Good evening. I want to call to order the March 13, 2017, the Union of the Ireland to Redevelopment Board. We are here tonight for public hearing on a number of zone and bylaw amendments to be proposed before a town meeting. First up is Article 6, zone bylaw amendment for mixed use in business and industrial zones to see if the town will vote to amend the zone and bylaw, Article 6, Section 6, table of Conventional and Density Regulations for mixed use development by reducing or removing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit square foot requirement will take any action there, related there too. I will turn it over to Laura Wiener to present that. Thank you, Andrew. We now have about eight months of experience working with the mixed use bylaw that was passed at last year's town meeting to allow us to do mixed use in commercial corridors and we've had two projects come in front of the board with the possibility of a third time we've been talking to the proponent but it's not yet ready. And the feedback we've gotten from the developers of these two projects is that the dimensional regulations are pretty restrictive even with the slightest amount that we did in the past last year. One of the problems that has been identified is the lot area per dwelling unit. This requirement determines the number of units allowed on the lot and you cannot change it from what was allowed before in a residential property. The current requirements range between 600 to 2600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The effect of this is to create fewer larger units in each building. Eliminating this requirement would result in a variety of unit sizes rather than all larger units. Mixed use in commercial zones is particularly favorable for empty nesters and older residents because they're proximity to public transportation and services who don't necessarily need large units. It's important to note that removing this requirement would not allow taller or larger buildings but just more units within the building. A look at some other communities found that many have no requirement for lot area per dwelling unit. The communities I looked at that did not have that requirement were Watertown, Somerville, Brookline and Lexington. I recommend that we eliminate that requirement for mixed use in business zones to allow a mix of unit sizes within mixed use buildings. I'm generally supportive of this. I think this allows developers in mixed use areas to put a few more extra units in which allow for more affordable units. We don't need such large units. I think that is quite helpful. Having an increased density in these projects would give it a good mix. I think the market will determine what the exact size will be suitable so that people nowadays seem to be living smaller, living more efficiently. I think this is a good way of encouraging that. I would support this. I think you said you have had conversations with developers who have moved forward on projects that the servers removed. I think that the developers that have come through would have preferred to do more units, some small, some large, instead of having to do a larger large unit. So we could have in the end gotten more customers. Good. David. I'd just like to echo that I think we need more flexibility in the mixed use developments to provide more variety. Could the members speak so that the audience can hear you, please? Sure. Thank you. I use my big room voice. Your big room is very empty. I just wanted to reiterate what Kin said, and as Laura also mentioned that I think it's important to give developers in the mixed use setting more flexibility with unit sizes so that we can provide more housing in a situation where we've specifically intended for a greater density of housing with commercial in the same building. So I'm generally supportive of this. Andy. Is there any downside? Is it start to get to be a problem if the developments get so big that you get a lot of small units? Because I don't see any downside to this. I think the flexibility is right. Did you analyze a case where it would be a problem or not?  But I think so far all of the developments that have come in have wanted to do transportation demand management and reduce the total parking. Which I think that fits with the idea of having flexibility and also following the market. So I just would agree with Kin and David. And they've all been right on the bus lines, although the one on Summer Street is only one bus line as opposed to one that's unmasked. They have more, slightly better access. Dean. Nothing to add. I'll open up to members of the public for questions. Please raise your hand. I'll call on you one by one. Stand up. State your name and address for the record. Please address your questions to the board. I will have the appropriate person answer if necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to add a few questions and comments. Did you say that as to date, there have been no mixed use developments that have been prevented by the current bylaw in the lot area for dwellings? Well, not that we know of. And I guess what I'm wondering is if this is a desirable thing, why does it only apply to mixed use in not all residential developments? You know, we took kind of a go slow attitude about this because of the fact that we're recodifying the zoning bylaw. So we wanted to keep the changes to a minimum. I guess that's my next question. Why isn't this being considered as part of the larger zoning recodification? Why is it so necessary to do it as a separate ad hoc change this year? The zoning recodification is not going to change the substance of any bylaw. It's only changing the form. It's cleaning it up. There won't be any substantive changes to the zoning. But isn't that the next step after they clean it up? There will be more changes proposed. That hasn't been decided yet. I guess I'm wondering about the need for this, particularly for the higher numbered zoning districts. As I calculated, at 700 square foot, the growing unit you're at, over 62 units per acre, if we look at the larger residential developments in town, Brigham, Simpsite, they were much lower than that already. And I don't see any need to reduce it to zero when you have very large developments that are already well below the limit in the bylaw. In those cases, it doesn't seem to be controlling at all. The other concern I have about this, the B1 zoning district is single family and two family houses. The town has repeatedly rejected even adding an additional unit as an accessory apartment. And now what you're proposing to do is add an unlimited number of units, as long as it's called mixed use. And we put some businesses in it. That to me seems like a real end one around the intention of town meeting, especially repeatedly, for preserving those properties as one in two family houses without the intensity of use of, say, converting them basically to a looming house. That's what you're saying, is there's no limit on the number of units you can put in. So I would strongly object to that. I think this should be considered as part of the broader zoning repodification and beyond when you start looking at the recommendations and posture plan. And it shouldn't be limited to mixed use. My feeling is the town really got to get over this mixed use infatuation. It's just one tool in your toolbox. It's not everything. And you ought to be concerned with zoning bylaw more holistically. So I hope you can fill those comments and hold off on this. We're at least eliminated from the B-1 zoning. Thank you. Other questions, comments, concerns? Yes, ma'am. I don't have an average one in Lake Street. I just wanted to comment, say, I think that the relative aspect of this change will also possibly allow for a more diversified group of people living in the building. So if you have a one bedroom or a studio or a two bedroom, you're not going to get all same type of people, which could also just add to the fabric of our community. Thank you. With Article 6 throughout the evening, I will leave public comment period open. The board decided on our March 6th meeting to take votes on any articles heard this evening. Next week, we'll give the public additional time to apply and to chime in. All of our email addresses are available on the town website. I encourage you to access those comments if necessary to all of us at the staff. Thank you. I have another question. Laura, when you looked at the other neighboring communities to see what they've done with respect to this, did they remove the minimum lot area across all of their business districts or did they mix and match? I would say all of them except, I want to say Watertown, but let me look back at that, but they had no minimum lots as requirement. I don't know that they removed it. I think they never had it in the business district. But some of them didn't have it in any district. Lexington didn't have it anywhere. So I think it's a little bit more restrictive than many other communities. Thank you. Sir, I just want to clarify, but did they have limits on the number of units in a particular zoning district? Each one was different and complicated in its own way. So right in front of me, I have Watertown. Units per, there is no requirement. Yes, there is. Okay, I'm sorry. So in the two-family zone, there's a limit of 1,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and 1,000 in a slightly more dense housing district. But in all of the business districts, there is no lot area per dwelling unit requirement. But is there any other limit in some other way of number of units on a lot in those districts as well? That's not quite it. Well, you know, there's the usual minimum lot size and frontage and things like that, but not in Watertown. Thank you. Seeing no other questions on Article 6, close. That will move on to Article 7 during the Bioal Amendment for definitions. Artisanal fabrication to see if the town will go to amendment zoning bylaw Article 2 definitions for artisanal fabrication by increasing or removing the maximum square foot area requirement or take any action related there too. I'll turn that over to Laura Wiener. Okay. So this is, again, also a tweak of something that we created last year. We created a definition of artisanal fabrication, which is small, industrial use of hand tools et cetera, in self-contained areas. It included small breweries and commercial kitchens, which are two uses that are really on the rise and growing in our economy. I don't mean Ireland's economy in the Boston area. We put a limit in the definition of 5,000 square feet. In talking with our new economic development coordinator, Allie Carter, she looked at this and said, that's too small. And she did some research for me to help me sort of understand this better. But she said that a brewery needs more than 5,000 square feet. And a commercial kitchen might start at under 5,000 square feet, but if they do well and grow, then they would have to leave. And since it's a fairly large investment starting at the beginning of a startup, she felt that that would inhibit that kind of business coming to Arlington. And it is true that we have not had any artisanal fabrication businesses come in in the last year. It's only been a year, but still. So it was her suggestion that we eliminate that maximum size of 5,000 square feet and the staff concurred with her having looked at some similar businesses. So we were proposing removing the sentence that said, we're production, operation, storage, and materials related to production occupying no more than 5,000 square feet over the lower area from the definition. And this again, this allows businesses to grow if they decide to stay in Arlington and allow them to stay here and continue to do that. I'm in support of this article, sir. Ken. Is there a increase, maybe a maximum of something? Of some sort where, let's say a brewery or one of these kitchens come in, what are the maximums of it? I mean, is there, do we, do we eliminate it altogether and not having, let's say, 20,000 is the maximum of some of that. So that puts up all the things that can come in that we don't want? I think, you know, breweries can be, you know, any size. If you only want small breweries or commercial kitchens or any of these things, then we could limit it to 10,000. I think that would be within scope of this article if you prefer to do that. I think we thought, like, if we really wanted to track this kind of business and this is why we put a limit on it, but that might just have to be a problem. David. Do you know whether there have been any inquiries from prospective businesses that, you know, saw the limitation and decided not to pursue an opportunity here in Arlington up to this point? We did talk to one person who was representing someone who was interested in a brewery but it was pretty preliminary, so it's hard to know why it didn't go to the next step. You know, it's hard to find space. So yes and no. Andy. In favor of this, I think the small businesses and artisanal fabrication are good potential uses for the town and tax income and so forth. So I think it's a good idea not to limit and to go with the bill as proposed. Gene. I agree. I'll just add that I think the possibility of having business that employs people in town is a positive sign. And one of the other things that I've seen, these kind of artisanal uses create our community spaces. Natural, organic gathering spaces for them to get together with one another and get to know each other. They hold activities. They draw people in. They're really beneficial for the community. I don't want to put any kind of cap on that if possible. Questions from the public. Sorry. Thank you. I was wondering with this particular brewery, is it your interpretation of the bylaw that they could not locate in the industrial zone without a limit on the size? The limit is in the definition. Yeah, but the definition applies to artisanal manufacturing or production, right? But before you amended the bylaw to put that in, you could still conduct a lot of these same activities in town under the existing bylaw. At least I would argue that. For example, right now in the B4, in the industrial zoning district, there's something called light name factory. There's no limit on the size of those. And what I'm asking is, for example, in the example you gave for the brewery, why couldn't they just locate that in the industrial zone, assuming space was available? Or would the bylaw currently be interpreted not to allow that? I think because it's listed in this definition, I think that it would have to be interpreted as being in this category. I guess I'd like to echo one of the statements or questions of one of the board members about whether this is appropriate throughout the town. I think the key word here is artisanal. And when you get into larger facilities, for example, the Arlington Automatic Transmission in East Arlington, which everyone knows as the ISOR, that's been there for years, that building's over 3,000 square feet. Is it appropriate to have something more than 50% bigger in a B1 zoning district as a brewery? I'm not sure. Certainly in the industrial zone, it doesn't matter in some of the higher numbered business zones it's appropriate. For some of the smaller zones, I think there's a question there of whether you're really getting into artisanal production or whether you're getting more something akin to industrial production in a zone that was never zoned that way. And I think that's something I would ask the board to give some serious consideration. Just to point out, I'm looking at the zoning by-law. As it went in last year, currently, artisanal fabrication is my special permit across all zoning districts in town except for industrial ones, I write. There is some control over that before it's allowed to open in any business district. But once you take away the limitation, then you're getting into a battle with opponents about whether it's allowed or not. If you have the limitation there, you just dip a law on your side. And I think it'd be very difficult for the board to reject just based on the size if it otherwise might have all the requirements of its own by-law. Thank you. Other questions, comments, concerns? Other comments or questions from the board? Again, this public comment period will remain open until next week when we take our vote and have further deliberation on Article 7. We are a few minutes ahead of schedule, but I believe you tried to hold on to this. Article 8 are here. There's no objection. Article 8 is zoning by-law and regarding residential driveway and parking accommodation and zoning changes. Although this article is being introduced at the development board, the work behind this has actually come out of the residential study which was established following town meeting last year during town meeting last year as a result of the proposed zoning warrant articles that were ultimately put forth no action there. This group has met for several, several hundreds of hours. Oh, that's several months. Met more than a dozen times. It's comprised of a wide-ranging swath of experience and residents in town, members of the development community, members of the citizens group that put forward a number of articles last year. I'm a member and there are other members of the master planning committee, members of staff. And one of the things that I wanted to say in half set over the last several months is that these meetings have not always been easy to get through but they've always been cordial and everyone has really worked hard to get toward the same goal. One idea that was latched on to from the beginning, pulling from town meeting last year was the idea of changing driveway slopes. That was something that everyone in the room really got behind and started to put forward, realized there were some other different effects that could be had on zoning in town and residential construction. Tonight we have Manel Evans and Steve McKenna from the residential study group who I am going to turn the floor over to and let them present the one article. You can come up to the corner here. And again, introduce yourselves name and address both of you please. Steve, I had a chair for you but I disappeared. So, study group 242 replaced and I'm going to speak briefly about the history of this article and what some of the benefits might be and I'll pass it along to Steve. There was a lot of interest in a version of this article last year but I think it failed for several reasons. Can everybody hear me? I think it failed for several reasons last year. I think we failed to explain two things. One, that it was not retroactive, that it would only apply to reconstruction. I think a lot of people were afraid they were going to have to start excavating or filling their properties. It did not specify that it would only apply to downward slope. So I think a lot of people had a very hard time understanding what would happen with driveways that went upward. And it didn't really offer a lot of options to builders. So we came at it from a slightly different angle this year and really focused on the safety aspect of the downward sloping driveways. Currently Arlington has no regulations for the downward slope of the driveway at all. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation recommends 10 to 15 degree slope. Cambridge is at 7.2. Belmont's at 15. A lot of other communities in eastern Massachusetts fall in the 10 to 15 degree range. We have driveways in town, particularly in East Arlington that are at 28 degree slope approaching a 30 degree slope. So this is pretty significant. And it presents several safety issues when you are backing out of a driveway that's steep. You cannot see anybody on the street or on the sidewalk, particularly a small person. You're just seeing the sky. Several people have noted that people don't necessarily park in their garages. So they're parking at the top of the slope and thereby blocking the sidewalk. And in the wintertime, this is detouring people out into the street. So that is another safety issue. A grade greater than 15% can also cause damage to some cars. So there were a lot of factors there that we took into consideration. So we have come up with this recommendation that we impose a 15 degree limit, which is a little bit more generous than some surrounding communities, which will ameliorate these safety issues. We will also have some other benefits, which is that these very, very steep driveways, particularly for a two family, completely replace the front yard with an asphalt pit. So by regulating that grade, we are hoping to incentivize builders to consider some other options, which we'll talk about more, but return a little bit of the street life to these structures, which otherwise really do not allow for it. It will also start to control a lot of these buildings with the garage under for these steep driveways can sometimes have the appearance of a three and a half story building because the garage level looks like a story. So we're hoping that we will be able to start to control for that as well by again trying to shift people away from this. So that's kind of the background and rationale for this, and Steve will talk a little bit more about how this might actually work out. Thank you. I'd like to echo something that we said earlier at the previous meeting as well, and by Andrew, all of us that are part of the Visitor Study Group have not only spent countless hours and energy together, but we've created an opportunity to understand what the opposing sides were concerned about. And although we were in opposition on how to achieve the goal last year, one of the things that we recognized was that the safety was a paramount concern to everybody on all sides. And we looked at different ways on how to resolve the issue that would be beneficial to all parties, mainly to the residents of the town and to all of you butters. What we've done is we've not only had meetings and talked about it for countless hours, but we've been able to psych visits. And we've looked at all different types of construction that has been going on throughout the town for the last few years. And through that, we then determined that it was appropriate to put together a survey that we send out to people that have been affected and involved with a lot of the construction that has gone on over the past three years. This whole experience, I think for all of us in the board, has been enlightening. It's been an eye-opening experience, and it's been a factor that we can understand why some of the articles were imposed last year, but also understand why they weren't approved because of the way that we were drafted. And we're trying to get to that point. And what we're faced with and challenged with is it's a huge puzzle. We've resolved every single issue this town meeting or this year, but we're going to work on it and piece it together so that it makes sense for everybody in the community on all sides. To start with, one of the things that we did was we sent out a survey that we sent out. We started getting feedback, and it was interesting that with the feedback, the commonality for almost everybody was not a lot of the things that were mentioned in the town of Warnock in terms of the people we were grieving about. It was a fact that nobody was ever notified, and the communication was lacking. So that's something that we've addressed earlier, and that's part of trying to put together with this puzzle. And we've come up with a comprehensive construction agreement that we're hoping is going to get approved that controls situations where the developer has to inform the neighbors, the butters, within 200 feet of what's happening. And that's a critical element of what we're trying to propose in this article, because this is not the article. It's what we're doing now, what we're proposing in the future. And we're looking at the safety, the look of the town. We're looking at what's comfortable for the neighbors. We're looking at what's reasonable to develop and keep the industry growing and keep things happening here in the town. So with that, I'd just like to suggest and propose what we've suggested, and then we can answer any questions. The article, as Winnell said, we've come to the determination that we're going to change the grade to 15 degrees. And in order to do that, that puts a lot of onus on the developer. And the first thing is that it's going to require them to push the house back a little bit further from the street to allow that grade to be lower. And depending upon the lock configuration, the lock size, and dimensions, it will determine if the house is going to be going back three feet, five feet, six feet, whatever it may be. That, in part, because of the zoning bylaws, is going to have an effect on the overall size the developer is allowed to put there. It's going to increase their cost and limit their profit. So we think by making that restriction and putting that in there, it's going to force them to look at other issues. And it's important to note that the zoning bylaws, the way they have been drafted, allowed these garage onus to be built, because it mandated that two-car garage parking, two-car parking be required behind the front foundation wall of any new construction. And because of the zoning bylaws, developers had to do the garage under because if they did surface parking to allow for two-car parking per unit behind the front foundation wall, they would end up with more impervious area than was allowed in the zoning bylaws. So every reaction had a reaction. So we looked at that and determined how to address the situation appropriately. And we felt safety was paramount. So we did eliminate right away the idea of these steep driveways and trying to change the grade. So by doing so, we felt it was important to provide some incentives to the developers to not build the garage under and to create a more harmonious feel within the neighborhood within not only the zoning bylaws but within the appearance because people are concerned about the overall look of it. So what we've come up with are some incentives that would create let me get this back on an opportunity where first of all as I said the garage, two-car garage would be impacted by the grade change. What we would do in order to persuade the developers to construct the proper housing with something that would fit into the neighborhood is change the two-car garage parking behind the front foundation wall to one-car parking behind the front foundation wall. In reality, if you look at everything that's been built over the years and if you drive people's houses most people are not using the garages for car parking. They're using it for storage. And because the developers were required to do the garage under, these houses had no storage space because their basement was their garages. So therefore the cars were being put out into the driveways anyways. By eliminating the two-car garage under the developers are now building a full basement whereby that takes care of the storage. It then eliminates the concern for the steep driveway. The one-car parking situation they either have to put it behind the front foundation wall on the side or they put it like on several houses down on Park Street right in the first level of the living space. And those units have come out very attractive. That enables the developer to stay within the zoning bylaws to create a safer atmosphere and environment for everybody in the neighborhood and also from a streetscape standpoint it's much more attractive. The next thing is that by generating this situation with eliminating the garage under it allows the developer it almost puts the developer in a position that by eliminating it they have to build a smaller home. And that was a concern that came up last year as well. It's the overall scope and size of the homes. So we've looked at that and that's an opportunity again that benefits the town because it's something that we're looking for in the neighborhood. What we've talked about also is if there is going to be driveways to the side of a house there should be a buffer area. So we're suggesting a buffer area a vegetation area that will separate that from if you go through and I don't want to pick on Medford they have pavement along pavement along pavement, not attractive. So we felt as though that's something to generate and create a more harmonious feel within neighborhoods and creates a little bit more of an appeal. The other item that we're proposing is in order to generate the approval of all these developers and to create an opportunity where it's beneficial to all parties that if they agree to eliminate the garage owners they get the benefit of the one-car garage parking which we're talking about. Their cost savings is better. What we're talking about is then eliminating the 25 foot and the open space requirement we now have a 25 foot horizontal line that is required to be maintained and the graphs that you're looking at does not probably depict it as I noticed because it should be 25 feet in most cases it goes along the entire back lock line of open space. So we're suggesting that we go from 25 feet to 20 feet. Now this is an incentive to have the developer not fill the garage owners. It does not mean based upon the floor area ratio the gross floor area that the house is going to be bigger or an opportunity to then if they're putting a garage parking space in the main level area which is approximately 200 square feet they're gaining that 200 feet back to make that living space. So with that we've tried again to look at every action as a reaction. How do we benefit the community? How do we allow the developers to build more safer houses? How do we make sure the growth is proper? The appearance is right and we think that this is a good approach that works for the benefit of people in town. And again, when Elle and I were on opposite ends of how we wanted this to be achieved when we come to terms where we understand an entire group has what's better for the town? There has to be give and take and it's a puzzle and it's going to be a long process. But we think that this is something that these proposals at the beginning of some good work a good opportunity to make better growth and to make sure that people and within the neighborhoods are feeling that they are involved in understanding what's happening and the opportunity that we're providing with notification but also that we've heard the concerns last year and we're trying to address them each way as we go forward. Thank you. Just to clarify before I get to the rest of the board, several proposals that have come out of the residential study group in Steve thankfully touched on all of them. Tonight we're only discussing the driveway issue. There was also a slate of town by-law changes that went to the construction control group that spoke about. In front of Board of Select, tonight Closer Union and this is the board we're going to go for at town meeting. This board will hear more about that later on. We will not be taking the vote on it. It won't be done in a public hearing context. No, no, no, that's fine. It's good to emphasize how much work has come out of the residential study group. There's also Article 8 which we were discussing tonight. There's also an Article 1 for a special town meeting in a public hearing next week which regards the continuous open space requirement reducing that from 25 to 20 feet. If there are questions about that tonight, I will allow those to be asked but we'll get to that in time. Ken. Well, I want to commend you guys on all your hard work and the ability to actually look past your differences and work together. I think this was very encouraging how society can work together. I'm very supportive of what you've come up with. I think it's a fair compromise. Keep in mind the main focus on the safety aspect while still not deterring homeowners from expanding their property and actually being able to live in Arlington and continue to live in Arlington is a great talent. One thing that's a point that I'll be backing off of that is this bylaw amendment affects only new construction and large additions. It does not affect the existing homeowners who want to do just about anything to their own property so it's not a retroactive change. Anything further? No. David. I'm supportive of this and I'm also very pleased with the collaborative nature of the work that the residential study group did on this and the way in which it found a solution that was acceptable to some fairly divergent viewpoints. I remember last year the confusion over last year's attempt to address this issue and I think it's a clear solution. I do think it still has a number of moving parts only one of which we're talking about right now but I just want to emphasize that as this goes forward and if it is all presented to town meeting it will still be very important to make sure that it's very clearly presented to town meeting how all the different pieces fit together and interact with each other. And I agree with what David said and I'm in support of this. Gene. I think the safety aspect is very important. I spent some time this weekend trying to actually read the highway manuals or mass DOT or federal highway or anybody where I could find and I couldn't find it for downward sloping driveways. I'm hoping someone on this staff can actually send me some since I couldn't find it. It's probably there I ran out of time. What I did find however were many documents that talked about a 15 degree slope max going up for safety reasons not going down and that just sort of leads me to wonder that wasn't the intention of why you were doing things and I understand that but it sort of leads me to wonder if I could only find that safety issues with upward sloping driveways that we don't have that as part of the consideration. So I had a second point. I'll say briefly the upward sloping driveway does not have the same visibility limitations that the downward sloping driveway does you can see behind you and we also thought that given the topography of Arlington the steepness of some of the lots that that was really going to be difficult to enforce townwide it just kind of opened a whole different vista for this. I mean the 15% issue was something discovered by Elizabeth Pyle who's been an instrumental member of the group she's not here this evening unfortunately I think she will be next weekend in part. I read the material she sent us but I couldn't get from the material she sent us to an actual document. We can get that. And I think he had a response. Michael Bruterman of Alton Street the slope indication of 15% as a perspective design limit comes from the sightline question which if you are driving up over that slope is essentially the same as if you are trying to look in your rear view mirror and back out of an ascending driveway the sightline question is the same. Your sightline rises so fast above the horizon you can't see what's literally right underneath your bumper when you get to it whether it's going over the crest of a hill or coming up the slope of a driveway it's the sightline question as we were told here you do not see who or what's on the sidewalk you don't see what's over the crest of a hill so the 15 degree slope has become sort of a rule of thumb if not written into specific places as the limit to which we've got to look at designing it differently. Thank you sir. My second question relates to just saying the contiguous open space on the side of the house how necessary is that to your proposal and what would happen if that were not part of the whole plan? Just to be clear and I know you don't allow it for the answer for point of information the contiguous open space relates to article 1 for special town meeting. We did say. Yes. We feel again it was something that was heavily debated during all our meetings to understand why the reasoning was and we feel that it's important that again if you're taking away something you want to give something back and you're talking about the potential of eliminating 200 square feet of living space if you allow the developer now to put one car garage parking instead of two car garages in the living area you can imagine from a perspective of visualizing if you were to have a car garage for town houses side by side they can't be built because of the size of the lots lots are 60 feet wide so you can't have four car parking garages that would not look great so we're now proposing that with the one car parking going in they're losing 200 square feet basically a little more than that because a garage parking space is 20 feet deep usually about 10 feet wide so eliminating that after then we feel as if we wanted to give at least the bonus provision that we're giving the opportunity to lose that opportunity for living space let's take it back and one of the things that we noticed is that if many of the cases in front of the ZBA have been that they don't need the 25 foot setback requirement, the open space at one dimension a lot of times it's 20, 21, 22 feet so our feeling is that this would then make it easier for people to meet those requirements and it also is a benefit for the developers not to go forward with the garage owners and we think that's the critical part because the garage owners have been the biggest concern and we think this is a way to get the developers away from that and so by taking that opportunity away from them we're giving them an opportunity to create that space but again and Rick Velarelli can talk about it we don't believe it increases the overall size of the house at all based upon the GFA regulations it's also not changing the existing requirement for open space and it's not changing the existing requirement for various material that's a good point just to clarify it's not changing the overall open space requirement this is allowing flexibility it's a nice give back but it's also a way to allow all of this to work together so it's not the total open space it's a contiguous open space it's given a dimensional flexibility or does it affect setbacks so what we may see are different houses from what we've seen so far different designs that currently exist in town but it's taking away some of the more controversial design aspects that we heard coming out of town meeting last year and through the service process this fall before we get into public comment I know there are a number of members of the residential study group here this evening so Rick Valerelli in the back of the building department Jonathan Nyberg Janice Weaver everybody is there anyone else missing and every member of that group really deserves commendation thanks for the amount of hard work they've put in over the last several months sitting on a lot of these committees through my role here I think that's probably my favorite one to go to negative should be taken from that to the master plan implementation committee here but it's really been great to see this diverse group of people with varying interests get together and work and put forward some more articles that we can really be proud of we do have a lot of work still to do this is step one of many work setting our agenda or after town meeting that being said questions from the public Mr. Warden John Warden Jason Street I've got a couple questions about this the article here says 15% Mr. McCannis said 15 degrees Mr. Benson talked about 15% 15% of what I know I can understand 15 degrees and people know about this stuff and can do math not my thing I've explained it it's incomprehensible but I think we ought to pin that down 15 degrees is and I think we can figure that out it's 15% and I'll turn it over Osford Valley really stands for that John so 15% maximum slope to structures that are in this scenario the minimum distance at the house can be set back this is by the way this is taken from the furthest most front property line to the garage 15% is the distance the amount of drop from the front property line to the threshold of the garage that drop cannot exceed 15% so the scenario would be to make that happen and this is what's not happening today the house would have to be set back 26 and a half feet would a drop of 4 feet of unbalanced fill to maintain 15% it's still going to get 15% what is the 15% of the height of the house it's the rate of slope it means that a driveway 20 feet long could drop 3 feet correct it's illustrated there are some handouts in the back I know you have some of them it's illustrated take a drawing you can see I saw the pictures but I didn't know what you were measuring that's a 15% of the length of the driveway correct so we have some houses in East Islington for example set back 22 feet with a drop of 4 and a half feet we're at 26% that's the problem as long as that is clear we don't want anybody to be confused another problem I have with this is at the very end of the article cutting back to require a number of parking required parking places how many households even in this room have only one car for their families Steve O'Reilly the answer is the legal parking space is one car parking space behind the front foundation wall the setback for most of these houses is still 25 feet so you're still going to have a 25 foot driveway getting you to the front foundation wall for a garage or for the side you're at setback so you still have the ability to fit more cars okay so everybody parks the driveway anyway because it's Steve O'Reilly leading to a lot of parking space which is filled with junk we all have a lot of we all have a lot of I built a two-car garage I mean a two-story garage so I came by junk upstairs the but I think what is not clear is that the one the one required space must be behind the front wall and the other one can be in the front yard I guess but I think that's not clear when you say there's only one required parking space it doesn't take away the requirement for parking spaces to exist what it does is it says that one of those spaces single-family houses require two parking spaces one of those can now be behind the foundation wall one of those can be considered in the driveway it's not pushing cars on the street what it's doing is it's shifting I submit the language does not make it clear well that's unfortunately that's the warrant language I know the warrant language is the warrant language but when you get to the vote I would suggest someone stated earlier that clarity of the presentation is very important and I think a lot of people are going to look at this as I did and say oh you only need one car one parking space the select one are going to be inundated with parking on the street petitions which they don't like very much if you specify that basically the one required parking space behind the front wall but you still have to have two parking spaces so you can have the other one in the front yard what I'd like to do anyway but I think that ought to be made clear I think land on the same parking in the street thank you I just wanted to second that can you stand up I'm Hillary Graham and I just wanted to second that comment because I read it and went what one parking space that's not going to work so I just want to support that I think it needs to be clear or there's just going to be a lot of blowback as it sounded like happened maybe last year thank you we are also going to have graphic support of this beyond what you're seeing over there that will show how these various options might look so thanks Mr. Chairman I have a couple of questions before I make a few comments since the building inspector is here could we ask how many of these pit houses were constructed last year how many were single family and how many were two families of course mainly the two families that have the slope driveway to support the required for parking spaces 15 the past year 15 and 2016 the two families I believe were six so what I did is I took the number from the last three years and there was a total of 12 two families with this scenario only and I took the I hope I'm answering your question getting off track three years with this scenario with the slope driveway how many homes were constructed during that time total would you say I have information I have it with me if you give me a minute I can get it I think we had 14 in 2014 and then 16 in 2015 I have that information but that's the approximate number so we'll look at 15, 16, 17 houses a year I guess a couple of comments one I think the limitation on the slope is fine it should be an active and it should be an active by itself not supportive on the second thing a little unclear about the buffer the comment was made that this applies only to new houses where I live in East Charleston typically there is no buffer between the edge of the driveway and the lot explore if somebody wants to extend their driveway do they then have to put a buffer I don't believe so it only applies to construction newly constructed homes where do you get that idea the way this is the language I don't read that in this article 8 at all it doesn't say anything about new homes it's in the law newly constructed single-term family new plus or new family relics where in article 8 I'm looking at the proposed language change the amendments to the bylaw and I don't see anything about new homes but I don't see anything about newly constructed single-term family new plus or new family relics and then article 8 article 8 section 8 that's not part of the bylaw because I would argue the way this is written it applies to any house where you're putting in a driveway under there and garage under the existing home but the next in the driveway even for new homes it's not clear to me at all how that buffer applies if you look at other parts of the bylaw where it talks about buffers for parking it will define the width of the buffer and the height of the vegetation this doesn't say anything about that if a developer wants to put in a 6 inch buffer is that okay can I cut it? I don't know but my main concern is with this one parking space for dwelling units and even if this only applies to new development I think it doesn't appreciate the way the lots are laid out and the way construction actually occurs these pictures are great they're completely unrealistic because new developments will be built out to the side yard set paths they're going to be built out to 10 yard set paths I mean 10 foot set paths on either side because that's all the bylaw requires in East Arlington where you have two family homes as Rick said most of these kids under driveways are the two families that side yard driveway forms an essential area providing space and light to the home and to take that away you're going to have houses 15 feet apart because a lot of the existing set paths are not 10 feet for these old houses they're 5 or even less and you take that away and you've got these houses built right up next to each other I see that what's going to happen when you remove that requirement it's not just that you're removing excess parking it's that you are allowing bigger houses to be built and guarantee it and that's the way they're built and looking at these theoretical pictures I think it would be really useful to look at the plans for the houses that were actually built and see how they correspond to the set backs and how they relate to the houses next to them because I don't think this is keeping with the character of the neighborhood at all which is one of the specific desires and intensive of the master plan so I would it seems to me this provision for taking out the parking spaces by house should just be eliminated or if you are going to keep it in you make the requirement that where the space that is eliminated is eliminated that that be preserved as either landscape or usable open space and the future can be converted back to parking that need it while there are some houses in East Arlington but maybe there is only one car pre-dwelling unit that is definitely not the north anyone who lives in that part of the town so anyway I would urge you to drop that last section of this and go forward with the restriction on the slope of the contents Thank you for just responding to that Chris the the reality is so the zoning by-laws of parking space has to be 8.5 feet by 18 feet and the reality is that if the setback is less than 10 feet without a vegetated area then no one can open up their doors because in order to open up your door you need an additional 2.5 to 3 feet so if you have both people trying to get out passenger and driver talking about an extra 6 feet so quite honestly what we looked at is the one car parking and if they are going to do the garage in front and you have to have a vegetated area that the house is going to become smaller because it can't be the requirement to park the cars they'll be able to pull the car in but they'll be able to get out of the car and when you look at the reality setback that's what's going to happen the developers will be looking at it because the parking is 8.5 by 18 I don't have a problem making the houses smaller and again that's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood I don't want to get into the change for next week typical house that was built in Arlington 90 or 100 years ago because it was not built out to the setbacks particularly on one side and on the rear the way the new houses are being constructed we understand that but that's not what we're discussing anyway other questions? yes just one question the other challenge is that the neighborhood is in Arlington but we're also trying to come up with something that we can apply to all of Arlington so it makes it somewhat challenging you know you may have a specific situation East Arlington which will be totally different the morning sight and the heights etc so as a group we're trying to look at also the best fit that can apply to everybody thank you again please email us let us know last year 2016 we had a total of 14 single family homes and 5 two family homes new construction 2015 the year before that we had 27 total new homes of which 14 were two families the year before that 2014 we had 21 total with 5 being two families now based on what's happened this year on my desk we're going to have a strong year of new 2 and single family homes March and we're already looking at potentially 7 do any of the single family homes have these driveways down under or is it all two families? nothing comes to memory nothing comes to memory we're really talking about two families I think for any specifics I think I think for any specifics I ask you to have a conversation with Rick or Rick outside thank you and I'll leave public comment open until the vote takes place next week thank you for now we appreciate it article 9 medical marijuana treatment center buffer zone and I will reiterate this as we get into the public comment period this morning this proposal in regards only is only bylaw I will not tolerate any discussion of the special permit that was already granted I'm not interested in any discussion over whether it is or is not appropriate to have medical marijuana in town that's already been voted on and approved I want to ask everyone who's here tonight to please be respectful of that we are here to discuss a buffer zone and only a buffer zone with that I will ask the opponent Karen Tomasali to step forward please I didn't bring a lot of copies with me but I noticed there's a black and white copy of the map in the handout I have a color copy and I'll just pass it around because it's a little bit easier to read than the black and white copy in the map the pink and red is where presently medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed pink is what would be disallowed under this buffer zone and red would remain so it's in black and white in the handout so so the history behind this is kind of complicated so I'll just go through it so that everyone's on the same page I know that Airbnb people have heard it many times but just everyone in the room understands 2012 the state voters approved medical marijuana and the state laws stated that R&Ds or registered medical dispensary shall not be cited within a radius of 500 feet of a school, daycare center or any facility in which children commonly congregate with distance measured in a straight line to the nearest point in the building the definition of facility in which children commonly congregate and many aspects of the straight state law were quite vague and were the subject of debate for the next few years in 2014 town meeting approved restricting R&Ds to the B3 and B5 business zones that's red and pink on the map with the verbal understanding that the state buffer zone still applies in other words R&Ds can locate within B3 or B5 business zones as long as they are within or as they are 500 feet away from any facility in which children commonly congregate at the recommendation of town council Dugheim the town did not mention a buffer zone in the zoning art hall because the state's definition of a buffer zone was still under debate so we thought that would introduce problems to put anything specific in the long run however in August of 2016 the state ruled that if a town zoning rule do not explicitly mention a buffer zone then no buffer zone applies and there was quite a bit of consternation in the town as a result of that state ruling in October 2016 a lawyer for the marijuana industry Valeria Romano proposes a warrant for town meeting for a buffer zone that is much narrower than state law for example Romano's proposal would allow an R&D next door to a preschool and ambiguously but probably next door to private schools like Arlington Catholic High School he also defines the distance between buildings as the distance a person would walk on the sidewalk ARB and town meeting voted against Romano's proposal because it was too narrow at the meeting the ARB stated that the town needs to pass a new buffer zone in response to that in January of this year Jason Cofield and I Jason Beck here proposed a new buffer zone it was drafted after surveying buffer zones in many neighboring communities Burlington, Belmont, Canton Yarlwood, Westboro, other towns and we chose the language of Burlington because it seems the most precise and simplest so Burlington buffer zone defines places where children commonly congregate to include public libraries pediatrician offices, athletic fields such as dance schools and parks with playgrounds and athletic fields we had several meetings with the Board of Health to discuss the buffer zone and at their suggestion we agreed to revise the buffer zone so in the handouts you'll see the warrant as originally proposed with the Burlington language but also the revised buffer zone that came out of discussion with the Board of Health and the main reason for this revision was to make sure that there was still some place in town where a dispensary could be cited because we knew that we weren't allowed to exclude dispensaries entirely from the town the revised buffer zone defines places where children commonly congregate as athletic playing fields where organized permitted events occur licensed child care programs licensed residential care programs those are like youth programs and public and private schools with distance measured in a straight line to the nearest point of the facility the Board of Health and the Police Department have both given their support for the revised buffer zone and we also had a meeting last week with the AirB to receive your input although no suggestions were given during the course of the meeting but we talked for about 45 minutes in terms of what the buffer zone should include at this point I'd like to quote from some of the discussions that occurred during the October 17th 2016 hearing of the AirB at which the Romano buffer zone was discussed Council Heim said the B5 plus B3 zone was recommended in 2014 under the understanding that the state buffer applied this statement was seconded by Mr. Vanilla and Mr. Kair Council Heim stated having no buffer zone is a difficult place for Arlington several peoples reiterated that the goal here is to reinstate the state buffer zone applies this is what we have tried to do Mr. Watson asked if we reinstate the state buffer zone are there still areas open for RMDs in the B3 plus B5 zones yes we have shown that on our map Mr. Watson further asked we need to consider this more we need to include more types of facilities in the definition of places where children commonly congregate we have attempted to do this making sure that all places that we mentioned are consistent with the guidelines that have been issued by the state over the past four years regarding the states interpretation of places where children commonly congregate in short we have worked with the Board of Health of the Department to define a buffer zone that meets the needs of Arlington personally I wish we could use the language of the Burlington buffer zone I would like to be able to protect places like damp schools, pediatrician offices and public libraries but we recognize that compromises are necessary and we need this compromise in a town with a diverse population to make sure that it is the best place to live for all of its residents finally let me reiterate why a buffer zone is necessary in response to some questions that came up in last week's meeting there was question as to what is the intended or what kind of harm are we trying to prevent so the American Academy of Pediatrics published last month a detailed summary of studies documenting the harmful effects of marijuana on the developing brain of children and adolescents the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommends that people younger than age 24 not consume marijuana and that goes on for pages and pages in the report about all the ways of this harm to the brain of young people I will make all of these references available to you our Director of Health and Human Services described last week that a key concern is normalizing marijuana use so if you walk by a store every week that sells only marijuana you might start to think that it is a normal thing some people have asked how a store dedicated to the sale of marijuana is different from a CVS which sells prescription opiates the difference is that when a parent is walking their child by a CVS the child associates CVS with buying diapers, tampons, pencils and shampoo how does a parent explain to their children why young adults have looks of glee on their faces as they exit the marijuana dispensary unlike a common CVS which serves everyone in a small area a dedicated marijuana dispensary serves a small population all with a common interest brought in from a wide area other dangers that we are trying to prevent with this buffer zone there have been many news reports from Colorado which has been had legal marijuana for a few years now there have been reports of children ending up in the emergency room after accidentally ingesting marijuana edibles which are often packaged in a way that looks like handy or cookies Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana use among teens leading to discipline problems in schools along with driving under the influence accidents a ladder of which cannot be under made too small a deal of as we lost a member of my own family to such an accident our chief of police described last week that he is hearing anecdotal evidence of increased burglaries around the dispensaries for example thieves stealing from customers as they go in or out of the dispensary and I have a reference also to a study which also found increased risk of burglars around dispensaries our chief of police is concerned that children could be harmed if the theft occurs when children are present 168 residents of Arlington who have medical marijuana prescriptions I'm sure that many are good law-abiding people seeking relief from diseases but equally surely that description does not apply to all the customers who have come to an R&D the Boston Globe has already reported on physicians who give marijuana prescriptions to anybody who asks and then had their doctor's licenses revoked as a result this is not a zero sum game we can meet the medical needs of Arlington residents while also protecting our population of more than 6,000 children we are embarking on a great social experiment of drug legalization let us do it thoughtfully averting potential problems before they happen Questions from the board specifically about the buffer zone not about the appropriateness of marijuana not about how these cards are prescribed specifically about the effectiveness of the implementation of the buffer please Can I ask a couple questions and I'll stop here for now I also want to maybe ask a question to some of the board members here this article has to be introduced by us in order to get a a vote and also just to back up as a point of order we do have some revised language that will also have to be presented as a substitute motion okay I'm very much I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm kind of on the fence on this I was thinking that you know I don't want to be the one that sort of or be part of one that decides the town I think I'm kind of supportive of letting the town meeting decide is this appropriate or not and get a wider body of people that decide this article but if we don't support it then it never goes to town meeting is that true that's right I mean by us endorsing this then they say that we're supportive of this while they do the decision I'm kind of tossed right now and I don't know I'm just right now cat side you know they're good points and it's also other points and right now I just like kick it up town members decide if this is what they want or not I mean just as they decided to allow this or to allow I don't know it's a very tough choice they just want to see what the rest of the board members think that they feel stronger like they decide something like me or they feel like one way or the other I completely agree that I think this issue should be decided by town meeting I do feel that procedurally we are in a situation where we have to take a position and we would have to support it for this to go forward you know because the the previous proposal last year failed and I think to help us get some level of comfort or help us make a decision on this I think this is our opportunity to get more the public hearing the public hearing process because you know I would feel if there is significant public support expressed here you know perhaps the board would feel more comfortable letting this move forward to be voted on at town meeting you know if there was significant opposition expressed here then that might change the calculation of what the board thinks is the appropriate process at this point Eddie someone who mentioned the CVS and the liquor store and your answers and Chief Ryan's answers last week were not convincing kind of a look of glee coming out of the marijuana dispensary they're all fairly reactive I think that over time we hope that a marijuana dispensary medical marijuana dispensary is going to be looked at like a drug store the town voted overwhelmingly that this is a good use going forward there are a lot of fears Chief Ryan talked about well there's a resale right afterward like you might have if someone brought a six pack of beer out and sold to someone on the side all of those things are kind of part of what we deal with in a town and I think in the long term those things get settled out just like having a dry town which is now a liquor town so I don't really I don't think you were convincing I don't think Chief Ryan was convincing last week in really making a strong case however and I asked at the very end in a safer town under the conditions of the 500 foot buffer and he said yes so I find myself in a very similar situation as kid I think that it probably needs to go to the town to make that decision I don't feel that it's I think it's the wrong thing to go for however I feel there's enough pressure in the town for the opinions in the town and I think maybe it's time to hear them vote on it so that's I find myself in a similar condition to you I think that's a good point I tend to agree with you I think some of the things that have been brought up as why we should support this don't actually support the idea of a buffer zone children being exposed to it outside of 500 foot buffer zone finding it in their homes this doesn't do anything to protect that of a buffer zone to begin with I don't know that it's effective beyond any other point than the normalization aspect of things but I know that from testimony that we received back in the ball this is a dispenser this is akin to a pharmacy this is not a recreational site this is not a place where people can use these goods on premise they do have to go to go back to their home to use this and again the buffer zone doesn't stop any of those things from happening I think we look at control of the facility itself we look at police practices we look at education how families behave how we raise our own children I think those are paramount here and extremely important we're still far beyond drawing an arbitrary circle around an area and saying you can't put it here because of this I don't think it's there that being said there's been enough discussion over this the last several years that I think it probably is appropriate to put it in front of town meeting with the caveat that there is some descent on the board as to whether it's the appropriate way to go and I don't know how to phrase that or to town meeting we're sliding this over to you because we think you can handle the decision we don't feel it's one that we can necessarily make so we don't necessarily endorse the article but we feel that it's appropriate for town meeting to opine and vote on it I think that's warranted because we we approve the current medical marijuana facility based on the no buffer zone so it's not true thinking there was a buffer zone well I object to that language but if you go back and listen to the recording of your own meeting every person up here with the exception of yourself said quite clearly we voted for B3 plus B flat with the understanding that the buffer zone still applies nobody wanted a medical marijuana dispensary next to Casa Esme or next to great expectations or any of the other preschools that are right on my side I'd have to check that go ahead and check because I listened to it and it was very clear from everybody I don't think it was a trick I think it was us saying that we as a town the police, the health department and all of the committees can make this decision in a more rational way than what I call a kind of blunt instrument of okay just draw a big circle around it the reason being is that I understood that chief Ryan said look I want to be able to know where this thing is being in the center of town or a place that we patrol is better than putting it out on Dudley street or somewhere up by the reservoir wherever it ends up because it's more natural it's like where you have a CVS next to a high school is that a big danger to children you have liquor stores that are very close to other facilities is that a big danger I think you have to start living with that if I could address this let's not do something worse just because we've done something bad in the past I just feel you need to find a solution you need to go back and listen to your own meeting from October 17th of 2016 because council Hime laid out the issue very clearly and he specifically said the only reason why a buffer zone was not included in the B3 plus B5 zoning rule was because state definition of a buffer zone was so ambiguous that he didn't want to put in a specific language when there was ambiguity going on and state memos going back and forth changing the definition of a buffer zone my recollection of that was that the state's position was still unknown I believe the state's position is still unknown so council Hime sounded very very disappointed that the state ruled that the buffer zone didn't apply I don't want to refer anymore to council Hime about him being here I'm quoting from that meeting from what was said by everyone who puts up here right now sorry there was general you were the only voice in that meeting that heard differently that the B3 plus B5 was intended to have a buffer zone next with it nobody wanted an R&D next to one of the many preschools that are located right on MassApp Jean I should say for the record this is my second meeting on the board and everyone else at the meeting last week where you came chief Ryan came everybody to me made a very compelling case that we want to keep marijuana away from young kids I think that's a very compelling case however nobody made a compelling case to me that these buffer zones were the way to do it when we're talking about a medical facility that might be in an office building that's not out selling things on the street so that was my problem when I left the meeting last week and I just want to hear what people hear tonight have to say about that and what they're feeling is about it because I think a lot of people have spent more time thinking about pasting my recent introduction to the issue so I'll start taking questions please raise your hand I'll call on you to stand up statement name and address please keep your comments your concerns and your questions specific to the idea of the questions being asked here is a buffer zone appropriate why should it be there opinions about the use of medical marijuana opinions about medical marijuana are not appropriate opinions about the water street facility and any of the conditions of their approval tonight I realize this is a controversial article an amendment and I want to keep the discussion respectful and on the point so ma'am so I'm Hillary Graham from Cambridge Road and I just wanted to take issue with drawing a parallel between a CVS and a medical marijuana dispensary because a CVS sells many different kinds of products and the prescription opiates are not visible as an aspect I mean yes they prescribe there but I think it might feel different if we had a prescription opiate dispensary as an independent facility I will say just to comment a little bit we don't have one in town but there are other towns that have specific pharmacies there's a Walgreens in the town of my office that is only a pharmacy that sells almost nothing else these do exist they don't have an attack on them but it sells Walgreens they sell primarily no they sell the pharmacy but it's essentially a prescription counter okay so anyway I don't think it's a legitimate comparison to call the CVS the same thing and my second point is just that you know if there's citing the marijuana dispensaries sort of in the center of town next to the library there's no choice about whether children see it and it becomes a regular part of the routine citing it outside of a buffer zone I don't think inhibits any access to anybody who has their prescription to fill so it seems to me that it's not denying anybody access who needs it it's not denying the town medical marijuana facilities it's just allowing people not to have to have it part of their everyday life with small children who go to the library who go to the preschool you know that's my opinion I don't understand how it hurts the medical marijuana dispensary to be in a certain place because people are specifically going there whereas people who don't want to go there might not want to have to just to counter that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you people go to the doctor's office you don't tend to notice them going in and out people go to the subway you don't notice them going in and out of the library if you're that far away still not sold on the buffer zone we'll get there my office is here 27 Maple Street and as you may recall as you mentioned before director of health and human services as well as chief rongiorno chief rongiorno there is a chief rongiorno so my apologies both of them as you had already stated were here last week and were here in representation to show you their support of the buffer zone basically on behalf of the health department board of health as well as the art of community health and safety coalition here to show you our support again tonight and just to reiterate that what we're looking for is really just as you all said it we're not looking for your board to make a decision on whether or not the buffer zone should be in place or not in place we think that it should be in place but we're asking nearly that the original intention when 3 and B5 were chosen as places for these medical marijuana censories to be zoned the understanding at town meeting was that there was also going to be a buffer zone and so what we're just looking for and what we're just like you to understand is the importance of what was originally put forward unfortunately the state had rescinded their their information in regards to the zoning and so because they were zoned with the D3 and D5 said that a buffer zone was not applicable that was not the case when this went to town meeting people that voted at town meeting were under the impression that there was going to be a zoning buffer zone so you know again I just want to reiterate that I also have been here tonight the director of the health youth and the safety coalition I will plant as well as one of our coalition members who's a concerned parent, a coalition member and is very active in the community his name is John Chef and I'd just like to make sure that he gets an opportunity to speak with you because he has some really valuable information on this topic and so I'm happy to sit down now but if I could turn it over to John or if you'd like him to wait until later on I'll have him wait and thank you so much for hearing us go ahead I just wanted to ask can we just make a clear sort of what the procedural status of the currently proposed dispensary is with respect to this possible zoning change because I think there's I'm hearing some potential confusion about about what possible effect changing this buffer zone now might have on the currently proposed dispensary on Water Street Jennifer Rape, Director of Planning and Community Development my understanding from Dunn Time is that the Town Council is that there is no impact to the currently proposed and almost completely permitted recreational I'm sorry I was bad to say the RMT the Medical Marijuana Treatment Center at 11 Water Street my apologies is there would be no impact to that facility so that is a follow up from last meeting and that was his reading of how the school would not impact that facility and I would just say that we received and it's not provided to you as a letter but we received a letter from the attorney who I believe I believe they're here who had some comment and feedback to also share we'll get to that in the back, sir I think it was Jason with 94 Robins Road I think the board's really hit on the issue that you are really facing I think you have to distinguish between the merits of the buffer zone which I think is more appropriate for Town Meeting to line on and I'll get to that in the second and the procedural aspects that you're facing I was a town meeting member in 2014 I voted on this B3 and B5 and if you go back and want to take from that debating itself it's on ATCMI it's clear that the focus of the debate at Town Meeting was on the applicability of the buffer zone the state buffer zone to these two zoning districts and the fact that essentially the rug was pulled out from Town Meeting by the state because the state can really get that together and understand how the buffer zone applied to towns that didn't explicitly pass it now we're put into a position where we have to explicitly pass it and I think all we're asking you to do tonight is give Town Meeting that chance don't substitute your judgment of five individuals for Town Meeting that's democratically elected that had opined on this in the past they should be given a chance to at least correct that mistake that the state has forced them to be in and not have to wait another two years in order to try to pass this and so I respectfully ask you to pass this with the understanding that Town Meeting is going to be the ones that decide on having to see these buffer zones whether they want them or not and really you're just allowing Town Meeting that chance because they were denied that chance two years ago under the understanding that it was implicitly put into the zoning districts now and we just need to have at least to have a chance to correct that the state I urge you whatever you decide to if you decide no action make an explanation apply it greatly helps Town Meeting understand what's going on if it's written down and not just spoken and if you decide to do something please explain that also Thanks for hearing me my name is John Chef I live at 70 Ridgefield Road but more importantly for your information I've been before the Supreme Judicial Court twice on medical and also on the legalization of marijuana set some real familiarity with the law and regulations and I just want to make three quick points to you the first is however you zone for medical marijuana you are also zoning for recreational marijuana and that's critical for you to understand because in question 4 if you look in chapter 94G section 3A what it says is you may not zone medical marijuana differently than recreational the other thing that question 4 does medical marijuana dispensaries to automatically transition into recreational sales at the same location where they're providing medical services and so when you talk about zoning you're not only talking about the medical marijuana program you're also talking very soon July 2018 at the latest you're talking about people coming into that medical marijuana dispensary and purchasing recreational products you're also looking at new rules that are going to allow them to market have different signage they'll be under a different agency so that's critical now the other thing I think it's important to know is that however you zone medical marijuana there is no business disadvantage and I thought you made a nice point about that what the regulations say is if you are a medical marijuana patient and you have a card you can go into a dispensary there's marijuana for your medical needs it's not a business that needs to be marketed it's not a business that needs a store front in order to go there you have to have a card so it's not as if you're citing a location where you're disadvantaging them by not allowing them to visit well we're not talking about citing a location well that's what I'm saying so I do want to get away from that and I understand where you're going with this well I want to be sure you do because my point is this site this particular business does not make a difference to it from an economic model because the only people that are not supposed to go there already have a medical marijuana card so why would they want to be in a more visible location because there is going to be an automatic transition under the law to recreational and that's the thing I think this committee has to be very very aware of the other thing that's important to note is you're right the buffer zone isn't perfect but one of the things we've seen I can send you if you want a white paper that was done in California is there's tremendous collateral problems with medical marijuana dispensaries think about it it's a business that's not allowed to use federal banks so many of these dispensaries are cash businesses if you're interested in robbing somebody think about it you've got people entering with cash you've got people living with expensive marijuana and marijuana products the other thing is we found with these dispensary locations that you have significant loitering around them you have use the other thing is we're not talking about Arlington residents this is going to be a regional draw for people who have a medical marijuana card so you're looking at other issues you're looking at young people in those buffer zones coming by congregating you know one of the things we found in Denver, Colorado after there was medical marijuana in that state 75% of first time users ended up getting diverted medical marijuana so there are significant risks also the process you have to understand these dispensaries create a number of concentrates which they're allowed to do under their licensing to create the concentrates they do manufacturing processes with bupain and protein that's what we're discussing tonight I do appreciate it well I don't know if it's far outside but what we're discussing but there are things that happen when you license these businesses there is a detailed, significant licensing process that is completely separate from whether we should recommend a boat on a buffer zone but why would you want those activities taking place within 500 feet in places where kids congregate that's what I'm pointing out it's not just what happens inside the dispensary there are things that happen outside that create collateral difficulties for public safety bad driving, those kinds of things so I just put that out to you however you zone this that's where recreational marijuana is going to be and even if recreational isn't there you're going to have collateral problems you're going to affect kids in that zone thank you yes ma'am I'm glad that that point was made because I'm not sure if it's going to be out of order but I think that understanding where medical facilities are now will be where recreational facilities are then is important actually it's one of these connected decisions not unlike the driveway one even though we can only talk about the one piece for very, very good reasons so I wanted to note to this question I think if it's not clear yet what the medical health or safety issues are from the perspectives of those experts it might be time to talk to them again I just feel like in these conversations both about medical and recreational there's been less investment than there should be in the public health professionals and the police professionals and the teaching professionals that actually end up working with the issues that are created when these things happen especially us do that a little bit differently what the state has done in some of these proceedings so I think you can imagine what might happen in front of these spaces but we're imagining partly because it's new and so I think my question is why would we want to experiment with new in such a vulnerable space so it might be that there's congregation that there should be sale at the site that there's consumption at the site I work in Harvard Square and since we got legal you know in certain spaces certain spaces become a hub of activity and you don't know, we just can't prove it because we've never done it before so I just wonder why we want to do it for the first time next to preschools and high schools when there are other spaces available and the people getting into these businesses know they're moving into a complex regulated space so they're ready to take on some complex regulation challenges and there are other places to go so I just wonder why with something so unknown we start in the most vulnerable spaces and I also think voter intent is hard to parse I know lots of people who read things super carefully that either of the two ballot initiatives as closely as they might might even include some of us I read a lot of it, I read some passages nobody had seen before that surprised them so I think voter intent is hard to parse but I think we can know voters at least at the state level both times voted for provisions that included buffer zones so I think to assume that they didn't want that would be a little bit presumptuous on our part not to carry it to them at least give them an opportunity to clarify that so the last thing is more of a question I noticed that this conversation feels different than the last three and in the last three we had a lot of conversation about benchmarks other towns and how they're moving forward with these things and about property values and some things that are even perception like landscapes of ten feet of five feet between houses and I think it's important to think about five years from now the story will tell about our lieutenant about property values will it be a story of why we were the only town for miles not to just institute the same buffer zone that was in default at the state level because we had a procedural glitch that accidentally disallowed the town meeting from making the same decision it thought it made two years ago so I actually it's a genuine question I see you all wrestling with this hard and I think it must be about some rights and some values of people in that community and I think that's real so I would just actually love to know why this feels different and if there's something we could do to address that so that all of those are like some of the other conversations where benchmarking property values is part of the conversation thank you other questions I have a room in 9 Alton street I can tell you the town meeting thought it knew and thought it didn't know certain things about the discussion town meeting thought it knew that the buffer zone would exist because this was something that we were inheriting from state law town meeting did not know what the black and white definition of areas that primarily serve children or where children commonly congregate would be but having the uncertainty of not having the list of the definition of those places town meeting felt more comfortable voting for the B3 and the B5 allowance for marijuana dispensaries with the understanding or the presumption that there were going to be 500 foot buffer zones which came along through the state members of the board here who were seated during the discussions from last fall remember the consternation in the hearings when we learned that the buffer zone provision either had never existed or was not going to be enforced but the state was pulling back at least and that there was no buffer zone and there was no concrete black and white list of areas where children commonly congregate put the two of those together and there has been a lot of displeasure and unease and sentiment against the whole process by which marijuana dispensaries were first voted in the town town meeting would like some clear definitions town meeting thought the definitions were going to include 500 foot buffer zones town meeting is asking you for some clear definitions you don't want to vote on it you can abstain you can have a one to nothing vote with four abstentions or a zero zero vote and you simply return it to town meeting without a recommendation parliamentary procedure would allow that you don't have to say yes or no but town meeting wants some clear answers so we can then vote yes or no thank you I'd like to speak on this will the water street proponents be speaking since you mentioned you had some correspondence from them it's too late to make it into this meeting we'll be discussed at the next meeting if they'd like to speak they're more than welcome to I don't have the chance to read it in full just a clarification are you going to continue public comment into the next meeting on this article I intend to this one only on all articles I've said that I will leave public comment open until the vote okay thank you I didn't understand so should I speak then or were you offering them the option why don't you go ahead and speak I see this issue really as a matter of truth and advertising by the board a number of people have spoken about the understanding at town meeting of the B3 and B5 zoning districts were approved for medical matter wanted to spend to you that understanding came directly from your board if you go back and look at the presentation that was made by the chair at the time he had the description of the buffer zone on one of the slides he said that it would be part of the review as well and he said that town gets the benefit of having a state buffer zone and so it was clearly part of your board sales pitch to town meeting it wasn't just something town meeting members developed an understanding of on their own or from other people it was from the redevelopment now certainly if the board and at that time the board could have said we don't want buffers up we're not going to have them I'm referring to this goes back a couple years ago when the B3 and the B5 which year I think it was 2014 but it was the annual town meeting when you zone those those two zoning districts districts that allow medical marijuana facilities if your board didn't want buffer zones you could have put that into to the bylaw that you passed at that time you didn't do that you could have changed the bylaw at any time after that to remove the buffer zone that the state had or put in a different buffer zone if you wanted to that didn't happen it seems to me you shouldn't be relying on the state flip-flopping on its own interpretation of its own regulation to change what you know what the town was regulating and if indeed you were putting that forward at that time it seems to me you should be doing it again just to reinstate what people voted on at that time at town meeting otherwise you should be explicit you should have explicitly put in an article to remove any buffer zone on the town that didn't happen so I appreciate the proponents taking the initiative to do this I think it's something frankly the town should have done as soon as they learned that the state had changed its interpretation which was the basis of the bylaw zoning bylaw passed in the first place thank you I am hearing that maybe all of you are struggling with this issue and I guess I just for my own I don't feel that educated about it so the argument against having a buffer zone because that I don't feel clear about and clearly all of you have real questions about that so if you wouldn't mind explaining that that would be very helpful it's important to take up that answer I really see it and I tried to learn the last group why it's different from a pharmacy going forward into the future this is something that could be a great value to sick people it's not a pot shop this pointless thrown around so it could sound okay it's a legalized marijuana condition it's a pot shop it really isn't it's a medical marijuana dispensary the point was made that there's collateral people are going to be around there there's going to be more there's going to be more activity I'm not even sure that the buffer zone is a good idea in that case don't you want that to be where the police can take care of it it's in an active part of town where there are others in stores other restaurants with liquor licenses liquor stores drug stores whatever we kind of live in a big you know it's a varied world it's not just I can control this and I can control that I don't want my child walking by and seeing someone go into a marijuana clinic I'm not sure that I actually don't want the child actually going by and saying dad mom what's that oh that's a drug store that's a liquor store really are we going to get to the point where we're saying we're hiding it somehow or by putting it off in a certain place so I don't see it going forward as really that different as any different from a medical facility in the short term I understand your point and I really take to heart what Chief Ryan said and the group that's why I'm inclined the point being made by the group that there's a collateral problem it causes crime because there's potentially cash there this is all ignoring potentially what has actually been said about the way the thing functions but I'll accept what what Chief Ryan is saying and others but I don't essentially believe that it's a that the buffer zone is creating a safer or better or long term better situation than allowing the town to place it where they want it including the input from the Board of Health Police Department and others so that's my opinion about it I haven't really been convinced other than you know arguments that don't seem to really add up so accept that I feel that very strongly and I hear your angst everybody's worried about seeing it or what could happen got high and drove away which by any by the way they can do anywhere in the town they want to go drive high and drive away so I'm more inclined to let this go to town meeting to make have the up broader group make the decision but I personally if you ask me what you did don't believe any of it adds up to a buffer zone I don't see a lot would you put an RMD next to Casa Esmen Casa Esmen it's a preschool that is on Mass Ave you would cite it right next to it right next to it just to be clear an RMD is a registered medical dispensary the more technical term should be Medical Marijuana Treatment Center of Treatment Facility I think using the letter R creates confusion with the idea that it might be recreational okay sorry so right now in our town we could put a Medical Marijuana Dispensary could apply to be right next to a preschool we have lots of preschools that are in this B3 B5 it's only a district you could put it right next to it right I'll tell you I am supportive of implementing the buffer zone and you know I think we have heard the point of view of the Board of Health and the Police Department and certainly a number of concerned citizens and I understand the point since I was on town meeting in 2014 I I understand the point that in a sense we're trying to get back to where we thought we were you know and I frankly I don't know I don't know if buffer zones are effective but you know I don't know if I'd be comfortable putting you know a dispensary right next to a preschool is the dispensary going to be under the purview of a special permit the Board of Health okay so the Board would have the ability and the State to make those kinds of determinations that you know you don't want it really the Board has the ability to limit to a facility the Board of Health does the special permit allows for appropriate use and an allowance for what would so that the Board can deny a permit if the facility is not properly located I think I don't know how that would play out the process for a site of medical marijuana treatment facility extremely complex and I remember this from testimony I know the lawyers for the group are here so if you want to chime in at some point it isn't just by a special permit open up shop where you want to site one of these they go through the Board of Select they work with the Police Department and Chief Ryan specifically to site a location where they feel is an appropriate spot for not only for the business natural effects and act so that they have eyes and ears on things and building buffer zones pushes any kind of not just marijuana facilities not just medical marijuana facilities any kind of controversial site putting buffer zones in sort of pushes these out to the edges what you want in such like this is for the Police to be able to see what's going on you want neighbors to be concerned and see what's going on and participate here and observe the things that are going on and keep these businesses honest and on the upright would I site a medical marijuana dispensary next to a preschool I don't know I wouldn't deny it out of hand and I have a lot of questions to ask there are a lot more that goes into a decision just signed with Medical I would hope that by the time it comes in front of us I would be cited in a less difficult location I think the water street location is appropriate that's why we voted yes on that the collateral issues are certainly something to be concerned about again if you keep these locations in open and obvious areas then enforcement becomes that much easier pushing problems away becomes that much easier because you have invested neighbors keeping an eye out on the police I think it's important to say though that the water street facility in our view met the criteria that we could consider at that time that's right we were constrained by the facts as they existed at that time when that was brought before us the chief police Ryan made a statement last week that his ability to enforce the marijuana laws are quite difficult you may recall that part of his his comments last week that all he can do is ask someone for their name and address and if they lie he has no ability he has no records that's not within our purview that's up to but my point is you're all acting as if police are going to be able to ensure that there's no crime in this area and the police chief came to you and said I cannot ensure that well no you're mischaracterizing that question was regarding specifically use of marijuana we're talking about robbery and loitering other crimes that go beyond that which is not a crime it's a civil penalty had our hand up for a while just a very brief statement on this I noticed some of the remarks have been as regards whether or not a parent would be reluctant to have such a facility without the buffer zone and I have to point out that is one in which unescorted children of quite young ages are first allowed out on their own from the house school to the library and it's a very dangerous area for children if there's a buffer zone and I speak as a former member of the school community and and the present time meeting member and one who had this before me and during the time meeting I really thought that that most certainly would be a buffer zone because those children in China are among the most vulnerable because they are often there without a parent the answer was a question earlier what our reasons are what we see here I posed a question earlier and I couldn't I'm on offense here and what I'm trying to say from my opinion what I've heard today and last week most of the reasonings for having a buffer zone I'll say I disagree with okay and the only compelling reason that I would agree with right now is town meeting members had originally voted to approve this with understanding of the buffer zone so I'm sort of leaning more toward letting them decide again to react to this buffer zone which they thought they passed the first time with the buffer zone that's the only compelling reason I have right now so far that I've heard from my opinion when you're asking me what our thoughts are and what we have in the community I don't see how some of these correlations work right now but that's okay because everybody is allowed to have their own opinions and that's why I'm saying well the strongest opinion I see right now is town meeting made a vote based off of certain understanding and if the understanding is different let's give them a lot of chance to decide and it's a broader range of people and I think I think you're sort of echoing something similar right here I don't know you asked for what we feel and I'm just telling you from the hardwood I feel right now it's ma'am I have a question I had earlier too I wanted to pose procedurally and opinion wise how we think about the fact that we have been written that the recreational facilities cannot be denied anywhere with the domestic facility so we are making a dual decision as a community and I know I think there's a procedural piece here about trying to stay narrow but it seems very hard to consider because it does feel quite different the exposure or the potential unsupervised interaction with a clinic absolutely to me than it does to a storefront with displayed wares and so I know that only one decision is happening but they are both happening simultaneously it feels important for the town to understand that too so how do we deal with that well it's twofold it is the great on illness to how we deal with that and that's something to certainly consider I will also say that at a special town meeting and it will be heard at our public hearing next week is an idea for a temporary delay on any residential facilities to be sited in town recreational facilities recreational facilities to be sited in town to answer some of those questions and how we deal with it with the existing framework I'm confused because if that's true that a medical facility can become a recreational facility is that true? I'm going to let the attorney for that fine good evening everyone as a chairman of the member's report attorney for a massive station foundation and we'll regionalize it to the town of Water Street I'm just going to speak as an attorney just because something is very familiar with the law it's the society of marijuana dispensaries throughout the state is working, going to be working with the committee the bipartisan committee is going to be reevaluating questions for making changes to it so I can encourage anyone that has any concerns about local issues or anything state representatives or senators but with respect to this automatic flip I just have to disagree with the attorney's chef here it's just not the case, it wasn't the intent of the law the community do have the ability to ban recreational dispensaries right now it's through a democratic voting process and that will eviscerate any potential automatic shift which doesn't exist there's still time, place and manner restrictions in question 4 there's also the ability to have your own setbacks if you want to in addition so there's a lot of local control and that was a purpose of a lot which is not true I'm happy to agree with the board on that with respect to, I know I don't want to go outside the scope too much but I just want to, I think we need to people have concerns about that I'm happy to provide any documentation the people will be able to decide whether or not they want recreational marijuana in their community and then there can be outright ban for one community that has already banned outright so I just wanted to clarify that from my perspective as an attorney has a lot of experience in this area now with respect to MPF we came here tonight because we wanted to be a Massachusetts Foundation sorry we came here tonight because we wanted to continue to be engaged with the community and obviously be available to answer any concerns that people have if I left don't impact us we had provided some comments and I wasn't actually going to speak because not as applicable now that there's been kind of a modification but one of the concerns that we had with the initial proposal just MPF was that it would we're going to be moving forward at the Ten of Water Street and we know we're fully aware we've heard from people that are particularly happy that we're there we were open to and still are open to discussing and engaging the community and engaging the town to the potential of moving if that was appropriate we think we're going to be we know we're going to be fully compliant we're going to work with health we're going to work with the community work with the police chief and make sure that we have no problems in the community but to the extent that there were still a will and a want that people had the Massachusetts Foundation would be able to move out to site anywhere else because of the overly restrictive nature of setbacks and without getting too much into the history of setbacks the state and I agree with you has created a lot of confusion on this issue we actually came into Arlington under and I don't want to re-hash everything here but we believe that we were within the children commonly congregate 500 setback rule it is a long complicated process where it starts with us sitting down with the select men and presenting so I don't necessarily need to go into that but there was a lot of confusion and the trend is that communities are moving away from strict setback rules into a more nuanced approach that's what we had kind of wanted to at least just speaking of what places like Cambridge and Newton have done which is they may have a setback in place but they'll also allow a board like the Arlington Development Board to make exceptions in cases where the applicant can show sufficient buffering in place such as the use of the protected use will not be adversely affected by the Medica Marijuana Treatment Center which is commonly referred to as a registered marijuana dispensary and this is something that we had proposed we're going to go with a more strict version of proposed this along with showing that the registered marijuana dispensary was fully compliant in order to try to make a transition to a new location because we wanted the ability to do it to accommodate residents so that was kind of the limited nature of our comments we would defer obviously to the voters the will of the Arlington voters we don't want to impart we don't want to impose our opinion it's not a really out place it's up to the residents of Arlington so with that I'm happy to be available either now to take questions or anyone else talk to me after I'm here for questions I do want to get toward wrapping this discussion up because we're now getting outside of our a lot of time we still do have another warrant article to discuss and again I will take further public comment at our hearing next week before we vote can you let me finish please I will take written comment to the entire board from people that won't be available very quickly Attorney Fine is writing that the process is complex but what is not complex is question 4 is clear you may not zone medical differently than recreationally and the only way to prevent medical from transitioning to recreational is a special election of the voters so your decision on this will absolutely affect recreational marijuana and so when you do decide the buffer zone you are deciding in many ways whether there will be a pot shop next to a local preschool so that's something I'd like to have our attorney, the town's attorney weigh in on in writing this week that's something that I do not can send you the language so it's directly tied in so those okay that's not what I understood in earlier discussion that's important thank you well I would just say that does feel like an important point because your argument is based really on the argument that it's a medical dispensary correct so if it's is your argument the same for recreational dispensary no so then I would just want the town we'll discuss that further after we've heard from town council I don't think anybody can give a complete answer on that no but I just want to make the point I understand your point but I want to cut that that's why I asked for that I think we need to be pulling it for the members who are on the board in 2014 when the B3 and B5 zoning districts were put forward for RMDs it seems that at least a couple of you don't seem to come to a conclusion I'm wondering why you didn't make the elimination of a buffer zone part of the vote you recommended vote to town meeting at that time I was on the board at that time I don't recall the deliberations I didn't follow it at the time but certainly you had that opportunity I don't recall any other questions or concerns thank you again I will allow for additional comment next week if you'd like to send an email our emails are available on the town website we'll pull that for now and move on to so the vote will be next week the vote of this board will be next week as to how this will be presented to town meeting same time, same place we're voting on the 20th the vote on the 20th must be the 20th no, you're not here next week your votes are going to cross the way same time, back in the second floor article 10 started by Janice we were regarding changing the designation of first of all this is the first time I've done this so I went beyond the implementation of the first place because I finally got the maps that show the districts that were changed to R2 back in the 70s and there's about 12 different houses that just got changed because one of the neighbors had suggested that if a two-family house had gotten on fire they couldn't rebuild a two-family house but I found out since then well I just found out that that's not true and the actual reason I want to do this is because this is a very dense area of Preston Hill Avenue this is the densest area by and they already knocked down one single house and made a two-family office and I wanted to prevent that on the rest of the street and I didn't write any letters to the butters I didn't know I had to do that so I know I have to do that now but what I wanted to do is perhaps amend my that town meeting if I can amend my warrant article because it really only includes Preston Hill Avenue from number 2 to number 41 because that's the area that's designated as R2 now and the rest of the streets designated as R1 and it was R1 to begin with so I don't see why I kind of go back to that is that possible to do to change it to put an amendment to town meeting? You'd have to do that at town meeting depending on how this board votes. That's what I'm asking. This is actually 19 addresses that I'm involved in this. I guess I guess I don't really understand what the article is asking to do and why it's been chosen in just spots and blocks and why it's not an entire neighborhood or an entire district based on the zoning What I'm saying is I didn't have these maps before when I made this proposal so I do have the maps now Can you back up and tell us why you're putting this forward? I'm putting it forward because I don't want the rest of the houses in the neighborhood to be knocked down and made too family because it's a dense area and as it is now driveways are very small. I share my driveway with next door and they have a too family and I just don't want that to happen in the rest of the neighborhood and I think it's unfair to the few houses that are here to be zoned as R2 when the entire street and most of the neighborhoods R1 and was R1 and the reason it was changed I think was inaccurate for it to have been changed When was it changed? I think in 1975 I still haven't found it I've been trying to find it in 1975 when the zoning changed So it's only these few houses here and it seems like they should have stayed R1 I don't understand why I don't understand why it was proposed I'm not saying I don't understand why but that's an inaccurate reason for it to have been changed because the too family houses standing in now burns down and can be rebuilt as a too family so there's no reason for the rest of the neighborhood to be R2 Okay, Kenny I'm still confused as far as because I just saw that really quickly this area So everything that's in dark yellow is is zoned as R2 right now and you want to change to R1? Yeah, I think that's the other end because that's not the end it's in the Lexington This is the down So that's Park Avenue that's the reservoir down up to the north of that is where Park Avenue is You want to go up to the park places up at the top where Mount Gilboa actually is the mountain Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is evidence like yellow right now is R1 This is R1? Yes Okay, and then evidence dark yellow right now is R2 I can show you the area I'm talking about here it might be clearer I've had too much of a scope of here because I didn't realize this section right here of Crescent Hill Avenue all of the rest of Crescent Hill Avenue and the majority of streets around were always R1 but in the 70s that reason I told you this area only was changed to R2 What was the reason? The reason I was given at the time was because if a two-family house burned down then it couldn't be rebuilt as a two-family but I mean I just believed that because I guess I was naive didn't ask but That's not true What about this area here? That's a completely different street I know but that's R2 too I know but they already have two family houses on there that's Westminster Avenue and they have them there and I don't know why they were out too but this street in this area here all the way down Crescent Hill Avenue is in Montague and those are all R1 in all this area around here so this small section of Morland up to Mount Gilboa that small section of Crescent Hill is the only one that was changed to R2 This wasn't done that way too? I don't know when that was done I know that when this was done that may have always been R2 because it's West Morland and they were so there are two families here there are two families here there are a lot of two families down here and have you done any have you done any outreach to your neighbors? I got my neighbors signatures in the immediate area which is the majority of the people here but I didn't get them all but I will certainly send something to them I didn't know I had to do that I've been asking I'm just asking do you have the support of your neighbors in that area here to make that change that you were requesting? The neighbors that signed the petition Yes, I didn't go to all Okay, so one of my questions is there are nine units nine properties here, right? Nineteen How did you get that? I got one, two, three four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve The address is right here This is nineteen houses in that area from number three to number forty one on both sides of the street So the address is right? Out of those nineteen, okay How many people have gotten I've only got I had to get the warrant out again and that was difficult to get the wording and I got it two days before and the pouring rain to get my signatures so I didn't have a chance to talk to anyone because I was trying to find out how to do it and I never got any answers I started this last April so it's not so I started yesterday but I never got any answers about how to do it what to do, how to word it so I couldn't get the signatures until I got the wording I just went out and got the signatures and then I didn't know I had to do this other stuff until now Will you be talking to your neighbors and asking for their opinion? Oh, absolutely Getting an understanding of what they want I will I think that's very important to us Oh, I agree A lot of nineteen, the ten of them were from that street Yeah, but that's still Oh, I know You know Because What you're doing here is you're devaluing someone's house and someone's spent their life savings and buying for and then all of a sudden by rezoning you devalued it By making an R1? Yes Oh, I think it's a much better value than R1 It's too dense for R2 It's the densest area of the neighborhood I would disagree on that part because there's two families living in this property The value is more if there's two families living there and that's just what I believe in So I'm just really concerned that what you're doing is essentially devaluing everybody's property that already had bought the house as a two-family has a two-family in there When they bought it, it wasn't zoned as a two-family It wasn't zoning back then when they did it because it got changed to an R2 after the houses were built It wasn't No, no, how about through the house? Pardon me? If I bought this house in 1985 It was a two-family It had a certain value to it I paid that value for it Then all of a sudden you come back and change that to a single family It's no longer worth that much anymore All of a sudden devalued my property I'm not changing the houses to not be a two-family anymore I'm just changing the zoning so that a single family house can't get knocked down and be made a two-family That's what I'm doing This area was an R1 Even the two families that were there The whole area was an R1 when I bought my house It was an R1 when my parents bought the house It was an R1 I'll just say one more thing and I'll let the rest of the board talk You're saying this is a very dense area? Of the street That's the densest area of that entire street that goes down to the Lexington line So doesn't the zoning setbacks parking requirements and all that that's already there would prevent a single family being put into a two-family or that's not enough That's a question It's already been done They've already done that But you just told me it's a very dense area It is and I don't want the rest of it to be more dense than it is now is what I'm trying to say I don't know why that small area should be designated as an R2 when it was an R1 all before 75 All right well Go ahead David I have just a more general thought which is we do have a zoning recodification process underway now and at some point in the future we will be looking at the existing zoning districts and there should be changes to those or consolidation of some districts to be more consistent with contemporary understandings of zoning as opposed to 1975 So I'm a little bit hesitant to dig into something this specific when I know that I'm in the future maybe not this year but relatively soon we are going to be looking at this issue town-wide and then you would have an opportunity to make your case for this at that time as part of the overall process Wait a while Sorry sir I'll wait till my turn I understand what you're saying but I'm just afraid that it will be too late for our couple of houses that are potentially well one specifically to get knocked down and lead into another drew family and that's what I'm trying to prevent but I understand what you're saying and for the most part I would have to say that the majority of the houses that are single are going to stay single for quite a while so probably would prevent all but one I don't understand what you're saying but I could wait and perhaps it could be the owner of the house that you're talking about here have you gotten there the house that you speculate might be knocked down Janice I appreciate the time and the effort that you put into it but I can't support an article based on that reasoning that you don't want you have some speculative house in mind it's never sort of the one they just did I know I believe me I live in the neighborhood I know you street well but it's that's not a good enough reason for me to support this kind of change particularly with the reason that David has stated with a holistic review of all the residential and business and I understand it's coming down I definitely appreciate you wanting to keep the character of that street the way it's been for the last 40 years but it's also been 42 years since it's been an article so I'm not saying keep it the same, I'm not saying change it but I'm saying I can't support this particular I understand that Mr. Watson I was just would it be possible when you do the re-carification of the zoning that this could then come about that the whole street would be perhaps changed when I want I mean is that a possibility when you look at it I think at the point when that happens we'll be looking at all the zones town-wide that'll be a process like the master planning process like the so not during the current not now next year not now there's more about that I think that would be good I didn't really know before you leave two other members of the board have to weigh in and take public comment I would leave it what's been discussed except if this has been around for a year then Jenny and Laura are you aware of what's going on with this we haven't heard much about it with what? this issue is suddenly coming up it was new to us Janice as we mentioned earlier as a member of the residential study group and it was new to all of the members of the residential study group let me stick with what's been said about it then I just think it would be better if it was maybe a great idea but if it was in the context of the residential zoning study group or whatever it is giving a recommendation relative to the whole thing I might want to hear Jenny as director of the planning department of the European how it should be handled and it may be more than what you're going to look at it may be a different place there's a number of options that we'll take a look at I'm glad to answer that how many two family houses are there in that section how many single family well now five would be 14 I believe a single 14 single and five this area not what's encompassed in the warrant article because I made the scope bigger than I had to but in the area you want resumed the area I want resumed is one on each side of me two across the street and the one they just tore down so five can you explain a little more detail why you don't like the two family houses no I don't dislike the two family houses I just think that now they're knocking everything down now building up two family houses with singles I don't like to see that and this particular house is fine it looks nice I'm not saying I don't like it it's just that the area is condensed it's the smallest area on that street and I think that would be more traffic more of everything and the houses I don't know maybe the character of the houses I liked better when it was the way it was that's all thank you don't leave us yet public comment it's open I have a similar sentiment as far as keeping some of the integrity of the neighborhood one idea might be and it might be easier to rezoning it might be to get it into a historic district but I don't think like the one John Carney did it was just one over that's what I'm saying it might be an easier remedy to keep the I don't know how they did that because that house is older than the one next door to it but that would be a conversation what what other comments Mr. Ward John Ward in Jason Street I think the only person in this room who was here in 1975 when the zoning the zoning bylaw was put together I can tell you that there wasn't GIS there wasn't a vast amount of reach the lines were drawn in a kind of arbitrary fashion and would often without a lot of consideration because they hadn't rezoned the town in a comprehensive way for I don't know how many years before that so it's not and I'm sure as Swieger and her neighbors were not told that they were going to be put into a two family zone when they had been single family zone as long as anybody can remember and before that so I wouldn't rely upon that decision by town meeting which was passing a whole zoning bylaw over the course of one or two evenings and there was a lot of horse trading and so on and nobody traded this one out of the two zone if you want to see why and I actually disagree with your point about the attractiveness of the house that went in there it's a pit house basically the folks from Beacon street north of Broadway I mean that is why you don't want a street to be two family zone everything that was there was torn down and all those row pit houses were stuck in there now now the horse having left the barn trying to close the door so let's not let's close the door before the horse leaves the barn up in Crescent Hill Avenue and so on as far as getting into historic district yeah that's a great idea when the historic district lines were drawn again whenever you draw a line somebody is going to be unhappy and I was not personally involved in how those lines were drawn it's a very irregular shaped district it was mostly drawn upon probably consent of the respective homeowners and somebody was this was quite a few years ago people were then suspicious of the historic district didn't realize what it did for neighborhood preservation you know small price to pay to know that you can't put one of those things next door but it's a long process there has to be a study and it goes to the man's historical commission and so on and then like any of them once it gets for a town meeting it gets passed and as you know like zoning it has to go to the general who sits on it for as long as possible and then they send it back and it has to be advertised so it's not a it's not a very quick and ready solution for the situation there I think it is not inappropriate and I think people came into the district commission and asked that their neighborhood be included I think the district commission would look on it favorably in fact we did discuss this as I say unfortunately beyond our boundaries or this this one wouldn't have happened but we're certainly in sympathy with the idea that this part of the neighborhood which is really part of the general area in the monkey well historic district should be kind of kept the way it is and to the extent we can we would support the articles as proposed and I think to say let's think about it in recodification let's think about it in historic district let's do something as long as it's off in the future sometime that's not the solution the problem the developers are now they're not going to wait if we had a moratorium for three years say fine alright let's have a moratorium and then we can work everything else so everybody's happy but that's not going to happen they're going to beat the building inspectors off they'll be there tomorrow morning with a plan to chair this house down and put up one of those pit houses so let's give give this out a good chance you're welcome so I would say that one yes zoning recodification is happening is happening for a reason it's supported in terms of how it's been happening we have hired a consultant who's helping the zoning bylaw we've said all along that the intention is for part two of it to address some of the policy and broader substantive issues that we've been discussing I think with this particular one what my concern is is I don't hear from you any type of community or neighborhood discussion having happened at all and I think that with any anything that would be proposed in any future there should be neighborhood discussion it should not be limited to the people who filed the article and I think that after having a community or neighborhood discussion where you get broader based input especially where you might be impacting things with people's homes I think that then you talk about what are the options so we're brainstorming options here but I don't think that that is necessarily appropriate I think that more appropriate would be the neighborhood level for people to understand and weigh those different options so for example we've talked about the zoning change obviously we've talked about design issues we've talked about adding it to the historic district those are things that people in your neighborhood more broadly or in these areas should have the opportunity to weigh and consider before putting forth an article then I think I might see it the only thing is I didn't that was never done before when it got changed well I'm not talking about the 187 no I know but I'm just saying so I didn't realize to do that but now I do so I would definitely so in the future if this were to happen as a conversation in the future that is the way that I would recommend something would occur in the future and that you would you know the notification process is actually very specific and we did talk to Janice about that previously so she's aware about but that's just notification I'm talking about it broader an actual dialogue create the opportunity to understand the different possibilities so it's not that I'm it's not a four again I'm glad to get the effort because I didn't really understand it before thank you ve