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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)