 Call to order the January 5th, 2015 meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. First on our agenda this evening is a discussion of the Arlington 360 NPP Find discussion with the Arlington Land Trust. We have a representative from the Land Trust for us tonight. We do. We're just standing forward. State your name and address, please. Brian Rare, 28th Academy Street. Thanks for coming. Nice to meet you. Hi, Brian. I'm actually here to listen. I think that the board has a decision to make about the disposition of the fine money. It was suggested that there might be some appropriate target for it involving the conservation land. And so we're interested to know what the board has in mind and whether it might be appropriate. So I think we've discussed this the last couple of meetings, whether the land trust would be an appropriate entity. So I'll leave it over to Carol to reiterate. One of the reasons why we wanted to have you come in, Brian, was there were questions about the Sims Stewardship Fund. Who holds it, who controls it, how it's set up? And if you can talk a little bit about that, the board wanted to know a little bit more about the Sims Stewardship Fund. And since I have recommended that one entity to consider contributing these funds to an additional housing authority, were there other questions that? Yeah, just as a corollary, I think, is do you have a notion of how long the current $30,000 I think is what went in there, what that tail looks like. So that if we did boost it up a little bit by using these funds, would we get a little bit more time? Let me answer the first question first. Yes, please. Because I think it'll help answer the second. So the direct answer is that the Stewardship Fund is created by the management plan, which is the contract among 360, the Conservation Commission, and the land trust. By which 360 is obligated to a set of standards for maintenance of the various areas of the sites that are covered by the Conservation District. And it's short enough, I'm just going to read the paragraph to you. The fund is created, it's to be held by the land trust. Use of Sims Stewardship Fund. Sims Stewardship Fund shall be used to pay for certain improvements to the Summer Street Woods and Buffer areas. In accordance with this management plan, the Forest Management Plan and the Special Permit, or it's otherwise agreed by the Grantor, or Successor there too, and both grantees. So any expenditures have to be approved by the Land Trust, the Conservation Commission, and the owner at the time. Generally, the work occurring in the Summer Street Woods and Buffer areas shall include the installation, replacement of substantial restoration of assets, including trees and shrubs, trails, benches, other amenities for quiet public enjoyment, in or on the Summer Street Woods and Buffer areas. But shall exclude buffer plantings and other new plantings that are required at the Grantor under the Special Permit, replacement of any such plantings due to failure, maintenance obligations, other maintenance obligations required at the Grantor. Or any other responsibilities that are the Grantors. So, as you know, the woods were once the town's Norway Maple Farm. And as part of this process, one of the things that was created is a Forest Management Plan that sort of outlines a process by which over many years, that woods might be evolved toward a healthier woodland. And that's going to require two things over time, removal of Norway Maple and planting of new trees, both of which are pretty expensive. And this applies to the Buffer areas as well. Some of the buffers consist really only of screening plantings at this point, so most of the emphasis is on the woods. And so I think the answer to your question is, first of all, it's going to be several years before there's consensus among those groups. You know, one of the things that we very much want to have happen is for a friends group to form that, you know, populated with both new residents of the site and a butters and people from elsewhere around town. And, you know, out of that and the planning that's been done in advance, we hope will grow some consensus about how to evolve this over time with some volunteer help, et cetera, but it's going to require some money. So, you know, thirty thousand bucks won't go very far. That's true. And I think that that could be spent in a couple of seasons. It's not intended to be spent quickly. It is intended to be a process over, you know, the coming years, decades, perhaps. But I do think that if there were additional funding and if there were a thought that some of it could be invested in the conservation area, I think this would be the appropriate thing to do with it. I do think that I wouldn't, certainly from the land trust point of view, we wouldn't be interested in any other use of those funds that would involve us because we would want to rely on the structure of this. Yes, that makes sense. So, have everyone agree on the expenditures? Any questions? I think I'm pretty good with this actually. I expressed a concern initially about whether or not the land trust or the plan was a town entity because I think there's some language in management agreement that says it has to go to a town entity. But I think I'm taking a broader view on that. And since we've recognized in the management agreement that this is where the initial $30,000 is going to, I think that we've kind of cleared that question anyway. And I think Brian, your answer to Mike's question is pretty convincing that there's a lot of work to be done within the scope of the original management plan and a few extra dollars towards that could be applied to the articulated goals that are in the management plan already. I think I'm fine with that. I did have one other question though. In terms of reporting, how does the land trust sort of, do you come back to us with a report every once in a while about how the money is being applied? We can. We're actually not required to because the ARB isn't actually a party to the management plan itself. Although the management plan is an exhibit of the permit, so maybe you are. We are required, the land trust actually is required to report to 360 and the concom every year on anything that's been expended, but of course they will have had to approve it in advance. Right. I think that since the fine is sort of being assessed through our body, it would be great to be copied on what you report to the concom just in case people ask us questions about how the money is being allocated. I think we will probably always do that anyway with certain documents relating to the conservation covenants because really many of them flow from your special permit or requirements of it. And so I think you'll see that correspondence regularly. Do we have a motion? Before we get to a motion, Carol, we were still considering other potential uses. Do we have a, I don't think we've arrived at an allocation to one group or to either land trust or anything? In fairness, I just feel obligated to pass along that there was a request from an email from a member of the Sims neighborhood advisory committee asking if the board would consider postponing the discussion. Further to receive a formal request from the Sims neighborhood advisory committee, the board did hear an informal request from a butters who may or may not be members of SNAC, but they aren't butters. But I did want you to be aware that I received an email asking if the board would consider postponing it further to allow time to receive a formal request. What you know about that, is that more geared towards the mitigation of light shining? Mitigation of any impact, including the light. Do we have an update on the light, impact of the lights or where that stands in the neighborhood? Yes. Jake Upton is here and I received a message from Jake and I also spoke with Mike Byrne today. The Arlington 360 photometrics are done and bright views are expected to be done tonight and Mike's expecting a report tomorrow. In short, Mike said that it appears that the residential component, the Arlington 360 side of the lighting plan meets both the 2005 and the 2012 photometrics. It sounds like that's all said, I'm sure Jake will have an opportunity later if the board wishes to elaborate on that, but we don't have it yet from bright view, but it's expected tomorrow or the latest I would think, sometime later this week. And when you say the Arlington 360 photometrics that's on the street, those are the different street lights. That would include the lights on the road. I was up there a few days ago at dawn, it was quite beautiful, but the lamps do have the screens on them. I don't know if there was more to it than that, but the ballast, it's up to the board. It could be very helpful rather than me trying to translate. I think now is probably a good time. So the photometrics that are everywhere except for the parcel that Shelter owns have all been done and submitted. The shelter has replaced the bulbs. There were a couple of areas that have been identified. They've replaced the bulbs in their courtyard area. They have a plan of what they think it should be. But the consultant is supposedly going out tonight to verify that the as-built plan is consistent with the plan that they were expecting it to be. And then with that they will submit a similar package that Arlington 360 submitted today to show that there are no hot spots on their parcel. So that is in process and I would expect confirmation of the performance would be today. The formal submission might be at the end of the week since the paperwork can be processed by the consultant. So did the street lights pass the photometric test? Do you know because they have the shields now or were they going to pass regardless? The bulbs, all of the bulbs have been replaced. Oh those have as well. The 400 watt have been replaced. There's new ballasts and bulbs in those. There were, we left the screening in place to be double sure. There was one area just to be double sure that we were not having light going over the property lines. There were a couple of places where we actually added a couple more shields just to make sure it was done. Would you expect this 400 watt? There was a discrepancy in this outline spec versus the original photometrics plan and there was a communication error. So it was an error and the specs were part of what were approved. But it was clear that when we went back to the original photometrics that there was an adjustment that needed to be made. It took us a while to figure out that that's what the problem was. Is now, what watt is your thing now? 200. That's good. Yeah, that ought to be it. That's a half. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it looks like it's safe. It's been certified by the engineers of being safe and consistent from that perspective. Like there's enough light and then not too much light and then the syncing of the lights with shelters lights had been kind of tagging along. We thought that they had already synced everything up. They realized through our submission that there were still some issues. And so they went back and scrambled and got those done and that's probably the place now. They didn't have that photo of the 400, 200 problem. They had a different problem. But there were just different bulbs which they solved by changing their ballast and bulbs in theirs. So it's been a process. I'm comfortable with making decisions on our next non-master plan meeting. Andrew, what is the connection? I know it's a connection because we're talking about the same site. The allocation of these funds is not the mediation of street lights or things that are specified necessarily for the infrastructure of this place. I'm just wondering what the connection is. And maybe it's a good idea to hear it out. Well, that's what I think. I don't know if there's anyone here tonight to present that case. Because I think I'm kind of in support more of this idea of kind of allocating these funds where they're already helping something that's put in place and doing it right. This is a really important area and somehow it's satisfying to allocate enough funds or at least another chunk that would be meaningful rather than having everything maybe just getting by. So I feel like it's also based on Brian's description of how much real work there's going to be up there over time. But I defer to you to say if we should just hear what we have to hear and make a decision then I don't know if it's time sensitive at this point. Is there any sort of time sensitivity here making a decision whether to go with you? No, not at all. I would just add, if I may, that I wouldn't want to view the stewardship fund as being in any way in competition with the abutters or the creation. But I also would want to say clearly that the stewardship fund would not be useful for any additional mitigation that the abutters might consider appropriate. It wouldn't be expected. That would fall under this. So those two things are not really compatible in any way. Understood. Yeah, I don't think anyone's under any misconception. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. The next item is the management plan and conservation plan. I think the board wanted to hear an update and staff report. Okay. I guess I should stay here. You should stay here. I'd also like to say that Kathy Garnett and Mike Nolley from the Conservation Commission are here as well. We did get the annual report from 360. There's some good work in it. There are some things that need improvement. We will have some comments on it. Jake and I have started discussing them. And I think that we will be able to get some comments. Over the holidays, it's been hard to collect comments from, in this case, both the Land Trust Board and the Conservation Commission. But we're in the process of doing that. Most of the key information that much of it is here. For example, they've presented a mitigation plan for the invasives that have sprouted in a serious way on the part of the site that we feel is adequate. On the other hand, a key piece of the management plan and the annual report is the review by a certified arborist of the conditions on the site and the arborist's input on what needs to be done in the coming year. The arborist, we've collectively been dissatisfied with the work of the arborist who had done some work in the past. So there's a commitment to bring someone new on board that person's been identified. But we wanted the report to make sure that that commitment is clear, that there's a schedule of how that arborist is going to begin work. There are a few other issues about conditions on the site and how we deal with the transition of the potential change of ownership of property. Those are a particular concern to us because we want to be sure that this annual report and the work that's been done sort of sets the model for what happens next as we start a new relationship with new owners. And in that same vein, we need to deal with the fact that there are certain corrections of things on the site. Either plantings that have failed or things that weren't installed in the first place according to the plan that need to be done. Jake would do them today if he could, but it's January. And so as some of those obligations are going to remain open in this transition, we need to find a way to say that Jake has filled his obligations and we have to provide an estoppel on this as well as do others. And we'll be working out a way to be able to provide that while still having some protection that the successors will take care of those outstanding issues. One of those is an issue with shelter in the restoration of the trailer site. A couple of things that weren't done according to plan or planting that failed, etc. And the relationship with shelter is a little different. We've started discussing that, I think we'll come up with a way of dealing with it. So there will be pushback, I don't know if you've seen the report, and we will be asking them to restructure it a little bit and to add a bit more information to it. But I have no concerns that we'll get to something that works and be able to do it very quickly. Do we still have escrowed funds? Yes. Yeah, ten? Yeah. Okay. Is that shelters or? It's ours. So we would like to get everything done and close that out simultaneously. Alright. Yeah, that's going to be difficult with the punch list, it sounds like, right? Yeah. With the failed plantings? That's fine. Well, I do think that the nature of the management plan is to outline everything that will be done in the following year. So I think we've identified those. Those may need some clarification or some additional things, which we'll work through. But that's what the management plan does. Yeah, I mean, the items that were identified though for that have been also specified. I think it had to do with traffic improvements. I believe some plantings were part of it in the park area. So I think there's some definition of what the escrow is for. That being said, you know, we're all interested in closing that out. Yeah. It'll be part of the discussion. Yeah. I'm sure we need to. No, I don't tonight. Yeah. Right. No, it was more curious. Glad you brought it up. Since Jennifer Ryan's letter of December 17, Concernal Progress has been made, it sounds like, and the dialogue is continuing. The dialogue is continuing. We do one of the things I didn't mention is one of the things that Jen mentioned in that letter, which I should say crossed, essentially crossed in the mail with 360 getting us the plan a couple of days later. Sure. One of the tasks that need to be accomplished was to mark the boundaries, which is especially important on this site. There are boundary markers that we have made up that can identify it as conservation line. It's particularly important for all concerned, especially because of the way some of the fences have been placed. It's important that both the land trust and the concom and the owners and the abutters know very clearly where the boundaries are, because there are many areas where some of the conservation land very much gives the appearance of being part of somebody's backyard. And in fairness to them, that needs to be clear to that abutter as well so that there are no surprises. And so Jake has placed the markers. It was a difficult process, turns out. They've been installed. We've not had an opportunity to make sure that they're adequate, both correct and that there are enough of them that, for example, a landowner can see in his background. Connect the dots as to where the line is. These are old fashioned granite. They're just stakes with the signs that the land trust. Are they permanent? Are they recorded as a GSP? What do you call it, GPS? They're placed. There's no specification, so they're done with stakes. They're done with survey work. There's boundary markers that are concrete. Survey is points, but the markers themselves are on stakes. Well, we wouldn't say that they're temporary. We put in what was given to us to put in. I guess it's the best way to put it. Well, I guess there's a question of what was furnished were mental signs. How they get installed really is a separate question. I didn't know they were on wooden stakes, but that may need to be addressed. Clearly, they need to stay there. So if they're not sufficiently permanent, they'll need to be clear that there's an obligation to restore the myth. We'll have to talk about that. This is kind of a perennial issue with land trusts. Marking an easement, they disappear. It's a really good idea to make them as permanent as possible with something heftier than a little stake. Something to work with. But I think Cole will be well. Was there anything, if I may, I just want to ask if Kathy or Mike had anything specific that I left out? Covered while we talked about that. Thank you, Mike. Thank you so much, Mark. Thank you, Bill. Continuing on with the Arlington 360 theme early part of the meeting tonight, I'm asked to review housing estoppel, affordable housing estoppel certificates. And for this, I am going to defer to Carol. Arlington 360 has asked the board to sign two estoppel certificates. One for the middle income units and one for the low. And moderate income agreement to have both of those in front of you. Laura Wiener prepared memorandum, a very brief memorandum, explaining that she conferred with Attorney Edie Netter for the town. There are no known issues. And with the regard to the regulated rents, you were provided with a report on the rents and they appear to be in compliance. So there's, we have no reason to report to the board that there would be any, I don't think the board should have any hesitation about certifying that the regulated rents are intact and there have been no violations of the regulated rents. I think it's pretty straightforward. I reviewed the estoppel certificate and the chart and verified that the computation of the maximum rents is in accordance with the formula. So I agree, I think it makes sense. This is really Mike's point, so I'll let him speak to that. Are you all set? The only thing I have is just an administrative thing. I think, could you collect these afterwards and redact? There are actual names in this chart, which I don't think is a very good thing at all. I'm not sure this chart is even necessary, but now that we've got it as part of the public documents, I guess we have to keep it there, but I would suggest we redact names and that. I'd be happy to do that. I would just add to that. I wonder if we even need this, I just wanted to be a kid on the certificate. Well that's true as part of the certificate itself, but definitely shouldn't be there. Because the first chart tells us everything we need to know. The report was prepared for the board's information. So that won't get a tab. Basically this office certificate will only be the certificate without any charts. That is right. The report is a piece of the memorandum. Well, it does have exhibit a income limit. Oh, there you go. The first table that doesn't have the names. Correct. The table with the names certainly isn't necessary. Yeah, so I'd suggest that we pass these in afterwards. I see actually the names. No, that's still the other chart. I think the first chart is fine. Because there are other documents that identify which units are low income and moderate income. That's enough information. Andy, did you have them? No, I'm thinking I'm also fine. With three lawyers having way to end up fine. Two and a half at best. Two. Yeah, exactly. We actually agree. No, I don't think so. So I would move that the board authorize to execute the Estoppel certificates with respect to the low and moderate income regulatory agreement. But with only the first chart attached, but not the one that names specific tenants. I just have a technicality. The chair. The acting chair. Second. All in favor? Aye. Oh well, but if you want them signed, I'll give you a couple that you can sign. No, we don't sign, just not sure. I think I got it. Okay. Good night. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Two of each? I don't know. Yeah, I mean one is very good. Yeah. One might be. I don't pay it. It doesn't date. So this is recycled? Yes. That was what I got. I think you need your draft board. Yeah. It looks like the document we need later on. Is this a free activity that's already available? Or is it? That's okay. What was that document? I'm going to go on personal. No. That's a document. There are a few people that are impostered this one. If I have them, it's really good. Yeah. Do you have any experience with digital boards? Yeah. Yeah. Really? Yeah. I'm here to see what you do. She does it. She uses it. She does it for some other ends. Right. Yeah. I've done it before. Why can't you? You might want to raise some money. People that need more memory. Out of memory? I don't want to raise money. I'm just going to tell you stuff on here. There is the first thing. You're saying to hit the okay button. Or monthly okay? That's for it. We'll double your pay, how about that one, okay. It's a race between me and technology. No comment. It's not much of a race. Do you have the voice recorder app on your phone, by any chance? I do, but it doesn't record that much. It doesn't have much capacity. Can you do part of the meeting? I thought you had to do it all. I don't have to record any of it. I thought that if you did, you could do parts. Sure, I've never encountered any... I'm not aware of anything in public records law about partial recording and looking into it. No, I'm just more curious. No professional courtesy sometimes. The voice recorder app flakes out after long periods of time, so say 25 minutes. 20, 25 minutes might be the maximum to stop and start running. Okay, good to know. Yeah, I forgot I had this on here, because I got so accustomed to using this. Right. Just pay a race. Because you went to the right. You can move to different files. Let's say I want to raise five to ten. It's 31 minutes long. Is that what you do? Sure, I'll reverse it. Raise. Raise, then it says okay. Okay, well, I... No, I don't want to do that. No, I cancel. That would work very nicely, but I don't want to ruin... Okay. So, okay. Here you go, Karen. Thank you. I did absolutely nothing except get credit right there. Go for it. Exactly. Okay. So next on the agenda is preparing for the master plan public hearing upcoming, which is our next meeting. Everyone should have received copies of the final-ish draft this afternoon, but I'm told there might be some additions. I wouldn't call it the final draft but it's the next draft. This draft... January 2015. That's right. The current draft says January 2015 on it. It's received today, and it incorporates some of the comments and input received by December 4th. We have... There are some changes that I think are important. In some cases, we had such conflicting input that the recommendation is to study further, to study those areas. For example, I thought a classic one was parking in East Arlington. There was one recommendation from the public input to buy a property, remove a building, and create a parking lot in East Arlington. There was a different recommendation, don't change parking in East Arlington. So when you have such diametrically opposed input, the best thing to do is to just have the recommendation to study study it further. There were, however, some recommendations in housing, for example, that were made by the consultant that we with the committee and staff discussing together thought should be removed. For example, there is... I'll go right to it if you bear with me. In the housing section... Who was created 65? 65. There was, in an earlier draft... Yeah, this one right here. Okay. A recommendation to support infill housing on nonconforming lots. And that seemed directly opposite what we've been hearing from the public, which is a concern about smaller, nonconforming lots somehow being joined in an adjacent lot in a very large, high-end house going in, in an established neighborhood. There's... We heard the concerns about that for a number of reasons. It just didn't seem to solve the process. It's probably a recommendation that the consultant made because it's worked well elsewhere in some of the communities where they've worked with different needs and issues, but it was felt that that wasn't a good fit with Arlington, so that one was removed from the draft. Also, it was very logical I think from their perspective for them to recommend accessory apartments. However, for good reason, because the demographics we have baby boomers who want to stay in Arlington, but also want to move to Arlington. That's what we have. Our demographic is growing at that end and at the young school age again. But we don't hail a housing stock for 55 and older market rate. Empty Nester. I also think of those units as also being good for another category that we don't have enough housing for and that's people who are just starting out in their careers. Even though accessory apartments might make sense for as a part, a component of a solution for over 55 year old members of the population, it was presented to town meeting twice and town meeting did not vote for it. So we didn't want to put it in the plan. If there was in the future really robust grassroots movement to have a zoning bylaw and then the accessory apartments, there's nothing preventing this from community from considering it. But it didn't make sense it was felt to include it in the plan. So I think you'll see that change. Another thing that you don't see that we think has to be discussed more is talking, more discussion in the plan about distinguishing between elderly housing which is usually subsidized housing and just senior housing for the 60 to 80 year old demographic who doesn't need subsidized housing but needs a different type of house than what they raise their family in whether they raise them here or in a different community. So we don't have enough of that type and so we want to discuss that since that's part of the population that's increasing. So that's something that we'll we're already looking at this draft and trying to see how well it meets the the gaps that we observed in the first draft. We also notice that the plan kind of surprisingly doesn't talk enough about encouraging bicycles which is really surprising because Arlington is such a big community and that really has been in the forefront for so long and we have very active Bicycle Advisory Committee. There's not a lot in here about bicycle parking so we'll add a little more about that. Those recommendations did come in through the public input process but I don't feel and I think some others don't feel I talked to one of the co-chairs today and he doesn't feel like it was reflected strongly enough in the plan. So those are some kind of a preview of some of the things that you'll see changed or didn't change from the first draft to this version and we'll talk more about those how the comments were addressed or not and how they need to be in the next final version of the plan after the public hearing. So just to get back to the true nature of the agenda item I'm expecting to have a conversation whether we'll do it as a conference call or Andrew and the co-chairs and staff and the to kind of plan the sequencing of the public hearing we want to make sure we allow plenty of time for public comment but it's also a very important opportunity to really present the plan and the revisions so we need to allow time for the consultant to do that I don't think anyone wants to be there for longer than two hours so we have to really breathe but be clear and make sure we have a chance to comment. As I mentioned that in the timeline of activities in the process you'll see a July 22nd building diagnostic which is one of the deliverables with the consultant contract that's now posted on the website. I want it to be an appendix I've expected all along it would be an expect appendix it's not in the revised draft as an appendix yet but it's up on the website so you can take a look at it and a link to you so you can take a look at that so I can't I guess I can't really go into much greater detail right now about how the hearing will proceed but the board will open it and introduce and the master plan advisory committee co-chairs I think will introduce themselves it's really the redevelopment board's hearing so the committee I don't think will talk too much because I want to really make sure that the plan can be presented adequately and that the public really doesn't feel like they've got short-lived on the time. Any questions? Comments maybe a question but the question is time limits on speakers for the public hearing is that something we need to go down prior or what is in other words just making it we do have a time limit it is it's 10 minutes can we go shorter or no well I think the 10 is just very long it could be a long time I'm more concerned about just everyone getting a chance to say something not any other reasons where does the 10 minutes come from when was that established? I think it's part of our own regulations for hearings for EDR second bite of the apple is 5 which makes sense is what it used to be effective was just to tell people that it's important that everybody has the chance that's what I heard if your point has been made by a previous speaker it's okay to say I endorse the view of a previous speaker but without restating the whole argument again which sometimes people want to do they want to reshape it a little bit or add volume to it but you can do that just by saying I completely agree with what the previous speaker said and that can shorten it down a little bit too but if it's the board that we want to have a regulation in place to change the time limit that was more my thought and we could do that I wonder also if it's specific to environmental design review regulations those don't have to be applied to every hearing that the board holds for example you all said for a survey authority is there a time limit on the hearing? there is and but typically we try not to command more than two hours if something happens after two hours that's why the point about voices making is as a courtesy if you see that too many people are taking this little ten minutes then not everybody can be heard is there a way we can advise? I'm happy to forward my opening remarks to Carol and then to whoever it is that chairs that I mean you can disperse because I think which I had stolen from you you had given that to Carol like I think there's some language around these are our expectations for the ground rules your comments as all of us had as chairs to say look this has been stated do you have anything new to say on this subject to stop it from going that way the other thing I had was more of a comment too and I think it's important for folks here and anyone who's watching whatever else to realize that there were changes made in between the draft from earlier this month and what's on the website now you know there was another I believe recommendation here with respect to conversions of detached single family homes to multi-unit dwellings of up to four units that is no longer in the recommendations so that was one that I had flagged and when I went to the new version it wasn't in there so I do think it's important for folks to revisit certainly the recommendations at the very least so I'd just point that out to everybody Andy, anything? I'll say Carol, we'll plan later in the week probably Wednesday okay about at the office tomorrow do you break it up into sections or do you in other words how do you I think keeping everything sort of all together is probably the best way to go so that we're not coming back around to people somebody can ask their questions give them the amount of time that we decide on whether it's ten minutes or we do decide to shorten it so it's not by chapter by section that makes sense to me because I think we also run the risk of running out of time for the later sections so we warrant articles, discussion okay is the lock closed? the warrant the warrant is still open I'm pretty sure it closed last week in January Spencer might know I started to put you on the spot I should know, I can't remember but I'm almost positive it's Friday in January I'll double check for you so there is the warrant article to ask town meeting to consider endorsing a master plan it can be very simple I think but I'd like the word to you don't have to finalize the language tonight but I'd like you to be thinking about if there's any difference any revision to this which is to see if the town will vote to endorse the 2015 town of Arlington comprehensive master plan or take any action related there too the word endorse there's no special reason but I think that it's probably the most apt and I guess the only other one I'd ask is Doug I'm taking a look at it as well just to make sure that you know or take any action related there too should do the track there is the possibility of another warrant article that would address the public's and community's interest in having notices that are not advertising signs or commercial signs for example yard sale signs right now technically speaking signs like that signs that are not on a store or that don't identify a commercial establishment or business there's nothing to allow them so it's assumed if it's not specifically allowed it's assumed that it's not permitted so this would permit things like that I think it's also, I think it was it arose is it a friend's is it a friend's I think partly but it also arose the sports sponsorships to acknowledge the rider of a team sport or something I think there may be something delivered to the board that would be I believe it would be a 10 registered voter warrant article but town council has reviewed a draft so this would entail I believe if they pursue the concept they've been discussing it would entail amending the zoning bylaw simply to get that part of signs out of zoning into the general bylaw and then to create a general bylaw which this board wouldn't be involved in this board would only be involved in a very simple zoning amendment that would take that would excite that little bit of all signs out of zoning put it into the general bylaw so more to come on that stay tuned and I haven't heard of any other zoning bylaw amendment that doesn't mean there won't be any but we'll be receiving moving on to update on the central school leasing town published requests for proposals late last year we received some proposals back on both spaces available in the central school and again I'll defer to Carol to update the board on that sure, thank you the central school account includes the central school urban renewal buildings are the Jefferson Cutter House the central school itself and 23 Maple Street and in the central school and 23 Maple Street there are free spaces that were put out to bid we did receive proposals and I'd like to acknowledge Hamilton the president of the Arlington Seniors Association which was one of the organizations who responded to the RFP for a space in the central school we received a single proposal for each of three spaces which makes it very simple so Andrew Bernal is the board's designee on reviewing leases and so Amy Fidalgo on our staff and Andrew and I review the proposals and we expect to have draft leases prepared to make some recommendations to the board and to negotiate with the organizations so that should happen this week okay is there anything you'd like to add or anything you'd like to add that if this discussion had happened after I became president I would have had more to I would hope to have had more input than the Seniors Association had into the decisions that the board made and for one thing I think some of the information that was placed before you was at least misleading if not incorrect but we can live with it so long as we have the space that we need to run our programs in the center I'm here only to answer any questions you might have not to make a case for something that has already been decided and I think you've heard from other members of the Association I don't intend to so we will hear sometimes by the end of the month so you will have a proposed lease yes a proposed my expectation is a proposed draft please okay based on the actual square footage not the square footage that was in the proposal yes in fact I ask that the space be measured so that we can be more precise in the proposal we had it as I think 300 less well it's 253 if we were correct in our measurements so we want to be correct too so we'll get there good thank you thank you as we discussed at the last meeting Christine Sapinski resigned from the board she was the chair of the board leaves her seat open acting as chair but I think we need to make a decision as to how we will proceed with chair and to name a new vice chair of the board a senior association well I think Andrew you've done a fine job I don't want to do I think I derail this momentum so I would nominate Andrew Connell as the next chair of the you're willing to second all in favor all right any opposed there's no more left there's no one left that feels great doesn't it congratulations you've done great so far fastest movement in that direction exactly that's true we also need to nominate a vice chair and I'm not sure who would be next in line based on seniority or how the board would like to act well I think Andrew and you escaped from the chair the year first before we make that decision we're working on that because that would be the obvious person to right away you brought her in I think I will say that I don't think vice chair is automatic necessarily to move to chair so we'll at least give you a little bit of solace although I have been known to go again so I got crossies right now so but I don't whoever it is if that makes sense to bring them forward quicker on the chair but on the vice chair if it's my turn I'll be happy to serve vice chair yeah I'm just trying to agree I'm trying to help out here you know me I'm always trying to be helpful was that emotion it was it was emotion all in favor you didn't vote against I'm actually kind of surprised he could have been staying exactly well done, Andy it was a great campaign you weren't quick enough to take the step back like we were so before we move into the improvement can we talk a little bit about schedule about coming meetings next one next week what follows that I think the 26th we do have I thought we did but we had someone coming I don't know I remember the 26th the next one from tonight is the master plan public hearing and one of the things that I'm glad you brought this up because I'm intended to consider this earlier in the hearing in the meeting you can hold your hearing on Monday you can continue the hearing to consider adopting the plan at a later date you're not obligated to adopt the plan on the 12th things are going really well and you feel like you've heard the public and the shape it's taking is the right direction to prevent you from adopting the plan at the hearing but you are not obligated to act when you open the hearing the day you open the hearing you could continue it you could close the hearing we don't need to do we don't need the hearing to approve though as far as continuing the hearing with your EDR special permit hearings typically you keep the hearing open you really should continue it I would recommend that you continue it you could close public comment period of the hearing and then the rest of the hearing whether it's continued or not would be your own deliberation so I'm bringing this up because if you don't do that on Monday if you don't act if you don't vote on Monday it's a good idea to be prepared to tell the public when you would January 26th is a possible date I have to be at the Board of Selectments meeting for part of that but it doesn't mean that I can't kind of tag teams to me just a little bit the 19th is a holiday I apologize that I didn't bring the 2015 draft schedule I distributed it what happens to the comments how do the comments come into play that the public will have next the comments will be made and this process also the comments that have already been delivered too I think people who made them will look through the plan and will want to see how they've been addressed and if they're satisfied with how they've been addressed then the master plan advisory committee and the redevelopment board would also give some thought to how they should be addressed the board can make recommendations you could consider adopting the plan with some specific recommendations or conditions on how certain really important comments be addressed we could kind of steer that back to the master plan advisory committee we heard something that was important or resonated that we could say we want to take the time to consider that before we approve to be considered rather than approving it on that night which is the same night that they're giving their comments and I think the master plan advisory committee would probably also want I wouldn't be surprised if they would want some time to consider how to discuss the comments together themselves and then provide further collective input committee input to the board to this board so if we did it that way then we'd come back in a continued hearing and vote on it and when we voted on it it would just be the board it wouldn't be anybody else like the master plan committee with us you can really do what you want it would make sense I'm not looking to procrastinate or anything else but the fact is what we have to do by the time that the warrant closes is agreed to this right and actually and then first this board would adopt the plan you'd want an adopted plan to be going absolutely but how meeting starts in April that's my point is how meeting actually starts in April yes if I understand where you're heading with your comments we want to make sure that there's sufficient time to get the plan in front of time meetings and everything else absolutely like I said I'm not looking to procrastinate but it does feel like you know having the hearing I guess I would put it this way I'd be surprised if we're able to do everything next week I would be surprised I'd be really surprised if you chose or if things went in such a way where you felt like that build on Andy's point where I saw Andy go he knows that it might seem a little disrespectful to people making comments to say okay we heard you had never voted never gonna vote exactly right thank you I think having two weeks to digest ourselves and our comments is wise yeah I agree I guess I was planning on meeting on the 26 I don't know why I would like the board to check your availability for the 26 I think it's a logical date I think you do have a February 2nd meeting and you might even have an application by then for hearing so you chances are you'll be meeting just don't plan anything for Monday's work next week it's not quite as bad as since though we are heading into CDBG season as well and the actually that doesn't affect you but that affects the Board of Selectments and the zoning hearing would probably be I think I have a I think it would be March 2nd so keep that open please if you would for the two for the warrant articles so does that help a little bit with our upcoming schedule I'll try to update the draft schedule 2015 schedule and get that to you moving on to the approval of minutes I'll begin with you Bruce so in the fourth paragraph this is on the discussion about the sign for massage envy in the fourth paragraph where I commented that the amount of white space keeps the sign from appearing like a block since the space wasn't actually white I just thought maybe we should say blank space in the sign keeps it from appearing like a block and then after I moved to approve and Mike seconded just add the sentence that the motion was approved unanimously getting to the discussion of a sim stewardship fund just a couple of clarifications that the money is coming from the developer as opposed to from the board which is sort of implied in the way it's written so the sixth paragraph it says the board discussed the sim stewardship fund and that the board previously endorsed it with a $30,000 initial contribution by the developer and I think endorse is actually supposed to be endowed endowed I think that's actually I agree initial contribution by the developer initial contribution by the developer and instead of endorsed it should be endowed okay good and then the eighth paragraph that begins Mr. Care commented that if the board had already funded it I would suggest that be rephrased to say that if the board had already approved funding for the fund, comma the board has determined that it's a worthy purpose that the board had already approved funding for the sim stewardship fund comma the board has determined that it's a worthy purpose so we approved funding for the sim stewardship fund because again we're not funding it we're approving funding for it fund and it proves the sim stewardship they have determined that it's worthy a worthy purpose period oh yeah they have determined that it's a worthy purpose the last sentence of that same paragraph specifically how much administration would the 26-250 allow the way the sentence reads now with land trust administration each board being capitalized I don't think it's quite what Mike's question was what can you actually do with $26,000 just having that as an uncapitalized administration how much administration the 26,250 would allow the next paragraph just the date needs to be corrected to 2015 scary I've made that mistake a few times already second to last full paragraph for people who don't know where Trist is maybe we should just say 689 Massachusetts Avenue so if anybody cares where we went they know and the very end where it says adjournment needs to be added I think the paragraph should read the board then came out of recess upon the arrival of the members at Trist but no board related matters were discussed and I can't remember who actually moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10 p.m. by unanimous consent Bruce hit everything except I would actually take the second to last printed paragraph there and move it underneath the poly-forward paragraph switch these and then at the end of that paragraph that you just moved at the end where it says once reconvened at Trist I would just say Mr. West seconded and the motion was unanimously approved I don't think we have that in there it was noted have you noted that no redevelopment board business will be discussed yeah Mr. Smith moved for the meeting to go into recess and then you have the board agreed to I guess you have the board agreed I guess is that good enough just got the board agreed never mind the last comment if you could just move it down to the end just switch those two Andy? no more comments I'll move to approve the minutes of December 15th, 2014 as amended second on favor? I have a question actually why did the board have to recess rather than adjourn in these circumstances described in the minutes because if we adjourn there's been a pull up posting of the meeting it's more than two of us but if you're not discussing business it's a quorum I understand but I think it may be out of an abundance of caution yeah just to say that we so anyone could come and sit with us at Trist have a beer but they'd have to buy a beer that's right so that was something that was established several years ago yeah several years ago there was an issue about the board adjourning and then reconvening across the street before you were the director and by the advice of that town council it was recommended that we go into recess and then reconvene and then ask it in the meeting actually so that I would know when the public would have an opportunity to know that that was recommended that time it was in fact okay thank you I'll move to adjourn I'll sign all in favor bye thank you