 No, it's different. Yes, exactly. I'm going to call to order the meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board on April 7, 2014. Actually, a pretty short agenda tonight, mostly administrative things to get through. So the first thing that I want to go over is the ARB report to town meeting. Carol had done a draft, and I had made comment. And the results of those two things is what was sent out to you early this morning. Sorry about that for the timing of it. But I figured it's not that long, so we can go through it live regardless if someone didn't have a chance to review. So we can go around with comments. What's the best way? Go piece by piece, maybe article by article, making sure that. Why don't we do that rather than take all the comments? So we'll go article 6, which is the medical marijuana treatment center. First off, did anyone have anything on the front page? Do I need type rows or anything? No? OK. All right. Let me go our usual way. Bruce, do you want to start? I had no comments or corrections. Does that read OK? It's good to me. OK. One correction, actually, before we start. Unfortunately, misremembered. And I don't know why I put deputy town manager in the working group. It was actually the town manager. It wasn't both. Was it, Karen? I don't recall it. It might be both. It could have been that Andrew playing against Adam. Let's put both. I'm pretty sure it was both. So why don't I add town manager versus just the leading deputy? Because I'm pretty sure it was both. Sorry to interrupt. Christine, anything on the six? No, it looks good to me. OK. Andrew? That looks great to me. OK. Andy? OK, great. Then moving on to April, Article 7, which is the John Belskis sponsored affordable housing or inclusionary zoning, I should say, a requirement percentage. The same way, Bruce. No comments on that. Looks fine. OK. OK, let me finish reading. Yeah, sorry. I didn't get a chance to read. Yeah, no, that's fair. Carol, while Christine's doing that, so on the no actions, is that the usual phraseology that the board recommended no action or is it a recommended vote? Or is the phraseology right there? I'll tell them. We don't do it that often. And so maybe we should look at an old Selecman report and just see, or do we have it last year? Or an old Revolving Board report, where you had a no action recommendation. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly, just to make sure we get that kind of phraseology. I had a comment would be that last line. Finally, the board believes that the master plan exercise is a very good venue to discuss this issue. Yeah, I tossed it in there. Is exercise the right word? Probably not. I did toss it in there because the master plan process I like that. Yeah, but I wanted to get the point in there that these are the types of things we want to hear from these people about during the master plan process is much better. Right. So finally, the board believes that the master plan, maybe the townwide master plan process is a better venue. Is a better venue, yeah. I don't think we want to say is a very good venue. Yeah, I agree. And I don't like venue either. That's the planning process is a good way to say it. This is a placeholder for the discussion. Yeah, probably. Like how are we going to say this? But my thought was is. Forum? A forum? Yeah. Maybe more appropriate forum? Yeah. Is it more appropriate forum for this discussion? Well, maybe not more appropriate. Yeah, it's just at this time. At this time. It's really at this time it's a more appropriate. That's why I was trying to. Because it's something that we might take up in the future. Yeah. Yeah. Believes that at this time the master plan process is the best venue for this discussion. Better, better. We said better forum. I think better forum. Is a better forum. For discussion. Better forum. I have this issue. I have this issue. At this time? Is that what you wanted to say? I think we got to at this time up here. Believes that at this time. Put that at the end. Put that at the beginning. Oh, finally. Board believes that at this time, the town-wide master plan process is a, what do we say? Better forum for this discussion. Yeah, but you don't want to get tied to that. Yeah, I want to be careful. Because in the end, everything's got to come before town meeting anyway. And you never want to say that town meeting isn't the right forum for something. That's my only concern. I don't even like venue for that exact same reason just to be clear. Well, it's not really a venue. How about it is a, I mean, it's going to be discussed during the master plan process, right? Well, it could be. I mean, I guess affordable housing is going to be discussed. Yeah, the affordable housing. Yeah, Nelskis' idea. Right, the board believes that. Maybe a better forum for this. Well, how about the way we, how about saying finally the board believes that affordable housing issues within. Well, we could say it is confident that the town-wide master plan process will address or consider. Consider, it's even a little bit stronger to consider, right? But I think that's right. Well, it's address or consider. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll consider this issue as part of the process. Yeah. This issue. The issue of affordable housing. Yeah, why don't we do it? I mean, why do I even give too much? So finally, the town-wide master plan process will be considering the issue of affordable housing. OK. Yeah. We'll be using it. Yeah, here. I mean, there's attempts that they want to keep going. Exactly. I think that maybe we better end. Yeah. So finally, you're taking the board believes that at this time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, finally, the town-wide master plan process will be considering the issue of affordable housing. Also in the sentence before, in addition, the current 15%, it's not really related to the sentence before, actually, or at least I don't see any. Just say it should be noted that the current 15% should be noted. Yeah, it should be noted. Was that a test? How about we combine the two sentences? And we say it should be noted that the current 15% should be noted that the current 15% requirement is in line with neighboring cities and towns and that the town-wide master plan process will be considering the issue of affordable housing. Perfect. Good. A little bit neater for you, too, Carol. I appreciate the offer. Yeah, I'll do that. I'll do that. I think I have it, but teamwork is. OK, yeah, agreed. OK, I'll read it one more time just so we all kind of agree. So the last sentence is now going to say it should be noted that the current 15% requirement is in line with neighboring cities and towns and that the town-wide master plan process will be considering the issue of affordable housing. It seems like it means it further. But OK, it's a good affordable housing period. Good enough. OK, great. Good. That's seven. On to eight on the dark skies. I don't know if I want to read it. It's fine. OK. It's fine. Yeah, I don't think we have really changed. This first sentence, I mean, this all came from Paul, right? Oh, right, it's after the inserted. So it's this piece right here, just this little paragraph. Oh, OK, that's fine. Yeah, no, his, we can't change the. Yeah, yeah, I got you, because it's not good enough. OK. And then the last one is Article 9. One comment on that, and that is in the fourth line, about in the middle of the fourth line, but where in appears twice. So we can just get rid of one of those. OK. Good, all right. And substantively, it's fine. Sort of sad concern. Yeah, that's good. OK. OK. OK. OK, great. OK, good. We'll make those changes, and this will be the report. Except for maybe one more thing that I wanted to talk about next, which is Warrent Article 22, the Community Preservation Act. And Carol had forwarded along the recommended vote of the selectmen. My thought was we could take a read of their vote and figure out whether it's something that we want to support. Do you have an extra of that? I do. I didn't get that one. Or I didn't print it at least. Excuse me. No, that's OK. Should we say what you came up with? Oh, no, I did have it. Oh, OK. No, I didn't get that. I didn't get it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I should have said that. That's OK. No, I was just going to make sure I didn't miss it. Yeah, I don't understand that. Oh, no, I didn't get it. I was just reading the Warrent Article. That's what I'm trying to get. Right. The one that came up with that. The Warrent Article is long. So this is the Community Preservation Act, which is they're recommending a 1.5% annual real estate tax levy. And I believe they're doing a $100,000 exemption, right? The first $100,000 of value is not subject to this. I believe what Susan told us the last time is that, on average, it was about $86 per household. Yes, with that exemption and with 1.5%. Right, exactly. If you do the matrix. And then the revenue coming in would be $1.2 million. Is that with the match? Or is that just on? That's with the 1.5% and the 100% exemption. OK, we're not counting what the state would check then. No. OK. I think she said last year it was about 50% on the state because they actually allotted budget to it. Right. In addition to the renovation search, or whatever. Yeah, interestingly, I thought it would be kind of fun to figure out exactly how much the money Arlington residents are paying on the document search chart. Oh, yeah. Registry deeds. So I did some very, very rough sort of back and beyond the local calculations. And I found, I think in 2012, there were a total of about 550 residential transactions, sales transactions. OK. And on average, that would probably generate about $70 per transaction of CPA recording surcharge at the register. So that would mean $35,000 that Arlington residents paid into the CPA surcharge. And if you figure roughly the same number of refinances that year, maybe generating about $20 less per transaction because there's usually not a deal involved, there's about another $25,000. So probably $60,000 conservatively estimated because we're not taking into account commercial transactions was paid by Arlington residents for their real estate transfers in one year. We don't get any of that money now because we're not a CPA participating community. So that's money that, in effect, a portion of our population is already paying a tax on getting no benefit from whatsoever. No direct benefit to Arlington if you like. Historic preservation or open space in Congress. Yes, we're helping support that. So that may be relevant. And again, the numbers are kind of guesswork and kind of fuzzy, but I think I'm in the right range. Kind of an interesting argument, I think, in favor of the CPA. It'd be a good argument for Susan to put forth when she presents this. I'm assuming she's presenting it to Tom. You can probably even boost it up with the commercial. Yeah. Yeah, push it up. Yeah, yeah. So how people can help with that. If you figure we've been paying that roughly every year. Yeah, right. Since it started, which was? Oh, yeah, back in 2001, whatever it was. Yeah. So it's 13 years of that. That's a lot of money. Yeah. Anything else, Bruce? Well, no. I mean, I'm not sure what we want to do with it. I support the effort of the proponent. And I think it would be a good thing for Arlington to adopt. And I especially like the fact that we are taking a little bit of a half step. We're not doing a full 3% surcharge on the property tax. And we have the exemptions for the first $100,000 of the value. And also the exemption for people low or moderate income senior housing. So I think it's pretty well crafted. I agree. I think it's an excellent idea. And I'm surprised we haven't passed it yet. It's been out there since 2001. And I guess there's a committee that was formed to study it in 2001. I saw that on the Warren articles that came in the mail where they list all the different... That was one of them? That was one of them. And it was the 2001 CPA committee that caught my eye. So that committee's probably been trying. Maybe it did before. Maybe it did at one point, got shot down. Yeah. I don't know if anybody was to tell me to remember that. I don't recall it, to be honest, with the ever coming up. I recall there was a discussion about CPA. But as we talked about last time when Susan was here, in my mind, what I remembered more in the context of those community development block grants somehow came up in that. But I don't ever remember licking up and down vote on CPA at all since I've been in it for the last 12 years. Just working in the communities around here, there is so much work that's coming out that CPA founded. Yeah. That I work on. You know, from parks and recreation to historic sites to parts of streetscapes. All kinds of stuff is out there. Even knowing that it might offset some of what needs to be done with the high school, I think it's helpful. Right. That alone, I think, is persuasive. I would recommend that we take a vote in support. I would like to, yeah. If we're all in support. I think so. And I'll add two other things that I think are important. Number one is, I do think that the places where this, that you can fund from this are really the ones that in town meeting, it looks like they're always on the bottom of the funding because you can let those things slide a little bit more. And so it's nice to have, you know, a pool of money that you can actually use for those. I think the other important thing with the CPA is that it's got to go in front of voters. You know, and so from that perspective, it makes a lot of sense to support the passing of it. And I like that argument that Susan had is kind of like, for me, that means my constituents get to speak to it. So, you know, I think it makes sense regardless. Yeah. So anyway, so yeah, I think the wording of the vote maybe could be, endorse is probably the wrong word. I think supports the Selectman's recommended vote. That's it on Article 22. We can, you know, spruce it up a little bit in the report because then what I want to do is I would actually put it in our report. But we can just do the same thing, Carol, and say Article 22 with just the phrase up here and say that the board voted to, in support of the Selectman's recommended vote period. That way it's, that we were on record within our own report. Without need of any narrative summary. I mean we could, but I like their narrative. Their narrative's good. I'm not sure, you know, why we would need to add to it. I think their narrative hits all the points. Yeah, exactly. So you're not saying duplicate it. No, no, no. Just say in support of the recommended vote as well as the reasons for it or something like that. Maybe that's what we can put. The comments and the reasons. Yeah. So someone wants to make their questions. Okay, so I will move the ARB vote to support the recommended vote of the Arlington Board of Selectmen with the recommended vote and the rationale of the Board of Selectmen with respect to Article 22, the acceptance of the Community Preservation Act. Can we say unanimously voted? Yes, we can say that we unanimously supported it. That's what we do. Is there a second? I second that. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Yeah, and I think that's what we'll put in there. At the beginning of our report that all of the votes were taken were unanimous, but I think it's important in this one to say that it was a repeated. I agree. I can try to draft something up on that too, Carol. Okay. I mean, or either way. It's too bad Susan's flyer doesn't say that this was, the presentation that was made was videoed. And it's online. Well, maybe that preceded it. Because a lot of people aren't going to understand what this is still. What the CPA is. And that presentation was very... I think the good news is there, hopefully she's going to get up early in the meeting, because it's Article 22. So if she gets up early enough in the meeting and gets that out there, as well as letting people know that it's in there, that the presentation is online, then they'll have a few nights to be able to go back and take a look. Yeah. I think it makes a ton of sense. Hopefully something good happens there. We are flying along, as promised. So Carol, before we've got one more thing that we need to talk about. So I'll just intro it, and then maybe you can go through what the issue is. But this is with respect to a new item for the agenda tonight that was posted earlier today. Or it's just a new business, just one piece of business, which is on... Well, why don't you? Yes, but did you want to take... Did the board intend to take a vote on the report on the warrant article, the zoning amendment? No, if you intend to. Sure. You want to vote on the report itself? Is that what you... I left it open, so I didn't know if that was your intention. I don't know that you absolutely have to. I don't think we need to. Or you took a vote on your action. Yeah, I think we're okay. I think we need to approve the... Okay. So this is the Verizon. Okay. Verizon has applied for equipment on a... I'm going to forget the street address. It's the Greater Boston Motorsports building. And you probably recall that town meeting amended the zoning by-law so that wireless antenna installations now go before the zoning board of appeals. But because this EDR... Yeah. And because this property is subject to two EDRs, just for its general business, but also several EDRs for prior wireless antenna, it's coming back to the ARB. Actually, I think the reason it's coming back to us is because it's a structure on a building on Mass Ave. Just to be clear. This has been very convoluted. No, this is... Thank you for... This is... Yes, because to me, that's important. Essentially, one of the things we're trying to do tonight is we're going to extend the time at which the application... This application was actually presented a couple months ago, and there's been quite a bit of back and forth in the background as to whether this was opening in the old special permit or if it was going to be subject to a new special permit. And if a new special permit would it be heard by the Arlington Community Development Board or the ZVA? So what finally transpired is is that it was determined that it would be a new permit and we would not be opening up one of the old ones because the old ones were done by the less ease themselves. So this is a new wireless company that wants to put equipment on this particular building. So it didn't make sense to open up one of the old special permits with one of the old wireless companies. So then they came down to... There's truly saying, but it's a new special permit and therefore it shouldn't be before the redevelopment board and it was determined, well, yes, but because it is on MassApp and it's a structure being changed on MassApp then it is subject to the EDR, like anything else that's on MassApp. So wireless is bad for this one. And so now, Carol, I'll leave it to you. We needed to... The letter I signed earlier was in respect of... Extending the period by which the board has to act on the application. Because they applied so long ago, there is a Federal Communications Commission, they call it the SHOT Clock, by which local authorities have to act. And it's... You know that we have statutory terms by which we have to act under Mass General Law Chapter 4D, Section 9, but this is taken very seriously. The SHOT Clock is taken very seriously. So this is a request or an agreement to extend that period. The board will open the hearing on June 2nd and this extension requests that the board make its determination by June 16th. Now, you will probably get a lot of information that will help you deliberate. Worst case, I think this is really outside, worst case, let's say you don't have enough information, you could at that time ask the applicant if he wishes to further extend to allow you to look at additional information that could potentially be favorable to his client, or you could offer to make a decision even if you cannot make a favorable decision based on limited information. So you can act and I think at that point you'll have options, you know, depending on the interests of the applicant. If the applicant just absolutely wants that action, that vote, whether it's a denial or not, you can do that. If at that time you feel like you need more information, the representative for Verizon could ask you to further extend. Yeah, and given the timeline that we're looking at, I mean, obviously I think Carol's going to work very closely with them on getting us a package as meaty as we can with as much information as we can. And, you know, possibly at least giving the applicant staff's concerns with the application so that they can kind of have a heads up on it. So a question on the opening of hearing on June 7th. Is that a not later than, so could we conceivably start it earlier? I think we went with date certain. Date certain, okay, that makes sense. And then we would have to render a decision by the 16th. The 16th and the 14th. The 16th, two weeks. Two weeks, yeah, okay. So, yeah, there was quite a bit of back and forth, so it took a little while. So I don't, do we need a vote in support of this? I mean, it's really important. I don't think you can because it's new business. Did you update the agenda? I did not. Oh, you did not? Okay, okay. I thought we had. Okay, so I don't think we, I don't. It's a letter that already went out, right? It's on its way. And it's going to be, it's going to be noticed and advertised. So, yeah. Be hearing. As usual. If anything, it's a benefit to us because we sure are able to hear it. And hopefully it will tell me right there. One hopes. That's one reason why we scheduled this. That's why we got June 2nd. That's why we got June 2nd. June 2nd. Okay. All right. So that's Verizon. And then lastly, I think, are the minutes from March 30th. I'm going to start the other side. And I do not have any comments on these. I had a couple. Down at the bottom of page one, that last paragraph there, the first sentence should go with the preceding paragraph. What's that? Where it says, is Pudziato responded that there would not be a replacement? Yep. That's what you're saying. And then where it says, Thuja Green Giant Arbivitis, that should be a new paragraph. And I can't read my own handwriting here, but I think I said, in front of that, to say with reference to the exhaust pipe. Right before? Right before Thuja. Okay. I think we could clear that with shifting gears there. And then toward the end of that paragraph, I think I would swap the sentences where I say, where it says the exhaust is eight feet tall. This Pudziato explained the Arbivitis, it could grow to 50 feet tall. Just switch those? Just switch those two. And this may or may not be something to add in, but during the discussion of the shield on the light, Jake did get up and speak for a few minutes about the feasibility of that, and that's not referenced in the minutes, as far as I can tell. I don't know if we wanted to say anything about what he had to say. He was referenced in here somewhere. It's about six or seven paragraphs down, Andrew, and he was asked for a commitment from Arlington 360 to put a shield on the street light. Okay. But Mr. Upton declined to commit due to the liability and life safety. Okay, I think that's fine. That's fine. That's it. So I had a few comments on the documents used. I changed a few of the names and the dates. I think some of them are off. I was looking at the packet that we had, and I could give you this instead of having you write it, but I could read it once. Well, first the fourth line. Did you mean to say pro-con updated plan or undated plan? Undated. Undated? You meant it to be undated. It was undated. I marked it with that. It was from a meeting, but it was undated. So if you want me to just leave out any reference to a date? That was confusing. Undated plan for 2017. We're trying to leave breadcrumbs for someone to find these documents. You could say undated. That's fine. So whatever you think would help future generation. Undated is fine then. And then the next line, Blair Hines Design Revised. I think if we say Colored Planting Plan L5.0, and I can give you this again, would be helpful because she had some Colored Plants, like one was up on the board, and then she changed out another Colored Plan. There were two plan schedules, one dated January 2014, and one dated March 25th, 2014. Whatever you think. I have a few changes like that. The names were all very similar. Okay. Just to help people find them again. I went through them. I don't think the section mentioned in here either. And I know there was that color illustrated section. Yeah. You have it under distributed existing conditions photos dated March 31st. We could say photos and sections. Or no, maybe it's, yeah. I think that's where it was. I think that's what it was under. And then I added the CPA flyer. Because we use that also, right? Dated February 2014. So then I had a few just small things. And again, I could give them to you down under the third paragraph. Mr. Holland starts that paragraph and item number three. I have written in landscape at exhaust pipe. I don't know what it said originally. I edited it right in there so I can't see what it said. At exhaust pipe pipe. Then the next paragraph, the Blair Heinz design revised planting plans dated. That one should be March 24th, not the 31st is what I had. And the next one should say the March 25th, not the 24th. There were two dated things, but that one was the 25th one, I think it was really confusing. All the different dated items. So strike March 31st, add March 24th, and then the 24th turns into the 25th? Yes. And then on the next page, if we go past the Green Arbor Vities, one, two, three, four, the fifth paragraph down that starts Mr. Pinsky. Instead of saying Mr. Pinsky said those steps were preferable, I think we should spell it out. Mr. Pinsky said that Mr. Holland's proposed measures for painting the van and adding light shields were preferable. Proposed steps? Proposed steps, proposed measures, yes. Measures for painting the van? For painting the van and adding light shields. And one, two, three, four paragraphs down. Was preferable over cramming in? Yeah, the rest of it's fine. For preferable over cramming in. I could send this actually like I did the other one to Amy. If that's the easiest way, it's easier for me to type it than to try to read my writing. Sure. If I have any comments. That's fine. So then one, two, three, four paragraphs down. Mr. Fitzsimmons said he still had a problem with, I think we should say the realigned parking space in the entry. So we know which parking space we were referring to. And then the last sentence, he felt that this change was not insubstantial and that the abutter has not had an opportunity to comment should be added during the 100% design review. Then one, two, three, four paragraphs down from that begins with Mr. Holland then offered to move the parking space. That would also be for snow storage. Mr. Holland referenced, I want to add in an alternate colored plan sheet L5.0 that removed the parking space and replaced it with a plant bed. And I'll give you this. That has the five crab apple trees and additional plantings. Just to spell out because there were so many plans floating around. Make sure we nail the right plan. Katja noted on this plan to replace the Holly with our providing at the van parking space. Just to make sure it's clear when it comes back. Because we'll be confused. Okay, and then one, two, three more paragraphs down that starts with Mr. Kair. I see your name right. Kair. After the March 24th date, I wanted to add in with the changes shown for the removal of the parking space on the Blair Hines design. I'm sorry, so that's after the March 31st? After the March 24th instead of and been presented on March 24th with the changes shown for the removal of the parking space. And I don't have anything until you go down to, we're talking about the 360 items, that list of one through seven. I don't know if we want to catch all of the stuff that was on the list because this just missed one or two of them. You know, he gave us that hand out of the list. I don't know how important that is, but I've added on a few things that were missed. Yeah, I guess I was. We're going to include that sheet. Yeah, I don't know. We did go through them all. We did. Like number five, removal of erosion controls. And I specifically asked about the repairs and cleanup to the Vista Park. So I wanted to say in repairs and cleanup to the Vista Park. Suggest that since this wasn't a motion. Yeah, I think we don't need that. Strike it. I think we don't need the whole thing. We probably don't need the list at all. No, that's what I'm saying. And I don't like that. They all added up to a hundred thousand. You know, it was just. So maybe we can strike the one through eight completely, right? Yeah, I think you can just lose that whole paragraph. Yeah, we have the document. Yeah. Said that we used it. Okay. And then one, two, three, four downward says Mr. Upton reported. The town historian Richard Duffy. I wanted to add at the end of that. After old hospital and he will be bringing it to the board for review. Because I think he specifically said that he's going to be bringing something to us. That he's proposed a new idea. And he's going to bring it. And then one of the last paragraphs. What's it? Bless you. Starts with Ms. Sapensky. Always does. I remember what I said. I remember when it's not what I said. Or if it's not clear. So the last sentence. I wanted to insert another sentence before the last sentence that began with it. I wanted to say it was decided that schools would be shown on a map for reference only. And 500 foot buffered areas would not be shown. Because that was what we kind of discussed. That's all. That's important. I also did what Christine did. Marked up version of it. And I can actually pass this out so you guys can follow along. It is hard to follow when there's. Yeah. Some of the comments I made Christine's picked up on already. But on the first page. With the listing of the five items that David Holland was going to talk about. On the second one where it says stamp concrete of drop off area. I think if we went to act drop off area it reads. A little better. And you'll see I made a couple suggested clarifications in the paragraph. That follows another paragraph. And it basically says the Boyer Heinz designer by planting plants. And I defer to Christine on the dates of the plants because I'm as confused as all of us are on that. But I'm just saying that it shows one additional crab apple tree. It was noted that three trees were lost due to the relocation of parking spaces. In the courtyard area. And that the single trees being added back to reduce the net loss of trees to two. Over onto the middle of the next page. I know that somebody I know that I broached the idea about shields on the streetlight. But I don't know if I was the one that was pressing for a commitment. But that could have been Christine or it might have been Mike. It could have been me. And then I'm going to skip down to the second to last paragraph on my print out of this. That starts Mr. Fitzsimmons thought it might not be visible, etc. I just wanted to add a sentence because I think Mike said this. That on the original approved plans, it didn't call for siding at that location. And I'm saying that you recall. Exactly. I said that that was definitely what the plan said. That was your recollection. Because we kind of bring that up in the minutes. But then when we get to the boat, we don't talk about that. So I just wanted to let people read this in the future. Understand that why we didn't talk about it. On to the next page. Now we're talking about tax presentation. And I just wanted in that fourth paragraph to explain a little bit more what a chicane was. And it looked like the using Brighton Street has a local example that is tagged into the next paragraph about the split entry really belonged with the chicane. Because that's where the chicane is in Belmont on Brighton Street. Not this split entry. And then I also wanted to add to where I thank TAC. But then also I did ask why the bike zing signage on the Mill Street pavement was being eliminated. And Scott indicated that the town engineer thought it wasn't going to fit in the available pavement. And still be noticed by drivers. A little farther down the page I'm fine with taking out the 1 through 7. But I think it's important to note that we're not increasing the $100,000 escrow. We're just adding some additional items that are within the scope of the escrow. So the funds don't get released until Beyond the Sunshine's document are addressed. On the next page with Susan Stamps, just to sort of a title, I think the next item of the board discussed was not with the CUNY Preservation Act. And then the following paragraph I think was a little vague unless you supply the underlined app wording that Mr. Care's question was on the surcharge of recorded documents. That's it. That all looks good. And I can send that to you, Electron, and to Amy, Electron and play as well. Then Amy can fight between Christine's version and my version. I think they're actually meshed well. Yeah, they do mesh well. There's just a couple items that I had. We're right above the numbered list from Jake, the 1 through 7. The sentence above that where it said, the board turned to Arlington 360 referencing. I think what I would say there is the board turned to Arlington 360 in disgust instead of referencing. Because that way we get kind of the fact that we're discussing it. And then we're losing the numbers, the numbered itemized list there. And then we've got Bruce's. Right underneath that it says Mr. Care asked the board to review the matrices that Mr. Upton handed out. Actually, you handed them out. Ms. Kowalski, we used yours. That's actually important. That's our list from fully covered. Now we're on that list. That list looked identical to the January list. It was. Take a look. Is this supposed to be the same? Well, maybe a couple. What more items done? Well, I mean, some of the traffic stuff was. I thought the stop sign had changed. They might have been one or two. Maybe. Okay. I mean, the punch list is the punch list. They've got to get it done. And, you know, they've been waiting for one more of their first. Since we last looked at it, it's the problem. Right. And then on the next page. Where it says Ms. Spinski began a discussion on the 500 foot buffer. I actually added to the beginning of that. The board then discussed the board's presentation to town meeting period. It just needs something to say why. I began the discussion. Christine started talking about a 500 foot buffer. And then the only other change I had was the sentence right after that, where it says the board asked Christine Bonajorno to comment. I think, you know, we didn't ask if she wasn't here. So I think what I would say is the board suggested that Christine Bonajorno should comment on the state's permitting process during the presentation. You. Yeah, sure. Sure. So it's the board suggested Christine Bonajorno should comment on the state's permitting during the presentation. Leave me as well. I just wanted to say, I think that's what we were talking about. So we thought that she should get up there and talk about what the health grants are like. Should we also indicate Christine's office too? Yeah, I was thinking that was the other thing. Yeah. So director of health and human services. Yeah. No, actually, yeah. That's the official, yeah. Okay. I actually wanted to be HHS, not to be confused with the other. I guess that's secretary. I think that's it. That's a lot, Carol. So Christine and Bruce are going to get them to you electronically. We appreciate that. You want them to go just to Amy or to you and Amy? Amy's fine. Amy's fine? Okay. I'll let her know. She'll show them to me afterwards anyway. Okay. And then, so I think we're ready for a motion on the minutes as amended. I move to approve that it's as amended. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Okay. We've got 20 minutes. No more minutes. Well, we can sit here and look at each other. Or I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. So moved. Okay. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.