733. I'll go ahead. So, 733 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22nd, 2021. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. I'll call this board of the meeting of the board to order. I'd like to first confirm that all members of the anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont. Here. Patrick Hanlon. Here. Kevin Mills. Here. Sean O'Rourke. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Steve Revillac. Here. Wonderful. Welcome all. You're representing the town, Rick Valarelli. Good evening, Mr. Chandler. Good evening. Vincent Lee. Here. And Kelly Lanema. Here. Good to see you all. So our outside consultant, Paul Haverty, is unfortunately unable to join us this evening. And I know Marty Nover from Beta Group is not here, but Laura Kraus is here. Here. And I believe Bill McGrath will be joining us. I don't see him on the meeting yet, but he will be here as well. Perfect. Thank you. Do you know if Tyler's gonna be on?  Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Appearing for 83 Palmer Street. Arbiter Nessie. Yes, I am here. Good to see you. And then appearing for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Mary Wynne Stanley O'Connor. Good to see you. Yes, thank you. And I've seen various folks from your team on as well. So we'll kick those up as we go. All right. So in my apologize again last week, we had hoped that the House and Senate would get together and pass Bill, which would allow us to continue meeting remotely. They missed by about 18 hours. So we are now able to meet again as we were up into the new year. The future meetings where we have a little bit less to do. The board will take some time to figure out how we adapt and how we would want to run our meetings going forward. But for the moment, this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with what I guess is Senate Bill 2472 or House Bill 3874, whatever the final number is, which was adopted on June 16, 2021. This legislation amends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. The opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means. Some attendees are participating by video conference. Other participants are participating by computer audio or telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name, or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda and as chair reserved the right to take item out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So going to our agenda. The first item on the agenda is docket number 365883 Palmer Street. As we open this up after I announce the agenda item, I'll ask the applicant to introduce themselves, make any presentations to the board, then request members of the board to ask what questions they may have on their proposal. And after the board's questions have been answered, we can open the meeting for public comment. So Mr. Nessie. Yes, Robert Nessie appearing for Jim and Carney, the applicant. We may recall that at the last hearing on 83th Palmer Street, there was a recommendation by members of the Zoning Board that my dual applications for variance and special permit be reassured to Town Council. We may also recall that I was asking that the board interpret the decision of a 1955 Zoning Board of Appeals decision where I was arguing that at the time the board entered that decision back in 1955, they allowed one of the lots to be used for the purpose of constructing a two family building. The discussion ensued during the course of the hearing and I think it was collectively decided by the members of the board that the best approach would be to perhaps prefer this matter to Town Council because there were some questions as to what capacity Zoning Boards were acting in in the 1955s, were they acting as a Plenty Board, were they acting as a Zoning Board, exactly what they were doing. So I think that the consensus on the part of board was that refer to Town Council. The Town Council called me about three weeks ago and he suggested to me that what I do is go ahead and ask the board to draw my two petitions without prejudice so that he has ample time to do research and report back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He indicated further that that could be done without my client having to further pay the filing fees or repeat the filing fees that he paid the first time around. I did consult with my client and my client has agreed with that approach therefore I'm here this evening and I'm requesting that the Zoning Board allow me to draw my dual petitions without prejudice at this time. Thank you. I believe Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Rablak, did the two of you speak with Council to this matter? Mr. Chairman. Please. I spoke to Town Council about this shortly after he had had the conversation with Mr. Inessie that Mr. Inessie has referred to. He indicated to me that he had done a considerable amount of work on this but figuring, essentially doing the legal archaeology necessary to figure out what it is that the board thought it was doing back in 1955 was proving to be a difficult and time-consuming process. He's aware that this is not the only case in which it is going to be important for us to know what the ground rules are and that it would be better for everyone concerned if he could do this work without having the overhang of repetitive continuances while he tried to get everything done in the light of the two cases that were before us. So he would very much like it if we could follow the procedure that he had agreed upon with Mr. Inessie and proceed in that fashion. Now just to be clear about it, that doesn't mean that anybody expects Mr. Inessie or his clients just to go away. This is really essentially a time management issue more than anything else. Town Council will in fact get back to us and provide us with the advice that he thinks best and we will then, I assume that if Mr. Inessie's client hasn't developed another idea in the meantime that we'll go back, we'll go back essentially to this point but at least then we'll know what the rules are that apply and what it is we think that the board did back in 1955 and what implications that has for what we can or should do should do now. So this is without prejudice to anyone and Town Council would appreciate it if we would follow this procedure. Thank you Mr. Handler. Any further questions from the board? I'll just briefly ask if there's any questions from the general public that relates very specifically to the request to withdraw the application for 83 Palmer Street. Seeing none and close public comment on that. Mr. Chairman. Yes please. I wonder if Mr. Inessie could address it. He said that he wishes to withdraw without prejudice the special permit and variance applications. There's also a third proceeding that was at least started. The procedure here is not so clear because nothing about this case is all that clear but I'm assuming that Mr. Inessie is intending to withdraw all of the applications that are before us including to the extent to which it is before us the purported appeal of the decision of the zoning of the building inspector and I wonder if Mr. Inessie could comment on that. Absolutely correct Mr. Chairman. Yes that is good. So you're withdrawing all applications? All applications are being withdrawn without prejudice so that I can in fact bring them back okay anew once we hear from Town Council. Yes that was the intent of my discussion with Town Council absolutely. Okay and with that clarification may I have a motion from the board. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I move that the board of appeals consent to the withdrawal of the three applications before us for special permit for variance and appeal of the decision of the building inspector without prejudice and with the understanding that when and if those applications are refiled they will be refiled that the filing fee will be waived. Thank you may I have a second for that? Second. Thank you Mr. Mills. We're all called vote of the board. Mr. DuPont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. I'm happy to vote Mr. Chairman. I wasn't here for the initial meeting is that okay? In that case I will withhold thank you. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. And the chair votes aye so we are withdrawn on 83 Palmer Street. Thank you Mr. Nessie for that. Thank you. The question for Mr. Valerelli. There was on the agenda for the 15th approval of minutes from March 23rd in April 27th but those do not appear on the online agenda for this evening. Okay then I think they were still being touched up if I'm not mistaken. Okay. They weren't they weren't quite ready to put before the board Mr. Chairman. Okay perfect. I just want to make sure I wasn't missing anything. No thank you. Okay. So with that or the next item on our agenda is the Comprehensive Permit for 1165 R Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. O'Connor. Yes good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This evening I will planning to address the following. The butters letter that was recently filed an undated letter. Mr. Nessie's emails, the Transportation Advisory Committee memorandum and the questions the chair posed to the applicant. I want to thank the board for their work on this. I will start with the Rider Street letter from Mr. T. It's an undated letter. We do thank the butters on Rider Street for working with us. We were a little surprised at the tenor of this letter. My client vigorously disagrees that the issues of parking and vehicles traveling to the proposed development have not been adequately addressed. We think that they have been addressed repeatedly. You will recall that the applicant had an extensive traffic impact study done. Beta group reviewed that. In fact, Beta had us check and recheck and redo our parking counts at the various sites, the Legacy, the Brigham, and at Arlington 360 and they have reviewed that and it's all been confirmed. I would suggest to you that the applicant's proposal with respect to parking doesn't comply with the zoning bylaw. You know that this board has the ability to reduce parking under 6.1.5 to 25% of that which is required. This is an industrial zone and it is a mixed use. If you look at what is requested, the applicant proposes 80% of the required parking. Several of facts contained in Mr. T's letter are incorrect. The studies that were done by my client, the traffic studies, were not conducted in the midst of a pandemic. The traffic counts were done prior to the pandemic. Parking counts were done prior to the pandemic and some parking counts were done during the pandemic. I would suggest to you that to the extent that parking counts were done of the three facilities during the pandemic, they would be more accurate because people were not traveling anywhere at that point. You would have more people parking at those sites. Substantial data has been provided and has been to this board and has been reviewed by beta. Now with respect to 9 Rider Street and the private right-of-way, as a matter of law, the only party that has an unconditional right to utilize that parking on the right-of-way frankly is the MIRAC ownership team. Based on the ALTA survey, they own rights to that private way but they have expressed to this board that they are prepared to agree to instruct their prospective tenants and guests that there is no parking on Rider Street so that the neighbors can continue to park the six or eight cars that park along 9 Rider Street. To the extent that the neighbors on Rider Street have expressed concern about the width of Rider Street, you may recall that the neighbors have encroached into Rider Street with their yards or their porches. My client has not objected to that but it shouldn't be a suffer as a result of it. Now if the neighbors believe any violations, my client has agreed to install no right turn onto Rider Street. They have agreed to include in leases that if someone violates the provision of turning right onto Rider Street or parking on in the right-of-way that they will receive a warning letter and that may ultimately result in the termination of their lease or the non-renewal of their lease. Now there's nothing wrong with that approach. I think the only person on the ZBA at the time, Attorney DuPont, was on the zoning board of appeals when we permitted West Minster Street, the 40B and he may recall that we put just such a provision in that decision because there was no parking at that 40B at West Minster Street. If the neighbors believe that there are people violating this provision, they can gladly send an email to the property manager who will be on site who will address this.  We're not a police state. Moreover, as the ZBA knows, you retain jurisdiction. So if there are repeated flagrant violations, you can bring this applicant back to your board. My client cannot agree to flag men being there all day long during the construction time, but in the letter to Chairman Klein, my client has agreed that there would be no construction vehicles coming down Rider Street during the time the children are going to school in the morning or in the afternoon, 7.30 to 8.30 and 3 to 4. Parking overnight on Mass Ave is allowed by the town. Every property owner has this ability. You have the memorandum from Officer Roteau. This is not a special privilege that my client has received. To the extent the hotel has no right, the guests of the hotel have no right to park on Mass Ave. So I don't know the relevance of that. With respect to the issue of vibration rodents, there's going to be a traffic management plan that this board will review. We have discussed in the response to Chairman Klein, which is dated, that letter is dated June 8th, that we will do vibration monitoring. There will be videography and photographs of the conditions of the Rider Street homes to document the conditions pre-construction and after-construction. With respect to Rider Street, it is in the intention of the applicant to grind and repay Rider Street at the existing grade will be maintained and the existing drainage pattern will also be maintained. Mr. T also expressed some concern as to access to his backyard. If you were to install parking, the race speed table according to Bowler Engineering will not impact him. And the speed table will be designed per the manual on uniform traffic controls. So those were the responses to the issues raised by Mr. T. Mr. Inessie has sent a couple of emails to the board about the utility pole, the Verizon utility pole, which is to the right of the massive or right of way on the MIRAC Hyundai side. Now, my clients hired ICO energy and engineering of Boston, Hat Nyhan, who was also on this call to answer any questions. They specialize in infrastructure services and utility coordination. Mr. Nyhan looked at all options available to relocate the utility pole and the attendant costs. This utility pole is not going to service this project, this 40 feet project. It will be servicing Mr, continue to serve Mr. Inessie's property and the MIRAC Hyundai. It is, we've measured it, 14 feet, 11 inches from Mr. Inessie's property line and has been there for more than 50 years. It's owned by Verizon. And it is not just an easy task of picking this pole up and moving it over. You just can't move the pole several feet. The lines that are on that pole are presently grandfathered and they run across the MIRAC Hyundai site and they could not be placed, as I understand it, in the same position because of the way they are. Moving the pole requires that someone agree to permit the pole to be moved to their property. At this point, both Mr. Inessie and the MIRAC Hyundai dealership are unwilling to agree to allow us to move the pole to their property. We looked at moving the pole to the workbar parcel because the lines cannot exceed 135 feet. The workbar location is too far away. Moving the pole is also a substantial cost and will be a significant disruption for those that are serviced by the pole. Mr. Inessie has expressed concerns about traffic entering, exiting over the mass av easement. And I would suggest to you that we are in fact improving the situation because the traffic is only entering for this development from Massav. It is no longer exiting from this site, from the industrial site onto Massav so that there is an improvement. He's also raised an issue that the traffic impact study mentions that people will use Quinn Road and will use the Massav entrance to access the property for ingress. And that nobody is going to use Quinn Road because they have to make two turns. Well, I spoke to the traffic engineer that we utilized and he said if no one used Quinn Road it would add three additional entrances off of the Massav, from the Massav exit so it's de minimis. I would suggest to you that it improves the situation. Everybody is exiting by a right of street. We asked Mr. Inessie if there was any other alternatives we would gladly consider. We would put up a railing along his sidewalk if you wanted. And I would suggest to you that my client has spent the necessary resources and consulted with the requisite professionals on this issue. This is something that cannot be relocated and not only because of the requirements but the cost is significant as well. In June of 2020 Mr. Inessie sent me an email in which he expressed his concerns which included the Massav right of way. And in that email he said that he didn't believe that the removal of the telephone pole would do anything to alleviate his concerns with respect to the width of the right of way and traffic coming in and out and the MIRAC Chevrolet entering in and out. Well, we've rectified the situation in part by having traffic exit from Rider Street. So Mr. Nyhand can speak to any questions that the zoning board members have with respect to relocation of the traffic pole but we have studied it. Frankly the MIRAC would like to move that traffic pole. It's not necessarily the most attractive thing but they really can't. They have described to you at the last meeting what they would do, their consultants had suggested by putting reflective coating of covering on the bottom. With respect to the transportation advisory committee comments and their memorandum of June 8th they have numbered paragraphs to a they had suggested installing a contraflow bike lane on the south side of the driveway which is separated from the main travel lane by double yellow lines. Bolar engineering says that's not possible. It would make the drive lane too narrow and it would impact access by the fire trucks and access to the La La Cota property. That's the same as true with the same as true for widening the sidewalk on the south side by five feet. Also that would impact what the conservation commission wants to see done. We would have to remove landscaping it and the enhancements along the Brook, the amenity space and benches. With respect to their suggestion of 2B we will add accept bikes. Do not enter and left only. Now that's we've added that to the plans. We'll add with respect to 2C we'll add accept bike shadows added to the and that's been added to the site plan. There are 114 interior bike spaces 3A. We cannot relocate. One of the issues was relocating one of the doors. There's entrance to the bike parking area through the garage. The transportation advisory committee has suggested not having that occur through the garage. It cannot be relocated because now that the swale is on the side of the property we're unable to provide an exterior door to the rear bike room in the garage and the grading over there is too steep and no paved walkway and access. It would be too dangerous. They suggest unbundling the parking. We have unbundled the parking. It will be a separate charge as they suggested. And we have provided you in May with a number of transportation demand management protocols. My client has determined that it's not economically feasible to provide MBTA subsidies. And finally we cannot my client cannot provide a continuous accessible sidewalk along the mass epic entrance due to the rights of Mr. Nessie and Myrack Hyundai but in and out access and because of the width of the right of way. So that are the comments to the transportation advisory committee. Then Mr. Klein we had your questions that you had asked. We had suggested that we would not have construction vehicles come down right of street between 730 and 830 a.m. or 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The applicant will provide via email or a link to a project website to keep the oddison and the neighbors updated as to construction activities. We will do a survey of adjacent properties, taking photographs, pre-construction and post-construction and vibration monitoring devices will be used to measure vibration in the area. We have provided you with the truck movements prepared by Ola Bolar Engineering confirming access and turning radiuses from all three entry points on the property. There would be no benefit achieved by accessing the project site by the Lalakata town on sites is access is still via Ryder Street. You would ask if you know if there could be access through the Lalakata property you still have to go down Ryder Street so nothing would be achieved. The applicant has committed to include in the transportation package provided to residents information which will include the restrictions discussed specifically no resident of the guest parking on Ryder Street and no return onto Ryder Street promptly having the onsite property manager address with any resident any proposed infractions including providing written warnings and advising residents who persist that they at least will not be renewed when it terminates. We've talked about guest parking all overnight guest parkers will be required to register their vehicles with the property manager in advance and guest parking overnight will be on a first come first serve basis and then we have the spaces out on Mass Ave that would be through the town and coordinating through the police department. I think that addresses all of the outstanding issues we're hopeful and we have the team members on the call for any questions we're hoping that this evening that we could wrap up public participation and work towards the decision on the comprehensive permit. I thank you. Are there questions from the board? There's sort of a lot of answers in quick succession. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yes I'd like to go back to the poll. Through you Mr. Chairman I'd like to know what measures they've tried to accommodations they've tried to reach with the MIRAC property on Mr. Inisi. I know it will be expensive but I see this poll as being more than a matter of aesthetics but a public safety. I could see a very bad accident occurring somebody not used to this site wheeling around the corner and smacking into the pole and not once but many times and eventually it's going to take out the power to the whole site anyway. So you know usually money talks and it'll be very expensive but I find it hard to believe that Mr. Inisi and Mr. MIRAC could not be convinced to give up an easement of a few square feet of space for proper funding. That's my question. Mr. Inisi's on the call. We asked if he would be interested in allowing us to move the pole to his site. Oh at this point the MIRAC dealership is not willing to allow us to do it and we'll not talk about a monetary remuneration for it. Mr. Inisi did you want to comment? He's trying to unmute himself. I certainly do not want the pole on my property. I'm not the one who's doing the development. What has been on the ground has been on the ground for many many years. I bought my property in the late 1980s early 1990s and when I bought my property I knew what I was buying. I knew it was there. I knew what the traffic was. I knew what was coming in and what was going out. Now I'm going to say this. What I've heard from the applicant pretty monotonously is that well my real problem is with MIRAC Hyundai because of their traffic okay and the safety issues that come about because of them coming back up from behind their property whipping around out of their parking lot going back down where they have the maintenance for their property. Well that may be a safety issue but we have a new ingredient now and the new ingredient is the MIRAC development. Bob Inisi is not part of that development. Bob Inisi is not going to make any money from that development so if I'm being asked to put the pole on my property is that fair for me to have to do that when in fact there ought to be another way of doing it okay and I hear that there's a problem in terms of moving it over closer to the MIRAC Hyundai side. I hear that there's a problem in terms of the line you may have an extended line and because of that that it doesn't make sense. It all comes down to money okay and if it means money the person who should be paying the money is not myself okay and probably not MIRAC Hyundai the person who should be paying the money is the person who is introducing the new ingredient on the ground and that is MIRAC development. They're developing a lot of units out back that were never there before and that's my position basically on the issue. Thank you. I want to say something later but Mr. Mills. Yes through the chair I'd like to express to Mr. Inisi I'm not stating that you should be volunteering land. What I am stating is that you should be re-numerated significantly for allowing a several square foot easement for the placement of the pole. I have an easement in my backyard for a pole it's no big deal you know they could give you some money to make it worth your while and I just want to know has that approach been taken because I feel very strongly about this pole remaining in the middle of the road and if they have to pay you well so be it. I mean you shouldn't be giving up anything for free it's your property and you should receive just compensation. Would you be agreeable to such a perspective? All I can say Mr. Mills that has never been for discussion okay I'm open to discussion the pole is a problem for me okay I'm always look I'm a lawyer okay I've been a lawyer for 50-some-odd years I'm always open to discussion I never close the door on anything pole is a problem for me it's uh I'm going to die at some point the property is going to the property is going to pass on to my children I don't want to leave them with this headache and and quite frankly I've said this before Myra Callende is going to look at what Bob Myrac and Julie Myrac are doing and say at some point why should I be selling cars when I can develop my property and do the very same thing that Bob Myrac has done well guess what at that point my situation is cast in concrete okay and I'm going to be stuck with Myrac the Myrac Callende development as well all right that's not all safe for now again I'd like to say something later but I have an open mind as a lawyer I never close the door on anything thank you Mr. Mills so again would you be open to a financial negotiation with the parties to provide such an easement on your property well when you say an easement on my property what you're suggesting is that what the somehow that my parking lot would be cut away and the the right away would be extended on to my property I think the question is would you be willing to discuss the possibility of an easement a utility easement for the relocation of the pole from its present location onto my property onto your property no I do not want the utility pole on my property okay I think it's fair for me to have to do that okay yeah Mr. Mills well I'm just I feel very strongly about this pole being in the middle of the road I usually find money solves problems and there's a lot of money being made in this project and I'm going to leave it there thank you thank you Mr. Mills is it but has there I know you have your utility consultant is on the call has it been investigated shifting the pole the approximately five feet to bring it as close to the edge of the ease of the edge of the easement as possible it has been it's not it's not just an issue of moving it five feet it's like you think well it shouldn't be a big issue just move the pole over the five feet to the edge Pat Nyhan is on the call can explain to you what the repercussions of that and the problems thank you Mr. Neeser yeah sure of course so we've talked to Eversource about this issue at length the issue is that the pole as it is now in the configuration of the wires crossing the Mirac parking lot does not meet their their standards so they're essentially okay with it as is because it's grandfathered in but they don't as a practice they don't run services to other customers across someone's property right and that's just all sorts of easement things that come into that as well so they basically said if you touch the pole then we're going to need to set a number of other poles just to relocate the wires off off the property so it doesn't cross a lot anymore they're not willing to just simply set it you know five feet to the side and then move the wires over and keep the current configuration so we've asked a number of times we've elevated it tried to to see if we can get them or convince them to do it and we just haven't made any headway with that so I think we're out of options with just moving that the only other options after that would be you know setting a number of other poles and kind of re-figuring the whole thing okay Mr. Chairman Mr. Mills has everybody considered burying the lines very expensive I know that what occurred to me Mr. Mills if we if I may Mr. Chairman this is a comprehensive permit so it would be a very expensive and added burden to this project I mean I would say that pole's been there for more than 50 years Julia Myrak was on this call is aware of no no one hitting accidents that she's aware of that have hit that pole and you have at least 30 sunbug vehicles going in and out of that driveway every we're going in and out every day um so you know that would be a substantial cost of the project it could kind of just jump in on it too um just to kind of elaborate on that yes your primary would be expensive but it would also require probably two separate mammals out there there's there's three voltages that are out there on the poles today there's this 12240 which is a single phase there's 1208 that feeds the work bar today and also feeds Myrak the dealership and then there's a straight 240 which is another three phase voltage in order to be able to make up those three separate voltages you would need two separate mammals out there one of the mammals would be in they will both would be HE they call them AJ 300 mammals they're pretty big one of them would have 122 1208 and that would feed both the Myrak dealership and then that 1202 away would be used as a single phase to feed the other buildings including Mr. Ndc's property and that's it's a different voltage so electricians would need to look at it and see if you can go from 120 to 40 down to 120 to wait for the single phase you'd have to change everything to an underground feed so there may be work required inside of the buildings then the straight 240 would be used for the car dealer detailing in the other property up back as well and the USA before the the power that this pole carries is not going to the development so that that is coming off of Ryder Street is that correct yes and is that is that overhead or is that below grade it's overhead so coming off Ryder Street they'll have they're going to bring the three phase down to poles at the end of the the property kind of at the end of the driveway and from there they'll have risers that'll you know pick up the transformers the new development okay and work bar will also be served off of that new service Mr. Mills is there anything further I'm disappointed thank you thank you Mr. Mr. Revillek thank you Mr. Chair I do I have a few a few questions one of them is based on the conservation commission's June 8th memo to to our board where they basically review the list of proposed waivers and on page three the last row of the table is the waiver request for the bonding requirements in sections 10 and 11 of the town bylaws and the conservation commission recommends not granting the waiver I'm curious as to what type of a bond amount would be required under that provision of our bylaws that's my first question is okay are you aware of that what the bonding requirement would be I do not no myself unfamiliar with it I guess miss is miss Chapnick on I've not seen her name no all right well I'll hold that then so the next the other question I have just is to refresh my memory the current proposal is 126 units 24 124 thank you and what is the number of parking spaces 128 124 so it's just over a part the parking ratios just slightly greater than one correct so I mean one of the I mean as a as a comprehensive permit application in one of the goals one of you know as I understand 40 be one of its intentions is to provide for the construction of low and moderate income housing in cities and towns that have local restrictions that hamper such construction and with respect to with respect to like parking ratio for multifamily buildings our minimum parking requirements are one of those kinds of hampering local restrictions we require one space per unit for one to three family dwellings regardless of the number of bedrooms for heart for in terms of apartment buildings you know we require more so it's one space for studio two spaces for you know two spaces for a three bedroom a space and a half or two bedrooms but I you know as a you know just from the perspective of me sitting on the board you know going giving you a parking read even if you know granting approving a project with a parking ratio of one slightly more than one almost would put it on parity with you know what we require from single and two family homes I just want to mention this for you know for general consideration in my last question since the parking is unbundled from the leases would I be would it would I be correct in assuming that the building management will know the plate numbers of the tenant vehicles yes so if a for example a resident were to say you know license plate ADC one two three is parked on rider street management building management would would be able to check if that plate belonged to a tenant correct okay thank you nothing further thank you thank you very much mr chairman mr ford um I have a comment at the last meeting um we discussed or I heard that there were fewer compact parking spaces than is then's allowed and we briefly discussed maximizing the compact parking which was dismissed fairly quickly by mr bargain but adding spaces whether they're guest parking or permanent parking would certainly ease some of the concerns that we're hearing so if it hasn't been done I'd like to see the applicant consider maximizing the number of compact spaces so that we can increase the parking count as much as possible I have to defer to mr bargain on that question I answered sort of similar to what it was last week or two weeks ago the issue with the parking we can get more compact spaces in the plan does not ultimately increase the number of spaces available because to get an additional space from a going from a regular size to a compact requires reducing nine consecutive parking spaces in a row and we've already maximized that in building two because that's a relatively small building and doesn't have any more than nine spaces in a row and in building four those nine spaces in a row are constrained by columns so that the columns in the building if you were to span over the nine spaces for the cars would be a rather long span and in addition to that that just the configuration of the building the configuration of the site we don't have the ability to pick up any additional spaces because quite frankly we don't have runs of nine feet where we haven't already absorbed the additional space by virtue of the compact reduction I think a lot of times looking at it would be you know we we would like to have every parking space you can it's not just if we're trying to be evasive just the goal is to have as many are you are you suggesting when when you you know change from a normal parking space to a compacts parking space you have to eliminate columns and I don't understand that logic because I mean columns can be laid out in multiple configurations that can that can you know accommodate you know different parking configurations all day long so I don't see that that you have to lose columns I mean you can you can add columns I mean I I guess Mike Mike well the column is one piece the other piece is that as I mentioned is we don't have any more runs where the reduction of a foot over nine spaces would give us an additional parking space and I mean I don't know how else to tell you if there's no advantage to me or the ownership telling you that we can't get any more spaces out if we could get another space we would be happy to do it and we would you know it would behove everybody to do it we've maxed out the number of spaces oh god so you're saying that we've already done the exercise and the layout that you've got is is the best that you can can get in terms of maximizing the the parking count that's correct and in fact even the ramp that we have going from one level to the other everything is it's most compact space so that we can get the most number of spaces into the building including the handicap accessible spaces and that are required okay thank you anything further mr. Ford no thanks mr. chairman thank you um just following up briefly in the on the parking question um are some of the spaces designated as electric charging spaces I defer to mr. Bergman there there are a number of electric charging stations on the project and those spaces will be designated and is the is the electric capacity of the building sufficient that should additional space of additional charging spaces be added in the future that that could be accommodated yes sir that's that's considered likely and that won't need to be adding them in the future okay other questions from the board uh so there's a couple of things I did want to um mr. have any has been able to join us his other um prior engagement let out early so he is he's with us this evening so glad to have you thank you for being here even mr. chairman um so I think at this point um we can do one of two things we can uh certain topics I would like to try to cover tonight um obviously um Mr. Carter has covered most of the correspondence that has happened um in the intervening couple of weeks um I would like to just quickly review the list of requested waivers um and especially in regards to the comments from concom um in regards to those and um if we have questions um we have both betas is with us our consulting engineers and also um uh with mr. havery here as well he can provide us with some additional assistance um and then the other the other thing we um you know to discuss the project a little further with the public but then we need to um we'll sort of discuss the the process for the draft decision uh and reviewing the draft decision both with the board uh with the town boards with our consulting engineers and with the applicant um so that that can all be all those questions and comments can be addressed before we formally close the hearing um and as folks are generally aware the uh the 180 day period for closing the hearing from opening um does expire on July 2nd so um we will need to keep that into consideration um and uh yeah how we want to utilize the time we have we have left and whether we need to make or make a request for additional time in order to uh properly that any um any conditions in the the draft decision so I think at this point why don't we go ahead and just and take a look through the list of requested waivers um and then after we've gone through that then we'll move on to public comment and then after that we can discuss the process for the draft decision so the list of waivers unfortunately doesn't have a date on it but I believe I have the most recent version in front of me um let me bring this up uh I'll just take a second here I believe this is the correct version um is it correct can you confirm that um it looks to be okay okay so first so just a if we could go down these wetlands uh regulations uh section 20s c um the it's a request to do work on the banks of writer brook um and the conservation commission agrees to the approval of this waiver because the um the proposed plan for relocating writer brook provides enhanced resource area functions to the site including habitat values um pollution prevention storm damage retention retention and flood control um then basically the conservation commission further says that they agree with the waiver request but they haven't reached consensus about the jurisdictional status of writer brook after it's relocated uh therefore any reference to the jurisdictional status of the relocated brook should be removed from justifications and draft conditions going forward more and more for us on the recommendation consistent with data's recommendations to include a condition stating that the bank of the relocated brook should be projected in perpetuity um does that make sense to the board all right next section uh spotless regulations section 22 land under water bodies performance standards performance regulations to land under water bodies restrictions on work on land under water bodies within 25 feet um conservation commission agrees to approve the waiver um and they have a recommendation consistent with beta's recommendations to include a condition stating the land under the relocated brook shall be protected in perpetuity so that that would be very similar to the first waiver request um um the third is uh number 20 well in regulation chapter 20 section 24 restriction on vegetation removal um there's a waiver request for removal and replacement of vegetation um don't believe this was specifically addressed by the conservation commission in their letter um it was not uh chairman Klein but um it it I guess I would suggest to you it's implied because the we're moving right or the bank of writer brook okay um and I would just uh just briefly ask um as beta if they have as Laura from data if there were any um recommendations in regards to this yeah so um we we had gone through one of our comments on our last our may 28th letter um related specific specifically to this section of the of the bylaw and the project as designed has has been designed to meet this the standard and it was our understanding that this waiver was no longer going to be requested because the standard um the the provision of the bylaw and the standard requires that the vegetation that's being removed be replaced and and this project meets that that provision so there we it's our opinion that the waiver may not be needed thank you for that mr chairman mr hanlon um I was wondering if it would make some sense as we go through this and we review the recommendations of both beta and the concom if we get if mr connor could could indicate whether she has an an objection to those recommendations so that I I think this may not be the right time to actually sort of argue the issues if there are issues but it would be useful to know as we go through this which ones are ones where there's no real disagreement and which ones if any are ones that we're going to need to come back to and try to resolve so the the applicant has no disagreement with the concom's position in the June 8th letter is is the same thing true of beta's recommendations they're consistent beta and concom's recommend Laura wouldn't you say that your recommendations are consistent with concom's our recommendations are consistent with concom's but concom and beta did not on our most recent letter did not specifically address this provision because this particular provision wasn't I believe it was it was in the was going to be removed from the list of requested waivers this this one particular waiver request for section 24 but yes our our letter is consistent with concom's so it would be fair to say mr chairman that that on all of the waiver that everywhere here that there is there is no issue with respect to either of those recommendations so that if they were to appear in a draft opinion we would have confidence that they would not present a problem with the applicant is that is that correct yes okay thank you thank you mr hamlin so I've switched over from the official waiver list to this is the the letter from the conservation commission where they specifically address them so you can see their position the conservation commission's position relative to the those waivers that are from the waiver the wetlands regulation so section the next one with section 25 several of these that should be noticed adjacent upland resource areas that the conservation commission disagrees with this waiver request and agrees it should be withdrawn um and I just want to confirm with counsel that this one has been withdrawn it has okay thank you um and then the next one is this one here 25 c alternative analysis for working 100 foot aura um the conservation commission agrees it should be withdrawn and confirming with the applicant that they are withdrawing this one yes perfect thank you so this so there's another one um which was not addressed by the conservation commission I believe uh no new buildings within the first 50 foot of adjacent upland resource area unless approved and evaluating the existing total impervious surface on the site as proposed the new buildings are proposed within the first 50 foot of adjacent upland resource area um that cannot be withdrawn um miss cross do you have any comments on this one which waiver was which waiver request is that I this is on on there on the initial table from the applicant yes three four five it's the sixth it's the last one on the first page okay list no new buildings within the first 50 feet of adjacent upland resource area unless the unless approved and evaluating existing total impervious I believe Laura Danwell yes we need to proceed with that one sure so our our comment on this was because the 50 foot buffer around Ryderbrook and Milbrook is is almost entirely developed under these sections the the Arlington Conservation Commission can approve new structures within the 50 foot area as long as there's no increase in impervious area and the resource areas are approved based on the project plans it appears the project can meet the local standards therefore waiver may not be required okay so you're you believe that the waiver may not be required yes okay next up is wetlands bylaw title five article eight section 4b um conservation commission requires strip of undisturbed vegetative cover within the 200 foot riverfront area or bordering land um this is previously disturbed area which is nearly entirely covered by impervious materials we withdrew that on okay um next is wetlands bylaw title five article eight section 16 in the wetlands 11 permitting and consultant fees let's move on do you want to explain the the request sure the applicant's request was for 50 a 50 percent reduction and at the conservation commission meeting they spent a considerable amount of time and in their letter of june explaining why their recommendation was 20 percent and i have explained that to my client okay so is your client opposed to this everyone would like to see a reduction but we will accede to the wishes of the conservation commission okay uh the next is the title five article eight sections 10 and 11 which is the bond requirement um so the request was uh the applicant is not they're not proposing any bond any security bond um then there's a car if you could just elaborate on um certainly this is just an added capital requirement that affects the economic viability of the project and we did not think given the nature of the applicant um the myrack family has a substantial reputation for quality construction and standing behind the projects that a bond would be necessary here um as mr haver to be um are certainly in general in uh projects of this type um are bonds are they something that are sometimes waived or they typically um continue to be requested on these kinds of projects it's fairly typical mr chairman for specific bond requirements to be waived it's also very typical for bond requirements to be part of the board's decision and you know the board can impose a bond requirement through a condition that covers a multitude of division so it wouldn't necessarily have to be separate bonds for each particular concern okay so if we were to to kind of waiver on specific bond requests we could still include in the final decision sort of an umbrella bond essentially correct wonderful thank you okay the next one the end of those um yep so now what i think we are past the weapons violence once switch back to the other document so we left off your zoning bylaw article five um which is the multi multi-family apartment use is not allowed by writer by special permit obviously this is the the primary reason for seeking a comprehensive permit is that without the granting of this um this kind of development would not be allowed currently under our zoning um and similarly the the next one here article section 562 regarding flurry ratio front yard depth right side yard rear yard depth again these are specific requirements under the in the zoning bylaw that would need to be waived in order for the project to be allowed to be developed as drawn um anyway article five section five three one uh deals with the building height section five three seventeen is the upper story setback section five six two is the overall height uh both in stories and feet article six section six one twelve the bike parking design guidelines um so the one and a half spaces for unit would be a total of 186 this is the applicant proposes 44 spaces designed in accordance with the guidelines or a waiver to construct 114 long-term spaces which would include upper level stacked type parking as a result in 114 total long-term spaces um so the the zoning bylaw requires that all parking the oh bicycle parking be ground level um not that it's you know that you don't have to lift or raise a bicycle in order to park it um am I understanding this correctly Mr. Carter that it's basically saying that there would be 44 spaces if they were parked that way but if they're allowed if you're allowed to stack them you could get 114 is that what I'm reading yes Mr. Bargman can confirm that but that's my understanding Mr. Bargman correct thank you so chairman just to clarify this is not bicycle parking this is vehicular this is bicycle parking is it correct yeah so section 61 well specifically bicycle parking okay thank you thank you next one is article six section 614 which is 160 vehicle parking spaces would be required this is here the applicant proposes 128 and um over those 128 Mr. Carter how many of those are the compact spaces uh eight six it's down below uh two from the bottom six spaces and building two and two spaces and building four okay so eight out of the 128 correct okay and the 128 that includes both um covered parking and uh outdoor parking yes that's everything that's everything article five section 5.7 construct no construction permitted in regulatory flooding 15 foot setback from waterway uh the work is proposed within 15 feet of the waterway a bridge utility crossing within the waterway building two will be within 15 feet of mill work through the fact that 15 bridge needs to be rebuilt so these are all very specific to the proximity to both rider work within the mill work the next is uh Arlington design standards um design standards for buildings along mill work minimum bikeway and Massachusetts Avenue um so these are the the Arlington design these are not the residential design guidelines these are the um the design the town design guidelines for commercial and projects is that correct is it not yes and the next one is article six section six one eleven b 11 um which is for the eight compact parking spaces okay and then the last is title nine article three section four a for b enforcement fees uh town fees and charges department of community safety and office of the building inspector fees and charges were related to fire safety building permits plan reviews occupancy permits plumbing permits gas fitting and electrical permits uh waiver requests for 50 reduction of fees and 100 percent of inflow infiltration mitigation fees um so the the 50 percent would apply to you're saying everything except except the i and i yes the i and i i don't know if there's anyone from the town who can speak specifically to any of those don't think so one of the issues mr chairman is there are no standards or uh procedures for determining who pays i and i what percentage they pay or what amount um many projects that have been approved without i and i and this where this is affordable uh you know a comprehensive permit we would suggest that i and i shouldn't be levied here also the analysis that was done by my client as to the net tax flow to the town after backing out the costs and children the projected children in the school system and like is about a quarter of a million dollars plus in taxes uh to the town net chairman clang yes please um it's kelly line i'm a senior planner department of planning and community development i can confirm that there are no formally written standards for charges of the i and i fee thank you so mr hevity in these cases where they you know i'm going with this lesson um where these are not uniformly applied how does that impact their imposition on a comprehensive permit and with regards to fees that aren't actually set forth uh in any published documents there is some housing appeals committee case law that says that they can't be imposed upon a comprehensive permit development um so i i think in this instance it will be difficult to justify the imposition of an i and i fee if there's no basis for determining what that fee is with regards to other fees that are actually set forth in a validly adopted fee schedule the housing appeals committee has never taken the position that a town is obligated to waive local fees in order to make a comprehensive permit project economic um they do encourage waiver of local fees when and if feasible for municipality but it's never been required of course perm separate permitting fees you know so if you are if there's a requirement for fee you know for permitting in front of the conservation commission under the local wetland those aren't applicable because it's a one-stop permitting process so your comprehensive permit fee covers those but in terms of connection fees building permit fees things of that nature they're generally not waive not exclusively it does happen occasionally it's not required thank you uh so Connor i believe that's the that's the complete list it is thank you okay and then so we will incorporate this into the into the draft decision are there any further questions from the board um on the any of the waiver requests being none are there any questions from either uh town staff or from beta in regards to any of the waivers so none but then at this time um we will move on to the public hearing uh portion of the the public comment period of the public hearing um so i'm going to in a second i'll be opening the meeting for public comment public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand and should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision members of public will be granted time to ask questions and make comments chair asks those wishing to address the board a second time during a particular hearing to please be patient allow those wishing to speak the first time to go ahead of them members of the public who wish to speak should digitally raise their hand using the button on the participant tab and the zoom application those calling by phone please dial star nine to indicate you would like to speak you'll be called upon by the meeting host to be asked to give your name and address you'll be given time for your questions and comments all questions that should be addressed to the chair uh please remember to speak clearly and once all public questions and comments have been addressed or time allocated by the chair has ended public comment period will be closed um so there's been some comment recently on not specifically on this hearing but um that uh public comment has has gone has gotten very long and has um oftentimes sort of drifted off topic uh so in in light of that uh we are just asking uh people who are speaking to please address your questions to the chair um I will take all the questions um and then I will address the questions um afterwards to the um to the assembled people um in order to get them resolved just to uh not to have this become sort of as much of a sort of a back and forth discussion forum um that is really it's an opportunity for the public to get their questions in front of the board and to make sure that the board is informed of their um their positions and their concerns and then it's up to the board to uh to make sure that those those questions and concerns are addressed um so with that um with no order here uh Mr. Anasi yes thank you uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board uh I'm not going to go on at length uh you've seen my my two emails to the board and you know how concerned I am about the location and the existence of that utility pole uh Mr. Klein could I ask you to pull up I sent you in a series of seven photographs uh if you could pull up those photographs I'm asking you if you could pull up I numbered those photographs photograph number four so that that could be displayed uh while I am giving my little pitch here uh uh again the pole is going to be a problem for me it's going to be a problem whether it's now or whether it's in the long haul uh I'm not going to be able to live with that pole being where it is without knowing that I have done everything within my power to have that pole removed now what I have heard this evening is that there are solutions but these solutions may cost money may cause some inconvenience uh and and that's true okay but the inconvenience to myself and my property uh for over the years is going to be extended because of the existence and location of the pole now I've heard also that it's pie in the sky for me to argue and say that traffic is not necessarily going to come in on a straight line path from Mass Ave to get to the development uh I I'm adamant about that people are going to take the path of least resistance and not go down the public way which is Quinn Road but come down the private way and I I'm asking you members of the board to keep in mind this is a private way I have rights in this private way that don't necessarily have anything to do with 40 b they do to some extent because you're looking at the way uh in determining what you're going to determine under 40 b but I have private rights in that private right of way which I can deal with in a different fashion if I have to I don't want to do that okay I would much prefer having a solution here now one of the recommendations uh one of the suggestions from the applicant was that we put some sort of a fence of some sort of a link on the sidewalk if you can get that photograph number four for me Mr. Klein I am searching diligently I'm sure you are I'm sure that you can see uh that the distance between the pole and the front steps to my building that's the front stairway to my building that stairway is extremely narrow and I had to put up two uh yellow steel posts for the purpose of preventing cars from coming and trucks by the way from my raki on day and again I know that my raki on day is not the my rock development but it's there okay and it's it's there and it has to be dealt with in terms of what we do and what the board does okay so I'm suggesting to the members of the board that uh uh if you put up a fence of any kind that it's going to be hit and impacted just as my poles are if you look at the yellow poles now you'll see black marks on them where vehicles have come up and rubbed against the yellow poles so again uh and by the way the people who use that sidewalk are mainly the folks from work bar they come up from work bar they might go out onto massive heading up somewhere to get takeout lunch or something of that nature those are the folks who use that sidewalk it's not my people who use the sidewalk my people go back into the parking lot jump in their cars and head out that way so I'm I'm asking the board to be fair okay my I'm not my rock okay I don't have the economic way with all that the my rack family has I own this building this is my building it's a small spec in the town compared to what the my rack family owns but I'm asking to be given fair consideration uh by the members of the board in their deliberations with respect to particularly any safety issue with regard to uh how that pole is located in the way one of the things that struck me is that both the transportation advisory committee report and the engineering report which I cited in my memos to the board didn't really spend any time on the pole okay they did not talk about the pole uh they talked about the way and they one of them talked about maybe having a bicycle a path of some kind there which uh Amirio Connor very wisely said you cannot do because quite frankly there's not even enough room uh to have what they would like to have there in terms of the increased traffic so my position is I'm in this for the long haul I'm hoping that the board will do the right thing and treat me fairly okay as Mr. Mills suggested to me I'm open to suggestions I do not want the pole on my property Mr. Mills however I'm open to other suggestions in terms of what could be done and I have an open mind on that and I'm willing to talk about it thank you thank you Mr. Nessie I know I had these pictures last time and I just can't figure out where I had done today I apologize for that well I'll just suggest to you that the uh a photograph number four shows the proximity of the pole in relation to my front stairway and if you look at the photograph you can see that it's very close okay I don't care whether it's 14 feet 11 inches or 13 feet 11 inches or whatever it is okay if you also look at photograph number five you can see the yellow posts okay and you can see the yellow post in my curb in relation to the pole and how my curb has been demolished over the years until I put the second yellow pole in that caused vehicles to to basically not hit the curb because they didn't want to damage their car at that point before that they didn't care and there is a photograph that Mr. Klein referred you referred to taking an on-site visit down there at one point Mr. Klein and seeing a portion of the headlight in front of the utility pole I think I'm still there I took a photograph of that and that portion of the of the headlight is still in front of the utility thank you thank you Mr. Nessie um next is a phone caller um ending in 644 which is the only phone caller I believe uh yes Mr. Chair that's uh me Steve Moore Piedmont street Mr. Moore um yeah Mr. Chairman just a quick question uh it's on a very small issue and speaking there's been a number of references to compact spaces over the course of the discussions tonight uh compact parking spaces and I guess my simple question is what is to be done by the applicant to enforce compact cars only in compact spaces because otherwise it can easily sort of be a way to increase the number of spaces but people park SUVs and take up a space in half of compact space that then loses really a uh a single parking space that's my first question okay Ed what's your follow-up follow-up question it's just a comment question the comment is that uh uh I believe it was Mr. Nessie that just spoke am I correct it is yeah I just want to say that uh I have to say that Mr. Nessie has been very reasonable and agreeable about the issue and I I think there has to be some resolution of this pole issue from a number of perspectives thank you sir thank you Mr. Conner just to address the question about compact spaces um I know it's an operational question more for how the the project would be uh staff going forward but I just wanted to ask Mr. St. Clair on that answer thank you thank you Mr. Conner I would end Mr. Chairman Klein I would uh uh share that the property management team when they are um uh bringing on new residents will properly coordinate residents who have compact size cars with the compact size spaces thank you thank you um Mr. Maradianos yes Mr. Chair Hawaii and thank you for saying my last name right I've been I've been eyeing it and I'm trying to work it out nope do you spell it perfectly don't get don't don't feel bad they said it wrong a graduation so I've got a couple of questions but also I would like to make a few comments as well um and just listening to the whole hearing today um I heard something earlier about um that uh that the construction vehicles were going to come down Ryder Street not during the time of uh school hours did that did I hear that they won't be coming down from seven to seven a.m. to three p.m. or four um right here the between they have between the hours of seven thirty and eight thirty a.m. in between three and four p.m. that's when they're allowed to go down that's when they would not be coming down okay um only just curious just because I wanted to just make sure that they were also following the uh the local town's noise noise ordinance of uh eight a.m. Monday through Friday and uh you know to six p.m. and then Saturday and Sunday nine to five um so I just want to make sure that those are going to follow uh in order as well um and then and uh I know we keep talking about you know the the vehicles you know making sure they take uh you know left on a ride or when leaving um but um two things with that did I hear earlier that now all exiting is going to be done through Ryder um Mr. Chair that's always been the case that all exiting from the the project site will be from Ryder Street and turns and Quinn Road and Quinn Road they can exit Quinn Road too yeah that nothing has changed there same as it was before Peter I thought I heard earlier something about that something's changed and then all exiting has been now revered uh no no and uh Ryder all right well that's sorry for any confusion no that's fine um but um just to bring up another point I know that um to Mr. Revilock mentioned earlier about how um uh how one can identify a vehicle you know by the license plate number that will be obviously registered with the property management's company but why hasn't uh the idea of uh just a simple sticker you know in the window being able to just make it a little easier on us the uh the butters you know being able to you know be able to pinpoint hey that car came down back road when they're not supposed to because you know as to Mr. Annessi's point earlier as well vehicles would take the least path of resistance and so you know when they punch in their GPS hey uh how do I get to where I'm going and then you know well I can only take a left here and only here but the GPS says I can go this way once people figure out they can do that they're gonna do it every time so you know unless we can physically identify the vehicles there should be some form of sticker a parking stick or something something where I can just look out and go oh hey that guy came down the road and he belongs over there he's not supposed to be down here you know that should I believe the applicants should take that into account they should have some form of identifying sticker that should be visible for everyone to see take that under advisement and then basically I just have a somewhat of a comment that I would just like to say you know I've been a part of these zoning board meetings for quite a while now and you know listen everybody and so uh you know I've reviewed the traffic study and I found it was missing a lot of vehicles you know especially the 480 during the uh the um recycling program we have down here you know it's 480 trips down the roads that you know for recycling program that weren't accounted for you know and we also found that the widths of the roads to be you know incorrect in some areas you know that the applicants study had listed you know I earlier I remember hearing that it was measured 20 feet from Mr. R. Nessie's wall property to the telephone pole when it's really only 13 and a half and you know and to be honest I'm more afraid of the uh the areas you know that I missed you know and to be honest I don't have much confidence in the traffic study you know I feel it was rushed and pushed through you know which brings me to another point you know I've complained to the town you know and I'll stay on topic here in a little off but I've complained to the town many times you know and I actually wrote a certified letter to the director of the DPW and the town manager you know back in December about you know a neighbor of ours who's been polluting daily and when they're not supposed to be and I was in a recent zoom meeting with both the town manager and the director of the DPW and and I showed them pictures that I won't show you now but they're not very pretty photos of what our neighbor's been doing here and and it's and you know it's a little disheartening that nothing's been done about that you know when I've notified the town six months ago and sent them in you know series of you know certified letters and emails and it was all done in a group email and you know only Mr. Rademacher reached out by email and so you know my point is is the town itself has been a little neglectful of our area you know and and it's they haven't been you know hand taken really good care of us so and I know I'm going to be you know throwing a Hail Mary here but you know at this point you know because you know now I have notified you know the zoning board you know about our concerns about how absent the town has been you know I feel honestly it would be irresponsible though for the zoning board to allow this project to be built you know in our little area our little roads here wasn't designed to you know handle this magnitude and influx of vehicles you know I mean we you know and so um we're just not you know we're not in a good enough big area that can handle all these new residents and you know this is my home I live here you know all of our butters we all live here you know we see what really goes on with the extra vehicles and you know and the the overlooking you know with the town you know and so um uh if the town can't handle the complaint about one neighbor you know how can it handle the complaint about an additional 124 new neighbors especially when they don't have identifying markers on you know stickers on their cars so I'm pleading to the zone the zoning board of appeals right now you know to please dismiss this project vote against it you know and uh that's pretty much it you know I just you know I'm thinking about our neighborhood and everyone else and you know and I want to thank the board for their time and let me speak and especially you Mr. Chair you know because we've got a lot of um you know concerns down here especially in our area you know that I feel that I feel there's more cons than there are pros to this project so uh thank you. Thank you um if I could just ask uh I'm just lying about if you could just I knew you and I had discussed earlier some of the um discussions that the town is now taking in regards to some of the issues in this neighborhood um I wasn't sure if there was any any particular uh no I just wanted to say that I followed up today with um both Adam Chaplain around the discussion that we had two weeks ago and then also with Mike Rademacher um regarding the conversation with Jenny and Daniel Amstutz and working to um create a presentation for the select board that we can't commence until after a decision is determined on this project so that is coming it's just not the right time to do it um but I have followed up with both with both um Mike Rademacher and Adam Chaplain and just kind of reminding them that we had promised certain things in our call two weeks ago. Okay thank you for that. Um Ms. Contreras. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. Just before just one second before we get to Ms. Contreras but there was one question that Peter asked that I'd like to have in the record now and what is the answer to the he's asked why not a sticker in the window or in principle any kind of thing that would identify the car so that it would be easy to figure out who might be making illegal turns and I'd like to know what the on this face that doesn't seem totally unreasonable and I'd like to know what the answer is. Certainly Mr. Hanlon the problem with that is that it doesn't identify who it is um so that the property manager can speak to that person um if you have a license plate number that's a different situation. A make and model and a license plate number sticker is not going to do anything any neighbor could call up and say a car went by my street and had a sticker in the window um you know there'd be no proof and how do we approach someone. I'm pretty good at identifying uh license plate numbers in vehicles so. So then then you could provide the license plate number. Yeah but it's going to be helpful just be able to say. Wait a minute I'm sorry I didn't ask Mr. Merdiana's to argue I just wanted to get Ms. Contreras statement on the issue. Pardon me Mr. Hanlon. I mean if it was an issue of them providing a license plate number and if there were stickers that would be one thing but just to say to the property manager we saw our car go by with the sticker from your property that's not going to help but if you know what I'm saying. Yeah what I'm wondering and I'm hoping that maybe you could give some thought too is whether there's any step in the direction that Mr. Merdiana's just suggesting that would actually improve the situation. I get what you're saying uh I'm not sure that that's the saddle point for the whole discussion and I'd like you to take it into consideration and if you can. We will. Thank you Mr. Hanlon. Ms. Contreras. Hi I'm a Ryan Contreras still at Two Riders Street um so I cannot speak for Mr. T. my spouse but um I want to uh just emphasize to the zoning board at this point with some additional comments um one just for the record um I think that uh our property and the property of 23 Forestry have been characterized as encroachers and I just want to state to the board that we bought our properties with those encroachments in place so I hope it's not the idea that we have done that and we've never been um this was the first time through the zoning board process that we learned that those were actually encroachments so uh and we've not been approached ever uh to alleviate that encroachment or um or take care of it and in a way that would benefit the applicant. Um so I think part uh just to emphasize that um the the parking on the overflow parking um it's not just residents so even stickers and license plates and all that um that is part of our concern but the concern that we see and we we live with it currently is guest parking and um the influx of delivery vehicles etc so it's not identifiable vehicle so I just hope that the zoning board can consider that there are multiple groups of vehicles and they each kind of carry their own concerns when it comes to the potential perhaps likely overflow onto Rider Street. Um I want to personally state and I know I have the support of a couple of our neighbors here on Rider Street that even the language of soft eviction which is what I will characterize non lease non-renewal is still unethical and I I'm I hear the fact that there is precedence in similar languages in leases in uh Westminster Street or wherever I I'm not a legal authority and I realize that the zoning board has to abide by a precedent but there's often historical precedents that are just unethical and and we're learning about that I hope um I I am not going to call on a I'm not going to report a resident if I think that they are going to have their lease terminated that that does not sit well with me at all um especially considering in a 40 project that that hopefully that this development opens doors to people who would normally not be able to afford Arlington that that the the destabilization that happens when you threaten someone's housing is I do not take that lightly and I just want to make that clear to the board the um the idea and then my last point just being that the applicant we've heard this in the private meeting with with the applicant and today that they are not a police state it's an interesting terminology um I would just counter that their proposal without like a detailed long-term solution for the potential problems that are going to occur and the burdens that are going to exist for the butters forces us the butters to somehow be the police maybe just the traffic management part of the police but we are having to police so I just in thinking about the local concerns in light of a 40 b application that this is a big one no we don't want them to be a police state and we don't want to be a police state we don't want to be police we already do it enough um and so just the influx of 12 fold um units coming into our tiny neighborhood does get does give us that anxiety and I think that mr t's letter talks to that anxiety that we feel we are a neighborhood of of 30 units or less um if we include nine you know nine riders of 20 in the building or so and I also just want to emphasize in the light of what we are trying to gain momentum in as an community in Arlington and trying to understand all the ways in which we had historically been inequitable to many members of our community and people who have been denied access to communities like Arlington just that the inequitable burden on us as a butters and the residents it's it's such a burden that could I mean it's up to the zoning board I suppose but it's a burden that could be resolved and I just I don't I don't like the fact that residents will be punished for not having enough spaces that is a structural issue that should have been a non-issue if the developer had proposed a viable solution and so down the road when we butters are policing overflow and residents are getting frontened with least non-renewal for a problem that none of us created I just I find that highly problematic and and I believe mr t said don't tell to the issues that we are trying to combat through some things like 40 bs and the structure the structural issue is at hand here and the current solution sounds like it's all falling on a butters and the residents when we did not create those problems and so I hope the zoning board will take into account the different layers here that individuals who live here and individuals who live here and who will live here in the future did not create these problems and I hope that we pay attention to the people who are responsible for creating those problems and holding them accountable and not not putting that burden on the butters and the residents and thank you for your time mr chairman thank you I see no new names mr nessie has his hand raised but and mr more has his hand raised I believe both of them are from earlier yes you give it yes mr chairman I can't put my hand down that's the problem yeah okay your arm must be tired let me go ahead and do that for you are there any yeah above nessie I'm informed that the photos are available that I was looking for earlier I just I don't want to really elaborate at this point but if the particularly photo number four could be shown I would appreciate that Chris mr chairman rick ballerilli board administrative then separate the photos from the email so they should be easy to find under reference material for um 1165 mess out this is on the agenda it is it's on novice for tonight's hearing yeah it's that the agenda that's created by vinn okay i'm planning ah there we go I had to refresh if you if you're having trouble finding it I have them in front of me now yeah a couple of them are rotated so I'm gonna make sure I get them up so there's number one right that's number five that's photo number five three four this is go back to photo number four if you would yep photo number four and that photo shows the proximity of the pole to the front stairs leading to my building that's the photo that I wanted to have your show earlier Chris okay okay yeah number five indicates the Mara cayende entrance to their parking lot the pole and the yellow pole shows the entrance to my parking lot so it shows the proximity to the two entrance and exits to the two respective parking lots that's all I wanted to show all right thank you thank you and that's see that that's see that the head right okay thank you thank you so last call for public comment this evening saying none I'll go ahead and close public comment for this evening okay so a couple things for the board to work out at this point so that most of the I think most of the questions have been asked there's certainly a few open questions that have been posed that we don't necessarily have definitive answers to especially ones involving sort of the the interface between this project in the neighborhood and exactly how we ameliorate that how do we try to make make that as you know smooth and non-contrary a condition as we can and that's something certainly that the board can discuss further so the next task for the board um no mr. havert is is is uh starting on the draft conditions uh and the the draft decision for this project um now that we have we've reviewed the waivers um we've really sort of gone through most of the I think most the information that is going to be submitted for this project um the currently the the hearing period for for this project ends on July 2nd by statute unless it's extended by mutual agreement of both parties and obviously that is coming up very very quickly and um so I'd ask mr. haverty um sort of uh you know given given his schedule what would be um a reasonable uh expectation of when a draft decision could be available I probably could get something by the end of next week the deadline to close is the second I don't think I could really get anything realistically before then okay so it really gets down to whether or not the applicant wants to give the board the opportunity to discuss the decision in the meeting or whether it wants to force the hearing to be closed and then require the board to discuss the decision you know in the deliberative session um in which the board would not be able to take any feedback either from the neighborhood or from the applicant right well of course if I may mr. chairman please be able to comment on the on the draft decision so end of next week coincidentally is the 2nd of July so if we were to receive um the draft decision sometime around the second Friday the 2nd of July obviously it's not going to get looked at right away uh being July 4th weekend um but I think it would be okay the question for the board is would people would members be able to review it in time for a hearing on Tuesday July 6th or would you rather go to July 13th in order to give time to review the draft um in a format in which we can discuss it obviously I think it would be if we are looking for uh for beta to take a look at it if we are looking for town um down departments and uh commissions to look at it we should provide them more than you know a holiday weekend to look at it so mr. chairman mr. Hanlon uh don't we already have an agenda on the 13th my recollection is that that was potentially a critical day for the other 40 b that's a good question currently we currently don't have a hearing scheduled to that night but you are correct the Friday July 6th Friday the 16th is the current schedule closed with thorns like I think that the underlying idea was that we were going to get together on the 29th uh possibly hear something on independent living with services and then it was likely that it would be continued to the 13th to actually have a to deal with all the issues that are there and the 16th was scheduled as the expiration date in order to accommodate that okay so I'm not I'm not quite sure that we really have enough bandwidth for uh in fact I'm sure we don't have enough bandwidth to do both on that night I would I would agree if I could just add one thing to some extent the I mean obviously the problem is always our reading speed um but we will have 40 days to read this if we if that's what we want uh and what my concern more is to make sure that miss o'connor and others have the opportunity to see the draft and convey to us their concerns and so I think I I'd especially like to hear how much time miss o'connor thinks she and her team need and and then and then sort of go from there I think in some ways the board members because we can always review this at our leisure after it's if leisure seems to be a bad word for this but whatever the right word is we we have 40 days to deliberate we can read it and reread it and we will but after a certain point nobody can help prevent us from making terrible mistakes and so I think that that's the relevant consideration in terms of of how far we go beyond the second and to some extent that's in miss o'connor's hands thank you mr chairman um mr handlin um I would suggest to you that if we get it by July 2nd I can't impose upon the team to spend their 4th of July weekend reading it I know I wouldn't want to be imposed on to read it 4th of July um the concern is that getting comments back I would assume you'd want comments um prior to your meeting so that you can review them and if you are booked on the 13th I if you're prepared to do the 20th that would work for my client that could give everybody enough time in all respects the 20th available for the board there's lots of nods and Laura I would assume that that would give beta sufficient time to look at it as well that should be fine for for us um bill is that good for you as well yeah I think that works fine on our end perfect and Kelly that should probably that should be sufficient for the town as well yeah I think I can reasonably turn that around with various departments by then perfect okay so then we would mr chairman I hate to do this to you I do have another hearing scheduled for the fun oh you do um do you have other days that week that are available I do I have every other day that week of course um would the board be amenable to Thursday the 22nd I'm nodding okay works for me actually that's probably a problem for me too mr chairman that's my anniversary I'll probably get in trouble if I schedule something for that night oh good for you to remember that I should have remembered it first I didn't have it in my calendar though so I didn't didn't pop up um mr St. Clair would Thursday July 15th work I am available to 15 is that enough time there's two things one is that enough time and two the board is going to have a long meeting on the Tuesday so it'll be our second meeting that week I want to confirm with people that that's okay it's the night before my anniversary so I'm okay mr chairman I'd prefer if we just keep one meeting a week if possible how do people feel about Monday the 19th that's a very unusual night for us I don't know conflicts with the slide board or any other typical Monday night boards ARB meets that night yeah I'm sorry I'm going to see what was that the ARB meets on a Monday evening whether they have any a meeting scheduled that evening I don't know but that's uh that's overnight yeah it's um chairman Klein they kind of have a hearing scheduled but we don't have any I do not believe we have any formal applicants that are or any formal applications that are being reviewed at hearing okay and it would be too late at this point Kelly to put them on for the ninth advertise them for the 19th anyway yes that's true yeah currently on the town calendar the only thing that pops up is the select board so how do people would Monday the 19th be okay for everyone I could do that works for me mr chairman all right thank you for your flexibility absolutely and mr chairman in terms of getting a draft decision prepared yeah it would be helpful if I could get any proposed conditions that anybody think should be imposed I think I've already seen some from the conservation commission but if our peer review consultants and members of the board individually have any particular conditions that they want incorporated would be helpful to get them as soon as possible okay yeah Laura if you could forward the proposed conditions that other betas put together you could forward those to Paul that'd be great sure I I do believe that we've been working where we plan to work with Susan and the conservation commission we haven't seen any draft conditions from them maybe maybe Marty has it but um what we can definitely get you uh draft conditions Paul thank you very much did mr chairman mr handlin just to have a say there are several occasions in which there are boards like the tech uh also overlaps with beta and I I think it would be helpful just in making sure that we have the most economical conditions we can that whether you have overlap of that kind that the boards of experts that are concerned kind of think through and and work out to the extent they can one condition or an agreed on conditions that represent their joint point of view that that will make it a lot easier for Paul to get to get that all into the opinion and we'll make a tighter and more coherent opinion thank you for that Kelly do you have a list specifically of um essentially boards of commissions who should receive the the draft conditions in the draft report or proposed conditions so at this point um I was planning on sharing that with I mean with police and fire um with who was already reviewed very early on in the project the planning department so getting Jennifer Reed's comments um then TAC and conservation commission is already involved but just including them on it as well um and then um running them by the town manager's office okay um would DPW or board of health I'm sorry and DP sorry DPW and board of health and then have like a list on the back of my hand here that's okay perfect um and I can also give them a heads up right now that the draft decision will be coming so that they kind of have that anticipated in their schedules it would definitely be helpful okay so then that puts our timeline so we're looking to get um um draft conditions to Mr. Haverty as soon as we can uh looking to issue a draft of the decision on or around uh July 2nd and then the board would have its hearing uh the next hearing on this case on Monday July 19th um to review the draft decision um take any remaining comments on the project at that time um and specifically as they relate to the decision itself um and then so we would need to extend the the review period um from July 2nd um that's my question to the to the board is are they comfortable extending it to uh three weeks to Friday July 23rd or would they do they think we should have a little bit of additional time in case we need any follow-up Mr. Chair Steve Robolack um I I think Friday the 23rd is reasonable on the assumption that you know if we do meet on the 19th and decide that more time is necessary um you know that the all the parties involved would be willing to uh extend again thank you okay um Mr. Connor would you be amenable to extending to July 23rd yes then with that um let's make sure do these in the right order um I would extend a motion to extend the review period on 1165 arm institutes avenue to Friday July 23rd 2021 so moved second thank you the roll call vote of the board Mr. DuPont aye Mr. Hanlon aye Mr. Mills aye Mr. Rourke sorry Mr. Rourke couldn't hear you I see you I see you saying aye Mr. Robolack aye Mr. Ford aye and the chair votes aye so we were we've extended the period and then I moved to continue the hearing on 1165 arm institutes avenue to Monday July 19th at 7 30 p.m second thank you the roll call vote of the board Mr. DuPont Mr. DuPont aye thank you Mr. Hanlon aye Mr. Mills aye Mr. Rourke aye Mr. Robolack aye Mr. Ford aye and the chair votes aye so we are continued to Monday July 19th at 7 30 p.m with that just looking at our upcoming meetings and milestones um so Thursday June 29th 6 30 p.m is the continuance of Thorn Dyke Place um and then that continued that excuse me that meeting continues on at 7 30 for our first hearing for 10 sunny side and 55 Sutherland then after that the next schedule we have a possible date of July 13th for um the content of continuance for Thorn Dyke Place Thorn Dyke the close of the public hearing on Thorn Dyke Place scheduled currently for Friday July 16th and then with our most recent two actions the hearing would be continued Monday July 19th on 1165 arm institutes avenue and that review period would be extended to Friday July 23rd questions about any of those dates seeing none so thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting especially wish to thank uh Ruth Valerelli even to Lee and Kelly Lanema for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting please note the purpose of the board's reporting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of its proceedings it is our understanding the reporting made by ACMI will be available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days if anyone has comments or recommendations please send them via email to zba at town.arlington.ma.us that email address is also listed on the zoning board of appeals website uh to conclude tonight's meeting i would ask for a motion to adjourn so moved thank you mr handlin go have a second second thank you mr revelac roll call vote of the board mr dupont hi mr handlin hi mr mills hi mr reward hi mr revelac hi mr forward hi and chair votes i we are adjourned thank you all very much for your participation and attention this evening thank you very much thank you thank you thank you take care everyone high 12 everyone


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com, doing a cello pack of prison football. The red, white, and blue exclusives in there. And at the end of the break, we're giving away the last six spots in the first half of that National Treasures football break. Second half and associated fillers are all in the store, but this is for the first half. Big thanks to this group for getting into it, for making it happen. There's all the teams right here. Let's roll it, let's randomize it. Four and a one five times for names and teams. This is just for the break. Different dice roll for the giveaway. One, two, three, four, and a one, fifth and final time. Four and a one, five times for the teams. One, two, three, four, and a one, fifth and final time. Bears down to Seahawks. All right, it's not... I found another one, Jonathan. There's the first half of the list right there. There's the second half of the list right there. Apparently, we got another case in earlier today that I was not aware of. Listen, I'm usually the last to know anything, Jonathan. It's just best to just check the website, just keep refreshing all the time. All right, so let's print that out, let's do the break. Julio Mack, Josh Uchi are nothing too crazy there. And the red, white, and blues. There's Derek Carr, Julio Jones, and Terrell Lewis. All right, nothing too crazy in that cello pack, but we're gonna give away NT spots. That's gonna be pretty crazy. From Scott, down to Raymond, and everyone in between. New dice, new list. Good luck. So it's gonna be top six after five. Four and a one, good luck. One, two, three, four, and a one, fifth and final time. Top six. So from seven on down, sad times, but I appreciate everybody giving this a shot. Much happier times at the top six. That'll be Chris, Raymond, Steven, Nicholas, Christopher, and Brandon. Congrats to you. You're in that NT break. Coming up in the next video. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next break. Bye-bye.