dy and there's no problem with it it is written yeah it's fine I don't either but I just wanted to clarify because I wasn't quite correct okay so with that let's move on to uh article 31 which is uh another administrative change there's only by law amendment uh relative to prohibited uses which was also inserted at the request of the redevelopment board this is clarifying uh those designated with a y or an sp any questions or comments starting with kin no gene no again this is a clarification that makes sense and I think it was also suggested to us by members of the public great David no comments Melissa no comment okay uh do we have a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 31 as submitted what if you want to make that a second a second gene has a second okay uh uh kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I am a yes as well recommend favorable action on article 31 article 32 is the zoning by law amendment um related to other districts dimensional and density regulations uh this is a um amendment relative to I think adding the let the legend for the tables we'll start with any questions from kin none gene looks good David no questions Melissa no questions is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action has submitted some second all right uh take a vote kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well all right moving on to article 33 this is the uh zoning by law amendment this is multiple administrative amendments inserted at the request of the redevelopment board and I'll start with any questions from kin none gene none David no questions Melissa no questions right we will take a uh do I have a a motion to recommend favorable action for article 33 as submitted so move second I can't roll call vote kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well that moves forward with favorable action we'll now go to article 34 which is uh a zoning by law amendment relative to marijuana uses for marijuana delivery only retailers which was inserted at the request of the redevelopment board any questions starting with kin no gene no David no questions just want to note that this was necessary for compliance with uh new regulations from the state thanks for the clarification uh Melissa no comment okay is there a uh motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 34 as submitted some motion second second all right uh kin yes gene yes David yes Melissa yes and I'm a yes as well the next sorry let me get we're next uh with article 36 excuse me one second all right all right so we now go to article 35 which is the zoning by law amendment relative to industrial uses that we just um heard this evening uh so we'll start with any uh discussion points starting with uh kin that's going to include what we talked about today in gene suggestion right so we should talk about tonight yes no I have no questions I'm not sure I'm not sure we do about this at this point because we want to see or we suggested some amendments to this I'm not sure how we can vote for without seeing the amendments maybe jenny has a way for us to do that and gene weren't were you hoping to see some additional analysis uh with respect to uh the what the size cutoff might be well I had suggested 10 000 and then there was the idea that maybe there would be a quick analysis done to see if that was the right cutoff well there's certainly that that would not allow us to move forward with that um gene if you wanted to see any analysis well and even if I didn't this would need to be slightly redone to create that rule that less you know 10 000 square feet or less there'd be a two-to-one residential for industrial and more than 10 000 there'd be two one-to-one backs plus I had suggested some other um changes and I liked um Susan stamp's idea about making the trees mandatory and the planter box is optional so I don't know what to do with that because there do need to be some things added to this can can we vote on it when we meet on Thursday not really uh so to basically tomorrow morning we have to finalize the draft report to town meeting post it for the meeting on Thursday night when you have to vote for that report so it'd be challenging to put this to the side and also while I appreciate the desire for further analysis we will not be able to do that in the timeline that we've got going on here it is not conceivable to have that happen I'm glad to consult with RKG and staff about this and provide some answers in the coming weeks but and perhaps at town meeting if needed but I'm I'm unable to do that in the timeline that we have right now I would suggest that if you have if you feel strongly about any of the edits you suggest them now um and we lied that while we're here if you want to one other suggestion could be Rachel that you take this out of order and if you want to you know wait come back to it move on to other things we do have petitioners here tonight um so that might be another way to handle this come back to the board issues um just a suggestion and maybe we can do it last uh I'm fine with that if uh if the other board members agree with uh pushing this one we can certainly come come back to this one at the at the end that's fine with me I'm okay with that any objections okay let's go ahead and move on to article 36 and I'll put this one to the side so article 36 is a the zoning by-law amendment for the zoning map adoption that was uh changed during town meeting last year which was started by the request of the redevelopment board any uh questions or comments starting with kin no team and Jenny just explained why we're doing this at this point in november town meeting you moved to and it was adopted to change that parcel from the uh residentially zoned r1 to industrial to allow the dp the dpw campus to expand with uses that are not allowed in r1 so you made a you made a change but that change had an impact on the map so now we need to change the map um date that is in the by-law because it was actually changed we didn't do that so that is what's needed at this time the date in the by-law is may 19 2015 which was the date that corresponds with the master plan endorsement by town meeting that's administrative change okay so we're not re-adopting the zoning map which is what article 36 says we're just changing the date it just says to update the date actually yeah okay thank you yeah David any questions no no okay uh so is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 36 as uh submitted so a motion i'll second great kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article six goes forward for recommended action next is article 37 which is uh the zoning by-law amendment for multifamily zoning for mbta communities which we had previously discussed um recommending no action given the lack of uh guidance that so far we've been given by the state uh for this new requirement uh any discussion on this article starting with kin no jean no david no melissa no no great is there a motion to recommend no action for article 37 so moved i can and we'll take a vote uh kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so this has recommended no action for article 37 okay uh the next is article 38 which is the zoning by-law amendment for energy efficient homes on non-conforming lots that was inserted at the request of the redevelopment board um any discussion starting with kin no jean no david no melissa no uh is there a motion to recommend action favorable action for article 38 as submitted yes so moved second we'll take a real call vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so that's favorable action for article 38 next step is article 39 which is a zoning by-law amendment for the clarification of the definition of mixed use inserted at the request of chris already we'll start with discussion starting with kin no jean any discussion uh i would i would just say that um i think the zoning by-law is very clear on this it doesn't need any clarification at all and what this would do is reduce the ability to have good projects in some places in town david uh no discussion uh melissa no no further comment great and jean i agree with you is there a uh motion to recommend no action for article 39 yes so so so yes second uh we'll take a real call vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 39 i think the vote of no action next is article 40 which is uh a zoning by-law amendment for the conversion of commercial to residential inserted by uh john warden so any uh discussion starting with jean um i just think this is going to result in no new affordable housing but will prevent some small places from being renovated and rehabilitated so i i don't think it's a good idea kin i agree with jean david i also agree with jean melissa yes no further comment on this i agree as well is there a motion to recommend no action for article 40 so motion second take a roll call vote starting with kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so that's no action on article 40 move to article 41 which is the zoning by-law amendment for the definition of a foundation inserted uh by patricia warden we'll start with uh kin i disagree with this one here i think this is just adding more confusion so i don't support this jean i think the staff discussion gets it exactly right david uh i have no further discussion on this melissa no further discussion okay is there a motion to recommend uh no action for article 41 so motion we'll take a vote kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes let me guess as well so that's no action for article 41 next is article 42 uh zoning by-law amendment for affordable housing on privately owned parcels of non-conforming size inserted by barbeth orton she actually requested removal of this so we would just need to formally take a vote of no action so is there a motion to recommend no action for this for article 42 i'll move take a vote uh kin yes jean yes david yes melissa yes and i am a yes as well so that's no action on 42 the next is article 43 which is a amendment to propose the adoption of accessory dwelling units uh we'll start discussion with kin no question jean um yeah i think this is a good article i was just reading it this afternoon and i i saw something in it so if you can pass me by for a second let me see if i can find it again sure we'll come back to you davin uh i i have no further comments on this i think it's a good article there have been some changes made in response to comments from the board as well as members of the public and i think uh with those changes incorporated as as submitted it's acceptable thank you melissa um yes i support this going forward i feel like they have done their research and collaborated with staff on this so thank you kin i agree with others that i really have nothing to add i think it was a a good collaborative process and the project proponents did their homework very well great and i also want to applaud them for being so um responsive to the comments from members of the public board and the and the staff as well so is there a right sorry before you before you do that i just want to make sure that um the language um i think that we need to update the language that's here because the petitioner had actually provided us with some updated language but i'm just confirming i'm in a shared document right now i don't think that um i think a couple of things have changed so could you just pause for a moment and uh i know erin is is working on the industrial use is actually right now but i want to see if she would mind just coming on briefly to see if we could just identify the sections that need to be updated sorry we're tagged here yeah um so the petitioners um submitted updated language um it was appended to the um agenda um which is reflected in um this version um i can pull it up real quickly i made that edit after we received it from the petitioners um so for example in just pulling it up on my other screen under b requirements the third the second bullet under one should say any alteration causing an expansion of or addition yep that whole section is um was inserted um in their final motion um three bullets down a parenth a parenthetical statement was removed and language at the end of the sentence starting with provided that if such accessory building is located etc that is new language um in the yep all of that sorry it's tiny on my screen because i have a lot of things i'm sorry i'm like eyeballing the screen at the same time exactly all that that jenny highlighted is new um keep scrolling down that last bullet before two um there was an edit from the state um from fire department regulations to state fire code yep so what we what we saw today what jenny sent us is the final version correct yes yes okay yes i um edited myself yeah review the updates so everybody was on the same page yep i i have no further questions on the updates that were that were added any any other board members with questions on the final updates now okay okay so is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 43 yeah so second there's a second second okay uh we'll take a roll call vote kim yes gene yes David yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 43 moves forward with favorable action now go to article 44 which is the zoning bylaw amendment related to parking minimums inserted by james slimming this was related to the balance of the zoning districts which were not addressed during last year's zoning amendment and was um amended between our last meeting and um and uh this meeting to remove the uh reference to size of the lot jenny were there any other changes there i think that was the only change he made that was it nothing else any discussion starting with kim no sorry i just had to finish reading it no problem right gene um no discussion i just want to say just for this article and the previous article i found it really helpful that the proponents of the article came to us sometime before they had to file the article so that we could have some give and take with them so even though the article went under went a little more changes we had an understanding of where they wanted to go and where we thought they could go and i think that worked well for both of these articles so i thank both of the proponents for that thank you gene david i also wanted to say that i thought the process of bringing these forward was was very effective and i hope to see it used more frequently in the future great melissa uh no comment i support it going forward great thanks and i um echo gene's uh and david's comments as well but it was a great process so do we have a motion to uh recommend favorable action for article 44 so move second start with a vote with uh kin yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i mean yes as well so we vote favorable action for article 44 the next is article 45 uh zoning bylaw amendment to increase the percentage of affordable housing units this is from uh 15 percent to a percentage between 25 and 30 percent but what just the 25 percent is 25 percent yes sorry i was reading the top and not the bottom part uh we'll start with discussion so uh kin uh no i don't think i can support this as written i think without uh with these uh requirements i think you need some sort of accurate okay uh gene i had some conversations following up on the um on the public hearing about this with some of the project proponents and and um we were all very open to see if we could find um some compromise that would work and unfortunately we couldn't um i know a lot we got a lot of um comments and letters in support of this but i can't vote for this because of a few reasons one is if you read the literature you don't want to set the number without doing some significant studies to see whether the number will actually work in the specific area in this case earlington considering lot sizes demographics etc or will backfire and we don't have we don't have those studies to support it um secondly we did get comments from at least two people who are involved in creating affordable housing both advising us not to support this because they felt it would actually backfire and maybe result in fewer units um being done and i also feel like it wouldn't work without as kin said at carrot whether it's a density bonus or something else so i very much support the idea that we need to get more affordable units and what i'm expecting is that as part of the housing production plan update and this is in the staff report that there'll be a look at what can we do with the inclusionary zoning bylaw do we combine it with some carrots can we increase the percentage so um i would vote no action on this but i expect in maybe a year we should be coming back with something more comprehensive about what to do about this great thank you gene david i'll say i very strongly uh support the development of affordable housing in orlington that said i agree with everything gene just said and my my concern is that if we move this forward knowing that there's a serious risk that it could backfire um and um and uh town meeting goes ahead and and adopts this and it does in fact backfire then in order to fix it we would have to go through uh a new um a new um bylaw amendment processed at a future town meeting that is fraught with all of the difficulties that that we see um when we try to make changes like this and which we we saw two years ago when this board unsuccessfully tried to increase the percentage of inclusionary zoning together with a package of incentives to balance that out and and that was not that did not go over well with town meetings so if we were to move this forward and it backfired as is likely uh it may be very difficult if not impossible to change it anytime soon and fix it so i i think the risk of getting it wrong is is just too high in this circumstance thank you david melissa um no further comments i feel like what gene said pretty accurate in particular support you know affordable housing but want to look at how you can be a little bit more nuanced with this and look at density bonuses and so forth thanks melissa and i and i think um i too agree with everything that my colleagues have said that um and when one other municipalities have increased their um required percentages it has been a much more nuanced um you know sometimes a tiered proposal and that i i sincerely hope that the proponents of um of this article will will participate um actively in the housing production plan update and the other conversations around affordable housing that we will be holding following town meeting um in preparation for next year's town meeting uh so is there a motion to recommend no action for article 45 so motion second we'll take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david you're a moot oh sorry yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well so article 45 uh receipts a vote of no action next is article 46 which is the zoning bylaw amendment relative to a tear down moratorium and we will start with um ken no i have no questions on this i'm not supportive of this i believe uh this well um um correct homeowners uh gene i i think the staff got this exactly right which is similar to what we said at the at the public hearing um this is not an appropriate way to go about determining what to do about the tear down of houses and there are also a lot of wording flaws in the proposed motion that would make it very difficult if any and the town might well get sued if anybody couldn't go ahead david uh yeah i i agree with those thoughts melissa um yes i agree with those the same the same thinking so not to advance this at this point okay i do as well uh is there a motion for uh recommended no action for article 46 second uh we'll do a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa and then me yes as well so that is a no action on article 46 the next is article 47 which is uh zoning bylaw amendments for establishing requirements for off-street handicap parking uh we'll start with um gene thank you well um jenny and darsie divaney um who filed this for the earlington disability commission and um david and i had a really long and fruitful conversation this morning and um i think other people can help me if i get this wrong a little bit but we decided there are other things to explore in how this could be recrafted that we really didn't have time to do between this morning and this evening and we reached a consensus that the best thing to do would be to vote no action on this and that the um redevelopment board and disability commission or its representatives would get together over the next few months and hopefully craft a um warrant article that accomplishes a lot of what we talked about this morning david or jenny want to enter that well i think we we uh would want to um revise the discussion here in the report slightly to to reflect uh that that's the direction that that we've agreed to go in right exactly great thank you uh ken any comments a lot of that discussion happened uh that's to here and um i have no questions any one of that um no further questions yeah i think um for my experience looking at how we're managing the whole system versus um setting things on site especially for smart parcels like this um we have to kind of look at the whole great david did you have any i'm sorry i didn't mean to cut you off if i did did you have any other comments uh no no gene captured it thanks and i um appreciate all all of you getting together to discuss that i really do look forward to working with the disability commission to um craft a comprehensive article as you've discussed so is there a recommendation to uh for no action for article 47 well do do we need to work no i was going to say just um please note no the discussion part is for the draft report to town meeting which we're going to discuss in greater detail on thursday night um so i we you know we just wanted to fill in as much as we could because we have to get a ton tomorrow morning um so no we don't i mean this was the proposed vote um but you're going to vote no action that's all you need to do okay thank you so is there a motion to uh recommend no action so moved second i will take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm yes as well all right the next is article 48 which is um uh zoning bylaw amendment to integrate ada and maab standards into uh the zoning bylaws um also inserted at the request of the select board by request of the disability commission start with jean i believe you were speaking with um darcy and jimmy on this one as well well um we we um revised a little bit the main motion and darcy was comfortable with the revision has am i and i think the staff discussion captures captures that it's fine to add this to the zoning bylaw this captures that those updates correct yes it yes it does great any discussion uh david uh no nothing ken so jean is that the only uh session these which only thing that's been added uh to this proposal yeah it's it's a slight rewarding of d can i can't remember exactly what it said before it accomplishes the same substance but it was rewarded it had previously it had references to ada and um a few it was um broader okay i have no questions this is more specific and also notes that they're regulations the maab regulations no i have no questions these these are state laws anyways that needs to be followed melissa same no no further questions great um you know i think my comment was again i i think it is um redundant but again i i don't oppose it i certainly support the intent um it's not my preference in policy writing but i certainly won't oppose it um okay is there a uh motion to a to recommend favorable action for uh article 48 second let's take a roll call vote ken yes jean yes david yes melissa yes i mean yes as well that was for the favorable action uh the next is article 49 um which is a zoning bylaw amendment relative to side yard sky exposure planes and this was um revised um a bit from our last meeting jenny um i don't know if you have are able to to highlight or if anyone has any questions on what the the updates were specifically for jenny perhaps i could start with with that i'll start with ken i'd be curious to see what the updates were there were quite a few questions on there i let me open up a different document then which outlines the updates by the petitioner thank you this is actually the fight this is i think this was uploaded um with all of the documents today um for the meeting so i my understanding is uh that all of the issues that have been addressed are in red um so i can run through them if you want or i'm just gonna roll through them about that we can stop if you have a question yeah these are all i think i don't think he addressed every issue that the board raised during the hearing discussion but i think he addressed the majority of them the major one i had jenny was the topo because arlington has set so many conditions of uh of non-flat loss and how do you how was this how was that addressed i don't think that was really addressed um and i'm gonna um i don't i'm gonna ask erin if she can also jump on because i don't think he felt he could address that one in the time that he had since the hearing oh he's here i see him actually but i don't know if you want to have him speak to this right now or not rachel um i think we should just go through what you know whether we feel that we have the time to review this and that the um there are a lot of questions about the space in the in the in the edges and the topography that i i just want to make sure this board feels very comfortable with or what you know or proposed to that much like we've worked um with other proponents of articles over a period of time if this again being such a nuanced article is something that warrants that type of um back and forth uh with with the board to develop something that that we all feel really comfortable with so i'd like to throw that question out to the to the board and i'll start with you ken i i just want to note that um in these two that are in red here there's commentary about the grade of the lot as well as differently shaped lots so i mean it's it's getting at the types of issues that were raised by the board um i come i'm kind of on the fence of this right now i mean i i i agree with uh the intent of this i'm just not very comfortable understanding all the ramifications of what this might what might they call all unintentional consequences and um i don't know what the rest of the board thinks but i would love to say that we'd like to we would like to take this on the revised and study it some more then maybe come back to it and we have a better understanding of it because it it i agree with uh in in theory just i just don't know all the consequences that come from it that's what i have to say gene well first it doesn't have something that i suggested was essential to get my vote my concern is that if you had um a new house getting built that was no taller or the top of the house was no higher than the other houses this that the sky plane regulations would prevent that from happening and it didn't make any sense to me that um somebody could be forced to build a house that was lower in height than the surrounding houses which would likely happen because of this i took time walking around town looking at houses i looked in some of the r2 neighborhoods and districts and i think whole blocks more than whole blocks whole areas could not have gotten built at all if this had been in place back when those areas were built i looked in my neighborhood i live in r1 and i'd say some percentage i'm not going to tell you exactly what but a pretty high percentage of houses wouldn't have been able to be built under the sky plane so we're talking about something that would not force all those houses to get toned down of course but would have a remarkable change in housing in how neighborhoods would continue to look or not look and i think that this is a blunder bus when you just need a little surgical switch for a couple of things the one thing that i was um i'm sympathetic to was something that would prevent a new house from shading the solar rays on an existing house and you can do that without having to put all these sky plane rules in which it sort of seems to me um is difficult in a lot of other ways and you know when i asked the proponent you know what this would solve one of the things he said so you don't look out on a blank wall but you know you can look out of a lot of houses now and you're looking out on the wall of another house or you know you don't get the same wind as if the house next door wasn't there well that's true too we're living in the 21st century we're not building up in a rural area so for all of those reasons i just cannot support this article i think it is goes way beyond what needs to be done thanks gene david i think the proponent has acknowledged that there are perhaps other ways to approach this problem including potentially modifying the dimensional requirements that already exist one thing that i felt like i really needed to see to get any kind of a comfort level with this proposal was not only visual examples of what what could be built if this were put in place but i also wanted to understand a much more thorough analysis of existing structures that could not have been built if this were in place to really understand what the impact of this might be on our neighborhoods and i just really it's i don't have a i don't feel like i have a good understanding of what the actual impacts of this will be and given that i i don't think i could vote to move this forward as it is currently presented i would however like to see the arb and the proponent have a more collaborative and ongoing discussion about exactly what problem we're trying to solve and what the options are for solving it whether it is the skyplane approach or changing dimensional requirements or perhaps something else but in any event coming to some sort of agreement on on where to go with this and what the actual implications of it would be thanks david melissa hi i'm here i'm just have to had to move around um as much as i like the kind of innovation and trying to be creative about some of the massing i think i'm not feeling ready to move it forward at this time thanks melissa and uh i agree with my with my colleagues i would very much like to work together with the proponent to as david i think said very well really understand the problem we're trying to solve and to um create a comprehensive solution where we do understand the the implications um and the impacts so uh is there a motion to uh recommend no action for article 49 i'll move back in take a roll call vote kim yes jean yes david yes melissa yes so article 49 receives a vote of no action you didn't vote rachel i'm sorry i am a yes as well thank you jenny uh we will uh now go back to article 35 let's see so back to the uh industrial uses article um so i think we left off where gene you and um and erin was starting to speak to uh potential amendments so uh rachel did everything yeah if i might um this is a shared document on the cloud so while i was off camera i made the amendments um so i'm happy to step through them i believe that they're responsive to gene's questions and i'm welcome to uh address it further so jenny everything that i did is highlighted in yellow um because uh the so um in this updates the this was the comment that i misunderstood for me rachel um updating the correct language for the upper story building step back thanks um if you keep scrolling a little bit further oh right there so um gene and kin suggested that additions over the 50 percent um additions over 50 percent of the footprint of existing building shall be solar ready to the extent feasible i think that addresses that i don't wait wait let me look at it for a second um no no no no i think it was substantial renovations to existing buildings shall be solar ready to the extent feasible correct gene yep so these um these development standards are triggered when 50 percent um when the addition is 50 percent or more of the building um which is why i use the the reference of additions over 50 percent of the footprint does it have to be an addition or can it be a renovation over that of 50 percent of the footprint right the development standards kick in when it's an addition or a new building but it states right here that all new construction uh it um has to be solar ready to the extent feasible i think that i think we should cross that out should be solar ready period and then only um renovations to existing buildings that's what i was trying to get at i don't know um i was clear enough i was saying that all new buildings should be solar ready right that's there period and then only existing buildings that are that require it to be extent feasible it does not to give it uh too much of a burden you can worsen with that gene that you have you well i i mean i think additions over 50 percent of the footprint is good but are you saying erin that we couldn't put in if there's a substantial renovation to an existing building so jenny scrolls up a bit this section is triggered when it's a new building or our 50 addition it does not reference renovations okay okay that's good i'm okay with that okay thank you erin got it yep i i um i okay can um can you see that i made two bullet points do you want it that way or do you want it back to the way it was before sorry i have no preference i'm okay with that okay great um so if you keep scrolling um so gene um you had referenced dark sky requirements um for this first highlighted here title five article 14 of the town bylaws um does reference the dark sky requirements okay great thank you so so i just cleaned up the reference there um to be title five article 14 um this was uh miss stamps's suggestion um i think i think it is successful um and responsive to that suggestion yep looks good um whoop so um this was the the first highlighted piece in this first bullet is where genie might want to tinker with this a little bit further tonight um but that looks that looks fine erin okay great um shouldn't it say our linkedin redevelopment board oh yeah i apologize uh yeah yep so this uh the second highlighted piece that's on the screen um i think is responsive to the comment that you could have more requirements than roof space right okay that makes sense um so if you keep scrolling a bit more uh oh uh oh um this highlighted under a three um i think this was caught as uh it either was the parent that i'll go with the arb but i just updated that and then so this b section i would recommend just deleting it which part will you delete the the whole paragraph how come you'd recommend deleting the whole thing all right the comment um from earlier this evening seemed to suggest that it would be uh limiting in some fashion to have a reference to two artists only um except for time limited um engagements um so it two three five ten it would be essentially an arbitrary number then why wouldn't you just keep in work only artist studio and get rid of the second sentence that's stated above those in the chain so these are just this is the standards this there's a definition that still exists for this or work only artist studio correct yes so in other words it's and it and it's not listed this way correct no no do you want me to go back to what that how this is defined is that of interest as long as as long as if we take that out work only artist studio is still an acceptable use in the industrial district it is they're just not further constrained by saying it can only be yeah then take it out it cannot be more than two sounds good you need to re-letter yeah we'll do that i'm gonna highlight that for some reason it's not updating probably because there's a lot of um lists in this document that are um manually inputted um so if you keep scrolling down a little bit more um we'll get to mixed use all right there's in vertical farming i made that quick update um so uh in the background um kelly also ran a quick analysis for me um of the uh 60 uh 58 distinct parcels um 39 of the parcels are below 10 000 square feet um and if you wanted another reference point if you did 15 000 square feet that would encompass 52 parcels um so that would end up encompassing most of the parcels in the industrial district with the exception of some of the largest ones some of the largest ones are town owned of course um so uh this was my attempt to address your comment jean i also heard that this section might have been confusing um i don't know why it's duplicated on the screen that oh that yeah it's saying this is locked by you right now probably could i i think this is what we had before though right yes okay and this so this is the edited i think your wording is fine erin do you and kelly both think that 10 000 makes sense in terms of the number above and below i i think you're going to get basically it's going to be 50 above and below half and half um again it's uh i think this is uh an attempt you know a good mile marker i think it could be loosened in the future if it's seeming like this is not working seems arbitrary to me well you have to set it somewhere so yeah by saying 10 000 like this evening it feels a little arbitrary to me jean where would we put it melissa we have to have some that's why i was hoping we could sort of say 75 percent would get to do you know two to one and 25 percent we get to do one to one so the largest one something like that well and what is the risk of not putting that in then the risk is the risk is some of the largest ones may end up with twice as much residential as industrial and the reason that this came up was the performers that they did said the larger ones could survive and you know and financially would pencil out well at one to one but jean what i heard was that they didn't actually run to this on any of the smaller parcels so right if that's the case should we and we feel strongly that residential should not be the principal use in these spaces should we take this out and instead of a two to one ratio move forward with a maximum one to one ratio all together rather than create an artificial and basically preclude um residential completely in the smallest parcels no no it's one to one all right but if it if if you can't i i don't mean i don't mean legally precluded but financially precluded based on what i heard and erin please correct me if i'm wrong and i misinterpreted what was said but there were no performers run for a parcel for that size parcel i believe the smallest was significantly larger i think it said like nineteen thousand right you are correct rachel so we don't have any data to say that it doesn't pencil out without the two to one residential requirement and we do have we do have data that it would it would work out for the larger parcels at one to one we put something in there saying that there's an option uh if the proponent proves to the uh the a or b that uh one to one doesn't work and they need to get an exception for a two to one on some of the small locks then that's okay but they have to prove to us just for now unless otherwise approved by a special permit something like that yes so we'd keep the 10 000 as a cutoff but we'd allow but we remove that we remove the 10 000 and just keep it as one to one unless otherwise approved by special permit of of hardship whatever and then it gives us a chance to value that okay you know you have you have a very small site it doesn't work so you need to two to one i think that makes sense if it would be one to one you know unless the a or b finds that financial hardship requires up to two to one financial hardship or financial infeasibility infeasibility infeasibility correct dave sorry yep you're right david yeah yeah so it would be one to one except that the a or b upon a finding of financial infeasibility made by special permit increase with up to two to one erin are you i'm gonna let you at it i'm like warring over the the cursor you go does that sound good melissa i i think that sounds a little more reasonable because i mean you're trying to you're trying to get the the residential in there as kind of the incentive to move things along keeps keep the mix of uses right but we're not trying to on the fly without the data set the square footage i feel like this gives us more of a balance to that yeah i think you're right melissa i think this is a better way to go about doing it with kin's suggestion of the special permit for economic financial infeasibility and then you could up it to up to two to one so we could just leave it to erin to figure out how to do that after this you got till tomorrow morning erin oh i mean don't we know we have to vote on this tonight we can vote on it with that change that she's going to insert after yeah do you want to roll through the rest of the highlights or was that would be great yeah let's roll through the rest of them was was there any other place in here where there need to be an edit to accomplish this this change that we're talking about no no that would be the only location um so these last two items um uh i i think in the installing trees within the landscaped areas it said section six one eleven d six of the town of arlington zoning by law so i got rid of the town of arlington zoning by laws and the last highlighted section is um i just made it less wordy correct um and i believe that's it i think if you keep scrolling there might have been just some other um updates uh nope i guess that's it um interestingly um uh oh i did update um so further residential uses may be a component of a mixed use development are limited to no more than the gross floor area of the ground floor principal ground floor light industrial use the redevelopment board may allow an increase to no more than twice the gross floor area of the principal ground floor light industrial use upon a finding of financial infeasibility financial i think it has to specifically say may allow an increase in residential use right correct it's slow to update on my screen for some reason usually i shake it it works faster maybe i have too many things open on the screen there there while we're waiting for that there it is yep so there's this and then the residential floor area so i just um i just want to address also um uh a point of confusion that might have um occurred as well we just need to delete this paragraph by the way yeah i don't know why it's showing there on your screen jenny oh okay it's it's telling me it's locked um sorry go ahead um so the the ground floor of these mixed use buildings can be industrial or commercial but the allowance for residential specifically tied to the light industrial use categories i just want to be very clear about that thanks for the clarification i think that's important very important um and then the last thing that i didn't address um because um you know i i would appreciate the input is the duplicative five nine two section um again i i feel like the arb has handled some of that similar um overlapping sections at town meeting um i um my preference is to put it in five nine but i'm also um i'm not so uh crazy to say it has to be there um so the other suggestion was to put in in five six uh five six four if i remember correctly yes five six four which would follow basically the use table which can be an appropriate location for it as well if we keep it where you want it we have to move it you have to come back from main and work on it be happy to do that i'll i'll zoom in to town meeting um but i think you know should it go into five six six four it achieves the same the same goal it's just seems a little weird if we go to like favorable action on two um warrant articles that have the same you know addition to a section of the zoning bylaw but if you switch this there about a dozen places where the reference would have to change that's easy yeah i i don't know i i think either place would work but i think i don't know to me i wouldn't have noticed it except when you pointed out and that's when i thought it would be better at the end of the uses thing so it could be what did i say it was i forgot five six four yeah five six five point six point four at least you wouldn't we wouldn't have to deal with it after what all that has two things with the same you know yes it cuts down on confusion gene what's your preference five point six point four let's go with it so if we do that we just just note that we we just need to update all these references which we will do of course perfect excellent um so i think in some that addresses the comments that i heard uh from the members um and through the public comment great work erin i don't know how you did that when we're all this much your magic the magic of the cloud all right any other discussion i mean i i think i think these changes are responsive to the boards and the public's comments um you know with um with um an eye towards making this actually work great is there a motion to uh recommend favorable action on article 35 as amended this evening so second we'll take a roll call vote ken yes gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm a yes as well that receives favorable recommended favorable action and with that that closes our discussion and voting on the warrant articles uh so jenny do you need us to vote to uh i think since we voted on the individual ones we don't need to vote any more until we receive on thursday evening the draft report and then we just need to vote on that correct right yeah and we're gonna post that by tomorrow thank you all okay okay uh so the next item on our agenda is the review of meeting minutes we can get through these quickly we'll start with uh the meeting minutes from february 8 2021 and uh i had a couple of items so um on page one i think it was near the bottom um it's in that second to last so it's five uh five uh lines up from the second to last paragraph um i'd like to see it should be i'd like to see um this map not if this map if you go down down there you go i think if you need to get rid of oops above two lines up sorry for some reason my computer is being very extraordinarily slow at the moment section that says um i'd like to tell me so um it's the the sentence it says i'd like to see if this map if it should just be i'd like to see this map reflect it um the if doesn't make sense there and then which one are we looking at now uh february 8 okay and then uh i'm making the edits i just it's not on the screen that's fine um on page two the section um in the middle of the page the the sentence with carl wagner said the sentence doesn't make sense uh carl wagner said he thinks that this is a laudable goal at the same time the people who live in east darlington because that area um something's missing and i and i don't know what jean i don't know if you saw that i i didn't i couldn't figure it out i think maybe it's um this is a laudable goal and at the same time maybe if you just removed the people who live in yeah i think it's just because that area yes so i think you could just remove the people who live in east darlington and then um in the next section um chris lorette uh section uh so last sentence the chair said she would like to clarify that this report was um requested to be um to be prepared by the department it was requested by the board to be prepared by the department it's it's not clear what it's referring to and then um on page three am i going to have to search to find that reference that's all i have for right now jean oh i had a couple things but i was scrolling on yours and i was one thing is i think steward borson's name is spelled incorrectly i think it's bor but somebody might want to check on that um i don't know what this means but in on page two it says miss lorette said he's concerned about the lack of setbacks and 40 foot walls what's the 40 foot walls walls i think it was and 40 foot walls why do i don't understand the lack that there would be just a wall at at the side of a property that's 40 foot straight because of not having a setback i remember okay yeah okay okay and there was one other thing but i can't find in that but it wasn't really important so the only other one sorry i found the one that i was looking for it's on page three in the middle of the page um the set the paragraph with the chair um in the third sentence mr or the third line mr benzin asked it should be if there are handicapped accessible entrances instead of is uh david any corrections uh no i don't have anything ken nope none of this one melissa no any others gene no okay uh is there a motion to approve the february uh 8th 2021 um meeting minutes as amended so moved second and melissa i don't believe you were at this meeting so i will skip over you during the voting ken yes gene yes david yes and i am a yes as well okay the next uh meeting minutes are the march first 2021 meeting minutes and i'll start with uh gene any corrections i just you know this is the one where they don't have you starting off by saying you know COVID-19 oh right you just add that line in yeah so i think whatever it is needed to be it and i don't think i found anything else on that david i didn't have anything okay yeah on the on the first page i think like third paragraph down mr lao was concerned about the close to zero lot line and i should say the exhaust ducts from the garage was close to the close to the line period and then the second one is he also suggested the top level could be less heavy uh i want to say he suggested moving the stairs and elevators away from uh from the lot line to uh i guess i used the word heavy but make it less um less massive thank you jenny and then this one i think i got a little trouble with as miss understood on the third second page near the bottom miss l say that the town needs balance develop development housing should include market rate workforce and affordable housing affordable housing i think you had uh stated it better rachel last time when you uh wrote that your response the variety of needs yeah what you want to say david oh sorry i was just thinking about that and thinking whether saying mid-market housing might be an alternative to workforce but that's true but i didn't say that so uh right but i think that's what you that that's what i meant that's what you meant yes you're absolutely true david but i don't know i'm sure jenny's gonna edit and i'm fine okay uh let's see who have i not gotten to uh david any no i had nothing on this one okay melissa no okay so i just had um one uh on page four uh near the bottom i think it's one two three four paragraphs up from the bottom or starts mr benson requested the condition of the basement office be constructed and rented um after that mr anessi clarified that the basement office exists right he did say that he did sorry can you repeat that sentence uh uh so after the sentence with mr benson requested the condition that the basement office unit be constructed and rented after that period mr anessi confirmed that the basement office already exists and then on page five somewhere here there is a reference to fiber uh right in the middle in the uh paragraph with mr revelac instead of fiber paddle boards it should be fiber panel boards there you go that's it i do have one one more thing and i'm not sure how the uh on the same one on the page number three i guess or four uh it says mr lau requested uh mrs uh uh we'll ask jenny to clarify locations that elevated shafts and stairwells you say that they are yeah basically that i think the claire i think you were asking me to clarify something else yes i don't know what not the location um but if they counted towards a formula um but i'm not sure i'm not sure that this is stated correctly i think i asked the question that i know i remember now i think i asked the question that is only the ground floor for lra shafts and uh stairwell shafts count for gla or is it count on every single floor and then you said that uh the it's already uh existing uh they count on every single floor someone that is not correct jenny yes um so i wish you okay uh not already yeah okay i think i'm gonna say counted that's fine i think that was more more to the point um rachel my power is gonna go i have to go get the chord but that it's hard to get to right now okay we're almost uh that's fine let's let's take a quick vote if most there's any other comments nope okay uh is there a motion to uh approve the uh meeting minutes from march 1st 2021 as amended so so motion second i'll take a vote melissa yeah ken jean yes david yes and i may guess as well all right so we will now move to uh open forum so any member of the public wishing to speak please use the raise hand function um which is in the participant section in zoom um i'll call on you and you'll have three minutes to speak christian kline you'll have three minutes if you could introduce yourselves by first last name and address please for christian kline um for newport street um i've served the town in a variety of uh different positions uh most recently on the zoning bylaw working group um alongside erin superka who is leaving us at the end of the weekend we don't have a meeting um this week of our group so i just wanted to take a brief minute to just thank her very much for her service to the town her service to our group and it was a tremendous pleasure uh working with you these past few years and really appreciated it thank you thank you thank you any other uh members of the public barbecue yes well uh i want to duplicate what christian just said uh ditto uh erin working with erin and jenny both were just a tremendous uh experience and i want to thank the entire board but i think we really i feel like we moved i'd learned a lot in this process and i and i appreciate the comments that everybody made about the working process on the ad use and i and i hope that we all learned how to navigate a a more collaborative process between the citizens and the and the board and uh the staff and um erin you'll be missed thank you thank you all i'm pretty happy thanks barbara uh the next speaker will be james plumbing hi james plumbing here at oxford street uh thanks for helping me with the warrant article uh it was really really useful and uh you should expect more like that in the future thank you looking forward to it james thank you any other members of the public wishing to speak right with that we will uh close public comments and all thank erin so much for all of the the hard work that she's uh given to the town over her time here we've loved working together with you he'll be so missed i'm sure that others have gene and david kin and melissa probably have things they want to say to you so there's still one more meeting that i would attend um but thank you so much really really appreciate it um all the kind words from everyone that i've received in voicemails and emails and on zoom meetings it um it it's really wonderful to hear thank you so much yeah you've been a real asset to the town and uh hope you enjoy and do great work some are up there in the pine tree stink thank you erin and your grasp of the details of every zoning proposal at your fingertips has been truly impressive thank you all right well we won't keep you any longer because we know that uh there's the report that you'll be feverishly working on too so thank you in advance for that and uh with that we will uh take a motion to adjourn so motion second uh kin hi gene yes david yes melissa yes and i'm against as well thank you everyone have a good evening everyone bye bye thanks you hey thank you


Good day, fellow investors. Welcome to the stock market news with a fundamental twist and today's long-term perspective will be on what's going on with the Fed being bullish, being very positive about the economy and the likelihood that there will be higher interest rates and that dance will probably negatively affect stocks and we have already seen what has happened on Wednesday. On Wednesday, the Fed released its minutes from its past meeting and as the minutes were released and as it was clear that the Fed is very positive on the economy, on inflation and has adjusted expectations higher about the economy, stocks went into sell-off mode. And now the questions are will the positive expectations about the economy push interest rates higher and therefore expected returns lower from a risk-adjusted perspective? Secondly, will the Fed be able to balance the economy, growing economy, higher inflation and keep everything stable so that the economy continues to grow at moderate rate? They have never in history been able to do that. We have never seen a soft landing in any economy in the world. So the question is always will they be able to do that now? Then secondly, if they increase interest rates three times in 2018 and another two times in 2019, they have an interest rate of 2.5%. The 10-year treasury will be at 4% then is it logical then stocks have again an earnings yield of 4% or stock earnings will grow 50% thus 23% a year to reach a higher level of returns of let's say 6%. With higher interest rates higher debt costs with higher wages I find it highly unlikely. Let's see what the Fed has said. The key is that they anticipated that the rate of economic growth in 2018 would exceed their estimates of its sustainable longer-run pace and that the labor market conditions would strengthen further. So the Fed if they see an overheating economy things getting too fast inflation rising spiking up prices that's not good for long-term stability and they will be forced to increase interest rates which then leads to lower valuations of other assets because low interest rates have led to this situation of high valuations in the stock market. Let me give you an example. The SAP 500 has currently a price to earnings ratio of 25.23 which implies an earnings yield of 4%. Now if the 10-year treasury gets to 4% then you would be smarter to invest in a treasury which is risk-free than to invest in stocks which carry significant risk therefore stocks always require a risk premium so if the treasury goes to 4% in the next two years don't just look at what's going on the market takes a lot of time to adapt to what's going on. If the treasury goes to 4% let's say and that's an optimistic view stocks go to 6% then either SAP 500 earnings of 107 grow 50% in the next two years or the SAP 500 drops to a price-to-earnings ratio of 16 which would imply a 6% earnings yield thus an SAP 500 value of 1782 points or a 35% decline from stocks. Here you can see how the US treasury yield is now among the highest in the world which on the other hand makes it difficult also for companies to compete because how can you compete if your interest rate is 4% and in Germany it is negative. Also countries everything is different and it's an unfair advantage and this will or put pressure on the US economy which is again a bad thing or force Europe Germany and other countries to increase interest rates and then we will see the dense also happen in Europe with European stocks. However there is something very important which is the case now and there is a historical mean which everything tends to revert in the longer term as I always say this is the long-term stock market news. If we look at the percentage of corporate profits in relation to GDP it was usually 6%. Now it is closer to 8%. This means that the biggest pie of GDP of profits doesn't go to people that work but to corporations. The current tax reform will further aid corporations and not wages and now some hedge fund managers have already started to look what will happen in the next two years. If you want to be successful in the stock market beat the stock market you have to look not at what will happen in the next few quarters but you have to see what will happen in the next two years and this divergence between wages and corporate profits and might be the perfect political game for the next elections where somebody turns it around and says okay we need higher corporate taxes so that the workers get more money and people are already positioning themselves for such a scenario where corporate profits go down to 6%, 5% of GDP not 8% and that could again turn around everything in relation to current valuations in the stock market. So there is a multiple of risks that can influence and affect stocks. Be careful. As you can see here in the 1980s corporate profits were just 3-4% of GDP now the last 10-15 years without the dip 2009 they are 8-9%, 10% of GDP however the average is around 6%. Usually after they are high they drop down so corporate profits in relation to GDP are volatile. Something very interesting that I also want to discuss is the savings rate. If we look at the savings rate as a percentage of disposable income we can see that it's extremely low as it was the case in 2007 when the economy is doing good everybody has a job everybody is feeling very wealthy because their stocks appreciate real estate appreciate and then you need you don't feel the need to save however that could really be detrimental in future growth. Similar situation in Europe savings rate in Europe is very very low everybody is spending everybody is high everybody is happy taking on loans with low interest rates and you can see here that the higher is the household net worth from Goldman the lower is the savings rate because everybody feels wealthy however when that wealth is just paper money from higher house prices or higher stocks it becomes risky. Further there is this Mnuchin of however I say that he thinks that even if the policies are very loose very stimulative for the economy it it will raise wages without inflation I wonder how that will be possible. Now how to invest two three years ago also this sum over interest rates were very low I thought okay if interest rates are going higher but everybody has so much debt then it is smart to take debt because the government will protect those who have debt because if those go bankrupt then the whole economy crashes and the whole debt economy goes I don't know where so probably there is a high probability that those who have debt will be protected because everybody has debt and the debt pile is growing everywhere in the world. So if you take that to invest in assets then you have an asset that will appreciate in relation to inflation and you have the government who will be protecting you not the savers the government has a lot of debt so it won't go on the savers side it will go to the debt side so that's one way of investing. Now in taking debt now and investing is a little bit risky because if we just take a look at house prices for example in Canada here we see that they have really spiked in Vancouver Toronto Canada the average but Montreal not yet perhaps that's interesting to invest I don't know. Nevertheless if you invest now you're really buying at the top of the bubble so what's interesting how to take advantage of that is to put yourself in a position that you can take debt when those prices crash so you say SAP 500-1500 points one third I take a loan and with that you can hedge yourself 1000 points I take the second part of the loan 700 points I take the third part of the loan to buy stocks assets at really cheap prices so perhaps not just taking that now to investing but just thinking of that as a long-term investment hedge if stock market crashes oh I have more liquidity where I can pull from and invest and take advantage of cheap prices if the stock market crashes something that I want to discuss is reflexivity which means that participants actions have an effect on financial markets and here is an interesting story about the bitcoin we see a lot of technical analysis talking about the bitcoin however if everybody looks at this technical analysis then it is bound to have an effect on the prices and therefore people think oh look technical analysis works everybody's technical on the bitcoin yes then technical analysis will work so think of that reflexivity when investing in such financial instruments trading such instruments technical analysis might even work if the majority is using it if the majority is not using it it won't work because they are using something else so just to have remind you of reflexivity there is a video about reflexivity on tesla how it works george soros used it to trade stanley drackel mirror also that I made the video so it's interesting how what you might expect to happen if the majority expects it it will probably happen the same story goes on with the bitcoin if the majority expects it to go to 20 000 it will go to have a support at some level oh it can't go below that so let's start buying at 10 000 then it will rebound at 10 000 and that's how the markets work because they reflect the participants perspective on what's going on I want to finish with a gift to my notification squad I know there are people who take a break from their job to watch my videos so if you comment below which stock you would like me to research I promise you that the first 20 comments with stock tickers stock names I will go in the next video through that stock to see a little bit what I think what's the risk reward and perhaps maybe I can help maybe you just get my opinion so that's my gift to the notification squad there will be more of them so subscribe click that button click click that bell to be notified when a new video is out there have been also very interesting videos this week so please check them if you haven't I really think they are the core of what I'm doing on this channel so feel free to rewatch them this weekend thank you for watching see you in the next video


Where do you see yourself in five years? With a degree? In a loving relationship? Working an exciting job? Or maybe even opening your very own clothing store? Setting goals is your roadmap for turning your dreams into reality. Let's say, you wanna intern abroad. You know that you'll need accommodation, a company willing to take you on, and money. To achieve this goal, you'll have to focus on getting all this organized before you leave. The same goes for earning your degree. You'll need to hit the books and study hard, even for subjects that might seem difficult or a dead doll. Goal setting is a crucial skill for success. The clearer your path towards your goal, the higher chances of actually reaching it. So how can you hone this skill? Start by looking at your goal. Is it achievable? Is it clear and concrete enough? Have you mapped out the steps needed to accomplish it? By breaking down your goal into smaller steps, you can track your progress and stay motivated, even when the going gets tough. Take time to work towards your goals. Keep a keen eye and reflect on your progress and adjust your course as needed. For more goal achieving tips, click here.