So it is 734 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2023. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christian Klein. I am the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals and I'm calling this meeting of the board to order. I ask all attendees who are not recognized by the chair to please mute their connections until such time as they're recognized by the chair. I would like to confirm all members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning board of appeals. Roger Dupont here. Patrick Hanlon here. Dan Rickidelli here. Venkat Holly here. Elaine Hoffman here. And our newest member Adam will blank. Here. Great to have you all here on behalf of the town Colleen Rawson, the zoning assistant. Here. Good to have you and I don't think we have any other town employees with us. Consultants for the board. We have Paul Haverty. Paul, good to have you with us. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. And we also have Sean Reardon with us. Sean. Good to have you. Good evening. I have not seen Cliff this evening, but I think he may not have been available tonight. I can't recall. And then appearing on behalf of the applicant, we have Paul Feldman. Good evening. Good evening. And joining him from the Missouri companies, we have Jackie Mejory and Paul Mejory. Matt, who's normally with us is unavailable this evening. And also joining them is Chris Mulhern. Are there any others Paul? Not, not this evening. Okay. Great. Well, this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations signed into law on July 16, 2022. This act includes an extension until March 31, 2023 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020, the executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the public body physically present at a meeting location, so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public comment will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom application with online 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. Others are participating by computer audio or by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials have been provided members of this body are available on this meeting's agenda or on the town's website unless the other West noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So this evening on our agenda, we do only have the two items. One is the public participation details, which we have just covered and I don't number two is docket 3719, which is 1021 1025 Massachusetts Avenue. So returning to the comprehensive permit hearing for the residents is at Mill Brook. This evening, the board is continuing a comprehensive permit hearing for the residents is at Mill Brook, the redevelopment of an existing site in the neighborhood office be one district. The submitted documents are available from the board's website, or as an attachment to the posted agenda. At the January hearings, the board heard testimony regarding wetlands and stormwater plans for the property traffic and transportation issues and architectural considerations. At the February hearings, the board heard testimony regarding landscape plans revisions to the civil plans, revisions to the architectural plans and presentation of the construction management plan. Tonight we plan to discuss progress of the applicants wetland protection act application before the conservation commission revisions to the plans for the construction phase of the project. And any of our revisions presented by the applicant. We will also discuss the historic status of the building at 1021 Massachusetts Avenue and will review the revised waiver requests from the applicant. After members of the board have had an opportunity to ask their questions of the applicant, the hearing will be open for public comment and questions on the topics discussed this evening. The board is reaching the end of the scheduled hearings for this project under state law as extended by the consent of the applicant, the public hearing phase of this project must conclude before April 30, 2023. The board will hear public comment at this session on topics related to the materials present presented this evening. Comments from the public which do not specifically relate to topics under discussion this evening are important to the board. We requested those comments be submitted by email to the board for their consideration. At the conclusion of public comment, the board will discuss the plans for the next session with the applicant before a vote to continue this hearing and adjourning for the evening. So at this point, I'd like to reintroduce attorney Paul Feldman from Davis, Monty Augustine to introduce tonight's present presenters. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening members of the zoning board. We're here on behalf of the applicant for this 40B development. 1021 Mass Ave LLC. With me is Paul Maggiore for the Maggiore companies and Jacqueline Maggiore. And Chris Mulher and who is the architect for the proposed development. My name is Paul Feldman as the chair mentioned. I'm an attorney that represents the applicant. The chair mentioned we're coming to the end of a series of public hearings that have been, I think, very productive and comprehensive. And tonight we have a few things on our agenda to close out the presentation by the applicant. The three things we'd like to do tonight is the chair requested at our last hearing that we present the sustainability materials that we filed with the board a few weeks back. So Chris Mulher and the projects architect will do that. The second thing is that there are some slight changes to the four plans that we would like to present. They're in response to comments made by the third party review architect. Specifically addressing a second means of egress from the second floor patio area and a couple other things that Chris Mulher will present. The final thing we'd like to do tonight is at our last hearing the chair mentioned that he was going to make an effort to start to pull together a list of subjects that will be potential conditions to the permit. The chair emailed me the list that he had prepared. We've been through the list we've picked up a few other items that from our notes. We understood the board was interested in considering for conditions. And I also understand that Mr. Haberty is is working on a proposed decision to be presented potentially next meeting. So I thought it would make it made some sense that I put together a quick comprehensive rework of the list that I've gotten a proposed conditions and we could quickly walk through them each of them tonight. So Mr. Haberty can hear both from the applicant and the zoning board, what it is that we're trying to accomplish with the condition and give him guidance on these on the specific conditions. I'm not suggesting that these conditions are a conclusive list. I know that the board has issued comprehensive permits in the town previously and there's probably I'll call them standard conditions or some conditions that even though they may not be mentioned on this list may appear in a draft decision but but the idea was to sort of focus on the project specific items that everyone we've been keeping note of and I think the board has been keeping note of. So that's what we have for tonight and with that I'll turn it over to Chris Mulhern and Chris I'll leave it up to you if you want to present sustainability or if you want to present the small changes that were made since since we were here last. Thanks Paul Mr Chairman Chris Mulhern for Harrison Mulhern architects if I can share my screen. You should be able to do so. I think we'll start with the sustainability document. This is a document that we filed with the board. I think two and a half weeks ago and I'm not going to go through each and every line I remember but I want to just give you the overview and the flavor of what we're going to do with this project. And there are a number of categories here to talk about first of all with respect to location and transportation. This project is on a major arterial route. Connected by bus service to commuter rail into the red line at Harvard station. There are resources within walking distance for for food and drug stores and the playgrounds and the other community amenities that make a project viable. The five story height that we're proposing allows a higher density on a smaller footprint. We have parking spaces one per unit. We have charging stations in the garage for 11 cars with the potential to go to 100% EVs going forward. As far as the site goes. We're, we're going to be doing pollution prevention during construction with barriers to prevent runoff from the site. We're going to be making significant changes in the property to the point where the stormwater generated by the impervious cover is all treated on the site instead of flowing off the site as it does now. As we've talked about in previous meetings, the rear of the site will be developed as a native species urban garden, if you will, with lots of new trees, new tree seedlings and sustainable habitat for birds and small animals. We also have a raised plaza on the second floor, which provides an outdoor green space and reduces the heat island effect as does the white reflective roof on the on the building. As far as water goes. We have drought tolerant native plants in the proposed landscape plan will be using limited water and both the ground level plant material and the plaza level plant material. And we'll be metering the monitoring the water consumption unit by unit so that residents can be mindful of what they're doing in terms of water use. The building design will be an all electric building for domestic heating and cooling domestic hot water. We do have to bring a gas service into the building because the standby power requirements for the elevator. And that will require that the that the elevator be operational for two hours after the after a power shut off and we haven't figured out a way to do that with batteries at this point so we will have a gas fired generator on the roof and I'll come back to that when we get to the plan changes. The building itself will be designed to meet the stretch energy code, the newly enacted stretch energy code which is now in the Department of Energy Resources under a rule called 225 CMR chapter 23 will be using one of the three methods for compliance on that it will be the building envelope will be evaluated during the design to ensure that the overall you value of the building comprehensive you value meets the requirements of the code. There will be continuous insulation on the exterior of the building, there will be continuous air vapor barrier at the perimeter of the building steps will be taken to minimize the amount of bridging and the amount of energy transfer to through elements of the exterior of the building. The pump based system with individual control unit by unit. The units appliances will be energy star rated, and the performance of the building will be evaluated by a hers radar before the units come online. The, you should know that the, the specialized update of the energy code stretch energy code to the expanded performance code is on the warrant in Arlington for the spring town meeting as article 10. The event that that article passes which I have every expectation it will. To the extent that it's applicable to this project we will be complying with those more stringent rules with respect to energy conservation. We're going to do our best to maximize recycling of the construction waste and to source materials locally, and we're going to do our best to maintain high quality of interior environment by way of minimizing VOCs in the new product products in the project, using recovery ventilation in the units and using LED lighting. So that in a nutshell is the summary of where we are with the sustainability. We are expecting this to be a very efficient project with excellent systems to minimize energy use we have. So already we have a lot of footprint on the roof available for solar panels and as things develop we may be generating some power on site as well. I want to change over now to this other screen to talk for just a brief minute about some changes to the plan. I can make this go. Yeah. So, this is the project obviously the, there are changes to some of the drawings in response to the comments that have been made by members of the board and advisors to the board on the second floor. After a dialogue with the building commissioner, we've had an additional egress path from the second floor exterior Plaza. The commissioner, as is his want as the authority having jurisdiction made a ruling that the space is should be considered as assembly use the portion of it that's public. So we've added a second egress and we've increased the egress capacity to 360 persons form from that space. So this is the revised plan. You can see the blue arrow is pointing here to this additional egress path out of the space. On the fifth floor as I mentioned we've had, we had to put the generator back in we thought we could get away without having it but it didn't work because we couldn't find a battery solution for the elevator operation. So on the fifth floor plan, we've put the generator back in the position that it was previous iterations of the drawings. On the elevation package, we've made these four changes we've added the standby generator back in. We've coordinated the grades with the civil plans one of the board members mentioned that we hadn't, or maybe it was Cliff mentioned that we hadn't quite gotten the exterior elevations coordinated. So that process we had to make some adjustments to the garage windows and the green screens to make everything work. So here is the front elevation with the generator enclosure added back in on the left hand side here. This is the left side elevation with the generator enclosure at the top, the fence and gate at the back of the building and then revised grade line for the ground plane here. The ground, the existing elevations at the property line on the left side of the property cause us to bring the grade up from the front of the building to this high point and then slope back down as a result of that change. We were required to reduce the size of these windows in the garage and then this group here to make them match up. So these two locations have garage louvers above windows with the reduced height. The green screens here in the middle were also reduced in height. So here is the rear elevation with the grade line adjusted. And you can see that the grade is a little higher between the two doors than the previous versions of this drawing. And it's a little lower at this right hand corner, where the walkway goes out to the sidewalk. This is the right side elevation with the grades adjusted to follow what's on the civil drawings. There's a curb at this rear service door to the retail space. The grade slows down gently to about here and then it drops off a little more steeply to the back corner of the building. Here again, we were obliged to make an adjustment in the green screen treatment to make it match up with the grading. And that is what I have. I'm happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. Are there questions from the board in relation to those changes? Not see any. Mr. Chair. Mr. Gregory. I have just two questions. I jotted down during that presentation. So for the generator, it looked like on the elevation that I think you mentioned it, but that was still out a screen. That's correct. It's a drawing with a 10 foot high screen. We don't know exactly what generators can be acquired, but typically they have an acoustic enclosure and have a raised base skid base. And so we're hoping it can be a little shorter than this, but we're not quite sure. But you would, you would be proposing an acoustic enclosure for that. Okay. And the last question, if I could, Mr. Chair. Please. You mentioned that the building is all electric. With the exception of the generator, but I seem to remember that there was gas to the retail. Is that still the case or has that been removed? We'll have a feed to that retail space just to keep the flexibility. Certain types of retail have exemptions to, even in all electric buildings. But at this point, we really have no idea what that tendency is going to look like. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Chair. I had one question. Please. This is a podium building. Correct. Yes, sir. There's no mention of the separation insulation requirement there between the podium and the residential. I know one of the pathways has a stricter rule on that based on the latest stretch code. Yeah. We're planning at this point to condition the garage to a low continuous temperature. So there will be a heating system in the garage and there will be a thermal barrier between the garage and the residential spaces above. Exactly what that looks like. I just don't know yet, you know, but there is a requirement that there be a thermal insulation between those. The two uses garage use and the residential use above. Okay. Okay, because there are some on one of the elevations you had these decorative screens that, you know, it's not a insulated glazing right not all of the garages. So, so these, these screen elements here are applied to the surface. Okay. They're not they don't go through the wall accepting the anchorage. Okay. So the balance of the open ones that are drawn here white. These are actual windows they're probably going to be fixed glass, you know, so picture window type deal. Okay, so these in for all, you know, like a tempered condition tempered space. Yes, it's a tempered space that's correct. Thank you. That's all the head. Thank you. Other questions from the board. Mr chair. Please. I really appreciated getting to look through the sustainability memo. And I noticed that under the energy and atmosphere section. There were a number of targets listed under envelope. And I was just wondering if the team had established an energy use target. I didn't see it in the memo I wasn't sure if it existed yet. I was wondering if there was a just following up on the envelope pieces. I think all the opaque elements were identified, but I was wondering if there was a target performance value for the windows. Great question. Elaine. The answer is no, we haven't established an energy target for the overall building. We're looking at a series of trade offs. And the biggest one, honestly, is between double and triple play paying windows. We're looking at, you know, double paying windows that are getting us a U value of 0.28 or 0.29. I think we can, we can make that happen. The triple paying windows are much better. They're coming in at around 0.19 or 0.20, which is, which is great.  You values and that comprehensive study has not been done. It's helpful to hear. I'll just, I think I brought this up in an early, in an earlier meeting. But if it's always helpful to also look at the embodied carbon of the windows alongside their performance value. And so I just wanted to raise that since it didn't appear under the materials and resources section. Even if a life cycle assessment isn't being conducted, it's always useful to compare product EPD is agree. But anyway, I thank the team for sharing the memo to highlight everything that you're you're doing on this project. And thanks for your input. Was there anything further? Okay. Unless there's any other questions from the board. I was going to suggest. If we could to move on to sort of an update on where things stand with the conservation commission. I know Chuck Chiron is here. He's the vice chair of the conservation commission. So just wanted to, in case he needs the rest of his evening back and just to go over where we're having hearing in April with the conservation commission and then sort of what the next steps are. Thank you, chair Klein. So yeah, I'm Chuck, I'm vice chair of the Arlington conservation commission. And the conservation commission had its first meeting on March 16. And we had a good discussion, but we continued that meeting till the 13th and scheduled a site visit for this Monday. And we also posted that meeting. And so it's a public meeting. And if some of the committee, the CBA wants to come to this meeting at 530, you know, you're welcome to join us. So, and I think they're going to return to our meeting if I have the date right on the 20th. So April 20th will be our second meeting. And that's when we're going to consider what we've seen on the site visit and, you know, discuss what we asked for as noticed, at least in the presentation when they were here at our first meeting. So that's the schedule coming up. Really just kind of the intro and then a site visit. So I actually think that we're coming back on the 13th. And so we have the availability of the 20th if we have to, because, you know, we're trying to coordinate that the concoms work be completed prior to April 30th. So I got to double check that truck, but I think I think we are coming back on the 13th. Yeah, we continue to April 13th. That's right. Okay. And then we have the if necessary, we could come back the following week to wrap things would be the 20th. Right. That's all the meeting. Yes. Yeah. And so the expectation is that if an order of conditions issues under the State Wetlands Protection Act, it's it's going to contain a lot of. Standard conditions and perhaps some special conditions that I'm sure the ZBA is going to want to include and conform in connection with the local by law. Order of conditions. So we're trying to stay coordinated as we committed to both boards some time ago. Great. I think I think that's possible. It sounds like if depending on the very next meeting, if things come together at that meeting, I think that schedule works. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I have a question if, if this goes to the 20th or I'm trying to draw a distinction in my mind between the, the conservation commission coming to its conclusion and actually having all of the conditions written and ready to go so that we can really deal with them. And I'm wondering if the space between whenever the conservation commission sort of gets to its end to when it actually has all the conditions written maybe that's the same time. But trying to understand what gap they'll be because we'll be under the under a very tight deadline to respond if there are any questions and so forth because we go into hibernation. As soon as the hearing is closed and we're in deliberation. So I guess the question is really do you expect as of that final date on the 20th say to have all of the conditions finalized so that we can just react to them. And will there still be work to do to do to get it papered and so that it's, it's ready to go. So for the conservation commission I believe after the meeting on the 13th we're going to work with a with a group to put our conditions together and then present them to the conservation commission to be approved so that for us should should the hearing on the 20th so we should be able to finalize it on that day. This is again this is the plan. This is what we're hoping to do if if everything works out. Yeah, so hopefully there's no there's no, you know, hiccups in the in the system. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board. Hey, and Chuck, thank you so much appreciate you're joining us this evening. I did have a question about some of the, the February 17th. Are you guys going to discuss not just the architectures but some of the, the outside elements. And one I wanted to bring up was about the fence and I guess there was a comment in here how they might not make meet the performance standards of the riverfront area. And it seemed like they weren't going to allow habitat movement so I just want the applicant to understand that if the fence prevents that and there's segmentation within the habitat area. I mean, you can have this beautiful urban forest. But from what I read it sounded like you're going to isolate it and prevent anything from getting in to enjoy it.  There's going to be a gap of at least four inches and we'll have to modify that. By, by the working with the conversation to allow for movement. That was always anticipated and is built into it and we'll, we'll clear that up with the conservation commission at its next hearing as well. Okay, great. I just wanted to clear that up so it wasn't hanging out there. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Well, what did you want to go to next. Well, I, it may be a feel a little cumbersome but I think it would be very beneficial for us to sort of walk through with the board, the different subject matters of of the various conditions so we could see, you know, where we have a meeting and we may not have a meeting in the mines and and we could have some feedback so that the person charged with doing a drip. And I could we just walk through this list and I think it'll become self evident. What I'm wanting it. Okay, did you want to do that first did you want to talk about the changes to the construction management plan. Yes, sir. Steve more. I know that you talked about public comment coming later but public coming to the sustainability plan. Does that mean to wait. Let me just check on one thing with Mr. Mr felman did you want it. Because if we if we talk about the construction plan I think then we could talk about the construction management plan and then we could do public comment for all of that material before we move on. But I wasn't sure if you wanted to do the construction management now. Well, I think that we weren't intending to present the plan other than to report on what we've done in connection with that plan because we still wanted to get the feedback from the town engineer. So the expectation is if hopefully we're going to reach a meeting of the minds with the town officials on the construction management plan. And then we would present the plan as vetted with town officials to the ZBA so you've already seen the construction management plan. And just to finish the subject so we have to presenting it to the zoning board and getting the feedback of Sean Reardon from tetra tech, which we greatly appreciated. And then reached out to the various town departments that you know have jurisdiction and will ultimately have to agree with construction management and it was basically the town engineer the building inspector. We had a meeting of department members with Mr. Reardon and if I remember correctly Mr. Klein you attended and got feedback from everyone and one of the biggest takeaways that the town engineer requested of us is we had planned for our construction management plan had planned for the public right of way to be disrupted and close for a period of about 18 months. And the town engineer felt that that was a very, very long time and really wanted that time period studied and really wanted to understand and feel like we justified the need. And, and he really felt that it would be unnecessary to close the right of way the public right of way portions for that period of time and he really wanted us to go back to the drawing board and look at that and since having that meeting and getting that feedback. We did go back with Venice our traffic consultant and work, work through with Maggiore from a construction point of view, exactly, you know, or more precisely, when do we really need to occupy the public way. And we have submitted materials to the town engineer and some others to consider, which reduced the time period to no more than 12 months. The reason why I say no more than 12 months is that the anticipation is that all of the initial site work the clearing of the site to demo the preparation of the grade, the installation of the foundation up through the pouring of the slab of the garage level. That can be accomplished without occupancy of any portion of the public way totally based on the boundaries of the private property. And only after that point, which we anticipate is about a three month process, when we would begin to erect steel and get the podium going that we would for deliveries and other reasons need to occupy the public way. We look through the time period to complete the construction and the exterior of the building. And when we felt confident that we can return the public way we build a sidewalk we're rebuilding side walk the entire from line to line line. When we felt that we could do that. We were confident that that period of time would be no longer than 12 months quite possibly it would be less, less than that but we were prepared to commit that it would be no longer than 12 months. And even though the construction would then continue continued for a few months thereafter to finish interior work and to deal with the urban garden and and the like. So, we're, again, as we've always, we've tried to be responsive to what we hear, we try to meet the concerns that that are presented to us and that's where we are with the construction management plan and as soon as we get some additional feedback from the town departments our plan was to present hopefully what was a final version back to this board go through the changes with with the board and and see if there's any other loose ends that needed to be addressed. Right. Thank you. Okay, so we should need to go ahead and make sure that we schedule that meeting before too long to review with the with engineering. There was one other topic before we move on to public comment and discussion of waivers and possible conditions. And that has to do with the historic status of the building at 1021 Massachusetts Avenue. So, this is the town maintains a register of historically significant buildings, of which 1021 Massachusetts Avenue is part 1025 Massachusetts Avenue is not. So, there was a an application, a demolition permit was requested from the historic district commission back in 2021. That was put on the historic commission docket for September 7 2021. And at that time, a, as noted in the minutes of the historic commission that message was received to postpone this hearing to October 5 2021. But that hearing was never resumed.  And so I've had conversations with the, some members of the historic mission and with town council and with inspection services about what that means in terms of the status of that application. And as, as far as the building department is concerned. The understate statute that historic mission has 30 days from to render a decision, and it did not render a decision within those 30 days and it did not. There's no record of any extension of that time period. So, what it appears is that the, there was no demolition delay entered on that building. It was constantly requested demolition was constructively approved because there was no decision granted. And as such, the board does not need to issue specifically a waiver in regards to doing the demolition delay requirement. The board if the, I will have this discussion with the council one more time just to confirm that that the waiver is the that denying the waiver is appropriate in this case, it may make sense for us to maintain the waiver. If the, if the board so chooses, but I just wanted to bring that up. So, as far as our understanding is the there is no demolition delay on this property and the request to the historic commission has lapsed. I would concur with that in analysis and, you know, again, being a lawyer I'd like to do belts and suspenders I, I would still ask the board to waive because I want to give some confidence to the community that we did look at the historic record that the town has for to have and, you know, it's on your inventory list and there's some records and there are two drivers that having done this, and in other communities, and it's the same situation in Arlington there are two drivers that historic looks at. One is architectural features is there something unique about the structure architecturally historically that there should be a delay in demolition to given an opportunity for preservation. Another is is the site itself, been the subject of important historic moments in the, you know, the history of our nation know the history of the of the community. And when we looked at the records of 1021 to try to get a better understanding of why the town listed it on its historic inventory. And what we found was that there was there was no architectural, historic architectural features that were identified that section of the form was completely left blank. And then asked Mr mo her and he could speak to it as an architect familiar with this stuff when he looks at that structure is there something that that's unique or, or something that would give rise to him with his eye for preservation purposes he indicated no it's definitely not the case it's a fairly standard building type. This was built in like 1875, but it's from a architectural point of view it's there's no historic features of any significance. And when we looked at the section of the inventory form about, you know, the historic use. All that was noted was it was owned in the 1800s by the Owens family and they own its family where had a funeral hope that a funeral home business at that property for a number of years. Again, not the type of. I'm involved in a development site where we have a general from the revolutionary war who had a homestead on this site and you know that's the, the nature of the, you know, the, the general Glover was his name and so you know that has created a lot of important considerations for how we've been moving on developing that site. So I want to give some comfort to the community that, while this property shows up on the inventory for the town are presuming this, it is merely because it happens to have been built in the late 1800s. But when you look at the materials as to, you know, why it would be deemed significant, there's virtually no reasons presented. Anybody to feel like we are, you know, wiping out an important piece of history, either architecturally, or in terms of the occupants. Because in looking at it that that's not the case and, and I think people can feel comfortable that there really isn't historic significance other than it happened to have been built in the late 1800s. So, I know that's all probably unnecessary, but I do think it's important that we did, we did take a look and, and make sure we weren't missing something that we should pay attention to. Mr Chairman. So, just briefly, so the Arrington Historic Commission published a book called the Millbrook Valley, a historical and architectural survey that includes all the properties in this general area. And its record for 1021 Massachusetts Avenue identifies it as a dwelling. Greek revival, third quarter of the 19th century, much altered. And that's the, that's all it says. Exactly. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So, I feel a little bit uncomfortable actually about the comfort with the conversation that we've had for the last several minutes. I was actually feeling good about the belts and suspenders when I thought what it meant was that if there's any doubt about the question of essentially the constructive approval of the demolition and the argument that the chairman originally made. We'd want to erase that so that there's no possibility of some later litigation or, or fussing about it. We have the power to wave it and if we think that the historic commission is out of is, is basically out of the picture because of that. I would not want, if there's any question about that I'd like to put that question to rest so that we have finality. I'm not very comfortable though at listening to one side of the story about the significance of the property. I get the argument I'm persuaded by the argument, but I haven't really heard the other side if there is another side and if we're expected to rely upon the discussion that we've just heard. I would like to make sure that the historic commission if they have a different view would have the opportunity to present that view to us, not by having a hearing and going through a process that we think has been is procedurally no longer appropriate. But again, if I'm not ready to make a finding that in fact there's no historic significance and no basis for claiming that there is, unless the historic district commission has, has had a chance to weigh in it. It may have some thoughts that we haven't heard. And, and I want the record again if we're going to consider that I'd like the record to reflect their views, as well as the views of the applicant. We have time we could invite them, we can invite them to make a submission either to come a written submission or whatever. But I'm a lawyer to and making decisions when you only hear from one side is the sort of thing you do with temporary restraining orders not the sort of thing you do after all of the months that we've had on this. Mr Chairman, can I chime in here as well. Yes, please. I just wanted to clarify that what this board would be doing in this circumstance would not be to waive the requirements under the historic district. Instead, what you would be doing would be issuing the permit that would determine that demolition delay is not required. You are the local permit granting authority for all local permits under chapter. Okay. So, I do think that Patrick's comments are well taken, which is that you should go through the process of receiving information and making the appropriate finding, and then actually issuing this permit as part of your company in the permit. If it's determined that that is necessary because it already hasn't already been constructively granted. Thank you. It's very clarifying. In that case, make a note to reach out to the historic commission and ask them for comment. And just for the record, what I was reporting to the zoning board was materials was from reviewing materials that were on file. With the historic commission about this property and there was nothing listed of architectural significance and I mentioned what was listed about the historic occupants that that I obtained that information by looking at the records of the file of the historic commission. Thank you. Mr chairman. So just a clarification for Mr. Hoverty. So the issuance of the demolition permit as part of the comprehensive permit. In your view would be based primarily on the fact that there was constructive approval. What I'm saying is that if there is a determination that the board needs to take action on this because there was no constructive approval, or that it's not clear whether there was a constructive approval. That that should be part of the permit that the board issues it should not be a waiver. Understood. I just, just to be clear, because I'm wondering, is there is there enough of a record for us to look at from the historic district commission to actually conclude that there has been constructive approval. I think Patrick's point was that there currently isn't that he would like to see that information submitted. So it's not just whether we're looking at it from the significance of it as a historic site. We're also looking at it from the perspective of what action the commission did or did not take. Yeah, I believe that's correct. One clarification if I made, if I made the benefit of the public. The, the only issue regarding a building listed on the inventory is whether there will be a delay in demolition. It is not whether or not the building can be demolished. The building can be demolished. There's no prohibition or restriction. The question is, is there a delay so that there is an opportunity for others members of the town or other interested parties to try to determine if there is a basis to preserve the building and they want to go through that either the town or the third party wants to go through the time and an expense of preservation. So when we talk about issuing a demolition permit that's not exactly the issue. The issue is whether or not there is a need to wait up to nine months to delay demolition. There's a demolition delay that we're asking this board to determine is not necessary in this case. So, I don't want people to think that you guys are have the power to say this building can't be demolished that's not the, that's not the issue. Right. Mr Chairman. So one of the things that is sort of odd in this context is that we're discussing about the significance of an action a year and a half ago as to whether or not to delay this for nine months. It's been delayed for nine months. It's been delayed for more than nine months. Now, not necessarily under a circumstance that's giving rise to other people to just try to figure out whether there's a reason for for preserving it. It doesn't count, but I'd like to have some understanding of what the significance is of worrying about an action a year and a half ago on whether there should be a demolition delay of nine months. Can you clarify that for me? I'm sorry. I'm just saying that there's are if the if the if the historic district commission had decided had heard the case on October 5, and had decided that yes there should be a demolition delay that would have expired six months ago. And so in some ways, from one way of looking at it is that it's moved that that, you know, in effect, there's been a delay of that and a lot longer. And what's the significance of that. And I see that there's a potential distinction, but I, it does make me feel odd about dealing with sort of expose facto with the delay that that had they granted it would have already expired by now. Thank you appreciate that. Anything further from the board on this question? If not, then before we move on to the review of the requested waivers and the review of potential conditions. For Mr. Moore's comment, I think it is valuable to do to hold public comment at this time of the hearing. There's my little speech. So public questions and comments are taken as they relate to the matter of hand it should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision members of the public will be granted time to ask their questions and make comments. If you wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant and tab and the zoom application and those calling in by phone please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host to be asked to give your name and address and you'll be given time for your questions and comments. All questions are to be addressed through the chair please remember to speak clearly. If you wish to address the board a second time during any particular hearing the chair will allow those wishing to speak for the first time to speak first. And once all public questions and comments have been addressed, or we have reached the time of 9pm. The public comment period will be closed. So with that are there members of the public who wish to address this board. Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just figured that public comment made more sense before you start to get into the conditions that man being lengthy discussion. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, Steve Moore Piedmont Street. I wanted to comment briefly on the sustainability plan and this is something I think we may ask about before so I'm raising it for a final time. I, I saw that under the watering section sustainability plan it says that trees will be hand watered until established, and there will be nominal irrigation provided for the lawn to sustain it. I want to raise the point again about how young trees need significant water to get established, and it has to be not irregular but a very regular thing. Further adult trees, particularly in conditions of drought, even with drought tolerant species conditions like occurred over the last summer. And adult trees will stress out and decline and perhaps even die, if not watered. And I would like to again bring up the issue of irrigation of the trees both in front of the building, which has been expanded and behind the building and what is now going to be kind of an urban forest idea of the installation of the irrigation system. So the applicant comments on that. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Mulher. Mr Chairman and Mr Moore. We are planning to install irrigation both in front of the building and in back of the building. And the goal is to find that right balance between the use of the water resource and keeping the plant material alive. We are largely native species plant material. We're not using lawn as a misnomer here. We're not using turf type plant solutions. We're using much more natural solutions. So I think we'll be okay on that and we are with the irrigation I think we'll be able to hit that right balance between water use and keeping everything looking green. Let me just add, because Matt Maggiore has spoken to this issue both at concom and previously during the ZBA. There is going to be irrigation of the urban park and the front of the building. It's going to be it's going to have drip irrigation capabilities as a way to help manage, you know, what a resource. It's not like sprinkle ahead just, you know, sprinkling water that evaporates. It's the idea is to use a drip irrigation system and when we get to the conditions part, it happens to be under the topic of landscaping. It happens to specifically remind everyone irrigation provided. So we have committed and we will accept the condition that specifies that the urban park and the front of the building, the trees in the front of the building will have irrigation. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you for that specificity I was just thrown by thrown by the idea of hand watering as historically that hasn't gone particularly well. Yeah, that wasn't well drafted within that particular document, you know we didn't, we didn't do a good job on that. Okay, no that's fine. Well thank you thank you for that. Next thing I'd like to mention quickly. I, I wasn't at the concom I know there was a lot of discussion about concern about trees I've been told anyway but it's all second hand and anecdotal because I was not there. And one of the concerns that was raised I believe by the sevens and a letter that you have received via email or hard copy, folks have generally received the information about a request for some additional street trees, since this is unfortunately a bad area that I was wondering if the, if the applicant had taken on had any thoughts related to the addition of some some street trees perhaps. I know right now there's going to be four in front of the building which is excellent four or five, and that's good. On the street, there may be the possibility of adding for perhaps one more to one each side, and if it can't go on to the sidewalk because of potential sidewalk disruption, perhaps the back of the sidewalk early thoughts the applicant has had related to that. I will raise it again with the applicant but my understanding is we're up to six trees by the way I think if I remember correctly in the front of the building right now but I Chris can correct me if I'm wrong about that but the applicant doesn't think it's appropriate for it to start planting trees along with the people's property either in the public right way or on other people's properties as a result of this project that's the applicant feels like it's trying to go above and beyond to address what everyone is trying to do on the site in this redevelopment and the important resource of trees and I don't think it has an intent to start planting trees along along Massachusetts Avenue on either other people's property or in the right of way which really should be the responsibility so I'll revisit it but that was my understanding. And I don't think it was specifically addressed at the at the con con because that particular issue didn't. I don't think we respond to publicly it didn't the opportunity and present itself. Paul just to clarify we have five. Street trees across the front. There's three here and then three on the other side to flanking the interest there so. I should have relied on Mr more knowing trees were going. What, what are landscape architect reports is that we're maxed out on our footprint, because of the spacing that we need and the driveway that we need and getting a little bit of a public amenity area there. So we've got as many as we can fit at this point. Mr, then one final comment. Yeah, thank you thank you for that I appreciate the consideration of that I'm just thinking that with all the concern about the tree loss, particularly of the large mature ones that have to come down to build this building because there's some very large mature ones that are not compensated by new plantings. It's been 3035 years that this might be one way to alleviate some of the concern that you're getting from the public on that. Almost a good, almost a good will offer that's all I'm saying sir. So. I appreciate it Mr more and I'll report to Matt Masiori that the subject came up tonight. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr Feldman. Other other members of the public who wish to address the board do not see anyone else. One last opportunity for public comment at this time. See now I'll go ahead and close public comment at this. This point in the meeting and Mr chairman. Mr chairman. Sorry, Mr. Hanlon. I'm just going to go ahead and say something. I think that at some point earlier on in the proceedings, there have been a considerable amount of discussion about negotiations that were going on with the. With the condo association. Of the large development that surrounded this for changes. For things that were going to happen in the conservation area. That had not yet. Had not yet gelled. I'm just going to go ahead and close public comment at this point. I'm just going to go ahead and close public comment of the project. And somehow or other, I've been asleep at the switch because I don't remember. Ever actually getting a report on how those negotiations came out. And what exactly was being proposed. And while I'm not suggesting that we deal with that. The second. And we're about to go to a different issue. That is part of the public amenity of the project. It's sort of. It goes along with the. With the park. Forest idea, but it was at least represented earlier that that was probably more significant than any of the rest of the stuff that was going on back there. And I've, I don't have clear in my mind what it is that was agreed on. And what is proposed to be done. I'm just going to go ahead and close public comment at this point. I'm just going to go ahead and close public comment at this point. The paper that we have since it's not on the property. The drawings that have to do with the property don't usually go there. So anyway, it seems to me that we should, we should have an understanding of that as we go forward. I'm imagining that Mr. Taroni has more of an understanding than I do since it kind of fits within the concom jurisdiction, but. I could report and, and, and respond to Mr. Hamlin right now, because. In fact. It's going to come back to this board when we're done with concom, because under the local concom permit, you're going to see it. So I mean, two minutes I could, I could bring everybody up to date if, if that's the, if that's the desire. Mr. Moore had raised his hand again. Just as I was closing public comments, I did want to just touch base with him first, and then we'll come back to you, Mr. Feldman. So Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a second. I, I apologize. I was not able to get back to the hand feature quick enough. And the only, the only thing I want to say in addition, what I said before is I want to again state for the record that the applicant has been, I think quite amenable to changes and suggestions related to trees and vegetation. I don't, although I tend to come across as sounding adversarial, I don't want that to be unthought of that way because I think this particular project has been quite positive in terms of sort of call and response and, and, and trying to address concerns that are raised. I just wanted to state that for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. I appreciate it. So Mr. Felman, if you could give us a little bit of an update on the, the restoration along the Brook. Yes. So before we started the comprehensive permit process with the ZBA, we actually had some informal public meeting with the conservation commission to get some feet, some early feedback because we knew we needed an order of conditions. We knew we were in the riverfront area. And one of the pieces of feedback that the conservation commission gave us was that they really wanted us to make it effort to see if we can get permission to do some mitigation along Mill Brook behind the property, behind the parking area that's right immediately behind the development site between the parking area and, and the mill and Mill Brook itself. That area, you know, it has invasive species. It has some garbage and other things and, and it's in need of mitigation and the conservation commission expressed that that mitigation in that area would be particularly beneficial to the riverfront resource because it would be right adjacent to the, to the bank. And we said we would make effort to communicate with the owner of that property to see if we can work something out. Months went by in our efforts to reach the Mill Brook condominium and, and make some progress. But Matt is a pretty tenacious guy and, and he didn't let go and he worked at it. And we, I could, I could say to this board, and as I said to the conservation commission, we have fully negotiated an access agreement with the Mill Brook condominium trustees that control the common area that includes this piece of land to allow us to come on to the property to undertake a restorative program. And our landscape architect in connection with the order of conditions filing has a planting plan for this quote unquote offsite location on the Mill Brook condominium for which are, for which, which is part of the subject matter of our order of conditions. And the, we do not have the access agreement executed yet. It's been fully negotiated. Council myself and the condominium boards council have agreed to the text that's in final form and it's out for execution, but we didn't have it. We were requested to buy the conservation commission to submit it when we had it. When we perfectly said we'd be happy to. And since the meeting that we have with the conservation commission, I've reached out to council and that majority has reached out to the trustees of the condominium. Can we get this signed up? We'd like to get it into the town. And we got feedback. Yes, we've been busy. We'll attend to it. I think that's a long winded way of saying that we believe we have reached agreement to be able to access our a butter's property to allow us to undertake mitigation along Mill Brook. We've had our landscape architect and our wetland scientists put to put forth a mitigation plan, which is part of what the conservation commission is looking at. And that access allows us to come back onto the property for at least two years to be able to maintain and make sure that a planting dies that we can replace it. And they've given us permission for us to do that for two years. So we were able to accomplish something that was expressed to us by the conservation commission informally as something that they thought would be an important piece of mitigation and asked us to try to accomplish. And we're at the one yard line to being able to do it. Great. Thank you very much. I should appreciate that. So then with that, does it make Mr. Feldman, does it make more sense to you to review the waiver list first or talk about the potential conditions first? I think we should just run through the conditions first. If it's okay. I'd really like to, I think you'll get the, what I'm trying to accomplish. So if it's okay, I'll share my screen and tell me if I did it correctly. I'm not usually a big screen share, but do you, do you see this word document right here? We do. Okay. So as I said, the chair was kind enough to put together an email of a list of conditions that, that the, that the chair had notes on. And I've gone through that and I've added some and I've, I've clarified the language and I just thought we could quickly walk through them. So the subject matters are as presented here is there, there was a condition that was contemplated regarding sustainability. And the, the commitments that we have made as the applicant that can, that could be presented in the form of a condition that we're acknowledging is agreeable to us is that it's an all electric building except backup power generator. Mr. Klein had the, the stretch code reference, you know, the, the, the, we, we went through that tonight. The applicable stretch code we're going to comply with. Enhanced emblem was a term that Mr. Klein had. And what I understood that to mean from my notes was that we committed that the building facade was going to be. And I don't know how to pronounce this, and it's each our brand siding panels. And that's a particular manufacturer of a high quality siding power, siding panel to the envelope to the building. And we're committing to that particular brand. And Mr. Klein had reference to the building. Which I, which I understand is reflective materials. And we've committed to a, a white roof. So we fully expect there to be condition, a condition on sustainability goals. I wanted to, I wanted to, you know, sort of put some detail as to what we understood that to be. And I, I, I wanted to, I, I wanted to, you know, sort of put some detail as to what we understood that to be. So that the board had the benefit of our thinking on that. The next subject, again, it's a latter part of the list where you'll see stuff from, from, from us, but the next subject Mr. Klein had in his notes was lighting, no uplighting, no spillover. That's correct. We're agreeing to that. There'll be no uplighting. We gave you the photo metric plan. There'll be no spillover. So we expect the condition on that. The next item Mr. Klein had was the urban park public access. I've said it previously. I want to say it again tonight that we're not able to read a public access for the urban park or the urban garden. It doesn't work from, from, from our perspective. It's primarily a liability concern. And we don't believe that would be an appropriate condition. And we would urge the board to consult with council about a condition that the appropriateness of a condition that requires that. Landscaping again was the subject matter. There's a lot to landscaping and, and you'll see later later on that obviously we fully expect our permit to be conditioned upon our plans, which includes the landscaping plan, which includes the schedule of, of planting. So there, there's, there's, there's going to be a requirement that we perform in accordance with that landscaping design plan. In terms of maintenance costs. That's going to be the responsibility of the condo association. It's going to be built into our condominium documents. And the question came up during the hearings about annual reporting to the ZBA and the concom. And we committed to the board. We committed to the concom that we will do a 10 year annual report. I know I just know from doing this for 40 years, I've never had an applicant agree to 10 years of annual reporting on, on, on the landscaping in particular, the urban park. But the applicant is going to do that because the urban park is an amenity and a feature that is important that it gets established. And we wanted to demonstrate to the board that we're committed to see that happening. There was a question about water flow at the sidewalk lines. You'll see my note here, addressed in the civil grading plans. You may recall from the last presentation by. Patriot engineering that the grading has been carefully gone along the, both the butters property to ensure that there will be no water flow that exits our property onto the butters property, you know, from the sides. And that's addressed in the civil plan. So once we have a condition that project is going to be built in accordance with our plans, I think that issue was covered by that native species and cultivars that that's again in the schedule. So I think that issue is covered. It doesn't need to be called out as a special condition, but it's good. It's going to be required by our plans. And you'll see your irrigation provided. That was in that was written before I spoke to Mr. Moore, but we had committed to irrigation. The next topic was bike parking with assist above for storage. I have a question mark. We didn't exactly know what was meant by that comment. So one of the feedbacks when we were done going through this that we'd like from the board is what, what that's referring to. So we're going to go back to that. So we're going to go back to that. We're going to talk about fencing less opaque. Gap below for animals. Yes, there will be a gap below for animals. No question about that. But on the issue of less opaque. The applicant has presented a white vinyl. Fence with a wood grain. We talked about this with the applicant. And this is one where. We're going to go back to that. So we're going to go for a cedar fence with, you know, planks that are, have some spacing between them because it says less opaque, meaning you don't want to just see this. Solid fencing that the applicant is open to doing. Cedar fence instead of what was presented. So we just need some feedback. we'll spec it accordingly onto the plans and then it'll be that issue will be addressed. Cliff was the one who brought up should there be an amenity for younger residents, there's no proposed onsite play area. We don't think there's room on the site or landscape architect and our wetland scientists wants to preserve what they've designed in the urban garden, the way it's been designed because it's really for habitat purposes. And I've made the point to the board previously that we presented a fiscal impact study and the expected number of children from, you know, small children up to 12th grade is only at any one time expected to be six in the entire development. So to create some kind of onsite amenity that would likely be barely used and have that, you know, interfere with the whole environmental mitigation that we're trying to accomplish. We don't have it proposed and we would respectfully request that it's just not necessary. Paving in a pervious versus impervious and directing surface flow toward the planting that's all been addressed on the civil plans that's been addressed on the landscape drawing. So again, I think referencing the plans takes care of this issue if there's some language that the board wants it's a term need to call out, we could figure that out. There was the mid block crosswalk on mass Avenue and this was one of the comments of the review engineer, Tetra Tech was, you know, there's that mid walk crosswalk we think it should be inspected. We should figure out if there are any improvements necessary and as you will may recall, our traffic consultant did just that and went through all of the features there's proper signage, you know, and did the inspection but did say that there is some mitigation necessary and it was to upgrade the Southern wheelchair ramp as required to meet ADA design standards and to install new thermoplastic pavement markings to enhance the sidewalk because it's completely faded. And the applicant is willing to have a condition that requires us to make those improvements to the mid block crosswalk down it's about 400 feet down mass Avenue. Bus stop improvements as it's turned out as we've worked with the ZBA, you know that we've created two benches on pavers that we showed on the plans in the particular location immediately adjacent to the bus stop. And again, we could either reference it with, you know by referencing on the plans, they think that issue has been accomplished in the drawings. The subject of parking was identified by Mr. Klein. The first we addressed the issue during construction and we will accept the condition that says the contractor will inform workers that there is no parking on private ways. So there'll be a condition of our permit that our contractor has to direct construction workers of that and report to them what is the case you can't park on private ways. We've spoken about through the construction management plan that most construction workers on site once the slab goes down will be parking on site on the slab. And so there's really not gonna be any need for offsite parking even to get about on the private ways just generally in a loud street parking. The building garage shall be conditioned and ventilated guests will have street parking available. So I don't know if that covers all the items that Mr. Klein had in mind under the subject of parking but I wanted to get that out there. Construction, that's the subject matter. There was concern about, you know or is there any work that we're gonna do run the risk of somehow potentially damaging adjacent structures. We're quite confident that we don't have any concern that that would happen, but we would accept a condition that says that we have to undertake a survey of adjacent structures pre and post construction so that we document what the condition was before we started construction. You usually do this with a video survey of the basement you document its condition and its condition after the foundation goes in and the slab is down and we're done with our earthwork immediately adjacent to the structures we go back and now reinspect and do a post construction to make sure that there was no adverse impact. So if the board feels like it wants to impose a survey condition like that on the applicant in connection with the abutting structure we're willing to accept that condition. Hours of operation, I don't speak to it. I'm sure there's a standard condition that I'm gonna see in the draft decision about what the construction hours are. So, you know, we'll abide by it. It's usually you can't get started before seven in the morning and you have to end, I don't know what time at night but and there's some construction that can be happening on a Saturday, not on a Sunday but I'm sure you guys have that in your permit. This CMP is the construction management plan use of sidewalk and parking spaces and pedestrian safety and the bike lane protection and the delivery route and the tree protections and the heat island effects and that's all of those subject matters are set forth in the construction management plan that's been filed with the application. Our anticipation is that as I reported to the board when we have a meeting of the mines hopefully we'll get there quickly when we have a meeting of the mines with the other town departments we are going to then present the revised construction management plan you'll see later on in this list. We fully expect that to be an exhibit to our permit which is going to require us to conform to what's set forth in the construction management plan which addresses all of these subjects. Whether or not it has to get written up as a big condition I think what the decision is going to need to say is the applicant shall perform its construction in accordance with the construction management plan attached here to his exhibit blank because the plan lays out detail on all of those. Conservation, the riverfront zone, the storage in the resource areas and conservation commission comments and mitigation changes. As you heard tonight, we fully expect to get conditions set forth in an order of conditions that are usually made up of general conditions and special conditions. And when those are produced we fully expect that all of those conditions are going to become the subject of our permit because of the local wetlands bylaw. So conservation and all these issues will be addressed by the conditions set forth in the order of conditions. Meteral locations, that was a subject on Mr. Klein's list. As a question mark for us, we'd love some feedback. We can't quite figure out exactly what that's referring to. That the affordable housing units are going to be permanently affordable. Absolutely agree. The applicant expects a condition like that. We know they're going to be permanently affordable. That's not an issue. And I'm sure either Mr. Havarty or I could provide conditions that laid that obligation out. Here we have the historic. I'm not going to repeat it. We had the discussion tonight. Historic waiver as Mr. Havarty has educated all of us. Use of the term waiver is not a good use of that term. So we, I should probably change it right now and just put down historic delay for the moment as a placeholder and we've spoken about that. We know what that's about. Mr. Klein had a notation on his list about the retail space and we would accept the condition that obviously any retail had to be in accordance with zoning. If there is a particular objectionable commercial use that the zoning board feels it wants to specifically identify as prohibited. And we're open to hear what it may be. In the old days, I'm dating myself in the old days, a lot of times I would see a condition that would say you can't have an off track bedding venue in a particular location because the community was concerned that off track bedding venues bring not desirable issues to the community. So obviously we're gonna keep our retail in accordance with zoning, but if there is a particular use that the board wants us to consider prohibiting just let us know and if we don't object to it then we'll spell it out as in our permit. There was a topic of rainfall modeling. That was came up during the hearings and what were we using and this was also the subject of review comments. The answer is it's the NOAA Atlas 14 plus. This is the most stringent analysis that can be deployed today. And that's been addressed in the stormwater management design. That is what we ultimately used in the design that our civil engineer worked with Tetra Tech and on all the plans that you've seen it is deployed this. So you don't have to condition us to use that. You just have to condition us to build in accordance with the design that we presented because that design is based on that rainfall calculation. Mr. Klein had the condo docs, town review. I'm adding the question mark. I don't have a particular objection to the town reviewing our condo docs but having done dozens of condominium projects and I would say dozens of communities. I never been asked to submit condominium documents for the municipality to review our docs. What I have seen and this is what Mr. Klein was getting out of what the zoning board wants to get at is that our condominium docs will specifically call out and be subject to the comprehensive permit. That's no problem that we will do that anyway but we can include a condition that says that the condominium documents for the development sell indicate that the development is subject to the comprehensive permits and the conditions set forth in the comprehensive permits. If you wanna give us that directive or instruction that that be included in the condo documents that's perfectly acceptable. I just, I don't know what happens if I submit condo documents to the town and I don't know what the review is the town's gonna do of private real estate condominium documents. So I didn't exactly know what you were getting at there. There was the subject of services, delivery, trash, recycling, again, I look back on what I had on that and it's all private, it's by the condominium association like the trash service and everything is gonna be privately done. I don't exactly know what was meant by deliveries but as the project has evolved, you guys know we've presented that the access door is substantial. It's the drive is 20 feet wide. So the ability for a typical delivery of a van or something like that can easily occur on site. We added a couple that we know had come up during the hearing, this next one. I think it was Tetra Tech who wanted us to do this and it's a condition that we're agreeable to. The hydrant flow test to determine both static and residual water pressures for the domestic and fire services. You know, it's a little bit of a technical condition. It's a civil condition but it was something that and Tetra Tech wanted to make sure that we did when we designed our water pressure for both fire and domestic and of course we'll do that and we'll commit to those flow tests. And then there was something else that was identified in the third party review and that is that, you know, we're tying into a sewer and a sewer manhole and we were asked that that manhole, the condition of that manhole should be inspected and to the extent it is in need of any repair that we repair that manhole accordingly. So it's not just we're tying in but we're repairing and fixing the manhole. I wrote that down as a condition I was expecting so I stuck it on the list. Obviously we're gonna turn to waivers in a minute and then as we develop a decision, the exhibits are critical. Obviously the final architectural plans, civil plans, landscape design plans and the construction management plan, we would fully expect to be either exhibits or set forth as requirements that we have to build in accordance with those materials and we've been trying to update the board regularly as you saw tonight. So that by the time we get to April 30th, you are looking at a complete and final set that has incorporated all of the feedback and changes that we've made over the last four or five months as we've worked through this process. Thank you for indulging me on that list is obviously a few things I'd love to hear some comments back on but it's wide open to hear whatever when anybody on the board wants to say about any of these things. So I appreciate the time. Well, thank you. Just you would come across a couple of questions on my notes. One was about the bike parking. So the town of Arlington requires that bike parking either be that it doesn't require you to have to physically lift the bike yourself. And so there's a provision in the bylaw that if you have raised bike parking there has to be some assist mechanism to help you raise the bicycle. And I know we had discussed that briefly months ago and there are several different options for that kind of a device.  You're not required to have to lift fully yourself. Right. So what we, as you recall from the plans we have a bike room and that bike room doesn't require any lifts. The bike room has a certain capacity and what we did to address additional capacity is to create a hanging bike, you know, a hanging rack at certain parking spaces within the garage that's associated with certain parking spaces. And so to the extent that there was any other requirements under the local bike, well, it should show up on my waiver list that we were asking for waiver. And if a lift is a requirement for those bike racks in the garage, then we would be asking for a waiver for that. I'm not sure where you would store that mechanism and how many of those mechanisms you need and where they would be, how they would be used or deployed but, you know, if it's something that's portable and we should have one in the bike room that a resident could go and retrieve if they wanted assistance in raising their bike well, that's probably easily accomplishable. I'm not trying to resist that. I just, I didn't know exactly what that was all about. Yeah, so usually it's actually, it's a part of the bike rack itself. And so it's not a portable device, it's just that the rack itself is designed so that there's a spring assist or a pneumatic assist to help raise the bike up so that it's... I'll check with Madjuri about the exact bike rack they were contemplating for that wall hanging unit. So we'll have the answer of what was contemplated, maybe that's not an issue at all. Okay, then there was a question about the meter locations that was just, you know, making sure that the plans identify where the gas meter and the electric meter and the water meter where there's gonna be located, you know, obviously they're not on the front of the building that if they're, but they're in a location that is not as prominent. I think Chris could speak to that. They're all gonna be in the basement. The electric meters will be in the electric room, the water meters for domestic water and the domestic service will be in the water room downstairs and the gas meter will also find a home in the basement exactly where I'm not quite sure yet. But there'll be nothing, I don't think anything excepting maybe a little sensor showing on the exterior of the building because the meters are all red electronically these days. And we can indicate the location on the floor. And then is it permissible to have the disconnects for all of those in the basement as well? Sorry about that. So would the disconnects for those services also be in the basement? The disconnects for the electrical service? For the electrical, the shutoffs for the electrical, shutoffs for the gas, shutoffs for all that. The main disconnect for the electrical service will be in the electric room. The shutoff for the gas will be in the, at the meter, just upstream of the meter. There'll be a gas valve and the same with the water. There'll be a shutoff upstream of the water meter to turn the water off for the whole building. Okay. And then the question about the condo docks for a view, I think that was mainly intended if there was any language that the board was specifically requesting to be included in the condo docks which may have to do with the location for guest parking, the location, not reminding guests that they're not allowed to park on private ways, things like that if there were specific provisions of conditions that the board had about stuff that would go in the condo docks, just that there would be verification that those in fact made it into the docks. But there would not be a global review of the docks themselves. Completely understand. Again, I make, the economy and documents are going to recite that what this project is and how it was permitted and how it's subject to the permit. So it's going to incorporate your retire permit. But if there's specific language you want us to call out and actually put in the condo docks and then you want to make sure that it's there, we're happy to do that. Great, thank you. Are there comments from the board? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. First of all, I thank Mr. Feldman for having such a great list to work on as we develop all this. I would like it if he could provide a copy of this for the record so that we can remember it. 100%. I knew that I was, I just, I'll absolutely get it into you. So while I have you giving us documents, the idea of the 10 year reporting requirement is one that when it emerged in conversations several meetings ago and it was Mr. Feldman's proposal on a way of dealing with assurance that the urban park will actually get established and that will, and that what we hope happens actually does happen. And I would appreciate it if Mr. Feldman could provide us with a sample of the language that he would prefer in seeing this set up, not that we would necessarily do it exactly the way Mr. Feldman wanted to but it would be very useful to have that at least as a point of departure in figuring out what our condition would be. And the third thing as I'm quite, I'm intrigued by the idea of the cedar fence versus the more opaque style and would be very interested in the opinions of the architects on the board as to what they think of that suggestion. Oh, Mr. Chair. Yes, please. Always happy to weigh in on wood versus vinyl. The cedar with spacing sounds very appealing. I think both from ability of animals to move through it as well as just environmental impact. Personally, I would recommend cedar. Certainly I would think that from an embodied carbon point of view, cedar would be better although that's just a untutored reaction. Yes, that's accurate. Thank you both. We're not asking the board to design our project but it matters to us if we get your feedback and when we can accommodate, when we have this alternative it helps to know what the board would prefer and then we could just do it. No, absolutely. Other questions or comments from the board? Do not see any. Mr. Chairman. Ask Mr. Rear, Mr. Hanlon. I'm sorry, I was hoping to do this at the very end but I must say that in terms of sustainability I think that I'm very happy to see the proposal that is reflected in Mr. Feldman's notes. There's a lot that we don't usually see as standard conditions to be sure some of those things are going to lead right into a requirement that is going to be applicable as a matter of state law anyway but it sets us sort of a model for what we do expect out of 40B projects and I'm very happy that the applicant has been so agreeable in going the extra mile to include all that. So it's a matter that's of great importance to the town. This whole set of issues has been very important and again, I'm very happy at the agreeability of the applicant in addressing these issues and agreeing to conditions that nailed them down. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. He wanted to ask Mr. Reardon if he had, if any other items came to mind. Just a couple of minor ones. I'm just curious on the generator what the typical exercising schedule is on that? Generally, it's once a week for about 30 minutes and we pick a time that we believe will be the least disruptive. Generally it's midday, noon time, Saturday, noon time is a typical one, Wednesday, noon time is another one that we've used before but that's the general idea. The board may just, they want to think about considering a condition that stipulates that because it is, it's going to have a sounding closure but it's going to be close to that building on the west side in, is it positioned outside a unit? It's positioned outside a corridor. So there's a common corridor that separates the generator location from residential units on the other side of the corridor. Okay. All right, that's it for me and everything else, I think it's been either addressed in past revisions or it's on its way to being addressed based on my conversations with the engineer. Great, thank you. In regards to the CMP, obviously, so the board in the decision would have, it would adopt what's on the CMP but as we know, as we go through construction, obviously some of these things need to change and adjust on the fly a little bit. And so the board would usually defer to the town if there are specific things that need to be addressed on the short order. So I think we would include that in the conditions as well that that would, that we would need to determine exactly who the right person would be, whether it's the town engineer, whether it's the inspector buildings, whether it's emergency services or some combination thereof. But we've definitely done that in the past. Are there other questions or comments in regards to the condition? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon.  So I was just thinking that on some of the issues, like for example, the parking condition, we have done this I think in both of the applications that we've dealt with in the last couple of years. So if there's any, I mean, I'm sure that we will and Mr. Haverty will be looking at what we've already done and in some places that would be our point of departure on some of these issues. And I just encourage the applicant to, these are public documents. And if the applicant looks and sees what we've done in the past, that's probably where we'd start in thinking about these issues now. And it provides a context. Those have not generally been matters of great controversy in the past, things like the bike parking and so on. And but in any event, it's possible to get concrete because we've done some of these things in the past. Fair enough. I'll get ahold of some of the couple of recent decisions and see how these conditions have been articulated and if there's anything that seems problematic, I could at least at the next meeting point it out. And so again, so you at least know where we're coming from before you go into it, deliberations. Absolutely, thank you. And those decisions are. Yeah, I was going to ask you, Paul, I'd appreciate that, thank you so much. Thank you for that, Paul. Mr. LeBank. Just was having one thought on the parking conditions I know before they talked about construction workers parking on the Salomon grade as they're building. And I was just wondering if they've given me thought as to how that's going to work. You know, they're going to have to be accessing the ceiling of that garage for construction and as contractors are parking there and interference with that. So just wanted to make sure that they've thought that through when it comes to that parking, you know, on the sub-grade as they're building up above it. Yeah, that's a good comment, a couple of thoughts on that. You know, as you know, we have 50 spaces and we don't expect the number of construction workers on any given day to be near that volume. So there's going to be plenty of room on that slab to maneuver. And there may be a day or two or there may be occasional days where the construction workers will park on the street in regular appropriate off street parking. I've made this point before in our observations in this particular stretch of Mass Avenue, there always seems to be plenty of vacant street parking. It's not, it happens to be not a particularly, you know, crushed area for street parking. So we believe that, you know, almost the majority of the time or the super majority of the time, the ability to park on site is going to be there and available, but just because of the numbers of construction workers versus the amount of space we have. Mr. Chairman. Thanks. Mr. Hanlon. Just, I'm not underpresent. It is certainly true that any construction worker who wishes to identify where the private streets are has the ability to do that. Whether they will in fact do that consistently is a question. And it seems to me that it would be helpful if the applicant were to be clear to the people who will be working on site, what are the private streets? I'm thinking particularly of the one right across the street that Ms. Evans lives on. But, you know, we all know where those streets are and the construction workers don't necessarily and I'd rather they be told than rely on them reading the signs and understanding where they shouldn't go. So if that would make it a lot more palatable to the people who already are concerned that notwithstanding the availability of parking on Ms. Av that at certain times they get parking on their own streets and are perplexed about what to do with it. Well, we've already put in our list of conditions that I've viewed tonight that the contractor will be obligated to inform its workers that there's no parking on private ways and we're getting to add and particularly inform them what ways we're talking about. Yes, that's what I have in mind. And Mr. Chair, if I could add, there's a real convenient way to do that. You guys have created a great figure showing the truck routes as part of the construction management plan. Could simply just add a color designated which one, which were the streets on your, on that map are private streets. Good recommendation. Thank you. Anything further on this topic? I mean, none. Why don't we move on to waivers? And then after we discuss waivers, we can go back to Republic on that. Mr. Govind, do you want to? I don't have, I didn't tee up the waiver list. I wasn't, I didn't know we were gonna tee up the new waiver list. I could walk on to my office and get it. Do you have it handy? I had it here. I thought I was looking at it a minute ago. Ah, here it is. So this is the revision, the March 15th revision. To the waiver list. So these are the waivers that are being requested by the applicant in order for the project to be able to move forward. So the first one, the first sections are out of the zoning bylaw. So one is that the multifamily apartment use is not allowed by right or by special permit in the B1 zone. And so they're requesting a waiver to be allowed to for multifamily use. I think technically this would be not just multifamily but because it does have commercial, it would be mixed use. That's right. It needs to be mixed use for the garage as a separate use and the retail space as a separate use. So the three use groups are R2, S2 and M. Right, but from a zoning point of view, the garage is on a separate use. From a construction point of view, I get it, Chris, but from a zoning point of view, I think the retail is allowed. It's the multifamily, that's the problem. But I think you're right, Mr. Klein, we could describe that as mixed use, you know, including multifamily. And the second one is the front yard setback. So the zone requires a 20 foot setback and that proposal is 17 feet. And as we've discussed in the prior hearings, the building was initially proposed closer to the street. It has been moved closer to conformance with that 20 foot requirement. But the request would be to have the front yard setback. We said it's 17 feet. Yeah, and that's the actually the, that's only one part of the building. In other words, it's not all 17 feet. That's the closest point. And that's why we need the relief. There are parts that are further back. Third one is the bylaw requires a maximum building height of three stories or 35 feet in the B1 district. The proposal is for a five-story building with a proposed height of 66 foot, four inches, which is the reason for the request for that waiver. And obviously the reason for the height is the larger number of units enabled to support the construction and the provision of subsidized cost housing. Subsidized cost housing. Number four is the floor area ratio, the FAR, which is the ratio of the area of the lot to the area of the building. And the maximum in this district is 0.75 and the applicants proposing an FAR of 2.0, is that correct? Chris, you're going to know that. I thought it was, we checked this, I think two is the right number. I think that's right. Okay. Then the zoning bylaw for parking, the bylaw requires 1.15 spaces per one bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces per two bedroom unit and two spaces per three or more bedroom unit. And the applicant is proposing one parking space per unit regardless of the number of units per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. And I believe that the town meeting voted to change that last year. And that I believe it is now all just one space per unit. I just want to make sure I have that correct. That's bike parking, that's wrong table. So yes, that's been changed now. So in the zoning bylaw, single family, two family, three family dwelling or apartment building except public housing for the elderly is specifically as one space per dwelling unit. So actually. Is that now in 614? Is that the same reference, the same section? So that is the 614, yes. Okay. So when you applied, it hadn't been approved by the AG yet. And it now been approved. So that sounds like that's complying now that doesn't require a waiver. That is correct too, yes. So you are in compliance with that one. Then the bicycle parking design guidelines which are referenced from the zoning bylaw, the long-term bike storage guidelines do not permit hanging bicycle storage. The applicant proposes 49 bike storage units in the basement and 26 hanging racks in the garage. So in the zoning bylaw that has been slightly modified, where's the language? So bicycle parking designed in the following manner shall not be permitted unless otherwise allowed by the special permit granting authority upon finding of unusual circumstances. So storage that requires bikes to be laying down are not allowed but that is not being requested. Bicycles that must be hung with one or both wheels suspended in the air or bicycles that must be lifted off the ground or floor without any physical assistance. So if there is physical assistance, then those spaces that are off the floor are compliant and I will make myself a note to provide you some information on those systems. Would the board be willing to grant a waiver on the lifting? Since we have virtually one per, we have one bike per unit in the basement at 49 and then these other 26 are, we were viewing it as a very straightforward hanging rack where it's bracket on the wall and the bike fits on it and you put the bike up if you need it, if it's the second bike or in your household. Yeah, I think the board would need, I think to discuss that. I know on prior comprehensive permit applications, we have requested and included in the decisions, the lift assist racks. So let me take a look and provide you with some information on those and then we can discuss that next time. That'd be great. It just seems to me that since we're not asking for hanging racks for all of the bikes, it's really only a third of the bikes that we're asking for that. It seems like if we could get a straightforward rack solution that didn't require springs or pistons, that would be better. Okay, thank you. So I'll try the second page, the next one here. Time by law, Title V, Article 16, sections two and four tree protection and preservation. These sections prohibit the removal of protected trees and less removals authorized through the approval of a tree plan. Construction demolition requires the approval of the tree plan prior to two or concurrent with application for building permit. Protected trees require a payment to a tree fund. Then the applicant seeks to remove trees, the majority of which are non-native species in order to construct the building and complete the waterfront restoration. The applicant seeks that a tree plan approval be included in the comprehensive permit and a waiver of the payment to the tree fund. And the waiver is requested absent the removal of trees. Project cannot be constructed the payment to the tree fund affects the financial viability of the project that significant dollars are already committed to the riverfront restoration plan on the property in along Mill Brook. So my understanding there, so the town does require that when there's a significant project and there are trees that are within the setbacks, the trees either have to be protected or if they're removed, there is a mandatory payment that must be made to the town's tree fund. Those funds used around town to plant new street trees and do other tree related work in town. And my understanding from what we're seeing here is that the applicant is saying that in lieu of making that payment, they would be doing wetland restoration on the banks of the Mill Brook, is that correct? That's right. I mean, that's part of it. Part of it is also that the expense of the urban park is quite substantial, much more than was originally contemplated when the applicant started to endeavor on this project. That it never expected that it would have a multi-hundred thousand dollar tree restoration program. And it's absorbed it in its rate of return and it's just made its rate of return go down, but it just, there's only so much of that you could absorb. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I really take to heart Mr. Felton's point. I mean, in some ways what we're dealing with here is the removal of the trees are being compensated for by what the testimony of the conservation commission was would be a great improvement as far as the tree cover is concerned, at least in the long-term. Mr. Moore did mention that in addition to the various non-native plants and the things that have to be taken out down in the back and will be restored as part of the urban park, there are some other very impressive trees that have to be lost because there's going to be building there instead. And without going in too much in detail on the waiver, Mr. Moore did raise the question that Mr. Feldman agreed to take back to Mr. Maduri about compensation for that in connection with Winnell Evans' suggestion. And I'm not sort of, I have an open mind on all of this, but it does seem to me that that's kind of a subject that is already agreed to be part of the conversation. And I think that whatever is done about, if anything, about asking for any part of the fees that would normally be taken there, if they could be focused on the problem that Mr. Moore and Ms. Winnell and Ms. Evans have indicated so that it's all related to really an amenity to the property, making this area, particular area more attractive rather than spreading the money around town, that that would be more consistent with what we're about here and an element that maybe Mr. Feldman might want to mention when he has his conversation with Mr. Maduri. Thank you for that. Next is Title V, Article VIII, Wetlands Protection. The project is within conservation commission jurisdiction requiring an order of conditions, applicant seeks, that the required order of conditions be included in the comprehensive permit and waive the requirement or order of conditions be issued by the conservation commission for both development meets the performance standards for the issuance of an order of conditions. So Mr. Feldman, if you could explain that a little bit my understanding is that you are working on an order of conditions currently with the conservation commission, is that correct? Yeah, that order of conditions is under the Wetlands Protection Act, which is a state law that we have to comply with regardless of undertaking a 40B project. The town of Arlington has its own local municipal wetland bylaw. The subject matter is the same as the Wetlands Protection Act subject matter, but it is an independent permit and it requires independent relief and in the context of a comprehensive permit, one-stop shopping, we need that permit issued by the ZBA. And so to the extent I'm asking for a waiver that I get it from the conservation commission, it's because I got to get it from you. And again, when I was putting together this waiver list, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. So I articulated as a waiver. Again, I'm not sure that's particularly correct, but as long as I get the permit from you as the comprehensive permit, I don't have to go to the concom port. I'm happy. So, Mr. Chairman, we've dealt with this on the previous 40B applications. This is what I would call a procedural waiver request. It sounds as though they're not looking for relief from any of the substantive provisions of the local bylaw. So it technically doesn't require a waiver and what we generally do is note that the waiver was requested, that it's denied because it's a procedural waiver, but that the permit is, it's assumed in the comprehensive permit and it's deed granted as part of that. Thank you. And Paul, I actually just forwarded to you the two prior decisions. You'll see that language in the questions as well. All right. And that may be the same thing for the next one as well. No, it's just gonna say yes. The next one is title five article 15 on stormwater management. So that would be similar. Typically there's a permit issued by the town engineer and that would be issued as a part of the comprehensive permit. The next one, since we discussed earlier tonight, it's the Arlington Historic Commission. The 1021 is a historic, on the historic structures inventory and that the building, the project needs the demolition of the building in order to proceed. And so as I said earlier, I'm gonna reach out to the historic commission and ask them to submit a letter regarding the historic context for this building so that we have that on record and we can more fully discuss the implications of the removal of this building and what that would have on the town. So we will, so rather this again would be not be a, this would be a procedural request and not a waiver of the bylaw requirement. The next outdoor lighting, title five article 14, Uplighting is prohibited. Applicants seek some uprooting. I think that's incorrect now. Correct. We saw that. We agree to this. We could delete this one. Okay. And then there's only one left, which is the inflow and infiltration fees. We requested for an IP. So this is one again, Paul, you'll see in the decisions that we've issued in the past because there is no specific requirement and it's not well-defined. The board is not in a position to impose it. And so we typically do waive the INI fees for the 40B projects. Yeah, again, I didn't know how to, this is sort of like a negative waiver. I didn't know how to ask for it because you don't have a requirement but the engineer's comments to the board says, oh, you guys should impose an INI fee. And so I don't want you to listen to the engineer who, by the way, I spoke with and specifically said, yeah, it's been on my list for the last 11 years to come up with some INI policy for the town. I just haven't gotten to it yet. Knew exactly what I was talking about because I wanted to confirm because I couldn't find any policy anywhere. And he goes, no, we don't have one. I said, okay. We do not. I'll still keep it on the list, just in case. All right. Are there any questions from the board in regards to the waiver requests? Or if there's any questions from, yeah, from Mr. Reardon or Mr. Moharn or Mr. Haverty? I'll set, thank you. I'll set, thank you. So with that then, are there any, so there being no further questions from the board or from the applicant, I will go ahead and reopen the hearing for public comment if there are questions or comments from the public in regards to the proposed waivers or the ideas for proposed conditions. So as per usual, that we take testimonies that relates to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand using the raise hand feature or if you're on phone you can dial star nine to call in. We've recognized by the chair in given time to make your comments. I think we would go till 10, 15 if there are such questions. So Mr. Taruni. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that when you were reviewing the annual slanting and replacement and survivability report, there was, I think it would be covered in our permit anyways but to have the commission have access to the site also to review the plants. And I don't know how that would take place with a notice but certainly we would also like to have the report in hand and then go and review any of the planting that's taken place or any of the changes that are proposed. Well taken, thank you. And that was my only comment, thank you. Great, thank you. There are any other public questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment. Again, our agenda for tonight we had, we've talked about the progress on the wetlands protection, the WPA application. We have talked briefly about the construction management plan. We've talked about the historic set of the building. We've gone through waiver requests. We have gone through potential conditions. Are there any other new business that you wanted to raise this evening, Paul? No, I think we're at the point where we are done with wanting to present subject matters to the ZBA. We don't have any other more, we don't have any other subject matters to present to the ZBA on this application. We will certainly respond to the items that we heard tonight. The bike rack, I will develop something with our wetlands consultant on the annual report so that Mr. Hanlon has a launching point on that condition, but I wanna talk with our wetlands scientists so we get something correct about that. I know we talked about a condition for the generator weekly run and we'll list the private streets and I will bring back to Mattishore, the contribution for street trees in the area, other than responding to those things and reporting on where we are on the construction management plan and the conservation commission progress. We feel like there's nothing, there are no other subject matters that are still open. Those are the open items. And I don't know if we're at this point, but I'm not sure there's a need for us to ask everybody to reconvene until after at least the next CONCOM meeting, which is on April 13th. And so, I know we've been on a two week schedule, but I don't think it's important to ask everybody to spend another evening to report back on these few items, which we can do in 10 minutes. What we really need to do address is CONCOM and why don't we schedule a meeting after the next CONCOM meeting so we really know are we on track or do we need more time to get this done. Okay, calendar. If you, the first Tuesday after the 13th is the 18th of April, and I know that I already have a planning board hearing that night in another community. So if there's any way to do it on, for example, Monday the 17th instead of the 18th, I would appreciate that.  I haven't been following that legislation. The legislation actually made it through conference today and is on the governor's desk. Okay, so is it just another extension, Paul, or is actually a permanent change now? No, it is time. I didn't really look at it that closely to see how long it was for. Okay, but it extends past March 31st. So we could still work remotely in April if we had to. Yep. Okay, well, I mean, that does make it a little easier for me to be at two places at one time. I just can't physically be presenting at two places at one time. So I would prefer a different night, either the 17th or the 19th if that's the week we should move to. But again, I always defer to the board schedule.  Yeah. So this gets more complicated because we had a new comprehensive permit application be filed on Monday. And so we need to schedule, that's for 10 Sunnyside Avenue. So we need to schedule their first hearing within 30 days. So we're trying to figure where to fit that in our schedule too. My original intent for them had been to see if they were amenable to April 20th, but unfortunately that's 31 days after the filing. So we would need to get an extension from them in order to go with that date. Pat, from our conversations earlier today, do you get the sense that we would, we might be able to open the public hearing for 10 Sunnyside a week earlier, maybe on the 13th? Or do you think that might be pushing it in terms of getting any comment back from the town? I think that would be a little bit, I think that would be hard because if we did that, then they'd have to be really helpful. They'd have to really aim for a week before that. That would bring us back down to the 6th, and that's not very long. So I think it would be a push on them to be able to do that. Okay. Paul, you had said that 18th was out for you. Again, if possible, the 17th, the 19th, and again, the concom is the 13th, so it really could be any day after the 13th. Right. So if you wanted to do it, well, the 13th is a Thursday, so Friday usually you don't do these on a Friday. And Monday, the 17th is a holiday. Oh, it's a Patriot Day? Patriot Day. Yeah, yeah. So the question is, can you do it on Wednesday, the 19th? Or... So if we were to do it on the 19th, we would possibly have a meeting on the 19th and I'm meeting on the 20th. Or, Paul, we could do you on the 20th. Well, the only problem with us on the 20th is that would be the follow-up to concom on the 13th if we needed it. Yep, yep. I also have two meetings already on the 20th. That makes that problematic as well. You know, I don't think I'm indispensable to the meeting on the 18th. Always difficult for an attorney to say. No, no, I really don't think I am, but the challenges were at the short strokes here and I would hate something to come up that we could address, that I'm not there to be able to do it. Believe it or not, I've had this other matter going in Middleborough simultaneously with you guys for a while and I've actually been logging on to your meeting after I've done their meeting. Their meeting starts at 6.30 from their town hall on my computer. The problem is, is that I don't, on the 18th, we have, we're on the agenda after another matter. So there's no way I'm gonna get reached and off by 7.30 that night, all right. And so did the 17th work? Well, I don't mind Patriots' holiday, I don't- Oh, that's right, yeah, it's Patriots' day, sorry. But is that, are we prohibited from having a public hearing on that night? I don't think so, it's not an election day, that's usually the one that trips us up. So I think we could do the 17th, especially because we're not meeting in person, so we're not, there's no physical location, you know, we would need anyone to help set up or anything. So I guess that's a question for members of the board. So this is Monday, April 17th, are people available on that date? I am. Better question is, is anyone not available on Monday, the 17th? I'm good. Okay. Same here. So it sounds like we should do Monday, the 17th? No, I am available. We'll have the monotony Minutemen attend as well and do their little dream live show. Okay, so Monday, the 17th, and our usual 7.30 p.m. Mr. Chair. All right. Yes. Theresa Lau, senior planner. I was just wondering when was the, hi, when was the 180th day after the hearing started? So the original scheduled date was the 16th of April, but by mutual agreement with the applicant, we have moved that out to April 30th. Okay, thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Okay, so then I think we would be looking to continue rather than April 11th, which would be our next normal date. We would be doing it until the 17th instead, or not, sorry, not the 11th, when was, yeah. So we'll go to Monday, the 17th. So one other matter for us on this, so we, the board has received three of the written transcripts.