All right, good evening. Welcome to the March 27, 2017 meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, recorded by DCMI. We have a continuation of a few public hearings tonight. First is Special Town Meeting Article 1, the Zoning By-law Amendment, to see whether the town will vote to amend zoning by-laws to change the definition of open space usable. We do have many of the proponents here from the Residential Study Group tonight, so I'd ask you all to come up, introduce yourselves, bring us up to speed. I had left public comment open over the last week. I don't believe you received any. We did not receive any additional comments other than this afternoon, and the person who submitted those comments was here, and coming to the table. All right. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Pyle, I'm a member of the Residential Study Group and a member of Town Meeting. I'm Wendy Bichetta, a member of the Residential Study Group and resident of Arlington. Rick Valarale, a member of the Residential Study Group and the town building inspector. I'm Wendy Richter, I'm on the master plan implementation committee and also the ARB liaison of open space school. Good. Thank you all for coming. All right. Let me just bring us up to speed on the article. We'll review what it does. Do you want to go, Steve? Sure. As we've stated in the past, what we're trying to do is make it work for the protection of eliminating the garage unders, and by therefore one of the alternatives who came up in order to persuade developers to negate the garage unders is to reduce the open space dimensional in one direction from 25 feet to 20 feet. This would enable developers to then put garages within the front foundation wall if they need to by limiting some livable space. And we felt that this would also give an opportunity that if they were to do so, that we're giving them back some of the square footage that they'll ultimately be losing, whether it be a single family or two family dwelling. So we're just trying to limit the open space. We have had some calculations done and I think that it doesn't appear that it's going to increase the size of houses much at all. And in some cases, in many cases, the houses would be smaller because developers still have to meet the gross floor area, all the other dimensional requirements. So based upon that, in order to maintain the 30 percent open space, it's very rare that they'll ever get down to 20 feet. But we need to, fellas, it's a good adjustment to have. Okay. How did you come up with those calculations? I had a civil engineer do three or four different calculations for us using 6,000 square foot lot, 60 by 100, and using the garages inside the foundation wall as well as on the driveway. Okay. And have you shared those with the department to assist in presentation? Yes. Excellent. Great. I don't really have anything else to add. Just that this was part of the overall compromise that our group worked on to try to eliminate the garage under design for the safety problems that the steep driveways have caused and also the massing and scale problems associated with having the garage under house design. And this was the incentive that we came up with. It's only for new construction. And I urge the board to support it. Okay. Thank you. Any comments from any members in public? I wanted to say something, too, because I sort of can't. I'm not really on this committee, but I'm supporting what they're doing. But I, as a member of the open space committee, felt like I needed to sort of flush out what was going to happen to the open space with that reduction of five feet. So I ran some numbers also, and we can check to see, you know, how close our numbers are. But I found that with the 20 foot setback, the house can be a little bit bigger. It's just a generic box house. I think it was 150 square feet overall. But that means that the open space then needs to be a little bit bigger as well, because it's a 30% of that gross floor area. So you do end up with a slightly larger house, but the open space would be a little bit more. One of the unintended consequences could be, as I was massaging these numbers, because that's how it works, where one goes up, the other goes down, is that if a two-story house were built with, say, an unfinished attic, you could end up building to the setback lines without, because you'd have, you could get the 30% of the floor area just in the back. So it would be less because the square footage of the house would be less if it was a bigger footprint, but only two stories. So that was something that I found. Great. Did you have anything? No, I mean, I think there's a lot of sections of 6.00. We have lot coverage, we have open space, we have setback issues. So I think if you look at everything as a whole, it would probably have little impact, if any, on the size of the additions for one thing. And I think it's a trade-off to reduce the horizontal dimension from 25 to 20 simply because if you're going to maintain a 15% slope maximum grade in the driveway, the structure has to be setback 26.5 feet from the front property line, just mathematically. So you're taking a little of the front setback and you're giving it back in the backyard to maintain the open space, which is always a challenge. Which is that open space is, the usable open space is contiguous and it's not clearly spelled out in our zoning regulations that it has to be contiguous. And I think that, I don't know where that fits into the bigger picture, but I think that needs to be documented that that's what is met by this usable open space. Rick, I also like the comment that you had that you brought up to me earlier that if the addition is going to be 750 square feet or greater than 50% of the primary structure's gross floor area, they would need a special permit for that anyway. So that is yet another check. Correct. So I wasn't at the last meeting, but I did see that that question was raised. So what kind of protected, if you will, by the fact that you kind of exceed 750 square feet of additional gross floor area or exceed more than 50% of the original GFA in the structure would have a special permit. I know that come up last meeting, but I just wanted to touch on that. In regardless of the size of the additional proposed, it's only 30% open space. Great. Again, any questions? I just want to touch base on your thing that you're saying is that clearly written right now that open space has to be contiguous. Rick, how's that enforced right now? Yeah, it's something that we stay consistent with. It's been passed down to Mike and I over the years. You cannot take two chunks of land, combine them and create 30% open space.  Okay, so that's what I thought. So it may not be clear, but it is enforced that way. It is. Well, we can make it clear by our vote. We can add in the word contiguous to make it clear what's being voted on. So I actually did just add it in here. So the second paragraph of the vote, after two in parentheses, it says no horizontal dimension is less than 25 contiguous feet for nearly constructed single two-family and duplex dwellings or parkings at surface level, no horizontal dimension should be less than 20 contiguous feet. I sort of understood that, but I just want to make sure it's clear that that's how they've been enforcing it. Correct. That's a good change. I have no other questions. I am all set. David. Just wanted to clarify one thing. So Special Town Meeting Article 1 is the change is expressly limited to new construction. And I remember we had a little bit of confusion when we were considering Article 8 about whether that applied only to new construction or just generally. And are there any scenarios that if Article 8 passed that an existing construction could take advantage of the changes in Article 8 to do something we would consider undesirable? Have you thought through any scenarios where that might be possible? Are you talking an ongoing project or a project that's been started? No, I mean if someone were going to make a change to their property but it wasn't new construction, of a new structure. So if someone were putting an addition on their home and wanted to reduce from two parking spaces to one, would they be allowed to do so? I wouldn't be able to trigger this one that you're working on tonight because this is just for new houses as an incentive to keep the parking at grade. So there may be some changes that would go under Article 8 for additions or renovations on existing houses. But this Special Town Meeting 1 only applies to new construction. I mean there was at least one public comment that raised the possibility that something undesirable could happen if Article 8 weren't limited to new construction and I've been struggling to come up with a scenario and my question was had you come up with any scenario for them? So we talked about that. I tried to get an answer to that. Our group, the residential stay who has not met since the last meeting that Rick had and Mike Byrne had been talking about that a little bit. Do you want to just say what you thought? The way I understand it is this only applies to new construction and some of these articles only apply to new construction and additions greater than 750. Nothing in between that I am aware of. I think that with Article 8 there are some changes in Article 8 which we voted on last week that would apply to existing houses. The comment about how it would apply to a reduction in parking and whether that would lead to a bigger house on the lot. I had put that question to the building department and Rick you told me tonight that you thought that there would have little or no impact. That's correct. 6.0 has a lot of checks and balances. It does. We are only touching on a small part of 6.0. If somebody is going to change the parking I don't want to get off track but if somebody is going to reduce the parking area from two spaces to one that would have very little impact on the size of the addition. Don't forget we kind of exceed 750 feet anyway. There is a possibility theoretically it could make the addition slightly bigger on a large lot but it is circumstantial. There is also the check that if you make the house bigger you need more open space which then would shrink back the house again. There is this interplay where every time you try to make the house bigger you need 30% of gross floor area for open space and then open space needs to be bigger too. On the standard size a lot there is not going to be much impact. That was where I was saying that if you were doing a two-story house then you would actually reduce the open space because you are not it is not really reducing the open space but you wouldn't be as required to have as much open space because the floor area would be less. But in any event the addition that you could build would be 5 feet. It is going from 25 feet to 25 feet change. Yes, I understand it could be at two levels. Yeah, but my point is that if you only have two levels you don't have a third floor. The square footage of the house is smaller so the amount of open space that is required is also smaller and that is when you could push out the footprint of the house could be closer to taking up more space because there would be less open space. But that would be a smaller house too because it wouldn't be as tall unless they had an unfinished attic. If you had an unfinished attic that gets finished that might be an unintended consequence that you get a bigger house just because it is called unfinished. I was a little confused about the contiguous conversations that you had with me out here. Are you saying that the entire amount of required open space around the house has to be contiguous and they can't be separated? That is correct. It has to be one piece of land. You cannot have two parcels. Minimum size open space we can have for small houses 25 feet by 25 feet. So for example you could not have a piece of land in the backyard 25 by 25 and a piece in the front yard 25 by 25 close to up and satisfy the open space requirement that has to be one contiguous piece of land. Could I have 25 and back 25 on the side? As long as that join, correct like an L. And by R reducing it from 25 to 20 does that allow us to go back front 20 and side 20 and front 25? That is the impact of this. So that would still be considered contiguous if it were 20 on the side and not 25. If it gets changed to 20 feet and you have an L shape that encompasses the back in the side so we would allow people to then count it even though it is less. Well it wouldn't be less because no matter what we need 30%. So if it is an L shape rectangle a square it doesn't matter as long as they are contiguous. And if we were to go to the side the side backs are 10 feet now so now you are going to have 20 feet so the size of the houses would be smaller on a 60 foot lot in order to be contiguous. So you would need at least 20 feet if you didn't have it in the rear, if you didn't have it in the front. Would... Since you would make the building smaller. On a 60 foot lot it would ultimately make it smaller. If you tried to get it on the side. It would give people the opportunity to bring it 5 feet closer to the side lot and still use the side lot as part of the contiguous open space. I mean it's designed, if you could make it work with that design that wouldn't satisfy it. Providing that the scale is reduced to 20 feet as opposed to 25. So where does the 5 feet become an incentive for a builder? How does that make a real difference for a builder? It's actually minimal for the developer. Because I'm sure you mentioned the calculations that there's only one instance in which we looked at 6,000 square foot lots that the developer would go from a 25 foot setback, 25 foot dimension requirement to 24 feet. And that way they could still meet the open space requirement of 1,410 square feet. They would get 1,440. So they only actually ended up using around the foot. And the size of the house was smaller because here it's 4,700 square feet to 5,000 square feet. Which they can do as a matter of right by now. If you take a look at the average two filming home on a 6,000 square foot lot, they'll end up, they could with the dimension requirements build up to a 5,000 square foot house. But if we change the from 25 to 20 feet, then what they're actually getting is a 4,700 square foot house if they need to use the 20 foot setback for the dimension they'll use. So they're getting a bigger house? A smaller house. And to your point what you mentioned earlier is if you went to the side yard for the 24 open space because you have a 10 foot setback, so now you're making the house 20 feet off the side yard setback because the house is automatically going to shrink. So instead of a 40 foot house, you're going to put the 30 foot house, 30 foot white house. The setback doesn't count as part of the open space? No, the setback requirements for the building. Unless it's the minimum dimensions so we're allowing people a smaller minimum dimension and still be able to count it toward the contiguous open space. You shouldn't confuse open space with setbacks? I understand the difference. If I could Wendy actually has a great diagram showing a cutout in the side yard. It shows the difference between if you can see the street for both of these houses in blue, green, this is the 20 foot setback, this is the 25 foot setback. You need this much more this much more of a hatched area to meet your 30% and this is existing. So you need that much more to get the 30% of the footprint of the gross area. So if they park their car on the side of the house is that still considered part of the open space? I'm sorry, open space has to be free of vehicular pocket. No driveways, no garages. Open space. And actually when I explain it to people that come in to see us, I literally say grass, grass and shrubs. So if they park their car on the grass it's fine You can not park anywhere. We have sections of this only by-law to address that other than the required parking space which is paved area beyond the front yard setback. You know a lot of park on the grass. That's correct. Ever under any circumstance? No, legally. Okay. Thank you. One more thought, which was if you were talking about a bigger lot, say you had a 80 foot frontage, so it was an 800 square foot lot, with this you could actually have a much bigger house because you could have that 20 foot setback. You'd still have that play of those gross square footed floor area which was the open space, but you could then only have a 20 foot strip that wrapped all around and then you would also include the front yard space so I mean I'd have to run some numbers on it, but I wonder if we're not only considering the small lots, how would this affect a bigger lot? And maybe it should only be allowed in lots that I don't know where to adjust for that. I actually have another question. Do you know how often people get special permits so they don't have to meet the open space requirements? I don't know. The biggest example of that in the toughest, the most challenging properties are the two family houses. They're usually split into condos. The owner of Unit 2, the second floor in the attic, wants to create more space in the attic. They do not have any open space to satisfy any additional gross floor area. So they have to go before the ZBA. I believe, I can look at the records and if you'd like to call me tomorrow I can tell you exactly, they do vote on that more favorably than not. Very common request by the way. For new construction? For existing construction that lacks gross floor area. But not new construction? No because you have options for design with new. You have control. Other questions? Comments? Thank you all. Would entertain a motion if it's favorable or if it needs to be a motion to be approved? Or endorse as amended? To be able to engage in a particular decision to vote. Where is that language inserted? I inserted it in two sentences there after the two paragraph for the second paragraph. As we get at the beginning of the sentence. Open space should be debusable. Only if one, at least 75% of the area has agreed less than 8% and two, no horizontal dimension is less than 25 contiguous feet. For newly constructed single two family and duplex dwellings for parking in the surface level, no horizontal dimension shall be less than 20 contiguous feet. Would we say 20 contiguous feet to be deemed usable open space? I guess it's a different sentence. I'm not sure the wording, the proposed wording captures the intent. Because you were saying that the minimum dimension must be contiguous. But not that the open space must be contiguous. So if you, going back to the 20 foot, the front and 20 foot in the back you know, they're the if I've heard the earlier discussion correctly you wouldn't be able to count the two separate pieces. But each of the separate piece would have a contiguous minimum dimension. Right. Yeah, I'm about to say the same thing. I don't get this gets it. Okay. The concern. Do we want to do anything with lock size? It seems to make sense for $6,000. Maybe at some point it doesn't make sense. I don't know where that break point I wouldn't recommend that at this time. No, I think that one. Without any more information about that specifically, the different size plots we have mostly been talking about and using as an example the 6,000 square foot lots or less. So I think that's my recommendation. I'm not sure we can make that contiguous in this. No, I don't think we can. I was wondering if we could make it in the top of that paragraph. Such space may include open area, let's see, contiguous open area accessible to and developed for which space would include contiguous open area. Put it in the first paragraph. Yeah. Well it seems to go beyond the intent of the word. It's not. It's still related to the dimension so it might be okay. It might still be within scope and I think that if we're adding it to this first paragraph I think that could work. We just heard from the inspector that in practice that's what they're doing. We would capture in the report that that is the intention of the article when we get back to zoning recadification. That might be another time when we have to go back to this particular paragraph. I think maybe you could do it if you changed in the first paragraph where it says part or parts if you change that to contiguous part. I think we should save it for a comment. Let's save it. We do know that it's enforced a specific way. We can put that in the report. We need to revisit it. Ken had a discussion about lot size. You pointed out the 750 foot. Doesn't that limit the size of the plate? You're saying 750? That's what you said. That tree is special purpose. I don't feel like I have enough information to talk about the outside. We can look at lot sizes again down the road. Although if this was all predicated on what, 6,000 square foot? Could we say 6,000 square foot or smaller lot so that if it's 6,000 square feet they still have to meet the 25 dimension. I think one of the concerns is that this is part of the article 8 as well as article 1 and I think if we start making changes in adjustments it might cause some issues. Despite the points being made and understood I think we should probably keep it the way it has been drafted. Because we are trying to restrict the garage owners and that's the fees we should be trying to do. Pretty much prohibited them. Not prohibited them. Made them very difficult by article 8. So this is just what do you give builders in return it sounded like. And it sounded like to me they need something for a 6,000 square foot lot. And that's what this whole conversation was predicated upon. But we don't know what to do with larger size lots. So maybe we limit this to 6,000 square foot lots and then at some point we'll have to figure out what to do with larger ones. When we were trying to draft this we weren't just looking at 6,000 square foot lots. That's the most common situation in Arlington. But we looked at all different lot sizes when we were trying to come up with the recommendations. And the thing that we kept coming back to more and more is that on these smaller lots you have a greater impact on your neighbors right around you. So I like the fact that this is a control on the smaller lots and yes it's a little bit bigger. This dimension is increasing slightly but you have the other balance with the open space and the way it shakes out is that you have pretty much the same size house. On a larger lot if you can build just a slightly bigger dwelling as a result of this and I'm not totally sure that that's the case but if that were to be the case that dwelling will have less of an impact on the immediate neighbors because you're not right on top of each other in the same way. So we felt like in our group that it's important to protect the neighbors in close proximity to each other because in Arlington where the lots are small we feel the impact of a larger house more on a smaller lot but I don't if the lot is just a little bit bigger and you can build a house that's 5 feet bigger in one direction that's not going to have the same impact on the immediate neighbors because you're not right on top of each other in the same way. And I think the bigger issue is also, we're talking about 60 by 100 lots not all lots are exactly that dimension. So you could have a lot that's 6400 square feet but it has 80 feet of frontage and it doesn't have the depth and we're trying to avoid, that's where the developers were putting in these 26-24 degrees slope driveways. So this is what we're trying to avoid there. And then 6000 might not be the right cut off because if you have, what if it's a 6200 square foot lot and you wouldn't want to lose those. I don't know what the appropriate larger number threshold is or even how common those lots are but we spent so much time back and forth and what if you do that, I would not want to change that dimension now without... I think it's a good question to be asked but more study is needed to figure out how that works and take a good look at what lot sizes actually exist across town. You did look at that somewhat. I have a question that might help with this with the fill inspector. How often is the usable open space, what determines the size of some of the bigger houses? A lot of the time. I mean the designers are very much in tune to our Zoning Bailar and their Max and Alpha Lots which is never entitled to do. I just wanted to touch on the open space and the definitions and the word contiguous not in there spelled out. That's all part of plan review so we go through a whole host of things that aren't actually spelled out in the Zoning Bailar and usually due diligence with the design will call us for guidance or it will simply get rejected at the during zone review and they'll correct it and make the necessary adjustments to make it work. Got. Other questions? I would motion to approve this article as not just as is as written. I second that. All in favor. Bye. Thank you. Thank you all. Great work. Thank you for coming. I'll close the public hearing on article one. Move on to article two. Zoning Bailar amendment for recreational marijuana moratorium. Jenny. I don't have anything further to add from last week and I did not receive any additional comments. Any comments from those in attendance this evening? Seeing none. So I I really have no objection to this. So the legislature last December extended the effective date for retail recreational marijuana sales to July of 2018 and I believe so by extending this to the end of June we basically be kind of maximizing the amount of time we have to consider whatever guidance eventually comes from the state. I'm just in practical terms given how late that guidance may come you know we may not actually have enough time to be able to have town meeting with it even with that extension but so it may serve no practical purpose to extend it but I don't really see any reason not to extend it to the end of June. I think it gives us an extra safety in that just in case. And I rather hear on the side of caution. That's my opinion. I was just going to say I mean we don't know exactly what the guidance will be and when we look at the guidance it could come much earlier than projected and then we would have time to deal with it at spring town meeting next year or not like you're saying. So I mean it could be that we very well will have the time to deal with it and file something and know how to handle it through zoning. I move to support that the ARB support special town meeting are equal to using bylaw recreation or marijuana and moratorium. I second that. All in favor. Aye. I move. Close public hearing. Special town meeting article two. Well done. Alright. David was kind of up to provide us a draft report for town meeting which we will review. I think that was circulated to everyone last night. And with our help. And also a slightly edited version was circulated I think just had a couple of little editorial formatting changes which is the draft that you have in your packet. Correct? Yes I guess. The one that was put on the table. The one that was put on the table. So it's a very minor couple of minor formatting changes yet no substance. So if you read it last night there's been no changes. So we're voting on this next item. Yeah this is really just meant to gather some feedback. We only wrote the report based on the annual town meeting articles. We've drafted some language for the special town meeting articles but obviously you just took your vote tonight. So we'll capture the rest of the dialogue that occurred this evening so you can review that for next week. So I just wanted to get, I think we just need the feedback on the first part for now if you have any comments. Which I'm thinking you do. Well I had a couple of thoughts on the discussion related to article 90. One of them is just a word choice issue. So in the second part of the discussion summary it says the board cited a concern that the proposed buffer zones were so numerous and large that they effectively included the sighting of MMTCs anywhere in town. Subverting the role of the voters who supported the music. So I think the word subverted because I don't think that's exactly what's happening. That's because it's not. I feel like it's inconsistent perhaps. I was thinking of the word thwarted but that also has sort of an intentionality I don't think we need to state. I think we could take out that clause entirely. Beginning with subverting ending with Marijuana and then it would read so diverse and large that they effectively precluded the sighting of MMTCs anywhere in town and possibly opening the town's potential litigation. I think that's correct. Why do you need it? I can look with that. I think the point of that clause was merely to point out that many people in town had a majority voted in support of medical Marijuana. Is that what that clause is? Yes. Related to that same issue the last sentence says board members pointed out that adding buffer zones has the effect of reducing the number of sites available for this use. And yes, that's true. Buffer zones would always do that but that's not the point. The point is what we just said. So I don't think we can take that out. The second to last sentence in the discussion, board members pointed out adding buffer zones has the effect of reducing the number of sites available for this use. Did we decide what we want to do with that above or are we taking out that clause or changing it to inconsistent width? Taking that out. Deleted the whole subverting through the way out of the voters but leaving it possibly opening the town's potential litigation. And then thank you for noting that we discussed creating a study group if necessary to present appropriate zoning controls to future town meetings. I was thinking about where should that study group live and what might the results of that be because based on some of the concerns that we heard in the public hearing it wouldn't surprise me if some proposals came out of that study group similar to what's happened with the residential study group where there were some non-zoning proposals so do we want to say anything to allow for that? I wrote that sentence or that clause and I was specifically specific to say zoning controls because any zoning controls would come from the ARV, anything else would have to go through the board of selection. And we need their job to present that to town meeting and make those recommendations. I'm open to either but if you added the language that I think you might be suggesting it could read zoning or other controls for review by a future town meeting. Or you could just delete the word zoning and just say appropriate. Because we also talked about there were potentially some non-zoning and whether zoning itself was inappropriate. We'd want a broad based group which is what we were also talking about, kind of like the one that you had initially. It's a creation of a broad study group but I think you can just say creation of a study group but I think if you take out if you just say to present appropriate controls instead of appropriate zoning controls I think that's fine because that study group would be recommending the controls whether to us to put forth the board of selection to put forth so I think that's fine. So we deleted zoning and I just suggest for review by future town meeting a future town meeting unless you want it to be multiple town meetings. That's up to future review by a future town meeting or at. For review at. The table for article 6 I forget was there some question last week about something missing from the table? We just learned that we just learned that the AG's office accepted that minor clerical error that was identified from last spring's annual town meeting. Right. So I think if anyone has further suggestions beyond tonight you can send your changes directly to Jenny and then by Thursday? Thursday would be great. By Thursday? So that we have a final report to circulate by Friday. Yeah probably earlier. One other thought on article 8 where it notes article 8 addresses the safety issues caused by steep slope driveways. Do we want to be specific about slope direction because that caused angst in the past? Sure. It does say downward slope. I think it does say that somewhere else. Where does that downward one go? I think he's looking at the second sentence. Well the second sentence says it limits the driveways downward slope. There's actually that whole second paragraph has three steep leaps. Steep senate. Can we say one article 8? So I think you say one article 8 addresses the safety issues caused by steep downward slope driveways. Steep downward? The next sentence says downward slope. Right? Yeah and the impact on the streetscape is different for downward versus upward sloping. Right as well. Can we just say these driveways? These driveways. Longest paragraph. What's the confusion? Sorry. Just wanted to make it crystal clear that we're talking about downward slope and driveways not upward slope and driveways. Because people got concerned about that the last time around. Well that was unpopular. I mean you got to put downward at the beginning then. So we did. I think we can. Anything about below grade? Just in the first sentence it says accessing below grade garages. That's about Thursday. Next week. We'll move on to approval several meetings. Sorry about several. I was able to take a quick look at these but I didn't see anything. Thank you. One more question. I can't spell it correctly. Is that inviting spell correctly? In the second paragraph, is there a third sentence? Inviting. Do you want to change the way it spells? If that's correct I do have sweeping powers. I can motion to approve it. Motion to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? I abstained because I was not. Thank you. March 6th, 2017. This one's not spelling what I have. On the fourth paragraph, I say that creation of buffer zone would inhibit future offices opening. If a daycare place were commonly placed after, I meant to say is that by putting a buffer zone in potentially if I had any more daycare or any other childcare they would preclude any location of any medical room in the city. That's what I meant at the time. That first sentence? Yeah, I know what you mean. You were trying to say that if it was open before the application was made. If the center was open before the application was made the amount of space that would go like a place that today might be okay but in the future a daycare center opens and creates a new buffer zone that then closes out another part of the map. And then essentially it would inhibit not having any spots available which then would open itself to litigation. That's what I was trying to say about the buffer zone. The application of a medical marijuana treatment. That was my meaning. Was there a special permit application? The sentence read more like what you were intending? Yeah, but I was going to say that we would open this up for litigation because we basically zoned out any disputes of a place. I don't know, that was what my meaning was. Yeah, no, I was just sometimes that. You're going to add the sentence end with zoning out of the you're adding that sentence to cover what you said which is a meaning but not for the use of it. What would it be? A constituted, an alteration of zoning. Makes sense. That came up much more the next week. It did and it's also part of the special permit. We were talking about it in relation to 11 Water Street at that time when we were having that conversation. So I would just add and would amount to zoning out that particular use, something like that. That was mine. I'm sorry. Anybody else? Second. All in favor. All in favor. Seeing nothing else, agenda. Second.


Okay, so welcome back. Let's start the second part of the Schubert seminar with Slava Naprienko telling us about so many sure functions. Let's go ahead. All right, so so far I talked about the sure functions and some of the ways how to represent them, some of the expressions that they have and then I talked about the factorial sure functions and I showed that they also naturally appear in geometry and in interpolation theory and they have the very same ways to be expressed. Now in a very quick run, I'm going to talk about two more families before I go to the new sure function family that I wanted to talk about. So in a very quick and sketchy way, I want to talk about the dual sure functions which is yet another family, never ending generalizations of the sure function, which also depends on the second set of parameters, but this time they are dual and this time they are not a polynomial when you restrict the variables. And the way how they appear naturally is when we are considering the when we are considering the hopf dual algebra of our equivalent caramology ring, we know that this one is represented, is a morphic to the ring of the factorial sure function. It turns out that there is some meaningful way how you can take the Poincaré dual and which corresponds to taking the hopf dual on the level of the caramology and roughly speaking it means that when you're considering something like a caramology hopf algebra this time is not a ring, it's going to correspond to the dual sure functions, sure factorial functions which were defined by Molyev. And so this is another very natural family of functions because it is just the dual to the equivalent caramology functions and so this is one way how they appear in nature and another way how they appear in nature is again in the interpolation questions and this time it is interpolation theory and this time the the theory is concerned not with the with the poles instead of zeros and it is a way you can think that there is a duality between zeros and poles and you can build analogous theory to the Newton interpolation of the symmetric functions but use the poles instead of the zeros so I again the dual situation and again in a very quick run I want to talk about the expressions and indeed as we as we hope there is the combinatorial expression where you can represent the this dual functions as the sum over over the block and this time the the weight is getting a little bit harder to write but one important feature of these new weights is that this time the weights appear in the denominator which corresponds to the fact that they are now sort of dual and the zeros you can think jump to be the poles again we indeed have the whale formula so you indeed can write the new functions as the determinant of this time it's going to be certain certain different kinds of monomials again this time is having the denominators rather than in the numerators and again divide by the again divide by the van der moen determinant and this gives us the determinant expression and again of course we have the gem belly where where we can write the our function the the dual function as the determinant of a completely homogeneous polynomials or duly in terms of the elementary symmetric functions so this is some properties that we see extend a lot to many of the generalizations of the sure functions when we consider in the dual sure functions we still have these properties so okay, so in the rest of the talk I think that I'm going to skip one of the familiar functions, which is super symmetric functions and I'm going to talk about the new familiar functions that I defined in my last paper and I want to talk about why I believe that this generalization is natural and why I hope to find the same relations to the Schubert calculus and interpolation theory as before and representation theory would be even better, but even for the factorial case it is not so clear for now so what is true about the functions that we looked before is going to be extended to the new family of functions and I guess the fourth part of the talk, the free fermionic sure functions and the name comes from the origin of the free fermionic six vertex model, which I'm not going to talk today about because it is interesting enough to talk about them being sure functions without how you actually can come up with them and these functions this time this functions this time depend on the two sets of parameters to the parameters a and b so you can think that it is the natural extension of the factorial function and the key feature that these new family of functions satisfies is the the following the following duality so these functions with the new two parameters they at the same time they at the same time generalize the factorial functions namely if you set parameter b to be zero oh there is a question in chat multiplication of the dual functions in the direct sum to the product of the determinant in the sorry is the multiplication of this sure function dual sure functions yeah, um I don't know I I can I can think about it at the end of the talk, but thank you for the question and let me continue so so this new family of functions at the same time generalizes the um the factorial functions namely if you put the parameter b to be zero you get exactly the previous simple factorial sure functions and at the same time if you set parameter a to be zero and just have b then you have the dual sure functions so in other words it is the generalization that at the same time captures the idea of the function and its dual and it has two of the parameters which generalize both of these directions at the same time and one the the reason I was talking about the expressions is because this new family of functions is having the all three expressions that we had before so it has the beautiful combinatorial formula where you can you can write the sure function as the the dual the three fermionic sure functions the double factorial that are depending on how you want to call it um again in terms of the tableau or which turns out to be even more natural in terms of the solvable lattice models which I'm not talking about and in any of these languages the combinatorics the new occurring combinatorics is capturing combinatorics at the same time of the factorial sure functions and the dual sure functions which is pretty surprising given that the combinatorics of the dual sure functions turned out to be way different in the paper of molif and the description in the tableau turned out to be quite unlike the description of the factorial sure function nevertheless the same property is true for these new functions moreover, of course, there is the well formula which again somewhat surprisingly with two parameters gives you these functions explicitly as the determinant and this time you have both numerator and the denominator with certain with certain powers and um and again you you can divide them by the well determinant and you you have the formula that at the same time captures the idea of the both of the functions of the uh dual and the factorial functions and of course there is also the gem valley formula which gives you the function as the determinant and you can describe it as the determinant in terms of the completely homogeneous polynomials which again are given by generating series which generalizes and unifies both the factorial and the dual sure functions and at the same time the elementary one so now I want to so now I just stated facts, but I want to bring some some motivation why I believe that these functions are natural in in the in the style of the sure functions so one of the perhaps most important identities that is true about the sure functions is the cachet identity cachet identity is perhaps the ultimate form the ultimate identity which captures the essence and the the combinatorics of the corresponding family of the sure functions and for the classical sure functions the cachet identity the the very very beautiful cachet identity is saying that if you are looking at the some of the products of the sure functions with two different set of variables they are going to be equal to the explicit and direct explicit product the the cachet the cachet product and the origin of this identity is the how duality which could be thought as the peter well duality and so the is related to the peter well duality and the origin of this identity is in representation theory in representation theory you can look at the action of the what did I change it you can look at the action of the glm cross glm and it turns out that the the symmetric power of the of the representations which could be which you could write as matrices like this it should be on the right side is expanding directly as the the representations of the corresponding corresponding module so this is just taken characters of this of this identity which is more interesting than a combinatorial identity for the two functions themselves so so this is a very very natural very very beautiful very great identity which just captures really a lot of properties about the sure functions and the rsk algorithm is giving you the direct projection here Oh, yeah, you're right glm. Thank you so now the question is can we extend this cachet identity for the factorial functions in other words is it true that if you are having the factorial Function and you sum them with the factorial sure function of the second set of variables you are getting the explicit product It turns out to be not the case. It turns out to be that the cache identity does not naturally there is no a natural cache identity that would Connect the factorial sure functions and for the longest time people couldn't find it until Molyev did and it turns out that the the natural way to think about this Identity on the in terms of the sure functions is aspiring In in fact, you are thinking that you are taking one function and the dual functions and match them together And then when you sum over all of the lambdas, you are getting the explicit product And then there is some explicit explicit product of the of the similar kind So in other words, what What this identity Is really telling us is that the sure function and the dual sure functions. We need to pair them together And it just happened that in the simple situation there when we're considering non factorial sure functions They are just self-dual. So you can just pair them with themselves and get the cache identity So I I didn't talk about the supersymmetric sure functions, but I really cannot Fight the resistance and the temptation to write the cache identity for the supersymmetric sure functions because of how beautiful it is The cache identity for the supersymmetric sure functions is the extension of the classical Identity and it goes like this. We have the sure functions which now depend on two sets of variables on the variables and the super variables and the cache identity in this ultimate form Is this uh, it was proven by Pirelli and uh, Rager And it follows from the uh, supersymmetric auduality This is the the ultimate beautiful, um Cache identity for the supersymmetric sure functions You can see how many symmetries They are and it turns out that uh, it specializes of course to the regular cache identity and to the dual cache identity And so this is a very satisfying piece of Of mouth. It just looks so symmetric and so right And uh, perhaps the biggest reason why I believe that the new family of functions that are introduced and Advertised is because they satisfy the following cache identity, which is very very striking It turns out that um, I guess it's theorem if you're considering the supersymmetric versions of the function that described to you Now they depend on two parameters a and b And then you have the second set of variables and they depend on parameters a and b It turns out that we have the cache identity And perhaps the most mysterious part is that the right side of the cache identity Is independent on both sets of the parameters in other words despite our cache identity is Despite both of our functions depend on the infinitely many parameters Which at the same time unite the parameters a and b Nevertheless, the cache identity gives the perfect pairing which is independent of the nature of the deformations in other words This uh, this new functions and their natural dual they form the perfect pair pairing which takes Get rid of them all of them deformations And and perhaps the most important part in here is that this dual sure functions Which originally for example in work of molif they were just defined as some functions which satisfy the cache identity And which you know give give you the dual hopf algebra these functions Their dual Is expressed in terms of the functions themselves And it was not possible to do without the second set of parameters because you need to change the parameters a and b in other words This functions as the space of these functions it is self-dual in other words if you connect the The factorial functions and the dual functions into one bigger space then this bigger space contains both Contains the dual functions are expressed in terms of the functions themselves in other words this This space is really contains all of their functions that I described above our special cases in particular um, I guess that uh, I can just write it real quick that if you If you uh, no, I was writing before they they generalize both the Factorio and the dual sure function and of course if you set the parameters a and b to b zero They generalize the supersymmetric sure functions as well In other words this family generalizes all of the sure family That were before and they generalize it in such a way that Only when you have two parameters b and a you can see the duality between these two functions Which was not possible to see in uh in the case of the dual sure functions and the factorial sure functions because for the factorial sure functions you define a new A new family and it's absolutely not clear How they're related to each other It turns out that only if you have the second set of parameters and you understand that there is a hidden symmetry You you you can understand that uh, this is actually a zero And this is actually zero a And of course once you write something like this you realize that the The true identity needs to be a b and the dual function needs to be ba And uh, so it is just swap into parameters a and b which turns the function into its dual And so this is very similar to what happens in the mcdonald polynomials where mcdonald introduced two polynomials mcdonald introduced the polynomials which depend on the parameters q and t And they satisfy the similar Symmetry when you are considering the cache identity you are considering the cache identity with the With the second set of polynomials where you exchange the parameters q and t In other words, the second parameter is showing what is the natural Pairing and dual it is exactly the second set of polynomials with the exchange parameters and uh, I guess I have a couple of minutes more and uh in this Last couple of minutes. I just want to speak late and something that I'm trying to understand We know that the factorial sure functions they describe the Co invariant Caramology of the grass manian We know that the dual functions describe the dual hopf algebra now i'm really curious what What kind of theory Do I need to have? perhaps with the action of the two With the two parametrized families of groups on the grass manian such that I would get the new family of the double factorial sure functions or pre-chermonic sure functions And the feature of this parameterization and characterization would be such that the transition from the Caramology to the Caramology Would correspond to the switch of the parameters from a and b to b and a In other words, we would just exchange the action of the parametrized groups in order to understand how to jump from one to another and Then this family would Connect the properties in a way the properties of both the Caramology and Caramology But this is speculation on which I'm working now and try to learn more about the Schubert calculus and I was coming originally from combinatorics and so I I hope that I will learn something new on this seminar and that would be The end of my talk. Thank you Thank you very much