 Today is Monday, July 26th, 2021. It is 7.36 p.m. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that members and anticipated officials are present from the board of appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills will hopefully be calling in a moment, I'll check on him again. Aaron Ford. Here. And Stephen Revlack. Here. Good evening all. On behalf of the town, I don't think Rick Vell really is with us this evening, but I saw Vincent Lee is here with us. Kelly Linema is here, Emily Sullivan is here and Jennifer Rae is here, the director of planning community development. So welcome all and thank you for taking part this evening. Consultants to the board, Paul Haverty is here for the consultant. Paul, good to see you. You're Mr. Chairman. Good evening from Beta Group. Marty Nover is here, Marty, good to see you. I see Laura's bill as well. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you for joining us. On behalf of 1165R Mass Ave, Mary Wynne Stanley O'Connor is here. Mary, good to see you. Thank you, same here. And then I was sort of checking off names as I saw them come in. I see that Randy Miron is here. I see Daniel Sinclair is here. Joy Myrack is here. Are there others I've missed? Yes, Bob Myrack is on the call. Joel Bargman, the architect, Jared Leonard from the team, Hugo Arlo. Perfect, thank you. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency, signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it is being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Others are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. In the waiting room. Heaven knows here yet. Ben, do you mind texting Kevin and seeing if he's doing okay? We'll do. Perfect, thanks. First item up on our agenda this evening is 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. So now turning to the comprehensive permit hearing for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. Last week, the board discussed the draft decision prepared by our chapter 40B technical consultant, Paul Havarty. There was detailed discussion regarding many of the findings and conditions between the board, its consultants, the town and the applicant. We also had some very poignant input from several of the butters. As many of these comments have been incorporated into the revised draft review this evening. I appreciate that this will be the first time that many of you are gonna be seeing this revision. I'll begin the evening by reviewing the track changes in the revised draft with the applicant, the consultants in the town, and then we will open the hearing for questions and public comment. So let me go ahead and share the draft. So I'll just quickly go through a few of these. I do wanna, the waivers have now been added to the end. I do wanna sort of skip ahead to that. I'm just gonna quickly go through some of this. The procedural history, the original application was for 130 and it was reduced to 124. So that's captured now in the history. So there's currently, it appears there are six structures. This is just about the current property, folks involved. So we're referring to it now as a two acre parcel of land. Mary, does that correspond with the... Yes, once it's subdivided, it will be a two, the projects that will be a two acre parcel. Okay. But I put on it, but I think it's correct to say the project is located on previously developed 2.0. I think that reference is likely correct. Okay. So we can say it's previously developed 2.3. Yes. But now it's gonna be, but after... It's gonna be two acre. Future subdivision will be 2.0. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for that. Rotation. So we are confirmed now. We are 128 parking spaces. 110 garage parking spaces, that's between two buildings and then 18 surface spaces. Correct. And we have the 114 bicycle parking spaces and Mary, you had confirmed that, that is 50% of them are low and 50% are high. So they're just stacked throughout. That's great. Okay. There is a possibility, Mr. Chair, that we may be able to add 10 more. Okay. Five and five. Moving into the conditions. So again, confirming the number of parking spaces. We had spoken that the conservation commission fee would be reduced from 15,000 to 12,000. Correct. That's included here. So there are some dates which, I want to come back to, but we'll pass it over for the moment. So it'd be four. So this is one that board's gonna have to talk a little bit more about. So this is the local preference. So the, under by law, the board may require the applicant to provide up to 70% of the affordable parking space to 70% of the affordable, the affordable units to people who meet certain local conditions, but the board has the ability to set that number wherever it deems appropriate for the development. And it also has the ability to strike that number. So the prior version had said 70%. And I know there's been discussion of a couple of different numbers, but this is one of the things that the board will need to discuss and come up with what it feels is the appropriate, appropriate allocation for this site. And my client has no particular preference, one way or the other, whatever the board's preference is. Perfect, thank you. So Mr. Chairman, just to address that, I did put in some suggested language with regards to having that as no local preference. Obviously it's the board's choice whether to adopt it or not. Okay. And I know the board has talked about a couple of different positions on this. And I think it's one of those things that we need to discuss further to figure out where exactly we stand. So here this is about technical reviews that occur as a part of the permit process, not as a part of the comprehensive permit process, but this is after that, when the building permit and such as being sought and the town can request supplemental funds under 53G, there was a request from the applicant that the value of those be capped. And we have some guidance from the town that we should avoid a cap. And so this is something again that the board needs to come back to and discuss a little more fully as to how the board wishes to proceed on this item. Again, 30 versus 45. So this is just a clarification that the utilities that are serving the new development are gonna be run underground from a pole on Ryder Street. And this does not reference the pole that has been the subject of discussion that is on the right of way of the Massachusetts Avenue that says- I'm not so certain that all those are gonna be underground. Randy, could you comment? Believes, hang on Mary, I'm just reading it. I believe they are going to be underground, what you're talking about. The electric too on Ryder Street? So the plans indicated they're all below grade. Yeah, I think we're saying- They do, right, they do, yeah. Okay. And at some point you connect to overhead wires and what we just wanted to be clear was we'll put them underground as we have shown on the plans. Yeah. Right, there's a pole right at the exit onto Ryder Street. So I might understand it's from that pole over. Right, and the utility company might end up doing something different at that point, it's up to them, but that's the plan and that's what they've directed us to do. Okay, let's move straight forward. There was a discussion last time about earth removal and this is requiring just to describe to how much is going to need to be cut and sell. Let's go straight forward. Ryder Street, this was a recommendation I had made. We had set specific hours when the construction deliveries were not to be made on Ryder Street due to the schools. We just wanted to include a provision that the senior transportation planner in consultation with the construction manager could adjust those hours in the interest of public safety just in case we need to move it one way or another. Well, should it be tied into the school hours related to because that could be read to be anything, I suppose. Yes, what, E-25? Yeah. Take a look at that. So traffic safety sidewalks, trying to sort of clarify a little bit. So the site will be signed directoring motor vehicles to enter via the Mass Ave right of way or Quinn Road and exit via Ryder Street or Quinn Road. Massachusetts Avenue Driveways will allow two-way travel for existing and budding uses. Bicycle users will be allowed to enter and exit the site from Ryder Street to driveway to Massachusetts Avenue and the roadway to Quinn Road. So just clarifying which ones are the motor vehicles and which ones are for bicycles. Just clarifying about the combination of parking spaces. Excuse me. So this section deals with parking restrictions and their request to provide a telephone number and online portal for residents to address potential infractions to property managers just having some way to report complaints that either other members of the, who live in the facility or people who live on adjacent properties have a way to contact the building property manager. F-6 is just a clarification that parking on private ways is prohibited and parking on public ways is governed by the bylaws of the town of Arlington. That's straightforward. F-12, property managers show review the request for parking quarterly and adjust policies as required to minimize impacts on adjacent neighborhood. That's just, I know that the property manager is gonna be allocating spaces between what are required by residents, what's required for guest parking. And it's just that they should look at that at a periodic interval and make sure that they're allocating things appropriately. F-6, we had talked about fire access. We wanted to change the language. The project should maintain fire access sufficient to comply with applicable state building code and or fire code requirements to all four sides of each residential structure at all times. Forward. It's a during construction project and the clarification of the language. So this one, I think it's gonna be a little controversial. So there's, this is something that the board needs to consider. There's been a lot of concern about that poll. And I know Mary, you had provided a letter this afternoon to clarify how it got into the place we are now and the difficulties involved in moving that poll. And we just, we need to, I think discuss a little further tonight and then the board has to really figure out you know, what the, what this poll really means to the safety of the abutters and to the safety of the users and how do we address this? But this is just a provisional language that if we can, until the such time as we can get enough space between the poll and the opposite curve that two cars can pass, we really shouldn't be using that as a two-way street. Well, the project isn't using it as a two-way street. But I believe it allows for there, because the existing abutting user is allowed to use that. Right. There's nothing we can do about that. This is the environmental monitor question. And this is one I think we'll have, we may have to go back and know Emily Sullivan's on the call. If this is the most current language or not. Hi, Christian. Yeah, Mary, I know we discussed the frequency of reporting. This says weekly is that, I know that the conversation we had last week was just, we didn't. We had monthly Emily. Monthly, okay. Yeah. So I four will change the period to monthly. Actually, Christian, I think that Emily and I sent you the agreed to language between the commission and the applicant asked to that paragraph. Oh, okay. Christian, I can email this to you again and if that's easiest. Yeah. If you could forward that to myself and to Paul as well. Perfect. We'll do. Thank you. There was several others too. So you may want to check it against. Okay. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat. Yeah. I just want to make sure that we've turned the square, square corners here. But if has is anticipated, we end up closing the public hearing tonight. Are we, is it still fine? And maybe this is a question from Mr. Haverty. Is it still fine to be getting additional language and various things that Emily and Mary have just referred to? If it's something that's already been submitted by Emily and it's already in the record, you know, her having her send that again to bring it to my attention wouldn't be a problem. But if it's not already in the record, that's a, then it would be a problem. Then that would be something of a problem. Yes. But my understanding is that it's already been sent. I think Emily actually forwarded it to me after the last hearing already. Okay. Is this the June 6th letter? July 20th. July 20th, okay. The July 20th is when the email was forwarded, correct. Yeah. Well, my letter to Susan and Emily is dated July 20th and Emily's email is dated July 21st. Okay. Yeah. So that was sent, yeah, on the 20th. So Paul, you should have that. Yep, I have it. Perfect. The version of the call should be installed, operating at the banks. I think we need to keep that language. Yeah, it wasn't clear on that. If we take out of the relocated right of Brooke, I don't really know what banks were talking about. Right. And that may very well be covered in that. In the reference to the letter. Yeah. No, that one's not covered in the letter. Oh, it's not. Okay. But I'll defer to Emily on that. Yeah, I don't recognize that revision. Okay. But this is referenced is, but we're in agreement. This is referencing the writer Brooke. Correct. Referencing. Yes. Talks about the no parking of unregistered vehicles on the site. Perhaps the service of vehicles on site overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is prohibited in the town of Arlington parking of vehicles on private ways is prohibited. Our fine note. Okay. We do have site parking on our site. Correct. But that don't know if those are technically private ways or if those are site drive, site drive. The site driveway. So that's the, okay. My bad. It goes on private ways. My fault. Nope. That's okay. I'll go back to my cave. Okay. So waivers, the board of guys follows. So this is the proposed grant waivers. So I want to say by a lot of Argo five section five, six, three private multifamily uses and industrial zoning district, absent seeks a waiver to allow 124 multi-family zoning and industrial zoning district. So I know we have a memorandum from the department of planning and community development that came in today that was requesting some clarification on, I believe the statement of the waiver requests so Kelly lineup. I don't know if you want to address that or if Jennifer rate, the director wants to address those. Actually, Jenny, would you prefer to respond? I can also answer. Kelly, I think you can walk through the memo, please. So. We're going to bring the memo up. Go ahead. Second. Okay. So regarding the first, I think it was in the first four waiver requests. The department recommends that the applicant either take one of two actions. So the applicant would either request a waiver for the use. So allowing thereby allowing them to construct a multifamily development in an industrial zone and then request a waiver from the zoning bylaw section 3.4 which is environmental design review. And then therefore they would not need to request waivers from the industrial zoning district dimensional requirements. The second course of action or the alternative would be to request a waiver for the use, thereby then also allowing the multifamily use in an industrial district and then requesting waivers for the industrial zoning district dimensional requirements. So requesting a waiver from section 5.6.2A. We don't feel that both approaches are required and they actually somewhat confuse whether this is a development. The precise reasons for requesting the waivers. So I think you could take one approach or the other. My sense if I could, is that B would be the preferred approach. Paul, I would think B would be more appropriate. What's your sense? I agree, the waivers that should be requested are the requirements that are applicable to the particular zoning district. If I might, Christian? Yes, please. We don't allow residential in the industrial zoning district. So there are no requirements for residential in the district. So that is the reasoning behind Kelly's evaluation of one versus the other option. If I may also, one other thing that we noted is the use of the phrasing article, article five, which does not relate back to our zoning bylaw. So we've asked that that be amended to say bylaw. So it should read zoning bylaw section 5.6.3. Correct. Okay. So in the memo here, we had simply repeated that for any instance of a waiver request in which that would apply. Which that language would apply or for which the option of either Avenue A or Avenue B would apply. Okay. So if we are going the route with B and we are requesting a waiver for the use and it has been great noted that there are no dimensional requirements because it's not permitted use is this waiver still necessary for 562 that's a waiver for minimum yards and backs in the light. It would still be a need for a waiver even though the residential use is not allowed. There are some requirements in that zoning district for structures and there are height requirements contained in section 5.6.2. Okay. So then just reviewing those two. So the first one, which is 563, we would be changing the app will have the applicant change this so that it is requesting a waiver from the restriction on the use. And then section 562 will remain in it. This will be requesting a waiver from the requirements of the setbacks. And the building height. They were, would you like me to answer some of the other ones? Okay. So I think these two here, the top three here just in the similar vein is what I mentioned before. Just removing the word article and referring to the zoning by law in which but not the article. And if you could go down to the next slide, similar here. I think page three is where, okay. Under the waiver requesting the reduction in parking spaces, we recommend that the applicant provide as many bicycle parking spaces as possible. Ideally equivalent to a number of the drawing units for equal to the number of automobile parking spaces. Especially given the request for a reduction in automobile parking spaces and the proximity of the development to the minimum bikeway. Our transportation, senior transportation planner had noted that two-tier or stocked bike parking actually can meet the requirements of the bike parking bike guidelines if it is constructed through a system like one link to at the D.R.O. link below. And that would just provide sort of a hydraulic assist to allow people to get their bike up to that second tier of parking. If I could have Mr. Bargman speak to that. He's the... Hi, this is Joel Bargman, architect for the project. Great. I think you've given us a choice on the number of spaces and if we can accommodate 124 which would be of these type units which would be one per dwelling unit. And the only thing I would request is in the language could we say stacked parking constructed by a system that provides assistance to the user to get the bike up and down without specifically referring to a brand or a type. Yes, yes. Other than that, it's a nice idea and we can accommodate that. Okay. And if I remember correctly, so the request here is very specifically is a waiver in the number of spaces and not in the other requirements for bicycle parking that are included in the Donning By-law. Well, we had read the by-laws, the design didn't permit stacked parking, bicycle parking. So that's why we... I see. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Mr. Hanlon. So if I understand this right, in essence, what the waiver is still for the number and the discussion that we've just had about how many spaces will be put because, because you'll still need a waiver even at 124 or 128 spaces. So you still need that. And then I gather there would be up in the conditions part, separate condition that requires the provision of 128 and allows for the stacking. Is that the way it would work? Cause it seems odd to have an affirmative obligation occurring in the waiver section. Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the decision and revise the conditions to include the number of bicycle parking spaces and to include the requirements for the hydraulic lifting of the bicycles to the second tier. Sorry, I lost the first part of that. I said that I would absolutely do what member Hanlon suggested, which is to go back into the body of the decision and revise the conditions to change the number, total number of parking spaces and to include the requirements that the upper level will be assisted with some sort of hydraulic lifting system. Perfect. You can certainly do that. I might just add that the hydraulics is specific to certain brands. There are cysts that don't use hydraulics. So if it just said assist, I think that would be more accurate and give us more flexibility and I'd have to buy just one particular brand, which is what we're trying to avoid. Mr. Chair, Steve Revolac, perhaps mechanical assist would be sufficient language. Sure. That's more generic and more helpful. Thank you. Good suggestion. I didn't hear what was that suggestion? Mr. Revolac. Mechanical assist. Mechanical, perfect. Thank you. And then Chairman Klein, the remainder of the comments are really that one specific, like minor administrative change to remove the word article. Okay. And to add zoning before bylaw. Yes. Very good. Mr. Havardy, did you see anything in those changes? There are things we cannot do sort of administratively at this point. Is there anything that we need to resubmit on? Oops, you're on mute. Oh, you're still on mute. Oh, I clicked it too, this time. I'm switching back and forth between the screen and the document. I do have some comments. If you go, if you want to go back to the decision with regards to the waivers, questions. So for instance, on the waiver Arlington design standards, I'm not really sure the nature of what is required and what is being requested for that waiver. Arlington has some design standards that they like to see utilized. So we did not know if the board was going to impose them. Is there a substantive requirement or is this like a special permit process? No, there's no, Jenny. Mr. Chair. Please. So that is not a, that is not in our zoning bylaw. I would not suggest including that as a waiver request. So where does that requirement come from? Well, it is a, it's a standard and they are adopted by the Arlington Redevelopment Board and utilized during the special permit environmental design review process. Okay, so that's a special, that's part of a special permit process which is subsumed under, exactly. Okay, so the waiver is not necessary then? Not to specially call them out, no. Perfect, thank you. Thank you. And then, so the requirement on the request for the waiver of local fees, I think we touched on this last time but I just wanted to point out that that's a decision the board really needs to make whether or not to grant waivers beyond the inflow and infiltration fees. And then the last thing I had wetlands bylaw, title five, article eight, sections 10 and 11 having to do with the bond requirements. The conservation commission had recommended against approving this waiver. So just needed the board to make a decision on that as well. Okay. Then other than that, they appear to be all set. So any of the things we've discussed this evening, is there anything that requires additional information that the board does not already have? I do not believe so. Is there anyone touched, question on the boards or anyone on the board who feels we need additional information on anything that we've touched on this evening? Chief Revolak, Mr. Chair. Mr. Revolak. With respect to the bonding requirements that Mr. Havarty just referred to, do we have any idea of the amount that might be expected for this project? No, the Sullivan can try to respond to that. Not, Ms. Wright. So Christian, I don't have a sense of the amount of the bond other than that the commission didn't believe that the bond should be waived. So I can certainly get that information or get a sense based on other projects the commission has permanent in the past. I mean, even just an order of magnitude figure would be, I just like to know whether we're talking $10,000 or $100,000 or a million or somewhere in between basically. Mr. Chair. Oh, sorry. No, go, Jenny, start. I was just, I was simply going to state that I am not aware of the typical amount. So I would think that Emily could look at some prior projects and help to provide some sort of range. I wonder if that's the kind of thing that would be the percentage as opposed to necessarily a fixed value. I think the conservation commission does a fixed value. Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat. Yeah. Again, I'm trying to be as I'm sure that chairman is also sensitive to the fact that the hearing may close in another hour or so. And so I'm wondering if it's possible. I know that it's extraordinary effort, but I don't think that the record will be open for this information tomorrow. So if it can't be provided now in some way by getting off and looking it up or something, then we either have to not close the hearing or we have to not get the information, it seems to me. Christian, I'm looking it up as we speak and I, of course, won't delay any conversation, but I can let you know once I've found some information. That would be both helpful. Thank you. I'll just quickly go down the list of the board members and see if they have anything additional. They would like to discuss at this point if there's any additional information they would like to request at this point. Mr. Revelak, you're on mute. Yes, I had to get my fingers on the right keys. Sorry about that. Yes, I do have a few questions. Going back to the order of conditions. Actually, most of the things that I had picked, I'll start at the back. Just a, this is a minor thing and I'm, so I26 or in the second draft, it was I26, the last number, all right, it's I22 now. So the sentence, if replacement is necessary, such replacements shall be subject to the approval of the commission. I'm assuming that's conservation commission. Yes. I might suggest saying conservation commission just for clarity. Now earlier, and I missed the number when we were going through, but the requirement that a phone number and web portal be provided because I'm not aware of any other project where we've required or an applicant constructing a multifamily dwelling has been required to provide a web portal for, you know, infract so that butters could report infractions. I'd like to get it. I'm wondering if, how the applicants feel about this particular requirement. Daniel? Well, I would assume this is, you could either have the phone number or you could look up the property and you would see a contact number and a phone number for the property manager or there could be an online link to an email address or some other way to send a message. Who knows it may be, you know, some other link at that point text linked in, you know, Twitter who knows what it is, but there's some, you know, direct way to send a message. I think today that would be email most likely. Yeah, I mean, the way it's worded, it sounds more of a web, like a web form kind of thing. And I'm wondering if we could, if we could say provide an electronic number and a method for, you know, electronic submission for residents to report potential, you know, basically just to make sure that, yeah, I think email should be an option. Maybe a written submission that can be electronically transmitted or something like that. It's a good point because it is a little ambiguous. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Pat. One thing I wanted to, I mean, this is one of those things which is designed to help smooth the relationship between the letters and not literally letters necessarily, but the neighborhood and the community. We're going to have a public hearing in short in a certain period of time. And it would probably be a useful thing for us to return to this issue after the public having some input into what they think about that. They may not care or they might care, but whatever it is, assuming that there'll be an amicable discussion about the general issue and that the idea is to come up with something that is general enough not to be unduly constricting to the applicant, but effective enough that it provides comfort to the neighborhood that their concerns will be addressed in an appropriate way. Yeah, I think Mr. Hanlon said it better than I did. I was trying to avoid being too prescriptive in the conditions, essentially. So I just have two more questions. One happens to be on the screen under F6. Any parking on private ways is prohibited. What was this meant to refer to? I hope not the 20% of town roadways, which are private ways. It was, well, then we should look at the, how it's written. Okay. But the intent is that parking, that private ways are not for the general, parking of the general public, they are a private property and for the use of the property owner. Okay. All right. I will ponder that. And lastly, regarding bicycles, will residents have the option of storing bicycles in their dwelling units? There would be nothing to prevent them from doing so. Okay, so if a tenant had two bicycles and put one in the bike room and one in their bedroom, that would be, for example, okay. I don't see that as an issue. Daniel Julia, you see that as an issue? Well, I would just say, you know, often what happens when people are moving their bikes in and out of elevators and through hallways is they do a lot of damage. So, you know, as a kind of a management tool, you try to limit that kind of stuff. So, but, you know, what our thought on that was we wanna provide other places, if we can, to have people put bikes that might not have necessarily met the town regulation, whether that be a spot that you can hang a bike or park a bike at an end of a parking space or something like that. And we haven't worked through all of that yet, but, you know, maybe the right way to do it is if somebody takes their bike up into their room that they have to have a modest deposit for if there's damage or something. So, we'd be happy to, if that's something people really felt very strongly about, we'd be happy to consider that. Probably no worse than bringing Fido up the stairs with you, but. All right, and see, I believe that is all I had. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. So, I was looking at this section and had the same some other questions the last time we met. I just didn't know whether to ask them at the time. Excuse me. So, when I read that in F4B have the on-site property manager address reported infractions and sort of dovetailing into Mr. Revelax question about well, how would that communication be made? What is it that a resident? Roger, for some reason you are now on mute and what happened? I'm sorry, can you hear? Yep, now we can. Okay, so basically what are the mechanics of this? Are there gonna be, is there gonna be a list of the automobiles that residents own and the license plates so that if somebody can reports from Rider Street and says, somebody's been taking this right hand turn that they can identify who that is. So, I'm just wondering about the actual sort of nuts and bolts of how this is going to happen. Yes, the attorney DuPont is gonna be a sticker and they're also gonna have a hanger from the mirror. They're gonna have assigned parking spaces. So, the license plate number will be affiliated with the specifics parking space so the property manager will have all that information. So the property manager could identify whose vehicle it is. But it's still being left up to the residents actually to keep an eye out and see when this is happening because there's no other sort of automated monitoring like any sort of a camera or anything on the site that will sort of be motion sensitive to detect when somebody makes the right hand turn. No, and it would be difficult to monitor something like that on a regular basis in any event. Okay, so this is citizen reporting essentially. Right, okay. And whatever the property manager may see themselves because they walk the property as well. Okay, all right, thank you. No. Mr. DuPont, did you have any other questions or comments on the draft? No, not at this time. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, do you have further questions? No, I don't. Mr. Mills, do you have questions on the draft? I'm all set, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ford, do you have any questions on the draft? No, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I think most of my questions were addressed. Most of the, both of these comments were added at my request by Mr. Havity earlier. Are there any further questions from Beta in regards to the draft decision? Ms. Nover? I don't have any further questions or comments, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if Laura Krause or Bill McGrath does too. I don't have any further comments. Okay. I don't have any either. Perfect, thank you. Ask if either, so from the town side, if Kelly Lanema or Emily Sullivan or the general rate of any further questions or comments in regards to the draft decision? I have just a minor question on the first page. This is just a clarification of the number of structures. If you could go down, I believe it is, I think it's three or four. Oh, there it is, five. So I had just looked up on the property card, there are three structures listed on the property card and here we say six. So just a clarification of are these, including any outbuildings that are being removed or some clarification about whether these are the buildings on the property card or if there are additional structures that are being considered. Joel, I'll defer to you on that or Randy. Mary, I know a little background on this and so I'm willing to offer it. So I believe there is a difference in the number of buildings quote one quote listed in the historic materials versus what's under on the property card. So it's all the same number of buildings. I just think it's where you count one building versus two versus three. So there's definitely a higher count of buildings. And I think every addition that might have been added onto a building over time and the historic register leads to a higher number of buildings on the site. But we, I think that we may be crossing those references. So that's, but they're, because we're taking down some of the older buildings that are not deemed to be reusable, there's obviously more that exists today than there will be after we demolish some of those and save the others and rebuild the project. So should this say six existing structures or three? Well, I think it's accurate to say the property does contain six now. And when we're done, it will have three. That was, that was my only point of clarification. But otherwise I don't have any other questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Yes. I do not have any other questions or comments at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. At some point I have a question relating to the letter regarding the poll that Mr. Conner submitted to us today. That, that isn't really a question on the draft. And so I'm not quite sure when is the right time to raise that. I want to go ahead and let's go ahead and address that now. Okay. On page two of the letter, in the beginning, I mean, Mr. Conner discusses two basic options. One is an option of removal and relocation of the poll. And the other has to do with varying things. In the fifth paragraph, there's a general estimate of $300 to $500,000 for varying the service, which is claimed to make the project uneconomic. In the first paragraph on that page, there's simply a statement that removing the poll would be very costly. And I was wondering whether Mr. Conner could expand a little bit on what the word very costly gives. I understand that not expecting anything down to the penny or even down to the dollar, but something that is roughly comparable to the statement that it was made on the, on varying it would be useful so that as Mr. Revillack indicated before, we have just a general idea of what these costs would be. Mr. Hanlon, you mean moving the poll over either to the end of the side of the right of way or onto another property? Yeah, I think that's true. I'm not, I understood that first paragraph on page two to be referring to that. That could run anywhere between 75 to $150,000 depending on what's involved and what the utility company allows. One of the major issues is that, and I say in my letter is that right now the lines run across the Myrack-Hunday dealership of grandfathered and the utility company is low to allow us to move the poll and continue to allow them, they don't allow that to let the lines cross the live parking area. So that's what our utility consultant has been negotiating with them about. My understanding from the letter is that in addition to that, there's no existing easement for those lawyers and so that part of what would be necessary is to acquire that easement. Is that included in the cost? No, that would be extra, but that's the cost of moving the poll and the resulting work. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. I'm wearing down my list again. Ms. Olden, I wasn't sure if you had any further questions or comments. I just needed a few more minutes for the bond and then I'm sure I'll have something for you, but other than that, no, thank you. Perfect, thank you. Mr. Chairman, if we're unable to tie down a figure for the bond, we could always draft a condition that states that a bond for the work along Ryderbrook shall be provided in amounts to be determined in consultation with the Conservation Commission. Ah, okay. Yeah, that might be a very good way to go. Mr. Chairman, just to say, I think that even when we get the costs that we should use language that is basically like that, since we don't really know exactly what the costs would be, I think the main point that Mr. Rebelak was making was a desire for us to know about what those costs were and it was on a more of a magnitude basis, but I didn't understand that as a basis for actually putting into the condition. And Steve Rebelak, Mr. Chair, I also presume that the applicants would be interested in knowing the amount as well. Absolutely. Christian, so I, oh, sorry, Mary. I'm sorry, I will say that my experience over the years with the Conservation Commission is that they are fairly reasonable about that stuff. Paul, to your point, I think the only consideration for the bond requirement would be for the relocated Ryderbrook. So in the past we've done, the commission has required an escrow, but just to ensure that the planting survive in a project that has been permitted by the commission. So I would imagine it would be a similar arrangement. In that case, in that project, it was for the hotel down on Mass App, it was a $6,000 escrow. So I imagine it would be somewhere in the line of that, so that's not exactly current with today's pricing, but I would imagine Mary would be somewhat in that magnitude. Thanks, Emily. Thank you very much. Ms. O'Connor, are there questions or further clarifications on the decision that you'd like to cover? No, I think the only substantive change that is gonna require some comment from my client is the additional language concerning the poll and the use of Quinn Road. I think the other things are feeling that are acceptable. Okay, did you have a sense from speaking with the utilities that if you could move forward and move the poll, what the time scale for something like that would be? No. Okay. I don't get any sense. They move at their own pace. They do at that. If there's any further questions from the board, I was gonna go ahead and request public comment at this time. On a moment, I'll open the public comment period on the draft decision for the proposed project. Public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matters at hand. It should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision to provide for an orderly flow to the meeting and to allow the inclusion of many voices. The chair asks individual speakers to limit their comments. Additional time will be provided at the discretion of the chair to provide time for questions to be fully addressed. Procedure for a question to speak will be the same as for prior hearings. Please select the raise hand button from the comments tab on Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate if you'd like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address. You'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps us to generate accurate record. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chairs and did the public comment period will be exposed for the session of the hearing. Board and staff will do our best to show the section of the draft decision being discussed at the time. So I will go ahead. I'll share so I can see who has their hands raised. First person is Mr. T. Good evening. This is Alex T. of Two Riders Street. I guess I would like to start by thanking whoever is drafting these by taking a stab at addressing the parking. You know, I think we as a community over here have felt that's just a really overlooked flashpoint for friction moving forward. And so I think the inclusion of the web based in the quarterly review language is very well intended. I know there were some questions about the web based. I think at least personally, I'm highly in favor of broadening that language in terms of the base in which that can be captured. I think the electronic is good that the intention of that from our standpoint is twofold. One is to make it easy. Again, phone calls are not always easy and it creates a closed loop where there's a bit of traceability to it. And then the second part of that that the language doesn't reflect yet is just the transparency. Again, we don't want data to be going into a black hole and then not to promote conversation. And I think that's gonna be really important for making the quarterly review process a fruitful one. Again, I think this is all with the intention of creating a stronger working relationship between the two parties here. And I think right now we're just feeling that there's still a real lack of attention and detail to the operational plan, right? I think it was referenced earlier on that all vehicles will be registered. Well, those are registered vehicles. What happens with unregistered vehicles from residents or visitors? I think we haven't ever talked about what is the threshold for the amount of burden that our street is willing to accept. And then what are the consequences of that? Again, I think it's just without that level of detail and without that level of foresight, we're just gonna end up in a very uncomfortable place from both sides. And just it's our intention that if we're asking for a waiver, now is the time to really think through those details. And we've requested that at three or four different points so far. So I think it's just, I really appreciate you taking the time to include that because it means we're not being ignored. But at the same time, I think we still have a lot of work to do to really address that the operational plan. I think we are also still really uncomfortable with that, you know, a fiction language in it. Again, the equity of that in today's time and age was still just built socially irresponsible. And I'm kind of curious if this monitoring will also extend into the construction portion of the project as well, as we witness a lot of construction workers parking on our site each and every day, right? So again, I think that that's gonna start sooner than later. And I would like to encourage the board to consider suggesting language that broadens, that starts at the time of construction. But for us, it's just really the, we don't have any, we don't have a plan, right? Without a plan, we can't figure out how we're gonna manage it together. And I think that's really what we're looking for. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanna follow up with you briefly. When you're talking about the operational plan and about unregistered vehicles and guests, are you concerned about the number of vehicles that might be using Ryder Street or are you concerned about the ability to report vehicles that aren't in their system or is it a combination of the two? I would say both are real considerations. I think that, I think it's just tough to enforce parking on a private way, right? So there's gonna be, when there are a lot of vehicles here, there aren't a lot of plan Bs for the residents. We just kind of drive around and again, that's, I think it's not as much of a problem right now because the type of traffic is asynchronous where you have residents and commercial and one group kind of clears out to allow space for the other. This will actually almost kind of compound the issue now that we're gonna have residential and residential and we're gonna be trying to use the same spots at the same time. And then yeah, it's just, how do we report, right? There's a car that's parked there. They walk towards the building, but again, we just haven't really talked through, that might be a resident, right? I mean, they have to pay for a spot and maybe they choose not to pay for a spot, right? So I think that's, again, I think there's a lot of good intention in the current language, but there's so many details that haven't been thought through yet. Thank you. Next, Mr. Inessie. Can you hear me? We can. Okay, good evening all. I heard the comment about the fact that the utility companies work at their own pace. I remind the members of the board that I contacted Verizon in New York and the applicant had applied for plans to move that poll way back in January. And what happened was the applicant was told to come up with a design and present that. That never happened. The design was never, in fact, produced. So therefore, the file at Verizon in New York was closed out. So to hear now that the utilities work at their own pace, I think it is really not a fair to me as in a butter. I had a conversation today with Ed Myrack. Ed Myrack called me. Ed Myrack is a butter on the other side. And Ed called me and inquired as to what the history was in terms of what was going on. He wanted me to tell him what in fact was going on, which I did. I explained to him that I'd met with the applicant, that I'd met with a council for the applicant at my office on July 19 of 2020. And at that time, I was told for the first time that they were planning on their project, developing their project. Immediately registered an objection indicating that I thought that the increased traffic would overwhelm the right of way and would overburden the right of way. I was told at that meeting not to worry because the poll was going to be removed from the right of way. Now based upon that comment, you may recall, I did not participate in a lot of the Zoom hearings. I did not participate because I was operating on the basis that the poll was going to be removed. I now know, and I learned maybe 60 to 70 days ago that the poll is not going to be removed. I have explained to the board, I've given the board photographs, I've explained to the board my concerns about the safety issue. I think the board agrees with that. There's been discussion also about what the cost of an easement would be. Well, I represent a good portion of whatever that cost of an easement would be since my property abuts a goodly portion of the right of way. And I can tell you right now, Mr. Hanlon, that I would never charge anyone for an easement. And the cost to create an easement and record an easement I would suggest to you is not great. It can be done fairly economically. Now I'm also told that the cost to move the poll, whether it be off-site or whether it be whatever, okay, would be $75,000 to $100,000. I would suggest to the members of the board that $75,000 to $100,000 to expend for a project like this where the return for the developer is going to be so significant is not significant money. And it's the kind of money that should in fact be expended to ensure that there's going to be a safe traversive traffic over the right of way. I again point out to the board that I've been given very short shrift by the Transportation Commission, by the town engineer who basically never even came out here and looked at the right of way to see that there was a poll here, okay? They were talking about a bicycle path. One of them was talking about a bike path in that right of way because they didn't even know there was a poll in the right of way. I'm asking for fairness. I've explained before, I'm not the Mayraq family. I do have an investment in this property. I'm going to protect that investment. I looked at the language that was being proposed. If you can conjure that up on your screen again, Christian with respect to the proposed language as far as the poll is concerned, it talks about the fact that the site would be monitored, traffic would not be allowed to either come down the right of way while construction activities were going on. Well, again, I told you last time, I'm not going to wait for that, okay? I cannot afford to wait for that. If in fact a decision is written by the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, it's filed in the town clerk's office, I will be at the courthouse fourth win filing an appeal within the 20 day appeal period. I am not going to leave my destiny and my future up to something that's undecided. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to quickly clarify, you had mentioned Ed Meirach, I wanted to confirm that was the Hyundai property, is that correct? That's the Hyundai property. Now he did say to me, by the way, that he was asked whether in fact, the poll could be moved onto his property. He said, Bob, I'm just finding out about this. I would need to look at liability issues. I would need to look at a lot of issues, which I haven't done. So he was very honest with me about that. So again, that goes to the issue of just how quick the applicant has been to move on this in terms of dealing with the poll issue. I think the poll issue has been on the back burner. As I used an expression last time, it's time to the applicant to pull the trigger. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments from the public? I do not see any others. Only once going twice. If we do close the hearing this evening, this will be the last opportunity to speak. So I'll leave this open to the other. Mr. Mayor Dianos. Hey, how are you tonight? Well, thank you. How are you? Very good. Thank you. Have your address for the record, please. Yep, 17 Beck Road. Thank you. Earlier in the discussion, I heard talk about that the applicants now decided to want to put some form of identifying markers. I heard something about sticker or hanging tag or the combo. I believe they represent in regards to vehicles that would be registered on their property. Okay. So that, okay. So that's only okay. And did they say have an idea or anything of the location or the color size or anything of that nature yet? No. Okay. Well, that's just pretty much it. And I was just something I heard earlier that I just wanted to hear up on because it's nice to hear though that, you know, they're, you know, listening to our concerns. Thank you. Anything further? Hi. This is not in the Spanish. Sorry. Did I cut you? One second. I just wanted to make sure that the analysis done. Yep. Nope. I'm all set. Naran, go right ahead. Thank you. And name an address to the record, please sir. Natan Dishpendi, 18 Ryder Street. Thank you. So sorry. I joined late in the presentation, but I, when I joined, I heard about the direction in parking spaces because of the proximity to the bike path. Just out of curiosity, does the amount of parking spaces go relate to the number of families or how, you know, for example, there are 80 apartments or the 80 parking spaces at a minimum? Excuse me. So the, I could ask them though, Connor, if they have followed a specific ratio that they were trying to hit? You're on mute. Sorry, Mary. The number of parking spaces is determined under the bylaw by bedrooms. And that's how we determine the maximum required and we gave you the number inside and outside. Okay. So is it one spot per bedroom? No, it's no. So currently there's 124 proposed units. There's 128 proposed parking spaces. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Oh, you're all right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone further? You can under participants or is it under reactions now? Keep moving. I guess it's under reactions. You can click on raise hand or if you're by phone, you can now start knowing if we have any participants currently on. We have one participant on phone. Going once, going twice. If I could respond, Chairman Klein. Please go ahead. With respect to attorney and Nessie's comments, I don't necessarily know who he spoke to in New York, but Bowler engineering had been dealing with utility companies concerning that poll in the right of way for a significant period of time. As I said in my letter to the board, my client hired a specific consultant when Bowler couldn't get to the point that they needed them to get to to deal with the utilities. And you heard Mr. Nighan a couple of hearings ago tell you what he had been doing. If I just wanna understand if my client can convince the utility company to allow it to move the poll to the edge of the right of way is attorney, Nessie satisfied with that. That gives you 18 feet. Nessie, can you respond? Would you be willing to respond to that? Can you hear me, Mr. Klein? I can answer. Okay. I'm gonna reserve judgment. I have not been dealt with fairly from day one, okay? In terms of having been led down the primrose path with respect to the poll being removed from the right of way. I'm gonna reserve judgment until I see a plan. And quite frankly, if I see a plan that shows the poll eight feet away from my curb, I wanna look at that carefully. I wanna see where it's going to be. I wanna see where it's going to be in relation to the driveway entrance to my Prockey lot. I'm not gonna concede anything at this point given the history of this transaction. Thank you. Chairman Klein, I just wanna be very clear for the record. Please. I participated in three meetings with attorney Nessie. At none of those meetings was it ever said that the poll would be removed. I don't know if he heard it somewhere else, but it was not at any meeting I participated at with him. And we brought to the meeting, his concern was traffic and the use of the right of way. And we gave him all the traffic data. We met with him three times. So I've known Bob for a very long time. I wouldn't deceive him or anyone else. So I'd like to say that for the record. May I say something, Mr. Klein? One last comment, Mr. Nessie. One last time. The person who told me, and I didn't wanna say this, Mary, okay? The person who told me the poll was going to be moved was Bob Myrack, okay? I mentioned that to Bob, okay? And Bob said, well, it might be a question of aging that I might have forgotten, okay? When I mentioned that to him, okay? That's all I'm gonna say about that. All right, I'd like to sort of tone this back down a little bit, but I think we understand sort of the passion involved in this poll. And I think the board is well aware of the requirements not only of the butters, but also of the applicants. And this is definitely something that the board is gonna need to discuss further in terms of how this is addressed in the written decision. Chairman Klein, the only other thing I would like, think we need to clarify is the quarterly review of the parking. I think what you were referencing was reviewing it between spots between guest parking and resident parking. I wanna make sure that's clear in the decision. Okay, right. So we wanna make sure that the management company is reviewing the allocation. The cases between the different uses on the, because there's the three uses on the site between the guests, the work bar and the residents is, we wanna make sure that those spaces are being allocated properly so that everything is being captured and that there's not a deficit in any one of those that would cause an undue pressure on the adjacent community. Yes. Absolutely. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment period for this evening. So next steps for the board. Mr. Revola. If I may, I just would like to briefly say a few words about parking, Mr. Chair. Okay. Now I understand that the issue of parking is a, it's a concern for the abutters. It's, I recognize that it's a sort of unease and anxiety and Rider Street is a bit of a tricky street but there are a couple of other things I'd also, I also just wanna say for the record. Once upon, back in the seventies, our town made some decisions regarding transit and as a result of the way that came out, we are probably a little more car dependent than we might have been, had we made different decisions back then and that kind of is what it is. But one, in terms of the conditions for this project, there are turning conditions. There are, as in residents of the apartment will not be able to make a right hand turn on Rider Street when leaving. There are also conditions preventing them from parking on Rider Street. And we also have an enforcement mechanism, which is to say that the residents of this building are going to have a set of restrictions that are unique to them. They will, which is to say, I could drive down, if I had a car, I could drive down Rider Street and make a left on the back road but a person living in this building couldn't. And I understand the feelings of the abutters but I'm also, I have some reservations about, basically placing, having an affordable housing development where there are specific restrictions that are unique to that development. And finally, I also would wanna note that one substantial contingent who's going to be affected by the outcome of this project are the residents who live in this building. And given the nature of these proceedings, they are not represented and given the how long apartment buildings last for, I bet you there's a lot of them that haven't even been born yet. So I just want to say, I want, I realize that basically we're putting restrictions on this property in perpetuity that will be relatively unique to it. And I, you know, I'm not going to oppose it but I just, at the same time, I do not have a good feeling about it or I don't have a great feeling about it. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. You know, I do wanna stress that the draft decision we have before this is a draft decision and we have lots of things that we have to consider. And I think the points that Mr. Rebel just made are things that we need to consider that ultimately our obligation is to all the residents and the people who move in here will be our LinkedIn residents as well. But to pass on from that, I just want to try to provide a little transparency on at least how this member of the board feels about the poll. And I don't really want to be involved in the increased emotions that have happened as a result of whatever understandings and misunderstandings that have taken place between the applicant and Mr. Anessi. Those are matters that are very important to the parties but they're not really important to our decision. What is important to our decision is the fact that we have a poll right in the middle of the road. And regardless of the effect that has on Mr. Anessi's property and I'm not indifferent to that, it's just not good public policy to do that. And it's clear that some moving of that poll is really an important thing to do. Whether that can be accomplished by moving it on to the car dealership's property or whether it has to just go over to the very edge of the right-of-way, I'm not quite sure. But I'm not 100% comfortable with the language we have. And I understand that this place arguably that doing something more aggressive may make this uneconomic. We unfortunately are not going to have the information at our disposal to be able to know for sure whether it will or not. But when it comes to deliberating on this and making a final decision as to what the language is here, I think one of the things we're going to have to discuss is whether we need to be more aggressive on this. I'm hoping that the discussions that will ensue and that are probably going on right now will actually lead to a resolution that will make everything work out all right in the end. But I would like to encourage the applicant and everyone else not to regard the draft decision as necessarily dispositive on that issue. There's discussion that I think we need to have before we decide what the best solution is. Thank you, Mr. Allen. So I think at this juncture, I think the important question for the board is do we have all the information we need to render to discuss and render a decision on this project? Or is there any other outstanding information that this board needs in order to deliberate and come to a conclusion? I'll just quickly go down the list of board members. Mr. DuPont. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? I can. So I do wonder, you know, I don't have any specific issues that I need to have more information on, but I do think that, and you probably have already asked this question, as long as Ms. Lenema and Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Krauss and Nova and all of the people who are involved on our side of things feel that they have the information that they've needed to make recommendations to us. I feel confident at that point that we're okay. I just don't know that we know that for a certainty. So perhaps they should be canvassed again to make sure that there's nothing outstanding that they say. Thank you for that. I will come back to that. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. DuPont just said. I don't think it's ever perfect. And we can keep going on this hearing for a long time. And every time we have a hearing, we will discover something else that we wish we knew. At some point it has to come to an end. And I think that the way in which Mr. DuPont suggests is a good way of thinking about it. Thank you. Mr. Mills. I think Mr. Attorney Anise brought up an interesting point today that Mr. Myrack may be amenable to negotiations. I hate to forestall these proceedings, but I do believe... Hope we lost your audio. Kevin, I'm sorry, we lost your audio, I think. Oh, I get to say. Well, Kevin, I apologize. We lost everything up until you said that's all I have to say. I apologize. I'm down to Plymouth and sometimes our signal's a little weak. That's okay. What I was saying is Mr. Anise, the attorney in EC, has brought up a very, what I think is an important salient point, that Mr. Myrack may be amenable to moving the pole onto his property, which alleviates a major constriction on that roadway. I hate to continue these proceedings any longer than necessary, but it could short-circuit his possible lawsuits, which would be extending the whole project. Is there any way we can assert whether Mr. Myrack would be amenable to this situation? Well, certainly. So that would be Mr. Ed Myrack, who is not on the call, and I don't believe anyone representing him is on the call at this time. He is not at that point yet. Okay. Is there anybody who can initiate a discussion with him to see if he is amenable and report back to the board, seeing a short amount of time? We have initiated discussions with him, and he's gonna get back to us, and it's a continuing dialogue. Thank you, Mary. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mills. Any further, Mr. Mills? No, I'll set. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Ford? No, I think I'm in agreement with Mr. Dupont and Mr. Hanlon about the approach. I think I have everything I need, as long as our consultants do. Perfect, thank you. And Mr. Revillac? Mr. Chair, I concur with Mr. Dupont, Hanlon, and Ford. Fantastic. Thank you all. Then with that, I will really reach out, start with Ms. Krauss, if there's anything you feel that you might need additional information on in order to properly inform the board? From an environmental standpoint, and Bill McGrath, he's no longer on the call, but from a civil site design standpoint, we had enough information to provide the board with comments related to the design and whether typical engineering practices as well as environmental health and conditions that would be required to protect the environment. So I think we're all set. Perfect, thank you. Marty Novarty, did you have anything further? Mr. Chair, no, I don't have anything further. I didn't follow the whole process as closely as Laura Krauss, but I do know that the applicant did address our comments from the initial review. Revised the plan, added some mitigation measures relative to Ryderbrook plantings. Any environmental regulatory issue that we rose or had comments on, they addressed to our satisfaction. And the Conservation Commission and Beta worked on the draft conditions together with the Conservation Commission ultimately agreeing to the draft conditions. So at this point, we don't have anything further. Do you know if there's anything in regards to the traffic side? I believe that they sort of wrapped everything up much earlier. Then maybe Laura can respond. Absolutely, so yes, that's correct. At the end of the traffic review, all of the comments had been addressed and some traffic related conditions were recommended. Yep, but other than that, the review was complete and then all of the comments had been addressed. Perfect, thank you very much. Emily Sullivan, is there anything further from the Conservation Commission side? And I know that their chair is unavailable to be here this evening. I know that the commission feels like all comments were addressed. They read everything thoroughly and the commission wants to read it again. It's appreciation that the applicant was so responsive to additional information requests and then to some recommendations for minor changes. So thank you. Thank you. And then Kelly Lanema, is there anything else from the Planning Department's perspective? No, nor have I heard from any other departments to whom I've reached out about any other outstanding issues that feel like the applicant has been responsive to everything that's been addressed, including from the Transportation Advisory Committee. Perfect, thank you. So Mr. Havarty, with all that in mind, it sounds like the board has what it needs to render its decision. I believe that it does, Mr. Chairman, at least to enter into its deliberation process. What is the technical way for us to do that? You just vote to close the public hearing and then you'd have to set a date for a public deliberation session. Okay, perfect. So may I have a motion to that effect? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board close the public hearing on this case. I'm sure there'll be a second motion after that to schedule a deliberation. Do I have a second on that motion? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Havarty, with that, should this vote be limited to the five voting members or can it still be the full vote of the board? I mean, anyone that's on the board can vote. Ultimately, it's whoever are the five voting members whose votes will actually count. Okay, with that in mind then, I'll do a roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So the public hearing period for, the cover has been confirmed for 1165 Armistice Avenue is now closed. The board now needs to schedule its deliberations to discuss the draft decision. Next week, on Tuesday, we have a continuation of Gordek Place and then, regrettably, I'm away. I wanted to propose to the board that we meet again online on Tuesday, August 24th. That's a date that is available. Yes. I think we're already meeting that day, right? Yeah, so I think that that, I had set this date, I put this date on the calendar for this purpose. So I just wanted to Got it. And that, if we were unable to complete our deliberations on the 24th, that we could then extend to Thursday, September 2nd that date is available to everyone. Perfect. So by statute, we have 40 days from this date. So that 40-day date is currently Saturday, September 4th. So hopefully we can close things by September 2nd and be closed and complete. But if the board is still in deliberations, we'll have to reach out to the applicant and request an extension for deliberations. But I'm hopeful at this stage that we will, that will not be required. So with that in mind, I have a motion to, I guess at this point, are we continuing or are we beginning discussions? You just need a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. You've already moved to continue. You've set your date for the deliberation but you're ready to adjourn. Okay, we haven't voted on those dates so I just want to make. Oh, okay. We should probably vote on that. So may I have a motion to continue until Tuesday, August 24th at 7.30 p.m. I guess that's what we'll be looking for. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just take that a little bit differently because it's not continuing the hearing, right? I move there since the deliberation stage of the case on August the 24th, beginning at 7.30 p.m. And I think that, although we haven't on lines that we'll do it again if we need to on the second, it would probably be more orderly to make that motion on the 24th. In agreement. May I have a second on that? Second. Thank you, Mr. Metals. I have a vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Metals. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And chair votes aye. So we will begin our public deliberations on August 24th at 7.30 p.m. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Before we go, and it's still only 9.22, but I think that at this point it's worth it for us to thank both the applicants for being cooperative, but I wanted to focus particularly on the extraordinary degree of cooperation and coordination that beta has done with town staff and how responsive they've been. We saw it just tonight with Emily leaving the meeting and going to dig up information that we needed before it all began. I think that the process that we've had here has been exemplary and that both town staff and beta deserve a great deal of thanks from the commission for the efficient and effective way that they've participated in this process. Absolutely. Yes, thank you very much, all of you. No, it's a greater appreciation to all of you. I know it's been a very strange way to conduct a series of hearings. There are so many of you who I, you know, we all know very well online who we've never actually met in person, which is very odd, but really appreciate the way everyone has assisted this board and has really helped to craft what hopefully will be a very positive decision for the town, for the applicant and for the neighbors in that we can address their concerns appropriately in our final decision. Okay, so I just wanted to bring up our calendar really quick, which we've been doing recently, just to make sure everyone's aware what's coming up next. So today was a continuation of 1165R, so that's complete now. And so we closed before the August 2nd deadline for closing the public hearings. So we're good there. Tuesday, August 3rd, we have a continuation of floor and dig place schedule. Tuesday, August 24th at 730, that is no longer proposed. It is now scheduled with the possibility of extension on September 2nd, September 4th is the 40 day close on the deliberation period. And then on Thursday, September 9th is the further continuation of floor and dig place. September 14th, we have a hearing schedule for 2020, a Lafayette Street, and it was a new hearing. And then, but a regular hearing, not a conference private hearing. And Friday, September 17th is currently the final possible closed date for thorn-dike place without an extension. Just make sure everyone has those in their calendars. Everybody's all set with those. And then with that, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. DuPont. Quick roll call vote, Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. The chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you also very much for all your assistance tonight and over the last year. It's been extremely helpful. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night, everybody. Good night. Good night, everyone.