Welcome to Night Nine of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting. I missed the last session, so I am looking forward to getting back into the fray. We will meet Monday and Wednesday this week, then the following Wednesday, taking Memorial Day off. We still have a lot of work to do, so we really need to get to it. If we can get past the pump-your-own-gas article, we might be able to get up to speed and get into the zoning articles. There are seven articles to vote on before we get there, which would tie our best performance (excepting the consent agenda).
(All town staff working Town Meeting have the prefix "ST" in front of their name on Zoom. It is like a big lineup of saints.)
The Moderator called the meeting to order. The attendance check-in was closed, and we moved on the the Star Spangled Banner. Tonight, we heard the version played by TMM Tanaka. The Moderator noted there are seven regular articles, fifteen zoning articles, and five resolutions remaining on the warrant. An email went out over the weekend discussing how requests for reconsideration would be considered. They will only be taken at after all the other articles have been handled, so we can be certain to have enough time to close the meeting and submit the results to the state. SBC Diggins moved to continue to Wednesday should we not complete the meeting this evening. TMM Maher had an announcement regarding the Symmes Fund, which provides funding to non-profits who provide medical-related services to town. He encouraged those organizations to apply. There were no other announcements.
TMM Fosket removed Article 3 from the table to receive reports. No reports were offered, so TMM Fosket moved to put Article 3 back upon the table.
We resumed the deliberation on Article 17. When we left off, the debate was about to begin in earnest. TMM Wagner indicated no one wants self-serve gas more than he does. However, his constituents are worried that full-service would then disappear all together. He had other concerns about noise, mini-marts, and that not all station owners are in agreement. Additional regulations would be required to avoid the ill effects of possible unintended consequences. We need to support full-service, small stations, cannot support it themselves without protections. TMM Weinstein was also opposed to the article. He agreed with the previous speaker that there are not enough protections against possible consequences. A vote against will promote and support jobs. TMM Mills was passed to bring up TMM J_Worden, who was next on the list. He also opposed the article. He believed if it was to go forward, there needed to be protections, similar to the proposed substitute motion from TMM Benson. TMM J_Worden noted that most of the station attendants appear to be immigrants, and these jobs are stepping-stones to better positions. He has several questions. Was there outreach to the gas stations in town? If so, what was it? SBC Diggins indicated there was none. TMM J_Worden called it a stealth attack. (The Moderator said that didn't follow, and they had a brief conversation.) TMM J_Worden asked in the absence of the substitute motion, what recourse is there if someone wants to have their gas pumped, and the station refuses. Town Counsel noted there are various agencies who can address actions against the handicapped. For more general refusals, if there is a special permit allowing the station to operate, that could be reconsidered. TMM J_Worden wanted to know what that person could do right away, right at that time. Could they call the cops? TMM Benson noted his substitute motion would put language in the bylaw, which can be enforced by the police. TMM Mills was unavailable. TMM Tosti moved to terminate debate. That motion passed 174-49 with two abstentions. This brought forward the vote on the Benson substitute motion. During the voting period, TMM Garber had a Point of Order asking for clarification of what happens as a result of this vote. The Moderator confirmed that this is a substitute motion. If it fails, we proceed to a vote on the main motion as submitted. If it passes, we proceed to a vote on the main motion as substituted. (This was explained and reexplained in different ways by the Moderator, several times.) The vote to substitute passed 175-49 with two abstentions. This brought up the vote on whether to approve the substituted article. It failed 105-119 with three abstentions. We may not pump our own gas.
Article 19 was a proposal to name a short stretch of street in town after Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers. We started the deliberation last week on the substitute motion presented by TMM Schlichtman to name the street "Magliozzi Boulevard". TMM Ruderman introduced the namesake duo and their role in history. Their show ran for 35 years. They were very personable, friendly, and very funny. (The Moderator asked if there was any information being presented that couldn't be found online. "No" was the response.) TMM Ruderman noted that the brothers both lived in Arlington, and since Tom has passed, and given the magnitude of their accomplishments, it is only appropriate that we name the shortest street a Boulevard in their name. TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order, as he was in the process of introducing the substitute motion when the article was tabled. He asked to be allowed to complete his presentation. The Moderator apologized, and added him to the top of the speaker list. TMM Schlichtman noted that it is important that the street has a name. He addressed the initial comments from the Select Board. Ten years ago, the Select Board came to Town Meeting to rename streets. The recommendation to bring this to the public memorials committee is problematic, as the committee does not have a full compliment of members. The meeting needs to act. TMM Jefferson asked for a vote against the motion. There is a process, which goes through the public memorials committee. We need to follow the process. It is possible the Select Board asked the meeting to endorse a change in name in the past. He thinks this is a good naming, but we need to follow the process. He asked what the proper pronunciation would be. The Moderator noted it is an Italian name, but the pronunciation may have changed over time and become Americanized. (The Car Talk website has is as Mawl-yaht-zee.)
TMM Jalkut noted that there could be a strong desire to adopt this article for sentimental reasons, but he does not think this is coming forward in the proper manner. Doing this could limit the possibility of naming something else more substantial after them in the future. The joke about the length of the street could be missed or misinterpreted by many people. He thinks there could be a better memorial. TMM Palmer moved to terminate debate. The vote to do so passed 199-23. The vote on the substitute motion failed 87-143 with two abstentions. The final vote for no action passed 168-44 with no abstentions.
Article 20 was a recommended vote of no action by the Select Board on an article seeking to improve code enforcement. SBC Diggins noted the submitted article was in violation of the Town Manager Act, as it sought to direct the Town Manager to take a specific action. This is the reason for the recommended vote of no action. TMM Schlichtman submitted a substitute motion on his article. He indicated there is additional information on the online annotated warrant. He noted we often debate why there are many bylaws which go unenforced. He feels that the bylaws we enact need to be enforced, or they are just municipal suggestions. This article does not create a position or enable funding; it just creates a title for the town to use to pursue violations of the bylaws. He is trying to use our limited legislative authority to encourage the executive to enforce the bylaws. The Moderator had a question regarding the wording of the substitute motion. There is a reading of the text which could be considered as being outside the scope of the warrant article. TMM Schlichtman didn't object to an administrative change to have the complaints all be run through the proposed Code Enforcement Officer. TMM Moore asked if the Town Manager could explain the current code enforcement methodology. The Manager noted that the town has been struggling to keep full staffing in the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) in conjunction with a dramatically increased workload. The department is now fully staffed and can proceed with more enforcement actions. The Manager also noted that the increase in ZBA funding allowed a shared position to be dedicated to the ISD. As written, this proposal will result in an increase in the budget. The article supposes that there is someone in the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) to handle these enforcement actions. There isn't such a person. This article takes the process of creating a position and runs it backwards. He does believe the town is now in a position to address enforcement. TMM Baron wondered if the proponent could provide some examples of enforcement actions which have not proceeded. TMM Schlichtman noted Gentle Dental has violated the sign bylaw for years, and it is directly across the street from Town Hall, yet there has been no enforcement. Had this been resolved earlier this spring, there would have been no need for the article. TMM Baron noted we need to find a way to deal with code violations. She mentioned fences exceeding the maximum allowed height too close to the sidewalk as another example. She is in favor of the substitute motion. TMM Jefferson feels there is a process that should be followed, and similar to the previous article, we should follow the process. He thought SBC Diggins and the Manager covered the reasons why this should not proceed quite thoroughly. He recommends a vote against the substitute motion. The Moderator noted that in general, anyone who is in the speaker queue who is just going to reiterate what someone else said, should feel free to pass.
TMM Benson noted that this article is in the general bylaws but appears to try and address issues under the zoning bylaw. Is that acceptable? Town Council noted that enforcement of the zoning bylaw has to occur in the zoning bylaw. The building inspector is the code enforcement officer. The town bylaw has many enforcement options already included. This article would not lead to enforcement of the zoning bylaws, but it could lead to enforcement of the town bylaws. TMM Benson recommended voting against the substitute motion. He is willing to work with the petitioner for possible action next year. He also didn't like that it was in the passive voice. TMM Atlas raised concerns about risks of bias in enforcement. Fines can lead to unequal enforcement upon those who are unable to afford the fines. She didn't see any provisions to allow leniency in regard to those who cannot afford the fine or the cost of correcting a violation. TMM Revilak asked if someone from the DPCD could address the article. Dir. Raitt indicated she did not have an opportunity to discuss the proposal with the proponent, and she is not in a position to address it this year. TMM Pretzer moved to terminate debate. The Moderator noted we were just over the fifteen minute mark in the debate. The vote to terminate debate passed 203-14. The Moderator opened the vote on the Select Board's no action, when TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order that we had not held the vote on whether to adopt the substitute motion. The Moderator apologized, and he opened the vote on that action, which failed 43-182 with two abstentions. The vote on the recommended vote of no action passed 184-31 with nine abstentions. There was a Point of Order from TMM Rosenthal which he had raised a while ago because the Moderator's discussion of the consequences was unclear. When the recommended vote is for no action, he heard the Moderator say that a yes vote closes the article and a no vote is immaterial. Is there really no way to force action? Town Council indicated that it is cleaner to vote yes, as it closes the record. A no vote leaves it in limbo, as there is no other action to be taken. At this point, we took our break.
Back from break, we started with Article 24, which is a home-rule petition allowing the Finance Committee to start its work with draft figures. SBC Diggins note that the Select Board and Finance Committee both voted in favor of this article. It provides a way for the finance committee to start the budget process early. TMM Dennis spoke in favor of the article, but he wanted to know if it was necessary to go through the home rule process and amend the Town Manager Act, as it is a cumbersome process. SBC Diggins passed to Town Counsel. Town Counsel noted that this provision is in the Town Manager Act, and it is a very simple action. He appreciated TMM Dennis's desire to act within the town's bylaws. Counsel noted that this process will take longer, but so long as the petition is well crafted, it should pass without much delay. TMM Weber asked who dissented on the Finance Committee vote. TMM Foskett agreed to look it up and report back. TMM Wagner asked if the Finance Committee is going to report on this article at Town Meeting, as was noted in the Finance Committee Report. TMM Foskett noted that they did submit a report supplement which appears on the annotated warrant. TMM Wagner wasn't certain that addressed his question. (TMM Foskett was still looking for the name of the dissenting vote.) TMM McCabe moved to terminate debate. The Moderator identified TMM Foskett to note that Ms. Deshler was the member who initially voted in the negative. The motion to terminate debate was not seconded, and there were no additional speakers, so we proceeded directly to the vote on the main motion. The article passed 210-7 with five abstentions.
Article 25 was a proposal to establish early voting in town elections through a home-rule petition. SBC Diggins noted the Select Board voted unanimously to support the article. He thanked the Election Modernization Committee (EMC) for all their hard work. TMM Dennis, chair of the EMC, has been pursuing this for several years. In the past, the State was reticent to approve this type of petition, but given the change of voting enacted during the pandemic for state elections, the committee thought the time was right to put forward this article. He announced that the committee had reached the end of its tenure, and it will dissolve. TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to ask whether we needed to vote to dissolve the committee, as the chairman noted that the committee was ending. The Moderator moved the question offline to determine what action needs to be taken. TMM Leone noted that he didn't think he had asked to take this off the consent agenda. If he had done so, it was an accident. He spoke very highly in favor of the proposal. TMM Kaepplein was initially concerned about additional costs, but the Clerk indicated that there would not be a substantial cost, but if that changed, it could be reconsidered and budgeted in future. This would be for early in-person voting only. He asked whether signatures are checked on mail-in voting. The Clerk started her answer, but the Moderator declared the question out of scope. TMM Kaepplein asked if there would still be mail in voting, and I believe the Moderator responded in the affirmative. The Moderator noted that the EMC dissolves automatically by prior vote of town meeting. TMM McCabe moved to to terminate debate, but in the absence of anyone else in the speaker queue, the Moderator did not accept a second, which brought up the vote on the main motion. The vote to put forward the home rule petition on early voting in town elections passed 214-4 with one abstention.
Article 26 was the endorsement of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding application. The meeting can only vote to endorse, we cannot change the allocations of change the amount. SBC Diggins noted the vote was 6-0 in favor, as the Town Manager gets a vote. He outlined the spending priorities. No one rose to speak to the article, so we proceeded to the vote. The meeting voted in favor of endorsing the CDBG application 220-1 without abstention.
Article 27 is the approval of the town's revolving funds. These are accounts for a specific purpose which continue year after year. Town Meeting needs to vote to approve the balances in the accounts. SBC Diggins was surprised this was pulled from the consent agenda, and he didn't think he would be able to make the explanation interesting. He noted the requirement for the vote is in state law. The Moderator noted TMM J_Worden had removed the article from the consent agenda. When called upon, he noted that he did not knowingly take it off the agenda. It must have been a glitch (for the second time this year). TMM Kaepplein asked how town hall rentals lost so much money last year. The Manager noted that there have been few rentals, but the expenses in maintaining the hall continued. He hoped that as rentals increased, it would come back in balance. TMM Kaepplein asked for an explanation of the expenses. The Manager noted the expenses listed in the report. TMM Kaepplein asked how there are expenses if the hall isn't being used. The Manager noted that the funds are for general cleaning and maintenance, not for work related to specific events. TMM Kaepplein was frustrated that the town was unable to save any money during the pandemic. TMM LaCourt noted that these are mostly programmatic funds with funds going in and out, but you cannot spend money that isn't there. None of the funds in the accounts come from the town. TMM Leone had a similar question regarding the ambulance services. What's going on with the losses on that account? The Moderator thought that was due to the timing of billings at the end of the year. He asked whether DTM Pooler could be called upon for more clarity. He noted there was a reduction in ambulance runs during the pandemic. In addition the fees have not increased in several years, and the town is looking to increase the reimbursement rate. It wouldn't lead to more money from Medicaid, but it would from private insurance. TMM Jamieson asked about the town hall fund, and whether DTM Pooler could comment on whether the town hall floor replacement was taken from this fund. DTM Pooler thought it came from a different account. TMM Jamieson noted there is a report at the end of the Select Board report which provides detail on how the funds are being used. TMM Melofchik noted that she attended a Select Board just before the pandemic, and she hasn't been back since, has the access to the Select Board meeting room been made accessible? The Moderator asked DTM Pooler whether this was funded through a revolving fund. DTM Pooler noted that would be through a capital expenditure, and the Moderator called the question out of scope. TMM Allison-Ampe moved to terminate debate. The Moderator refused to accept a second, as she was the last speaker, so we moved straight to the vote on the main motion. The vote passed 216-1 with two abstentions.
Article 28 was the first of the Zoning articles. It would require enhancements for developments in the Business Districts. The Moderator noted that we have tied the record for the year by disposing of 7 articles. Ms. Zsembery requested that the previously submitted recording be presented. In the video, she noted that this applies to projects in the Business districts, and is in line with the Industrial Zoning District revision passed recently. Projects would be required to provide an active face to the street including articulation, entrances, and active uses. There were no speakers to the article. There was a Point of Order from TMM Wagner. He noted that the speaker queue hadn't been opened at the time the queue was closed. The Moderator backed us up, to make sure the queue was opened. TMM Wagner noted that the refresh timing was extended due to issues with the online connection, and this may have cause the issue. He is in favor of the article, and he thinks this article is a good first step in addressing some of the deficiencies in the Mixed Use section of the zoning bylaw. TMM Nathan noted that she has no background on this, and cannot figure how to vote. She asked the Moderator for a more simplified explanation. The Moderator called on Ms. Zsembery to give more background on the article. She noted that this is intended to make the first floor of buildings facing the street more active and engaging so the street remains more lively. This is something the ARB tries to do during its hearings, but this will include something in the bylaw that they can reference.
TMM Jamieson was in favor of the article, and he hoped that TMM Wagner would join him in supporting TMM 39. (The Moderator reminded him to stay on this article and not say something which could be interpreted as a quid-pro-quo.) TMM Stamps noted that the article says this would encourage more active uses, and she asked how that would be called out in the bylaw. Ms. Zsembery noted that rather than list specific uses that would be considered inactive, the ARB chose more open language. TMM Stamps asked for a better example. Ms. Zsembery noted the proposed section 5.5.2(B) referenced "active uses". The Moderator clarified the question was how would storefronts be made more lively. Ms. Zsembery noted that there are several design principles including limiting the size of lobbies and requiring articulation. TMM Foskett moved to adjourn. The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration on this evening's articles. There were none, so the motion to adjourn was entertained and seconded. With that, we were adjourned.
>> We did fairly well tonight. Seven articles was a decent number, and none of them felt rushed. There were three instances when the Moderator had to step in and stop the only person left on the speaker queue from requesting a vote to terminate debate. Since running that vote takes several minutes, avoiding it is really good. I'm not sure there is a good way to avoid that issue, short of having the Moderator announce to the last speaker that they are the last speaker. However, that might encourage someone else to come forward.
>> I was in favor of the substituted version of Article 17 allowing self-serve. I have pumped my own gas in Arlington many times during the pandemic. I thought TMM Benson had crafted a very reasonable compromise, but it didn't have majority support.
>> I was sorry to vote against the substitute motion on Article 19. I really like the idea, but I think TMM Jefferson is right; we need to follow the procedure. We should put pressure on the Select Board to staff-up the monuments committee.
>> I was against the substitute motion on 20. We have code enforcement for zoning in ISD, but they have been understaffed and working to support a dramatically underfunded ZBA. Now that ISD is fully staffed and the ZBA has an appropriate staffing budget, I really hope this will move the town forward with enforcement.
>> Articles 24, 25, 26, and 27 were all easy approvals.
>> Now that we are into zoning, we are likely to slow up again. I hope we can resist the temptation to get slogged down.
No comments:
Post a Comment