2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Ten

Welcome to Night Ten of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  We're 27 hours in, and we still have a while to go.  I'm really hoping that we can complete the vote on Article 43 before break.  If we can do that, I'm fairly sure we have one night remaining.  If we don't do it, I think we're going into the following week.

After the attendance vote, the Moderator brought up Rieko Tanaka's rendition of the National Anthem.  The Moderator made an announcement, reminding us of how much we still have left.  He encouraged us to keep our comments short.  He has a plan for the vote on 43 which should make sense.  He invited Mr. DeCoursey to make a motion to continue to next Wednesday upon adjournment. (No meeting on Memorial Day.)

There was a call for announcements and resolutions  Ms. Kelleher from the Housing Plan Implementation Committee announced that the committee is updating the town's five year housing production plan  She noted many upcoming meetings and opportunities to participate.  Please visit their webpage for additional information.  There were no reports of committees, so Article 3 stayed on the table.

We are back to discussing Article 43.  Ms. Evans was first this evening, and she introduced her two amendments.  She noted that there are two Air BnB units registered with the town, but she said there are 28 available on the website.  (I just did a check a few weekends and found five separate listings.  It seems like someone from the town could spend an hour and message every single host and reminding them that they need to register with the town.)  Her first amendment would require a minimum six-month lease for all rentals.  This would clearly preclude their use as a short term rental.  Her second amendment would require that the owner reside in one of the two units.  These are basic protections which can be removed or relaxed later on.  She encouraged us to start cautiously and see how things progress.  Ms. Benedikt thanked Ms. Thornton for a well thought-out proposal.  At first, it sounded like she was encouraging the meeting to adopt Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, but she had her own.  It would have us not vote on anything this year.  Rather, we would establish a study committee to return next year.

Now that all the motions and amendments have been introduced, the Moderator presented his plan for scheduling the votes.  First, we will vote on the Benedikt substitute motion.  If it passes, everything else is moot.  If that fails, we will vote on all the amendments, grouped by theme.  We will then vote on Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, then the final motion, whatever it is.  The Moderator then started in on the remainder of the speakers list.

Mr. Brown is in support of the article allowing in-law apartments.  His father moved into his in-law apartment.  It kept his father involved in the community.  He also had a built-in baby sitter, so he could have a date night with his spouse.  Problems have been pointed out.  Hearing is an issue with the elderly, and they may be listening to Frank Sinatra loudly at night.  This is outweighed by the benefits of keeping family close.  The Moderator interrupted his very lighthearted presentation to encourage him to focus.  Mr. Brown asked that Mr. Tedesco be recognized to speak.  Mr. Tedesco is the lawyer who helped write the proposed bylaw.  He highlighted key results for the proposal.  There could be up to 15 new ADU's per year if Arlington is similar to other towns.  He felt the Tosti amendment would greatly limit the ability of anyone to make an ADU.  It has too many limits on the size of units.  The current proposal is more flexible.

Mr. Revilak spoke about rentals.  For a usual rental, there are no requirements to live in a unit, and all the arrangements for tenancy are up to the tenant and landlord.  He felt most of the proposed amendments interfere with that relationship.  They also restrict where the units can be built.  Mr. Revilak lives among small duplexes in East Arlington.  His neighbor would often rent out rooms.  He is not concerned about additional residents in his neighborhood.  He encouraged voting for the main motion after rejecting the proposed motions and amendments.  Mr. Christiana is also in favor of the clean proposal.  He doesn't like restrictive zoning.  He thinks the amendments are often driven by fear.  They are not accurately representing the proposal.  There were months to review the proposal leading to tonight's vote.  It was approved by many boards.  It might not be perfect, but that is OK with him.  Delay has costs.  Endless discussion leads us nowhere.  We shouldn't be just cementing the status quo.  He believes there is a symbiosis between affordability and homeowners.  Mr. Lobel has a question about how many units might be created.  Ms. Raitt indicated that Ms. Thornton should address the question.  -silence-   Mr. Lobel noted that the projection in 2019 was 4-5 new units per year.  Ms. Thornton noted that there wouldn't be a stampede.  She would be happy to see 5 a year.  Mr. Lobel noted we've spoken a lot about affordable housing.  He sees this as such an obvious way to create small, affordable units.  There are many benefits.  He fully supports the main motion without amendments.  Mr. Newton is excited about ADU's.  The HCA could add units.  We get additional small units scattered throughout town.  He is excited about multi-generational living.  Living next to instead of with makes things more harmonious.  He sees the fears driving the amendments uncompelling.  Mx. Pretzer spoke in favor of the main motion.  He spoke to many benefits.  High costs are changing our neighborhoods.  We should be willing to house people over cars.  There have been multiple opportunities for input.  He doesn't approve of amendments that make it harder to sell.  Mr. Bagnall moved to terminate debate.  It is sooooo tempting to agree, but there are so many more opinions out there.  (I am on the list with a few corrections and questions.)  I would like to hear from some more points of view before we start in on the amendments and motions.  The vote to terminate debate failed 142-90.

(It was about this time that I realized I am being very gender binary in how I name speakers.  I use formal names out of respect for our elected representatives.  If I get it wrong, I hope the member will let me know, so I can make the correction.)

The next speaker is Mr. Ruderman.  He spoke in favor of referring the motion to committee.  He believes there is too much to digest, and things need to be hashed out in person.  He isn't afraid of ADU's, and we are about to fundamentally change ownership rights in town.  We need to consider who will be benefiting and cashing in.  Diversity is both racial and economic.  How does passing the benefits on another unit on to those of means value diversity.  He thinks voting against all the amendments is just a rush to go home.  It needs to go to committee for more discussion.  Mr. MacNeill passed.  Ms. Susse spoke about housing in town.  She wants a very clean bylaw, the one that has been approved by town leadership.  It is not radical.  It will create more diverse housing.  Mr. Jamieson thanked everyone for their comments in favor of the main motion and against the substitutes and amendments.  This is his view as well.  He would have moved to terminate, but that happened recently.  Several town board have reviewed this proposal:  the Select Board, the Finance Committee, and the Redevelopment Board.  This has been vetted and should be approved.  Mr. Goff is not a fan of the motions or amendments except one, the one that limited ADU's to one per parcel.  The Moderator noted that was Ms. Leahy's second amendment.  He wants to know if there are legal issues in regards to condo associations.  Are there ways for disputes over ADU's to be resolved.  Ms. Leahy noted she is not a lawyer and cannot speak to legal matters.  However, this is the kind of thing a condo association should be discussing all the time.  Her amendment was to prevent a two family from becoming a four family.  Town Counsel noted that being allowed to do something under zoning, does not mean that the condo docs allow it, especially if it involves shared property.  Individuals will need to make their own decisions.  Mr. Goff is concerned about some aspects, but he is willing to move forward and see what happens.  It dose not seem like a radical change.  It would be better than the "side-by-side pit houses" popping up in his neighborhood.  He would like to see some modest size houses.  He is still thinking about the one amendment, but he encourages voting against everything else.  Ms. Heigham moved to terminate debate.  I am feeling better about it at this point, so I will vote in favor of the motion.  This time, the vote passed 160-73.  (It took over a minute to register my vote.  I think even the internet is getting tired of the length of the meeting.)

Now we had to sort through all the votes.  First up was Ms. Benedikt's substitute motion to refer the article to committee.  Mr. MacNeill and Ms. LaRoyer both had points of order to confirm that each individual vote for the motions, amendments, and the main motion will be majority votes.  This was confirmed by the Moderator.  The substitute motion failed 53-187.  Next was Ms. Preston's motion to require 15 ft from an ADU in an accessory structure to a dwelling on an adjacent property.  (First good clap of thunder.)  I don't like this, because it does not apply to bylaw evenly to all parts of town.  It would allow this option in the less dense neighborhoods, largely away from public transportation, but not in the more "streetcar suburb" parts of town.  I voted against the amendment, then the lightning struck, then I lost my Zoom feed.  It took a long while to reconnect.  I didn't know if this was just me or everybody.

Eventually, I was able to fully log back on.  The Moderator came back a few minutes later.  It looks like the main server for the meeting reset, and everyone was kicked off.  There was a good bit of lightning in the area.  Now came the question of what to do.  We were still in the middle of a vote.

The Moderator requested that the active vote be closed, and a new attendance vote created.  The Moderator asked Counsel for an opinion about continuing, since the connection was unstable.  Mr. Worden had a point of order to essentially have a moderator conference regarding whether to proceed.  (It is good to have that depth of experience in the meeting.)  Ms. Heigham had a point of information: when Precinct 11 went dark during last fall's meeting, the meeting continued without them.  She encouraged us to go on this time as well.  Counsel advised taking our recess now to give members time to log off and back on.  After break, we can decide if things have improved enough to continue.  The Clerk will email all members to let them know the plan in case they are not on line at the moment.  We take our break.

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

We are back.  There were still some issues with sound, which the staff worked to resolve.  After several minutes, the Moderator determined we were prepared to start.  Since the outage happened during the vote on Ms. Preston's amendment, he canceled the previous vote, and we voted anew.  The vote on the amendment failed 56-173.  Next up was Mr. Heigham's amendment to require a special permit if an ADU in an accessory building is closer that 10 ft to the lot line.  I am not in favor of this motion either.  (I almost forgot to vote, but I think it slipped in at the last instant.)  The amendment failed 73-155.  That brought up Ms. Leahy's third amendment which would limit ADU's to the R0 and R1 (single-family) zoning districts.  I'm not in favor of this either.  Ms. Preston raised a point of order because she couldn't even vote on her own amendment.  She was unable to vote, and she wanted to know what the process is when some members couldn't vote.  The Moderator noted that there was an attendance vote, and it appeared that everyone was back.  Ms. Preston noted she couldn't be connected in time.  The Moderator apologized for the problems, and he will endeavor to register all her votes.  Mr. Marshall raised a point of order to clarify whether a single-family home in any other district would be allowed under this article, and the Moderator noted it would not.  The amendment failed 36-194.  Next was Ms. Leahy's second amendment which would restrict the number of ADU's per lot to one.  I'm actually favorable to this, as I am concerned about creating two additional units in the already tightly crowded two-family districts.  This amendment failed 62-168.  This brought up Mr. Worden's third amendment to require provisions be made for tenants with automobiles.  I would hope that provisions would be made for parking before starting the process of creating the ADU, so I am against this.  It failed 47-182.  Next up was Mr. Worden's second amendment to require that an ADU created by a non-profit have both units restricted to an affordable rent.  I went back and forth on this, because it has some merit.  In the end, I had no in the vote when time expired.  The amendment failed 56-173.  This brought up Mr. Worden's first amendment to limit the size of an ADU to 1/3 the floor area or 750 sq. ft., whichever is smaller.  This is too small, and makes sure it is unreasonable to small homeowners.  The amendment failed 40-187.

Next was Mr. Gersh's amendment to disallow ADU's in accessory buildings.  This restriction would resolve a whole host of issues with using an accessory building, but I'm not convinced that those obstacles cannot be overcome or addressed through the special permit process.  The amendment failed 47-181.  Next was Ms. Leahy's first amendment to require a sworn affidavit be filed each and every year, stating that the owner is living in one of the units.  This limits the property to the owner, while the article would also allow a family member to reside in the property.  This would limit a resident's options should they be forced to relocate.  The amendment failed 52-177.  Ms. Evans's second amendment would also require a statement that the owner resides in one of the units.  Again, I'm not comfortable with someone being evicted because of a job issue, especially if it isn't their own issue.  This amendment failed 59-174.  Now we have Ms. Evans's first amendment which would require a lease term of at least six months.  This is already covered in the main text of the article, prohibiting the use of the ADU as a short-term rental.  The amendment failed 69-161.  Ms. Worden's amendment would require that the unit not occupied by the owner be rented at an affordable rate.  This undermines one of the tenets of the proposal, to create an income stream for the homeowner,  There will already be a degree of affordability due to the small size of the ADU.  This amendment failed 49-178.  I am surprised that we are moving in lockstep, although maybe I shouldn't be.

Mr Tosti's substitute motion would have us vote on a proposal that is substantially what we narrowly didn't pass in 2019.  (It received a majority vote, but fell a handful of votes short of the required 2/3 vote.)  The vote on this motion was 62-175 against.  This brought up the main motion as recommended by the ARB without amendments.  This is another major change for the town.  I believe this is a good measure, and I hope we can embrace it and have it appropriately administered.  The final vote was 189-48 in favor. I'm glad this was a strong vote.  We are done with zoning.

Now we have article 54.  Mr. Foskett has a few administrative corrections to the article.  He asked if the red-lined copy could be displayed, and he would explain the changes.  The sum to be appropriated was corrected to $671,485, the figure in the budget.  A sum of $122,284 was to be transferred, not appropriated.  The dates of the Arlington Patrolman's Organization agreement were corrected.  The transfer from the wage reserve was reduced by $2K.  The reserve is at $549,201 and will be available for other collective bargaining agreements.  This article appropriates funds to cover recent collective bargaining agreements.  The funds were already in the approved budget; we were just allocating the funds.  There were settlements with the patrolmen and library staff.  The contracts can only be made effective with a positive vote of Town Meeting.  Mr. Foskett asked if Mr. Pooler could be recognized to provide additional detail.  Mr. Pooler explained the town's goals for bargaining.  The acceptance of Juneteenth as a holiday was a part of the agreement, as was a cost of living adjustment.  There are no speakers, but Mr. Kurowski is locked out of the meeting, so we cannot vote.  Mr. Lowery brought Mr. Kurowski back in, so we can vote after all.  I am in favor of the agreement, and the vote passed 203-3.  We lost a bunch of members before that vote.

The Moderator noted that as we have done for several meetings, resolutions will only have one speaker in favor and one speaker in opposition.  There was a call for motions for reconsideration.  I raised a point of order to express my appreciation for the actions of town staff in getting us back after the storm-related issues.  The votes on Article 43 took 10 minutes before break plan a full hour after.  If we had lost half a night and an additional hour next Wednesday, we would be in really bad shape.  Getting us back might just be what gets us done without needing to go to other nights and weekends.  It is really appreciated.  The Moderator concurred, and we are adjourned.

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

I thought we held a good debate on the Accessory Dwelling Unit article.  The majority of speakers were in favor, but there was a reasonable mix of opinions, especially if you count all the members with amendments and substitute motions. I was surprised that it took over an hour just to run the votes.   If we really wanted to cut the night short, we could have sent it to committee on the first vote and moved on.  Instead, we stuck it out and made it through to the end, which was right where we started, the original motion from the ARB.

Where are we now?  I believe we have only the following articles left:  3, 22, 67, 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 81, 90, and 91.  Of those, the last four are resolutions which are only allowed two speakers.  I really thought we could get it done in ten sessions, but 11 might be the new magic number.  I really think we can do it, but I may be underestimating the discussion required on a couple of the articles.

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

(5/27/21) It was pointed out that in my list of open articles, I missed Article 22, which was tabled earlier in the meeting.  This is from my notes from the Third Night:

"Article 22 is an article to have the town provide email addresses to Town Meeting Members if they request one.  The recommended vote of the Select Board is "No Action".  The proponent has asked for a motion to table the article to allow time to work with the Select Board on a resolution.  The motion to table the article was approved unanimously."

I had completely forgotten about it.  I have not heard anything regarding this article since that night, so I don't know if there has been any resolution. 

I also didn't include Article 3, which remains on the table to allow for the introduction of reports.  The last thing we will do before we dissolve the meeting is  take 3 off the table and close it.