We're Done! After finishing the financial articles and resolutions, we dissolved the 2016 annual meeting. I was sure we were going to go into Wednesday, but the mood of the room was to plow ahead and finish.
The night opened with the continuing debate on town budgets. Inspections, education, libraries, retirement and the reserve fund were all on the list. The finance committee recommended that we increase the school's budget due to increased Chapter 70 funding from the state. This was approved, and the budgets passed.
We then started on the capital budget. The discussion was dragging on, there were no school groups selling coffee, and Starbucks closes at 9:30. I ran out a few minutes early for break to get a cup. While I was gone, there were votes on the capital budget and borrowing authorizations from prior years. I forgot to see what the votes were, so you'll need to check Dan's blog.
After break, we went on a tear, eager to finish up. We passed a number of funding articles with almost no opposition. Allocations for reviewing the Mugar 40B proposal, construction of sewers, constructions of water mains, water bodies fund, post-employment benefits, long term stabilization, special education stabilization, free cash, and fiscal stability all were approved.
The next article was the appropriation of CPA funds. I had a personal stake in this vote, as one of the recommendations was to fund the long-awaited Phase II of the Robbins Farm Park renovation. Phase I happened in 2003 when the playground was rebuilt and the overlook installed. The next phase was supposed to be the following year, but 13 years slipped by before the funds were finally going to be available. This was only one of six very worthwhile proposals. I had anticipated a lot of discussion, but after a few speakers in foavor (myself included) we voted to terminate debate and approved the funding.
The first resolution was from the Disability Commission, and it was to encourage the town to provide 5% - 10% of the on-street parking spaces as accessible spaces. The state recommends 5% as the minimum, but Arlington only has 2.3%. After a very good presentation, there was no debate, and it was strongly adopted.
The final resolution and article of the town meeting regarded the polling place for Precinct 17. They used to vote at the Highland fire station, but they were moved to the Stratton School when the repairs to the fire station were started. Now that the station is finished, some would like to move back, but the town has resisted. Now that the Stratton School is undergoing renovations, 17 is being moved to Pierce School. The irony is that the other precincts who voted at Stratton are moving to the rink, which is in 17, but 17 has to go to 21. The Selectmen had recommended a vote of no action, but a substitute was proposed asking for the Highland Station or somewhere within the precinct. This was amended to remove the reference to the station after a presentation from the fire chief asking that the station remain off the table. The amendment passed, the amended substitute motion was adopted, and the resolution was approved. The most telling statistic for me was how low the voter turnout is from 17. I hope that changes can be made to improve their voter turnout.
All that was left was to dissolve the meeting and go home.
I hope this account has proven itself to be a helpful representation of my experience this year. If you have any questions, please let me know. Also, don't forget to vote on June 14. There are three debt exclusions on the ballot: funding renovations to Thompson and Gibbs, funding design work at the high school, and funding renovations at Minuteman. All are very important, worthwhile expenditures. It is extremely unfortunate that they all are happening simultaneously, but it is happening, and we need to step up as a community to address the school building issues in town. Please strongly consider approving these three requests.
Sincerely,
Christian Klein
TMM 10
Monday, May 16, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
2016 Town Meeting - Night Six
Tonight was an OK night at town meeting. I think we got a reasonable amount accomplished, but it didn't really feel like it at the time. The first half of the night really dragged along, but the results were positive.
We started back in the Special Town Meeting on article six. This article had been postponed until tonight to allow the school task force to issue a report and the finance committee to vote on a recommended vote. This article authorizes funds for a feasibility study for returning the Gibbs School to use as a school. There were many speakers in favor of the article without any real opposition. There was some question about whether a feasibility study is required (no, but good plans start with good data) and what will become of ACA (still looking for space, looking for donations). A motion to end debate was heartily approved, and we voted overwhelmingly to support the article. That allowed us to dissolve the special town meeting and return to the annual meeting.
This was the moment for my motion for reconsideration on article 29, releasing an easement on a residential property. I proposed reconsideration because new information was made available after we voted last week. That information indicated that several questions during the discussion were answered incorrectly, creating a false impression of what was at stake. I felt strongly that we needed to discuss the article with the full information before us, so we could make a properly informed decision. The motion for reconsideration passed handily, but was met almost immediately by a motion to table the article. The proponent felt this was happening too quickly, and there wasn't enough information. There was a lot of confusion, because the motion to table was made and seconded before it was clear that the proponent really wanted to postpone discussion, which would be a different motion. As it was, the members very strongly denied the motion through a voice vote, and we proceeded with the discussion.
The debate seemed to have a few different tacks, based on how one looked at the facts. The release would allow the property owner to redivide two existing parcels to make them both developable. The land was not held by the town; the town held a right to keep the land clear to allow subsequent development of a road in the future. The town has no plans to construct the road, so there is no reason to hold the restriction. Based on a calculation that included reimbursing the town for the original fee plus several years worth of missed taxation, the town was set to receive $28,000 for the release. Some felt that was a fair way to assess the value. Others thought fair market value would be better. Based on the area and the assessment, that would be over $200,000. However, this is the land cost, and the owner owns the land already. Other speakers pointed out that similar restrictions had been released without compensation in the past. After haveing debate terminated, town meeting voted to approve the release for a second time. Although the result was the same, we had a fair hearing with all the facts. I believe that has its own value.
We then picked back up with article 35 and the budgets. I spoke in regards to the ZBA's budget, encouraging town meeting to increase the budget should the meeting decide to increase the workload for the board in the future. Last year, the board handled around 24 cases with a budget of $20,000. That works out to $833 per case. However, the fee is only $400. Many nearby communities charge 3 - 4 times that amount. I hope this will be considered.
We adjourned at the end of the discussion regarding the public safety budgets. We will pick up on Monday with the inspectional services budget. If I have time this weekend, I will try to put together a better record of fees vs. expenses. Given my real work workload, it probably won't happen.
My bet is we have 1.5 nights left. Let's see if we can get things moving on Monday.
My thanks to those who read my notes.
We started back in the Special Town Meeting on article six. This article had been postponed until tonight to allow the school task force to issue a report and the finance committee to vote on a recommended vote. This article authorizes funds for a feasibility study for returning the Gibbs School to use as a school. There were many speakers in favor of the article without any real opposition. There was some question about whether a feasibility study is required (no, but good plans start with good data) and what will become of ACA (still looking for space, looking for donations). A motion to end debate was heartily approved, and we voted overwhelmingly to support the article. That allowed us to dissolve the special town meeting and return to the annual meeting.
This was the moment for my motion for reconsideration on article 29, releasing an easement on a residential property. I proposed reconsideration because new information was made available after we voted last week. That information indicated that several questions during the discussion were answered incorrectly, creating a false impression of what was at stake. I felt strongly that we needed to discuss the article with the full information before us, so we could make a properly informed decision. The motion for reconsideration passed handily, but was met almost immediately by a motion to table the article. The proponent felt this was happening too quickly, and there wasn't enough information. There was a lot of confusion, because the motion to table was made and seconded before it was clear that the proponent really wanted to postpone discussion, which would be a different motion. As it was, the members very strongly denied the motion through a voice vote, and we proceeded with the discussion.
The debate seemed to have a few different tacks, based on how one looked at the facts. The release would allow the property owner to redivide two existing parcels to make them both developable. The land was not held by the town; the town held a right to keep the land clear to allow subsequent development of a road in the future. The town has no plans to construct the road, so there is no reason to hold the restriction. Based on a calculation that included reimbursing the town for the original fee plus several years worth of missed taxation, the town was set to receive $28,000 for the release. Some felt that was a fair way to assess the value. Others thought fair market value would be better. Based on the area and the assessment, that would be over $200,000. However, this is the land cost, and the owner owns the land already. Other speakers pointed out that similar restrictions had been released without compensation in the past. After haveing debate terminated, town meeting voted to approve the release for a second time. Although the result was the same, we had a fair hearing with all the facts. I believe that has its own value.
We then picked back up with article 35 and the budgets. I spoke in regards to the ZBA's budget, encouraging town meeting to increase the budget should the meeting decide to increase the workload for the board in the future. Last year, the board handled around 24 cases with a budget of $20,000. That works out to $833 per case. However, the fee is only $400. Many nearby communities charge 3 - 4 times that amount. I hope this will be considered.
We adjourned at the end of the discussion regarding the public safety budgets. We will pick up on Monday with the inspectional services budget. If I have time this weekend, I will try to put together a better record of fees vs. expenses. Given my real work workload, it probably won't happen.
My bet is we have 1.5 nights left. Let's see if we can get things moving on Monday.
My thanks to those who read my notes.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
2016 Town Meeting - Night Five
Tonight was all about Minuteman. It's been on the schedule for over a week, but we only got the handouts this afternoon. It would have been better to have more time to review them, but given how slowly the night went, there was plenty of time.
We started moving ahead to Article 43, the annual appropriation for Minuteman. The amount for this year is $3,649,349, 9% less than last year. After some active discussion, we passed the appropriation overwhelmingly, 195-2.
At this point, we reopened the special town meeting so we could discuss article 6, the bond authorization for Minuteman school construction. This is a very contentious issue, because it involves a lot of money. Immediately after the presentation of the recommended vote in favor by the Financial Committee, there was a presentation of a substitute motion against the bond authorization. The discussion was very interesting. The pro side had several very articulate speakers focusing on the value of the education for the students. The per-pupil cost of building a new vocational school is high, but it is necessary for the proper education of those students. If the bond authorization fails, the school will still need to be renovated, but it will be more inconvenient for the students, and we will have to foot the whole bill (or our share of the full bill).
The arguments against the authorization focused on the high cost and a sense that we need more time. After seven years, I think we've seen all the possibilities and reviewed all the options. Just before 11:00, we voted to terminate the debate, we voted down the substitute motion, and we approved the recommended vote in favor of the bond authorization 165-31.
After Belmont voted down the bond authorization last week, there is a lot of confusion about where we go from here. The Minuteman superintendent has a meeting with the MSBA board tomorrow to try and figure that out. The hope is that it is still possible to get state funds, but that might be difficult. I think it would be a real shame to have missed out on state funding because the member communities couldn't reach an agreement in seven years.
We adjourned while still in the special town meeting, so we will open Wednesday in the special, debating article 3 about authorizing money to expand school capacity in Arlington. Once that is over, we'll dissolve the special town meeting and reopen the regular town meeting. At that point, I intend to make a motion for reconsideration of article 29. I spoke with many members this evening who were very glad to receive the materials and hear that there would be a motion. I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
We started moving ahead to Article 43, the annual appropriation for Minuteman. The amount for this year is $3,649,349, 9% less than last year. After some active discussion, we passed the appropriation overwhelmingly, 195-2.
At this point, we reopened the special town meeting so we could discuss article 6, the bond authorization for Minuteman school construction. This is a very contentious issue, because it involves a lot of money. Immediately after the presentation of the recommended vote in favor by the Financial Committee, there was a presentation of a substitute motion against the bond authorization. The discussion was very interesting. The pro side had several very articulate speakers focusing on the value of the education for the students. The per-pupil cost of building a new vocational school is high, but it is necessary for the proper education of those students. If the bond authorization fails, the school will still need to be renovated, but it will be more inconvenient for the students, and we will have to foot the whole bill (or our share of the full bill).
The arguments against the authorization focused on the high cost and a sense that we need more time. After seven years, I think we've seen all the possibilities and reviewed all the options. Just before 11:00, we voted to terminate the debate, we voted down the substitute motion, and we approved the recommended vote in favor of the bond authorization 165-31.
After Belmont voted down the bond authorization last week, there is a lot of confusion about where we go from here. The Minuteman superintendent has a meeting with the MSBA board tomorrow to try and figure that out. The hope is that it is still possible to get state funds, but that might be difficult. I think it would be a real shame to have missed out on state funding because the member communities couldn't reach an agreement in seven years.
We adjourned while still in the special town meeting, so we will open Wednesday in the special, debating article 3 about authorizing money to expand school capacity in Arlington. Once that is over, we'll dissolve the special town meeting and reopen the regular town meeting. At that point, I intend to make a motion for reconsideration of article 29. I spoke with many members this evening who were very glad to receive the materials and hear that there would be a motion. I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
2016 Town Meeting - Night Four
Night four was the night we finally moved past zoning. We heard substitute motions to the original ARB "No Action" votes, and ... spoiler alert ... they were voted down like all the others. However, the night started in a different place.
The town manager made a formal apology regarding his comments on Article 29, the release of easements from Monday Night. Specifically, he had commented that the easement would make no substantive change in the develop-ability of the lots, and the single house would remain. In reality, releasing the easement allows combining two existing lots into a larger lot. That lot can then be subdivided into two fully develop-able lots. This is a very different situation from what was presented. When a question was raised about discussing this article in light of the revised testimony, the moderated noted that I had requested the right of reconsideration on Article 29 at Monday's meeting. Several members spoke to me about reconsideration. My intention is to put together the materials that I have gathered along with some commentary for submission to the Town Meeting distribution list. I will then notify the moderator about my intention to call for reconsideration.
We started the zoning discussion with a substitute motion seeking to change the definitions of Gross Floor Area, Story, and Half Story. This addressed about half of the definitions under the original warrant article vote that was later rescinded. The main point was to realign the attic height noted in the Arlington bylaw with the state building code. They are only out-of-sync because the state changed their code. The other change was to remove the exemption from gross floor area of attic spaces devoted to mechanical equipment. This is a much more important set of changes than I think even the proponents realized. As things stand, a habitable room has to be 7'-0" high for at least 50% of its area per building code. Per zoning code, attic area only counts towards gross floor area if it is more that 7'-3". What happens if you have an attic ceiling that is 7'-3" in the center and 7'-0" at the side walls? It is fully habitable, but none of it counts towards the gross floor area. By the definition of a half story, since it is under a gable (a really flat one), and the clear height is below 7'-3", it can be the full size of the floor below and count as a half-story. This is an absurd situation. (In reality, the house would need to be really narrow, but you get the picture.) As has been the case all along, there were many opinions that this change would stifle development and reduce the value of homes. Debate was ended before I had a chance to speak. Better yet, it was ended by voice-vote, the moderator silenced a member for trying to speak after debate was closed, a request was made for an electronic vote, the motion to end debate failed that counting, that same member was then allowed to speak, the next speaker called for an end to debate, and that electronic vote passed. Substituting the motion failed its vote, so we voted no action on the main article.
Article nine had no substitute, so no action was passed. The substitute motion for article ten sought to require any driveway in excess of 15% grade to acquire a special permit. I had spent some time this afternoon checking grades around town. The Rt. 2 access road at Highland Ave: 7%. Accessible ramps: 8.3%, Coolidge Road: 10% - 20%. Basement garage driveways in East Arlington: 19% - 28%. The reason for the special permit would be to allow the ZBA to make sure any steep driveway is safe. As a bonus for the proponents, it would discourage basement garages. I spoke neutrally with my figures from above and asked that if this was enacted, that town meeting consider increasing the budget for ZBA. In the end debate was terminated, the substitute motion was not adopted, and a vote of no action was sustained.
The final zoning related article was eleven. This substitute motion was essentially a resolution asking for a new town committee to come up with a comprehensive zoning plan. There was some discussion about how that is the job for the Master Plan Implementation Committee. The ARB said they would be working in this direction. I guess this is what meeting wanted to hear, because it passed all votes over my objections. This doesn't need a new committee; it needs an appropriately staffed committee.
Next up was a vote of no action on the proposed transfer of property at 1 Mount Gilboa Road. The plan wass to make the property affordable, providing additional protection against 40b applications. It involved a strange swap with conservation that they opposed.
Picking up steam, we moved onto the financial articles. Article 31, acceptance of local option taxes, received a vote of no action, because there were no new taxes proposed by the state. Article 32, endorsement of Community Development Block Grant funds was passed on a voice vote. I had asked why an administrator had been granted more than their original request when all the other numbers were less. They position was to be partly funded by CPA funds, but those didn't emerge. They then made up the difference from CDBG.
Article 33, the approval of revolving funds was approved unanimously on a voice vote. Article 34, positions reclassification was similarly approved unanimously on a voice vote. It wa now 10:30, and the head of FinCom recommended holding off discussion on the town budgets until a day when we'd have more time. The town manager noted that many department heads were at the meeting for this one article. We decided to start the discussion of the budgets. As is our tradition, the moderator read down the list of budgets, and if anyone wanted to discuss one of the budgets, they would should out "Hold!" We eliminated at least half of them this way, allowing those directors to leave. We only got to the first few before we ran out of time and adjourned.
Monday night, we will start with the two Minuteman articles. Article 6 in the special town meeting is for bonding the Minuteman rebuild, and article 43is the annual expenditure on Minuteman. Their superintendent will be there, so it should be interesting. My wife informed me that Belmont rejected the bond authorization, so they could be the end of MSBA funding for Minuteman.
The town manager made a formal apology regarding his comments on Article 29, the release of easements from Monday Night. Specifically, he had commented that the easement would make no substantive change in the develop-ability of the lots, and the single house would remain. In reality, releasing the easement allows combining two existing lots into a larger lot. That lot can then be subdivided into two fully develop-able lots. This is a very different situation from what was presented. When a question was raised about discussing this article in light of the revised testimony, the moderated noted that I had requested the right of reconsideration on Article 29 at Monday's meeting. Several members spoke to me about reconsideration. My intention is to put together the materials that I have gathered along with some commentary for submission to the Town Meeting distribution list. I will then notify the moderator about my intention to call for reconsideration.
We started the zoning discussion with a substitute motion seeking to change the definitions of Gross Floor Area, Story, and Half Story. This addressed about half of the definitions under the original warrant article vote that was later rescinded. The main point was to realign the attic height noted in the Arlington bylaw with the state building code. They are only out-of-sync because the state changed their code. The other change was to remove the exemption from gross floor area of attic spaces devoted to mechanical equipment. This is a much more important set of changes than I think even the proponents realized. As things stand, a habitable room has to be 7'-0" high for at least 50% of its area per building code. Per zoning code, attic area only counts towards gross floor area if it is more that 7'-3". What happens if you have an attic ceiling that is 7'-3" in the center and 7'-0" at the side walls? It is fully habitable, but none of it counts towards the gross floor area. By the definition of a half story, since it is under a gable (a really flat one), and the clear height is below 7'-3", it can be the full size of the floor below and count as a half-story. This is an absurd situation. (In reality, the house would need to be really narrow, but you get the picture.) As has been the case all along, there were many opinions that this change would stifle development and reduce the value of homes. Debate was ended before I had a chance to speak. Better yet, it was ended by voice-vote, the moderator silenced a member for trying to speak after debate was closed, a request was made for an electronic vote, the motion to end debate failed that counting, that same member was then allowed to speak, the next speaker called for an end to debate, and that electronic vote passed. Substituting the motion failed its vote, so we voted no action on the main article.
Article nine had no substitute, so no action was passed. The substitute motion for article ten sought to require any driveway in excess of 15% grade to acquire a special permit. I had spent some time this afternoon checking grades around town. The Rt. 2 access road at Highland Ave: 7%. Accessible ramps: 8.3%, Coolidge Road: 10% - 20%. Basement garage driveways in East Arlington: 19% - 28%. The reason for the special permit would be to allow the ZBA to make sure any steep driveway is safe. As a bonus for the proponents, it would discourage basement garages. I spoke neutrally with my figures from above and asked that if this was enacted, that town meeting consider increasing the budget for ZBA. In the end debate was terminated, the substitute motion was not adopted, and a vote of no action was sustained.
The final zoning related article was eleven. This substitute motion was essentially a resolution asking for a new town committee to come up with a comprehensive zoning plan. There was some discussion about how that is the job for the Master Plan Implementation Committee. The ARB said they would be working in this direction. I guess this is what meeting wanted to hear, because it passed all votes over my objections. This doesn't need a new committee; it needs an appropriately staffed committee.
Next up was a vote of no action on the proposed transfer of property at 1 Mount Gilboa Road. The plan wass to make the property affordable, providing additional protection against 40b applications. It involved a strange swap with conservation that they opposed.
Picking up steam, we moved onto the financial articles. Article 31, acceptance of local option taxes, received a vote of no action, because there were no new taxes proposed by the state. Article 32, endorsement of Community Development Block Grant funds was passed on a voice vote. I had asked why an administrator had been granted more than their original request when all the other numbers were less. They position was to be partly funded by CPA funds, but those didn't emerge. They then made up the difference from CDBG.
Article 33, the approval of revolving funds was approved unanimously on a voice vote. Article 34, positions reclassification was similarly approved unanimously on a voice vote. It wa now 10:30, and the head of FinCom recommended holding off discussion on the town budgets until a day when we'd have more time. The town manager noted that many department heads were at the meeting for this one article. We decided to start the discussion of the budgets. As is our tradition, the moderator read down the list of budgets, and if anyone wanted to discuss one of the budgets, they would should out "Hold!" We eliminated at least half of them this way, allowing those directors to leave. We only got to the first few before we ran out of time and adjourned.
Monday night, we will start with the two Minuteman articles. Article 6 in the special town meeting is for bonding the Minuteman rebuild, and article 43is the annual expenditure on Minuteman. Their superintendent will be there, so it should be interesting. My wife informed me that Belmont rejected the bond authorization, so they could be the end of MSBA funding for Minuteman.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
2016 Town Meeting - Night Three
Welcome to night three! We started this evening by starting into the third section of warrant articled, the proposed town bylaw amendments. The first article, sponsored by the Arlington Human Rights Commission, sought to increase the scope of the town's protected classes to include transgender and other persons. The meeting voted unanimously to approve the change. The next vote was to liberate the position of Executive Director from being a mandatory position to being a position filled as necessary. This was approved unanimously as well. It was curious that someone requested this article be taken off the consent agenda on the first night yet no one rose to speak to the article. The same thing happened with the next article, #20, seeking to allow co-chairpersons in place of a single chairperson to head the HRC. This was passed, but no one spoke to address the article.
The next article before town meeting was a proposed tree preservation bylaw. It sought to encourage the preservation of existing prominent trees on a site during redevelopment. The proposal had the backing of the development community, but a request was made to increase the time frame for replanting trees so it wouldn't need to happen in the dead of winter. Debate was closed by a vote of the meeting, the amendment was approved, and the article was adopted.
Article 23 concerned electronic distribution of materials for town meeting. Similar to your bank asking if you'd rather get your statements online, the proposal was to allow town meeting members to opt-in to receiving their materials only online. The documents would be available in PDF format. This happens now, so as I understood it, the only change was that you could opt to not receive them in the mail as well. I had tried to work from only electronic documents a few years ago, and it really didn't work for me; it was too difficult to take notes on the fly. However, this is a good idea, so it was adopted.
The next article, requesting town-issued email accounts for members of town boards and committees, had originally received a recommendation of no action from the Board of Selectmen. A substitute motion was presented by the original proponent, requesting the accounts as a way to assist in the collection of documents that are under the aegis of the open records law. There were many who spoke in opposition, citing concerns about confusion and the difficulty of managing so many accounts. Others spoke in favor of having the town be responsible for maintaining the records and having the addresses readily available on the town's website. Several members thought it was too premature, and we should leave this alone in favor of some other technology. After a vigorous debate, I voted to accept the substitute motion, and I was surprised to be in the very slim majority, 96-92. With the substitute in front of us, I was again in the majority, voting for the measure, 105-95. I believe this will be a good thing. As a member of the ZBA, I would prefer having my official correspondence in a separate account from my other activities.
During the break, the members of Precinct 10 met to "organize." We do this every year, and there are only two items before us: who will be the chairperson, and who will be the secretary. We re-elected Michael and Donna respectively. We even had time left over to get a coffee and some cookies.
The next article, seeking to limit lobbying by public officials had a recommendation of No Action, and that was what we voted.
This was followed by one of the highlights of this year's meeting, the vote on Community Choice Aggregation. The proposal would authorize the town to negotiate with an energy broker for a special production package for town residents. The package would have and additional 5% renewable component over the Eversource basic package. The experience among other towns, is that this can be done competitively. The distribution will remain in the hands of Eversource. The trick is that the state enabling legislation requires that the program be opt-out for anyone on Eversource's basic source plan. There was a good debate about whether the plan would be able to save residents money (it should), whether it would penalize those who use net-metering (it won't), and whether residents would be able to get out of it later (they will). After voting to terminate debate, we passed CCA 117-22. There are several steps before this comes into action, but we have taken the first step.
The final vote of the night, in retrospect, was a little controversial. The question in front of town meeting was whether to approve the elimination of an existing roadway easement on a property. The seller was represented by our Moderator in his real job as a lawyer, so our assistant moderator filled in on this item. The town manager explained the sale and how the Board of Selectment had approved it. There was some debate about whether the price was sufficient, whether the property could be divided, and whether the town should ask for more money if the release of the easement would allow greater development. I rose to speak, because we had no documentation to base a vote upon. The plan for the easement was from 1942, so it is unavailable online. The Board of Selectmen didn't make it available, and the proponents did not include any graphics in their presentation. I asked if there could at least be a verbal description of the property so we would have a sense of what we were considering. In the description given, the area of the lots in question was given as 4,882 SF. I asked for that to be clarified, and it was repeated. At that size, the lot is too small to be subdivided and too small to be newly developed. I then proceeded to vote for the article, which passed on a voice vote.
That would have been the end of it, but I was speaking to a colleague who said that was not the correct size of the lot. We spoke with the town manager, and that was the size of the easement. The actual size of the lots was over 14,000 SF. This is a significant difference, because with the easement, a lot that could only support a single house could now be subdivided and a second house constructed. While I don't begrudge the owner the right to do so, I believe it is incumbent on the proponents to accurately portray the situation so town meeting can make an informed decision. I spoke with the moderator, and indicated my request for reconsideration. Since I did vote in the majority, I have that privilege. In further discussions with the manager and moderator, it is not overly clear what the proponent owns and what the actual lots and sizes are. I will speak further with those parties, and I hope to get a true understanding of who owns what. I will then make a case for reconsideration based on that information. I do not anticipate changing my vote, but it is only appropriate that town meeting be granted the complete story before being asked to vote. In retrospect, I should have asked for us to be adjourned for the night and had the plans distributed to the members before the Wednesday meeting. Maybe I should have asked for a postponement. Maybe I should have recognized a couple of weeks ago that we had no plans. Oh well, this will be sorted out.
We're adjourned until Wednesday, and it is late. Good night.
The next article before town meeting was a proposed tree preservation bylaw. It sought to encourage the preservation of existing prominent trees on a site during redevelopment. The proposal had the backing of the development community, but a request was made to increase the time frame for replanting trees so it wouldn't need to happen in the dead of winter. Debate was closed by a vote of the meeting, the amendment was approved, and the article was adopted.
Article 23 concerned electronic distribution of materials for town meeting. Similar to your bank asking if you'd rather get your statements online, the proposal was to allow town meeting members to opt-in to receiving their materials only online. The documents would be available in PDF format. This happens now, so as I understood it, the only change was that you could opt to not receive them in the mail as well. I had tried to work from only electronic documents a few years ago, and it really didn't work for me; it was too difficult to take notes on the fly. However, this is a good idea, so it was adopted.
The next article, requesting town-issued email accounts for members of town boards and committees, had originally received a recommendation of no action from the Board of Selectmen. A substitute motion was presented by the original proponent, requesting the accounts as a way to assist in the collection of documents that are under the aegis of the open records law. There were many who spoke in opposition, citing concerns about confusion and the difficulty of managing so many accounts. Others spoke in favor of having the town be responsible for maintaining the records and having the addresses readily available on the town's website. Several members thought it was too premature, and we should leave this alone in favor of some other technology. After a vigorous debate, I voted to accept the substitute motion, and I was surprised to be in the very slim majority, 96-92. With the substitute in front of us, I was again in the majority, voting for the measure, 105-95. I believe this will be a good thing. As a member of the ZBA, I would prefer having my official correspondence in a separate account from my other activities.
During the break, the members of Precinct 10 met to "organize." We do this every year, and there are only two items before us: who will be the chairperson, and who will be the secretary. We re-elected Michael and Donna respectively. We even had time left over to get a coffee and some cookies.
The next article, seeking to limit lobbying by public officials had a recommendation of No Action, and that was what we voted.
This was followed by one of the highlights of this year's meeting, the vote on Community Choice Aggregation. The proposal would authorize the town to negotiate with an energy broker for a special production package for town residents. The package would have and additional 5% renewable component over the Eversource basic package. The experience among other towns, is that this can be done competitively. The distribution will remain in the hands of Eversource. The trick is that the state enabling legislation requires that the program be opt-out for anyone on Eversource's basic source plan. There was a good debate about whether the plan would be able to save residents money (it should), whether it would penalize those who use net-metering (it won't), and whether residents would be able to get out of it later (they will). After voting to terminate debate, we passed CCA 117-22. There are several steps before this comes into action, but we have taken the first step.
The final vote of the night, in retrospect, was a little controversial. The question in front of town meeting was whether to approve the elimination of an existing roadway easement on a property. The seller was represented by our Moderator in his real job as a lawyer, so our assistant moderator filled in on this item. The town manager explained the sale and how the Board of Selectment had approved it. There was some debate about whether the price was sufficient, whether the property could be divided, and whether the town should ask for more money if the release of the easement would allow greater development. I rose to speak, because we had no documentation to base a vote upon. The plan for the easement was from 1942, so it is unavailable online. The Board of Selectmen didn't make it available, and the proponents did not include any graphics in their presentation. I asked if there could at least be a verbal description of the property so we would have a sense of what we were considering. In the description given, the area of the lots in question was given as 4,882 SF. I asked for that to be clarified, and it was repeated. At that size, the lot is too small to be subdivided and too small to be newly developed. I then proceeded to vote for the article, which passed on a voice vote.
That would have been the end of it, but I was speaking to a colleague who said that was not the correct size of the lot. We spoke with the town manager, and that was the size of the easement. The actual size of the lots was over 14,000 SF. This is a significant difference, because with the easement, a lot that could only support a single house could now be subdivided and a second house constructed. While I don't begrudge the owner the right to do so, I believe it is incumbent on the proponents to accurately portray the situation so town meeting can make an informed decision. I spoke with the moderator, and indicated my request for reconsideration. Since I did vote in the majority, I have that privilege. In further discussions with the manager and moderator, it is not overly clear what the proponent owns and what the actual lots and sizes are. I will speak further with those parties, and I hope to get a true understanding of who owns what. I will then make a case for reconsideration based on that information. I do not anticipate changing my vote, but it is only appropriate that town meeting be granted the complete story before being asked to vote. In retrospect, I should have asked for us to be adjourned for the night and had the plans distributed to the members before the Wednesday meeting. Maybe I should have asked for a postponement. Maybe I should have recognized a couple of weeks ago that we had no plans. Oh well, this will be sorted out.
We're adjourned until Wednesday, and it is late. Good night.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
2016 Town Meeting - Night Two
Welcome back. Tonight was not nearly as productive in terms of disposing of articles as the first night. However, there was some very good discussion, and I'm glad about the results we achieved.
The night started with our annual spring Special Town Meeting. This is undertaken to try and get quick results on financial items that need attention this year. By doing it in a special meeting, we can close that meeting early and get the results off to the state AG's office quickly. That gets the results ratified during this financial year. The general meeting's results are more complicated, and they won't be ratified until October.
The first article of the special was a placeholder amendment inserted in case amendments needed to be made to the 2016 budgets. There were no adjustments needed, so a vote of No Action was unanimously approved. Article two transfers $200K from the 2016 school budget to the Special Education Stabilization Fund. It is difficult to know how much funding the school department will need for special education in any given year because families move in-and-out of the district, and students' needs change. When the budgeted funds create a surplus, those funds are moved into a stabilization fund so they can be used to offset a future deficit. This was passed unanimously.
The third article was seeking funds for school capacity expansion. The consultants who are researching options are making their presentation tomorrow night (4/28), so the information required to make this decision is not yet available. The request to postpone discussion of the article until May 11 was approved. Article four was another placeholder in case the bids for work at the Stratton school came in over the original estimate. The bids came in on budget, so a vote of No Action was passed.
Article five sought to appropriate $2M for the MSBA-required feasibility study for Arlington High School. This is the next step in the funding process with the state. There was a clear presentation made by the superintendent and the town manager, explaining how this step fits into the overall process. This article was passed without opposition. The last article concerned the bond authorization to pay Arlington's portion of the costs to rebuild Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School. Apparently, the financial committee voted 10-8 to recommend passage. However, the recommendation was to postpone discussion to May 9 when the complete materials would be available and the superintendent would be available for questions. We then adjourned the special town meeting until May 9.
Now back to the discussion of Zoning Articles. All the remaining articles have a recommended vote of No Action. The only way to move them forward is to present a substitute motion. Such motions were presented for three of the articles, the other three having been disposed during the consent agenda on the first night. The substitute motion for Article 14 proposed changing the required side setback requirement from 10 ft minimum per side to 10 ft minimum each side with an additional requirement of a minimum sum of both side setbacks at 25 ft. This could be accomplished by having 10 ft on one side and 15 ft on the other. The biggest issue was that the original warrant language used the sum of the setbacks between adjacent houses rather than the sum of setbacks on the same lot. Many of the speakers, as well as the moderator, were unclear on this point. This created an atmosphere where many people were trying to correct speakers. This continued until the change was made more clear. In the end, the argument that this was too great an imposition on small lots swayed the vote, The substitute motion was voted down, so the original recommendation of No Action returned and was approved.
Article 15 had a substitute motion intended to close a loophole in which projects require special permit approval. Currently, large additions to existing houses require a special permit. However demolishing the house first removes the requirement for a special permit. This difference allows builders to try the addition route first, but hold onto the demolition and new build option in their back pocket. Worse, this option is sometimes used to try and influence the deliberations of the ZBA. In theory, I am in favor of closing this loophole. However, I had issues with the presentation. I had spoken with a proponent, and indicated that the ZBA, of which I am a member, could take on an additional 20 cases a year without severely impacting the time required to hear cases. It takes about a month to get on the docket, and we usually are able to close a case within one or two meetings. I also strongly encouraged the proponent to speak with the ZBA administrator to get her opinion on the matter. The presentation at the meeting was that we could easily take on many more cases, and it would only add a couple of weeks to the process. The connection was never made with the administrator.
The problem is that we are not talking about 20 additional cases; the number is closer to 150. Spending a couple of hours understanding each case before the hearing would add 300 hours for each and every volunteer board member. Our administrator is part-time, and our proposed budget for 2017 is only $20,812. There is no way we'd be able to cope with the onslaught. The discussion went back and forth many times. In a funny moment for me, someone had a question for the ZBA, and I was sitting there with my hand raised while the moderator looked everywhere but in my direction. I finally had to speak up and say that there was a member in attendance. The question was what we do to review shadows. I said we only do it now when the information is provided. We are not a research agency; we rely on what is provided.
We eventually had a positive vote to terminate debate. (I opposed as I was still waiting for an opportunity to speak.) The substitute motion was voted down. (I voted against it.) This returned the recommended vote to No Action which was approved.
Article 16 sought to simplify the definition of building height. The current definition is based on the average grade before the construction of the house, and it exempts penthouses from the height restriction. The proposal was to measure the baseline after construction was complete, and remove inhabited spaces from the exemptions. Sounded really simple. In practice, the die was cast against residential zoning changes. My favorite speaker was voting against the proposal because he hadn't taken the time to read the substitute motion, so he didn't know what it was, so no one else should vote for it either. In the end, debate was terminated by vote, the substitute motion wass defeated, and the vote of No Action passed. This brought up a vote to adjourn for the evening.
I found tonight somewhat disappointing. It is unfortunate how much confusion there is when motions are substituted. This is exacerbated when members don't take the time to understand the materials. I don't know what could be done to convince members to read up on the motions before coming to the hearings. There was a lot of confusion tonight, and it came at the expense of making progress. We're now off until Monday. We will start in on general bylaw amendments at that time.
The night started with our annual spring Special Town Meeting. This is undertaken to try and get quick results on financial items that need attention this year. By doing it in a special meeting, we can close that meeting early and get the results off to the state AG's office quickly. That gets the results ratified during this financial year. The general meeting's results are more complicated, and they won't be ratified until October.
The first article of the special was a placeholder amendment inserted in case amendments needed to be made to the 2016 budgets. There were no adjustments needed, so a vote of No Action was unanimously approved. Article two transfers $200K from the 2016 school budget to the Special Education Stabilization Fund. It is difficult to know how much funding the school department will need for special education in any given year because families move in-and-out of the district, and students' needs change. When the budgeted funds create a surplus, those funds are moved into a stabilization fund so they can be used to offset a future deficit. This was passed unanimously.
The third article was seeking funds for school capacity expansion. The consultants who are researching options are making their presentation tomorrow night (4/28), so the information required to make this decision is not yet available. The request to postpone discussion of the article until May 11 was approved. Article four was another placeholder in case the bids for work at the Stratton school came in over the original estimate. The bids came in on budget, so a vote of No Action was passed.
Article five sought to appropriate $2M for the MSBA-required feasibility study for Arlington High School. This is the next step in the funding process with the state. There was a clear presentation made by the superintendent and the town manager, explaining how this step fits into the overall process. This article was passed without opposition. The last article concerned the bond authorization to pay Arlington's portion of the costs to rebuild Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School. Apparently, the financial committee voted 10-8 to recommend passage. However, the recommendation was to postpone discussion to May 9 when the complete materials would be available and the superintendent would be available for questions. We then adjourned the special town meeting until May 9.
Now back to the discussion of Zoning Articles. All the remaining articles have a recommended vote of No Action. The only way to move them forward is to present a substitute motion. Such motions were presented for three of the articles, the other three having been disposed during the consent agenda on the first night. The substitute motion for Article 14 proposed changing the required side setback requirement from 10 ft minimum per side to 10 ft minimum each side with an additional requirement of a minimum sum of both side setbacks at 25 ft. This could be accomplished by having 10 ft on one side and 15 ft on the other. The biggest issue was that the original warrant language used the sum of the setbacks between adjacent houses rather than the sum of setbacks on the same lot. Many of the speakers, as well as the moderator, were unclear on this point. This created an atmosphere where many people were trying to correct speakers. This continued until the change was made more clear. In the end, the argument that this was too great an imposition on small lots swayed the vote, The substitute motion was voted down, so the original recommendation of No Action returned and was approved.
Article 15 had a substitute motion intended to close a loophole in which projects require special permit approval. Currently, large additions to existing houses require a special permit. However demolishing the house first removes the requirement for a special permit. This difference allows builders to try the addition route first, but hold onto the demolition and new build option in their back pocket. Worse, this option is sometimes used to try and influence the deliberations of the ZBA. In theory, I am in favor of closing this loophole. However, I had issues with the presentation. I had spoken with a proponent, and indicated that the ZBA, of which I am a member, could take on an additional 20 cases a year without severely impacting the time required to hear cases. It takes about a month to get on the docket, and we usually are able to close a case within one or two meetings. I also strongly encouraged the proponent to speak with the ZBA administrator to get her opinion on the matter. The presentation at the meeting was that we could easily take on many more cases, and it would only add a couple of weeks to the process. The connection was never made with the administrator.
The problem is that we are not talking about 20 additional cases; the number is closer to 150. Spending a couple of hours understanding each case before the hearing would add 300 hours for each and every volunteer board member. Our administrator is part-time, and our proposed budget for 2017 is only $20,812. There is no way we'd be able to cope with the onslaught. The discussion went back and forth many times. In a funny moment for me, someone had a question for the ZBA, and I was sitting there with my hand raised while the moderator looked everywhere but in my direction. I finally had to speak up and say that there was a member in attendance. The question was what we do to review shadows. I said we only do it now when the information is provided. We are not a research agency; we rely on what is provided.
We eventually had a positive vote to terminate debate. (I opposed as I was still waiting for an opportunity to speak.) The substitute motion was voted down. (I voted against it.) This returned the recommended vote to No Action which was approved.
Article 16 sought to simplify the definition of building height. The current definition is based on the average grade before the construction of the house, and it exempts penthouses from the height restriction. The proposal was to measure the baseline after construction was complete, and remove inhabited spaces from the exemptions. Sounded really simple. In practice, the die was cast against residential zoning changes. My favorite speaker was voting against the proposal because he hadn't taken the time to read the substitute motion, so he didn't know what it was, so no one else should vote for it either. In the end, debate was terminated by vote, the substitute motion wass defeated, and the vote of No Action passed. This brought up a vote to adjourn for the evening.
I found tonight somewhat disappointing. It is unfortunate how much confusion there is when motions are substituted. This is exacerbated when members don't take the time to understand the materials. I don't know what could be done to convince members to read up on the motions before coming to the hearings. There was a lot of confusion tonight, and it came at the expense of making progress. We're now off until Monday. We will start in on general bylaw amendments at that time.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Special Town Meeting - January 25, 2016
I completely forgot to complete my notes from January's special town meeting. Here are my partial notes. If I tried to complete them now, I'm sure it wouldn't be accurate.
Tonight was a Special Town Meeting to discuss several financial issues related to the schools. Articles 2 and 3 were related to the renovations to the Stratton School. This is the last of the elementary schools to be renovated. The first article was to appropriate funds to lease modular classrooms to house the students during the build. The second was to fund the renovations. These votes represent the completion of the town's commitment to replace all the elementary schools. Both measures passed easily.
The fourth article was to use some of the town's annual reserve fund to provide two modular classrooms at the Thompson School to help alleviate overcrowding. Although this school was completed recently, it is already over-enrolled. The funding mechanism from the state didn't allow to build the school larger that was originally required. The vote was complicated by two amendments. The first sought to change the funding to the capital budget. The second sought to direct the community preservation committee to allocate its funds to the recreation department, so those funds could be returned to the capital budget to pay for the classrooms. In the discussion, there were several problems brought forth with the proposed amendments.
Tonight was a Special Town Meeting to discuss several financial issues related to the schools. Articles 2 and 3 were related to the renovations to the Stratton School. This is the last of the elementary schools to be renovated. The first article was to appropriate funds to lease modular classrooms to house the students during the build. The second was to fund the renovations. These votes represent the completion of the town's commitment to replace all the elementary schools. Both measures passed easily.
The fourth article was to use some of the town's annual reserve fund to provide two modular classrooms at the Thompson School to help alleviate overcrowding. Although this school was completed recently, it is already over-enrolled. The funding mechanism from the state didn't allow to build the school larger that was originally required. The vote was complicated by two amendments. The first sought to change the funding to the capital budget. The second sought to direct the community preservation committee to allocate its funds to the recreation department, so those funds could be returned to the capital budget to pay for the classrooms. In the discussion, there were several problems brought forth with the proposed amendments.
2016 Town Meeting - Night One
Welcome back to another Annual Town Meeting. I am a meeting member from Precinct 10, and I write this blog to let anyone who is interested know how I voted and a little bit of why. I include a little flavor of what goes on in the discussion, but if you want a very comprehensive review of what went on, I recommend Dan Dunn's blog as being a very good representation of what goes on. Plus he's better at remembering names.
We started out in the traditional way; the Menotomy Minutemen marched in playing "Yankee Doodle" then led us in the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner." We had a very tasteful opening "prayer", followed by a very brief State of the Town Address. The students visiting from Arlington's sister city in Japan, Nagaokakyo, were in attendance, and a member of their school administration gave a few introductory remarks.
The first surprise came during, of all things, the acceptance of reports. Typically, a committee announces they have a report, and we vote to accept that report. When the Redevelopment Board submitted their report, they noted that they were only reporting on Articles 6 & 7, because they had voted within the previous hour to change their votes on Articles 8, 9, &10 to "No Action". No explanation was given as to why they chose to reverse themselves on those articles.
No surprises on our elected positions. Town meeting gets to directly vote for two town positions. For the umpteenth year, we voted Elsie Fiore from Precinct 2 to be the town's Measurer of Wood and Bark. If you have reason to doubt that your mulch delivery is appropriate, she's the one to call. We also reelected James O'Conor from Precinct 19 to be our Assistant Town Moderator.
Our next action was new this year, and it moved us forward considerably. The moderator proposed a Consent Agenda of items that would typically garner little or no discussion before approval. His initial list of 22 articles, a full third of this year's articles, was pared down to 14 after members were given the opportunity to request certain articles be removed from the list. In the end, we approved the following actions by a vote of 166 to 12:
- Article 12: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Rear Yard Setbacks
- Article 13: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Gross Floor Area Definition
- Article 17: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Revising Definition of Half Story
- Article 21: Passed Bylaw Amendment on Arlington Commission on Arts and Culture Membership
- Article 24: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Camping on Public Property
- Article 25: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Demolition by Neglect of Historic Buildings
- Article 44: Passed recommended Appropriation for Committees and Commissions
- Article 45: Passed recommended Appropriation for Town Celebrations
- Article 46: Passed recommended Appropriation for Miscellaneous
- Article 48: Passed recommended Appropriation for Harry Barber Community Service Program
- Article 49: Passed recommended Appropriation for Pension Adjustments
- Article 52: Passed recommended Appropriation for Overlay Reserve
- Article 54: Passed recommended Transfer of Cemetery Funds
- Article 58: No Action on Resolution of Community Preservation Plan
We now settled down into the articles. By tradition, all the zoning articles are first up. This is tricky, because many members are still getting into the groove of the meeting, and zoning is complicated. Maybe it would be better to change the order, but it is the system we have. Another complication, in my opinion, is that the ARB does not have the clearest or most convincing presentations. This can leave a lot of room for doubt, which is contagious. Tonight, the first article was a proposal to create a few new use categories. Artisinal Fabrication is for small-scale artistic manufacturing. Artistic/Creative Production includes multiple aspects of media production and related activities.
The major new use category would be Mixed Use, allowing two or more uses to coexist on the same parcel. This use would only be allowed along the commercial corridors and by special permit from the ARB. The presentation was good, but ran out of time. An amendment was presented that would dictate minimum percentages for certain uses. After a strong proponent for the main article, there was a series of speakers who appeared concerned and confused about what might happen if the change was adopted. They all recommended a no vote on the main article, but some liked the amendment. It wasn't until Mr. Jameson spoke right before the break that the discussion was brought back to real substance. After break, Mr. Schlichtman spoke forcefully in favor of the development growth potential. Mr. Cayer carefully explained the development parameters for each district and explained the protections built into the article. In my opinion, this really put the membership at ease. There was a vote to end debate, a vote rejecting the amendment, and a 186-35 vote to accept the article.
We then moved on to Article 7, which would allow reducing the amount of required parking where provisions are taken to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies. These include discouraging car use by residents/employees and encouraging public and alternative transportation. There was a good discussion about how this could be enforced and who would be responsible for that enforcement. In the end, the vote was 180-34 in favor.
The next three articles are the three where the ARB changed their recommendation to No Action. Mr. Worden requested that all three be postponed until May 4 to give members time to prepare substitute motions for those articles. Mr. Quinn made a very convincing appeal to give that time out of fairness to all involved. The motions were readily passed, so they will reappear.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. We reconvene Wednesday night to take up a Special Town Meeting. This is done to expedite funding articles that pertain to the current year. Once this special meeting is closed, the results are immediately sent to the state AG's office for approval. This allows the changes to go into effect quickly. I'll let you know how it went.
We started out in the traditional way; the Menotomy Minutemen marched in playing "Yankee Doodle" then led us in the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner." We had a very tasteful opening "prayer", followed by a very brief State of the Town Address. The students visiting from Arlington's sister city in Japan, Nagaokakyo, were in attendance, and a member of their school administration gave a few introductory remarks.
The first surprise came during, of all things, the acceptance of reports. Typically, a committee announces they have a report, and we vote to accept that report. When the Redevelopment Board submitted their report, they noted that they were only reporting on Articles 6 & 7, because they had voted within the previous hour to change their votes on Articles 8, 9, &10 to "No Action". No explanation was given as to why they chose to reverse themselves on those articles.
No surprises on our elected positions. Town meeting gets to directly vote for two town positions. For the umpteenth year, we voted Elsie Fiore from Precinct 2 to be the town's Measurer of Wood and Bark. If you have reason to doubt that your mulch delivery is appropriate, she's the one to call. We also reelected James O'Conor from Precinct 19 to be our Assistant Town Moderator.
Our next action was new this year, and it moved us forward considerably. The moderator proposed a Consent Agenda of items that would typically garner little or no discussion before approval. His initial list of 22 articles, a full third of this year's articles, was pared down to 14 after members were given the opportunity to request certain articles be removed from the list. In the end, we approved the following actions by a vote of 166 to 12:
- Article 12: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Rear Yard Setbacks
- Article 13: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Gross Floor Area Definition
- Article 17: No Action on Proposed Zoning Bylaw / Revising Definition of Half Story
- Article 21: Passed Bylaw Amendment on Arlington Commission on Arts and Culture Membership
- Article 24: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Camping on Public Property
- Article 25: No Action on Bylaw Amendment on Demolition by Neglect of Historic Buildings
- Article 44: Passed recommended Appropriation for Committees and Commissions
- Article 45: Passed recommended Appropriation for Town Celebrations
- Article 46: Passed recommended Appropriation for Miscellaneous
- Article 48: Passed recommended Appropriation for Harry Barber Community Service Program
- Article 49: Passed recommended Appropriation for Pension Adjustments
- Article 52: Passed recommended Appropriation for Overlay Reserve
- Article 54: Passed recommended Transfer of Cemetery Funds
- Article 58: No Action on Resolution of Community Preservation Plan
We now settled down into the articles. By tradition, all the zoning articles are first up. This is tricky, because many members are still getting into the groove of the meeting, and zoning is complicated. Maybe it would be better to change the order, but it is the system we have. Another complication, in my opinion, is that the ARB does not have the clearest or most convincing presentations. This can leave a lot of room for doubt, which is contagious. Tonight, the first article was a proposal to create a few new use categories. Artisinal Fabrication is for small-scale artistic manufacturing. Artistic/Creative Production includes multiple aspects of media production and related activities.
The major new use category would be Mixed Use, allowing two or more uses to coexist on the same parcel. This use would only be allowed along the commercial corridors and by special permit from the ARB. The presentation was good, but ran out of time. An amendment was presented that would dictate minimum percentages for certain uses. After a strong proponent for the main article, there was a series of speakers who appeared concerned and confused about what might happen if the change was adopted. They all recommended a no vote on the main article, but some liked the amendment. It wasn't until Mr. Jameson spoke right before the break that the discussion was brought back to real substance. After break, Mr. Schlichtman spoke forcefully in favor of the development growth potential. Mr. Cayer carefully explained the development parameters for each district and explained the protections built into the article. In my opinion, this really put the membership at ease. There was a vote to end debate, a vote rejecting the amendment, and a 186-35 vote to accept the article.
We then moved on to Article 7, which would allow reducing the amount of required parking where provisions are taken to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies. These include discouraging car use by residents/employees and encouraging public and alternative transportation. There was a good discussion about how this could be enforced and who would be responsible for that enforcement. In the end, the vote was 180-34 in favor.
The next three articles are the three where the ARB changed their recommendation to No Action. Mr. Worden requested that all three be postponed until May 4 to give members time to prepare substitute motions for those articles. Mr. Quinn made a very convincing appeal to give that time out of fairness to all involved. The motions were readily passed, so they will reappear.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. We reconvene Wednesday night to take up a Special Town Meeting. This is done to expedite funding articles that pertain to the current year. Once this special meeting is closed, the results are immediately sent to the state AG's office for approval. This allows the changes to go into effect quickly. I'll let you know how it went.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)