{"citations":{"a69bc175-479f-4d28-bd04-f9967679717f":{"num":1,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"0265aefe-50ad-4eca-ad5e-733a2c5066b7":{"num":2,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"4fbceec2-3bb8-4672-8373-e9fceeb1ffc4":{"num":3,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"4b5ff213-448f-4cc9-820e-e86a78e81f87":{"num":4,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"38dfcd60-9e39-4d44-908d-2cb8e7afd1d9":{"num":5,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"0f74fd25-915f-4e09-9b7e-0899de7e8382":{"num":6,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"753e95ad-c925-4fb3-8551-12880f5e88e7":{"num":7,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"02bbc874-0f0a-4799-ac0b-cb8cf370bc9a":{"num":8,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"fe9903a4-d8ba-463f-bc16-880d9e17d5db":{"num":9,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"7b04f06a-1d47-480c-a957-73f82b4fc392":{"num":10,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"809bace4-8eb4-4c89-9f90-c72bb00eb060":{"num":11,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"e0ebbc5c-a232-4b33-b647-13158f164331":{"num":12,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"0f653c52-e8b9-49d9-97be-45059b3db4af":{"num":13,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"6ea1b30e-7362-4eea-9f71-50280a645eaf":{"num":14,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"c491e26b-3035-4172-b183-dd190f29aeba":{"num":15,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"83e9f5c1-460d-48e6-9a96-aed08e54d2aa":{"num":16,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"48745c21-efbb-4a3c-8027-00d257ed646f":{"num":17,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"be8ed2fb-2843-40ea-ace3-6063da07cb63":{"num":18,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"19cb5c81-2c73-4b6d-9916-fd62a81c5099":{"num":19,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"9afef33a-372c-4858-bf2b-4de9bdab05cd":{"num":20,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"4c8b00c7-b6b4-4159-85ea-7c964bba7133":{"num":21,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"9d60aa8f-1d43-49ce-8066-5e40ecf148f0":{"num":22,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"ce68e4ef-052d-414d-a58b-47fc28d11477":{"num":23,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"3bfb9f18-ca82-4a56-9500-d93e1540fb30":{"num":24,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"2746e12b-55fc-410d-9e9a-36a28504e7f6":{"num":25,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"b7b859a9-b64c-4cb4-8ff0-082b1de69635":{"num":26,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"5767e99f-db2c-4157-8abb-21b553123070":{"num":27,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"dfdef186-7aed-4137-af65-8075ecce846c":{"num":28,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"554b2bfc-70ee-4589-ad44-166c2387c614":{"num":29,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"cc34d301-77d9-419a-9a72-4c193b7cc651":{"num":30,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"9a158744-b002-4ae4-bfd8-5b868b2c00b4":{"num":31,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"1ca07c28-91ed-432f-8cf6-7d72338368e9":{"num":32,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"},"1312e286-836c-4329-85ae-83d5a2e2e9de":{"num":33,"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55"}},"sources":{"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55":{"sourceItemId":"1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55","title":"Redevelopment Board — 2026-01-26","videoUrl":"https://dkjpoal1tejoa.cloudfront.net/sites/a1000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/source-items/1f1650ec-74d3-4d48-bb46-795260777b55/Redevelopment_Board_Meeting_-_January_26_2026.mp4","chunks":[{"id":"a69bc175-479f-4d28-bd04-f9967679717f","content":"Speaker 1: \n\nSpeaker 2: I am calling to order the meeting of, uh, uh, town of Arlington free Development board on Monday, uh, the 26th at 7:00 PM held remotely. And can, uh, um, board members, uh, call off their names as, uh, as I say, uh, Steve, Steve Lac. Good evening, Jean\n\nSpeaker 3: Eugene, Benson,\n\nSpeaker 2: Shana, Shana, Corman, Houston, Rachel,\n\nSpeaker 4: Rachel Berry,\n\nSpeaker 2: And we're meet by Claire from the, um, planning board with, uh, Sarah. And, um, there was one oh, Marissa Mar. Thank you, Ken, from the planning, uh, planning department. Okay. So let's get to the agenda. Uh, the agenda, uh, number one is the public hearing. Docket number 3 8 6 9, uh, 15, uh, 13, and through 1519 SF Special permit hearing, uh, it is continued to November 15th. Uh, well, the, will the board vote to, uh, continue to stock it to a future date.\n\nSpeaker 4: So motion,\n\nSpeaker 3: What date are we continuing it to?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, December 15th.\n\nSpeaker 5: No, no, that's, sorry. That's, let me, I'm just gonna interject here. Yeah. This, it was continued from December 15th. We are looking to continue these, uh, hearings to a, an in-person meeting, potentially a week from today on February 2nd, if that, uh, if that's okay with the chair.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yes. Uh, do we have, uh, a quorum for that,\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, at this, at this point? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. So I move to, um, continue that hearing to, uh, February 2nd, 2026.\n\nSpeaker 2: I think Rachel, uh, move.\n\nSpeaker 4: That's fine. I'll second.","timeStart":0.085,"timeEnd":151.165,"chunkIndex":0},{"id":"0265aefe-50ad-4eca-ad5e-733a2c5066b7","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. Please. Motion, uh, all in favor? Uh, Steve? Yes. Shayna? Yes. Rachel? Yes. Jean? Yes. I'm a yes myself. Okay. Um, hearing number two, public hearing docket 3 8 8 2 13 98 masses special permit hearing the board of vote to continue. Docket number 3, 8 2 to a future date.\n\nSpeaker 3: What's the date?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, it would be the same date, uh, same date, February 2nd.\n\nSpeaker 3: I, I move to continue that hearing until February 2nd, 2026.\n\nSpeaker 2: Do we have a second? I second. Okay. I have a vote. Uh, Steve? Yes. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm a yes myself. Hearing num, uh, hearing number three, public hearing Docket number 3 8 3 8 8 2 8 48 46. Mass Ave, seven and 17 Newman Way site plan review hearing. The board will vote to continue to stock it for 3 8 8 3 to a future date. Uh, I'm assuming it's February 2nd.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes, I move,\n\nSpeaker 3: I move to continue that matter to February 2nd, 2026.\n\nSpeaker 5: Second. I second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, okay to vote. Steve? Yes. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean? Yes. I'm a yes. Two, uh, that takes care of our three hearings. Now we're, we're gonna discuss, uh, um, vote, discuss and vote on a warrants for 2026 annual town meeting. Note, uh, this, that, this, um, vote and discussion on a warrant articles, uh, will not include public comment. Uh, we already had that the previous meeting, and we will just be discussing and voting on it today. So let's call them up.","timeStart":151.595,"timeEnd":285.745,"chunkIndex":1},{"id":"44d5b761-443b-403b-b6b0-7294d6cc2089","content":"Speaker 5: Great. Just give me a second and I'll, um, get those warrant articles up here on these. Okay. Can folks see that? Great.\n\nSpeaker 2: Everybody good?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Warrant article, a zoning, bylaw amendment, administrative clarification to assess the dwelling units. Um, essentially it is a, um, uh, I'm assuming it's a clerical change. And, um, that's it as we discussed last time. Are there any, um, questions to what, um, what was modified? Um, is this with genes, uh, um, changes to it?\n\nSpeaker 5: No, these are the warrant articles that were published with the agenda. I did share, uh, a document, uh, from Mr. Benson earlier this evening that has a series of, um, edits, uh, to, to the document. Um, I'm prepared to, uh, show that, uh, as well as part, as part of this hearing, Ken, when, um, when it's, when it is convenient.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, Jean, you have your hand up?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, I was, I was just going to say that I had sent Claire some proposed edits, not changing the substance of any of the proposed articles except one, but mostly some wording changes to make them, um, more specific and narrower. So I can either read them out or, or Claire can put up, uh, my proposed revisions. They're in, um, track changes, so you can see what they were. It's up to the board or to the chair, which you prefer.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, why don't you put 'em up, Jean? Uh, if, uh, you can share your screen, uh, with Jean, uh, Claire.\n\nSpeaker 5: I'll, I'll get 'em. Just, just, just one second. Okay. Okay.","timeStart":287.615,"timeEnd":429.045,"chunkIndex":2},{"id":"32ea61cb-52de-4368-adfc-b8ad48ff500e","content":"Speaker 3: So what if, if, would people want me to walk through the proposed changes, or people wanna talk about the warrant articles in general first?\n\nSpeaker 2: Well, why don't we just, uh, everybody has a chance to read your changes. Are there any objections to these changes or, uh, any other, any other modifications to these, uh, that anybody, uh, any other one on the board want to make, uh, make, um, now's a good time, Steve?\n\nSpeaker 7: Uh, so Mr. Lau, I, um, I'm just, um, apparently these were sent after I check my, uh, town email this afternoon. So, uh, if I may have a moment to catch up. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Sure. We're just doing Article A here. Okay. Steve,\n\nSpeaker 4: It, Rachel, I, I would, um, like Steve, Steve, I, I'm, um, catching up with these as well. So perhaps what we could do is just take them one by one and, um, Jean, if you wanna highlight it, it, you know, if it would work for you if Jean would highlight what his changes are as we go through article by article, that would work for me.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, they are, they are in red now, my, on my screen, but they're not in red. That's,\n\nSpeaker 4: That's, that's fine. So it looks to me just to react then to, to Jean to what you've proposed that, um, this is more specific, which, uh, I agree to and appreciate in Article A.","timeStart":434.105,"timeEnd":520.975,"chunkIndex":3},{"id":"4fbceec2-3bb8-4672-8373-e9fceeb1ffc4","content":"Speaker 3: Yeah. The, the reason I made them more specific is I thought I, and I, I put this in the email to Claire, is that I thought it would be easier for town meetings who are not steeped in sort of the intricacies of the zoning by law to get a little more flavor of what they're about. And by narrowing the scope, it makes it sort of more specific about what this is, what this is about. So that's why I did each one of them. And I think A is pretty, um, self-explanatory.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve, have you had a chance to review a,\n\nSpeaker 7: So I am fine with the changes to a, this seems consistent with what we've discussed in previous meetings. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, Shana, I think you're on mute.\n\nSpeaker 8: Sorry about that. I'm also fine with the changes to a,\n\nSpeaker 2: Do we want to vote on this, uh, one at a time as we go down? Or do you want, uh, to just all at the end? Does anybody have a, um,\n\nSpeaker 6: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: Any preference?\n\nSpeaker 7: I think if we're going to go over them individually, I think it would make sense to vote to vote after each.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So do we have a motion for, uh, article A?\n\nSpeaker 3: So moved,\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, article A as amended by, by jean's revisions. I, I second that.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Can I get a vote? Uh, Shayna? Yes. Steve?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.","timeStart":521.685,"timeEnd":637.045,"chunkIndex":4},{"id":"4b5ff213-448f-4cc9-820e-e86a78e81f87","content":"Speaker 2: I'm a yes myself. Okay. Now we're onto Article B. Uh, we'll give a chance to everybody to read it. Essentially, this is just a change, uh, from certified mail to first class mail to make it easier for, uh, proponents to, uh, to, uh, offer, um, changes to the, uh, zoning changes. And, uh, you made some changes here. Jean, you wanna explain this real quick?\n\nSpeaker 3: Again? I just, um, put in that it's the sentence, sentence of the, of the section and exactly what it does. So, again, just more specificity.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, there any other questions on the board? Seeing there's none. Um, does anybody wanna make a motion for article B?\n\nSpeaker 3: I move that we, um, agree on article B as I amended it\n\nSpeaker 8: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Great. Uh, of now,\n\nSpeaker 4: Sorry, I, I I was just still still reading this one because I hadn't, um, edits be beforehand. Um, Jean, I, I know that you were looking to make this one more specific. Um, do we, do we think it's, well, I guess that's, nevermind. I, I think I'm okay. I'm sorry. I'm just reading it for the first time. Um, the changes, I was looking to see whether it was, um, if there was anything that we would be too hemmed in by, but it, this is a simple administrative change, so I think I'm okay with this as well.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Am I going too fast, Rachel, here, or\n\nSpeaker 4: No, I just hadn't, I, I, I didn't see the email, um, because I, I was at work, so, um, I, I'm just catching up.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So, um, do we have a second on this?","timeStart":637.665,"timeEnd":770.215,"chunkIndex":5},{"id":"38dfcd60-9e39-4d44-908d-2cb8e7afd1d9","content":"Speaker 4: I'll second it.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, I'd like to have a vote. Shayna? Yes. Steve? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes too.\n\nSpeaker 3: And I'm a yes too.\n\nSpeaker 2: Excuse me, Jean.\n\nSpeaker 3: I said yes also.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, sorry, Jean. Uh,\n\nSpeaker 3: . That's okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Maybe I'll get better as this gets along. You'll get\n\nSpeaker 4: In your rhythm. Ken? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: . Uh, okay. Uh, article C is also, I assume it's administrative. You wanna explain this, Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: This is just remove the satins that says, until EEO at Chelsea approves our, um, inclusionary zoning. 15%, it's 10%. So I just made this more specific that we're removing the second sentence\n\nSpeaker 2: Because they have already proved it, uh, our 15%. So, uh, even so that, so that's what it just more or less of a clarification of what happened.\n\nSpeaker 4: So, I have a question. Do we need to explain? I don't, I don't know that we need to explain the why behind it in the warrant article by adding the words and outdated and unnecessary reference. I think that it's clear to see if the town will vote to amend section 5.8 4G afford housing of the zoning bylaw to remove the second sentence of the section, or take any action related thereto. Um, that would certainly be described as to why, um, uh, Gina, I'm, I'm just questioning why, why we might include the other context. Well,\n\nSpeaker 3: It, it, it was in there. I didn't take it out. I didn't think it mattered one way","timeStart":772.125,"timeEnd":884.355,"chunkIndex":6},{"id":"0f74fd25-915f-4e09-9b7e-0899de7e8382","content":"Speaker 2: Or the other. So can, uh, are we okay to scratch that and, and update and un and unnecessary and just, just go right to, uh, second sentence or the sentence and then reference or so forth? Are you okay with that? Did you do that, Claire?\n\nSpeaker 3: I think that works for me. What Rachel suggested.\n\nSpeaker 7: This is Steve. I'm also fine with that.\n\nSpeaker 6: Me as well. Cha. Uh, this is Shayna.\n\nSpeaker 2: Alright, great. Do we have a motion for this?\n\nSpeaker 3: So moved Article C as amended and amended again.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, do we have a second? A second. Great. Mr. Uh, Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes too. Article E.\n\nSpeaker 6: This one\n\nSpeaker 3: Is, the only thing I added is we had agreed from 24 to 22 feet. I thought putting it in would just explain to people, just looking at the warrant article, what we were doing. Again, it would be sort of make it easier for people reading the warrant and limit the scope.\n\nSpeaker 2: This was in request from this, uh, zoning board, correct?\n\nSpeaker 3: No, it was, no, we, we decided upon that Kenny.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, okay. Uh, did the zone. Okay. Nevermind. You're right. Does anybody have any changes or, uh, any, uh, any questions or,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, Mr. Lau?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes,","timeStart":884.355,"timeEnd":982.975,"chunkIndex":7},{"id":"753e95ad-c925-4fb3-8551-12880f5e88e7","content":"Speaker 7: I'd, I'd like to strike Mr. Benson's amendment. Um, I actually think Melrose had a better strategy using the 20 foot drive aisle, um, in mixed use in residential buildings and 24 feet otherwise, so I am, you know, um, we could either leave the substance out and iron it out later, but I, you know, I'm, I don't agree with it. With this as, uh, as a, as warrant language.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, could you make a proposal then of what you want to put up there?\n\nSpeaker 7: Strike the text from 24 feet to 22 feet, but leave or take any action related there too.\n\nSpeaker 3: You think if Steve has another proposal, then what he's proposing makes sense.\n\nSpeaker 2: And how would, how would people know what, um, um, what, what the changes are from what to what? Where would that be? Uh, located?\n\nSpeaker 7: That would be in the main motion.\n\nSpeaker 2: It would be in the main motion. Okay. Does anybody have any objections to that?\n\nSpeaker 6: No. No? So we're\n\nSpeaker 4: Leaving in, or take any action related there too, but just for moving from 24 to 22 feet, correct?\n\nSpeaker 2: Correct. The right, Steve? Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes, that's correct.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can you take care of that? Um,\n\nSpeaker 6: Clark,\n\nSpeaker 2: Do we have a motion?\n\nSpeaker 3: No. Moved is amended. Article D\n\nSpeaker 2: Second.\n\nSpeaker 6: I would second it.\n\nSpeaker 2: And the vote is Shana?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.","timeStart":983.195,"timeEnd":1107.645,"chunkIndex":8},{"id":"02bbc874-0f0a-4799-ac0b-cb8cf370bc9a","content":"Speaker 2: And, and memo? Yes. Two too. Article E. Uh, you used to have a couple of commas there, right? Jean else? Just some\n\nSpeaker 3: Comm, just some comments.\n\nSpeaker 2: Everything else is more or less the same that we looked at before. Uh, are there any, uh, changes to this? Does any anybody on the board have any changes to this?\n\nSpeaker 6: No. None here.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Do we have, uh, a motion for this?\n\nSpeaker 3: So, move that we, uh, adopt article E.\n\nSpeaker 2: Second.\n\nSpeaker 6: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, vote. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes. Two. Thank you. Now we're on Article F.\n\nSpeaker 3: I just added the words un marquees, so that people who didn't go to the bylaw to look at 6.2 0.5 D six Marques signs would understand that this is just allowing for electronic displays on marquees. So it's mostly clarity for people who are reading the warrant.\n\nSpeaker 2: Does anybody have an objection to that or any changes? Okay. Seeing none. Uh, does anybody wanna make a motion?\n\nSpeaker 3: I move. We adopt Article F as\n\nSpeaker 2: I have a second here, please.\n\nSpeaker 6: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Great. Uh, I'm gonna call for vote. Shana?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.","timeStart":1108.545,"timeEnd":1235.795,"chunkIndex":9},{"id":"fe9903a4-d8ba-463f-bc16-880d9e17d5db","content":"Speaker 2: And I'm a yes. Two. Now we're on to RG, G. You see, at the time we vote to amend, uh, a-frame signs. Uh, you had a couple of changes here. Jean. Uh, I assume they're, uh, they're clerical.\n\nSpeaker 3: The change to one, a-frame sign just corresponds to what we had agreed to at our last meeting. If it wasn't there, technically somebody could put an amendment to allow five or six or whatever. So this just narrows the scope. And I took out the word allowable because I thought it was unnecessary.\n\nSpeaker 2: Are there any objections or any, uh, other changes to this? Uh, from the board?\n\nSpeaker 6: None here.\n\nSpeaker 2: Seeing none. Is there a motion here\n\nSpeaker 3: I move that we adopt Article G as amended.\n\nSpeaker 2: We hear a second. Okay. Call for vote. Shana? Yes. Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Sorry. I, I, I didn't, I, yeah,\n\nSpeaker 4: I'm sorry. I'm still reviewing this. I, again, I'm, um, I did not see the email earlier, so, um,\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay.","timeStart":1236.295,"timeEnd":1331.095,"chunkIndex":10},{"id":"7b04f06a-1d47-480c-a957-73f82b4fc392","content":"Speaker 4: And it's hard, it's hard a because we're in a remote meeting and we're not normally, and I'm, I'm, um, still reviewing as we're, as we're moving ahead. Um, so one of the things that Katie didn't bring up when we were reviewing this was just the, the overall square footage review. So, um, or that, that, that there is a maximum square, square footage. Um, I'm assuming that that's something that we'll probably get into during discussion, um, on this, this, um, this definitely includes wall window, A-frames and, and yard frames with within this. Um, so my question is, you know, as we look at this, would we want any more flexibility? Um, is it just the A-frames that are the issue? Or is it actually all of the, um, the, the various number of portable signs and temporary signs that we're seeing and the quantity and the, the overage that, that we, that the board needs to address? So would it be better instead of aframe to, to make it portable and temporary signs? Um, so that we can look at this more holistically? It's a question for the board.\n\nSpeaker 2: So you're suggesting a changed, uh, a-frame to temporary sign?\n\nSpeaker 4: Portable and temporary, which is section portable and temporary sign section. Um, but again, if the, if the board feels that the A-frames are, are really the only problem, then um, I'm fine with Gene's suggestion, but it, it, again, to me it seemed I would actually change a frame to portable and temporary because it, it, it seems like it's part of a, a larger issue.\n\nSpeaker 2: Are there any objections to that, um, that change the genes, uh, correction there?\n\nSpeaker 8: So,","timeStart":1331.515,"timeEnd":1466.245,"chunkIndex":11},{"id":"ab347639-065a-4c64-80ec-b2687bc34a2b","content":"Speaker 3: Well then we would have to change, change the part that was initially set aframe signs.\n\nSpeaker 4: That's what I'm suggesting. That's correct.\n\nSpeaker 3: Right. So you'd have to change it in two places.\n\nSpeaker 8: So the language,\n\nSpeaker 3: I would probably just say limit the quantity of portable and temporary signs to be used by a business or take any other action. Yeah. Is what Rachel's suggesting.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes. That's what I'm suggesting.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. We had only discussed a-frame signs, but I certainly think it would make sense for the board to have a little bigger discussion beyond that.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jenny, you had a question?\n\nSpeaker 8: Oh, no, I was, um, I was going to ask about specific language, but, um, but I think Jane and Rachel have clarified what I was, what I was gonna ask, so I'm all set.\n\nSpeaker 2: So Rachel, you, you want us to take out, um, jean's comment where it says to one, a-frame sign to, to say, uh, for portable signs and temporary signs in, in lieu of that?\n\nSpeaker 4: No, I'm suggesting that we take out, um, where Claire is about to highlight . Okay. Um, uh, take that out to, um, and, and to insert portable and temporary where it says Aframe signs, where Claire has it, um, highlighted. And then to remove the addition that Jean made of two one aframe sign.\n\nSpeaker 2: Would you go able do that? Uh, Claire?","timeStart":1466.245,"timeEnd":1570.915,"chunkIndex":12},{"id":"809bace4-8eb4-4c89-9f90-c72bb00eb060","content":"Speaker 4: Uh, I would not include to, to one sign because I, I think, um, yeah, and then I think you could, yeah, and then I would make that portable and temporary and I think you could keep allowable where that was struck. And my feeling is, I think Katie had a really good point. I think that we, um, didn't have the opportunity to have a thorough discussion about this, and I think I'd like to give ourselves the space to do that.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Are you okay with that, Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes, that's fine. I, you know what Rachel said, we only talked about a-frame signs at the last meeting, but it makes sense to discuss the larger portable and temporary signs which include a-frame signs.\n\nSpeaker 2: Does anybody else any has any, uh, um, issues or changes or requests?\n\nSpeaker 6: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: Fine by me. This is Steve. Okay, thank you, Shana. Um, seeing there's none, can I get a motion for the, um, amended, amended, uh, article G\n\nSpeaker 3: Move that we adopt amended article G\n\nSpeaker 6: Second?\n\nSpeaker 2: Great. Uh, I vote is Shana.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes too. Article H\n\nSpeaker 3: You just made it a little more specific since we're gonna put in a definition of animal daycare that we indicate that's what we're doing also.","timeStart":1588.045,"timeEnd":1708.185,"chunkIndex":13},{"id":"e0ebbc5c-a232-4b33-b647-13158f164331","content":"Speaker 4: So the only comments I have here, um, which I had before, I also, before I saw jean's comments, um, I would like to ensure that this language will allow us to discuss that this may only be allowed by special permit, not necessarily as of right, because I'm concerned that we'd still have the same issue that we have relative to health clubs and, um, and daycare with regard to street activation in the business district. So I think that while we may consider whether or not we put this forth to town meeting, I would, um, also want to make sure that it is written such a way that it could have the requirement for special permit and not just, um, as of right in the business district.\n\nSpeaker 3: I think it does, Rachel, because it doesn't say as of right or special permit. And I think what would go into the main motion would be either, you know, as of right or special permit. That's how I interpret. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 4: No, I, I just wanted to ask the question and make sure we we discussed that. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm okay. Uh, with that. There's also what you said, Rachel, about, uh, making it a special permit, not as a Right. Um, the rest of the board have any, uh, issues with that Shana, Steve, Jean? So\n\nSpeaker 7: I, I have a different wording issue, but we can come back to that.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Um, the, well, what about the by special permit? Are you okay with that, Steve?","timeStart":1713.085,"timeEnd":1827.355,"chunkIndex":14},{"id":"0f653c52-e8b9-49d9-97be-45059b3db4af","content":"Speaker 7: So I, I am neutral on, you know, I, I think the main motion can dictate whether it's special permit or by, right. So I don't, I don't feel like it's necessary to mention in the warrant language.\n\nSpeaker 2: No, no. I, I think that's what Gene said. Oh,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm, I'm okay with, uh, with going either way, but we\n\nSpeaker 2: Just wanted to, okay. Uh, Shannon?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes, I'm fine.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, Steve, you said you had, um, some wording changes.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes. So the way I initially read this, it sounded like the definition would go into in section five of the bylaw, uh, where it should actually go in section two. So if folks are amenable, I, I'd suggest to see if the town will vote to amend the zoning bylaws, section two, to define animal daycare and to amend section five definition or district regulations to allow animal daycare in business districts.\n\nSpeaker 4: I think that's fine. You would be adding it after section two definitions to define animal daycare, correct? Correct. Okay. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Are you able to make that change? Uh, uh, clerk,\n\nSpeaker 4: Did I get right?\n\nSpeaker 7: I believe that's correct, yes.\n\nSpeaker 4: Great. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Are there any other, uh, changes or requests? Can I have a motion\n\nSpeaker 3: I move that we adopt Article H is amended.\n\nSpeaker 2: Second.\n\nSpeaker 4: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, vote. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean? Yes. Steve?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.","timeStart":1827.815,"timeEnd":1956.665,"chunkIndex":15},{"id":"6ea1b30e-7362-4eea-9f71-50280a645eaf","content":"Speaker 2: And I'm a yes too. All right. Now we got the, uh, the last few more ju CO ones, right? Okay. Article J, uh, reside residential parking.\n\nSpeaker 3: No, you missed I, Ken,\n\nSpeaker 2: I, sorry. Yep. Okay. That one there, you just, you wanna make a change, just one comma, right?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, I, I didn't know what, uh, Christian Klein was going to propose, so I couldn't add any specificity to this.\n\nSpeaker 2: Claire, did we get something from Christian on this?\n\nSpeaker 5: It's my understanding that we did not receive any direct warrant article language, um, related to this from Christian. Um, the, uh, DPCD um, wrote a, a general warrant article that we felt would, um, be best described in, uh, by the main motion.\n\nSpeaker 2: I feel this is kind of vague. Uh, does everybody else sort of, uh, sort of agree with this? I can't believe vote on this right here. Uh, I don't know what the big change is.\n\nSpeaker 4: This was related to fema, this was related to the flood plain, just so if, if you recall, um, he came to us and indicated that they were having, sorry, let me get to my notes here.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, but should we have it on there, Rachel, or should we just leave it, uh, in the main motion?\n\nSpeaker 4: Sorry, I'm, I'm getting to my notes here.","timeStart":1957.125,"timeEnd":2072.905,"chunkIndex":16},{"id":"1a82fa67-9974-4ab4-b40e-ba6c6d56b46c","content":"Speaker 2: I believe you wanted to set the, the base height, uh, in flood zones to, uh, to FEMA's flood zones. So, so where correct. Building height is taking off the average of the site at the street. Uh, he wants us to, uh, make a change so that it's based off of, uh, in flood zones, the top of the, on the flood zone.\n\nSpeaker 4: I don't, I don't know that section two would be where you would do that. So\n\nSpeaker 7: May I, um, make a proposal, please. All right. To see if the town will vote to amend section two definitions and section 5.3. That is because section, because the definition of building height references several subsections in five three of the zoning bylaw. Tremendous definition of Section O. Yeah. If it, it, this should mention five three, and I'm thinking of how to, how to say that it pertains to building heights in, um, essentially in the, in the floodplain overlay district\n\nSpeaker 5: Longer have,\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, Claire, do we have to vote on all these and get them in this week or something? Yes. That's why we're we at the meeting?\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: So if we can't come up with some sort of language, then we'll have to punt on this one here.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yes. I'm afraid so,\n\nSpeaker 2: Because, um, as it shows right now, I'm not comfortable. I'm not, I'm on what the rest of the board is. I understand, uh, what he was trying to get at, but it's not written out any which way, where we, we can sort of vote on, on the actual language or the wording, unless we can come up with something tonight.","timeStart":2080.485,"timeEnd":2203.655,"chunkIndex":17},{"id":"c491e26b-3035-4172-b183-dd190f29aeba","content":"Speaker 7: Agree. Let me hit one more shot. All right. To see if the town will vote to amend section two of the definitions. And section 5.3, we'll have to fill in the title of five three of the zoning bylaw to amend the regulations for building height in the floodplain overlay district\n\nSpeaker 4: To amend the regulations for building height in the floodplain overlay district.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes. Is\n\nSpeaker 4: That what you said? Okay.\n\nSpeaker 5: Do we still, is is the floodplain overlay district still an overlay district in the zoning bylaw post town meeting last year,\n\nSpeaker 7: We took out the inland wetland district, but that's the flood flood plain. You got it. Wet plain is still, uh, in the bylaw and still dictated by, uh, FEMA's risk maps.\n\nSpeaker 5: Got it.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. And immediately after your cursor strike definition of building height, and let me see what five three is called.\n\nSpeaker 3: Steve, what would you think about, um, putting it in 5.3 point 20, which is maximum height exceptions? So it would say, um, to amend the maximum height exceptions for buildings in the floodplain overlay district?\n\nSpeaker 7: I would be, I, I think that's appropriate. Yes. So for Claire, I think that would translate as far as the wording goes, that would translate into, uh, changing and section five three to, and section 5.3 2a maximum height exceptions.\n\nSpeaker 3: And then, and then after that, it just needs to say, um, for buildings in the floodplain overlay district,\n\nSpeaker 5: Maximum height acceptance of the vona to amend the, so the regulations for building height in the floodplain overlay district, you'd like to strike that and put something else.","timeStart":2204.785,"timeEnd":2369.705,"chunkIndex":18},{"id":"83e9f5c1-460d-48e6-9a96-aed08e54d2aa","content":"Speaker 3: So it would just say for buildings in the floodplain overlay district, so after, right. So, right.\n\nSpeaker 7: Oh, okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Let's all look at that for a moment.\n\nSpeaker 4: . Well, I'm, I'm looking at the definition of building height, which doesn't actually , it talks about detailed exceptions. And ironically does not call out 5.3 20. It calls out 5.3 point 19 and 5.3 point 19 A. There is only a 5.3 point 19 a n, nothing under just 5.3 19 and 5.4 0.2 B five, which I have not yet gone to look at. Um, so there might be a scribner's error that it, we have to correct in the definition anyway. 4.25.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can we make this vague enough so that we can be covered in the main motion?\n\nSpeaker 4: No, we, we could, I, I'm just wondering if, um, in the language it should be, um, and or, and or section I, I, I think we, you know, again, because Christian doesn't have this specific language for us, I think to give him as much latitude as possible so that, um, you know, if the definition needs to be left alone or we decide that 5.3 point 20 is not the place that we have some latitude.\n\nSpeaker 5: Oh. Uh, I just got a message from Marisa Log. Excuse me. Um, Mr. Klein will be signing on.\n\nSpeaker 2: Great.\n\nSpeaker 3: So, um, Ken, can I suggest we go through the rest of the articles and then go back to I\n\nSpeaker 2: Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Maybe Mr. Klein will\n\nSpeaker 2: Be, that's a very, that's a good suggestion. Uh, now we're on Article J, uh, this is the reside residential parking.","timeStart":2370.645,"timeEnd":2534.735,"chunkIndex":19},{"id":"be8ed2fb-2843-40ea-ace3-6063da07cb63","content":"Speaker 3: So, so this is one of the three,\n\nSpeaker 6: Two\n\nSpeaker 3: Article three articles that I suggested when we had our retreat back in October. I thought it was a little bit unclear that location of parking spaces, parking and residential districts. It didn't quite say multi-family housing overlay districts. So I thought it would just clarify those sections to include multifamily housing overlay districts in, in the, in the list of the areas that it cover. So this is just for clarity, and the, the staff wrote the lighter red and I added the darker red.\n\nSpeaker 2: Maybe I'm a little bit colorblind, but I just see red .\n\nSpeaker 3: No, it could be your computer screen.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, I see. Okay. I, I, I see it now at the class pointing to it.\n\nSpeaker 6: .\n\nSpeaker 2: Does anybody have any, uh, changes or, um, wanna discuss anything, any part of this\n\nSpeaker 4: Still? I,\n\nSpeaker 3: I th I think\n\nSpeaker 6: I'm okay with Jay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel, you, uh, look somewhat, uh, uh, concerned about the, sorry.\n\nSpeaker 4: The, I I have a, a visitor in my office. Oh, okay. That's why I'm communicating off screen .\n\nSpeaker 2: That's fine. But you okay with this, Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Shana.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: Although I move that we adopt Article J as amended.\n\nSpeaker 2: I have a second.\n\nSpeaker 6: Second. Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Excellent. Um, have a vote. Shana?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes too. Um, Marissa, did uh, Christian get on yet?","timeStart":2537.085,"timeEnd":2710.175,"chunkIndex":20},{"id":"1adc3c9d-13da-4048-a9e9-de294a367070","content":"Speaker 4: Yes, he is. He should be on.\n\nSpeaker 9: I am here.\n\nSpeaker 6: There he\n\nSpeaker 2: Is. Hey Christian, how you doing? Hey, Christian.\n\nSpeaker 9: I'm well. Good evening to you all.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Um, let's go back to, uh, article. I just so we don't, and we've been sort of going, going around on this a little bit and I wanna see what your feelings are on this. Is, um, have you had, lemme give you a chance to read what we have here so far and see what you think.\n\nSpeaker 9: So, in the language I had provided earlier, I was including the exception in the definition of building height rather than in sec. But it looks like you're adding a new section\n\nSpeaker 6: 5 3 25, 3 20.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, Christian has maximum height exceptions. Okay. So it might make, I thought it might make sense rather than sort of put an exception in the definitions. Mm-hmm . To put the exception in the part of the bylaw itself that had the maximum height exceptions.\n\nSpeaker 9: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: And then Rachel raised the issue that the definition of building height probably needed to be fixed also.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah. Christian, if you go to the definition of building height, it references, um, five point 19 and five point, excuse me, 5.3 point 19 and 5.3 point 19 A, but not five point 20 when it refers to detailed exceptions. And many of the exceptions are in 5.20.","timeStart":2714.175,"timeEnd":2847.435,"chunkIndex":21},{"id":"cf0e0e2a-4cb1-4a3d-896e-14b96424ef52","content":"Speaker 9: Okay. Just scrolling to 5 3 20. Ah, okay. Oh, 'cause 5 3 19 reduced. Okay. Because 5 3 20 says in any district, the maximum height limitations shall not apply to the following. And it's not that maximum height limitations don't apply, they do still apply. It's just that they're, they have a different baseline.\n\nSpeaker 2: So do you have a suggestion on how you wanna change this a little bit?\n\nSpeaker 9: Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: We're just under pressure if we don't get this in today.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yep.\n\nSpeaker 2: And approved, it's not going into, uh, warrant.\n\nSpeaker 9: Right, exactly. Um, I mean, I think, I mean, what we had proposed before with putting building height, um, adding the, the sentence to building to the definition for building height, that in the floodplain district, the building height is the vertical distance of the highest point of the roof above the base flood elevation established by fema, um, sort of seemed to be the best place to put it because we didn't, 5 3 20 is really about things that where the maximum height doesn't apply. There didn't seem to be another place short of creating another exceptional location.\n\nSpeaker 4: I mean, you could, you could more heavily edit five point 20. I, I just, I I, I know that we've been trying to keep some of the more complex dimensional standards mm-hmm . Out of the definitions. Um,\n\nSpeaker 9: I mean, we could certainly redo 5 3 20, um, to make it work the way that we would wanna work, make it work if we wanted to put this exception in that location.","timeStart":2847.435,"timeEnd":2988.455,"chunkIndex":22},{"id":"48745c21-efbb-4a3c-8027-00d257ed646f","content":"Speaker 7: I mean, I would not envision, um, you know, a sub item C uh, because that wouldn't really fit with the leading section, leading sentence. But, you know, another would be a new paragraph in 5 3 20. I I think that could work. Mm-hmm\n\nSpeaker 9: . And we could certainly make the first sentence sub A, have it be parts one and two for A and B, and then have a new part B. But yeah, we, we would've time to figure that out\n\nSpeaker 2: The main motion.\n\nSpeaker 9: So I think if you left it the way that you have it written here to section two definition, section 5, 3 20, maximum height exceptions, the zoning by law for ability district or articulate, I think that then I think the language you have in front of you makes sense.\n\nSpeaker 2: So you're okay with this?\n\nSpeaker 9: I'm okay with that language, yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Does the board have any other changes to this?\n\nSpeaker 4: No.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can I ask for a motion, please?\n\nSpeaker 3: I move, we adopt article I as amended. Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, a vote. Sha uh, Shayna? Yes. Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And I'm a yes too, so. Great. Thank you\n\nSpeaker 9: All very much.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, are you gonna be around for a few? Uh, a few more\n\nSpeaker 9: If you'd like me to.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Should be around for K because we're doing something Yeah. That affects the zoning board of appeals.\n\nSpeaker 9: Oh, okay.","timeStart":2991.135,"timeEnd":3094.945,"chunkIndex":23},{"id":"19cb5c81-2c73-4b6d-9916-fd62a81c5099","content":"Speaker 2: Yeah, if you could stick around out a little bit. Um, sure. Uh, Christian, that that'd be helpful. But, uh, I think we're on Jay now, right? Or we did Jay, did we finish? Jay? Um, Claire,\n\nSpeaker 4: I believe we finished Jay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So we're on to article K.\n\nSpeaker 3: So what this does is it gives us, um, jurisdiction for any construction or reconstruction in the industrial zone right now. Um, we have some of the industrial zone and the ZBA has some of the industrial zone. So this switches that around.\n\nSpeaker 2: My notes were my notes was this was more of a clar, uh, clerical change.\n\nSpeaker 3: No, it's not. It's a substantive change.\n\nSpeaker 4: And my notes were that we were not going to take it up this year from our last meeting.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh.\n\nSpeaker 4: But I could, again, those were just night notes as I were, was reviewing them.\n\nSpeaker 2: Does anybody else have any, uh, problem?\n\nSpeaker 3: I mean, there are\n\nSpeaker 7: For environmental, for EDR, the criteria that triggers EDR, there is already a criteria based on size. Um, I am personally not, I don't feel a strong need to change a DUR jurisdiction. Um, but I'd, you know, be interested in hearing more about, um, Mr. Benson's motivation for suggesting this.","timeStart":3095.535,"timeEnd":3207.445,"chunkIndex":24},{"id":"ee2d264e-d010-4932-ad38-d57e74215b44","content":"Speaker 3: Um, my motivation for suggesting it is something came up, I think a year or two ago where we realized that there were some projects in the industrial zone that we only had jurisdiction over because they, either because they bordered on the bikeway, um, and that it didn't make a lot of sense. I thought we had this discussion for part of the industrial zone to be the, um, jurisdiction of the ZBA and part of it to be the jurisdiction of the A RB. So that's where this came from.\n\nSpeaker 7: So my recollection was, and, and maybe I'm getting the specific case wrong, but it was the proposed reconstruction of a residential building on Dudley Street. Um, is that correct?\n\nSpeaker 3: It, that happened, but I don't think that's where it came from.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, I mean,\n\nSpeaker 3: Rachel said we weren't going forward with it, so, you know, I, I'm gonna,\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm gonna ask the rest of the board, uh, do they want to go forward with this and talk about this some more? Or do you want to postpone this for our next, uh, uh, next round? How does the board feel?\n\nSpeaker 7: I would like to, I would be Okay. Would kind of prefer postponing, because I, I think this deserves a little more discussion.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, Shana, I agree with Steve. Um, Rachel,\n\nSpeaker 4: I agree.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm fine with that too.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So, uh, Claire, why don't we, um, strike this.\n\nSpeaker 3: Why don't I make a motion that we not proceed with article K?\n\nSpeaker 4: I'll second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Uh, vote. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.","timeStart":3209.815,"timeEnd":3338.805,"chunkIndex":25},{"id":"0240e103-4c35-425e-8bb5-2990fad2bb59","content":"Speaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: And number? Yes. Two. This is the last one. Article L.\n\nSpeaker 4: Alright. This is, and that one before was, I'm sorry. The one before was the one that we potentially needed Christian for. Correct. So, right. I wanna let him go if,\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, yes. Sorry. Christian. Um, we, I think that's the only one we need you for. Beyond that, uh, you, you wanna welcome to stay on and listen to our last one, but if you are busy, you can, uh, can leave us.\n\nSpeaker 9: I've just been notified that dinner's ready, so I will\n\nSpeaker 2: See my goodnight.\n\nSpeaker 3: . Enjoy Kristen . Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Take care. Thank you, Kristen. You are very welcome. Take care. We're on Article L and this is, uh, add some clarification and a small change to the, uh, uh, um, multifamily development, uh, overlay.","timeStart":3339.255,"timeEnd":3402.075,"chunkIndex":26},{"id":"9afef33a-372c-4858-bf2b-4de9bdab05cd","content":"Speaker 3: So, so this, this is my responsibility slash blame. So I'll tell you where this came from. After our last meeting, I started thinking it was a shame if we couldn't find some way to clarify the, um, the fact that we all couldn't agree about what ground floor meant and how to determine what the 60% was. So I emailed, um, Claire and Ken and said, could, um, planning come up with sort of a minimum square footage of continuous space that would make sense for a commercial space? And then may, then we could layer that on to the 60% requirement so that you'd end up having to meet whichever of the two is a larger amount. So we wouldn't end up with like 335 square foot spaces, or 800 square foot spaces, things like that. So what, um, we came up with was something that said that, um, to qualify for the bonus provision for the commercial, they must provide at least 1,700 square feet of continuous contiguous commercial space on the ground floor, or contiguous commercial space of at least 6% of the ground floor enclosed by the building walls, which is how some of you had interpreted, whichever is larger.\n\nSpeaker 3: So if somebody had a really huge building where 60% was more than 1700 square feet, they'd have to provide that amount. But if it was a smaller building, they would at least have to do 1700 square feet. We had not discussed this before, but I just thought we should take another shot at finding a way out of the box that we were in, in interpreting the bonus provision. And this is what I came up with.","timeStart":3402.775,"timeEnd":3536.165,"chunkIndex":27},{"id":"4c8b00c7-b6b4-4159-85ea-7c964bba7133","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you, Jean, for coming up with this. Um, um, I think this is a, a good suggestive change. Um, I did look at the talking to some brokers, um, and also talked to, uh, um, um, I think we talked to Claire and, um, Katie, and we talked to Katie Lucile also. And, um, we came up with a, a slightly different, uh, square footage for continuous space. We're thinking more of, uh, 1200 square feet, uh, just because of the small, uh, footprints we have, uh, throughout town. The 17 is too, uh, is, uh, too much of, uh, of an ask, uh, um, to, uh, make that happen. It would just actually, uh, well, um, uh, um, basically eliminate that as, as a bonus for, for some of these smaller projects. Um, but we, but we still, on the larger sites, we still maintain that 60%. So it's, it, I think what you said there, uh, whichever is greater. So that would be my suggestion for the change from the 17 to the 1200, and it will align with, uh, some of the brokers and, uh, community planning. Um, Richard, what do you think about that?","timeStart":3536.975,"timeEnd":3615.105,"chunkIndex":28},{"id":"9d60aa8f-1d43-49ce-8066-5e40ecf148f0","content":"Speaker 4: I'm uncomfortable with putting a specific number here because I would want to do more of an assessment. This should, this should be a hard provision to achieve the, this, this is something that, you know, we put in as a meaningful con contribution to the commercial space. So, you know, I think to to jean's perspective, both, you know, both the affordable housing threshold, I believe needs to be, um, it, it, it is a substantial commitment, and I know that I feel differently than several of the rest of you that I, I think it's actually a higher threshold as set in the words that were approved at town meeting. And I think this one as well needs to be a meaningful threshold. So I, I would need to do some, some math and to, to take a look at, um, what this would need to be. I'm, I'm uncomfortable with putting the number 1700 or 1200. I'm leaning towards the, the, a larger, but I, I, I can't commit to a number tonight. So I think we'd either need to leave it this out or we would need to write it, um, in such a way that gives us a little bit of latitude here.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you, Rachel. Uh, Steve?","timeStart":3617.115,"timeEnd":3711.695,"chunkIndex":29},{"id":"ce68e4ef-052d-414d-a58b-47fc28d11477","content":"Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, when we were, you know, as part, when we were working on the multifamily zoning, uh, we did a number of surveys, a whole pile of outreach, and, you know, asked a bunch of questions, you know, to see what folks in Arlington wanna do, kind of achieve as secondary goals. If we're gonna make this multifamily district, what else should we try to do? And there were three things that sort of surfaced from that. People were interested in sustainability, they were interested in affordable housing, and they were interested in commercial vitality. The bonus provisions were directly, you know, came directly out of those desires. Um, incidentally, these are things that people mention have been mentioning during the comprehensive planning progress process. So I, I don't think sentiment has really changed. Now, the bonuses, it's not just a bonus for the person doing the project, it is also a bonus in the sense that the community gets what it wants or gets something that people have expressed a desire for.","timeStart":3712.435,"timeEnd":3775.155,"chunkIndex":30},{"id":"3bfb9f18-ca82-4a56-9500-d93e1540fb30","content":"Speaker 7: So, while, you know, I understand, uh, the, the desire to make it, you know, a meaningful contribution, um, it has to be, I think it has to be an achievable one. Um, so I, I would, I would caution against trying to make it too, you know, it has to be achievable. I caution against trying to make it too strict because at this point, you know, I, I, I feel concerned about putting in a bonus requirement that's, you know, someone actually can't use. Um, I do agree with the chair that, um, or I agree with Ms. Berry that, uh, with the idea of leaving the square footage out, you know, instead of a providing a minimum square footage of Conti contiguous space, I think that would be appro appropriate. Um, but, uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Thank you, uh, Steve,\n\nSpeaker 7: As, um, as an aside, um, I was going to talk about this in new business, but I'll mention it at again here. I'll, I'll just sneak it in here. Cambridge, uh, recently did a planning study and some revisions for, uh, districts along Mass Ave. And they incorporated something that's very similar to, um, you know, the mixed u or the mixed use bonus in our multifamily district. So they call it, you know, residential with ground story active uses. Uh, but their requirement is 60% of the interior space within 50 feet of a main roadway. So I really think that the, you know, the 60% of the interior spaces, you know, Cambridge, the Cambridge's, CDD, they're a well-resourced department. They're thorough, they're bright, and, you know, they have a good track record with, uh, getting commercial projects.","timeStart":3776.215,"timeEnd":3892.135,"chunkIndex":31},{"id":"2746e12b-55fc-410d-9e9a-36a28504e7f6","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you, Steve. Um, uh, Shana, do you wanna, uh, uh, have your input here?\n\nSpeaker 8: Sure. Um, I do think the 1700 square feet is concerning to me, uh, for a number of reasons, but, but, uh, most notably because, uh, because I'm not sure it's going to be achievable in, uh, many of the projects we see as, as the chair alluded to. Um, I don't know that 1200 you, I, what the magic number is, I don't know. And I think, um, I think I wouldn't necessarily be comfortable putting in a particular number this evening. Um, I think I, I want to hear more and research more, uh, before settling on a particular number. So at the very least, I think we need to leave more flexibility. I have been concerned, um, for some time that, that, uh, the 60% was not, the 60% that was already in there was not necessarily achievable for many projects. And, and, um, and so to make it more onerous or more burdensome is, is not a direction that, that I would want to go in. Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: So All right. Thank you. Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, if I could make a suggestion, Mr. Chair?\n\nSpeaker 2: Sure. Jean,","timeStart":3894.365,"timeEnd":3997.575,"chunkIndex":32},{"id":"b7b859a9-b64c-4cb4-8ff0-082b1de69635","content":"Speaker 3: I suggest that we not go ahead with Article L. I think, um, there are too many unknowns and sort of the same sort of disagreements that we had when we first tried to determine what this meant. This was my sort of best attempt to sort of bridge the gap, and it wasn't, I think, a successful attempt. So my suggestion is that we don't do Article L and that the board spends some time this summer or this fall trying to figure out if there's a different way to achieve the ends that people want.\n\nSpeaker 2: I would agree with a Jean's suggestion. Okay. Uh, Steve, you, I also agree, Shanna.\n\nSpeaker 8: Yes, I do as well.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Can I hear a motion, please?\n\nSpeaker 3: So I move that we reject Article L second and not go forward with it.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. Shayna?\n\nSpeaker 8: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel? Yes. I'm a yes too. Okay. So we will, uh, uh, postpone this and, uh, for further research and discussion. Okay. Um, that takes care of this. So now we are, or gimme a minute here. Okay. So now we're, we finished, um, item number four, we got open form. If anybody wishes to speak in open form, please raise your hand on, uh,\n\nSpeaker 4: Ken, I'm, I'm sorry to interrupt before, before we go, do we need to, um, vote to submit the articles as approved tonight to the Town warrant, to the 2026 Spring Town meeting Town Warrant? Gina, I believe we've, we've used that specific language in the, in the past.","timeStart":3998.135,"timeEnd":4144.065,"chunkIndex":33},{"id":"5767e99f-db2c-4157-8abb-21b553123070","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. I, I thought we, we had, we, we had done that and we were just doing it individually, but we can do it.\n\nSpeaker 4: I, I don't think that we were, we were specific about that when we made the initial motion to, to move it forward. And I think for the record, it would Okay. Um, be, be helpful. Sorry for the interruption.\n\nSpeaker 2: No, I appreciate it, and I need the help all need all the help. I can get\n\nSpeaker 4: Team effort.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, so the, do we have a motion to, um, you wanna say this, Rachel ?\n\nSpeaker 4: Sure. I'd like to make a motion to, um, move the, uh, articles as, uh, approved this evening. Uh, forward to the, uh, warrant for, uh, spring 2026, time meeting.\n\nSpeaker 2: Second. Okay. And Shana? Yes. Steve? Yes. Jing? Yes. Rachel?\n\nSpeaker 4: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Okay. And I'm a yes too. Thank you for that. Uh, Rachel. Um, so we'll, we'll move on to open form, and if anybody likes to speak, please, uh, raise your hand on the reactions. Uh, there's a hand raise, uh, portion, and I'll call 'em, call you as, as I see it. And please keep your, uh, your comments for about three minutes. And, um, okay. Anybody? Joanne Collins.","timeStart":4145.335,"timeEnd":4253.535,"chunkIndex":34},{"id":"dfdef186-7aed-4137-af65-8075ecce846c","content":"Speaker 11: Hi, can you hear me? Um, yeah, it's Joanne Lenan. Um, I'm a town meeting member, precinct 21. Um, I just wanted to say that, um, we have bonus floor requirements, uh, in our existing bylaws as amended in October, 2023. Um, and reading them, they state that 60% of the ground floor at street level and 80% of the streetscape must be occupied by commercial establishment to get the commercial bonus. Um, the annotator warrant from that special town meeting reads the same as the finalized language that was voted on, as far as I can tell. Um, I can't find any mention, uh, in either document of gross floor area or ground floor area enclosed by the building walls. Um, our bylaws passed ensures that it's the size of the build. The proposed building gets larger, the size of the commercial space required to get that bonus gets proportionally larger.","timeStart":4256.925,"timeEnd":4316.285,"chunkIndex":35},{"id":"554b2bfc-70ee-4589-ad44-166c2387c614","content":"Speaker 11: Um, and I believe that speaks to the letter and the intent of the law as passed. Um, a square foot minimum, in my view, can't override the 60 foot of GR floor street level that was voted upon in 2023. Um, I feel we should propose a minimum square footage or 60% of ground floor area, whichever is larger. Um, however, 60% of the ground floor area of 1 2 6 Broadway is 2040 square feet. And of 2 5 9 Broadway is 1759 square feet. And those lots are very small. So to me, the 1700, I agree with Rachel, uh, Berry, um, very wholeheartedly that in order to achieve what the bonuses are meant to achieve, um, that we should think about that figure carefully. Um, and I do believe that was the intent that there, that this is a very high bar and bonuses should, it's not something we need to award on every lot, particularly smaller lots where the businesses wouldn't make sense. So I just, I just feel strongly that we need to calculate 60% of the actual ground floor at street level, um, as written into the bylaw, uh, currently, and consider what we might need to do to get businesses of the type that we consistently hear people saying we need in this town, which are not small storefronts, but more substantially sized ones that are more viable. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 6: Thank you Aaron.\n\nSpeaker 12: Uh, Aaron Holman. Can you hear me?","timeStart":4317.465,"timeEnd":4419.445,"chunkIndex":36},{"id":"cc34d301-77d9-419a-9a72-4c193b7cc651","content":"Speaker 12: Aaron Holman. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello. Okay. Um, I am basically in agreement, uh, with the last commenter. Uh, I think that should be a fairly high bar in order to give an entire floor. I think there should be a minimum floor area like you described. Uh, I am concerned that either fir uh, ground floor parking below apartments will lower that to an unreasonable amount. Uh, I would also like not only a minimum for total floor space, but a minimum on the size of the individual shops. If you look in Arlington Center, you will see that at any given time, there are anywhere from a half a dozen to a dozen shops, uh, that are vacant. And a lot of them are what I will call shoebox shops. They're very narrow and they're long, they're minimal space. Uh, I'm concerned that if you put in some very small spaces, the businesses there will not be viable. Uh, so, and I don't want people playing games by having them fail by having small spaces. So again, I would like a minimum square footage, the greater of minimum square footage or the 60% ground floor. Uh, I'm not sure how you can allow for parking if that, uh, ground parking, if that shrinks the first floor. But I would like a minimum size and also minimum size on individual shops. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Seeing, uh, no more, uh, hands up. I will close open forum and we'll go to new business. Um, Claire, is there any new, oh, Jean,\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, you can let Claire go first. I'll go","timeStart":4424.725,"timeEnd":4565.685,"chunkIndex":37},{"id":"9a158744-b002-4ae4-bfd8-5b868b2c00b4","content":"Speaker 5: . I do have a, an item of new business last month, the end of December, I believe it was December 22nd. We refe, we received our final, um, ag approval, um, for our, um, our, uh, the zoning amendments that were made at previous, uh, town meeting last spring. The new zoning bylaw is, um, up to date now, and it is ready, uh, to be downloaded, uh, by folks who are, are interested or, and if you've printed out then, now is the time, um, all changes have been made and the zoning bylaw has been updated to reflect, um, the ags response to, uh, zoning warrant articles from last spring.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you, Claire. Anything else? Claire?\n\nSpeaker 5: Nothing at this time. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: All right. Uh, Jean,\n\nSpeaker 3: So I thought this was going to be my last meeting on the board because my term is over, except that the rule says that until there's a replacement, I can stay on the board. So unless you all think it's a really bad idea, I'd like to, um, attend as a member on the meeting of February 2nd and ninth, because Claire told me that the earliest, um, we could have a replacement would be for the last meeting in February, but I'm not staying beyond the ninth. So I will give my official goodbyes on February 9th.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you, Jean for your heart service. Uh, Steve?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes. Uh, two brief things. One is, uh, I was wondering, Claire, if staff has heard anything about 70, any rumblings about 78 Bow Street?","timeStart":4566.205,"timeEnd":4671.225,"chunkIndex":38},{"id":"1ca07c28-91ed-432f-8cf6-7d72338368e9","content":"Speaker 5: Um, I have not. Um, but that doesn't mean others on the staff has. If we, if we, um, uh, if, if, uh, if we have any information on that, uh, Steve, I'm happy to share it out with you, but I have not. So\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, my, my reason for asking 78 Bow Street is, uh, a parcel with industrial zoning of about 19,000 square feet. Uh, Taylor Rental currently occupies the site. Uh, the property just changed hands for 1,000,005. And so I was wondering if someone had, uh, started a conversation, but, uh, I guess not. Uh, second brief item of new business is I, I've talked about Cambridge's Mass, a planning study, uh, in new business a couple of times. Uh, their city council adopted it towards the end of December. Um, and I just, you know, in, there's some, there are some, um, there are some cool things in here. And I think what Cambridge has been trying to do in terms of revitalizing Mass Ave between Harvard Square and um, through the Elway Brook Parkway is not too different from what we've been talking about as far as revitalizing corridors. Sure. It's Cambridge, it's a diff, it's gonna be a different scale, but I, I think there's a, some, a number of good ideas, um, you know, worth considering. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Anybody else? Um, okay. Is there a motion to, I'll,\n\nSpeaker 4: I'll just say, I know that Jean, Jean had asked us all the question, I'm really appreciative of his willingness to, um, to, to serve for another two, two meetings. So thank you Jean, and it'll be nice to see you in person and not say goodbye and thank you remotely.","timeStart":4673.045,"timeEnd":4781.995,"chunkIndex":39},{"id":"1312e286-836c-4329-85ae-83d5a2e2e9de","content":"Speaker 3: Yep. Thank you, Rachel.\n\nSpeaker 2: We can always go, uh, next door to for our drink. And your last day too. It, it seems to be a customary, um, a motion to adjourn.\n\nSpeaker 7: So moved. So\n\nSpeaker 4: I'll second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Alright. Shena? Yes. Jean?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Steve? Yes. Rachel? Yes. I am a yes too. So Meeting's adjourned.","timeStart":4782.615,"timeEnd":4811.645,"chunkIndex":40}]}}}