2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night One

October 17, 2023

Welcome back to Arlington Town Meeting.  This Special Town Meeting was called primarily for zoning articles postponed from the Annual Town Meeting in the spring.  At the time, the Town Manager asked the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) to delay their warrant articles to a special town meeting in the fall to help reduce the length of the annual meeting.  It being after 8:00, the Moderator called us to our seats so we could get started. Four-to-five minutes later, there was a further call to "Settle Down, Settle Down."

The Moderator called the meeting to Order. He hoped to complete this special town meeting in October. In order to provide extra time for preparation, the Meeting will take up Article 12 on Monday, October 23.  Per the email which went out to Town Meeting in the past week, members are asked to please register in advance to speak on the article.  Members will still be able to join the regular speakers queue.  He will recognize people from all lists.  He did note that he would not release of the algorithm used to determine the speaking order.  Turning somber, the Moderator recognized the ongoing war zones in Europe and the Middle East and asked for a moment of silence.  We weer reminded of the importance of what we do here.  We are a living and breathing institution of deliberative democracy.  We meet to peacefully and thoughtfully deliberate and make decisions on behalf of our Town.  There will be time for lighthearted moments during the meeting, but we were encouraged to not lose focus on what is important.

The Moderator introduced a vote on the use of a satellite room.  We did this last spring as well.  The vote is to acknowledge that the meeting will be taking place in Town Hall Auditorium, but there will be members in a separate satellite room participating as well.  The motion language was brought to the screen.  Before that vote, it was decided we should to a test vote first, just in case there was an issue with some of the handsets.  The motion language was changed in favor of the test vote:  "Do you want to finish by Halloween?"  The test vote passed 173-9, so the Moderator declared we were now required to do so.  There was a Point of Order from balcony (member not named) to display the individual votes, so we could confirm out handsets were working.  The Moderator displayed the role.  The Moderator noted that there was a short delay in the communications coming from the satellite room, and we were asked to please be patient.  We now moved to the vote on satellite room, but there was a technical issue with one of the handsets.  The Moderator considered just doing a voice vote, but the handset issue wass resolved in time.  The satellite room motion passed 184-2.

The Star Spangled Banner was played by Mr. Helmuth, the Chair of the Select Board.

Mr. Helmuth had to then come down to the floor for his motions.  He requested that members of town board, committees, commissions, town staff, representatives, consultants, and members of the media be allowed within the enclosure.  This was passed on a voice vote.  The Town Clerk agreed that the meeting had been properly noticed.  Mr. Helmuth moved that should the business of the meeting be incomplete at the end of the evening, the meeting would adjourn to Thursday, October 19.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

The Moderator asked for announcements and resolutions, but there were none.
 

Ms. Deshler, Chair of the Finance Committee came forward to introduce Article 1, the acceptance of reports of committees.  She moved that the initial and supplemental reports of the Finance Committee be received.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Mr. Revilak, member of the ARB moved that the initial and supplemental reports of the ARB be received.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Mr. Helmuth moved that the report of Select Board be received.  This was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Ms. Deshler moved that the recommended votes contained in the reports be before meeting without further action.  This was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Ms. Deshler, moved that Article 1 be placed upon the table.  This was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Article 2 regarding a possible transfer of funds to the School Budget was introduced by Ms. Deshler. Since the Finance Committee report was issued, an error was discovered in the language on the ballot for the override vote scheduled for November 7.  The ballot states the override would take effect Jul 1, 2024 (not 2023) so the increase in funding is for FY25, not FY24.  Accordingly, the Town cannot access those funds until July 1, 2024.  The reason for the article was to transfer funds ahead of that date, which was no longer possible.  The Finance Committee now recommended a No Action vote.  Ms. Deshler asked if the Moderator would allow discussion of the override vote in this case.  ( A recommended vote of no action is not debatable.)  The Moderator agreed to allow a narrow line of discussion related to the explanation of how we got here.  Mr. Helmuth said there was a typographic error on the ballot.  It included "July 1, 2024" instead of "July 1, 2023", meaning that the funds would not be available until the next budget cycle.  The Town will need to ask for and additional $7M for next year.  The Select Board debated postponing the vote to correct the ballot, but they decided to keep date, as the Town could make a balanced budget.  There were two positive financial developments which helped make this possible.  The Town's good budgeting practices also helped.  Mr. Helmuth was pleased to report that the Select Board was comfortable with this decision, and it is confident of the Town's resources.  Mr. Feeney, the Town Manager rose to address the meeting.  The Moderator reminded him that he could only address only how we got here.  The Manager noted the Town updated its financial plan, and it can meet its current commitments.  Recent growth has exceeded estimates.  School enrollment grew slower than estimated.  Higher interest rates brought in higher returns on the Town's investments.  The tight labor market created delays in hiring.  Town Meeting can reconsider school funding in the spring.

The Moderator noted there were speakers in queue, but there was nothing open for debate.  The Moderator said he would entertain a motion, but he was interrupted by a Point of Order from TMM Jamieson.  He asked how to use the speaker queue?  The Moderator explained that he would notify the members when the queue is open.  He would initially ask the the speaker queue screen be displayed, but we would then switch to the article screen.  He said we were to use "1" to enter the queue and "2" to exit queue.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to note that any button seemed to work.  The Moderator noted that was his recollection from spring.  (The handset does notify you whether you are on or off queue.)  There was a Point of Order from TMM Crowder confirming the correct procedure. The Moderator said to press an odd number of times to be on the list and an even number of times to be off the list.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order to note that the screen on the handset tells you if you are in the queue.  TMM Kaepplein raised a Point of Order to note that an important vote was coming up on an override … (Shouts of "Scope" from the floor.  "Let him finish his sentence" from the Moderator.)  Mr. Kaepplein continued that this would be a good opportunity to learn about the override. The Moderator reviewed the text of the warrant article, and noted that the merits of the override couldn’t be discussed as they would not be in scope.  This brought us back around to the recommended vote of no action.  It was passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Ms. Ricker, Director of OUR Department of Planning and Community Development came forward to introduce the zoning articles.  She stated that only 3.7% of the Town's zoned land in a business district.  The Moderator steered her towards Article 3.  She continued that the purpose for most of the articles was to bring more development to the Town through thoughtfully considered bylaw amendments aimed to increase development in the business districts.  She introduced Mr. Revilak to introduce the articles.  Mr. Revilak introduced Article 3 is a correction to a reference in the zoning bylaw.  An earlier section was removed by Town Meeting and the following sections had been renumbered.  There was a reference to one of those later sections, and it needed to be corrected.  The Moderator brought us straight to the vote, ("1" for "yes" and "2" for "no") but there was a Point of Order from TMM Wagner asking if it was still possible to abstain?  Is using the "3" still an option.  The Moderator confirmed that it was.  The article was approved 197-1.

Article 4 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  This article regarding the reduced height buffer area.  This article had a recommended vote of No Action.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Crowder asking what is a "finding" was?  The Moderator ruled the question out of scope.  This brought up the main motion which passed 188-3.

Article 5 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  This article was in regards to open space in the business districts.  He requested his slides be presented.  The Moderator called to reset the speaker queue.  The proposed bylaw package including Articles 5-11 came after the 2022 Town Meeting where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the business districts was increased.  The ARB identified several zoning bylaws which prevented businesses to meet the increased FAR.  The proposed changes will only apply to business districts.  In our zoning bylaw, open space can be either on the ground or on a roof within 10ft of lowest level.   This article proposes 3 changes:  it would tie open space to lot area (not gross floor area), change to percentages for required open space, and allow open space to occur on balconies and roofs more than ten feet above the lowest level used for dwellings.  The open space requirement currently increases with the gross floor area, so adding residential area increases need for open space.  The proposal would increase the landscaped open space and reduce the usable open space.  This will make it simpler to develop a site.  This will help to increase development and raise the tax base.  Open space is for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the building.  This article improves the usability of the zoning bylaw and increases green space.

TMM Weinstein introduced an amendment.  He agrees with tying open space to parcel size. However, he sees a fatal flaw.  Currently, developers have to build open space close to the ground.  By the proposed definitions, in the business districts, all the other conditions would be removed.  This would lead to double dipping.  He proposed to maintain the current restrictions but keep new calculations by removing the proposed changes to the definitions in Section 2 from the vote.

TMM Owen was in favor of article.  He may have helped suggest it after the last Town Meeting.  He was attending ARB hearings on the zoning bylaw and usable open space is untenable.  Providing open space on roofs and balconies should be allowed so open space can be utilized.  He doesn’t see how the amendment would help.  Current sites don’t have a lot of open space today.  Allowing it on upper floors allows green space without cannibalizing other space. TMM Melofchick was invited by the Moderator to move TMM Weinstein's amendment, which we forgot to do while he had the floor.  She moved the amendment, and it was seconded.  She is all for green space on the ground.  She likes the green space at The former Brighams site.  She said she would be brief.  She supports the Weinstein amendment as a nuanced approach.  The Brighams site was a business redeveloped as residential.  It does look towards the bike trail.  She urged support for the article.  TMM Pretzer rose in support of article.  Business districts include many small parcels with no open space.  Mixed use is a great use, but often cannot accommodate the required open space on the ground.  This proposal maintains open space and permits larger buildings.  It removes barriers to development.  We were encouraged to vote against amendment. Sometimes, the rooftop might be the best place for open space.  TMM Jalkut was confused about the implications of the amendment, and he wanted to ask questions.  He was afraid that existing open space might be lost - is that true?  He liked the idea that lots without ground level open space should have to provide it.  Would the amendment allow current properties with open space to rebuild without open space?  The Moderator invited the ARB to respond. Mr. Benson, a member of the ARB noted that this article does not reduce the required amount of open space.  It only allows that space to be located on rooftops and balconies.  Green facades would be an option.  Open space is for the building occupants.  This creates more options.  TMM Jalkut asked Mr. Benson to stay on the scope of his question.  Mr. Benson apologized.  TMM Jalkut reiterated his question:  will the main motion allow for the elimination of existing open space.  Mr. Benson said the open space could be relocated to balconies and rooftops, but it would still need to be provided.  TMM Jalkut confirmed that the standard would be the same for new and redevelopment.

TMM Newton questioned whether under the existing bylaw, could open space be provided on a roof. Mr. Benson said yes if it is in new development and located just above the lowest level of residential units.  TMM Newton cautioned that the amendment could reduce the amount of residential development.  TMM Granucci moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  Members requested a role call vote, so the handsets came out.  The vote to terminate debate passed 149-64, and debate was terminated.  TMM Yontar raised a Point of Order asking if there are any articles requiring a ⅔ vote.  The  Moderator noted that while amendments always only require a majority vote, some main motions do require a ⅔ vote.  This brought up the vote on the amendment.  The Moderator reviewed the amendment, and noted that it only removed the proposed definition changes in Section 2; the remainder remains as per main motion.  The vote on the amendment failed 58-156, and it was not adopted.  There was an anonymous Point of Order from the floor asking if the Moderator would be displaying the individual votes. -The Moderator said he would normally do so only on final votes, but he could do so here.  The Moderator then reviewed the article on the screen.  The vote on main motion was paused by a Point of Order from TMM Weinstein.  He asked if the vote was a majority or 2/3 vote.  The Moderator thanked him for the question and confirmed it was a ⅔ vote.  The vote on the article passed 167-53.

Article 6 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  The article would change the requirement for rear yard setbacks in the business districts.  There was an anonymous Point of Order asking him to speak slower.  Mr. Revilak noted that currently, rear yard setback uses a set of quirky formulas based on length and height of the proposed building.  This makes it difficult to gauge the development potential of a parcel.  You cannot tell what the setback for building will be until you have designed the building.  Article 6 would set a fixed setback distance based on what use the parcel abuts and the height of the proposed building.  The setback would be deeper at residential uses and deeper still with taller buildings.  None of the town's comparable communities use formulas in their setback definitions.  They are easier to understand.  He recommended approval.  TMM Pretzer rose to present an amendment.  Overall, this is a very helpful article.  The amendment would remove the height restriction, so there would be a 20 ft setback at residential uses regardless of the height of the proposed building.  This would prevent any unnecessary restrictions on mixed use development.  Many of the business district lots are not deep enough to have 30 ft rear setbacks.  We were urged to vote for the amendment.  The amendment was moved and seconded.  TMM Loreti also rose to present an amendment.  This amendment would slightly modify the zero rear yard setback facing a right of way.  The amendment was seconded.  The Moderator spent a little while searching for the presentation.  TMM Loreti was concerned about development abutting the bike path.  It is a right-of-way, so there would be no rear yard setback.  The proposed amendment would still require a 10 ft rear yard setback against a non-residential zone.  He noted that through lots are defined as having two front yards and no rear yard.  This was in potential conflict with the proposed article.  He summarized that his was a modest proposal to protect the bike path and avoid conflict with through lots.  He did not support the other amendment.  The Moderator noticed a discrepancy in the annotated warrant.  The table printed there might not match what is in the ARB report.  He noted that what appears in the report is what is being voted.

The Moderator went to the speaker queue.  TMM Kepka opposed article and relayed a personal story. A setback is used to provide more open space, adequate light, and ample fresh air.  They are very useful areas.  Setbacks are also important in case of emergency.  The improve fire safety by imposing a separation.  They allow a fire apparatus to pass by buildings.  She had a fire in her yard.  Luckily, a passerby called the fire department, and the loss was not as bad as it might have been.  She said her patio protected her house from the fire.  It is not healthy or safe to not have setbacks.  She urged a vote against the article.   TMM Kaepplein agreed that fire safety was very important.  Rear access to a building can be a matter of life and death.  Fires often transfer to adjacent properties.  He had an issue with rear right of way and alleyways.  It is an important place to locate dumpsters.  Would there be room for garbage trucks, fire trucks, occupants, and deliveries?  The Moderator noted the time and called for a 10 minute break.

-----------------

The Moderator informed the Meeting that we ran out of copies of the revised ARB Report.  Given the issues with the Annotated Warrant text, he was having additional copies printed now.  They would be available as soon as possible.  TMM Weinstein rose to speak in favor of the Loreti amendment. He felt it was something that may have been overlooked by the ARB, and he thought they would want it inserted.  The amendment would avoid a developer taking advantage of a loophole.  He opposed the Pretzer amendment.  TMM Prokosch had a question for the ARB.  He was curious whether under the main motion, would setbacks generally be smaller?  Mr. Revilak said not necessarily.  Figuring that out requires running the formula.  He ran two quick scenarios showing one where the setback was the same and a second where the setback would be deeper.  Hypothesizing requires confirmation.  TMM Prokosch asked about fire concerns.  Are there differences in fire safety between new multifamily construction and existing triple-decker construction.  Mr. Ciampa, Director of Inspectional Services noted that new construction would have sprinklers and fireproof construction.  TMM Prokosch asked about the setback from the bike path.  Ms. Ricker said she was not an expert on the width of the right of way for the bike path.  There is a good amount of open ground on both sides of the paved path.  The total right of way is likely 40ft.  TMM Prokosch said he likes several businesses facing bike path, including Bike Stop which opens onto the path.  He encouraged a vote against the Loreti amendment.  (A Member on the speaker list passed, but I didn't catch the name.)

TMM Schlichtman said he was a little confused, and he was looking for expert answers.  What is the legal definition of an alleyway under the bylaw.  Mr. Revilak said the term was not defined in the zoning bylaw, so it goes by the definition in the Webster dictionary.  TMM Schlichtman laughed, noting he had been in town meeting for quite a while, and he still learns something new every time.  Mr. Revilak noted that a right of way is area where the public can pass.  TMM Schlichtman asked what a “rear right of way” would be as referenced in the article.  Would a property be required to have two front yards?  He noted that TMM Loreti had an interesting point.  It could be considered a right of way.  Mr. Revilak added that per the zoning bylaw, it seemed like yard setbacks did not apply to the bike path.  TMM Schlichtman referenced past plans by the MBTA to build a subway.  (There were some tentative calls for scope, by TMM Schlichtman defended his line of questioning, as he wanted to make sure this article would not interfere should the MBTA reconsider constructing the line.  He thought the Loreti amendment was moot.  TMM Loreti wanted to refer back to the definitions.  The bike path exclusion only applies to front lot line, not to rear lot lines.  The Moderator noted there seemed to be a variety of opinions.  TMM Moore passed.

TMM Greenspon asked the ARB to address what TMM Loreti had just said.  Ms. Ricker said that the front lot line was as Mr. Revilak said.  The rear lot line right of way would need to follow the definition of "right of way" which  is defined as a street or highway.  TMM Greenspon confirmed that a three story structure abutting a residential use would have a 20 ft setback.  A four story structure abutting a residential use would need to have all stories set back 30 ft from the property line.  Somerville would have the 30 foot setback start at the fourth floor.  He asked how the setback dimensions were determined.  TMM Revilak said last December, town staff had conducted a survey of setbacks in neighboring communities. The final dimensions were selected by the ARB.  TMM Greenspon noted it was hard to go over three stories, so the town wasn't going to get four story buildings.  He supported the Pretzer amendment, opposed the Loreti amendment, and supported the main motion.  TMM Jamieson moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The Pretzer amendment was considered first.  The vote failed 84-123.  The Loreti amendment was next, and it narrowly failed 101-105.  The final vote was for the main motion without any amendments which passed 173-37.

Article 7: TMM Revilak introduced amend related to step backs in business districts. seeks to make development more desirable. Step back is when top portion of building is set back farther from the street.  Currently, we have a step back of 7.5 feet at the fourth floor facing streets.  However, step backs on multiple sides on small lots is difficult.  This article would change the rule so the step back would only apply to the primary street and would be relative to the property line.  He noted that comparable communities that have step backs set them higher.  He said the ARB voted 3-1 to approve the language. The holdout preferred the step back to occur at the fifth floor.  TMM Wagner said the proponent noted that the step back makes the building look smaller.  This article does not protect installed solar on adjacent properties.  He claimed there were no public hearings on these articles since the spring.  In his experience, there have always been public meetings before articles come to the Meeting.  Town Meeting is voting on major changes, and the ARB should have had more public input.  He encourages a no vote.  Mr. Hollman encouraged a vote against the article.  He noted that this only applies to the primary facade.  The other facades are usually less attractive, sometimes considerably less so.  The article is sending a message to abutters that they are unimportant.  Residents are going to face the big ugly facades.  TMM Benson said Arlington will still be more restrictive than most other towns. We are competing for business with these other towns, and we need to remain competitive on things like step backs.  He clarifies that the step back starts at the fourth floor.  This really only effects corner lots.  TMM Elliot passed.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  (The Moderator seemed surprised, but Mr. Moore is a fairly reliable terminator.)  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote declared to be a ⅔ vote.  The Moderator summarized the main motion.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order noting that the text of the article on the voting slide wass incorrect.  It noted “backyard” instead of “step back”, a leftover from Article 6.  The Moderator asked to vacate the vote, correct the slide, and start the vote over.  It was quite a long pause, so the Moderator ask for a good playlist while we waited.  The slide was corrected and the vote reopened.  The main motion passed 140-60.

Article 8 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  It related to height and story minimums in business districts. The article is intended to encourage more development in the business districts.  It would encourage traditional mixed use development and a more efficient use of limited land area.  The article would impose a height minimum unless it was unfeasible for the site.  It would not require an additional story be added to existing buildings.  TMM Farrell passed.  Ms. Mozina agreed with the article.  It is important to maximize land usage and increase business.  TMM Tosti rose to move the question. The motion was seconded, but a ⅔ vote was declared to have failed.  The Moderator noted that only a half a person standing.  That half was quickly joined by others.  The Moderator quipped, "OK, I should have kept my mouth shut."  Voting was opened by handset.  The motion passed 141-58, and debate was closed.  The Moderator summarized the vote before opening voting on main motion.  (The Moderator noted that the use of “minimums” on the slide was acceptable, but “minima’ would also have been acceptable as the correct plural.  The article passed 185-23.

Article 9 was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  The article regarded corner lot requirements.  This article was proposed to encourage development of commercial space.  The article also sought to clarify how this issue has been interpreted by the ARB.  Today, the depth of a front yard shall be same as the front yard depth for adjacent lots.  In most cases, the corner is in the same zoning district as the adjacent properties.  However, it is a problem where the zones are different and the setbacks are different.  Imposing a residential zone setback on a business zone property would create artificially large setbacks.  The ARB hopes this change, to apply the business district setbacks instead of the adjacent residential district setback would encourage better development of those sites.  TMM Miller had a question about an earlier slide showing different setbacks.   Mr. Revilak explained the issue.  TMM Miller commented that having a corner property be an isolated business district was unusual.  Mr. Revilak confirmed it was, but also noted that it does happen. (The Moderator quipped that the B district was a "corner case".)  TMM Worden has a problem with this approach as a multistory building, as we now have to have at least two stories, shadows will fall farther on adjacent properties.  Should this article go back to the ARB for further consideration?  This would be OK for a single story building, but not for multiple story.  The Moderator confirmed that this was not a motion to refer to a committee.  TMM Klein asked about including the side yard in the language.  The article only affected the front yard.  Mr. Revilak confirmed it was odd, not necessary, and in this case, it would just not apply.  A member was identified to move the question.  TMM Loreti raised a Point of Order asking whether the inclusion of side yard made the proposed language out of scope.  It now addresses the side yards which are not a "street yard" which is the language in the warrant.  Mr. Benson said it depends on which way the building sits on the adjacent property, and he believes it is within scope.  Mr. Cunningham, the Acting Town Counsel mentioned section 5.3.8 and if agreed by the Moderator, he believed proper notice had been provided. TMM Gast moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The main motion passed 150-49.

The time is now 10:50.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order to note that there are only five more articles and Article 12 before the Meeting.  He asked if it made sense to come in Thursday to debate only five articles.  The debate on Article 12 is scheduled for Monday, October 23.  The Moderator reviewed the article topics and possibilities in real time ... in front of everyone.  An anonymous member raised a Point of Order to ask if we skip the Thursday session, do we risk running into Halloween?  The Moderator noted that it is up the the Town Meeting members to decide how long we are going to take.  He doesn't decide how long to debate; he only calls names off a list.  TMM Jamieson suggested we debate Article 10 tonight and come back Monday for the rest.  There was a lot of grumbling from the floor and a random “I agree with that” spoken into a microphone.  The Moderator said we would stick to the original plan.  It would likely be an early night on Thursday.  We can come back on Monday and all walk out of Town Hall arm-in-arm after closing Article 12.  TMM Revilak raised a Point of Order that Article 14 requires action on Article 12 to go first.  Mr. Cunningham thought Mr. Revilak’s point was “somewhat valid”.  He noted that passing Article 12 is one of three options to be a part of the zero emission pilot program.  The other two are not options for Arlington.  Again, Thursday might be an early night.  (Many shouted motions to adjourn.)  The Moderator noted there were two minutes left.  He asked if there were any notices of reconsideration.  There being none, he asked for a motion to adjourn, which was seconded.  We were adjourned.