2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Eight

 Welcome to Night 8 of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  The Moderator sent an email out this afternoon explaining that we would start the evening with the ongoing debate on Article 53.  We will then take up Article 45, which was postponed from the previous hearing.  We would then pick up with the ongoing discussion on Article 35.  After that, we are back to proceeding in order.

Mr. DeCourcey moved to continue to Monday if we are not done tonight.  Mr. Yontar had an announcement to thank the members of the Capital Planning Committee and all the department chairs, and the committee chairs for their assistance in preparing the report and recommended budget.  Their hard work is appreciated by all.

We are picking back up with Article 53 on Positions Reclassification.  First, we are going back to hear the National Anthem, a rousing rendition without sound.  Now with sound, as played by Mr. Helmuth.  The Moderator encouraged any other members who play to send in a video to be put in the rotation.  (He may have mentioned needing talent, but I wouldn't let that hold any of us back...)

Now we're really on to Article 53.  Ms. Friedman passed.  Mr. Reck moved to terminate debate.  There was only one other person on the speaker list, so calling the question feels wrong, and I'll vote no.  (If he had passed, the last speaker could have spoken, and it might have gone quicker than holding the vote to terminate debate.  However, others could have joined the queue as well, so who knows.)  The motion passed 191-25, so we will vote on the main motion.  This vote should pass easily, and it did pass 213-8.

Next up is Article 45.  The recommended vote from the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) is for no action.  The proponents, represented by Ms. Garber have proposed a substitute motion to allow for a discussion and vote.  The proposal would increase the proportion of affordable units in a development from 15% to 25%.  The town has not met its affordable housing goal, and this would create more units.  Ms. Garber introduced Ms. Kiesel who gave more background on the proposal.  She also noted that this article had substantial support from the public when it was before the ARB earlier in the spring.  Mr. Revilak contemplated how this proposal would interact with the requirements for 40B.  They would both have the same affordability percentage, and 40B has additional benefits for a developer.  He asked whether this would lead to more 40B applications.  Mr. Benson from the ARB indicated that the ARB opposed the substitute motion, and he was about to go into a longer speech, when stopped, and asked to answer the question.  He responded that 25% was unaffordable for a developer without subsidies.  Mr. Revilak asked about safe harbor under 40B.  Mr. Heim didn't think there would be an impact.  Mr. Revilak asked if mixed use was allowed under 40B.  Ms. Raitt said it was.  Lastly, he asked about the Nexus Study being funded under a CDBG grant.  Ms. Raitt explained that the study would look at the amount of development required to support affordable housing goals.

Mr. Hamlin agrees that increasing the percentage is a good thing, and he would encourage any percentage higher than what we have now.  Mr. Ciano is in favor of more affordable housing, and he would like to hear from the ARB.  He wanted to know if the ARB was in favor of the motion.  Mr. Benson said that everything the ARB has referenced has indicated that 25% is unattainable in smaller developments, which is what Arlington has available.  He reported on data from other towns, and they indicated that lower percentages were what were attainable.  Higher percentages led to less development.  Mr. Ciano encouraged voting against the substitute motion.

Ms. Carlton-Gysan was curious about the number of units built since the inclusionary zoning bylaw was adopted.  Ms. Raitt gave an accounting of housing projects since its passage and the number of units involved.  There is one underway now.  She didn't expect a change in the rate of development going forward.  Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate.  (He does this often, so as soon I heard his name, I thought that was where we are headed.)  I think we could do with more debate, but my mind is made up, so I'm voting to terminate debate.  I think we should stick with the ARB's original recommendation.  I am concerned that increasing the percentage will either stop development of projects or lead to more 40B applications.  Both would be a bad outcome for the town.  Debate was terminated 165-70.  Next was the vote on the substitute motion.  I lost track of how many times I hit the refresh screen trying to record my vote against the motion.  The motion failed 71-164.  We now vote on the main motion, which was for a vote of no action.  That vote was arduous, as the call to start the vote was delayed by network lag for almost a minute, then rceording votes also lagged. The vote of no action was approved 195-41.  Articles 35-91 were taken off the table by Mr. Foskett.

We are picking up where we left off on Article 35.  I am somewhere on the speaker list for this article.  Ms. Pennarun has a point of order.  At what point does the speaker list get reset.  The Moderator noted that the list in front of us is the held over list from a week ago Monday.  Ms.Crowder had a point of order, asking if the report containing the article could be referenced.  Ms. Anderson had a point of order in regards to new information made available since the previous session.  Mr. Heim will provide some clarification.  The Moderator started with a statement that the previous two videos violated the civility rules of Town Meeting.  He gave Ms. Zsembery an opportunity to address the charges levied in the videos.  She dismissed charges of the process being sneaky and underhanded, and noted the long timeline. She also displayed minutes and memos indicating the open discussion of the possibility of residential development.  She also noted that the town is working hard on increasing development, but there are few options.

Mr. Gast introduced an amendment to allow for taller buildings in the industrial zone.  There is limited land area, so allowing for taller buildings will increase the available floor area.  Ms. Cohen had a point of order asking who RKG/Harriman was on the previous set of slides.  They were the town's consultant on the project.  Ms. Preston supports the amendment to oppose residential development.  The artists spaces will not be made affordable.  She notes the town needs its industrial land.  She continued the false claim that residential was added at the last second.  She noted that Arlingtonians pay a significant portion of taxes, more than other larger towns with large, well established industrial areas.  We need to attract more businesses.  The Moderator asked Mr. Heim whether the written article limits development to only artists mixed use.  He indicated that was the way it was written.  I had my chance to speak, and I addressed the timeline for including residential development which went back to the Master Plan.  I encouraged members to vote against the amendment removing residential and for the main motion.

Mr. Badik was one of many members who posed the question to Atty. Heim earlier in the day seeking an explanation of whether residential development would be constrained to the listed uses.  He is proposing an amendment on the fly to link some of the subsections.  The Moderator is trying to figure out if this is possible to do tonight.  He called for taking our break now so Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt can fashion an amendment.

-------------------

Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt are still working on language, so Ms. Stone came forward.  She introduced Mr. Davison, a Commissioner on the Arts Commission who spoke in favor of including artists mixed use in the industrial district.  He referenced a letter issued earlier today that outlined actions needed to preserve space for artists, and this proposal addresses many of those needs.  While we were still in a lull, Mr. Koch raised a point of order to ask the score in the Red Sox game.  Mr. Schlichtman gave a game report. (Boston leads 6-1 in the 6th)  Mr. Heim was recognized to discuss what he and Ms. Raitt have been considering.  They propose adding a reference in the footnote D to the table of uses to the section on Artists Mixed Use.  There is also a similar reference added to the section on mixed use in the Industrial District.  The Moderator has accepted it as an administrative change to the main motion as it doesn't change any meanings, and it only seeks to clarify the intent.

Ms. Kepka had a point of order that we should not take up the meeting's time speaking about sports scores.  The Moderator had called on her as being next on the speaker list.  This confusion led to a heated exchange with the Moderator noting it was a long standing tradition to review the sports scores.  Ms. Kepka was then invited to address the motion.  She is opposed, as she has experience as an artist, and these types of developments do not create and maintain affordable units.  She also believes we need to preserve industrial uses.  Her artist friends leave town after their kids graduate because it is too expensive to live here.  Ms. Butler noted that our industrial districts are all former mill sites, snaking along the old Mill Brook.  Ms. Ford-Weems asked if the artist housing will be allowed as condos or only as rental units.  Mr. Heim didn't think there was an ownership restriction, and Ms. Raitt concurred.  Ms. Ford-Weems supports mixed use in the business districts, but she feels the limited industrial sites are precious, and should not allow mixed use, especially if that would include condos.  They would make it more difficult to reclaim parcels for future redevelopment.  Ms. Stamps noted how confusing this discussion has been.  The first part of the discussion focused incorrectly on luxury residential development.  She wanted to know if there is some guidance on how to make the spaces appropriate for artists.  Ms. Raitt noted that the art coalition would be involved in setting policy.

Mr. McCabe rose to terminate debate.  (He is the other terminator.)  Mr. Tosti asked for clarification whether the only allowed residential use would be artists studios.  The Moderator noted that Artists Mixed Use is the only allowed residential use.  Mr. Tosti stated that was not what was stated in the vote.  Ms. Raitt confirmed that would be the only residential use.  Ms. Anderson had a point of order is confused about the process, but the Moderator cut her short, as he determined she was continuing the debate.  Ms. Memon has a point of order that the footnotes are listed "Notes".  Mr. Heim gave an extensive explanation of what is in the article and in the administrative amendment.  Ms. Crowder wants to know why there isn't a cross reference to the listed residential use in the table.  Mr. Heim noted it was implied.  She wanted a follow-up question, which is a debate, not a point of order.  The Moderator was cutting her off, but Mr. Heim stepped in to offer a further clarification.  The motion to terminate debate passed 181-53.

The first vote on the article was on Mr. Gast's amendment to allow taller development.  I'm not sure it is a good idea to go that tall on these small parcels, so I'm voting no.  Mr. Worden has a point of order wanting to know whether this was the amendment seeking an increase to five stories.  It was.  Ms. Bloom asked if the amendment could be shown on the screen.  It was.  The amendment was adopted 125-95.  The next vote is on Ms. Anderson's amendment to remove residential uses.  As I noted earlier, I am opposed to this amendment, so I am voting no.  The amendment was rejected 58-166.  This brings up the vote on the final language including the amendment by Mr. Gast and the administrative changes by Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt.  I am in favor of this proposal.  The vote was 201-41 in favor of the article.

The next article is Article 38.  Ms. Dray had a point of order where she was very concerned about the Moderator's tone with Ms. Kepka.  He explained that he didn't appreciate being interrupted, and he didn't realize she was asking a point of order.  The exchange got quite heated, and was really unfortunate.  I think Ms. Dray had a valid point, and given that we are 23 hours into town meeting  with no end in sight, I can empathize with the Moderator.  We will all need to keep our cool.

Mr. Maher raised a point of order stating that the Moderator has been exceptional given the circumstances.  He also noted the Bruins won in overtime.  Mr. Jalkut thought the previous discourse was inappropriate.  Mr. Vakil asked to remove his amendment to Article 38, as it is duplicitous with the other amendment.

Ms. Zsembery introduced the article through a video presentation.  She introduced Mr. Levy to provide additional comments.  He spoke in favor of the article and offered an amendment.  The amendment would remove a possible loophole that could have allowed an increase in the size of a building, which is not the intent of the article.  In order to achieve a well sealed home, it is important to improve both the above ground and in-ground portions of the building.  Mr. DiTullio offered his unabashed support.  This article is essential if the town is to meet its net zero energy goals.  Mr. Monks noted his district has many non-conforming lots, and he is glad that this will allow his constituents to get their basements net-zero ready.  He agrees that this is an essential step.  Mr. Jamieson wanted to talk setbacks.  His lot is conforming, can he tear-down and replace?  Mr. Byrne noted he could.  He further asked if his lot was non-conforming, could he do so.  Mr. Byrne said no.  Mr. Jamieson asked about general setbacks.  If his lot had 5,000 SF he can rebuild.  If he has less than 5,000 SF, he needs special permit.  Does the amendment allow any basement in town to be replaced.  Mr. Levy noted that anyone with a non-conforming lot, could provide an energy efficient basement within the same footprint.  Mr. Jamieson had images he would like displayed.  What happens with a non-conforming setback.  He showed pictures and asked how it was allowed to be built.  (The house is on my street, and I think they kept the original foundation.)  He asked about another house was allowed to be built.  (That one was allowed to consider the post foundations under the front and rear porches to constitute the extent of the foundation, and the developer enclosed them within a new frost wall.)  The Moderator tried to keep him on task.  Mr. Jamieson wanted to show that under the current bylaw, large homes were being built using the existing foundation.  His time expired, and it was after eleven.

After receiving notices for reconsideration, the meeting was adjourned.

--------------------------

OK, tempers are starting to flare.  We still have five zoning articles to complete, six budget articles, and four resolutions.  I think we could be on track for two more nights, but we will need to keep our cool.

Like anything else, Town Meeting has its quirks and traditions.  Those are often conveyed to new members by their asking longer serving members seated next to them in Town Hall what is happening.  These might be reporting sports scores or tittering when certain speakers rise.  That is lost online.  Similarly, when we meet in person, it is much harder to confuse someone being called forward to speak on an article and addressing someone jumping to their feet and shouting "Point of Order!"  This is all much harder without social cues; it takes longer, and there is more confusion.  It also gets frustrating.  I think the Moderator let the moment get the best of him this evening, and he was called on it.  I'm not going to go into details; you can look it up on ACMi.tv.  I hope we can take the weekend to regroup and come back with a better sense of ourselves.

Also, if you are a newer member, and you have questions about what is going on, you should find a longer serving member to text with during the meeting.  You could learn a lot, and you might make a good friend.  I still miss many members who no longer serve who I sat with week after week, year after year learning the procedures and being introduced to the true characters of Town Meeting.  I cannot wait until we get to be back in person.