern, but the same concern that David has expressed about it, in that I agree that the town master plan calls for the need for more housing, but it also calls the need for more commercial space. And what this proposal would do is reduce the amount of business space, as you call it, from about almost 2,700 square feet to only about 630 square feet. And to me, that's a rather huge reduction. And to have only just over 10% of the square footage of the building devoted to business space and the rest devoted to commercial raises the same issue that I had with 1,500 Mass Ave, which is this doesn't feel to me enough like a mixed use building. It feels to me more like an apartment building with a little office so it can qualify technically as mixed use, but I'm not sure it meets the goals or the spirit of the bylaw for the reasons David stated and for the reasons I've stated. And I just sort of wonder if there's a way where, and I'm not suggesting you do this, I'm just wondering if there's a way where the entire first floor could be office space, so you'd end up with three apartments, the one in the basement and then the two that you currently have that would do at least two things for you. One is it would, I think, have a better percentage of business space in the building. And second, it would give you some place to put the bicycle storage area. And third, you'd need even less parking to meet the requirements, so we'd have a better situation with the parking in back. So I am concerned, I'm going to listen to what my colleagues have to say about this too, but I am concerned about the paucity of business and whether it's just on the wrong side of the spirit of the mixed use. Jane, was there a question for them in that? No, I just like them to reconsider because they'll still end up with one more apartment than they have now and less office space than they have now. But it's just something I would like them to consider and come back and explain whether they can or cannot do that and why. Or if they want to discuss that now, they can, but I put that out for their consideration. It's a small building. It's not a large building, okay? Certainly not the building that would be going up to 1500 MSF. And again, I think historically, if you go back, the building has been used more for residential purposes, rather than commercial or office purposes. And again, we did this because, and we're proposing this because we looked at the same by-law that you looked at and we interpreted it differently. Now, you're in the position of authority and I'm not, but when I look at the by-law, I can interpret the mixed use by-law as saying, for a lot that contains 4,000 some odd square feet, why not have four residential units on that small lot and one office shooter? Because again, if you were talking about a larger lot where you had the ability to create multiple office units on the site, that would be different. Now, you did something similar to this you folks did back on the property with a nail sign on it that I had some months ago, okay? We did, that was in our seven or in our eight, okay? And we did something very similar there. We did the office unit on the first level and the bulk of the building is in fact residential. And again, that was done because we thought we thought we were furthering the intent of the master plan in terms of creating more residential housing. And I think the same thinking applies to this site, but even more so because it's a very tiny site. It's 4,000 some odd square feet. If we're talking about a lot that contain even what's on 1,500 mass have, which is 7,500 square feet, that I think I would probably agree with you, Gene. Again, you're the final arbiter, not me, okay? But I throw that out to you for your consideration. Yeah, thank you. I'll listen to what my colleagues have to say because I don't think the master plan is driven solely by housing and I don't think... I don't think it is either, yeah. And I don't think that the sort of zoning bylaw contemplates basically buildings in mixed use with just a very small amount of something that makes it mixed use. But I'm interested to what my colleagues on the board have to say on that. On the lead, I think when you come back, I'd like to actually see a lead checklist. It was helpful to see the narrative, but I'd like you to actually convert that into a lead checklist, which is required. And that's it. Thank you, Gene. Katie. Thank you. So my colleagues, I think, raised a lot of great points and so I'm not going to repeat what they had to say, but I think in response to Gene and David's concerns about the commercial space, I think one thing that is really tricky this site is extremely constrained. And I think you guys did a great job of laying that out and it's not clear to me that there is a lot more that can be done with the commercial space in this particular place. And I think when you guys come back and presented, it'd be really helpful. I mean, we already heard a little bit about how only one of the three spaces is currently in use. I think having a little bit more evidence about what other kinds of commercial spaces could even be here and whether there's really a market demand for this. But the reality right now is we know there's a crushing demand for housing, which is something that is very much in the master plan. And it's not clear that there's a demand for these kinds of office spaces. And so I think if there's another kind of commercial space that could be in this particular small building, we would certainly be interested in that, but it's not clear that that's an option here. So I guess I'm maybe not as troubled by that issue as my colleagues are. So my only, I guess, something that I would like to hear more about and to reiterate something that Ken mentioned is to hear a little bit more about the stormwater drainage issues. It was something that came up in the planning department memo. And I think that's something if there's a way that you guys can address those issues, I think that's something I'd be interested in hearing about. But I, you know, it's a constrained site. I'm not as concerned about the office space issues as my colleagues, so thank you. Rachel, can I follow up? Sure, why don't I ask the one question I have and then if it's a question, that would be great. If not, I think we're gonna save the rest of our discussion until after public comment. But if you have something specific, another follow up question to Katie's comment, please go ahead. No. Okay, great. So the only question that I have is related to signage. Could you just clarify again, how you plan to address signage for the one office space that you've proposed? I believe there was one sign there now. Cynthia, correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't really intend to change that. So just either remaining as is or being behind. And if we did decide that we wanted to do something with signage, we would want to do it administratively and not come in with any large signs, okay? Proposals for signs. Great, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Yeah. Great, so we will move now to public comment and then return for discussion by the board. So if I could ask for public comment that you please use the raised hand function, which is access through the participants button at the bottom of your screen. There's a raised hands feature that you can access through the participants section. I will remind everybody that you should please identify yourself by name and address when you speak, when I call on you, and you will have three minutes to address any questions or comments to the applicants. I'll get to my timer. So the first public comment tonight will be Don Seltzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a correction to point out about this application. All right, Don, could you please identify your application? I'm very sorry. Don Seltzer Irving Street. I should have it right by now. I have a correction to point out about this application. It claims that the two existing apartments are each one bedroom. That is not accurate. The so-called officer den shown on the third floor counts as a bedroom. You can check the assessor's card. It states that these apartments that already exist are actually two bedrooms each. That should be kept in mind when calculating parking spaces. What the proposal is asking for is three two bedroom apartments and one one bedroom apartment. There are a number of problems with the parking lot, some of which the board members have talked about. I wanna address, I'll just two of them. The bylaw requires that in a B1 district which abuts residential properties, which this does, there must be a screening buffer along the side and rear lot lines. It must be landscaped and it has to either be 10 feet wide or five feet with a screening fence. The parking lot requires this on both the side and rear. Another problem is parking spaces five and six. They're not legal. They are in the Avon Place front yard and our zoning bylaw clearly prohibits such front yard parking. Several people have mentioned this is a really small lot. It's hard to make do within everything and our bylaws address that. It actually prohibits a four unit apartment building in anything less than a 10,000 square foot lot. Putting a small office in there and calling it multi-use doesn't make it more feasible. This four unit apartment on a 4,700 square foot lot in a B1 zone is neither reasonable nor legal. And then this proposal does nothing towards meeting Arlington's call for affordable housing. I'm a little sorry that the chair has not brought up the subject which I presented in a letter to her about now that we have the Pesudos and Mr. Redesi here about another project which is under the board's oversight. I hope that we'll go back to this before they leave the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. The next speaker will be Yenelle Evans. Thank you. Yenelle Evans, orchard place. My comment is not so much about the product as it is about the process. And I understand that the owner of 400 Mass Ave is also the owner of 882-892 Mass Ave where a project is underway. I was out walking the other night and got into a conversation. This was probably about two weeks ago with the direct butters to this project. They have small children and with no advance notice to them about 9.31 night demolition began. And when I walk by this project several blocks from my house I see that there is a large quantity of demolished building materials in the parking lot. It's not in a dumpster, it's not covered. A lot of it looks to be from the interior of the building. I don't believe that good neighbor agreements have been distributed and I have not yet been able to find any permits online. I do know that Inspectional Services is a little bit behind in posting building permits. But nonetheless, there are uncovered, unsecured materials all over that parking lot. Ms. Evans, I want to remind you we're speaking about this particular application. You could bring it back to that soon. I would appreciate it. To bring it back to that in the condition of the special permit that the ARB granted for that project, which I'm assuming would be similar to a special permit granted for 400 Mass Ave, was continuing oversight by the board for the public welfare. And it seems not unlikely that if the practice is being handled at one project by the same property owner that we're likely to see some of the same practices at the project under discussion tonight. And I want to suggest that this is not right. It's not in line with our bylaws and it's not right for a butters either. This is a really, really messy site. And I'd like to urge the board to exercise its authority and see that this new project is perhaps handled a little bit better. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Chris Loretty. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris Loretty, 56 Adams Street. Can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the comments various people have made about parking. One more I would like to add and this gets to the issue of parking for one and two family homes being more relaxed than it is for more intensive uses. Once you get up to six parking spaces, the bylaw requires under section 6.11 that each space be directly accessible by an isler driveway. That means you don't have to confer with your neighbors when you want to get out. You should have direct access to the street. And I would point out the very similar property at 418 to 420 Mass Ave that has the parking arranged that way with the appropriate buffers. That's needed in this case as well. But I want to focus my comments really on the way that mixed use was sold to town meeting. And two of the things that were said at the time the bylaw was changed was one that it was to preserve business uses. And as was pointed out, this project reduces the business use by two thirds. That's completely contrary to the intent of the mixed use bylaw. And should not be allowed. The other thing as was pointed out is that in the B-1 zoning district, four unit apartment buildings are not allowed. And I thought it was interesting that Mr. Nessie said that retail was not allowed. Well, it's not allowed because it's not allowed in the table of use regulations. And similarly, apartment buildings, which means four units or more are not allowed in the B-1 zoning district. So you have to be consistent with both of those applications. It's not allowed in either case. And I think as the board is well aware, when they allowed a prohibited use in the district because it was part of mixed use, contrary to what was promised to town meeting, it results in a lawsuit. And that lawsuit is ongoing right now. The owners of this property have to understand that they're opening up themselves to potential litigation. If this goes forward with four units, because four units are not allowed in the B-1 zoning district. And that's in court now, it's dragging out, it may well drag out to the point that the building permit is issued because that's the issue right now about whether the plaintiffs will have to seek their injunction at the time the building permit gets issued should one be issued. So I think the board needs to step back and as some of the members have said, really reduce the parking, reduce the number of units to three units and you'll be in much better shape and can do something that fits with both the letter and the spirit of the bylaw. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Please use the raise hand function. Okay, seeing none, we will close public comment for this docket. Let's see, and I will turn it back over to the board for discussion. And maybe I will start by saying that I too share the concerns of Jean and David with regard to the reduction of office space. I think that the right number for this parcel of residential spaces, both given the parking and the number of existing office uses in order for it to still remain mixed use is the full first floor or two units being office space. So I personally like to see that change before I could support this. But I'm interested to hear what some of my colleagues have to say as well. Can you speak up? Please, Ken. Well, I'm going to probably different from all three of you guys and say that, look, this is an existing building. It's an existing mixed use building. They're asking is they're changing the proportion of what's mixed use to what is more in demand today. Just like how they changed it, from 100% housing to represent a portion of mixed use and office space back in the day when they asked for it. So I feel like, I feel differently from you guys about this and as far as applying all the rules that we can on this as it is such as a new building if it was a new project, a brand new big project, I think it's unfair to the owner. I think they are keeping the character of the building the way it is. They're not changing anything outside. They're just making it such that they can make a living with what's in below because that's what's in demand right now and they're adjusting that proportion. So I'm fully supportive of that because of that. And if we encourage owners to tear down buildings and make big buildings and not have where they can be smaller buildings, which I think this is, then I don't think it's fair. I think we should encourage both. And where this one here is you're just changing what's inside and changing the proportion of our mixed shoes not making it become mixed shoes. It was mixed shoes to begin with, they're just changing the proportions. And we're just trying to make a better project there. That's what I'm trying to do. And that's what my feelings are. And it may be different from you guys, but that's where I'm standing. David. Let me just follow up on that. So if I'm one of the other projects, mixed use projects that we've approved where there was a, what we thought was a better mix of commercial and residential, you know, what does that mean that years from now you know, the ARB should be okay with say reducing the commercial space in those buildings to a de minimis commercial space and letting it be almost entirely residential. I'm not sure that's what we intended with mixed use. I realized that David, but we're also, when we said that those requirements is for a brand new development. It was a brand new project. And I think because the fact that this is an existing building, they're not changing the character of the building outside. They're making a strong point not to do that and keeping the outside very similar to what was there before. And I think that has to be taken into account. And I think I'm willing to give them a little leadway on that. That's my feeling on that. Now, if the new building we made requirements for in the future becomes more characteristic and it's more what the town's built out of and they're saying that they wanna make a few changes so they don't have to knock it down and put a new building up, I might think the same way too. If that building was to be like a common building along Mass Ave or something like that. I'm just saying that we can't be so stringent a way of thinking on every single project. I think we have a latitude and we do have the latitude, the ability to give a little slack in areas where we think is justified. I'm not saying that it applies to all projects. And I mean, it may well be that the current commercial space in this building is not a desirable form of commercial space in Arlington at the moment, I don't know. But that's certainly possible. And we certainly want to think about making sure that buildings are being fully used to the extent possible. I do think that the parking issue is a can of worms and I would advise the proponent to, for one thing, definitely not have more than five spaces proposed because I think having more than five spaces definitely subjects them to additional requirements that they can't meet in any way that I can see. And I continue to be concerned about the bike parking and as one of my colleagues mentioned, Gene, I think, if we do keep the entire first floor as commercial, then that potentially space on the first floor for there to be some, a roll-in roll-out indoor bike parking facility that completely eliminates the need to lift the bikes, which does on the face of it, violate the bicycle parking bylaw. You're muted. Gene, thoughts? Yeah, I'll just follow up briefly. I appreciate what all my colleagues on the board had to say. As one of the owners pointed out, I think, Ms. Pesciuto, the basement unit was a business unit they had a lot of trouble renting it in part, I guess, at least because of its location in the building. So they are proposing that to become residential, which makes a lot of sense to me and theoretically should be easier to rent out. So that's one. Second is, I don't think we're asking them to do a lot to come back and say, here's how we could configure the inside of the building without changing the outside, which seems to be one of their goals, to have the first floor be business. The basement can be one of the apartments. The other apartments can be on the second floor where they're not proposing any changes. So it's basically reconfiguring the unit one, the basement unit into residential and keeping the first floor as business and potentially reconfiguring it so that it would be more marketable as business. I think that solves problems with parking. It solves problems or can solve problems with the bicycle storage. And if they're talking about a really small lot, I think that's a better solution to this. And while I appreciate whenever an applicant comes in with an idea for what they wanna do with a building or a project, I think it's our job in part to take a look at that and see what would work. I don't think we're intending to impose all of the requirements, let's say, on parking that both we and some of the public had talked about if we can get a solution to where they are now. And I think that part of the solution is reducing the number of parking spaces. And by reducing, by one, the residential unit, they're able to do that. So it is a trade-off. I'm just in a different place on the trade-off than Mr. Lowe is. Thank you, Jean. Katie? So I very much support Ken's perspective on this. And I share his view that I would feel really differently about this, if this were, they were tearing this down and making some sort of brand new building where there'd be a lot more flexibility and where the parking was placed and what the layout looked like and all of those other issues. I think given the constraint of keeping the building as it is, which I think is something that's desirable too. I mean, given the number of times we've heard concerns about tear-downs in this town and the presentations we've seen this fall about concerns about people's concerns about tear-downs in this community, it seems to me like, given that they are keeping the building as it is and facing that as a major constraint, we could afford them more flexibility in some of the other areas. That said, if they, Jean's suggestion about potentially leaving the first floor as commercial space, they come back and say, that's viable. I would certainly support that, but it is not for me a requirement. I support the residential to commercial breakdown as it currently is. Yeah, I just want to say one thing. I mean, nobody's telling them to tear this down and build another building. And in fact, the lot is so small that they would lose all their non-conforming benefits were they to tear it down and build another building and they'd have to deal with the historic society. So we're really not talking about they either get exactly what they want or they're gonna tear down the building. It's really more about, do they get exactly what they want or do they modify the inside in some ways that makes it easier for us or at least some of us to say yes. Just to clarify, I think I was commenting more. Some folks have said, compared to this to other projects that they were more excited about that had breakdowns that they preferred that were new construction. And so I think comparing those is not a really fair comparison that this one is much more constrained. Yeah, I agree. Great, thank you, Katie. So we can either move this to a vote or defer this to next week. Attorney Nesse, I know that at least Jean and I have expressed clearly that we'd like to see an additional office use unit in the building. I think, David, I'm not sure which way you're leaning at this point. Is that something you'd like to come back and explore and come back to us after reviewing? I'm certainly not tone deaf. I've listened and I would want the opportunity to speak with my clients, confer with my clients and come back again before the board and perhaps make a presentation before the board again. Great, so, yes. I mean, I agree with you and Jean. I would feel that it's easier for me to agree to this if they take a look at a configuration that involves more commercial on the first floor because that just avoids a whole range of issues that are making me uncomfortable. If in fact, David, that we do come back with more commercial on the first level, does that solve our problem with respect to other issues that you may have in mind? For example, I'm hopeful that we might be able to satisfy indoor bike parking, but if we cannot, okay, are we going to have some flexibility on that issue if we come back? I'm going to look at the project as a whole and as it's presented at that time. I think that I see the potential to solve the balance of commercial and residential and providing better bike parking and reducing if not eliminating the parking problems by coming back with another proposal, but I'll look at it all afresh when we're seeing it. I need to sell this to my client and I need to know that I'm not playing Don Coyote. That's the reason I'm asking, okay? All right, I get your point. Okay, so in order to continue this to a future hearing, I think we need to identify a date. So Erin or Jenny, if you could pull up the calendar of our next date, I think we have one in two weeks. Rachel. But I'm not sure when our first January meeting is. The next meeting is the 21st. So you need to have everything to Jenny a week. Ken, what's your schedule like? Can we do that once we have a discussion with the clients? Ken, are you there? Hello? All right. When will we have to have everything to Jenny? A week prior to the 21st. We'll do September 21st, okay. So next week. Next week. Well, why don't we take that date? And again, Ken is not, I can't confer with Ken. If Ken is not available, can I request a continuance at that point? Yes. Okay, all right. All right. Put it down for December 21st and let's see what happens, okay? All right. Great, thank you. So I think we need a motion from the board to continue this agenda item to December 21st. So moved, continue docket 3638 to December 21. Second. Okay, we'll take a roll call for the vote. Ken? Ken, you're muted. We can't hear you. Thank you, Gene. No. David? Yes. Gene? Yes. Katie? No. And I vote yes. So we will continue docket 3638 to December 21st. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so the next item on our agenda is docket 2717, which is a continued public hearing as amended for 23 Broadway. And do we have the applicant with us? Yes. Attorney Mary Wynne Stanley O'Connor, the SCAR LLC, also with me are the principals Michael Aldi and Michael Hunter-Welt, as well as the architects John Olaveto and Georges Claremont are also available to answer any questions of the board as well. Great, thank you. Rachel, can I just step away for one minute? Up, please go ahead. We'll take a couple of minutes before we begin. Let's take three minutes. Is that okay, Ken? Perfect. I'll go too for three minutes. Katie, are you back with us? There we are. Okay, great. I appreciate, Mary, I appreciate you bearing with us. If you and your team wanted to go ahead and get started. Certainly, thank you, Rachel. Thank you. Chris, let me thank the board for their time. And I'd like to thank the planning department, Erin and Jenny for all of their assistance. Since the last hearing, we have provided additional plans and filings and I'll just review them and the architects can answer any questions. You have a revised site plan, which shows on-site parking spaces, wayfaring sonnage, bicycle parking, the style of the bicycle racks that the board wanted to see. And it also shows the existing stairs. There was a question. There were a couple of questions that Jenny recently raised. The existing stairs onto Broadway are totally on the property. They do not encroach on the public way and that's established through the site plan. We also provided information. The board wanted to see something different with respect to the block wall. So we've provided some materials proposed for that. We've revised the plans for the interior employee bicycle parking. We've provided a memo, two memos from Vanessa, our transportation consultant with respect to parking issues that the board raised and also in response to the comments from the Transportation Advisory Committee. And I can address those, but I'm sure that the board has read them. The bottom line is that there's no significant impact. One of the things that TAC wanted the transportation consultant to look at was in addition to the ITE information concerning a marijuana dispensary, something in Massachusetts that was local. So they use Millbury and they've incorporated that information into the November 30th report. We've also created a centralized, one of the things that the board wanted was a centralized document with all of the recommendations of the traffic consultant and the transportation demand management plan. You can see from the TAC comments that they concur with all of the recommendations of Vanessa and we're prepared to implement those. One of the things that TAC recommended that there'd be a right turn only out of the parking lot onto sunny side. There's, our consultant has concluded that there's not a substantial change in overall intersection operation. Now, the reality is based, and you can see from the study, that intersection of Alewife and Broadway operates at F. It already is operating at F. It can't get any worse. But however, there would be one or two additional queuing of vehicles in that area. They, our consultant has determined that the projected related traffic increase over no-build conditions are projected to range between eight to 16 vehicles during the weekday evening peak hours. And he does not view that as significant. TAC has requested certain recommendations that we're prepared to implement as well. One of them being that we go to the Board of Selectment, which we would have to do to get those three spaces in front of the property designated as for rideshare. And my clients are prepared to do that and incur that expense. There are 12 spaces in the lot, but this property is fairly unique. I think everybody could agree that this property is fairly unique in comparison to other properties in town. It is probably one of the only areas where there is ample on-street parking. There are about 60 spaces of on-street parking. It's a substantially different situation than the issues presented at 1386 Mass Ave, where you don't have that ample on-street parking. In any event, one of the things that Jenny had requested was the interior circulation plan. And we did provide the interior circulation plan. Now it calls for 16 total people on the floor with a waiting room. This of course was pre-COVID and will be post-COVID of 50 people. That would be more than ample. Now unfortunately, because of COVID, the architects have done the calculation and the waiting room can only include 11 people. Now the reality is, just like all the other businesses in town, people are going to queue up on the sidewalk. So the question during COVID because of the social distancing and the limited limitations, the issue becomes having a staff member or someone in place out there to make sure that it is orderly and safe. The other issue with respect to what we would suggest is that the Arlington Police Department be involved in connection with working with the applicant as to how that best should be done and any parking queuing and the like. I would suggest that they would work with them on that and we can dedicate staff to assisting with that as well. But because of, if this was not the pandemic, you'd have 16 people on the floor and 50 in the waiting area. So you'd have a total of 66 people which would be more than adequate. I can have the, unless you have specific questions I can ask the architects to address some of the concerns that you have with respect to the space facilities. There is no space for a shower on site. They do propose a break room and they can talk about the lead scorecard. So I would defer to them if that's okay with you, Madam Chair. Yes, thank you. John or George? George, did you want to take that? Are there any questions that the committee would like to have addressed first? If there's no specific presentation, I'd be happy to move right into questions for you unless there's anything specific from the documents submitted that you'd like to present to us. Yeah, I think we, hi, this is John. John Oliveto, I'm a partner with AEPMI. One thing that should be corrected, Mary, is George and I reviewed the calculations for the waiting room and the number is, it goes up a little bit from 11 to 14. Oh, okay. So that is a minor correction. Maybe Madam Chair, the best way is to respond to questions as the board has all the detailed information. Great, thank you very much. We appreciate the presentation and the time that you took to prepare this resubmission. So thank you all very much. I'll move first to Katie. Now, thank you for this really thorough presentation. I don't have any questions this time. I look forward to hearing my fellow board members and members of the public have to say. Thank you, Katie. Jean? Yeah, thank you. Thank you for all the updated material. I just have a few questions. When you were last here, we had some discussion about whether the exit was a set of steps and therefore was not handicapped accessible or whether it is handicapped accessible and if it's not handicapped accessible, how the circulation would work for someone in a wheelchair. For example, it looks to me, and maybe I'm not reading this correctly, that there are still steps and so the exit is not handicapped accessible. Is that correct? Well, the way we've addressed it. Okay. We have addressed it. The typical day of operations, the retail exit is used by most patrons. All patrons enter off the parking lot side on Broadway. Okay, so what we've provided during normal operations is a handicapped accessible door back out through the waiting area that would be addressed by any staff member. This for controlled access, this door would be closed almost at all times unless there was someone in the wheelchair. Okay, yeah, that wasn't clear from last time, so it's helpful to understand. Now, in case of an event, an emergency, what we've provided at the retail exit is an area of refuge with a call for aid. So in case there's a fire at the other end of the building, this allows a first responder to be alerted when there's an individual in a wheelchair that needs to be attended to. And based on the occupant load, we only require it to have one. Jenny, can you scroll down a little bit, please? And George, just to add to what you were saying, I think the board, I just wanted to point out that the double door design is something we added per the board's feedback to allow the handicap, to have a handicap access point to leave the retail court. That was a change from the last iteration. And Mike, I think the other additional change is actually the area of refuge at the retail exit. Yes, so there were, we did take into consideration feedback from the board and made the, those were the two major changes that we made in the design. Okay, thank you, that's very helpful. No worries. Pardon? No, I said, you're welcome. Second is, so the lead checklist, you were gonna get us an updated lead checklist, but I don't think you did. I believe the checklist did not change, John. That is correct, Mary and Jean. When we looked at the available points, we fell short of the minimum threshold at the certified level. We did think that there were some credits available in the maybe column or the questionable column, but however, those areas for additional credits would involve changing out HVAC units and the like to try and garner some additional credits. This is a leased facility. The infrastructure is what it is and would cost time and effort and money to our client. Okay, third question. So the news the other day included that the cannabis control commission voted to allow home delivery of product and I wondered whether there was gonna be any home delivery made from this facility? So I guess I can take that. For one, it's, I think that decision is highly dependent on the town's regulations. We don't, one, for one, we're not allowed to own any aspect of those delivery services yet and they still have to define those services over the next few months. So as you know, they have the courier and the delivery model. Some of that is specifically for wholesale delivery, not just retail delivery. As soon as those become clear when they'll be issuing those permits and how those impacts and as you know, a lot of towns were upset that some of the feedback they did not provide feedback or were able to give the appropriate feedback they wanted. So the answer, I guess the answer is we don't know because we're not really sure how the regulations are gonna shape out and we would obviously default to the town on whatever their rules are with those regulations. Yeah, that certainly makes sense. I would think, I'll sort of raise this to my colleagues that maybe we would put something in the permit that says if they intend to do delivery from the facility they have to come back to get the permit revised because that may make a difference in parking, traffic, things that I can't even consider. So I don't think we have to deal with it now other than maybe just put a condition in the permit that indicates they'd have to come back if they wanted to do delivery for a change in the permit condition. Those are all the questions I had. Thank you, Jean. Ken. Thank you for coming back with these new documents. I do wanna mention thanks for the change from the block wall between the two entrances at the off the parking lot. I guess the owner really doesn't want a big separation there because he changed to a steel grate. I always think envisioning more of a planting bed, you know, very softer separation, but if that's what he wants, I'm not gonna push it much further than that. So Ken, we did look at vegetation as an option. It just, it didn't look like it would survive in those conditions being, because it's a shaded overhang and it would be a small area for planting. So it was unfortunately kind of the best route we could go. You know, so we tried to present options if there's something that you feel strongly about that's not a huge change, we're obviously open to it even after this. I mean, it's a small, you know, it's a small change. We just wanna, the property owner was just very adamant about keeping it separate. It's his building, I, you know. I don't feel strongly about it, Michael, okay? I'm just commenting on the fact that, you know, it's still quite a steel barrier, you know? Yeah. No, I understand. I mean, we, you know, there's not a lot of property owners that would even talk to us about having a store in these areas. And so, I mean, over the steel barrier, it was just something we couldn't push given how much they've been willing to proceed to let us just do business in their building. I'm not gonna push it. Okay, I appreciate that, Ken. The other thing is you presented these nice decorative glass films. Can you explain where they're gonna go? Or what are you gonna use which ones for? Oh, those were just, those were options. The 3M. Which ones do you like? Well, so Ken, from what I remember in the last meeting, the board wasn't too keen on the matte or just the pure gray finish. So, I mean, we, again, we tried to produce, this isn't like a deal breaker for us on design. So, we tried to present options. If there's certain options that you guys feel strongly about one way or the other, we're obviously more than happy to accommodate. So, we tried to come up with some different. Ken, are you asking where these films would be applied? Well, I'm assuming they're gonna be applied at the windows along the front of the building, but which ones? I mean, there's like a handful of there to select from and they vary all over the place. I'm gonna step away from this for a little bit because it's actually was Rachel's comment from last meeting that she asked you guys to look at some of the stuff. So, I'll let her... She can pick. Yeah, well, I'm searching for a suggestion or two, but I'm gonna leave it at that, okay? So, that part's fine. And I appreciate the fact that you showed the steps are no longer across the property line. I guess there's a two foot buffer between the building and a property line and two steps come out 11 inches each. So, you're two inches shy. That's fine. I appreciate the fact that you guys have an era of refuge over that second egress. And there's two ways out from there. So, all the questions I had was pretty much answered. The only last thing that I had there was a dedicated loading sign in the... You had two parking spots saying loading zone on your site plan. Are you driving Jenny or are they driving? I am. Okay. Right there is this proposed loading area. There's two parking spots there. Can you just have some sort of signage there saying from this time to this time or just doesn't it as a loading zone? So, a truck won't be loading in the driveway. I just parked right along that driveway to block any entrance while they load, unload material. That's still any request I have besides all the other questions that I thank you for. I don't think that's a unreasonable request. I think we're more than happy to live all the loading hours with a sign in the back there. Yeah. I mean, that's, I think that's completely reasonable. You just don't want a truck parking in that driveway, that's all. It's understood. It's understood. Okay. I'm all set, Rachel. Thank you, Ken. David? Thanks, Rachel. Well, I appreciate that you all have addressed many of our questions from last time. With respect to bike parking, can we take a look at both where the bike parking is and what type of racks are being proposed? So, I think I see here on the site plan outdoor. So, that's temporary bike parking. And where is the... Oh, do you mean internal, David? Yeah, where's the longer term and... I think we have that in the design and I know where it is. It's on, it's outside the retail place. Oh, wait. I think it was up a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. It should be near like... We retrofitted one of the existing closets to make a bike. Not down slightly, Jenny. Yeah, right there. And can you center that on the right? It'd be over to the right. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, where is that exactly? For the, where is the... When you walk in, so you have to remember, David, when you most the, a large part of the building is outside the retail space. When you walk in, there's actually a large series of rooms that the property owner just wished that they weren't kind of... Even though we rent out that space, they made it clear he didn't want like certain areas for loitering. So like there's bathrooms for our employees if they wanna use it, there's a closet in there. And so we use the bunch of those rooms for kind of these extra amenities for staff like being able to leave their bikes and such. Okay. All right, so that makes sense. So that's entered entirely separately from the retail space. Right, yeah. And this is for employees mostly. Yeah. It was just that was, you know, so they specifically, Jimmy wanted to specifically, the property owner specifically, as part of us leasing out, he just requested that we didn't have customers in that area. So we got creative with the design, but still allowed access to our employees to all the necessities. And it's still a pretty large area if you go into that building. Yeah. So there should be ample room. Okay. And the note there indicates that those are, are U shaped bike racks, which if they're the typical inverted U, that's certainly acceptable and would provide parking for up to four bikes. I thought I saw a reference to another style of bike rack somewhere. Is there a different style proposed for the short-term bike racks? There's a detail on the site drawings. Yeah, both provided that. Yeah, my concern was with those that I think if you look at the town's bicycle parking guide, not just the bylaw, but the bike parking guide that the planning department has, I think you'll see that the style of rack that is proposed is not recommended. And so I'd like you to take a look at picking another style that does comply with the town's bike parking guidelines. Okay, we will do that. But yeah, I appreciate that you found an interior space for for employee bike parking. That's very preferable. So I did read through a lot of the traffic and parking analysis. And you know, I think that the overall conclusion is that this will not significantly impact the operation of the nearby intersections. I did note that there was some potential for queuing on sunny side to extend beyond the exit driveway for the building during the peak hour, I think. So there may be some difficulty in people getting out of the parking lot at that time potentially. One thing I was thinking of though is since there is so much on street parking available nearby, I was thinking about what is the best use of the onsite parking that you have now and how best to manage that. And one thing I was thinking about and this goes along with the whole issue of handicapped access to the retail space. And I do see one of the spaces marked as a handicapped space. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to designate at least one other space as a handicapped space as well to provide even more accessibility for handicapped customers. And I'm thinking because I'd say a not insignificant number of people with disabilities make use of your product. I think I'm gonna be fine, Michael, correct? You're muted. Can you say that again, Mary? David is suggesting a second handicapped space in the lot and I think that's fine. Okay, yeah, so I was gonna say I'd have to punt to you because I don't know if there's any, I mean, sure, we're obviously more than happy to. And I agree with you, David. I think most of it will be kind of that on street parking. So it would be nice to dedicate those areas. I just had to punt to Mary because I didn't know if there was like a zoning repercussion or something like that that I just didn't know about. Yeah, I'm kind of thinking off the top of my head here. So definitely do wanna make sure that that wouldn't cause you a problem unnecessarily, but I think from a customer perspective, it would be a nice thing. Yeah, there's no reason that that would be an issue. We'd be more than happy to. Barring a legal issue with the zone or something. I don't see. Right. So I'm just thinking of the circulation through the parking lot because just knowing the way people think, if there is a park, people generally wanna try a park as close to the front door of a building as they can. So I'm thinking that most people when they show up are gonna pull into the parking lot and hope there's a space there. So that I'm thinking there's going to be a significant amount of circulation just through the parking lot, particularly if it's busier and there are no spaces. So people circling through, coming out on sunny side and then only then parking on the street. And that seems like, I don't think that the traffic analysis really looked at that issue. And I'm a little bit concerned about it because I think it's a likely scenario just given human behavior. And I'm wondering whether there's a way to manage it better to really encourage people to make use of the on-street parking. You know, if I could say this, David, the lot is so small that I think when people pull up, they'll be able to eyeball whether there's any available. It's not like it's the stop and shop parking lot. You know what I'm saying? It's so small that I think you're gonna get more people pulling up on the Broadway side, on the side of the building and just parallel parking on the street as opposed to pulling in. Well, it is as part of the parking and queue management. And I think we, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've actually seen a written plan for that. But is the intention to at least in the beginning to have a staff member outside who can direct people? Yes. Okay, so that at least until people kind of get used to how things operate, I think would alleviate my concern with that because presumably that person could wave people off from entering the parking lot or put a cone across it or something if it was full. I mean, are you intending to provide us with a plan, a written plan for managing the parking and queue? Well, I talked to our traffic consultant and frankly, he said there really wasn't much of a plan that he could prepare other than having a staff member outside managing the parking, blocking off the parking lot if it was full or waving people along to the park. And it sounds like in a non-COVID time, there's not a real concern with the queues spilling out onto the sidewalk. That is correct. Okay. Yeah, we designed the floor space, not the retail space, prior to COVID with the idea that there wouldn't be queues outside. And so we actually designed it to make sure that that's the case with the two separate floor areas. Okay. Yeah, I mean, given the traffic analysis and the fact that you have designed the indoor space specifically to avoid outdoor queues, and you've stated that you're intending to have a staff member outside, at least their initial bid to manage whatever is going on, I'm not sure how much more detail we really need on that, but if any of my colleagues have questions on it, I'm sure they'll ask. I didn't really have any other comments. I mean, my only other question was about the handicapped access at the exit and I think you've addressed that. Okay, thank you, David. So I just had three minor questions or comments. So the first being with regard to the, since we're on the parking plan, Jenny, if you could just scroll up towards the egress on the sunny side. Oh, sorry, still in that same plan. Right there, perfect. I think per the original traffic report, it was actually, sorry, the section of, there you go, right there. There was, they had recommended a painted stop, you know, the word stop. So the painted white stop sign on the egress portion there before you turn onto sunny side, is that? That's correct, yeah. So is that something you will be adding? Yes, it was one of the recommendations, yes. Okay, great. My next question, or actually is a request, if we go to the page with the screen and actually both of my questions are about the glass treatment and then the screen itself. I appreciate, as Ken mentioned, you looking at a different option for the screen, which I think is on the, the detail is on the page prior to this, yes. So my only request here, and again, because it just, again, it's such kind of a difficult barrier as opposed to, you know, what we were originally talking about doing, trying to soften it a little bit, rather than just having that as kind of a galvanized screen, which I think is what you're showing now. If you could perhaps just powder coat it to match the storefront framing, you know, again, that'll just make it look less like some sort of an industrial metals screen, which is what we were trying to stay away from. Is that something you'd be willing to consider? Yes, we could actually match the new storefront, which will match this thing. From a design standpoint, this is a metal fabric screen and we're actually using it within the retail store. So the thought process was to actually provide the design standpoint was to provide the patron with a foreshadowing of the retail experience. Initially, the property owner wanted to segregate the two populations and we thought, okay, well, but he also wanted transparency. So we thought, okay, well, let's just bring the experience from the inside out. There are different ways that we could do this. This is stainless steel and it doesn't show as well on the rendering or on the drawing, but it's actually a high-end material. We could select one that matches the dark bronze color of the new storefront. No, I think if it's possible, perhaps if you could just email to Jenny, if you have any more media photograph of showing what this material looks like, that I think it might just be to your point, it may just not be rendering the way that we'd all like to see it. So perhaps if you could just sit on a photograph, we can just take a quick look at that, but it's great to know that there is some sort of a language that's speaking between the interior and exterior here. So that's great to know, thank you. And then the last question I had was specifically on which glass treatment you were all leaning towards because there are quite a few options which all have very different aesthetics. And my initial thought in looking at this was that, even if it's perhaps a mix of some of the more decorative items, I know you have that curved area of storefront there on the corner, if perhaps there were some of the more decorative elements that are used, whether it's on that three window bay and then more of the fritted glass treatment on the balance or, you know, again, I just wanted to hear your thought on how you were, what you were leaning towards and how you were looking at using these. Well, being from the Caribbean, I wanted the colorful one, okay? But then I thought, well, let's just present some options from the more, the more reserved, all right, to the more fun. So what you're seeing is pretty much the whole range, but the first thing I touched was the more colorful pattern. And, you know, we are the Northeast and some folks might, you know, they kind of avoid color. So what we're showing is the entire range. So what fits your brand the best? If you, you know, each one of, none of these is objectionable to me whatsoever. I love the color. I think it's interesting, it's eye-catching. But again, what fits your brand, the S-Car brand, that's what I would suggest to you, you move towards. Got it. And again, you don't have to, you know, decide right now, you can work through this with, you know, Jenny after this project is approved, but you know, like I said, if you do choose the color, my thought was initially, let's, you know, perhaps use that on the corner, you know, or, you know, some prominent area and then perhaps back it off and by using some of the more fritted glass options and some of the other windows, and so that you have a little bit of variation in your facade, but I do appreciate that you went there and I actually like the color option. But again, I would rather you use something that expresses the brand and, you know, what you're trying to achieve throughout the full aesthetic that you're incorporating on the interior and how you might bring that outwards. Understood. Yeah, Rachel, I mean, so, you know, our brand is obviously kind of like an outgo. The idea of Escar, at least from what the inside when we try to put together is kind of this outgoing, outdoors, non-corporate feel to like this event. That being said, my wife doesn't even let me pick my own clothes. So I'm gonna have to default to George on a lot of these style choices. But I can't tell you if the, I mean, so, so if you feel strongly or George, you obviously feel strongly one way or another, we'll obviously default to you guys. Cause, I mean, certainly George, I mean, you, you know, you designed most of the space, it looks amazing. So, you know, we'll obviously trust you one way or the other. All right, what we'll do is we'll get our heads together and I will send some options to Jenny. Great. And the two mics, we'll have a conversation as to how to make everything come together. Okay. Great. And like I said, I do like the direction that you're heading here. I think that it's graphic, it's bold. It's what we want people to incorporate in their windows when you have the restrictions that you do as a cannabis retail establishment. So thank you for pulling this type of inspiration. It's refreshing. You're welcome. Great. Are there any other questions from the board before we open this up for public comment? Great. So we will now open the meeting up to public comment. Any members of the public wishing to speak, please use the raised hand function. As a reminder, please state your name and address before you begin to speak. And then you will have three minutes to address any comments. The first speaker will be Don Seltzer. Thank you. Don Seltzer Irving Street. I like the color option too. I only have one comment about this. It's a small one regarding the handicap parking spot. If I understand state law, when there's only a single handicap space, it has to be van accessible, which means that the access aisle on the side of it, instead of being five feet wide, has to be eight feet wide. I thought David Watson made some very good comments about adding a second handicap space. And if you were to do that, you could share that access aisle between the two spaces and save a little room. That's really all I have to say. It's obviously a very well thought out proposal. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this docket? Very well. We'll close public comments. Any other questions or comments from the board? All right, seeing none. All right, let me get back to my agenda here. Too many things open. Okay, there we go. Let's see. I think we will probably be ready for a motion to move this forward, a motion to approve, unless there are any other objections from the board. And I wanna make sure that we word any motion with any conditions that were stated. And the only ones that I have that I think would need to be stated as a condition, Jean was the item that you had stated about any change to the operating status to include new services such as home delivery would require a change to the permit condition and a reopening of the special permit, okay? Yeah, I just, yes. Let me just, the other things I just wonder whether they need to be in here or not or some of the responses they've done to the TAC, things like the stop sign, the shared spaces out front, I don't know whether those need to be conditions in the permit or not. I don't, Jenny, I'll defer to you but I think from a technical standpoint, I don't think that those need to be conditions of the permit, they're just noted for revision, correct? Correct. Okay. And I'll just put something about this comment you have, Jean, about the delivery. So we need to amend the zoning bylaw to allow for that type of use. It's not allowed right now. And then further, the host community agreement would have to be updated. So the applicant would actually have to go back to the select board regardless, as well as to the cannabis control commission to probably amend whatever, you know, well, the regulations are still being finalized. We're too far out in front of the city, right? You know, that's why I think it's important to just put something in this that says they have to come back to the city. It's harmless to do that, but it's also, it's a little bit ahead of ourselves to put it into a permit where it's not even allowed right now, but I wanted to outline for the board that it is something that actually we're gonna be talking about on Wednesday night when we talk about other zoning amendments that are needed and this one will be needed once we have the regulations from the state, we'll know what we can actually do. The buffer zones have also changed, so. Thank you, Jenny, David. But I don't, the attack doesn't need to be in the, I'm looking at the recommendations right now. I don't think that anything needs to be amended in our decision. Thank you. David? Well, this was, I think, a question for Jenny, which is, you know, given everything we've discussed, do we still need to have for our purposes a written parking and cue management plan or I note that in the proposed special conditions that talks about working with the police department and town council and minimizing or eliminating impacts on the neighborhood. I mean, perhaps we could include specifically any traffic or queuing issues that arise, but I would ask you if that was sufficient, Jenny. David, I believe that special condition number one would capture that and that as part of the MOU with the goal of minimizing and eliminating impacts on the neighborhood surrounding the facility would capture the issue of cue management. Though, at the same time, if you think it needs to be specifically called out, that's separate, but it would be something that we would review as part of that MOU. I would like to specifically reference traffic parking and cue management in that particular condition, particularly since in this case, we're not requiring a written plan for that. So that's special conditions as amended. Any other special conditions that we would like to add to the general conditions and special conditions as proposed by the Department of Planning and Community Development? Oh, also work with the department to make sure that all of the bicycle parking is compliant with our bicycle parking guidelines. Okay. Just before I'm gonna skip back to the last one for a second, David, I'm just looking at special condition number three actually says queuing is prohibited in any public right of way. So I wonder if that's actually the one that needs to be amended related to the cue management rather than number one. You may be right, especially because of COVID, there may be no option, but to queue alongside the building. Yeah, maybe we say during the pandemic, queuing will be permitted along the building. Or maybe queuing will be prohibited, maybe leave it and just add, accept as otherwise agreed with APD or the town or something like that. Well, and leave it more general. Well, if the police say no queuing, what do we do with people because of COVID? Well, this is being addressed right now with the current facility in Arlington Heights. So I don't see that as being an issue, although I think it's okay to reference, accept as otherwise allowed. That might be the easiest way out from it, but this is a special permit that lives with the property forever beyond the pandemic. So I wanna be careful what the clause is here that's allowing you to do it when otherwise it's prohibited. So maybe you cue it right into the public health issue right now. Well, the social distancing guidelines are in effect. May something to that effect. That will limit it when you wanna have to worry about when there are no longer social distancing requirements that there would be no queuing. I mean, that works for me, but it's up to the board. Yeah, I think if we're specific to social distancing requirements as opposed to specifically tying it to the pandemic that I would be more in favor of that. Okay, so we have special condition number three as amended, the condition added to related to home delivery, which again, we know we're out in front of. Were there any other special conditions that we needed to add? The bike parking. And the bike parking, that's right. Work with the department to ensure all bike parking is compliant with guidelines. Okay, so do we have a motion to approve docket number 2717 and as amended number 2905 with the general conditions and special conditions as proposed by the department of planning and community development and as amended per our discussion. So moved. Docket. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken. Yes. David. Yes. Jean. Yes. Katie. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to make the board and the planning department for all of their help with this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you, you too. Great. So those that closes our two docket numbers and the next item on our agenda is the review of meeting minutes. So the first set of meeting minutes is the October 19th, 2020 meeting. And I'll just take a roll call vote to see if anyone has any amendments or changes to the meeting minutes. We'll start with Jean since I see your hand up. I do have some. Attorney Annessy's name is misspelled throughout the entire document. So that should be fixed on the second page. Where is this one? There's one sentence that says Mr. Benson agreed period, but it doesn't say what he agreed with. And I think what he agreed was, he agreed to see the proposed changes at a future meeting. Do you see what that is, Jenny? And then two lines down, I think it should say open to Ed either a shower or charge for parking. So the word of should be or. And two paragraphs down from there. I didn't quite understand what that meant. It says after the electric vehicle parking station, it then says possible parking beyond one space. And I don't know what that means. I'm going to have to read it. I mean, the red, I understood the rest of the paragraph, but just that one clause possible parking beyond one space. Maybe more than one electrical feet, electric vehicle parking. I don't, I don't know what it referred to. I don't know. This is the chair speaking actually. So Rachel, do you have any notes? I'm inclined to delete that. Unless you are stuck with it. Want it. I don't remember anything specific. I, the leading is fine because I couldn't figure out what it meant. I was thinking it was electric vehicles, but it doesn't make sense. So I'm not sure. Sorry. And then on the next page. The second paragraph, it says the chair closed public comment and requested a motion for approval. And this says Mr. Lau seconded. It doesn't say who made the motion. Do you see that? Yeah, I don't know who it is. You could just say the motion was made and seconded. Yeah. Yeah. So I went back to my notes and Jean, you had actually asked for potentially charging stations for more than one parking space. Okay. Okay. So maybe that's what it was. Okay. Okay. And those were the, thank you, Rachel. So those were the changes I found for this. These minutes. Thank you, Jean. Kim. Yes. We're talking October 19th, right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It says, uh, Mr. Lau. He supports the entire ground floor as office space. That's not true. Um, can you tell me where that was again? I'm sorry. I was correcting. It's probably like the third, fourth paragraph. It says Mr. Lau stayed there per code for more units. We trigger an accessible requirement. But we'll leave the code enforcement to decide. Okay. Okay. He supports the entire ground floor as office space. That is not a, that was never a statement for me. I never said I supported the ground floor as office space, the whole entire ground floor. Do you want it to be deleted? Yes. Okay. Someone else might have said that, but it was not from, it did not come from me. Got it. Was that all? For this one. Yes. Okay. Okay. I have, when the meeting started at seven PM. Instead of seven. Good point. And it's actually for all three. Oh yeah. These weren't done by our transcription service, by the way. They were different. I could tell. Yes. So. Apologies for not finding these finer points. Katie. Okay. David. I think beyond what my colleagues. Thanks, Katie. If a Nessie is spelled incorrectly in all of these, I'll just find and replace that all throughout all of them. So. The only other thing I had is on page two. In the paragraph that starts Mr. Benson agreed. That would make more sense. That would make more sense. In the middle of that, it says Mr. Benson stated this would satisfy David's TDM. That would make more sense. If it's the TDM concerns. Right. That does make more sense. I think the rest of it is okay. Okay. Okay. Any other comments for the meeting minutes from October 19th, 2020. Right. Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes from October 19th, 2020 as amended? So motion. Second. Okay. We'll take a roll call and vote. Ken. Yes. David. Yes. Dean. Yes. Katie. Yeah. So moving on to the meeting minutes from October 22nd, 2020. Any corrections here? Other than the time to seven PM. Jean. No. Ken. David. Katie. All right. Do I hear a motion to approve the October 22nd, 2020. Meeting minutes as amended. So moved. Second. All right. We'll take a roll call vote. Ken. Yes. David. Yes. Gene. Yes. Katie. Yes. And I am yes as well. The next item is the October 26th, 2020. Meeting minutes. The only amendment I have is again, changing the time to seven PM. Are there any other changes? Right. Seeing none. Do we have a motion to approve the October 22nd? Yes. So we have a motion to approve the October 26th, 2020 meeting minutes as amended. Yes. So motion. I'll second. Great. Ken. Yes. David. Yes. Gene. Yes. Katie. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Thank you for getting us through all those minutes. So the next item on our agenda is the 2021 meeting schedule. Jenny, did you want to take us through? It's your meeting schedule, really just through the first six months of the year. Normally I do a meeting schedule for the entire year, but actually I was looking to see the select board did their schedule tonight just for three months. So I think six months is best for us just because we often have hearings and there's a lot to be scheduled in advance. But at this moment in time, you know, we're still operating remotely. My best guess is that we'll continue to operate remotely through the spring. Unfortunately. For meetings. I don't know about. When other things might start changing a little bit. But if we want to continue to meet the way that we have been moving them a little bit earlier than when we were meeting in person to seven. But basically keeping, you know, the challenges month, I think. January, February and April have, have problematic Mondays. So I tried to kind of work around that in January and February. You have three evenings of meetings in March. And then, uh, because of a holiday and then the beginning of town meeting, I kept the first meeting in April. So you've got some back to back meetings. So there's, you know, you, you can decide if you want to do something differently, but, um, you know, again, we'll, we're going to enter into town meeting warrant is open now for annual town meeting. We'll talk about this more on Wednesday night. But it means that we're going to head into public hearings again and need, I think it's good to just have the dates on the calendar, especially since some of you have other evening commitments, probably everybody else has other evening commitments. Um, so, um, so this is my proposed slate of meetings open to other. Suggestions though. As long as we're in the remote, uh, public meetings, you know, we're going to have a meeting at that stage. Having the meeting earlier at seven is fine. But once we go back to a work, a regular working load, it makes it very difficult for me to get out of work and actually get to the meeting at seven. Yeah. That means I have to leave early. So, um, We can talk about that later. Maybe, you know, we can talk about that later. I don't know. I don't know. What does the rest of the board meet? Uh, think about that. I like the seven o'clock start time when we're zooming. Parks for me and all of these dates were fine. But what, when we meet together, you know, when we do meet together, we should talk about that. Yep. I agree. Ken, do you think that maybe we should just go through may, may then at this point, I think. Um, or, you know, do you want to go through an earlier time with the seven o'clock? Meeting time. I think, I think it's fine the way Jenny has laid out. And if we need to adjust it to in-person meeting, then we'll just it then. I think you're being too optimistic. I don't think it's going to be that. Uh, soon. I know. I'm just, uh, I am being optimistic, but also, um, I don't think it's going to be the same. I don't think it's going to be the same. I don't think it's going to be the same. So, um, I wanted to do it through June because in the event that we have a special permit hearing going on and it is also town meeting. It's good to have that. Those June dates available to continue. Potentially. You know, a hearing. So, yeah. Any. Any concerns. So tomorrow at five. Wednesday. Wednesday. We saw a public comment. Don't forget. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. We don't need to vote to adopt those. Um, it would be good if you did. Then let me, then we basically post them on the calendar. Super. Uh, do we have a motion to approve the 2021 proposed, uh, meeting dates? So motion. We have a second. Thank you, Katie. Uh, run through a roll called votes. Ken. Yes. David. Yes. Gene. Yes. Katie. Yes. Great. That closes that meeting. That agenda item. Um, so we will now move to open forum. Open my participants. Any member of the public wishing to speak. Uh, please use the raise hand function in the participant section. I don't think anybody's here by the way. Just us. It's just us. Yes. Well, seeing none, I will close. Okay. We open forum for tonight. Uh, and we will see. Everyone at five PM on Wednesday. Do I have a motion to adjourn? A motion. Second. Second. Roll call votes. Yes. David. Yes. Gene. Yes. Katie. Yes. And I'm yes as well. Thanks everyone. See you Wednesday. Thank you so much. Bye bye.