 734 p.m. It is Thursday, May 13th, 2021. Call this meeting of the zoning board of appeals to order. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the only concerning board of appeals. I'd like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger Dupont, Andrew Candlen, Kevin Mills, Aaron Ford, and Stephen Reddick. Thank you. Mr. O'Rourke is unfortunately not available this evening. On behalf of the town, Rick Valerelli will be joining us later on. Vincent Lee is here to help us out. And Jennifer Raiton is here from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Here. Thank you so much for joining us. Outside consultants, we have Paul Havarty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you. And Marty Nova, on behalf of Beta Group. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Nice to see you. Several members of your staff are here. Yes, I'm Bill McGrath and Greg Lucas. Perfect. Hello. Good evening. And then on behalf of the applicant, Stephanie Keeper. Good evening. Good to see you. And there's a. And we have, I think the full suite here. So we have John Hessian, Gwen Noyes, and Art Clipfell, of course. We have Scott Thornton, and then we have, I think, I'm not certain I see him yet, but Scott Blasek from Bruce Hamilton. Okay. Should be. And Bob Angler. Sorry. I thought I saw Bob, yeah. Maybe I haven't seen Scott yet. Blasek. Oh, there he is. Hello, yep. And I'm not certain, but is Kyle joining this evening as well, or just you, Scott? You're on me. Kyle is here as well. No, perfect. Okay. And Kyle, Bill. Thank you. Good evening. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th, 2020. The order is to spend 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. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access supported 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 is convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants 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 that you 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. As chair, I reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting a notably meeting. The item, let a few people in. So turning to the comprehensive permit hearing the Thorndike Place, like reviews and ground rules for protecting clear conduct of tonight's business. So at the April 20th hearing, the applicant requested additional time for a pair of design drawings showing duplex buildings on Dorothy Road, the multi-family building behind for public review. The revised drawings were submitted on Monday, May 10th and posted to the agenda for this meeting. This evening's discussion will focus on this new proposal from the applicant. We'll open with a presentation by the applicant followed by questions from the board. After the board members, after the board members of the public will be invited to provide their questions and comments. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Ms. Kiefer. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. As the chairman just stated at the last hearing, the board had asked the applicant to consider a design that would reintroduce duplex units along Dorothy Road that had been part of the original project proposal. And so we kind of went back, took a serious look at things. And what we have created is a revised concept that we're pleased to present to the board this evening. And so the team is gonna present it more, but I'm just going to give a quick overview of the revised concept. And we're excited about this. We think that it's consistent with a lot of the feedback that we heard from the board and from the public over the past months. And we've taken that seriously in providing this concept that we're presenting this evening. And so with that being said, I just wanted to highlight a few points and then we'll get into how it plays out on the site. You can get a view of it. But as the board requested, we went back and looked to see whether the six townhomes could be reintroduced along Dorothy Road. And what we are proposing is to reintroduce those townhomes and likewise consistent with comments that had been made, they would be ownership units. So they would still be subject to 40B. So what that means is of the six duplex buildings, 12 units, 25% of those would be ownership to persons at low and moderate income levels. And those would be subject to as we discussed before, a deed writer that continues on that portability into the future. And then the changes then that kind of like impart and parcel flowed from that was the apartment building that we had on the project site. As you recall that we had those three tabs that were right on Dorothy Road. So we would need to pull that farther back from Dorothy Road obviously to make room for the townhomes. And doing that, we also took into account what other improvements can we make or how other, in what other ways can we address what we've been hearing in these public hearings. And so we have reduced the size of the building. So the footprint of the building has been reduced. And likewise, in addition to pulling it back from Dorothy Road, it's stepped back further in certain places. So the closest portion of the apartment building part of the project to Dorothy Road is about 103 feet. And then back from there, you have another kind of the Western portion swings back even farther, 145 feet. And there's a little tab that's even 171 feet from Dorothy Road. And just to give the board some sort of context as to what those numbers mean, a lot of times a standard length is 100 feet. So we're talking, it's almost like a back lot, if you will. And then part and parcel with that, the size, the footprint of the building is reduced, but also we're proposing a different program for it. So it would be senior housing and that would be assisted and independent living, a mix. 126 units total. And as I pointed out, I think in my cover letter with the concept plans that we submitted, that's consistent with master plan, page 88 is master plan that referenced the need for the aging population of Arlington and that there would be a shortage in the future of that. And we think that addresses it specifically two ways. One, by keeping it a rental, you have the ability for Arlington residents to somewhat age in place. So you have somebody coming into an independent living and then as their needs progress in years to come, they may need to move to the assisted living side. And so they stay within the same community, they keep that community, not only to their family in the Arlington area, but within the community of an assisted living facility, independent living facility. And I'm sure a lot of us have family members that are in these and it is important to keep that community as people age. And then in addition to providing that need, the revised program also responds to the concerns about the amount of parking on the site. Assistant and independent living tends to generate less traffic and therefore the needs for parking are greatly reduced. And so consistent with, and Scott Thornton's here to explain how the IT parking scenario works out, but the overall parking count would be 96 units, 86 of which are underground, or maybe 95, maybe off by one, 95 or 96. 85 within the surface parking or within the garage parking and then only 10 surface parking spaces. So it greatly reduces that. And another benefit of reducing the impervious surface is also the Western side of the property, it becomes available open space. So what we had that Western surface lot and the children's play lot, that would now be available for green open space, gardens, lawns, that type of things. And I think that I'm probably getting into too much detail that will be helpful for you to look at them with the plans being shown, but what I'm going to do right now is I'm gonna ask Scott if he could just pull up. We had provided kind of a progression plan or a progression chart. So the board could see how Thornton Place has kind of changed in the course of these public hearings. And I think it's helpful before we get into the plan. So Scott Blasek, if he could be allowed to share his screen. Ben, can you go ahead and do that? I'm just, Mr. Chairman, I'm just waiting for the, I think someone's probably doing it disabling the, so that I can share my screen. Right now the host has disabled it. Okay. Okay. This is usually the part that Rick takes care of. Yeah, Scott, if I make you temporarily a co-host, can you do that? Sure. All right. Whatever you do, don't log off. Yes, well, it's only the co-host. So yeah, we won't do that. I'll take it very, very seriously. We accidentally had that happen one night, so. Okay. So is everyone seeing, Stephanie, are you seeing what you want to see right now? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. So just to kind of walk the board through the submittal, it has basically like six kind of metrics on the side. And then the first column, the original proposal, that's what had been presented with the original application and had been part of the program through, you know, like mid-2020. And then the submittal column is, when it was revised for multifamily only, and it was originally 176, and we had recently paired that down to 172. And so the concept plan that we're presenting this evening is the column on the far right. So just to walk the board through, in terms of unit size, the Thorn Dyke Place had started out at 219 total units, 12 of them were going to be the duplexes on Dorothy Road with 207 multifamily apartment building behind that. And then the revised project that we've been reviewing since fall of 2020, roughly, was pared down to just the multifamily. And it was ultimately reduced down to 172. Now the current proposals that we're presenting this evening, it's a total of 138 units. 12 of those would be the duplex style front and back door through the road, so six buildings. And behind it, 126 unit senior living assisted independent with four buildings. In terms of affordability, the percentage 25% affordability remains the same. The difference now is that, obviously, from the 172 multifamily project is that within the affordability, there will be 25% affordability of ownership units. So that will be three ownership units. And then for the assisted living, that's 32 for the senior living. One of the largest changes is the amount of parking that would be provided for the projects. Originally, when we had the townhouses and the larger, much larger multifamily building, there was 309 parking spaces and 178 of those were garage, 131 surface. The last iteration of the plan that we've been discussing had 178 garage and 15 surface. And then the plan that's being presented this evening is a total of 96 parking spaces, 86 garage and 10 surface parking spaces. The layout of the project, again, as I said, the original project, had those townhomes on Dorothy and then it had the two-winged multifamily building. The 172 unit just had those three front tabs going towards Dorothy. The long spine, that was about 415 feet in length. And then some tabs going off to the rear. And the closest portion of that multifamily building was 25 feet off of Dorothy Road. Here, with the reintroduction in the plan we're presenting this evening, we see those duplexed homes come back in. They're right on Dorothy Road. They present that neighborhood feel that we've heard was important to the board and to the neighbors. And then in addition to providing that feel, they also help provide a buffer for the senior living apartment building that's gonna be behind that. And that apartment building has been farther back off of Dorothy Road. So not only do we have now a buffer, but we also have a reduced distance from the apartment building, which helps with the massing and scale. And then in terms of groundwater and floodplain design, the garage in the 172 multifamily was at elevation 283 in the first floor at elevation 13. And I think that John will probably walk you through this, but here we have the garage level. We raised it up, so it's gonna be at elevation six. So it's gonna be above the water table sideally. And the first floor elevation for the senior living is gonna be at elevation 16. The Duplex Town Homes closer to Dorothy Road, they're gonna be at elevation 12. And there is gonna be no underground garage parking. Instead, as you'll see on the plans, there's just driveway, and then there's a car park between the two. And then lastly, just the open space amenities and as I mentioned before, the prior design had the children's play lot and then it had those courtyards in the rear and then a courtyard in the front. Here, the revised design because the footprint of the senior living is smaller and the parking requirements are much reduced. We have the ability to take and just really make that whole western side really nice open space. We can have gardens. We're presenting concepts here as to what is possible, but we anticipate gardens, lawn, benches. And then we also have a courtyard to the rear of the building. But likewise, even when you enter the property and you're going into the senior living with the drop-off area, it's gonna be tree-lined. So it's gonna be like a little boulevard for guests and visitors to drop-off family or to visit them. The plan has much more open space amenities than the prior design had. So with that said, I am going to turn this over now to I think Gwen who is going to present kind of the overall with a visual of a sketch plan of what we have, what we're proposing here this evening. And Gwen, are you there? He's there, she's on mute. Oh, can you hear me? We can. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you very much for your time this evening. And we're very pleased to be bringing you a proposal that is responding as Stephanie has mentioned to the requests that we've heard recently. I'm going to take you on a little tour of the site plan. This is a bird's-eye view starting along Dorothy Road. And as you can see, there are six townhouses that are or duplexes there. You can also see that the size of these houses is actually smaller than the houses across the street. We don't have pictures here of that of them, but if you compare the size of the square of the duplexes then you'll see that they are very much in appropriate scale, even smaller. Each of the townhouses has a little yard in front of the building, they're homes. We have driveways that allow access to a carport or garage. We haven't decided exactly about that, but there's room for one car in the garage and one car on the driveway. And the elevation of this driveway is 11 feet. So it's not in danger of flooding. The car, let's see, there's a bit of a backyard that's also on the side where the assisted living is, but it's a private little backyard. And actually there's a roof deck also. So we're trying to give some outside amenity to all these townhouses. They're built to have three bedrooms plus a den. And they probably will have a garage, a basement, but it's not necessarily the whole house and it certainly is not vulnerable for flooding because there would be no way into it. There would be below like 12 feet, 12 foot elevation. So then what I'm gonna do is take you down Dorothy Road to the entrance of where the new project would be, the assisted living. As you can see, we are showing a buffer planting area between the property line and the house next door. So there'd be good room for a screen there. And as Stephanie mentioned, this area was originally or in the last plan designated to be a parking area and there was gonna be a playground there also. So what we're showing here is sort of a variety of uses that could be put in and this is not necessarily the end plan, but I just wanted to indicate that there could be little garden plots that people I know elders like to grow with some veggies and flowers and so on. It could be a lawn that I imagine family gatherings in the summer could be out there. There's a little gazebo idea there just to sort of think about the things that would be pleasant. The sun would be going down in the west. So this is a sunny and you could be there out there for sunsets and family gatherings. And then there is also a place where there could be just a quiet flower garden kind of meditative space too. We're showing by the way four parking spaces that are adjacent to this so that if someone wanted to meet their family member in the garden rather than having come all the way to the entry that's possibility too. So continuing from the driveway, entry drive, the left turn into the sort of LA, the tree line drive that would go up to the entry of the facility is this is where the entry where be the cursors on the entry. There is guest parking on the way in and this drawing is showing an angle but I've been reminded by our skillful engineer John that it would be much better to have it be just 90 degree parking just then you can go in either going in or out any direction. This is also where deliveries and any kind of move in movers or for that matter trash removal all that would be off to the side. So going back out the drive to down to the entry to the garage this is as Stephanie pointed out now at elevation six and we would be needing to house fewer cars. We have I think it was 86 cars that would need to go into the garage so that would include staff as well as residents and it would be secure obviously and it's at a good elevation at this point. As this is a bird's eye view we have just a little indication that there could be solar panels on the roof as well as it can be a blue roof with water retention. This is depending upon our studies and there would be obviously a few things like the compressors for the peak pumps. All this is a reminder that this would be a very energy efficient green building probably all electric and that's something that we pay a particular amount of attention to. Okay, going out of the garage onto the fire is a fire road and walking path. The fire road you will note is in the same place as it was in the earlier design. The footprint for the building is largely the same as there's just minor changes but in regard to all the wetland considerations and aura and setbacks for floodplain and so on there are very minimal tweaks that have happened so we don't want to go back and do a lot of re-engineering but this path will allow a nice walk around the building as well as be a fire road. And I'm going to point out that we have a note on the bottom of the drawing saying woodland restoration. The property line has not been drawn yet but the idea is that the very first attention to re-restoration of the landscape so that it includes native planting and there's a whole kind of demonstration cleanup that could be done along with the early development of the property with the optimistic notion that this will actually happen. Let's see. I think just to mention that that whole aspect of the plan is something that we really look forward to participating in some negotiations on how best to restore the land. So I think there's something else that if there's anything else that I'm forgetting Stephanie will remind me. And with that, I'm going to suggest we go to the next slide which shows the, what happens with all this work that has gone on. We show that the scale of the new town duplex buildings are similar to what is going on across the street and they function as screens to the building behind. We would be planting trees along the street and a screen between our neighbor and our building. If this were to happen, we would be negotiating, working out some favorable ways for either fences or anything with the neighbors on either end of the property. So this is showing the streetscape and I'm told that the width of the road is precisely what's on the plans for Arlington. It's an accurate drawing and shows some trees, the new tree plant trees along the street and this is a seven year growth. We would not be putting in large trees at the very beginning but they would grow shortly. And we have a slight variation in the plans between the duplexes so that there's, it isn't like exact same soldiers going down the road. So I think with this, Scott Velasic was going to continue. Oh, it's you? Okay, Scott, Velasic and Arthur are going to, Arthur Clipfield is going to, two of them are going to proceed with the following drawings. So. So Scott, why don't you start off? Thank you everybody for joining. Sure. So thank you, Gwen. Thank you, Gwen. I think that was a really good overview of the site plan as Gwen was just mentioning the townhouses, along the road here who really are making an effort to use residential forms, residential vocabulary that will fit into the neighborhood, trying to break up the facades with, as you can see here, various trims, overhangs, administration, and different color accent sightings so that these units, as Gwen was saying, won't appear very repetitive, although the units inside, we imagine the floor plans will be very similar as duplexes. You can see the way we're treating the landscaping here, even though it is difficult to see, as Gwen was mentioning, there is quite a bit of landscaping along the road, which will further help to kind of give a nice free escape presentation. And as well, you can see how plantings along the property lines here will further serve to screen the four-story building behind. So with that being said, was there anything that you wanted to add on this particular? Well, you might just mention that the townhouses themselves are sort of typical in the neighborhood two-and-a-half stories. There's one bedroom upstairs and I'm not two bedrooms in a study on the second floor and I'm letting down a kitchen on the first floor. And I guess obviously each of the duplexes, so each building that we're seeing there has two separate units and two completely separate entrances. Yep. Yeah, good point. So if we kind of zoom in on one here, you can imagine there's a dividing wall pretty much down the middle here. And as Gwen was mentioning in her presentation, here's just a glimpse of the back deck, which actually happens on the third level. So that's a nice outdoor amenity for. You can point out the actual entrance there to the each unit's little stairway. Sure. We really zoom in. The main entrance is right here with a little bit of an overhang, kind of on the side, similar to some of the other duplexes that are along Dorothy Road now. Okay, so the next slide that we have, I'll try to go through these fairly quickly. I think the perspective tells most of the story, but we felt it was important to show this slide, which is really at the top here, a two dimensional, straight on view of the six townhouses. You can see fated, in the background, would be the multi-family, or excuse me, the senior apartment building. And as Stephanie mentioned, that is set back from the road and screened by the townhouses. Not only the townhouses, the duplexes themselves, but the landscaping that goes along with them. And here we're giving you at the bottom a little bit more of an enlarged view so that you can get a better sense of some of the features that Gwen was mentioning. For example, two side by side here, you can see how the architecture is varied on the north facade base in Dorothy Road. You can see what's shown here as carports. As Gwen mentioned, there could possibly be the option to enclose those as garages, but in this view, they're shown as open on the front and open on the back, so they'd be open-air carports. The landscaping that's in front of each unit would not only be along Dorothy Road, as was shown on the site plan, but also dividing so that each of these yards will have, you know, more or less a private front yard that belongs to that particular unit. Art, anything to add on this slide? No, I think that was good, Scott, thank you. Okay, the next slide we have is just an individual elevation of each duplex. Just to give you an idea of some of the sitings that we're proposing. So it's a little bit more of a technical drawing, but quickly to review, I think some of the materials would be, you know, cementitious siding or similar types of siding that would be designed to be low or no maintenance. Again, using different colors and different textures and patterns to break up the facade so that it's not so repetitive. So we have what we're calling the duplex A elevation here and the variation on that, which would be an option B. And we'd be mixing these up as you saw in the perspective and maybe even mirror imaging some of them as they continue along Dorothy Road. So the next slide we have is a section, a site section. So to orient folks here, this is Dorothy Road here. I'll zoom in in a minute here so that you can see, but just to give you the overall view, this would be a house across the street from our development, Dorothy Road here. This is a townhouse, so excuse me, duplex building here. As Stephanie was mentioning, this portion of the building, this is taken where this solid green portion of the senior building is 103 feet from the road. So 20 feet for the setback here, 40 feet here and 43 feet here. That's to the closest point. It's actually, for this point back is 145 feet. So in this view, if I zoom in a little bit more here, you can see we're cutting a section as if we're slicing through Dorothy Road and we're looking toward the east. So as Gwen mentioned in her presentation, this right here is actually the entrance to the four story building. So you would pull up in that kind of turnaround area that Gwen had showed you. And this would be probably some sort of canopy here with the main entrance. There'd be then some area of some amount of landscaping here sloping down to the backyards of the duplex units to give them a little outdoor backyard space as Gwen was mentioning. And then another aspect of this diagram is you can see out at Dorothy Road, the scale figures here in the car are provided so that you can see if someone was kind of walking along Dorothy Road and looking up at a point where they're standing actually in front of one of these duplexes, that duplex would completely shielding the four story building from view. So the only places really you'd be seeing the four story building is at a distance when you're of course looking between these duplex buildings. So again, the idea here is that the four story portion of the building, as Gwen had mentioned, the tabs that came out toward Dorothy Road have been removed in this scheme. And therefore the four story portion of the building, if you can picture this point right here is much further back in this scheme. I believe the building went to the four story portion of the building in the previous scheme, started much closer to Dorothy Road. So that's another aspect of this design that you can see in this site section diagram. I think Scott, there's a little bit further back. The nearest light green is 103 feet. That's correct. The light green is back, I don't know, I'm fair, but 145. 145. 141. So that's, I think you've got those dimensions going to plan further on this presentation, Scott. Yes. Yep, that's true. So we can point those out and it will probably will make a lot more sense once we get to that slide. We'll be able to review those again in the plan view. So again, just to review some other aspects that Gwen had covered, here's the garage level raised up from essentially the whole building has been picked up to raise the garage level from the 2.83 to elevation six. Above that is four stories of residential above that. On the townhouse here, you can see what art was describing, two full floors of living space and then a third level, which is kind of maybe you can consider it a half story. It's not a full story up there, but there is enough room to have living space and bedroom up on that third floor. Option for basements below the townhouses, excuse me, I keep saying townhouse, I'm meaning to say duplex. As Gwen had mentioned, these would be optional and most likely not living space, just utilize for storage. So with that being said, I went into a lot of detail on that slide. The next slide that we have is a similar section. This is cut at a point where again, the solid green is indicating I'm actually slicing through the building. This is at the point where the building is 103 feet from Dorothy Road and you see the similar, this is the style B townhouse and you can see that similar effect with the sight line from Dorothy Road. All right, anything to add on those sections? I think that's good, so. Okay, great. So this brings us to the ground floor plan and would you like to describe this or you want to go on? I think this is obviously just a diagram. Gwen and I both done two or three different assisted living buildings and independent living buildings. One in Dorchester and one in Cambridge. We were developer and architect. And so what we have here is a diagram. The light color is, which could be rearranged. It's kind of the entry level stuff, different offices and there's a workout room and an extra comma, which is on the balcony. The yellow, I think is one of the most interesting things. It's a 62 foot by 13 foot porch. I spent some time in Michigan growing up and I always was fascinated by the Mackinac Island porch. It's the biggest porch in the world, suppose nobody knows that. But anyhow, it's a magnificent porch. And I kind of had that in mind as we added this. It's the south side, sunny side. And I think it would be much enjoyed. And one other thing, the light green, just as a diagram again, is the support space. We're sitting on the one side would be a kitchen and a dining area next to the porch. So that would be the assistant living side. The other side, the independent living side might be a car groom and things like that. Officers specialize in independent living. But it's not yet designed. Now we have, one of the facilities we designed years ago, going to Maine, was ordered out and run by William Bob Larkin and very, very great manager. And he's moved on to higher levels now and operates a business, senior living businesses. And he's not necessarily designated here yet by any means as you know, we're just starting. But he's been a consultant on this. And one of the things about laying these out is you need somebody with some real expertise to tell you how to do that. And we'd be looking to Bob to help us on that. And he's indicated a willingness to do that. And we certainly think he has a skill set to make a wonderful community. Anything to add to that Scott? No, great job walking through that. I think one thing maybe I should mention is so it's to come up here is that the delivery would be just to the upper side there. I think. And I guess when I mentioned that it would be a truck dock. And you can see how that's next to a trash room. And that would be also a delivery area. We don't have that very well detailed yet, but there'd be a separate room there for delivery of groceries and things like that that would then be difficult in the kitchen. So it's not yet, you know, taken apart. Big mail room, big lobby. Yep, excellent. So ready to move on to the garage plan? If I could just jump in with one quick point, Mark, that you might want to point out. So you see the footprint is 32,708 square feet. And maybe you could just give our information as to how we've determined 126 units, how that's calculated. Yeah, we can consult with Bob Arkin on this. And it turns out that the number of residential units in a multi-family building is approximately the same as the number of units in a independent living and assisted living facility. And that's because the units are smaller, but the common areas are larger. And the guidelines in the industry are just that, that if you had 126 residential units laid out, one in two bedrooms, that that's about the same number of assisted living and independent living units that you'd have in the same floor space. So that's how we arrived at the 126 units. This isn't laid out in detail yet, as you can see, but we're very confident in Bob's development of those numbers. So there'd be studio units, there'd be one bedroom units in the assisted living side, and there'd be mainly ones and occasional twos in the independent living side. And there could be some memory units here. That's another thing that's part of Bob's program. And they tend to be the same size with the assisted living. And again, we've worked on the, as the designer of two of these facilities. And so I feel that it's kind of very interesting to go back and do that. So we just move forward. Might move in. Might move in, yeah. I don't know. So I think it's good Scott, let's go. Okay, very good. So that brings us to the plan of the garage level. As I think both Stephanie and Gwen mentioned, there are 86 parking spaces inside the garage, 10 surface spaces that are shown on the site plan, as Gwen had pointed out for a total of 96 spaces. As Gwen mentioned, there's a main entrance to the garage here for vehicles. And very similar, most other aspects of this to the previous plan, where there's of course access to elevators and circulation. There's probably some, some mechanical space down here, you know, and considerations for accessible parking placed as close as possible to the, to the elevators and circulation spaces. And electric charging. And electric vehicle charging stations, thank you Gwen. And I think that in the last slide we have to show you is the, you know, civil or engineered version of the site plan. And I think the only thing I'll say about this would be the, to review the figures that Stephanie had kind of started off with. So from Dorothy Road, from the property line, these are the distances. So 103 feet to the closest part of the four-story building, 145 feet toward the West End where it steps back. And this is where that section was taken that I was showing you. This again is the main entrance to the building. And then 171 feet, as Art had mentioned, is this Eastern tab that comes off at the East End. So I think that's all I wanted to say. Art and Gwen, is there anything else you wanted to add? We're in John's territory right now. That's great. Okay, well, you know, thanks Scott and Gwen and thank you to the, to the board again for having us back tonight. I would say that I had the easy job this time around. What I'm going to walk through is what Gwen did with her sketch site plan and what Scott and Art and Kyle did with the architectural changes at the adding in the townhomes. It was really my job to put together this plan to just proof it so that we could be certain that it fit, it worked dimensionally, you know, the setbacks and some of the setbacks that Scott has just outlined that are highlighted in red on this plan. So, and Gwen mentioned this. So the, Scott, if you could with your cursor there, the emergency vehicle access road and pedestrian path that surrounds the building on three sides, the East, South and West sides. We really locked that in. That's the exact same location it was shown on the 172 unit, you know, single building multi-family. So we really locked that in is really a limit of work and tried to keep or not tried, you know, kept this revised development program within that same envelope as, you know, to not really encroach any closer to any of the wetlands or buffer or aura. So with that kind of as a backdrop, that was a, you know, very successful accomplishment to fit this program in kind of meeting matter or using that as a constraint. And just a few things that I did want to highlight though, I do want to highlight that this plan and the 172 unit plan that preceded this, that dated back to November, has no work proposed in wetlands, either ordering vegetated wetlands or isolated vegetated wetlands. And I just wanted to make that point clear. It's been discussed that this project is filling wetlands or there's work in the wetlands. So I just, this project has no or, you know, the 172 unit or this revised version have proposed there's no work within BVW or IVW. Again, because we kept the limit of work to the original location of the emergency vehicle access drive, there's no additional permanent improvements proposed within the 100 foot buffer or the 100 foot aura under the Arlington wetlands bylaw. Scott, if you could move your cursor to where the aura goes up into the, yeah, right there. So that we had that same limited portion of the building proposed in the 172 unit proposal and the emergency access drive in that portion of the aura. And then when we reconfirmed or confirmed the existence of the isolated vegetated wetlands on the east side, the emergency vehicle access does, so right there, right there, yep. The portion of the access is in the outer limits of the aura, but that's consistent with the previous proposal. While we're discussing the aura, there's no work at all proposed in the 25 foot no disturb area zone to the, or to the BVW and IVW. And there's only a limited amount of work proposed with actually within 50 feet of the BVW and that's associated with, we discussed that at the last hearing associated with the compensatory flood storage design to be able to make that hydraulic connection. We do have in full disclosure, we have some additional flood clean impact with this revised proposal and right there, Scott, if you could move your cursor directly north. What we did or what Scott and I did was the main, the northerly east-west spine, just above Scott's cursor there, that spine of the building moved back about 26 feet or moved to the south about 26 feet, which resulted in 544 cubic feet of additional flood plain impact that Scott's kind of outlining there. So it's 544 cubic feet or in footprint, it's about 600 square feet or, you know, two, as Stephanie said the other day, two good-sized living rooms, 15 by 20 or 15, yeah, 15 by 20 living rooms. So we do have that, but we have been able to expand our proposed compensatory storage areas to still provide a two-to-one compensatory storage mitigation volume. You know, another point I wanted to raise and have to go back, you know, the 172-unit multi-family building, it had the footprint of the building, but the footprint of the garage, if folks remember, it actually extended beyond the footprint of the residential portion of the building. The three courtyards, the two in the front and the one in the rear, so west corner, were all courtyards over the garage, so essentially impervious areas. With, in this plan, the garage footprint is limited to the footprint of the senior living building. So anything on this site plan that you see that's not either a driveway or parking spaces or shaded in gray, which is the senior living building and the duplex buildings is, as Gwen, like to say, it's real dirt. It's pervious areas, so there's a significant reduction in the total impervious surface areas with this revised development program, which, you know, with the reduction in the density and the reduction in the impervious area, it really opens up a lot of flexibility and a lot of opportunity to look more creatively or provides more options for the stormwater management design. Stormwater management, again, with the reduction in impervious area, is not gonna be as big of a challenge as it was on the 172 unit proposal. And we demonstrated, and with Beta's peer review, that we were able to accomplish that. So with this plan, there's a lot more flexibility and opportunity to do some different things. And the last thing I wanted to mention on that is also by raising the senior living building, you know, we're raising the ground around us, which provides us some more separation from groundwater, which again gives us more opportunities and flexibility to look at ways to address that stormwater management. But kind of in summary on that, I think we demonstrated that on the larger 172 units, we were able to meet the stormwater requirements and here, although this is a really conceptual level presentation, I'm confident, you know, I can confidently say that with this program, you know, the civil engineering challenge of that just got significantly easier to accomplish. And I think that's, you know, really the high points. I think, again, you know, we wanted to make sure from an engineering perspective, everything that we're showing here fit on the site plan. We're confident with the distances and the driveway widths and things like that. But the real change here is the program, the duplexes and obviously the change from multifamily to senior housing with independent and assisted living programs incorporated. Yeah, we're going to do Scott, I guess, but I wanted to just say one other thing on that. Will you finish, John? Yeah, yeah, I think I touched on the points I wanted to touch on. Okay, we, you know, we made a significant decision here to move to senior housing. And this one emphasized that that was based on what we were hearing loud and clear and even experienced, obviously. The traffic on Lake Street is at peak hours is very, very challenging to say the least. And although we demonstrated that the impact would be minimal, but there still is obviously an impact. Now, assisted living and independent living, you can see rationally that there are this reasoning. I'm going to let Scott speak to that a little bit because we don't have the numbers together on exactly what the savings in traffic or the diminishment of traffic would be. But it's clear that the assisted living tenants, climb down, would not drive, would drive hardly at all. The independent living people who may, some will have cars and some will drive. But with the traffic on Lake Street at peak hours, they have a choice. They're not working, they don't have to be working at 8, 30 or nine o'clock. So they would choose to go later in the day. These are all hard things to verify with numbers and charts, but it makes sense. And we're going to work on that to try to be a little bit more definitive about that. And the staff, of course, they have the advantage of the red line. And the project we did in Dorchester was also in the red line, the red line extension. And so we've had some experience with that. And the staff tends to be people that there is public transportation, there is public transportation. So what we are thought is that we're making a major move in the direction of less impact on traffic. Because we understand that, as I say, even though with 172 units, we felt like the impact was not, was still minimal, but this is much more minimal for the reason just stated. So Scott, are you going to, I assume you're going to add to that or talk about parking as well. Should we go back to the parking brush level or, I don't know. Did you want that, Scott? You know, this plan is fine. I mean, we can go back if need be, but this graphic is fine. So thanks to that lead in art for the record, Scott Thornton with Vanessa Associates. And although John thought that he had the easy part of the project now that with the proposed change, I think the traffic part is even easier. You know, I think that common sense would tell you that 126 unit senior housing complex will have a smaller traffic and parking impact than 172 unit apartment building. In fact, this development has, as you heard previously, fewer units, fewer parking spaces and a different type of resident profile. As art indicated, we're still working through the numbers. We did go through some of the parking calculations and we're able to accommodate the parking requirements for the senior housing within the garage under the building with additional surface spaces for visitors. Based on ITE parking generation data, we need between 64 and 80 spaces for the two uses. And as was indicated previously, there's about 86 spaces in the garage so we can easily accommodate that demand. And that's also consistent for the assistant living component. That's consistent with the town bylaw, which requires 0.4 spaces per unit. We've got another 10 surface spaces that can be used for visitors. And so we feel that we're able to accommodate the parking demands for the projects. In terms of the traffic calculations, I think it's important to know, and we're still working through and finalizing those numbers. But I think in order to generate the traffic volumes that we were anticipating with the apartment complex, we were reliant on a pretty aggressive TDM program. And we do, my office does a lot of development of TDM programs for residential developments. We do a lot of the follow-up monitoring for these developments, obviously not now, because of conditions with the pandemic, but they work. They absolutely work. They work to reduce the single occupant vehicle traffic that is what generates a lot of the headaches when there's one car, one person, one car, one person, that sort of thing. And that's not, that type of TDM program would not be required with this development. So right out of that gate, the base traffic volumes of vehicle trip generation would be lower with this type of development. And as I was mentioning, most of the travel associated with senior housing or seniors in housing is discretionary in terms of the time of travel. They can choose to travel outside of the commuter hours when traffic ingestion is less of an issue. And in fact, some IT data indicates that the assisted living components have their peak periods in the middle of the day. And that's really visitors and staff because the assisted living, the residents aren't generating the traffic. So that's opposed to a conventional development with the typical peaks in the morning and the evening commuter hours. So again, there's not much to say with regards to traffic parking. We would expect the new development with a downsized unit count with fewer parking spaces and the different resident demographic to present less of a traffic and parking impact than the previous proposal. So I think that's really all I have to say on traffic at this point. I'll turn it back over to Stephanie and be available for questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Scott. I think at this point, I wanna thank the board. Someone on two fronts. One for kind of putting this challenge to us at the last hearing to ask us to look back at reintroducing the duplex because I think it had us look at a number of things. And I wanna thank the board for its consideration of our presentation of this alternative concept this evening. In closing, I just wanna maybe like hit maybe five or six of what we think are kind of the key points. I kind of directly hit issues that have previously been raised during the course of the public hearings. And first we'll start off with the most obvious because it's still a question to look at bringing back duplexes. And we think that we can successfully do that and it provides consistency with the neighborhood and the scale and it also provides the buffering for the senior assistant living. But like I said, it does provide what we heard from a number of people that they wanted kind of the streetscape that they were used on the other side of the road. And then secondly, the amount of impervious area on this revised plan is significantly reduced. I think as John termed it and we have that whole Western side that's available for open space now that creates a very nice opportunity there. Thirdly, the buildings have the multifamily built or pardon me, the four story senior assistant living building. It's completely out of the water table. We have the garage in elevation six and the first floor elevation 16. And then the duplexes on the front street here, they're elevation 12 and the road itself is somewhere around nine and a half or 10. Fourth, we think that the, as Scott just presented that the decrease in density from 138 to 126 of those being senior and assistant living, that change in addition to the reduction of parking but it gives us a reduction in base traffic generation. And then fifth, the size of the apartment building itself has been notably reduced. So I think those are some of the key features, a lot more of the sub features were presented through Scott and John and hard and the other Scott this evening. But with that said, we are happy to answer any questions that the board may have. And our hope is that we'd like to request the board to support this revised concept plan at the end of this evening's hearing. And even to take a strong call to see where the board is on this. If there's support for this, we're gonna continue down this path. If there isn't support for this, then I guess we would go back to our 172, but we hope you, we have your support. And again, we're happy to field any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And thank you for the very thorough explanation of all aspects of this project where it is such a departure from what we were looking at before. It's really, I think very helpful to walk through everything. Would like to first ask members of the board if they have specific questions they would like to ask at this time? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if we can go back to the question of a little bit unclear about how it is that changing this mode over to the senior or to the combination of the duplexes and the senior and assisted living. How that works along with the reservation of affordable units. And I take it that with respect to the duplexes, we're talking here about three of those units being affordable and with a deed restriction, which is essentially perpetual. Is that correct? That's correct, as I understand. And what is the level of income affordability for ownership is that it's really, it usually is expressed in some percentage of AMI, but is that 80% the way it is for rental or is it different? It's 80%. Yeah, it's the same for rental development or a home ownership development. Okay, so now with respect to the seniors, that's split into two categories. One is the independent living and one is the assisted living. Are the units, first of all, I guess the question is, are we still looking at within that category, 25% of the units being affordable at the 80% level? That is correct. And is that split proportionately between the assisted living units and the independent living units? How does that work out? I may ask, I believe that it is, but Bob Angler, if you're on the line, if you want to feel that. Sure, it's the same thing. Can people hear me? We can Bob. It's the same thing as one, two and three bedrooms. You have 25% in each category. In this case, the category is assisted and independent. So you're 25% is in both areas. Okay, and that, just to make sure it's clear on the record, the restrictions there are essentially perpetual, is that correct? On a rental, what you have? Under rental ones. Right, you have it built into. So when you have home ownership, it goes with the deeds, the restriction. There's a regulatory agreement that provides for the continued affordability and the regulatory agreement. Right, and that rental agreement provides for affordability over what period of time? It's in perpetuity basically, because the regulations state that you'd have to prove that there was no further need for affordable housing to get released from that regulation. So in effect, it's staying on forever. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. So on a question I had on with respect to the townhouses, when you say that the top floor is a half story, is that, have you looked at our bylaw to see how a half story is calculated? And is that a generic statement or a statement that it would comply with the half story requirement at our bylaw? Stephanie, do you have any wisdom on that? No, I don't. I would need to double check with the bylaw said, the version that's applicable to this project. And if it didn't comply, we would request the waiver of it. We haven't updated any waiver lists. So I'm not entirely certain, Mr. Hanlon, I guess I would need to double check with ARD in terms of that. On the height and feet, did I read the chart correctly that the ridge line is 40 feet for that townhouses, for the duplexes? I think that's why- Yes, there you go. The highest peak is 40 feet, right? I think the other, the B is maybe a little bit less high. You know, one of the things that just to add, try to add something to the two and a half stories, the half story, we're thinking of it really in plan. In other words, the plan is half the size of the story. It's not half the height, obviously. No, I understand that. But also it's the, there are many, many buildings in the neighborhood, which is why we felt it was okay doing that, doing this particular design that are the same two and a half story format, whether it's a single room or maybe in our case, we actually have the master bedroom on the top floor. Right, well, that's incorporated in the bylaw, how we do that. So there's nothing that says you can't have a half story. But the bylaw, if I'm not mistaken, also has a maximum height of 35 feet. And I'm wondering- Mr. Chairman- I'm sorry, sorry, I'm traveling. So that would depend on the zoning district. I believe- This is PUD, right? In the PUD district, which has a higher threshold. So is the 40 consistent or not consistent with the underlying zoning now? So those are all under the PUD district. And I don't recall the maximum height at the top of my head, but I'm busily scrambling to look it up in the background. It's 80 feet, but for when it's residential, it's five stories since the tallest. So everything is well below that five story. But the rest of the neighborhood is not PUD, right? So they're probably at 35 feet, while this is 40 feet. So well, if you looked at the chart, if you looked at the site plan, these look to be narrower than the townhouses, that is to say the duplexes across the street. It also looks to me like there's somewhat taller. You can see on the left there, the approximate height of the existing duplexes on Dorothy Road being somewhat, being around the size of the gable that is next to the, is on the second floor. So this is a little taller, basically, a little narrower and a little taller than the existing houses along Dorothy Road. Is that fair? Yes. Okay. All right, that I, you know, with later when we do straw polling or whatever we do, this is, it seems to me a major positive development. I had mentioned last time, I thought that up to now, there had been a lot of work done on making this better for the wetlands and to addressing that issue, which was exactly the right priority to do. But to get really kind of to where you wanted to go, you needed to make some kind of a move in this direction. And while you're still working on detailed plans and Marta's people are no doubt looking towards reviewing your plans and we need to think more, think about what a schedule would look like in the future. But it seems to me, this is a giant step forward and I'm pleased with it. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Other questions, Mr. Revolak? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a few questions. The first was, I just wanted to conf, I believe Ms. Kiefer mentioned it, but I missed it. Roughly, what is the surface elevation of Dorothy Road? Like nine feet? I believe it's nine and a half feet. Maybe John can correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, there we go, nine and a half feet. Okay. And I assume just our district regulations for PUD don't do not include assisted living as a use, but I just, so I presume that will be coming in a waiver at some point. Yes. Okay. Could we, would it be possible to bring up slide 11 or perhaps slide eight? I think either one would do. Yeah, I was curious to know where will the rear property line of the duplexes be? Roughly. 10 feet back from the rear of the building. Okay, so a 10 foot rear yard, okay, very good. And what kind of, so I see, so that leaves a little bit of a buffer between the rear, the duplex rear yard and the senior building. And I was wondering what, I know this is still kind of early, but I was wondering what kind of screening you might be contemplating. So if we go back to the site plan, what we have thought about and all this week, we haven't got the landscaper, you know, totally engaged, but there could be a six foot fence at the back of the small yard. But what we're proposing here is that really it's a landscape buffer. And there would, you know, and you can do quite a lot with the space that is there in terms of just having a nice planting area and then the walk. And right now we, you know, you see there's a little note about bikes and maintenance on that side, but I think with the reduction of parking, we can have even more area back there because there's an extra storage space in the basement, in the garage. So I think it will be really a buffer area that will be landscaped. Okay, no, that's good. So speaking of, since I saw a bike on the sketch, I assume the blue bike station is no longer necessary. Or no longer contemplated. I think this population would not be a serious bicycle riders, although I think we, you know, I would encourage it still, it occurred to me, I didn't say it earlier, but I would love to see, you know, tricycles, adult tricycles that would allow people to go, you know, to do a little shopping or something and still have a degree of stability along the bike path. Okay, now, okay, so with, I'm aware that it for normal apartment buildings, you know, comprehensive permit projects usually have a 10% requirement for three bedrooms. And I assume for this use, that's not applicable. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Still, I presume that we're still planning to use aggregate piles. Yes, to the extent, I mean, if we need piles, I think, yeah, aggregate piles, yeah. I know that that's something that came up a number of times, so I just wanted to ask and make sure. And I know this is still very early in the process, but one of, I was going to ask a couple of questions about how the new building would affect the drainage plan. And I think Mr. Hessian, you know, partially answered them in this, at least in the sense that the reduction in impervious surface makes the job easier. I'm wondering if any of the colleagues, our colleagues from Beta could comment on that. And I realize it, if it's too early for you to feel comfortable commenting, that's fine. Please. If I might, Mr. Chairman, photograph with Beta. Yeah, no, I think in general, a reduction in impervious area is going to be a benefit to trying to manage stormwater on the site. We certainly still have to see the layout and how the footprint of that stormwater management system fits. But I would say, I agree in general, it's a positive in terms of trying to manage stormwater. Okay, very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Everlock. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Ford. I have a, I've got one question. First of all, the changes are extremely positive. So I commend you all on what you've done. Very pleased and surprised actually, but pleased. One of the major concerns I still have though is the construction in the buffer zone of the wetlands, particularly the bottom left corner of the building. Is it not possible to slide that building up a little bit or that wall or that, that wing up so we're not constructing in that buffer on the left? Let's see, Scott, can you put your cursor on? He's trying to know it. Yeah, right there. It's a challenge because of the layout of the parking below. That offset is about 42 feet, which is a parking dimension. It's one space plus one aisle. And that's what established that we could look into that, but it would, we might have to sacrifice parking spaces, but I think one other thing about that is the, we felt that the space, which is now, what is it, 145 feet? And that's a hundred feet. I think it's 85 feet from the back of the townhouse to the other wall of the four-story high building. And that's a pretty nice space. It's big enough to have a lot of trees and alley. And I think the townhouse to the street is 20 feet, which is, again, a pretty sacred dimension. We don't want to push the townhouses or the duplexes any nearer to the street. So there's a lot of decisions that go into that, but we have to take a look at it. I guess I would say that that space to have room for parking, for a driveway coming in to do the turnaround, you can see there's not much space on either side of the turnaround. And that's kind of like what the civil engineers, recommend. I think that, and I'd like John to speak about the... Yeah, about the relative issues around moving out of the aura. So, but from a site plan standpoint, this is basically what we had before and we would really like to stick with that part of it. But please, John Heshen, can you speak to this? Sure, John Heshen, again, thank you. I'll leave the question of could the architecture be modified up to that question up to Scott. But I think one thing I want to point out is Gwynne just mentioned, this is the same impact that we've been working with into that aura, a couple of hundred square feet, basically since November when we submitted the revised plans in November and the updated confirmed wetland delineation. And I think it's important to note too that construction in the outer limit of the aura that's shown there is not prohibited under the wetland bylaw. And Scott, if you could go to Gwynne's color sketch and what Gwynne has labeled down on the bottom of the drawing there, woodland restoration, the thought and the idea is the commitment to remove invasive species and remove the impacts of the homeless population that's been out on this property for years. There would be an opportunity to actually improve the aura in that with a restoration in the area where we have that very limited building impact. So I think if we aren't able to move it, I do believe we've kind of really taken that into close consideration and looked at ways that we could improve the values of that aura with that restoration, with that invasive species management and woodland restoration. Thank you, and that's fair. I mean, I think that you're presenting a concept that's in my view significantly better than what we had, but given, but I would like if you guys could at least take a look to see what we could do because I have concerns about losing any wetlands or even the buffer zone of the wetlands. But thank you, that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Mr. Mills? Thank you, yes. Yes, I would like to thank the applicant for an excellent revision of the plan and a lot of hard work in a short amount of time. I think it was a very good idea not including garages underground for the six duplexes. Obviously it would be a problem. I think raising the grade around the duplexes and around the main building was very key. I think that's a good idea. The garage is now above the water table which should intuitively cause less disruption to the water flow of the site and of the whole area towards the old wife, Brooke. So I applaud all those changes. And I just wanted to say I do look forward to the further development of this project. I know there will be those that want nothing there but if something's gonna be there, this is a very significant improvement. And it also does address senior housing issues which is a key demographic to take care of. I think that was a very good idea of yours. I do just have one question about the driveways with the six duplexes. The last duplex looks like it's get the driveway coming in off the driveway of the comp to the apartments. Is that true? Yes, that's correct. In order to use the space have less pavement and so on, we brought it in off the entry drive. And that's true on the other end also. And John's drawing is better than mine because he made the east end of the development show how the driveway on the east end is a proper driveway. I know you're really at the conceptual stage right now. So many questions would go unanswered at this time but people will be expecting answers to the questions of how many staff, how they're gonna get there, how they're gonna park, where are they gonna be on the site, et cetera, what delivery schedules would be, impact on traffic, et cetera. But intuitively this sounds like it will be an improvement over the original. And again, we thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. Hello, I have a couple of questions and some of it is I just wanna see if I'm comparing apples to apples based upon the notes I had taken at the March 11th meeting. And I'm just trying to get a sense as to what the dimensional changes really, what they really are. So I believe at the 172 unit stage, if my notes are correct, Mr. Hessian had indicated that the total square footage of all four floors was 195,000 square feet. And the footprint was around 54,5 almost. And today for the back building, I think I'm looking at 32,708 per floor. And that's about 138,32. So there's a difference between those two of almost 64,000 square feet. But I'm curious as to what the footprint, combined footprint is for the duplex units in the front. I'm just wondering what the sort of the site coverages in terms of footprint. It's 12 times 1,600, whatever that is. And it's 10,400 square feet. Six times 1,600. No, no, it's not 1,600. Yeah, 1,600, 40 by 40 is 1,600. So you're two and a half floors, two and a half times that. Oh, well, he's just saying the footprint, not the... Yeah, that was right, the footprint. So that's what 19,2 on top of the almost 131. Yeah, the 40 by 40, the footprint of the floor. Yeah, 9,600. Oh, so that 9,600, you're talking about the 40 by 40 is one entire duplex. It's not just one half. That's right. Okay. And the carport, that's not including the carport. Okay. Decided how to do that, but that would add. And there was a comment made again, I think by Mr. Hessian about the raising of the building. And from the earlier meeting, I saw that the height above the street was 47 feet. And I believe in looking at the plans here today, we're looking at 60 feet. Is that correct? Scott, is that showing your section? Scott, are you there, have we lost him? I apologize, I was taking a quick break. You're looking for the section? Yeah. Go to the section and then if you could rephrase that question. Right. The question is the... I think the other section has the heights. Let's go to the other one. Okay. This one here. Well, you're looking for the heights of the duplex unit? It's the height of the four storey. Yeah. Oh, the height of the four storey. Yeah, that's the scroll over, isn't it right? Yeah. Sexy. Well, let me clarify, that's... Elevation. That's an elevation. So the street is at elevation 9.5. So that's a track. It's a track 9.5 from that to get the height above the street. That's what my question read. 50.5 feet above the elevation of the street. Okay. So it's roughly the same as the earlier plan, maybe three feet more. And then I don't know, is this is part of what's before the board, but I do have a question. I think it's for Mr. Klipfel. So, do I understand that the building itself is divided into, excuse me, I wanna look at my note. So is the building divided into sections for independent and assisted? Is that correct? That's correct. And we, we went to this pretty carefully with, again with senior living residences, Bob Larkin. And it would be, you come into the lobby and the independent living would be to your left as you turn south. And the assisted living would be to your right. So you're left as you turn your eyes south. Looking toward the back. Now, this may go through machinations. You know, there's an issue of the twin elevators and Bob thought that could work. Now, we probably, we might wanna consider separating, having two banks of elevators. I don't know. There are things like this that when we find two of this, he has a whole staff in his organization right now that specializes in this. And if we're moving ahead, we'll sort of work through these issues. Okay. Well, thanks. But I was just curious, what happens if somebody needs to move from independent living to a more assisted living situation? Is that somehow able to be dealt with? Well, that's actually something that happens as we understand it very often. And you just change rooms. I mean, you would go to the other side and you'd go into the independent of the assisted living side. And I understand that. I was just thinking though that if you have one of the, I'm assuming, you know, you have the same percentages of affordable units, you know, that you would have for assisted and then for the independent. And if somebody had an affordable, say independent living unit and they needed to have assisted care and they'd have to wait for a unit on the other side to be available in order for it to qualify as an affordable assisted living. This is a sort of a management question which we haven't had a lot of experience with the actual management side of things, but maybe Bob, do you have a Bob Angler? Yeah. The way it works is the affordable unit, the resident can move into an assisted unit, whether it's a market or affordable, whatever the first turnover is. And if that affordable unit takes over from a market unit, then the next unit that opens on the assisted side has to be market. So they don't try and limit it specifically. I mean, they keep the overall ratio the same, but they don't stop somebody from moving. It would be the same thing if somebody gave up a market unit on the independent side and the affordable came in, the next unit then has to be market. So they manage it so that it works out within the year probably. Understood. Okay, thank you. That was all I had. And what I guess underlining the general observation that all the units are the same. They're none that are permanently affordable and they're all finished the same and equally good. And I said I was done, but I do have one other just observation. I'll be very interested to see what the difference is in the traffic calculations, because I believe your assumptions are obviously different. And I know intuitively people are saying it should be less traffic impact. People have more choice and flexibility in terms of when they would leave times a day that they would go out. And that does make sense. But I also wonder if when you had earlier projections about who might be living there before this particular iteration came along, I think there was some percentage of the people who were gonna be living there who were gonna be using mass transit. So I'm just curious to see how that's actually gonna come out. And I'd be interested to have some detail in that. Thank you. One thing we didn't mention, which just we're putting on the table that came up. There are deliveries, more deliveries than you would have had with Mollye family. But again, what Bob said about that is given the situation on Lake Street that people delivering things would again do that during the middle of the day, not during traffic time. So we thought that wouldn't be a big negative impact. But as Scott said, I think we'll do some work on that and all these things, but it is true that one of the factors is independent living, assistant living, of course, not so much traffic at all. And then there's more deliveries probably given the nature of the area of the kitchen and also even medical services that would probably increase the traffic a little bit. One. Excuse me, I'm glad you said that because I know it's sunrise on Mass Ave in Arlington. It's not unusual to see the ambulance, the fire truck and the police car all sort of converging on the place. And it happens fairly frequently. So you're also taking that sort of into consideration in your comment, I think. And I guess one thing that in the other assisted living that we did in Lord Mills, one of the reasons we located it there was because it was near a red line tea stop. And many of the staff people do use the tea and we hope that in the evolution of the conservation land that there would be a nice path across the through the woods to the tea stop. But that's wishful thinking right now. Thank you. Is there any further questions on the board? I hadn't thought of that before, but it really it would be over the fields and through the woods to grandmother's house to go. Right. So we have a number of speakers who are raised their hands, but just to provide a little background. So I will be opening the public comment period on the revised design for the proposed project. Just a few reminders, public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter of hand and to 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 would like to limit individual public speakers to three minutes, but encourage you to use your time to provide comment related to the indicated topic. An additional time may be provided at the discretion of the chair to provide time for questions to be addressed. The chair encourages the public to provide written comments to be reviewed by the board and included in the record. This is especially true if you have specific recommendations in regards to the project. The first procedure for a question to speak will be the same as for previous hearings. Please select the raise hand button on the comments tab on Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate you would 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 to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps us generate accurate minutes. Once all public questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chair has ended, the public comment period will be closed. Board and staff will do our best to show documents being discussed. If you'd like a specific document to be pulled up during your comment, please ask us to do so. So with a need, Ms. Chapnick. Thank you, Chairman Klein. Susan Chapnick, the chair of the conservation commission in the town of Arlington. I appreciate the thoroughness of the explanation of the changes. I also appreciate that the changes have tried not to impact the wetland resource areas or the flood plain. I understand that the flood plain is impacted greater than the plans, the latest set of plans that we looked at January 21st, 2021. However, the applicant has said that the compensatory storage at the level of two to one can still be realized in the area proposed previously. That's something I would like to review, but that's good news. In terms of the encroachment of the new building footprint into the outside of the aura, and I will remind everyone online that in the town of Arlington, the buffer zone is a resource area. So it is considered a wetland resource area. So that is an impact. It is correct that our local by law and implementing regulations do sometimes allow for work within this upland resource area, this buffer area with mitigation. And I will say that the previous plan did not have any encroachment of the building on the south side into our resource area. So I think that was a misstatement from John before the roadway did impinge, but the building did not at least on the 121, 2021 plans. So I am a little disappointed that the building has moved down. I understand that a lot of this is give and take and we have to weigh a lot of issues in this 40B. So I just wanted to make that statement that I hope that the applicant can look at that as Mr. Ford had also requested. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Ms. Kiefer, yes. Could I quickly have John Hessean just respond to that because I think there's some confusion. And I think that I had heard John presented in his presentation, but John, if you're available, could you quickly explain how the subsurface parking on the lower portion there of the building under the 172 multifamily have worked? Absolutely. And through the chair to Ms. Chapnick. On the previous plan, the building, and when I say the building that includes the basement garage level did encroach into that already the exact same limit that we're showing here. The garage level protruded out of the ground, but the, thank you, Scott. So the white area that you see is the garage level and on the rear where Scott's cursor is, that's where the rear Southwest courtyard was. So elevated above the ground around it. So the building did encroach into that aura, but not the residential living spaces above that are the darker gray shaded areas. So what Scott and Art did was they held that southerly garage line and just slid the living spaces over that space. So that may not have been abundantly clear on the previous plan, but that is the exact same limit of the building southerly wall. So the previous plan, I was looking at sheet C105 did not correctly depict where that limit of work was in relation to the aura. I don't know if I have a copy of that. Because that was the plan that the conservation commission reviewed in relation to wetland resource areas. And I believe it's the same plan that beta group also reviewed. Well, John's looking for that plan. I can assure you that it has been consistently shown in this way. It may not have been entirely obvious, but there has been an indication. In fact, in the last drawing that we did for the previous plan, we showed a walk going from the deck across in front of the units on the roof of the garage. And then stepping down to the children's play area. It's going to take me a minute to find, Susan, Ms. Jack Chapnick, what was the date of the plan that you just referenced? C105. It was, it's C105 and the date of the file is 0121-2021. 0121. That's the file date. Well, but it was 2021-01-21 underscore revised underscore plan underscore sheets. Okay. It'll take me a minute to find out the drawing. Sure. I believe that it misrepresented the limit of work because it didn't include the underground parking. I guess that's what you're saying now, which was not clear to the conservation commission and may or may not have been clear to debate that at that time because we would have said something. Yeah. And while I'm looking for it, and there was nothing intentionally to avoid that. That is, as Gwen just mentioned that the emergency vehicle access road, that's why that was located where it was. It was outside of the building garage footprint and the rear courtyard and the walkway down off of that over to the play area on the west side was on top of that portion of the garage that projected south of the residential floors above. But. John, this is gonna take you a few minutes to look up. John, if you wouldn't mind moving on and I'll come back to you. Mr. Chair, if I just can add, I just pulled up that plan that Susan was referencing and it definitely does not. It shows the footprint of the building outside the aura and it's really not clear that the parking was underneath it. So we'll take a look at the next set of plans. Okay. So I will move on to Mr. McKinnon. Good evening. Thank you. I was wondering why the decision was. I'm sorry. Yeah, my name is Matt McKinnon. I live at Nine Little John Street in Arlington. Please proceed. Thank you. I was wondering why the decision was made to not include underground parking garages and also not include basements for the townhomes. If I could pass it on to either Gwen or Art. Well, I think what we were doing garages for the townhouses, they were on a ramp and I think it was pointed out that if the street had flooding, that the flood would come down the ramp and then into the basement. Yeah, that's a very easy problem to take care of our flooding. You know, you just put some drains and I'm just, you know, a lot of this seems like there's like smoke in mirrors, even when you just, you know, saw the confusion about the living space in the building on the previous plan being above ground, but there was a great encroach below ground where the parking garage was. This seems kind of like the same thing where, you know, you're taking away space because of an obvious issue of flooding and wetlands, but there's still a parking garage, you know, closer to the wetlands now or where it's always been. Now, why aren't we taking this and moving it above ground like you're doing it to the townhomes? So just to understand your question, you're asking why the apartment building isn't raised in elevation so that it's parking doesn't need to be below grade? Correct. I think there are many buildings of this type in fact, we've done some that do that. They have no garage, we did a building in Chelsea that was the best example. Okay, so what about the basements? Why are there no basements? The basements, the townhomes I do, excuse me, the duplex houses I believe do have basements. They just don't have. They were optional basements. The, well, there was a ramp that went down to the basement and that's where we got concerned about flooding. Somebody pointed out. Can you clarify whether the basements are optional or not? We are assuming right now that's showing a full basement in that section, a full basement, which again would be access from a stair that would start out at elevation 11 and go down. That would be not so deep to flooding from the street at elevation nine and a half. Now, we believe that it makes sense to have probably not a full basement but a half basement. That's actually showing a full basement. As you can see, this is a work in progress. Yeah, I see that, but I also heard that they were optional basements, meaning you would not put them in unless the owner decided they wanted the basement. No, we haven't. This is an early enough design that we discussed. I just wanted clarification on that. I just wanted. The board optional was a misspeaking. We haven't made a decision as to how large the basement should be, but we think it's useful to have a basement that there's value in having a basement but it doesn't necessarily need to be the full size. We're just thinking about bikes and sports equipment and things that people like to put away and that it would be useful to have some kind of a basement, but we didn't want to have it be subject to flooding, so that was something we were. Exactly, so if that's subject to flooding, then why are you putting cars in an underground parking garage? Because in the area where we have got the garage, it's very close to the grade level. The grade beyond the garage is about seven. But it's also closer to actually on top of the 100-foot aura. Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate it if Mr. McKinnon would let the answer proceed. He's been interrupting several times. I apologize. This is sort of turning into a cross-examination directly with a witness, and that really is contrary to our rules and how we're supposed to do this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. Just wanted to clear. I'm just trying to get clear answers rather than runarounds. No? If you give them an opportunity here. The design of a building like this, you have many, many different things weighing into the position of a building. As I mentioned, the project in Chelsea, where there was no problem with height whatsoever, we were away from any abutting neighborhoods, we raised the building up to grade, even a little bit above grade, had parking under the building in what's called a podium, and then had the building above that. Now, here, whether it was abutting neighbors and a concern about building height and that sort of thing, we have the garage, as you can see right now, we raised at three feet, which raises it above the groundwater level at 2.85. So we're now at elevation six, so we're not far above the groundwater plane, but everything is an adjustment to the different forces on the building. In this case, we're trying to keep the building as low as possible, as dry as possible. And as you mentioned at the beginning of your statement, there are ways to control this with drains and drainage and bumps and all that kind of stuff. I don't think we need that here, but it's something that if you can do what we're doing in the townhouses and have no ramps going down in the garage, that's preferable, but sometimes as a compromise, that's what you have to do. That's the decision we make, so that's what it is. And this one more note on that, the means of controlling grades and drainage and so on for a garage that has one main entry and 86 parking spaces is much more manageable than managing drainage car by car. That's as an efficiency in the garage. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. No, I'm done, I've gone over, thank you. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. Ms. Keith Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Heather Keith Lucas of 10 Mott Street in Arlington. I appreciate the concessions that the applicant has made and the return of the townhomes are more appropriate in the neighborhood, though I do recognize there's an open question regarding the bylaws in the third floor face of the proposed new townhomes is different than the current home fronts of Dorothy Road Homes. I remain concerned about the flooding and recognize that this proposal is still in its infancy for the applicant. So I do hope that the ZBA can have more information about the comprehensive system of water drainage that will be included in their plans, specifically with the duplex style homes. And to me, it seems that the first floors of the new proposed duplex style townhomes up here lower than the height of the current townhomes on Dorothy Road. So I'm just concerned about water going through the front doors of these new homes and also more fully understanding about how the water is going to flow from Dorothy Road into the property. So if we do have duplex townhomes that are going across the full front, if you will, of Dorothy Road with carports in between, does that cause a barrier across all of Dorothy Road? So where does the water flow? Or is it just bumping up against the homes and the carport areas? Also concerns about the underground parking for the independent and assisted living facilities as well. And then a couple of questions for the applicant and another question to the ZBA. The two questions to the applicant is, is there a time limit for the property use or is the applicant's proposal a commitment to permanent property use of independent and assisted living? And the second question is, what is the applicant's proposal for the independent assisted living residents to receive meals? I recognize that the plan is still in development, but there doesn't appear to be a dining hall or a kitchen area for preparation of meals for the residents. And then to the ZBA. I'll go ahead and ask for answers to those two questions. Hopefully we can get those fairly quickly. Ms. Kiefer, what would be the, in regards to the time limit for the use of the building, I'm assuming that if the use is included in the decision for 40B, then it is for the length of the agreement is in place, it would need to remain. That is correct. And if let's say down the road, someone went to change it, they obviously would have to come before the board and ask for that change because that would be built into the comprehensive permit. So it's not like it can just change. And so the use, I think as Bob Angler had previously said, that basically you're pretty much locked into the use for the affordability. And if for some reason someone went to like, I mean, the style of it would be obviously not meant for a multifamily, as we've talked about, there's more community rooms and there's small rooms, they'd have to like redo the entire interior and it would need to come before the board for a change of use. And then the board would have an ability to weigh in on that. So I think that answers that one. And then with respect to the second question, if I understood it correctly, when Art was going through just the schematic of the first floor, he was showing the area that would be like the, the commercial kitchen and then the dining room for the assisted living persons. And it is a different program. And if the board wants us to continue down this design concept, we can provide kind of more information in terms of how the interior layout goes in terms of, you know, as suggested, we need a lot more community space when you have senior living assisted and independent than you would in an apartment building. So at this point though, we do recognize that the schematic of the first floor interior is very modest. It was more to show the board kind of the entryway and how once we came in as Art had suggested, you turn to one way and you're in the assisted and the other way you're in the independent. Thank you, Ms. Kiefer. Ms. Kiefer-Lukas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My additional questions are maybe just for consideration for the ZBA, just given the nature of assisted living facilities and independent, ensuring that we have enough access for emergency vehicles and also good sight lines in terms of the curves in the road as well. And then also echoing other statements that were made about not having any development in or near the buffer zone. So that may require some additional modifications to the footprint of the building. Thank you so much for your time today and allowing us to ask additional questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for taking part. Mr. Seltzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer, Irving Street. Very pleased to see the changes in this latest version. I think that putting senior housing into the apartment building is an excellent improvement. And as others have said, this is kind of certainly have some sort of positive effect on the traffic, particularly during peak hours. It will also eliminate the threat of overcrowding at the Hardy School, although I understand that this is not within the purview of this board. That is correct. And as a senior, I am frankly excited about this type of housing being proposed for Arlington. And I have just a few specific comments. First, the four handicap parking spaces meet the minimum state and federal requirements for a parking garage of this size, but it isn't realistic for a 126 unit facility for seniors. And I strongly urge that the number of accessible spaces in the garage be increased. The duplexes on Dorothy Road, I think are surprisingly tall. I recall that the original proposal, which included townhouses, they were only 32 feet high. And it looks like these duplexes are actually 42 feet in height above grade, not the 40 feet that was stated earlier. And this is just out of keeping with the neighborhood. And is really far more than is needed for a two and a half story home. And I have to sort of wonder why the third floors are each 18 feet high. It seems like they could be cut down considerably and keep it more in the character of the neighborhood. And my major remaining concern is the impact of street flooding on Dorothy Road. The same problem has carried over from the previous version that the project effectively dams off the natural low elevation drainage path from Dorothy to the wetlands area. Now there is a provision in our bylaws, title five, section 11, that requires the posting of a bond to protect against flooding problems arising in the first five years. And I'd like to ask, is this bylaw provision among those that are being waived for this project? Miss Kiefer, have you requested a waiver from that provision? I don't have the waiver listed in front of me, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. We can get back to Mr. Seltzer at the next hearing on that though. Okay. I think this is really important for the neighbors in Dorothy Road. They're the ones mostly going to be affected. And if this project isn't gonna be causing flooding, then the developers should be quite willing to comply with this local regulation to provide that extra protection into the future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seltzer. Ms. Shapiro Ide? Hi, it's Marcy Shapiro I'd, I live on Lake- One of these days, I promise. That's okay. I live 152 Lake Street and I have some comments and then my husband, we're also on the same Zoom. He has his own comments. So first, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. First, I do wanna say that in general, I am not for anything being built here still. That would be my first preference. However, given that we're still talking about this, I will say I'm glad that to see the townhouses back, I still think that the townhouses are duplex is whatever you wanna call them. They're still a little too large from what I've seen from some of the photos. 40 by 40, I don't know if the 10% is too much, but if they could be shrunken down a little just because people have built very large two-family homes in the place where these tiny little capes used to be on Dorothy Road doesn't mean they should still be that big. I don't know why they would have to be over 2,000 square feet of livable space per unit. So I'm just wondering if that's a possibility if they could still be shrunken down a little bit that would also allow for more backyard space for those units as well as little more flexibility in parking and potential grass space and other permeable surfaces around those townhouses or duplexes, whatever you wanna call them. I work with seniors and work with senior housing a lot. So it's very hard, of course, for people to say no to senior housing. And I think that's a great idea. I would be curious to know if there could be a consideration to look at increasing the number of affordable units because although 40Bs call for a minimum of 25% of affordable units, I can tell you the biggest issue I deal with seniors right now is housing and there isn't enough affordable and I don't think basically it works out to like 16 more units on the independent living side I guess as well as the assisted living side. So I would like to respectfully ask that the developers consider making it all independent living and at least 50% affordable. Just because you only have to do 25 doesn't mean you are limited, you could increase it, I believe. And I think that that would really be a true benefit to the community. And then I know this is still sort of early but I'm wondering if there's any consideration to if this would be a project where residency gives you preference to these units. Meaning if you're already an Arlington resident that you have preference over people who don't already live in Arlington. Otherwise you will have seniors with more means moving to Arlington and essentially scooping up the units. And so I'm just curious if there's been any thought about that. So those are my initial questions. Thank you. I would ask Mr. Haverty about the residential preference question. Mr. Chairman, the board can impose a condition requiring a local preference of up to 70% but that has to be acknowledging that ultimately it's the subsidizing agency that determines the amount of local preference that can be allowed. So it doesn't guarantee that the board will be able to have the 70% local preference requirement. It's only an up to 70%. And the town will have to provide evidence to the subsidizing agency supporting the need for that local preference. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'd like to just put on the table from when we get to discussion of this that local preferences are really quite controversial. When you have a local preference in a town that is racially as little diverse as our town is you're essentially giving your preference to white people. And that's why we have the 70% and why you couldn't go above that. But there is at least some movement now Brookline has recently reduced that percentage there. And I think we need to think long and hard about just what we ought to do about that given the demographics of our town. Thank you. And then if I may, I don't think I would certainly ask the applicant to consider the question about increasing the percentage of affordable units. But obviously that's not the question you can answer on the spot. I'll take that under consideration. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you. Are there further questions? If I may, Mr. Chairman, this is Nicola side. I'm also at 152 Lake Street. Yes, please. Thank you. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. So 152 Lake is the corner of Lake and Little John. So we're very close to this. I really would like to thank the applicant for the new draft. I mean, it's clearly some alternate thought has gone into this and that's very much appreciated. I have two main comments and there's a few small questions inside them. But the first is on the senior housing, there's been a lot of talk about, well, people won't need to drive or park because they'll take the red line. I think that makes a lot of assumptions about where the workers are going to come from because if I'm coming from Lexington or Wuburn or Burlington or so many other places, there's no way I would take the red line. So you're assuming that everyone who works in the facility is going to come from downtown or from Cambridge or somewhere, which seems to be a little bit of a stretch. And the other thing is that even if they did that, it's a 16-minute walk back and forth at a good pace from the red line. And I don't think you can assume that you can walk through Thorndike Field. I think carving a path from constant walking through Thorndike Field would not make the town and the people that use that field for sports very happy about it. So you need to be careful about that. And when it gets to be the dead of winter, walking 16 minutes in the cold, people are gonna end up driving and the question is where the workers going to park. So it seems like what's already very tight for the parking as it is, which actually leads me to my second point. So aside from where the staff is going to park and how that's going to work, I mean, it is shifting the traffic potentially. You're not going to have as much drive time except the people that work in the facility are probably gonna work regular hours. So there's that, but in any case, I can see that there may be a concession there that could change things. The other major concern I've had from the get-go is the scale of this whole thing. Every time we look at the plans, including these new plans, there is a lot of kind of pushing the limits and you see how tight things are stretched. I mean, on the plot that's up on the screen right now for everyone, you've got one of these things is not like the other for the duplexes, right? You've got five duplexes that have a sensible driveway and a nice layout and everything. And then the sixth one with the driveway kind of nestled in there just where it's gonna fit. So it seems rather tight there. So that's one thing. And then I look at that emergency road and I'm looking at Little John, which is not a big street and I've seen the fire trucks and emergency vehicles on that. And I'm looking at this emergency road that looks kind of the way it's drawn. It looks like a small sandy path, maybe wide enough for a smart car. And I don't understand how the three vehicles that always come with an emergency call in Arlington being the ambulance, the fire truck and the police services are going to be able to get down that road if they need to and to turn around. And it's a concern for me. How wide it is, how you can turn around, how you can accommodate the three vehicles. And it is senior housing. So the probability of people needing to come is fairly high, I would think. I'm also concerned by the same way about the truck access. So in the front by that turnaround, we said that there was a trash ramp and delivery area. I don't know how in the world the truck gets there and turns around, but that's okay. And then to go a little further, if we go to, I think it was slide three that showed kind of the 3D rendering of what everything looks like. And this is a nice picture, but I think it's unfortunately a little bit misleading. To me, it looks like those houses are back about 300 feet, I don't know how far, but some distance from where they actually would be. The forced perspective on that makes it seem as though those are barely the same height as the brick building there that I know is barely over two stories. It's two stories with a gabled roof. And looking at this, I know that those buildings, the duplexes would be quite close to that. And I have a hard time thinking they'd really look that small. And even the car that looks like to be a small sedan does not appear to be full scale at the distance that's actually covered there. So I'm a little bit concerned about, again, it's just that it's the actual massiveness of this that appears to keep being hidden. And things are shown in a way that make it seem like it's not as big as you think it is. And there's plenty of room, but then everything is kind of squished together. And even if you go back to slide two, I'm not sure about how the size of the town homes, sorry, the duplexes here really compare with the size of the duplexes across the street. Those are all my comments. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Thank you, I appreciate that. I did want to just briefly ask Mr. Hessian, if he could just explain how the road that wraps around the backside of the property, how that's made up. All right, Mr. Chairman. So in the previous color sketch that was on the screen, you saw the brown sandy looking color and that was really highlighting the six foot wide forest asphalt path. And then on either side of that is a reinforced earth material that provides proper with emergency vehicle access. And the comment about the police, the ambulance and the fire truck needing to get around there, they would need to access the site, but the access around the rear would really be only in the event of needing to fight a fire from the rear of the building or for some type of emergency. So that would really be for a single vehicle and it's designed for full circulation around the building so that there's no turnaround area designed in, but if they came in little John, they would be able to exit out back on the east side of the eastern most town home as Scott's showing with his cursor there. Great, thank you. And we did, and actually, Mr. Chairman, sorry, we did submit previously truck turning templates using the fire truck as the design vehicles showing that the fire truck could make those movements. Thank you very much. You're welcome. On Ms. Roberts? Oops, there's Ms. Roberts. Did I go too long for her? Do not see her name right now. Okay, if she comes back. Jim Hakeem. Yes, thank you very much, George Michael Hakeem, 10 Edith Street. I wanna say, I just wanna thank the applicant for these plans, which, well, I think there's still some significant issues with them, they certainly much more closely approach a reasonable plan. You know, I share the concerns about a fire truck turning into that emergency road, how it's gonna manage a turn at that angle with perhaps cars parked along the north side of Dorothy Road, that's certainly something. Additionally, the concern was brought up about this being a senior living building zone to senior living, hopefully in perpetuity. I think that I know that it was brought up that it would have to go before the board again if the usage were to change. But I think the scope of this being a senior facility is definitely more beneficial in terms of traffic as well as the potential overcrowding of Hardy School that was discussed earlier. This would certainly avoid that. So I think that the perpetuity of this zoning usage for this building would have to be assured. The other thing I just wanna bring up, I know we're talking about this project and in terms of the building, I just wanna make sure that we don't lose sight of the massive amounts of garbage in the woods belonging to the Mugar family who are also, the applicant is working on behalf of and making sure that the town and the ZVA doesn't lose sight of that. And I would suggest and strongly recommend a prerequisite to break and ground on this building as I mentioned before, needs to be that the woods are cleaned completely and all debris, all trash, all human waste is removed and the woods are restored to their natural state. So that's what I have to say. Thank you very much for the time. Thank you, I appreciate that. Just before the next speaker, it's mentioned a couple of times the question about crowding in the schools. So the discussion of crowding of schools is an implication that families would be unwelcome and families are a protected group under federal law. So we really encourage people not to discuss school crowding as something that should be considered in this decision. So I thank you for that. Mr. McCabe. Hello, can you hear me? I can, Mr. McCabe. That's great, thank you. And I thank you very much for letting me come along. My first question is on the independent living and the assisted living. I know in the first developments, there were studio apartments, one bedroom apartments, two bedroom apartments and three bedroom apartments available. With independent living and assisted living, what are the apartments gonna look like? Let me go ahead and forward that. Gwen and Art. Yeah, the assisted living will have a predominance of studios which are about a little less than 500 square feet. And that's kind of an industry standard. There will be some one bedrooms in assisted living as well. And for independent living, it swims the other way where there's a predominance of ones with a some limited number of tunes. And that would be the mix. There'd be no micro units. There'd be no threes. There would be no three bedroom units at all within this development. I believe the duplex units are all three bedroom. Is that correct, Mr. President? That is correct. Three bedrooms and a bed. Okay. I'm just gonna, the apartment's behind. I understand that the townhouse duplex, whatever you wanna call them will be three bedrooms, but the building behind it, four stories high, they won't have three bedroom apartments. That is correct. Okay. My next question is, and it's just off the charts. It's a little bit. What about snow removal from this whole area? Who's gonna be responsible for it? And where is the snow gonna be gone? So when it starts to melt, it doesn't flood people's cells. Mr. Heshen, can I ask you that question? Sure, Mr. Chairman. At this conceptual level, we haven't located the snow removal, but as we had shown in the previous 172 unit, we had snow storage areas located off the front courtyard entrance and off the surface parking lot on the west side of the main drive aisle here. You could see for the duplexes, it would be just like people needing to clear their driveways on the duplexes across the street. There's green space yard areas for that, essentially for each side of the duplex themselves. For the senior living building, there's, as Gwen described, the boulevard entrance up to the cul-de-sac drop-off area is quite a bit of green space available for snow storage and then the lawn and the open space on the west side of the main driveway near those four parallel parking spaces provides a great opportunity for some snow storage there in the winter season when that area is not being used for outdoor use and recreation. So the storage unit by the vegetable gardens or whatever you wanna call them will be used for snow and the people who live right next door to it will have to take care of that if it does melt into the, I'm sorry, can you hear me? Hello? I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand or follow that question. The question is that you were saying that the part of the snow storage will go into the, what would possibly be the vegetable gardens or something like that. And now if you throw a lot of snow in that area, where is it gonna melt? It's gonna melt into the residential home right next to the development. Is that correct or not correct? You don't know. We can locate the snow storage and we can grade those lawn areas so that it slopes and grades away from that. I believe that's Mr. Pideostity's home on Little John Street. I'm sorry, who's speaking? This is John Hessian. This is Mr. Hessian. Okay, that as we can locate that snow storage so that it will not impact in the future when it melts any adjacent butters that are not a part of this project. Thank you. We can take that. I'll just go two more things before you cut me off, Mr. Klein, because you did it last time, is one, there are a lot of assumptions, assumptions about vehicle use by the elderly and by the people who will be working there. I would like to know why they are assumptions and not numbers. Direct numbers, yes or no. 33 cars, 22 cars, two trucks, this or that. Everything is an assumption. We're assuming that the workers will be using the red line and that the elderly in the housing will not go out during the peak traffic hours. Why are these assumptions being made? So on the traffic one... Can you speak up a little bit, I can't... Oh, sorry, Mr. Cabe. If I could ask the question about traffic. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So again, we're still working on the traffic and some of the assumptions associated with the traffic analysis. I don't think that we're saying that everyone is going to take the tea that works there, but I think that it's likely that some people are going to take the tea. I think there's some people that are gonna use public transportation to get to the site. And I think there's also some... We need to do a little more research into how many people might be employed there at the site, the assisted living side. Yes. Because it's not like a nursing home. It's not like... It's not like a hospital. It's not like there's... There could be five... I am generalizing here, but there could be five or 10 or two people working there. At certain times. I think there'd be more than two. That's fine, but the fact is that we have to do some additional research on those types of numbers to be able to answer your question intelligently. Now, I think that we're certainly not saying that all the seniors are gonna leave when the ones that are driving that they're gonna leave during off-peak time periods. I think that that also, however, is a likely situation. If you don't have to get somewhere for seven, eight, nine o'clock in the morning and you don't have to come back home between four or five o'clock, then why would you? So, and I do think that there's a lower traffic demand and traffic impact associated with this type of use. And it's not that we're... We just haven't done the analysis yet. It's not that we're not doing it and all the numbers are gonna be verified by the town's consultant anyway. So those answers are to come. We're just not there yet. Okay, so there's no analysis being done, but you have these diagrams of things that are going up. And that's what I don't understand why you can go ahead with these diagrams and these other questionable things haven't been looked at considerably. So you can say yes or no. That's what I'd like to hear either yes or no. Karen. Yeah. There's noise. Cut, cut. Thank you. I'd like to say a couple of things. One is that I didn't mean to give the impression that we were counting on the employees to be using the red line. I was just saying that the proximity, reasonable proximity to the red line is something that would be available. But in fact, the numbers that we've used for the parking spaces were derived from the data and the parking, the tables that the Traffic Institute, Scott has them, there are real projections based on assisted living and independent living. And we use the maximum number of parking spaces in the garage from the tables that were given. And those numbers included both the employees and the residents. So that's one piece of data that has been generated from the professional records that are out there. It's not an assumption. Okay. What projections are these coming from? What professional organization are they becoming from? Yeah, I can answer that, Gwen. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yeah, sure. So it's the Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Generation Manual, the fifth edition. And this is for assisted living and for senior housing. So those numbers we were able to run to make sure that we had enough parking available on site to accommodate the expected demand, and we do. Okay. I guess just one last thing, and I'm a little upset with Miss, I forget what her name is, the leader of the group, that if she believes that the ZBA does not allow this situation to go on, is that she's going to jump right back onto the 176 and shove it down our throat. And I think that's a very unprofessional way to do business. And I think she might want to word it a different way somewhere in the future. Hi, Mr. McKeefer. If you want to speak, I'd be glad to speak to her. This is Stephanie Kiefer. And the board had asked the applicant at the last hearing as we understood it to explore the reintroduction of the townhouses. And so we've done that. We've done that as we stated on the conceptual level. And I think there's been a lot of thought that's put into it, but obviously we haven't been able to answer every question. And it takes a lot of time and expense to further engineer and develop our plans. And so it's a fair request, I think, of an applicant to ask a board for their input as to whether we're going in the right direction or whether we should go back to what we had before. And I think that, you know, perhaps you misconstrued what I was asking, but it's a very fair, this is very expensive and time consuming to put this forward. And so we want the board's feedback on this. Is this the direction that they would like us to proceed? And if Daisy say thumbs up, then we're happy to do that. I hope that addresses your concern. And both Mr. McCabe and Ms. Keefer, that was certainly the way that I had perceived it that you were asking us if this was the way to keep proceeding. And if not, then we would be proceeding along the prior plan and trying to finalize on that. So I think- With the threat, they would go right back to 176. 172 or 176? 172, 176, 174. I'm not sure which one it is. Yeah. I'm getting confused with the numbers, but I appreciate your time, Christopher. And I hope the best and hopefully everything will work out well. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. You're welcome. Appreciate that. Mr. Gryan. Hi, this is Anita Gryan. Oh, thank you. It's okay, you can log in first. Most of the questions I had, I think we've talked about, I won't repeat myself. We're at 47 Birch Street. So I'll look at my questions here and ask the ones that I don't think have been raised. Most of the discussion so far about the frontage has been in regard to Dorothy Road and the townhouses or duplexes. I'd like to know a little bit more about what would the view we have as a butters from the Eastern side, pretty much all the existing butters of the actual property are not gonna be looking at townhouses, we'll be looking at whatever is facing East. What do you see that? I see that there is a woodland restoration mentioned and you also mentioned that there would be cementitious siding on the duplexes. What kind of woodland restoration would we be looking at and what type of exterior finish is expected on the building? Thank you for those questions. Noice, do you wanna address those questions? Thank you. We have been thinking a lot about the conservation area that's close to 12, more than 12 acres of land and we would very much like to have a conversation with the town about how best to approach this. We understand that there is work that needs to be done and has been already mentioned earlier this evening about cleaning up from the habitations that have been there. And we're also aware that there's a real concern that some of the invasive species that are growing there might be a mitigated and native species brought back. These are all things that we consider as really quite wonderful prospects for the land but it needs to be worked out with people in the town and the conservation commission and so on. And we have, as I think some people know, we've had conversations with various entities including some that are quite interested in working with us. So there's a lot of conversation and a lot of timing and so on that needs to be worked out. But we're up for seeing that the property will be unrecognizable and it's beauty in the future years. Has there been much thought about the cladding for the assisted living and independent living building? You wanna talk about that? Well, I think the cladding would be consistent with the assisted living building would be clad the way, for example, the buildings across with two panels and cladding with trim and the townhouses and the duplexes would be the same materials. They'd be panels with vertical battens, they'd be cladded and panels even without the vertical battens. To try to get it- So basically a residential type finish it wouldn't look too institutional or too industrial. That's correct. We would want to spend more time analyzing the neighborhood and the different materials used in the neighborhood because the whole point is to have those six duplexes blend in with the neighborhood. I think Hyde has been mentioned a little bit and we can take a look at that. One thing just so you know, there are so many decisions that have to be made in something like this. One of the things we've done is, as you know we've thought about modular construction and the townhouses are also modular construction, different technology, but still modular. And there's actually three extra feet in height because of the modular construction. So that's one thing that we could even think about and look at is building those buildings a different way. But we thought modular would be good because it's much faster. You can do a building like this in a matter of three months, four months if it's modular, it might take six or eight months if it's a conventionally built. And did you say both the duplexes and the main building would be all modular units? That's our intention. Again, as one of those details we have to work out. We're used to doing buildings that are moldy family with using modular construction and the assisted living projects that we've done were not modular construction. So can that be married? We need to look into that. Thank you. Is Grant anything further? No, everything else I had on my list has already been asked. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. Mr. Giannolio. Hi, yes, can you hear me? We can. Hi, thank you so much for the opportunity to ask a question for the presentation. I'm 85 over the world. Say your part and just for the record I need your name and address. Diego Giannolio, 85, lower the world. Thank you so much, please proceed. Yes, so I'm really at the corner, little John and lower the world chasing this project. And I couldn't agree more with Mrs. Kiefer that there's a little time and effort that has been put into this. So I think there's something that should be very clear at this point. And in particular, I'm referring to the potential for flooding because in the whole presentation, one thing that is not clear is the basements. So the basements for the duplexes seems to be there, but it's not clear if they're gonna be actually put in place or not. And if they are, how deep they're going to be. And I say this because I'm moving to the duplex on the other side that was built in 2017. The bottom of the garage, so the floor of my garage is actually less than four feet from 80 from the total to the road, the street level. And we're experiencing various flooding. So we had the sun pumps running all the time. And so at this point, I think we should have a very good understanding of the water flow, how much water is expected. What is the drainage system? Is it gonna be French drainage system, sun pumps? And what is the percentage of water that's going to be displayed with this system? How comfortable are we that it's gonna be able to manage it? And also in the future, considering also the potential of global warming, how can we handle the water coming down, still running down right in that place where the project is. So anybody who saw this, the ZBA has a good understanding of the applicant management of water for the flooding and does the applicant have all those, the information. And then the other question I have is about the modules. So I'm assuming these come down on trucks and we have a lot of wires that correspond to power, electricity as well as cable, each intersection on a little John. So is the plan to remove those wires and then how are they going to provide power to the need of doing the construction? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Thornton, I believe you've addressed a similar question in the past, but could you just speak a little bit about sort of the size of the trucks and their ability to access the neighborhood? Yeah, so the trucks and we're not going back up. So at the risk of putting off the question, we haven't gone into the, maybe I could speak to this as the type of construction if the modular construction is still contemplated, but those vehicles can, if that's the case, those vehicles can get back to the site and are able to pull into the site and to unload their materials and then go back out to little John. The utility lines, there's technically supposed to be 16 feet of clearance between the surface of the roadway and any power lines. And the vehicles should not be any higher, any taller than 13.5 feet. They should be below that. So there should be no issues with height with the vehicles coming in. And this is getting ahead of ourselves, but when we would get to the point where we would be looking at sort of the precondition inspection for construction management plan, one thing we would probably do is, or one thing that we would do is we would have an arborist come there and take a look to see if there's any selective tree pruning that might need to take place that's out in the middle of the street to make sure that there's no damage that occurs to these trees when the trucks are coming in. But again, if the modular construction is used for this type of development and if those trucks are required to come back here, if not, if it's a WB67 or a large type tractor trailer, that vehicle can access without really, without any issues coming in off of Lake Street onto Little John and then right into the site. Thank you. And then I had a question just to sort of follow up with Mr. Hessian, so in your investigations, you look at questions of surface flow and how water is moving specifically from offsite areas into the site. Mr. Chairman, yes we do, we look at if there's any water contributing to this project site and even more importantly, we look at any water if there's any grades on this project site that actually drain out into Dorothy Road or onto any budding properties and we have to accept water that flows onto our site from offsite, but we have a responsibility to not increase flows from our site onto others. Okay. Thank you and I believe the most recent iteration of rainfall calculations you guys have been using, you've been using the NOAA 14 plus data, which is what the town is starting to use, but is in excess of what the current regulations are, is that correct? No, you mentioned the NOAA 14 plus, our drainage calculations have been using the Cornell data, which is what's required under the town's wetlands regulations, but as part of beta's peer review or I believe the board asked beta to look at our drainage system if we use the NOAA 14 plus and the drainage system worked with the exception of the 100 year storm, there was a little bit of surcharging on the subsurface infiltration base and in only the 100 year storm event. Thank you. Mr. Ginoy, did you have a follow up? Just wondering about the basements, are they gonna be basements or not? Because those I assume will form them, they will not allow water to go, where you're supposed to go is currently going. Ms. Noyes, can you address that question? Well, the basements would be in the same, you know, just underneath the house, which would not allow at least surface water to go, you know, by if you're thinking about groundwater, there's 22 feet I believe between the houses that would provide a passage for groundwater to move. The basements, you know, as we've said, we were thinking we might have partial basements and they would not be below the entrances, the stairs to the basement would not be lower than 11 feet or possibly 12 feet height so that they wouldn't naturally flood. And I understand that many of the driveways in the area are subject to flooding because they go, you know, they go right, the water flows right down into them. We'd heard about these problems, you know, every time we have a hearing. So we have been working to get water to flow to really address the water situation. And that's what John Hessian has been talking to. So the basements would be built, you know, if we're presuming we have basements and we think there's every reason to do that, we have, as builders, we've been using the most stringent kind of construction methodologies to keep the basements dry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next on the list, Ms. Ingalls. Yes, hello, I'm Martha Ingalls. I live at 148 Herbert Road. And I have a couple of small points to make. One is I see on Google Maps that this is the, this side of Dorothy Road is currently zoned for five duplexes. If we gave up that sixth duplex at the corner of Little John, that would allow for a wider entrance for those emergency vehicles we were concerned about. And my other thing that I wanted to say was can we zoom out a little bit on this slide or yeah, we're on slide two. I wanna see the outdoor socializing spaces over to the left. My concern is that those are very close to route two with a lot of pollution and which will not be good for the vegetable plots and also a lot of noise which will not be good for socializing in the lawn and the flower garden. And the solution that I want to suggest for that is that the assisted living building be constructed such that they can put a roof garden on top. And that would, it would provide more outdoor socializing space for residents. But more importantly, it would also absorb more rainwater. That's all I had to say. Thank you, I appreciate that. Could I? Chairman Klein, I have a comment about the proximity that- Yes, please. If we could get a bigger plan, what may be somewhat, I'm not sure if Scott can find one, but the distance between this drawing and route two is, there's a fairly considerable, maybe I'm not sure who has the best drawing of that, but anyway, there is a, that's okay. So- This is an older plan, this is Scott Blasock. This is an older plan, Gwen, but it shows the distance. Okay, so route two is at the very bottom of that line. And there's property, that rectangular shape of property there is owned by the state and does give a certain amount of buffer area between the property and route two, just to clarify that question. So, I hope that answers your question. Thank you, appreciate that. Next, Ms. Fredman. Hi, thank you very much. My name is Lisa Fredman. Ooh, I'm getting an echo over here. And I live at 63 Mont Street. First I wanna say I was so hopeful at the last ZBA meeting when a couple of members talked about coming to a compromise about how to develop thorn dive plays. And I sort of have been focusing my whole time on thinking about the environmental impact and also on flooding and traffic. On Mont Street, my basement still floods and I think any sort of major building is going to continue to create increased flooding on all of the streets, not just Dorothy Street or Little John Road, but even on those of us who live as far away as Mont Street. So one of the thoughts I had about compromise, which I think is so important for our neighborhood and our town and our relationship with you as the developers is to think how to be as minimalistic as possible and how to retain as much as we can of having this place be environmentally sound and preventing flooding. So one thought is just to stay with the proposal for the town housing. And the other reason why I said that is that I've had a lot of experience both personally as a caregiver to my father and professionally doing research on older adults, older adults living in long-term care facilities. And now I work with quite a few people who do home care services for dependent elderly adults. Assistive living is essentially reserved for people who are not independent. They have limitations in activities of a great daily living and in cognitive functioning. They usually require at least one home aid or personal care aid visit a day. People in independent living, my father was an independent living for 12 years, often are able to stay in independent living because they or their families arrange for them to get personal care services or homemade services up to 24 hours a day. And I also wanna add that living in Arlington, people who live in, if this assisted living or independent living living facility is developed, people's families will visit. Probably multiple times a week, a lot of times it might not be at nine o'clock in the morning, but it certainly will be in the afternoon after work. All of those things will affect traffic into the area and will impact parking along Dorothy Road, Little John Road and all of the adjacent roads because there will not be enough parking that you're proposing in this development. And I sort of feel a little used by proposing that changing the apartment building to an independent and assisted living youth facility will reduce all of these problems. It will still contribute to having an impact on the land and on flooding and probably also on traffic. And so I really would encourage us to go back to where we were at the last ZBA meeting, thinking about a compromise that truly benefits people in our neighborhood. And to me, that compromise would be just restricting the development to the townhouses. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, you're on me. Thank you for that. So there are no other hands that are currently raised. I was gonna just give a minute here if there were others who wished to raise their hand at this time, but also to get back to Ms. Chapnick. I know Mr. Hessian was looking for, was trying to find a document for you. Has that been resolved? Mr. Chairman, I can try to speak to that. What I wanted to make sure was that I had the full context of that January plan. And I have it on the open. I have too many windows and screens open. So if you bear with me and try to follow along. So that the January submission was not a full set of revised site plans, civil engineering site plans. What it was was, it was five plans from the plan set that were an attachment to the response to beta's stormwater review. So in that drawing C105, which is the grading and drainage plan in response to beta's comments, we had adjusted some grading where they had pointed out that we had a couple of minor issues and we adjusted some of the drainage structures and the connections to the building. On that drawing, there's a dashed line that is outside of the footprint of the residential portion of the building. It extends outside of the residential footprint to the north towards Dorothy. And then in the rear, that courtyard area where we were discussing the work in the aura on the south side of the building, southwest side of the building. So that's just one sheet that was revised from the November 3rd set. If you go to the November 3rd set, which and also the November 3rd architectural drawings label what that dashed line is, they show that the garage footprint is outside of the building footprint. So this is that type of site plant element gets labeled on the layout of materials plan and not on the grading and drainage plan. So I think that miscommunication, if you will, was that this was a one sheet out of five that was prepared to just specifically respond to those drainage comments from Beta's peer review. And the footprint of the building and the garage had not changed at all since that November 3rd full submission of both the full site plans. And that's really, I think where that maybe it got lost is in trying to respond to comments we tried to keep the revisions limited to just what was necessary. But if you refer back to the November 3rd plans, both the site plans and the architectural plans, you'll see that the garage is that dashed line and it was labeled back then and had not changed with the January. So I apologize if that caused any confusion but it was in no way meant to be a misrepresentation or trying to, for lack of better words to sneak one by anybody. So I apologize in trying to be responsive to the comments. Maybe we didn't think that it might be misread or misinterpreted for another purpose. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. If that being, I mean, I think it's clear that a miscommunication took place. And, but it's also clear what the facts are now that it was true then and it's true now that there's an intrusion of the building into the aura. It's also true that we now know that in previously commenting on the earlier version of the application, the concom was not aware of that and did not take that into account in its earlier comments and will almost certainly be interested in taking it into account in its comment on the revised plan. And it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that's kind of where we are that right now is that you can't just assume that whatever they said before would apply here because there was a mistake of fact and it will be up to them to decide what to make of it. And I'm just assuming that everybody has been proceeding in the utmost good faith here and it's very complicated and there's lots of things going on. But nevertheless, there's a substantive issue that's emerged and that if we proceed forward as I imagine we will on this trail and even if we don't that concom is going to have to review what it did in light of what it now understands about the proposal. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to that. Please. So in response to Mr. Hanlon I do want to say that I do know that it was presented and I don't recall it have to go back through my notes and potentially the recordings of these meetings but it was presented most likely at the conservation commission but probably also as part of the ZBA when we presented those revised plans on November the November 3rd plans that it was pointed out that there was a small and I'd have to go back to my notes 270 something square foot intrusion of the building into the very outer 10 or so feet, 13 feet I believe is the exact distance at the greatest of the building into that hour. So I just want to put it on the record that it's not new information. It was presented in the past and it was fact that it was presented and it hasn't changed. And so I just wanted to make that clear. Mr. Chairman, trying to get across is that for where we are right now, it doesn't really matter. It's now, we've now been at this for three hours and 18 minutes and I don't even know that this is the longest time. There are lots of details that were presented and that didn't stick. I believe Ms. Chapnick when she says that the concom if they heard this did not focus on it and did not assume it and we need the advice that we're and we'll get the advice from them as to what is to do now, even though it hasn't changed. And it seems to me that at this point it would be great to leave the who shot John and who's responsible for what and just realize that a miscommunication occurred and that we'll have to be remedied as we go forward. And can I just say, thank you Patrick and John and I think it is a miscommunication and maybe it's even mine and I have to go back to the commission and find out if they felt that everything that they had commented on this there's been so many iterations that I am not comfortable with saying that right now. So let's just take it as it is right now and move forward this way. And I appreciate you pointing that out and I appreciate Patrick's comments. Thank you. Thank you, Chapnick. I shouldn't say that when I said who shot John I didn't mean John Hessian in particular. I didn't take it that way, Mr. Hanlon. Thank you. So in the intervening time here we haven't had anyone else raise their hand. So I'm going to go ahead and formally close the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting. So having closed the public comment period. So there's a couple of things that are before the board at the moment. So one is the the request of the applicant to get a little bit better direction from us as to whether they're proceeding in the path that we want them to follow. If we want them to revert back to what they were pursuing before or whether we want them to keep along this path but there are certain things we want them to keep an eye on moving forward. And it sounds like we're based on the comments we've been receiving tonight. That we're very, very much likely in that third category. Going back to the original comments to the board before the public comment period I definitely feel this is a much better plan in terms of keeping with a lot of the discussion that we had earlier and that it does a good job I think now of meeting the neighborhood. And I'm still trying to digest exactly what it means to have a large assisted and independent living building in this portion of the neighborhood. But it sounds like there are definitely some advantages to pursuing this rather than sort of open apartments. But we've also received a lot of comments from both the public and from members of the board about certain aspects of this that I think would be good to have reviewed. Then obviously is this question of the portion of the building that's in the org and is there a straightforward way of addressing that that preserves the aura or is it something that we really that the applicant feels they cannot get away from and that they are really limited to having to maintain that intrusion. And I think the board and I think the chair of the conservation commission has been clear that this is something that should be looked at or will be looked at by the specific commission. I think that there's been a couple of questions certainly raised about the basements in the duplex units and whether those pose a risk to those who would be purchasing those units. While I think, as some people said, a lot of it said there are definitely issues with water that comes down the driveways and into the basements of the houses that have basement garages. I think there's also others who have said that they have basements that aren't garages but that the water comes up through the basement into the foundation and through the floor slab into the basement. And that pressure, that water pressure is something that not only would be a concern to the new project to the new duplexes, but that displacement would that be an issue for other people in the neighborhood? So I encourage you to think a little bit more about the necessity of the basements and how to make sure that if they are included in the project that they're included in a way that they're not a risk for the people owning them and that it's clear that they will be able to maintain their water tightness. And there's been some concern, a little bit of concern not as much I think about the elevation of the garage level in the larger building. Certainly I think higher is better. It is certainly now above what we understand the water table to be and hopefully that will work out. And then I know there was, there has a couple of people had sort of mentioned sort of the natural flow of water in the neighborhood right now where this site is undeveloped that I don't know if there's a lack of drains in the street or just with what the condition is, but it certainly it has been described by multiple people that water flows through the neighborhood and then off the edge of the roadway on Dorothy into the woods. And that is sort of the natural flow pattern right now. And if I think it would be good for us to understand if that really is the flow pattern, is it just that there are no street drains in that locale or is it, what exactly is going on? Let's see if that's something that needs, let's see if there's that's something that would need an intervention as a part of whatever's being proposed. Just going back to the members of the board, are there other concerns that you have raised or that you have heard raised tonight that you wanna emphasize? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. There's some basic blocking and tackling, which I think that both Mr. Hessian and Mr. Thornton said was much easier than it was before, but one of them has to do with traffic. There's a hunch based on some evidence, but not all the study that Mr. Thornton thought needed to be done as to what the actual traffic picture would be with the change in use that we have there. And for every sort of basis for the hunch, there's somebody who has a counter hunch. And at this point, there's research that needs to be done that Mr. Thornton mentioned before and that we shouldn't forget. Similarly, Mr. Hessian had pointed out before that the management of the stormwater or that stormwater management is easier now that it's not as cramped a site as it was before. And I'm glad it makes this job easier because it still is a job that needs doing. The flowing of water here is so important to everyone that making sure we've done everything we can to cross all the I's dot all the T's and so forth is something that we can't neglect to do. So that kind of work needs to be done as well. There may be a little bit of fine tuning. I at least raised a question a little bit about the heights of the townhouse units. And I think in the course of the discussion, there were a number of things individually, maybe not very large, but there certainly were things to be thinking about and seeing whether there's a kind of fine tuning that, well, if we've got everything in the right shape now, which I am not gonna say for sure that we do, but if we did, there's still a little bit of sanding necessary maybe to fit this into the neighborhood and its surroundings in the way one would like to do. There was lots of expression of a willingness by Gwen and Arthur to do that. And, but if we're going to have a checklist, we need to keep those kinds of issues on the checklist as well. Thank you. Mr. Revillac? Yeah, I have a few brief items regarding the, so first I'll preface this by saying that I live along the Elweifbrook in a 100 year floodplain. And yes, my house does occasionally flood and it's not groundwater that comes up through the basement. It's overland that forms a big sort of a pond in the land that's behind my house. But, you know, living in that sort of situation, I've become a very, I've really warmed up to the idea of buildings in floodplains that are elevated on piles. And I'm, you know, that might be a more practical, a more practical approach in this environment, just forgo the basement altogether. You know, I'd just put that out there for consideration. There are not many buildings in East Arlington that do this, but if you walk along Elweifbrook, you will see a few. Regarding, you know, and the other thing I'd just like to mention, well, see worth it with the time as it is I'll keep it short. During the public comment period, I did, don't believe I heard anyone say we should go back to the 176 unit department. So I'm likely to, I concur with my fellow board members that this is an improvement. And I would like to see us continue down this path. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Revoli. So I think I can certainly say on behalf of the board is very, you know, views this new plan quite favorably and would like to see some further refinements on it, especially in light of the comments that were brought up this evening and sort of the comments that were reiterated since the close of the public comment period. I would ask Ms. Kiefer whether this sort of gives her the direction she was hoping to receive. I think that it does. And we appreciate your thoughtfulness and feedback on this. So with that, I think we would want to continue. Our first issue would be that we currently are wanting 80 day calendar is set to expire next Thursday. So I think we would be looking to extend that out so that there's some time to further refine this. I don't know, Ms. Kiefer, does your team thought at all about how much time they would like to? We actually had not, just because we weren't certain which direction things were gonna go this evening. So if I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, if you could, because I know the board has a busy calendar, suggest what dates you have available in the next four to eight weeks and then. So currently we are, so the dates that we have set certain for things to wait, so next two, so we have hearings on May 18 and May 25 and June 1st, but presently those are the only dates that we have things firmly booked. So Tuesday the 18th, Tuesday the 25th of May and Tuesday the 1st of June, but beyond that we are not scheduled. Okay. I guess I would somewhat put this out to my team as well. So that's, it sounds like what you're saying is that June 8th would then be available for you. It ought to be, I think that'll be available to our board. I would just check with Mr. Haverty if that date works with him. June 8th works for me. And for the Thorn Dyke team, may I ask if that works for you? It actually, Stephanie, it actually doesn't work for me. Okay. One look at either the 10th or the 15th. It works for me. Oh, for those work for me. All right, and Gwen, I think the 10th would be good for us also. Thursday, June 10th. Yeah. Does that pose an issue for anyone on the board? Seeing none and hearing none. Any more time, Mr. Haverty? So I think we would continue to, we want to continue to Thursday, June 10th at 7.30. But before we do that, we need to extend out our 180 day calendar. That's right. We could do like we did previously and just extend that short period. So extend that out to the 17th or the 24th or whatever. We would be fine with that. If I said Friday the 25th of June. That's fine. That would give us a couple of weeks in there to sneak into an extra meeting to do. Okay, thank you. So with that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Could I just do one other thing as we go out and do this? Almost literally the elephant in the room is what's to be done with the conservation land. And we've not really addressed that. That hasn't really changed since last time. But we're down at the end. And it's my hope that the town will engage with the applicant between now and then and that they can have some useful discussions in light of Mr. Chapter Lane's letter that would at least develop that issue for us. Since one way or the other, this is part of the application and we're going to have to address it. Absolutely. Let me see if we know that Ms. Wright needed to leave to go to another meeting. But yeah, I will speak with her in the morning and see if we can try to move forward a little more aggressively on that. And with that, I have a motion to extend the 180 day review period for Thorn Dyke Place to Friday, 25th, 2021. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Revillac. Do I roll call vote? Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. Mr. Ford? Aye. Mr. Bear votes aye. Mr. Hanlon, may I have a motion to continue the hearing on Thorn Dyke Place until Thursday, 10th, 2021 at 7.30 p.m. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Revillac. Roll call vote of the board. Mr. Dupont? Aye. Mr. Hanlon? Aye. Mr. Mills? Aye. Mr. Revillac? Aye. Mr. Ford? Aye. The chair votes aye as well. So we are continued and extended. I leave that and thank you for everything we had on agenda for this evening. I'd like to thank everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. Especially I'd like to thank our fellow rallye Vincent Lee and Kelly Lanema for their assistance in preparing for and Mr. Lee especially for hosting tonight's online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's reporting of the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of our proceedings. It is our understanding that reporting made by ACMI will be available on-demand at ACMI.tv within the coming days. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals website. Thank you. Can I see you? Mr. Mosey? Mr. Mosey? Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Are there all board members in favor of adjournment? Please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Federal Thanks to and on Beta for all your continued work on this project. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Good night everyone. Good night everyone.