Welcome back. Tonight was not nearly as productive in terms of disposing of articles as the first night. However, there was some very good discussion, and I'm glad about the results we achieved.
The night started with our annual spring Special Town Meeting. This is undertaken to try and get quick results on financial items that need attention this year. By doing it in a special meeting, we can close that meeting early and get the results off to the state AG's office quickly. That gets the results ratified during this financial year. The general meeting's results are more complicated, and they won't be ratified until October.
The first article of the special was a placeholder amendment inserted in case amendments needed to be made to the 2016 budgets. There were no adjustments needed, so a vote of No Action was unanimously approved. Article two transfers $200K from the 2016 school budget to the Special Education Stabilization Fund. It is difficult to know how much funding the school department will need for special education in any given year because families move in-and-out of the district, and students' needs change. When the budgeted funds create a surplus, those funds are moved into a stabilization fund so they can be used to offset a future deficit. This was passed unanimously.
The third article was seeking funds for school capacity expansion. The consultants who are researching options are making their presentation tomorrow night (4/28), so the information required to make this decision is not yet available. The request to postpone discussion of the article until May 11 was approved. Article four was another placeholder in case the bids for work at the Stratton school came in over the original estimate. The bids came in on budget, so a vote of No Action was passed.
Article five sought to appropriate $2M for the MSBA-required feasibility study for Arlington High School. This is the next step in the funding process with the state. There was a clear presentation made by the superintendent and the town manager, explaining how this step fits into the overall process. This article was passed without opposition. The last article concerned the bond authorization to pay Arlington's portion of the costs to rebuild Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School. Apparently, the financial committee voted 10-8 to recommend passage. However, the recommendation was to postpone discussion to May 9 when the complete materials would be available and the superintendent would be available for questions. We then adjourned the special town meeting until May 9.
Now back to the discussion of Zoning Articles. All the remaining articles have a recommended vote of No Action. The only way to move them forward is to present a substitute motion. Such motions were presented for three of the articles, the other three having been disposed during the consent agenda on the first night. The substitute motion for Article 14 proposed changing the required side setback requirement from 10 ft minimum per side to 10 ft minimum each side with an additional requirement of a minimum sum of both side setbacks at 25 ft. This could be accomplished by having 10 ft on one side and 15 ft on the other. The biggest issue was that the original warrant language used the sum of the setbacks between adjacent houses rather than the sum of setbacks on the same lot. Many of the speakers, as well as the moderator, were unclear on this point. This created an atmosphere where many people were trying to correct speakers. This continued until the change was made more clear. In the end, the argument that this was too great an imposition on small lots swayed the vote, The substitute motion was voted down, so the original recommendation of No Action returned and was approved.
Article 15 had a substitute motion intended to close a loophole in which projects require special permit approval. Currently, large additions to existing houses require a special permit. However demolishing the house first removes the requirement for a special permit. This difference allows builders to try the addition route first, but hold onto the demolition and new build option in their back pocket. Worse, this option is sometimes used to try and influence the deliberations of the ZBA. In theory, I am in favor of closing this loophole. However, I had issues with the presentation. I had spoken with a proponent, and indicated that the ZBA, of which I am a member, could take on an additional 20 cases a year without severely impacting the time required to hear cases. It takes about a month to get on the docket, and we usually are able to close a case within one or two meetings. I also strongly encouraged the proponent to speak with the ZBA administrator to get her opinion on the matter. The presentation at the meeting was that we could easily take on many more cases, and it would only add a couple of weeks to the process. The connection was never made with the administrator.
The problem is that we are not talking about 20 additional cases; the number is closer to 150. Spending a couple of hours understanding each case before the hearing would add 300 hours for each and every volunteer board member. Our administrator is part-time, and our proposed budget for 2017 is only $20,812. There is no way we'd be able to cope with the onslaught. The discussion went back and forth many times. In a funny moment for me, someone had a question for the ZBA, and I was sitting there with my hand raised while the moderator looked everywhere but in my direction. I finally had to speak up and say that there was a member in attendance. The question was what we do to review shadows. I said we only do it now when the information is provided. We are not a research agency; we rely on what is provided.
We eventually had a positive vote to terminate debate. (I opposed as I was still waiting for an opportunity to speak.) The substitute motion was voted down. (I voted against it.) This returned the recommended vote to No Action which was approved.
Article 16 sought to simplify the definition of building height. The current definition is based on the average grade before the construction of the house, and it exempts penthouses from the height restriction. The proposal was to measure the baseline after construction was complete, and remove inhabited spaces from the exemptions. Sounded really simple. In practice, the die was cast against residential zoning changes. My favorite speaker was voting against the proposal because he hadn't taken the time to read the substitute motion, so he didn't know what it was, so no one else should vote for it either. In the end, debate was terminated by vote, the substitute motion wass defeated, and the vote of No Action passed. This brought up a vote to adjourn for the evening.
I found tonight somewhat disappointing. It is unfortunate how much confusion there is when motions are substituted. This is exacerbated when members don't take the time to understand the materials. I don't know what could be done to convince members to read up on the motions before coming to the hearings. There was a lot of confusion tonight, and it came at the expense of making progress. We're now off until Monday. We will start in on general bylaw amendments at that time.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Special Town Meeting - January 25, 2016
I completely forgot to complete my notes from January's special town meeting. Here are my partial notes. If I tried to complete them now, I'm sure it wouldn't be accurate.
Tonight was a Special Town Meeting to discuss several financial issues related to the schools. Articles 2 and 3 were related to the renovations to the Stratton School. This is the last of the elementary schools to be renovated. The first article was to appropriate funds to lease modular classrooms to house the students during the build. The second was to fund the renovations. These votes represent the completion of the town's commitment to replace all the elementary schools. Both measures passed easily.
The fourth article was to use some of the town's annual reserve fund to provide two modular classrooms at the Thompson School to help alleviate overcrowding. Although this school was completed recently, it is already over-enrolled. The funding mechanism from the state didn't allow to build the school larger that was originally required. The vote was complicated by two amendments. The first sought to change the funding to the capital budget. The second sought to direct the community preservation committee to allocate its funds to the recreation department, so those funds could be returned to the capital budget to pay for the classrooms. In the discussion, there were several problems brought forth with the proposed amendments.
Tonight was a Special Town Meeting to discuss several financial issues related to the schools. Articles 2 and 3 were related to the renovations to the Stratton School. This is the last of the elementary schools to be renovated. The first article was to appropriate funds to lease modular classrooms to house the students during the build. The second was to fund the renovations. These votes represent the completion of the town's commitment to replace all the elementary schools. Both measures passed easily.
The fourth article was to use some of the town's annual reserve fund to provide two modular classrooms at the Thompson School to help alleviate overcrowding. Although this school was completed recently, it is already over-enrolled. The funding mechanism from the state didn't allow to build the school larger that was originally required. The vote was complicated by two amendments. The first sought to change the funding to the capital budget. The second sought to direct the community preservation committee to allocate its funds to the recreation department, so those funds could be returned to the capital budget to pay for the classrooms. In the discussion, there were several problems brought forth with the proposed amendments.
2016 Town Meeting - Night One
Welcome back to another Annual Town Meeting. I am a meeting member from Precinct 10, and I write this blog to let anyone who is interested know how I voted and a little bit of why. I include a little flavor of what goes on in the discussion, but if you want a very comprehensive review of what went on, I recommend Dan Dunn's blog as being a very good representation of what goes on. Plus he's better at remembering names.
We started out in the traditional way; the Menotomy Minutemen marched in playing "Yankee Doodle" then led us in the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner." We had a very tasteful opening "prayer", followed by a very brief State of the Town Address. The students visiting from Arlington's sister city in Japan, Nagaokakyo, were in attendance, and a member of their school administration gave a few introductory remarks.
The first surprise came during, of all things, the acceptance of reports. Typically, a committee announces they have a report, and we vote to accept that report. When the Redevelopment Board submitted their report, they noted that they were only reporting on Articles 6 & 7, because they had voted within the previous hour to change their votes on Articles 8, 9, &10 to "No Action". No explanation was given as to why they chose to reverse themselves on those articles.
No surprises on our elected positions. Town meeting gets to directly vote for two town positions. For the umpteenth year, we voted Elsie Fiore from Precinct 2 to be the town's Measurer of Wood and Bark. If you have reason to doubt that your mulch delivery is appropriate, she's the one to call. We also reelected James O'Conor from Precinct 19 to be our Assistant Town Moderator.
Our next action was new this year, and it moved us forward considerably. The moderator proposed a Consent Agenda of items that would typically garner little or no discussion before approval. His initial list of 22 articles, a full third of this year's articles, was pared down to 14 after members were given the opportunity to request certain articles be removed from the list. In the end, we approved the following actions by a vote of 166 to 12:
- Article 12: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Rear Yard Setbacks
- Article 13: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Gross Floor Area Definition
- Article 17: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Revising Definition of Half Story
- Article 21: Passed Bylaw Amendment on Arlington Commission on Arts and Culture Membership
- Article 24: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Camping on Public Property
- Article 25: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Demolition by Neglect of Historic Buildings
- Article 44: Passed recommended Appropriation for Committees and Commissions
- Article 45: Passed recommended Appropriation for Town Celebrations
- Article 46: Passed recommended Appropriation for Miscellaneous
- Article 48: Passed recommended Appropriation for Harry Barber Community Service Program
- Article 49: Passed recommended Appropriation for Pension Adjustments
- Article 52: Passed recommended Appropriation for Overlay Reserve
- Article 54: Passed recommended Transfer of Cemetery Funds
- Article 58: No Action on Resolution of Community Preservation Plan
We now settled down into the articles. By tradition, all the zoning articles are first up. This is tricky, because many members are still getting into the groove of the meeting, and zoning is complicated. Maybe it would be better to change the order, but it is the system we have. Another complication, in my opinion, is that the ARB does not have the clearest or most convincing presentations. This can leave a lot of room for doubt, which is contagious. Tonight, the first article was a proposal to create a few new use categories. Artisinal Fabrication is for small-scale artistic manufacturing. Artistic/Creative Production includes multiple aspects of media production and related activities.
The major new use category would be Mixed Use, allowing two or more uses to coexist on the same parcel. This use would only be allowed along the commercial corridors and by special permit from the ARB. The presentation was good, but ran out of time. An amendment was presented that would dictate minimum percentages for certain uses. After a strong proponent for the main article, there was a series of speakers who appeared concerned and confused about what might happen if the change was adopted. They all recommended a no vote on the main article, but some liked the amendment. It wasn't until Mr. Jameson spoke right before the break that the discussion was brought back to real substance. After break, Mr. Schlichtman spoke forcefully in favor of the development growth potential. Mr. Cayer carefully explained the development parameters for each district and explained the protections built into the article. In my opinion, this really put the membership at ease. There was a vote to end debate, a vote rejecting the amendment, and a 186-35 vote to accept the article.
We then moved on to Article 7, which would allow reducing the amount of required parking where provisions are taken to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies. These include discouraging car use by residents/employees and encouraging public and alternative transportation. There was a good discussion about how this could be enforced and who would be responsible for that enforcement. In the end, the vote was 180-34 in favor.
The next three articles are the three where the ARB changed their recommendation to No Action. Mr. Worden requested that all three be postponed until May 4 to give members time to prepare substitute motions for those articles. Mr. Quinn made a very convincing appeal to give that time out of fairness to all involved. The motions were readily passed, so they will reappear.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. We reconvene Wednesday night to take up a Special Town Meeting. This is done to expedite funding articles that pertain to the current year. Once this special meeting is closed, the results are immediately sent to the state AG's office for approval. This allows the changes to go into effect quickly. I'll let you know how it went.
We started out in the traditional way; the Menotomy Minutemen marched in playing "Yankee Doodle" then led us in the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner." We had a very tasteful opening "prayer", followed by a very brief State of the Town Address. The students visiting from Arlington's sister city in Japan, Nagaokakyo, were in attendance, and a member of their school administration gave a few introductory remarks.
The first surprise came during, of all things, the acceptance of reports. Typically, a committee announces they have a report, and we vote to accept that report. When the Redevelopment Board submitted their report, they noted that they were only reporting on Articles 6 & 7, because they had voted within the previous hour to change their votes on Articles 8, 9, &10 to "No Action". No explanation was given as to why they chose to reverse themselves on those articles.
No surprises on our elected positions. Town meeting gets to directly vote for two town positions. For the umpteenth year, we voted Elsie Fiore from Precinct 2 to be the town's Measurer of Wood and Bark. If you have reason to doubt that your mulch delivery is appropriate, she's the one to call. We also reelected James O'Conor from Precinct 19 to be our Assistant Town Moderator.
Our next action was new this year, and it moved us forward considerably. The moderator proposed a Consent Agenda of items that would typically garner little or no discussion before approval. His initial list of 22 articles, a full third of this year's articles, was pared down to 14 after members were given the opportunity to request certain articles be removed from the list. In the end, we approved the following actions by a vote of 166 to 12:
- Article 12: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Rear Yard Setbacks
- Article 13: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Gross Floor Area Definition
- Article 17: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Revising Definition of Half Story
- Article 21: Passed Bylaw Amendment on Arlington Commission on Arts and Culture Membership
- Article 24: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Camping on Public Property
- Article 25: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Demolition by Neglect of Historic Buildings
- Article 44: Passed recommended Appropriation for Committees and Commissions
- Article 45: Passed recommended Appropriation for Town Celebrations
- Article 46: Passed recommended Appropriation for Miscellaneous
- Article 48: Passed recommended Appropriation for Harry Barber Community Service Program
- Article 49: Passed recommended Appropriation for Pension Adjustments
- Article 52: Passed recommended Appropriation for Overlay Reserve
- Article 54: Passed recommended Transfer of Cemetery Funds
- Article 58: No Action on Resolution of Community Preservation Plan
We now settled down into the articles. By tradition, all the zoning articles are first up. This is tricky, because many members are still getting into the groove of the meeting, and zoning is complicated. Maybe it would be better to change the order, but it is the system we have. Another complication, in my opinion, is that the ARB does not have the clearest or most convincing presentations. This can leave a lot of room for doubt, which is contagious. Tonight, the first article was a proposal to create a few new use categories. Artisinal Fabrication is for small-scale artistic manufacturing. Artistic/Creative Production includes multiple aspects of media production and related activities.
The major new use category would be Mixed Use, allowing two or more uses to coexist on the same parcel. This use would only be allowed along the commercial corridors and by special permit from the ARB. The presentation was good, but ran out of time. An amendment was presented that would dictate minimum percentages for certain uses. After a strong proponent for the main article, there was a series of speakers who appeared concerned and confused about what might happen if the change was adopted. They all recommended a no vote on the main article, but some liked the amendment. It wasn't until Mr. Jameson spoke right before the break that the discussion was brought back to real substance. After break, Mr. Schlichtman spoke forcefully in favor of the development growth potential. Mr. Cayer carefully explained the development parameters for each district and explained the protections built into the article. In my opinion, this really put the membership at ease. There was a vote to end debate, a vote rejecting the amendment, and a 186-35 vote to accept the article.
We then moved on to Article 7, which would allow reducing the amount of required parking where provisions are taken to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies. These include discouraging car use by residents/employees and encouraging public and alternative transportation. There was a good discussion about how this could be enforced and who would be responsible for that enforcement. In the end, the vote was 180-34 in favor.
The next three articles are the three where the ARB changed their recommendation to No Action. Mr. Worden requested that all three be postponed until May 4 to give members time to prepare substitute motions for those articles. Mr. Quinn made a very convincing appeal to give that time out of fairness to all involved. The motions were readily passed, so they will reappear.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. We reconvene Wednesday night to take up a Special Town Meeting. This is done to expedite funding articles that pertain to the current year. Once this special meeting is closed, the results are immediately sent to the state AG's office for approval. This allows the changes to go into effect quickly. I'll let you know how it went.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)