October 5, 2021, it is 635 p.m. Good evening. My name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning Board of Appeals. I call this meeting of the board to order. Like to confirm home members and anticipated officials are present from the zoning Board of Appeals Roger DuPont here. Patrick Hanlon here. Kevin Mills here. Sean O'Rourke here. And Stephen Redlack here. Mr. Ford will be joining us momentarily. From the town, Rick Valerelli. Good evening. Good evening. Vincent Lee. Then step away. He should be back in a couple of minutes. Okay. And Kelly line them up here. Good evening. Good evening. Is there anyone else from the town here specifically. Susan Chapman conservation. Sorry. And Jennifer Rape will be joining shortly. Oh, perfect. Healing on the key first here. Mr. Chairman members of the board. And we have with us. Oh, sorry. Oh, go right ahead. And with us this evening, we have Gwen noise and our clip fell. John Hessian, Bob Angler, Derek Roach. And I believe Scott Blasock is joining at some point he may not be able to join the very beginning. I see my own stuff. Oh, he is on. Oh, yes. Yes. Okay. And Scott. Thank you. And then a consultant. I'll have pretty is here. Good evening. Mr. Chairman. Marty knowers here from beta group. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Well, Bill McGrath correct. Thank you. The lead Aaron Ford should be on. So this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. Signed into law on June 16 2021 this act includes an extension until April 1, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's Mark 12 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law which suspended the requirement to hold fall public bodies in a fully accessible physical location. Further all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may continue to meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meet and opportunity for public participation. This meeting is being recorded during the public comment period during each video conference via the zoom app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda post. Website identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by a CMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of means some attendees are participating by video conference other participants are participating by computer audio or by telephone. So accordingly, please be aware that a important other identifier please take care to not share personal information. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording we ask you to please maintain before him during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website less otherwise noted, the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda is chair reserve the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. So let's start Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman. Yes, please. Mr. Hannah. I'm getting echo. And I'm wondering if others are getting the same, whether it's my connection or whether there's something wrong in general, but some of what you just said Mr Chairman cut out for me. I'm fine here. I'm getting lost that you are a network bandwidth as well. This is video. That's unfortunate. That's what the echo is coming from. Okay. Do I need to repeat any of that or continue along here, see how this goes. So item number two on our agenda is the approval of the decision for 14 NICOT street. This is administrative items. It relates to the operation of the board and as such will be the approval of NICOT street. The board will not take up any new business on the prayer hearing. Nor will there be any introduction of new information on matters previously brought before the board. Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Chairman. The board has had before for several days of draft decision. I've incorporated the comments that I've received and I'm ready to move that the board. Approve the decision draft decision that was distributed several years ago. In the 14 NICOT case. I have a second from the board. Second. Second. Thank you. So. The motion to approve the decision for 14 NICOT street. As prepared by Mr. Hanlon. Vote of the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. O'Rourke. Hi. And the chair votes aye. That is approved. Thank you again. Mr. Hanlon for. Preparing an excellent. Decision. Turning to the next item. Item three and four on our agenda, which is the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndyke place. And. The training to the comprehensive permit hearing for Thorndyke place. At the prior hearing on September 9th, 2021. The applicant focused on presenting the complete project in its updated form with six duplex houses on Dorothy road. And a 124 unit senior independent living building behind. There were many questions and concerns raised during the hearing. At the conclusion, the board requested that the April 8 draft decision be revised to align with the current proposal. And the board requested that it be revised to align with the current proposal. And the board requested that it be revised at this evening's hearing. At that same hearing, the board voted to extend the public hearing period to Friday, October 8th. And to continue the hearing to this evening. At the time, the applicant indicated their reluctance to further extend the public hearing period beyond the eight. The board has received revised comment on the draft decision. From the applicant. The board's peer review consultants. The public and members of the board. Those have been posted to the website and to the agenda. We all acknowledge there have been several versions of the draft released over the past week. And then the last several days. This has led to some confusion regarding what they each individually contain. In addition, we have comment letters from a variety of sources. And there are many items to be discussed and deliberated. The plan for tonight's hearing to have a brief introduction to the revised draft from our comprehensive permit consultant. I'll have it. I've also asked him to lay out the criteria for closing the public hearing and explain what comes next. If the board votes to close the public hearing. The board will then briefly review the findings to help highlight what information the board still needs in order to complete its findings. If there is additional information that's required to be submitted, we will then move ahead to a review of the waivers requested by the applicant. The board will seek to clarify any outstanding questions regarding what is being requested and discuss the proper disposition of the waivers with regards to addressing local needs. The board will then begin a prioritized review of the proposed conditions to discuss conditions that have not been aired during the hearing, discuss conditions requiring an agreement on the terms, sort out duplicate conditions and review conditions requiring further action by the applicant. At that point, we will open the hearing for public comment. The board is very appreciative of the attention paid to these proceedings by the residents of this neighborhood and throughout town. The board will then begin a prioritized review of the proposed conditions to discuss conditions that have not been aired during the hearing. The board will then begin a prioritized review of the residents of this neighborhood and throughout town. Many of you have been at all 20 plus hearings on this application. We look forward to your constructive engagement on the draft decision. And I apologize to all Red Sox fans that we are coincident with the game this evening. And at the close of the public comment portion of tonight's hearing, the board will need to make a determination as to whether the public hearing period is set to expire this Friday. Now introduce Paul Havity and ask him to give his brief presentation on the draft decision and the next steps for the public hearing. Paul. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. As the board and I'm sure all of you have heard of the draft decision, I would like to introduce Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul Havity. Paul. Good evening, Chairman, as the board and I'm sure the public is aware. Back in the spring, we had gone through a pretty extensive and comprehensive draft decision of the prior proposal.  I wouldn't say that it was quite ready for issuance, but it was well along the way. and conditions, and it was probably, you know, 90% of the way towards being a completed decision, at which point the applicants came in with a different proposal that was, you know, a rather significant change to what had been previously before the board, which has required a revision of the draft decision. What I did is I requested that the applicant actually provide information regarding the changes that have been proposed since the last draft was prepared and also requested that they take any conditions or findings that either had to change as a result of the changes to the proposal or that they had a problem with and would ultimately lead them to have to file an appeal if the board issued the findings or conditions. So we've got that draft from the applicant. There were a number of tracked changes left over from the prior draft. There were also changes tracked by the applicant with this draft. I went through it in all of the changes that had been previously discussed with the prior draft that still remained relevant. I accepted. I also accepted changes from the applicant that I felt were not substantive and not necessary for the board to actually review during the course of its meeting, just to try to pare down because it was a very, very busy document. It was difficult to follow along, and it still is because there's still a lot of tracks changes in this document. Subsequent to that draft going out, we've gotten additional comments and suggested findings and conditions from town staff, town departments, and the board's peer review consultants, and therefore those additional comments have made it into an additionally revised draft. So that's where we're at tonight. Obviously, all of this has occurred since the board's last meeting. This has been done without the actual direct input of the board members because, again, that's something that has to occur during a duly noticed public hearing. So what's in front of the board tonight is not something that the board itself has directed or adopted in any way, shape, or form. It is all really something to help the board in its process, but ultimately any decisions with regards to any findings or any conditions and waiver decisions are going to be made by the board at the end of the process. So that's where we're at with this decision. As the board is aware, they're under a regulatory requirement in terms of how long it can keep the public hearing open, and we're obviously far, far past the end date of that period. However, we've received multiple extensions from the applicants, which is why we're able to continue with this hearing up to this date. If the applicant doesn't grant any further extensions, as the chair has noted, the board will have to close the public hearing by Friday. If the board doesn't close the public hearing at the end of the extended period provided by the applicants, the board is then subject to the applicants filing a notice with the Housing Appeals Committee of a Constructive Code, which would essentially give the opportunity for the applicants to get the project approved without any conditions, without any of the protections that are contained in the board's findings. So it's very important that the board comply with this regulatory process and close its public hearing at the appropriate time. Now, again, once the board closes the public hearing, the opportunity to receive any additional feedback from the applicants, from town staff, from your peer review consultants, and from the public is over. So to the extent that we reach the conclusion of the hearing tonight, and there is a need for additional testimony to be submitted, then the board can ask the applicants if it would be willing to grant any further extensions, and it'll be incumbent upon the applicant to make a determination whether it believes the board is correct that this additional information is necessary, or whether it thinks all of the necessary materials have been submitted, and we'll just have to move from there. That's pretty much it. I don't know if there's anything else you want to me to cover, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I think that that is pretty much it. I think the only other thing is once the hearing is closed, then there is a 40-day period for the board to discuss and deliver its decision. That's correct. In that time period can also be extended by agreement. Yes, please. I just have a question for Mr. Havity. Just to be clear on this, once the hearing is closed, and we enter the period of deliberation, the board could ultimately reject the whole thing and say no, or it could adopt one or another proposal on the way a condition ought to read, or it can write its own condition. It's not in any way bound by the things that we will talk about tonight. These are just, these are feeding into the decision that the board will have to make once it gets to that stage. Is that correct? That's correct. So on a comprehensive permit application, there are three decisions that a board can make. One is to just simply grant it without conditions. I literally have never seen that happen in 20 years of doing this stuff. The second is the board can grant to approve with conditions, and we have a draft decision that has quite a number of suggested conditions, but again, those are suggested. It's up to the board to determine whether or not it believes that those conditions are sufficient, are too much, are not enough. And then finally, the board has the ability to simply deny the comprehensive permit. Now, the risk to the board in a denial rather than an approval with conditions is that the applicant takes an appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee, and if the Housing Appeals Committee determines that there are no issues of local concern that outweigh the regional need for affordable housing, then the Housing Appeals Committee will overturn the board's decision and grant a comprehensive permit to the applicant without any of the conditions that are currently proposed. So that's sort of the balance that the board needs to strike and make. My understanding is that if the board does deny it, then the any member of the public who would have standing would no longer have the ability to file an appeal, is that correct? Correct. If the board denies the comprehensive permit, then there isn't any party that would have to intervene at the Housing Appeals Committee or to file a separate appeal. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So turning to the draft decision, the first section includes all the findings. I'm going to pull this up in a second. The board needs to determine if there are any findings that need additional evidence for support before the close of the public hearing. So let me go ahead. I will share this. So this version of the draft decision is one that came out. I believe it was yesterday's. But it includes comments from the applicant from the town and who knows. But this is the most recent version that we have. So just to quickly lay out the findings, there's the procedural history, which is really just sort of how we got here and a brief description of the property. Then the jurisdictional findings, these are the findings that dictate how this is approved. It includes information about all the state filings and other such things. This is one of the first blanks. And this is one I think we would I reach out to the Department of Planning and Community Development, which is what was the date of the subsidized housing inventory when the application was first filed? I believe that that's what this blank is asking for. And obviously that's something you're not going to have on hand. But we would need that by Friday. And then we moved into factual findings. This is again, these are descriptions of the property, the challenges. We have a subsection on wetlands, information about flooding, the climate change vulnerability, this number 32, we're looking for areas. And I think that this may be one that John has shown, this may be more your area if you're able to provide these approximate areas. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. If I may, John actually, he has provided them. I don't know if he has them handy, but I have them handy if you want those numbers. Oh, sure. Okay. It would be a 25,310 square feet of temporary disturbance. Okay. And the second blank is 1,206 square feet of impervious walkway. 1,206. 06. 06, yeah. And then going along together with 623 square feet of disturbance. And I think it's, I think it's actually, if there's confusion, it's that outermost 20 feet of the aura. So I don't know if that makes a difference, but it says outermost, I guess. And I think those are the figures. I'm going to double check my notes, 25,310, 1,206. Yes. Thank you for those on the transportation network. Here my understanding is the current application does not include blue bike stations. Is that correct? That is correct. That was stated in, I believe, my memo to the board of 9321. And then likewise confirmed by VAI's email of, I think it was 10-1.  And then these figures, I believe, were provided by Mr. Hessian on number 59. It's 31.9% of the 5.66 acre development site that will consist of impervious surface. I believe those are his figures. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I, these, those figures were, can you hear me? I can, yes. Oh, okay. Those figures were actually provided by Bill McGrath from Beta, but we checked them and verified those to be accurate. I actually came up with 78,626 square feet, but two square feet. We're not going to quibble. It could be a rounding. Absolutely. So before we get to the conditions, members of the board in your review of the graph decision, were there any questions that you had on the findings that you'd like to raise at this time? Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. This relates back, I believe, since I'm like everyone working with multiple documents, but I think it's in paragraph eight is the first place it comes up. At some point, at various points in the document, the applicant has represented about the senior residential that the minimum age would be 62, and that the, and the expected, and that what the nature of the use is independent senior living with services. And we're relying on that for a number of different things later on. And I wanted to be sure that if the applicant, if the board were to write that into the findings and make explicit those expectations that the applicant continues to be ready to ready to stand behind them. To respond to your inquiry, Mr. Hanlon. Yes, the applicant stands by that the senior living with services would be age restricted 62 plus. And if the board were to rely at some point, and especially I think in the transportation section to the expectation that the residents of the senior housing are expected by the applicant at least to be in their 70s and 80s, would that cause you any difficulty? I don't think it would cause difficulty. And the age 62 plus is it's kind of a magic number under fair housing because you can't discriminate against people based on familial status. So the exceptions are senior kind of senior housing. There's two categories 55 plus and 62 plus under like fair housing law. So that's why we're falling under the 62 plus. We anticipate the population to be older, but to comply with fair housing, we say 62 plus. Does that address your what you're getting at? Yes, it does. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. Related to that question, if the applicant in the future wanted to try to convert the facility to. Who is that? What's that? Yes, John. If the applicant wanted to convert the facility to a full assisted living facility in the future, what would that entail and would that require it to come back for us? Ask that question of Mr. Haverty. I'm not sure what it would entail to convert from 62 and over facility to an assisted living facility. I think the applicant would have to address that. But in terms of whether or not that would require them to come back to you. Yes, that would be a change in the proposal. You would have to make a determination pursuant to 760CMR 56.0511 that such change is a substantial change. And if it is substantial, you would have to hold a newly noticed public hearing on that proposed. Thank you. Welcome. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I hate to be scattershot here but jumping way forward to what is currently, I'm not sure what the current, the old number was 51. It's a sentence that says the project will connect to the Arlington Municipal Water and Sewer System. And I wanted, at some point I thought that there was some question at least in my mind as to whether or not the project would be linked to the storm sewer system. I gather that the answer to that question is yes, but hardly any. But I wonder if, I wonder if that's correct or if this should be specified sanitary sewer rather than storm sewer. I think that's a question for Mr. Hessian. Please. Mr. Chair. The project will need to connect to the Towns Municipal Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer System. And the project proposes no connections to the Towns Municipal Storm Drain System. Thank you. Welcome. Anything further, Mr. Hanlon? I hope not. I may have to come back, but everybody will appreciate how difficult it is to go from thing to thing and find specific things over so many pages. But I think these are the main things I had in mind. Is there anything further from members of the board on the findings? Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. There were some proposed findings from the applicants. Are we going to talk about those this evening? Should we do those now? Or not? Sure. On my draft, it's number 16. It's the last one before the jurisdictional findings. And are we going to have discussions about these at this time, Mr. Chairman, or not? We certainly can. Or if you want to just flag it and we'll pick it up again when we get to our deliberations. Yeah, that's fine. Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. If I could suggest it's going to be a long night. There are some kinds of things. I mean, I have some difficulties with this in terms of whether that, in terms of the degree to which that corresponds with the judgment of the board. But that's all deliberation stuff. But where we actually think we need additional information, we need to bring it up tonight because we won't have another opportunity. And so I hope that we can sort of follow that principle. Because if we have to really deal with the drafting issues now, we won't be able to finish. We may not have to adjourn tonight. We may just be able to last till Friday anyway. Mr. Chair? Steve Revillac? Yes. There are a number of elements in the decision that I would like to talk about. But I believe all of these could be addressed during the deliberation phase. Mr. Chair, I do have at least one more. Yes, please. On Life Paragraph 52 within the Transportation Network. The finding talks about the reduction in traffic from a prior proposal. Can we have the information in here on what the increase in traffic is over current? And I think we had some discussion last meeting about the actual number of daily trips. I'm not sure if we actually settled on that number. And I didn't have time to go back and check them in the reports. It was 400 and something. Because if we do have a number, and there has been discussion about a number, I would like to have that in here, the actual number of daily and or weekly trips in the increase from the current project not constructed. Okay. I believe just to confirm, Ms. Kiefer, both of those numbers should be transportation report correct from VAI? That's correct. Yes. The numbers would be within the VAI updated traffic report. And then also I believe in Mr. Thornton's email of 10-1. He had also provided context because there is a reference there to what the traffic reviewers had suggested that it would be congregate care. And so he provided the numbers there that is the daily trips associated with congregate care versus the daily trips under land use code 252 for senior adult housing. So both of that information is in there, is in that email. And then the number of daily trips based on the VAI's use of the 252 code is exactly within the report. Okay. Perfect. Mr. Chair, Kevin Mills? No. I have to say we can't offer an honest opinion on whether I require more information or not, because I'm looking at these several drafts and I'm having a very difficult time comprehending them. There's all kinds of editing schemes being used. There's crossouts, there's colors, there's background colors. I'm not sure what's being added. Deleted. Somebody's recently added something to the existing document for approval. You know, I don't know what's in the backbone of the discussion or whether it's a suggestion and there's several documents out there. And frankly, I can't sit there and go through several hundred pages and try to find out what's consistent. So I really can't make a decision at this point, whether we have enough information until I have a document that I can understand. And at least I understand what the editing marks are. I mean, there's comments on the sideline from various people, you know, saying we need more information or somebody's going to supply information. I don't know if it's another draft. It's been supplied or not. I'm at a loss to the truth, sir. That's my opinion. I'm sure the public is of the same ilk. I'm certain you are not alone. I mean, I've written professionally for journals and stuff. You know, I understand technical writing and stuff, but everybody's got their own editing modes here and I just, there's no consistency. And I simply can't understand whether it's being added or deleted. I'm sorry. Okay. Opening up to the town or to the applicant. Are there any information that you feel is missing that's been omitted from the findings? Chairman Klein, may I comment? This is Susan Chapnick, the chair of the Conservation Commission. Just one comment back to the board. If you view the edited document in Word yourself, you can put it in a mode where you can see on the side who added and who deleted what. I find that very helpful. So I'm just giving that out as a piece of information. But the comment I wanted to make, at least from the Conservation Commission is that I haven't reviewed all the findings since we just got a revision this morning. Therefore, I haven't had a chance to see if they are accurate, especially the changes that have been made by the applicant. I am frankly disturbed by some of the changes made where things were omitted. And maybe you will address those in your deliberation of the ZBA. But I guess I'm asking what the process is for the Conservation Commission as an Allied Commission who is assisting you in this process. Are we going to be assisting in rewording and discussions in deliberation of the findings or not? Or do we have to put all our comments in prior to Friday? I guess I'm trying to find out what the process is, Chairman Klein. Mr. Chairman, should I address that? Yes, please. So again, the board can't accept any comment from any party, whether it be town staff, other boards, the applicant, or the neighborhood, once the public hearing is closed. Deliberation within the board. So any comments that the Conservation Commission wishes to be made part of the record and to be considered during the deliberation have to be in before the hearing closes. Thank you. So Chairman Klein, not to belabor the point, but considering you have a lot to get through tonight, I would propose that the Conservation Commission might be sending you additional comments on the findings so that we don't belabor it right now. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. On at least some, as the commission will know, the board will know Mr. Rarick has on more than one occasion submitted proposed findings of FACT, which I at least would like to make sure is in the opinion. And I think it's in some versions and not. And I can't find it in the one that we're working with tonight. These things relate to open space and the town's policies with respect to open space. And they logically connect to an important issue in the case, which has to do with what will be done with the conservation parcel that is not included in the actual project development. And I wondered if Mr. Haverty could say whether the language that Mr. Rarick has provided is in this draft. And if not, I will certainly at the appropriate time propose inserting it in the draft. And again, it naturally links up with a discussion of the open space that is part of the application that we'll no doubt discuss later on. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that that language is in this draft, but obviously it's material that has been submitted already to the board. So it's in the record and the board absolutely can review it and include it in any deliberations and decisions. I agree. I don't think it's in this draft, but I definitely have it in my my own tracking draft. Not the one on the screen, but the one I have myself. Mr. DuPont? Yeah, just getting back to what Ms. Chapnick said, I too, along the lines that Mr. Mills has stated, have had some difficulty in trying to line things up, as I'm sure other people have. And I would find it most useful if Ms. Chapnick is going to submit some comments prior to the close of the meeting, I'd rather have those in the form of just a document from the Conservation Commission, because it's going to be easier at this point rather than adding things in to the draft itself, then you have to sort of sort back through everything and decide what was there before and what's new, even though I know that there are those, you know, those elements in the review that you can use in your Word documents to try to sort that out. But personally, I would rather see a document just from conservation saying, here's what we think needs to be added. I don't know if that actually works for Ms. Chapnick, but that's how I'd rather do it. I'd rather have a piece of paper in my hand, quite frankly, and then just sort of sort through and see where it needs to be added in. Mr. Chair, may I respond? Please. That would be fine. What I can do is if we have comments, I can put it in a comment letter and reference the section of the draft. I assume tonight, since you're making some changes, that there will be another draft posted, if that's correct, I could do it on the new draft or would you like me to do it on the draft that you're working on tonight before you make changes? I would use the numbering scheme on this draft that's available online. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman. There's nothing in what Mr. DuPont has suggested that is actually limited to the Conservation Commission. There may be others who have suggestions and proposed amendments, and at this point, it seems to me that Mr. DuPont is right that integrating them into a markup of the existing text is just going to add to confusion, and they ought to be put in terms of proposed amendments to the document that we're working with. Well taken. Unless there's anything further about information we need to conclude the findings, I want to go ahead and move on to the waivers, which is the final section. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I just, I had a question on one of the findings to see if we should discuss it or to adhere. It's finding 64 within the paragraph, and it's the second sentence, the board finds that such conditions will not render the project un-economic. I mean, we've talked about this and that we apparently cannot get the pro-former at this point. I don't know how we make a finding that the condition will not render the project un-economic without that, but so I just wanted to mention that here, I'm sure we will be, I assume we'll be talking about this later on, whether we're going to include this finding or not, is that correct? And maybe Mr. Havett can address that, how we make such a finding without the pro-former. So, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that we have received feedback from the applicant, and they have not indicated that the conditions proposed by the board render the project un-economic, that would support that particular finding. The finding does go on to state that to the extent that it does render the project un-economic, that these conditions and waiver decisions are supported by issues of local concern. Thank you. Is there anything further, Mr. Ork? No, thank you. Decisions on waivers. So this is still preliminary. So these are the waivers that have been requested by the applicant and then involved are the preliminary determinations on actions since the board. Just want to make sure we understand exactly what is being requested by these conditions. And then are there conditions where we don't, at this point, where we don't agree and we might need some additional input? First, to, if you believe the applicant has seen any of the recommended action, deny them because they're essentially already allowed under what we are approving. The third one is a limited allowance to allow work within the aura as shown on the approved plan. If we had discussed the extent within the aura, previously those were figures that were provided by the applicant this evening. Then the section 24, section 25, so these are the recommendations to grant them are from the applicant and I believe these are how we will be seeing information from the conservation commission specifically in regards to these as well as others as to their recommendations. The number six is a question about a bond. We do have some letters that were submitted in regards to proposed bond amount and the board can deliberate on that. Wetlands consultant fees. So this is another one where I think we're going to want to discuss it a little further where this specifically relates to fees that are as a part of any subsequent reviews. And Mr. Havity, if I'm not confused, do these fees relate specifically to further reviews that have to happen in regards to the only the town bylaws or would this also impact any fees for the review of state bylaws? This is a waiver of a town bylaw provision. So it would only be applicable to fees charged under the local bylaw. But I mean here is in reviewing the waiver request that the fee relates to submittals during the course of the hearing on the application. Right. Which again you know you didn't need separate authorization to in charge to charge the applicants for peer review consultant fees for a view of the application and you have done so. Yeah. So I'm not sure you know that this is the waiver that needs to be granted anyway. Okay. If I may just for clarification purposes though. It was just under wetland consultant fees so as like a separate one and obviously the ZBA went under 53G for peer review fees. So I think it's I know Paul it's a little bit slicing hairs I guess if you will but I think that the the issue is that the board got the services of peer review you know under under 40B. So I think that it would be that it should be granted because it wasn't you know the the peer review is doing it acting as the ZBA as the kind of comprehensive firmating authority. So I'll let you you know advise your board but that was just my take on it. Okay. Chairman Klein may I may I ask a question about that? This is Ms. Schappock. Yes. Thank you. I was under the impression that this also could be used for evaluation review during the project. Is that not true the wetland consultant fees? So for example if we wanted to hire a consultant to to tell us if the compensatory flood storage mitigation and restoration was being performed in accordance with the plans that would not come under here. Mr. Havnery? I think that it could come under this provision. I mean it would have a better understanding of how your bylaw works than I would but it would act as an authority for to support conditions that are that are already in the decision that you know allow for consultant fees to be charged for review of submittal of final plans for ongoing work and things of that nature. Right which is why both data and the conservation commission recommending not granting this waiver in in our previous letter. Okay thank you. Number eight was about the placement of dumpsters which as we said is being denied because the dumpsters are interior to the building. The stormwater mitigation one somehow got truncated here but I believe that the request is to waive it because essentially they are operating entirely under the state and federal stormwater specifically under the town. Mr. Chairman? Yes please. We just lost you for about two minutes. Oh that would explain a lot. So number nine stormwater mitigation somehow it came through in the draft without a description but from what I recall and I would ask is keeper to confirm that this is it's a request to be waived in a way to comply with the state and federal codes and for that reason they're looking to waive the local code. Is that correct? I guess Mr. Hessian you may be able to answer that as well. I'll do a first and then John can jump in if he likes but yeah so the provision deals with kind of stormwater management permitting under article 15 section 135 and there's procedures application calls for the engineering division's review and approval potential relief from DPW and we've asked exactly as you suggested that be waived clarifying that the stormwater is going to be managed in accordance with DEP stormwater policy and technical guidance unless you know the provisions don't apply to the specific project or parts of it and then the stormars also be managed in accordance with a stormwater construction permit from Massachusetts from US EPA. Okay Mr. Chairman. Do you have requirements contained in sections one through five of article 15? My recollection Paul is that it's more it's somewhat of a process waiver if you will. Again so if that's the case then this would be one of those procedural waivers that would be denied as being necessary. If there are substantive waivers that are necessary from that then we should identify them. Mr. Chairman please. Just in addition to the things that Ms. Kiefer referred to I seem to recall seeing several paragraphs in here actually that there are commitments about stormwater mitigation unless I'm mistaking what this is referring to that are in this in this permit and that those would be part of the substantive things if you will that would govern stormwater would govern this. Now I'm not quite sure whether or not it's exactly the same and I wonder if someone could clarify whether there's something referred to under stormwater mitigation that wouldn't for example be included in this conditions of this comprehensive permit relating to stormwater management which is a different word. Who would you like to address that question? I would like to address it to anyone who knows the answer to it. Ms. Kiefer you look pretty much. I was going to say Mr. Hamlin I don't have the full language of the bylaw in front of me. I will provide you a response. I just don't have the bylaw right in front of me I'm trying to pull it up okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. John Hessian I do have it open and you know the the applicability of the storm article 15 stormwater mitigation is development that impervious surfaces exceeds 500 square feet or alteration of the developed property by more than 350 350 square feet. It's identifies the procedure prior to the issuance of a building permit. The engineering division will review the application within 14 days approved approved subject to conditions or reject the plan. It doesn't specifically state it but the in in reading this article 15 it it appears that the intent is for projects that come in under the site plan approval or special permit or comprehensive permit requirements of the town and that this project Thorndyke Place has received a complete and thorough stormwater management design review by by both the town and by the town's peer review consultant data. And to miss to have read his question it does appear to be there's no real detailed performance standards or application requirements identified in article 15. Okay. Thank you for that and that's so it really is a process way a waiver from the process because we have essentially already completed the process. That's my way person's interpretation. Okay. Non-lead. We will confirm that sounds correct. Number 10 tree protection and preservation requires approval of the tree warden prior to commencement of site work. A waiver from the procedural requirement of obtaining approval of the tree war the application does not request any substantive waivers of the requirements. And again this is a we've the statement that we've agreed to the substantive provision the bylaws is then essentially a waiver process. So it is being deemed unnecessary. Mr. Chairman that's fine just just to clarify for I think that it would understand the stuff the bylaw provisions that would be applicable are those that were in effect at the time of the application bylaw. That's very you know, I'm sure it says it within the decision otherwise but just reiterate that. That's a Mr. Chairman just going back to the article 15 says that that was adopted it in 2007 annual town meeting so that was adopted after oh no I'm sorry that was before yeah get my dates all could you sorry about that. This feels like this has been going on since but it said 17 and then I read it again it said seven my apologies not at all. Now fees and charges reduction fees reduction water connection fees reduction sewer fees those are all recommended denials that request a waiver of various unspecified definitions that's being denied because it's not specific enough. Zoning bylaws shall apply this is basically to allow the construction of building so that would be granted. Second is there is similar but this is institutes a special permit process which we don't have to do because this is the special permit process so that's the the night is unnecessary. Dimensional intensity regulations this is being denied because there's a more specific request under 18. We need to confirm the floor ratio information make sure we have that correct. Mr. Chairman that it's not required if you look at the I think it's the materials and layout sheet of the plan said it's it has the calculations both for the entire parcel as well as the smaller installment parcel in there. I think 0.6 something I refer you to that chart. So 19 building in the flood plain requires a special permit again it's a procedural matter so that is unnecessary. Open space regulations there's been a little question back and forth on this one now that they're supposed to be so it's the 10% of usable open space which is the issue however there's 12 acres immediately adjacent. I think which is what this is intended to say is the board just needs to review this. This is one of the requirements without this requirement. The project can't move forward. You that next one is on signage discuss this at a prior meeting. Essentially I think we would be looking to do a partial granting to allow the signs that the applicant is asking for but not to give a blanket approval for all signs. And if I may Mr. Chairman just to clarify right we had asked for a waiver for the for the number of signage and there's under the sign by law that's effective for this project. There were some general requirements for signs like in any district and we're not seeking a waiver from that. So the signage tool we're not seeking to have those provisions waive. But this was kind of specific with signs within certain districts with the business industrial or PUD and so for the number of signs. And I think so I think you're looking for what the town calls a ground sign and a canopy sign or the 2 signs that you're requesting. Those are the 2 main ones and there would also be though as as ones approaching the property signage that would be posted that would help direct individuals whether they're going towards the kind of the main entrance of the independent living building versus going down towards the garage area. So you know I guess the question that we that may have some you know back and forth or tweaking is whether we can put both of those kind of directional sort of information on a single posted sign or whether it makes sense to have separate signage maybe on separate signs of the drive or something to make certain that it's clear and plain. So and I don't know if those would be kind of wayfinding signs or directional. I think that I think as you said before that those directional signs. Yeah, that's it. Yeah, so I think the directional and site signs are are excluded from the account and the requirements. They generally are I think and John you can jump in on if you if you know this more readily than I do but I think the directional signs are limited to one square foot. So if we potentially had a sign directing people alternate things it might be larger than that area. So that's why I I'd love to open the ability to have potentially more than two signs but but you are absolutely correct that the the intent is to have kind of the one monument sign at the entrance and then the canopy sign for the independent living. Additional signage if it if it has to exceed that one square foot just to convey the information it is more of a wayfinding as you will to just make certain that traffic flows on the site smoothly. Mr. Chairman if John Hessian the zoning bylaw does limit traffic or directional signs to one square foot an area which if you could picture like a typical no parking sign on the street or those are slightly larger than those are probably 18 by 12. I don't know the exact dimension off the top of my head but I think we would want signs that are that are you know customary for the public you know they're used to seeing signs like that no parking you know and right turn typical typical size of traffic management signage. And Mr. Chairman can I ask a question parking. Yes please. We're talking here about waivers but but presumably there's some sort of a regime for relating to signage that the applicant is proposing and I guess the question I have is whether they're if we granted a waiver in connection with the signage in order to allow the things that the applicant is asking for whether and to what extent those are specified in a condition or simply well in a condition so that we can see exactly what it is that we're that we're granting are all are the signs on the plans and if not is there anything that needs to be said in order to nail down what Mr. Hessian and Ms. Kieffer has been telling us is what they want to do. So John can you briefly just describe where the signage is on the on the plan that are submitted. Yes Mr. Chairman the on the lay on materials plan let me which is she see 103 identifies all the locations of the well the two main signs that we're discussing of the monument entry sign is shown on the right hand side of the main entry drive off of Dorothy at the end of little John and then the canopy sign over the entrance the main entrance to the senior living building those locations are both identified on that she'd see 103 layout and materials plan that drawing also identifies the location of directional signage for access to the main entrance to the garage directional signage that identifies the emergency vehicle access route and then also no parking fire lane sign on the east side of the building all of this proposed signs in the locations are depicted on that layout materials plan. Thank you welcome. When the 21 is the number of parking spaces and that will be essentially set to the number of parking spaces are in the proposal. The number of compact spaces. The way the bylaw allows up to 20% I believe there's 25 that we're going to say there's 25% of the spaces are considered compact spaces. That's what the board will need to review. 23 is procedural and so that we waived what's shown on the plans um number 24 against special permits. So currently the town bylaw that was that was an effect of the time to give a direct a duration of a special part of two years the state gives three years so we the waiver would be superseded by the town by law by the state law anyways I believe that's the intention of the denial as being unnecessary. Mr. Chairman if I may I would suggest that because this is a comprehensive permit the term of a comprehensive permit is set out in 40B so that would somewhat override special permit. Exactly so that's the three years state law would supersede. And Mr. Chairman this is not a special permit so this section is not applicable anyways. Oh that's a very good point. That's a very good point. 25 similar there are no variances because it's a comprehensive permit. 26 uses within the floodplain district after it was a waiver of special permit requirement. So the action is listed as a waiver but if it's or it's a waiver of a special permit requirement then that it would not be granted it would be denied as unnecessary because it would be procedural. Article 11-11-05 special permit again special permit that would get waived I'm sorry not get waived would be denied as unnecessary. This special permit process for EDR again unnecessary because this is not EDR.  The request is being waived because the subsidizing agency who is underwriting the application is the one who has jurisdiction on a comprehensive permit so that's the reason for granting that. And then last one here is a waiver for application doesn't this is from the zoning board who appeals comprehensive permit regulations. It's just that the application would be what the documents that the board has been provided and the request is to grant that so the board needs to review that as a part of its decision. Are there any questions from the board or the town or the applicant on the waivers or anything we felt we did not have that we needed? Mr. Chair. Yes please. The comments we received from beta this evening I looked at them briefly they look like they're in a different order from the order here is that correct? Yeah I noticed that as well. Do we know if everything in that beta memo is addressed here or we can just take a look at that later? We can look at that again later I had started to go through that before the meeting but just ran out of time. And Mr. Chairman will I take a conservation commission will also be providing commentary on these as well? I would certainly believe so but I can ask Ms. Chapnick to confirm. Yes we will thank you for asking we actually had already made our recommendations about these waivers in our seventh comment letter but we will reiterate the applicable waivers with the numbers as listed in this draft so that it's clear with justification. Thank you. Thank you. Further on this one? That is everything on waivers so now we'll move back up to conditions and so what we had wanted to try to do here was just to see if there are any conditions that were requesting action that the board is requesting action by the applicant that we have not discussed in any prior hearings or are there any conditions where there's disagreement and are there duplicate conditions and I am aware of a few of them that we want to try to make sure we clear out and then do we need to reconsider any of the conditions which require a review of information to be provided by the applicant after the closing of the public hearing? So there are a number of those that go through by matter of course for the building permit, the application for any state permits and things like that but is there any additional information that we are requesting that there are any questions or concerns about? If there's anyone from the board who has specific questions, Mr. Rabbi Black. Regarding since it flew by on the screen but the list of drawings I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add at some point it was an unnumbered sheet titled potential conservation parcel and dated 827-21 should that be referenced at some point? Or what was that titled again? So it was titled potential conservation parcel and dated 827-21 but there was no sheet number. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Revlock that that should be included as one of the plan sheets. It was it was submitted simultaneously with the plan set but it was a kind of a separate sheet. And it should be added to this to the section on the site information correct? Yes, I mean it doesn't it doesn't go to describing the project so you know I but I agree it should be make its way into into the decision so if it's if it doesn't quite fit in with that one reference it otherwise but I was going to raise that that the board would probably want reference to that plan and that because we're talking about you know a 12-acre open space parcel and that's that's kind of your reference point for it. Right. And I know it is referenced in in some of the conditions that that sheet is specifically referenced. Okay okay. So anything else Mr. Revlock? Nothing that can't be hashed out during deliberations. Okay, are there any other questions or comments from members of the board on that conditions? Mr. Chairman? Yes, please. We have a condition that the applicant had a concern with relating to local preference and I just wanted to say to no one's surprise I assume that I will eventually propose that we adopt the language in essence that we did in the 1165R decision rejecting the imposition of local preference. Mr. Chairman? Just to kind of follow up on that that and I'm not quite certain how you did it with 1165 but correct the the request by the board for a local preference is just that you know the the board can do and they can do it up to 70% but the board doesn't have to so it doesn't I don't if the board doesn't want a local preference I mean they probably don't have to say anything they can just be silent or they say we're not asserting again I'm not quite certain what you did with 1165 but it just just so you're aware I think that that had just been a carry over from the prior drafted decision so. And Ms. Keefer, Mr. Haverty has some elegant language on that. Anything else that had come up in the conditions and people's review of the conditions that that we should discuss at this time that may require additional input or additional research. I had there was a question that had come up on from the member of the public about the question about the 100 survival rate of plants and whether that should remain 100% or whether that should be 95%. Does the conservation commission have a specific policy on that? This is Susan Chapnick. We require 100% after each of the three years so that we require them to replant whatever died but then at the at the final application we understand that you don't get a whole total survival. So we have recently been requiring 80% survival at the end of the process so I don't know how you want to re word that so like if you have a three year monitoring after the first year if you lost 50% you have to put back 50% but at the end of the third year you're allowed to have 80% survival. If that makes sense. Yeah so basically at the end of each of the first three years you need to make sure that you are back to 100% connect 100%. Okay because whatever you said you were going to plant should be there again. I mean if it died then sometimes you planted different species or whatever you know you have some kind of discussion about that with the experts who know what's going to survive there but yeah. All right that makes a lot of sense I appreciate that. Mr. Harris do you have a rubble lock? Since it flashed on the screen right below the 100% survival rate and because it was a I'm sorry. Don't go ahead. So there is also a condition only not only no non-native cultivars are to be used. I know we had a discussion about this during the during in a different comprehensive permit but I thought it would be worth asking if that requirement is acceptable to the applicant and if the conservation commission has any remarks regarding that. We Steve if I may reply this is Susan Chapnick. We actually edited this section beta myself and the applicant so the non-native cultivars were removed and the edits that just came this morning from beta are not included in here unfortunately. That was a good question and we did remove that the non we left the native we remove the non-cultivar right now. Okay thank you. Yeah. Right and Mr. Chairman this is Stephanie Keeper. I was told to say that I think that this provision this section here that's showing up on the screen. Yeah there was some well there's two comments I guess I had there's there's some changes that have been made based on the commission's feedback but then also I think that kind of this language was repeated in two places in the decision. I think one maybe in factual findings and one within conditions and I don't think that when beta submitted its comments that I think it was going to remove that but I don't think that it did. I don't know Marty wants to comment on that but you may find kind of similar language twice and the one place that I saw had the commission's edits and the other place I think was was either to be removed or to be kind of the two pieces kind of coalesced together. This is Marty with the beta group. I'm looking at the version that I sent out this morning that Susan received a copy of John Hessian and I'm looking for that section in section I is really what I concentrated on. I don't even see that paragraph so I'm wondering if it's in a different part of the this in section C which it much more belongs somewhere else. Yeah so right and Marty I think that was in I-23 if you're looking at your section I about the I-23 yeah that does not have an I-23 for some reason I'm going to have to look back at that. Mr. Chairman I wonder if we could I mean I know I wonder if we can sort of just understand that whatever it is the language that the conservation commission and beta had agreed on and it should appear once and so the place which isn't that language is probably something that will eliminate and we can work on finding the right places during deliberation. Yeah I agree. Mr. Chairman I just like some clarification on this question about native in cultivar and non-cultivar what are we specifying specifying exactly what is the conservation commission recommending? We're recommending native plants and we do have lists on our website of native plants. We're taking out the word non-cultivar because it's getting used as a definition to understand that and also there are some non-cultivars some cultivars that are good for pollinators so that's a judgment call so we're leaving native we're taking out non-cultivar. I myself would side on putting non-cultivars in although some are pollinators for the most part they are not and they're not beneficial to natural wildlife birds catapels etc according to what I've read but we can discuss this during deliberations. Sure and another requirement the conservation commission has requested is a planting plan that should be submitted and approved. Administrator reviewed and approved so which we don't have so as a condition so hopefully that is still in this draft somewhere. Thank you. Yeah so there is a planting plan that was submitted in August but it was only for the developed parcel so Susan are you asking about a planting plan for the entire site or for just the developed site or just the conservation site? So we have requested a planting plan for any of the revegetation that was within resource areas including the compensatory flood storage area which is you know getting restored and we did it obviously didn't get it for the compensatory flood storage as we all know because that that hasn't been developed yet that plan. Okay so the planting plan and that we have so far which is limited to the developed portion of the site this is what you're requesting is in addition to that. Yes. Perfect. So Mr. Chairman anything else large and looming in the conditions that people wanted to discuss? Mr. Chairman. Back to the top here the first section yes please Mr. Hanlon. Well this relates to section F I don't know whether it's large and significant but we do need information on it. At our last hearing it was suggested that the applicant at least consider putting into the senior housing a convenience store and really that is not just that isn't so much intended to boost the economy as it is to eliminate the need for trips basically by older people who have a long way to walk to get incidentals. I don't think that we're probably in a position to force the application to do anything or even to decide whether that any particular plan is a good idea but I wonder if the applicant would have any objection to a condition requiring them to consider doing that as part of the conservation as part of the traffic control sorts of things. We could kind of work out what language is it wouldn't be very mandatory but the underlying principle I thought was a good one and it isn't something that it seems to me is ought to be very controversial. Basically these seven-year-olds probably shouldn't have to get to their car and go to CVS or to get to get a modium or whatever. It would be nice if minor trips could be avoided by having some convenient kind of retail in the building itself. Mr. Hanlon that's a well taken point. I might however though that some of that is going to be dictated by the operator of the independent living facility in terms of how they see to break up the spaces and the some of the introduction of that now I would have to go back to look to see if we would then need to request an additional waiver because without we would be conducting a retail business as well within this. I mean it would be incidental under a 40B but it may impact kind of our waiver listen. It may be something that as I said your point is very well taken but that we would have to consider and with the operator and should they decide that yes they agree that there's room and it would be a very helpful thing that we would have to come back to ask the board if adding that would be deemed a change substantial or insubstantial. Yeah I think that basically if I could just add I think that when you look at the PUD that that this use would would be acceptable but that's up to you to take a look at. My main objective here is to get it listed somewhere so that it's on the checklist of something that people ought to consider because otherwise what we say at this hearing or any other will be lost in everybody's memory and this may or may not be thought of later on so it would be nice to have it on people's on the checklist as people think about what to do here. I appreciate that and yes I think the small-scale retail is allowed under the PUD development under the PUD would not be an issue. Just going down through the conditions real quick. So section A are just general things so it's the sheets down so far the permit. Section B is about the affordability, the mass housing, subsidy programs, number of units, questions about and then the local preferences in there as well, the submission requirements. So this is stuff that needs to be filed with the town before as a part of the final application, credit issuance of building permits, and the certificate of occupancy as additional things as well. Constraints to the project design instruction mostly do with operations and how things proceed. Section F is all everything about traffic and the traffic safety conditions and sidewalks. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. I have a question about that and you'll have to forgive me I'm going back and forth but on what used to be at least F11 let me make sure that it still is. There's a provision, the applicant has agreed actually to have a separate parking fee in order to discourage car ownership but it did request eliminating a paragraph that said the board shall review and administratively approve the parking fee structure and any changes in the parking fee structure must be approved by the board prior to the fees becoming effective. That was part and parcel of what used to be in the TDM portion of this but that doesn't really seem to me to be overtaken by events and I wonder what the reason is why it is that the applicant would object to that considering that the underlying application is still there. So I think the way it's written now is that the parking for senior residence apartment units shall be subject to an additional monthly fee separate from rent in order to discourage motor vehicle ownership in the project that is remains in the document and then the the board approving a parking fee structure has been stricken. Right it's that latter part the board approval and the continued review that that seems logically to still go along with it with what once was F10 and it's been stricken the other things that are listed here seem to be relating to things that changed in the from one thing from one iteration of the plan to the other but this one did not. If I could Mr. Hanlon maybe respond to kind of the applicants thinking on this. Thank you. So when the board had proposed that before the project was the 176 unit multifamily project and now we're looking at you know roughly 50 units less and senior housing and so the I think part of the the the board's concern was with the larger multifamily project to kind of there were there are a few measures and they seem to be getting at the same thing part of it was to definitely discourage the multifamily use residents to to bring cars to the property and and then there are other requirements you know asking for kind of like keeping a transportation demand and parking utilization things of that nature were kind of the discussions at that time with respect to the proposed 84 whatever parking that's within the parking garage it's it's it's a much reduced scale and I'm not quite certain if like what exactly what concern that addresses of the board and whether or not kind of there's there's other kind of projects of this size that the board looks to see what what a parking fee structure is and I'm not I'm not quite certain what the concern is of the board so you know why it should be a condition like if there's a bit of context to that perhaps we can react but I'm not I'm not certain what the thinking is with the 80 some parking spaces why the board would like to review the fee structure on an annual year on an annual basis Mr. Chairman if I may I don't really actually want at this point to be an advocate or not it's something that was in the previous drafts and has been stricken here and I wonder if somebody from the planning department could could address whether or not what what's the underlying rationale I mean this isn't the board's request at this point it's a suggestion made to us and I'd like to understand what the reason for it is I don't know if you can yeah sorry um that was a recommendation from the senior transportation planner really what the planning what the transportation recommendations usually involve is unbundling parking as a way of managing parking demand um so by um that I can follow up with the announcements on this but uh usually by by separating it out and providing a separate monthly fee um people sort of reconsider whether they actually need to have two cars or only having a single car is sufficient um so often when people are sort of recommending a reduction in parking requirements um that unbundling of parking is a recommendation as a way of managing demand for parking space so mr mr chairman if I may miss uh it is true that the previous condition here would do that unbundling so the issue the only real question here has to do with the board review of the of the fee plan and its continued monitoring but it's really more administrative than substance the applicant as I understand it agrees that it will unbundle yep that's correct we can certainly discuss that further during deliberation mr chairman I guess the it is true that miss keifer has pointed to a certain lack of information we have about the need for this administratively in the context of this program so it is one of those things on which it would be nice to get additional information I believe there was um the keifer did issue either an email or a memorandum recently sort of outlining which of the TDM uh requirements that were from the prior version which are still in effect at this time is that correct miss keifer I yes if you look at my memo like again I think it was September 3rd um I set forth the the six TDMs that were being proposed under this project proposal and then again on December or October 1 I had submitted to you an email from Scott Thornton from Vanessa relative to he had proposed an additional one that's that was that was fine that was just it was a carryover the one he had said and that was just to provide the information packages about to the incoming residents about the area transit options okay perfect and oh sorry no go ahead oh I was gonna say while you have this page um just just to provide clarity on this F 11 I guess it is um looking back there seems to be a disconnect between the um the town traffic rules and what's actually the posted signage on lake street um if you I think you scrolled it was the not that F 11 the new number F 11 uh down below yeah sorry about that yeah and I right right there um just to provide context so when I look at the town traffic rules that are posted online um the the rule provides that from lake street one can't take right hand turns on to wilson little john or homestead between four and seven p.m. um I think that the actual posted signage may be more restrictive than what the traffic rule is written as and I think it's um article six section seven or that that has that so just just to explain kind of the the difference between why it says right hand turn versus not one is looking at what the what the traffic rule and what the traffic rules how they're written and posted article six section seven which prevents only right hand turns um and what's posted so however the board wants to address that just so the board's aware that there seems to be a conflict between the towns posting the town um posted rules one of the one of the local residents has provided us with with more information about what the specific requirements are that are posted today so we have that okay section g's on police fire and emergency medical which is water storage and utilities mr chairman if I may if we may back up section g yes under g2 um I I would suggest that perhaps it's dealing with stairwells and garages how they're fire rated um I would add a comma in their insight or as required by state building code right or or something along all all residential structures shall meet building code requirements or something um just because if the building code is changed you want to make certain that you're requiring it to adhere to building code yeah and and I know that we're now in section g um and we may have some effort some comments on wording or suggestions on other ones but um board wants we can submit those writing okay mr chairman yes please mr mills backing up the g8 and the cod access who initially suggested that and who struck it out if I understand the editing correctly involving the cod access system it was proposed by the applicant originally who uh has struck it out so it was struck by the applicant I'd like to know why I can't just keep her sure again this this relates back to that the um when we were talking previously about the the prior project proposal there were going to be more users of the parking garage system and so it was just because the parking garage is a smaller parking garage um a little bit more streamlined um I mean if if if the board feels it's important for um a card access system um I think that we can work with that but um I think that it was just kind of in line with the fact that we were going with a um kind of a smaller project and then also there's um there's more of like a reception area where people are coaching you know when they're entering into the building so that's kind of managed internally um and the concern was before is kind of all kinds of users were coming in and out if it was just multi-family um so I you know again I if the board has specific concerns about that happy to um address it yes mr chairman for the question on that will the garage door be secured or can anybody just simply drive or walk into the garage and therefore access the building without going through the front door miss kever could you reply for that page so so the question is can anyone go into the garage building and then and then enter the building through the garage is that what you're asking mr mouse yes and then yes and then simply get on an elevator and go where they want okay um uh art do you want to do you want to address that one or or um scott sorry you maybe near did simply concerned about the security except for for a moment but um there will be an access to cure and and I it could be a clicker it could be uh your suggesting card it could be voice um uh activated but there will be security in order to get into the garage and uh I would say not limiting it to a card would be good thing because they sometimes there are are um uh little clickers that are card access that can be put on the car there are various ways to do it so the technology may shift and and the only point that is that salient is that there will be security to get into the garage thank you welcome of course during utilities so one thing did this came up um actually today on a or yesterday with the memo um that mr handlin had requested which would was to sort of address um questions about uh local flooding and the impact of the project on local flooding and one of the things that um was noted by john hessian was that the town um currently has the stormwater system has an easement through the property that drains for drain for um and john please feel free to correct me if I have this wrong uh there's four storm drains in the in dorthy road out in front that drain uh through a 12-inch pipe across the property um in discharge downstream and uh he had some concern about the flow through the through that pipe and is it currently um up to standards and had thought that that might be something the town would want to consider um so I don't know how we address that um is that just something that we and this there's probably a question for for is linema is if there's a if there's a note that comes across that deals not with necessarily with the applicant but deals with the town um what's the best way to pass that along and specifically it was mentioned by the applicant because you know this would be a time when that area would be open for work um it might be if the town was going to do something this might be convenient time to do it and this is specifically unrelated to h nine sorry I'm um reading this here I don't think it's specific to h nine but it's specific to the storm the town's stormwater system and the easement that they have on the property um I would need to refer that to dbw to understand a little bit more about the actual process of of doing that um um sorry I'm distracted by the um cross out here um so that was that was the document that that mr. hessian provided for uh for mr. handlin in regards to local squad okay um I mean the I do know that the town engineer has not had a chance to review that document from mr. hessian so I would need to follow up with him and perhaps receive some sort of comment letter to submit back to the board in advance of Friday would that be suitable absolutely I'm I'm assuming this is something that we probably can't address that would not be addressed in a you know in this document um but just as something that the town may want to keep in mind okay and mr. chairman if I may um yeah it is if you want john to kind of explain I think that you did state briefly or adequately um what he had proposed that he can kind of clarify that um and and and I also agree with your statement that this doesn't necessarily it's not part of the 40 b decision but it is um a you know a central problem with the the the town's stormwater store so um if they wanted to try to coordinate while the property is under construction it would be it would be a good time you know it got something that they want to enter discussions I guess um and then this this h9 I wasn't quite certain what the like how this came to be and so I had I had inserted the temporary question mark I wasn't quite certain um where this condition came from and if if you happen to recall what that has to do with um it would be helpful to understand because it wasn't quite certain what they were asking for sorry there's one more one more note um I just received the message um this thing that um easements cannot be granted by the dda so as that pertains to this issue okay that's easy that would need to be referred to the board of survey I can provide the procedure for that um I can give to your link yeah I think we would on this one I think we would need to go back to the engineering division to see I'm assuming that this would have come from them initially and mr chairman um if I could add one minor clarification to your summary of the storm drainage capacity issue uh the the four catch basins on Dorothy road and it you know the Dorothy road um little john intersection is really the low point in the neighborhood there's additional catch basins and that and storm drainage uh moving up little john towards lake street that's also part of that system that's contributing to that uh 12 inch pipe that discharges across the thondite um place property but they the the low point at Dorothy and little john is where you know people experience that that ponding in the street um due to due to what appears to be some potential capacity issues in the town's system thank you um section I is all the wetlands flood plains environmental conditions um it's fairly extensive we do have some on recent notes from beta group and we'll be getting um additional commentary from the conservation commission as well this section section j is just other items then the final decision we just need to this just needs to be revised should be good okay so anything else from the board of the town or the applicants in regards to the decision things that they feel we need to address now an open public forum before we move on mr chairman yes please thank you again um I think that as you've gone through this um there's there's you know without getting too much into the the weeds right now but there's some conditions within like section f that um and I think that if I'm reading the notes on the side the applicant would largely conserve can first can concur with the beta's traffic kind of comments um there were a number of conditions proposed to be removed deal with the gdm's of the fryer project and we've kind of touched on that before but again I would just refer the board for reference points to that memo of September 3rd from from me as well as the email from menace on october 1 to kind of help us a guide for the board when it's going through these to see what the applicant has has proposed as the gdm measures and and to also confirm to the board that this is not a um a to d a transit oriented development so some of those conditions were kind of written with that in mind so just to highlight that to the board and then I think that um as the conditions that have been presented to date may I never think they may change um there may be some more technical or wordsmithing that the applicant would have um just comments to and we can provide that just in a written summary to the board you know a lot of it is just making certain that if there's conditions that talk about something to tie it into the approved plans you know as shown on or as consistent with the approved plans um and and other wordsmithing but again um rather than kind of tie up your time I think they're they're more um kind of like I said wordsmithing or just consistency with what's been presented and so we can provide that in a summary fashion will there be another version of this I know that um you would there have been a prior discussion about comments that were just general comments or proposed conditions um which I think is a good one but when we're responding to ones on a draft would this the merged markup um dpcd version be the one that you would recommend using well I think we'll need to to come back to that question at the end because it you know obviously you know we're we don't have a lot of time between now and Friday so if we you know we can discuss and if we agree that it makes sense to extend that period so that we can revise the draft um into a more comprehensive format that's easier for people to evaluate and make it easier to make sure that we're not missing things um then that may be uh something that we that we need to do um if it's amenable plus we'll come back to that at the end um I believe that was everything on our side on the comprehensive permit so I would I would I would like to open tonight's hearing for public comment on the revised draft decision but first I appreciate everyone's patience um there's a lot of information to go through um and not all of it is simple um and second just a brief review of the guidelines for this portion of the hearing uh public question the comments will only be taken as they relate to the matter at hand it should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision the board strongly encourages the introduction of new information um as there is a strong record of comment on topics which have been discussed at prior hearings uh to provide for an orderly flow to the meeting and to allow the inclusion of many voices the chair asks individual public speakers please limit their comments to five minutes um the procedure for requesting to speak will be the same as for prior hearings please select the raise hand button from the comment tab on zoom or dial star nine on your phone to indicate you'd like to speak when called upon please identify yourself by name and address you will be given time for your questions and comments all questions to be addressed through the chair please remember speak clearly in a way that helps us to generate accurate minutes once all public comments have been heard or the time allocated by the chair has ended the public comment period will be closed for the session of the hearing um we are doing very well on time so um I don't I would prefer not to put a an end time on things um I think we'll be okay uh and the board and staff will do our best to show the section of the draft decision being discussed so with that in mind let me quickly put together a speaker list based on our raised hands okay for your patience uh mr urowitz can you hear me folks we can very good my name is john urowitz I live uh at the corner of martin little john street um I a brief little side note I was up in belmont uh yesterday cross route two from wilson's front there's a construction site there there were 42 contractor staff vehicles parked on winter street and onto the route to on ramp I hope that the board is going to offer some restrictions in parking for contractors during about the three years of construction at this site that's just a little side note now I go into the nitty gritty of what I want to say for decades we've been fighting development on this in the site for a variety of reasons and for decades we've been successful now we come along and the zoning board of appeals is our last chance at killing this thing it's an invasion but we're hearing from members of the board that we have three options the the board has three options build it as designed build it with restrictions or don't build it at all if we go for door three don't build it at all the owner will simply appeal to the hac and from what I'm gathering is that's just a guaranteed approval by the state to build this thing there's the town not have a leg to stand on against the state our council our lawyers our officials who most of them don't want this thing and for sure the residents don't want this thing I find that awfully monarch monarchist that this decision is going to go whatever way the state wants it to go and the town has got to get some leeway in this I'm sorry please I I implore the zoning board to stand up for the residents stand up for the town and shoot this thing down once and for all we don't need it we don't want it and it's only going to tax all of our systems completely thank you gentlemen I appreciate what you do thank you mr. Gerwitch mr. Moore yes thank you mr. Chairman Steve Moore piedmont street a question through you to mr. Hessian I believe the the document that was delivered this week to do with the water stormwater mitigation strategies and plans that that document had a lot of good information into it I want to applaud the delivery of that I believe it was a mr. Handler's request it's it's good will that become part of the oh I don't know binding official documentation I don't know quite what to call it but is what's discussed in there binding on the applicant so everything that's in there is a part of the record and I'll refer it to mr. Hessian but I believe that everything that is outlined in there is in their documentation mr. Hessian yes mr. Chairman that that summary memorandum that I prepared at the request of mr. Hanlon is is essentially a reflection of all the information that is included the design information that's included in the the what in the decision is called the approved plans which is the most recent set of civil engineering plans in stormwater report so it is part of the the permanent record for the project great that mr. Chairman that that's good news because it does take into account the climate change issues and the the updated storm the water prediction rates of the the NOAA satellite so so I'm pleased to get that one one additional point and this really is just to reiterate mr. Chairman what I believe you brought up which was the fact that there is a stormwater mitigation and but it's an easement and has to do with the drainage being not great in part of the budding community and I would strongly suggest the town take advantage of the access to the site the construction being done and remediate permanently the long-term flooding problem that has to do not at all with this development but everything to do with the design of the budding site and the the stormwater system take advantage to fix that now because this this needs to be done and the residents of the neighborhood deserve it so uh thank you mr. Chairman yes thank you thank you mr. Moore um brit kugan yes hi um I live on a good street and I am curious we've had a couple of sewer people come out to check our drain and it turns out that all the houses in our area um have what's called a combined system so a combined system is sewer and storm drain instead of having two individual systems coming from our houses going into the town so from what I understand and hear um that oak tree will be going into the town's sewer system but will not be going into the town's storm system but we really don't have two separate systems in east Arlington we have what's called a combined system so I'm wondering if you will address that because if the town has agreed to allow them to use the sewer system that is the exact same as agreeing to use the town and storm and sewer system combined um currently pipes are four inches with new development our pipes going to be six inches going into four inches which is what we all have down our end um is that going to create more flooding for us so I would like if someone like could um address that for me please um if I could ask um if you're hesitant to just speak briefly about the the sewer connections um what size the the sewer main is out on Dorothy road that you're connecting into and the combined it's a combined system that we have we don't have a separate system that's that's gonna be my next question Mr. Hessian are you on yes I am I'm just pulling up a plan Mr. Chairman um well I'll start by addressing I can't speak specifically to the the town's sewer system infrastructure on the Edith street side of the neighborhood um there are two sewer lines along our Dorothy road frontage one that's actually within the easement that we were discussing um you know potentially asking for a widening on that and there's any second sewer line uh in the paved area of Dorothy road uh DPW has requested that we connect to the sewer line that's within Dorothy road and and not the one that's actually in the easement on our property um I believe that is part of the town's um combined sewer separation project that we we are connecting to at the DPW's request they're asking that we connect to the dedicated sanitary sewer system to essentially help mitigate um or or not exacerbate any problems with the uh combined sewer in the town I believe is in a combined combined sewer um elimination project that separate combined sewer separation project in the midst of that um and I you know under pressure I'm not finding the uh the the size of the sewer I believe the sewer in Dorothy that we're connecting to is a 12 inch um sanitary sewer but it is a dedicated sanitary sewer line with that is not on all of the streets you're talking about just one street which is Dorothy but all of that will have to flow into another street it has to go through whatever number of streets um like maybe someone else can explain it I see that you're shaking your head Steve like maybe let you know more which if you could that would be good just you're on mute Mr. Chairman I am not an expert and this should not comment but thank you for your confidence um yeah this is a question well I absolutely have to address two public works I know we have a couple people here um from planning but I I think this is more a question for DPW um I do not know which way the which way these sewer lines flow um they certainly should not be getting smaller in the direction of flow um I'm a little surprised that I didn't realize the town still had CSOs um or at least combined sewer in parts of town um I'm glad to hear that they're being eliminated but I will absolutely follow up um with the DPW in this regard uh just to just to confirm that um you know which which way the flows are going and who is um which way things are collecting were there any other questions you had no that's it thank you thank you very much this uh Matthew McKinnon I believe yes uh good evening uh Matthew McKinnon nine little John Street please go ahead so yeah flooding is a concern um it's amazing when a heavy rain hits and we get a deluge of water that flows down little John Street till it'll pretty much uh be a raging river right into the entryway there so I'd be interested in and knowing how they'll deal with that influx of water um but what I'd really like to talk about tonight is traffic concerns um Chairman Klein I believe you and other ZBA members have taken a look at the neighborhood and you may have seen a pickleball game being played at the end of little John Street um the neighborhood traffic here is negligible it's it's it's extremely light uh so when you talk about putting an extra 400 trips and these are you know round trips right these are not one-way trips so that would be 800 additional one-way trips uh on top of maybe a handful of trips in this neighborhood that we get daily that's a more than a significant increase that's a egregious increase of traffic um I think that needs to be seriously considered especially since there was no traffic counting done inside of this neighborhood um you know we have lake street traffic um we all know that lake street traffic likes to back up during rush hour uh when it backs up it's also around the time that the hearty school children cross a number of roads on lake street to get the hearty uh that would be Wilson Ave little John Street our homestead road and burnt street um lake street backs up uh in the mornings uh going towards Massachusetts Avenue being an avid biker I know that I'm most at danger when I'm biking along the curb and cars are taking a left uh into a street when there's backed up traffic because the the site the visibility when you're taking that left hand turn is um it's it's difficult uh even for an experienced driver and when you combine that with uh you know maybe rushing to get to this uh complex or if you have somebody who that's honking behind you because you're taking a left during rush hour and somebody's trying to get the route to uh you you know you get some crazy drivers around here um getting out to route to uh I'm sorry getting out to you know lake street to go to route to taking that left from little John Street which I live on uh it can take minutes some days so if we have uh people exiting this complex and lake street is backed up and then little John Street backs up and then we start getting backups throughout the community um I think you know doing traffic counts here and really thinking about you know what kind of um you know what kind of structure you want to put here uh does it really make sense to put a business uh into a residential neighborhood where children play um yeah it's it's it's something I think about all the time and and now that this is coming towards a close it's it's really affected a lot of people in this neighborhood and it's really scared a lot of us um so I think that uh all consideration should be taken place uh about what kind of traffic we're really talking about here and if these small neighborhood roads can can deal with it thank you very much well thank you um if I could ask um uh I believe Scott from Finesse that African traffic engineers on um did a question about the the 400 trips is is that 400 trips combined entering and exiting or is that 400 each way it's combined entering and exiting okay so essentially 200 round trips correct okay and did you conduct um traffic counts within the neighborhood or just at the edge of the neighborhood uh just at the edge edge of the neighborhood um as agreed upon with the peer reviewer of the town yeah and what what is sort of the magnitude of the counts at what location um say it like Little John and you know sort of the those regular streets right so the existing thing here hold on so in the week morning um exiting Little John you have 30 vehicles and entering you have 19 um that's for the peak hour um in the evening peak hour you have 20 exiting and 14 entering um is there another street you want um maybe Margaret all right Margaret you have 31 exiting in the morning and 31 entering um in the evening you have uh 33 exiting and 45 enter okay so based on those and the expected additional number of trips um expecting what would you imagine like are we this is another 15 to 20 per hour is that the yeah so let me pull up the so we're looking at 412 uh daily trips um 23 in the in the morning peak hour and 28 in the evening peak hour um so then you'd expect the rest of the hours to be slightly less you know less than the 23 and 28 you know just you know in a pretty even distribution throughout the day so the 23 and the 28 are those individual trips or are those that's total it's total entering and exiting so those those are right okay so like when we were the number you were giving for like Little John where it was in the morning it was 30 entering and 19 so that is 49 and you're saying this would be like an additional 23 distributed along all the streets yeah I mean yes exactly distributing however however they choose to get out okay and again Mr. Chairman if I may um I think that these are just um you know they're the based on like the projections but it doesn't take into account um as we've talked about before the the uh kind of the measures that the applicant has proposed that that further reduce like we can control in terms of staffing and um the peak hour trips and and when deliveries come so there's those internal controls that um the applicant has committed to and so it for peak hours um to kind of for traffic generation it's it's more kind of spread throughout and taking off of kind of the peak hours um and then just just another comment or clarification I guess is that um the independent living is a rental um and I guess in in one sense all all rentals since they're not individually owned they're not condos they're rentals but it's not really a business use that the applicants proposed so just for a clarification there it's a uh it's it's home to these individuals these these seniors so it's uh it's a residential use um thank you thank you um Ms. McKinnon do you have anything further I do I was curious of how they would control deliveries for example amazon delivery trucks food delivery services that are ordered by the uh the residents uh you know when you if you are discouraging cars uh in your parking garage by you know by charging a fee um there there aren't a lot of ways around here to get your groceries for example you kind of need a car or some sort of bike with a basket and giving that this is a over 62 community um they might have a car they might have two cars uh to get you know because that's a great way to get groceries and if you don't have cars then you need to get that groceries those groceries delivered to you um I I didn't know you could schedule amazon deliveries for example I was wondering how how does that work thank you Mr. Chairman um so the deliveries that can be controlled are kind of the the food vendors that are coming to the property or delivering those those can be controlled um the amazon deliveries may be a bit more difficult um however the in response to kind of the other part of that in terms of groceries um we have proposed as as we've mentioned previously there's a jitney service and I think that you know a part of that could be to have um they do it in my neighborhood they have grocery months and so there's a scheduled time that they go to a you know a grocery store a couple grocery stores um in my area and then I live right next to a senior housing um and then they give them like an hour or so to do their groceries and then they bring them back so it kind of puts multiple trips and you know multiple residence trips in one trip if you will um so I don't know if that provides further context um yeah a perfect world it does but you know we can't control all deliveries to the site um thank you thank you I'd also like to make one last point if I may chairman Klein um some of the traffic counts you see coming into uh the community when lake street backs up cars like to take wilson ave and or a little john street and go up mary street to then reconnect back up onto burt street to then take a right and skip traffic for those couple blocks um that causes a lot of traffic on mary street that parallels lake street I just want to make sure that gets entered on the record as well thank you we'll take note of that next on my list um jennifer watson hi i'm jennifer watson I live on lot street I don't think there is a worse place to develop than this site between the traffic and the flooding the killing of the wildlife but all the costs will be borne by the neighborhood um and people aren't talking about this but it's going to cost I believe each homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars as people realize what the neighborhood and what an individual home is up against um as it becomes a less desirable place to live um the the neighborhood definitely wants a no vote on friday and mr chairman I wonder why you said that the hhc would simply rubber stamp the project if the zba voted it down sure um I'll refer that uh to mr hint um to ball have any first just to explain how that appeal works thank you mr chairman I don't believe the board and certainly I have not suggested that the hhc will rubber stamp um overturning a denial by the board however the the odds of a board sustaining a denial at the housing appeals committee are very long um there are very few cases in which on substantive matters denials by boards have been upheld um certainly that there are there are a few cases with regards to specific issues um certain traffic safety issues issues regarding ownership of property by other entities um requiring town meeting votes things of that nature denials have been upheld but the vast majority of decisions issued by boards of appeals that deny comprehensive permits are ultimately overturned by the housing appeals committee the statute is designed to foster the creation of affordable housing the the scales are stacked against the boards if they issue a denial in the housing appeals committee and that's the how the the statute was intended to operate and that's the reality that the board has to look at so you are simply there to negotiate details well the the role is really to issue a decision that is defensible that protects the interests of the town and the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible um but they they are unfortunately you know in a position where they need to recognize that a decision that denies this project could actually leave the neighborhood in the town in a much worse position than one that actually approves it with conditions maybe the neighbors would like to take that risk that might be the case but ultimately it's the board's determination as to what to wish you just to just to just to clarify the appeal of the decision does not it does not mean that um they would necessarily be limited to the current proposal that we're discussing they the applicant under law would be can appeal to any prior version of the application that they have made before the board is that correct that is correct mr chairman and that's one of the factors you know that the board has to weigh in issuing its decision yeah that's the threat they would not be limited to the current plan they could go back to the 176 unit plan which would be you know significantly larger significantly higher impact yeah that's that's the threat that's how the process works otherwise everyone would vote no right well we will certainly take that into into consideration as we move forward here were there any other questions or comments no i don't think people are actually taking the rat of mudding and also just the degradation of the environment seriously enough i think i think you're kind of caught up in the details and i don't i don't know that water can be mitigated to the uh standard that it should that that you're talking about i mean people you know some people already have like two sump pumps in their basement so the neighborhood is already suffering from flooding and the buildings the houses are built in the 40s or the 50s and the project can you be born to ideal project is elevated well that's great for them but no one else in the neighborhood is elevated if the water can be mitigated why do they need to elevate right well they elevated to a report that was issued by the city of Cambridge which is looking at longer term climate change modeling which you know unfortunately is pretty devastating if the worst of it comes to pass but that's part of the reason that they have elevated because it current practice that is sort of the better thing to do but i did want to do also just reiterate the report that John Henshin had issued in the last couple of days at the request of mr. Hanlon in regards to the the impact that this site will have on existing flooding issues in the neighborhood and so the way that this project has been designed it is designed specifically to not impact the existing flooding in the neighborhood and but by the same token i don't think it is going to be you know making this the situation i don't think it's going to be changing the situation for anyone else in the neighborhood i think the only thing currently that could change the current condition is if the town is able to improve the rate of drainage in the street i think you know if that can be done that would go a long way towards a lot of the local flooding issues but in terms of you know the the current existing flooding problems that are indicative of this neighborhood you know this this project is not should not exacerbate that problem but it also won't you know won't make it better either mr. chairman mr ham yeah mr. Hanlon there is one area in which he's arguably that that the project could make a marginal improvement and that's because the conservation commission has persuaded the applicant to abide by the local bylaw where for every amount of storage space that is filled in it has to be compensated by twice as much later on now some of that is probably covering margin of error but there's at least a marginal increase in storage capacity that would result from that that would deal with stream flooding that being said much of what's going on in this neighborhood is really local flooding and the major reasons for it have to do with this town's inadequate stormwater sewer situation something that this application is not going to make worse but that ultimately is not going to make better either thank you mr. hamlin um this once unless you have anything else i would like to move along thank you uh next on my list is uh bill fuchs um good evening i'm william fuchs from seven cleveland street um and i'd like to address some of the issues um and the draft comprehensive permit under the wetlands floodplain and environmental conditions section and so i'm starting out with i11 um which is there should be no sedimentation into wetlands there's not a a criteria for if there is um releases into the wetlands how what the timeline should be for reporting or for um mediation of those if there is a violation and then in i17 this seems to suggest that only nitrogen fertilizers can be used which doesn't identify you know it doesn't do what potassium phosphorus micronutrients or anything like that um which are in fact an advantage and then it suggests that fertilizer should not be applied after storm events and i think that should read should not be applied before storm events before a storm event it would cause runoff over the fertilizer after storm events it's not an issue and i18 um it does not does not permit um the use of herbicides i do fairly extensive work with the national park service on controlling and basis species in wetlands and um without the use of herbicides it's almost impossible to be successful so i would suggest that um use of herbicides be permitted subject to the state of massachusetts regulations and subject to the approval of the appropriate town board presumably the conservation commission and i believe that was you had that included in there you had written to us previously that's correct yeah and mr chair this is marty November at the beta group um unfortunately this this version doesn't have the edits that the conservation commission and i worked on last friday and it did include um it did the new version that you're not seeing on the screen does have many of the comments that um that would be made now so but they're good comments yeah um on i24 yeah um in my experience controlling first of all i would i would separate the issues in basis species control and restoration planting and secondly i'd say that controlling invasive species for initial control requires typically at least five years and that after that initial period it requires um continuous maintenance to prevent the invasive species from returning at a later date so i think that the the three-year time period at least in terms of invasive species control is not adequate and really should be in perpetuity anything further um yeah in i25 really i25 i34 and i35 um those three um those three sections seem to prohibit invasive species control because they're not shown on the plans and do create a disturbance and so i think that invasive species control should be specifically exempted in from those three sections okay and those are my comments thank you very much thank you very much um i'm just over just to go back on those so in the i-section that was number 11 uh 17 18 24 and 25 that's correct with the addition of in that same node 34 and 35 perfect okay thank you thank you next is uh marcie i um marcie i'd i live at the corner of lake street and little john streets um i don't even know where to start i'm you know have been here since the beginning of this whole seven-plus year process i have never seen such a hostile 40b situation where i have not heard any residents who are for a giant building to be built in the wetlands whether you call them wetlands floodplain etc etc it's one of the very last undeveloped parcels in this area and i don't think we're being heard i don't think any of the residents are being heard i also want to say that we can call this affordable housing but it's not it is maybe 25 affordable housing so to get back to what mr mckinnon was saying if it is not 100 affordable housing units somebody is profiting that's the bottom line and i think we need to be honest about that so i have written many letters over the past seven years um i truly feel that just because you only have to have a certain percentage of affordable housing if you really are truly in it for the affordable housing it has to be fully affordable and that is what the town needs if you look at all the housing plans you look at all the the envision arlington you know groups what people are saying there was a meeting tonight about affordable housing making something you know sneaking it in under this 40 b it's just very discouraging so i just i know that's not part of what the zba can put in terms of conditions but i just really want the developers and the owners of this property to think long and hard because this is impacting many people and as someone who works with older adults who can't afford market rate housing this is still going to be at least 75 percent market rate housing and that goes up every single year so i just want people to think long and hard about that and what we're really doing here um i'm very concerned about the traffic i don't think any of the traffic studies have been done not during the panda i think they've all been done during the panda and the traffic around here obviously as it did everywhere significantly decreased during the pandemic i will say what miss keifer was referring to before as far as those signs that prohibit entering um it's left or right turns it says do not enter in the morning in the evening that was something that the residents of the neighborhood for years requested and the select board finally granted because of the traffic cutting through the neighborhood during both rush hours as matt mckinnon had mentioned cutting up mary street to bypass most of lake street um and there was a significant travel a traffic problem and it was a huge concern with the number of kids at the time walking to and from school as well as people on bicycles as well as the number of accidents in the neighborhood and so that's something that the select board was very supportive of imposing so i think to say that we don't yes that dorothy road baby has been very very quiet in 400 more trips a day when you're talking about we have 30 trips a day i don't see how anybody can say that's not significant and also like i said i don't think that any of these studies have been done when it wasn't a pandemic and you can't use pandemic numbers to to say what's going to happen um once this building is built so those are my main points i also think the building is way too big i would love to see a something that says it should be half the size it's still too big a building if anybody were to come down and walk along this area and try to envision right in front of you what this is going to look like it's way too big especially if you add in seven townhouses in front of it or seven 14 residences whatever so i just really want everybody to kind of think about that a little bit more and uh i think that's it i had something else but i'm not sure i forgot what it was but i just really am hoping that you know people can use we can use our common sense and really you know think about what's the right thing to do here so thank you for your time thank you to the zba for all your you know work and hours oh i also don't think that the um we haven't had enough time to review everything so i really think that the public comment period needs to be extended i mean this feels like a very rushed thing at the end there are so many details that i don't think and there are so many questions left unanswered and there are still many residents that just found out about the project this week and because we haven't been able to meet in person and and be out you know doing what we did at the hearty school six or seven years ago i really really strongly suggest we extend the public comment period because it feels you know it sounds counter-intuitive but it feels very rushed here at at this point i don't understand how this is the end when we're just getting this new you know two months ago a month ago we got new plans and there's two different formats and people are writing on different things it's a lot to review and to have you know residents have to give comments by this friday just seems very very rushed so i really am hoping that that can be extended too thank you thank you welcome um i did want to quickly ask um is key for who sets the affordability limits on a project like this then either the number of units or the percentages uh pursuant to 40 b it's um 25 percent right but who is that something that the applicant decides whether it's 25 or 35 or 45 percent or is that the subsidizing agency that's making that determination it's the subsidizing agency mr chairman thank you mr havery welcome and there's actually a specific provision in the regulations that states that a board can impose conditions requiring greater affordability than what's required by the subsidizing agency i'm sorry did you say can no cannot it impose more affordability or they can't they cannot there's a specific provision in the dhd regulation that says a board can impose a condition that would require the project to provide more low or moderate income housing units than the minimum threshold required by the department's guidelines and that's the 25 percent next on my list is nicolas i thank you mr chairman for the opportunity to speak i'm nicolas i live at 152 lake street which is the corner of lake and little john um to echo what i think i heard mr mills and mr hamlin say you know there have been a lot of changes and it's there's a lot of documents to look at and it really feels as marcie said as well to be in a rushed manner without final documents and here we are in the end game and everything's all redlined which is crazy and what i heard is this was published this morning and not everyone who wants to have a chance to look at it has looked at it while the meeting proceeded i was looking at the larger agenda document that was linked to this meeting that was labeled the gender 2021 105 meeting 1393.pdf and there's many changes in there as well um i'd like to point out a change uh submissing key data which was addressed a bit verbally here but not in the document and a piece of key data that's outdated and this is all relating to the two key residential concerns that we brought up again and again and again traffic and flooding and mr mckinnon brought up marcie brought it up others have brought up i'm going to bring it up again because i just i also want to be heard and i appreciate the chance to be heard here so the first items refer to page 19 on that document that i mentioned here that's part of this agenda uh where the traffic uh the data for the traffic predictions predictions has been struck and there isn't anything written up about the current resident trips and resident traffic counts within the bounds of the neighborhood as opposed to this large lake street workflow lake street flow so we got the verbal data tonight about uh sorry okay someone keeps interrupting some talking i'm sorry um we got verbal data tonight that implies if you had you know 400 trips uh assuming uh an 18 hour day that's 12 extra trips per hour if you assume a 12 hour day that's 33 extra trips per hour comparing those numbers with what was said about what's coming in currently off of lake street that's very significant right so those numbers that i just quoted based on you know 40 divided by 18 or sorry 400 divided by 18 or 400 divided by 12 seem awful close to that peak value that was listed where it was oh nonchalant that's just a peak and you know not so bad i i live here i'm concerned about that so it's not really clear if this unpublished baseline that was talked about tonight is really just neighborhood traffic or if it includes the cut throughs which it probably does and i'm just really not sure how a decision can be made without this information in the document of record because if stuff gets denied it goes to HAC all they see is the document of record they don't understand what's happening to us here in this neighborhood and what the neighborhood is if they think it's what's fox on two that is not this neighborhood we are not on route two this is a sleepy neighborhood it's very different so you know our concern is mr mckinnon mentioned is really how the traffic in our neighborhood the people that live here how that's going to change right very concerned i mean there's kids that play on the street all over the place here even when it's not pandemic times because it's a quiet neighborhood it's not a place where you have route two massive huge things it's just not there so that's traffic regarding the flooding concern please note that the map that is on page 125 is over 11 years old and it is not accurate i just looked up on the fema site tonight the more recent map from fema indicates a greater risk of flooding within the neighborhood i personally live honest to goodness about 20 feet from the border of where i can get flood insurance okay and the data that is currently there from what i understand from a conversation i had with someone recently and from what i remember from my neighbor telling me when it was published about 10 years ago is that that map is 10 years old which means that it's probably moved again and it's not moving into a way that's favorable for me or anyone else in this neighborhood i can tell you that the neighbor next door has some pumps that run all the time as is and it's always been that way and it's got well it's like it's gotten worse over the last couple of years so i'm very concerned with this and again i'm i'm not you know there's a lot of people in a higher risk zone than me in fact there's two higher risk zones in me between here and the project which is like a hundred yards away so it's it's ridiculous again i'm just not sure how a decision can be made based on this outdated data that's in the document of record for one of the most key issues that residents like myself have repeatedly raised so i'm almost done i just want to say if it went to the hac for appeal right so i know that if the zba denies this it goes to the hac you know we've been advised that you know most of the time that will get overturned okay fine my concern is that it feels like what the hac is going to see and get and see is not a full picture of what the actual impact would be for this actual neighborhood for actual people that lives here what actually happens this neighborhood was not and is not designed for a project of this size it just isn't there's not the space for something that size it's i'm sorry it's just not there so i'm getting a bit agitated but as a resident i'm extremely grateful to have been heard multiple times by the cba i appreciate so much the time that everyone's put into coming into these meetings to listening to all of us in the public appreciate it so much but what i am deathly fearful of is that there is no one at the state level who's going to listen to reason about the inappropriateness of the scope of this project it's been said many times six duplex units would be great we don't care we would love it if it's 100 affordable housing for heaven's sakes that's not the issue the issue is that that large building does not belong here it just doesn't belong here it simply is not a fit in closing i just like to say again thank you but also it seems beneficial if we could extend the public comment period it just seems like this is all a big rush stuff is still in flux and changing in the last meeting i mentioned something and the developers mentioned something about oh well maybe it won't be modular units for heaven's sakes who've been hearing about modular units for seven years why is that all of a sudden going to change it's just so frustrating so happy to be heard by the zba thank you thank you thank you thank you so much i can't thank you enough chairman Klein and the rest of zba but again so afraid that at the state level we are just not going to ever be heard thank you very much yeah there we go there we go i'm off mute and i'm back on the call question i have you loud and clear um perfect okay somehow i got kicked off the call there for a minute but i am back um next on my list is heather keith lucas thank you chairman klein this is heather keith lucas of tan mott street please go ahead okay uh i want to number one thank you and the board for their thoughtful engagement in this process i know there's been a lot of many hours that you've listened to the local concerns and have attempted to truly understand those local local concerns so my my comments today are to um to broaden upon upon that following up on mr mckinnon and and misides and mistrides uh comments about the traffic um the additional 412 car trips over the 12 hours basically brings us a current rush hour all day um if you applied that consistently um so just please keep that in mind when we're thinking about traffic moving on just thinking um a couple of procedural comments and questions for the board is the board able to introduce additional conditions that may not be in this current draft and the reason i ask is previously i recall discussions about pilings not being pounded into the property um to not have structural impacts on the neighborhood existing homes that's only one example um that comes to mind but i imagine as the board moves into deliberations as this has gone very quickly to to the draft version and the draft version has been modified significantly just uh even in the time that we've had in the past few days to review this i'm i'm curious i mean i imagine you may find additional conditions that may need to be added in an attempt to mitigate local concerns so my question again is is the board able to introduce additional conditions they that may not be currently reflected in the draft that was reviewed tonight um we certainly can't up until the time we we vote we can be adjusting the the conditions and the the findings will pretty much need to be solidified when we close the public hearing because we can't take any new testimony so there's nothing new to find but the conditions and the the waivers we can continue to work on mr chairman mr chairman can i just i don't actually while we can't adopt new findings based on evidence that we don't have in the record at at the time we stop um there is quite a lot that we can do and and i think we ought to do uh in the finding section to emphasize certain things to there are certain kinds of things where there are data like much of the traffic that we've been talked about has a lot of numbers that are buried in a report that are not in the current draft but that are in the record and we can turn back to those and rely on those as much as i want that we want at the same time if if we were so inclined we could deemphasize things that relate to the transit-oriented nature of this and focus more on the neighborhood compatibility issues that mr i is talking about we're quite free to exercise our judgment on on the facts that are in the record the one thing we can't do is get new facts but we have lots of flexibility both in the conditions and in the and in the finding section to make to write our opinion what is currently before everybody is not our opinion it is a draft that is presented for us to decide what our opinion should be and we can we could throw it all away and start all over if we wanted to we're not bound by anything that has happened now except that we have to respect not base anything on information that is provided to us uh after their hearing is closed may i ask a follow-up to that mr chairman absolutely when the board makes their decision final and it's in in forgive me i don't know all of the right terminology but when it's when it's filed as the final decision is that the only document that is used if an appeal goes forward by either the the butters or by the applicant themselves mr havery can you address that well i mean the decision is the applicable document that would be appealed by the applicant or if it's an approval with conditions by an agreed party um it's not the only document that will have any relevance in the proceeding as it moves forward i do want to point out though that the proceeding before the housing appeals committee is not a on the record appeal nowhere to an appeal brought by an agreed party to superior court of land court being on the record appeal they're both what's known as de novo appeals which means that new evidence can be established and brought into the record in those proceedings so i think this is sort of addressing the question from one of the prior commenters the the state in its review at the housing appeals committee all the courts in its review are free to look at whatever information is introduced during those decisions thank you mr havery my final question is is more with respect to the draft itself and just the timing um it seems like a number of the descriptions of our neighborhood were redlined in other words deleted uh which in and in one case of the descriptions um was inaccurate regarding the the turning into three of the streets being do not right turn only when it was a do not enter um so i just want to emphasize that from the perspective of the local concerns i think we in order for the board to also demonstrate how they've heard from the local community about our concerns just to the extent that you can and you're able to include as robust and as accurate a description of our local neighborhood that would that would feel better even if it doesn't render the decision that that we are looking for it is disappointing given how engaged a number of us hav