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.