 Hello, my name is Darcy Devney, Chair, Arlington Commission on Disability, C-O-D. That's the first of many acronyms you'll be hearing tonight. Let's discuss Warrant Article 48, Zoning Bylaw Amendment, Americans with Disability Act, ADA, and Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, MAAB, Standards in Administration and Enforcement. First, please note that this bylaw change will not affect your ability to build or renovate your home because accessibility regulations do not apply to private homes. When a developer applies for a special permit, the Arlington Redevelopment Board, ARB, is responsible for the Environmental Design Review, EDR. There are many, many meetings lasting many hours for each project. During the EDR period, the Planning Department and the ARB use their collective experiences and knowledge to analyze the plans with the architects and developers and negotiate design changes. There are 12 separate standards of review used during the EDR. Did you notice what is conspicuously missing? Accessibility. Let me give you an example of why this is troubling. Last fall, we were concerned about serious access issues with a project in Arlington Heights. C-O-D volunteers listed pages of specific accessibility violations and made many detailed diagrams of the entire entrance, where you can see that the passenger drop-off zone was truly a drop-off. Yet, the architect and developer were not concerned. The developer's lawyer wrote, though my client will meet with the commission as a courtesy, he will do so after the architectural plans are more complete and the building inspector, who makes the ultimate determination as to whether the plans comply with the building code and AAB has completed his review. Oh yes, the building inspector is licensed to do exactly that, a thorough review of the applicable federal and state accessibility regulations. That entire process is after the EDR negotiations and changes, after the ARB or ZBA special permit has been issued. But of course, it's easier and less expensive to make changes on paper than in stone. We certainly don't expect the ARB to take responsibility for all compliance with MAAB and ADA regulations. During the ARB negotiation process is obviously a good time for accessibility issues to be highlighted and fixed. While we're not ADA professionals, we can help by sharing our lived experiences. Otherwise, it's not important enough to the developer until the building inspector's review finds and flags an issue. At that point, the developer can apply for a variance from the MAAB. Then and only then the COD must be notified, but we have only 14 days to look at the plans, research the applicable laws and advise the MAAB. Also, the MAAB is not required to agree with the commission's decision. It's easier to ask forgiveness instead of permission. Once that special permit has been granted, the commission asking for changes, even if required by ADA or MAAB, is an uphill battle. In these cases, there is a regrettable tendency for people to scapegoat people with disabilities as the frivolous reason for delay in permitting or occupancy and increased cost for changes and change order fees. Developers can ask for and be granted a variance or waiver on the basis of economic burden. Sadly, the ADA is mainly enforced by litigation after the building has somehow denied access to someone with disabilities. That is not particularly useful or timely. But aren't developers already legally required to follow the ADA laws? Sure, but as you can see from our example, that that could be problematic. One of the advantages of passing this bylaw is that it reminds developers right upfront that complying with accessibility regulations is part and parcel of the permit conditions. In conclusion, the commission on disabilities proposed this common sense, warrant article 48, because we want to be proactive during the development process. We hope to collaborate with the ARB and architects to ensure that projects achieve accessibility.