Welcome back to Night Four! I hope we are able to pick up the pace. There was an interesting proposal circulated on the Arlington List asking members to voluntarily limit their speaking to keep things moving. It is an interesting idea, but I have not decided if it is something I would like to endorse. I'm not a big speaker, but there are a few articles I feel strongly about, and I would rather hold my speaking time to those items.
After our attendance vote, we watched the Helmuth version of the National Anthem. The Moderator noted that there are still 32 articles to go. We made very little progress on Monday and we must be done by June 16 to file with the state before the next fiscal year begins on July 1. He wants us to pick up pace, but not stifle debate; speak for less time and not repeat; be judicious and be prepared. He also encouraged us "um ... don't give ... um ... a stream of consciousness speech, ... like I'm giving now." Point well taken.
The Moderator noted that there is an issue with the broadcast of Town Meeting on Comcast. The town, ACMi, and Comcast are working on a resolution. In the meantime, anyone can live stream Town Meeting at ACMi.
Lastly, the Moderator expressed his displeasure at someone sending unsigned spoof email opposing one of the articles up for debate. The email encouraged voting against the article because one of the proponents had voted against some other article. This is disconcerting and cowardly development. We were encouraged to dispose of the email and pay it no heed. I didn't receive the email, so I cannot comment on it further.
Mr. DeCourcey moved to continue the meeting to Monday, May 10 upon adjournment tonight. No announcements or resolutions were put forward. Article 3 was taken off the off the table. Mr. Joseph Barr presented the Master Plan Implementation Committee report. He spoke of the work of many of the subcommittees including the Zoning Bylaw Working Group (Industrial District Zoning Bylaw Amendments), the Design Review Working Group (Residential Design Guidelines), the Sustainable Transportation Plan, the Housing Production Plan, and the Open Space Plan. He also noted several Pandemic-related activities of the committee. Article 3 was laid back on table.
This reopened the debate on Article 24 regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Ms. Carlton-Gysan moved to terminate debate. I'm ready to move on as well. The motion passed 199-36, so we could move on to the two amendments. The first was the proposed amendment from Ms. Friedman requiring the publication of votes subject to RCV at each stage of the tabulation. This amendment was adopted 204-29. Mr. Schlichtman's amendment to limit RCV to single-seat elections was defeated 33-204. I thought this would be more confusing and would create different voting systems for different members of the same board or committee, so I tried to vote against it. However, the system froze while transmitting my vote, and my vote didn't register in the system. I'll need to be more careful watching it every step of the way in future. The main motion vote, as amended by Ms. Friedman's amendment is something I strongly support. The article was approved 202-38. It will now go to the state to decide if we will be allowed to adopt this new voting method.
The next article is Article 25 to allow for a Real Estate Transfer Fee. The funds raised would be placed into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Mr. DeCourcey introduced a video presentation by Mr. Benjamin Bradlow, a member of the Housing Plan Implementation Committee. The fee would be imposed at the time property title is transferred. This is a home-rule petition, since towns are not allowed to impose new taxes unless approved by the State. Similar petitions have been submitted by other towns and approved. If approved, the town would then finalize the local regulations. This is just the first step. Mr. Hayner introduced a video presentation in opposition to the fee. Mr. Gates, a long time resident of the town hosted the video. He supports affordable housing, but doesn't think this is a good way to do it. It should be done through a general real estate tax. That would provide a more adequate and sustainable funding source. Mr. Jamieson introduced an amendment to allow some variability in setting the minimum value required to pay the fee. There isn't an exemption in the proposal, and he felt a hard cutoff would be unfair. Mr. DeCourcey clarified that the fee would apply to all property sales, not just residential. Mr. Heim clarified that the fee would not be assessed on the property owner's heirs upon being willed a property. Mr. Jamieson liked the possibility of using CPA funds to fund the trust fund. The Moderator requested the speaker stay on scope. He noted that he will be making these requests with more frequency.
Ms. Ehlert spoke in opposition to the article. She feels the funding mechanism is unfair to those who don't have a lot of equity in their property. Mr. Tosti passed. Ms. Garber, is in favor of the article, but wanted to know if there could be a progressive schedule for the tax. Mr. Heim said that in theory, we could have a graduated rate. If approved by the state, the local bylaw would need to include the structure of the article, but there is some flexibility. Mr. Newton introduced Ms. Pam Hallet, a resident of the town and Executive Director of the Housing Corporation of Arlington. Thirty-three states already assess this fee. She said the recommended percentage is 1%, split between both buyer and seller. This would not be so egregious. Mr. Newton said this is a values vote in support of affordable housing. Mr. Deyst moved the question.
Ms. Crowder saw an ambiguity in the language, and raised a point of order. She thought the text setting a minimum house value was confusing, as it referenced both the state median home price and a threshold to be set by Town Meeting. She referenced some proposed language emailed to Counsel earlier in the day, and asked that it be considered. My sense is that it is too late to make those changes at this time. I voted yes to terminate debate, and the motion passed 187-47. I am not opposed to Mr. Jamieson's amendment as it allows for additional flexibility in setting the lower home value threshold. The amendment was adopted 113-108, much closer than I was expecting. The vote on the main motion as amended was passed 187-50. This will be a great start to funding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. As several speakers noted, I hope this is not the only mechanism for funding this important resource.
We are now moving on to the zoning articles. Many of these will require a 2/3 super-majority as required under state law. Several will only require a simple majority due to a change to state law made earlier this year. Article 28 would increase the period of time required for compliance with the inclusionary zoning section of the bylaw to align with the time period set for for special permits and variances. There was no discussion, so we went straight to the vote. This should be an easy approval, and it passed 235-4.
Article 29 would create a new definition for "Apartment Conversion". The definition could be implied by referencing a few sections of the zoning bylaw, but a straight definition is much clearer. Apartment conversions only apply to larger houses in specific districts being subdivided into smaller apartments to preserve the usually historic housing. At this point, the Moderator called for a break.
The Moderator noted that we don't have any new content to play during the break. I don't know if he is taking submissions or not?
---------
We started back with Ms. Friedman, who is in favor of the article, but she wanted to know if there were any imposed parking requirements. Ms. Zsembery noted that there are no changes to the residential parking requirements. Ms. Friedman asked for a clarification on the parking requirements. Ms. Raitt noted that the current parking requirement is for 1 space per unit in single-, double-, and three family housing. With no further questions, we went to the vote. Similar to the previous article, this is a fairly simple request to simplify the use of the zoning bylaws. It was passed 225-7.
Article 30 seeks to clarify how usable and landscaped open area are calculated. The applicable land area is divided by the gross floor area of the house to calculate the required percentage. This is a clarification, not a change. Ms. Zsembery made the presentation. Mr. Koch was "severely confused" asked a question regarding whether land on a roof could be included in the open space calculation. This should have been ruled out-of-scope, but the question was answered. Ms. Friedman asked for clarification to a proposed change in the same section, but that change is being proposed in Article 33. Ms. Leahy is trying to determine if this proposal is to increase gross floor area to decrease required open space. Ms. Raitt clarified that that this makes no change to the bylaw or its outcome. Ms. Broder was confused before, but now realizes the scope. She wants performance standards for open space. The Moderate called her out for being out-of-scope. Ms. Allison-Ampe moved to terminate debate. Since the questions so far have not dealt with the topic of the article, it feels like this is overdue. The motion passed 211-20. The main motion passed 222-14.
Now on to Article 33. This is a set of five administrative changes to the zoning bylaws that should be easily adopted. Ms. Zsembery introduced the article and presented it by video. Ms. Memon raised a point of order to ask questions. The Moderator entertained the questions, but he noted that they did not meet the requirements of a point of order. Mr. Jamieson asked about whether the correct change was to strike "three inches or more" or just "three inches". The former was confirmed by Ms. Raitt. Mr. Byrne confirmed that the attic area area would be reduced. Mr. Koch pointed out that the change would increase the gross floor area. Ms. Dray asked why this change to gross floor area is different from the previous article. Ms. Raitt and Mr. Heim indicated that since the two articles were taken sequentially, the changes included in both would be incorporated in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Schlichtman moved to terminate debate. This is a good time, so I'll vote yes. The motion was approved 207-13. The main motion passed 223-6.
Now on to Article 35, proposed changes to the Industrial Zoning District. This will take a while. There are three video presentations and an amendment. I serve on the Zoning Bylaw Working Group, so I was involved in the development of the recommendations. Ms. Zsembery introduced the article and presented a video regarding the contents of the article. Ms. Anderson proposed an amendment to remove the ability to introduce residential development in the district. Mr. Ruderman introduced Mr. Seltzer, a town resident for a video presentation. Ms. Reynolds introduced Mr. Hollman, a town resident for a video presentation. Ms. LaCourt raised a point of order in regards to the maligning of character taking place in the the third video. The Moderator noted that the video was also somewhat out-of-scope. Mr Worden had some technical difficulties in coming to the microphone. He was also on the ZBWG, and he agrees with Mr. Seltzer. He is in favor of Ms. Anderson's amendment. He believes the consultant study was not to include residential. The town shouldn't be trying to enrich developers.
It was now after 11:00, so there was a call for reconsideration and a motion to adjourn.
-------
This was a better night in terms of getting things done. I thought the Moderator did a good job keeping things moving. I miss the days when we could yell "SCOPE" from the floor when a speaker was drifting off topic. That cannot be done now. May be there could be a button for that!
After four sessions, we have disposed of 63 of the initial 91 articles, including six tonight. Our next meeting will begin with a discussion of budgets, so I don't know if we will get back to article 35 before the break.
No comments:
Post a Comment