{"citations":{"37f0212b-c439-4c21-9eb9-372beeff2e17":{"num":1,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"cbaa1698-fae6-47fc-8865-d787f66084d2":{"num":2,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"10f60b13-00f8-4626-b2a2-cf622018328b":{"num":3,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"9c2ea802-1614-4fee-97fe-b1ed6bd3a049":{"num":4,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"8fa974a0-aa9f-4924-9551-1501650a858b":{"num":5,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"4f56bdf8-f380-4310-acf3-619272ce8211":{"num":6,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"5a3db986-6457-477d-bcae-6e50b248e80d":{"num":7,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"406b0ff9-337b-4fd2-ba9e-97366ae14f34":{"num":8,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"b18db363-5ef6-4be7-b43c-6030e923ee90":{"num":9,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"543fa651-769e-4679-ae19-cf1de2bcfeb5":{"num":10,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"41e9429f-d25b-4b81-9eb6-b63b77af224c":{"num":11,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"fc9b764e-d57d-4e85-b2b9-2c1c2409da0c":{"num":12,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"b7c407a0-d210-4d37-a862-2c125ccf300d":{"num":13,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ae09b46b-0d81-40e8-b94d-61054be0f54c":{"num":14,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ed7f1c7e-a754-4fd3-af1b-5842fbc1665d":{"num":15,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"08318aa2-0183-4c6f-ba42-cc78fd742f0d":{"num":16,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"f814450e-c7fb-46e2-8472-9f130a2462b9":{"num":17,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"23f987bb-e5bc-42d4-a848-5426b4261d55":{"num":18,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"b6913aa5-4877-437c-a96b-b6bb56e30afe":{"num":19,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"8d23e7e4-c68a-4cd9-8873-a7802b90eb10":{"num":20,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ea7ccb9c-5260-4962-8edd-c1f8d5daaad8":{"num":21,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"a835cc8c-05cc-4119-907f-a2aaff736c62":{"num":22,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"371511ee-e559-4b8f-9a76-487fd01205aa":{"num":23,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"f1c8f769-ff87-49de-b3e5-90bfee1350fd":{"num":24,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"cd2a6551-0ab5-4d54-93a4-bc001292bdff":{"num":25,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"6cce4bd6-46d5-434f-901d-0670f48c84aa":{"num":26,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"05b4634e-cfee-41ca-9fec-adfdb5b7817f":{"num":27,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"899a97f5-4825-48c8-9dbd-ebe358394818":{"num":28,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"9b44f4c2-f6aa-4535-8a7a-460aaee12e54":{"num":29,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"c2fa8923-de04-46bc-bb25-b7a69015907b":{"num":30,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"0255285b-3e95-4aea-b8c0-251594da1c45":{"num":31,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"043c45c2-5785-4cfe-90ab-1fd12b660c28":{"num":32,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"a27dba7b-b2d9-462c-8283-e60d17043982":{"num":33,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"357c936f-6b61-4f3e-9545-de9f23cbbecb":{"num":34,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"1a31b522-bd1d-4976-986d-911d59084be4":{"num":35,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"8edc8346-a29e-425b-8ecd-e2e3317a0b8a":{"num":36,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"8cdfa22e-83df-4c4d-89b2-38d4a15ced22":{"num":37,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"c2ec457d-2b32-4f13-834e-80804fcfa03f":{"num":38,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"7954964d-6bb2-44b8-b89d-b5283abf98de":{"num":39,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"d669642e-99c2-4c04-bd71-6578318ade5a":{"num":40,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"8a100cf6-27ae-476c-8825-dd9812330d3d":{"num":41,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"e0234c93-2c1b-43be-be21-cfaa018e779e":{"num":42,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"fbdbb88a-59b1-4a69-a3d7-0b01c113b3be":{"num":43,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"729712fc-2b6f-43a4-9b20-207d5b12cbff":{"num":44,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ff809877-fe05-4349-b368-07d91a886924":{"num":45,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"f23ce0f9-5d5a-49d6-ab7a-2337d649fff7":{"num":46,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"0dd72c4f-b4fa-465f-be07-df28302dbf19":{"num":47,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ba383dbb-45c2-442a-8f06-3650473d2b73":{"num":48,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"},"ecd039c6-c89d-40b3-9144-db50bf1ccd5b":{"num":49,"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e"}},"sources":{"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e":{"sourceItemId":"1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e","title":"Redevelopment Board — 2026-03-02","videoUrl":"https://dkjpoal1tejoa.cloudfront.net/sites/a1000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/source-items/1178a866-aeaf-4d0e-a0f5-b3ab3534e51e/Redevelopment_Board_Meeting_-_March_2_2026.mp4","chunks":[{"id":"cbaa1698-fae6-47fc-8865-d787f66084d2","content":"Speaker 1: \n\nSpeaker 3: All right. I am calling the order of, uh, town of Arlington to read the board meeting on Monday, March 2nd. And we start off with a administrative review of the minutes. Um, are there any, uh, the board\n\nSpeaker 2: To introduce themselves first? Oh,\n\nSpeaker 3: Sorry. Yes. Uh, can the board introduce themselves\n\nSpeaker 2: With Steve?\n\nSpeaker 4: Good evening. Steve Lac.\n\nSpeaker 5: Hi, Vince Wan,\n\nSpeaker 6: Shana Corman Houston\n\nSpeaker 3: And Ken Lau. Rachel will not be here today. Uh, okay. So we'll start with, uh, review of the minutes. Are there any changes, uh, starting with Steve?\n\nSpeaker 4: None,\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Vince?\n\nSpeaker 5: None. No, I won't be voting on these as I wasn't present. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shana?\n\nSpeaker 6: None.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, I have one on the minutes dated January 12th on page three. It's, uh, it states, um, that I had concerns about the alignment of the floor, floor windows and the windows on the lower floors as well. Uh, no, my main concern was the fourth floor windows with the roof line. So if we can just delete windows on the lower floors as well, then that'll be fine.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, okay then. Um, I am fine with that one there. Uh, can I have a motion, please?\n\nSpeaker 4: So, um, move to, uh, did you amend the second or the ninth minutes from the second or the ninth, Mr. Lau?\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I approved, I amended the first one, which was I believe, excuse me, one minute. Alright,\n\nSpeaker 4: Well, the first one is enough. Uh, so I'll move acceptance of the February 2nd, minutes as amended.","timeStart":0.085,"timeEnd":140.735,"chunkIndex":0},{"id":"10f60b13-00f8-4626-b2a2-cf622018328b","content":"Speaker 5: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, do I have a,\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh,\n\nSpeaker 4: Steve? Yes. ,\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, abstain.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jen?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes. And I'm a yes too. So now we're off to the next set of minutes. Uh, Steve, do you have any, uh, changes?\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, none here, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, I'm just gonna ask you, Vince, anyways, just, but you can abstain, right?\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, no comments.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And, uh, Shannon,\n\nSpeaker 6: Uh, no changes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. I have one change on this one here too. Um, let's see what page that's on.\n\nSpeaker 2: Do you know what that\n\nSpeaker 3: Was? The garage transform in the garage.\n\nSpeaker 2: Transform in the garage?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, we just talked about it. Uh,\n\nSpeaker 7: That would've been, that was on the previous, those were in the previous minutes. I believe that was when we heard that project.\n\nSpeaker 3: It wasn't on the\n\nSpeaker 7: 1341\n\nSpeaker 2: Note rider.\n\nSpeaker 7: No, it was if, if we're talking about, uh, 15, 13 mass out. That was in, they were at the meeting on the,\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. Uh, I have no comments on the, um, February sec, uh, February 9th meeting. It was the, it was, uh, the previous meeting, so I'm gonna have to be open that for a minute and add one more change. But do we have a motion to approve the, um, this one here?\n\nSpeaker 4: Um, move approval of the February 9th minutes.\n\nSpeaker 7: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, Steve? Yes. Vince\n\nSpeaker 2: Abstain?","timeStart":141.675,"timeEnd":260.085,"chunkIndex":1},{"id":"9c2ea802-1614-4fee-97fe-b1ed6bd3a049","content":"Speaker 3: Can Yes. I a, yes. Uh, I like to reopen, uh, the minutes for January 29th and it was on project on Mass Ave. Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: I think it's February 2nd. Yeah, on page two.\n\nSpeaker 3: Page two about the, uh, transformer location. Mm-hmm .\n\nSpeaker 2: 1513\n\nSpeaker 3: Project. I just wanna strike the, the wording for locating the doors on the, on the side.\n\nSpeaker 7: That was in the draft decision.\n\nSpeaker 3: It's not in minutes. It wasn't in minutes.\n\nSpeaker 7: Not that I can find.\n\nSpeaker 3: Then I withdraw my, um, reopening of this and we'll just continue.\n\nSpeaker 2: Alright?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Yes, please. Thank you. Uh, so we're on to agenda number two. Um, Arlington Heights neighborhood Action, uh, information Committee appointed a new member.\n\nSpeaker 7: Um, that's correct, Mr. Chair. The Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Implementation Committee, um, was established by the redevelopment board, uh, to oversee implementation of the, uh, Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan. Uh, the, when the committee was formed and included a seat to be filled by a member of the Housing Corporation of Arlington. However, due to staff turnover at that organization, this seat has been unfilled in recent years. Um, we now ask that the board appoint Mr. Andrew Walford as the new representative from the Housing Corporation of Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 3: Does the board have any, uh, objections to\n\nSpeaker 2: No.\n\nSpeaker 3: Do we have a motion?\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, I will motion, um, to approve the appointment of Andrew Wilford as the new member of the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Implementation Committee.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's a long one, huh? Steve? Yeah. Good. I a second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Second,","timeStart":260.665,"timeEnd":372.205,"chunkIndex":2},{"id":"8fa974a0-aa9f-4924-9551-1501650a858b","content":"Speaker 3: Uh, Steve? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too. Um, welcome aboard if he's here. If not, uh, okay. Now we onto the hearing for, uh, public hearing for docket, uh, 36 73 4 5 5 Mass Ave. Uh, it's a special permit hearing continue from February 9th. Um, I have one thing before you speak anything, John. Okay? Yep. Um, there are four members here right now. Only three can vote. Uh, Rachel's not here today, so she can't vote, but if you get all three votes, then you're all set. Uh, all you need is the majority. Um, you okay with that?\n\nSpeaker 8: Uh, yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead.\n\nSpeaker 8: Um, I, uh, we, uh, my name's John Murphy with Summit Real Estate Strategy. As you know, we were here last time, the architect and design team was here, which we believe we took some of the feedback back. Update,\n\nSpeaker 2: Speak up, please.\n\nSpeaker 8: We took some of the feedback back, updated the rendering, provided some additional details, um, that I think that the board was looking for. So we would be here to seek approval for those changes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, Claire, do you want to, um, say anything here?\n\nSpeaker 7: Sure. Um, uh, this is an, an updated drawing from our previous, uh, meeting. We have included, uh, as part of our memo, some other images, um, that show the existing conditions out there. Um, we did receive, um, this new design, um, for the board's, uh, evaluation and comment.\n\nSpeaker 2: Alright,\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Sure. Um, let's start with, Steve. Do you have any comments on this?","timeStart":373.105,"timeEnd":479.045,"chunkIndex":3},{"id":"4f56bdf8-f380-4310-acf3-619272ce8211","content":"Speaker 4: Uh, uh no, Mr. Chair? Vince? I'm fine with the, I'm okay with the, uh, the changes as submitted. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Vince, just to give you catch up, caught up in this a little bit. Um, can you vote on this\n\nSpeaker 7: One here? Um, Mr. Uh, bean cannot vote on this, uh, particular project. We opened it in November, and several meetings have passed since he was appointed.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm sorry, Vince. Um, we can't have you, uh, opine on this since the start of this project was before your time.\n\nSpeaker 5: That Thanks, Ken. That's right. Um, I won't be voting. I have a couple of very minor comments. Can I make those? Yes, please. And Claire, would you mind, uh, bringing that, bringing up the rendering if possible? The, you rendering? Sure. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh,\n\nSpeaker 7: Sorry. It's on my screen,\n\nSpeaker 6: But it's not here.\n\nSpeaker 3: There it is.\n\nSpeaker 2: apologies.","timeStart":479.465,"timeEnd":539.765,"chunkIndex":4},{"id":"37f0212b-c439-4c21-9eb9-372beeff2e17","content":"Speaker 5: Okay, thank you. So, just again, two minor comments or questions. One was that in the previous discussion there was some mention of, uh, work to do a header or something over the storefront window at Verizon, and I don't see that in the rendering, but I imagine that the rendering just hasn't been updated. But I wanted to ask the question of whether or not that, um, change with the board, which the board requested will be made, and then this cornice. Uh, I think it looks good. I think the, looking back at all the previous versions, this is an improvement over everything we've seen before. I was just wondering if this overhang at this two or three foot section on either side of the door could not be brought back. So it overhangs a similar amount as here. It's such a minor comment that, uh, I only bring it up in case my fellow board members want to. Uh, does that reflect on,\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you, Vince. Um, Vince, I, I, I forgot to introduce Vince. Vince just joined our board, um, starting today. Uh, welcome Vince.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Uh, Shannon, do you have any comments?\n\nSpeaker 6: Um, no. This, this has progressed, has certainly progressed since we last saw it. I appreciate it. I have no further comments.","timeStart":553.275,"timeEnd":632.605,"chunkIndex":5},{"id":"406b0ff9-337b-4fd2-ba9e-97366ae14f34","content":"Speaker 3: Okay. Um, John, I think this is a, a great improvement on what you had before. Um, I'm, I'm glad you took us on, uh, on the corner of the building and it looks, I think it looks a lot better now. Um, I do have the do share the same, uh, concern that, uh, Vince had on the Horizon store. Um, right now, the, the facade of the Horizon store is, um, this red brick. And if you look at the, uh, if you look at the whole elevation where that rights and so is in, into that, that whole building next to it, that's also yours too, right? Yep. It's a yellow brick. So now you have this kinda where\n\nSpeaker 8: It ends, um,\n\nSpeaker 3: It ends above it, but it, the topic goes across it. Okay. So what you see is one, one big brick bu yellow brick building with a red building sort of stuck underneath it. I'm just wondering, the brick that you have on the Horizon store, could you make that to match the yellow above it? So it looks like that's one building. It's not a lot of brick. I know you got half of it up right now already, and also you're missing ahead of there. So with those two things there, would you be able to change that over?\n\nSpeaker 8: Uh, yeah, we can do that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 5: And just to make the scope of my comments clear, I believe the board voted on the February nine, in February 9th to approve the Verizon portion of the facade with\n\nSpeaker 3: The, the storefronts. Yes. So","timeStart":633.475,"timeEnd":721.605,"chunkIndex":6},{"id":"b18db363-5ef6-4be7-b43c-6030e923ee90","content":"Speaker 5: Right. With the condition that there be a header treatment or something that was Yes. That goes\n\nSpeaker 3: Beyond this. And, um, I think John said you, you guys are willing to do that, right? Yeah. But\n\nSpeaker 8: The, um, that upper portion is, um, more of a precast.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm not talking about type of question. Oh, okay. Uh, the court is fine. Um, be precisely exactly. Yeah. So there's no confusion. Okay. Sure. Uh, thank you. Just, it is just the top of the, of the storefront right across here. Yep. That's where we're looking for the header. Yep. Everything above here, all that stuff stays as is. Okay. And then you look at the rest of this building here, if you up like this in the, like that it's yellow brick, it's having this red brick come across, it doesn't seem to go well. Okay. So if you make it so it looks like it's, that's one building, we be much appreciated. Okay. Okay. And I've been, uh, spent a couple times already about, uh, the signage, our fault, we approved it. I'm not gonna say anything, but if that ever falls down, which I think it will because it's vinyl, can you put up something more appropriate?\n\nSpeaker 8: We'll, resubmit something. Yes. Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Um, that's all my comments I'm gonna open up to,\n\nSpeaker 8: Well, that one quick clarification. The store front next to Verizon already has the brick up,\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 6: The red brick,\n\nSpeaker 8: Correct?\n\nSpeaker 3: It's just from the bottom right?","timeStart":721.735,"timeEnd":822.935,"chunkIndex":7},{"id":"5a3db986-6457-477d-bcae-6e50b248e80d","content":"Speaker 8: It's right. No, it's been, it's been there for when the rest of it was originally done at the same time. That's where the 10, it's, uh, mine's eye. That's, that's already been there since the start of this,\n\nSpeaker 6: What used to be Papa Gino's.\n\nSpeaker 8: Correct?\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, it's very hard for me to see that right now. Um, what's, what does the rest of the board think about that, Steve?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah. Um, I don't have strong feelings.\n\nSpeaker 3: Ms.\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, I don't have any comments on the brick.\n\nSpeaker 6: I don't love it, but if, if they get the appropriate header up at Verizon, I'll live with it. Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, to be, um, fair, since we gone through this for quite long some time, I'm gonna withdraw that request to change it to yellow. Um, just, um, if you just put a header above the storefront and please, uh, when it comes time to put a new sign up, uh, if you can, um, I would, that would go a long way Sure. And working together with this board. Okay. No problem. Thank you. Um, do we have a motion with, uh, with this, uh, one change,\n\nSpeaker 7: The change being the Verizon\n\nSpeaker 3: Header? No. Verizon header? No.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh.\n\nSpeaker 4: So I will move approval of docket 3 6 7 3 as presented with the exception of the following, adding a header above the Verizon storefront as discussed during our February 9th meeting.\n\nSpeaker 3: We have a second. Second. Okay. Um, Steve?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too. Okay. Thank you very much.","timeStart":823.685,"timeEnd":954.185,"chunkIndex":8},{"id":"7db0a206-e19f-419e-b5dd-d7f551bef58f","content":"Speaker 8: Thank you. We'll update that change and submit to the, uh, planning department.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yep. Thank you. Okay. Thank\n\nSpeaker 8: You all. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, now we're onto, uh, public hearing. Docket number 3 8 8 1, um, 2 59 Broadway site plan review continue from January 12th. I will let the proponents please stop up\n\nSpeaker 7: If I may. Mr. Chair, I have one comment,","timeStart":954.475,"timeEnd":995.505,"chunkIndex":9},{"id":"371511ee-e559-4b8f-9a76-487fd01205aa","content":"Speaker 7: And that is related to bus service along Broadway. Um, as it pertains to the project at 2 59 Broadway and also 1 26 to 1 28 Broadway, the MBTA has announced it'll be making two service changes to Arlington's Route 87 and three 50 bus lines that will increase service beginning on April 5th, 2026. These improvements are part of the MBTs Better Bus project that aims to offer more frequent and all day service, make the network easier to use and improve service reliability and accessibility. This information is offered for your knowledge and also for consideration when reviewing the Transportation Demand Management plans for the projects located on Broadway at 1 26 to 1 28 and 2 59. Both projects are requesting parking reductions and are required to provide at least three TDM methods and are listed in section 6.1 C of the zoning bylaw. One of the acceptable methods allows projects with residential units located within a quarter mile walk of a subway or bus stop with scheduled bus service at least every 30 minutes, seven days a week between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM Route 87 will now meet the required hours of operation, offered seven days per week. But we are unable to confirm the frequency of service and what, uh, that we are. Excuse me. We are unable to confirm that the frequency of service will comply until the new schedule is released at the end of March. Service is currently offered every 30 minutes for most of the day, but there are periods when service slows to every 40 minutes\n\nSpeaker 3: Attending a difference.\n\nSpeaker 7: That's right. Thank you. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, do you want to introduce this project? Sure.","timeStart":997.005,"timeEnd":1085.285,"chunkIndex":10},{"id":"41e9429f-d25b-4b81-9eb6-b63b77af224c","content":"Speaker 7: Um, this is a, an update to, uh, we've provided an update to a previous planning memo, uh, which was dated January 8th. Um, we have, uh, updated materials, uh, submitted for consideration of this application. Um, uh, at their meeting on January 12th, the board identified some issues for the applicants to address, um, increase the width of the 12 foot drive aisle. The drive aisle has been revised to a width of approximately 15 feet. Show the calculation of the percentage of retail space, reduce parapet heights, both at the fourth floor and the roof, reduce the height of the egress, uh, stair, address the size of the windows on the fifth floor, remove sidewall venting, provide a revised TDM plan, uh, provide location of short-term bicycle parking and review location requirements. Work with the tree warden for approval of street tree species, revise architectural style so it's more in context with the neighborhood out, a stronger horizontal datum between commercial and residential. And to simplify the number and types and cornices. And the applicant is here tonight to expand on, um, those comments and show changes that have been made since your previous meeting.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you, Claire. Sure. Okay.","timeStart":1085.665,"timeEnd":1153.645,"chunkIndex":11},{"id":"543fa651-769e-4679-ae19-cf1de2bcfeb5","content":"Speaker 9: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Christopher Mulhern. I'm principal of Harrison Mulhern Architects Winchester. Uh, the board raised a number of questions, which, uh, Claire just, uh, enumerated tonight would like to address those questions. Since you're familiar with the site and the context, we'll move directly to the changes to the project. Next slide. Thank you. Next slide, please. This is the revised design. It's five story building with mainly retail on the ground level, and four levels of rental apartments above the building. Steps back at the fourth floor, presenting a three story facade on Broadway. The retail entrance is in the center of the Broadway facade. The residential entrance is around the corner on Palmer Street. Next slide, please. Here's the revised ground floor plan with 1,785 square feet of retail along Broadway and wrapping the corner onto Palmer. 61% of the floor area, and 92% of the street frontage is retail with the glass storefront to a height of nine feet. The residential, uh, portion of the building is accessed by way of the vestibule off Palmer Street, as suggested by a member of the board, uh, with two doors at the rear of the building. The modest lobby links the re entrance doors to the elevator and the two egress stairs. The balance of the space is taken up by the rear vestibule doubling as a trash and recycling center. The front hallway will house mailboxes and an adjacent realtime transit display, which is part of the TDM plan. Next,","timeStart":1154.465,"timeEnd":1251.085,"chunkIndex":12},{"id":"2ef0af3e-468f-4f6a-86f8-140e3301f30c","content":"Speaker 9: This landscape plan shows the development of the balance of the site. There are five parking spaces tucked under the overhanging portion of the building, accessed by way of the existing curb cut on Palmer Street. The sidewalk from the rear vestibule provides ramp to access for moving wheeled trash bins from the building to the truck. The electric transformer and the generator provides standby power for the elevator, will be located in the side yard along the privacy fence. Bike parking for visitors is by way of four single bike racks array along Broadway in the recessed bays at the storefront. We'll come back to the landscape items in a minute. Next slide, please. Questions were raised at the last hearing about the access to the parking spaces Waterfield Design Group. Our site engineers have generated a turning radius and parking study, which is included in your packet. That file was updated and resubmitted last week. This slide shows the entering and leaving paths for a Subaru Forester accessing the most difficult space, the one farthest from the curb cut. Next slide please. The second and third floors are the same with four modest apartments per floor. In addition to the two affordable units proposed, the small size of these apartments will put them, put the rents at the low end of the range for new construction. Next","timeStart":1252.915,"timeEnd":1337.295,"chunkIndex":13},{"id":"e5bdd67d-c26e-497c-acab-94be7d1fb498","content":"Speaker 9: Fourth floor steps back seven and a half feet, leaving two one bedroom units and one two bedroom, two bath unit. Two of the units have private outdoor spaces. The edges of these terrace terraces are protected by a 42 inch parapet. Next slide, please. The fifth floor follows the pattern of the fourth with two one bedroom and one two bedroom unit. Next, the upper roof plan is shown on the left. The edge of the roof will be 56 feet, eight inches above the ground level. The plan shows the elevator penthouse, the heat pumps for the residential units, the ventilation equipment, and the future solar array. This 37 panel array would generate 17,000 kilowatt hours of power per year. The mechanical equipment will be screened from view. The right side plan shows the partial basement level housing, a tenant laundry, the bike room, a tenant fitness center building utility areas, and one storage cage for each apartment. Next, here are the two street elevations with Broadway on the left and Palmer Street on the right.","timeStart":1339.275,"timeEnd":1417.385,"chunkIndex":14},{"id":"93aacbb1-7d51-4b8a-b850-17076b7e045a","content":"Speaker 9: The residential entrance is in the Palmer Street facade with a modest canopy. The Broadway front is three stories tall with the two upper floors set back. The upper two floors also step back at the Palmer Street driveway to reduce the scale at that corner. Next, here are the rear and left elevations. The upper four four floors project over the grade, parking at the rear. The left side steps back in a series of planes to accommodate the angled property line. Sidewall vents have been removed. Next, this view shows the exterior materials. The base grade is a precast concrete band. The ground level is clad in red face brick with precast lentils. A 16 inch projecting precast band marks the second floor level. The entrance doors and storefront framing are black anodized aluminum with lightly tinted glass infill. The upper areas are clad in a suite of fiber cement panels in a variety of light colors and variety of textures. Some smooth and some ribbed. This yellow color is the main body of the building. It's divided into, uh, horizontal stripes that are about six inches wide mimicking a residential cla look. The corner elements are clad in a white panel, which is a wider format, an 18 inch wide panel. The upper floors are clad in this ribbed ivory colored panel with a white stripe accenting the middle of the facade.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, your time is, uh, coming to a close. Are you ready to wrap it up?\n\nSpeaker 9: I have two more pages or so. Can\n\nSpeaker 3: You wrap it up, uh, less time than that. I'll","timeStart":1418.905,"timeEnd":1530.635,"chunkIndex":15},{"id":"fc9b764e-d57d-4e85-b2b9-2c1c2409da0c","content":"Speaker 9: Do my best. This is the aluminum, uh, cornice material. Next slide, please. Here's the view from Palmer Street. Next slide, please. So, the ground level plan, uh, per the tree water and suggestion, we've, uh, used two species American elm on Broadway and honey locust on Palmer Street. We have new sidewalks. A left yard is, uh, got a privacy fence in arb, and the privacy fence wraps around and steps down, uh, to the street. Next slide, please. This is the updated, uh, photometric plan. You can see that the light levels are quite low, uh, with no spillover on the back, residential sides. And finally, if we skip two slides, Claire, this is the updated transportation demand management plan. Reconstruction of the sidewalks, bike storage for 24 bikes, uh, charging stations in the bike room for scooters and e-bikes, space for two cargo bikes, outdoor space bike parking for four bikes, real time transit display in the lobby, fee for parking on site at $175 a month in ev charging for the parking spaces. Last slide. Thank you, Claire. That's all I have. Mr. Tim. Thank you. I'm sorry to go over.\n\nSpeaker 3: No, that's all right. I, I'm giving you a little more access. Um, so Vince, Vince can vote on this, can you,\n\nSpeaker 7: Um, as we've only had one meeting on this project, Mr. Bo is allowed to vote on this, um, on this one.\n\nSpeaker 3: And Vince, can you give us a statement saying that you had looked at the, look, reviewed the previous meetings, so you, you're caught up to speed with this.","timeStart":1530.635,"timeEnd":1635.965,"chunkIndex":16},{"id":"7b330f37-e087-4b3b-bf21-c2a3d61fb878","content":"Speaker 5: Thank you, Ken. And yes, thank you for coming back. I, I've reviewed all the materials. I've watched the video of the previous meeting, and so I've caught up. I, I believe. But, um, I'll ask any questions if I have any. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 9: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, let's start off with, uh, Steve.\n\nSpeaker 4: So thank you for the, for the updates. Uh, I just have a couple of questions. Um, I see the, the two cargo bike spaces in the basement, in the bike room, in the basement. Yes. Uh, do you know how long they are?\n\nSpeaker 9: Five and a half feet is what I, I, I, I took a guess. I couldn't find a template for a cargo bike, so I used five and a half feet for a length on\n\nSpeaker 4: Those. That's, that is a little on the short side. Um, you know, a, a, you know, cargo bikes range, um, a smaller one, a turn, uh, might be about, might be about six feet. Um, a long tail. A a more typical long tail cargo bike is about seven. Um, and the, you know, something like a Dutch style bike is about closer to nine.\n\nSpeaker 9: So would, would seven feet,\n\nSpeaker 4: Seven seven feet I think would be a, would be a comfortable if, so","timeStart":1636.855,"timeEnd":1710.885,"chunkIndex":17},{"id":"f28c3665-ae27-403e-890e-65cda8631a8e","content":"Speaker 9: Heres my thinking about this. E-bikes and scooters charge on line voltage one 10 volts. So in theory, any of the storage spaces here could be, uh, used to charge mm-hmm . A bike. So if, you know, with that in mind, I think that that whole side of the bike room could be allocated for, uh, for cargo bikes if there were a need for it. Okay. Uh, I think there's, that's\n\nSpeaker 4: What, there's plenty of room. So if there's, if you can get 14, if that wall is at least 14 feet. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 9: So each, each one of the, uh, the double, the tandem bike racks is two feet wide. Mm-hmm . Oh, okay. As soon as you get, uh, seven of those in a row, you've got your 14 through.\n\nSpeaker 4: Right. And, um, if I can approach,\n\nSpeaker 10: So the, the other, the other question about cargo by Glen is, would involve the elevator. Yeah. So I, I see the little, you know, this is, I can see, yeah, that's how you would put it. Put a, put a bike in the elevator. But I'm wondering what is the, you know, the length of that rectangle?\n\nSpeaker 9: So that rectangle is the gurney, um, for, to meet the handicap or the, or the, uh, emergency access requirement. They're 84 inches long by 2024 inches wide.","timeStart":1710.895,"timeEnd":1791.725,"chunkIndex":18},{"id":"b7c407a0-d210-4d37-a862-2c125ccf300d","content":"Speaker 4: Okay. So that you have your seven feet there. Yes, sir. Okay. Um, this is great. I, I think I, I appreciate the mod, the modifications that I'm happy with the transportation demand management plan. Um, the one thing that I am a little challenged with is the drive aisle. Now, I, I, you've submitted turning radiuses. Mm-hmm . Um, turning diagrams. Um, I agree that the width that you're proposing, it was looked like 20 and a half feet on the civil plans.\n\nSpeaker 9: Uh, that's the setback. The drive\n\nSpeaker 4: Aisle's less than that. Yeah. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yes, it's approaching 20 feet.\n\nSpeaker 4: Right. Unfortunately, for a one-way drive aisle with 90 degree parking, our bylaw does require 24 feet. I personally think this is too large, but it's in the bylaw. Um, but you,\n\nSpeaker 9: You have the ability to relief relieve that.\n\nSpeaker 4: Well,\n\nSpeaker 9: The site plan approval, this is,\n\nSpeaker 4: This is something we'll have to have to have a discussion about. Um, now, finally, the, um, the solar energy system, it, the requirement is 50% of the roof area excluding the three foot setback, you know, along the roof edges. You came out at a little below that it was\n\nSpeaker 9: 45.7,\n\nSpeaker 4: 45.6, um, if necessary, you know, and we will, this will be another area of discussion. Um, would you, it looks like there are some areas of the roof where, you know, there would be venting or mechanicals. Um, would it be feasible to put a few more solar panels on a trellis or similar structure, uh, above the, one of those areas to get you","timeStart":1792.035,"timeEnd":1898.085,"chunkIndex":19},{"id":"ae09b46b-0d81-40e8-b94d-61054be0f54c","content":"Speaker 9: There? Potentially, I think o over the, the elevator over travel is about four and a half feet above the roof that could be populated with, with panels. Okay. But I don't think, I don't think even with that, they were gonna get all the way to 50%. Honestly. Um, it's close. Uh, if you look at the roof plan, it seems to me that there's a lot of it is, is solar, you know? Mm-hmm . No, I, and unfortunately, we're, we're with the prohibition of sidewall venting mm-hmm . Right. And\n\nSpeaker 4: No, no, i, I\n\nSpeaker 9: Pumps that we know we have to have, we know that we're gonna need a significant part of that footprint for,\n\nSpeaker 4: Um, no,\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I, for mechanical equipment,\n\nSpeaker 4: I, I understand that, um, you know, the challenges of trying to do a, a lot in the space that you're given, and I suggested that, you know, the trellis, if you could put something, uh, if where it's come, if you necessary, you could put something above it. Mm-hmm . Um, you do have, you know, plenty of height at, at, uh, 56 feet, eight inches. You've got plenty of height to play with. Yes. Um, but it would, um, you know, it would be one way to get you over the 50%\n\nSpeaker 9: Looking at the plan. I think that the elevator penthouse is the, the low hanging fruit for additional panel space.\n\nSpeaker 4: Alright. Uh, those, that's all I had, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 3: Mr. Thank you, Steve Chair. Can I just have one comment? Sure. Respond,\n\nSpeaker 9: Name and yourself.","timeStart":1898.085,"timeEnd":1978.575,"chunkIndex":20},{"id":"cb90d8c7-85cc-435a-b452-e3e6f659c9cd","content":"Speaker 3: Can you, uh, speak, can you speak in the, uh, the microphone so we, uh, people at home hear you?\n\nSpeaker 11: Good evening attorney Bob Peterson here, uh, representing the, uh, applicant this evening. Uh, relative to the comment about the width of the drive, uh, to, can you hear me now? Yes. I, sorry. Relative to the comment about the width there, uh, I was just ask that the, um, board take consideration that, uh, the reduction in the width will also be commensurate with the reduction in spaces. So therefore the, the, the proposed width of taking into consideration if it was conforming parking, um, should be viewed in light of that reduction and therefore the maneuverability on site. So, and I, I think that's, um, part of the discussion that you're probably gonna have to have. I, uh, mind that, just to go the record.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Vince, do you, uh,","timeStart":1979.235,"timeEnd":2023.415,"chunkIndex":21},{"id":"80cf39cb-b1dd-4a7c-aaf4-b7888ba381b1","content":"Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you. Uh, thank you for bringing this back. So I think the changes are really smart. Uh, for example, you know, moving services like laundry to the basement is a logical thing to do to free up ground floor space. And we're really putting a lot of pressure on the ground floor because we're asking, you know, we're looking for this 60% of commercial, we're looking for some parking spaces. We're looking for a residential entry. Um, I agree with Steve that the drive aisle is very tight, and I think that's something that the, um, building owners and their tenants are going to be struggling with. But I'm inclined to, um, not ask that it be, that the building be reduced any further. Um, you know, the maneuvering studies that are shown, were they, they show a little bit of wiggling here and there to, to, to get the car into the spot, but it looks doable.","timeStart":2024.085,"timeEnd":2077.415,"chunkIndex":22},{"id":"ed7f1c7e-a754-4fd3-af1b-5842fbc1665d","content":"Speaker 5: Um, let's see. The aesthetically, the, the material palette is a bit plainer. It was before than it was before, but I think it looks good. The massing, this is an observation that I'm making only with respect to our bylaw. I think the step back at the fourth floor is producing an undesirable result in this situation where the, the three floors facing Broadway feel a little small, and then this kind of tall or two story penthouse behind them feels a little too tall. But then again, that's a requirement of our bylaw, that the building step back at the fourth floor. And I think that's something just that the board might want to think about in the future. Um, whether or not we wanna provide some flexibility on that point. Um, a question about where the trash cans will be placed out for collection. Um, I dunno if that\n\nSpeaker 9: The, the way we've handled this before, we, we just finished a project on mass at, uh, at 10 25, which has, uh, a similar setup. It has an in inside trash space. And the way that's handled is that the hauler, uh, remove moves the bins from the room. He, he has access to the room. He moves the bins from the room to the truck and puts the empty bins back in the room all, uh, as part of his service. So the residents don't do anything except get the trash to the trash room and get the recycling to the recycling area in the same room.\n\nSpeaker 5: I think that there's some wrinkles that'll need to be worked out there. And, and, um, is it the same owner? No. Different owners. It's a different\n\nSpeaker 9: Project. Yeah.","timeStart":2078.195,"timeEnd":2173.285,"chunkIndex":23},{"id":"b03b6989-0010-44b9-9d31-764b8c5823d4","content":"Speaker 5: The, the, the, the, the one, if I'm not mistaken, the building at, at 2025, the, the, the dumpsters in the street are becoming an eyesore in that location. But,\n\nSpeaker 9: Uh, I don't think 10 25 has any dumpsters in the street. Okay. There, uh, there, there may be, there are some next door.\n\nSpeaker 3: Vince, you talking about the majestic?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yeah. I may be confusing two addresses. Are you talking\n\nSpeaker 3: About the, are you talking about the majestic? Is that what you\n\nSpeaker 5: Did before? But just specifically to keep it to this project? Do you know if the, the dumpsters and or, and or trash cans would be brought out to Palmer Street, to, to Broadway? Is there, can you point out on the site plan where there's, I think\n\nSpeaker 9: That, uh, what I expect to have happen here is I expect to have the trash hauler's truck back into the drive lane and then handle the, handle the containers on the property rather than in, in the street. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: I think what you said is, is, uh, is what the, was what the board wants, what's happening at the other building, but that Vince's, uh, uh, talking to is, um, the building services pushes the dumpsters out into the street and the thing's overflowing. It's, it's, it's all over sidewalk and on the street. And\n\nSpeaker 9: I wasn't aware of that. That's news to me. And I will,","timeStart":2173.305,"timeEnd":2243.165,"chunkIndex":24},{"id":"3ccf2807-2f35-4142-ae96-a3d40e35d2aa","content":"Speaker 3: I'm just telling you what's there. I have photographs of it if you look at our minutes. Um, but that's to sidetrack. It's not what you guys are doing. I'm not gonna lie. I'm gonna, I'm gonna drop that, that, okay. So this, um, uh, if it, if it becomes a problem, we will, we'll address it, but absolutely, you'll see you're gonna have the, uh, the trash services. We,\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I have a commitment from the owner that the, the trash will be handled on. So that's\n\nSpeaker 3: Fine. That's all we need.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank you. So for the transportation demand management plan, I, I think you have the three measures that you need. You, you proposed four. I I'm not convinced by the cargo biking, parking spaces. I think that's something that the board needs to discuss and set a standard for. Um, given that there's an elevator, it, it would be a little ridiculous to ask for a larger space than seven feet long. But I think that for many cargo bicycles, a space that's, you know, maybe nine feet long might wanna become our standard. But I think, I think even without, if, if we were even not to count cargo biking, I think you have your, your three other, um, measures, um, for charging for parking on the site. I don't know if we as a board can ask for a, a condition that, that be written into the lease. Um, but it, it's important that the,\n\nSpeaker 9: I think that's a problem. It's\n\nSpeaker 3: Part of, it's part of the approval process. So, uh, so","timeStart":2243.305,"timeEnd":2324.165,"chunkIndex":25},{"id":"5c74e23d-e02d-4b50-baab-c8ad689f60e7","content":"Speaker 9: I'm, I'm sure it'll be a condition of yes, your approval if you, if you gain to approve the project. Correct.\n\nSpeaker 5: Um, otherwise, um, that's it for me. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 9: You,\n\nSpeaker 6: Shannon. Uh, thank you. And I'd like to start by stating that I was not present on January 12th, so I missed the first hearing. I have watched the proceedings on A CMI and reviewed the meeting minutes and other materials in detail. Um, and so am prepared to, um, to, uh, contribute moving forward. Um, so I'm going to try not to have duplicative comments and questions and leave what my colleagues have asked, uh, at that. Um, I believe there was a request, um, at the last meeting for a market study. Um, and, and, um, while the, while combining the commercial spaces, um, is much appreciated and certainly, uh, makes the, makes it much more, um, imaginable how those spaces will be leased. Uh, what I, what I saw didn't, um, what I saw you provided didn't give me any indication of sort of how you intend to lease or who you intend to lease to. Could the owner, um, speak to, um, what type of tenant is, is intended here or expect it here?","timeStart":2324.625,"timeEnd":2425.075,"chunkIndex":26},{"id":"12e8e6ab-7284-4da8-9f2c-576590b3dcf8","content":"Speaker 11: Yeah. Uh, again, Rob Peterson here, the attorney representing the owner, uh, applicant this evening relative to the, uh, the study or lack their study of the, um, of the commercial space. Uh, as a team, we considered what we were doing at the commercial space. We hear the concerns of the board, uh, who was, who were, um, kind of, uh, hesitant of approving a project with the bifurcated smaller spaces. So we went ahead, we redid the plans in the, the, the approximately 1800 square foot, um, yield when we reached out to the town economic, um, development office. They said that's more in line with what they're seeing for here in, um, in Arlington. Uh, so, uh, instead of going through a study, uh, when we had the confirmation that we were in line with, with what is, um, kind of desirable here in Arlington, uh, we would leave it open. So we don't really have a targeted, uh, tenant. Uh, but we're more than willing to continue to work with the town's economic development office to, to procure a tenant in there, uh, in any requests of the board with, uh, tenants that they would like to see in there. We're more than, more than happy to take those into consideration.\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Um, let's see. I think my colleagues have addressed my transportation, uh, related questions fairly well. Uh, regarding, um, regarding, I suppose I would call it the, the cornice on the, on the first, on the first floor parapets. Yes. Right there. Exactly. Um, how far, how far out does that protrude from the building about\n\nSpeaker 9: That far know exactly, but something like that. Okay. 16 or 18 inches. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: Um, alright. It,","timeStart":2425.585,"timeEnd":2526.725,"chunkIndex":27},{"id":"72b3c80b-abce-4a40-8444-c5fbbee6e214","content":"Speaker 9: It's not really worked out in detail as you can see. It's basically, it's an edge and then a and then a chiseled surface coming back to the building.\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay. It, um, renders very dramatically, um, in, uh, in a way that I think, I think my, I I think Vince sort of spoke, spoke appro.\n\nSpeaker 3: Can you, speaking to the\n\nSpeaker 6: Microphone, I'm sorry, spoke appropriately when he said that the, that the, um, fourth floor setback was maybe not, um, serving this building as well as it had intended. Um, and I think the, um, that detail is not, um, is, is, uh, a place that, that you might reconsider. Um, that particular detail is um, looks like the building has wings in a way that is, is maybe not.\n\nSpeaker 9: I see. Um, would you be more comfortable if it were more orthogonal without the bevel?\n\nSpeaker 6: I think that might, I think that might do it. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 9: That would take that chisel That's right. Edge away. That's right. We can certainly\n\nSpeaker 6: Work on that's, yep. Um, I know we often talk about desiring depth and so I appreciate that, that, um, you are striving for depth here. I think in this particular case, um, it's a little bit too much, Josh.\n\nSpeaker 9: I'm sure we can come to a, a, a different profile that would Yeah. Be a little quieter to your eye.\n\nSpeaker 6: Alright. Um, and I think my colleagues have addressed my other questions and comments. Thanks.","timeStart":2527.035,"timeEnd":2638.845,"chunkIndex":28},{"id":"08318aa2-0183-4c6f-ba42-cc78fd742f0d","content":"Speaker 3: Thank you Shannon. Alright. Um, I'm gonna ask a little more than my, what my boards has talked about. Sure. Um, , um, I'm requesting you give me six parking spaces instead of the five.\n\nSpeaker 9: Oh,\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And I think you can get that in there with, with not that much of a major change. Um, can we go to the site plan please? Or one\n\nSpeaker 9: Of the last, you'll you'll need to help me out with that because I,\n\nSpeaker 3: I I'm gonna \n\nSpeaker 2: Will this work Ken? Or you want that work? Something different. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Use that.\n\nSpeaker 2: Really want fingers.\n\nSpeaker 3: I think this right here can be a parking space if you just suck this in over a little bit more and you can get another spot right there easily.\n\nSpeaker 9: Okay. Uh, get\n\nSpeaker 3: Rid of this door here and have the door go out this way here. I also would, uh, ask you to get rid of this curb since I'm up here right now. 'cause in the future, if this will be the handicap spot, you\n\nSpeaker 9: Cannot, there would be no curb there, sir. Yeah. Okay. We, we would flush that out. So\n\nSpeaker 3: These will just come in this way here and the trash will go out that way there too. Yeah. But now you gained another spot without making any major changes to the building.\n\nSpeaker 9: So I, I'm, I'd be happy to do that. But the, the fly in the ortman is that, I don't know what footprint the utility is gonna need for their transformer. You see that there's a transformer and a generator parked in that. I","timeStart":2639.575,"timeEnd":2730.015,"chunkIndex":29},{"id":"f814450e-c7fb-46e2-8472-9f130a2462b9","content":"Speaker 3: Will move it out. You work it out. Okay. I'm not gonna play designer for you, but I'm asking you to put another space in there. 'cause I don't think five's enough for me. I see. I want you to get six parking spaces in there. Okay?\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I hear you. Yes, I understand. And then right\n\nSpeaker 3: Here, uh, you say you have something like 20 feet.\n\nSpeaker 9: It's getting towards 20 feet. Yes. Getting\n\nSpeaker 3: Towards 20 feet. Mm-hmm . Okay. Our zoning says 24.\n\nSpeaker 9: I understand. But we\n\nSpeaker 3: Have some new, um, uh, a new, um, revision in that we're gonna cha try to change to 22 feet. So yes, we have the ability to approve less than 24. So we have it in there to go to a 22 feet. I'm asking you to make 22 feet here just by making the hallway a little tighter. The best way, a little tighter. And just suck this in a little bit more. And you have your 22 feet of backup space.\n\nSpeaker 9: I hear you. I understand. You're,\n\nSpeaker 3: And I, I'm not sure what the rest of the board is willing to do or not do, but I'm just telling you what I would do and I'll, I'll leave up to the board to give their opinion on what that is. But I'm willing to go down to 22 feet.\n\nSpeaker 9: Would you be willing to lose a planting strip along the fence in order to get to 20? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: I think you have. I think you can just, this hallway here is gotta be what, eight, nine feet?","timeStart":2730.015,"timeEnd":2807.205,"chunkIndex":30},{"id":"bf1a2b3e-3113-4008-af93-89f1e614b6c9","content":"Speaker 9: It's, the doors are six feet. So the corridor is probably eight feet.\n\nSpeaker 3: So what you got down, get down a little bit more. No, it gotta be more than that thing. There is almost two feet. That's a little foot there. So you got about nine feet there. So let's say you brought, you brought that down somewhat and then you get this, the 22 feet. Um, I don't know what this, what, what's your distance here?\n\nSpeaker 9: It's about 18 inches. A foot and a half.\n\nSpeaker 3: Maybe you could down, maybe take six inches to where something goes, but you work something out where we get the 22 feet and the additional parking space. That's a site plan. The other thing that I, I find a little awkward right now is that when I look at the elevation, uh, can you go to, uh, an elevation? Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 7: Do you want the rendering or do you want the actual elevation?\n\nSpeaker 3: The rendering would be fine. If I look at the profile of, uh, your, your floors above and where the brick veneer is. Yes, I, it's the drying thing, but this looks like it's proud of this. It is. That's awkward.\n\nSpeaker 9: The corner bay is","timeStart":2807.835,"timeEnd":2876.605,"chunkIndex":31},{"id":"c6d8ec21-24ab-462c-99bc-3a4b05502ced","content":"Speaker 3: Projected there. You gotta bring, but you gotta bring this corners out more so, so you can hide that difference. 'cause when I first look at the building, it looks like it goes up brick corners, and then the thing overhang it mushrooms up, up there. That's not how you typically do a building. Typically, the base is a little more, um, substantial. Okay. So if you can somehow work on this detail a little better, where it can hide that fact where, uh, the building above it sort of push it out a little bit. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 9: Uh, would you be more comfortable with the, uh, the precast, uh, accent band going under the corner element?\n\nSpeaker 3: That could be a possibility. I I, I'm, I'm, I'm not trying to fight. I'm, I'm letting you, I'm just telling you the issues. I'm not trying to,\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I understand,\n\nSpeaker 3: Sir. And, um, as far as the slanting thing here, uh, that, uh, sha I, I don't have the same issue. I, I think it's okay. It's kind of awkward wing, but it's, it's, it's up there. I, I'm not, I'm fine with that. Okay. That's my opinion. Um, uh, with that said, I'm gonna open up the public comment. Uh, go ahead. Please come to, uh, uh, to the microphone. State your name and address. Uh, you'll be addressing the board not to the, not this.","timeStart":2876.835,"timeEnd":2963.845,"chunkIndex":32},{"id":"bbb90e52-0b38-4864-afd2-53144c77d4b3","content":"Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, Asha Kka, uh, 17th Silk Street. I live right off Broadway. I've lived there for 28 years, so I'm very familiar with the area. And I have some, um, thoughts about, uh, upcoming projects. Um, I'm less concerned about the visual, you know, colors and details, but, um, more with practical side of the project and, um, other projects, uh, happening in town, specifically as I followed, um, the construction of, I\n\nSpeaker 3: Can I ask you to go ahead, comment. Can I ask you just to comment on this project here? Yes. Yes. You, you're more than welcome to comment on, on the projects that town in Open Form. Okay. Uh, you gotta be fair to these people here. Thank you. Just comment.","timeStart":2963.875,"timeEnd":3012.885,"chunkIndex":33},{"id":"eee05a8e-610c-4b9f-bd35-94d81140f335","content":"Speaker 12: No worries. Mm-hmm . Um, so I understand this project has 14 units plus re, uh, business. Um, I was wondering if the calculations of the trash management have been made properly. Um, as of now, I see the room, uh, dedicated to the trash. Um, only having five containers and the recycling only also having only five containers. Um, I am concerned that this is not, um, sufficient, um, amount of, um, receptacles for the trash and recycling. I am concerned that, um, because the amount of the receptacles is not big, uh, enough, it's going to have to stand on a street and be abstracting the road, uh, for the pedestrians and for the, um, the drivers. Um, I wanted to learn where the loading dock will be, um, for moving trucks for the service vehicles, for plumbers. Um, any maintenance vehicles for the, uh, landscaping crew. Where would they be parking as they are servicing the building, um, where the trash will, where the snow will be put.","timeStart":3013.625,"timeEnd":3090.805,"chunkIndex":34},{"id":"e311c87f-c213-4de6-a658-2fb3bc7a5c4e","content":"Speaker 12: Um, there's very little, uh, setbacks and usually setbacks I use for, um, you know, storing snow during the, you know, after the snow. Uh, storms. Right now, Broadway is really congested. Uh, it took me many, many times. Family requested that some of the snow is cleared. Usually we don't have very, um, wide roads, so snow will be obstructing pedestrian traffic, uh, parking, vehicle traffic. So I wanted to find out where would they be. Um, staging, you know, loading into, uh, delivery trucks. Uh, where would they be? Food deliveries done. And because we have such a low number of cars, parking spaces, I'm assuming people will be using Uber and other services. Um, so where would those be pulling over to pick up and drop off the, uh, residence. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Are there any other comments? Yes. You back there.","timeStart":3090.985,"timeEnd":3153.705,"chunkIndex":35},{"id":"23f987bb-e5bc-42d4-a848-5426b4261d55","content":"Speaker 13: Hi, my name is Amanda May and I live at 2 6 1 Broadway with my husband and our toddler right next door to 2 59. One of my main concerns is parking. It has been published at approximately 70 to 90% of Arlington households have cars. Applying that to a 14 unit building that would bring about 10 to 13 cars to the neighborhood. And after factoring the proposed parking spaces, we, we would expect about five to eight more cars. That's five to eight more cars that would park daily on already very congested side streets and fully utilized parking on both sides of Broadway. Palmer constantly has cars parking on both sides of the street. Without snow banks narrowing the street in perfect weather conditions, it is not possible for two cars to drive past each other on that two-way street. Our son attends Ready Set Kids down the street on Broadway, and we frequent Donut Villa.","timeStart":3167.325,"timeEnd":3217.805,"chunkIndex":36},{"id":"b6913aa5-4877-437c-a96b-b6bb56e30afe","content":"Speaker 13: So we know that teachers at Ready set kids and staff at Donut Villa Park in front of our house and on the side streets every single day, including on Palmer. We have been told by teachers that they have been hit while parking there because of how narrow the streets are and have been asked if we have ring footage of it. Parking is not just important because there's already street parking deficit, but because increased congestion combined with a zero setback worsens visibility, visibility is already extremely difficult. At the corner where 2 59 is in addition to the many cars that try to drive straight down Palmer from Warren Street to Mass Ave, there are many bicyclists and pedestrians that walk down Broadway crossing Palmer. And many of those are commuters or kids walking to and from school. A towering five story building with a, with a zero setback would just exacerbate that situation. I would also reiterate that the 20 foot or 22 foot drive lane is a very important requirement. Um, as already discussed by members of the board, my husband and I both support more housing because we think that Arlington families need it. But this proposal isn't it, if the developer can afford to build a 14 unit building, they can afford to build it in such a way that is better centered around the needs of the community that it is supposed to support and become integrated into. Thank you for your time. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Are there anybody else? Yes, sir. Please state your name and address, please.","timeStart":3217.865,"timeEnd":3313.885,"chunkIndex":37},{"id":"8d23e7e4-c68a-4cd9-8873-a7802b90eb10","content":"Speaker 14: Hi, Jerry Leonard, 44 Palmer Street. Um, uh, there's a, there's a lot that, uh, I can say about this project. I submitted a memo on behalf of a group of neighbors on Palmer Street and Broadway last at the last hearing. Uh, I just wanna emphasize quickly that what I see happening here when I listened to the comments from various people is that we have a lot on which certainly a profitable building can be built, or the current building can be, can be renovated. Um, but what the current plan seems to do is to really push the limits of this very small lot, uh, as hard as they possibly can, which I understand they're trying, they're trying to build a building and make a living, uh, out of this. But they're pushing the limits about as hard as the, as this lot, uh, can really handle in any number of, of directions.","timeStart":3315.025,"timeEnd":3367.805,"chunkIndex":38},{"id":"fd334ff0-ea50-4afd-9b26-26c9a539a4c1","content":"Speaker 14: Uh, so the, the bonus rules for a fifth floor, they're ambiguous. I know there's some dispute about exactly what they mean with respect to commercial space on the first floor floor, earn earning a fifth floor. Uh, I would just say the funda, without getting into the particulars of interpreting that rule, the fundamental question is, is there, in that, in that respect, is, is this commercial space reliably the kind of value for the town that would justify the exceptional, uh, earning of a fifth floor? Uh, especially when you have a, a fifth floor that, as a previous speaker said, uh, gets you to 14 very small, uh, apartments, uh, out of the spirit of family, uh, uh, family size apartments that the spirit of the MBTA, uh, communities act, uh, the parking situation. Uh, I, I would, uh, reemphasize, I just make, uh, a couple of additional points.","timeStart":3368.225,"timeEnd":3423.245,"chunkIndex":39},{"id":"ea7ccb9c-5260-4962-8edd-c1f8d5daaad8","content":"Speaker 14: These parking spaces are gonna be very unattractive to people moving in, especially, and when you add the $175 fee, which is supposedly, uh, you know, a disincentive to own, own a car, what that's actually gonna do is mean that people park on the street until the town, for better or worse changes the parking policy to, to raise dramatically the price of permits on the street. People are gonna choose to park on the street instead of in these spaces that are extremely hard, uh, to get into and, and expensive. Um, I, I would like to say some things about the bike space because I'm an old bike activist, but I'm gonna leave that for now. I'm worried that the bike space also is, is, is not adequate. But, but that's, uh, another thing. I think there's an alternative renovation of the building that's there now, or at worst, a fourth, a four story building that doesn't get the bonus. These would all be improvements and if they, and whether it's a four story building or a five story building, there should be more than two, two bedroom apartments in, in there instead of cramming as many apartments as they as they can get in. Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Thank you. Is there anybody else, uh, wish, uh, comment on this? Seeing none, I'm gonna close, um, public comment and return it back to the board for their comments. Um, Steve, do you have any?","timeStart":3423.695,"timeEnd":3504.205,"chunkIndex":40},{"id":"027296ae-1b3e-40f8-b99e-99c20c04b71c","content":"Speaker 4: So, um, I, I think our, to just summarize our issue, the issues we've talked about, um, we've talked about the drive aisle being 22 feet. Uh, we've talked about increasing the number of parking spaces from five to six, and, um, I'm not sure where we ended up in terms of the facade treatment. Uh, specifically the cornices.\n\nSpeaker 3: We agreed, well, I, I, uh, the architect agreed that he'll adjust that, uh, issue that I have, um, by changing the, the corner so that it doesn't seem like the top of the elevation mushrooms out a little bit. And, but that was the architects. I'm not sure what the board, uh, thinks about that.\n\nSpeaker 5: I, I don't think we have a consensus as to the exact architectural change, and I don't think that's our role. The idea is to see if we can make the building feel a bit more proportional, um, by adjusting the cornices.\n\nSpeaker 3: Correct. That's what we're, that's where, uh, that's, that's what is it. Correct.\n\nSpeaker 9: So I heard comments about this upper cornice and I heard comments about this condition down here.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Right. I think we're in consensus, uh, if I'm wrong with the cornice below, what, what yet the attitude is trying to make that more, um, coordinate so that it doesn't, it, it, it seems that transitions better. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 9: You, you would like to see the brick surface and the panel surface above be in the same plane. Is that correct?","timeStart":3505.425,"timeEnd":3593.525,"chunkIndex":41},{"id":"16ec43e0-1ac4-4f6f-8d22-d53de3580c3d","content":"Speaker 3: Or, or transition better? Yes. Right now it doesn't look that it isn't that way and it doesn't look, it looks awkward right now, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think the rest of the board thinks, uh, about that or they don't think about that. No one's really said anything back. I'm not talking to you, sir. Okay. Uh, and then, uh, as, as to the fourth floor, uh, cornice, we only have two opinions right now, mine and Shannon's. So I just wanna see what the rest of the board says, uh, about that. And if we have any consensus about that, do we, do we want to alter that a little bit? Or we leave it as, as is?\n\nSpeaker 6: So I would say about that cornice, I would not hold up the project because of that cornice. I think it looks heavy, but, um, but I wouldn't hold up the project because of That's right. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Missing.\n\nSpeaker 5: So at the first floor, at, at most of the building, you've got a precast stone band that's creating a transition between the brick and the fiber cement panels, kind of a grooved panels above, but those corner elements project out. I think it's intended to be treated differently to me. I'm not inclined to, um, I don't have a prescriptive alternative to suggest if the architect has anything else that would be more satisfactory. You can then, I'd be happy to see that. But I don't have a particular, it\n\nSpeaker 3: Just puts, puts the airspace between the brick cavity a little wider and it, it's just a little thicker. That's all. I don't know","timeStart":3593.585,"timeEnd":3688.115,"chunkIndex":42},{"id":"396b487e-57bc-4a2c-9e7c-d64813a7f1e7","content":"Speaker 9: If I could defend, go ahead these corners for just a minute, and I don't wanna take too much of the board's time, but the idea here was to make a separate corner element that projected from the building a little bit and had a separate hat on it. Not unlike the turret that's on the corner of the existing house that's on this property now. The idea was to make something special and way to make that special was to have it, you know, stand out and stick its chest out a little bit, if you will. So that was our idea. Now I understand, Ken, that that is not an idea that you are comfortable with.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's my opinion. And I'm, I'm, I'm, I I'm not gonna, like Kiana said, I'm not gonna hold up the project because of that. I'm just asking what the rest of the board says. Uh, Vince says he has, doesn't have an issue with that. That's fine. Steve, do you have,\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, no strong feelings\n\nSpeaker 3: And Shannon, do you,\n\nSpeaker 6: Uh, not strong feelings\n\nSpeaker 3: Then? I'm just gonna withdraw that saying since the rest of the board Thank you. Doesn't have an issue with that. I'm gonna go with that. 'cause you know that to me right now is not, it's not gonna kill the project. Okay. We will,\n\nSpeaker 9: I, we will be challenged, sir, to meet your requirements with respect to the drive aisle and the additional parking space. That's gonna\n\nSpeaker 3: Be, those two are, those two for me are non-negotiable. Okay. Um, I, I'm, I'm hoping the rest of the board feels the same way.","timeStart":3688.255,"timeEnd":3769.445,"chunkIndex":43},{"id":"d748ea94-0c07-477c-9a80-6e022e5e0113","content":"Speaker 11: I, I understand that. That's, we can, we can accept that. I should, that's fine. Okay. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 5: And, uh, I may be, I would vote it here, but just taking the temperature of the board can, do you, how many of the board members see the sixth space as enough additional benefit to have them come back? Because I would not vote in that direction. Just,\n\nSpeaker 3: You wanna take a straw vote, vote\n\nSpeaker 5: Straw poll on that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, I'm fair with that.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah. I, I would be okay without the six space if it's, um, if it's not tenable. So I agree, I concur with Mr. Bodo.\n\nSpeaker 5: I'd like to, I'd like to have the them take a look at it as well, but I'm not gonna require a six space.\n\nSpeaker 6: Uh, I would, I would definitely like to see good faith effort, um, but, but would not, uh, reject the project for lack of a sixth space.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, not stating that we reject the project, I'm just saying that if they, if they show good effort, they should come back to us and then we will decide. Uh, but right now we'll approve it as their best, their, their best effort to get six. And, uh, if they can't do it, then they'll come back to us.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Okay. Sounds good.\n\nSpeaker 3: Does that sound fair?","timeStart":4553.155,"timeEnd":4638.805,"chunkIndex":54},{"id":"abd1c25f-c605-4573-90d7-e1d4bbd697bb","content":"Speaker 11: Uh, it, it, uh, Mr. Chairman, it does sound fair. I, I guess I, I'm, I want to bring up, uh, I kind of want to, you're talking about a busy schedule. I, I kind of want to get in front of it. If we can't get that six space and we come back here and we only have five spaces, it sounds like, uh, from the straw poll, the board, that it would, we would still move forward with the five. So I guess in the interest of, of moving the project along and not requiring us to come back, could it be conditioned upon that we have the five spaces and we use our best efforts to get the six space. So we as in, we don't have to come back in for a re-approval, um, for the, uh, for that, for that six space.\n\nSpeaker 3: Me personally, I like to put in a little more weight behind that stick and, uh, and say, yes, uh, you, you're gonna come back. Okay. Um, uh, that's my opinion.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah. You would rather than, rather than providing the justification to staff, you would have to provide justification to the board.\n\nSpeaker 11: And I understand that. Um, and that, that's, I'm fine with it\n\nSpeaker 3: Civil as that. Okay. That's my opinion.\n\nSpeaker 11: Okay. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Do we have a motion?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 5: One, one moment. Just, uh, the comment about snow removal. I don't, you mentioned that, but I don't believe that was written anywhere that there was a","timeStart":4640.305,"timeEnd":4714.325,"chunkIndex":55},{"id":"2e84434c-f8af-4d80-aac6-3843c579d103","content":"Speaker 3: Snow removal. It's in it's part of their document for approval. Um, uh, Sarah, you, you wouldn't have it have on the approval thing there. Would you have to read that?\n\nSpeaker 9: It's on the plan. There's a note on the, on the plan showing the snow removal location.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. But part of our approval, we always said the snow removal will be accords with town zoning out the final\n\nSpeaker 5: Decision. It goes in as the comment, right. I think the likelihood is that with all of this going on on the ground floor and extra parking spaces and whatnot, that there will not be enough space at all times for snow removal. And so that I agree. The owners should have a plan to. I agree.\n\nSpeaker 3: So can I ask once again, do we have a motion ?\n\nSpeaker 4: Alright, so I'll take, I'll take a shot at a motion. Um, and this will of course be open to friendly amendments, uh, that the, the board approves\n\nSpeaker 3: Doc site plan, site plan, approval\n\nSpeaker 4: Site. The board approves the site plan review for docket 3 8 8 1 2 59 Broadway conditioned upon the following, um, that six parking spaces be provided rather than five that the applicant make, um, their most diligent effort or every po make all possible efforts to, uh, get the drive aisle to a 22 foot width. And these shall be subject to, uh, administrative approval with the caveat that in the event that you can't get six spaces, you have to come back to us.","timeStart":4714.325,"timeEnd":4818.205,"chunkIndex":56},{"id":"a835cc8c-05cc-4119-907f-a2aaff736c62","content":"Speaker 3: That's for the parking spaces and for the drive width. You, you, you said it only for drive width. You didn't say for the parking space. Oh,\n\nSpeaker 4: I meant to say it for the parking spaces, not the driveway.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. You said the other way around.\n\nSpeaker 4: So let me try it again. . Alright. So, uh, mo uh, move approval of docket 3 8 8 1, subject to the following conditions, uh, the applicants provide six parking spaces instead of five, and endeavor to, uh, create a 22 foot drive aisle. Um, in the event that these shall be subject to administrative approval, in the event that a six space is not attainable, the applicants shall reappear, uh, before the board.\n\nSpeaker 3: Do we have a second?\n\nSpeaker 7: Second,\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve? Yes. Vince? Yes. Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You very much. Congratulations. Congratulations.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Now we have, uh, number\n\nSpeaker 2: Five. We are\n\nSpeaker 7: At number five. Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. We're item number five, public hearing. Public hearing for docket number 3 8 9 2 1 26 and 1 28 Broadway. Now this is a site plan review hearing. Will appellants please come up?\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, yes,\n\nSpeaker 7: Absolutely.\n\nSpeaker 2: There\n\nSpeaker 7: You go. Thanks a lot.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you Chair. Uh, Claire, do you wanna, uh, open this? Uh, any comments?\n\nSpeaker 7: I would love to,\n\nSpeaker 2: Lemme\n\nSpeaker 7: Just check my notes. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure.","timeStart":4819.625,"timeEnd":4964.995,"chunkIndex":57},{"id":"f1c8f769-ff87-49de-b3e5-90bfee1350fd","content":"Speaker 7: Alright. Um, this is an application by Steve Mamo and Thomas McDonough, um, to open site plan review docket 3 8 9 2. The redevelopment board has previously reviewed an, uh, application for site plan review for docket 3 8 6 2 at 1 26 Broadway that was filed by the applicant in 2025. However, on Jan 8, 20 26, the applicant submitted a notice of withdrawal without prejudice to the board.\n\nSpeaker 7: In December, the applicant entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the owners of the adjacent property at 1 28 Broadway, which has been included in this new application. The applicant now proposes to demolish the two existing two family dwellings and detached garage and constructive five story mixed use building with approximately 3,568 square foot commercial unit and residential parking on the ground floor. And 28 residential units above on the properties located at 1 26 and 1 28, um, Broadway. Uh, in the Residential two Family District and the Maap Broadway multifamily Overlay District 10 residential parking spaces are proposed. Um, there's a list in the memo of materials, uh, to, uh, that are under consideration, um, for this project. And I believe the board is in receipt of those.\n\nSpeaker 15: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Uh, please state your name and uh,\n\nSpeaker 15: Um, attorney Michael Cabral for the applicant.\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, Tim Johnson, project Architect.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Are you gonna be using the screen?\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, yes, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 15: Okay. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, uh, community.\n\nSpeaker 15: Uh,","timeStart":4966.625,"timeEnd":5069.325,"chunkIndex":58},{"id":"fb217d06-2888-41fe-8e25-b90818a91584","content":"Speaker 16: As, uh, the board just mentioned, we were in front of the board, uh, last year with, uh, a five story four, a five story, 14 unit building at the corner of Broadway and Everett Street. Uh, our clients, uh, subsequently purchased the property north of that along Broadway to create a 10,000, approximately 10,400 square foot lot microphone. So\n\nSpeaker 15: Can't hear. Microphone.\n\nSpeaker 16: Is the microphone on? Yes. Yes. Sorry. You, you,\n\nSpeaker 15: You gotta speak right into it.\n\nSpeaker 16: My apologies. So, the lot now has grown from a 5,400 square foot lot to a 10,400 square foot lot. We are proposing a five story 28 unit building with commercial space on the ground floor, 60% of the floor area, uh, 10 off street parking spaces. And I can begin at the site plan if, uh, if we could Krista\n\nSpeaker 3: You looking at C one?\n\nSpeaker 16: That would be, uh, that would be CO one. Yep. Yes, Mr. Got it, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Krista. So\n\nSpeaker 15: It's clear, it's","timeStart":5072.465,"timeEnd":5148.135,"chunkIndex":59},{"id":"cd2a6551-0ab5-4d54-93a4-bc001292bdff","content":"Speaker 16: Clear. I'm sorry, I, it's my apologies, Claire. So, on the drawing, north is up. Broadway's on the right, Everett street's on the bottom. Uh, the board is familiar with this project 'cause we are entering the site from the same curb cut along Everett on the south side, uh, to a 20 foot wide travel lane. This is a one-way driveway. It travels north around the back of the building, turns left along the north side of the building, and exits on Broadway. So this is a one way driveway. The entrance to the commercial space is on the east side on Broadway, shown on the plan. The residential area entrance is on the south side. This our 28 residential units. Uh, we have eight two bedroom units averaging 942 square feet and 21 bedroom units averaging 643 square feet on the second, third, fourth, and flip floors. This is the ground floor plan showing the commercial space at approximately 60% of the floor area.\n\nSpeaker 16: We have, uh, new plantings, new bicycle parking in the pelvic realm. Our landscape architect has been working closely with the tree warden. Uh, we're keeping three existing trees and we're planting three new trees, which is on the attached, uh, landscape plan. Uh, we are providing out of the 10 parking spaces, one, uh, accessible space in the covered parking area. From the residential ENT entrance, we have our transit screen. As you enter the building for buses and blue bikes, we have bicycle parking for 34 bikes. Uh, we are also providing an amenity space at the ground floor, uh, for a workout room for the residents. And a next slide, please. Uh, Claire,\n\nSpeaker 2: Where are we headed?","timeStart":5148.135,"timeEnd":5280.295,"chunkIndex":60},{"id":"5eb0df3a-6eb0-4a4a-abaa-4d5af7adf215","content":"Speaker 16: A next slide. There we go. So this is the ground floor plan, uh, similar to same as the, uh, site plan showing again our residential entry at the bottom of the sheet, commercial entry on the right side of the sheet. Next slide please. So we have a combination of two bedroom and one bedroom units per floor. Um, each unit will have a, uh, Juliet balcony. Um, as I mentioned, we, we are above 900 square feet on the two bedroom units. We're above 600 square feet on the one bedroom units. All units are serviced by an elevator, which makes all units group one dwelling units. 5% of the units will be group two units. Next slide please. The same as the, uh, third floor. Same as the second. Next slide please. So as we go up to the fourth floor, you see we have, we per, uh, the, uh, ordinance. We are stepping the building back seven and a half feet along Broadway. And we also reduce the unit, the, uh, unit count as we go up. Next slide please. Fifth floor, same as the fourth floor. And finally, the roof plan showing our solar panel array. And I believe our consultant has it at 50%","timeStart":5283.135,"timeEnd":5374.245,"chunkIndex":61},{"id":"6c769384-ef69-47dc-8df6-7c2cb87346ac","content":"Speaker 16: Of the roof area, uh, for the solar array. We also show a mechanical corral. Uh, we are are proposing an all electric building for heating, cooling, and cooking. Uh, we are bringing in phase three, uh, electricity for the elevator. So we're able to transition to an all electric building fairly easily. Next slide, please. The commercial space will have a finished ceiling approximately, uh, 10 and a half feet from first floor to or ground floor to second floor, where it's 12 feet. And then we go nine foot floor to floor on the upper F four floors for a total height of 48 feet. Next slide please. Again, a section through the stairs. Next slide please. You can see the solar array on the roof. This is our elevator shaft. Um, again, we service all floors, uh, all floor floors handicap accessible. Next slide, please. Uh, this is the elevation along Broadway. Um, this is a, an architectural style that the board endorsed on the first, uh, project we presented for the 5,400 square foot lot. We just continue that aesthetic, um, on this, uh, new building, which is doubling in size. Uh, the first floor will be clad in, uh, brick sec. Uh, second, third, and fourth. Fifth floor will be using a fiber cement product, lapsed siding. Uh, all trim will be a a fiber cement product. Painted windows would be a fiberglass frame. Uh, energy star windows.","timeStart":5375.465,"timeEnd":5487.805,"chunkIndex":62},{"id":"65f14a34-ab65-4520-83ca-10d9ac8d969c","content":"Speaker 16: Next slide, please. We do, and we brought samples. This is the elevation along, uh, Everett Street. Again, the colors, the details are probably familiar to the board. This is what the, uh, 14 unit building look like along this elevation particularly. Next slide, please. Uh, the rear of the building showing our open parking off our driveway. Next slide please. And finally, the north elevation. Uh, again, the driveway wraps around the building. Next slide. I believe that's the end. Yeah, that's a quick overview. Uh, Mr. Chair on the board.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you,\n\nSpeaker 15: Uh, Mr. Chair, just one addition. Um, if, unless you said it, six affordable units in the building as well. I know we had conversations at last hearing. There was three. This has been up to six at this point with the increase in the number of units. So meeting the fifth floor density, uh, through two methods, the 60% ground floor in six affordable units. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Um, list off with Shannon this time.\n\nSpeaker 6: All right. Um, thank you for coming this evening. Um, I wanted to start with the, with the fifth floor bonus actually. Um, you, you had a couple of measures that that could get you there, and I was wondering if you could talk about which approach, um, which approach you were taking, you wanted to claim to get that fifth floor bonus.","timeStart":5489.765,"timeEnd":5596.555,"chunkIndex":63},{"id":"3484e696-b881-43ca-a5d0-10b86c96b333","content":"Speaker 5: I don't think, I mean, you don't qualify for a, a parking space reduction based on bike parking. If you just have the minimum number of spaces. If you wanted to, uh, provide more than the required minimum, then that would be a, an acceptable measure. But I don't think you need that. I think you have the other three measures. Um, the number of charging stations, you know, I I the bylaw doesn't state how many are required. I would like the board to maybe discuss what would be a reasonable standard. Um, I think you have space for more, but of course I know you need to add more bar bike parking spaces. I would just say that, you know, if we, the board discussed and came to a number, like one charging station per 10 bike parking spaces or per 15, uh, that might help give this project and future projects some guidance. Um, you know, my, my my opinion would be somewhere between one space per 10 to 15 long-term bicycle parking spaces.\n\nSpeaker 16: I'm sorry, I, I thought we, are we talking about bike parking? Char bike charging or car charging?\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, bike charging.\n\nSpeaker 16: So one charger per 10 is what the board is looking. Let\n\nSpeaker 3: Let's let, let's talk about that first before you start taking numbers down. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 5: I, that that, that's a good subject for us to discuss. Um, you've proposed one charging station or two at the moment. One right\n\nSpeaker 16: Now.","timeStart":6315.785,"timeEnd":6395.775,"chunkIndex":71},{"id":"56852fdc-71bb-497b-856b-ce993874ad60","content":"Speaker 5: Thank you. Um, so trash and recycling, we're going to defer that to a later time. It would be great to see if the bins do have to be placed out on the curb, a space dedicated for that so that they're not being placed in the grass or in, in the street if possible.\n\nSpeaker 15: Yes. And as it discussed, um, sorry to interrupt, but at last hearing, we will have, uh, private trash management pick up once a week coming onsite to remove those bins as well.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank you. Um, a couple of landscaping questions. Um, the\n\nSpeaker 5: Tree along Broadway that is located at the exit of that driveway, it's, it's a, a green ash. I think at the top right of this plan. When you reduce the driveway, you're close to being able to save that tree. But I can understand that it's, it's, it may be kind of difficult. Um, the tree is kind of located right where that curb stone would be at the edge of the driveway. If you can't save the tree, I think adding another street tree at that corner would make a lot of sense. It'll take a lot of time to grow to the same size. Of course. Um, yeah, if, you know, I, you're probably gonna have a hard time getting nine good street trees here, but you adding one or two more would be a, a big improvement.\n\nSpeaker 16: I will have, uh, our landscape architect. I don't believe she's been to the site to look at that specific tree, but I'll get some feedback on that tree. Maybe we can save it.","timeStart":6395.985,"timeEnd":6496.425,"chunkIndex":72},{"id":"f21945af-6102-4401-8b22-981a7343b202","content":"Speaker 5: It's one of the healthier of the three trees and, and on Broadway, it's nice to have that tree canopy.\n\nSpeaker 16: No, understood.\n\nSpeaker 5: Um, parking spaces, just a suggestion that maneuvering into those spaces is gonna be difficult. I haven't double checked the drive aisle. I don't know if you have 22 feet or 24 feet, but if you were structurally\n\nSpeaker 16: 2020,\n\nSpeaker 5: If you were able structurally to shift the columns Oh, to, into the building a bit mm-hmm . Then that would make maneuvering into those spaces much easier. Mm-hmm . Um, the transformer location, which is in the setback on Everett Street, not ideal. Um, if you could make it less visible, that would be great. Mm-hmm\n\nSpeaker 16: .\n\nSpeaker 5: Um, last comment. Um, I see there's a drainage plan showing that there's a trench drain as the driveway slopes towards Everett Street. Mm-hmm . There's a trenched drain, recovering groundwater. And then the plan also says that the water would be recovered before it reaches Broadway. But I don't see a, a similar measure towards Broadway. So would just like to double check that your civil has, um, that covered. And that's everything that I have. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you Vince. Question, Steve. Oh, sorry, sorry, go ahead. You\n\nSpeaker 16: Had a question? Uh, just one question. Question on the, um, on the, um, transformer, uh, in the, does Arlington utilize underground, uh, transformer vaults or just above ground?\n\nSpeaker 3: I have never seen an underground transformer vault for residential in Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 16: Okay. Thank you. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 3: That's not saying, you know, but Okay.","timeStart":6496.575,"timeEnd":6606.085,"chunkIndex":73},{"id":"899a97f5-4825-48c8-9dbd-ebe358394818","content":"Speaker 7: They, they did do an underground transformer vault at 10 25 mass A, which is, I, I believe a larger project than this. But they did manage to do it. A\n\nSpeaker 3: Residential,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. Condos.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh, okay. Sorry. So yeah, they do allow that , I say, wow, I thought it's there.\n\nSpeaker 16: Thank you, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Steve.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yep. Um, so with the, with the prior applicant, we had, uh, discussion about dry aisle width. And I noted that yours is 20 and I would like to see that go to 22 to be consistent with, uh, the other projects. Now the, I also agree with my colleagues that yes, uh, the 42 bicycle parking spaces is a, is a requirement Now regarding the bonuses. So there are, you know, like two in effect here. So one is the affordable housing bonus where you provide essentially 50% more affordable units, 22.5% rather than 15. And you can go up a story that gives you an extra floor of height, but it still requires a, a 15 foot front setback. Now then there is the mixed use provision where you provide, um, commercial space on 60% of the ground floor. You get an extra height, but it also enables you to come out to the, to have a zero foot setback.","timeStart":6607.195,"timeEnd":6692.685,"chunkIndex":74},{"id":"4ca1f1ec-7bd0-4cfc-a8a6-a3425d518a5f","content":"Speaker 4: So the storefront is, you know, right on the sidewalk and, and, and all that stuff. Um, for what you're planning to do, I, I think you need the mixed use setback. I would personally prefer to see you go for the mixed use setback and not use the affordable housing one. Um, knowing that a newly constructed apartment, you know, the, the affordable one is going to lose money and you're going to have to, which will affect raise the minimum rent that you have to charge on the market rate units. I'd rather see you just provide the number of affordable units required and leverage the, um, leverage the mixed use bonus, um, regarding the tree in front of, um, you know, the proposed, I guess it would be the exit onto Broadway that looks like a public shade tree. Um, in terms of, we cannot give you permission to remove it, remove that is a separate function tree hearing, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, we can condition a permit on, you know, you getting the approval, but, you know, that's, it's just so you're clear, that's not something we could do. Um, it is not within our jurisdiction. I think that's all I have, Mr. Chair.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Could I have\n\nSpeaker 16: A clarification though? Mm-hmm . Did you get that under?\n\nSpeaker 17: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, the 20 foot wide driveway we're showing. Now this is a one way driveway. Does it matter if it one way or\n\nSpeaker 4: No? Two way the same. It's one way or two way. Same requirement.\n\nSpeaker 16: Okay. Thank you.","timeStart":6692.705,"timeEnd":6795.845,"chunkIndex":75},{"id":"42b24caa-a423-490f-840c-a99c43cd1e2a","content":"Speaker 3: Well, you haven't heard my comments yet and that's gonna affect what you just said there. Okay. Um, my, my biggest concern now is I want you to have more parking spaces. Right now you're asking us do a, a larger reduction than, uh, that I'm comfortable with. Alright. Um, if you have 28 units, 50% is 14 parking spaces, you're asking us to go below 50%. Um, and I don't have the, I don't have the backup numbers, um, to understand that we can get below that number. Okay. Um, we have, we have done a quite a bit of, um, affordable housing projects, um, where we, we maintained a 50% and it was fine. Um, and you know, people saying that because, um, people are, they live in affordable units, have to travel more to go to work 'cause they're not working from home or they're working in further else.","timeStart":6796.835,"timeEnd":6860.145,"chunkIndex":76},{"id":"6cce4bd6-46d5-434f-901d-0670f48c84aa","content":"Speaker 3: So they use the cars more. So I'm comfortable with it being reduced to, um, 50%, which is 14 parking spaces. I think you can achieve that easily by deleting the, the entrance, the driveway entrance from Everett Street. That would also, uh, reduce the burden of traffic going down that street. And I would widen, uh, the entrance on, um, on Broadway. And by reconfiguring that whole driveway and all the parking there, I think you can put in 14 spaces. I mean, you might have to lose exercise room too. Mm-hmm . But I think getting to me getting, uh, 14 parking spaces important, um, that's by reg rejiggering this stuff around. And yes, I think, uh, I agree with Shannon. Your trash is is not right. It's, it's not enough. But if you made a trash room there and came off the side there, I think that'd be fine. But yeah, go\n\nSpeaker 16: Ahead. Now, if we provided a ride share space, would that help in the number of parking spaces\n\nSpeaker 3: Required? Um, not sure. Uh, right now I commend the fact that now your, uh, commercial space is like 35 68, but that triggers, uh, one required parking space. 'cause your, your commercial space now is above a certain limit and you need to have one parking space for the commercial space. So you don't have that right now. Um, no, sorry.\n\nSpeaker 18: In the, um, multifamily overlay, you're not required to provide parking for commercial\n\nSpeaker 3: Space. Really? I take that back. . Okay. I'll be the first to always say I'm wrong. Uh, but are\n\nSpeaker 16: You sure it's 50% then\n\nSpeaker 19: ?","timeStart":6860.145,"timeEnd":6984.515,"chunkIndex":77},{"id":"46a4ffa4-9846-46ee-b7c3-f66a40fa5151","content":"Speaker 3: Pretty sure 75. Um, so, but I think you can by rejiggering the floor plan on the first floor, just like you, you be the last time for the handicap space to be more accessible. You can get that in. Okay. Um, I, I don't see you having issues with that, uh, getting the number of spaces in there. Okay. Um, so that was one of, uh, my request. The other request is, um, when I look at your solar study, your solar study shows the panels differently the way than you have it laid out. Um, so if you can just make it jive. Okay. Yes. Your, your acquired 50%, but just make sure your, your solar study says, shows up the same way you showed or vice versa. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 16: Understood.","timeStart":6986.895,"timeEnd":7040.435,"chunkIndex":78},{"id":"b168e316-0508-4bea-b521-78242253fedf","content":"Speaker 3: Yep. Um, and um, I think if you, if you did that, um, the parking I'd be more, I, I might not interested to see what the rest of the board thinks about my, uh, my request for, uh, for additional parking. 'cause it's, you know, you're asking for more than a 50% reduction in, uh, parking. We're, I think we're allowed to give you more. I'm just reluctant to give you more. 'cause I don't see any, I don't have any, um, proof that that works. You know, you can say, Hey, I got a project here that if I only give 30% parking, it works. Okay. I I just don't see that. Uh, we do have, you know, information saying that 50% reduction is fine in in, in the housing projects we've done in Arlington. And also I think, um, relieving some of the neighbors, uh, concerns, taking that drive lane away, uh, from Everett Street takes care of a lot of that, those issues.\n\nSpeaker 3: And focusing in on Broadway where it's the main street, it would be helpful. Um, as far as your building, uh, I think you, you pretty much emulate what we had approved before, more or less. So I'm fine with that. Um, you've gotten rid of all the balconies and made 'em all Juliet's, which is fine. So I'm not gonna ask you to push back the corners and break this stuff up. I think it is what it is right now because of the Juliet's. So I, I'm okay with that. So, um, what does the rest of the board think about the, my request for additional parking?\n\nSpeaker 5: Did, did you wanna have the discussion now or, or after public comment?","timeStart":7040.575,"timeEnd":7148.505,"chunkIndex":79},{"id":"c10e0e89-c285-4509-a5b1-f79f1733585a","content":"Speaker 3: I wanna have it a little bit now just so, um,\n\nSpeaker 5: I think I wanna just articulate. So how I see the need for parking is that we know that there's a certain number of households in Arlington, 17,000 households. We know that on average a strong percentage of those own a car, but that leaves hundreds and thousands of hundreds and up to a thousand or more households that don't have a car. And so I think the intent of the MBTA community's bylaw is to allow us to try to diversify and provide some, uh, housing units that are lower in cost because they're smaller and they don't require all this additional parking. So I, I'd be inclined to support them going with the parking reduction as long as they can show us that they're providing meaningful alternatives. That's why I wanna see the, the correct number of bike spaces and make sure we're getting enough, um, alternative measures in place.","timeStart":7149.025,"timeEnd":7207.215,"chunkIndex":80},{"id":"cdfb5a32-9f56-4c85-91ac-b536a4041765","content":"Speaker 3: Vince, you're talking more, I'm just talking discussing now you're talking to like two family houses or, or single family houses or, or even three family houses. I'm talking about big blocks of apartment buildings that, uh, HHC has done and they have, you know, 60 units, 40 units, whatever, how many units they are and the required parking they need. Um, and it's usually right around 50% or less, A little bit less. But, um, you know, so that's where I'm basing my consumption. I'm not basing it on a single family house. I'm not basing it on a two family house or, you know, the kids have a car. This, that's different. I'm talking about just apartment buildings and who really lives there and who really needs a car. That's, uh, I think, I think I'm, I'm, I'm not looking at it in terms of, uh, everything. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm, I'm not trying to say what you're saying is incorrect. I'm just\n\nSpeaker 5: Sure if we didn't have other apartments in Arlington that had parking spaces, I would be more concerned. I, I think this just adds some diversity and options to people.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Steve,\n\nSpeaker 4: So there is, um, I understand you're, your asked Mr. Chair is to have more parking. Um, I, I think, you know, I would be okay with a few more spaces. I wouldn't necessarily make 14 a hard cutoff.\n\nSpeaker 5: I if we're looking at the previous project we just discussed, and not that that has to be the baseline, but we asked for six bases for 14 units. This is 28 units, which would be, you know, if you,\n\nSpeaker 3: I realize that, but if","timeStart":7207.865,"timeEnd":7314.355,"chunkIndex":81},{"id":"05b4634e-cfee-41ca-9fec-adfdb5b7817f","content":"Speaker 5: You double I, I'd be okay with 12. If you, I'm saying 12 would be the number that was consistent. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Percentage wise.\n\nSpeaker 3: So I should ask more last time. , she,\n\nSpeaker 6: Um, I, um, I do not think that 14 is necessarily necessary here. I think, um, I think that I agree a couple more spaces would be nice. Um, but setting 14 as a, as a hard and fast number is not the direction that I would want to go at this time. Alright,\n\nSpeaker 3: Fair enough. Uh, I'm gonna open it up for public comment right now. Um, over there. Please state your name and address.","timeStart":7314.355,"timeEnd":7374.035,"chunkIndex":82},{"id":"0255285b-3e95-4aea-b8c0-251594da1c45","content":"Speaker 20: Hardeep Singh, 89 Everett Street. Um, I just wanna make a few comments, not negative or positive. Just, uh, it seems like some iteration of this project will eventually go through, um, like had that has been discussed today. You know, the current iteration has 28 units, 37 bedrooms, and it's a mix of one and two bedroom units. Right? So it doesn't seem like it's designed for families. It's designed for like single people or couples or something like that. Right. But the end result is that 37 bedrooms, there's at least gonna be 37 people living, um, maximum occupancy in this building. And I have a friend, uh, who works for Arlington, DPW, uh, he works on a sewer system. And I was talking to him about this and I want to read a quote from him. Um, when I asked him about, you know, his thoughts on the sewer system and these developments going up, his comment is, uh, quote, it's gonna overwhelm the sewer system. They seem to have no problem adding these massive developments in this town and not thinking about the toll it takes on our dated water and sewer system. Um, so I just wanna bring that up because, you know, there's consequences to these developments and what these bylaws and bonus exemptions have allowed, um, for these developments to bypass the setbacks and, and limitations.","timeStart":7379.865,"timeEnd":7471.505,"chunkIndex":83},{"id":"936595a9-d7db-404e-8698-5d8d25692611","content":"Speaker 20: It's gonna increase demand on public resources. That's gonna increase the taxes for everybody. That's gonna force more people to sell. And that's gonna become a negative feedback loop. Um, that over time is gonna just push more property into the hands of private equity and developers. As, as an example, this project, they've been able to acquire the, the house, sorry, next door. And these are two houses that are over a hundred years old. And one other comment I'll make is that, um, when some initial work was done on the first house, I drove by at about 11 o'clock in the morning and there were people in, uh, Tyvek suits doing something on the siding. So, you know, there's not a lot of confidence that when this work begins, that there's gonna be a focus on public safety with respect to, you know, the types of debris that are gonna be generated when these houses are torn down.","timeStart":7473.525,"timeEnd":7539.445,"chunkIndex":84},{"id":"ba8c2721-0052-4f01-8383-e02a40c5d33a","content":"Speaker 20: Um, so that's one big concern. Again, the traffic is another concern that's gonna be a lot of people living in this building. There're gonna be a lot of cars, a lot of bikes, you know, it's right next to Thompson. There's already a lot of traffic in the mornings when kids are going to school. There's the bus pickup that takes kids to the highway, uh, sorry, not the highway. The, uh, Arlington High. Um, that's at the transmission, um, location, transmission shop location. So there is a lot of traffic on Broadway already. And this is just gonna add to that, um, you know, I understand that there's a benefit to not offloading the traffic onto Everett, which, um, the board already commented on that if this is one way it's gonna push that traffic out onto Broadway, but that's still gonna be a hassle. Um, so that is a safety issue, but I think in general, um, my comments are that, you know, I'm not sure these changes are for the best.","timeStart":7540.505,"timeEnd":7597.805,"chunkIndex":85},{"id":"c3eb7151-0946-454a-ae86-22b4057fe13e","content":"Speaker 20: Um, I'm not sure, you know, if these are positive changes for the community. And I've been in this town for 33 years now and I've seen the way things have changed. I think this, this doesn't do anything to the affordability issue. And one of the comment, your time's running out. Yeah. One, one other comment I would ask the board to always ask, uh, whenever they, they see these projects, I wish you guys would ask, how many units are the developers planning on selling? Because at the end of the day, it makes a huge difference between, you know, perpetually rented units and actual assets that people can acquire and grow and, and use to build, um, their own wealth. Right.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Yes.","timeStart":7598.985,"timeEnd":7646.045,"chunkIndex":86},{"id":"72e7ed23-be55-4b66-80ac-10e9c9894095","content":"Speaker 12: Asha Kka 17 Silk Street again. Um, I'd like to second what the previous speaker spoke. Um, I'd like to ask the board to be very thoughtful. Um, I, I was told not to mention previous projects, but, um, it's hard not to think about this project in a context of previous projects that some of the members here, uh, approved. Um, you know, some of us don't have a choice but to drive. Um, but I am very concerned about pedestrian safety. I actually, with my atretic hands, I shovel, um, a lot. Um, because I, I witnessed older people fall down crossing Broadway. It took me multiple times, um, asking the town to finally clear some of the snow. Uh, Vincent was amazing going with his kids and inspired me to, um, clean some of the bus stops. This is not about choosing whether people wanna drive or walk. People sometimes don't have possibility of walking. A couple of the recent projects, um, next to the high school, those projects are recent and, um, the snow was removed and now it's still blocking, um, the crosswalks. There's no crosswalk next to the high school. It's obstructed, uh, to get to the, um, bus stop. It's a very narrow passage and it's been like this for, for weeks. Steve, I don't know if you are also championing, um, you know, for people. Can\n\nSpeaker 3: You keep your comments to this project? Okay. And not about high school or, or bus parking on Okay. Somewhere else in Massa, please.","timeStart":7656.245,"timeEnd":7761.525,"chunkIndex":87},{"id":"f7f6753c-a196-4c5b-80c5-09db1f010a6c","content":"Speaker 12: So in this case, I would like, uh, to mention that, um, the location right now, um, has a handicap parking and has a bus stop right there, um, next to their property. Those probably should, should be, um, included in the, in the planning. Um, I am concerned about the snow management, um, and not blocking the parking, the handicap parking, or the bus stop. I am concerned about service vehicles, um, since, uh, this complex doesn't have dedicated, um, drive, uh, or, um, maintenance, uh, road. Um, I am concerned about seniors who are walking, um, to the food pantry that's across the street, um, with increased traffic and, um, let's say, uh, Amazon trucks, food delivery trucks, um, you know, all kinds of service vehicles, double parking on Broadway. This will make visibility really limited. It'll be dangerous for the children, for the adults. If there is a mom walking with a stroller with a baby and her older one shoots out to, to run, there will be a car coming because, um, as cars are coming from, um, Broadway, turning into Everett, there's also cars coming from Thompson. Um, there's a gas station. There's a lot of traffic in this particular, uh, corner. And this is gonna be so dangerous, extremely dangerous. Sometimes I would just sit and watch the traffic pattern I have, but myself hit by a car, by distracted driver. That's why I can't bike. My mom, who's 85, she bikes. There is a reason why some people have to stick to driving cars because it's safer.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? No. No. Uh, I'll get you next, sir.\n\nSpeaker 22: Hi. Thank you.","timeStart":7761.545,"timeEnd":7883.365,"chunkIndex":88},{"id":"043c45c2-5785-4cfe-90ab-1fd12b660c28","content":"Speaker 22: Hi, I'm, uh, Susan Stamps. Can you hear me? Yes. Um, 39 Grafton Street. I live up the street from this project, and I'm on the tree committee, but I'm not speaking for the tree committee. Um, I love this project. I love the fact that there are, what, 28 really small units for like single folks. There's a real shortage of that kind of house housing in Arlington. I think it's great. Um, I'm kind of concerned about the way the trees are being treated in this project though. Um, there is a bylaw, which requires a street tree to be planted every 25 feet if there's not already one there, the, uh, plan seems to be skimping on that. Um, one of the things that is, and so the bylaw says is 6.3 of the zoning bylaws says that the street tree every 25 feet, if there's not room for the, uh, the trees that they have to be on the property.\n\nSpeaker 22: And only in quote unquote exceptional circumstances would a payment be made into the tree fund. So I would ask the developers to figure out where to put those trees on the property. Um, in the same vein, there was mention of removing a tree for a curb cut. The, that's a existing public shade tree. And I can assure you that people will object to that. So that under chapter 87 of the general laws, there will be a tree hearing. And just a couple of months ago, the select board refused to allow a public tree, street tree to be removed because of a, for the convenience of the property owner for a curb cut. So I would ask these. I Betty, um,","timeStart":7884.825,"timeEnd":7993.105,"chunkIndex":89},{"id":"33fbe3a9-475f-43da-8221-81a99f4e9e11","content":"Speaker 3: I think Steve address that saying that we can't comment on that. It's not\n\nSpeaker 22: Okay. Well, I, it's just really for, for the developers, I guess I'm saying that. Um, so the, I I would ask that the developers, uh, uh, design the properties so that no public trees, uh, need to be requested to come down. And, um, I, I think that's all. Um, thank you very much.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Go ahead.\n\nSpeaker 23: Could you hear? Yes. Yes. Um, Aaron Holman, 12 Whitmore Street. Um, I'm gonna start off with a riddle. Why is this project like a nuclear reactor? And I'll answer it because you haven't figured out a place to put the waste, and I can understand that for a nuclear reactor. But this is development. You ought to be able to figure this out and you need to do that, and you haven't. One of the reasons you haven't is all these projects, not just this one, but you asked me to speak to this, so I will. It is pushing at all the edges. Everything is maximized. Every square inch is utilized. There is no room for error. You are pushing things to the max. And that is an inherent problem. And if so, then the thing we need to do is to cut all these maximums down. Because when you push at them, you see the kind of problems people bring up.","timeStart":7994.145,"timeEnd":8105.245,"chunkIndex":90},{"id":"a27dba7b-b2d9-462c-8283-e60d17043982","content":"Speaker 23: You don't have enough room for the snow. You don't have enough room for the trash. You don't have enough room for the sight lines. You don't have enough room for the cars. You don't have enough room for parking. Seems like the one exception to that is bikes. But that is not a good solution. And this is not good design. It's poor design. I'm also appalled at the comment that I heard, uh, from one member saying, go for the 60, uh, go for the one floor bonus from 60 per, uh, for 60% commercial and not for the affordable. Arlington does not merely need more housing. It needs more affordable housing. And you are failing to provide that. Thank you very much.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak?\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment. I'm, I'm gonna respond to a couple of, uh, uh, comments that came up. Um, and if the board feels like they wanna comment, they, uh, they can also comment a few of those. Um, one comment came up was that the infrastructure that's existing right now cannot, um, substantiate new development. Um, I would like, uh, more facts on that besides just a person's opinion. 'cause my opinion feels is strongly different from that. Alright? If you look at the numbers, uh, the systems were designed in the forties and fifties, at that point in time, you are allowed to dump rainwater into the sewage. Since that time, you have not, you're no longer allowed to dump rainwater into the sew. So the sewage system has been severely decreased since it was designed. Back in the day, back in the day you had five gallon, uh, toilets that flushed.","timeStart":8105.585,"timeEnd":8220.565,"chunkIndex":91},{"id":"357c936f-6b61-4f3e-9545-de9f23cbbecb","content":"Speaker 3: You don't have that anymore. It's 1.3, 1.5. Um, back in, back in the day, you had no dishwashers. A dishwasher uses a third of the water you use for washing dishes in a sink. So I just wanted to disclaim this, this, um, false rumor that our system does not afford that. Okay? Because all these projects are reviewed by the, uh, by the city engineer saying this is not causing a slight on our system. So if they tell us that, uh, the, uh, the system cannot handle it, then we'll, we will adjust that. But for every single project we have approved to this date, uh, the, the city, sorry, the town has not said, the system cannot handle these projects. So I don't want the people spreading rumors on that fact. There's many other facts that you have an opinion on. I'm okay with, but when it's not substantiated, uh, I wanna state that. No, sir. It's not a debate. You, you had your chance to talk, I had my chance to talk. And if you, if you want to, uh, bring, bring that up in open forum later on and, and have some sort of facts, I'm okay with that. But that's one thing that sort of gets my guard a little bit when people state something that's not quite, uh, substantiated. Is there anything else, uh, you guys want, Steve? Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 4: I have, uh, two questions. Um, one is with Director Ricker. I know that you do inter part departmental, uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I know there are departmental reviews before of projects before, um, they come to us and I was wondering if DPW raised any red flags during the review? During the pre-review.","timeStart":8221.385,"timeEnd":8328.845,"chunkIndex":92},{"id":"3be7f0cf-6e4f-4499-847b-5fc31b3a9d27","content":"Speaker 7: Um, we did discuss, uh, trash management, um, which I believe the applicant has, um, agreed to look at, um, and, and, um, uh, perhaps reconfigure and, and rethink, um, how that, uh, will go. That has been an issue, um, as others have said this evening. Not just with this project, but with, with others. And, um, so that has been an, an ongoing concern. But other than that, I have heard nothing from DPW about system sizes, um, for utilities or, or anything like that.\n\nSpeaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And, um, yes, regarding the, um, my suggestion, do re go with the 15% affordable units. I agree that Arlington would benefit from more affordable housing. I do not think that future we should put the responsibility for paying that on future renters. That was the, that's basically the genesis of my recommendation. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you, Vince. Do, uh, do you want to have any more comments before? Uh, can you clarify\n\nSpeaker 18: That? I'm sorry.\n\nSpeaker 4: Oh, can I clarify that? Sure. Um, so a typical, uh, using a two bedroom apartment as an or two bedroom apartment is, as an example, the affordable rent, at least according to the 2025 HUD guidelines, would be a little, just slightly over $2,000 a month. So a now let's, you know, let's assume assuming our one in six ratio. Now a if the,","timeStart":8329.345,"timeEnd":8418.845,"chunkIndex":93},{"id":"9b44f4c2-f6aa-4535-8a7a-460aaee12e54","content":"Speaker 4: If a person builded a building, they decide that, well, in order to break even on the, on the rent, we need $3,000 a month. So there's one unit that is only contributing to, so now they're, uh, a thousand bucks a month. In the whole, the way that has to get balanced out is by increasing the rent on the market rate units. So this is why they call it a, a cross subsidization. So the, the, um, the revenue loss for the afford, you know, the revenue that's lost through the, by having the affordable unit has to be made up by the market rate units.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, I'm going to want to table that for now. Okay. If you want to, if you want to discuss that more, you please do. Okay. We would like to do, but, uh, I, I let this jet, I let this slide lu. We, we have a few other things to warrant our, we have to go over tonight. And, um, so, um, so I'm taking it that, um, a straw vote right now that we want to continue this with, with the comments that we have had. And I wanna list the comments so we're all on the same page. And these comments will be given to you by Sarah or Claire, right? Um,\n\nSpeaker 18: That's right.\n\nSpeaker 3: So if I miss something, I apologize. Okay. Um, actually, do you want to go ? It's been a long day. .\n\nSpeaker 18: Um, sure. Do we,\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, do you wanna speak","timeStart":8420.505,"timeEnd":8517.325,"chunkIndex":94},{"id":"c2fa8923-de04-46bc-bb25-b7a69015907b","content":"Speaker 18: ? Um, so Sarah Suarez, assistant director, planning and community developments. Um, so we are going to continue working with the tree ward and to discuss, um, the missing street trees and come see if we can come to a solution, um, to get the extra trees on site. Um, bicycle parking is still short. Eight parking spaces, um, long-term parking spaces. Um, there is a, I believe around 28 square foot, um, square feet missing from the 60% commercial frontage, um, bonus that I think you're able to make up somewhere. Um, you should look at, um, consider increasing the columns for, uh, removing the columns for the parking to make it more navigable. See if you can get a 22 foot drive aisle, um, or consider closing Everett Street to, um, Mr. Chairman's suggestion of closing the Everett side entrance. Um, look at moving the transformer, um, or screening it better. Um, we're going to\n\nSpeaker 24: Solar panel\n\nSpeaker 18: Address. The solar panel shortage. Right now, you're at 40, no say coordinated coordinate. If you're at 46% right now, you need to be at 50%. Um, and I mean, do you want the driveway, the right, the driveway width? We're gonna try to get it to 22 feet. Um, trash. Trash. Did\n\nSpeaker 15: We a trash management plan? I think it was,","timeStart":8519.765,"timeEnd":8625.565,"chunkIndex":95},{"id":"15daf751-e874-4b94-8e38-eefa6bbc4a0d","content":"Speaker 18: She said it already. Sure. Um, so trash management plan, I, I believe it was provided. And they're going to have a service that comes on site and, um, picks it up and they will look at whether it needs to be increased. Um, we did have the director of the public works look at the plan and, um, he, you know, made the similar suggestion, um, to increase the recycling a little bit. Um, consider increasing the height at the brick entryway, um, at least eight inches. Um, so it's not lined with the windows. And that, that's what I have.\n\nSpeaker 24: Did we miss something here, guys?\n\nSpeaker 4: I think, I think Ms. Suarez covered it.\n\nSpeaker 18: Good job. And you're gonna look at potentially adding more parking spaces, but the board is allowed to go up to a 75% reduction in parking. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 15: And so, mi Mr. Chair on that note, with parking, um, in, in the board's view of closing Everett for traffic flow purposes, is that something that the board wants us to explore? Because it's an m btas community project, uh, with the TDM also meeting, not just three, but four items. Is that something that you, you do want us to\n\nSpeaker 3: No, you, you need the board's, um, approval to grant you two, accesses for a two driveways for a project. Um, I think you're allowed one, right? And the, am I correct here? I\n\nSpeaker 18: Think","timeStart":8626.065,"timeEnd":8718.415,"chunkIndex":96},{"id":"00675a8e-e718-4589-b556-e54383b528dd","content":"Speaker 3: You're right. And in order to get two, we have to approve it. And I, I'm saying right now, my opinion, I want to, I'm not gonna speak for the rest of the board that I would wish you to have only have one on the Broadway, on the Broadway side, easing, easing the congestion on Everett and give me more space for more parking. Um, I had stipulated number of 14. The board doesn't feel that way. And I think I'm in a minority, so you don't have to get to the 14, but try your best to get at least two or three more, or whatever the, whatever best you can do. Um, we did not talk about eliminating the curb, but we can't talk about it Now. If you guys wanna talk about, uh, how do you guys feel about that, eliminating that and eliminating the congestion on average Street? Uh, Steve, you have any concerns about that? Or any thoughts about that? Um,\n\nSpeaker 4: I hadn't really considered it until you brought it up, but I don't have a, I don't, uh, I'm not opposed to it,\n\nSpeaker 3: Vince.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yeah, I would just say it needs to be looked at holistically. So if doing that, were you, if by doing that you were able to generate a better project with a better traffic flow and then required number of parking spaces, then I'm all for it. But I don't, I don't think, um, eliminating the entrance is a requirement by any means. Just\n\nSpeaker 3: It needs our approval. That's what I'm saying. Two, having two driveways, two curb cuts.\n\nSpeaker 5: I, I understand. I'm, I'm, I'm trying to verify if that's\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Anything else? Uh, Vincent,","timeStart":8718.415,"timeEnd":8821.695,"chunkIndex":97},{"id":"1a31b522-bd1d-4976-986d-911d59084be4","content":"Speaker 5: Nothing else from me. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon,\n\nSpeaker 6: Nothing further from me.\n\nSpeaker 3: Are you okay with that? I was ask you what your opinion is.\n\nSpeaker 6: Oh, with the, with the driveways? Yeah. I, I agree that the, that, um, it would, it just needs to be looked at holistically and, and that the quality of, um, that looking at the driveway in a vacuum doesn't make sense. It's, it's how the entire site works together and the parking works together. So, um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Is that good enough for you to see? Thank you. As far as directional wise, yes. Okay. Um, do you have a motion here?\n\nSpeaker 6: I move that they continue to\n\nSpeaker 3: Wait, hold May. Nope. What's the date?\n\nSpeaker 7: Um, when do you think you would be prepared to come back\n\nSpeaker 2: In? Um, in April.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay. I can offer April 6th or April 27th. The, the, um, um, we're, we're not, we're we're meeting in kind of odd dates in April because of the holiday.\n\nSpeaker 2: We\n\nSpeaker 3: Can do six. Yep. April 6th. Please.\n\nSpeaker 7: Wanna try for that? Yes. Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 6: All right. I move that we continue to April 6th.\n\nSpeaker 3: I have a second here.\n\nSpeaker 5: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve? Yes. Vince? Yes. Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too. Great.\n\nSpeaker 15: Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, just one point of our clarification. Sure. Because we brought the materials at the past. Now I didn't hear a lot of discussion on the material board. Is the board all set with the materials or should we continue to, to bring those?","timeStart":8822.045,"timeEnd":8926.515,"chunkIndex":98},{"id":"13e224e2-c545-481f-adad-eb059b9dbe16","content":"Speaker 3: Um, I was fine with the materials last time you guys, uh, did it. And I didn't have any comments on any of the materials. You guys just supersized. They made it bigger. Um, the rest of the board have any issues?\n\nSpeaker 6: I do not have issues. I think we got familiar with your materials the last time we saw you, so. Yep.\n\nSpeaker 15: Great. Thank you all. Vince,\n\nSpeaker 5: I, I don't have any issues and you know, unless you think Rachel would want to see them\n\nSpeaker 3: See. Well, she's, it's four to one right now, so I'm just gonna say no, you don't have to bring it. Okay. ,\n\nSpeaker 15: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Comment for each of these, if that's okay with you. That's fine, . Alright.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. Everybody's leaving. Is is leaving at tender leave. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: ,\n\nSpeaker 3: How you doing? Thanks for C thanks for waiting. Of\n\nSpeaker 2: Course. Were you here? I was in another meeting for the first part.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh, you weren't here the whole time. . Okay. Alright. I'm gonna start, um, uh, meetings for the warrant articles, uh, number six, public hearing warrant articles for, uh, 2026 town reading. We're gonna start with the warrant. Article number 39, administrative clarification to accessory dwelling units. Claire, do you wanna?\n\nSpeaker 7: Absolutely.","timeStart":8927.415,"timeEnd":9046.125,"chunkIndex":99},{"id":"8edc8346-a29e-425b-8ecd-e2e3317a0b8a","content":"Speaker 7: Alright. Uh, article 39 is a zoning bylaw amendment. Um, purpose of article 39 is to bring zoning bylaw section 5.9 0.2 accessory dwelling units further into compliance with general law Chapter 40 a section three, and the implementing regulations Ted by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities protected use accelerated dwelling units. The amendment below is in response to a letter from the Attorney general's office dated December 16th, 2025, which is included following review of Article 25, which was adopted by the 2025 annual town meeting. It proposes a simplification of language for clarity, but no substantive change.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 7: Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, are there any, um, check, uh, questions or, uh, changes from the board?\n\nSpeaker 4: Um, Mr. Chair? I, I think this was, um, I appreciate staff including the, uh, municipal law unit's, uh, memo. Um, clearly there's something in there that they say we, or in our bylaw that they say we can't do. And I, I I I, yeah, this seems straightforward in a, a reasonable way to address the municipal law unit's concerns,\n\nSpeaker 3: Vince.\n\nSpeaker 5: So under my understanding is that these A DU projects are gonna be coming before the a board for site plan review. And this is not changing that, or\n\nSpeaker 3: It's not changing any of that. All of this is, uh, making it more compliant to state regulate. Is that correct, Steve?","timeStart":9048.515,"timeEnd":9146.695,"chunkIndex":100},{"id":"a3a5d8cb-00d4-414b-af6e-83b7faa38237","content":"Speaker 4: So the, the issue in question was the special permit requirement when an A DU is within six feet of the property line. Correct. So that's, that's what what's in our bylaw right now. And occasionally people have come before the ZBA seeking a, a special permit for that. The ags, MLU Municipal Law Unit cites case law that says special permits are incompatible with by right uses. So we cannot, and they tell us that we cannot require a special permit for that, but we can require a finding that, you know, it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, the standard sort of finding that the zoning board of appeals would have to make for a preexisting nonconforming structure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Do you concur?\n\nSpeaker 2: Do you\n\nSpeaker 3: Want me to Yes, please. , since you hear all this stuff anyways, you know, ,\n\nSpeaker 25: Uh, Christian Klein chairs, DBA, um, so yeah, that was gonna be my question is what is the standard for the finding? But if it's a standard section six finding of not substantially more detrimental, then that would certainly make perfect sense. Mm-hmm\n\nSpeaker 4: .\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 4: That was how I read it. But yeah,\n\nSpeaker 3: You can stay there for a few moments if you don't mind. .\n\nSpeaker 5: So, I, I guess the answer that I was looking for is just who is the special permit granting authority for, for these projects? Is it typically the, there's\n\nSpeaker 3: No special","timeStart":9147.115,"timeEnd":9232.515,"chunkIndex":101},{"id":"ca7af399-6bb2-443b-a6b2-0c0556377e96","content":"Speaker 5: Permit, the there, but the, there's a special permit granting authority referenced in the bylaw, and that's not struck out. So that could be the DPCD if it's administrative review. It could be the ZBAI know we're not changing that. I'm just curious.\n\nSpeaker 7: It, it would be the ZBA or the A RB or potentially\n\nSpeaker 5: DPCD depending on the project type. Yes, exactly. Okay, thank you.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah, I, I read it as a section\n\nSpeaker 26: Six finding\n\nSpeaker 3: Anything else, Vince? No. Okay. Shannon?\n\nSpeaker 7: Uh, nothing further at this.\n\nSpeaker 3: I have no comment on this. Uh, I might open, open this up for public comment. Is anybody want to comment on this? On the public? I see no, uh, no, uh, public comment. I close it. Close public comment on this and move on to the next one. Am I good?\n\nSpeaker 7: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 7: Does he, do we need to continue this hearing right now or can we Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: What later on. Okay. Later in the","timeStart":9232.515,"timeEnd":9299.875,"chunkIndex":102},{"id":"8cdfa22e-83df-4c4d-89b2-38d4a15ced22","content":"Speaker 7: Meeting when we're done with all of these. Okay. Um, moving on to Article 40. Um, the purpose of Article 40 is to eliminate a potential barrier or undue financial burden to citizen petitioners filing a warrant article to propose a zoning map amendment zoning bylaw section 1.5 amendment of the zoning bylaw states that a petition for a change to the zoning map include proof that notification has been sent to all owners and immediate abutters of the subject properties via registered or certified mail. It should be noted, this notification require is unique to the town of Arlington, and there is not a notification at the time of petition requirement for a zoning map amendment in mass general laws.\n\nSpeaker 7: Um, the memo, uh, the background on this, uh, goes on to talk about, uh, the difference in cost between a first class, uh, mailing versus a registered certified nailing. Um, the proposed change, applying to a, uh, a proposed map change applying to a large number of properties can be both cost and time prohibitive for citizen parti petitioners, without necessarily resulting in a more accurate notification process to abutters. Article 40 proposes to maintain the notification requirement to odors and I media abutters, but amend it to only require the use of first class mail significantly reducing the cost and time burden required to prior to a warrant article even being filed.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you, Claire. Um, Steve, do you have any, uh, questions or objections?\n\nSpeaker 4: I, um,\n\nSpeaker 3: No, Vince,\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, I think it's a good proposal.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon\n\nSpeaker 7: Makes a lot of sense to me.","timeStart":9299.875,"timeEnd":9401.575,"chunkIndex":103},{"id":"c2ec457d-2b32-4f13-834e-80804fcfa03f","content":"Speaker 3: I have none myself. Um, with that, I'm gonna open the public comment. Anyone who wants to speak from the public, seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment and move on to Article 41. All right. We're gonna vote on all this as one lump, so there, right?\n\nSpeaker 7: That's right. We continue this and then we will. Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You.\n\nSpeaker 7: Um, all right. We're on Article 41, which is a zoning bylaw amendment, an administrative construction, uh, correction to multi-family housing overlay district standards. The purpose of Article 41 is to delete a sentence of the zoning bylaws, section 5.8 4g, which is no longer applicable. When this section of the bylaw was initially passed by town meeting the Executive Office of Housing and livable communities had not yet approved Arlington's economic feasibility study demonstrating the viability of implementing the town's more rigorous inclusionary zoning requirements of section 8.2 of the bylaw to the newly created multifamily housing overlay district. As a result, section 5.8 4G was written, written with a sentence addressing the situation prior to EOHL C'S approval. E-O-H-L-C has since given its approval. So that sentence is now unnecessary.\n\nSpeaker 3: CV have any objections to that?\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, no. I think, um, you know, there's no need for conditional logic in that part of the bylaw at this time. Uh, so it would be clear to remove it. I'm, I, I am, I'm supportive.\n\nSpeaker 3: Vince,\n\nSpeaker 4: No objections.\n\nSpeaker 3: Jen, no\n\nSpeaker 7: Objections\n\nSpeaker 3: Make sense? I have none myself. I open up the public comment. Any public comment? Seeing none, I close public comment. Now we're on to, um, 41.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes, we are on\n\nSpeaker 3: Article 41.","timeStart":9402.695,"timeEnd":9509.225,"chunkIndex":104},{"id":"7954964d-6bb2-44b8-b89d-b5283abf98de","content":"Speaker 7: Nope, 41. We just did. We're on to on\n\nSpeaker 3: 47.\n\nSpeaker 7: Article 47 we're lying. Um, zoning bylaw amendment, uh, for the definition of building height. Um, this was a, a change that was requested, um, by the, uh, chair of the ZBA, um, who is here tonight. Uh, the purpose of Article 47 is to modify the definition of building height and the zoning bylaw for houses in the floodplain overlay district. However, the draft amendment below does not limit applicability of the pro proposed changes to residential and multifamily buildings. Currently, the zoning bylaw measures building height from the mean grade of the site. Buildings in FEMA flood zones must have their lowest level of habitation above the mean flood elevation, meaning that basements are not habitable to compensate. Article 47 would measure building height from either the average grade of the site or the base flood elevation, whichever is higher. This modification would allow property owners in the flood zones who are contemplating new construction or renovations greater flexibility over the height of proposed buildings or additions. Additionally, article 47 proposes to delete a redundant reference to section 5.3 point 19 reduced height buffer area in this section.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve, you have any? Well, you wrote this","timeStart":9511.255,"timeEnd":9586.125,"chunkIndex":105},{"id":"d669642e-99c2-4c04-bd71-6578318ade5a","content":"Speaker 4: . I, I I have, I collaborated with the ZBH air. Um, I I think it's worth mentioning that, um, I believe this would allow an existing homeowner who, or someone who owns a property that is in the flood plain, the floodplain to, you know, not necessarily Well, they could, they would be, have the option of elevating their building above the flood plain above, above the flood, above the flood plain and would not, um, they, they'd have, yeah, they, they could elevate above the floodlight.\n\nSpeaker 3: Anything else you wanna add? Uh, Christian?\n\nSpeaker 25: Sure. Uh, Christian Klein chair's, EBA. Um, so this had come about because we, we did have a project, uh, that was in the floodplain, um, in East Arlington. And the applicant was sort of going through a lot of gymnastics with the, with the, the roof structure to try to still comply with the 35 feet, um, from grade, because the, the land itself was, was fairly low in this area. And so, um, we would, we thought that it would make more sense and be better for development if we would not work, if we would basically allow that first, the level below floodplain, which cannot be inhabited. If we would sort of take that outta the equation and allow houses to develop naturally above that height. It would also, I think, encourage people to, uh, pursue development in the, the floodplain area, which we have a considerable amount in East Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you. Vince, do you have any issues?","timeStart":9586.645,"timeEnd":9676.135,"chunkIndex":106},{"id":"8a100cf6-27ae-476c-8825-dd9812330d3d","content":"Speaker 5: Uh, I, I tried to think of any un unintentional negative consequences. I couldn't really think of any. Um, the memo referencing this, only this as written, does not single out use types. I suppose the, the question could be whether or not commercial uses should follow this same provision or not. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but seems like a fine proposal,\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon.\n\nSpeaker 6: So, um, this relates, I think, as much to Article 44 as 47. So bear with me. Um, I believe that the definition of flood plain district refers to, um, 2010 firms maps. Um, and there are new firms maps this year that I think we're adopting in or trying to adopt, and we're an Article 44 maybe. Um, but there have been some in between that don't seem to have been captured in the bylaw. And so what I'm wondering about is what about people who sometime between 2010 and um, and you know, today find themselves in a floodplain that's not captured in the definition of the floodplain district. And so they they are, they're outta luck, right? Like, so, so what do we do about, about those people?\n\nSpeaker 25: Well, by, my sense is that if a, if a property used to be in the floodplain district and is no longer considered in the floodplain district, then they don't have a restriction placed on them by, to not allow habitable floors below the, the flood elevation, whether well, the que,","timeStart":9677.545,"timeEnd":9805.755,"chunkIndex":107},{"id":"d9694959-17a3-47d8-bad2-84eff03d3a70","content":"Speaker 6: But what about, you know, there were 2014 maps, right? You know, so what about the people who weren't there in 2010? You know, someone shows up in 2014, they're not actually captured in the floodplain district, so this wouldn't, you know, this kind of language wouldn't have helped them, but, but for the purpose of flood insurance, they still can't do anything in their basement or whatever. So, so that's what I'm trying to reconcile. You know, I don't, I don't have a problem with the article in and of itself, except that I think there's a, there's a hole, um, that there's a hole that might actually be a, um, definition of the district hole as opposed to a, as opposed to this particular floodplain district definition issue.\n\nSpeaker 25: Well, yeah. So certainly this is looking at using the def, using the definition for floodplain district to establish the, the height, the floodplain district definition is included in a, a separate section of the bylaw and has certainly the bandwidth to include deviations in permutations that would be difficult to include in a standard definition.\n\nSpeaker 6: So, so what I'm asking is, I, I mean, I, I think my, my only issue is, the way I read the definition now is that it doesn't do that. The floodplain district definition doesn't do that, right? Like, it, it doesn't have language that says,\n\nSpeaker 25: I'm unfamiliar\n\nSpeaker 6: With the language in 44, the 20 or the 2010 or anything that has happened since. Yeah,","timeStart":9806.055,"timeEnd":9914.905,"chunkIndex":108},{"id":"e9d04ced-4ea3-44e6-814f-3cc63281c4e4","content":"Speaker 4: No, um, Ms. Corman, who Houston is absolutely right. Um, so the def the boundaries of the overlay district come from section 5 7 2, and it ties them to fur, to the flood insurance rate maps and flood insurance studies. Uh, dated in 2010, or No, the maps are dated. Yeah, they're both maps are dated June, 2010 and the flood insurance study dated also in June, 2010. But, um, this, I, I, I agree it's a gap. Um, but I, I think the, the, the floodplain overlay district is, you know, the, the district definition is the appropriate place to, to do that.\n\nSpeaker 6: Well, so, so I'm wondering, do we need to do both, right? Like think it's separate. This is a pointed note. I think it's separate from this thing though. Yeah, but we, we do need to do both. But this would be, right. So this would be a one time solution, basically. And then, and then the next time, this, this would be a, I, I'm fine with this as a solution, except that I think there's a companion piece that needs to happen. Um, so\n\nSpeaker 4: We, we have, we have clearly been lax in, uh, updating firm updating our reference dates to flood, iur raise maps, , .\n\nSpeaker 6: Well, federal government clearly updates them quickly, you know, like, I think this is what's coming out this year may be the most, uh, I'm not sure there was anything between 2014 and this year. So not like we've been super lax, but, um,\n\nSpeaker 3: So Shannon, are you okay with this then?","timeStart":9915.245,"timeEnd":10018.965,"chunkIndex":109},{"id":"e0234c93-2c1b-43be-be21-cfaa018e779e","content":"Speaker 6: So, so I am okay with this, but, but I do think that, um, I do think that, uh, warrant article 44 actually, um, updates that a adopts the, the, um, the current maps. And I'm wondering if there's any, can\n\nSpeaker 3: We address that next week when it comes up?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah, yeah. I'm just, yeah, let's bring it back. Let's bring this issue back then.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Thank you. I have no issues with, uh, 47. I'm gonna open it up, open this up. The public comment, seeing no public, uh, comment. Do\n\nSpeaker 25: Have one further question if it\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure.\n\nSpeaker 25: Um, so again, Christian Klein chairs the DA, uh, so we had a co I had a question about the way that we're doing the wording. Um, so initially, so there's, there are two sections that are referenced. One is the definition itself, um, and then there's a list of, uh, maximum height exceptions. And","timeStart":10019.105,"timeEnd":10085.525,"chunkIndex":110},{"id":"b6c6d5f2-551d-4450-a710-0a960e0eb173","content":"Speaker 25: The way that, so we had discussed doing this two different ways. And the, the way that it came forward in the, uh, in the recommendation is doing the change in the definition so that the definition includes it. And then under maximum height exception, um, there's a sub C, which, uh, reads for the floodplain district see the definition in the building height in section two. My only quarrel with that is the first. So section 5, 3 20, maximum height exception. The first line says in any district, the maximum height limitations shall not apply to the following colon. So that means you could read C directly. So it would say in any district, the maximum height and limitation shall not apply to the following for the floodplain district. See the definition, which seems to imply that you do not reference that because it's an exception. Um, it's just a quirk in the wording of it. I think it's clear without line C, um, because you have already mentioned it in the definition, I don't think we need to reference it in both directions. Um, the only alternative I see is effectively rewriting that section so that before in any district that becomes section A and then what's currently A, B, and C would be subsections one, two, and three.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve, you said you're gonna have, uh, you had a comment on it. I, I we're missing gene here. That's all I, all, I say","timeStart":10087.465,"timeEnd":10174.295,"chunkIndex":111},{"id":"f4a6e672-939c-458f-91d0-374bfc717930","content":"Speaker 4: . Sure. Um, no, I, I see, I see what you're saying. Um, another, I, I think it would be okay to strike C mm-hmm . Um, yes, because, and you know, that still jives with what's the net, the mention of 5 3 20 in the definition of building height, because there's other stuff in 5 3 20 that doesn't apply to the floodplain. Um, it would, could also make sense to, instead of having C be item C, have it be a, a, a, just a separate paragraph. So it did not fall under the, the, uh, shall not apply to the following heading. Mm-hmm . Um, I think, I think it might be you actually\n\nSpeaker 2: Wrote , not one three,\n\nSpeaker 3: But, so Steve, you wanna make a motion to make that change, or, so\n\nSpeaker 25: This is the,\n\nSpeaker 2: That's the ultimate\n\nSpeaker 25: Alternate way of writing\n\nSpeaker 2: It.\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, I see. How would you feel about just nuking or eliminating item C? That's\n\nSpeaker 25: Perfectly fine by me. Alright,\n\nSpeaker 4: So I will, um, I will motion to amend the main motion for article 47. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 6: That's all we'll see.\n\nSpeaker 2: Cool.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's it.\n\nSpeaker 2: We're not voting on anything.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, do we not need to bring\n\nSpeaker 2: Back, we could still vote an amendment. Yeah. And do we want,\n\nSpeaker 3: Say it again?\n\nSpeaker 2: Are we still bringing this back next week with article 44?\n\nSpeaker 3: No, it's 44 is separate from, no,","timeStart":10174.455,"timeEnd":10285.655,"chunkIndex":112},{"id":"2b5568e9-6f42-4dbd-aba8-1314f3e2cf1a","content":"Speaker 6: 40 44 is separate issue conversation. But the, but the issue it's can get addressed. The issue I raised I think can get addressed within the confines of article 44. I think.\n\nSpeaker 3: So you mo is there a second to that motion? I\n\nSpeaker 4: Haven't finished making the motion yet. ,\n\nSpeaker 3: I thought you said eliminate C\n\nSpeaker 4: Well, but I didn't say it that way, . Okay. So I would motion to amend the main motion for art, the proposed main motion for article 47 by striking item C under section 5.3.\n\nSpeaker 2: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Do we have a second on that?\n\nSpeaker 2: Second?\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Uh, Steve? Yes. Vince? Yes. Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too. Okay. I'm gonna open this up. A public comment. Is there any public comments? Seeing none. I'm gonna close public comment for this and we're on to our last one. I think we're done here. Uh, 'cause but you can stay around if you want. You are always welcome to stay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Great. So we're on, uh, article 48. The zoning bylaw amendment related to residential parking purpose of Article 48 is to clarify that section 6.1, point 10 location of parking spaces of the zoning bylaw applies to properties within the mass app Broadway, multifamily and neighborhood multifamily housing overlay districts. In addition to the other zoning districts listed Section five point a 0.4 F1 of the zoning bylaw already states that off street parking requirements and procedures of section 6.1 to 6.1 point 11 of this bylaw shall apply in the MBMF and NMF overlay districts.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, Steve, do you have any comment on that?","timeStart":10285.665,"timeEnd":10392.445,"chunkIndex":113},{"id":"fbdbb88a-59b1-4a69-a3d7-0b01c113b3be","content":"Speaker 4: I believe so. This, uh, this proposal came from Mr. Benson, I believe, and I, I think it's consistent with the way that the board has interpreted the parking requirements for the multifamily overlay overlay districts. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Vincent,\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, no comments from me.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon, I\n\nSpeaker 4: Agree with Steve.\n\nSpeaker 7: I think this is fine.\n\nSpeaker 3: I have no comments. So I open it up for public comment, seeing no public comment. I close it, public comment. And now we're on to, that's it.\n\nSpeaker 7: We need to vote to continue the hearing to,\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh, okay. Um, can I have a motion 30th to, uh, continue to vote on warranted articles to,\n\nSpeaker 7: Uh, March 30th?\n\nSpeaker 3: March 30th.\n\nSpeaker 7: So just next week, oh, excuse me. Next week. Pardon me? To March 9th.\n\nSpeaker 3: March, correct. March 9th. Do we have a motion for that? So\n\nSpeaker 7: Motion.\n\nSpeaker 3: Second. Second. Steve? Yes. Vince? Yes. Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too.\n\nSpeaker 7: Great. Thank you. Sorry about\n\nSpeaker 3: That. That's all right. Okay. Um, now we're on to open form. Anybody in the public likes to speak? Thank you for your patience. Uh, we had a long day today. Please come up and state, state your name and address.","timeStart":10393.085,"timeEnd":10479.615,"chunkIndex":114},{"id":"729712fc-2b6f-43a4-9b20-207d5b12cbff","content":"Speaker 28: Liz Burg 20 Shawnee Road. And, um, like I thank you for allowing me to have the space. I'm sure you're all tired. Um, I just wanna make two observations. One is I've, I've been a, a resident of Arlington for 35 years, and although I support the increased, um, production of housing, um, I have several concerns. And I've recently begun to review the, the, um, the design guidelines for residential development that I assume is, is, is something that this com the committee is very familiar with. And it seems that there are several aspects of this that I am baffled by. And I'm wondering how these guidelines are applied. When I looked at the proposals that were presented tonight, and others when I've been at other meetings and seen these new multi-family, um, units being presented, they look like each other, but they do not comply with the guidelines, which specify that they should be in inconsistent with in scale.","timeStart":10486.755,"timeEnd":10542.325,"chunkIndex":115},{"id":"5ec0d5b4-6917-4b73-b5b0-655b20f40270","content":"Speaker 28: And, um, and, and with the existing streetscape. And I don't see any of that in what's happening. When I look at, you know, the, um, the neighborhoods and I look at these giant towering buildings, whether it's the Majestic or the proposals on Broadway, they really do not fit the existing streetscape at all. I'm not an architect. I'm not saying that these houses housing shouldn't be built, but I'm really concerned about the design. And I see the discussion here focuses on materials, on, um, cornices, on colors of window trim. And I think we need to be looking at the bigger picture. I'm really concerned that Arlington's gonna turn into what we're seeing happening on Mass Ave and Broadway, and we're gonna lose the character of the community that we live in. So I really feel that, that this, this part of the guidelines is not getting the attention it it needs as we proceed to develop new construction in, in the town.","timeStart":10542.985,"timeEnd":10597.205,"chunkIndex":116},{"id":"ff809877-fe05-4349-b368-07d91a886924","content":"Speaker 28: So that's one concern that I wanted to express. And the other is, I would love to live in a community where I didn't need a car where public transportation was so adequate that I could manage that way. Um, I'm now 73 years old. I'm not capable of doing everything I need to do on a bike, even if it was an electric bike. Um, we haven't been able to accommodate to, to really build the infrastructure we need so that cars aren't necessary in Arlington. I think it's unrealistic. Just think that people will move into buildings and not need a car. And I'm really concerned, as was expressed earlier by other people who spoke today, that people are going to move into the community, find that they do need a car, and we're gonna end up with more cars on the street. We already have, I mean, I know you don't wanna talk about the high school, but the high school didn't allow for adequate parking.","timeStart":10597.545,"timeEnd":10648.865,"chunkIndex":117},{"id":"c9082944-acd5-4aa5-82bc-f0a9c550037f","content":"Speaker 28: And anybody who lives in my part of town who tries to drive down the hill to Mass Ave will find that those streets, all the side streets across from the parking from the high school are clogged with cars parked legally and illegally all over the streets. I mean, you really can't, you often have to back up to let a car pass. I often wonder about emergency vehicles on the streets. So we already have a problem by saying, I, you know, why are high school kids driving to, to, to Arlington High School? I don't know. But they are. And, you know, so the reality is we can, I mean, with all due respect to you, Steve, I, you know, I I I like to think about what we'd like to see, but then there's the reality of what is. And I think by not having adequate parking, we're inviting problems down the road with more clogged streets as more cars parked on the street.","timeStart":10649.045,"timeEnd":10698.165,"chunkIndex":118},{"id":"5141b48a-b3ce-4f26-b807-858a6c2f4184","content":"Speaker 28: And as a case in point, I was trying to find the example on my phone, and I, I can't, but there was something recently on WBUR in the morning about a luxury, um, condo development that was built. And because of the cost of parking, people were parking on the street outside the condo development, and people in the neighborhood were not, you know, were not who had single family or duplexes were not able to find street parking because its large development had poured an, you know, an additional number of cars onto the street. So all I'm saying is not that I think I don't believe in car, you know, I don't want to see, I'd like to see us use cars less, but I also think we have to be realistic about what the needs are for people who live in this community until we have a better system of public transportation. Thank you very much. Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You for your, uh, yes.\n\nSpeaker 5: And while Susan's coming up, can I just say it's nice to see a fellow graduate of Arlington Civic Academy class of 2024 ?","timeStart":10698.465,"timeEnd":10755.485,"chunkIndex":119},{"id":"b40ae2b0-7a25-4ed3-a428-750bfcf748fa","content":"Speaker 22: Hi, uh, Susan Stamps 39 Grafton Street. I just wanted to share with the board a really nice thing that just happened, um, with the, the team, um, that was here on the 2 56, 2 51 26, 1 28 Broadway, um, project where I had brought up some tree issues before you. And, um, one of them came in and said, oh, they're out. They want to talk to you about trees. So I went out and, and I said, the first thing I said to them was the, the thing that I forgot to say was, the reason we're so concerned about making sure there's lots of trees in every, every project is because we, there was recently a, a tree canopy lidar survey done, or it wasn't done. We were using, we used federal data, but we've, we've found that the, the tree canopy has diminished, um, in the last 20 years or something like that.","timeStart":10757.625,"timeEnd":10812.765,"chunkIndex":120},{"id":"f23ce0f9-5d5a-49d6-ab7a-2337d649fff7","content":"Speaker 22: And with, uh, the weather getting hotter, et cetera, et cetera, we just feel it's very important. And I, I think most of the residents feel that way too. And, uh, so then they engaged me in a conversation about, well, okay, let's, and I said, that's why you, I was, I wanted you to put all the trees you could and not say, well, well we can't do this. Like, let's just do it. And so then they pulled out their drawings and they fiddled around with, well, what could they do? And they were, they were very interested in having that conversation. And it, it, it really felt like a great collaboration. So I, I just wanted to share that and I hope to see more of that in the future. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for being supportive too.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, is there anybody else? Kristen?","timeStart":10813.625,"timeEnd":10861.765,"chunkIndex":121},{"id":"0dd72c4f-b4fa-465f-be07-df28302dbf19","content":"Speaker 25: Hi, uh, Christian Klein chairs EBA. Um, in the past there has been a zoning bylaw review committee or similar such ad hoc committees that have, uh, either been in place or there. I believe at one point there was a, there might have been a town meeting committee. Um, it provides a nice forum where, um, various people in town who have interest in zoning members from the various boards that deal with zoning to get together and talk about potential things that could come before the town meeting, um, in that are changes to the bylaw. And it primarily looks a lot in the past, at least my recollection, was we looked a lot at sort of some of the smaller things that just sort of need to be tweaked now and again, something where there was an un un, you know, an unanticipated consequence of something that was, uh, was passed previously. And it was just a good opportunity to, uh, sit down once a month and sort of talk through those things. And I would just, um, ask and encourage the, the a RB to consider if that's something that they would want to take part in. And if that's something we could, uh, jointly discuss with the planning department, if that's something that we might be able to put together again.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Christian, when you said that used to happen, when was that?\n\nSpeaker 25: So\n\nSpeaker 3: , I mean, I've been on, I've been on this board about 11 years. Yeah. Yeah. So it's been a while. So I I don't, never heard of that. Oh,","timeStart":10865.665,"timeEnd":10948.005,"chunkIndex":122},{"id":"ba383dbb-45c2-442a-8f06-3650473d2b73","content":"Speaker 4: Uh, I, I know the answer to this. Yes, please. So the, the start, it started off as the zoning bureau codification working group. I heard that. I remember that was in January of 2017. Yep. And after, um, after completing that effort, it formed into the zoning bylaw working group, uh, probably in the spring of 2018 after the reification was adopted. And some of the contributions in addition to little things were the, uh, signed by law revisions and, uh, the industrial district zoning. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, I'm gonna say that I'd be op open to bring that up at our next retreat and see if, um, there's interest in the board mm-hmm . To dedicate time for that. Great. I think it's a good thing, but I don't wanna speak for everybody else 'cause it's a bit of a time sink. Uh, no, absolutely. And, uh, appreciate the, uh,\n\nSpeaker 25: You know, as, as Steve sort of mentioned, you know, coming out of reification, the, the main point of re of the reification was the reformatting, um, and re removal of, uh, duplicate sections in the zoning byline.\n\nSpeaker 3: I will remember that.\n\nSpeaker 25: And the intent coming out of that was that we, the next step would be revisiting the sections and actually re-looking at the language in a lot of those sections. It has happened in a couple of sections. It hasn't happened in most of the zoning bylaw. And I, I think that's something that we should, uh, reconsider again, especially where we're, um, you know, in a, in a master planning year again.","timeStart":10948.025,"timeEnd":11043.965,"chunkIndex":123},{"id":"e9c8d3ea-adb1-4a27-a209-395ff0ae90bb","content":"Speaker 3: Yes. Um, don't think it's gonna happen in a master planning year, but I think it's, uh, a good thing to bring up at our, our retreat and say who's interested in doing that? And, uh, assigns, uh, you know, priorities to that. That'd\n\nSpeaker 5: Be great. It, it would be a logical next step after the master planning process to see if there's new directions that the master plan is pointing us in, and how would we get there. Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Kristen. Thank you. Uh, there, anybody else want to address anything in open form? Seeing that I'm gonna close, open form and ask for a motion? No new business. Sorry. Um, Claire,\n\nSpeaker 7: I do have one item of new business and that is that, um, a notice has been mailed to Arby Farina located at 1306 to 1308 Mass Ave. That a detailed timeline for win window installation must be provided within seven days. Um, barring that, the daily $100 fine, uh, will begin to accrue. Um, this was, uh, a letter written by the economic development, uh, coordinator Katie Luci, uh, to, uh, Farina. Um, and also notified, uh, me, um, the building commissioner and, um, town council as well. So I just wanted to give the board an update on where we are with that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Did they remove the plumbing side?\n\nSpeaker 7: They have not.\n\nSpeaker 18: Well, the plumbing sign is down with the trespassing signs\n\nSpeaker 7: Back up, replace\n\nSpeaker 18: It, which we've asked them to remove. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, they just not being, they're just being or","timeStart":11045.515,"timeEnd":11141.335,"chunkIndex":124},{"id":"ecd039c6-c89d-40b3-9144-db50bf1ccd5b","content":"Speaker 18: Office manager is. She is. She's having a really tough time with the owner and, and getting him to respond to any of our,\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. So do we need get, do we need to get them here again?\n\nSpeaker 7: Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Or you wanna get the fines? What, uh, uh, chance to sell's. Let's\n\nSpeaker 18: . So 90 days from when they were last here in January. January put us into, into mid-April. So we were gonna just ask for Claire about potential, bringing them back at 90 days, which is when we had told, when they were sitting here, we had said we ly given them 90 days to\n\nSpeaker 3: Come up with. Well, they said it because it was the lead time for ordering the storefronts. Correct.\n\nSpeaker 18: So we just have radio silence.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 18: So lines were growing. The\n\nSpeaker 7: Signs begin. Um, nothing, uh, nothing further from me.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve, do business.\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, nothing this time.\n\nSpeaker 3: Really? Wow.\n\nSpeaker 5: Really .\n\nSpeaker 3: Vince?\n\nSpeaker 5: Nothing from me.\n\nSpeaker 3: Shannon,\n\nSpeaker 7: Welcome to Vince.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I have none myself. And with that, um, I have a motion to adjourn, please.\n\nSpeaker 5: So moved.\n\nSpeaker 3: Second.\n\nSpeaker 5: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve? Yes. Vince? Yes. Shannon? Yes. I'm a yes too. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.","timeStart":11141.335,"timeEnd":11222.525,"chunkIndex":125}]}}}