After all the turmoil around the density bonus articles, we moved on the next most controversial question, should we allow accessory dwelling units. These are small independent dwelling units created within existing single-family dwelling units. This question has come before town meeting twice recently, and twice it was voted down. This year's offer included greater restrictions on the use and more requirements to make it blend into the existing appearance of the property. The initial presentation was made by the ARB, laying out the specifics of the proposal. Michael Quinn, a member of the council on aging discussed the specifics of the article with senior residents, and reported that while there was some interest, there was concern that the proposal wasn't going to work out as intended.
I was walking to the podium as we stopped for break. This gave me time to discuss some upcoming questions with the planning and fire departments. When we returned from break, I tried to make the point I made during the ARB hearings: the vast majority of land area in town is in the single family districts. If we are serious about creating more affordable housing in town, cannot do it by limiting the discussion to only the highest density portions of town. We must democratize the effort by including all areas of town, and the only proposal I have seen that offers this opportunity is accessory dwelling units. I asked the Fire Chief if these units would create issues for his department. Although he had stated earlier that these would be problems, he felt that the changes since the initial introduction of the article have addressed those concerns. I came out strongly in favor.
Liz Pyle reported that the Residential Study Group was in opposition to this proposal. It was brought to them very late in the process, and they had concerns about the lack of protections from their use for short-term rentals, concerns from the fire and building departments, and general concerns about enforcement. The short term rental question would be addressed by article 35 this session. The fire department had already indicated their concerns were addressed. The Moderator made a rare decision to allow the building inspector to address direct quotes attributed to him, quotes which applied to an earlier version of the article, but not directly to the proposal under discussion. This was followed up by another member of the RSG confirming that the issues with the early draft had been mainly addressed, and it was worth moving forward with the proposal.
The next speaker noted that the proposal was improved by addressing comments from previous attempts, that it will will raise the tax base, and that the ARB has worked hard to make this happen. We say we want to be inclusive, but we won't approve those articles. A member read the statements from the zoning bylaw stating the purpose of the R0 and R1 (single family) districts. He wanted to know why we were going to EVICERATE the bylaw. He focused on the sentence "The Town discourages intensive land uses, uses that would detract from the single-family residential character of these neighborhoods, and uses that would otherwise interfere with the intent of this Bylaw." I disagree with his characterization, since the bylaw specifically requires that the accessory unit be included within the existing house, and no additional parking facilities would be created. The intent of the Bylaw, as stated in the Purpose, includes the following, "The purpose of this Bylaw is to promote health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Arlington; ... to encourage housing for persons at all income levels; ... to protect and preserve open space as a natural resource, ... to conserve the value of land and buildings; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town; ... and to encourage an orderly expansion of the tax base by utilization, development, and redevelopment of land. It is made with reasonable consideration to the character of the district and to its peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to giving direction or effect to land development policies and proposals of the Redevelopment Board, including the making of Arlington a more viable and more pleasing place to live, work, and play." I do not believe accessory dwelling units would violate the intent of the zoning bylaw.
I was walking to the podium as we stopped for break. This gave me time to discuss some upcoming questions with the planning and fire departments. When we returned from break, I tried to make the point I made during the ARB hearings: the vast majority of land area in town is in the single family districts. If we are serious about creating more affordable housing in town, cannot do it by limiting the discussion to only the highest density portions of town. We must democratize the effort by including all areas of town, and the only proposal I have seen that offers this opportunity is accessory dwelling units. I asked the Fire Chief if these units would create issues for his department. Although he had stated earlier that these would be problems, he felt that the changes since the initial introduction of the article have addressed those concerns. I came out strongly in favor.
Liz Pyle reported that the Residential Study Group was in opposition to this proposal. It was brought to them very late in the process, and they had concerns about the lack of protections from their use for short-term rentals, concerns from the fire and building departments, and general concerns about enforcement. The short term rental question would be addressed by article 35 this session. The fire department had already indicated their concerns were addressed. The Moderator made a rare decision to allow the building inspector to address direct quotes attributed to him, quotes which applied to an earlier version of the article, but not directly to the proposal under discussion. This was followed up by another member of the RSG confirming that the issues with the early draft had been mainly addressed, and it was worth moving forward with the proposal.
The next speaker noted that the proposal was improved by addressing comments from previous attempts, that it will will raise the tax base, and that the ARB has worked hard to make this happen. We say we want to be inclusive, but we won't approve those articles. A member read the statements from the zoning bylaw stating the purpose of the R0 and R1 (single family) districts. He wanted to know why we were going to EVICERATE the bylaw. He focused on the sentence "The Town discourages intensive land uses, uses that would detract from the single-family residential character of these neighborhoods, and uses that would otherwise interfere with the intent of this Bylaw." I disagree with his characterization, since the bylaw specifically requires that the accessory unit be included within the existing house, and no additional parking facilities would be created. The intent of the Bylaw, as stated in the Purpose, includes the following, "The purpose of this Bylaw is to promote health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Arlington; ... to encourage housing for persons at all income levels; ... to protect and preserve open space as a natural resource, ... to conserve the value of land and buildings; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town; ... and to encourage an orderly expansion of the tax base by utilization, development, and redevelopment of land. It is made with reasonable consideration to the character of the district and to its peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to giving direction or effect to land development policies and proposals of the Redevelopment Board, including the making of Arlington a more viable and more pleasing place to live, work, and play." I do not believe accessory dwelling units would violate the intent of the zoning bylaw.
There was one more statement of concern that in the age of AirBnB and UBER, there could be future sharing schemes we still have not considered. We should consider Article 35 first, evaluate its effectiveness, than reconsider accessory dwelling units. This was the last comment before a call to close debate, which was easily passed. I voted for the article, which while receiving a plurality of the vote (137-82), the article failed to reach the required two-thirds vote for zoning articles required under state law.
Next up was Article 17, a complete replacement of the sign bylaw. This was encouraged by the master plan, the recodification process, and the new legal legal framework after the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision in the Supreme Court. I had spoken to the ARB, Town Counsel, and and the Moderator regarding two administrative amendments. However, these were not mentioned in the introduction of the article by the ARB. One speaker had a question about two of the prohibited sign types, a question that could have been answered by reading the definitions section of the article. I then presented the two changes. The first was to fix a typo, a duplicated "that" in one of the paragraphs. I thought it could just be done, but I had to go back and file a formal amendment request.
The second amendment was to change the process for sign special permit review. In most special permit matters in town, there are two parallel processes. The ZBA hears requests in the lower density residential districts, and the ARB hears cases from the main thoroughfares. The proposed sign bylaw adopted that language, but I have felt it made much more sense for the ARB to hear all sign special permit requests because they are better resourced, and this would provide better consistency. The ZBA discussed this at our meeting the night before, and we agreed as a Board to make the change. After a question about enforcement, answered by the Building Inspector, there was a call to terminate debate. This was passed, and the revised sign bylaw was passed 207-8.
Articles 18 and 19 were changes to the Floodplain and Inland Wetlands District sections in the zoning bylaws. These were made in consultation with the corresponding committees to make sure the zoning bylaw aligns with their bylaws and state law. After int introduction, there was no further discussion, and the articles passed 214-2 and 210-1 respectively.
Article 20 was changes to the zoning bylaw to properly align with the so-called "Dover Amendment" in state law. Towns are not allowed to imposed use restrictions on religious and non-profit educational uses in their zoning bylaw. Our bylaw could be interpreted to require a special permit in some cases. There was a question about the language which is oddly self-referential. It was confirmed that was intentional and correct. It was also clarified that Inspectional Services confirms whether a proposed educational use was non-profit or for-profit. The article was adopted 207-4.
Article 21, a replacement of the bicycle parking regulations was presented by another member of the ARB, David Watson, an avid cyclist and cycling proponent. The proposal decouples bike parking from car parking, requiring both short-term and long-term parking. It also sets minimum standards for parking racks and structures. Another well-known cyclist was very appreciative. A member noted how his building has an abundance of extra parking spaces, but bike parking has become an issue. There were several specific questions from members. It was confirmed that the rules were not retroactive, commercial and residential spaces in a mixed use building could be collocated, and abandoned bikes could be addressed by notifying the Police Department. After a positive vote to close debate, it was adopted 207-7.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. Monday night we will start with the Special Town Meeting the warrant article moving forward on the town-wide vote on a debt exclusion for funding the high school project.
Next up was Article 17, a complete replacement of the sign bylaw. This was encouraged by the master plan, the recodification process, and the new legal legal framework after the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision in the Supreme Court. I had spoken to the ARB, Town Counsel, and and the Moderator regarding two administrative amendments. However, these were not mentioned in the introduction of the article by the ARB. One speaker had a question about two of the prohibited sign types, a question that could have been answered by reading the definitions section of the article. I then presented the two changes. The first was to fix a typo, a duplicated "that" in one of the paragraphs. I thought it could just be done, but I had to go back and file a formal amendment request.
The second amendment was to change the process for sign special permit review. In most special permit matters in town, there are two parallel processes. The ZBA hears requests in the lower density residential districts, and the ARB hears cases from the main thoroughfares. The proposed sign bylaw adopted that language, but I have felt it made much more sense for the ARB to hear all sign special permit requests because they are better resourced, and this would provide better consistency. The ZBA discussed this at our meeting the night before, and we agreed as a Board to make the change. After a question about enforcement, answered by the Building Inspector, there was a call to terminate debate. This was passed, and the revised sign bylaw was passed 207-8.
Articles 18 and 19 were changes to the Floodplain and Inland Wetlands District sections in the zoning bylaws. These were made in consultation with the corresponding committees to make sure the zoning bylaw aligns with their bylaws and state law. After int introduction, there was no further discussion, and the articles passed 214-2 and 210-1 respectively.
Article 20 was changes to the zoning bylaw to properly align with the so-called "Dover Amendment" in state law. Towns are not allowed to imposed use restrictions on religious and non-profit educational uses in their zoning bylaw. Our bylaw could be interpreted to require a special permit in some cases. There was a question about the language which is oddly self-referential. It was confirmed that was intentional and correct. It was also clarified that Inspectional Services confirms whether a proposed educational use was non-profit or for-profit. The article was adopted 207-4.
Article 21, a replacement of the bicycle parking regulations was presented by another member of the ARB, David Watson, an avid cyclist and cycling proponent. The proposal decouples bike parking from car parking, requiring both short-term and long-term parking. It also sets minimum standards for parking racks and structures. Another well-known cyclist was very appreciative. A member noted how his building has an abundance of extra parking spaces, but bike parking has become an issue. There were several specific questions from members. It was confirmed that the rules were not retroactive, commercial and residential spaces in a mixed use building could be collocated, and abandoned bikes could be addressed by notifying the Police Department. After a positive vote to close debate, it was adopted 207-7.
At this point, we adjourned for the evening. Monday night we will start with the Special Town Meeting the warrant article moving forward on the town-wide vote on a debt exclusion for funding the high school project.
No comments:
Post a Comment