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 After conferring with the former member, the hold is withdrawn.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.
No comments:
Post a Comment