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.