2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night Four

October 25, 2023

Well, we’re back for the fourth night. I’m not making any predictions about finishing, because I don’t want to be at fault if we go to Monday.

The Moderator opened the meeting and sought to recognize two people whose work to make sure Town Meeting happened was essential. From logistics to printing and scheduling, Christine Bongiorno and Julie Brazile made it happen. A heartfelt thank you from the members.

Rieko Tanaka played our National Anthem while we sang heartily, hopefully for the last time this fall.

Mr. Helmuth let the membership know that expressions of disdain are not inappropriate at this point in the meeting after the motion he was about to make. He moved that if the business of the meeting was not completed this evening, the meeting would adjourn until Monday, October 30. There was a general hiss. The motion was seconded and passed on a declared voice vote. (It was not entirely clear that the majority was in favor.)

The Moderator noted there was a search for the balcony microphone. He also noted handset 252 was missing. These were quickly resolved. He opened the test vote which was mathematical in nature: “1 Recommended Vote + 13 amendments + 1 Secondary Amendment = 32,768 Distinct Outcomes.” Vote 1 for true and 2 for false. The consensus was for true (85-32-65), but we were wrong. Given the way the voting works, the number of possible outcomes is significantly less.

The Moderator called for announcements or resolutions as defined in the Town Bylaws. TMM Tosti rose in memoriam. He has been active in town government for over 50 years. In that time, he has known many worthy public servants. The most prolific of those was Charlie Lyons. Mr. Lyons always moved the town forward while keeping the needs of the town and its residents in focus. He could deftly employ both the stick and the carrot as required to get people to work together and make progress. He was elected to the school committee at the age of 18. In 1980, he joined the then Board of Selectmen, right after Massachusetts approved Proposition 2 ½. He worked tirelessly with the Town Treasurer and town staff to make a financial plan. There was a definite cut in services, but he left the town on a firm footing. In 1990, he worked with Mr. Bilafer to pass the Town’s first tax override. He also worked on the first debt exclusion. In 2005, he worked with Charlie Foskett and the Finance Committee to set funding ratios between the town and schools to be used for multi-year tax override plans. What became known as the “Lyons Plan” is still being used by the Town today. The Meeting observed a minute of silence in memory and gratitude.

TMM Worden announced that after speaking at the previous session about the lack of any mention of affordable housing in Article 12, it was pointed out to him that it in fact was in the article. He quipped that it was possible that having been declared legally blind may have had something to do with it. He asked that his proposed amendment be withdrawn. The Moderator wasn’t sure if we could withdraw an amendment that was before the meeting. TMM Worden apologized for taking up the meeting’s time.

The Moderator asked for reports of committees. There were none offered, so Article 1 remained on the table.

The Moderator had some comments before we resumed the debate on Article 12. At the end of the previous session, he kept a record of the first 31 speakers on the live speakers list. He added those to the slide with the speakers who had registered to speak before the opening on the article. He noted that if all names on the speaker’s list are called, he will reopen the live queue. If a name appears in both queues, that person can pass on one and still maintain their position to speak from the other queue. As was established last time, the only motions to terminate debate which would be entertained would be from the live queue. The Moderator noted that after the previous session, TMM Worden had continued the conversation about whether the change to the unit capacity brought about by a proposed amendment should be subject to a call for scope. He noted that he used “much spicier language” in his email. TMM Worden argued that no amount of reduction that can still pass the statutory minimum can be declared in or out of scope. The Moderator thought that was very astute reasoning, and he now agreed with that opinion.

The Moderator asked the members to please yield their time if they have nothing to add. He also noted that we can always pass. If you want to agree with someone who has already spoken, you can show that support … by voting.

Mr. Helmuth introduced Senator Friedman, our state senator. Sen. Friedman thanked Town Meeting for having her. She had been invited to discuss how the MBTA Communities Act fits into larger regional goals. She started by thanking the ARB and the working group for all their efforts to bring this before the town and meeting. She noted that it is local volunteers who keep our communities going strong. She commended the Town Meeting members for the excellent and civil debate. She thanked the Moderator for setting a tone of seriousness, thoughtfulness, and good humor. As Senator and a resident of Arlington, she was acutely aware of the need for more housing. In the senate, she sits with 39 other members representing the whole state. We are not alone in this issue. There is real pressure from businesses who are concerned for their economic health. The state administration is very serious about addressing this issue, and therefore, they are also going to be very strict about what they will accept in a local plan. The young people on whom we will depend are moving away, because they cannot afford to stay. Our state population fell by 100K people over COVID. Young adults with new families leave as well. We are not able to attract new residents as they cannot afford to live here. Employers cannot staff their businesses. Statewide, there are 300-400 beds in behavioral health treatment centers that are offline due to a lack of staffing. Teachers, caregivers, and other essential workers are leaving our community and region as they cannot afford to stay. We cannot work our way out of this problem by paying them more. There just isn’t enough housing. Businesses are deciding not to come to our region due to the high cost of housing. This problem has been building for some time, and now it is here.

Sen. Friedman thanked the high school student who spoke about the difficulty trying to find housing for his grandmother. We are being squeezed at both ends. This isn’t just happening near Boston, this is happening everywhere in the state. We must do many things at once. We need sustainable development, transit that works, and municipal tools to make it work, and we must do all of it at the same time. These efforts are not mutually exclusive. Arlington can make a difference. We are not an isolated community unaffected by other communities and vice versa. She noted that in her district, towns are setting goals and taking this issue seriously. This is a meaningful framework for discussion. We will make a difference. (The Moderator reminded her of her time.) She continued that she cannot stress enough the impact on the business community. She urged support for the article. (applause)

The Moderator thanked the Senator, and noted that he had been informed that there is a “Motion to Withdraw” in Town Meeting Time. There was a motion to withdraw the Worden 1 Amendment. It was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

TMM Pyle, a land use attorney and past member of the Residential Study Group rose to strongly oppose the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment and support the Evans Amendment. The latter would create a shallower NMF district and still provide a capacity more than 800 units above the minimum. Referring to the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment, she noted that four stories will create permanent shade in the neighborhoods. Her precinct, Precinct 8 is very concerned about going to 4 stories. Her constituents had submitted many letters to the working group and the ARB.  Three stories was a reasonable compromise.  It was previously stated that four stories was chosen to prioritize elevators. According to the Director of Inspections, this will not be the case.  The justification isn’t justified.  It is not advisable to have a one-size-fits-all approach.  The topography of Arlington Heights is different than in East Arlington.  The Heights are hilly, and the East is flat.  Topography should have been better considered when establishing the extent of the zones.  The lines were drawn without thinking it through.  Tall buildings on hills exaggerate the heights of buildings.  The Evans Amendment works to make this better; Bagnall / Fleming does not.  Please vote in favor of the Evans Amendment.  The NMF overlay district should be kept close to Mass Ave.  The ARB agreed that three floors was the right number.  Please vote against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment.  If it passes, she will be voting against the main motion.  If the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment is rejected, and the Evans Amendment is accepted, she will vote for the main motion.  She encouraged the meeting to leave room for future mandates.  The Town being cautious now will create opportunities for later.  We should hold off and wait for real world data.  This should be a cautious vote.  Sen. Friedman was correct.  We need to share the responsibility for addressing the housing issue.

A Point of Order was raised by TMM Friedman who noted that we hadn't taken Article 12 off the table this evening.  The Moderator agreed that had not been done.  TMM Friedman asked why we were not taking it from the table, and the Moderator replied that it was left off the table at the end of the previous session, so there was no action required to debate the article.

A TMM rose to introduce Mr Geoffrey Brahmer, a resident from Newman Way.  He started with apology; he has lived in Arlington for 35 years, but the first time he attended Town Meeting was on Monday.  He is glad to be here, and he would like to meet everyone.  He said there was a gap between what was included in the notice and the potential impact on his neighborhood.  He didn’t know what the issues were, and the notice that was sent didn’t mean anything.  There need to be stronger lines of communication between reps, citizens, and the town.  If residents are not informed, they get angry when things come up, and that can serve to divide neighbors.  Arlington must stick together at all levels.  He felt that Newman Way was at the epicenter of the MBTA Communities discussion.  It is a little street, but it is one of the most diverse areas in town.  CVS is just across Mass Ave, Whole Foods is around the corner, Stop & Shop is down the street.  There are two banks, and the high school is right there, too.  There is a lot going on.  There is a large apartment building at the end of the street.  The street is both racially and economically diverse.  The new owners of the apartment building are raising rents on all the tenants.  There was a demonstration earlier this year.  The state representatives showed up.  They listened to our concerns.  What if all of town meeting had been there?  What would the owners have thought?  How can we support those who could be kicked out of town?  Would landlord have acted differently?  (The Moderator gave the requested two minute warning.)  Mr. Brahmer said that the bottom-line question for his neighborhood is who are our neighbors?  Nine of 12 buildings on their block are already multi-family (eight of which have only two units).  Asking their street to do more is unfair.  He recited a saying that "everything passes away but love."  Please tell his neighbors that they are not alone.  Town meeting members have each other when making this decision.  All the historic figures of the town are with us in spirit tonight. He thanked the members for listening.

TMM Schlichtman, a member of the Arlington School Committee commented on the impact of MBTA Communities on our schools.  He noted that the school committee's job is to welcome all children, to make them feel wanted, and help them to succeed.  They don’t build walls; they offer a chair.  He noted that when the town was first converting farms to neighborhoods and establishing commuter routes in the early 20th century, the population began a steep increase.  The population almost doubled in 1920s.  The population peaked in the 1970s, and has now fallen to around 46,000, 7,000 less than the peak.  He noted that we will not see the explosive growth from the past.  We are being asked to create capacity.  Someone else will need to turn that capacity into actual housing.  That could be a glacial process.  He noted that we were only six miles from the statehouse.  That would still be in the city in most places in the country.  He provided examples from New York and Chicago.  He noted that until 1975, Arlington kept up with its housing needs.  However, Town Meeting passed laws to block housing development.  The challenge to keep up with housing our population keeps getting harder.  He said that multifamily housing exists in his district today.  It creates more housing opportunities. Many of the proposed amendments will shut the door on other residents.  These articles will serve to stop development again.  He noted that Mr. Leone put forward his article because his family wants in. (The Moderator said this could not be taken as a representative sample.)  TMM Schlichtman concluded that  Article 12 is good for him and good for us.

The Moderator read a question from the submitted list.  Will Town Meeting vote on the article before knowing whether the town's inclusionary housing bylaw will apply?  What assurances do we have that the state will accept our bylaw?  Ms. Ricker offered what has successfully been built to date as evidence.  Recent projects on Broadway and Mass Ave were proposed and approved under inclusionary zoning.  The town has approved many 40B’s providing 25% affordable units.  The success of recent projects shows that the state ought to realize that our bylaw is working.  TMM Carr-Jones had some follow-up questions, shockingly.  She asked whether we have any ability to modify our proposal after acceptance.  Ms. Zsembery said that once the plan has been passed and approved, if we want to make changed, the plan will need to come back to town meeting.  TMM Carr-Jones asked if that would apply if we were changing the numbers downward.  Ms. Ricker said we must notify the state of any changes.  However, if we maintain compliance with the state regulations, we should be able to amend our local bylaw. If we changed the capacity so we were no longer compliant, the state could revoke out approval. TMM Carr-Jones noted that the map may appear to be balanced, but like us, it is looking a little thicker in the middle.  Her precinct, Precinct 14 has more depth.  She wondered if representation on the working group would have had an impact.  Town Meeting is the place to make decisions.  She referred back to a quote by the town poet laureate delivered at the Annual Town Meeting.

TMM Rosenthal had some questions.  (It took some time for him to come forward, and there was some confusion about where he was.)  He offered to start with different literature than had been heard here.  He recants a story about a fellow wakes up one morning and finds construction equipment in his yard to tear house down. He quotes the opening from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the section regarding the search for the plans for the bypass to be build through his house.  TMM Rosenthal noted that he and other members thought Douglas Adams was good at lampooning government behavior.  TMM Rosenthal had received correspondence outraged residents of the town.  They hadn’t heard anything about what was going on until this week.  The process by which proposals were developed does not well serve the residents.  The Moderator interjected to ask if he had any points to raise beyond the notification.  TMM Rosenthal noted that was it.

The Moderator read a question submitted by TMM Thornton, asking what the financial impact of new development would be, positive or negative?  Mr. Feeney said he had received a financial model from some residents, but he doesn’t have other competing models to base a prediction.  TMM Thornton asked if the Manager would support a financial analysis prepared by an outside firm.  Mr. Feeney said that could be considered, but it would be based on "what if" scenarios. The Moderator noted that this was not a negotiation.  TMM Thornton thought the analysis was badly needed.

TMM Pretzer lives adjacent to the proposed overlay area.  This will be a big change, and that could be intimidating. However, doing nothing won’t keep things the same as they are today.  TMM Pretzer noted that there would be no new housing, fewer seniors, more McMansions instead of apartments, and renters will have to move even farther out.  Among residents, housing costs and not being able to stay in town are the biggest concerns.  Rent will keep rising.  The working group was thanked for their efforts.  Renters were included discussion.  They did a great job in boiling down all the feedback.  We should build housing to invite new neighbors.  If affordable housing is to be created by inclusionary zoning, the town needs to allow larger buildings.  TMM Pretzer encouraged a no vote on the Evans Amendment as it would reduce the unit capacity.  A half measure means delay and more people leaving town.

TMM Fiore asked how much solid waste would be sent to landfills during the demolition of the existing buildings when new buildings are constructed?  Massachusetts landfill capacity will be depleted by 2030.  He read that in the Advocate-Star.  (a slight chuckle from the members, acknowledging how far the paper has fallen)  Massachusetts has a solid waste problem.  Our representatives need to do more (scope)  The Moderator interjected to encourage the speaker to take this up in a different chamber, the state house.  TMM Fiore objected to the way questions of scope were being raised.  The Moderator didn't want to have the speaker dictate how he should handle calls for scope.  TMM Fiore encouraged support for the Babiarz Amendment and reduce waste sent to landfills.  That gives the state more time to address the issue.

TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order.  He noted that the submitted questions are pre-screened by the Moderator, and the previous speaker spoke to his question, how could that be out of scope?  The Moderator interjected that the initial question was in scope, but the followup question was out of scope.  Please stop interrupting and stop wasting time.

TMM Foskett spoke about the costs to the town.  New housing has decades long impacts.  How should we compare revenues and expenses under this article?  Taxes are assessed by land, and expenses are accrued per capita.  We need to think about households.  Everyone pays taxes, owners and renters alike.  He said there had been much financial analysis, and the general trend is expenses increase as population grows, but debts rise faster, increasing the fiscal deficit.  There is definitive academic support for this.  Mass municipal data shows a correlation between population and expenses.  The increment is largest in the schools.  A recent analysis by he and other Finance Committee members concluded that a rising number of units will lead to even larger of debts.  Estimates, data, hypotheticals, [refer to recording to follow his argument - I cannot type tat fast]  TMM Foskett encouraged a vote for main motion and against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment.

TMM LaCourt asked if we can predict the effect of Article 12 on town finances.  Mr. Feeney replied that he cannot predict the future.  TMM LaCourt asked how often do we budget by population rather than by the services the town provides?  Mr. Feeney said the only time we consider population is the number of pupils.  TMM LaCourt and Mr. Feeney had some quick back-and-forth questions:  Does more people mean more waste - yes;  more sand and salt - no.  (The Moderator encouraged the Manager to give TMM LaCourt the floor.)  She continued that it is hard to predict the future.  The Town prepares five year financial plans that evolve every year.  She said TMM Foskett predicted a couple hundred thousand dollar increase in the budget.  Town Meeting voted to do that last week without a population change.  The complexity of the variables and amount of data needed is much harder than just looking at population growth.  Sometimes we get lucky; sometimes we don’t.  We are taking a risk, so what is the reward?  TMM LaCourt thought the risk was low versus the reward.  Passing this article might mitigate the rising housing costs and help alleviate climate change.  Increasing density and efficiency are helping us buy a future for our children.  We need a variety of housing.  This helps protect the entire region.  People move to other communities, displacing those people, who displace other people.  What make this town what it is, is the people.  Her kids went to school with kids from a wide variety of backgrounds.  Rising housing costs made a bubble where the variety of backgrounds is no longer possible.  We need to do more to maintain our economic diversity.  She encouraged a vote against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment if you think it will tank main motion.

TMM Holland had an observation and cautionary tail.  He noted that a while back, we received a briefing about the MBTA Communities Act that said two-family houses are not multifamily.  He experienced some cognitive dissonance.  They are still not multifamily per the act.  His conclusion was that whoever is in charge of maps needs to take care because of our two-family neighborhoods.  The HCA used to convert two-family houses to condos, trading sweat equity for reduced housing costs. Prices were depressed back then.  The cautionary tale involved another Arlington, the on in Virginia.  His grandmother lived on Columbia Pike in the 1950s.  The adults talked about apartment buildings going up along the Pike, big and beautiful with swimming pools.  Grownups said the owners of single-family homes were being approached with great offers.  Many took them.  The whole thing was over in two years.  Boom to bust.  He still has cousins living there.  He take-away was that there is nop prediction for how long it will take to build out the new housing.  It could be slow or quick.  He encouraged us to be aware, because it could happen quickly.

TMM Wiener rose while the Moderator read her submitted question asking whether the ARB could be afforded time to comment on the proposed amendments.  He responded "yes ... just kidding.  He did recognize Ms. Zsembery.  The ARB did not create a report, as they had only discussed them a couple of days before, but she had her notes from that meeting.  Regarding the Evans Amendment, she noted that the submitted map was the result of a nine month engagement process.  It tried to equitably distribute future students to all public schools.  She also noted that going from 2.5 stories to 3 is not a large leap. On the Babiarz Amendment, she thought it was not allowed under the statute.  Worden 1 had already been withdrawn.  Worden 2 would reduce parcels to an undevelopable size.  The Anderson Amendment for optional commercial development on the second floor was supported, although the ARB was concerned about a fixed percentage.  The Loreti 1seeking 15% open space on the ground was already already well included in the setbacks.  She thought the footnote in table is stronger.  On Loreti 2, she noted that a 13 ft floor height was is industry standard and would support commercial on other floors.  On Loreti 3, she said it was important to require that a project be LEED Certified, because that provides the town the teeth to get project certified.  Regarding concerns about certification falling short, she noted that ISD and DPCD would be able to identify checkpoints along the development path to make sure a project was on track.  The occupancy permit could be pulled for noncompliance. On Wagner 1, the ARB recommendation was due to so many shallow lots along Mass Ave.  This amendment would happen frequently, reducing the MBMF district.  Regarding Wagner 2, the proposed bonuses support desires expressed by the community:  affordable housing, commercial space, and sustainability.  It was now 9:31, so the Moderator declared our break

---------------------

Back from break, TMM Revilak passed.  TMM Klein passed.  TMM Bergman said about the criticism that many of the current development rules are fifty years old.  We could be making the same mistake now.  We should build in opportunities to stop and rethink the process, the impacts on services, the impact on taxes, and the impact on the quality of life.  She was in favor of the amendments supported by ARFRR.  She thought the plan needed to prioritize affordable housing.  Our local inclusionary zoning bylaw is better than what the state would impose.  Lincoln tried to have their inclusionary zoning bylaw approved, and they were denied.  There are no guarantees.  She cited several articles saying market rate housing doesn’t help alleviate the need for affordable housing.  The private housing market isn’t getting it done.  She suggested we wait for an affordable housing overlay which would support our own inclusionary zoning bylaw.  She continued that we needed to include space for cars.  We cannot expect everyone to ride a bike or take the T.  Whatever we approve should make the least disruptive changes.  We can then carefully amend the bylaw later.  She urged support for the amendments.

TMM Pennarun passed.  The Moderator invited TMM Gitelson to come forward.  He then asked if there were any objections to his allowing a speaker from Monday's live list to terminate debate from queue?  There was a resounding "NO", so he said he would accept them.  He then thought we might have meant we objected, so he considered going back on his decision, and said he wouldn't do it after all.  TMM Gitelson moved to terminate debate, which was accepted with applause.  The Moderator urged us to hold on, but then agreed that he had said he would allow it.  The motion was seconded and easily passed on a voice vote.

This brought us to the votes on the amendments.

The Wagner Amendment 1 was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 58-167, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Babiarz Amendment was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 49-174, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Worden Amendment 1 was previously withdrawn.

The Loreti Amendment 1 was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 58-164, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Bagnall / Fleming Amendment was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 57-162, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Anderson Secondary Amendment was explained by the Moderator as being the most complicated vote:  an amendment to an amendment to the main motion.  The vote passed 201-17, and the amendment was adopted

The Anderson Amendment as amended was explained by the Moderator.  The vote passed 203-22, and the amended amendment was adopted.

The Lane Amendment was explained by the Moderator.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order asking the Moderator to scroll through the entire proposed amendment.  The vote failed 59-159, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Loreti Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 63-160, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Worden Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator.   TMM Babiarz raised a Point of Order to offer what she hoped would be received as a friendly amendment.  The Moderator said that was not a proper point of order, and debate was already closed.  It would not be considered.  The vote failed 42-176, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Loreti Amendment 3 was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 59-163, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Wagner Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 53-164, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Evans Amendment was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 76-144, and the amendment was not adopted.

The Leone Amendment was explained by the Moderator.  The vote failed 99-106, and the amendment was not adopted.

What was now before the Meeting was the Main Motion as amended by Anderson Amendment as Amended by the Anderson Secondary Amendment.  The Moderator explained the full scope of the article.  A majority vote was required.  The vote passed 189-35, and the article was adopted.

Now that Article 12 was completed, Ms. Deshler rose and moved that Article 1 be taken from the table.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  She then moved to dissolve the Special Town Meeting.  That motion was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.

The Special Town Meeting was declared dissolved.

2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night Three

October 23, 2023

Welcome to Night Three o the Special Town Meeting.  Tonight could be the last night, but I have my doubts.  The only business left, Article 12, the MBTA Communities Overlay Districts is a major article representing a major change to our town.

The Moderator opened the meeting with a few requests.  He asked us to please be on our best behavior.  There are Arlington students here, and we need to be good role models.  We should demonstrate the best look of democracy.

Mr. Helmuth lead us in the Star Spangled Banner.  He then rushed to the floor to move that should all the business before the meeting not be completed tonight, we adjourn to Wednesday, October 25, 2023.  This was seconded and approved on a voice vote.

Our test vote question this evening was "Will we finish all the business by the end of the night?"  The answer was yes 95-68, but the Moderator declared it non-binding.  He also asked us to keep the chatter down.

TMM Rosenthal rose to say that his vote didn’t seem to register, and he didn’t see the green loving light.  The Moderator noted that he saw the light, so it was possible that the member just didn't register his vote in time.  In either case, he was advised to see the tech desk to confirm that his device was working.  (Spoiler - we didn't use them again tonight.)

The Moderator said we would be skipping Article 1 unless the chair of a committee had a report.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.  The article remained on the table.

This brought us to Article 12, which the Moderator referenced as the main event.  He said he would be stingy regarding points of order to keep things moving.  He would make it clear about what to vote on, but not how to vote.  It was up to the individual members to debate all 14 amendments.  (There were only 13 earlier today, but we gained one more.)  Many people from the town are here to answer questions and help us make informed decisions.  There will be two speaker queues:  one for people who preregistered and a second for in person questions.  The Moderator started to explain how the preregistered queue was going to work when TMM Weinstein raised a Question of Privilege.  He noted that the Moderator's voice was coming through the sound system garbled and hard to understand.  The Moderator tried being closer to the microphone, but that made it worse.  He backed away, and that solved the issue. 

The Moderator again started to introduce the discussion, and TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order; the article was still on the table.  Ms. Deshler moved to take Article 12 from table.  The motion was seconded and approved on a voice vote.  The Moderator invited the Redevelopment Board to make their presentation on the article.  Rachel Zsembery, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) requested 12 minutes for her presentation of the article.  The motion was seconded and approved on a voice vote.  The MBTA Communities Act was enacted by the State to increase housing development along MBTA service routes.  It requires the establishment of a zone with multifamily housing allowed by right, meeting certain size and other eligibility requirements.  The ARB proposal meets the MBTA Communities Act requirements, the Arlington Master Plan, and multiple other town plans.  It will create an expanded walk-able transit oriented district.  The district would serve all residents and allow the Town to participate in the Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot.  Key concepts of the plan include reversing the down-zoning enacted in 1975 which removed multifamily development by right.  The proposed overlay districts will address issues in creating multifamily housing.  Capacity is a measure of whether the zone is of a reasonable size, not an explicit number of units which can or would be developed.  Ms. Zsembery displayed several examples of multifamily development in town.  She noted they were mostly created before 1975.  Following the guidelines established by the State, the Town has engaged in a program to comply with the new law.  A working group was established to work with a consultant to develop a plan that worked for Arlington.  The process took 9 months and included multiple engagement events throughout the year.  Specific guiding principles were observed.  There was to be a variety of housing types located near transit corridors within three overlay districts:  the Massachusetts Avenue and Broadway Multi-Family (MBMF) Overlay Districts and the Neighborhood Multi-Family (NMF) Overlay District.  The capacity for those districts would be 3,216 units per the State calculation.  The ARB expects 50 to 200 units to be developed in the first 10 years.  Each sub-district has different setback and height regulations.  Parking would be required at one space per unit, but the parking reduction sections of the existing zoning bylaw still apply.  The plan also includes three bonus options.  The mixed use bonus for committing 60% of the first floor to commercial space would grant one additional story along Broadway and two along Mass Ave.  The affordability bonus would grant one additional floor if the project met a goal of 22.5% affordable units.  That would increase along Mass Ave to two stories for 25% affordability.  An additional floor would also be granted if the project achieved LEED Gold certification.  Ms Zsembery noted that the ARB was seeking approval at this time because the Town would need to have an approved plan in place by February in order to participate in the Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot offered by the State.  (Town Meeting approved a similar program by 92% in 2020.)  At its most recent meeting, the ARB didn't object to the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment and the Anderson Amendment with the second floor development made optional.  Ms. Zsembery noted that the plan has evolved significantly over the course of the year.  It is important the the zoning bylaw sent to the Attorney General met the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act.  Amendment to the main motion could lead to the bylaw not complying.  That would remove grant funding from the town and possibly lead to a lawsuit.  Incremental changes to the main motion works against the careful work of many in town over the past year.  She requested Town Meeting approve the main motion without amendment.

The Moderator stated that each member putting forward an amendment would have a single speaking slot to introduce all their amendments.  Those members are free to put there name into the speaking queue for a possible second opportunity to speak.  TMM Wagner was invited forward to present his amendments.  He raised a Point of Order to request 10 minutes to speak.  (A Point of Order was not required as he had the floor.)  The request was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  He displayed an image prepared by the ARB showing how the development of the districts might appear along Mass Ave.  The six-story buildings on Mass Ave appeared to be twice as tall as a telephone pole, and the residential houses were not very separated.  He stated that the working group had limited input from community members.  He noted that ARFRR had compiled a list of people asking for the plan to be of a reduced scale.  He stated that the public was broadly against the un-amended plan.  We should respect the public’s concerns.  He noted that affordability was missing from the process.  The State requires less affordability than the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw.  The production of more units will not lead to lower costs.  He felt our local affordable housing bylaw should be reviewed by the State before we vote on this article.  He stated that this was not a pro-sustainability article.  It offers no protection for existing solar on adjacent residential buildings.  It would create street canyons.  He noted that this is not about housing choices or economic diversity.  There is nothing to encourage multifamily units.  This is not about restoring the missing middle.  Arlington was unique for offering a diverse housing stock.

TMM Wagner noted that recently, there has been a lot of gentrification with prices escalating.  Even if the proposed plan had its capacity set at the minimum figure of  2,046, the plan would still increase the structural deficit and impact all residents in town.  The more units developed, the worse the financial situation.  There will be more increases in rent.  He didn't see why Town Meeting would want to over-deliver a state tax upon the residents.  He noted that if we don’t amend the zoning bylaw, we still have until Dec. 2024 to act.  The Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot encourages us to be one of the first ten in the state.  If we give up our slot and let Somerville go ahead of us, the overall reduction would be far greater.  The Town could adopt a fossil fuel ban later using lessons learned from other communities.  He proposed to amend the issues out of Article 12.   Town Meeting should approve all but the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment.  He thought sustainability should be included.  He expressed that the town has told us not to exceed the state minimum.  More housing is not more affordable.  There will be a tax burden.  More of Article 12 makes the town poorer and promotes the affluent class.

TMM Wagner now introduced his proposed amendments.  Wagner Amendment 1: would prioritize the NMF overlay district on combined parcels with the MBMF overlay districts.  (This is the opposite of what is included in the ARB motion.)  Wagner Amendment 2 would remove the bonus provisions to limit development to four stories.  It would not effect the capacity number.  He completed his time by showing comparisons between possible buildings with and without his amendments.

The Moderator noted that TMM Wagner had not moved his amendments.  He came forward again to move both amendments. Both were seconded and before the meeting.

Ms. Deshler was recognized by the Moderator to clarify that the Finance Committee has no stated position on Article 12.  It was discussed, but they determined that they did not have enough data to express an opinion.  She noted that several members have taken personal positions, but those are not indicative of the committee as a whole.

The Moderator noted that he would be asking several of the amendment proponents to discuss the scope of their proposed change and how it might impact the main motion being in compliance with the requirements under State Law.  If an amendment would make the main motion no longer compliant, he would rule the amendment out-of-scope under the warrant.  No poison pills.

TMM Babiarz noted she supports affordable and equitable housing.  She has been a property investor for many years.  She asked what recent sales say about state of town.  She noted that supersizing increases overall cost but also reduces the square foot cost.  Cambridge salaries are $200-250. Those with kids would be willing to move to Arlington and save on private school costs.  <<I guess the assumption here is that wealthy people do not avail themselves of the Cambridge public schools, but they would in Arlington.  This was not made clear.>>  Arlington teachers can afford roughly $330K to buy a house ($55K/year).  She ran through a lot of numbers to reach the conclusion that affordability isn’t possible by just adding units.  She noted that Cambridge put $40M into affordable housing from free cash.  We don’t have the ability to do that.  She wants to reduce the capacity to 2050 units.  Market factors will make affordability impractical.  She asked for our support for her amendment.  She confirmed with the Moderator that the Town would meet the minimum requirements under the State law.  She moved her article, and it was seconded.

TMM Worden proposed two amendments.  The first regarded affordable housing, something the town has been devoted to for long time.  This article won’t bring affordable housing.  None is included in the plan.  The Town has an inclusionary zoning bylaw, requiring 15% of housing units be affordable.  The State is imposing the lower standard of providing only 10%.  The Town has filed a request to allow our  town bylaw to apply to these proposed overlay districts.  He asserted that only this amendment will cause affordable housing to be provided.  This is a test of whether the town is serious about promoting affordable housing.

TMM Worden's second amendment is inspired by the Biblical admonition to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  The proposed overlay district would shove large building into 1-2 family neighborhoods, really sticking it to your neighbors.  The best option would be to get rid of the state law, but instead, his amendment proposed to replace the proposed front and side yard setbacks in the Neighborhood districts with the existing setbacks in the underlying district.  The 15 ft front yard setback would revert to 20 ft and 25 ft.  The 5 - 15 ft side yard setback would be required to provide a minimum of 20 ft to an adjacent structure.  He described these as minor adjustments to show our love for our neighbors.  The Moderator confirmed that he has two-and-a-half minutes left.  TMM Worden commented he went so fast, he must have forgotten something.  He continued that back when he moved to town, he worked with residents in East Arlington to oppose the Mugar Development in the swamp (now "wetlands") adjacent to Route 2.  He felt it was imposed on the everyone, not just the local residents.  We must stick together as a town.  Would you like it if this was done next to your house?  He moved both of his amendments, and both were seconded.

The Moderator asked if TMM Worden had any idea if his Amendment 2 would reduce the capacity of the overlay district.  TMM Worden replied that he had the Moderator's job for a long time before he did, and he had a different opinion of scope.  He confirmed that his amendment would not impact the number of possible units.

TMM Loreti, moved to amend the article in three different ways:  landscaped open space, overall building height, and the LEED Gold bonus.  He lives in the proposed NMF district, and he feels some improvements are needed.  The proposed regulation has no requirement for Landscaped Open Space.  The Master Plan notes the Town's preference for landscaping and open spaces.  His Amendment 1 would require 15% of the parcel be landscaped.  It would not change any other requirements.  It would ensure a minimum amount of landscaping and would prevent a site being completely paved.  His Amendment 2 would limit building height in the districts to 11ft per story.  ARB has approved several new multifamily projects at that ratio.  He felt that what is in the proposed article was excessive. Ms. Zsembery noted that what is proposed are realistic height limits.  The ratio is 13 for the first floor and 10.5 feet for each additional floor.  That is the scale of existing development.

TMM Loreti's Amendment 3 would remove the bonus floor for achieving LEED Gold.  This is a particularly low bar.  The requirements for LEED will be met anyway.  Most new projects before the ARB meet LEED Gold anyway.  Gold isn’t even the highest standard, Platinum is.  Certification is not determined until after the site is developed.  This is a short lift.  He confirmed that removing the bonus not effect capacity.  He noted the Wagner Amendment was better by removing bonuses in the MBMF district altogether.  When he moved to town, he never expected this size of proposed development next to his house.  He urged support for the Wagner Amendments and his own.  The Moderator asked if he expected any impact on capacity from his Article 1.  TMM Loreti said he did not, as the proposed landscape area will fit in the required setbacks.

TMM Bagnall moved his amendment, which was seconded.  He described it as a simple amendment to increase building heights in the NMF districts from 3 to 4 floors.  This would increase the overall capacity to 3,844 units total.  He said while he appreciated the ARB's action on Article 12, he felt the working group's plan deserved a full hearing.  Currently, the residential districts max out at 2.5 floors.  The current proposal would increase that to 3 stories.  He said this was too modest, and their amendment would restore the 4th floor proposed by the working group.  He noted that buildings at 4 stories tend to have elevators.  A lack of accessible housing is an issue in town.  Taller buildings are more likely to have enough units to require compliance with inclusionary zoning.  He said the housing market like musical chairs, except it is based on how much you can pay.  Arlington has spent the last 50 years since downzoning (in 1975, he felt was coincident with Boston school bussing) not adding chairs (i.e. housing units).  He furthered his analogy stating that bringing in even the fanciest chairs still provides more places to sit.  He asked whether we should share our good fortune with others.  He said that housing is not a zero sum game.  We can provide for our families and others at the same time. TMM Bagnal encouraged the meeting to support this amendment and the main motion.

TMM Bagnal introduced James Flemming, a resident of the town and the coauthor of the amendment.  Mr. Flemming commented that the building code requires fire protection for multifamily buildings. Back in the 70s, the National Housing Association addressed how to keep apartments out of cities.  The easiest way was to require fire protection and increase costs.  Fire protection was used as a legal method for increasing costs beyond affordability.  It was designed to make multifamily development unaffordable.  This amendment will spread that cost over more units by allowing an additional floor.

TMM Anderson introduced her amendment to encourage greater commercial growth.  She also introduced an additional amendment to amend her own amendment to change the word “will” to “may” in regards to commercial space on the second floor.  The Moderator noted that the change was substantial enough that it could not be accepted administratively and needed to be voted as a separate amendment.  Both amendments were seconded.  TMM Anderson noted she is a business owner in the Heights, and she attended all of the meetings on the article.  Her amendment would encourage more commercial growth and reverse the erosion of the commercial base, job losses, and the reduction of the tax base.  This is good news.  It uses zoning to protect existing business and encourage new growth.  The ARB has created pathways for more growth this fall.  Article 12 provides bonuses where 60% of the ground floor area is dedicated to businesses.  This would be accompanied by a zero front setback.  The amendment provides an additional 40% on the second floor as an option.  This will increase the amount of commercial space without discouraging multifamily development.  Examples abound in the region.  The Arlington Chamber of Commerce supports incentivizing mixed use on both the 1st and 2nd floors.  Her Amendment would add an incentive for commercial on the second floor.  Commercial limited to a single floor could well be too small.  Her amended amendment would encourage but not require second floor development.  She noted that Arlington does not have enough commercial space.  Empty storefronts are often due to spaces which are too small.  The Arlington Brewing Company has been looking for commercial space for the last 18 months.  It just doesn't exist in town right now.  This is a real challenge for business development.  This amendment would encourage the development of more commercial space.  She encouraged a yes vote on both amendments and would spare us a beer joke.

TMM Lane moved to amend the article, which was seconded.  He appreciated the opportunity to speak, and he could not image his first speech would be to present an amendment to a controversial article.  He offered his thanks to the ARB and the working group.  He said he had wrestled for a time with this amendment.  He believes in the goals of the housing overlay.  Tinkering with the proposal is no small matter.  However, one aspect troubled him; one ill-conceived part.  The bonus guidelines allow construction of 6-story buildings with zero setbacks if they contain commercial space.  He asked what our duty is to our constituents.  This would be a blight.  It will overwhelm the streetscape.  He noted that big buildings are not inherently bad.  The existing examples work, because they are set back from the street.  His amendment would allow development with full bonuses, but it would require setbacks.  Otherwise, it limits heights to three or four floors.  This restraint will create pleasant and desirable streetscapes with more space for outdoor cafes, more usable as it gets progressively warmer later in the year.  He asked for support from the members.

TMM Evans introduced her amendment to restore intended use of  the NMF district as a buffer instead of being a new stand-alone district.  The NMF district in East Arlington was already reduced in depth to be a buffer.  In the Heights, there are much steeper side streets.  The proposed NMF district extends two blocks back from Mass Ave in places; that is not a buffer, but a new district.  She said this would be a pronounced change.  The farther the district extends away from Mass Ave, the steeper the streets get.  This area has the steepest grades in town.  Those slopes will exacerbate the height differences.  Her amendment proposes to return the proposed buffer to being compatible with the scale and uses in the Heights.  Her plan removes many parcels and adds a few new ones, connecting an isolated area of Forest Street to Mass Ave.  Her amendment would limit expansions of large buildings onto steep slopes.  It would remove 90 parcels with 350 existing units, including several historic properties.  Her amendment addresses communication she has received from her constituents.  She noted this can be a phased process.  The first phase should be very simple.  We always have the option to expand the district later, but it is much harder to reduce it later.

TMM Evans spoke to the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment.  She noted that the ARB listened to the residents and reduced the building height in the NMF district to 3 stories.  Reintroducing four floors would just be an extension of the MBMF district, not a buffer.  There is nothing about 4 floors which requires elevators.  The requirement could be triggered at 3 floors.  Four floors will just encourage more units without triggering the requirement to provide affordable units.  She encouraged the members to vote no on the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment.

TMM Leone disclosed that he has a financial interest in his proposed amendment.  His family has owned a property in East Arlington for a long time.  It is presently occupied by a member of family.  The property is surrounded by properties in the NMF district, but it has been excluded from that district.  He rhetorically asked why?  He supposed it was because it is on the historic register.  He noted the property is “L” shaped and extends behind several properties on the same street.  It is a 19K square foot lot.  His family pays big taxes on that land.  Some of the adjacent parcels may want to purchase some of that land to make a larger parcel, more conducive to development.  His amendment would add this property into the NMF overlay district. The Moderator reminded TMM Leone to move his amendment.  He did so, and it was seconded.

It was now 9:30, so the Moderator declared it was time for our break.  He noted that at long last, there were groups selling snacks in the side aisles.  The Girls Tennis Team and the Stratton School PTO both were there.  The Moderator asked if there were any volunteers to help organize these sales for future meetings.

-------------------------

Coming back from break, the Moderator had us begin with someone who had submitted a question ahead of the meeting.  The question chosen was more like a Point of Order.  The Moderator invited TMM Worden to come forward while he read the question.  He asked why the Moderator asked members to register in advance to speak.  He said it allowed him to balance the discussion and provide a way to try and cover all the topics.  TMM Worden had no further questions.  TMM Friedman Had submitted a question asking what would prevent using these new rules to build larger McMansions in these districts.  Mr. Revilak responded that multifamily was a required use in the overlay districts.  TMM Friedman asked whether the old underlying zoning would still apply.  Mr. Revilak said a developer could choose the overlay rules or the underlying rules, but not both.  TMM Friedman noted she would rather see three-family built than another McMansion.  She also asked whether the same would apply in the business districts.  Mr. Revilak noted there were no current business parcels in the MBMF overlay.  TMM Kelleher introduced John Barr, a high school student with the Young Arlington Collaborative.  He recalled when his family was looking for housing for his grandmother.  There was, little that met their needs, to be close and accessible.  All the available units were too far or too expensive.  He himself would like to have the option of NOT living with his parents after college.  As parents, you probably don’t want that either.  He noted that the youth are priced out of their own town.  House prices are comparable to Winchester.  He noted that several speakers had said that this proposal will ruin the character of Arlington.  He proposed that the lack of commercial space was related to a lack of young adults to frequent those stores.  They are now only frequented by high school students.  The initial incentive to move to Arlington was its vibrancy and mix of people.  That has been ruined by a lack of affordability.  If you ask the youth what they want the town's character to be, that is it.  He encouraged us to see beyond bottom line profitability and to get out into the community? (applause) The Moderator thanked the speaker and hoped his PSAT went well in the morning.  Maybe his essay could be on affordable housing.

The Moderator looked down his list to find someone for the opposition with an unrecognized name.  He called on TMM Stearn who was in favor of the Babiarz amendment.  He noted that we have been inundated by constituents and other meeting members; every point has a counter point.  We like the offer of positive change, but let’s not overshoot the target.  Start smaller, then check to see what happens.  There are still many questions about how development will proceed; what will happen?  How many people will be displaced.  We won’t know until it happens.  What will it mean if your street is redone.  Things are fuzzy.  What will it like being in a large multifamily with a single-family home next door?  He asked how to deal with a large development next door.  You could ask to have your street excluded and see how it unfolds before going so deep.  The term is "Hedge."  He advised Town Meeting to learn more before proceeding.  Maybe we will want to go even denser.  Maybe we won’t like what we’ve approved.  He urged voting for the ARFRR amendments.

TMM Yontar called down from up in the balcony to offer his lukewarm support for Article 12.  He urged voting for it.  We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of necessary and adequate.  The Commonwealth has decided to twist the arm of 175 towns to get more housing.  It is not worth risking state funding to make a point.  The funding alone is worth your vote.  We need housing.  Article 12 won’t solve our housing problems.  It will only be an increase of 50-200 units over 10 years.  We need to encourage multifamily spread across all of Arlington.  We could have proposed three-family houses in all districts.  Instead, only 4% of our land area will support all the development.  He concluded that the proposed plan is directionally correct and adequate.  He encouraged us to join him in unenthusiastically supporting the article.

TMM Franzosa wasn't going to talk about MBTA Communities.  He wanted to talk about the MBTA.  With the large number of units being considered, will the extra pressure cause the system to fail?  He encouraged supporting the Babiarz Amendment.

TMM Jamieson thanked everyone for participating and presenting information to everyone.  The town has been developing these plans for so long.  Let’s do 12!  He noted that he tends to focus on numbers, sometimes too much.  Putting on his Board of Assessor’s Hat, he commented that the assessment process can only capture new growth in June.  They can also only tax the full value after the building is complete.  He ran through the proposed amendments:  Wagner 1 - no; Babiarz - no, come on; Worden 1 - whatever; Loreti 1 - no parking in front; Bagnall / Flemming - leaning yes; Anderson - yes;  Lane - no, business need to be at the sidewalk;  Worden 2 - no, just another reduction; Loreti 3 - either way, will address sustainability; Evans - either or; Leone - yes.  He noted that many people are against everything.  If you are, you need to be for the override.

TMM Bayer had some questions for the ARB.  Regarding Worden 1, is there an affordability requirement in the main motion.  Ms. Zsembery answered yes, in main language of article.  It would require the current Town requirement unless denied by the State.  TMM Bayer asked regarding Loreti 3, does the ARB think this is a good idea?  Ms. Zsembery answered that the proposed bonus requires complete compliance with the program requirements and achieve LEED Gold certification.  This provides an assurance that the sustainability requirements will be met.  TMM Bayer asked in regards to Loreti 2 with lower floor-to-floor heights.  Ms. Zsembery noted that 13 ft is industry standard.  It provides more flexibility and higher ceilings on upper floors if developed for commercial.  It also allows higher and taller windows for deeper light penetration.  TMM Bayer asked if there was a legal requirement for an elevator.  Ms. Zsembery referred the question to Mr. Ciampa, the Director of Inspectional Services.  He noted a requirement for an accessible means of egress above the fourth floor, so it would not necessarily be required.

TMM Gersh said he had watched the working group proceedings, watching how the sausage got made.  He saw multiple capacity numbers put forward, some as high as 20K.  He noted this was met with increasing distaste.  The ARB then pared the capacity back to around 3K, and scaled the NMF district back to three floors.  This exceeded his expectations.  He said that to his own surprise, he would support Article 12 ... with an amendment or two.  He praised the good work and progress made on the plan.  He was concerned that the Bagnall / Flemming amendment would undue that progress by removing the three story district.  He said that for himself, that would be deal breaker.  He would have to vote no if Bagnall / Flemming passes.  He asked us not to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Just don’t.

TMM Benson said he would be voting yes on the Anderson Amendment and no on all the others.  He noted that we are all lawmakers tonight.  In order to become law, the state Attorney General (AG) must approve it.  The AG looks to see if there are conflicts with state law.  The MBTA Communities Act is state law.  The bylaw will also be reviewed by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC, former DHCD).  If either reject our bylaw, we will need to start over in the spring, having lost access to the fossil fuel ban pilot.  Running down the list of amendments:  Worden 1 - all in Article 12 already, will just confuse readers. Unnecessary.  Babiarz - limiting the number may violate the requirement to have the same rules for all parcels within the same district.  Our compliance guidelines are not compliant if similar provisions are not elsewhere in our zoning.  We are not going to get to that cap for years.  We have no idea whether the AG will accept such a provision.  Can revisit this topic in the future. Worden 2 - multiple setbacks for the same use in the same district.  It is not uniform and may not be allowed.  Providing 20 ft to a "structure" would be to nearly anything constructed on the adjacent site, including fences, sheds, decks, etc.  Please vote against it.  Wagner and Lane reduce the incentive for mixed use on ground floor.  Both could prohibit it completely.  This is antithetical to where the town is heading.  Lane removes the incentive.  Commercial happens at the street.  The front setback is landscaped already, so Loreti makes the bylaw too complicated.  Bagnall / Flemming - no.  The compliance guidelines recommend that it be similar to the underlying zoning, which this wouldn't be.

TMM Weinstein thanked the DPCD for providing the application status for work on the economic feasibility contract for determining whether our inclusionary zoning would be allowed in the new districts.  He asked why it was only signed now?   Ms. Ricker said her department had not identified a funding source for the application until now.  TMM Weinstein said it should have happened sooner. He urged no on the Bagnall / Flemming Amendment.  The ARB decision is better.  He didn’t think he would ever hear the argument that we should allow four floors because it would be the same cost to put out fire.  (murmur in the crowd)  He didn't think four was in keeping with our neighborhoods.  By right development could be a windfall for developers.  We could see rapid development.  He encouraged everyone to read the Finance Committee report.  The Chair wrote that it was the consensus of the Committee that more population would lead to more costs.  We don’t know whether development of new housing is even capable of offsetting costs.  We should keep what happens small.  Going through the amendments, he encouraged support for all except Bagnall / Flemming.

TMM Tosi said that if the MBTA Communities Act wasn’t passed by the state, we wouldn’t be selling out our town.  He said that under this proposal, lower rent units will be redeveloped to higher cost.  Speculation will lead to higher costs.  China is the largest investor in development in the U.S.  Investor / owners with no link to our community won’t help to improve our Town.  There will be no changes to reduce our structural deficits.  We cannot build ourselves out of the high cost of housing.  Residents don’t like what’s being built today.  This is not a NIMBY town.  He said that Arlington is very dense and loves trees, but this proposal leaves no space for trees.  He respects our state reps for being in support of new housing.  However, our Town is dense already.  Town Meeting is the place to do budgets and zoning.  He noted that members wouldn't be rushing in if they lived in an overlay district.  Would you even support this?  (very noticeable "yes").  TMM Tosi noted we can pass something less today an respond later.  He encouraged a vote against Bagnall / Flemming.  He said to consider the others on their own merit.  Vote for the next step for Arlington

TMM Levy was in favor of the main motion.  He had intended to introduce our state senator, but she had to leave.  In order to increase affordable housing, you need to build housing.  Supply must be increased.  In the past, he said he would have been afraid to consider this plan.  He has been persuaded to approve it.  He was able to purchase here after initially being shut out of town.  There were 11 bids for his house.  He has a relative looking to buy, but they were priced out.  They did everything right.  Arlington just cannot accommodate them.  He said to look at what is available today.  Must be able to be in top class, get top degree, and land top job to be guaranteed housing in our town.  The population of the state has grown by 40% without a comparable increase in housing stock.  He said the opponents of the article are correct.  The first units will be the most expensive, but affordability will follow.  He said it was not fair to our high school graduates to tell them they must be the absolute best in order to have a chance live here where they grew up.  We must do more, and we must start now.

TMM Goldsmith repeated a quote he heard that we don't inherit from our parents, we borrow from our children, and possibly our grandchildren.  This returns the investment with interest.  He encouraged a vote against all the amendments except Anderson.  All historic properties are outside the proposed districts.  He spoke against Bagnall / Flemming.  He noted that change would not come today or tomorrow.  He noted the capacity number is based on a hypothetical 1,000 square foot unit.  Larger unis mean fewer units.  He thought TMM Levy spoke eloquently about what we owe our youth.  He urged support for Article 12, and he was glad that he achieved his personal goal of not using all his allotted time.

TMM Bloom was listening carefully, trying to understand all the viewpoints.  She asked how affordable housing fits in this proposal.  Ms. Ricker said that should the state deny our application to use our own inclusionary zoning bylaw, the article would revert to what state allows, which is 10% of units at 80% of AMI.  This would not be as robust as our inclusionary bylaw.  TMM Bloom asked if we are denied, is there a way to file an appeal.  Ms. Ricker said she will find out.

TMM Sullivan passed.

TMM Ciano asked why the Town didn't send notice to the homeowners in the proposed districts that just said the proposal would increase the density of their neighborhood and allow 3-4 family units in their neighborhood.  Ms. Ricker said the provided notice was a legal notice and it uses prescriptive language.  TMM Ciano said that the notices that were  sent used very strict language.  They were too prescriptive; they should have said what would happen.  Why couldn't they say that?  Meeting Members don’t get feedback.  Mr. Cunningham noted that legal notices are bland because otherwise, they might require interpretation.  As they are written, they provide proper notice and allows the recipients to engage and learn more.  TMM Ciano said he supported all the amendments except Bagnall / Flemming.  He said to pray others do same.

It was now 11:00, and there were calls to adjourn.  The Moderator looked at the clock, and decided to take one more speaker

TMM Fisher said he was trying to keep up with all the changes and competing values.  He thought increased housing was a good thing.  He listened to both sides during hearing.  He thanked the “do less” team for avoiding appeals to the “character of town”.  This usually implies keeping others out of town.  He assumed everyone was starting from good intentions.  However, that was not what character meant to him.  He sees character as whether the town is optimistic or pessimistic, welcoming or turning a cold shoulder.  He hoped that when we are done on Wednesday, we voted on values.

The Moderator thanked everyone for the respectful debate tonight. (applause) He entertained a motion to adjourn.  There was no need for notices, as we didn't vote on anything.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  We stand adjourned.

2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night Two

October 19, 2023

We come back for Night Two. This might well be a short night, since last session, we were told we can only hear four articles: 10, 11, 13, and 15.  Article 12 is scheduled to be debated on Monday, and Article 14 is contingent on Article 12.  Monday will be the pivotal night, Tonight is trees, residences, and collective bargaining.  (Looking again at the Warrant, we could act on Article 14 now, and if Article 12 doesn’t pass, it just becomes moot.)

We started a little late. We were gaveled to order at 8:07.  The Moderator had some brief remarks.  We were reminded to not forget to turn in our handsets at the end of the night.  The hearing assistive devices are not working with the upgraded audio system in the hall.  Town staff will try to have it fixed by Monday.  The plan is to debate Article 12 on Monday, October 23.  There are currently six amendments posted to the Annotated Warrant, and more motions under review.  We will debate all the other articles tonight, so if we finish early, we can go home early.  Also, handset 45 is missing ... and found.

The Star Spangled Banner was played, beautifully I might add, by Rieko Tanaka.

Mr. Helmuth moved that if all the business before the meeting was not completed this evening, when we adjourn, we will adjourn to Monday, October 23 at 8:00.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Our Test Vote tonight was:  "Will we finish all business (except Article 12) by the end of the night?" The question passed 135-33.  TMM Harrelson raised a Point of Order asking what the quorum is for the meeting.  The Moderator referenced the Town Bylaws (Title 1, Article 1, Section 6) and noted that quorum was 63 (25% of membership) for conducting business and 85 in order to act on votes requiring a 2/3 majority.

The Moderator asked if there were any announcements:  TMM Allison-Ampe spoke on behalf of Invest in Arlington.  She said they are looking for looking for volunteers.  If you are interested in helping, you may contact her.

The Moderator moved on the the acceptance of Reports of Committees, noting that there were no additional reports anticipated.  Ms. Deshler moved that Article 1 be taken from the table.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  No reports were offered.  Ms. Deshler moved that Article 1 be laid back upon the table.  That motion was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Article 10 was introduced by Mr. Revilak. The article involves requirements for the planting of public shade trees.  Currently, new developments or significant improvement in the business districts require public street trees every 25 ft.  This article will require the same in the proposed overlay districts and residential districts.  The article also includes regulations on planting, size, and species.  TMM Crowder asked how the article plays with potential zero front yard setbacks.  Mr. Revilak noted the trees would be located in the public right of way, so outside of the property line.  If infeasible to plant the required trees, a contribution could be made to the town's tree fund.  TMM Stamps, member of the Tree Committee was happy this bylaw was being proposed.  The town needs as much help as it can to increase its tree canopy.  Front yard trees would be better, and there are discussions underway to see if that can happen.  TMM Radochia loves trees, but he believes we should not be planting them against the street.  This blocks the view from driveways.  Drivers backing out cannot see traffic or pedestrians, creating a dangerous situation. He noted that Winchester plants their trees in front yards, and they have clear sight lines.  The Moderator announced that the center balcony if for the use of Town Meeting members only.  All others are to sit in the side balconies.  TMM Jalkut moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The main motion was before the meeting, but there was a Point of Order from TMM Hollman.  He asked whether Town Meeting could vote on this article without having voted on Article 12?  The article references overlay districts which do not exist.  Mr. Cunningham said yes, we can act.  If Article 12 does not pass, that portion of the language would just be moot.  The Moderator reminded us to vote 1 for yes, 2 for no, and 3 to abstain.  The motion would require a 2/3 vote.  The article passed 187-10.

Article 11 was introduced by Mr. Revilak  The article proposed to remove single- and two-family dwellings from the list of allowed uses in the business districts.  This is one of several articles introduced to increase commercial development and create quality business space.  Currently, single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings are allowed in all business districts.  This change would prohibit new housing of those types in the business districts.  Existing dwellings would become nonconforming.  They can continue to be occupied.  This article emphasizes the need for commercial and mixed-use development in the business districts.  He recommended positive action.  The Moderator noted that there was a proposed amendment from a member who was unable to attend this evening.  He understood that TMM Evans would be introducing the amendment on TMM Loreti's behalf.  TMM Evans introduced the Loreti amendment.  It would retain single-family,  two-family, and duplex dwellings in the B1 district.  It would maintain the current feel of the B1 district.  The amendment was seconded.  TMM Kaepplein said he would vote in favor of the amendment.  There is a dentist office around corner from his house in a single-family house.  There are many similar buildings around town.  This would preserve some of the small town character found along Mass Ave.  Funeral homes are another example of houses used for business purposes with a residential unit above.  That may not be attractive if there are many apartments over a funeral home.  He remains against the main motion, but he supports the Loreti amendment anyways.

TMM Jamieson had a few questions.  In the materials provided, references to single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings was removed from the district description, but three-family was added.  That was not mentioned in the presentation.  Mr. Revilak said that three-family was already allowed in the district by special permit.  TMM Jamieson asked if in the full bylaw, there was a line for three-family?  Mr. Revilak referenced the zoning bylaw.  While that was happening, TMM Jamieson noted that not having residences in the business districts was linked to the plan for the overlay districts.  (The Moderator asked him to keep the debate to this article.)  Mr. Revilak confirmed that there is a line for three-family in the zoning bylaw.  TMM Jamieson asked if there was a map showing the location of the B1 districts.  Mr. Revilak wasn't sure about a map, but he noted the districts were small and scattered throughout the Mass Ave and Broadway corridors.  The Moderator asked to have the Town's zoning map displayed.  TMM Jamieson and Mr. Revilak reviewed the districts on the screen.  The Moderator jumped with his gavel to point at the districts.  (Mr. Revilak noted that one looked like a piano.)  TMM Jamieson asked whether his barbershop could be converted to a residence.  He was told no.  He was definitely against the amendment and for the article.

TMM Weinstein spoke on behalf of and in favor of the amendment.  Article 11 is great except that it treats the B1 district like every other business district.  There are differences.  There are existing homes in this district.  The amendment would preserve the ability to keep them residential if a confirming use was ever applied.  He urged support for the amendment.  TMM Benson opposed the amendment, and he asked members to please vote no.  Article 11 was designed to prioritize commercial and multifamily development in these districts.  This amendment proposes the opposite.  It would allow commercial buildings to be converted to single-and two-family dwellings.  TMM Benson noted that under the current zoning bylaw, switching back and forth from single-family to two-family can be allowed by special permit.  That would remain without the amendment.  Switching the use from a business to a single- or two-family dwelling would not be allowed.  This will insure new construction would be commercial construction.  TMM Benson discussed the differences between nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures.  A nonconforming use can continue indefinitely.  This article has no effect on nonconforming structures.  A dentist's office with a residence above would still be allowed.

TMM Wagner was sorry that TMM Loreti was not here not here.  He is isolating due to COVID.  (He was present two nights ago, so it might be time to test yourself.)  TMM Wagner said the article made sense.  TMM Loreti is a past ARB member, and he is able to provide a different perspective.  The B1 district is a small home office district, and it should be preserved.  TMM Wagner said that this article was not discussed during this cycle.  (Calls for scope).  He said he grew up in a B1 district.  (More calls for scope)  He noted this town has different business zones with different uses.  We can say yes to the amendment and yes to article.  TMM Moore move to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The vote on amendment, to remove the B1 district from the list of proposed revisions to the business districts failed 55-137.  The main motion, to strike allowing single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings in business districts required a ⅔ vote.  The article passed 161-39.

The Moderator noted that we could proceed to Article 12 right now if the Meeting wanted to do so.  Ms. Deshler moved to lay Article 12 upon the table.  The Moderator asked the Meeting to table the article until Monday so there is more time to prepare for the debate.  Six amendments have been posted so far and others are under review.  He noted that the decision was up to the Members.  The motion to table Article 12 was passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Article 13was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  At their October 16 meeting, the ARB voted to recommend a vote of No Action on this article.  The Moderator noted there were names in the speaker queue, but as there is no substitute motion, and No Action cannot be debated, we would proceed straight to the vote.  The article passed on a voice vote.

Article 14 was introduced by Mr. Helmuth.  He noted the Select Board recommended positive action on this article.  He thanked town staff, representatives, and residents for their professionalism and support for this article, and he looked forward to the presentation.  The Moderator recognized Talia Fox, the Sustainability Manager, but Ryan Katosfsky, the Chair Clean Energy Future Committee (CEFC) came forward to present.  This article would prohibit new fossil fuel development in town.  Its goals align with the Clean Heat bylaw passed in 2020.  This article proposes adjustments to align with updated state guidelines.  This is the next step on the Town's journey to net zero.  Electrification helps to move towards zero faster.  This is part of the Town's action plan.  He noted that we have been here before.  Town Meeting debated and passed a home rule petition in 2020 with 92% approval.  The State rejected the home rule, but created a pilot program which the town leadership would like to join.

Ms. Fox, the Sustainability Manager noted that up to ten communities can be enrolled in the pilot.  Arlington needs to pass this article again as home rule was not approved.  The goal is to better align the proposed bylaw with the state guidelines and technology improvements over the last three years. Enforcement would be through the specialized stretch code.  The proposal redefines major renovation.  It would prohibit new indoor fossil fuel appliances. A waiver process will still be implemented.  It will have a slightly higher square footage threshold for multifamily hot water generation.  The effective date was revised.  These rules would not apply to repairs and additions.  It includes options for waivers and exemptions for some uses.  Joining the pilot will help meet current net zero goals and avoid expensive retrofits later on.  She encourages passing the article.  The Moderator asked the members to reference the Annotated Warrant to find a proposed administrative correction.  Its acceptance was passed on a voice vote.  TMM Meeks, also a member of the CEFC strongly supported the article.  It is a continuation of work started in 2020.  He hopes it will pass by a large majority as it did then.  This time, it includes a prohibition on new indoor cooking appliances.  In 2020, this was not a part of the discussion and would have been quite contentious.  Since that time there has been more discussion of the harmful effects from using them.  He encouraged support of the article.

TMM Trembley said he didn’t know where to stand on this article.  There will be an all-electric future. How many new electrical substations will we require?  The Moderator asked if anyone knew.  Mr. Katosfsky couldn't give a count or whether any would be needed at all.  TMM Trembley noted that Cambridge will need five new substations.  The first will be built in Kendall Square at a projected cost of $1.4B.  He hopes Cambridge rate payers will pay for it.  ...  He knows we hate natural gas.  (The Moderator said we don't actually know that.  The member should stick to facts and not cast aspersions on others.)  TMM Trembley apologized and noted that many things make housing expensive.  Utilities are a part of that.  His electric bill is 10x his gas bill.  Cooking appliances can be replaced by induction coils.  We could spend thousands on a new stove and thousands more on new utensils, but we keep talking about affordable housing.  ... It gets really cold.  Global warming might mean no more snow, but air source heat pumps don’t keep up.  They sometimes need supplemental heating coils.  You can spend a lot to get a high efficiency heat pump that works down to 0 degrees.  You can spend less on one that goes down to 20 degrees, but it might not keep up. ... (The Moderator noted that this is speaking time, not thinking time.)  TMM Trembley said the struck him as a really bad idea.  It will be expensive, we don't have the infrastructure, and we don't have the technology.  It strikes him as a really bad idea.  This is just a "rah rah" ... (The Manager again told him to stop casting aspersions.  Stop being performative.  You are probably correct, but don’t do it.)  He said he would shut up now.  (The Moderator quipped that when it gets cold, we do salt the roads, but we won't get into that now.)  TMM Leone had a couple of questions.  He asked if he could convert his oil furnace to a new natural gas furnace.  Ms. Fox said the restriction only applied to new construction and major renovations, so long as it wasn't part of that, it would be allowed.  TMM Leone asked whether he could still connect a new natural gas service to his house.  Ms. Fox repeated, yes as long as it is not a part of a major renovation.  (The Moderator asked that any other home improvement advice be solicited after the meeting.)  There was a motion to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The recommended vote was reviewed on the screen.  The article passed 178-23.  The Moderator asked the members to hold their applause until after the meeting was dissolved.

Article 15 was introduced by Ms. Deshler.  The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval.  Alex Magee, the Deputy Town Manager and Finance Manager noted that we were voting on the ratification of the union contract with patrolmen.  This is mostly a retroactive action.  The Meeting is voting to transfer funds to pay for salary increases in past and current years.  This will further the Town's goal to align salaries with comparable communities.  There will be a total increase of 14% over three years.  This also includes a 2% increase for the use of body cameras.  TMM Phelan passed.  TMM Newton asked whether in Section 6 is a 2% increase in pay based on the body camera policy.  What was included in that agreement.  Chief Flaherty said she could not discuss particular requirements while some contracts are still being negotiated.  The agreement includes best practices, covers when to wear, how to use, where to place, when to operate, and other issues.  It is a 26 page guideline document.  Mr. Cunningham said he was sorry to interrupt, but discussion of negotiations could impact both parties. TMM Newton asked what was the rationale for the wage increase when the policy has not been drafted?  Mr. Magee said it was a change in working conditions, and that is negotiated into the contract. TMM Newton asked why the Town had supported a change in pay ahead of determining what the agreement would include?  Mr. Magee said that was on the table.  TMM Newton asked how the department was creating the policy.  Chief  Flaherty said the department would be working with groups including the Police Advisory Committee.  TMM Newton commented that making policy with a mediator during negotiations is not the way to develop policy that will be acceptable to the town.  TMM Pretzer, following on TMM Newton, said it was a bad look to bribe officers to accept a public safety device. ("Hold on" from the Moderator.)  He rephrased that this does not give confidence.  There is a lack of public input.  With an override looming, Arlington must do better to inspire confidence from the public.  The Moderator noted that this article is an appropriation in support of the negotiated settlement.  Town Meeting cannot negotiate the terms of the contract. Members need to keep in scope.

TMM LaCourt had some questions.  There was something important the Mr. Magee mentioned.  Part of the negotiation was to put salaries in a range where they would be competitive with similar towns.   It is also not unusual to negotiate working conditions.   This contract as the Finance Committee discussed will considerably increase costs.  She asked if the increase was related to an increase in population.  (No)  She asked if there was an increase in the number of positions.  (No)  Will this contract maintain a consistent level of service. (Yes)  TMM Yontar moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a declared ⅔ voice vote.  The Moderator reviewed the recommended vote language.  The article passed 175-18.

The Moderator noted that only Article 12 remained.  Article 12 was presently on the table, and there is no other business.  He asked for notices of reconsideration.  (Article 15 was noticed by Ms. Deshler.)  We were reminded to return our handsets.  The Moderator then accepted a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

 Take the weekend to review all the documents related to Article 12, and we will reconvene Monday at 8:00pm.

2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night One

October 17, 2023

Welcome back to Arlington Town Meeting.  This Special Town Meeting was called primarily for zoning articles postponed from the Annual Town Meeting in the spring.  At the time, the Town Manager asked the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) to delay their warrant articles to a special town meeting in the fall to help reduce the length of the annual meeting.  It being after 8:00, the Moderator called us to our seats so we could get started. Four-to-five minutes later, there was a further call to "Settle Down, Settle Down."

The Moderator called the meeting to Order. He hoped to complete this special town meeting in October. In order to provide extra time for preparation, the Meeting will take up Article 12 on Monday, October 23.  Per the email which went out to Town Meeting in the past week, members are asked to please register in advance to speak on the article.  Members will still be able to join the regular speakers queue.  He will recognize people from all lists.  He did note that he would not release of the algorithm used to determine the speaking order.  Turning somber, the Moderator recognized the ongoing war zones in Europe and the Middle East and asked for a moment of silence.  We weer reminded of the importance of what we do here.  We are a living and breathing institution of deliberative democracy.  We meet to peacefully and thoughtfully deliberate and make decisions on behalf of our Town.  There will be time for lighthearted moments during the meeting, but we were encouraged to not lose focus on what is important.

The Moderator introduced a vote on the use of a satellite room.  We did this last spring as well.  The vote is to acknowledge that the meeting will be taking place in Town Hall Auditorium, but there will be members in a separate satellite room participating as well.  The motion language was brought to the screen.  Before that vote, it was decided we should to a test vote first, just in case there was an issue with some of the handsets.  The motion language was changed in favor of the test vote:  "Do you want to finish by Halloween?"  The test vote passed 173-9, so the Moderator declared we were now required to do so.  There was a Point of Order from balcony (member not named) to display the individual votes, so we could confirm out handsets were working.  The Moderator displayed the role.  The Moderator noted that there was a short delay in the communications coming from the satellite room, and we were asked to please be patient.  We now moved to the vote on satellite room, but there was a technical issue with one of the handsets.  The Moderator considered just doing a voice vote, but the handset issue wass resolved in time.  The satellite room motion passed 184-2.

The Star Spangled Banner was played by Mr. Helmuth, the Chair of the Select Board.

Mr. Helmuth had to then come down to the floor for his motions.  He requested that members of town board, committees, commissions, town staff, representatives, consultants, and members of the media be allowed within the enclosure.  This was passed on a voice vote.  The Town Clerk agreed that the meeting had been properly noticed.  Mr. Helmuth moved that should the business of the meeting be incomplete at the end of the evening, the meeting would adjourn to Thursday, October 19.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

The Moderator asked for announcements and resolutions, but there were none.
 

Ms. Deshler, Chair of the Finance Committee came forward to introduce Article 1, the acceptance of reports of committees.  She moved that the initial and supplemental reports of the Finance Committee be received.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Mr. Revilak, member of the ARB moved that the initial and supplemental reports of the ARB be received.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Mr. Helmuth moved that the report of Select Board be received.  This was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Ms. Deshler moved that the recommended votes contained in the reports be before meeting without further action.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Ms. Deshler, moved that Article 1 be placed upon the table.  This was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Article 2 regarding a possible transfer of funds to the School Budget was introduced by Ms. Deshler. Since the Finance Committee report was issued, an error was discovered in the language on the ballot for the override vote scheduled for November 7.  The ballot states the override would take effect Jul 1, 2024 (not 2023) so the increase in funding is for FY25, not FY24.  Accordingly, the Town cannot access those funds until July 1, 2024.  The reason for the article was to transfer funds ahead of that date, which was no longer possible.  The Finance Committee now recommended a No Action vote.  Ms. Deshler asked if the Moderator would allow discussion of the override vote in this case.  ( A recommended vote of no action is not debatable.)  The Moderator agreed to allow a narrow line of discussion related to the explanation of how we got here.  Mr. Helmuth said there was a typographic error on the ballot.  It included "July 1, 2024" instead of "July 1, 2023", meaning that the funds would not be available until the next budget cycle.  The Town will need to ask for and additional $7M for next year.  The Select Board debated postponing the vote to correct the ballot, but they decided to keep date, as the Town could make a balanced budget.  There were two positive financial developments which helped make this possible.  The Town's good budgeting practices also helped.  Mr. Helmuth was pleased to report that the Select Board was comfortable with this decision, and it is confident of the Town's resources.  Mr. Feeney, the Town Manager rose to address the meeting.  The Moderator reminded him that he could only address only how we got here.  The Manager noted the Town updated its financial plan, and it can meet its current commitments.  Recent growth has exceeded estimates.  School enrollment grew slower than estimated.  Higher interest rates brought in higher returns on the Town's investments.  The tight labor market created delays in hiring.  Town Meeting can reconsider school funding in the spring.

The Moderator noted there were speakers in queue, but there was nothing open for debate.  The Moderator said he would entertain a motion, but he was interrupted by a Point of Order from TMM Jamieson.  He asked how to use the speaker queue?  The Moderator explained that he would notify the members when the queue is open.  He would initially ask the the speaker queue screen be displayed, but we would then switch to the article screen.  He said we were to use "1" to enter the queue and "2" to exit queue.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to note that any button seemed to work.  The Moderator noted that was his recollection from spring.  (The handset does notify you whether you are on or off queue.)  There was a Point of Order from TMM Crowder confirming the correct procedure. The Moderator said to press an odd number of times to be on the list and an even number of times to be off the list.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order to note that the screen on the handset tells you if you are in the queue.  TMM Kaepplein raised a Point of Order to note that an important vote was coming up on an override … (Shouts of "Scope" from the floor.  "Let him finish his sentence" from the Moderator.)  Mr. Kaepplein continued that this would be a good opportunity to learn about the override. The Moderator reviewed the text of the warrant article, and noted that the merits of the override couldn’t be discussed as they would not be in scope.  This brought us back around to the recommended vote of no action.  It was passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Ms. Ricker, Director of OUR Department of Planning and Community Development came forward to introduce the zoning articles.  She stated that only 3.7% of the Town's zoned land in a business district.  The Moderator steered her towards Article 3.  She continued that the purpose for most of the articles was to bring more development to the Town through thoughtfully considered bylaw amendments aimed to increase development in the business districts.  She introduced Mr. Revilak to introduce the articles.  Mr. Revilak introduced Article 3 is a correction to a reference in the zoning bylaw.  An earlier section was removed by Town Meeting and the following sections had been renumbered.  There was a reference to one of those later sections, and it needed to be corrected.  The Moderator brought us straight to the vote, ("1" for "yes" and "2" for "no") but there was a Point of Order from TMM Wagner asking if it was still possible to abstain?  Is using the "3" still an option.  The Moderator confirmed that it was.  The article was approved 197-1.

Article 4 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  This article regarding the reduced height buffer area.  This article had a recommended vote of No Action.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Crowder asking what is a "finding" was?  The Moderator ruled the question out of scope.  This brought up the main motion which passed 188-3.

Article 5 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  This article was in regards to open space in the business districts.  He requested his slides be presented.  The Moderator called to reset the speaker queue.  The proposed bylaw package including Articles 5-11 came after the 2022 Town Meeting where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the business districts was increased.  The ARB identified several zoning bylaws which prevented businesses to meet the increased FAR.  The proposed changes will only apply to business districts.  In our zoning bylaw, open space can be either on the ground or on a roof within 10ft of lowest level.   This article proposes 3 changes:  it would tie open space to lot area (not gross floor area), change to percentages for required open space, and allow open space to occur on balconies and roofs more than ten feet above the lowest level used for dwellings.  The open space requirement currently increases with the gross floor area, so adding residential area increases need for open space.  The proposal would increase the landscaped open space and reduce the usable open space.  This will make it simpler to develop a site.  This will help to increase development and raise the tax base.  Open space is for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the building.  This article improves the usability of the zoning bylaw and increases green space.

TMM Weinstein introduced an amendment.  He agrees with tying open space to parcel size. However, he sees a fatal flaw.  Currently, developers have to build open space close to the ground.  By the proposed definitions, in the business districts, all the other conditions would be removed.  This would lead to double dipping.  He proposed to maintain the current restrictions but keep new calculations by removing the proposed changes to the definitions in Section 2 from the vote.

TMM Owen was in favor of article.  He may have helped suggest it after the last Town Meeting.  He was attending ARB hearings on the zoning bylaw and usable open space is untenable.  Providing open space on roofs and balconies should be allowed so open space can be utilized.  He doesn’t see how the amendment would help.  Current sites don’t have a lot of open space today.  Allowing it on upper floors allows green space without cannibalizing other space. TMM Melofchick was invited by the Moderator to move TMM Weinstein's amendment, which we forgot to do while he had the floor.  She moved the amendment, and it was seconded.  She is all for green space on the ground.  She likes the green space at The former Brighams site.  She said she would be brief.  She supports the Weinstein amendment as a nuanced approach.  The Brighams site was a business redeveloped as residential.  It does look towards the bike trail.  She urged support for the article.  TMM Pretzer rose in support of article.  Business districts include many small parcels with no open space.  Mixed use is a great use, but often cannot accommodate the required open space on the ground.  This proposal maintains open space and permits larger buildings.  It removes barriers to development.  We were encouraged to vote against amendment. Sometimes, the rooftop might be the best place for open space.  TMM Jalkut was confused about the implications of the amendment, and he wanted to ask questions.  He was afraid that existing open space might be lost - is that true?  He liked the idea that lots without ground level open space should have to provide it.  Would the amendment allow current properties with open space to rebuild without open space?  The Moderator invited the ARB to respond. Mr. Benson, a member of the ARB noted that this article does not reduce the required amount of open space.  It only allows that space to be located on rooftops and balconies.  Green facades would be an option.  Open space is for the building occupants.  This creates more options.  TMM Jalkut asked Mr. Benson to stay on the scope of his question.  Mr. Benson apologized.  TMM Jalkut reiterated his question:  will the main motion allow for the elimination of existing open space.  Mr. Benson said the open space could be relocated to balconies and rooftops, but it would still need to be provided.  TMM Jalkut confirmed that the standard would be the same for new and redevelopment.

TMM Newton questioned whether under the existing bylaw, could open space be provided on a roof. Mr. Benson said yes if it is in new development and located just above the lowest level of residential units.  TMM Newton cautioned that the amendment could reduce the amount of residential development.  TMM Granucci moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Members requested a role call vote, so the handsets came out.  The vote to terminate debate passed 149-64, and debate was terminated.  TMM Yontar raised a Point of Order asking if there are any articles requiring a ⅔ vote.  The  Moderator noted that while amendments always only require a majority vote, some main motions do require a ⅔ vote.  This brought up the vote on the amendment.  The Moderator reviewed the amendment, and noted that it only removed the proposed definition changes in Section 2; the remainder remains as per main motion.  The vote on the amendment failed 58-156, and it was not adopted.  There was an anonymous Point of Order from the floor asking if the Moderator would be displaying the individual votes. -The Moderator said he would normally do so only on final votes, but he could do so here.  The Moderator then reviewed the article on the screen.  The vote on main motion was paused by a Point of Order from TMM Weinstein.  He asked if the vote was a majority or 2/3 vote.  The Moderator thanked him for the question and confirmed it was a ⅔ vote.  The vote on the article passed 167-53.

Article 6 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  The article would change the requirement for rear yard setbacks in the business districts.  There was an anonymous Point of Order asking him to speak slower.  Mr. Revilak noted that currently, rear yard setback uses a set of quirky formulas based on length and height of the proposed building.  This makes it difficult to gauge the development potential of a parcel.  You cannot tell what the setback for building will be until you have designed the building.  Article 6 would set a fixed setback distance based on what use the parcel abuts and the height of the proposed building.  The setback would be deeper at residential uses and deeper still with taller buildings.  None of the town's comparable communities use formulas in their setback definitions.  They are easier to understand.  He recommended approval.  TMM Pretzer rose to present an amendment.  Overall, this is a very helpful article.  The amendment would remove the height restriction, so there would be a 20 ft setback at residential uses regardless of the height of the proposed building.  This would prevent any unnecessary restrictions on mixed use development.  Many of the business district lots are not deep enough to have 30 ft rear setbacks.  We were urged to vote for the amendment.  The amendment was moved and seconded.  TMM Loreti also rose to present an amendment.  This amendment would slightly modify the zero rear yard setback facing a right of way.  The amendment was seconded.  The Moderator spent a little while searching for the presentation.  TMM Loreti was concerned about development abutting the bike path.  It is a right-of-way, so there would be no rear yard setback.  The proposed amendment would still require a 10 ft rear yard setback against a non-residential zone.  He noted that through lots are defined as having two front yards and no rear yard.  This was in potential conflict with the proposed article.  He summarized that his was a modest proposal to protect the bike path and avoid conflict with through lots.  He did not support the other amendment.  The Moderator noticed a discrepancy in the annotated warrant.  The table printed there might not match what is in the ARB report.  He noted that what appears in the report is what is being voted.

The Moderator went to the speaker queue.  TMM Kepka opposed article and relayed a personal story. A setback is used to provide more open space, adequate light, and ample fresh air.  They are very useful areas.  Setbacks are also important in case of emergency.  The improve fire safety by imposing a separation.  They allow a fire apparatus to pass by buildings.  She had a fire in her yard.  Luckily, a passerby called the fire department, and the loss was not as bad as it might have been.  She said her patio protected her house from the fire.  It is not healthy or safe to not have setbacks.  She urged a vote against the article.   TMM Kaepplein agreed that fire safety was very important.  Rear access to a building can be a matter of life and death.  Fires often transfer to adjacent properties.  He had an issue with rear right of way and alleyways.  It is an important place to locate dumpsters.  Would there be room for garbage trucks, fire trucks, occupants, and deliveries?  The Moderator noted the time and called for a 10 minute break.

-----------------

The Moderator informed the Meeting that we ran out of copies of the revised ARB Report.  Given the issues with the Annotated Warrant text, he was having additional copies printed now.  They would be available as soon as possible.  TMM Weinstein rose to speak in favor of the Loreti amendment. He felt it was something that may have been overlooked by the ARB, and he thought they would want it inserted.  The amendment would avoid a developer taking advantage of a loophole.  He opposed the Pretzer amendment.  TMM Prokosch had a question for the ARB.  He was curious whether under the main motion, would setbacks generally be smaller?  Mr. Revilak said not necessarily.  Figuring that out requires running the formula.  He ran two quick scenarios showing one where the setback was the same and a second where the setback would be deeper.  Hypothesizing requires confirmation.  TMM Prokosch asked about fire concerns.  Are there differences in fire safety between new multifamily construction and existing triple-decker construction.  Mr. Ciampa, Director of Inspectional Services noted that new construction would have sprinklers and fireproof construction.  TMM Prokosch asked about the setback from the bike path.  Ms. Ricker said she was not an expert on the width of the right of way for the bike path.  There is a good amount of open ground on both sides of the paved path.  The total right of way is likely 40ft.  TMM Prokosch said he likes several businesses facing bike path, including Bike Stop which opens onto the path.  He encouraged a vote against the Loreti amendment.  (A Member on the speaker list passed, but I didn't catch the name.)

TMM Schlichtman said he was a little confused, and he was looking for expert answers.  What is the legal definition of an alleyway under the bylaw.  Mr. Revilak said the term was not defined in the zoning bylaw, so it goes by the definition in the Webster dictionary.  TMM Schlichtman laughed, noting he had been in town meeting for quite a while, and he still learns something new every time.  Mr. Revilak noted that a right of way is area where the public can pass.  TMM Schlichtman asked what a “rear right of way” would be as referenced in the article.  Would a property be required to have two front yards?  He noted that TMM Loreti had an interesting point.  It could be considered a right of way.  Mr. Revilak added that per the zoning bylaw, it seemed like yard setbacks did not apply to the bike path.  TMM Schlichtman referenced past plans by the MBTA to build a subway.  (There were some tentative calls for scope, by TMM Schlichtman defended his line of questioning, as he wanted to make sure this article would not interfere should the MBTA reconsider constructing the line.  He thought the Loreti amendment was moot.  TMM Loreti wanted to refer back to the definitions.  The bike path exclusion only applies to front lot line, not to rear lot lines.  The Moderator noted there seemed to be a variety of opinions.  TMM Moore passed.

TMM Greenspon asked the ARB to address what TMM Loreti had just said.  Ms. Ricker said that the front lot line was as Mr. Revilak said.  The rear lot line right of way would need to follow the definition of "right of way" which  is defined as a street or highway.  TMM Greenspon confirmed that a three story structure abutting a residential use would have a 20 ft setback.  A four story structure abutting a residential use would need to have all stories set back 30 ft from the property line.  Somerville would have the 30 foot setback start at the fourth floor.  He asked how the setback dimensions were determined.  TMM Revilak said last December, town staff had conducted a survey of setbacks in neighboring communities. The final dimensions were selected by the ARB.  TMM Greenspon noted it was hard to go over three stories, so the town wasn't going to get four story buildings.  He supported the Pretzer amendment, opposed the Loreti amendment, and supported the main motion.  TMM Jamieson moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The Pretzer amendment was considered first.  The vote failed 84-123.  The Loreti amendment was next, and it narrowly failed 101-105.  The final vote was for the main motion without any amendments which passed 173-37.

Article 7: TMM Revilak introduced amend related to step backs in business districts. seeks to make development more desirable. Step back is when top portion of building is set back farther from the street.  Currently, we have a step back of 7.5 feet at the fourth floor facing streets.  However, step backs on multiple sides on small lots is difficult.  This article would change the rule so the step back would only apply to the primary street and would be relative to the property line.  He noted that comparable communities that have step backs set them higher.  He said the ARB voted 3-1 to approve the language. The holdout preferred the step back to occur at the fifth floor.  TMM Wagner said the proponent noted that the step back makes the building look smaller.  This article does not protect installed solar on adjacent properties.  He claimed there were no public hearings on these articles since the spring.  In his experience, there have always been public meetings before articles come to the Meeting.  Town Meeting is voting on major changes, and the ARB should have had more public input.  He encourages a no vote.  Mr. Hollman encouraged a vote against the article.  He noted that this only applies to the primary facade.  The other facades are usually less attractive, sometimes considerably less so.  The article is sending a message to abutters that they are unimportant.  Residents are going to face the big ugly facades.  TMM Benson said Arlington will still be more restrictive than most other towns. We are competing for business with these other towns, and we need to remain competitive on things like step backs.  He clarifies that the step back starts at the fourth floor.  This really only effects corner lots.  TMM Elliot passed.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  (The Moderator seemed surprised, but Mr. Moore is a fairly reliable terminator.)  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote declared to be a ⅔ vote.  The Moderator summarized the main motion.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order noting that the text of the article on the voting slide wass incorrect.  It noted “backyard” instead of “step back”, a leftover from Article 6.  The Moderator asked to vacate the vote, correct the slide, and start the vote over.  It was quite a long pause, so the Moderator ask for a good playlist while we waited.  The slide was corrected and the vote reopened.  The main motion passed 140-60.

Article 8 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  It related to height and story minimums in business districts. The article is intended to encourage more development in the business districts.  It would encourage traditional mixed use development and a more efficient use of limited land area.  The article would impose a height minimum unless it was unfeasible for the site.  It would not require an additional story be added to existing buildings.  TMM Farrell passed.  Ms. Mozina agreed with the article.  It is important to maximize land usage and increase business.  TMM Tosti rose to move the question. The motion was seconded, but a ⅔ vote was declared to have failed.  The Moderator noted that only a half a person standing.  That half was quickly joined by others.  The Moderator quipped, "OK, I should have kept my mouth shut."  Voting was opened by handset.  The motion passed 141-58, and debate was closed.  The Moderator summarized the vote before opening voting on main motion.  (The Moderator noted that the use of “minimums” on the slide was acceptable, but “minima’ would also have been acceptable as the correct plural.  The article passed 185-23.

Article 9 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  The article regarded corner lot requirements.  This article was proposed to encourage development of commercial space.  The article also sought to clarify how this issue has been interpreted by the ARB.  Today, the depth of a front yard shall be same as the front yard depth for adjacent lots.  In most cases, the corner is in the same zoning district as the adjacent properties.  However, it is a problem where the zones are different and the setbacks are different.  Imposing a residential zone setback on a business zone property would create artificially large setbacks.  The ARB hopes this change, to apply the business district setbacks instead of the adjacent residential district setback would encourage better development of those sites.  TMM Miller had a question about an earlier slide showing different setbacks.   Mr. Revilak explained the issue.  TMM Miller commented that having a corner property be an isolated business district was unusual.  Mr. Revilak confirmed it was, but also noted that it does happen. (The Moderator quipped that the B district was a "corner case".)  TMM Worden has a problem with this approach as a multistory building, as we now have to have at least two stories, shadows will fall farther on adjacent properties.  Should this article go back to the ARB for further consideration?  This would be OK for a single story building, but not for multiple story.  The Moderator confirmed that this was not a motion to refer to a committee.  TMM Klein asked about including the side yard in the language.  The article only affected the front yard.  Mr. Revilak confirmed it was odd, not necessary, and in this case, it would just not apply.  A member was identified to move the question.  TMM Loreti raised a Point of Order asking whether the inclusion of side yard made the proposed language out of scope.  It now addresses the side yards which are not a "street yard" which is the language in the warrant.  Mr. Benson said it depends on which way the building sits on the adjacent property, and he believes it is within scope.  Mr. Cunningham, the Acting Town Counsel mentioned section 5.3.8 and if agreed by the Moderator, he believed proper notice had been provided. TMM Gast moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The main motion passed 150-49.

The time is now 10:50.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order to note that there are only five more articles and Article 12 before the Meeting.  He asked if it made sense to come in Thursday to debate only five articles.  The debate on Article 12 is scheduled for Monday, October 23.  The Moderator reviewed the article topics and possibilities in real time ... in front of everyone.  An anonymous member raised a Point of Order to ask if we skip the Thursday session, do we risk running into Halloween?  The Moderator noted that it is up the the Town Meeting members to decide how long we are going to take.  He doesn't decide how long to debate; he only calls names off a list.  TMM Jamieson suggested we debate Article 10 tonight and come back Monday for the rest.  There was a lot of grumbling from the floor and a random “I agree with that” spoken into a microphone.  The Moderator said we would stick to the original plan.  It would likely be an early night on Thursday.  We can come back on Monday and all walk out of Town Hall arm-in-arm after closing Article 12.  TMM Revilak raised a Point of Order that Article 14 requires action on Article 12 to go first.  Mr. Cunningham thought Mr. Revilak’s point was “somewhat valid”.  He noted that passing Article 12 is one of three options to be a part of the zero emission pilot program.  The other two are not options for Arlington.  Again, Thursday might be an early night.  (Many shouted motions to adjourn.)  The Moderator noted there were two minutes left.  He asked if there were any notices of reconsideration.  There being none, he asked for a motion to adjourn, which was seconded.  We were adjourned.