 I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, both being transportation relating, and then we have an item on reviewing warrant articles, and then just approval of minutes. So we have TAC here, Transportation Advisory Committee, to give us a report on, I think first the Summer Street intersections and the optimization of the traffic signals. And then we're going to talk about the Minuteman 5-trill intersection at Mill Street. So if you guys want to come up, introduce yourselves. Ready for it over here? Next to us, from the TAC, also on the former Sims property working group. Thank you for coming. I'm Rich Turka, the co-chair of TAC. Nice to meet you, Rich. Hey, Rich. How are you? Good. And I represent you and planning department on TAC, Laura Wiener. So I don't know if you want to give us a summary of your recommendation, but we've all had the report, I think, to be a brief summary to get us up to speed on what TAC's thinking. Sure. We have a meeting with the working group members, and Jake is here with him and his consultant, who prepared the analysis of the intersection on some of the Sims road. We're going to come up through Grattle Street, the coordinating intersections. And they evaluated existing conditions as well as determined future timing and phasing improvements with that intersection that can be made. And a couple of things, existing conditions they found. Was it operating well? Was the signal detector loop on the Summers Street southbound approach? Was being detected essentially every cycle, whether a vehicle was there or not, which means it will always be timed in the intersection, which needs to be repaired or fixed. And when that's fixed, you don't have all that lost time in the intersection to be made more efficient. Besides that, the identified signal timings that would be different than are out there now. It runs on a 130-second cycle length, sorry, 114 in the morning. I recommend that you go to 130, give extra time to the Summers Street eastbound westbound approaches, which would essentially reduce the delay to that traffic. So if you go through there now, I understand some significant delays, which really should be there. And with those changes, you have to improve level services related. The traffic engineers give two intersections, like a report card, A, B, and the best, an active failure. So the condition would improve from level service E, which is a congested condition and common around here. But it would improve to level service D, which is fairly significant. And also, the timing changes can be improved for the off-peak hours. So the off-peak would experience benefits of those changes. There's a couple other minor things. There is some lost time, all the clearance time that can be eliminated in the intersection, which they recommended, which would also improve the time for vehicles to give more green time to vehicles on Summers Street. But those improvements, the intersection would actually, like I said, improve the level service E in the morning and then afternoon improve from the level service ESC, so it would be a one-grade change, which is, like I said, pretty significant. The one thing they were going to check was a potential right turn on red coming out of Sims. If it works on a right turn on red, so if the vehicle stopped momentarily and made a right turn on red, it wouldn't trip the signal for that approach. So if you come down waiting at Sims to make a right turn, if you can go after within five seconds or so, that phase would be actuated. So it would help operations. It would keep Summers Street going. If you had to wait more than five or ten seconds, whatever it's set at, then you'd get the actuation. That's one thing the engineer was following up to look at that operation. So if there's two or three cars waiting, then it would. You'd get that phase. Anything at Mill Street? Really not. There's a very minor change in the yellow time from 43 seconds, which is very minor. There's some optimization of timing, mostly in the off-peak hours, I think, than the peak hours. There were some minor changes. It would improve, but it's not going to be that noticeable. It wouldn't change the motor service grade at that intersection. There are some minor changes, but they're not as significant as in Sims. So the working group endorsed these recommended improvements. If we have any questions. Jeff, could you... The first thing that you talked about was the loot detector. Is that right? Seeing cars that aren't really there. Sure. Right now, is it seeing the traffic or the known traffic on Summer Street and causing that light to go along? It was on Sims, which is the side street. So I was seeing cars that weren't there and giving that green time to Sims, although it may not be known to me. So that's pretty inefficient. Could you just describe the write-on, Brad? Again? It is legal to make a write-on read, but if you don't have this delaying detection, it'll detect that read car that can make a write-on read. So if one car comes out and makes a write-on read, it would detect it and give that phase, even though it may take that write-on read before you get the green light. So again, that's another form of kind of wasted time, if you don't have that delay. So it's just another form of detection. It can't help operations. And Andy? No, I think I'm all set. Just in the memo, is it the recommendations are in the front and then also in the end? Yeah, let's see. I have a report dated the 17th, January 17th. They have the ones from January 28th. Okay, so I think they have the recommendations from the final report also. It's also the same thing. I'm just trying to move the me to the front so you don't have to read through all the descriptions. That's what I did, but I want to make sure I didn't miss anything on the second floor. It's great that they could jump from a E to a D. Yeah, that's pretty good. And a C to a C. So that is significant. It's good. And everything's being done just with the signals. There's nothing other than fixing the loop detector that's under the pavement. Yeah, there's no geometric changes to talk about for my pavement, but no physical, rather, no geometric changes to the roadway. Okay. So I'll just, I just want to review for people what the condition said, and this is a change from the way the condition was written. This is under phase two. Follow the issuance of a CO. This was how it was supposed to, how we conceived of it early on, that after the COs were issued for 100 units, the developer would provide $40,000 later credit to be drawn on by the tab to fund follow-up survey of traffic conditions. So this is, we had decided due to some complaints of neighbors and also the fact that there was one piece of it that was very clearly malfunctioning the loop detectors that it made more sense to just do it now using projections for the traffic. And so this if you accept this, the idea is that that $40,000 letter of credit would never come into being, that this condition would be being satisfied. And I think any future changes would not be expensive to make, they would just be minor changes to the traffic light itself. The engineering report is paid for by the developer and these kind of changes are not very expensive, the town can handle this in the future. When will the changes be made? Will you accept your recommendation? I don't know the schedule to come through right away. Right away? Thank you, Jake. It was pretty fast. It's going to snow tomorrow. So Carol, should we be making a vote? Taking a vote? Making a motion to approve? I think you ought to, given that the condition is a little different. Just to be clear and so the record will show the board considered and voted on changing the condition. No brainer. Before we talk about a vote though, in terms of the recommendations that the working group that Jeff has headed up has given us, the costs for those, are those paid for by the town or are those coming out of the $40,000 set aside that was going to go into the letter of credit? Because there was no set aside. It was never made, the developer's paying for it. The developer's paying for it. In order to get there on approval. So the town's not paying for anything. Jake? Jake, do you want to introduce yourself for the people at home? Since the camera's going to be on you in a second. Jake Upton, developer at Sims, at Cashwoods, I address now, Sims Circle. So this was prepared by Sobel with your review. How did you review it? Well, we met twice. First we met with him before he did it and told him what we wanted to see. And Jake was there too. We met with him with his recommendations and made just a few tweaks. So this represents your recommendation as well? Yeah, we endorse the recommendations. That's what we were expecting. There's new data collected for this evaluation also. So if there's no more questions I could entertain a motion, which it looks like. I'll move that the board accept the traffic mitigation recommendations for the Sims Road, Summer Street intersection, and the Summer Street, Mill Street intersection. And that we release from the original Special Permit conditions the requirement of a $4,000 letter of credit. Carol, can you use the full intersection name? I know it's Summer Bridal Hemlock Sims. Let me come back to that. Release the conditions. The $40,000 escrow. And I'll just take it from the two headers. I'll copy it from the two. And that beginning just prepared by Green International. Right. And the date. Okay. Do you get all that? Almost. All in favor? Hi. The next item is also a bit with tack. And we have recommendations from you for the intersection of the Minuteman bike path and Mill Street. So there's a few working group members who are joining us. Stuff on Miller and Chris Tonkin. But hey back. Thank you. So we met before six weeks ago or so and gave you an update of the operation of the Flushing Beacon crossing. And the Flushing Beacon is still being evaluated with TPW. And the contractor and installer is still being evaluated with TPW. The contractor and installer is doing some tests to see if the battery power is under the communication between the two signals is appropriate. So we don't know the results of those tests yet. But TPW is looking at that and expects them to find it shortly. Okay. So that's the part of the operation of the Flushing Beacon itself. And you asked us to identify any type of amenities that might help with the safety and operations in addition to that. And we came up with a list of measures that really consistent with the recent study that was done by a tool engineering of the entire path of Benford Lexington, Arlington. They came up with these type of measures to make the crossings more consistent throughout the entire trail. And we used that as a guide and added a few things to that as well in addition to that. I'll just go through this list and we can talk about any of these in more detail. A lot of these are payment markings and a lot of them are typically familiar with them. There's some attachment in the photo also. The first one is place advance stop ahead signs on the trail as you mentioned last week. So there are stop signs where we don't have an advance stop ahead sign on the trail. Install, like I said, there are stop signs on the trail reflective link tape on the stop sign poles. It's a fairly new addition to the MUTCD. You may see this in some communities. I don't think they have an Arlington right now. But the pole itself, you now are allowed to put reflective red tape on the pole. So it's a visibility benefit. You can see this from further away. Sometimes you can see the pole, these are the sign where you are. There's a middle street sign missing on the top of the westbound approach on the trail. That's informational. It would be good to have. Paint stop bars on both approaches. So the trail is a middle street and pedestrian crosswalks. We think that would be a good visual cue, especially with the bicyclists. This is coming up real quick. This is the intersection. It's a white line. Install, maintain, two ground-mounted plastic reflective ballers. It's essentially what's used there today. I've got a color picture. You thought those are good because it's really good. It's good because it tends to help slow especially the bicyclists down as they're approaching the intersection. You can see those had some wear and tear. That one's in the picture. So we were suggesting those on both approaches, but also a supply of those also. I'm not sure how long they last. But there is another short. Inside them. They're supposed to be break-away. They're not supposed to have sand on them. They're supposed to have them break-away. Not create any type of object that would be a hard fixed object. Along with that, there's really no payment marketing associated with that now. You can see the photo. There's a center line and some faded arrows. This was attached. I have this if you want to see it. They call it a structure payment marketing. There's something ahead. We have some consistency along the path at other locations. We thought that was a good idea. Repainted directional payment marketing arrows. You can barely see the faded arrows. It shows the direction just to make that clear. It's supposed to be on the right side. Installed signage on both trail approaches. So it's not hard and fast what the law actually is with a bike and a crosswalk if you have to dismount. I brought these to show you which is actually on the Cape Cod trail. We're not suggesting that sign exactly right now. That's one type of sign that says have to dismount. We're not actually sure that if a bicycle is at a pedestrian crosswalk, they have to dismount. If it's at a trail, it's not clear. So we're not sure if the sign is the correct sign that we would use. Another one may be bicycles must stop. That type of sign might be more appropriate. I'm not suggesting the actual language right now. Until we have further discussion about what the best sign should be. We feel there should be some signage there. That's probably not the right one, but it's one example. Some other folks in the state had. Chris or Stefan, do you want to add anything to that? The bollards, they're there partly to prevent or cast driving up the bikeway, which has been known to happen if there have to be one there. However, they are drivable over by emergency vehicles and they can be removed for snowplows and things like that. That's why they're not more solid. How do they remove them? They're screwed, so emergency vehicles could do that. That's why you want to get 100 or a certain quantity of extra ones. Exactly. There was an emergency vehicle back in the fall that I saw. It does happen. That's one of the reasons that we didn't really consider a permanent tight barrier there because we understand Lexington is removing theirs but that's one of the reasons they're doing that. They're gates. Do we have bollards at other intersections on the Arlington portion of the bike path? They're supposed to be. The problem is that the DPW runs over them and destroys them and then they're not replaced. When we originally put the plastic ones in they were supposed to have bought a supply. I don't know whether they have them and they're not putting them in or they don't have them. Do you have any idea how frequently they get run over? It doesn't take long after they put them in. We go through them at a quite a pace. If we could get the vehicles that are driving up and down the path to remove them instead of running over them they would last a lot longer. From what you're able to determine this is the damage that you see here is not so much bicycle is running but it's other vehicles. Bicycle wouldn't make that much damage to that pole. Originally when the bikeway was first built there were actually metal poles at all these intersections and I think there might be one remaining at the Sunrise Assisted Living. It's a ramp that goes on there. They had keys for them so they could actually take them out of the emergency vehicle because they were supposed to have keys but they were a hazard to bike up a little bit and if you hit one of those things you're in a bike or even running or anything it hurts. It was solid metal so it had no given it. So the reflective plastic is softer it's replaceable. It's also a visible thing because it has a reflective panels on it at night or in the evening because if you have lights on your bike or cars you can see it. It's much more easily. The crosswalk that you have at the top of the page here, paint, pedestrian, crosswalks or cross the trail at sidewalks on both sides. So is that going to go perpendicular to the road crosswalk basically? It's going to go in line with the sidewalk? If you look in that photo you can right across the sidewalk sides. Did the working committee look at the reconfiguration? That's a lot more expensive but while we have an escrow we're going to do anything. Big there. It was an idea of creating a band, a chicane that had to go outside the right way of the bypass so we didn't put that much consideration into it. But the right of way it would go into would be the altar programs. That couldn't just be an easement through that properly. Because we all, I think last time we met in December we all thought that was a worthy design modification to look into. It has some benefits. It's a little more complex obviously. It's a little more complex. We would have to approach the property owner. If we tell them this is one of the solutions we can extend this deadline end of March. Didn't we decide that last time? It's a deadline but it's our deadline. There's no reason why the board couldn't extend this. It's their money and the condition said for a year. I'm sure they would do it. I'm not even sure who to talk to about it. But I'm happy to make that happen. I'll start with Addy and then she'll tell me who to talk to. And if that's still worthy, I know it complicates things but if we're going to complicate it that would be the time. Is that the only easement you think would be needed to consider that? I can't say. We didn't look at any kind of detail. Property lines or so forth. We'd have to do a layout. Maybe if we could do a layout and get an estimate? On the other side of the intersection there is no room at all to do anything. We'd only be able to do it on one side. There's a fence hard up against it and there's a driveway hard up against the other side. There's absolutely no wiggle space at all. But at least we could do it on the one side. Is that the worst side out of the two? Well the issue I think is you have people coming downhill so we have some momentum but on the other side going westbound there's no visibility until you actually get to the intersection because of the hedge on the building on one side. So I think that's not much you can do there. On the westbound side there's just not much room. Who owns the trees there that are so overgrown? That could be crammed for visibility. We don't know. Might be another consideration is to include some tree pruning as one of the recommendations and approach the property owner there to find out if it's their tree. If you look at the property line where it falls if there's any kind of topographical survey we can see those trees. It's easier to just approach them and ask them. It's a contractor. I think that Tyler would have a right to maintain any vegetation that needs the tree. Looking at this picture that looks like if visibility is really poor coming up hill there that could definitely be done. The hedges could be pruned down lower if they're impeding visibility. They probably aren't though. They're pretty low already it looks like. So Jeff are you continuing to explore what the right sign language is for the Massachusetts law for pedestrians and bicyclists portion of the recommendation? We have to do that because we have to extreme it what that should be. Like I said it's a green area and Massachusetts and some of these things are pretty standard. You could say there's a lot of variation at different locations in the state so does it just a minivan trail so you could do the same thing that the Cape Cod trail does? Same size. What did the tool report tell you on that? Did they tell you anything? They actually recommended that at smaller streets with very little vehicular traffic that the stop sign be put for the vehicles and the bicycles have to throw away and at major streets it'd be the opposite. That bicycle stopped but that's just the recommendation. We don't have any major streets. So the sign could just say state law. It could just have the stop sign and say it's a state law. We've got a stop sign, we've got a stop bar, we have a flashing red. Right. Red on the post. Making bicycles get off and walk that's not clearly the state law. We're a little bit concerned about that one because we just don't think it's going to happen. Are you very against putting any signs up that I'm not going to be followed because then the ones you want to be followed like stop. Why should I stop? If you can get them to stop that would be great. Getting them to stop sounds like a major thing. By casual observation, Steph and I have gone out and watched this intersection. Most people stop. Like most cars stop. There's always the ones that don't but they're the ones who tend to get reported and seen but most cyclists do stop. Is this your cane? We haven't discussed it in any kind of detail. They use it anywhere else on the path or if there are some kind of conventions that are getting, you mentioned the Lexington Avenue and other areas, Lexington, town of Lexington I should say. Is it falling to any category that way? The person who knows most about this can't make it tonight, he's down in DC. He knows what the regulations are but I think there was a reconfiguring of the intersection, one of the intersections in Lexington that kind of made it less obvious straight across It's on Woolburn Street but it was configured to decrease the length of the crossing. It was a diagonal crossing for the bicycle path which was very long and so they made a right angle in the path to make a perpendicular and it definitely works to slow you down. But they got a lot of space to do it there Well they took away a cycle. That's the only precedent on the trail currently. Would Taffy be willing to look into the working group? Look into what that layout could be whether it makes sense to do it on just one side versus both sides? I mean we can look at it as a concept. How much of an easement maybe we'd need to give? We're not like designers per se. It's the concept level to show what the layout would be and what the impact would be to Jason property. And even whether you feel it would be worthy after you look at the layout. I can tell you it hasn't gone much than Scott Smith drawing this. There's an idea. Do you have base plans and things of what you need to try to do a concept sketch? I don't have a base plan right now. I guess you could use an aerial photo. We can talk to DPW. Google Maps is pretty amazing. We're still waiting on the flashing yellow to find out more information there. What that might end up costing. That all comes out of the 40,000. Any changes like this would come out of the 40,000. I mean line painting is pretty inexpensive. The ballers I imagine are fairly inexpensive. It's not big to go on. Unless the change to the flashing yellow is a substantial price there may be enough money to do a reconfiguration if it's found to be worthy. There's no point in doing it if it's not worthy. I just want to understand. You're asking us to look into the idea of a chicane for the eastbound approach. What the benefits may be and what the impacts may be to the adjacent property. Any other requests? Give us your final reading on what Massachusetts law requires with that approach to intersection signage. Everything else seems like it makes a lot of sense and could help even if the chicane isn't found worthy. These things can help. Each one helps to some degree. Can someone find out from the DPW whether they have more of those plastic things and if they're just not replacing them and maybe if they can start to remove them rather than drive over them? Wayne would be over that I would think. It's probably not Wayne that's hitting me. Wayne could talk to whoever's in charge if whoever's in charge. With this additional concept, what type of schedule would you like this to be on? If we can extend this other schedule, do we know how long, much longer the flashing yellow would take? Maybe once both of those are kind of done? We should know soon. I don't know exact schedule from Wayne. I know he's tried to schedule another site meeting. It's in the works. We don't meet again until March 3rd or 5th, the first Monday in March. I don't know if that's too early? It may be too early for us to get together. There's school vacation. As a group we can come up with a concept. So maybe our next meeting would be a few weeks after that probably. I think two weeks after. I'm pretty sure the board meets twice in March. So we could shoot for mid-March, mid to late March. You're like, yeah. So the 17th we can... The extra funds expire at the end of March, 2014. I think we'd have to look into whether or not we can extend that deadline. I'll do that right away. We may have to force a decision on ourselves earlier. I'll let Wayne know too. Since he's looking into the flashing yellow, there may be a deadline. He knows that there's a deadline. As you look into that, will you also find the contact of who we would contact if we wanted to pursue that? Great. Thank you so much. Looking hard on this one. Thank you also for coming back right there. Thank you very much. It's an important intersection. It really is. I'm there all the time. I'm usually walking. I still don't want to get hit. Thank you, Lord. I think it would be great. Not that exciting. You know what it is, right? It's my virtue. Our next item is the 2014 warrant articles relating to the zoning bylaw. I think Harold's going to speak to us about that a little bit. You recall that there is a need to have a zoning bylaw amendment to fight medical marijuana treatment centers. Right now we do not have dispensary, but we do have to adopt a bylaw amendment because we had a moratorium meeting last year that anticipated that the board, rather that town meeting would adopt something once the state issued its regulations, which it did do last year. The zoning enforcement officer and the town manager and the director of health and human services for the town and town council and I met to discuss how what zoning district and so on how to be handled. I suppose that the language for the boards vote add a definition for medical marijuana treatment center and locate the use in the B-3 and the B-5 district. Would you mind bringing that board back up, please? I can show the board where B-3 and B-5 are. B-3 is the Brown districts and that's village business. Carol, is the one on the wall bigger? Or is that old? No, that's not old. Maybe the camera could zoom in on that. Sure. B-3 and B-5, so B-3 is the dark brown that's village business district so it would be the heights, the center where you see the brown, the dark brown and here as well as B-5 which is the dark I call it the bow tie of Arlington center. See the bow tie? Or a propeller but in any event it's the dark central business. That's right. The central business district is just right here so that's where we're contemplating having the districts where they would be allowed by special permit through environmental design review through the board. So this is Marathon basically Mellows and Marathon through Capital District Capital District, Arlington Center and Arlington High. The three main commercial centers. Carol, in last year's version of this there was only one district, that was B-5 and I'm trying to remember if that was B-3 or B-5 or I think it was B-5. It was my recollection. It was all in one area and all the B-5s in the center, right? That's right. So why two districts is here? They're commercial districts. The idea is not to limit the use and not to restrict it. These are also these are the commercial areas. It's unlikely that we would have more than one in Arlington. I think last year there was some feedback that by having it in only one district and one one zoning district and one commercial district that it seems restrictive. So this way there's one in each center also. And in other respects it's very similar to what was proposed last year. Special permit environmental design review through the ARB. And this would, the public hearing is the first meeting in March. So you're going to send us all the language before then? Tell me again who was on the committee. Or tell us again. The zoning enforcement officer. Christine Bonjarno. The director of health and human services for the town. Town council. Town manager. Input from Chief Ryan. And myself. What was Chief Ryan's input? How did he feel about the B-5 and the B-3? I can't remember verbatim. He wasn't, I think he gave input but was not at the last discussion that the group had. He's not happy about it because it's still against federal law. It's still conflicts with federal law. And it really poses a challenge for a contradiction for law enforcement. But he recognizes that it's state law. As far as the location, is he happier to have it in B-3 and B-5 versus just B-5? Are there reasons safety-wise that that makes more sense? Or he wants it in the centers and in the commercial areas. He recognizes that it's better to have it in an area where there's activity rather than having it in an industrial area. Several years ago when the law changed about how adult entertainment could be cited, people thought, well I know, we'll put it in an industrial district and hide it. But thinking is different with this. At least we thought it shouldn't be treated that way. It normalizes that the Massachusetts regulations were very carefully drafted in my opinion. I think they had the benefit of learning from California and Colorado. And I feel encoded in their regs are ways to make it, or to keep it from being glamorized. And to keep it from becoming a recreational commodity. And to keep it as the law intended which is for medicinal use. And it was felt that to have it in commercial districts is consistent with that. Just reading through the signage requirements that the state has. Remember last time we all looked at the signage requirements and decided we didn't need to draft any new ones for Arlington. They were able to go much farther than zoning could ever go. Right. And controlling the signage. They were really controlling it. That was impressive. I agree. I thought the regulations were quite thoughtful. So do you anticipate that we'll be seeing it draft? Draft both. By our next meeting? Yes. And the warrant closed Friday. I do not have additional zoning bylaw amendments if any were filed. The zoning bylaw amendments are supposed to be submitted to the board of select and the board of select is supposed to convey them to the ARB. So as soon as that happened I don't know what else was filed. I know you saw an early draft of a 10 registered voter article from John Belskis increasing the amount of affordable housing in our inclusionary bylaw. I believe that he did submit a final version of that. I don't have that. That would be part of the hearing. That's right. You would have to have anything that was submitted before the warrant closed. The way the zoning bylaw amendment you'd have to hold here. You'll have draft language from us on anything that was submitted. Okay. And John will be there too or somebody will be there to represent their warrant article. I'm saying yes. I don't know if he, I think I gave him the date. I know I gave him the date of the public hearing. Any other? This may be an obvious point but I think at times when it's not a warrant article that was being sponsored by the ARB, the public or the sponsors may not understand that they really need to make the presentation. I don't know. Maybe, I guess last year I was thinking with the affordable housing. I guess the sponsor did speak. I think there's a perception that if we're all having a hearing that we are a sponsor of it which isn't necessarily the case. But with the add-on to the housing. Correct. Well last year I was giving the example last year about the accessory. Make sure that the sponsors understand that. That dynamic. I'm sure they get it. It's always good to mention it. The board deserves that. So our last agenda item I think now is the approval of minutes. We have the January 13th, 2014 minutes. So this means we're up to date, right? Yes. It's kind of hard to believe. Wonderful, wonderful. So I don't know if everybody needs a minute to read these, if you saw them. Email before you can. Did everybody get to see them once? Okay. Do you want to start first? I have two things. At the top of page two, where the vote, where it says that I move to approve the draft article to condition that the chair or director made later the title. And I think that should be made, change the title. To include registered marijuana dispensary. Okay. And then my other comment is really a question on page one. Maybe a three quarters down page. We're talking about the escrow for the conservation stewardship at back the $30,000 escrow for conservation stewardship to the land disposition agreement. And I think it would help to have a little bit more context unless it relates to the paragraph right above it. I don't know if it does. To check if the escrow can be released back to the town and then add back the $30,000 escrow for conservation stewardship. Those are two different escrows aren't they? Because the first escrow, the paragraph right above it with the LSP is for the environmental damage with the oil at the site. Right, and that was a significant escrow that couldn't have come back to the town. To be released to the town. Yeah. And then the $30,000 escrow for conservation stewardship will probably know this better than I do, but is that for the oversight of the conservation area in the Sims woods? Yes. The annual walkthroughs, check the boundaries, check the signage. And then there's another $10,000 added onto that. Okay. So I'm wondering why this is in here because I didn't think that had ever gone away. It hadn't. Okay. I was just looking through the notes from the meeting to see the context for that. We were looking through the matrix when we went over all these items. Maybe it was missing from the matrix. Oh, the line, right. The line was missing from the Excel spreadsheet. I had an old copy and I saw it online. So you want to add the row back into the matrix. That's what you meant. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Add the row for the $30,000 escrow for conservation stewardship to the LDA back into the matrix at the missing row, maybe you could say. Okay. Perfect. That's all I have. And how about if we go down two more performance bonds to completion escrow? That's kind of hanging there too. Do we say something about that on the matrix? Whether there were two, we were talking about whether there's two performance bonds or one, and that was up above. I know we talked about the affidavits that everybody has to sign. Maybe that was supposed to be there. We talked about the... The notes just say performance bond to completion escrow. I was hoping someone might have some contacts for that. If it was really important, one of us would remember it. And we're coming back to the matrix. I would suggest striking it. I'll check the matrix and if I see something I'll let you know. If it was something you were supposed to check on. Okay. There's a typo just below it. Board then moved... Well, maybe not. Then moved to the proposed draft order. There was a typo on the very top, absent. And Andrew was not absent. It's also correct because I was not absent. Andrew was here. In fact, he actually abstained from the vote later. That's how I realized who was absent. From the meeting I was absent. Which we got right last time, I think. Did you see anything else on that, Andrew? Just on the... About halfway down the page, just as Jay got to New Arlington 360, discussed the performance bond placed at the closing. Would it make sense to have placed actually changed to put in place at the closing? My next Andrew. Do you see anything? I think I'm a little sad. Somewhere in here and I can't find it now. We were going to learn something and I thought that word was a little bit hard to understand. It's on page 2, the large sentence, the board asked Miss Kowalski to learn from the town engineer the plan in full budget. To the board asked Miss Kowalski to find out. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. From the town engineer. Do you see where we are, Carol? That's the only other thing I saw. And that you had encouraged the board to attend the ALT meeting. You could have that, but it's not very substantial. But since you have that I encourage the board to attend the January 16th presentation of the land use, I think you also encourage the board to attend the ALT annual meeting for the Community Preservation Act, which was a great meeting by the way. Very informative. Most of them were good. And there is one more. I can make a plug for the land use working group. Or for the master plan committee there, again having a land use discussion, land use working paper discussion. What's their big discussion as a committee this Thursday at 7 o'clock. So if anybody wants to sit in on that for a discussion, it's a shame those aren't televised. Well, the land use one, the presentation was recorded for later playback. Was it? Good. So you could watch that if you didn't make it to that one. And the public facilities working papers expected this week. So that's one to one to four. Great. I'm interested to see the committee's discussion on the land use paper. It's an important one. It is. It's a shame it's the first one that came up in a way. I know. They'll have to revisit it once the other elements are available. I think so. Okay. So, entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I'll move to approve as amended. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Would you like to say aye also? Yeah. One technicality. Okay. So, I think that's all our business. Let's somebody have something else they want to bring up. The next meeting isn't until March. We're not having the February 24th meeting. At this moment, we do not have February 24th, but try to keep it open. Okay. Thank you. Okay. One last motion. I'll move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. We're adjourned.