2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Seven

 Welcome to Night Seven of the 2021 Arlington Annual Town Meeting.  My initial pessimistic guess was that we would go for ten nights this spring, and I am sorry that we seem to be on track for that being correct.  There was an email from the Moderator earlier today noting that there were amendments and substitute motions submitted late on Friday, after the town offices were closed.  He noted articles 35-43 and included links to documents for Articles 35, 38, and 54.  I am not sure what we are going to cover tonight.  We will certainly pick-up where we left off on the Capital Budget, but I'm not sure where we go after that.

We tried to begin the meeting with the Star Spangled Banner as played by Mr. Helmuth, but there was no sound.  After a little technical work, we were able enjoy to the video with sound.  The Moderator noted that the Governor will be lifting the State of Emergency which allows Town Meeting to meet remotely.  That will go into effect on June 15, so June 14 will be the last session we can have online.  If we go to June 16, we believe we will be back in Town Hall.

The Moderator put forward a resolution seeking to limit speaking time for the remainder of this year's annual meeting.  Presentations would remain at seven minutes, but floor speeches would voluntarily be limited to four minutes, and two minutes on your second time.  I went back and forth on this several times, but I left my vote as "no".  If speakers want to limit their time, that is OK, but I really think debate is necessary and important to the function of the meeting.  The vote was 185 in favor and 39 in opposition.  We will be asked to keep our speeches short.  The Moderator also noted that there would be a slight change in what happens when there is a network issue during a vote.  Rather than receiving a network error message, there will be a new page showing someone waiting for the T.  It will have a countdown clock leading to an automatic page refresh.  We'll have to see how that goes.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that the meeting be continued to Wednesday, May 19 upon adjournment.

Article 3 was taken off the table to receive the report of the AHS Building Committee.  Mr. Thielman, the Chair of that committee provided an update on the project.  The project is on budget and on schedule.  Phase 1 will be completed in February 2022.  There have been improvements to the mechanical systems added to the project scope.  In April, test borings for geothermal wells discovered contamination seeping down into the bedrock.  The system had to be adjusted.  The building will still exceed the original sustainability goals.  Mr. Thielman thanked the building committee, especially Superintendent Dr. Bodie, who is retiring this year.  We were encouraged to visit the committee's website at www.ahsbuilding.org.

Mr. Slotnick presented the Zero Waste Arlington report.  He thanked the members of the committee.  He noted that online meetings had greater participation.  He discussed their webinar series.  He discussed the upcoming negotiation for the town's trash hauling contract.  Unfortunately, only 10% of the plastic collected through recycling in Arlington becomes a new material.  There was an appeal to divert organic waste to composting services.  There is a written report available on the town's website.  Their next webinar is on June 23.  Please refer to their website for more information.  Article 3 was laid back upon the table.

This brought us back to the discussion on Article 56, the Capital Budget.  Mr. Foskett, the past Chair of the committee and current FinCom Chair encouraged a vote against Mr. Leonard's amendment.  He spoke in favor of the additional funds requested for the DPW project.  These facilities need to be upgraded for the important work they do for our town.  The cost increases are due to increased material costs that are due to Covid related production disruptions and recent construction increases nationwide.  There was a point of order from Ms. Garber regarding the order of articles to be presented this evening.  The Moderator noted that after the Capital Budget, we would be taking 44-49 off the table for discussion.  In a second point of order, Ms. Leahy asked how much time the proponent of an amendment or substitution motion would have to speak.  The Moderator indicated that as a proponent, they would have seven minutes, but everyone has seven minutes; they are just being asked to use less time to keep things moving.

Ms. Bloom asked about the difference in costs between two proposed school buses in the capital plan.  Mr. Yontar, the Chair of the Capital Planning Committee, noted that the costs are a net against the trade-in value of the bus being replaced.  (One had more value than the other.)  Ms. Memon asked whether the damaged marble at the Highland Firehouse will be replaced with marble.  Mr. Yontar noted that it will be new marble, but there will be better bollards to protect the new work.  Ms. Memon asked if there have ever been in-kind donations from local businesses.  She believes this is something to consider.  (I will admit that I couldn't tell where she was going with this question.  Was it that local businesses could make in kind donations in lieu of taxes, or would this be out of the goodness of their heart.  The latter is fraught with the potential for abuse.)  The Moderator was concerned about liability and unfair competition.  Ms. Memon wanted to know if the proceeds of the sale of a specific building was applied.  The Moderator thought it was out of scope, but Mr. Yontar thought it was in scope since it will be applied against the upcoming budget.  The proceeds are being used to defray capital costs across the board.  Lastly, she wanted to know if any funds were going towards sustainability improvements.  Mr. Yontar noted the town is shifting towards hybrid and electric vehicles for new purchases.  She wanted to know if there were improvements being made to buildings.  Mr. Yontar noted those happen during renovation projects.

Ms. Murray motioned to terminate debate.  This is a fine time to terminate debate.  I received the new waiting screen, which was fun.  I hope I don't get it too often.  The motion passed 197-30, so we move on to the various votes under this article.  First is Mr. Leonard's amendment to not fund the marble replacement at the Highland Firehouse as it is a repair.  This is a true capital expense, so the amendment should be rejected.  There was a point of order from Mr. Holland requesting that the Moderator provide a synopsis of the amendments and other votes before we start to refresh our memories.  The Moderator said he was just about to do that.  After the explanation, the votes were completed, and the amendment failed 23-205.  Mr. Foskett's amendment to add funds to cover the increase in the DPW project is vital to the project, and I am in favor.  The vote was 210-20, and it passed.  Ms. Memon has a point of order asking for an explanation of the change put forward in Mr. Foskett's amendment.  There is both a new line item and a revised sum.  The Moderator brusquely indicated both were in the vote.  He apologized for being short with her (which he was).  Since this vote authorizes the issuance of bonds, it requires a 2/3 vote.  This is an important and well considered budget, and I am in favor of its passage.  The final vote was 228-7 in favor, so the Capital Budget is approved.

Mr. Foskett moved to take articles 44-49 off the table. (As with most motions like this, it was seconded by the Clerk, Ms. Brazile).  This brings up Article 44, which would extend the parking changes approved for zones B3 and B5 last year to all business districts.  Mr. Revilak introduced Mr. Fleming, a resident of the town and the proponent of the article.  He asked that the video presentation be played.  The video made the case for allowing the number of required off-street parking spaces to be reduced in cases where there is no way to add off-street parking on existing lots with existing buildings.  It would allow for sufficient parking while preserving existing property values.  It would allow the ZBA or ARB (as applicable) to approve a project with fewer parking spaces without the need for a variance.  Ms. Memon is bothered by the proposal, because there is industrial property at the end of her street.  She thinks this will be a big problem for residents.  She wanted to know if this done in other towns.  Ms. Raitt noted that other municipalities have allowed it.  Ms. Memon thinks that Arlington is different from the municipalities noted by the Director, and she encouraged a vote against.  Mr. Pretzer noted we have very good public transportation, and in trying to reduce the environmental impact, we should vote in favor of the article.  Mr. Ruderman is speaking against the article based on prior experience and real estate principles.  The redevelopment of the Balich 5 & 10 was contingent on a variance in regards to the parking rules.  Mr. Ruderman is worried we will see this up and down Mass Ave.  From where he lives near the Center, and he has observed that limiting parking doesn't really mean that people don't drive.  It just limits where they can legally park, so they will park elsewhere, like in the residential neighborhoods.  They will bring late night noise back to their cars.  He also didn't accept the proponents analysis of real estate values in their presentation.

Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate.  I'm not entirely sure this is the right time to do so, even with attempts to move things along.  I'm voting against terminating, but I am anticipating that the motion will pass.  In voting, I hit the new waiting screen four times in a row before I could vote.  I'm not sure this is really any better.  The motion passed 168-64, which brings up the vote on the main motion.  I am in favor of this article, because it allows existing buildings to be reused for a different purpose without possibly requiring a variance.  There will still need to be a special permit, so the residents will get a say in the outcome on any particular project.  The article was approved 180-51.  It is a few minutes early, but the Moderator called break at this logical point.  We'll be back in 10 minutes.

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

We are back from break.  Article 45 seeks to increase the required percentage of affordable units in multi-family developments.  Ms. Garber spoke on behalf of the proponents of the article.  They were not informed that the Moderator was going to change the order of the articles this evening, and they are not available.  Ms. Garber requested a postponement to Wednesday, May 19 which was granted.

Article 46 would establish a temporary moratorium on the demolition of smaller, older homes.  The recommended vote from the redevelopment board is for no action, but the proponent, Ms. Culverhouse has submitted a substitute motion. The proposed bylaw change would institute a two-year moratorium on the destruction of post-war cape houses.  She feels it is time to implement a preservation plan for this type of housing before it is too late.  The moratorium would support the reuse of existing housing, which is more sustainable.  It would help preserve existing trees.  It would only apply to houses built prior to 1950 with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area.  It would not apply to the sale of houses, only to the demolition of houses.  Ms. Culverhouse noted that 20-25 of these houses are demolished in any given year, and the new houses usually cost double the cost of the original home.

I have been struggling with how to tackle this issue for years.  The idea behind a starter home is that you can buy something smaller for less and move up to something larger once you have some equity built up.  Right now, that equity is swallowed up by developers, and the town is loosing affordability.  This is a serious issue that the town needs to address.  However, this article just kicks the can down the road while leaving the current owners of these homes in limbo.  We need a real plan.

Ms. LaCourt has several concerns about the article.  Many people have most of their assets in their home.  Limiting how the property can be developed will drive the price down, essentially taking from the owners.  It would also raise the costs on other properties in town, since there would be fewer redevelopable properties.  At the end of the moratorium, if there are new restrictions on redevelopment, the current owners will still have a reduced value.  She encourages voting against the article.  Mr. Worden spoke in support of the article.  It is a small percentage of the houses in Arlington.  This is only a temporary moratorium to see if there is some way to preserve some of the houses.  The town has approved historic districts, often at the request of the homeowners.  (We do not know if the homeowners are in favor of this proposal.)  Mr. Worden thinks it is time to introduce a pause to give ourselves some time to come up with a plan.  Mr. Vakil opposes the motion.  While he agrees with the intent of the goals of the article, since it reduces the owner's value in their home, it penalizes a specific group of homeowners.  He encourages the proponents to come back next year with a plan to share the costs of the plan across all homeowners in the town.

Mr. Reck moved to terminate debate.  Although it is early in the debate of the article, I don't think there are other significant points of view that have not been presented.  With that in mind, I will vote to terminate debate, and that motion passed 158-70.  This brings up the vote on whether to adopt the substitute motion.  (If this fails, then the recommended vote of no action remains.)  I don't want the motion to pass, but in some ways, I would rather it be voted down as the main motion.  However, that carries risks, so I am voting against the substitute motion.  It failed 57-172, so we now vote on the motion of no action.  That vote was approved 189-37.

This brings us to Article 48, which seeks to require the enforcement of accessibility standards.  Ms. Devney, the Chair of the Disability Commission introduced the video presentation.  There was a concern that the redevelopment board (ARB) does not review the accessibility requirements as a part of the Environmental Design Review process.  Ms. Devney would like accessibility applied at the start of the project.  The Disability Commission is only informed of a project if there is a variance filed with the state Architectural Access Board.  That review process often leads to the acceptance of violations.  There are no questions, so we go right to the vote.  I did have some concerns during the warrant article hearings before the ARB.  The original language included the ADA, which as a federal code, is not under the jurisdiction of the local inspector.  I also believe this belongs in Title VI of the Town Bylaws (Building Regulations) rather than the Zoning Bylaw.  While it no longer includes the ADA, it did remain in the zoning bylaw.  The article was adopted 230-2.  (The Moderator chastised those abstaining - "We're here to vote.")

This article brought up a much larger point:  there are way too many projects being constructed with glaring accessibility problems.  I almost dare someone to find a legal accessible parking space in town.  As an architect who spent years working with a national client to remedy accessibility code violations, I can see issues in lots of public spaces.  I don't know if it is an enforcement issue or if the developers are receiving variances from the state accessibility code.  I am sympathetic to the concerns of the Disability Commission, which is why I support this article.

Article 49 is a proposal to introduce side yard exposure planes.  The recommended vote was for no action, but the proponent, Mr. Fields has a substitute motion.  His video presentation was played.  Average home sizes have doubled in the last 100 years (1,800 sq. ft. to 3,600 sq. ft.).  New homes sometimes hulk over their neighboring homes.  A sky exposure plane, by setting an angle from the lot line outside of which you cannot build, would define a construction area more towards the center of a lot that limits the impact on abutting properties.  This would apply to new residential construction, but not to additions or existing homes.  Mr. Ruderman is in favor of the article.  The proponent has introduced a simple metric to resolve a complicated issue.  Residents don't like large new homes in their neighborhood blocking their light.  Unsure of the unintended consequences, but is in favor of the intended ones.  Mr. Jamieson would like to know if the home in one of the pictures is actually in Arlington (yes).  He asked how many tear downs per year?  Fire Chief Kelley is uncertain of the actual number, but it is certainly more than 10.  He said there are may be 15 on his current list.  Mr. Jamieson described his existing home and how imposing the sky plane on his narrow lot would lead to an awkward outcome.  He encourages a negative vote.  Ms. Evans speaks in favor of the article.  Sky exposure planes are often used in commercial codes.  Arlington has extensive residential rooftop solar, and this will serve to protect those installations.  Mr. Revilak wanted to understand moving the building to the center of the lot, irrespective of the solar orientation.  The proponent noted that reducing massing was their primary concern.  Providing access for solar was secondary.  He also wanted to know whether Inspectional Services had any comments regarding enforcability.  Mr. Byrne (Director f Inspections) admits he is a little confused about it, but his department will enforce whatever Town Meeting approves.  Mr. Revilak had a question about the angle of the hypotenuse, as you only need two sides and an angle to define a triangle, and this has more information than required.  Ms. Zsembery noted that the ARB recommended no action and indicated that there was not enough research in trying to determine the impact on odd lots.  Mr. Revilak thinks this a neat idea, and would encourage resubmittal next year if not approved.

Mr. Schlichtman moved to terminate debate, although he was the last speaker on the list.  Mr. Goff raised a point of order asking if since there are no other people seeking to speak, do we really need to take up time with this vote.  The Moderator confirmed that we do.  The motion was approved 221-7.  This brings up the vote on the substitute motion.  Similar to Article 46, I am tempted to vote to put it in front of the meeting, but I don't think that is a great idea.  I am in agreement with Mr. Revilak.  Mr. Jamieson has a point of order to clarify that there are existing side yard setbacks; he felt the Moderator might have said something that confused that issue.  The Moderator agreed that we have side yard setbacks.  The vote on the substitute motion failed 90-134.  Ms. Bloom asked a point of order checking that we are voting on no action.  (The text on the screen was confusing.)  The vote on the recommended vote of no action was approved 176-41.

Mr. Foskett moved to take articles 53-60 off the table.  This brought up Article 53 on position reclassification.  The Town Manager explained that it includes reclassified positions as recommended by the Director of Human Resources and the Human Resources Board.  They are mostly title changes which would also include a change in the employment category.  The list also includes additions and deletions of positions.  Ms. Friedman had held this article off the consent agenda.  She wanted to know about two positions listed as new positions.  It was explained that the school sustainability coordinator position is being formalized after several years, and it will now be under the school department budget.  The DEI coordinator was established this past year, and we voted to fund it last week.  There was a question as to whether an employee was working for the town or serving as a contractor, and if the latter, how does that compare with what is in the budget.  The Moderator warned that we are drifting off topic.  Ms. Friedman asked whether the position would be increasing the person's compensation.  The Manager noted that if there is no corresponding compensation listed on the classification table, the position listed is just a reclassification without additional compensation. Mr. Ciano introduced Mr. Leonard, another town meeting member.  In the Finance Report budgets, positions to be removed are shown with a zero value, and new positions show a zero for previous years.  The Information Technology budget should be shown this way in future.  The Manager noted that in that specific case, the position of Chief Technology Officer was changed to Chief Information Officer to better align with what they do.  Since there was no change in salary or responsibility, the "old" position was not zero-ed out.

The Moderator ended debate for the evening, called for motions of reconsideration, and asked for a motion to adjourn.

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

Overall, that felt like a good night.  We covered a fair amount of ground, and I thought we gave appropriate time to all the questions before us.  By my count, we still have 20 outstanding articles, several of which are quite consequential.  I have high hopes that we will be able to finish next week, but it will take some solid work to get it done. 

In a prior post, I noted that the Diversity Task Group''s web page was out of date.  Mr. Gruber pointed out that she had requested interested people to go to the Town Calendar to find information on their upcoming meetings.  (I had missed that nuance earlier.)  One could also navigate to the Envision Arlington webpage for more information.