It is 735 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20th, 2021. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roger DuPont here. Patrick Hanlon. Yep, putting on his headset. Good evening, Patrick. Kevin Mills. Here. John O'Rourke. Here. Aaron Ford. Good evening, here. Good evening, and Stephen Revillac. Here. Good evening, all one and all. For the town and Mr. Mr. Larelli is kind of in another meeting, but he'll be joining us. Vincent Lee is here, though. Here. Then he could see you and Kelly Linema, the town's new assistant director of the Department of Planning and Community Development is here as well. Good to see you. Consultants for the board, Paul Haverty. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Good to see you. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. From Beta Group. We have Marty Novers here. And Tyler and here. Good evening. Good evening to both. Good evening. And appearing on behalf of Thorn Dyke Place. Stephanie Kiefer is here. Good evening, Stephanie. and joining you it appears as most of the teams who we've been getting to know well over the past few years. So we have just quickly, we have our fellow and Gwen Noyes from Oak Tree. We have our project engineer, John Hessian. We have from Vanessa, we have both this evening, Lee Darkroach and Scott Thornton. Our housing consultant, Bob Angler is on board and I believe that Scott Glassock, our architect is also here, but I'm not seeing him on my screen. Maybe he's not joined on yet. But Scott is in a car. This is Arthur Duncan and if we need him, he is on call. He can show anything after 8 30 that anyone would like to see was his message to me after 8 30, but he's listening. Welcome one and all. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020, executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all public meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom app with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted to the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it 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 by telephone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask you to please maintain decorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website unless otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda as chair or reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. That is not an issue. This evening, as we have only one item on our agenda, that brings it up item two, which is Thorndike Place. Now returning to the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndike Place for likely the last time. At the prior hearing on October 5th, 2021, the board reviewed the draft decision including findings, conditions and waiver requests as prepared by the board's consultants. We heard from the applicant and members of the public both in regards to the draft decision and regarding the project in general. Several people raised concerns that the version of the draft decision posted to the board's website included many tracks changes making the draft difficult to follow and understand. It was requested that it cleaned up version of the draft be prepared and posted for review. The time period for closing the public hearing was set to expire on October 8th. That would not leave sufficient time to reissue the draft and hold a hearing before the public hearing period ended. The board negotiated with the applicant for additional time to prepare and review a cleaned draft. After reviewing possible days with the applicant and consultants, it was agreed to continue the public hearing through today, Wednesday, October 20th and extend the public hearing period to Thursday, October 21st. The board voted to approve both of those dates. The cleaned draft was prepared by the board and posted to the board's website on October 13th. Additional comments received by the board have been posted to tonight's agenda and or to the board's website. The plan for tonight's hearing is to review any outstanding questions regarding the draft decision. After the conclusion of this discussion, the board will take public comment. Thereafter, the board will vote on closing the public hearing. During the public comment period this evening, the board will only take comments related to specific items in the draft decision. The board has been impressed by the compassion and concern expressed by the public in regards to this project over the last five years. The discussion has been thought-provoking, informed and sometimes quite heated. Please know that we have heard you and we are well aware of your concerns and we understand the uncertainty you feel with regards to this project. We have heard you loud and clear. However, the board is now at the point where we need to close the public hearing as is required by the state regulations governing the conduct of a comprehensive permit hearing. For this reason, I'm asking to limit public comment to only those items that are in the draft decision or are missing from the draft decision. Please try to refrain from concerns about the project in general or issues unrelated to the draft decision. So turning to the draft decision, are there any questions from members of the board? And what are we still looking for clarification on? Mr. Revlaff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I basically just have one question that's still outstanding to me. In the finding section, there are paragraphs 64B and 65A. Both of these paragraphs contain the language proposed condition to be inserted at the appropriate place. So in the case of 65A, I believe the appropriate conditions appear in C1E. And I think the corresponding one for 64B is in C1D. And I just would like to, if beta or town staff has any feel, if they agree or disagree with that, basically I'm looking to see if they have any advice on whether those proposed to be inserted are relatively taken care of in C1D and C1E, or if some merging will be necessary. That is my question, Mr. Chairman. 64B, 64A, 64B and 65As. That is correct. Well, we'll zip up for that. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat. I had the privilege of trying to put together the factual statements for the cleaned up or quasi-cleaned up thing. Originally, if the board may remember and the public may remember in the previous draft, there was a finding which in effect included these as a condition. Because we did this without those of us who were involved in the cleanup effort, couldn't coordinate with one another. When I tried to put this into a form where there was a finding here and a condition envisioned later on, I was not able to know exactly where that would go. And so I left the substance of what was previously there in sort of conditioned format with the thought that it could be placed somewhere else. Since then in reviewing the decision, I've noticed that there's an overlap with some other places as Mr. Revolac has pointed out. And I can just say that because of the open meeting law restrictions on putting this together, there hasn't been an opportunity or was not an opportunity to compare the language between those two sections. And having said that, I think I've given beta time to look it up and answer whether or not they're right. I had the impression that what was in the draft, which came from beta and the ACC, was to the extent to which it was different, somewhat improved over the draft that was previously in the findings. Anything further, Mr. Revolac? Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that what I said didn't really answer the question whether there was any merging to be done. I don't know if beta is, and the experts are up on the language enough to make that comparison at the moment. But all I had to say is in effect, that effort has not yet been made because of the way we split up the task. Yes, I mean, this is, it's a big question to be answered, just off the cuff. But if it's possible to get an opinion at some point during the night, particularly with finding 64B and condition C1D, I think that will be helpful as we go into deliberations. And certainly if we also submitted into the record prior to this was a draft decision as marked up by beta groups. So we do have a set of comments from them on the prior draft decision. So if those comments are included in there, that's great. If not, if Ms. Nover could provide a little guidance before the end of the evening, that would be great. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm already over with beta group. I'm gonna have to look and compare the two. This is really, I just got into the office and I'm looking at the clean version. So I'm gonna have to compare. So I can do that now. That'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the board who have questions on the draft has, I had tried to read through all my notes that I've been taking over the last year on this project and see if there were anything that were still outstanding questions. So we have submitted the record a landscape plan for the development parcel, but we do not have detailed plans for the conservation parcel on anything. So that is just known. There's a number of questions that came up over the course of the hearing in regards that are sort of construction related. Both in terms of vehicle access in terms of parking of construction vehicles, hours of operation, police and flaggers. I think along those, the status of the no heavy trucking notice on Lake Street and several other things. So we'll, the board will have to discuss those when we go into deliberation as to how we want to include addressing those issues that were raised by the public. At the previous hearing, there was a specific question that was raised. There's a way to request from the town signed by law. And so the board was considering additional approval on it. So this is one here, number 21. So the waiver, we were going to allow the applicant, the applicant requested one ground sign and a canopy sign. And the canopy sign was going to be limited to the size of the face that provoked canopy. That was very straightforward. I was not sure, and I don't know if Ms. Kiefer can address this. Is there a specific size for the ground sign that you're looking for? Yes, we had talked about that. I may have art way in, I can't find my note exactly. I think it was six feet by four feet. Am I, for the size of it, am I correct art or for the monument sign? You had more idea of that. I think the size of the 24, 25 square feet would be an adequate size. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to be clear though, because it hasn't been designed, that would be like the face of the sign. So it may be that it's a little bit off the ground. Yeah, so it's not the height of it. Okay, thank you. No, it's just the sign face. Correct. And then the other question said that the current by-law allows directional signs that are one square foot, which is we had discussed last time, seemed a little bit small for the kinds of messages that would be required. And I know we had discussed possibly making that a foot and a half or making that two square feet. I don't know if you had a specific... I would suggest two square feet that it just allows for appropriate making certain that it's wide enough and long enough to get that in. And because there's a senior population being served I'm not certain if a font may even be a little bit in large. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. This is Pat again. On E16, which is on page 37 of the consolidated drafts, there's a limitation on the hours of operation or the hours of construction activities between eight and six Monday through Friday and between the hours of nine and five on Saturdays, Sundays, or the legal holidays. And I wanted to... It did seem odd to be contemplating in a residential area construction on the weekend and legal holidays. And I was wondering where that came from and the degree to which it's really necessary to do that, particularly with all of the testimony that we have received about how quiet this neighborhood is on Saturdays and Sundays and the sports activities that go on in the street, the notion that the construction is going to be taking place on the weekend seemed noteworthy to me. And I was wondering if the applicant could compliment, it could comment on how important that was to them. Sure, thank you, Mr. Hamlin. I think that I will give you an introductory and then I will allow Art to come in. In terms of continuity of construction, we think that allowing the Monday through Friday and then the weekend, it's going to overall shorten the timeframe for the construction to advance. And I know that the town's bylaw have it eight to six Monday through Friday and then with the weekend hours, but I'm not certain that there's been any restrictions that have been imposed for other residential projects. I know that this is a larger residential project, but it doesn't seem to be the case that there should be an exception, especially when the timeframe could be condensed for the overall construction period. And I hear you're concerned that it's a residential neighborhood, but it also I think addresses some of the, if one has a six day say construction period per week, it's going to enable kind of a continuity of work, but also if there were concerns about traffic flows on Lake Street on the weekdays, allowing again, a longer work week for the construction aspect of it, it will reduce the amount of time that's happening on Lake Street. So with that said, Art or Gwen, if you want to weigh in in terms of? Well, I think the one that's most onerous I think to our future contractor, we hope will be our future contractor will be the eight o'clock start. I think the workers love to start at 7.30 and no noise before that, we've had that limitation in Newton that we started at 7.30, but no noise until that time. And then they like to leave the job at four or something like that and be able to get home and be with their family. And I'm sure we can do eight as a startup. Obviously in the winter working until six gets dangerous. So that's an issue. I think that the weekends, maybe we could adjust the time a little bit. I'm not sure nine to five is totally necessary and maybe Sunday is not necessary. But I think is, Stephanie is saying something that's right on track and I would disagree with that we're, it's all of our best interest to get in and out as quickly as possible. And it's one of the arguments in favor of modular construction, which we hope will prevail. So I'm not sure how we leave this. Do we need to commit to something tonight or do we have a little bit of leeway to to talk about that a bit more and to work it out with the building department? Well, our, it's a little hard to know that when we close the hearing, whatever you, my understanding is that we have to put stoppers in our ears and we are not capable of taking in any new information. So when, so anything that you have to say between that we can take into consideration as to be given to us before the hearing closes. So the hours that are stated here under E16, this is taken straight from title five of the Arlington town bylaws. Correct, Mr. Chairman. And I, what Art has just suggested, it would have to be by way of this hearing as a verbal request for a waiver to move the start time at 8 a.m. to move it slightly earlier. I don't know if you'll accept a verbal request for a waiver on that. But I think to the point that you're, and I'll submit that we will ask our waiver of that if you'll accept the verbal waiver to perhaps shift that eight hour timeframe from a 730 to 530 just for the board's consideration. I think that one is Art suggested it works with kind of typical construction protocols. But then secondly, as just as I stated before in terms of if there's an ability to kind of shift the construction traffic to further off peak, that might be helpful to the neighborhood as well as kind of the typical construction schedule. But then to your first point again, the request for the intent for the construction work to continue on the weekend as Art just suggested, if the board's very concerned it may be able to be limited to one day, but one day of the weekend. But just overall, it helps reduce the construction window and that's a benefit I think both to the neighborhood as well as the continuity for the workers on site to advance the construction in a timely process without a lot of breaks. So if we did 730 to 530 and then gave up on Sundays, I think that would be acceptable. We prefer 7 if there's any flexibility with no noise before then. That's really what we had Newton, I guess, question about it. And Mr. Chairman, this is Pat again. I would like to, I mean, we have a little bit of time. I'd sort of like to hear a little bit from the public as to what they think about this issue. Obviously they have potential interests in a whole range of different solutions. And there are other questions about having construction activities during school when kids are coming to school. And it's not such an easy choice. And but I'd like before we close the hearing to get a little bit more information about what might be feasible. I think we should remember, I understand that. I'm happy to take that into consideration. Do remember that a six o'clock stop in the winter will probably be very dangerous. And that would not be, it would really cut the work day if it was eight sunset in the winter is four something, four 15, four 10 or something. So you really have a schedule from eight to four of actual work time. And that's fairly truncated. And then the other thing to take into account is that those early morning hours, that's also the time when people were starting to take their kids to school, which is a large pedestrian activity in this area as well. And so I think we want to be cognizant of trying to avoid bringing heavy vehicular traffic into the neighborhood while people are trying to navigate the neighborhood on their way to the Hardy School. Something that we're familiar with is a regulation where vehicles can arrive before seven but no noisy activity would happen until seven. And that would be earlier than most school trips would be there. So there could be an advantage to moving the construction activity earlier. Even earlier. And I do think, this is a tough one. I do think that if there is any danger to kids, we're gonna have police there, we're gonna have a lot of supervision to make sure that none of those or whatever vehicles might be present would be a danger to children or parents. Mr. Chairman, if I may just while we're speaking of kind of construction and traffic within the neighborhood, just I forgot to mention this at the beginning of the hearing, but from VAI, Scott Thornton is here this evening and he was not able to make the last two hearings, unfortunately. And he had submitted a memo earlier today that I believe has been circulated to the board. But so unfortunately, Mr. Thornton is in big demand and he has another hearing at 8.30 this evening. So if they're perhaps relative to this issue of moving, what we had proposed is that we would have a pre-construction and medium art and to discuss the traffic and the safety protocols that we've been putting for police and police detail along the route. If there's any specific questions for Mr. Thornton on that, as well as the memo that was submitted relative to just overall traffic from the project, we may want to address that prior to 8.30. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, you've been looking a little bit into some of the questions about the traffic generation. If you have specific questions for Mr. Thornton. Let me just, the traffic generation figures are, just sort of back up for a second. The, my understanding is, and I wanted to get confirmation whether this was right, is that the method of analysis is basically starts with looking at background conditions. And that they, as the decision reflects, that was done fairly early on and is not, it's not affected by which particular proposal you have. And that resulted in an estimation on backgrounds that was adjusted seasonally and it was adjusted for the pandemic in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and I believe our Transportation Advisory Committee using state recommended guidelines. Is all of that accurate? For the record, Scott Thornton with VAI, through you Mr. Chair, we actually worked the, we worked out that process with beta and beta had indicated which, which study area or which intersections should be incorporated into the study area. And then we worked out some adjustment factors with beta to create a baseline condition. And then from that point, we generated future conditions, the background development that had been identified to create the future no-build condition. And at that point, we then added the development, the project traffic increases to those background traffic conditions. And as I remember the conclusion last, when it was still cold out, or was that in generally when you looked at most of these intersections, the impact of the project that existed, that was proposed then existed, but it was comparatively small because the traffic generation from that project was relatively small compared to the overall background flow and the future conditions. Is that right? Yeah, that's generally correct. We had, in terms of the project traffic increases, we were anticipating a certain amount of trips to be made using alternative transportation, which brought down the overall vehicle trip increases to the study area intersections to down to a lower degree. So for instance, at some of the intersections, at the signalized intersections, at either end of Lake Street, we had very low delay increases due to the larger project. And then as the development changed, those increases got even smaller. So as I understand it with the way in which you go about generating an estimate of trips, as you start with the equations basically that are published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and you adjust that to the size of the project. And that is without any consideration of mode split, that is to say people using things other than cars. And that gives you a number of which then can be adjusted on the basis of some information or other to account for non-automobile traffic. And if you just, I think it's clear, Beta agrees and you all agree that some adjustment needed to be made in the previous project because it was clear that it was a transit-related thing and you were looking at ways of doing it and you had a number of different ways, one of which was using the census data for mode split that was characteristic of the census tract in which the project is to be located. Am I right so far? That's correct, yep. And as I recall, last April you were using a deduction of about 55% and that is not what you're using now. The reduction of the mode split that you would start with is 46% and then for the senior, that will apply to the duplexes and for the senior housing, you're using half that. So it's 23% is still right. So the amount of adjustment for the senior listening is much smaller than it was last fall. That reflects lots of considerations that this population might be less using transit less than the average commuters in the census tract. At that point, the effect of the mode split adjustment has now been considerably reduced compared to what you were previously working with, right so far? Yes, yep. And so beta has disagreed in principle with whether or not you should use this or whether or not the adjustment, any particular adjustment can be generated by the data. But at this point, the effect of the adjustment has gotten down to be pretty small and there are other reasons to expect that the basic IT traffic generation that you're using is conservative because of the land use category that you used. And I wonder if you could explain that. Sure, so we still think that some type of mode split adjustment is applicable to the senior housing development. And we have, as you indicated, we have reduced that down to a smaller percentage of non-automobile trip making. In terms of the land use code that was used to generate trips for the senior housing development, we had used a code called appropriate, well, senior housing attached development land use code. And that assumes a certain level of independence for the residents and there's another code that's called congregate care facility. And beta had indicated in their review that the site may function given the attributes and the discussion that we had regarding items such as the services that are being provided and the expected age of the residents that the use of a land use code such as 253 for congregate care facility may be more appropriate. We still use the land use code 252 to provide a conservative analysis, but the land use code 253, the congregate care facility results in comparing that with the senior housing category results in about a 47% reduction in the daily traffic that would be expected at the site. And ITE notes that there are some features that are present with congregate care facilities such as transportation service, such as some meals, some types of features that are proposed with this development. And this development doesn't cleanly fit into either category, it sort of has a blend of both. But if we were to use the congregate care facility, the traffic generation would be even lower. And I think that there's some arguments to be made for it but I think that the combination of the jitney service, the scheduling of the staff shift times around peak hours, the scheduling of the delivery service outside of peak hours, the transit package and some of the other TDM measures that are proposed for the project may in fact bring the traffic generation profile of the project more in line with the congregate care facility. So I hope that answers your question. Yes, it does. Let me just, it also is true that the applicant has on a number of occasions said that they were expecting an older population to be resident in this facility than would be resident in the senior housing attached that you used for it. That would make a big difference in terms of, potentially make a big difference in terms of whether or not what the peak hour generation is because a younger population is more likely to will have a larger proportion of people still working and still commuting and other people would be adjusting their schedules as older people sometimes do to avoid going during rush hour. I guess one question I have is we know that this is limited to 62 plus and I think that the land use category 221 is limited to 55 plus, but I don't really completely understand why it is that we expect this population to other than that the minimum age is 62, why it is we're expecting it to be in the 70s, in their 70s and 80s and what the overall impact of this is. It will be open. I understand, as I understand it to anybody who wants to live there who's at least 62. Yeah, and I'll let Gwen and Art respond to that. I can say something through the speaker to the committee. We have been in conversation with a likely, a very likely manager operations for the project. And it is, he's very familiar with the area. His company is managing several other communities and it is his judgment that where the need is in this particular area and just the overall situation of similar facilities that the need is for people in their 70s and 80s and that's just a professional making a judgment out of his experience. Okay, thank you. If I could just add to that a little bit and I think we might ask Bob Engler, who actually is, we've designed several of these facilities and owned a couple and I do think one of the reasons which is a little bit sad that they push it down to 62 as you have, you know, 82 year old men living whose wives want to come with them in this kind of facility and they're younger, significantly younger. So that's a factor, but I wonder Bob, if you want to say anything from your experience because you've got a lot, right? Is Bob Engler on? He was. Mr. Chairman, this is, I mean, I don't want to go too far into this, I think that the answer we have so far is pretty much all I wanted at that point. And I wondered if I could go back to Mr. Thornton for a minute. Please. So Mr. Thornton, in looking at the burden on the surrounding area, the primary effect on the transportation system, it's the usual practice, isn't it, to examine traffic trips generated during the peak hour for the adjacent roadways? Yes. And as we sort of started with, that traffic is already very high and it's going to get high even more in the future so that if I understand it right, the discussions that we're having about the mode split, the size of the mode split, the conservatism of the land use thing are all dealing, are all generating, are all within a sufficiently narrow boundary that none of them would affect the basic conclusion that the effect on the background traffic in this area is going to be comparatively small. Is that right? Yes, yes, I would agree with that. The peak hour traffic increases using, again, using this higher land use code are in the range of by direction between eight and 16 trips per hour. So that's a small increase over the course of the hour. And with the TDM measures that I mentioned, those trips may not even get to that level. They may be spread or shifted outside of those peak hours. Now, the analysis also gives rise though to daily trips, which as I recall, the current estimate is 412 between the townhouses and the senior living facilities. And that's for the weekday, right? Yes. And there's also, it's a little bit less, isn't it for Saturdays and Sundays? It's definitely less for Sundays. I don't have the Saturday number off hand off the top of my head. But yeah, so that's 412 daily trips on the weekday. So that's the total of two-way trips. So it would be 206 entering, 206 exiting over the course of a 24-hour period. And so just, do you have any idea what the traffic, the existing development in this neighborhood would generate? Is 412 a lot in a day compared to what is already there or a little or in between? I think it's, I think we had done a rough check looking, just looking at a Google aerial and there seemed to be over a, I forget how many units there were, but I would say it's probably in that area. But we haven't checked that calculation. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will eventually have a question from Mr. Derruder, who I think has done some work on that particular issue, but it may be a good time to move on and I can circle back to that. Okay. Were there other topics from the board? I know one topic that has been coming up in the emails that the board has been receiving in the last 48 hours is the question of the final disposition of the conservation parcel. So the portion of the existing site that is beyond the portion that will be developed. And in the original application or the comprehensive permit and in several subsequent, excuse me, documents, it has been stated that the intent for that was to have that property, that parcel become the property of the town. And subsequently there was discussion about it becoming the property of a third party who would take over the property. And I just wanted to ask of the applicant, my understanding now is that the intent is for the current owner to maintain ownership over the conservation parcel. Is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The owner's proposing to retain that but to put an open space for conservation restriction on it. So the holder of that though could be a nonprofit of the restriction if you've ever seen how a conservation restriction is written. There's a grantor and a grantee. So Arlington Land Realty would continue to be the land owner but they would grant basically give up the development rights on the conservation parcel. And is there a background to the change in direction from the applicant on this? I think it was just the owner was looking at the options and determined that it would just make more sense to keep it within its ownership and then to give up a conservation restriction. And normally that's the more common approach in my experience in 40Bs when there is a restriction involved. It's usually just a CR or a conservation restriction is placed on the open space parcel as opposed to an outright grant to a third party. Are there any substantive differences between the two approaches? Well, I mean one substantive difference is that who owns it, who owns the land obviously. But in terms of whether it was held by a third party that couldn't develop it or whether it's the development rights are held by a third party. They're very similar in that regard. And is maintenance of the property, does that follow the owner? Does that follow the grantor? So a lot of that's spelled out within the conservation restriction as to, in large part the state has a general form that they require. And it provides activities that are prohibited and then activities that are permitted. And I think that the parties can basically negotiate between themselves. And is there a party at the moment that the applicant is considering for working with for the conservation restriction? Yes, there have been ongoing discussions with a third party that is pretty much a conservation minded sort of entity. And then there was another which I believe if you were interested in discussing which is waiver request number six, the regulations upon use of private property is a bond to secure corrections of flooding conditions. This section requires an applicant to post a bond where a structure in excess of 6,000 square feet in areas proposed within 200 yards of any existing stream or wetland to post a bond sufficient in the opinion of the commission to secure performance of measures necessary to correct any flooding conditions resulting from the construction. Then the applicant requested a waiver from this provision. The board had requested of the conservation commission and a beta group to discuss the possibility of a bond to what value that bond should be issued in. And the recommended value was $173,900. And I would ask Ms. Nover if she could just explain with a background on generating that number. Sure, so what we did, beta's landscape architect took a look at the areas that would need to be restored and improved and enhanced and applied a certain density for the vegetation that was planted and also some of the earthworks that would be involved in that and calculated the estimated cost of that work. And is that on the development parcel or is that over the entire 12 acres? That was, we did the cost estimate for the landscaping work associated with the actual development parcel and then which included the watering lands subject to flooding the compensation area. So the development parcel. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Could you pull that up because my recollection was that it also included the open space parcel. Let me. As I seem to recall, beta had identified four areas within that memo. Try to locate that. Section that was behind the development parcel. We'll wait for it to pass. Mr. Chairman, this is Susan Chapnick, Chair of the Conservation Commission. Could I respond while you're looking for that? Because I assisted beta in this evaluation. You don't recall the name of the file off the top of your head, do you? Yeah, I do. It's beta memo, bond estimate memorandum, Thorndike Place, 20 September 21. Okay. And then there's two, there's two, there's a bond estimate memorandum and a bond estimate attachment. And the memorandum specifically says that includes the following areas. Number one, bio retention, rain garden area. Number two, compensatory storage area and woodland restoration area inside the project limits. So it does not include the conservation restriction area. I'd like to just point out that the cost of doing this would be inside the construction contract from the contractor who's building the building and doing the site. So I don't think this is a big issue. I'm not even sure a bond is appropriate, but it's fine. But, and we'd be happy to guarantee that that work would be done. But as I say, it would be, I would think appropriately something that the building department would review and make sure that it was in the contract documents. And then the contractor, the site contractor would be responsible for doing this work as part of the construction of the development parcel. So that would happen as I understand it. And Mr. Chairman, just for reference, relative to the proposed bond for the 1165R, the bond that was requested was only 30 pounds of dollars. That project did involve relocation of a stream in the project. And also I've taken a look, as Mr. Klipfel said, we're not necessarily opposed to a bond, but I just question the amount of the bond that's presented here relative to kind of the track record that the conservation commission has imposed for other residential projects. As you're aware under 40B, there are not to be special sort of application of regulations that aren't normally imposed for other residential projects. We're happy to agree to a limited amount of the bond, but we just asked the board to consider the fact that a project that was just approved by them sold only $30,000 bond. And as Mr. Klipfel stated, we are committed to doing the work, but we just want to make sure that- Finally, I'll be back. Mr. Chair, this is Martin, over with the baby group. The difference between the two projects, the 1165 Mass Ave and this one, is that the area is much larger on this project than it is on the 1165, the square footage that would, if in fact it needed to, if it failed or a portion of it failed, it's a much larger area. I mean, over, if you explain the difference between the estimate and the adjusted estimate. So the adjusted estimate is the assumption that there would be some survival in those areas and that the entire area wouldn't require, a complete replanting. Any questions from the board on this question? Chairman. Yes, please, Mr. Hanlon. I wonder if Ms. Kiefer has, we see the specific numbers here. And I wonder if Ms. Kiefer or clients have any specific objections to the estimates. In other words, what we're trying to do here is to have a bond that is sufficient to do the work if it isn't done, if it's kind of an insurance sort of thing or a guarantee. And so the question, the first question is whether or not you've got reasonable estimates here for the cost of doing the work, if there's a failure. And I wonder if there's any specific objection the applicant has to the calculations that Beta has made. I won't think so. I think the number is okay. I'm wondering, I mean, since that number will be baked into the construction contract, is there, so it's kind of double payment in a way because you have a bond and you've also contracted as a developer with the construction contractor to do the work for maybe that same price if everybody's, if the estimates are right. So I wonder, what would sort of make sense is that that we are required in our construction contract to show the building commission, the building department that we intend to do that work according to some standard that could be written by anybody, by somebody that was qualified and that that's baked into the construction contract. And that's, it's another way to spend the 173,000 or whatever it was, it's part of the construction contract because I just know that's how it'll actually flow here. You're gonna have your contractor do that work and we have no problem with that. It's all work that should be done. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This is actually from Ms. Nover. But as I understand it, we're not talking about somebody spending 173,900 dollars for a bond, you'll pay a premium like you do for an insurance company and the company that provides the bond will obligate itself therefore to step in if there's been a default. And the default could be by the applicant here or the default could be by the construction company that uses it ultimately, but ultimately though, in order for the bond to be called on is my understanding that there has to be a default into people who are primarily responsible for doing this work. So you'll only actually have to call on the bond if a number of failures take place. Ms. Nover, is that basically how it works? That's my understanding of how a bond works. Yes. Do you have any idea what the premium would be on 173,000 dollars into the circumstances? I don't, Bill McGrath is gonna be joining later by nine o'clock would know the answer to that question. Okay, so just from my point of view, Mr. Chairman, I mean, I get it that the construction company is going to be on the hook to the applicant and the applicant is going to be on the hook to the town. Behind all of that, there's this huge insurance company that is so solvent that you can be sure that they'll be there to do the work. And you're just dealing with increments of assurance that the work will actually be done in the way that's been contemplated. If there's not something really wrong with the numbers, I think the board is just gonna have to deal in deliberations with the concept. I think we can let you go with that. It's the only bad one thing about that is bonds that are, the cost of bonds is a function of risk. And some bonds are cash bonds where you actually have to put up the number in cash. Then the bond owner decides, you know, whether to allocate that or not. I think if you had a good contractor, maybe the contractor could, you know, have that bond priced down to a number that was quite affordable and I can see how maybe that would be useful, you know, for the, for the city to know that that work was gonna be done. So for the town, I'm sorry. Anyhow, let's, I think we can get beyond it. So having already gone through the speaking with the board asking for additional comments, are there any additional questions in regards to the draft decision, Mr. Mills? Yeah, I just have one question. I don't believe we've covered really the street traffic from the construction site. You know, I can see dozens of workers vehicles, contractors vehicles, heavy equipment, the trucks delivering the prefabs. Do we have any assurance the street is gonna remain clear and people are gonna be able to get in and out of their driveway? Is that a condition we should be adding? I would ask that question of the applicant as have you made, have you considered up to this point where, you know, where the workers who are working on their construction, where they will be parking during the day? I think my take on that anyhow, and Stephanie, step in or anyone, maybe Scott, you know, Scott, if you're still on, I know you had to leave. But anyhow, there would be a plan that will be worked out with the building department as to how all that is handled. You know, where you park or don't park and police details and I don't think that even if we tried to do something that wasn't acceptable, I mean, it isn't so much we, it's the contractor would be bound by certain things that would be in a construction plan, you know, a plan of how the building gets built and it would be monitored by the building department and their inspectors. And I think that's something that needs to be worked out on a, you know, street by street basis and day by day basis and hour by hour basis. And there'll be a lot of detail. Just to interject, page 37, item E16 states clearly, packing of all vehicles is to be on the property. Thank you. Correct, it is a normal practice prior to any construction for the contractor to provide a detailed construction management plan and to go through that very, you know, month by month, week by week with the building department in the town and that would include, you know, when and how the police details would be and so on and so forth. So that's there to be worked out. Whatever rules are laid down that would be, you know, beyond the contractor to abide by those. And we would care about that as a developer and obviously the building department would as well, representing the city, good time. And through the chair. I'm sorry, go ahead. Pardon me. I was just saying through the chairman, if I may also chime in in response to Mr. Mills question. As Glen, I think was the one that had stated it that there will be a pre-construction meeting. There will be the details of the flaggers that are going to be out there, the police detail, the timing of if there is a need for road closures, that will all be established and that's generally through a condition that it's a kind of a construction traffic or construction mitigation sort of meeting is held that those details are ironed out. And at this point, it's typically a little premature to iron those out. You really need once you have, you know, your contractor on board and then they work through it. But to also kind of further respond just for clarification. We know that while there's construction going on, we're not going to be at, we're not going to have an increase in traffic from the residents because the project won't yet be built. So it's, you know, one type of traffic issue that's separate and apart from the traffic generated from the project. And again, that's handled typically through a pre-construction meeting with the contractor and working out the details. So we expect that that to be a condition that's the board would impose within the decision. Okay, Bill, does that address your question? Nope. Well, I do know that in special services really doesn't have any bearing on the parking situation, et cetera. And I do believe we should have some guarantees for the locals. We have a huge construction project occurring on some very narrow streets in immediate proximity to homes and driveways. And I just think we should put some conditions that those driveways should never be blocked and these people should have 100% access to their homes. That's all. Okay. What are there with you? I'd just like to add that the portion of the property that is planned to be open lawn area is going to be available for parking on site from the beginning. And that's, it'll be free from any building construction. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Anything further from the board? None, are there, were there any, so anything in the draft decision that the applicant wanted to raise? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Please. I'm scrolling through my version as well. I will focus primarily on the condition section. So I'm trying to page that starts on. Starts on 23. Thank you. Any one moment, I apologize. Within condition, it begins up with on page 29. So it's, let me see the first, it goes up a while. It goes up a while. And so it's C1. And then if you go down, it is C1I, or EI, pardon me, right. You scroll up a little bit. All right, okay. And within sub part two, there was a three year vegetation monitoring schedule with a 95% survival rate. And then again, in sub part six, it speaks to survival rate of the planting is less than 100%. And then in section sub part seven, it goes back and talks about plant survivorship, less than 95% of the third year report. I believe that the commission in discussions with Beta even had in their memo of October 14th had referenced the survival rate at 80%. And so I believe that all three of those to be consistent with the commission, the joint beta commission memo would be an 80% survival rate. Lisa, that's correct. Ms. Nover was 80% the final figure we had settled on. You know, Mr. Chair, I don't recall. You know, I think Susan would be able to answer that question. Ms. Chapnick. Yes, by me, Mr. Chair. Yes, unfortunately, the letter that Beta and the Arlington Conservation Commission submitted for the record to the ZBA, which is in the record and on the website, it came one day after this draft. So our letter came on October 14th and your draft is October 13th. So many of the edits that we recommended and additions that we recommended did not get into this draft, that's one of them. The reason we changed it to 80% and actually we also added some more specific requirements, very specific what should be in the plans. We made that clearer. But the reason we changed it to 80% is in understanding the environment generally and in consistency with what we defined for 1165 RMAS F40B vegetation replacement plan. So we wanted to be consistent with that plan. And when you have time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out a few of the key differences between this October 13th draft and what Beta and ACC recommends. I will put a note to come back to that. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just to pick up on that, I know you're gonna get back to it, but within the combined Beta ACC memo of 1014, they speak to a mitigation plan for flood storage and they have subparts A through E as opposed to what's here as one through eight. And I think that the applicant would, it is fine with the proposal that the ACC Beta of their 1014. So it would be our recommendation that the board replace what is on page three of the Beta ACC memo with subparts one through eight of the draft decision. That makes sense to you. It does. Okay, okay. And then moving on from there, I think my next specific comment gets into C, the last sections of subpart C, or maybe C2 actually, right, C2. Yeah. And then under L, the, it seems like there's two different concepts that are going on in paragraph L. Definitely does. Yeah, so I don't know if the board meant to make that. What's the second sentence should actually be the M or not? And this gets into somewhat of a larger issue in terms of the setting aside of $100,000 in escrow towards solid waste removal slash invasive species management. And I believe that there's other parts that the board has kind of taken concepts of what the applicant had proposed in the MOU and then blended it into the decision that have worked out a little bit better, if you will. And I think that the intent here is that the board is trying, or the draft presented to the board is trying to put that concept out there. And so if we can just footnote that for one moment and then move on to subpart M where it says that as a condition that the applicant in the town sign a mutually agreeable memorandum of understanding regarding the disposition of conservation parcel. I believe that that would not be permitted would be to make that a condition because it would be a condition subsequent. And the applicant doesn't have control if the town of Arlington refuses to enter into a mutually agreeable. So, and that would be a local permit or a local approval of some sort. And I think that that's problematic to impose that as a condition. That being said, I'm sorry, go ahead. The intention of the board is that we would include as a condition that in the absence of a signed memorandum of understanding that the following conditions would hold, but that if the town and the applicant reached a separate memorandum of understanding that would take precedence over these sections. That is exactly where I was going, Mr. Chairman. That to impose a requirement of an MOU I think exceeds the board's authority, but I don't want to undercut our commitment to try to work with the town towards that. But the way that, and as I referenced it, it was stated for another aspect of it. It was in the absence of the applicant with the town meeting an agreement, the board would impose. And so that would be for, that would apply to that L1 or whatever you want to call that extra one there, correct. And then in the second sentence of that says the applicant has reached the terms outlined in finding 71 above. I think the numbering is off, but I also think that that's not entirely relevant or maybe appropriate even. I think if you're looking for what the board intended, it would be 73 and not 71. I think it's a numbering sort of issue. Oh, I see, okay. Yeah. And I would just suggest that it's correct as a finding that the applicants propose that a portion approximately 12 acres be put under a conservation restriction. But then there's a little bit more opinion from the town that the town's expressed significant concern and so forth. So I don't want the applicant to be signing on to, you know, the first part is factual, the second part is what the board is holding in its opinion. So in terms of putting that forth in a condition that sentence should be stricken in our opinion. Well, Mr. Chairman, it could be a separate condition. Certainly. A separate finding. Or a separate finding, yeah. Let's see, just before the Ds, which you had recommended to swap, swap to locate the position of D and E, which makes sense. Right, right, exactly. Again, in subpart F there, that's what you were talking about before though, in absence of a signed agreement between D. And I think that that kind of phrasing might be better suited for the 100,000, so. Absolutely. And, but also there within F, the applicant has, as it's worded in the draft, it says it's prior, you have to go back to D1, it's prior to a certificate of occupancy for any structure in the project. And the proposal that the applicant had put forth for that $25,000 annual was upon the final. So actually it would be under D2, not D1. The timing. And then when you move on to, it says under E, our comment previously that carried over in the draft was made to section D, or I suppose that you may wanna make it section C3, I believe that there is no C3 currently, so it's project design and construction. So it kind of flows more with what the others see. Oh, I see, okay. Yep, so it's just a stylistic thing, not really a substantive. Then if you go to proposed condition E10, E9 and E10 both, I think those both would be more subsumed with what the final plans should include. Under E13, just a request for a clarification that it's on site utilities and not on utilities. So utilities within the public way that on site utilities. Under F4, I would suggest that the applicant, that the condition read, the applicant shall ensure that emergency vehicles can adequately maneuver through the site as required by the state fire code, or in accordance with state fire code provisions. Under section D. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I wonder, I mean, on the previous suggestion, I wonder if Mr. Kiefer could explain what it is that the additional language and substance changes. I think that there's, as it's presently written, it's just unclear what does that mean can adequately maneuver. So if we have a baseline or a reference that just adds a little bit of clarity to it, that would be my suggestion. See, okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yes, I think I brought up this question of access to fire vehicles before, and specifically the very front of the building. There wasn't a roadway completely across it. And I was assured that the applicant was gonna get the review of the Alton Fire Department to make sure they were happy with that situation. And I dropped my objection. So I would like to still have the Alton Fire Department be signing off on the design of this project and action for it. Then they absolutely will. Thank you. I, through the chairman, I wasn't trying to infer that the Alton Fire Department wouldn't be reviewing. Under section G, police, fire and emergency medical conditions. There's a condition G2 that's proposed. I think perhaps for clarity's sake, just to have that rebetted stairwells and garages are to be designed for state building code requirements. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I'm sorry, but I'd just like to, right now it reads, the stairwells and garages must be minimum two hour fire rated, and then there's a comma. And then it says residential units must be minimum one hour fire rated, or as required by the state building code. So the provision as required by the state building code applies to the residential units, but not the stairwells and garages. And my question is whether, in fact, the state building code does deal with the stairwells and garages, whether it exists to do that. And secondly, I'm sure, I'm guessing that this language came from Mr. Hoverty. What the reason is for having the state building code provision in the second clause, but not the first. I actually think this language came as a result of comments from prior versions. I don't think that the state building code language was in the original draft. And I don't think that there's any reason why the state building code reference shouldn't apply to both aspects of this condition. We should change it to state that. And I think the purpose of including the reference to the state building code was basically if somehow in the future the requirements were actually changed to require something more strict that they would have to comply with state building code irrespective of what's in the condition, but this would just provide more clarity. Okay. Under sub part H, it would be H5, I believe. Oh, no, I'm sorry, H6. For some reason in H, my version didn't print out numbers. Again, onsite utilities, we were to request that changed to be adapted. And then the second sentence where it says the applicant shall request a grant of location, it's actually the utility to companies. My understanding is that does that. So perhaps change the applicant in conjunction with the utility companies would request a grant of location. Under H9, I don't believe the board has the authority to require an easement to be given by the applicant. And then getting to the third sentence in that H9 all sewer service, I think it should be clarified that it's all sewer service for the senior living residents should utilize agent sewer lines. Yeah. I know the residential units, I know there was some discussion, there was some memos in regards to the sizes of those required plumbing for that. The request for the larger sewer easement, I believe that came from the engineering division. I would just ask Kelly Lanema, if she knows why that may have been requested. All right, can you, this is for H9? For H9, it was a request for a temporary wider sewer easement beyond the existing 10 feet during construction. I do not know, I'm gonna refer back. If you give me a minute, I'm gonna look back to the memo random provided by Wayne Shenard. Okay. Just to see if there's a specific rationale for that. I appreciate that, thank you. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yep. Well, Ms. Lanema looks that up. I wonder if we back away from whether or not the board has the power to require an easement, which is after all the property interest and that's complicated and maybe all you really need is permission to do it in a license or something like that. But is there actually an objection on the applicant's part to the substance of this that you don't wanna provide that wider area in which the town can work to provide this stuff or is this just a legal thing or is the thing have to do with what it is that you're willing to allow the town to do this work? Well, I think in part, I don't know that we know what the town wants to do. So maybe Kelly can provide us with that answer in a moment but I'm not certain what the purpose of it is and so if that could be clarified, that would be helpful. So I'm pretty sure, Mr. Chairman, that if we knew exactly what this was about in substance, it would be possible to figure out an appropriate way to write a condition that would not raise any difficulties under 40B. No, certainly. And the ZB is the final note under H9 that I had added that zoning boards of appeal cannot grant easements. They have to be granted by the Board of Survey which in the town of Arlington is the select board. Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't be the zoning board granting the easement here or the select board. I believe that this is requiring the applicants to provide an easement to the town to allow the construction to occur on the applicant's property. And I guess I'm gonna echo Patrick's question which is, is there an actual objection to this because if the easements isn't provided, I'm not sure that the sewer department has the ability to provide the service that the applicant is requesting. Mr. Ranglai, I just want to concur with what Council and Council have already said. It's just an easement for construction for the town to have access. Thank you for chasing that down. Is there any objection on the applicant's part to allowing access to additional land if we don't call it extending a temporary easement to allow the town to perform? So, perhaps not, and I may, if John is unmuted, ask him just to, and still not, because I thought that R, we had talked about the prior hearing that the sewer line that was associated with the project was actually the one farther from the property line. If I may, John Hessian, Mr. Chairman, our understanding of public works request here, there's an existing sewer line within an easement on the Thorndike Place property that runs along the Dorothy Road frontage and the property line, and I believe the easement is 10 feet wide today. So that's an existing name. This project we have been requested, as Stephanie just mentioned, we are not, our project is not connecting to that sewer line that's on the Thorndike Place property. We're connecting to the sewer that's located in the middle of Dorothy Road. So, again, I think our question is the sewer easement is overgrown today. There's vegetation there. We're gonna have to clear it and partially do some maintenance of that easement and with the construction of the duplex units and their driveways and front yards, the sewer department, the sewer division will have much better access. The vegetation will be cleared. Again, it's a question of what construction is proposed there and to be honest, it's like we talked last meeting with the storm drain easement, if there are sewer improvements that need to be done on that line, the time to do it would be coordinated with the construction of Thorndike Place. We wouldn't wanna construct all the driveways to the duplexes, all their sewer and water connections out to the street, their front lawns and landscaping and then have to come back in and disrupt all that with sewer line improvements. So, again, ours is somewhat of a lack of understanding of what the need is and if there's improvements that need to be done or is it just protecting for down the road if something does have to be done and what would be the reasonable size of that easement for the sewer division to be able to do future work? Well, it's definitely not protecting for something down the road because it says it's a temporary during the period of construction. Right, and that's, again, John, that's part of what is confusing. Yeah, we're not aware that the sewer division is doing any work for this project or any other project on the Thorndike Place property. You know, and if it's not clear if it has like the last part of that each nine upon completion of construction, the applicant shall notify the Allenton Water and Sewer Division to conduct a post-construction evaluation of the sewer main. If this is a concern that the construction is going to negatively impact that existing sewer line, we've provided, and I think we drafted it, a condition. I'm not sure, Stephanie, if you remember what number it was, but that we would perform a TV inspection of that line pre-construction, notify the sewer division of any deficiencies in it, pre-construction. Though any repairs on any existing deficiencies would be the responsibility of the town, and then we would TV it again, post-construction, and any damage that was done to it would be the responsibility of the applicant, but in essence, it would be the applicant's contractor or their subcontractors that would have done the damage, but so, again, not knowing what temporary, what work they intend to do that they need a temporary easement, it's really not an opposition to it from our perspective, but it's getting it right, what's needed, why is it needed, and let's make sure it's done right, and the right size easement, does it need to be 12 feet or does it need to be 15 feet? A little bit more clarification would definitely help smooth this one out, I think. So if we were to sort of change it so that the applicant would, would, you know, in conjunction with the engineering division discuss access to the easement and any expansion of space during the period of construction, something along those lines, would that be? I think that we could agree to that, that the applicant, you know, will agree to have discussions or however you disgrace it, with the, with engineering relative to the department's, you know, request for a temporary, you know, access or temporary widening of the existing sewer easement during the construction period. As John stated, yes, if there's plans that the town has to do work on that sewer line, it makes complete sense, so it's not to have our project be built, and then the town comes, oh, we were gonna, you know, we need to rip this up to do repairs to the sewer line, so absolutely a coordination makes sense, it's just, there really has been nothing that's come forward in terms of, because the sewer line isn't part of our project, so what is the, what is the intent there? And then just to kind of provide the link for you, John had mentioned that we had proposed a CCTV that we would offer it as a condition, we find that in proposed condition E6. Now remember coming across that earlier. Right, and then I guess also just in terms of the, the second part of H9 while we're still on there, and I guess I would have John propose revisions because the, I think from an engineering perspective, the second sentence, John, I think you and I discuss some alternate language, and my notes don't have the alternate language there. Oh, the applicant shall provide the Arlington Water and Sewer Division with Upgradient, sewer flow with Peking Factor, suitable capacity. Mr. Chairman, if you could scroll up, it might be H4, maybe H3, so I think we were kind of thinking of mimicking the language in the second sentence in H2. The applicant shall provide the Arlington Water and Sewer Division with calculations to ensure the distribution system for the area has the necessary capacity to meet. So H2 is specific to water, and it's really the same kind of requirement for sewer. So H2 does say all water and sewer infrastructure. Right, but then the second sentence. Distribution system, okay, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So instead of distribution system for water, it would be collection system for the sewer. And then again on H9, the last sentence, as John referenced that CCTV condition that we had proposed, so that would be somewhat duplicative. It's already addressed in E6 with the number, as I said. And then within Section I for wetlands, flood planning, environmental conditions, requests for clarification under I2 that the applicant will be required to obtain in order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act. Within proposed condition I9, there's a reference there about the work shall be conducted in accordance with the approved erosion and control and sedimentation. And then the next sentence that's underlined, that's certainly why the underlining's there, just assumes it was just a formatting sort of tweak. The 21 days of final grading seems a bit tight. I would suggest 21 days. Is that in the last line, that 10 days? No, it's in the second sentence within one week. Oh, within one week. Final grading? Mm-hmm. I would just ask, there's no per opinion of that. Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at a version, I believe it's the, one of the marked up version. And actually the sentences underline were struck, just leaving the first sentence. So. The applicant would be fine with that. But yeah, I know. So I don't know if it actually was, it was suggested from striking. So it looks like it was kept in. So I guess the question is, temporary stabilization measures approved by the Board would be required and should work be, I'm attracted to more than 10 days. I think 10 days is a short period of time and 20 days would probably be more realistic. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I just wanna, there are two things I wanna focus on. One is that at some point in some draft or other, this underlined had a note from Mr. Havity saying discuss with the Board. So presumably there's a question as to whether it should come out or not, which I don't know that we're able to deal with now. But the language that Ms. Kiefer is talking about is in the second sentence, as I understand it. We now say within one week of final grading and she is proposing within 21 days of final grading. And the question is what would be betas or the conservations committee's reaction to increasing that one week period to 21 days? Three weeks, basically. Okay. Okay, so that was the wrong stuff. I think within one week of final grading is reasonable. This is Susan Chapnick, Chair. Conservation, if I may weigh in. Yeah, that's standard. We don't want erosion into resource areas. And if you let it mean even a week, you can get a storm or something happening and then the disturbed area is, the sediment just gets into the resource area. So it's a reasonable request and consistent with what we usually require. I will take all that under advisement. If you could scroll down to proposed condition I-823. Okay. It presently states with application of sand and salt within 100 sheet of resource areas is prohibited. We request that to be revised to within 100 feet of EVW or IVW. Just a note of explanation there, the walkway that's in front of, for instance, the bike storage area, that's within 100 feet of BLSF. And we would want to have that sanded. So, and then there's probably some other locations. So I think the intent that provides protection is that it's within 100 feet of IVW, BVW. I may respond to that, Chairman Klein. I was just gonna ask for that. Oh, okay, thank you. We did make a recommendation to the ZBA about this. We would like it to remain resource areas, but we do have an allowance for that area that Ms. Kiefer is talking about, because we expect that that area would have, so we propose the following sentence. The foregoing does not apply to the clean snow removed from the emergency access road. You don't have to copy all this down. It's in our comment letter, but I'll just read it. From the emergency access road, as long as no sand or non-approved de-icing materials are used and the snow is clear of all foreign debris. So we understand that there are alternative de-icing materials. We recommend products such as magnesium chloride or something similar that have been recommended in different types of manuals that you can find online. And we have a reference for that. So we're acknowledging that that's impractical in that area, but we're saying you can't use the normal de-icing materials. Would that be a reasonable alternative? They do that in Cambridge. So we checked what they do in Cambridge. I think my one kind of question of concern then would be because you impose a condition that you run it to be easily enforceable. So in terms of the management staff, that's gonna be there out clearing these things to make it very clear to them where they can apply certain items. I think that, again, going back to my suggestion of just 100 feet of IVWBVW is a clear that to make certain that there is compliance because those areas can be very easily identified. Otherwise, I guess I would ask John, if you have any comments in terms of what is CHOPNIC's proposed provision would be in terms of, I know that more readily which areas of the project might be and within 100 feet of ELSF that might propose challenges for compliance with the condition. That's right. Yeah, I guess I understand the alternative deicing materials but one of the questions I had on this was, so under the local wetland bylaw, the 100 foot buffer or ARA is a resource area. So is the intent of this is that we would not be able to sand or salt within 100 feet of the 100 foot buffer slash ARA or in other words, within 200 feet of a BVW or IVW? No, it's just a 100 foot. So the ARA is the ARA is 100 feet from the resource area and it is a resource in the town as you said that is equivalent to the 100 foot buffer area of the Wetlands Protection Act. It is not in addition to. Right, but the way this is written is no application of sand or salt within 100 feet of a resource area. So that would be, the ARA is a resource area. So that would say we wouldn't be able to use sand or salt within 100 feet of the ARA which is 200 feet. So it needs to be clarified. Yeah, and that's why Stephanie was suggesting replacing resource area with BVW or IVW. Right, or maybe within a 100 feet of BVW IVW or within the ARA would be clarify it. And then we are allowing for a practical exception for the emergency access route because that is the ARA. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I understand what you're saying. Yes. I think it was just a little confusion on the definition of resource area. Okay, thank you. That makes sense. Yeah. Perfect. And then if we could just scroll to I-27. Yep. I don't think that the phrase, it says the applicant shall submit for review and administrative approval by the board a restoration plan for the proposed compensatory flood storage areas of the site. I think that perhaps we want to say a planting plan because we're going to be creating those compensatory flood storage areas. So I guess in one extent they're presently, they are vegetated, but we're going to be degrading it. So I think it's more a planting plan and be a more appropriate phrase there. We do have in section C, we have to make this consistent with section C. So section C did request a compensatory flood storage. Planned, did it not? Yes. That's not it. That's I-26 that's still there. Excuse me. So I-26 references, the App Potential Provide Compensatory Flood Storage is indicated in conditions C1. Oh, okay. Oh, you're just clarifying that this is in reference to the planting plan versus the compensatory flood storage plan. Yes. This is I-27, oops, sorry, applicant shall submit for review and administrative approval by the board. And we had, it currently reads restoration plan for the proposed compensatory flood storage area. And the request is to clarify it to read the planting plan for the proposed compensatory flood storage area because we're not restoring it where it's being created new. Okay. Okay. Moving on to proposed condition I-28. And perhaps there can just be some explanation because as is presently written, the applicant shall submit for review and administrative approval by the board. Generally, you see for review for administrative approval, inconsistency with this decision, this seems to be, I'm not quite certain with that administrative approval, like what are the conditions like could it just be without and without? And maybe Mr. Havity can weigh in with alternate language, but if there's something to tie it in, administrative approval to review it and approve it as consistent with the requirements of the decision, but I'm not certain that there's any specific parameters that it has in there for that invasive species management plan. So that would be my first comment on there. And then there's two comments on that one. Then in the middle of I-28, where it says for work within the aura, I would just clarify that to just say 100 foot proper. The invasive species management plan was recommended as a condition requirement in C as an addition. So the conservation commission and beta and their comment letter recommended adding that plan. So now you would have three plans in that section, that reference wetlands. One would be the compensatory flood storage plan. One would be the planting or landscape, however you're calling it, planting plan. And the other would be the invasive species management plan. And it is, we recommend a definition there, what should be included there. I think that we've used the term aura consistently throughout. It is a resource area and in Arlington, I don't understand why we would change it to the 100 foot buffer in this instance, especially in reference later to waivers where we're allowing a waiver in the aura for certain specific activities that are going to be done consistent with the plan as proposed. So I think it might be confusing at this point and unnecessary to change the term here. I'm fine with the second one. And then I don't know if your console wanted to weigh in on my first point. Have any? Which one are we talking about? So this is used to the term review and administrative approval and whether that grants the board essentially the ability to drag its feet on things. And you've actually used that term in several conditions. So, right. And that is language that has been blessed by the housing appeals committee. The thing is the purpose of calling it administrative approval is that it doesn't start a new hearing process. It's not a, there's no noticed hearing requirement. It's not an approval process that could be subject to an appeal. It is simply a process where the board administratively reviews information that's being submitted post permit and ensuring that it's consistent with what was approved by the board. So I mean, if there's a request it puts in sort of timeframe for that review. And I don't think that's unreasonable. Mr. Chairman. I think it would be helpful if we could take a look at, really in my view at least the proposal that is before us is what appears in the ACC beta letter of October 14th and the paragraph that relates to this is at page four. And I think that the applicant should be looking at that one because that's the actual language that is most likely to be considered by the board. And I wanna give you a moment to do that, but essentially there's not much point in looking at what I28 should say if we already have the invasive species management plan which has been a submission requirement. If that would actually, as far as I can tell, largely obviate the provision of a plan in I28, although provision of something that verifies that the plan has been carried out might be the appropriate thing to be in that part. I leave that up to Ms. Chapnick. So this is on page four, the bullet that appears at the top of the page, right? So the language that is proposed for section, for part C, for the invasive species management plan is there. And I'm assuming they're not too, that this is the only one that we're actually thinking of requiring. You'll notice that it includes a reference to monitoring reports submitted to the ZBA. So there's an element of self enforcement here. Also I'll point out that we're not trying to make it onerous. And if you look up above, because the planting plan requires certain monitoring as well, we say that the reports can be combined because we assume the same entity that might be doing the planting might also be doing the invasive management. And they could submit one report on the plant health as well as the invasive management of the area. Do the chairman may I ask for a clarification on the monitoring reports then? With that statement, is that proposed annually for all of those, all of the monitoring reports in June? Yes. I would, just to clarify then, I would suggest that that be put in if the board adopts the conservation commissions proposed language for the management plan under the invasive species. Don't think there is a, I don't think it says in there on the basis. So annual. You're right. Now this section was just the plans. I understand that the conditions say they might reference the plans and then they might have some specific condition on that, which is what I understand the difference being. It's our recommendation and beta's recommendation that several of these be in perpetuity that would survive the expiration of the permit. And that is consistent with what we did in 1165R mass F40B because these restores these mitigation plantings, these invasive control, et cetera. These are provisions that protect the wetland resource areas on the site. And if we just say, oh, they're just for three years, then what happens after that? So not that you have to submit monitoring reports for three years, but that it has to be, the plans have to be followed in perpetuity. So that's a recommendation from beta and the conservation commission that the ZBA should consider adding to these. The monitoring would be for three years, but what would start in year four? Well, the plan that they have in place has to keep happening. So the plans should have specific requirements for how to remove invasives, what to look for, I'm not a wetland, I'm not a landscape person, so I don't know exactly what would be in there. So the plan that's instituted would continue, it just, there would no longer be a monitoring requirement. Unless you want to have a monitoring requirement. So for example, at Sims, which has a conservation restriction in that area, we still have a monitoring requirement and a reporting requirement to the conservation commission. So you could request that, I mean, I would leave that up to the board, but at a minimum, we'd like to see that the plans be implemented in perpetuity. But those are a part of the conservation restriction, correct? Yeah, I was just making an analogy. This part that we're talking about is not on the conservation restriction land. These conditions we're talking about are for the areas that are being disturbed and re-vegetated on the site, including the compensatory flood storage area. I would ask if, John, if you take a look and have any reaction to page four, the invasive species management plan proposed condition. I'm taking a closer look at it. Mr. Chairman, can you scroll to the exact part that's in kind of in question? There's the invasive species. It's not the invasive species. It's the invasive species. It is the invasive species. Oh, there you are. I guess, you know, I'm looking at that bullet. You know, talks about an invasive species management plan. The second sentence kind of defines what's in the plan, and the monitoring reports are kind of detailing any invasive species and recommendations for control and removal. That's really more of a, should be more either a confirmation of the next step in the plan or a recommendation for a modification to the plan. For example, maybe the method of removal that was proposed in the original plan as part of a monitoring report, it shows that it wasn't effective. There may need to be a recommendation for an alternative. So that third sentence could maybe be clarified a bit, and then the last two sentences are, I think, pretty straightforward. What would be included in a normal, you know, site visit monitoring report? Kevin, does that, do you agree with that? That's acceptable to me. I think that's reasonable, John. Okay, great. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. I just, I mean, we've gone through some of these provisions. The other plans that are both referred to immediately previously are things that if the applicant has not already taken a look at and provided us with all the information they have to provide, they may want to take an opportunity to do that before we close the hearing because the proposals that are before us really are, will include both the landscape plan and the compensatory flood storage mitigation plan. And the language there is, in each case, a little bit different anyway, from what was in the draft opinion. And the applicant will want to devote the same attention to those as it has to the invasive species management plan. With respect to, I'm sure that John probably will have some further comments, but with respect to the compensatory flood storage mitigation plan, my suggestion in terms of the ease of the recipient of the permit understanding it and just complying with it is to take out the narrative relative to what the goal is, but just to put in the bulleted points A through E, what the requirements are. That would be fine with me. I know Pat Hanlon is doing a lot of wordsmithing, but I'm wondering if in the findings, you could put what the... So we don't lose the reason for this compensatory flood storage area or it might already be in the findings. And I'm a little confused as to which draft I'm looking at. So I'd appreciate that. I appreciate what you're saying, Ms. Kiefer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just in terms of getting the findings, we can always cross-reference to make sure that anyone looking at this would know where the finding is and vice versa. Certainly. With respect to the proposed landscaping plan, similar comment there that the kind of the introductory narrative is not really instructive as a condition, but the conditions follow the proposed A through H. It continues on the next page. You don't see it right there. What's on the screen, but... And again, that's acceptable to the Conservation Commission as long as it's captured in a finding. And just for clarification, though, the landscape plan is already for landscaping within wetland resource areas? Yes, unless the board wants to extend that. But these are specific to the wetland resource areas because they're requiring native species, et cetera. And we understand that for other areas that are not within wetland resource areas that you may use traditional landscape plantings that may not be native. So when the landscape architect is doing a landscaping plan, it's typically one plan. And so the board may want to consider not imposing these additional requirements on the upland areas, but rather it seems to create a little bit of confusion if one's having two landscaping plans submitted. Right, and it could be one plan and then just make it clear that these specific requirements are for the wetland resource area parts of the site. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Steve Moore, as a member of the Arlington Tree Committee, I only interrupt at this point because the landscape plan was also going to be helpful and useful for the pre-warring of the applicant to work together to make sure that the tree bylaw issues were followed even though I know that the waiver was denied as unnecessary for the signature of the tree warden. So I believe we are expecting the landscape plan to also cover the upland areas around the development. So a landscape plan was filed by the applicant. It should be available. But this project specifically is under the town bylaws as they existed in 2016. Correct. So I just I don't know what the specifics of what the tree bylaw was back in 2016. No, you're corrected at the time. It was not required for the signature of the tree part of it. However, the landscape plan is to confirm that we because the applicant said that they would already work with the tree warden and were sort of counting on that commitment. And the landscape plan was going to be a part of that cooperation with a specific tree focus for the tree warden, of course, not the rest of the planting. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for my speaking. OK, yeah, so the landscape plan should be available on the town's website at this point. OK, thank you. Yeah, well, you're very welcome. So we were, I believe we've sort of gone a little off-topic and gone back and forth, but I think we were on I-28 when we left off, unless there's anything further on the project of Lance. I don't have anything further on the plans. If I don't have a landscape architect from our team on, but John, if you need to fill in being our landscape architect for the moment, if there's any specific concerns or recommendations that you may have, these are the proposed ACC letter. I'm taking a quick look again. Just to help you, John, understand things that are focused on vegetation. There is is a recommendation of low nitrogen fertilizer used in limiting that and then no herbicides or pesticides or redenticides, except as approved for invasive plant management. Right. OK. No, I think I definitely reviewed this previously and just looking at it again. I think it's what we've discussed in the past. I'm just looking rationale for removal, hoping that in this plan, that narrative will be pretty simple. It's removal of the vegetation to construct the compensatory storage area as approved as part of the comprehensive permit. But yeah, Stephanie, I'm OK with this. And just back, if I could, while I get the microphone to Mr. Moore, there was a landscape plan included in the most recent plans, but it's also included as a requirement. I think it's in C1 that we provide a more detailed landscape plan for the non-wetlands portion of the property as part of the final plan. So the plans that are submitted to date are what's referred to in this draft decision is the approved plans. But we're going to have to prepare final detailed construction level plans. And there'll be additional landscape information provided at that stage. Those will be prior to building permit. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Hess. And that's a help. You're welcome. If we could move back to the decision, then, in I-30, again, just to carry through that 80%, it's referenced a couple of places in there at 100. If Susan needs to jump in, if the October 14th letter has changed this, but I would go down to I-33, I believe, I think that provision was going to be deleted. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm going to I-33 because the numberings changed. Yeah. Yeah, because we already addressed that. You know, disturbance. Was that in that? That was in the beta letter, I believe. Is that right? The original beta letter. I'm getting confused as to where things are. Marty, did you know? Yeah, I'm looking at the edited version of the decision right now. OK. And there was actually two paragraphs that talk about this, actually no, limited activity. That was actually struck. Yeah, it was struck. Yeah, I'm just looking out to. Yes, I believe my name on the screen, so people will think I'm still there. So I-33. So they will call on me. So about halfway. What happened with the I-33? So are you saying we're striking I-33 to I-34? But we're leaving I-34 because there's just a formatting issue. And I-34 starts about halfway through the paragraph under I-33. Yes, I think that's a formatting issue. Yeah, that's a formatting issue. So the long-term pollution prevention and operation maintenance plan still needs to be. Yeah, we'll leave that there. OK. Yeah. Yeah. And picking up, though, on the bracketed comments for I-31 and 32 relative to invasive species control is exempted, I'm assuming that that would be clarified. And it would just take out I-33. I'm assuming that's the point. OK, I'm going to go back on that. So Marty, what I'm knowing, the problem is these numbers changed. So no work shall be allowed within the 25 feet of any bordering or isolated vegetation. That one remains in. And except for invasive species control, that it has been approved as per the plan or whatever. So that's right. Then the no disturbance within 50 feet that we just took out, we actually left that in and said no disturbance shall be allowed within 50 feet of any resource area except as shown on the approved plans. And that any changes to the project plans that will result in the limit of work to be closer to bordering or isolated vegetated wetlands or would result in further disturbance of the aura would need authorization from the board and or the conservation commission. So if you look at the prior draft from I think Paul and Beta, it was their I-34 that should remain in. And it went from I-25 to I-34.  And then the old, this is Marty, the old I-35 is struck. Right. And that's what this 33 is, right? Yeah. Right. So that's why it's confusing. So we're missing one. Yeah, I-34 was removed altogether. Well, actually, you have part of it. It's I-32 here. So I-32 with the old I-34. OK, so no disturbance shall be allowed. Oh, no, it should be changed. So no disturbance shall be allowed within 50 feet of any resource area. So this is except as shown on the approved plan. Yeah, so that one is the one that should go back to the draft that was Paul's previous draft. Don't know if you want to go through what the one with the comments. That's the one with the beta comments, correct? Yes, yes. And so this I-32 should be changed to that whole draft with beta comments I-34. And then I-33, as Marty says, is struck. Because we dealt with that. Then the I-34 stayed struck. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, the language in I-31 relative to any change in the project plans that would result in the limit of work closer to bordering or isolated vegetated wetland, the authorization can only come from the board, not the commission. OK. Right. You could just say ask us our opinion. Sorry about that, yep. And then just for clarification, is the Arlington Conservation Commission's recommendation that the condition also include that invasive species control is exempted for those provisions? OK. Yes. I believe condition I-35 is to put it in I-34, right? That's the formatting issue. So there was a note on the prior version that said to combine what was then 26 and 27. OK. So I-34 and I-35 need to be combined. And I-36 was supposed to be deleted because we have, that's a finding. And we have defined the need for landscape plans, et cetera. So it's not necessary to have that here. And I believe I-40 is duplicative. My notes don't say where it's otherwise contained. But I think it's someplace else in the decision. Oh, it might be it from I-5 is, oh, no, that's not it. I thought it was up further somewhere, too. I'm not sure where it was. We can hunt for that. Condition I-41, I'm not quite certain how that's enforceable. The applicant is to ensure that the proposed rain garden will function. I think instead you would just want to say that the details of the additional detail of the proposed rain garden would be shown on the final plans. I think that gets the board to what it wants, just to make certain that it's a detailed design. So I would recommend that that be language saying that the proposed rain garden for the detail of it will be shown on the final plans and then include that with what's to be included on the final plans. Yeah. And also we did specifically call out the rain gardens in the landscape plans. So they have to be discussed, obviously. And then moving to the general conditions under J-3, there's a sweeping statement that the applicants are copy of the board on all correspondence between the applicant and any federal, state, or town official or commission concerning conditions set forth in this decision. I would just propose striking that. There's prior conditions in the permit that say that the applicant shall provide the board copies of all permit and approval, state, federal requirements. And I think that's the intent of what the board wants, rather than all back and forth correspondence. It may just get into the mundane. So I would suggest striking that condition in its entirety. And like I said, you've already built into the decision previously a requirement that the applicant copy the board on all permits and approvals. I would just ask Mr. Havardy to address that. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would say is that this provision requires the board to be provided copies of all testing results, environmental approvals, official filing. So it's more than just other approvals. I do agree that perhaps every single piece of correspondence is a bit of overkill and more than the board administratively is going to want to deal with. And I think there's probably a happy need. The applicant would agree to that. That if it's limited to, I think approvals would be previously addressed, Paul. But in addition to all approvals, the applicant shall provide the board copies of testing results. I'm not quite certain what else the board official filings, environmental approvals, and other permits. So the recommendation there is just to remove all correspondence to just be more particular? I would change that to the applicant shall provide the board copies of all testing results, official filings, environmental approvals, and other permits issued for the projects. OK. Right. Concerning the conditions that four can assist. So moving that phrase below to where all correspondents have previously been. Underachieve. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could, before we get too far away from I, I was a little slow, but we do have two conditions about dewatering. One of them is at I6, and that's taken from the 1165R decision. And the other one is I40, which we talked about briefly. And they both deal with the same subject. But I don't have an understanding as to which one is as to which one is preferable. They're not exactly the same. That's I6. I believe the applicant was fine with I6. I wonder if Ms. Chapnick is also happy with I6. Does I6 have the number five in it? The dewatering shall not take place in any matter that leads to water being discharged or allowed to flow into property not. So they're basically very similar, except I'm not sure if that's in I6. And that was done expressly for a butters. But this one also has authorization from the DPW. It could take part five from I40 and inserted into I6. That would be fine, because it basically has the same pass-through filters on-site settling and so, yeah, and just add at the item number four. Thank you. Jace, was it J6 we're heading towards? Jace, I was going to direct us to J5. J5, OK. It's currently drafted in the event that the applicant or its management company fails to maintain the stormwater management system for the project and, according to this operation and maintenance plan, within 14 days of notification. It's I would suggest, because it's free as a little bit backwards. So basically what it's saying is if you get a notice from the town that there's a problem, it has to be maintained. And I would just suggest that, in case a park is unable to come in, that instead of saying fails to maintain, but fails to advance efforts to maintain. So to start working on the solution or addressing what the problem is, but there's an issue that, like I said, there's a park that needs to be ordered and it's not coming in. It doesn't mean that the applicant has just sat back and done nothing they're working on, but the 14-day time period, the park's not able to come in. How about fails to take appropriate steps to maintain the stormwater management system? That's probably fine, but you see where I'm getting at. It's just saying if the applicant sits back and does nothing, that's one thing. But if the applicant's actively trying to get the solution in place, they shouldn't be penalized for that. And just for clarification, then in item J6, condition J6 rather, the second sentence talks about the proposed recreational areas. I think that means the proposed garden areas. Is that correct? Probably language from the prior decision, but there are... Over what used to be the area on the Western side that had formerly been parking, it's now like there's gardens sort of established there or house of recreation or something. But I believe there's also woodland areas that are being maintained as well on the development parcel. But is that what that means? It says proposed recreational areas. I think that was originally there when there was intended to be a playground. Mr. Chairman, landscape the areas. Right, and then the phrase, the construction and operation just seems a little, I bet that's why I wasn't entirely certain where the board was going with that. Or whoever dropped to the condition was going with that. This is Steve Revolac. I think Mr. Klein, I think Mr. Chairman might be right that it is referring to an earlier iteration which included a playground. So in that case, should we strike the second sentence? I would think that it makes sense, but again, this is for the board's consideration. Yeah. And then under J7, I suggest striking the first introductory clause, not withstanding any provision in J6. Just started with the town shall have no obligations relating to the, I would just say relating to the conservation parcel. Construction, again, the whole point of the conservation parcel was not to construct. So I would just say relating to the conservation parcel. And then I would suggest, unless it may be agreed upon by the parties within a separate MLU. And then if I could just quickly go down to the proposed waiver actions. Yeah. There's under five for Bora under article, or section 25, excuse me, of the wetland regulations. It's proposed to be waived as unnecessary. Did additional language come up here because, oh, sorry. I would just suggest that it be approved consistent with the final plans. Chairman Klein. Yes, please. That was acceptable to the conservation commission because we consider it similar to waiver three. And if you scroll up, your language was waiver granted to allow work within the aura as shown on the approved plans. Okay. We recommend. For a sense. We had recommended, we just wanna make sure that we're not saying that we're waiving the aura as a resource area. That's not what we're doing, but okay. Thank you. And the applicant's fine with that. Okay. Okay. So waiver three with the same language as three. I believe that we've already talked about on proposed. And then under seven, the wetland consultant fees, the regulation isn't worded to allow kind of like continuing oversight by the board, but those wetland regulation fees or consultant fees, excuse me, they deal with when an applicant files a notice of intent under the local bylaw, that the commission can then retain a wetlands consultant relative to reviewing that NMI and issuing an order of condition. I think the language, I didn't have a chance to go back and look at the 20, the version of the regulation in place when we applied, but the current one, which kind of underscores this is a consultant fee upon receipt of a notice of intent, abbreviated notice of resource area delineation or request for determination of applicability or any point during the hearing process, the commission is authorized to require the applicant to pay a fee for the reasonable costs and expenses borne by the commission for specific expert engineering and other consultant services, deemed necessary by the commission to come to a final decision on the application. This fee is called the consultant fee. And so Paul may weigh in and say, well, it's weighed because it's not necessary, but the proposed board action here is denying it because it's needed due to the complexity of that. So again, going back to what the regulation says what is to be used for, it's to review an order of condition or a notice of intent or an anrad and then to issue an order of conditions. And so that's not warranted here because this is a master permit subsuming them all. Now, obviously when the applicant goes back before the commission under the act, if they feel the need for consultant fees, they have the ability to employ 53G and to ask for those under the act. So we would suggest that this either be granted or just denied as unnecessary because the comp permit is a master permit subsuming all of that. So the board doesn't have to retain a wetlands consultant to review any local application filed under its local line law before. This was unclear to me, makes a little more sense the way you explained it. We had retained this for the 1165R massive. So I am fine with saying that it's weaved because it's unnecessary at this point. If Paul tells us or some other lawyer that that interpretation is correct and that then the conservation commission could retain and apply for the consultant fees under the filing under the state wetlands protection act. So I'm fine with that as long as the legal argument is correct and I'm not, you don't understand it as well as others. So chairman, the legal argument is correct. You've already gone through your review process. You've already imposed what ear review consultant fees you have deemed necessary to review this by law and the conservation commission certainly has full authority to charge review fees under the wetlands protection. So this isn't gonna hinder their ability to do that. It's a completely separate process. Whatever you say in this decision, can't grant or take away jurisdiction from the conservation commission as part of that process. So I agree that this waiver could be denied as unnecessary. I would retain the sentence that the board does not require additional authority to impose a fee for the retaining of an outside wetlands consultant, which it has done for this. And I will leave it at that. And then scrolling down to 22, I believe, the off-street parking requirements, it grants the waiver. However, there's actually kind of two parts to it. So there's for the senior living, the analysis there talks about that the parking is 0.76 spaces, which is correct. But there's also with respect to the duplex units and it was found, it was in the findings, I believe, I don't know the number of the findings, but it does recognize that the end units there would have one parking space. And so we would ask for that to be, just make certain that that's carried over into the grant of the waiver there because it's only addressing the waiver as to the senior living, but it doesn't address that for those duplex end units. Because in 2016, we still required two parking spaces, is that correct? I believe so, yes. At this point, I think I've hit the items on the conditions and the waivers that I wanted to address. If I could just be indulged one moment to open up to my team, if there was anything in the conditions or waivers that I missed or that was a concern. At this point, is there any further from the board? Pardon? Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. Just previously when we were talking about transportation, I unwisely defer talking, conferring with Mr. DeRuder about the comparing the amount of additional traffic generation on a daily basis here with the community. And that was a long time ago and we're getting really tired. I'd like to get that in the record because if we don't have it in the record, we can't rely on it. And Mr. DeRuder at least has done a rough calculation to give us an overall idea of what that proportion might be. Although I emphasize that it is rough and not something very precise that we could work with. And wonder, I think it takes about a minute and a half, but I wonder at the chairman's discretion when the right time is to deal with that. Certainly, while Ms. Kiefer is checking her notes this week, it's time to do that. So Tyler is, I don't know if Tyler is still here actually, it's very late, we've been at this for three hours. Sure, I could if I may, Mr. Chair, this is Tyler DeRuder with Beta. Certainly. So we had taken a look at some of the, I guess what I'll call a quick look at the neighborhood trip generation for the number of buildings or households that are within the neighborhood that do not front Lake Street. So houses that would have to use the neighborhood streets and ran a trip generation calculation for those and compared it to the trip generation presented as part of the proposed project. And in the comparison, we found that the proposed project represents approximately 18% increase in trips in the neighborhood. I don't know if I need to go any further detail to that. If I can just ask quickly, my understanding of the way the calculation is reached is by taking the trip generation figures for single family and for two family. Basically that's not precisely the way the categories are listed in ITE. And just assume that the neighborhood is half one and half the other. Basically the two families have more trip generation obviously than the single families do. So it could be an error because the mix might be skewed towards single or duplexes. But mathematically, that error doesn't really amount to very much that in anything in the reasonable range is going to give you a percentage that is similar though not identical to what Mr. DeRuder just indicated. Tyler, is that right? Yeah, that's correct. We've basically taken the two single family and multifamily land uses and average the two together and then applied that average over the number of households within the neighborhood that we counted up in a rough estimate there. So in doing that, we can get a general ballpark of what the neighborhood might expect per ITE and to the point that was made, that may slightly overestimate the number of trips given maybe a higher percentage of single family homes or whatever have you. Okay, Mr. Chairman, the reason for going through this is that we were asked last time to take to consider this question. And while this isn't as a careful census of every individual house and how many people are in it, it gives you sort of an order of magnitude number that relates to some citizen concern expressed two weeks ago. Thank you very much for bringing that up. Ms. Kiefer, did you find anything further? I don't believe I have anything further at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. So in a moment, I will open tonight's hearing for public comment on the revised draft decision. First, I really appreciate everyone's patience. I did not anticipate this portion would take this long. And second, a brief review of guidelines for this portion of the hearing. Public questions and comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter of hand and to be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. The board will insist that comments be limited to items either in the draft decision or items that are omitted from the draft decision. To provide for an orderly flow, the chair will assist the individual public speakers try to limit their comments to five minutes. The procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as for previous hearings. Please select the raise hand button from the comments tab on Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate you would like to speak. When called upon, please identify yourself by name and address, you'll be given your five minutes for your questions and comments regarding the draft decision. All questions are to be addressed through the chair. Please remember to speak clearly. Once all public comments have been heard, public comment periods will be closed for the public hearing. And I'll do my best to show the section of the draft decision that is being discussed. The board has, you know, over the past year and a half, two years, received a very lengthy record of public opinion in regards to the propriety of the project and to its impacts on wetlands, its impacts on traffic and the like. At this portion of, at this junction in the hearing process, we really are discussing what elements are to be included in a potential draft decision, which is what we're looking at here. And so I really ask the public's indulgence to try to stay as tightly as we can to items that are in the decision and not to stray from that. So with that, we do have a list and the first name is Ms. Yerowich. Hope you're on mute, sir, sorry. How's that? That is wonderful. There you go. My name is John Yerowich. I'm a 53-year resident of the town. I live at the corner of Little John and March Street. First and foremost, while you were talking about traffic just a few minutes ago, 90% of this traffic coming out of this place is gonna be coming down Little John Street.  That's horrible. Going back to a discussion earlier on regarding the Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, I wanna go on the record as being a very, very loud no to Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. That's 104 days a year of construction noise we don't want. Saturdays and Sundays and holidays are family days, barbecues, playing in the yard, playing in the street. If my neighbors would please stick with me on this one. If the owner is going to not own the conservation land that's gonna go to somebody else, is the $350,000 maintenance that they pledged a couple of years ago, are we gonna lose that as well? You remember that $350,000? I would be interested to know if that money is gone because of this new change in bait and switch, if you will. The 730 to 530 hours, that's a 10 hour a day. I don't see why it has to be 530. Can we make it 730 to 430? We discussed that earlier tonight. Lastly, I would hope that the town has some sort of inspection going on at least a weekly basis to monitor what goes on in a project the size. I see too much bad construction practices happening when they put all these duplexes on Little John, I mean, on Dorothy and Mott and Mary Street. They don't patch pavement well at all. It's horrible as a matter of fact. I would hope that the town provides us with construction management at least on a weekly basis. So, Saturday, Sunday's holidays, no, 730 to 430. The $350,000 that was gonna be pledged site inspection. Oh yes, and let me reiterate what Ms. Noyes said earlier. The parking of all vehicles on the property, not on the street, that's on your page 37, item E16. Thank you very much. I appreciate the work that you do. I hope you understand this is my neighborhood. My neighbors love this neighborhood, okay? This is not good for us. Thank you, goodnight. Absolutely, thank you. Ms. Kiefer, just to clarify, the ownership of the Conservation Park, parcel has no effect on the pledge of the owner to provide $350,000 over 10 years for the preservation of that property, correct? That's correct, that's correct. And to Mr. Klipfell, would a 730 to 430 workday be something that would work for this development for a weekday workday? You're on mute. The question, 730 to 430 instead of 730 to 530. 730 to 430, is the question. I think that could work. That's 4.5 and... Sorry, having a hard time hearing you. It's calculating. Oh, calculating, thank you. We'll go for that. I guess there is some... I don't know, I don't know. I don't know, I don't know. I don't know, I don't know. There is some, somebody can drive in and park and be there without doing work, not making any noise before 730, right? Noise. Yeah, so the way the town by-law is written is that it's a noise ordinance. So there's the operation of exterior equipment. Yeah, okay, that's, I think that's fine. The operation of equipment between 730 and 430 is, that's what it was. I think that was... Okay. And then what would the weekend be? Would that remain the same? I think you had originally indicated that you'd be willing to forego Sunday and holiday hours. That's correct. And so Saturday, does the Saturday hours we would need to, has not been discussed there in the town by-laws there intentionally later to allow people an opportunity to sleep in a little bit? I think it was suggested, I don't remember exactly, it was nine to... Nine to five instead of T to six? Yeah, I think that's okay, nine to five. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So far, Mr. Yervich has only been the only person that has had a chance to weigh in on this. And I think that'd be right when I have the discussion about Saturday after more people have had a chance to do this. I will point out that this is a noise ordinance and the primary interest here may not be noise, but activity on the street. So we ought to at least keep in mind that it's somewhat more general than the interest is in the noise ordinance. But obviously people have a choice to make but they don't actually have a choice. They have choices to what they would prefer whether they'd like the process to go a little faster by allowing work on Saturdays, subject to the noise ordinance as it is, or whether they would like to encourage the applicant to take a little extra time and give them all our part of their Saturdays. Thank you, that's well taken. With that, I'll move to the next name on the list which is Mr. McKinnon. Mr. McKinnon, are you there? I'm back to Mr. McKinnon. I had Jennifer Watson on next, but I don't know if she's lowered her hand. Ms. Watson, Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. First is a resident of the town. I'm referencing here the finding on page 20, number 73 to do with the parcel as well as the October 4th letter that was generated by the attorneys relative to the parcel, the open space parcel that is. I know that there's been a lot of discussion in the town over the past, I don't know, three, four days, something like that to do with this open space parcel and the fact that the applicant's now going to retain ownership. I think originally it was proposed as a kind of sweetener of the deal, basically the open space being donated to the town, transferred to the town for control as opposed to the tamed by the owner. And that now seems to have changed very much at the last minute here it seems or maybe I just didn't understand the MOU process, but this is kind of a sudden large scale change. And I think it's leaving a bad taste in many people's mouths and it looks sort of like going back on a previous promise that was an important promise made as part of the project. Again, maybe I don't understand clearly the MOU process, but I hope that that under those discussions the potential donation of the property to the town for ownership and permanent control of the open space part would be reconsidered because I think there's a lot of concern about perhaps any covenants being put on the property now and in perpetuity might somehow be undone in the future, but that's just a personal concern. And secondly, as a member of the tree committee, if you go to page 55, which is item waiver number 10, I know that this was rolled into one of those things I believe the request for a way was unnecessary because the comprehensive permit process subsumed all of those bylaw concerns. And it said that the applicant was going to be basically a subset of the comply with the bylaw of the 2016 version of the tree bylaw. And I want to remind the applicant again that that means working with the tree warden, although his approval is not required in 2016 as it is now on the building checklist. Working closely with him is important for landscape plan that's being generated as part of final plans is important to help make that happen as well as submission of a tree plan related to the trees, both law and public ways and for the setbacks in the project. That that is, I believe the applicant is already committed to comply with all of those things. I just want to reiterate that for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Moore. To the chairman, if I may. Yes, Ms. Kiefer. Just to address Mr. Moore's comments, I'll do a reverse order. Yes, the applicant has agreed to work with the tree warden and submit the information. And then with respect to the open space parcel, it's actually, it's not a sudden change. It was, I can't remember when it was first. So it's going to be initially conveyed to a third party. And now it's going to be a conservation restriction. But I think two points that are relevant and may provide some comfort within the, imposing it to be a conservation restriction. The applicant's amenable and has agreed that it will be available publicly for passive recreation. And so there is still a public availability of it, if you will. So I just wanted to underscore that it really, it has been discussed for a bit. This model with a conservation restriction and that there is public benefits that are desired by the town and intended by the applicant. And then I think maybe just the last point is one of the initial discussions talking about the MOU there had been actually hesitancy by the town not wanting to acquire it. And we were looking for a third party to acquire it. So it's, I think that there was some, that in part, weighed in to our decision, but I think the important part of it, as I stated previously, is just that it's not intended to cut out the surrounding community that it will be made available for public use and public access, if you will. So I hope that addresses the concerns that you raised. Thank you, Ms. Kiefer. Yes, thank you, Ms. Kiefer. Next on my list was Jason Flake, but his hand is down, which brings up Ms. Keith Lucas. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, how are you? I'm fine, thank you, how are you? Doing well, thank you. Heather Keith Lucas from Ten Mott Street tonight. Please. Thank you. The regarding the construction start time, not gonna weigh in the time itself, but I want to make the point that the pandemic has changed people's work patterns, meaning many people now work from home and people are expecting to work from home, moving forward more so than going into the office. So the noise generating from this project will impact all of us during the day. The noises and the trucks, they already disrupt our sleep. We hear that from her too. It wakes us up, it shakes our houses and trucks to be here before 8 a.m. or even arriving before then, sounds like just a disruptive way to start our day. To Mr. Hanlon's point, any noise, not just the operating construction, but the arrival of many people who are going to be working in that area will impact the noise quality in the neighborhood, which is quite quiet in most of the time. I was gonna say at night, but it is during the day as well, unless you're hearing the squeals of laughter from the kids who are playing during the day. If we could go to section 48 on page 14. So this paragraph here talks about the traffic and the volume and the overall neighborhood concern. And what we talked about on our last CBA meeting for this project was the rush hour traffic volume at a handful of the neighborhood intersections to Lake Street. And it appears that section 57 a little later on, there's a placeholder to include these traffic volumes to be included in the ZBA decision. And I just ask that the ZBA include the known traffic volumes here within the section 48, as it is directly relevant to the applicant's estimation of trips per day generated. In other words, like the relativity of the traffic increases are important for the ZBA's discernment of the development of the size of whether it's appropriate for this neighborhood. And to our discussions at the last CBA meeting on this topic, on an additional suggestion of just calculating those 412 trips if spread out across maybe a 10 or 12 hour period, because that does equate to today's current state rush hour to be an all day impact to this neighborhood. And that would be as opposed to being the concentration at two times in the day. Correct. And perhaps the, I mean, I know the 412 trips that's estimated by the applicant also is considering that they're going to spread out deliveries throughout the day and not have those fall on more rush hour time periods, in part because of the traffic concerns that exist on Lake Street already and how that will have downstream impacts to other towns as well during the rush hour time. But to have that as a going from very few cars, if any, going down any of our streets during the day to a rush hour traffic, that's quite a difference. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I should just emphasize that the 412 number comes directly from the ITE, it I think includes mode split, but it does not include various other things like jettison and moving your time one day around and so forth. It's quite objective and much of the rest of the things that the applicant and others were talking about are not boiled into that figure. Thank you. If I may, in section 57, which is on page 16, it begins with an attempt to address these challenges. And I don't, with respect to the traffic and characterizing the reduction of 15% from a prior proposal, I just don't find the characterization of in an attempt to address these challenges of this significant traffic impact to this neighborhood appropriate. I'd suggest and ask the ZBA to consider removing this given its subjectivity. The relative, the recalculation of the estimated travel, sorry. The recalculation of estimated volume of traffic does not address the challenges, but quite simply is a recalculation due to the change in building use that's being portrayed. With respect to just the traffic overall, I didn't find any evidence within the draft decision that mitigates the massive traffic impact the development as proposed will have on the neighborhood. It doesn't appear to have a contingency truly to address the traffic concerns without an alternate route to exit and enter the area. It really puts an undue burden specifically on Little John Street, but also into smaller neighborhood streets. So the only way I see possible to truly mitigate the neighborhood concern of this traffic is by eliminating the assisted living building, sorry, the senior housing and allowing the project to have the duplex only housing along Dorothy Road. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Aide. Good evening, yeah, pardon me. I can't speak, it's getting late. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. This is Nicholas Aide. I live at 152 Lake Street in the corner of Lake and Little Town. First of all, thank you very much for your continued support and your openness to hear residents' concerns. With reference to the draft decision that we're discussing tonight, I have two comments. So the first is start off as a guest item 55, that as others have mentioned, it's really item 55, 56, 57, and 48. It's that whole ensemble of things. So one thing is just please note that Lake Street is not the right benchmark at all. The right benchmark is really the traffic that originates from and returns to the neighborhood. As Mr. Dbiassi mentioned at the previous meeting, the Little John Dorothy intersection is perhaps the most relevant benchmark. That's literally where the complex would have its sole entrance and exit. It's a very sleepy location at the moment. And also please note that much of the traffic that if you did an actual study, any traffic you would have logged in any study would include a substantial amount of both cut through traffic off of Lake Street and Thorndike field traffic, especially in the evenings. Just last week, I was standing, talking to my neighbor next door, and I've watched many, many cars cutting through Mary Street, blowing through the