2019 Town Meeting - Night Two, Part 2

After all the turmoil around the density bonus articles, we moved on the next most controversial question, should we allow accessory dwelling units.  These are small independent dwelling units created within existing single-family dwelling units.   This question has come before town meeting twice recently, and twice it was voted down.  This year's offer included greater restrictions on the use and more requirements to make it blend into the existing appearance of the property.  The initial presentation was made by the ARB, laying out the specifics of the proposal.  Michael Quinn, a member of the council on aging discussed the specifics of the article with senior residents, and reported that while there was some interest, there was concern that the proposal wasn't going to work out as intended.

I was walking to the podium as we stopped for break.  This gave me time to discuss some upcoming questions with the planning and fire departments.  When we returned from break, I tried to make the point I made during the ARB hearings:  the vast majority of land area in town is in the single family districts.  If we are serious about creating more affordable housing in town, cannot do it by limiting the discussion to only the highest density portions of town.  We must democratize the effort by including all areas of town, and the only proposal I have seen that offers this opportunity is accessory dwelling units.  I asked the Fire Chief if these units would create issues for his department.  Although he had stated earlier that these would be problems, he felt that the changes since the initial introduction of the article have addressed those concerns.  I came out strongly in favor.

Liz Pyle reported that the Residential Study Group was in opposition to this proposal.  It was brought to them very late in the process, and they had concerns about the lack of protections from their use for short-term rentals, concerns from the fire and building departments, and general concerns about enforcement.  The short term rental question would be addressed by article 35 this session.  The fire department had already indicated their concerns were addressed.  The Moderator made a rare decision to allow the building inspector to address direct quotes attributed to him, quotes which applied to an earlier version of the article, but not directly to the proposal under discussion.  This was followed up by another member of the RSG confirming that the issues with the early draft had been mainly addressed, and it was worth moving forward with the proposal.

The next speaker noted that the proposal was improved by addressing comments from previous attempts, that it will will raise the tax base, and that the ARB has worked hard to make this happen.  We say we want to be inclusive, but we won't approve those articles.  A member read the statements from the zoning bylaw stating the purpose of the R0 and R1 (single family) districts.  He wanted to know why we were going to EVICERATE the bylaw.  He focused on the sentence "The Town discourages intensive land uses, uses that would detract from the single-family residential character of these neighborhoods, and uses that would otherwise interfere with the intent of this Bylaw."  I disagree with his characterization, since the bylaw specifically requires that the accessory unit be included within the existing house, and no additional parking facilities would be created.  The intent of the Bylaw, as stated in the Purpose, includes the following, "The purpose of this Bylaw is to promote health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Arlington; ... to encourage housing for persons at all income levels; ... to protect and preserve open space as a natural resource, ... to conserve the value of land and buildings; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town; ... and to encourage an orderly expansion of the tax base by utilization, development, and redevelopment of land. It is made with reasonable consideration to the character of the district and to its peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to giving direction or effect to land development policies and proposals of the Redevelopment Board, including the making of Arlington a more viable and more pleasing place to live, work, and play."  I do not believe accessory dwelling units would violate the intent of the zoning bylaw.

There was one more statement of concern that in the age of AirBnB and UBER, there could be future sharing schemes we still have not considered.  We should consider Article 35 first, evaluate its effectiveness, than reconsider accessory dwelling units.  This was the last comment before a call to close debate, which was easily passed.  I voted for the article, which while receiving a plurality of the vote (137-82), the article failed to reach the required two-thirds vote for zoning articles required under state law.

Next up was Article 17, a complete replacement of the sign bylaw.  This was encouraged by the master plan, the recodification process, and the new legal legal framework after the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision in the Supreme Court.  I had spoken to the ARB, Town Counsel, and  and the Moderator regarding two administrative amendments.  However, these were not mentioned in the introduction of the article by the ARB.  One speaker had a question about two of the prohibited sign types, a question that could have been answered by reading the definitions section of the article.  I then presented the two changes.  The first was to fix a typo, a duplicated "that" in one of the paragraphs.  I thought it could just be done, but I had to go back and file a formal amendment request.

The second amendment was to change the process for sign special permit review.  In most special permit matters in town, there are two parallel processes.  The ZBA hears requests in the lower density residential districts, and the ARB hears cases from the main thoroughfares.  The proposed sign bylaw adopted that language, but I have felt it made much more sense for the ARB to hear all sign special permit requests because they are better resourced, and this would provide better consistency.  The ZBA discussed this at our meeting the night before, and we agreed as a Board to make the change.  After a question about enforcement, answered by the Building Inspector, there was a call to terminate debate.  This was passed, and the revised sign bylaw was passed 207-8.

Articles 18 and 19 were changes to the Floodplain and Inland Wetlands District sections in the zoning bylaws.  These were made in consultation with the corresponding committees to make sure the zoning bylaw aligns with their bylaws and state law.  After int introduction, there was no further discussion, and the articles passed 214-2 and 210-1 respectively.

Article 20 was changes to the zoning bylaw to properly align with the so-called "Dover Amendment" in state law.  Towns are not allowed to imposed use restrictions on religious and non-profit educational uses in their zoning bylaw.  Our bylaw could be interpreted to require a special permit in some cases.  There was a question about the language which is oddly self-referential.  It was confirmed that was intentional and correct.  It was also clarified that Inspectional Services confirms whether a proposed educational use was non-profit or for-profit.  The article was adopted 207-4.

Article 21, a replacement of the bicycle parking regulations was presented by another member of the ARB, David Watson, an avid cyclist and cycling proponent.  The proposal decouples bike parking from car parking, requiring both short-term and long-term parking.  It also sets minimum standards for parking racks and structures.  Another well-known cyclist was very appreciative.  A member noted how his building has an abundance of extra parking spaces, but bike parking has become an issue.  There were several specific questions from members.  It was confirmed that the rules were not retroactive, commercial and residential spaces in a mixed use building could be collocated, and abandoned bikes could be addressed by notifying the Police Department.  After a positive vote to close debate, it was adopted 207-7.

 At this point, we adjourned for the evening.  Monday night we will start with the Special Town Meeting the warrant article moving forward on the town-wide vote on a debt exclusion for funding the high school project.

2019 Town Meeting - Night Two, Part 1

Welcome back to the second night of the 2019 Annual Town Meeting.  I was trying to take care of a few items during the meeting, and as a result, I missed the names of several speakers this evening.  I will just focus on the speakers who made an impression.

After the nightly singing of the National Anthem, we had time for announcements.  We then received more reports.  Tonight it was the Capital Planning Committee, the Permanent Town Building Committee, and Envision Arlington.  If you are interested in reading any of the reports, they are all posted on the Town's Town Meeting webpage.  We tabled Article 3 to close that portion of the meeting and moved on to the consent agenda

The consent agenda is a list of articles that either have a recommended vote of no action or are annual votes that are not controversial compiled by the Moderator.  Most votes can be approved by a simple majority.  Zoning and bonding require a 2/3 vote.  For this reason there were two consent agenda votes.  The first vote only required a simple majority.  It included the following articles:  10, 12, 13, 23, 25, 31, 42, 46, 49, 55, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 78, and 79.  It was passed 201-8.  The second vote included articles Article 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 76, and 77.  It was approved 213-4.

We then resumed the debate on article 16.  The first speaker was the chair of the ARB.  They had met since Monday and had many discussions with meeting members and town officials.  Based on Monday's discussion and the subsequent meetings, the ARB changed their recommended votes on articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 16 to no action.  This canceled the three amendments, but left the substitute motion intact.  After a few speakers, Dan Jalkut proposed to terminate debate.  That passed on a vote of 164-55.  Jon Gersh's substitute motion was voted down 90-123, leaving the no action in place.  That was approved 208-10.  Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 had their recommended vote of no action approved by voice vote.

We then took articles 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 off the table for discussion.  This was a slight goof since we had voted the recommended no action on 10, 12, and 13 earlier that night.  Article 14 called for adding the R7 district to the list of districts where projects can reduce their parking requirement if they adopt an approved transportation demand management (TDM) program.  This would effect only three properties in town.  There were a number of speakers who were concerned about the effect on low income residents if parking was reduced, who encouraged the town to find alternate solutions rather that requiring more parking everywhere, and finally proposed ending debate.  That passed on a voice vote, and the main motion was adopted 181-34.

OK, I'm too tired to finish this tonight, so I will post this much now and post the remainder tomorrow.

2019 Town Meeting - Night One

Welcome to the 2019 Annual Town Meeting!  If you are new to my blog, welcome.  I use this forum to write about my experience of town meeting.  It is not intended to be authoritative or definitive.  (If you are looking for that, I would refer you to Dan Dunn's excellend blog.)

We started the evening with the usual start of meeting pomp.  The Menotomy Minutemen marched in to drum and fife.  They led us in the "Star Spangled Banner" before marching out again.  We stayed standing for the invocation, given this year by the priest from St. Agnes.  The moderator called for a moment of silence for members who had passed on during the preceeding year before swearing in the newly elected members and re-elected members.

After initially skipping ahead to reports, we went back to the annual State of the Town report.  This year, the report was given by Diane Mahon.  She touched on several topics including a big push for building a new high school, recommending passage of the AHS debt exclusion and the budgetary override, senior tax relief, and the completion of the town finance department.  There was a special note of thanks to Clarissa Rowe for agreeing to again serve in an interim capacity with the Select Board.  She concluded with a warm remembrance of Kevin Greeley.

We now properly moved onto the acceptance of reports.  There were submissions from the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB), the Select Board, the Finance Committee (FinComm), and the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC).  Al Tosti, the chairman of FinComm had a very heartfelt remembrance of a past member and mentor who passed away last week.  This article was tabled to allow acceptance of additional reports as meeting progressses.

The position of Measurer of Wood and Bark is a colonial-era position.  If you purchase wood and are concerned that you were shortchanged, you can request the measurer come out and verofy the cordage.  This mostly ceremonial position is often held by the longest serving member of Town Meeting.  This year, that honor went to our past moderator, John Worden.

James O'Conor was elected to the position of Assistant Town Moderator for the umpteenth year.

The next article, #6 is the first of the zoning articles.  At the recommendation of the ARB, articles 9 , 10, 12, 13, 14, & 15 were tabled to allow us to discuss articles 6, 7, 8, 11, & 16 together.  These are the so-called density articles.  Articles 6, 7, 8, & 11 have no changes except that there would be a density bonus if an additional affordable unit was provided per article 16.  The articles were presented by Andrew Brunnel, the chair of the ARB.  He was given 20 minutes to make the case for the articles.  It was a good presentation, but certainly not enough to overcome doubt about the proposal.

The moderator wanted to put forward the substitute motions and amendments at the start of the general discussion.  Jon Gersh presented his substitute motion to replace the proposed vote under article 16 to the original language from the original proposal.  This would only provide additional affordable units if a development included 20 or more units (20% instead of the current 15%).  If you think of how many 20+ housing developments we have in Arlington, you can see how many affordable units will be created.  In my opinion, this proposal is more feel-good than productive.  My opinion could have been swayed by the proponent who insisted on maligning my yet unpresented amendment, using my name no less that six times in seven minutes.

I was next to speak, so I made sure to thank the previous speaker for his "warm introduction".  My amendment, removing the exemption from affordable housing from 4-5 unit buildings came as a result of discussions at the Precinct 8-10 meeting.  The proposal is to strike paragraph 2 under 8.2.4.C, simplifying Article 16 so all development bonuses require affordable units.  This makes a stronger proposal, focused on affordability.  I noted how adding units with limited financial returns can be challenging for builders.  Is this enough?  Contact with constituents made me aware of several things:  everyone wants affordability, few like the new mixed-use building near the high school, everyone likes Capital Theater building, and not knowing what we might get is disconcerting.  We need to understand that the ARB will review all proposals under these revised bylaws.  With strong resident participation, the ARB can address resident concerns regarding which projects they approve.  Should this pass, the ARB needs to be very clear that they are going to have the residents' back, that the process will be well publicized, and well explained

There were two additional amendments presented.  Barbara Thornton put forward an amendment that would better address environmental issues surrounding the increased density including surface water infiltration.  Marvin Lewiton presented an amendment to remove balconies from areas to be counted towards landscaped areas.

Steve Revilak, the originator of article 16 spoke about the history of exclusionary zoning practices in Arlington.  Whether intensional or not, the result has been to limit housing production, driving prices up, and limiting who can afford to live in town.  He explained that his original warrant article was written in an pen fashion to allow the ARB some leeway in how to address the issue of affordability.  He worked with the ARB to develop the density bonus strategy.  He did not oppose any of the amendments.

There were fourteen additional speakers before we adjourned at 11:00pm.  Jo Anne Preston intorduced resident Janice Broadman, who works in international economic development who did not believe there was evidence for density bonuses leading to increassed affordable housing.  Patricia Worden spoke next.  Jordan Weinstein wanted the town to delay for a year so it could conduct its own studies, rather than rely on the experiences for other communities.  Anne Thompson, a real estate economist, encouraged a delay a year to create a more developed and nuanced proposal.  She had several arguments both for and against.  Maureen Gormley introduced Julia Myrak Kew of the Mirak business family.  As a member of the Chamber of Commerce, she made a business case for increasing development to encourage private investment and not being afraid of change.  She also noted that a single parking space for an apartment was working at the Legacy apartments in the Center.

John Worden touted his years of opposing overdevelopment without being exclusionary.  He warned of an ATTACK.  He would prefer only affordable housing to be added, but only under the existing framework.  He then referred to my amendment as lipstick on a pig.  Better a sexy pig than a stick in the mud, calling this ATTACK the town's biggest threat in 50 years.  Kaspar
Kasparian touched on a number of topics including good critical thinking skills, holding off on passing all articles, worring about the safety of cyclists,  speculating who has what interests, wanting certaintyabout the future, bad landlords, greedy landlords, onstreet parking, rent control, and the state revisiting the long term capital gains tax.  Susan Stamps read a statement from the Tree Committee opposing the density proposals because they do not adequately address impacts on tree canopy.  She recommended more study and constituent contact.

Peter Howard noted how development can strengthen the local economy, how larger buildings contribute to a higher tax base, larger buildings have more efficiencies and lead to more affordability.  Kevin Koch wanted to let MIT run a simulation on what might happen.  He also asked about preventing subdivision like at the Time Olds site.  (The moderator noted that Town Meeting acted to allow that to happen.)  Bill Berkowitz intorduced Don Seltzer who gave a history of inadequate information from MAPC.  He presented shadow studies confirming taller buildings cast longer shadows, especially in winter.  He was the only presenter with realistic graphics.  (Even the ARB stayed away from renderings of buildings.)  Joe Tully introduced Wynelle Evans who was concerned about Arlington turning into "Bladerunner" with a vertical bifurcation of the population by wealth.  She encouraged reverting to the original language (no bonus), because the proposed vote included no protection for current tenants, no meaningful increase in affordable housing, no studies, no specific application for distinct character, no linkage and impact fees, and no cohousing provisions.  (I would note that little of this can be included in a zoning bylaw.)

The next speaker from precinct 6 noted people want to be here but wasn't sure how to allow that to happen.  The ARB hasn't made the case.  It would be OK to postone making changes.  He wanted to know what the ARB thought about the other two amendments.  (Thornton : Yes, Lewiton : OK)  Bill Hayner asked about the cost of an affordable unit ($1500 max rent/ $200K max buy).  He noted affordable doesn't equalavailable to low income.  He asked about the impact on the schools even if the population is currently peaking.  If Mugar moved forwrd, it would make things worse.  Looking for more answers, he wants to come back next year.  At this point, we adjourned for the night.
--------------
According to the Moderator, we made it through a quarter of those on the speaker list.  I expect we will have a few more presentations on Wednesday, but we seemed headed for a concensus.  I would not be surprised if someone calls for a closure vote before too long.  Otherwise, we're going to go very, very long this year.

I went into the night hoping to move this forward.  Since our tax revinue is tied to property value, if we want to create more revinue without taxing ourselves, we need to create some development.  That means redevelopment of parcels and increased density.  Article 16 would encourage more affordable housing in exchange for development.  However, the late feedback from constituents, whether by form letter or original writing, is decidedly against increasing density.  The will of the meeting appears to be in favor of more research.  We are two years into this process, so I am not sure what an additional year will produce.  What is most important is participation.  Citizens need to be engaged.  They need to seek out opportunities to be involved early and often.  Signup for town notices, read the Advocate, check the town calendar and meeting agendas.  Put in the effort, and you will be amazed at the rewards.