October 23, 2023
Welcome to Night Three o the Special Town Meeting. Tonight could be the last night, but I have my doubts. The only business left, Article 12, the MBTA Communities Overlay Districts is a major article representing a major change to our town.
The Moderator opened the meeting with a few requests. He asked us to please be on our best behavior. There are Arlington students here, and we need to be good role models. We should demonstrate the best look of democracy.
Mr. Helmuth lead us in the Star Spangled Banner. He then rushed to the floor to move that should all the business before the meeting not be completed tonight, we adjourn to Wednesday, October 25, 2023. This was seconded and approved on a voice vote.
Our test vote question this evening was "Will we finish all the business by the end of the night?" The answer was yes 95-68, but the Moderator declared it non-binding. He also asked us to keep the chatter down.
TMM Rosenthal rose to say that his vote didn’t seem to register, and he didn’t see the green loving light. The Moderator noted that he saw the light, so it was possible that the member just didn't register his vote in time. In either case, he was advised to see the tech desk to confirm that his device was working. (Spoiler - we didn't use them again tonight.)
The Moderator said we would be skipping Article 1 unless the chair of a committee had a report. Speak now or forever hold your peace. The article remained on the table.
This brought us to Article 12, which the Moderator referenced as the main event. He said he would be stingy regarding points of order to keep things moving. He would make it clear about what to vote on, but not how to vote. It was up to the individual members to debate all 14 amendments. (There were only 13 earlier today, but we gained one more.) Many people from the town are here to answer questions and help us make informed decisions. There will be two speaker queues: one for people who preregistered and a second for in person questions. The Moderator started to explain how the preregistered queue was going to work when TMM Weinstein raised a Question of Privilege. He noted that the Moderator's voice was coming through the sound system garbled and hard to understand. The Moderator tried being closer to the microphone, but that made it worse. He backed away, and that solved the issue.
The Moderator again started to introduce the discussion, and TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order; the article was still on the table. Ms. Deshler moved to take Article 12 from table. The motion was seconded and approved on a voice vote. The Moderator invited the Redevelopment Board to make their presentation on the article. Rachel Zsembery, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) requested 12 minutes for her presentation of the article. The motion was seconded and approved on a voice vote. The MBTA Communities Act was enacted by the State to increase housing development along MBTA service routes. It requires the establishment of a zone with multifamily housing allowed by right, meeting certain size and other eligibility requirements. The ARB proposal meets the MBTA Communities Act requirements, the Arlington Master Plan, and multiple other town plans. It will create an expanded walk-able transit oriented district. The district would serve all residents and allow the Town to participate in the Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot. Key concepts of the plan include reversing the down-zoning enacted in 1975 which removed multifamily development by right. The proposed overlay districts will address issues in creating multifamily housing. Capacity is a measure of whether the zone is of a reasonable size, not an explicit number of units which can or would be developed. Ms. Zsembery displayed several examples of multifamily development in town. She noted they were mostly created before 1975. Following the guidelines established by the State, the Town has engaged in a program to comply with the new law. A working group was established to work with a consultant to develop a plan that worked for Arlington. The process took 9 months and included multiple engagement events throughout the year. Specific guiding principles were observed. There was to be a variety of housing types located near transit corridors within three overlay districts: the Massachusetts Avenue and Broadway Multi-Family (MBMF) Overlay Districts and the Neighborhood Multi-Family (NMF) Overlay District. The capacity for those districts would be 3,216 units per the State calculation. The ARB expects 50 to 200 units to be developed in the first 10 years. Each sub-district has different setback and height regulations. Parking would be required at one space per unit, but the parking reduction sections of the existing zoning bylaw still apply. The plan also includes three bonus options. The mixed use bonus for committing 60% of the first floor to commercial space would grant one additional story along Broadway and two along Mass Ave. The affordability bonus would grant one additional floor if the project met a goal of 22.5% affordable units. That would increase along Mass Ave to two stories for 25% affordability. An additional floor would also be granted if the project achieved LEED Gold certification. Ms Zsembery noted that the ARB was seeking approval at this time because the Town would need to have an approved plan in place by February in order to participate in the Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot offered by the State. (Town Meeting approved a similar program by 92% in 2020.) At its most recent meeting, the ARB didn't object to the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment and the Anderson Amendment with the second floor development made optional. Ms. Zsembery noted that the plan has evolved significantly over the course of the year. It is important the the zoning bylaw sent to the Attorney General met the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act. Amendment to the main motion could lead to the bylaw not complying. That would remove grant funding from the town and possibly lead to a lawsuit. Incremental changes to the main motion works against the careful work of many in town over the past year. She requested Town Meeting approve the main motion without amendment.
The Moderator stated that each member putting forward an amendment would have a single speaking slot to introduce all their amendments. Those members are free to put there name into the speaking queue for a possible second opportunity to speak. TMM Wagner was invited forward to present his amendments. He raised a Point of Order to request 10 minutes to speak. (A Point of Order was not required as he had the floor.) The request was seconded and passed on a voice vote. He displayed an image prepared by the ARB showing how the development of the districts might appear along Mass Ave. The six-story buildings on Mass Ave appeared to be twice as tall as a telephone pole, and the residential houses were not very separated. He stated that the working group had limited input from community members. He noted that ARFRR had compiled a list of people asking for the plan to be of a reduced scale. He stated that the public was broadly against the un-amended plan. We should respect the public’s concerns. He noted that affordability was missing from the process. The State requires less affordability than the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw. The production of more units will not lead to lower costs. He felt our local affordable housing bylaw should be reviewed by the State before we vote on this article. He stated that this was not a pro-sustainability article. It offers no protection for existing solar on adjacent residential buildings. It would create street canyons. He noted that this is not about housing choices or economic diversity. There is nothing to encourage multifamily units. This is not about restoring the missing middle. Arlington was unique for offering a diverse housing stock.
TMM Wagner noted that recently, there has been a lot of gentrification with prices escalating. Even if the proposed plan had its capacity set at the minimum figure of 2,046, the plan would still increase the structural deficit and impact all residents in town. The more units developed, the worse the financial situation. There will be more increases in rent. He didn't see why Town Meeting would want to over-deliver a state tax upon the residents. He noted that if we don’t amend the zoning bylaw, we still have until Dec. 2024 to act. The Fossil Fuel Ban Pilot encourages us to be one of the first ten in the state. If we give up our slot and let Somerville go ahead of us, the overall reduction would be far greater. The Town could adopt a fossil fuel ban later using lessons learned from other communities. He proposed to amend the issues out of Article 12. Town Meeting should approve all but the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment. He thought sustainability should be included. He expressed that the town has told us not to exceed the state minimum. More housing is not more affordable. There will be a tax burden. More of Article 12 makes the town poorer and promotes the affluent class.
TMM Wagner now introduced his proposed amendments. Wagner Amendment 1: would prioritize the NMF overlay district on combined parcels with the MBMF overlay districts. (This is the opposite of what is included in the ARB motion.) Wagner Amendment 2 would remove the bonus provisions to limit development to four stories. It would not effect the capacity number. He completed his time by showing comparisons between possible buildings with and without his amendments.
The Moderator noted that TMM Wagner had not moved his amendments. He came forward again to move both amendments. Both were seconded and before the meeting.
Ms. Deshler was recognized by the Moderator to clarify that the Finance Committee has no stated position on Article 12. It was discussed, but they determined that they did not have enough data to express an opinion. She noted that several members have taken personal positions, but those are not indicative of the committee as a whole.
The Moderator noted that he would be asking several of the amendment proponents to discuss the scope of their proposed change and how it might impact the main motion being in compliance with the requirements under State Law. If an amendment would make the main motion no longer compliant, he would rule the amendment out-of-scope under the warrant. No poison pills.
TMM Babiarz noted she supports affordable and equitable housing. She has been a property investor for many years. She asked what recent sales say about state of town. She noted that supersizing increases overall cost but also reduces the square foot cost. Cambridge salaries are $200-250. Those with kids would be willing to move to Arlington and save on private school costs. <<I guess the assumption here is that wealthy people do not avail themselves of the Cambridge public schools, but they would in Arlington. This was not made clear.>> Arlington teachers can afford roughly $330K to buy a house ($55K/year). She ran through a lot of numbers to reach the conclusion that affordability isn’t possible by just adding units. She noted that Cambridge put $40M into affordable housing from free cash. We don’t have the ability to do that. She wants to reduce the capacity to 2050 units. Market factors will make affordability impractical. She asked for our support for her amendment. She confirmed with the Moderator that the Town would meet the minimum requirements under the State law. She moved her article, and it was seconded.
TMM Worden proposed two amendments. The first regarded affordable housing, something the town has been devoted to for long time. This article won’t bring affordable housing. None is included in the plan. The Town has an inclusionary zoning bylaw, requiring 15% of housing units be affordable. The State is imposing the lower standard of providing only 10%. The Town has filed a request to allow our town bylaw to apply to these proposed overlay districts. He asserted that only this amendment will cause affordable housing to be provided. This is a test of whether the town is serious about promoting affordable housing.
TMM Worden's second amendment is inspired by the Biblical admonition to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The proposed overlay district would shove large building into 1-2 family neighborhoods, really sticking it to your neighbors. The best option would be to get rid of the state law, but instead, his amendment proposed to replace the proposed front and side yard setbacks in the Neighborhood districts with the existing setbacks in the underlying district. The 15 ft front yard setback would revert to 20 ft and 25 ft. The 5 - 15 ft side yard setback would be required to provide a minimum of 20 ft to an adjacent structure. He described these as minor adjustments to show our love for our neighbors. The Moderator confirmed that he has two-and-a-half minutes left. TMM Worden commented he went so fast, he must have forgotten something. He continued that back when he moved to town, he worked with residents in East Arlington to oppose the Mugar Development in the swamp (now "wetlands") adjacent to Route 2. He felt it was imposed on the everyone, not just the local residents. We must stick together as a town. Would you like it if this was done next to your house? He moved both of his amendments, and both were seconded.
The Moderator asked if TMM Worden had any idea if his Amendment 2 would reduce the capacity of the overlay district. TMM Worden replied that he had the Moderator's job for a long time before he did, and he had a different opinion of scope. He confirmed that his amendment would not impact the number of possible units.
TMM Loreti, moved to amend the article in three different ways: landscaped open space, overall building height, and the LEED Gold bonus. He lives in the proposed NMF district, and he feels some improvements are needed. The proposed regulation has no requirement for Landscaped Open Space. The Master Plan notes the Town's preference for landscaping and open spaces. His Amendment 1 would require 15% of the parcel be landscaped. It would not change any other requirements. It would ensure a minimum amount of landscaping and would prevent a site being completely paved. His Amendment 2 would limit building height in the districts to 11ft per story. ARB has approved several new multifamily projects at that ratio. He felt that what is in the proposed article was excessive. Ms. Zsembery noted that what is proposed are realistic height limits. The ratio is 13 for the first floor and 10.5 feet for each additional floor. That is the scale of existing development.
TMM Loreti's Amendment 3 would remove the bonus floor for achieving LEED Gold. This is a particularly low bar. The requirements for LEED will be met anyway. Most new projects before the ARB meet LEED Gold anyway. Gold isn’t even the highest standard, Platinum is. Certification is not determined until after the site is developed. This is a short lift. He confirmed that removing the bonus not effect capacity. He noted the Wagner Amendment was better by removing bonuses in the MBMF district altogether. When he moved to town, he never expected this size of proposed development next to his house. He urged support for the Wagner Amendments and his own. The Moderator asked if he expected any impact on capacity from his Article 1. TMM Loreti said he did not, as the proposed landscape area will fit in the required setbacks.
TMM Bagnall moved his amendment, which was seconded. He described it as a simple amendment to increase building heights in the NMF districts from 3 to 4 floors. This would increase the overall capacity to 3,844 units total. He said while he appreciated the ARB's action on Article 12, he felt the working group's plan deserved a full hearing. Currently, the residential districts max out at 2.5 floors. The current proposal would increase that to 3 stories. He said this was too modest, and their amendment would restore the 4th floor proposed by the working group. He noted that buildings at 4 stories tend to have elevators. A lack of accessible housing is an issue in town. Taller buildings are more likely to have enough units to require compliance with inclusionary zoning. He said the housing market like musical chairs, except it is based on how much you can pay. Arlington has spent the last 50 years since downzoning (in 1975, he felt was coincident with Boston school bussing) not adding chairs (i.e. housing units). He furthered his analogy stating that bringing in even the fanciest chairs still provides more places to sit. He asked whether we should share our good fortune with others. He said that housing is not a zero sum game. We can provide for our families and others at the same time. TMM Bagnal encouraged the meeting to support this amendment and the main motion.
TMM Bagnal introduced James Flemming, a resident of the town and the coauthor of the amendment. Mr. Flemming commented that the building code requires fire protection for multifamily buildings. Back in the 70s, the National Housing Association addressed how to keep apartments out of cities. The easiest way was to require fire protection and increase costs. Fire protection was used as a legal method for increasing costs beyond affordability. It was designed to make multifamily development unaffordable. This amendment will spread that cost over more units by allowing an additional floor.
TMM Anderson introduced her amendment to encourage greater commercial growth. She also introduced an additional amendment to amend her own amendment to change the word “will” to “may” in regards to commercial space on the second floor. The Moderator noted that the change was substantial enough that it could not be accepted administratively and needed to be voted as a separate amendment. Both amendments were seconded. TMM Anderson noted she is a business owner in the Heights, and she attended all of the meetings on the article. Her amendment would encourage more commercial growth and reverse the erosion of the commercial base, job losses, and the reduction of the tax base. This is good news. It uses zoning to protect existing business and encourage new growth. The ARB has created pathways for more growth this fall. Article 12 provides bonuses where 60% of the ground floor area is dedicated to businesses. This would be accompanied by a zero front setback. The amendment provides an additional 40% on the second floor as an option. This will increase the amount of commercial space without discouraging multifamily development. Examples abound in the region. The Arlington Chamber of Commerce supports incentivizing mixed use on both the 1st and 2nd floors. Her Amendment would add an incentive for commercial on the second floor. Commercial limited to a single floor could well be too small. Her amended amendment would encourage but not require second floor development. She noted that Arlington does not have enough commercial space. Empty storefronts are often due to spaces which are too small. The Arlington Brewing Company has been looking for commercial space for the last 18 months. It just doesn't exist in town right now. This is a real challenge for business development. This amendment would encourage the development of more commercial space. She encouraged a yes vote on both amendments and would spare us a beer joke.
TMM Lane moved to amend the article, which was seconded. He appreciated the opportunity to speak, and he could not image his first speech would be to present an amendment to a controversial article. He offered his thanks to the ARB and the working group. He said he had wrestled for a time with this amendment. He believes in the goals of the housing overlay. Tinkering with the proposal is no small matter. However, one aspect troubled him; one ill-conceived part. The bonus guidelines allow construction of 6-story buildings with zero setbacks if they contain commercial space. He asked what our duty is to our constituents. This would be a blight. It will overwhelm the streetscape. He noted that big buildings are not inherently bad. The existing examples work, because they are set back from the street. His amendment would allow development with full bonuses, but it would require setbacks. Otherwise, it limits heights to three or four floors. This restraint will create pleasant and desirable streetscapes with more space for outdoor cafes, more usable as it gets progressively warmer later in the year. He asked for support from the members.
TMM Evans introduced her amendment to restore intended use of the NMF district as a buffer instead of being a new stand-alone district. The NMF district in East Arlington was already reduced in depth to be a buffer. In the Heights, there are much steeper side streets. The proposed NMF district extends two blocks back from Mass Ave in places; that is not a buffer, but a new district. She said this would be a pronounced change. The farther the district extends away from Mass Ave, the steeper the streets get. This area has the steepest grades in town. Those slopes will exacerbate the height differences. Her amendment proposes to return the proposed buffer to being compatible with the scale and uses in the Heights. Her plan removes many parcels and adds a few new ones, connecting an isolated area of Forest Street to Mass Ave. Her amendment would limit expansions of large buildings onto steep slopes. It would remove 90 parcels with 350 existing units, including several historic properties. Her amendment addresses communication she has received from her constituents. She noted this can be a phased process. The first phase should be very simple. We always have the option to expand the district later, but it is much harder to reduce it later.
TMM Evans spoke to the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment. She noted that the ARB listened to the residents and reduced the building height in the NMF district to 3 stories. Reintroducing four floors would just be an extension of the MBMF district, not a buffer. There is nothing about 4 floors which requires elevators. The requirement could be triggered at 3 floors. Four floors will just encourage more units without triggering the requirement to provide affordable units. She encouraged the members to vote no on the Bagnal / Flemming Amendment.
TMM Leone disclosed that he has a financial interest in his proposed amendment. His family has owned a property in East Arlington for a long time. It is presently occupied by a member of family. The property is surrounded by properties in the NMF district, but it has been excluded from that district. He rhetorically asked why? He supposed it was because it is on the historic register. He noted the property is “L” shaped and extends behind several properties on the same street. It is a 19K square foot lot. His family pays big taxes on that land. Some of the adjacent parcels may want to purchase some of that land to make a larger parcel, more conducive to development. His amendment would add this property into the NMF overlay district. The Moderator reminded TMM Leone to move his amendment. He did so, and it was seconded.
It was now 9:30, so the Moderator declared it was time for our break. He noted that at long last, there were groups selling snacks in the side aisles. The Girls Tennis Team and the Stratton School PTO both were there. The Moderator asked if there were any volunteers to help organize these sales for future meetings.
-------------------------
Coming back from break, the Moderator had us begin with someone who had submitted a question ahead of the meeting. The question chosen was more like a Point of Order. The Moderator invited TMM Worden to come forward while he read the question. He asked why the Moderator asked members to register in advance to speak. He said it allowed him to balance the discussion and provide a way to try and cover all the topics. TMM Worden had no further questions. TMM Friedman Had submitted a question asking what would prevent using these new rules to build larger McMansions in these districts. Mr. Revilak responded that multifamily was a required use in the overlay districts. TMM Friedman asked whether the old underlying zoning would still apply. Mr. Revilak said a developer could choose the overlay rules or the underlying rules, but not both. TMM Friedman noted she would rather see three-family built than another McMansion. She also asked whether the same would apply in the business districts. Mr. Revilak noted there were no current business parcels in the MBMF overlay. TMM Kelleher introduced John Barr, a high school student with the Young Arlington Collaborative. He recalled when his family was looking for housing for his grandmother. There was, little that met their needs, to be close and accessible. All the available units were too far or too expensive. He himself would like to have the option of NOT living with his parents after college. As parents, you probably don’t want that either. He noted that the youth are priced out of their own town. House prices are comparable to Winchester. He noted that several speakers had said that this proposal will ruin the character of Arlington. He proposed that the lack of commercial space was related to a lack of young adults to frequent those stores. They are now only frequented by high school students. The initial incentive to move to Arlington was its vibrancy and mix of people. That has been ruined by a lack of affordability. If you ask the youth what they want the town's character to be, that is it. He encouraged us to see beyond bottom line profitability and to get out into the community? (applause) The Moderator thanked the speaker and hoped his PSAT went well in the morning. Maybe his essay could be on affordable housing.
The Moderator looked down his list to find
someone for the opposition with an unrecognized name. He called on TMM
Stearn who was in favor of the Babiarz amendment. He noted that we
have been inundated by constituents and other meeting members; every
point has a counter point. We like the offer of positive change, but
let’s not overshoot the target. Start smaller, then check to see what
happens. There are still many questions about how development will
proceed; what will happen? How many people will be displaced. We
won’t know until it happens. What will it mean if your street is
redone. Things are fuzzy. What will it like being in a large
multifamily with a single-family home next door? He asked how to deal
with a large development next door. You could ask to have your street
excluded and see how it unfolds before going so deep. The term is
"Hedge." He advised Town Meeting to learn more before proceeding.
Maybe we will want to go even denser. Maybe we won’t like what we’ve
approved. He urged voting for the ARFRR amendments.
TMM Yontar
called down from up in the balcony to offer his lukewarm support for
Article 12. He urged voting for it. We cannot let the perfect be the
enemy of necessary and adequate. The Commonwealth has decided to twist
the arm of 175 towns to get more housing. It is not worth risking
state funding to make a point. The funding alone is worth your vote.
We need housing. Article 12 won’t solve our housing problems. It will
only be an increase of 50-200 units over 10 years. We need to encourage
multifamily spread across all of Arlington. We could have proposed
three-family houses in all districts. Instead, only 4% of our land area
will support all the development. He concluded that the proposed plan
is directionally correct and adequate. He encouraged us to join him in
unenthusiastically supporting the article.
TMM Franzosa wasn't
going to talk about MBTA Communities. He wanted to talk about the
MBTA. With the large number of units being considered, will the extra
pressure cause the system to fail? He encouraged supporting the Babiarz
Amendment.
TMM Jamieson thanked everyone for participating and
presenting information to everyone. The town has been developing these
plans for so long. Let’s do 12! He noted that he tends to focus on
numbers, sometimes too much. Putting on his Board of Assessor’s Hat, he
commented that the assessment process can only capture new growth in
June. They can also only tax the full value after the building is
complete. He ran through the proposed amendments: Wagner 1 - no;
Babiarz - no, come on; Worden 1 - whatever; Loreti 1 - no parking in
front; Bagnall / Flemming - leaning yes; Anderson - yes; Lane - no,
business need to be at the sidewalk; Worden 2 - no, just another
reduction; Loreti 3 - either way, will address sustainability; Evans -
either or; Leone - yes. He noted that many people are against
everything. If you are, you need to be for the override.
TMM
Bayer had some questions for the ARB. Regarding Worden 1, is there an
affordability requirement in the main motion. Ms. Zsembery answered
yes, in main language of article. It would require the current Town
requirement unless denied by the State. TMM Bayer asked regarding
Loreti 3, does the ARB think this is a good idea? Ms. Zsembery answered
that the proposed bonus requires complete compliance with the program
requirements and achieve LEED Gold certification. This provides an
assurance that the sustainability requirements will be met. TMM Bayer
asked in regards to Loreti 2 with lower floor-to-floor heights. Ms.
Zsembery noted that 13 ft is industry standard. It provides more
flexibility and higher ceilings on upper floors if developed for
commercial. It also allows higher and taller windows for deeper light
penetration. TMM Bayer asked if there was a legal requirement for an
elevator. Ms. Zsembery referred the question to Mr. Ciampa, the
Director of Inspectional Services. He noted a requirement for an
accessible means of egress above the fourth floor, so it would not
necessarily be required.
TMM Gersh said he had watched the
working group proceedings, watching how the sausage got made. He saw
multiple capacity numbers put forward, some as high as 20K. He noted
this was met with increasing distaste. The ARB then pared the capacity
back to around 3K, and scaled the NMF district back to three floors.
This exceeded his expectations. He said that to his own surprise, he
would support Article 12 ... with an amendment or two. He praised the
good work and progress made on the plan. He was concerned that the
Bagnall / Flemming amendment would undue that progress by removing the
three story district. He said that for himself, that would be deal
breaker. He would have to vote no if Bagnall / Flemming passes. He
asked us not to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just
don’t.
TMM Benson said he would be voting yes on the Anderson
Amendment and no on all the others. He noted that we are all lawmakers
tonight. In order to become law, the state Attorney General (AG) must
approve it. The AG looks to see if there are conflicts with state law.
The MBTA Communities Act is state law. The bylaw will also be reviewed
by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC,
former DHCD). If either reject our bylaw, we will need to start over
in the spring, having lost access to the fossil fuel ban pilot.
Running down the list of amendments: Worden 1 - all in Article 12
already, will just confuse readers. Unnecessary. Babiarz - limiting the
number may violate the requirement to have the same rules for all
parcels within the same district. Our compliance guidelines are not
compliant if similar provisions are not elsewhere in our zoning. We are
not going to get to that cap for years. We have no idea whether the AG
will accept such a provision. Can revisit this topic in the future.
Worden 2 - multiple setbacks for the same use in the same district. It
is not uniform and may not be allowed. Providing 20 ft to a
"structure" would be to nearly anything constructed on the adjacent
site, including fences, sheds, decks, etc. Please vote against it.
Wagner and Lane reduce the incentive for mixed use on ground floor.
Both could prohibit it completely. This is antithetical to where the
town is heading. Lane removes the incentive. Commercial happens at the
street. The front setback is landscaped already, so Loreti makes the
bylaw too complicated. Bagnall / Flemming - no. The compliance
guidelines recommend that it be similar to the underlying zoning, which
this wouldn't be.
TMM Weinstein thanked the DPCD for providing
the application status for work on the economic feasibility contract for
determining whether our inclusionary zoning would be allowed in the new
districts. He asked why it was only signed now? Ms. Ricker said her
department had not identified a funding source for the application until
now. TMM Weinstein said it should have happened sooner. He urged no
on the Bagnall / Flemming Amendment. The ARB decision is better. He
didn’t think he would ever hear the argument that we should allow four
floors because it would be the same cost to put out fire. (murmur in
the crowd) He didn't think four was in keeping with our neighborhoods.
By right development could be a windfall for developers. We could see
rapid development. He encouraged everyone to read the Finance Committee
report. The Chair wrote that it was the consensus of the Committee
that more population would lead to more costs. We don’t know whether
development of new housing is even capable of offsetting costs. We
should keep what happens small. Going through the amendments, he
encouraged support for all except Bagnall / Flemming.
TMM Tosi
said that if the MBTA Communities Act wasn’t passed by the state, we
wouldn’t be selling out our town. He said that under this proposal,
lower rent units will be redeveloped to higher cost. Speculation will
lead to higher costs. China is the largest investor in development in
the U.S. Investor / owners with no link to our community won’t help to
improve our Town. There will be no changes to reduce our structural
deficits. We cannot build ourselves out of the high cost of housing.
Residents don’t like what’s being built today. This is not a NIMBY
town. He said that Arlington is very dense and loves trees, but this
proposal leaves no space for trees. He respects our state reps for
being in support of new housing. However, our Town is dense already.
Town Meeting is the place to do budgets and zoning. He noted that
members wouldn't be rushing in if they lived in an overlay district.
Would you even support this? (very noticeable "yes"). TMM Tosi noted
we can pass something less today an respond later. He encouraged a vote
against Bagnall / Flemming. He said to consider the others on their
own merit. Vote for the next step for Arlington
TMM Levy was in
favor of the main motion. He had intended to introduce our state
senator, but she had to leave. In order to increase affordable
housing, you need to build housing. Supply must be increased. In the
past, he said he would have been afraid to consider this plan. He has
been persuaded to approve it. He was able to purchase here after
initially being shut out of town. There were 11 bids for his house. He
has a relative looking to buy, but they were priced out. They did
everything right. Arlington just cannot accommodate them. He said to
look at what is available today. Must be able to be in top class, get
top degree, and land top job to be guaranteed housing in our town. The
population of the state has grown by 40% without a comparable increase
in housing stock. He said the opponents of the article are correct.
The first units will be the most expensive, but affordability will
follow. He said it was not fair to our high school graduates to tell
them they must be the absolute best in order to have a chance live here
where they grew up. We must do more, and we must start now.
TMM
Goldsmith repeated a quote he heard that we don't inherit from our
parents, we borrow from our children, and possibly our grandchildren.
This returns the investment with interest. He encouraged a vote against
all the amendments except Anderson. All historic properties are
outside the proposed districts. He spoke against Bagnall / Flemming.
He noted that change would not come today or tomorrow. He noted the capacity number is based on a hypothetical
1,000 square foot unit. Larger unis mean fewer units. He thought TMM
Levy spoke eloquently about what we owe our youth. He urged support for
Article 12, and he was glad that he achieved his personal goal of not
using all his allotted time.
TMM Bloom was listening carefully,
trying to understand all the viewpoints. She asked how affordable
housing fits in this proposal. Ms. Ricker said that should the state
deny our application to use our own inclusionary zoning bylaw, the
article would revert to what state allows, which is 10% of units at 80%
of AMI. This would not be as robust as our inclusionary bylaw. TMM
Bloom asked if we are denied, is there a way to file an appeal. Ms.
Ricker said she will find out.
TMM Sullivan passed.
TMM Ciano asked why the Town didn't send notice to the homeowners in the proposed districts that just said the proposal would increase the density of their neighborhood and allow 3-4 family units in their neighborhood. Ms. Ricker said the provided notice was a legal notice and it uses prescriptive language. TMM Ciano said that the notices that were sent used very strict language. They were too prescriptive; they should have said what would happen. Why couldn't they say that? Meeting Members don’t get feedback. Mr. Cunningham noted that legal notices are bland because otherwise, they might require interpretation. As they are written, they provide proper notice and allows the recipients to engage and learn more. TMM Ciano said he supported all the amendments except Bagnall / Flemming. He said to pray others do same.
It was now 11:00, and there were calls to adjourn. The Moderator looked at the clock, and decided to take one more speaker
TMM
Fisher said he was trying to keep up with all the changes and competing
values. He thought increased housing was a good thing. He listened to
both sides during hearing. He thanked the “do less” team for avoiding
appeals to the “character of town”. This usually implies keeping others
out of town. He assumed everyone was starting from good intentions.
However, that was not what character meant to him. He sees character as
whether the town is optimistic or pessimistic, welcoming or turning a
cold shoulder. He hoped that when we are done on Wednesday, we voted on
values.
The Moderator thanked everyone for the respectful debate
tonight. (applause) He entertained a motion to adjourn. There was no
need for notices, as we didn't vote on anything. The motion was
seconded and passed on a voice vote. We stand adjourned.
