Welcome back to Night Nine of Town Meeting. We are 24 hours into town meeting - How Exciting!! I hope all members are rested after the weekend and ready to get back to it. Looking at my dog-eared copy of the warrant, we left off on Article 38 regarding high-efficiency foundations. We will hopefully get to at least four other articles tonight, but we still have 16 to go.
We are starting off with a rendition of the National Anthem as played by Rieko Tanaka. The moderator noted that we don't meet on Memorial Day, and we are running out of days. If we need to go to June 16, we will be back in Town Hall, because the declared state of emergency will have been withdrawn.
Mr. DeCourcey moved that we continue to Wednesday if we are not done by the time we adjourn tonight.
The Moderator asked for announcements and resolutions. Ms. LaRoyer had an announcement from the Open Space Committee. They are working with the Planning Department on the Open Space Plan for next seven years. The plan will assist the town with long-term planning, and make the town eligible for certain grants and funding. She invited everyone to join them on June 10 at 7pm for a virtual community workshop. More information is available on the Open Space Committee website. There will be a presentation on plan followed by small group discussions. The report process will extend into the fall. Please email questions and comments to osrpupdate@town.arlington.ma.us.
Mr. Goff had an announcement noting the League of American Bicyclists has awarded Arlington a Silver Award for Bike Communities. He thanked all the town entities who have worked together to help the town reach this interim goal on the way to gold.
The Moderator noted that there have been questions about additional nights for Town Meeting to squeeze them in before June 16. He noted they have discussed Thursdays and Saturdays internally, but he is holding off to see how we do tonight before making any recommendations. (The question came up earlier on about starting earlier and/or running later each night. The issue there is that staff won't have time for dinner, and their work day will extend very late into the night.)
Mr. Meeks reopened the discussion on Article 38. He noted that getting to Net Zero will be hard and expensive. This article will allow individuals to spend their own money to make themselves more efficient and help the town reach its overall goal. He doesn't think this will launch a wave of new development. He supports the amendment as well. Mr. Revilak is very supportive and is looking forward to what the clean energy future committee will propose in the future. He wanted to know more about how the building code would be applied. Mr. Byrne confirmed that all other code requirements would still need to be made. He also confirmed that the open space and parking requirements would restrict how much land can be covered. Mr. Revilak supported the main motion and opposed the amendment. Mr. Moore rose to terminate debate.
In my mind, the real question is whether to approve the amendment or not. I think there has been some debate, but I'm not sure we have gotten at the real question regarding the amendment. Mr. Revilak and Mr. Byrne feel the main motion is innocuous, but others, including, I believe the committee sponsoring the article have approved of the amendment. I voted to continue debate, but the motion to terminate passed 192-37. This brings the amendment by Mr. Levy in front of the meeting. I voted for the amendment, which passed 122-107. We then had the vote on the main motion as amended, which I voted for, and which passed 226-8.
Article 39 is another citizen petition. It seeks to limit the Arlington Redevelopment Board to uses allowed in a district when considering mixed use developments. The ARB had issued a vote of no action on the article. They are both a planning board and a redevelopment board (one of only two so established in the commonwealth), and under state law, they believe they have the authority they are exercising.
Ms. Dray raised a point of order to enter a late vote on the previous article. The Moderator indicated they would try, but since the vote was closed, the vote may not be entered.
Back to Article 39. Ms. Kepka entered a substitute motion on behalf of Mr. Loreti, the original proponent. His article would amend the bylaw regarding mixed uses. In the original discussion before town meeting, members of the ARB had stated that only uses allowed in a district could be included in a mixed use development. He stated that the ARB is not following that promise, and this article is needed to correct that. The ARB approved two projects in the previous year with uses that are not allowed in the districts. He wants to limit the ARB's authority to only allow those uses on the use table. He noted there are towns that don't allow including disallowed uses in a mixed use. Mr. Worden spoke in favor of the substitute motion. He was in favor of the article in 2016, but it has not been applied as he understood it would be applied, so the motion is necessary. Ms. May passed. Mr. Jalkut had a point of order, but he withdrew. Ms. Pennarun wanted to know if this is primarily about the proposed hotel, since the illustrative example was for gas stations. She wanted to know if there were other cases beyond the hotel. Ms. Zsembery, the chair of the ARB noted that the hotel project straddles two zoning districts. She stated that at the time of the 2016 vote, members wanted flexibility under environmental review (The ARB process for issuing special permits.) Ms. Pennarun is looking for more information, as she believes this article is really about trust in the ARB. Mr. Loreti noted that there was a second case where a larger apartment building was allowed in the local business district (B1), a prohibited use. Mr. Jalcut moved to terminate debate. I think more debate is warranted, and I am surprised the ARB didn't have members on the speaker list. The motion to terminate passed 167-64. This brought up the vote on the substitute motion. I believe the ARB has the authority it is requesting, and allowing them the flexibility to use that authority is important. I am also concerned that they are sometimes too ready to use that authority. I did vote against the substitute motion, and it failed 106-145. I honestly thought it would pass. We now have the no action vote from the ARB, which passed 174-58.
Article 40 is a citizen article from Mr. Worden. The recommended vote from the ARB is no action. Mr. Worden has submitted a substitute motion. He felt that it is time for the town to put its money where its mouth is and build more affordable housing. The zoning bylaw allows commercial properties to be converted to residential by right. He wants to have the units created in that fashion be made affordable. Mr. Harrelson raised a point of order that the substitute motion is identical to the language in the warrant article, and wanted to know if that made the article out of order. The Moderator explained that it was fine, but it made it difficult to amend the motion. Ms. Carlton-Gysan didn't see how the proposed substitute motion would accomplish what the proponent says it will. Why would there be investment in these properties if the only option is affordable housing. Mr. Worden clarified he wasn't proposing that all the residential units in a building become affordable; only the units being converted. She noted that wasn't her question. (I think the Moderator may have translated her question incorrectly to Mr. Worden.) She clarified her question per the rationale from the ARB, that this article limits the ability of property owners to redevelop their property. Mr. Worden noted that he is concerned about large mixed use buildings with negligible retail being converted to all residential. She doesn't see how the motion matches the stated concern. She wants to make sure we are still incentivizing development. Mr. Worden says the town doesn't have a responsibility to make anyone rich. The ARB should thoroughly vet claims that residential development is needed to provide a profit margin. Mr. Yontar rose in opposition to the substitute motion, and he had a short presentation in five points. The original article was turned down by the ARB who included a vote of no action. The substitute motion is identical to the article. He doesn't question the ability of the proponent to resubmit the same language, but he questions why there was no attempt to make improvements per the comments presented by the ARB. He encouraged a vote of no action. The Moderator noted that was the only action he could take, since the language was locked into the warrant article. A more broadly written article would have allowed for a variation in the language. Mr. Foskett had a point of order to essentially make the same point as the Moderator. Mr. Schlichtman motioned to end debate. I think we have heard most points on this article, and I will vote to terminate debate. The motion passed 185-40. This brings up the vote on the substitute motion presented by Mr. Worden. I am against this article, as it doesn't include any mechanism for supporting the affordable housing it is proposing. It is just an additional levy on the property owner. The vote failed 68-167. The vote on the main motion of no action passed 191-40. We will now take our break.
------------------------
Picking back up with Article 41. This is a citizen article from Mrs. Worden. The ARB recommends a vote of no action, and the proponent has a substitute motion. She proposed a definition of foundation, building foundation, and/or foundation wall. (All three terms were included.) Her contention was that illegal foundation expansion is rampant and leading to over-development. She contended the building department is unable or unwilling to enforce the bylaw. Mrs. Worden stated that developers use foundations for portions of a building used for accessory uses as a way to create large additions without the need for a special permit. She urged the establishment of the definition. Mr. Jamieson noted that this was related to something he had raised during the discussion on an earlier article. While he agreed with the intent of the article as expressed by Mrs. Worden, he is not prepared to vote for it. He would prefer that the ARB develop language that addressed the issue. He volunteered to come back to the ARB next year. Mr. Goff motioned to terminate debate. I am voting no, as only the proponent and one speaker have addressed the article. However, I am in the minority, and debate was terminated by a vote of 171-53. I am not in favor of this article, as I don't think it goes after the actual issue it is intended to resolve. I voted against the substitute motion. The vote was 70-162 against the substitute motion. The main motion of no action passed 183-42.
This brings up the motherlode of all articles, Article 43 on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's). This article has 2 presentations, 2 substitute motions, and 12 amendments ... to date. Ms. Zsembery requested and was granted 10 minutes to present. The ARB supported the proposed vote for several reasons, including the recent state law encouraging housing. The ARB believes this is a better article than 2019. Ms. Thornton presented a video on the proposed bylaw. In her presentation, she spoke of wanting to stay in her neighborhood as she and her husband age. An ADU would be a great option. In the video, she introduced Mr. Solomon to speak in favor of his ADU on Appleton St. (NOTE: This is technically -not- an ADU. He owned a single family house in a two family district and converted the house to a duplex, a by right use. He needed a special permit for a large addition.) He spoke extensively about the benefit of having his mother on site to help take care of his children while taking care of her. In his personal experience, this was a great thing. The proponents ran out of time to have Mr. Tedesco, their lawyer speak. The Moderator noted he would try to introduce all the motions and amendments up front so they could be before the meeting. Mr. Tosti rose to introduce his substitute motion on the article. He noted that the current proposal is very different from the 2019 proposal. His motion reintroduces the 2019 article. He presented the proposed article as being contrary to the presentation of the districts in the zoning bylaw. He noted the town is very dense today. He noted that the town was denser in the past, but it was different then, as families were larger and there were fewer cars. Mr. Tosti stated his motion will allow the inclusion of ADU's without changing the appearance of the neighborhood. He thinks the proposed article will greatly change the appearance of the town. He encourages a slower approach, his substitute motion. Ms. Anderson introduced the amendment by Mr. Gersh. The proposal would remove the ability to create and ADU in an accessory structure. There would be no change to creating ADU's in the primary building. She is in favor of ADU's, but is concerned that allowing the back-to-back garages in many areas in town would create many issues. She appeared to imply that the ZBA is not capable of adjudicating these decisions fairly.* Mr. Jamieson raised a point of order, but he didn't come to to the floor.
Ms. Preston spoke to her amendment requiring an ADU in an accessory structure to be at least 15 ft. from an existing residential dwelling on an abutting property. She also appeared to imply the ZBA wasn't capable of adjudicating these decisions fairly.*
Jamieson is back for point of order in regards to Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, is it in order. It has 3 separate dates listed. The Moderator noted it was revised twice after submission, and the dates were not all updated. He is accepting the final date as the actual date. Ms. Leahy has three amendments. The first would require annual affidavits be filed to confirm the owner resides in the main or the accessory unit. She asked that if we don't vote for her amendment, please vote for Mr. Tosti's substitute motion. The Moderator encouraged her to pick up the pace if she was to have time to introduce all three amendments in he allotted seven minutes. She thought she had seven minutes for each amendment. Ms. Leahy doubled her pace and explained her second amendment would limit applicants to one ADU per lot. Her third amendment would only allow ADU's in single-family districts. She was speaking so fast, the Moderator encouraged her to take a breath. "How much time do I have left?" "Well, we forgot to turn on the clock." She was given time to finish up. Ms. Leahy wants Town Meeting to make sure all residents are given an opportunity to be heard on this far reaching article.
Mrs. Worden raised a point of order to surrender her speaking time to Ms. Leahy because "this meeting isn't interested in affordable housing." The Moderator noted that was not allowed. Ms. Dray raised a point of order to ask why proponents are not allowed seven minutes per amendment. The Moderator noted that speakers are afforded seven minutes to speak, and may request a second time. They can also request additional time before they begin.
Mr. Heigham introduced his amendment that would increase the by right setback from 6 ft to 10 ft to align with the current setback from residential setbacks. Mrs. Worden presented her amendment which would require ADU's be rented at affordable rates. These units are spoken of as being affordable, but there are no provisions requiring the rents to be affordable. Mr. Worden noted that in all his experience on town meeting, he has never seen so many amendments to a single article. He thinks this is a clear sign that there is something wrong with this proposal. Mr. Tosti's substitute motion received a majority vote in 2019, and should be approved. His three amendments, which were presented rapid-fire were to reduce the maximum size of ADU's from 900 sq. ft. to 750 sq. ft., to require parking for tenants that request parking, and to require that non-profit developers must rent both the main and the accessory units at affordable rates.
This brought us up to almost 11:00. The Moderator called for motions of reconsideration, and Mr. Foskett moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Brazile. We'll be back on Wednesday with, I think 10.75 articles to go.
-----------------
I know my notes on the last article are a little thin. I decided to join the speakers list, and I was writing notes in the background on what to say to town meeting, so I did not type as many notes as I did earlier in the evening. Although there are so many amendments and motions, I took fewer notes, because I was trying to multitask, and somewhat failed. There were a couple of statements that got my hackles up, and I want to address them.
We did sort of as I expected tonight. For a bit, I thought we were moving faster, but we got bogged back down where we were always going to bog down ... ADU's. By my count, we have heard one substitute motion and ten amendments. We still have a motion and two amendments to be introduced. I don't have the faintest idea how the Moderator will even start to sort out the motions and amendments. We have three separate setback proposals for an ADU in an accessory structure, and a fourth that eliminates them all together. The substitute motion doesn't even consider them. I am so glad I don't have to figure it out.
* In regards to these statements, I have had an opportunity to discuss them a little with one of the members. Her concern is that the proponents of the article have made a big point out of the accessory ADU's requiring the approval of the ZBA. However, the take-away was that it would be up to the neighbors to prove that the ADU would be detrimental, not that the applicant would need to prove that the ADU would not be more detrimental. Since the Board has a very high approval rate for projects for reasons entirely unrelated to this particular issue, many believe that any case that comes before the ZBA is a foregone conclusion. As a member of the ZBA, I want to assure those members who are concerned that we take our responsibilities very seriously. We work hard to find concensus and work between the proponents and the neighbors whenever possible to come up with a compromise that works for the site and district that still complies with the requirements of the zoning bylaw and other town regulations.
Don't beat up too much on yourself for multitasking. The public -- and I -- appreciate what you accomplish here.
ReplyDelete