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  This addressed about half of the definitions under the original warrant article vote that was later rescinded.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.