2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Thirteen

 Welcome to Night Thirteen of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  Short of some major breakdown in decorum, we will finish tonight.  There are four resolutions still to go, and then Article 3 can be voted.  There should be a motion to reconsider Article 62 to decide whether to fund a project to make accessibility upgrades to a church.  Depending how that goes, it will either be a short night, or it will be a very long night.

The Moderator called the meeting to order.  The Start Spangled Banner was played by TMM Tanaka.   The Moderator noted that this had been a very long annual town meeting.  He appreciated everyone's forbearance in staying the course.  He hoped we would meet in person next time.  He is planning on surveying the members to ask he could make improvements.  People have been participating from a wide variety of locations: home, hospital, overseas, almost anywhere.  Democracy is important and requires diligence.  Thanks to town staff, committees preparing reports, and those putting forward articles and gathering signatures.  SBC Diggins moved that should we not finish tonight, we continue to Monday.  The "raise hands" feature was not enabled in time for consideration, so we did it again.  The Moderator declared it a vast majority in favor.  There was a call for announcements and resolutions.  TMM Kelleher had an announcement from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  The fund was created to foster affordable housing.  She invited members to participate in the community engagement process to create an action plan for the fund.  There is additional information on the trust fund website.  Ms. Roberts, a trustee of the fund described the community engagement process.  There will be an online and in-person survey.  After July 4, there will be listening sessions for underrepresented groups.  She noted that Town Meeting was overwhelmingly in support of creating the fund.  They are looking for funding sources including the proposed transfer fee which is still awaiting a home rule vote from last year.  TMM Jefferson wanted to acknowledge the work that our Town Manager, Adam Chapdelaine has done on behalf of the town.  He wished him the best on his future endeavors.

Article 3 was taken from the table to receive reports.  TMM Sankalia from Zero-Waste Arlington presented the report of the committee.  She thanked members for their support for Article 12.  She welcomed members and residents who would be willing to work with the committee.  Volunteers are always welcome.  TMM Stamps presented the Tree Committee report.  The committee has used the tree inventory and management plan to continue planting trees, 150 in both the spring and fall seasons in the last several years.  The Tree Warden has been focusing on lower income areas and heat islands, areas with fewer trees.  The Community Canopy program is able to offer reduced cost trees to residents.  They are a;ways looking to continue getting more trees in the ground.  They have initiated a tree watering program with many volunteers to keep new trees watered.  Interested members and residents can look to their website for how to volunteer.  Thank you to everyone for their support.  Article 3 was returned to the table.

Article 74 was a resolution in support of the Massachusetts Fair Share Constitutional Amendment.  If ratified, the amendment would impose an additional tax of 4 percentage points on the portion of a person’s annual income over $1 million.  The Moderator reminded the meeting about the different rules for discussing resolutions.  SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board voted unanimously in favor.  It will increase the wealth of the Commonwealth, benefiting everyone.  He ended with a cute haiku.  TMM Bagnall introduced Ms. Hanson, a resident and teh proponent of the resolution.  She thanked the Select Board for their support.  She considered the proposed amendment from TMM Slutzky to be friendly.  She asked that the video be played.  The video explained that this amendment could be a substantial benefit.  The state constitution does not allow a graduated tax.  This would create a surtax for transportation and education.  It would create long-term investment while addressing the growing wealth gap.  She urged support for the resolution and voting in favor of the constitutional amendment in the upcoming state election.  TMM Slutzky introduced an amendment to add language to be more inclusive in regards to early developmental support and the accessibility of play areas.  This would appear in one of the "WHEREAS" sections, which indicate why the resolution should be supported.  She moved acceptance of her amendment.  

TMM Kaepplein rose in opposition.  He sent out a letter earlier this evening.  A tax on millionaires has an appeal, but many residents will be hurt.  It has previously been turned down at the state level.  It has been declared unconstitutional in the past.  The state funding is fungible.  Funds raised by this surtax will go to transportation and education, but the state can reduce the funding for the same priorities coming from traditional sources.  Right now, the state has a surplus, so there is no need for additional revenue.  The amount of money anticipated to be raised is far in excess of what would be raised.  This would drive people and businesses out of the state.  Those people will no longer be contributing financially or intellectually to the state.  Raytheon is moving its headquarters to Virginia, and the high earners would be encouraged to follow.  Venture capital could go to other states.  If you sell short term investments, you yourself could be required to pay.  It could hurt children.  We already have a high inheritance tax unless the funds are sheltered.  This will hurt many residents with one-year windfall events like selling a house.  This is a tax without a need, the money raised won't increase the money spent on the stated priorities, and so, he encouraged a no vote.  A graduated tax is not equitable.  The Moderator noted there was a question about speaking time.  He explained that since this was an article, the standard seven minuets would be afforded to each speaker.  The Moderator asked if there were any members seeking to speak.  He wasn't sure if no one wanted to speak, or if no one put forward their names, because the Moderator said no one would be allowed to speak until after a negative vote to terminate debate.  There were still no speakers, so we proceeded to the vote on the Slutzky amendment.  The Moderator was asked to not encourage speakers.  He noted that he wasn't encouraging someone to speak, he just wanted the members to understand that they could request to speak.  The vote passed 147-46 with twenty-two abstentions.  This brought up the main motion as amended, which passed 165-28 with twenty abstentions.

The Moderator noted that no one had requested to speak in opposition to the remaining resolutions.  However, there were questions submitted, which he will ask of the proponents.

Article 75 was a resolution to have the town commit to increasing the diversity in the appointments to town committees, boards, and commissions.  SBC Diggins noted the Select Board voted unanimously in favor.  There were some questions about how to bring this to fruition.  They will work harder to seek out candidates.  TMM Dray noted that resolutions are non-binding, but they acknowledged the desires and aspirations of the town.  This one asked the town to fully enjoy the wide variety of experiences of the residents.  It would add a tool to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) toolkit.  Arlington has often confirmed its commitment to tackling challenges and reducing barriers to participation.  Last fall, the Select Board voted to redraw precinct boundaries with diversity in mind.  The final decision on appointments should take diversity into account.  Diverse committees make better decisions due to their broader experience.  Participation can lead to increased inclusion in all town matters.  This focuses on the appointing authorities who can have the most direct impact.  There were questions for the Select Board from TMM LaCourt.  What steps will the SB take to improve the list of candidates?  SBC Diggins noted they would more broadly advertise positions, and establish a clearer policy regarding selection.  He was not certain of what specific policies would be considered.  The second question was very good, and I was unable to document all three parts in real time.  SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board would need time to discuss and develop real policies that can lead to real goals.  Why were proposals not included in the report to Town Meeting?  SBC Diggins noted that we should do that in the future.  TMM Dray noted that many of those questions would be addressed through the Equity Audit to be undertaken this year.  Why will passing this resolution do anything?  SBC Diggins hopes it will.  Doing nothing isn't really helpful.  We need to try.  TMM Klein moved to terminate debate, in support of the Moderator's process for moving resolutions forward.  The vote passed 189-14 with two abstentions, so we moved to the vote on the main motion.  TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to ask a question about the wording of the warrant article text.  There was a typo, which the Moderator indicated would be corrected administratively.  The resolution passed 177-12 with 17 abstentions.

Article 76 was a resolution to declare that the Alewife Brook was a valuable natural resource area for Arlington residents, degraded by sewage contaminated discharges, and it urged Town officials to take actions to support the clean up of Alewife Brook.  SBC Diggins noted that most of the Board lived or lives in East Arlington, and they voted unanimously for the resolution.  TMM Anderson and TMM White founded Save the Alewife Brook, a grass-roots organization focused on improving the quality of the Alewife Brook.  She thanked many people who have worked over the years to improve the conditions.  She asked that her video be played.  Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's) were explained.  Rain causes an overloading of the sewer system causing overflows of sewage into the brook.  During floods, sewage flows into the neighborhoods bordering the brook.  The state has been encouraging Cambridge to separate their sewers for over 100 years.  The 1983 Boston Harbor Cleanup settlement has not brought much relief to the Alewife Brook.  Discharges are increasing as storms become more intense.  There is an opportunity to bring change within this decade.  Arlington is not in the discussion, because it doesn't contribute to the problem.  This resolution will show that the town supports these actions to end the discharges.  The Moderator noted there was no one requesting to speak in opposition.  There were questions from TMM LaCourt.  She asked how this resolution will lead to work on the CSO's  SBC Diggins said the town will pressure the MWRA to act.  It is more advocacy than action.  The EPA is telling the MWRA to act now in the face of climate change and increased discharges.  Residents are looking for the town to act in support.  How will the Select Board be held to account under this resolution?  SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board should consider how they act in regards to all resolutions.  There should be the development of a set policy.  The Moderator sought a motion to terminate debate, which was provided by TMM Rowe.  The vote was 200-8 with two abstentions in favor of terminating debate.  The vote on the main motion was delayed several times due to the servers being overloaded.  The vote was 197-1 in favor with twelve abstentions.  The Moderator declared a five-minute break.

Article 77 was a resolution to to encourage the adoption of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy for the Town that in part prohibits the use of certain rodenticides on Town properties, provide for educating the public about rodenticide hazards to human health and the ecosystem, and establish such provisions necessary to effectuate a policy to protect Arlington's residents and wildlife.  SBC Diggins noted unanimous support for this resolution and the earlier article (#18).  He made concluding remarks for serving as Select Board Chair for the meeting.  TMM Crowder thanked  fellow proponents and the meeting.  This is part of a pair of articles seeking to reduce wildlife exposure to pesticides.  Three great horned owls in Menotomy Rocks Park died last week, likely due to rodenticide exposure.  This policy will provide valuable support for getting the use of these pesticides prohibited within the town.  We will still need state approval of the earlier article.  There were no speakers in opposition.  TMM LaCourt asked why the Select Board needs the town to pass this resolution.  They can do this anyway.  SBC Diggins noted this is essentially DPW policy.  The Select Board can set goals for the Town Manager and see how well those goals are met.  He understands the tension between resolutions and policy.  We encourage residents to be more engaged, and we should support them when they do unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.  If there was a better way to do this, we should pursue that as well.  There were no speakers in the queue, so we moved to the vote on the resolution.  It passed 185-3 with twenty abstentions.

That was the end of all the articles (except #3).  The Moderator noted there is now nothing new before us.  The Moderator asked members to raise hands if they wish to make a motion to reconsider an article.  TMM Ruderman noted that he fully understood the full scope of everything town meeting has done so far this year, and he asked the meeting to continue for a brief period longer to reconsider Article 62.

TMM Bergman raised a Point of Order noting that the wrong screen was displayed, as it indicated we would be reconsidering Article 77.  There was some confusion about how to proceed with entering this into the voting system.  A decision was made, and the speaker queue was opened.  TMM Ruderman presented the outline for why reconsideration ought to be considered.  He said there is new information and a way to act upon that new information in a manner that meets the Community Preservation Act's (CPA's) requirements.  The new information was in regards to a consultation with Town Counsel indicating a three-part test for determining whether aid to a religious institution should be allowed.  Two of those tests are that the grant may not serve to provide regular aid to the church.  He had reached out to the church to see if the grant would create a benefit to the general community.  They found the response lacking.  The congregation has every intention to allow their space to be used for public activity.  There is intention, not action; words, not deeds.  The proposal fails to meet the test.  Further, should members feel this funding is inappropriate, Town Meeting can amend the appropriation by the CPA, so there is a way to effect this change.  We should remove the money from consideration.  The Moderator introduced Town Counsel as he was mentioned in the previous speaker's remarks.  Counsel appreciated that everyone is restrained by the limits of the motion.  He walked through his remarks.  His memo and the CPA application are available to the public.  The town cannot exclude a religious institution from a grant program solely because it is a church by the free exercise clause.  The Moderator interrupted to ask that the memo be displayed.  Counsel continued that grants can be awarded, so there is a three-part test to determine whether the funds can be provided withoout violating the separation of church and state.  The purpose test is to confirm that the funds are not used in the founding, maintaining, or aiding a religious organization.  The second test is the substantiality test, confirming that the grant would not substantially aid the group.  Thirdly was the risk test, making sure to avoid the risk of creating an improper entanglement with the organization.  The Moderator asked whether Counsel had an opinion in regards to TMM Ruderman's assertion that the application didn't meet that.  Counsel noted that the decision was the CPA Committee's; he just set the stage for their deliberation.  

TMM Moore had reviewed the Counsel memo.  He asked whether the CPA Committee performed that test, and if so, what was their determination.  TMM Rowe, the Chair of the committee noted they did review the three factor approach.  She noted that the minutes do not reflect that, but the committee was very concerned and deliberate in confirming that the scope of work would be limited to accessibility upgrades for an historic structure, as they would do for any other non-profit organization.  They just needed to demonstrate a public interest in the work being performed.  She said they were very careful in reaching their decision.  The church provided documentation of their activities with the community.  Other people might disagree, but she firmly believed the appropriation was appropriate.  She noted that although there is a member of the CPA Committee who lives on the same street as the church, none of the members are congregants.  If you have questions, please ask them when the report comes out, not in June.  TMM Moore noted that there is no new information.  The committee did its task in a timely manner, and the memo was available in December.  This is not a case for reconsideration.  The Moderator noted it is difficult to assess whether there is new information, when it has not been submitted.  He reintroduced TMM Ruderman to further define the new evidence.  TMM Ruderman noted that the knowledge of the test is new.  There is no evidence of the application of the test in the record.  There is no evidence of public use of the space.  We are not addressing historic restoration.  The new information is the method of testing, which we can use to balance the determination of whether this is maintenance.  TMM L_Heigham raised a Point of Order, that there was nothing in the previous speaker's remarks that was new.  She wasn't sure this was an appropriate point.  The Moderator ruled her point out of order, as it wasn't appropriate.  

The Moderator called for a raising of hands to see if there was a desire to end debate, and over 50% did so.  He decided to put it to an official vote.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order that he objected to the rules being changed at the end of the meeting.  The Moderator noted the objection.  He called on a member to motion to terminate debate, which she did.  (The Zoom screen did not bring her up as a speaker, so I missed the name.)  The vote was 168-28 in favor of terminating debate with five abstentions.  There was a Point of Order from TMM DiTullio who asked what the standard is for reconsideration.  The Moderator noted it is up to members to consider whether there is sufficient new information for themselves.  The criteria are broad.  There was some confusion about whether the voting item had been previously created.  A new item was created, so voting could proceed on whether to reconsider Article 62.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order that the phone number to submit votes was quoted incorrectly.  The Moderator apologized, and provided the correct number.  The vote was closed, and the motion to reconsider failed 79-121 with four abstentions.

TMM Foskett moved to take Article 3 from the table.  With the article before us, and there being no additional reports, there was a motion to dissolve the meeting.  There were no objections, and the meeting was dissolved.  The Moderator thanked everyone for their participation, and he hoped that the next time we got together, it would be in person.  The meeting is dissolved.

>> Thank <insert your deity or lack thereof here> it's over!!  That was way too long.  I would imagine the Moderator has a new appreciation for the reason's his predecessor ran the meeting as he did.  We are an unruly bunch, and many of us like to talk.  I felt at the start, everything was about transparency.  In the end, we had a new set of rules for how things were going to be done in favor of expediency.  It would be great to be a debating society, but in the end, we really just need to get the town's business done.

>> I wholeheartedly agree with TMM Jefferson's appreciation for Adam Chapdelaine's contributions to the town.  He will be missed, and I wish him well.

>> I missed my chance to note that the Director of Planning and Community Development, Jennifer Raitt left as of Friday, and today, she received the Housing Hero award from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership.  They cited her work and the work of her department towards creating a full suite of plans from the Master Plan, to affordable housing, to sustainable transportation.  She cultivated a tremendous staff, and she leaves the town more prepared to face the future than when she came.  She was a tremendous resource to the ZBA during the hearings for Thorndike Place and Artemis in the Heights.  I wish her well in her new position.

>> Article 74, the millionaire's surtax is a reasonable approach to making our taxes more equitable.  When I first moved to Massachusetts, the tax on earned income was 6%, and the tax on unearned income was 12%.  Now everything is taxed equally.  This would be fine if all expenses were apportioned equally, but they are not.  The less well off spend a highly disproportionate amount of their income on housing.  This proposed constitutional amendment would be more equitable.  I voted in favor.

Article 75 to increase the diversity on town committees is a notable goal.  How to do so is really the issue.  I propose a stipend for attending meetings.  I voted in favor.

Article 76 regarding the Alewife Brook is a crusade that we all need to get behind.  What has been allowed to continue in the Alewife Brook is a disgrace.  Anything we can do to pressure the MWRA to do something and stop cowtowing to Cambridge and Somerville is well worth it.  Easy yes vote.

Article 77 on reducing the reliance on rodenticides is tragic in its need.  There have been so many instances of raptors and other predetory birds being poisoned to death because their prey is chock full of poison.  Anything we can do to limit their use is worth the effort.  I voted yes.

The question of reconsideration on 62 was too little, too late.  I empathize that giving money to a church looks suspect, but there are safeguards, and it appeared that they were applied.  Reconsideration requires something new which we didn't have before.  Having a memo issued last winter is not new.  I though TMM Moore and L_Heigham were both correct in their assment.  I voted against the motion, and I was glad it did not pass.  I imagine there will be better, earlier scrutany of the CPA grants next year.

>> Thank you to all who read my notes and provided constructive feedback throughout this spring.  I have always provided this as a way for me to remember what happened at Town Meeting so I can explain it to my constituents.  Over this year, it really became more of a recording of what happened released early, so everyone could be quickly informed.  Your Arlington does great reporting, and ACMi releases the video.  TheAdvocate and Star is MIA.  If we go back to being in person next spring, I will try to still keep notes, but people talk faster, so I will likely miss more.  Best to all, and I hope you enjoy the summer, especially on Monday and Wednesday evenings.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Twelve

 What the heck, is it really night TWELVE of the 2022 Arlington Annual Town Meeting?  TWELVE?  I think we're now looking at a baker's dozen of sessions before we're done.  I love Town Meeting, so much so that I take copious notes, but this is starting to feel really long.  I hope we make solid progress tonight.  According to the Dashboard, we have 13 articles left, 12 if you don't count Article 3, which is just there to accept reports.  We can do this!!

The Moderator called the meeting to order a little after 8:00.  After verifying the attendance vote, we had the Star Spangled Banner as performed by Katya Shubochkin.  (I really like the extra flourish she adds at the end.)  The Moderator had a few opening remarks.  Our DTM Pooler is out at the moment, but when he is back, we will take up Article 49 on collective bargaining.  Article 45 has a recommended vote of no action without a substitute motion.  There is nothing to discuss, so if you have something to say, speak during announcements.  If for some reason there are still some members who have not been sworn in, they were reminded to see the Town Clerk.  SBC Diggins moved that should we need more time after tonight, we all come back on Wednesday.  The Moderator called for announcements and resolutions.  TMM Rudick announced that his daughter was born on Friday!!  Congratulations to him and his family.  The Moderator noted that congratulations were being posted to the Q&A.

TMM Foskett removed Article 3 from the table to receive reports.  TMM LeRoyer submitted an update on the preparation of the Open Space Plan.  The committee is 18 months into the participatory process, including surveys, meetings, and listening sessions.  This community participation has been well received, and they plan to release their draft report in a couple of weeks for administrative review.  Once it has been accepted by the State, the final copy will be released to the community.  She thanked everyone for their participation.  TMM P_Worden raised her hand because her husband, TMM J_Worden had raised his hand earlier, but he had not been called upon.  He wanted to report on Article 45, as the Moderator had encouraged.  TMM J_Worden had held the article from the Consent Agenda, as the member who presented the article was not reelected.  After conferring with the former member, the hold is withdrawn.  The Moderator objected to the characterization that the former member had been "Gerrymandered" out of her position.  Article 3 was returned to the table.

Article 39 was an article to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR, the ratio of the gross floor area of a building to the lot area) for Mixed Use buildings.  Ms. Zsembery introduced the vote of the ARB.  TMM Pretzer, the proponent of the article asked that the video be presented.  Why don't we see nice buildings like the Capital Theater building anymore?  That building is larger than the allowed FAR for its district.  The video reviewed the existing zoning limits, and explained the new limits under the proposed article.  This is in alignment with the Master Plan and Housing Production Plan, encouraging new development.  The recommendation for 3.0 is in alignment with other local communities.  The proposal will not change any of the other requirements on Mixed Use buildings in the Zoning Bylaw.  Several examples were presented.  This will allow the town to meet many of its goals.  The Moderator noted that there was an amendment proposed, which would have required the ground floor to be 80% commercial.  The Moderator noted that after further review, it was ruled out-of-scope.  TMM Thornton spoke in favor of the article.  She had previously spoken in favor of vibrant commercial districts in town.  This proposal will promote new growth and new revenue.  It helps create more vibrancy by increasing the interactions between local residents and businesses.  TMM Wagner noted that this article would increase the FAR, and he asked for the article to be voted down.  Mixed-use buildings are already too big.  There could be future unintended consequences.  There was little research into why this was needed and what the impacts would be.  If it only impacted the FAR without changing any other requirements, what would it really do.  (The speaker's audio had been cutting in-and-out, but it cut out fully at this point.  After a minute or so, he had a better connection.)  TMM Wagner continued noting that the new buildings by Stop and Shop show that buildings can already be built too big.  Apartments above real commercial space, not apartment buildings with minor commercial below.  Does doubling the size of these buildings seem like a good idea?  We should be revising the mixed-use guidelines to create better results.  TMM Garber asked whether a special permit would still be required?  Ms. Zsembery responded that a special permit is required for all mixed-use developments.  TMM Garber is in favor of the proposal, as it allows buildings to reach their full height.

TMM Gibson asked whether this was a majority or 2/3 required vote.  The Moderator confirmed it was only a majority.  TMM Gibson further asked whether there was any relationship between the existing FAR and concerns from business owners and empty storefronts.  Ms. Zsembery asked if TMM Revilak could be recognized to respond.  He noted that there was an incident last July where a developer wanted to redevelop their parcel, and the FAR limit hindered their ability to pursue the project, so they withdrew the application.  The property owner subsequently sent a letter in support of this article.  TMM Gibson noted that as you move through town, for a town that considers itself dense, the commercial density is really low and spotty.  Why have the current owners not done anything to increase density?  Dir. Ciampa said there is a direct link between FAR and vacancies.  The existing buildings are older, smaller, and not usually up to code.  It is not viable to rehabilitate, as the possible rents would not cover the costs or repairs.  The lower FAR numbers works against a viable business plan for tenants.  TMM J_Worden noted that when mixed use was approved, there was the prospect of vibrant storefronts with residents upstairs, but that has not happened.  The Summer Street project had only a small office.  Eight, fifty-five Mass Ave has blank windows on the whole first floor.  The HCA building in Broadway has a half floor for the food pantry and the other half is vacant.  The ARB has not required that the first floor be exclusively a commercial floor.  He had proposed an amendment to require 80% to be commercial.  Article 28 (passed this year) will create a more vibrant street-scape, but that won't help if our businesses don't have space.  Our restaurant scene has drifted away.  They need specialized spaces.  He encourages the ARB to create more vibrant uses before increasing the FAR.  TMM Palmer moved to terminate debate.   The motion passed 178-37 with one abstention, which brought up the vote on the main motion.  This motion passed 175-39 with one abstention.

Article 41 would reduce the number of parking spaces required for apartment buildings to match the number required per unit for single and two-family housing.  Ms. Zsembery introduced the ARB's unanimous vote on this article.  The proposal aligns with the Master Plan and Sustainable Transportation Plan.  The proponent, TMM Flemming introduced his video.  What is a parking minimum?  It is the lowest number of spaces you can provide, but you can always provide more.  Apartments are currently required to provide more parking than regular houses.  According to the American Community Survey, the majority of Arlington residents have one or fewer cars.  Several recent apartment / mixed use projects have sought one or fewer parking spaces per unit.  More spaces than required takes up land that could be used for other purposes.  Resident units contribute 80x the revenue of parking on a square foot basis.  Building more spaces leads to higher unit costs.  Guests can park on the street under current town bylaws.  Accessible parking spaces must be provided under state law, even if not enough were initially provided.  He encouraged everyone's support.  TMM Wescott was unclear about how this would impact the ARB's review process.  Does the ARB review all new apartments.  Ms. Zsembery noted that the ARB reviews all apartment buildings and mixed use projects with six or more units.  Comprehensive Permit projects (40B) go through the ZBA.  TMM Wescott asked whether the ARB had the ability to reduce the number of parking spaces already.  Ms. Zsembery answered yes, and there is a specific process for doing so.  TMM Wescott asked whether the ARB has ever denied a request for reducing parking.  Ms. Zsembery noted that rather than deny the permit, they work to find alternatives within the parking reduction section of the bylaw to meet their goals.  TMM Wescott asked whether they have worked with developers to provide less than the required number.  Ms. Zsembery said they work with developers to try to create the best possible outcome for the town and the developer.  TMM Wescott asked if they could continue to do so without this article?  Ms. Zsembery said they could.

TMM Litowski noted that mixed use appears to be a way to streamline housing in the commercial corridors.  It is unfair to require more parking for apartments than for smaller houses.  They are expensive to build, more overall units means more affordable units under inclusionary zoning.  This is a good tool to increase development where we have many alternate transportation options.  TMM Wagner noted this will reduce the required parking in apartments regardless of the size of the unit.  This expresses a desire to reduce the number of spaces.  He recommended a vote against the article, as it would be punitive against new residents.  Cambridge has noted that they are still above 1.5 cars per housing unit.  With the current housing crisis, multiple people need to share an apartment, and they will likely be working in different locations.  Although only one space is required for single- and two-family residences, there are spaces for many additional cars in the driveway.  Why should we vote no?  Taking away the amenities from residents who may not be town meeting members would be unfair.  TMM L_Heigham is in favor of the article.  We are in a catch 22.  We have empty storefronts, and  we need more residents.  Having residents rely less on cars increases use of public transportation and local services.  There are other towns with much more parking outside Arlington.  

TMM Rudick (with new baby in lap) has spent many years in commercial real estate.  Parking minimums create a misunderstanding that a developer will build a project without enough parking.  There should be a traffic and parking study to determine the proper amount of parking to make the project successful.  Banks won't lend if the building won't be viable.  The market will take care of this.  The ARB voted unanimously in support.  Asking for reductions is cumbersome.  Using land for parking instead of other things will just lead to higher costs.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 191-27 with one abstention.  The main motion voting was opened, and TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order.  Why is this a majority vote?  It is zoning.  The Moderator asked Ms. Zsembery to respond, but she passed to Town Counsel.  He noted that since the article is in regards to multi-family housing under the housing choice law, it is allowed by a simple majority.  TMM J_Worden thought that this was a stretch, as the additional spaces would only come into being should the reduction in parking increase the number of apartments.  Town Counsel noted there are nine categories of articles which would be allowed by majority vote, and there is a category related specifically to the reduction of required parking.  The final votes came in, and the article passed 168-53 with one abstention, well in excess of 1/2 and 2/3.

DTM Pooler is now present, so the Moderator has asked TMM Foskett to table Articles 42-45 to allow for the discussion of Article 49.  This article allowed for the acceptance of collective bargaining agreements.  TMM Foskett moved to amend the article per the submitted amendment, which is posted to the annotated warrant.  There was a question as to whether a vote needed to be taken to accept the amendment.  TMM Foskett noted that the Finance Committee had amended their report, so the amended article should be before the meeting.  Town Counsel noted that the main motion is whatever the Finance Committee says it is.  It does not need to be voted independently.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order noting there is a link at the bottom to a possibly more recent document.  Town Clerk noted that the main motion is on the annotated warrant.  The link is to the same document in another form.  DTM Pooler announced that the town had successfully completed negotiations with three main unions.  He thanked Dir. Malloy and the union negotiators and leadership.  The contracts are with the firefighter's union, the professional librarian's union, and AFSCME.  He explained the results of the negotiations.  The library will now be open full days on summer Saturdays.  There are still a few outstanding contracts.  He encouraged passage of the article.  (The Moderator made an administrative change to fix a miss-lettering in the labeling of the sections.)  TMM Foskett noted that we will both approve the appropriation and ratify the contracts.  There were no speakers to the article, so we went straight to voting.  The article passed 212-1 with two abstentions.  We are now taking our break.

Back from break, TMM Foskett was unavailable, so the Town Clerk moved taking Articles 42-45 back off the table.  Article 42 would remove zoning review before allowing specific uses to take place in the Open Space districts.  Ms. Zsembery noted the ARB recommended favorable action on the article to remove redundancies for temporary use of public land.  TMM Fleming asked that the recording be played.  In it, he noted that the Aeronaut Beer Garden was very well received use of an open space in town.  Under the zoning bylaw, such uses require approval from Park and Rec and the ARB.  (In this case, the Select Board did the approval.)  The proposed amendment would remove the ZBA or ARB from the approval process.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  The motion failed 121-77 with five abstentions.  Debate opened with TMM Rosenthal who noted that when the beer garden was being run, Aeronaut made money from the free use of the park.  He thought we should be making money off such events.  Will this change giving away our resources for free?  Ms. Zsembery thought that was outside the scope of the article, as it only relates to the type of use, not the the administration of the event approval.  TMM Bagnal noted that the commission of arts and culture is in full support and is glad to see increased opportunities for local artists.  TMM Varoglu is generally in favor, but he wanted to know if the Park and Rec Commission has discussed or voted on the article.  TMM Fleming had reviewed this proposal with Dir. Connelly, the Director of Recreation.  DTM Pooler wasn't sure.  TM Chapdelaine noted that there is a nominal fee for local non-profits.  TMM Varoglu noted that there are lots of events, which occupy public land for temporary use.  TMM Benedikt asked how the policies are set and who sets them.  The Moderator ruled the questions out of scope.  That was the last speaker, so voting on the main motion was opened.  The article passed 199-8 with one abstention.

Article 43 would amend the notification requirements for proposed changes to the zoning map.  Ms. Zsembery said the ARB voted unanimously in support of this article.  It seeks to clarify who receives notice of a zoning change and how they receive it.  The process isn't being changed, only clarified.  TMM Fleming, the proponent noted that while considering a zoning map change, there is no requirement to notify a property owner of an impending change to their property.  There was also some confusion about who is considered an abutter.  The proposal also clarifies that the ARB notifies abutters within 300 ft of the upcoming hearing.  TMM Rosenthal has a question about the warrant article versus the recommended vote.  The notice mentioned a possible reduction in the notice requirements.  The Moderator read the warrant article, and the proponent noted that the article was intentionally broad, since he wasn't certain what might be in the final language after discussions with the ARB.  TMM Rosenthal wanted to confirm that he understood correctly, there are some different definitions of "abutter", and the state's definition is broader than the usual interpretation.  This would cut back on the notification of abutters by some state definition that don't fit in the common definition.  The Moderator asked if he could clarify the question.  TMM Fleming responded that the definition of abutter in the zoning bylaw differs from person of interest under state law.  "Immediate" abutter was used, and the 300 ft rule is applied in other cases.  TMM Rosenthal asked the difference between the two standards.  TMM Fleming noted that the difference was between directly abutting and within 300 ft.  TMM J_Worden wanted to be clear, because he was confused by the language of the article.  Who has to get noticed that there is a proposed change to the zoning map?  Would he need to notify the owner and the abutters to the property, or would it go farther out?  He understood that the original notice of filing the article would go out to the property owner and the direct abutters, and the hearing notice would go out to the owner, abutters, and the abutters-to-abutters within 300 ft.  TMM Mills moved the question and motioned to terminate debate.  The motion passed 197-10 with one abstention. The vote on the main motion was 194-12 in favor with two abstentions.

Article 44 would reduce the need for a special permit to open a restaurant by increasing the size of a restaurant allowed by right.  Ms. Zsembery noted the ARB voted 4-1 in favor of the article.  The restaurant industry is heavily regulated, so there will be plenty of additional oversight.  TMM Fleming asked that his video be played.  A special permit is required for a new restaurant use over 2,000sf.  The process takes two months or longer.  The owner of Common Ground could only afford two public hearings.  What about smaller restaurateurs?  This proposal would reduce the barriers to new restaurants.  TMM Ruderman noted that since the past owner is not present, it is hard to judge whether those past quotes are accurate.  He was present at all the hearings, and he wasn't sure that the issue was as bad as portrayed.  TMM Ruderman didn't think the 2,000sf limit was burdensome, especially since it allows the neighborhood to be a part of the discussion on whether a restaurant opens and how it operates.  Common Ground was successful in spite of the possible issues surrounding the permitting.  TMM Jalkut moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 155-52 with one abstention.  The vote on the main motion passed 173-31 with three abstentions.

Article 45 was a recommended vote of no action on the last zoning article.  As was noted earlier, the proponent of the article had chosen not to file a substitute motion.  As such, we moved straight to the vote.  TMM Harrelson raised a Point of Order noting that it appeared that the vote of no action needed a 2/3 vote.  Town Counsel clarified that a majority is all that is required to take no action.  The final vote was 184-11 in favor of no action with eight abstentions.

We were now into the resolutions.  Article 73 was introduced.  SBC Diggins was glad he was prepared to proceed tonight.  The Select Board is seeking to encourage the state Department of Energy Resources (DoER) to take action towards a net-zero energy stretch code.  TMM Levy from the Clean Energy Committee noted that we are asking the DoER to give the town the tools it needs to address climate change.  They need to adopt a new stretch code which pushes for net-zero energy.  If you want to quit smoking, you first have to quit smoking.  If we want to get to net-zero, we have to build net-zero right away.  He asked for favorable action on the resolution.  There were no members who requested to speak in opposition.  There are speakers in the queue, but there were no previous requests to speak in opposition.  The Moderator asked for someone to come forward to terminate debate.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to move to adjourn, but the Moderator denied the motion.  (No motions from Points of Order.)  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  TMM Stamps raised a Point of Order but we were unable to hear her.  She asked through the Q&A if we could end the meeting tonight, but the Moderator noted we are already after 11:00, so he will not go past this article.  TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order because he wanted to point out that there is a standing rule on resolutions that there is only one speaker in favor and one speaker in opposition.  There is no need for a termination vote.  The Moderator noted that in his letter, he outlined the procedure to be followed.  The vote to terminate debate was closed, and the motion passed 170-13 with four abstentions.  The vote on the main motion opened.  The Moderator noted that a lot of members appeared to walk away a few minutes before 11:00.  The final vote was 170-8 with six abstentions at around 11:15.

The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration.  TMM Foskett noticed Article 49.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to announce that he will be voting no on the vote to adjourn.  TMM Foskett moved to adjourn.  There were a number of members raising their hand in opposition to adjourning.  The Moderator said there were no enough votes in opposition, and declared a positive vote for adjourning.  We are adjourned.

 

 

>> That was along session.  I really don't think we should have started in on 73.  We had a clean break after finishing zoning.  As is was, we now have five articles for Wednesday, and one of them is Article 3 to accept reports.  We did get through 8 articles tonight, which was a new record for this meeting.

>> Article 39 on FAR was good.  I thought the ARB was correct in paring the number down from the proponent's initial figures.  I was happy to vote in favor.

>> Article 41 on apartment parking was another reasonable change.  I found TMM Rudick's argument convincing that no lender is going to support a project that has so little parking that it won't be viable.  I did support the article.

>> Article 42 was a good catch by TMM Fleming.  In all the time I've worked with the Friends of Robbins Farm Park, we never noticed nor were we told that a special permit would be required for some of our events.  We just arranged everything through Park and Rec.  I was very glad to support this article.

>> Article 43 was another good catch.  State law has specific requirements about noticing changes to the zoning bylaw, but not so for changes to the zoning map.  This will clarify things, and make sure the proper landowners are noticed.

>> Article 44 was a little tricky.  I did agree with TMM Ruderman that having the public be a part of the decision process is important.  The owner would still need to get permits from the Board of Health and the Select Board, so there is still time for review and public input.  I did vote in favor.

>> Article 73 is really important.  The State hasn't updated the stretch energy code in a long time.  Using it as a way to move the goal to net-zero could be very helpful in improving overall energy efficiency.  Another good article to support.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Eleven

 Welcome to Night Eleven of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting!!  We are quickly running out of nights to carry out the business of Town Meeting.  I think we need to be done a week from tonight in order to have everything complete, compiled, and forwarded to the state.  We still have a fair bit to go, so let's hope tonight goes smoothly.  We've had a week away, so we should be rested and ready to go.

[This meeting was predominantly members speaking to articles without much procedural discussions or direct questioning.  It is very hard to take notes quickly and accurately when they are coming at a mile a minute.  I have done my best to capture as much of what each speaker was saying as I could.]

The Moderator called the meeting to order.  After reviewing the results of the attendance vote, we heard the Star Spangled Banner as played by TMM Helmuth.  The Moderator had some opening remarks.  He announced we would take Article 49 out-of-order to vote to accept new collective bargaining results.  He also cautioned us to be careful about civility, especially in light of the controversial nature of Article 38.  During the debate on Article 11, there were accusations of fearmongering.  The Moderator noted that he should have shut that down, but didn't.  He apologized, and said he would do so tonight. He bade us be civil.  If there are any members who have avoided being sworn in for ten nights, please go see the Town Clerk.  SBC Diggins moved that if the work of the meeting was not completed this evening, we would continue to Monday, June 6.  There were no announcements or resolutions.  TMM Foskett removed Article 3 from the table.  There were no reports to be submitted, so Article 3 was lain back upon the table.

We left off last session with Article 37.  After apologizing for the kerfuffle at the end of the session, the Moderator, noted that last time, TMM Mozina tried to present an amendment from the floor, but he did not allow it.  However, given the amount of time since the last session, she had an opportunity to submit her amendment in writing.  The Moderator asked her to present her amendment, as her second speaking time on the article.  (There were three Points of Order in the queue from last time, but they were cleared.)  TMM Mozina said her amendment was to clarify that the proposed article was not a made-up thing, but it is required under state law.  TMM Rosenthal had a question asking whether this article specifies penalties.  TMM Klein said it did not impose penalties, but a failure to comply with the regulation could leave a lot potentially undevelopable.  Dir. Ciampa noted there is a little confusion.  State law has penalties to be imposed for non-compliance, but the zoning bylaw could make the lot undevelopable.  TMM Schlichtman moved to terminate debate.  TMM Benson raised a Point of Order noting that there had not been any debate directly on the proposed amendment.  The Moderator noted that if the motion to terminate was voted down, then debate could continue, and that debate could happen at that time.  TMM Weber raised a Point of Order asking if all the background noise could be muted, including pots, pans, and other clanging.  The Moderator asked everyone to please mute themselves.  The vote on the motion to terminate debate continued, and the Moderator clarified that the vote covered debate on both the article and the amendment.  The vote passed 153-62 with four abstentions.  This brought up the vote on the Mozina Amendment.   The Moderator clarified what change was in the amendment and what change was a part of the main motion.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order asking whether the reference to "G.L." should read "M.G.L."  Town Counsel noted either would be correct.  The amendment passed 149-68 with four abstentions.  The vote on the main motion as amended passed 215-6 with two abstentions.

Article 38 has been the big hot topic in town all spring.  Should two-family and duplex houses be allowed in the single-family districts?  This has been portrayed as everything from a panacea to purgatory.  Ms. Zsembery noted the vote was 3-2 in favor at the ARB.  TMM LaCourt, the initial proponent, asked that her video presentation be played.  In the video, she said this started with a small house being replaced with a much larger house across the street.  She grew up in a town with a diversity of wealth.  We no longer have that.  The land is so expensive, small houses and older houses are tricky for homeowners who cannot afford to renovate, and developers will readily replace the house.  This article would allow a two-family house as a third option.  This isn't a radical plan.  There are already two family houses in our single family districts.  For a house to be built, it would need to make economic sense.  Not all sales lead to tear-downs, and not all sales go to developers.  This will not solve all our housing issues, but it will add a tool to the tool belt.  Two family homes are more energy efficient and more viable than adding a second single-family house farther from Arlington and commuting back.  All the other zoning requirements remain in place.  The impact on infrastructure impact would be manageable.  Our population was much larger in the past.  We can accommodate growth and add new neighbors.  We would be the first municipality in Massachusetts to take this step.  TMM Weinstein raised a Point of Order.  Before he was recognized, the Moderator noted an administrative change had been made in the main motion.  The change was in the copy in the annotated warrant, but the report still had the older language.  TMM Weinstein noted this was an important article.  He was disappointed in how the portal adds people in the list.  There was a significant delay in putting his name on the list.  He recommended doing it all over again, since it wasn't necessarily fair.  The Moderator noted that the load on the system from everyone requesting to speak at once overloaded the system, causing delays.  In Town Hall, if 50 people raised their hands at the same time, there would be a problem putting in names in order too.  The Moderator said he would try to make things more fair when we are back in the hall.  TMM Leahy raised a Point of Order noting that she also had the same issue with getting on the list.  She commented that the Moderator had noted in the past that he would try to balance the debate.  The Moderator agreed to do so.  If there was a substantial imbalance, he will ask for raised hands to get speakers with the opposing viewpoint.  TMM Goodsell raised a Point of Order asking the Moderator to randomize the calling of names.  The Moderator noted that the system already seemed to randomize the list due to the nature of the delay in connecting.  TMM Gruber raised a Point of Order, not being sure if it was a point of order, asking if we could reduce the length of speaking time to 2-3 minutes to allow more members to speak.  There isn't enough time tonight to go through this 50+ person speaker list, even at three minutes per person.  The Moderator noted that at some point, there will likely be a successful vote to terminate debate.  He implored the members to be as brief as possible and self-regulate their speaking time.

TMM Newton introduced his amendment to allow the individual units in a two-family to be expanded after a period of three years.  The original motion would not allow an expansion, as there would be a deed restriction disallowing the expansion of the home.  He presented this as a way of making the new homes more similar to existing homes, in that the owners could build-out the basement or attic or add an addition as their needs change.  He also noted that a deed restriction put into place this year would not evolve if the bylaw is changed in the future.  The unit would be stuck in place and size.  He encouraged "yes" votes on his amendment and on the main motion.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Ciano who thought it was unfair to address the main motion while presenting an amendment.  The Moderator agreed, noted that he had treated this time for both earlier in the meeting, butin retrospect, it allows those presenting amendments to jump the queue.

TMM Nathan raised a Point of Order asking how voting on an amendment works.  The Moderator noted that it is possible to vote one way on an amendment and another way on the main motion.  There could also be an incompatibility between multiple motions, which would need to be rectified before the final vote on the article.  TMM Pennarun raised a Point of Order and asked to clarify whether speakers presenting amendments could take their full time and address the main motion.  The Moderator noted that there isn't a set policy at this time.  He agreed that the time should be focused on the amendment.  If someone is brought to the front of the speaker queue, that should allow some limit on what the speaker can do.  They should present, then get back in the queue.  However, by being elevated, they lose their spot in the queue, and with a long queue, they might not be able to speak again.  The Moderator left things a little muddy, but he didn't want to take more time now to make a firm policy.  TMM Babiarz presented her amendment, but first explained she would ask a series of five questions.  She thanked Town Counsel, the Town Clerk, and the Moderator for their assistance.  She is looking to delay to process.  Is it feasible?  Barely, but each additional unit makes it more economical.  What about new growth?  The Moderator broke in to note that this was a really long windup for an amendment.  He asked her to please come to the point.  The resumed her earlier speach, noting the draft guidance would allow "multifamily" buildings by right.  (She conflated the two-family proposal with the draft MBTA housing regulation.  They are entirely separate items.)  She asked about the practicality of deed restrictions.  The Moderator noted she was running out of time and still hadn't made her motion.  TMM Babiarz moved her motion, but failed to provide any explanation of her amendment.  TMM Elliott raised a Point of Order that the previous speaker spoke to the main motion.  The Moderator thought the speaker was OK.  TMM Pennarun was brought back, as she inadvertently cut off earlier.

TMM Bagnall wanted the Town Counsel to address the question of a "taking", which the previous speaker had mentioned.  Town Counsel noted that there are a couple of types of takings, but he didn't see any of them applying here.  TMM Bagnall noted that there have been some statements in regards to equity - would this go towards the towns equity goals?  Ms. Zsembery passed to the Town Manager, who passed to Dir. Harvey.  She noted that the town is just starting an equity audit and housing is a part of that process.  She thought this was a small but actionable step towards creating housing.  There will be further steps in the process.  The current zoning does limit and restrict development, but it is based in earlier discriminatory policy.  Housing will be a big part of the audit.  TMM Bagnall noted that the status quo retains the existing patterns.  How much additional harm will we cause by delay?  Equity will require wealthier residents to make changes.  It is on all of us to make the necessary changes.  TMM Rudick had intended to give a presentation based on his experiences living in a new energy-efficient duplex.  Instead, he introduced Dr. Einstein, a town resident.  She specializes in housing policy at Boston University.  She noted this will create a small but important improvement in Arlington's housing.  This is brought out in research.  While duplexes are expensive, they are individually cheaper than single-family development.  Delays in implementing change are very common and lead to even higher housing cost over time.  They are not a neutral position, they have consequences.  She encouraged passage of the article.  TMM Rudick encouraged passage as well.  TMM Pretzer noted most people are concerned about their housing costs.  They are worried about being able to stay here in town.  Subsidized housing is hard to get.  This article won't solve all our problems, but it is a good first step.  He made an analogy with used cars.  There is a current drop in the number of new cars, so used cars are going up in price, driving the people who counted on cheap new cars out of the market.  Similarly, if we don't create moderate housing, this shift will push people out of our housing market, if it hasn't happened already.  Tear-downs are ongoing.  This article creates a two-for-one advantage.  This will make our neighborhoods stronger.  While Arlington would be first, we are not alone in taking this step.  Lexington is talking about this, as are other towns.  Please support the Newton Amendment and the main motion.  The Moderator noted that there have been three speakers in favor, so he asked for speakers to raise hands if they are in opposition.

TMM Evans noted Arlington is no longer a middle-class town.  It has become significantly more wealthy.  She noted that this article will create more housing options, but they will all be very expensive.  Smaller attainable houses will be converted to larger unaffordable ones.  Minneapolis has noted a 28% decrease in affordability since the passage of their two-family citywide bylaw.  (I believe the speaker said that the decrease statistic included the counties in and around the city, so the change in Minneapolis has not caused a regional change in the price of housing.)  This will make our community less affordable and less diverse.  Two members of the ARB voted against the proposal as it doesn't help our housing goals.  The town should be working towards using the HCA, the affordable housing trust fund, and non-profit developer to maintain older starter homes.  Two-family development will just continue escalating the costs.  The Moderator called for our break.  

Coming back from break, the Moderator called upon another speaker in opposition.  TMM Baron rose to say she hasn't heard anything that would encourage her to vote in favor.  She is concerned about diversity.  When she first moved here, there was an array of housing options for a variety of incomes.  There were affordable choices.  If this article passes, we will tighten the circle of who can live here.  We would be a rich town, pricing people out of the community.  This change will create a situation where diversity dies.  She hopes we will give thought to what kind of community we want to live in.  If 40% of the ARB voted against, she asked if those members could explain their dissenting vote.  Ms. Zsembery noted that the reasons for the Board's votes are in their report.  Personally, she was in favor of the proposal, but there was no engagement plan to connect to the town.  Also, the housing plan had been adopted by the ARB but not yet by the Select Board.  She hoped it could be partnered with other policy goals in the future.  TMM Gersh felt whether or not this is a good idea is debatable.  What is not, is that your constituents have no idea about what is hanging over their heads.  We are looking at eliminating single-family zoning.  How can we drop this bombshell on unsuspecting neighbors.  Only 20% of residents came out to vote in April, so maybe 80% are unaware of what is happening.  He is not willing to pull the rug out from under his neighbors.  When large houses start appearing, they will be shocked.  How dare we?  Prove to me that the residents want this change.  Forget about it.

The Moderator called for people with questions.  TMM Solomon asked if there was any information from the town in regards to impacts to the town should this pass.  Dir. Rademacher noted this is not a straight-forward question, as the demand could vary.  He noted the town was larger in the past, but we could accept modest growth.  TMM Solomon asked if a house could be constructed with four units, two regular and two ADU's.  Dir. Ciampa answered you cannot build a four unit, since the application for an ADU must be applied for by the resident.  A four unit building would also require significant life-safety upgrades.  TMM Solomon asked if there have been any studies on the possible impacts.  Dir. Raitt noted there was a town report in 2019 looking at large additions and reconstructions.  There have been about 27 permit applications filed per year, and there isn't an anticipated change in that rate.  TMM Solomon asked whether that rate would concern the DPW.  Dir. Rademacher noted that rate would not be concerning.  TMM Friedman asked about the limited size of the units, which references "heated space".  What would preclude building interior space that is just left unheated?  The Moderator called on Ms. Zsembery, who noted that the entire building would need to comply with the current zoning requirements.  Unheated space would be limited to attics and basements.  Dir. Ciampa noted that the wording is finished heated space.  Unheated finished space would still qualify towards the floor area, so to be excluded from the floor area, it would need to remain unfinished.  The Moderator noted that unheated is in the motion, but unfinished is not.  Dir. Ciampa said that was not an issue, as space needs to be finished and heated in order to be living space.  The wording is protective enough.  If it was finished, it would be living space.

TMM Lewiton lives in a two-family house in a single-family district.  Over the past years, he has asked his neighbors if they are concerned about two-family houses, and they were not.  The tear-down issue is fueled by people not wanting to live in small capes with asbestos and lead problems.  Larger houses are happening all over.  The town evaluated which houses were most likely to be torn down, and it is a small percentage of the overall area.  He thinks that the concern about this being the end of single-family zoning is overblown.  If would be nice if they were less expensive, but a duplex would have cheaper per-unit costs than a double sized single family.  He appreciated the income diversity from when he moved to town.  Truly affordable housing only comes with a subsidy.  Less unaffordable is a good first step.  This will provide diversity and potentially less expensive housing.  TMM Leone spoke against the article due to the reality of it.  He is a real estate lawyer.  Every single family house will be sold to a developer, and will be built as a duplex, with each unit over $1M.  Any thought of affordability or diversified housing is a fantasy.  Looking at our physical infrastructure, our schools are at capacity.  New units will require creating additional school space.  This has not gone through the normal review process.  Most of our fire calls are for falls and other medical emergencies.  Will we need more fire coverage?  We are looking at an override, can we afford to add services at this time?  He feels we are rushing into this.  We are already very dense.  We have done our part.  

TMM Susse had some questions about tear-downs.  There are approx. 27 per year.  Do we have a breakdown per zoning district?  Ms. Zsembery passed to Dir. Raitt.  Last year, 27 of 50+ redevelopment were single-family houses.  The numbers were 6 of 12 the previous year.  TMM Susse asked if owners sometimes tear down houses.  Dir. Raitt said, last year 4 of 32 tear-downs were homeowners.  TMM Susse asked what is usually built after tear-down?  Dir. Raitt replied, in single-family demolitions, 9 new two-family structures were created.  TMM Susse about the size of new houses?  Dir. Raitt noted 3,440 SF on average, 500 sq ft larger than the previous decade.  This size seems to be holding.  TMM Susse asked whether the schools can accommodate additional houses.  There was no one available to respond to the question, despite several School Committee members being on Town Meeting.  The Moderator noted that there have been questions as to why there hasn't been a straw pole on ending debate.  He indicated he would do so after five speakers per side.  He called on TMM P_Worden.  She says this is the most discriminating article in the town's history.  The new units would completely exclude moderate and lower income residents.  Remove our record for diversity, equity, and inclusion by only accommodating the rich.  This is the worst, most fundamental change.  When we had a newspaper, there would have been an article title about the end of single family zoning.  The newspaper doesn't report on anything anymore, so no one knows what is happening.  "Real people" do not check out the town website.  Such fundamental change should not happen without the buy-in of the majority of the population.  No one was informed.  Arlington has done so much in regards to the "so-called housing crisis".  No one else has taken such a dramatic step.  If this is a contest for the worst ideas, we will win.  Vote in opposition.  This will cause our town to be nothing but a large construction site catering solely to the wealthy, developed for maximum profit, blocking out the sun, not required to be affordable, not required to maintain trees, rising the need for infrastructure and new schools, increasing parking demand, and squandering embedded energy.  The only beneficiaries will be our leaders and density advocates.  If neighboring towns built to our density, the crisis would disappear.  We should focus on retaining commercial properties.  Vote no on 38.

TMM Thornton is happy to speak in favor.  This will not eliminate single-family houses.  Seventy-five percent of residentially-zoned land is dedicated to single family zoning.  This will effect individual houses not large swaths of neighborhoods.  This article was not intended to create affordable housing.  The trust fund is just getting started.  HCA and AHA can provide some affording housing.  It takes money that we don't have.  Single family homes require a $400K salary.  Doubling the number of units brings this down to $200K.  The target is still high, and the units won't be cheap, but this will allow smaller homes to be redeveloped into the "21st century starter home".  Please vote in favor.  TMM Tosti has some straight forward questions.  What vote is required?  The Moderator noted it is 2/3.  TMM Pagliasotti asked if there was any way to address these issues regionally, or can we only do this town by town.  The Moderator thought the question was out of scope.  TMM Kelleher noted some of her questions have been already been addressed.  Could a 5,500 sf house be built, if units would be limited to 1,850 sf.  Dir, Ciampa noted they would be limited to 3,700sf.   Does Article 38 change any of the dimensional requirements in any district?  Dir. Raitt answered no, it does not change any density requirements, it is just a use change.  TMM Kelleher asked if the only change was the number of units in the building?  Does this in any way relax any environmental landscaping or energy requirements?  Dir. Raitt noted this does not change any of the sustainability or energy requirements, nor does it change the tree bylaw requirements.  TMM Kelleher asked if there was an ARB member who would be willing to speak to the article.  Ms. Zsembery noted that TMM Benson and TMM Revilak could speak.  TMM Revilak voted in favor as it is a good policy, and in light of the home replacements we have seen, this is a reasonable change.  This issue has come before the board in the past, and it was time for Time Meeting to respond.  The Moderator noted that the questions were leading in a particular direction.  TMM Wagner asked that his slide deck be brought forward.  He said this article would make us less diverse and more expensive.  This is the wrong thing to do.  In 2019, the ARB noted the public should be more involved.  In 2020, this proposal was not brought forward.  This year, it is back, but it limits choices.  It only provides expensive units.  We have housing diversity and are cheaper that most abutting towns.  If the article goes through, tear-downs will increase.  When a single-family is torn down, the resulting units are each more expensive, which raises taxes throughout the neighborhood.  It removes low cost units, and increases high cost ones.  We will need more services and infrastructure.  The builders will max out the site.  The tree bylaw will only require a fee be paid.  It is better to renovate and insulate.  Housing prices are rising.  They will go higher if this passes.  If other towns would increase housing, we'd be fine.  This proposal removes middle and lower income housing.  Nearly every resident he heard from said to oppose the article.  He encourages voting against the amendments and the articles.  It will worsen our town.

The Moderator said we had at least five speakers for, against, and questioning, so there will be a straw poll on continuing debate.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Weber, seeking to dissolve the meeting.  The Moderator noted that he isn't taking motions during a Point of Order.  TMM Babiarz raised a Point of Order asking if we needed to vote on Article 49 tonight,  The Moderator noted that he had spoken with TMM Foskett, and it could be voted at Monday's session.  The Moderator also noted that the straw poll was under 60%, so we will take another speaker.  TMM Blandy moved the question.  The vote to terminate debate was opened.  The Moderator was asked why the poll requires 75% in favor of termination of debate, when the actual vote only requires 2/3.  He explained this was to get a sense of the room while not wielding too heavy a hand.  The vote was 165-51 without abstention, so debate was terminated.  The Newton Amendment was brought forward first.  The amendment was defeated 101-116 with five abstentions.  The Babiarz amendment was defeated 29-194 with four abstentions.  The main motion, without amendment, failed 112-113 with 2 abstentions.  (This required a 2/3 majority, so it was not as close as it might seem.)  The Moderator asked for notices of reconsideration.  TMM J_Worden noticed reconsideration on 38.  TMM Foskett moved to adjourn.  The Moderator declared us adjourned until Monday.

 

>>  After the previous session, I had spoken with several people in regards to the proposed amendment to Article 37.  While I was initially ambivalent, I was convinced that it was unnecessary and counter to one of the goals of recodification, that being removing as many superfluous references to state law as possible.  I voted against the amendment, but it was adopted.  I was in favor of the main motion, so I am glad that passed.

>> Article 38 was possibly the hardest decision in the past several years.  My wife and I moved to Arlington in 1997.  We were looking at Newton, Belmont, and Arlington, as my wife worked in Cambridge, and I worked in Boston.  One day of looking in Newton made us realize that was unaffordable.  We were able to purchase a two-family home in Arlington and rent out a unit to subsidize our income.  This was a tremendous opportunity for us.  I wish that option was still available, but the rampant condo-conversion craze has put an end to it.

>> I think having more units in town will help stabilize prices.  However, there are a lot of externalities to consider.  My main concern has to do with location, and its impact on traffic.  A large portion of the single-family districts have private ways that are not easy to navigate.  Even the public ways are narrow.  Adding significant traffic to those streets is a problem.  However, if the units are nearer to bus routes or major arteries, the impact on the neighborhood is reduced.  When this was discussed at the Zoning Bylaw Working Group this past winter, I had floated the idea of an overlay district which would allow two-family by right within 1,500 feet of a bus route.  The distance is debatable, but the idea is to promote density where it would have the lowest impact on the neighborhood as a whole.  Unfortunately, this approach would not have been within the scope of the article.

>> I also thought about allowing two family dwellings if one was deeded as "affordable" at 100% of AMI.  That wouldn't be truly affordable, but it would be affordable to middle income.  It might also have prevented any development at all, since it would limit how much profit could be generated by building the house.  It could inadvertently encourage more super-large single family houses.

>> In the end, I voted for the Newton Amendment, since it would allow new home buyers to have the same rights as existing home buyers.  The vast majority of two-family houses in town would have been sold in the 1920's with the attic and basement unfinished.  The family in the upper units could expand into the attic as needed.  That is an important resource.  I voted against the Babiarz Amendment, as it was not adequately introduced to the meeting, and all it seemed to do was delay the implementation.  When it came time for the main motion -- I voted "no".  Based on the feedback with constituents in my precinct and beyond, the town isn't ready.  I believe the town could be prepared, and an approach to equity and increased development could be presented to and adopted by the town.   However, this was not that proposal.  After speaking with colleagues, I would like to see the reconstitution of the Residential Study Group under the Master Plan Implementation Committee.  I would like to see them expanded to include development and real estate interests, on top of the local residents and committees.  That type of a group could work publicly to get something done.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Ten

Welcome to Night Ten of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  We just scratched the surface on the zoning articles at the last session, so we are in for some very interesting discussions.  We should be able to make real headway tonight.  There are eight articles between us and 38, and I hope we can get that far tonight.  We passed seven last session, maybe we can best that by one.

The Moderator called the session to order.  The Star Spangled Banner featured the dueling fifes of Cole and Owen M-Z.  The Moderator acknowledged the school tragedy in Texas, the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd, and Memorial Day is Monday.  We observed a moment of silence to honor all of those remembrances.  The Moderator acknowledged feeling strongly about these things.  If you also feel strongly, know you are not alone.  Pursue change through the democratic process.  As we start on voting, we need to remember to treat each other with dignity and respect.

The Moderator introduced a change to voting portal.  When we are waiting for our voting wave to start, the text noting the delay would be highlighted in yellow so it would be easier to see.  This would only effect the appearance.  Members who have not been sworn in are to do so with the Town Clerk.  SBC Diggins moved that when we adjourn tonight, we do so to Wednesday, June 1.  There was a call for announcements.  TMM Wiener let people know the Jason Russell house is reopening this weekend for tours throughout the summer.  It is a great historic resource and and nice place to visit with family and guests.  TMM Foskett removed Article 3 from the table.  Alas, there were no new reports, so Article 3 was returned to the table.

We then resumed the discussion on Article 28, a proposal to enhance the character of new developments along the commercial corridors.  TMM Kaepplein asked for examples of what this bylaw would allow.  As an example, he asked whether 855 Mass. Ave, which has first floor glazing and is on the sidewalk, would meet the requirement, since all the windows are frosted over for privacy.  TMM Revilak, a member of the ARB, noted that it likely met the requirements for having an enhanced facade as provided by this article.  TMM Kaepplein asked how this was enhanced, as it is still a blank wall.  TMM Revilak noted that that situation would be different with a different tenancy, like a restaurant.  TMM Rosenthal noted that a large number of the buildings being replaced are being built without the facilities or accommodation for future restaurant uses.  Would this article have any effect in that regard?  TMM Revilak noted that there have been requests made during past hearings to provide the infrastructure.  However, this article is not about that; it is about facades and engagement, not uses.  TMM Rosenthal asked for clarification.  TMM Revilak noted this article would prevent a restaurant with a blank front wall, but it was not written to favor any particular type of business.  TMM Tosti motioned to terminate debate.  The motion passe 190-24 with two abstentions.  This brought forward the vote on the main motion, which passed 203-11 with three abstentions.

Article 29 was a proposal to require the planting of street trees on new developments.  Dir. Raitt requested that the pre-recorded video presentation be played.  The town has a tree bylaw for preserving trees on private property.  The tree warden plants 200-300 new street trees a year.  This article would require street trees as a part of new developments to increase the tree cover, reduce heat islands, and improve the environment.  The proposal includes standards for location, size, species, number of trees, and spacing.  TMM Bloom asked how we will make sure that the trees will be watered and maintained.  TMM Revilak responded that there is a requirement that the trees be maintained for three years, under the jurisdiction of the Director of Inspections in his role as Zoning Enforcement Officer.  TMM Bloom was looking for more detail.  Town Counsel noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would follow-up on violations, but the tree warden and members of the tree committee would be keeping an eye on these trees, as they do for other trees in town.  They would likely bring issues to the attention of Inspectional Services.  TMM Babiarz asked about interference with power lines leading to buildings.  TMM Revilak noted that the trees would be in the public right of way, not on private property.  Care would need to be taken to locate the trees appropriately.  TMM Babiarz asked how this would work with power lines; would we just end up with more forked trees like elsewhere in town?  The Moderator called on Dir. Rademacher from the DPW, but he was not in attendance.  The Town Manager indicated that there are specific species which would be selected for being planted under the power lines, to minimize the future problems.  TMM Culverhouse was very supportive, and she asked if there was anything in this article to protect existing mature trees.  TMM Revilak answered that existing trees would preclude the need to plant a new tree, but it doesn't add protections for existing trees.  Town Counsel agreed that this would not add protection, but public shade trees are currently protected under state law, requiring a public hearing before they can be removed.  TMM Melofchik had a technical issue, which the technical staff tried to address.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order to ask whether a member could participate by phone.  The Moderator noted they were actively trying to do that at this time.  TMM O'Day moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator held on accepting a second in hopes that TMM Melofchik's issue could be remedied to allow her to speak.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to thank the Moderator for not terminating debate.  He encouraged allowing other people to speak while we waited.  

The Moderator called on TMM Stamps, a member of the Tree Committee, speaking for herself.  She was glad to see that the article references a nursery standard for maintenance which includes watering.  She outlined the tree protection afforded by Chapter 38 in state law.  She was glad that this will improve the tree canopy.  She also noted that the trees could be located on private property.  TMM Melofchik addressed the meeting by cell phone on speaker phone through someone else's connection.  The connection was difficult to hear in places, but she noted she has great faith in the Tree Warden and Tree Committee.  The thought there was a lack of coordination between the Tree Committee and the ARB.  TMM Stamps responded that the committee was concerned about watering, and she noted that there is a maintenance requirement which addresses that problem.  TMM Melofchik asked who could decide in the future whether the tree could be removed.  TMM Stamps noted that they would be public shade trees, protected under state law.  The Manager confirmed.  TMM Melofchik asked what this article is proposing that wasn't being done before.  Was it just encouraging the planting of trees?  TMM Revilak concurred that this is encouraging the planting of public shade trees in commercial and other districts.  This provision exists for the Industrial districts under last year's bylaw, and this would extend that requirement to other districts.  TMM Melofchik said she remained confused, but more trees are a good thing.  She thanked everyone for their patience with her connection.  The Moderator did the same.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to note that there was a large discussion after a motion to terminate debate, which is not allowed under the rules.  The Moderator noted that the motion was not debated, he just chose to ignore to motion by not accepting the second.  This was done to allow someone with technical difficulties to still speak.  He had been criticized for not doing so on other articles.  The vote to terminate debate passed 206-13 with three abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 220-6 with one abstention.

Article 30 was an article to encourage the development of more solar power installations.  Dir. Raitt asked that the video be shown.  Currently ground-mounted solar is only allowed in the industrial districts, and other districts have other requirements.  This Article is a part of the town's Net Zero Action Plan to reduce emission.  There would be requirements to provide solar systems on new development meeting specific requirements.  Projects under Environmental Design Review (EDR) would be required to provide a solar system equivalent to half of the area of the roof.  There were several additional regulations on access, placement, tree trimming, and development on adjacent parcels.  The Moderator noted that the real time translation is not working, and there is a link to another website where that can be found.  TMM Rudick is a new member, limiting his speaking to articles where he has expertise.  He works in solar development, and he thinks this is a tremendous change.  Solar is much better today than in recent years.  Wonderful if not long overdue.  He had one question, could a building meeting the requirement by being solar ready rather than installing the panels.  Why is a lower standard considered?  TMM Benson noted that this does require installation unless it is an older building which lacks structural capacity or solar orientation.  Installation is required, unless the property can be exempted under one of the listed conditions.  TMM Leone noted that his question had just been answered.  TMM Rosenthal thought this sounded like a great proposal, but there was something in the proposal which gave him pause.  If he has panels installed on his roof, could someone on an adjacent property build on their property and shade his panels?  TMM Benson noted this would not apply to his house, but it would apply to properties under the jurisdiction of the ARB.  In that case, he would be correct.  The bylaw does not limit the development rights on adjacent properties.  He does not anticipate it would be an issue.

TMM Rosenthal asked how this differs from rules in the residential district.  TMM Benson noted there is no general requirement to have solar panels on residences, only properties undergoing EDR.  TMM Rosenthal asked how these new rules would apply in residential neighborhoods.  The Moderator thought the question might be out of scope, but the warrant article didn't restrict the scope to specific districts.  TMM Benson noted this has nothing to do with residential districts.  TMM Friedman was a little confused about which buildings would fall under this bylaw.  She thought it was new projects, but there was mention of older buildings.  TMM Benson noted it could apply to an existing building that was undergoing extensive renovations or adding a floor or changing the use along one of the main business corridors.  TMM Melofchik called into Zoom, but the number wasn't working right away.  She asked what the ARB's plans were for working with the Historic District Commission (HDC), where she is a member.  Their rules do not allow solar on street facing roofs.  She thinks this needs to change.  TMM Benson noted that there is an exception when there is a certificate of appropriateness denying the installation of solar.  TMM Melofchik asked what the ARB's plans were to have the HDC change their rules.  TMM Benson thought that was a good conversation for the clean energy committee, but they have not been in discussions with the HDC.  TMM Miller doesn't have an issue expanding solar.  He is concerned about the pruning of trees.  Can the owner of an adjacent property be forced to trim their tree.  TMM Benson noted that the opposite was the case.  There would be no requirement to require trimming.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  TMM Goodsell raised a Point of Order that that the Moderator had said he would be looking for people who don't speak often, but he just picked all frequent speakers.  The Moderator agreed to try and be more judicious.  The motion to terminate debate passed 194-24 with two abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 208-16 with two abstentions.  We took our break.

Article 32 was a request from the ZBA to amend the section of the zoning bylaw concerning rules and regulations for the board.  The Moderator asked TMM Klein, the Chair of the ZBA t introduce the article.  He requested that the video prepared by the ARB be presented.  The video explained how the ZBA's rules in the zoning bylaw were leftover from recodification when the ZBA didn't have rules and regulations.  They are no longer needed, and should be removed.  TMM Rosenthal introduced his substitute motion to remove most of the portions of the rules but retain the requirement for giving oaths to applicants and make recordings.  He had spoken with the Town Meeting member who had originally proposed requiring oaths and Town Counsel.  TMM Rosenthal felt these provisions were important to safeguard the town from appeals of comprehensive permit decisions at the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).  The Moderator invited Town Counsel to speak, and he recalled having met with TMM Rosenthal.  He did recall thinking the provision requiring an oath of the applicant but not of residents might not pass muster during the AG's review.  TMM Bloom noted in Mr. Jamieson's notes on the article, he had indicated that there was a conflict with the law.  Town Counsel thought it might have related to the oaths being applied inequitably.  TMM Klein noted that the legal question was with Chapter 40A, Section 12 under state law which requires the ZBA to adopt their own rules and regulations.  It is not for Town Meeting to set the rules.  TMM Klein explained that the procedure the board follows in comprehensive permit hearings.  The Board has not been administering oaths, as doing so to the public could make residents hesitant to participate.  He also noted that all testimony by the applicant is vetted by peer review engineers working on behalf of the town.  TMM J_Worden  stated that unless the Select Board says "no" to these projects and insist that we meet safe harbor, comprehensive permit applications will continue.  He felt confident that the town has more than 1.5% of its developable land area used for affordable housing, one of the state's "safe harbor" provisions granting the town additional rights in deciding comprehensive permits.  If the Town is not going to be diligent, this provision is still necessary.  There is no reason we cannot have a parallel set of rules.  In his opinion 40B developers are not nice people (Call to civility by Moderator.)  TMM J_Worden noted that nice people come to town seeking to follow the established rules.  TMM Wagner moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 183-34 with four abstentions.  The vote on TMM Rosenthal's substitute motion failed 54-162 with 6 abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 174-45 with six abstentions.

Article 33 proposed to tweak the definition of half story.  The definition relies on a fraction.  Under this article, the numerator remains the same.  The proposal clarified that the denominator is the gross floor area of the second floor.  The Moderator asked TMM Klein to present the article.  He requested that the video presentation prepared by the ARB be presented.  TMM Phelan had originally requested to take the article off the consent agenda.  She noted her questions had been answered by the video presentation and the comments from TMM Klein, so she was all set.  She being the last speaker on the list, the Moderator called the vote.  The motion passed 209-6 with five abstentions.

Article 34 proposed to amend the definition of porches and add porches to the list of elements which could be approved in a yard setback.  TMM Klein requested the playing of the ARB's video presentation.  TMM Leahy indicated she had inadvertently requested it be removed from the consent agenda, as she thought she was only seconding someone else's request.  TMM Slotnick noted that developers in East Arlington currently dismantle existing porches to extend the building farther forward.  The front porch has been enveloped within the house.  Can the owners then just add another porch?  TMM Klein noted that under Article 35, previously approved by this meeting, enclosing a porch will now require a special permit.  Adding another porch, since it will be within the front yard setback, would also require a special permit.  TMM Hanlon, a member of the ZBA, explained that the board sees many of these cases every year, and they are mostly brought forward by regular property owners looking for a porch.  These are uncontroversial, and are typically approved with conditions that require action by the board before any further changes can be made.  The Moderator reminded the meeting that this was mistakenly removed from the consent agenda.  There were no further speakers, so we proceeded to the vote, which passed 216-6 with one abstention.

Article 36 clarifies the interpretation of the section of the bylaws concerning large additions.  TMM Hanlon raised a Point of Order asking why we skipped 35.  The Moderator noted it was passed under the consent agenda.  This article clarifies the calculation of what qualifies as a large addition.  It was removed by TMM Band, who no longer wished to address the article.  After the presentation of the ARB's video, there were no speakers to the article, so we proceeded to the vote.  The motion passed 210-5 with four abstentions.

Article 37 souht to clarify who may make the determination of whether a structure is unsafe.  Dir. Raitt introduced the video presentation.  TMM Mozina had requested to remove the article from the consent agenda.  She felt this change was redundant, as Chapter 143, Section 6 in state law already requires that the determination be made buy the Director of Inspections.  She was concerned this change was redundant, and a source of confusion.  TMM Klein reiterated the request wass to add the language here, because this was where contractors looked in the bylaw.  There was an unfortunate incident where a developer demolished a house without permission saying it was unsafe.  This left an undevelopable lot without a house and a very frightened homeowner.  While this was resolved, the ZBA would prefer to avoid any possibility of this in the future.  TMM Mozina asked to provide an amendment from the floor to indicate that this provision was in harmony whith state law.  The Moderator felt it was too complicated, and since it was not submitted 48 hours ahead, he would not allow it.  TMM Nathan said she didn't fully understand, but thought the previous speaker was correct that this could be misinterpreted.  She asked how unsafe conditions are identified, and how is the department notified?  Dir. Ciampa noted this usually comes up during construction.  The department is notified by the contractor, and it is reviewed by the department, in conjunction with a structural engineer if required.  TMM Nathan asked how often this happens.  Dir. Ciampa noted there has only been one or two cases in the past couple of years that required the demolition of a structure.  

The time was now 10:55pm.  TMM Foskett raised a Point of Order to ask if we could table this article until after the conclusion of Article 38.  The Moderator asked if he was making a motion, and TMM Foskett did so.  The motion was seconded.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order, asking whether a motion could be raised during a Point of Order.  The Moderator said "no," then realized he had just done that for TMM Foskett.  TMM Fosket noted that the Moderator had invited him to make the motion.  The Moderator thought that since we were already in this predicament, he would allow the motion to table the article to proceed.  When the Moderator asked for all who objected to raise hands, the number of hands was greater than 1/3 of the members present, so the motion failed to get the required vote of 2/3.  The Moderator then called for a motion to adjourn, which was made by TMM Foskett and seconded.  The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration.  TMM Jamieson then Raised a Point of Order and objected to all the actions over the past few minutes.  If we had just finished the discussion without these maneuvers, we could have voted on 37 tonight.  We are running behind, and we need to get things done.  He requested that we not adjourn and continue with the debate.  TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order to ask whether it would be appropriate to move to postone to a date certain, which would do the same thing as tabling the article, but only require a majority vote.  The Moderator noted he had just indicated he would not accept motions through a Point of Order   TMM Weber raised a Point of Order and asked what Article 37 has to do with Article 38.  Why are we considering postponing?  The Moderator agreed that things have sort-of come off the rails.  It all started with allowing a motion to table from a Point of Order.  He was now going to have a formal vote on whether to adjourn, since we were past 11:00.  That vote passed 112-70 with two abstentions.  The Moderator wished us all a good night and closed the meeting.

In all the craziness, notices for reconsideration were not taken.

>> This was a really odd night.  I was trying to keep up with my notes while also introducing articles and addressing Town Meeting.  That was a hard juggling act, and my notes on Articles 32-37 lack some subtlety as a result.

>> I'm glad we passed Article 28.  This will give the ARB some leverage with hopefully getting better concessions from developers of commercial projects.

>> The action during the debate on Article 29 to not act on a motion to terminate debate is really ripe for abuse.  I would have been fine if we had just held until the speaker who was called before the motion to terminate debate resolved her issues.  However, the Moderator reopened the speaker queue, which effectively negated the motion.  I am confident it was not done maliciously here, but you could imagine a scenario where there is a call to terminate debate, no seconds are allowed, and the Moderator decides who gets to have the last speaking position before the motion is allowed to be seconded.  I like trees, so I liked 29.

>> Article 30 was a good article, and I thought the debate was interesting.  I am glad it passed.

>>Article 32 was the first of six articles put forward to the ARB by the ZBA working through the Zoning Bylaw Working Group.  The purpose of the article was to give the ZBA the autonomy it is granted under state law when it comes to drafting its own rules and regulations.  I understood the intent of the proposed substitute motion, but since those provision were already in the board's rules and regulations, it was hard to see the insistance of putting some of the provisions back into the zoning bylaw as anything other than saying the ZBA cannot be trusted to manage its own business.  I was glad that the substitute motion was defeated and the main motion passed.

>> Articles 33-36 were intended to codify current interpretations of how to apply the zoning bylaw.  I was glad that they were approved by comfortable margians.

>> Article 38 was also supposed to be simple, but I thought TMM Mozina raised a very interesting point.  I will admit that the section of code she mentionned had never come up in our discussions.  I don't thinnk we necessarily need to reference the state statute in the local code, but I do agree that if we are trying to remove redundancy, maybe the original text of the bylaw should remain.  However, since we won't be back until next Wednesday, there is plenty of time to submit an amendment. 

>> I'm not sure that I have the right words to explain the last 10-15 minutes of the meeting.  Unless there was someone coming up quickly in the speaker queue to try and terminate debate, I think the discussion would have continued for a little while.  I don't understand the necessity to make sure Article 38 comes up immediately at the start of the next session.  Perhaps the motion to table or continue will be refiled at the start of the next session.  As TMM Jamieson said, we're spending more time getting out of the discussion than it would take to have the discussion.  Let this be the appetizer for the discussion on 38.