►
From YouTube: Committee on Government Operations on September 8, 2020
Description
Government Operations Working Session - Docket #0296 - Petition for a special law re: An Act Relative to the Boston Landmarks Commission
A
Of
our
colleagues
who
couldn't
be
here
I'll
announce
then
afterwards
who's
here
in
terms
of
the
city,
councillors
and
administration,
as
well
as
other
participants
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
the
lead
sponsor
to
walk
us
through
kind
of
the
changes
in
the
conversation
so
good
afternoon.
Everyone,
I'm
city,
council,
lydia,
edwards,
chair
of
the
committee
on
government
operations.
It
is
wednesday
september
8th-
and
here
we
are
here
today
for
a
virtual
working
session
on
docket
0296
addition
for
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
relative
to
boston
landmarks.
Commission.
A
This
matter
was
sponsored
by
councillor
kenzie
bach
and
council.
Ms
braden
was
referred
to
the
committee
on
february
3rd.
The
committee
held
a
hearing
on
february
8th
in
a
working
session
on
february
18th,
in
accordance
with
the
chat
with
chapter
20,
the
acts
of
2021
modifying
certain
requirements,
the
open
meeting
law
we
are
having
this.
We
are
having
this
working
session
virtually
via
zoom.
This
enables
the
city
council
to
be
able
to
conduct
and
carry
out
its
responsibilities
while
adhering
to
public
accommodations.
A
The
public
may
watch
this
working
session
via
live
stream
at
www.boston.gov
city
dash
council
dash
tv
and
on
xfinity8rcn82
and
verizon.
964
will
also
be
rebroadcasted
at
a
later
date
for
public
testimony.
Written
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
ccc.go
at
boston.gov
and
will
be
made
part
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
counselors.
A
The
committee
discussed
what
resources
with
significance
to
the
city's
neighborhood
should
be
able
to
be
designated
as
landmarks.
The
committee
recognized
that
having
landmarks
with
local
significance
will
provide
equity
and
will
allow
the
city
of
boston
to
preserve
its
local
history,
as
well
as
help
its
thriving
tourism
economy.
A
At
the
february,
8th
working
session,
representatives
of
the
landmarks
commission
participated,
as
well
as
representatives
from
preservation
organizations
and
the
greater
boston
real
estate
board.
The
committee
discussed
the
city
of
philadelphia's
local
landmarking
process.
The
committee
discussed
roles
in
the
landmarks
commission,
the
boston
road
redevelopment
authority
and
the
zba
as
well
as
isd.
The
committee
also
reviewed
suggested
transition
language
changes
in
order
to
provide
protections
for
certain
projects.
A
A
We
have
lins
millage,
chair
of
the
boston
landmarks,
commission,
roseanne,
foley,
executive,
director
of
the
boston
land,
arts,
commission
and
chief
mariama
white
hammond
non
our
folks
who
are
in
who
will
be
panelists
and
also
participating.
Today
we
have
greg
gaylor
executive
director
of
the
boston
preservation
alliance,
greg
vassell,
chief
executive
officer
of
the
greater
boston,
real
estate
board
and
adam
hundley,
participating
today,
along
with
myself
and
counselor
bach.
A
We
have
myself
and
counselor
bach,
very
well
and
so
just
to
quickly
read
into
into
the
record
letter
dated
september,
8th
dear
chair
edwards.
Unfortunately,
due
to
scheduling
conflict,
I
will
not
be
able
to
attend,
be
in
attendance
at
today's
committee
on
government
operations
working
session
on
docket
0296
petition
for
special
law
regarding
an
act
relative
to
the
boston
landmarks
commission
as
an
original
co-sponsor
of
the
home
repetition
with
council
bloc.
I
fully
support
the
change
in
enabling
legislation
of
the
landmarks
commission.
A
A
B
B
Do
it
in
a
second
so
yeah
just
to-
and
this
is
very
much
I
think
today
it
is
the
our
old
school
working
sessions.
We
used
to
do
these
in
the
curly
room,
so
it's
televised,
but
it's
really
more
of
a
sort
of
brass
tacks,
kind
of
thing,
and
I
really
just
I
want
to
express
appreciation
for
all
the
folks
around
this
call.
B
I
know
we'll
hear
from
them
in
a
minute,
but
you
know
I
think
we
had
some
really
good
sessions
way
back
in
february,
focused
on
the
fact
that
you
know
local
landmarking.
It's
something
that
at
this
point,
cities
all
across
the
country
and
also
across
the
river
from
us
and
cambridge
are
able
to
do
and
it's
a
standard
that
it
makes
sense
to
move
towards
for
boston
in
terms
of
preserving
our
our
significant
history
for
the
city
and
and
really
a
more
equitable,
wider
lens
on
that
history.
B
You
know
it
was
incumbent
upon
us
to
think
about
what's
the
transition
mechanisms
that
that
help
protect
those
interests
as
well,
so
that
everybody
kind
of
feels
fairly
treated
by
this
update,
and
so
I'm
gonna
pull
up
so
my
office.
We
had
conversations
with
lots
of
folks
on
this
call
and,
let's
see
if
I
can
share
a
screen,
we.
B
Sure
and
so
I've
kind
of
tried
to
pull
together
a
memorandum
about
sort
of
where
we
landed.
So,
as
I
said,
purpose
of
this
really
is
to
to
give
boston
landmarks
commission
the
right
to
landmark
sites
of
local
significance,
because
currently
the
phrasing
of
the
of
the
landmarks
commission
statute
at
the
state
has
been
interpreted
to
mean
that
it
has
to
be
of
common
wealth
or
national
significance,
but
not
of
city
level.
Significance,
and
this
change
requires
only
the
simple
replacement
of
an
and
with
a
comma.
B
And
you
know
I
had
hoped
that
we
could
pass
just
that
change
one
line,
and
I
thought
it
was
very
elegant.
But-
and
I
remember
adam-
you
complimenting
me
on
the
elegance
and
also
saying,
but
it
won't
work
for
us.
So
so
just
you
know
that
was
the
original
idea
was
that
we
could
do
this
with
just
an
and
to
a
comma
to
to
change
the
standard
and
again
local
significance,
landmarking
it.
B
B
At
this
point-
and
you
know,
I've
been
working
a
lot
with
chief
white
hammond
around
the
fact
that
we
we
really
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
able
to
preserve
neighborhood
sites
and
the
cultural
history
of
our
communities
of
color-
and
you
know
it
would
be
good
if
state
and
national
historical
narratives
were
themselves
more
diverse
and
we
all
have
to
work
on
that.
But
we
can't
in
the
meantime,
let
that
be
a
barrier
to
preserving
that
broader
history.
B
And
then
the
last
point
that
that
roseanne
foley,
really
you
know
raised
for
us-
and
I
just
want
to
underscore
for
folks-
is
that
there
is
a
mechanism
of
architectural
conservation
districts
that
has
been
used
to
protect
single
buildings
of
significance
in
the
city.
So
there
is
a
mechanism
for
doing
this,
but
it's
bureaucratically
onerous.
I
think
it's.
It's
really
not
preferable
for
all
concerned,
both
on
the
preservation
side
and
the
property
owner's
side,
and
so
you
know
looking
for
a
more
straightforward
way
to
achieve
that.
B
It
seems
like
it's
in
the
public
interest
year.
I
wanted
to
register
that
when
we
met
in
february,
one
of
the
things
that
was
raised
by
counselors
was
the
question
of
resources
in
the
sense
that
our
landmarks
commission,
you
know
whether
it
has
the
adequate
resources
to
do
what
it
does
today
and
in
a
sense
that
that
is
not
true
and
therefore
you
know,
like
it's
a
little
tricky
to
figure
out
how
we're
gonna
expand
its
remit.
B
I'm
proud
to
say
that
the
council
has
since
then
supported
significant
increases
in
the
blc
budget,
including
for
staff,
raises
new
staff
and
some
dedicated
funds
to
tackle
the
study
report,
backlog
and
more
on
that
and
more
on
that
in
a
moment.
But
I
think
recognizing
that
those
two
things
go
in
tandems
have
been
an
important
part
of
our
conversation
and
then
the
key
remaining
issue
and
again
sort
of
where
we
last
left
off
in
february
is
that
you
know
our
real
estate
community.
B
There
were
kind
of
two
potential
types
of
reasons
why
maybe
something
should
be
exempted?
One
was
that
if
somebody
had
previously
tried
to
landmark
them
under
the
current
statute,
maybe
those
ones
issued
the
new
thing
shouldn't
apply
to
and
the
other
one
was
that
development
approvals
had
already
been
granted.
So
those
were
two
of
the
suggestions
from
the
greater
boston,
real
estate
board,
the
boston
preservation
alliance
and
others.
You
know
pointed
out
that
those
the
breadth
of
those
exemptions
had
had
a
few
challenges.
B
For
us
I
mean
one
was
that
approvals
are
often
held
for
an
extremely
long
time,
without
action
and
and
that
you
know
on
the
on
the
someone
tried
once
upon
a
time
side.
You
know
we
might
have
a
community
site
where
somebody
tried
once
upon
a
time,
because
it
really
is
a
site
of
real
local
significance
and
the
and
the
blc
wasn't
able
to
go
forward.
But
now
people
want
to
protect
that
it
might
not
even
be
under
consideration
for
development,
and
we
don't
want
to
kind
of
cut
off
that
possibility.
B
So
I
made
a
little
table
because
I
was
trying
to
sort
of
understand
where
we
were
that.
Has
these
two
categories
so
sort
of
you
know
the
question
of.
Has
the
landmark
commission
taken
some
action
on
this
site?
Previously?
Yes,
you
know,
no,
it
hasn't
yet
it.
You
know
it
rejected
the
petition
at
its
preliminary
hearing,
where
it
doesn't
go
forward
with
a
study
report
or
there
was
actually
a
negative
vote
after
the
second
study
report
hearing
so
those
sort
of
as
potential
categories.
B
But
the
basic
question
of
you
know
has
it:
has
it
gone
through
this
approval
process,
and
I
think
that
where
we
were
initially
was
kind
of,
like
you
know,
on
the
preservation
alliance
side,
looking
to
have
only
the
things
that
have
been,
you
know
negatively
rejected
and
had
all
their
approvals
be
exempt
from
the
new
standard
and
on
the
greater
boston,
real
estate
board.
Side.
B
Trying
to
to
you
know,
suggest
that
maybe
it
should
just
be
the
things
that
have
never
been
touched
by
the
blc
or
an
approval
process,
and
so
I
think
that's
I'm
character,
cheering
slightly,
but
just
to
kind
of
lay
out
for
folks,
where
I
think
we
started.
So
what
I'm?
What
I'm
proposing
as
a
way
forward
here
is
kind
of
a
compromise
that
has
three
components
in
this
section
of
memo.
So
the
first
is
to
have
this
change.
B
Take
effect
on
the
next
july,
1st,
following
passage
of
the
state
house,
because
I
think
that
it
gives
it
gives
our
property
owning
community
advance
notice
that
it's
coming,
and
I
also
think
that
you
know
vis-a-vis
counselors
concerns
about.
Do.
We
have
appropriate
staffing
and
funding
when
this
goes
into
effect
july.
1St
is,
as
everybody
knows,
the
start
of
our
fiscal
year,
so
it
kind
of
lines
those
things
up.
B
That
will
never
be
touched
by
this
because
I
don't
think
that's
a
reasonable
thing
for
blc
to
have
to
keep
track
of,
but
we
are
sort
of
at
that
snapshot
in
time.
Thinking
about
the
projects
that
most
need,
that
predictability
and
and
protecting
them
from
the
change
I
did
put
in
here
as
a
note
just
for
folks,
because
it
came
up
a
few
times
in
conversation
to
know
that
building
permits
expire
after
six
months
if
work
is
not
started
and
then
variances
after
two
years.
B
Okay,
if
you
got
a
pda
on
july,
1st
you're
exempted
from
the
consideration
for
two
years,
because
that's
the
same
length
as
the
variance
standard
right
and
then
so.
It's
basically
just
making
it
parallel
to
variances
and
then,
after
that
point,
a
portion
of
your
property
where
you
end
up
with
an
approved
building,
permit,
is
exempted
while
that's
unexpired
right,
so
it
sort
of
is
allowing
the
same
cascade
of
movement
forward
on
an
active
project.
That's
contemplated
in
point
two,
so
schematically.
B
The
way
of
thinking
about
that
is.
This
is
sort
of
you
know
it's
a
repeat
of
the
of
the
chart
we
had
up
above,
but
this
time
really
what
we're
doing
is
focusing
on
the
question
of
of
unexpired
approvals
and
making
you
know
making
the
ones
that
are
eligible
eligible,
but
after
that
july,
first
act,
action,
the
enactment
date
and
then
the
ones
that
are
exempt
exempt
while
approvals
remain
unexpired.
B
So
that's
really
you
know
it's
my
my
effort
at
balancing
the
various
things
that
I've
heard
from
the
parties
on
this
front.
I
really
like
you
know.
I
want
us
to
get
to
something
that
everybody
can
support
up
at
the
state
house
and
kind
of
really
successfully
balance
this
goal
of
preserving
our
local
history,
with
the
desire
to
provide
predictable
expectations
to
our
real
estate
community.
So
that's
the
proposal
I'm
looking
forward
to
discussing
today.
B
I
know
that
it's,
you
know
not
perfect
from
anybody's
perspective,
it's
the
fun
of
being
a
counselor,
no
one's
ever
totally
happy,
but
but
that's
kind
of
where
we've
landed
and
yeah
I'd
love,
counselor
edwards.
At
this
point,
to
kind
of
let
a
folks
weigh
in
with
comments,
and
then
I
circulated
I'll
just
say.
Well,
I
have
the
floor
that
I
circulated
at
just
before
this
a
kind
of
draft
language
like
what
this
would
look
like
written
up.
B
B
This
summary
that
I
just
discussed
one
two
three,
but
I
think
that
when
we
were
discussing
it
before
in
the
last
working
session,
one
of
the
barriers
to
sort
of
a
clarity
of
discussion
was
that
when
you
put
these
things
down
in
black
and
white,
the
language
it
just
becomes
very
legal
easy
and
it's
a
little
easy,
sometimes
to
lose
track
of
what
our
categories
are.
And
what
we're
talking
about.
B
A
D
The
council
of
hey
council
edwards,
I
apologize
for
being
late,
I'm
gonna
I'll
go
yeah.
Please
go
right
to
the
piano
to
the
experts
and
I'm
I'm
I
want
to
listen.
I
want
to
learn
more
about
more
about
it
and
work
with
my
colleagues
to
come
up
with
a
the
right
solution
for
everybody.
So
thank
you,
council,
edwards
and
thank
you
council
block
as
well.
A
E
E
A
landmark,
that's
important
to
boston
should
be
landmarkable.
It's
never
made
sense
to
me
that
the
bar
had
to
be
higher
than
that
and
has
been
brought
up
many
times
before,
there's
a
real
lack
of
equity
there
and
that
the
way
the
system
operates
now
heavily
favors
the
better
resourced
neighborhoods.
E
E
F
F
We
are
getting
more
and
more
requests
for
architectural
conservation
districts,
single
property,
because
this
is
the
only
way
folks
can
try
to
preserve
their
local
history
and
the
process
of
getting
the
steering
committees
in
place
to
move
forward
on
these
and
kind
of
setting
up
the
process
is
a
lot
more
work
than
simply
funding
a
study
report,
as
with
everything
else.
So
with
that,
I'm
here
to
answer
questions
and
basically
help
the
conversation
move
forward,
because
this
needs
to
happen
thanks.
G
No,
I
just
want
to
apply
this
effort,
I
think,
as
as
rosanna's
mentioned,
you
know.
I
know
we've
had
conversations
before
about
the
backlash
we
have
at
landmarks
and
that
will
only
continue
to
grow,
because
single
building
architectural
districts
do
not
take
significantly
less
time
than
full
architectural
districts,
and
so
it
means
that
we
end
up
having
a
process.
That's
really
a
significant
burden
for
a
single
building.
G
That
process
was
set
up
for
an
area
that
has
multiple
buildings
and
to
create
harmony
between
them
and
to
create.
You
know,
opportunities
for
the
folks
to
work
together
going
through
those
steps,
as
if
there
are
multiple
buildings.
When
there
really
isn't
is
a
challenge,
and
I-
and
I
think
you
know
I'm
excited
to
see
this
move
forward.
I
know
that
it
is
just
the
first
step
and
then
we'll
have
the
work
that
we
need
to
do
with
the
state,
and
I
look
forward
to
supporting
and
figuring
out
how
we
we
do
that.
G
If,
because
the
barn
is
connected
to
a
space
that
has
already
been
in
the
national
historic
register,
it
was
relatively
easy
to
pull
the
whole
site
together,
but
it
is
worth
noting
that
there
is
a
site
here
that
we
hope
significant,
more
research
will
be
done
to
illuminate
its
role
and
its
its.
You
know:
probable
dwelling
place
of
enslaved
peoples
in
that
neighborhood
and,
had
it
been
on
its
own,
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
protect
and
landmark
that
building.
G
So
there's
a
lot
more
work
that
we
need
to
do,
but
it
it
does
start
with
being
able
to
protect
those
spaces
and
and
move
them
forward,
and
I
want
to
add
to
that
is
that
we
have
many
spaces
that
are
of
deep,
significant
history
to
a
local
community,
but
it
could
take
years
before
they're
considered
sort
of
of
national
significance,
just
kind
of
the
way
that
things
go,
but
they
are
of
deep
significance
to
us.
Now.
G
I
think
about
someone
like
doris
bunty,
who
passed
away
recently
and
in
the
newspaper
they
finally
were
sort
of
sharing
the
fullness
of
her
story,
and
I
knew
doris
monty
and
had
not
known
the
fullness
of
that.
And
so
again
we
have
a
real
opportunity
to
be
at
the
forefront-
and
I,
I
think,
counselor
black
for
her
leadership
and
stewarding
this.
G
This
is
not
the
sexiest
of
topics
ever,
but
it
really
will
provide
us
with
an
essential
tool
that
that
will
allow
the
landmarks
department
to
work
a
little
bit
more
efficiently
and
allow
us
to
honor
the
wide
range
of
history
in
our
city
and
also
thank
you
to
councillor
edwards
for
leading
the
session
and
and
and
councillor
breden
and
her
absence
for
her
attention.
Also
to
this
matter.
So
thank
you.
H
Hi
good
afternoon,
everyone-
and
I
as
well
want
to
thank
councilman
bach
and
braden
for
bringing
us
forward
and
council
edwards
for
chairing
the
committee.
This
is
an
important
issue.
I've
been
involved
in
the
preservation
world
for
over
30
years.
I've
been
in
my
role
at
the
alliance
for
nine,
and
you
know
in
that
nine
years
I've
always
been
puzzled
and
scratched
my
head
about
this
language
and
when
I
did
reach
out
to
colleagues
around
the
country
and
asked
how
their
landmarking
it's
called
a
little
bit
different
in
different
places.
H
Some
call
landmarking
other
things,
but
when
I
asked
and
said,
oh
are
you
allowed
to?
You
know
protect
through
a
landmarking
type
process,
buildings
of
local
significance.
I
got
the
answer.
Of
course,
why
wouldn't
you
be
able
to,
and
when
I
said
in
boston,
you
couldn't
everyone
basically
said:
that's
nuts,
so
I'm
glad
we're.
Finally
addressing
this
issue
it.
H
I
also
you
know
want
to
be
clear
that
this
you
know
this
isn't
a
goal
to
landmark
the
entire
city
or
an
attempt
to
stop
existing
projects
in
their
tracks.
The
preservation
alliance
works
with
many
developers
and
architects
in
forwarding
project,
and-
and
you
know
we
always
say
the
work
we
do
is
about
smartly
evolving
the
city,
and
I
think
this
change
will
allow
us
to
more
smartly,
protect
and
think
about
how
we
evolve
the
city.
H
So
I
thank
you
for
working
to
try
to
make
this
happen
now.
That
being
said,
we
understand.
Predictability
is
important
not
just
for
the
real
estate
community
in
the
development
community,
but
for
residents
and
neighbors
and
the
landmarks
commission.
So
I
think
you
know
the
idea
of
working
in
this
language
and
in
the
suggestions
counselor
box
make
makes
are
good
ones.
I
think
this
is
a
compromise
we
can
live
with.
H
There
were
a
couple
questions
I
just
wanted
to
ask
or
raise,
and
you
know
the
building
permits
or
zba
variances
approved
is
one
that
just
made
me
pause
when
I
was
looking
at
the
proposal.
You
know
why
it's
not
an-
and
you
know
why
this
you
know
can't
be
limited
to
projects
that
are
basically
ready
to
hit
the
ground,
but
we
know
that
it
takes
a
long
time
in
boston
that
it's
a
long
runway
from
conception
to
development,
to
raising
the
funds
to
approve
projects.
So
we
understand
that
reality.
H
Let
you
know
the
folks
on
the
real
estate
side
speak,
but
I
think
you
know
some
of
these
challenges
relate
to
the
larger
need
to
review
the
approval
process
in
boston
and-
and
this
is
not
going
to
solve
that
problem-
that's
not
our
goal
here,
but
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
all
know
projects
somehow
through
the
magic
of
extensions
that
I
don't
fully
understand.
While
counselor
bach
you
didn't
list
those
timelines
of
you
know
two
years
six
months,
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
they
were.
H
If
a
project
that's
sort
of
in
the
process
doesn't
go
forward,
if
a
project's
you
know
has
its
permitting
and
and
moves
forward
in
a
reasonable
matter.
That's
fine
but
I'd
hate
to
see
us
and
I
don't
think
it'd
be
fair.
The
landmarks
commission
that
you
know
ten
years
down
the
road
there's
a
project
that
appears
that
somehow
managed
to
get
extensions
in
in
is
clearly
of
local
significance.
H
We
will
have
residents
in
an
uproar
if
that
were
the
case,
so
I
think,
as
we
look
at
the
proposed
specific
language
council
block,
that
you
said
we
sent
we
just
kind
of
keep
that
in
mind,
but
but
overall,
I
think
this
is
a
great
compromise
that
we
can
live
with.
You
know
we
need
to
look
at
the
details
of
the
language
and
make
sure
we're
not
doing
anything
inadvertently.
Thank
you.
C
C
We
were
encouraged
by
consular
box
memo
because
I
think
it
really
was
a
reflection
of
how
she
listened
and
how
you
know
she
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
into
trying
to
solve
the
issues
that
we
raised
back
in
february,
and
so
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
the
point
anymore.
I
would
actually
like
to
see
my
time
over
to
my
colleague,
adam
hundley,
who's,
an
attorney
at
goldstone
stores,
who
practices
in
this
area
that
may
have
a
lot
more
thoughtful
insight
into
some
of
those
changes
than
I
would.
I
Sure
hi
everybody
thanks
greg.
So,
as
greg
mentioned,
I'm
adam
hundley,
I'm
a
partner
at
gulstan
in
stores
downtown
thanks
for
letting
me
speak.
I'm
very
aware
you
don't
have
to
give
this
much
time
and
this
role
to
a
random
lawyer
in
the
boston
real
estate
community.
So
I
very
much
appreciate
this.
I
think
I
mentioned
the
first
time.
We
spoke
I'm
very
conflicted
about
this,
since
I
am
preservationist
at
heart.
In
fact,
I've
had
a
good
pleasure
working
with
most
people
in
this
meeting.
I
Counselor,
I
loved
the
simplicity
of
the
original
proposal.
I
don't
know
if
I've
ever
seen
anything
quite
so
elegant
as
you
know,
changing
one
word
what
I
chose
to
do
when
we
first
talked
about
this
is
not
not
question
the
proposal
or
oppose
the
proposal,
because
I
don't
oppose
it
and
I
think,
although
some
developers
would
love
for
nothing
to
change,
I
think
by
and
large
we
we
do
understand.
I
So
what
I
I
did
was
was
generally
support
the
approach
and
just
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
in
some
transition
language
that
didn't
change
the
playing
field
to
developers
who
have
obtained
permits
and
approvals
or
purchased
a
site
based
on
an
expectation
of
what
was
to
come
or
spent
a
lot
of
money
or
work
with
lenders
to
achieve
a
project
that
might
change
that
might
become
more
risky.
That
might
become
more
uncertain
if
this
legislation
passed
without
those
kind
of
protections.
I
So
what
that's
a
long-winded
background
just
getting
to
the
punch
line
here?
I
I
like
this
memo
too,
when
I
liked
the
the
simplicity
of
your
words.
I
I
I
when
you
said
I
like
this
proposal.
I
guess
lawyers
have
to
be
a
little
bit
more
long-winded,
but
I
do
too.
I
think
it
is
a
very
thoughtful,
very
well
reasoned,
a
very
promising
approach
at
the
risk
of
getting
a
little
too
dramatic.
I
I
actually
think
it
really
reflects
on
a
really
good
collaboration
among
government,
the
private
sector,
and
I
guess
I'm
the
private
sector
here
and
the
preservation
community
councilor
bach.
As
you
said,
I
don't
think
anybody
gets
exactly
what
they
wanted.
I'm
sure
the
preservation
community
would
like
the
word
eligible
more
often
in
the
in
the
bottom
chart
of
your
memo.
I
I
might
like
the
word
exempt
more
often,
but
we
each
got
something
out
of
this
and
I
think
it's
something
that
that
we
can
get
comfortable
with
it
would
reflect
my
understanding
of
the
development
and
real
estate
communities,
most
important
issues
and
concerns
here.
As
we
all
know,
the
devil's
in
the
details
we'd
certainly
like
to
look
at
the
language
too.
You
know
we
kicked
around
whether
there
might
be
other
words
that
should
be
added
about
institutional
master
plans.
Conditional
use
permits
some
of
the
other
kinds
of
relief
that
the
projects
can
get.
I
I'm
not
sure
that's
critical,
I
I
do
think
counselor
bach
you
hit
at
the
most
important
permits
and
approvals
and
circumstances
that
the
development
community
is
is
focused
on.
So
I'd
like
to
think
that
that
we
could
support
this
memo,
you
know
without
significant
additions
or
changes
work
with
everybody
on
the
exact
wording
and
hope
that
we
come
up
with
something
that
that
everybody's
comfortable
with
greg
a
couple
points.
In
response
to
your
comments,
I'm
sure
you
can
imagine
where
I
would
come
out
on
this.
I
I
I
I
guess
what
I'd
point
out
and
counselor
rock
you
you
got
at
this
point
too.
There
are
hard
and
fast
rules
for
when
variances
expire
and
building
permits
expire.
In
my
mind,
there's
nothing
automatic
about
extensions.
They
are
purely
discretionary
from
isd
and
the
board
of
appeal
they're,
very
risky.
We
don't
like
to
do
them.
I
We
don't
like,
as
as
developers,
trying
to
keep
permits
alive
and
asking
for
extensions,
because
we
don't
know
for
certain
that
we're
going
to
get
them,
and
I
guarantee
you
that
lenders
don't
like
that,
but
sometimes
it
just
happens
to
be
a
necessity
for
circumstances
beyond
developers
control,
I
think,
frankly,
we've
all
seen
there
have
been
a
lot
of
extension
requests
over
the
last
year
or
two
because
of
covid
and
I've
appreciated
the
board
has
been
generally
accommodating.
You
know,
circumstances
do
come
up,
so
I
would
appreciate
it
if
that
language
could
stay
in
here.
I
A
Thank
you.
I
think
that
was
unless
we
have
some
public
testimony.
I
don't
think
we
do.
I
think
that
was
everybody
who
had
signed
up
councillor
flynn
text
me
and
let
me
know
he
couldn't
stay
on
for
the
rest
of
the
conversation,
but
he
was.
He
was
also
encouraged
by
the
memo
and
the
language
as
the
balance
that
it
seems
struck.
G
B
Do
go
ahead
yeah,
so
I
mean
I
again
here
we
go.
I
think
this
is
so
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
I
I
tried
just
this
is
the
original
language
of
our?
This
is
our
filing
mine
and
counselor
bradens,
and
then
this
is
the
language
and
for
anybody
watching
at
home.
This
is
the
and
that
we
replaced
with
a
comma
in
the
original
here
and
then
and
then
what
I
tried
doing
was
literally
just
sort
of
writing
into
a
legalish
language
in
red.
B
B
You
know
conceptual
compromise
that
everybody
kind
of
go
and
review
review.
That
and
sort
of
you
know
send
edits
and
comments
back
to
the
committee
so
that
we
nailed
down
something
that
everybody's
comfortable
with,
but
I
don't
wanna,
I
don't
wanna
force
people
to
do
that
legal
reading
on
the
spot,
but
I
I
do
think
that-
and
I
I
take
I
I
heard
the
you
know
I
heard
greg
gaylord's
point
about.
B
Let's
just
make
sure
we
don't
create,
like
a
sudden
rush
like
a
sort
of
artificial
kind
of
like
lightweight
loophole,
that
causes
a
bunch
of
people
who
don't
actually
have
a
project
to
kind
of
go
for
variances
or
whatever.
So
just
thinking
about
that
and-
and
I
heard
adam's
point
I
mean-
I
think
adam
like
you
know-
obviously
obviously
greg
gayler
brought
up
the
idea
of
like.
Could
we
have
that
be
an
and
and
get
rid
of
the
variances?
B
And
then-
and
I
know
yeah
we
had
originally
had
you'd
suggested
adam
those
conditional
uses
and
the
imps
and
stuff.
I
think
the
way
I
was
thinking
about
it
was
we
really
do
want
to
outsource
the
expiration
decision
to
kind
of
competent
bodies
right
and
so
that
the
the
like
you've
got.
The
zoning
board
of
appeals
and
you've
got
isd,
making
decisions
on
expiration
through
a
regular
process
now
and
the
thing
about
most
types
of
zoning.
B
Most
of
those
other
things,
as
you
know,
is
they
don't
have
the
same
kind
of
clear-cut
expiration
structure,
and
so
it
felt
like
we
had
to
put
something
in
on
pdas
and
that's
why
that
two-year
thing?
Because,
because
when
you
get
a
pda,
you
don't
get
a
variance
right
but
like,
but
I
think
that
that
felt
that
it
feels
that
feels
to
me
like
a
good
middle
place
to
land.
B
But
I'm
happy
to
have
everybody
kind
of
like
take
it
home
and
kick
the
tires
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
not
missing
something
or,
if
there's
a
more
elegant
way
of
drafting
some
of
it.
As
you
could
see
from
that
sort
of
red
block
of
text,
there's
a
reason
that
I
thought
it
would
be
clearer
to
discuss
in
memo
form
than
in
kind
of
legal
sentence
form,
but
but
I
still
think
we
should
all
do
that.
So
that
would
be
my
suggestion.
A
B
I
think
that
I
think
my
instinct
would
be
that
I
mean
obviously
this
language,
I
think
christine's
gotten.
It's
part
of
the
record
for
this
working
session,
and
if
and
if
you
want,
I
can
I'll
I'll,
throw
it
for
one
more
second
and
just
show
people.
So
so
basically,
this
first
sentence.
You
know
it
says,
however,
the
substitution
of
language
enacted
by
section
one.
B
A
We
bring
it
before
with
the
committee
report,
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
explain
that
there
is
no
sunlight
before
when
we
present
it
to
you
know
our
colleagues
for
a
boat
and
what
concerns
of
you
know
the
rush
to
get
things
done
or
to
move
faster
has
been
considered,
and
we
believe
this
language
doesn't
cause
that
or
we
get
to
language
that
doesn't
cause
that.
So
I'm
happy
to
take
this
time.
A
But
I
think
what
I've
heard
from
all
sides-
administration,
non-administration,
developer,
thought
preservation
aside-
is
that
the
goals
are
are
clear
and
they
are
fair
and
they
are
things
that
we
we
want
and
can
they
can
pass
the
state
house
and
thank
you,
council
bot,
for
your
leadership
and
clarity
clarifying
moment
and
also
just
making
sure
that
you
did
all
this
background
work.
We
really
appreciate
that.