We're back for Night Five. I logged in right at 8:00, so I missed the pre-show. Apparently, there was something involving music and llamas. Once the meeting opened, we accepted a report from Zero Waste Arlington before continuing the debate on Article 17.
The first speaker was the Building Inspector. He indicated that his department reviewed two years of records and found no cases of the Good Neighbor Agreement being ignored. He also pointed out that including the cross-link in the zoning bylaw will change how appeals are handled. Under zoning, and appeal would go to the ZBA, then state court. This would significantly delay a project. He noted that this would apply to both developers and homeowners. There was a point-of-order seeking clarification on how the speaker's list is handled by the moderator. He noted that he has a different screen from the members, sorted by order of entry onto the list. He also noted that the order is his prerogative. As if to prove the point, the next member called upon promptly moved to end debate, something that member is well known to do. With the extended debate at the previous meeting, the debate had covered all the points of view, so I voted to end debate. The vote favored ending debate, 167-65. That brought up the vote to accept the substitute motion. I still oppose this motion, so I voted no. I was in the minority, as the motion was adopted 151-84. This brought up the final vote on the substituted motion. I again voted no, and again I was in the minority as the article was approved 164-75.
Articles 18 and 19 both had a recommended vote of "no action" and no substitute motions filed. As such, we voted them both together, and they were closed 233-3.
Article 20 was a vote to change the parking requirements for two of the business districts, B3 and B5. In these districts, there are many buildings that have no land available for parking. This lack of parking capacity required a variance from the ZBA in order to change the use of an existing building. The proposal would allow the ZBA and ARB to reduce the number of required parking spaces to as low as zero depending on the conditions at the site. The first question asked how reducing the parking would encourage more customers. The issue is that there are enough spaces in town lots and on-street spaces. However, those don't count toward the required parking. To take advantage of this option, the applicant would need to provide other amenities to reduce the need for transportation services. A representative of one of the business districts spoke in favor of the article. A member of the ZBA explained the case of the proposed Arlington Heights pub, which needed to be issued a variance, because it didn't couldn't provide the required parking. We had another speaker from East Arlington in favor of the article, understanding the impact it has on the surrounding streets. He was a proponent of pedestrian and bicycle access, and this emboldens those modes of transportation. The next speaker appreciated that the proposal would require considering each request individually. There was a question about including residentially used business zoned parcels in the discussion. There was concern about the amount of parking in the heights, and how it would be impacted by this article. There was a clarification that this has no impact on the overnight parking ban.
The next speakers noted that there has been a lot of discussion about vacant storefronts. This article will remove an impediment to attracting new businesses. There was a question about bike sharing. The next speaker sought assurance that the proposal would not apply to mixed-use projects. A resident from the Heights noted that most proponents of biking live in the flat lands of East Arlington. He decried the lack of public transportation in some areas of town. He doesn't see how reducing parking requirements will be beneficial. We then stopped for break.
Upon returning from break, the first speaker moved to terminate debate. The arguments had been well articulated, so I voted to end debate. The vote was 211-23. The vote on the recommended vote was 213-26. I strongly supported the article, because it removed an impediment to reuse of existing business properties. I'm glad that it passed as handily as it did.
Article 21 was a request to amend the zoning map to change a parcel owned by the town from residential to industrial. This parcel is between the DPW and the high school. The town wants to use it for the DPW project, but the facilities are not allowed in a residential district. After the presentation, there were no speakers on the list, so we voted right away. This change is important to the renovation of the DPW, so I voted in favor. The final vote was 237-4 in favor of the change.
Article 22 was a vote to accept the results of collective bargaining agreements. As no such agreements have been reached, the recommended vote is reported as "no action". This article was closed 242-0.
We voted Articles 23 and 24 last session, so we are on to Article 25. This is a resolution regarding the display of a Black Lives Matter banner at town hall. The proponent submitted an amendment as a part of their presentation. I was uncertain about the original language, as it seemed to require the Select Board to get Town Meeting's permission before removing the banner in the future. This is something that Town Meeting may not lawfully do. The amendment removed that "requirement" and encouraged a continued public engagement and real effort towards inclusion. This is a forward-looking statement that I welcome. The opponents were very clear that they support the black lives matter movement. They just oppose the Black Lives Matter banner, as it is linked to a specific organization who raises funds through a Democratic political fundraising organization. Their argument is that Town Meeting would not vote to erect a banner for a Republican fundraising organization. Per the Moderator's direction, there was only one statement in support and one in opposition. The resolution is non-binding. We had a string of Points of Order. One wanted to clarify that the proponent agreed with the amendment, which they did. There were several attempts to continue the debate through points of order which was rejected at every turn. A member then tried to debate through the raise hand feature used for voting issues. Again the Moderator closed it down. The vote on the amendment proceeded, and it was interrupted by another point of order. This one was real, confirming this was the vote on accepting the amendment. The amendment passed 170-40 with 30 abstaining. New points of order were raised, one which noted that the raised-hand was to note that there were outstanding points of order, not an attempt to continue debate. The final vote on the amended motion finally passed 166-34 with 38 abstaining.
Article 1 was taken back off the table and closed. The meeting was then dissolved.
I want to join the Moderator in his praise and appreciation for the staff and volunteers who made this Special Town Meeting possible and successful.
I did not anticipate that we would finish tonight. I hadn't considered that there were three "no action" votes in addition to a resolution. The Moderator made good use of the speaker's list to let debate flow until it became repetitive, and he called on the closers. The Moderator did warn us that the Annual Town Meeting in the spring will likely be on Zoom as well. I really hope it doesn't come to that.
I am up for reelection this spring. It has been my pleasure serving the residents of Precinct 10 these past few years. I hope you consider my service valuable enough to consider voting for me again to be your representative for another three-year term.
Best Wishes to all, please stay safe and healthy, and thank you for your support.
Christian
