 Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Board of Selectment Meeting for Monday, September 26th. Our first item on the agenda is for approval amendment to Arlington Center parking proposal. We have our assistant director of planning and community development here with us, Ms. Wiener. Mr. Feeney, anything you want to say or should Ms. Wiener? Thank you. Laura Wiener, assistant director of planning. I'm here on behalf of the Parking Implementation and Governance Committee. About two years ago, the Board approved the Arlington Center parking management study, which included a number of recommendations among which was the installation of single-space parking meters on Mass Ave, a little bit of Broadway, in the library parking lot, and on Medford Street. Other things that were approved that have already occurred are the replacement of the multi-space meters in the parking lots. We made some changes in the permit parking to make them a little bit more flexible, and we've changed the taxi stands. With the installation of the single-space meters, we recently walked the street, the length of where the meters are going in with the installer, and noticed that one of the streets in the recommendation from the Arlington Center parking plan was Broadway between Franklin and Webster, although on Mass Ave, the meters stop at Franklin, and that block between Franklin and Webster is largely residential, and we started to rethink whether that was a good idea. And then also at the other end of the planned area, between Academy and Jason and Central and Mill Street, there are no meters planned, and we felt like that was an area that was kind of institutional and commercial, and actually probably was a good place to put meters. So the Parking Implementation and Governance Committee voted to request a view of the selection to amend the study, the parking plan, to include the streets going up to Jason, and to remove the street that Broadway going to Webster, just that last block. Move approval. Move by Mr. Burns. Second. Seconded by Mr. Curell. Any further questions? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, unanimous vote. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have agenda item two, request for a vote to the board to determine the useful life of equipment and proceed with borrowing of lots of money. Mr. Gilligan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board, I appreciate your time. Yes, we are borrowing lots of money. We will be borrowing over $27 million as I tried to detail in my memorandum to the board, as well as the Excel spreadsheet, which details the current capital projects. The borrowing is made up of the special town meeting votes of last January, which was for modular classrooms at the Stratton and Thompson School. We issued bans, bond anticipation notes for a portion of that money in order to begin construction immediately and have money in the bank as it were. We are now borrowing the remainder of the, converting the note to permanent financing and borrowing the remainder of the money in order to complete payment for the projects. We are also permanently financing notes that were issued a year ago from the 2015 annual town meeting of over $9 million, and that included projects such as community safety and peer school improvements. The current project from the annual 2016 town meeting is over $4.8 million for capital projects that have been approved by the town and authorized through appropriation by town meeting. Our expectation is that we will be saving considerable amount of money and borrowing all of this this year, given that we're still at incredibly low rates. The Federal Open Markets Committee has still not made any adjustments to banking regulations, so things are considerably favorable at the moment. And by issuing the bond anticipation notes eight months ago, as well as last year, we also saved considerable amounts of money and borrowing costs. So I'm here this evening to ask for two things. First, to ask the vote of the Board in consideration of determining the useful life of the capital projects, as I detailed in the memo, as well as a vote to proceed with the borrowing, which will most likely occur late to early November. And again, the detailed projects for this year's plans are in your hands. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Can I just ask, do you want two separate votes? Whichever the Board prefers. Thank you, Madam Chair. You can either take one vote with two increments, sort of two pieces, but I think it probably does take two votes just to be on the cautious side. I'll leave that to my colleagues. Mr. Grayley, did you have your hand up? Yeah, when do you think the Fed meets again, Steve? Not quite quarterly, but they talk, quote, unquote, about changing interest rates and regulations about every six months. They were expected to make a change about a month to a month and a half ago, and they declined to do so. So we're good for at least another six months. Now, please keep in mind that when the Federal Open Markets Committee does make change to the banking regulations, and we will see the price of borrowing go up, we will also see the price of interest income go up as well. So the town does benefit when that change does occur because of the way we do our investments in our depositories. Move approval of the first, I guess. Move approval to vote for the use of the useful life of the equipment. Okay, motion by Mr. Grayley, seconded by Mr. Byrne. Any further questions? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, unanimous vote. Is there a vote to approve the borrowing by Mr. Grayley? Seconded by Mr. Currow. Any further questions? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, unanimous vote. I think the board for its time and its vote, although Madam Chairman, if I may, I anticipated a question from Mr. Grayley. Rating, I thought you'd just put it in there and save me a desk. So how much money are we saving, Steve, because of our triple A rating? With this upcoming borrowing of over $27 million on a level debt scenario, it's $5,000 per million per year. But for that particular $4.8 million, sorry, for the $27 million, we will be saving nearly $150,000. Good job. Thank you. Thank you. I thank the board for its time. Okay, this is where I need Charlie Belly-Ocean and his auctioneer skills. We next have Consent Agenda, Minutes of the Meetings, July 18, 2016, August 22, 2016, September 12, 2016. For approval, the Second Annual Choke or Peace Walk Saturday, October 1, 2016. For the Drikung Meditation Center, Reappointment Allentine Cultural Council, Elizabeth Taylor, Reappointments, Allentine Preservation Fund, Amy Slade, Diane Schaefer, Andrew Fisher, John L. Ward, and the Third Reappointment to the Cemetery Commission. Michelle Hasler, Request for a Special One-Day Bear and Wine License October 1, 2016 at the Robbins Memorial Town Hall for a private event. Another similar request for October 1, 2016 at the Robbins-Wittemore House for a private event. Another similar request for a Special One-Day Bear and Wine License October 8, 2016 at the Robbins Memorial Town Hall for a private event. Another request, Special One-Day All-Alcohol License October 8, also at the Robbins-Wittemore House for a private event. A request for a Special One-Day Bear and Wine License October 9, 2016 at the Robbins Memorial Town Hall for a private event. Similar request, October 9, 2016 at Wittemore Robbins House for a private event. A request for a Special One-Day Bear and Wine License October 15, 2016 at Robbins Memorial Town Hall for a private event. another request, contractor drain layer license, GNR construction, 253 Center Street, Quincy Mass. Another request, contractor drain layers license, Catalano Builders, Inc., 31 Arnold Street, need a mass appointments of new election workers, one Betty Stone, 99 Hollow Street, Democrat precinct seven. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda by? Move approval. Mr. Don, seconded by? Mr. Greeley. Mr. Greeley. Madam Chair, we need to remove the September 12th minutes as a separate vote because I wasn't here. How about if I just take, if my colleagues approve, we'll just do each one individually. And then whoever wants to abstain because they weren't here, it includes me. Each of the minutes separately. So we'll do, is that okay? So whoever makes. I move approval, everything but the minutes. Okay, seconded by? Mr. Burn, anyone here to speak to any of those items, any, Mr. Curell? I have one comment. I just want to note that on the second contractor drain layer license, there was a notation there that the references were never received on the contracted drain layer. So if it's amenable, I'd like to request that in approving that one of our conditions be that it's subject to receipt of a reference that says contractor engineering department. Was that 15 or 16? Catalano builders. Okay, could I ask our acting town manager, Mr. Feeney on agenda item 16 under the consent agenda just to follow up with Mrs. Kruppalker about the references that are indicated we haven't received yet. So it'll be subject, approval subject to that. Yeah. Verification. Any further questions? Anyone here from the audience? If not, all those in favor of approval, items four through 17 with the amendment on item 16. Say aye. Aye. Opposed unanimous vote. I move approval of the minutes of July 18th. Moved by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Greeley. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Any abstentions? Unanimous vote. I move approval of the minutes of August 22nd. Is there a second? Second. By Mr. Curell. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? All those abstentions? Abstain. Abstain by Mr. Byrne. I move approval of September 12th, minutes of September 12th. Second. Any questions or discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Abstentions? Abstain. That's a 302 vote with Mr. Greeley and Mrs. Mahan voting to abstain. Madam Chair, it is an auspicious occasion this evening that we have with us our new assistant town manager, also currently director of recreation, formerly with Health Department. Mr. Feeney, welcome and best of luck to you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Greeley. Where is that bum chapter lane? Kansas City. And Sandy is with him, I assume, is that? Right by his side. Thank you, I actually was going to save that for his maiden voyage on the agenda item 19, which he was going to save. So I only saved that because I don't want anyone to think that I wasn't doing that. That's okay, I wasn't doing that. I meant to do it right up front, but I'm sorry. That's okay. I should lead that to the chair, of course. Citizens Open Forum, has anyone signed up for that? Then I will read the preamble first. Citizens Open Forum, except in unusual circumstances, any matter presented for consideration of the board shall neither be acted upon nor decision made the night of the presentation in accordance with the policy under which the Open Forum was established. It should be noted that there is a three minute time limit to present a concern and request. Hi, good evening. If we can just get your name and address the record. Yes, how do you do? My name is Bruceie Moulton. I live at 164 Situate Street. I am a volunteer with Sustainable Arlington, and I am here tonight to represent Sustainable Arlington, Vision 2020 Climate Committee, and also Arlington Chapter of Mothers Out Front. We are working together on the Arlington Gas Leaks tagging campaign because it has come to our attention that gas leaks are an even bigger problem than we thought. Many of us have had to deal with gas leaks in our immediate neighborhood. I know I had one that was dug up repeatedly near the Brackett School a few years ago. I finally contacted you, Mrs. Mahan. Around that, after the old pipes had been repaired repeatedly, they finally said, OK, these pipes are sold. Maybe we better just replace them. Arlington has 177 natural gas leaks. The oldest of which was identified 20 years ago and still hasn't been fixed. There are 20,000 gas leaks statewide. This is a big problem because of health impacts. For example, if you have asthma, impacts on the climate. Natural gas leaking is 95% methane. That's the second most powerful greenhouse gas. And the amount of gas that is leaking in Arlington and statewide every year costs consumers $90 million. We pay for that wasted gas. And I want to say that the gas costs us in terms of tree damage to private and public trees. And in a variety of other ways, having our streets dug up, et cetera. We are holding this Arlington Gas Leaks tagging campaign this weekend. Saturday, October 1st and Sunday, October 2nd. We are having a kickoff event on Town Hall Front Steps. Town Manager Adam Chapnolain has very kindly agreed to be one of our speakers. We will also have Audrey Schulman, President and Co-Founder of HEATMA, which is the organization that has mapped gas leaks in over 200 Massachusetts communities. Their work is why we can hold this campaign. We'll be placing temporary tags and flags at the gas leaks throughout town. And door hangers, a little more information on homes and businesses nearby. Thanks to not only to Adam Chapnolain's support, but also his graciously offering us the services of Adam Kuroski, the town's GIS specialist, we were able to map all of the leaks onto the school district's map for Arlington. And it shows that these leaks are really all over town. And we would like to also invite you to go to the Sustainable Arlington website, SustainableArlington.org, and to MothersOutFront.org for substantial additional information on the gas leaks issue as it affects us locally and beyond. You can also sign up to volunteer. There is a link on Sustainable Arlington's home page to the sign up link. I believe you may have gotten some advance information. I spoke to Mrs. Kruppelche this afternoon. I'm certainly willing to ask and happy to answer any questions that I can. Otherwise, I thank you very much for listening to this concern. Gas infrastructure is certainly a very important part of town resources, and it's something that we need to all be working on together. Thank you. The form, did you say Saturday at Town Hall, what time? Yes, 10 a.m. right out front on the Town Hall steps. Yep. And with a few speakers, it'll be brief and some live music. And then we're going to fan out across town to tag those leaks. It'll be temporary tags. We'll be taking them down in a week or two. Any questions? Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do our best to be there, but I know Mr. Chapter Lane will represent us in the town. Yes. Thanks. Very well. With that, Citizens Open Forum is closed. We now go to, oh, was there someone else here? I'm sorry, for Citizens Open Forum. Anybody else here? No, I don't want to. OK. And we're now going to go to agenda item 18 report from our former colleague who I and others love so daily, Ms. Rowe, on the Community Preservation Act, Article 4 and 5. Hello, colleagues. It's nice to see you. I'm here to talk about the two historic preservation projects that we're going to have in front of Town Meeting at the Special Town Meeting. We're asking for $35,000 for the Jason Russell House and $20,000 for the old Schwab Mill. Excuse me. The reason those did not get included in last Spring's Town Meeting is that historic preservation projects, as Mr. Heim knows, require a lot more paperwork. And we have to have agreements with these two stellar nonprofits, which we're working on. We also have to have a historic preservation restriction, which we're also working on. We also have to have an indication that these are both places that welcome the public. Because this is private, our tax dollars going into a nonprofit place like the old Schwab Mill and Jason Russell House. So all of those items have been checked off. All the agreements are, I'd say, 90% to 99% completed. We've, luckily for Doug, we had a council attorney who specializes in this from Anderson Krieger in Cambridge, a man named Kevin Bott, who has been helping us out. And it's been very helpful. And we had things like the loss of the deed for the Jason Russell House that we had to dig up and minor things like that. More digging. The idea is that we will go to Town Meeting. And if Town Meeting says this is a good idea to spend $55,000 on these projects, then we'll come back to you to ask for you to execute the preservation restrictions and possibly the agreements. So that's why I'm here tonight to ask for your support. Okay, are you asking? For support? Is that actual favorable action? Is it movable or favorable action? Moved by Mr. Greeley, seconded by? Second. On both articles, four and five, Mr. Greeley? Sorry? Okay, yes. Okay, any, can we do it that way? Yes, I just wanted to interject for a moment that ordinarily it wouldn't go into the Selectman's report. So you're taking a vote of support, but this is largely an independent body. It's our bylaw that makes it required to come before you before it can go to Town Meeting. That's why I was wondering if this should be move receipt of the report and then when it comes back. But we can move approval, favorable action. I think you can basically move to support. And it's been said, yeah, that's fine. And then any further questions? Discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Nope, aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Thank you so much. Good to see you. Thank you. We now have, as Mr. Greeley pointed out, our acting town manager. Today our new assistant town manager, who I know we've all already kind of started to sharpen our teeth on and gotten delusional calls and meetings. And we're very excited to have you. Establishment of Wellington Heights, beautification gift account. Mr. Feeney? Thank you, Chair Mahan. Before the board for approval tonight is a request to authorize the creation of a gift or donation account that will directly support the beautification of the Arlington Heights commercial district. As the board may recall, the support Harlington Heights group was here at the last meeting asking for approval for a design of banners. This type of initiative would be supported through an expenditure of this fund. So this will just provide a mechanism to allow for this group to fundraise in particular and it will be administered through the planning department. Is there a motion to move approval to establish the Arlington Heights gift account by Mr. Greeley, seconded by Mr. Dunn? Second. Yeah, I just wanted to welcome Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. I'm really happy to support this one, slam dunk, but welcome. Any further questions, comments? Can you just say your name and address for the record, please? Sorry, my name is Claudine Swartz. That's OK. I'm with the support Arlington Heights group. Thank you so much, Jim, for filling in for Adam. We appreciate your support. And as he stated, this account, we've been working closely with the town to assess opportunities for improvement. We recognize that the town of Arlington often has stretched resources and multiple requests. So we view it as our responsibility as a community to get all hands on deck and use this account as a vehicle to have folks chip in when the town is unable to support things within its normal scope of maintenance. We have already received comments from a group of over 100 Arlington Heights residents in July 28th that they would be interested in contributing to this to the extent that the improvements were outside of the scope of the business of the town. We were happy that Joe was able to participate within that event as well as Mr. Greeley. So thank you so much. Mr. Byrne? Yeah, I do have one question. Thanks for taking the lead on this. It's really great to have this type of neighborhood and even townwide support for the Heights. I do have one question probably for Jim. How is the money going to be spent? Who decides who allocates the funding to what projects? So the expenditures, Mr. Byrne, would be approved by the director of planning and community development. Excellent. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? If not, an motion by Mr. Greeley, seconded by Mr. Dunn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, unanimous vote. Thank you so much. If I could ask one of my colleagues, the proponent of item 20 is asked that it be tabled. Emotion to table 5, Mr. Byrne, seconded by Mr. Greeley. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, unanimous vote. We now have agenda item 21, ADA parking space proposal. Assistant acting town manager, Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Chair Mahan. Before the board tonight for approval is an updated proposal regarding the ADA parking spaces along the town's commercial corridor. Last week, the manager met, actually attended the Disabilities Commission meeting. Collaboratively, they worked to come up with an updated plan that's before you tonight. In agreement, all of the spaces that were requested are now recommended for approval via a sort of three-tiered priority schedule. So of the 27 requested spaces, 12 were granted a priority A status. And it was agreed that they would be implemented before November 1, 2016. There were seven priority B spaces to be implemented by March 1, 2017. And there were eight priority C spaces to be implemented by July 1, 2017. It's important to note here that these dates are the last possible data could happen, but it would be hoped that if possible, things could be expedited. And I'm happy to answer any further questions. Maybe a motion just to get the. I'd like to move approval. I'll second that. Seconded by Mr. Byrne. Is there anyone before we have any more conversation from the board that would like to speak to this manner? So on Mr. Dunn's, any further questions from my colleagues? If not on Mr. Dunn's motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, unanimous vote. My novice keeps going in and out. Sorry, so I'm trying to go pay for back and forth. I know I don't know what I look like what I'm doing, and I probably don't. I apologize. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. All your work and continuing, there'll be a lot more to. Warren article hearings for review, article 6 by law amendment vacant storefront maintenance registry, Mr. Attorney Hine. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So the first article before us is a collaborative effort between the town manager's office, the legal department, and the planning department to develop a means of addressing a concern that was first raised to the town from folks in Arlington Heights, but is a concern that I think is common throughout town, which is the rate of commercial vacancies and the length of commercial vacancies. There's been a lot of exploration as to what the town can legally and feasibly financially do to help address this situation. There are certain limits that I think that the board probably well appreciates. But one of the tools that's become increasingly common in municipalities throughout the Commonwealth and indeed throughout the country has been what's called a vacant property registry. Has different features in different places. Some places the vacant property registry is oriented more towards residential buildings. In a community like Arlington, obviously, that's not a major concern. But a lot of communities with similar features to Arlington, communities as large as San Francisco and Everett Washington have been working more with commercial properties and industrial properties, essentially creating an ordinance that requires owners to register their property with the town if it's going to become vacant for more than a certain period of time and abide by certain, I'll call them code requirements even though we don't have a code, have them abide by certain maintenance requirements. Built into this bylaw are a few features that are maybe a little bit more specific to Arlington and I just received some sort of suggestions from the planning director who unfortunately can't be here tonight that would add one additional feature including waiving any fees associated with registering for vacant property register if you agree to and there is available to display public art near storefront. One of the biggest issues that we've seen is vacant properties in storefronts which they're concerns about how it affects other people's businesses, how it affects property values, whether or not there's, well it's not a huge concern in Arlington, whether or not it invites trespass, vandalism, a lot of things that are a little bit more central to other communities registries than maybe Arlington. So I'd be happy to answer any questions about it. It's a fairly well vetted tool that a lot of communities use and it's been getting used more and more with respect to downtowns in different cities and towns that are trying to keep more businesses on Main Street. Mr. Dunn? So in general, I like the direction that this is going in. I think I was worried at first when I heard the first conversations about this that we were gonna try to go too far in terms of essentially being onerous on the property owner. This strikes me as a pretty smart balance of being light on it, which I really appreciated. I think that one of the biggest things we can do is really track the problem. And I think that one of the things that I've struggled with since I was elected is trying to get a handle on the vacancy problem and being able to quantify how often it happens and how much it happens. And I worked with Ted Fields on that a few different times and I never got to an answer that I was happy with. And this I think really can help solve that problem. So in general, I'm very happy with it. Doug, one question I had was, did we think about restricting it to either commercial buildings or commercial zones or something like that? So the reason it's been extended to commercial industry, I think the easiest thing to excise this would be industrially zoned properties that may be a little over inclusive and what the board would be comfortable with. But the way I envision it was essentially an interest of equity, not having it be defined to very, very specific commercial zones because I think that there would be, I don't think it'd be totally fair but we don't want to create even the suggestion that we're targeting certain business owners over other business owners. I was actually thinking about excluding residents, like excluding R1, something like that. So this would not affect R1? Okay, tell me why. This should affect only commercially zoned. And where does that restriction kick in? Properties. Where does that, like, what element of this? So in the definitions section. Yeah. Properties. Sorry, one more, Mr. Jen. Vacant building. So, yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Jen, if you look under vacant building and see any unoccupied commercial or industrial real property. It was indeed right in front of me. All right, I'll set, thank you. Mr. Greeley, would you like to first second Mr. Dunn's motion for discussion? Thank you. I'd be honored to do so. Thank you. Okay, sorry. But a couple of questions. I have not read this with a fine tooth comb, which surprises you, I know. But first of all, why do we choose October 1st? I chose it based on, to be frank with you, a survey of generally when these fees have kicked in for different communities. I think that one concern might be the sort of ebb and flow of the real estate market, especially sort of following the sort of summer season. And another might be for us having a better idea of how big the registry is gonna be for the sort of prime real estate season going into the winter and spring. So I think that's, the dates are pretty flexible as far as I'm concerned, but I based it largely on, you know, my survey of other registries. The reason I ask is that, you know, so we have the special town meeting and of course it has to go, and it needs to be approved. So we have to wait till next October 1st to implement this. Well, that's a good point. Why not do it April 1st? I'm just picking a date. You know, I think this is great. I think it's awesome. I congratulate you and Adam and others for working on this to try to do something about this. But the problem exists now. I'm just, why wait a year to put teeth into this? I don't, you know. But is it gonna be six months before we get approval of this anyhow? It won't be six months, no, no, Mr. Green. Is it three months? It'll be probably a shorter timeframe because it's a special town meeting season. So I'd say around that timeframe, yeah. Well, why don't we, do we have another meeting before the special? I don't believe so. Don't believe so. For some reason, you do. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Can I just respond to that part of it? For some reason I have it in the back of my head because I've had several conversations as we all have with the town manager on this particular agenda item. Everybody's concerned, especially this is more not to make money and find people. And that's why it has in there. It's overseen by the Board of Selectments. What fee, if any, what it should be. And for some reason, I thought Adam had walked me through and I may be thinking of something else, but I thought that he had walked me through timeline and that's why there was a reason for that particular date. So what I would say is maybe on Mr. Dunn's motion, seconded by Mr. Greerly, but I haven't heard if there's any other questions that we take the initial approval and then before next meeting, if we hear, because I agree with Mr. Greerly if it can kick in in April 15th, but for some reason, the back of my head is tickling me that there was a reason for that date. That's fine with me. I just was asking why that date. That's fine with me. I think that's fine. If there's one other thing that I may add, the Planning Director did have a few administrative changes that are slightly changing the wording of a few of matters, but also wanted to add a subsection that would allow the owner to include advertising materials in the vacant space or displayed in the vacant property street facing windows as approved by the Planning Director. So that was another sort of detail that I don't want to leave out. Well, why don't we postpone? Would it be advisable to postpone this to the next meeting? Unless my colleagues are okay with approving it without seeing that additional language. What do you want to do, Mr. Dunn, it's your motion. And Mr. Greerly, who's second? I'd be inclined to approve going forward and worry about the specific language later, especially because our next meeting is the week of the special. So the alternative is kind of a further. I have a couple more questions. Okay, go ahead Mr. Greerly, sorry. So I'm just kind of, so I'm curious how this works. Only landlords that have vacant storefronts would be assessed this fee or whatever. I know it's not quite a fee, but am I correct? That's correct. So there is a fee associated with it. The fee has not been determined yet. One of the reasons why, I know that ordinarily the board would like to have a fee set in the bylaw, but part of the reasoning is that the fees for this type of thing range really, really widely from like $15 in Amherst to $500 in some communities. So I think it bears a little bit of consideration and a little bit of flexibility to, instead of going back and changing the bylaw itself to have this be vested in the board. But it's not just any vacancy, it's a vacancy over a certain period of time, 21 days. Now there are a lot of commercial vacancies in Arlington that will end up falling under this bylaw. And what it'll basically require them to do is to pay a fee on a certain cycle and essentially follow the ordinances here for how that property is supposed to be maintained. With the dual sort of purposes of getting the town, the information it needs to help the business community and potentially help the sort of private part of Arlington, the private part of the business community here, chew on that data and see what they can do to help decrease vacancies. So, but again, I apologize, I have read through it but not as thoroughly as I'm sure I should have, but it's the responsibility of the town to determine if a storefront is vacant. It is not the requirement of the owner to inform us that their building is vacant. Am I correct? No sir, it is the requirement of the owner to register. Otherwise it would be, I think we'd be concerned that it would be a little bit too onerous. Yeah, for the building inspector or whatever, to have to walk around to, okay. Exactly. So, if a business has a vacancy, it is their responsibility by October 1st if it has been vacant for 21 days up to that point in time to inform us or the building inspector witnesses. The way the bottle is written, it vests sort of dual sort of jurisdiction in the building inspector in the planning department to be recipients of this information and to maintain this information together. And that way the departments are resourced together. It's not just one department. So, does this board set that fee? Yes, the board sets the fee. All right, let us say we've set the fee at 100. And we're not, you know, I'm just wondering. So, I'm very aware of a particular vacancy which is why I'm asking this and so October 1st, that landlord informs us the store has been vacant for at least 21 days at that point in time, pays 100. And two weeks later, rents the storefront. Is that money refunded? No. Okay, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as Attorney Hyme stated, the fee can be anywhere from 15, I think up to 500. But that's to be determined. I'm just using that as an example of the question. Yeah, I know, that's fine. If I may. Mr. Greely and Mr. Hyme, this understanding here that I think I want to clarify, which is the landlord is obligated to file within 21 days, period. Okay. October 1st is just the payment cycle. The filing must be up in 21 days no matter what time of year it is. Oh, okay. That's correct. Okay. Okay, any further? Okay, so then, excuse me, it doesn't matter October 1st. In other words, if this goes into effect, they have to, you know. October 1st could be your second time around if you have a long vacancy. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry. Sorry, I took too much time. No, no problem. Anybody else who would like to speak on this? Sorry, Mr. Byrne. Yes, I have a couple of questions as well, but I think we covered them mostly. When I agree with Dan, I think this definitely strikes the right tone. I think that this shows, this, the creation of this warrant shows a great deal of response on the town employees part. And I think that shouldn't go unnoticed. I think that they saw an issue and addressed it as quickly as possible. And I think that really goes to a, you know, a great deal of appreciation should be given to Adam and all the department heads and Doug and everyone else in doing so. So I guess the question I have would come down to the enforcement side. So the prop don't need to, you know, report that there's a vacancy. Is there a reporting mechanism built in if they choose not to report their vacancy? Do we just rely on, you know, citizen complaints or? So the way it works now is that, or the way it has worked in the past is there is commercial data available. It's not always perfect. It's not always as accessible, nor do we always wanna be going back to the well to, you know, find privately developed commercial data. So we have means of essentially verifying vacancies right now. And to be candid, I think that, you know, the town planning department in particular is fairly in touch with what's a vacancy and what's not. So I don't foresee the need, unlike some other types of concerns that folks might have for people to be sort of patrolling, finding active vacancies, or to rely solely on resident complaints. I think that we've got a couple of different tools to sort of vet whether or not a property that we suspect might be vacant is in fact vacant. And then I'd also add that, you know, there's a piece of this that is also providing some sort of cultural impetus for property owners to think thoughtfully about, you know, the circumstances under which they're maybe over scrutinizing, potentially over scrutinizing potential tenants. So we're, I think, trying to encourage everybody to have a thoughtful process about their vacancies and to make sure that the town stays informed and that we're not out of the loop on it. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Carroll? Thank you. Thank you. I also think this is on the right track. I think Dan started honing in on this issue of the start date. However, as I'm reading this, it looks like the trigger is when the property becomes vacant. And I think that a lot of the concern that's triggering this right now are the properties that already are vacant. So if there could be some way to tighten up this language to make clear that registrations should take place after approval of the bylaw, I think it would be helpful. That's one. And I'm happy to support this tonight. I will be interested in the planning director's language, though, because if I'm not mistaken, that I think I'd heard some of this discussion on this, that there was interest on the part of some other local businesses potentially advertising there. I think that Schwann Mill, if I'm not mistaken, had spoken to some vacant properties about potentially advertising in their window space while the property remained vacant. That was kind of the thrust of what the planning director was looking at. So Mr. Kuro, I can say that under section five, which is maintenance requirements, the planning director is proposing to put in an additional section that would say as follows, the owner may include advertising materials in the vacant space or displayed in the vacant property street facing windows. Such advertising materials must be approved by the planning director. So that, I think it doesn't have to be a sort of complicated provision. I think it's just allowing for something that some businesses may take advantage of and also as a means of appropriately making sure that if it's not public art or something else that those windows aren't just nothing but a lease sign. Got it. And the only other note I wanted to make was that the reason why I had submitted a preliminary draft vote and comment is because our next meeting, we won't have time to produce a select men's report. So I can certainly, I think I have a solid sort of understanding of the board's comments here tonight with the board's indulgence. I can make these types of changes, including what Mr. Kuro is suggesting, which is a good idea, which is a very clear effective date when this bylaw shall take effect as maybe the last provision in it so that we can have a draft of vote and comment and I can make sure that there's no objections to it before the board's October 17th meeting. Is that part of your motion on this article? Yep. I'll still second it by Mr. Grill. Mr. Carroll, any further questions? Nope. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm sorry, I do have one move, but... So section four, annual registration fee. A, on a before October 15th of each calendar year, the town shall send a billing statement to those who have registered they have vacant properties, should that say? Yes, Mr. Grill. All right. I think that it gets to what both you and Mr. Dunn are saying, which is that you can go on the registry at any point in time, but we've set up a somewhat arbitrary billing date as a one way of addressing the sort of logistical challenge of collecting on this. For just the fee piece of it, not a fine. Should we say anything about, I don't know, I'm worried the property owners are gonna pass this on to other property owners, but I guess we can't have anything to say about that one. Or a new tenant coming in, they charge them this hundred dollar fee, whatever the fee turns out to be. All right. I can't really agree. Just one more and they promise I'll stop. In here, in terms of maintenance of the property. Is there such a thing as doing a, that this is for six months and if the property is still empty after six months, they have to pay another hundred dollar fee or whatever we set up as a fee? Or do we wanna keep it yearly? Annual. Annual, or what I'm saying is, we're trying to motivate them to rent their properties. Right? So it's really, I think that you could set up a different schedule, but I think that this will be one of the reasons why we wanna have some flexibility in terms of thinking carefully about, what is this fee really related to? We can't just charge a fee for the purposes of trying to make it as expensive as possible. To what it costs us to run the studio. But at the same time, as I've said, there's a really wide range on this. I don't think that wide range just embodies how many vacancies we're talking about. I think it has something to do with the community that we're talking about and the vacant properties that you're talking about and as well as how aggressive or unaggressive we're planning to be with certain facets of it. There are a lot of elements that I wanna also make sure that people in Arlington know. The fire department, the police department, the inspectional services already do a fantastic job of making sure that the properties are generally meeting the standards that they're supposed to be under, the building code or the fire code. This adds another layer to those things and I think that the board will have an opportunity to revisit that fee. Okay. And if I could just add to that, again, my conversations with the tail manager was at a future date when we discuss and set the board of selectmen what the fee should be, we also can sort of adjust that fee in terms of whatever information the tail manager, planning department and the building inspector glean out and recommend to us so that if a, and I think it's in the last paragraph of the initial comments above the draft vote where it says very explicitly that we're trying to have a balance here for property owners who have vacant buildings but are doing their due diligence and everything that they can possibly do but are still remaining offline for a long period of time. So I think from our conversations with the tail manager that when we, if tail meeting approves this and it goes through, when we get to that point, we may want to maybe not just set, but we'll take recommendations from the building inspector planning department and tail manager. It might not just be a flat fee, it might be, it could be adjusted pending certain circumstances. And that's just my memory from conversations. I don't know if that addresses the point, but and I'm not making any suggestions about what that fee structure should be and how we should adjust it. That'll be a future meeting. I hope I haven't confused it. Any further questions, comments on the motion? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Dunn. Anyone here who wants to speak to that? Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Motion by Mr. Dunn, seconded by Mr. Greerley. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, favorable vote. Unanimous vote, excuse me. Article seven, acceptance of legislation use of parking meter revenue without appropriation. Attorney Hyde? This is a little more simple. The long and short of it is that we have, for a long time, enjoyed the ability to pay for the installation and rental or outright purchase of parking meters with the revenues of those parking meters without a separate appropriation from town meeting. Under the Municipal Modernization Act, which has given us many, many wonderful things, at least many, many wonderful options, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, they are now saying you must adopt a local option provision in order to continue doing what Arlington has successfully done for a long time. Our recent acquisition of parking meters was done under the law the way it used to be, so there's no explicit concern about it, although I think this would provide some reassurance for anybody who sees that the law has since changed. But in order for us to keep doing this, operating in this manner where we're renting parking meters and paying for the amount of the proceeds of that rather than appropriation of town meeting, we have to adopt this local option. Move fable action. Moved by Mr. Greerly, seconded by Mr. Curell. Any questions, discussion? Exit one. Mr. Byrne? Small comment. And I do believe that it actually provides or codifies some flexibility on what the funds can be used for, not only for the parking meters, but also for street escape improvements in the actual district itself that we're creating in the center. So I'm sure it can be utilized elsewhere amongst town, so it's all good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. Anyone here for article seven? If not on a motion by Mr. Greerly, seconded by Mr. Curell, those in favor say aye. Aye. I'll oppose unanimous vote, fable action. We now come to, I'm not sure if we should take eight and nine together, but I'll start with article eight, acceptance of legislation, local speed limits, and article nine, similar acceptance of legislation, local speed, safety zones. Mr. High? Madam Chairman, if I may take them both together, they are in fact sort of companion pieces. As this board well knows, there's an extremely onerous process for changing speed limits that essentially is limited to a sort of road-by-road analysis and traffic studies that essentially makes it very, very difficult for us to even, for us to do it in an efficient and effective manner. We've received a lot of concerns over the years about speed limits on specific streets and specific places. This would essentially, adopting this local option, would allow but not require the town to lower the speed limit almost everywhere. Anywhere but state highways in places that aren't considered dense areas. I'm not sure any part of Hamilton wouldn't be considered dense. Who beats that, yeah. Essentially allow us to lower the speed limit to 25 miles an hour, and then also allow us to designate what's so-called safety zones where the default speed limit would be 20 miles per hour as long as it's within the interest of public safety. By adopting this local option, we are not lowering the speed limit. We are merely giving the board of the select and the ability to do it without the state's traffic study requirements. And my understanding is that the town manager would respectfully recommend that if positive action is taken on this, that the matter would be referred to the town manager's attack to see whether or not the speed limit should be reduced, including the creation of any safety zones. Move favorable action. Second. Moved by Mr. Greeley. Seconded by Mr. Byrne. Mr. Dunn. Be careful what you ask for. Yeah. But don't you agree with having the authority to do so without going through the process? I will support, yes. It was a big part of the Vision Zero movement as we tried to stop fatalities for bicyclists and other road users. So this was a, legislation was a big push on that front. Thanks. And I remember when I first got involved in citizen activism, not on the board didn't even think about it. Thought I would never do anything like that. I remember when I first had my entree into state politics with Senator Haven and I said, you know, because different people on Highland Ave, Jason Street schools, boys and girls clubs said, why can't we get 20, 25 and enforce it? And I remember going to the then Senator and he's like, oh, I filed that legislation. And I remember asking, what happened to it? Oh, it went to a study committee and I was so excited about that. They were studying, this is probably back in the early 90s and it wasn't until the second year that I'm like, oh, you're filing that again. That's when I realized what the doom of going to the study committee and I think the Senator filed it maybe four or five more times just for the heck of it. And I kind of gave up on that. But thanks to the initiatives that Mr. Byrne and I was excited. I'm glad this has come to fruition. And as Attorney Hyme has stated and referring this to TAC, especially even initially in terms of what the process should be in terms of, you know, if they're the 100% authority on investigating this, you know, bearing in mind that they kind of attack us at Uncle, please don't send us too many things. So I also would look to TAC if and when, hopefully when this is approved, the TAC and the town manager's office also to set up if it's 100% TAC responsibility or if it's divvied out different pieces of the pie. Is that sort of a correct assumption, Attorney? Yeah, I'm sorry, I should make it clear that there's no requirement that we refer this to TAC. If the board would like to message that to town meeting that if adopted, we certainly plan to study it further, including referring at least some or all of it to the Transportation Advisory Committee. I'd be happy to make sure that that is in the board's comment. Yeah, if you can just touch base with Adam, just because we've had those conversations and that's just what I was gleaning from it. Circumstances may have changed, but I think, so any further discussion questions? Anyone here for, we're discussing them together, but just procedurally if we could take two separate votes. Anyone here for article eight and or nine? Okay, if not a motion on article eight by Mr. Greerly, seconded by Mr. Byrne, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Article nine, a motion favorable action by? So moved. Seconded. Seconded by Mr. Byrne. Any further questions, comments? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Unanimous vote. We now come to article 11. Now on this, Madam Chairman. We don't report on this, do we? I mean, I'm just curious because we've had very lengthy discussions on this and I'm just afraid of the Pandora's box of us commenting on one thing and then other proponents may say, well you did it for that, you know, I don't want to overextend ourselves, but. Of course, Madam Chairman. The reason why article 11 is before you is is as the board recall, and I'm so sorry that it took me such a long time to get a memo in front of you. I apologize for that. It's been a, we were, do you guys all have a copy? It should be a hard copy of Memo on your chairs. I'll try to summarize it. It is not all that much new information from what I had communicated to the ARB previously and I believe the board was provided a copy of my memo to the ARB. The short version of this is that as the board will recall, at a certain point in time, the state advised all communities in Massachusetts that we could no longer maintain a moratorium on zoning medical marijuana facilities. Accordingly, in the 2014 town meeting, we approved a zoning by law amendment that allowed for medical marijuana treatment centers in B3 and B5 business districts, subject to a special permanent environmental design review as well as board of health permits. Throughout that discussion at 2014 town meeting, one of the things that town officials, including myself, relayed to town meeting members was the explicit, very clear message that we had received from the state, which was that absence the creation of our own buffer zone or a more explicit waiver of our buffer zone, the regulations provided for this default buffer zone. 500 feet of medical marijuana dispensary couldn't be within 500 feet of a school, a daycare, places where children commonly congregate. So town meeting passed our zoning by law with that assurance, and this reliance was also codified in a number of places, including the DPH's 2013 guidelines and their 2014 guidelines, and indeed their 2015 guidelines, which made it more explicit than ever that as, and I quote, municipalities may set their own buffer zone, but if they do not, the default buffer zone will be the 500 foot distance described in the regulation. Moreover, as recently as August 6, 2016, the decision from the Middlesex Land Court corroborated the sort of analysis that most communities and myself personally have conducted, which is essentially to say that unless you're creating local siting requirements that speak specifically to a buffer zone, the mere fact of zoning it would not waive your buffer zone status. Well, during the current application that we have before the town of Arlington, the select and remember that the Massachusetts Patient Foundation, I believe they have representatives here tonight, initiated their application in October of 2015. We held hearings in February and March of 2016. We made certain certifications that were required under that process with respect to the buffer zone and what was in it and what wasn't at that time. We started to hear a little bit of contradictory advice coming from DPH about some specific issues, the pediatrician's office being the most dynamic one. The applicants had gotten a written confirmation of DPH that the pediatrician's office was okay, and then an Arlington resident shared with me a written confirmation that it was not, and then I called DPH and they said, no, no, it is okay, and then I eventually talked to DPH one last time and they said, it's not, but it doesn't matter because you don't have a buffer zone in Arlington or you may not have a buffer zone in Arlington according to their undated August 2016 guidance. I believe I've seen it, Mr. Loretty is here in the audience, Mr. Loretty was one of the first people to raise this issue of this new guidance, which I had not seen as this was happening in about August of 2016, and this has really put the ARB, the Board of Health, and the rest of the town in an untenably ambiguous situation because the goalposts, if you will, are all over the place in terms of how we're supposed to be evaluating a pending application, not only before the ARB and not only potentially before the Board of Health, but also pending before the state. So to clarify this ambiguity and to give us some direction, we have a couple different options. We could wait for DPH to make up a better decision in terms of whether or not the buffer zone exists in Arlington as they told us it wouldn't should, or we could have some sort of local action. The proponents of this article, who I believe are here tonight, are Arlington residents and representatives of the Patient Foundation who proactively decided that they wanted to file an article creating a buffer zone explicitly, which we are allowed to do and would essentially supplant the maybe we have it, maybe we don't state buffer zone. They have changed some of the parameters of it. They have made it much more akin to Brookline's, Brookline specific buffer zone by essentially stating that it cannot be within 500 feet of schools. I think they can tell you more about it than I can, that a daycare may not be co-located in the same building and creating some other parameters as well as not using the sort of ambiguous and therefore fraught with different interpretations, facilities where children commonly congregate. Without editorializing myself on the merits of that, I note in my, as I've noted in my memo, what it does provide is clarity and a path forward for Arlington, though it is a different buffer zone than the state originally said that we would have. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The reason it's before you is not because you're still waiting on my question, so you may be the 11 minute roundabout because what I'm concerned about will give your answer, maybe. Thank you for your patience, Madam Chair. I apologize for that. The reason it's before you is because this process started with the Selectman and the Selectman's non-opposition and a community benefit agreement. Selectman by no means. It's required by state law that we had to do. Yes, exactly. State law does not require us to do this. So you do not have to take a vote tonight on anything. You could decide that, thank you very much. You've heard about this and this is a matter that has to be decided by the ARB. You could decide that you have some support for changing the buffer zone, for creating a buffer zone, but not this specific buffer zone. You could decide that you don't have a support for a specific buffer zone in Arlington at all. So it's totally up to you. You don't have to do anything. You can listen and say, thank you. We don't have any comment on this. Or you could provide comment as occasionally as the board has on a zoning article understanding that it's ultimately ARB's jurisdiction to make a recommendation. Okay, I just want to say that, and I had a very brief conversation with Adam on this on the weekend, but it was already on the agenda. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about this, regardless of what our statement is. I see this more, and the reason I say that is I can see the converse also happening where it's a Board of Selectman thing sometimes, I'm not saying this is the current situation, but on the redevelopment board or other boards in commission, sometimes have sort of cited the board for, this is our domain. When they ask us for our opinion on joint efforts like 40B, MuGar, things like that, and where we actually do have a seat at the table. But I know I have been in the past individually, not just ARB, but ZBA, when I first was a brand new selectman was sort of chastised and chided that when I did, even though I sang in a single voice saying I'm just giving my own individual opinion, I'm not here as a member of the Board of Selectman or representing the board, then Town Council told me it doesn't matter, you are. And you have to be very, very careful about conducting yourself that way. So I'm just really confused, especially the legal side of me, that I'm having some question with is the fact that, and you and I have had many conversations on this, back and forth on this tug where it seemed like it was clarified and then you had done a Herculean amount of work on this particular agenda item and then we had conversations right after this. First, we had the indication to the Massachusetts Patient Foundation approval from the state agency, the individual citizen from the state agency and it seemed like my interpretation and conversations with you and then the state agency was, it was both contradictory, they were saying both things and it seems to stand that way, especially since August 2016, most recent memo or however they're characterizing that they came out with which again is ambiguous and sort of contradicts themselves. So I'm just a little hesitant here because you're asking us to take a position that we could find out down the road, we really shouldn't be taking a position on or this is the parameters in which we should make that decision because we do have a seat at the table. I'm just a little uncomfortable with it and I'll see what the rest of my colleagues say that basically you're telling us we have ambiguous information here, you may want to set his own. I mean, so what Mr. Greeley I know has been very patient with me. So I'm just confused why this is here before us at this time with the ambiguity coming from the state agency. Mr. Greeley? So I think Mr. High made it clear, he's up to us, he's not asking us, he's not saying we have to comment and certainly has the zoning board held a hearing on this yet? So the zoning board opened the permit process on the application by the Massachusetts Patient Foundation? No, on this one or not? No, no. Okay, so certainly we should at the least table this because as we know, after hearings we often change the language and whether or not we do it don't comment as a separate discussion in my opinion but certainly it shouldn't come until after the zoning board makes a determination on this warrant article. But here's the question I'd like to ask. As currently worded, does it impact the current permit on Water Street? So as currently worded, this proposal would allow the facility that the application is currently pending. Now, just to be clear, my interpretation and the other town officials' interpretation was that under the old buffer zone of the state they were also allowed to open there, although there are folks that disagree with that that was my opinion on that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Greeley's motion to table, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Curell. And I just want to say. Do my colleagues agree? I want to say one of my first lessons that I learned was through ZBA and I had very good intentions and really this case I cited before and I learned a valuable lesson for that that if there's a process in place and it's designated who is in the driver's seat before you hop in the back seat and say I'm coming along the ride and I'm gonna tell you use my map quest they need to have the first pass at it. So that really lays a lot of my concerns because that's what I was afraid of going down that road that I never should have as a brand new baby selectman. Mr. Curell. I agree, I agree on principle. I don't like to tell all the boards how to conduct their business unless they ask for an advisory opinion. I think tabling makes sense, but if the redevelopment board then takes action on this and does not seek our input on it, I'll be inclined not to take any action whatsoever as far as an advisory opinion on this board. Or the ZBA, they're the two. It's redevelopment ZBA. What's redevelopment is the reporting board for the board. The redevelopment board. Okay, so redevelopment. I'm sorry, I said zoning, but I'm sorry, okay. Any further questions, comments on a motion? Mr. Broad, I'm sorry. Yeah, I do have one further comment and while I understand that this certainly shouldn't be taken by, I want the ARB to vote in any way, I do appreciate the proponents bringing forward an article to move away from the ambiguity that we're currently experiencing. I think that everything that has transpired so far with this application has happened in good faith. And I see this as a further commitment to that good faith effort, so thank you. Mr. Curell. I have one, actually I have two questions just on the legality of the motion. I noticed that the lead petitioner is listed as a Boston address, so I'm assuming that the lead petitioner is listed here is actually not a registered Allington voter. Mr. Curell, that's correct. I think it's just the way that it was packaged, but we verified that the 100 signatures are present on the app. Got it. And secondly, I just in anticipation of what we might see, I noticed that the article does not have and take any other action. Related there too. So my assumption is that once the redevelopment board acts on this, they're either acting in this language or they're acting in a way. You know, Mr. Curell, I'll double check on that. We'll verify with the original article that if there's no or take any, they're actually related to. Sometimes in the form it gets cut off, so we'll double check on it. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm on a motion by Mr. Grealy, seconded by Mr. Curell. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, unanimous vote. We now move to correspondence received, request for parking time limit change on Broadway and concern regarding installation of parking meters from Emily Hammond, reverse signage change on Lake Street, Side Street, Susan Brogan and request Memorial plaque for Howard Sessler, Jack Johnson, Mr. Byrne. For the, one sec, I have some notes here. I'm gonna put you down as mover seat. I will move her seat, but I'm. Mr. Byrne, and then the problem is seconded by. Mr. Grealy, sorry, Mr. Byrne. So as for the first request for parking time limit change, I think that as we heard today, there is parking time limit changes going in, so the spaces referenced here are actually going to be moved up to four hours when the new meters are put in. And so I'm happy to bring that back to the PIGC to give that a better answer for Ms. Hammond, but I do want to say that I do disagree with her reference that this is not good for businesses in town. I think this is an excellent change for businesses in town. It will lead to better turnover in our business district, and I think it will make, it will help the vibrancy of our center, which of course tonight we spent a lot of time speaking about parking turnover, not business turnover. Yes, parking turnover, that is correct. Thank you for that. Okay, so first we have correspondence received by Mr. Byrne, seconded by Mr. Greerly with the action plan that our colleague, Mr. Byrne, will bring this back to the PIGC. I don't know if... Yes, and perhaps I will tag team with Adam and Mr. Feeney on doing so. Okay. Mr. Feeney, did you have anything on the second correspondence received? Yes, Chair Mahon. I would just add that, as you know, we have undertaken a six month pilot program in that area and to certainly, I'd recommend acknowledging receipt of this correspondence, but certainly taken into consideration when gauging the effectiveness and the impact of the signage changes at the conclusion of the six month pilot program. Okay, any, Mr. Dunn? The last one, Memorial Plagg referred to the Memorial Committee, please. Public Memorial Committee. I really enjoyed that letter. I learned things. I did not know. Yeah. That's true. And I'd also just like to say that on a related note that you may recall that we had appointed Chris Costello to the Sire-Stell and Board of Trustees who had, as a local designer, designed some of our coins, some of the National Park Quarters and such. Well, he also designed the Congressional Gold Medal for the Doolittle Raiders and he has purchased one which he is ready to donate to the town for appropriate display as well. So I don't know that it directly relates to this area. I think it would probably be, have to be in a protected place, but I just wanted to put that out there and note that this is a piece of our history that I think we have to, it makes sense to Memorial us. And did I, on the second agenda item of Lake Street, Mr. Feeney, will you, with the town manager, get back to Ms. Brogan? Absolutely. Okay. If you think that's appropriate. Okay. So on motion by Mr. Burns, seconded by Mr. Greily to refer the first item to PIGC, second item, Mr. Feeney and Mr. Chaplain will get back to that letter writer and third item, referred to the Memorial Committee. Any further questions? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. And those unanimous vote. New business, Mrs. Krupp-Helka. Nothing new except for getting ready for town meeting and really voting. Hofstra, was that Paul or Stephen? Stephen, I'm going to ask you, so I'll be watching that tonight. Okay, so I couldn't, I can see the picture, but I'm like, which one of your little kitty cuties is that? Thank you. Attorney Hyne? Thank you, Madam Chair. The only piece of new business they have is to remind everybody that tomorrow night, the zoning board is opening the hearing for the comprehensive permit application regarding Thorndike Place from Oak Tree Development, otherwise known as the Mugar property. The board will recall that it opposed project eligibility in a fairly detailed letter expressing a number of concerns about the information or lack thereof in the eligibility documents that the applicant submitted to us. Tomorrow night, for those Arlingtonians interested in attending, we expect that the ZBA will discuss the one and a half percent status and calculation, which the town believes that we possess. We'll discuss also the completeness of the application and the request for waivers. At the zoning board of appeals chairs request, a completeness review was conducted by Attorney Whitten, you'll all remember, who I think expressed a lot of the same concerns that this board articulated, geez, almost a year ago now, or more than, I don't know, I guess a little less than that, in the eligibility consideration phase. So there still remain a lot of concerns that I expect the ZBA to begin vetting tomorrow night. Oh, I'm sorry, can I still one more thing? That is a long process. There's 180 days to process the application. This board may, but is not required to take a position on the application as a whole and may be good to schedule something on a future agenda if the board is so inclined to discuss its collective position on the 40B application. Thank you. That would be my inclination to, with the town manager, put this on a future agenda for us to discuss, because I know, I'm sure all of us have started getting the calls and the emails and all those other things, tweets and messages in terms of, is the board going to reiterate or revise or whatever its position? So with my colleague's approval, I'll have that on a future agenda, I don't know. Anything else? I don't have anything else, thank you. That's your town manager, Mr. Feeney. Nothing else. Look at that. Mr. Greeley. I move that you come to every meeting. If Adam Romney has a list of about 10 pages long. Two quick things, Madam Chair, first of all, Marie, Marianne, Fran, and Ashley, are just unbelievable in terms of what they have accomplished this year. Regular town meeting, special town meeting, three additional elections, the shimmering primaries and the presidential, four additional elections, and probably one of the most spectacular town day weekends in the 40 year history of this town. It's just exceptional work that they have done and just really, really well done, Marine and staff, and thank you so much. And I know there's a committee, I know there's a co-chair, they do 98% of that work. And it's the largest town day, I think I've ever been there. I think I've been to 30 years' worth, but I don't know, I'm 65, so I probably have been to 40 years' worth. Yeah, let's go see this. I'll go stand in 1976, start you the first one. I was there for that. That was the first one, and my mother-in-law, I'm a roof and Dave McKenna. All right, I'm old, I'm dying, I'm tired. So I just, with the board's indulgence, I would just like to point out the Rotary Club is running a program called Flags for Heroes. And for a $25 donation, it's a 10 foot pole, a three by five flag, and from November 1st to November 12th, they're gonna be on a display on the front lawn of Arlington High School. And it's to remember those that have passed are living heroes if you'd like, and there'll be a plaque on each of the flags for who the hero is and who's remembering the hero, and that will be mailed to the donor afterwards. If you want more information, talk to me. I love you, good night, Arlington. Mr. Barney. Other than a spectacular town day, I don't have much to add, so thank you. You're supposed to say I wanna buy a flag for you, my hero Kevin. Mr. Cureau. Did you pick that up? Get out of Mr. Brough. Mr. Dunn. Two things. First off, thank you voters for the Minuteman result. As we all know, Minuteman was approved by the 16 towns. Belmont was, eyes were on Belmont, and Belmont voted no, 70, 30. They are, I heard they're gonna be angling for a special town meeting the same day as our special town meetings, the date that they've penciled in at least, which is when they will be seeking to leave the Minuteman district, which is going to, and then provided they, it'll be interesting to see if they can get their two thirds vote. And if they do, this board will have a future discussion about whether or not we want to support their departure. Will this be known as the Bexot vote? I think. Very good. Are you going? Do you plan on being at the Belmont town meeting? No. No, because it's the same night as our town meeting. He's been so involved. I didn't know whether. No, but I would say, however, if you or anyone, you know, knows the Belmont town meeting member, we should lobby them some. Second item, last week, I had the opportunity to go to the state house with Selectman Byrne to collect the plaque for representing the $400,000 for the town's complete streets initiative. And so there was a ceremony at the state house with Lieutenant Governor Polito and Transportation Secretary Pollock passed out the certificates. Steve was there. I was there. Jenny Rape, our director of planning was there. And Sean Garvely, our representative. And it was an interesting ceremony. And I think we should, I mean, I'm proud that we were in front on that. And I'm very proud of the work of the people that the director of time did in making that application and making that possible. So it was a nice moment, and Earrington was one of 12 towns that received grants in this program's inaugural year. I would just add that we are, not every town received $400,000, which is the most amount of money that you can get under this application, I believe. So I think that says a lot to the work that was done in putting that application together. Yes, just two agenda items. And I'll be very brief, hopefully. First off, we all received an email from somebody who had appeared before us, was on our Novus agenda, had recently done a Google search, and this individual saw their name out there, expressed in the email to every member of the board. I did respond after our conversations with attorney Heim and Adam Chapter Lane, and most recently, Mrs. Kruppalka and Mr. Feeney. I responded to her initially that the board has been in contact, I didn't CC everybody because I was afraid of any sort of open meeting law, but I did indicate that my colleagues would be made aware, I wasn't seeing all my colleagues for fear of crossing that open meeting law issue. I know that town council in the Selectman's office and the town manager are, basically I saw the request as twofold. She was saying, first, get my name out of there, so if I do any kind of search, it doesn't appear. That's next to impossible. I mean, I know lots of people, including two former school employees, that they would have liked us to do something like that. I don't know that that's something, the town of Wellington, the Selectman's office, the IT department, I think it's out there, if you Google it. But then she also did provide two or three links, URL links to our Novus agenda, saying, can you take me out of the worldwide web and can you take me off these links here? So on the second request, I know that the Selectman's office and town manager's office and town council are looking at that. My opinion is you submit something, in the past, someone could come in and say, give me a copy of that, they get all that information. I don't know that we can necessarily take anything off our domain, which is the Novus agenda URL links. And I do know that I spoke with Mrs. Krupp-Helger and everybody else in the office that they do tell people this, once you submit something, this is a public record, a public document. So I just wanna let everybody know that this individual knows that we're working on it and between all those other people I cited, they'll have communications with that individual. I'm not saying any names or anything, which I'm sure I could, but I'm trying to. And then the second is concession stand. There's been some issues around that. First home game, it wasn't open. It may not be open for the next few weeks, but I'm working with the town manager and other appropriate department heads, as well as the athletic director and school superintendent. And hopefully, we'll get that resolved in some way and either it will come back to the board in this forum or it may be something from the town manager and superintendent schools about how to get that back open and keep it open. And then lastly, just invite everybody. If you're around, if you want to, this Friday at Allington High School at 1230, the way the new athletic director does instead of the pep rally for different sports right before their big Thanksgiving day game and others, the All Sports Pep Rally at Allington High School will be this Friday at 1230. In the red gym, you're welcome to come down with that motion to adjourn by Mr. Greily seconded by Mr. Byrne, all those in favor? I'm Friday, run your chance. If you do your tumbling pass, you're there, buddy. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, unanimous vote, we are adjourned. Thank you.