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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment