2023 Fall Special Town Meeting - Night Two

October 19, 2023

We come back for Night Two. This might well be a short night, since last session, we were told we can only hear four articles: 10, 11, 13, and 15.  Article 12 is scheduled to be debated on Monday, and Article 14 is contingent on Article 12.  Monday will be the pivotal night, Tonight is trees, residences, and collective bargaining.  (Looking again at the Warrant, we could act on Article 14 now, and if Article 12 doesn’t pass, it just becomes moot.)

We started a little late. We were gaveled to order at 8:07.  The Moderator had some brief remarks.  We were reminded to not forget to turn in our handsets at the end of the night.  The hearing assistive devices are not working with the upgraded audio system in the hall.  Town staff will try to have it fixed by Monday.  The plan is to debate Article 12 on Monday, October 23.  There are currently six amendments posted to the Annotated Warrant, and more motions under review.  We will debate all the other articles tonight, so if we finish early, we can go home early.  Also, handset 45 is missing ... and found.

The Star Spangled Banner was played, beautifully I might add, by Rieko Tanaka.

Mr. Helmuth moved that if all the business before the meeting was not completed this evening, when we adjourn, we will adjourn to Monday, October 23 at 8:00.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Our Test Vote tonight was:  "Will we finish all business (except Article 12) by the end of the night?" The question passed 135-33.  TMM Harrelson raised a Point of Order asking what the quorum is for the meeting.  The Moderator referenced the Town Bylaws (Title 1, Article 1, Section 6) and noted that quorum was 63 (25% of membership) for conducting business and 85 in order to act on votes requiring a 2/3 majority.

The Moderator asked if there were any announcements:  TMM Allison-Ampe spoke on behalf of Invest in Arlington.  She said they are looking for looking for volunteers.  If you are interested in helping, you may contact her.

The Moderator moved on the the acceptance of Reports of Committees, noting that there were no additional reports anticipated.  Ms. Deshler moved that Article 1 be taken from the table.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  No reports were offered.  Ms. Deshler moved that Article 1 be laid back upon the table.  That motion was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Article 10 was introduced by Mr. Revilak. The article involves requirements for the planting of public shade trees.  Currently, new developments or significant improvement in the business districts require public street trees every 25 ft.  This article will require the same in the proposed overlay districts and residential districts.  The article also includes regulations on planting, size, and species.  TMM Crowder asked how the article plays with potential zero front yard setbacks.  Mr. Revilak noted the trees would be located in the public right of way, so outside of the property line.  If infeasible to plant the required trees, a contribution could be made to the town's tree fund.  TMM Stamps, member of the Tree Committee was happy this bylaw was being proposed.  The town needs as much help as it can to increase its tree canopy.  Front yard trees would be better, and there are discussions underway to see if that can happen.  TMM Radochia loves trees, but he believes we should not be planting them against the street.  This blocks the view from driveways.  Drivers backing out cannot see traffic or pedestrians, creating a dangerous situation. He noted that Winchester plants their trees in front yards, and they have clear sight lines.  The Moderator announced that the center balcony if for the use of Town Meeting members only.  All others are to sit in the side balconies.  TMM Jalkut moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The main motion was before the meeting, but there was a Point of Order from TMM Hollman.  He asked whether Town Meeting could vote on this article without having voted on Article 12?  The article references overlay districts which do not exist.  Mr. Cunningham said yes, we can act.  If Article 12 does not pass, that portion of the language would just be moot.  The Moderator reminded us to vote 1 for yes, 2 for no, and 3 to abstain.  The motion would require a 2/3 vote.  The article passed 187-10.

Article 11 was introduced by Mr. Revilak  The article proposed to remove single- and two-family dwellings from the list of allowed uses in the business districts.  This is one of several articles introduced to increase commercial development and create quality business space.  Currently, single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings are allowed in all business districts.  This change would prohibit new housing of those types in the business districts.  Existing dwellings would become nonconforming.  They can continue to be occupied.  This article emphasizes the need for commercial and mixed-use development in the business districts.  He recommended positive action.  The Moderator noted that there was a proposed amendment from a member who was unable to attend this evening.  He understood that TMM Evans would be introducing the amendment on TMM Loreti's behalf.  TMM Evans introduced the Loreti amendment.  It would retain single-family,  two-family, and duplex dwellings in the B1 district.  It would maintain the current feel of the B1 district.  The amendment was seconded.  TMM Kaepplein said he would vote in favor of the amendment.  There is a dentist office around corner from his house in a single-family house.  There are many similar buildings around town.  This would preserve some of the small town character found along Mass Ave.  Funeral homes are another example of houses used for business purposes with a residential unit above.  That may not be attractive if there are many apartments over a funeral home.  He remains against the main motion, but he supports the Loreti amendment anyways.

TMM Jamieson had a few questions.  In the materials provided, references to single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings was removed from the district description, but three-family was added.  That was not mentioned in the presentation.  Mr. Revilak said that three-family was already allowed in the district by special permit.  TMM Jamieson asked if in the full bylaw, there was a line for three-family?  Mr. Revilak referenced the zoning bylaw.  While that was happening, TMM Jamieson noted that not having residences in the business districts was linked to the plan for the overlay districts.  (The Moderator asked him to keep the debate to this article.)  Mr. Revilak confirmed that there is a line for three-family in the zoning bylaw.  TMM Jamieson asked if there was a map showing the location of the B1 districts.  Mr. Revilak wasn't sure about a map, but he noted the districts were small and scattered throughout the Mass Ave and Broadway corridors.  The Moderator asked to have the Town's zoning map displayed.  TMM Jamieson and Mr. Revilak reviewed the districts on the screen.  The Moderator jumped with his gavel to point at the districts.  (Mr. Revilak noted that one looked like a piano.)  TMM Jamieson asked whether his barbershop could be converted to a residence.  He was told no.  He was definitely against the amendment and for the article.

TMM Weinstein spoke on behalf of and in favor of the amendment.  Article 11 is great except that it treats the B1 district like every other business district.  There are differences.  There are existing homes in this district.  The amendment would preserve the ability to keep them residential if a confirming use was ever applied.  He urged support for the amendment.  TMM Benson opposed the amendment, and he asked members to please vote no.  Article 11 was designed to prioritize commercial and multifamily development in these districts.  This amendment proposes the opposite.  It would allow commercial buildings to be converted to single-and two-family dwellings.  TMM Benson noted that under the current zoning bylaw, switching back and forth from single-family to two-family can be allowed by special permit.  That would remain without the amendment.  Switching the use from a business to a single- or two-family dwelling would not be allowed.  This will insure new construction would be commercial construction.  TMM Benson discussed the differences between nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures.  A nonconforming use can continue indefinitely.  This article has no effect on nonconforming structures.  A dentist's office with a residence above would still be allowed.

TMM Wagner was sorry that TMM Loreti was not here not here.  He is isolating due to COVID.  (He was present two nights ago, so it might be time to test yourself.)  TMM Wagner said the article made sense.  TMM Loreti is a past ARB member, and he is able to provide a different perspective.  The B1 district is a small home office district, and it should be preserved.  TMM Wagner said that this article was not discussed during this cycle.  (Calls for scope).  He said he grew up in a B1 district.  (More calls for scope)  He noted this town has different business zones with different uses.  We can say yes to the amendment and yes to article.  TMM Moore move to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The vote on amendment, to remove the B1 district from the list of proposed revisions to the business districts failed 55-137.  The main motion, to strike allowing single-family, two-family, and duplex dwellings in business districts required a ⅔ vote.  The article passed 161-39.

The Moderator noted that we could proceed to Article 12 right now if the Meeting wanted to do so.  Ms. Deshler moved to lay Article 12 upon the table.  The Moderator asked the Meeting to table the article until Monday so there is more time to prepare for the debate.  Six amendments have been posted so far and others are under review.  He noted that the decision was up to the Members.  The motion to table Article 12 was passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Article 13was introduced by Mr. Revilak.  At their October 16 meeting, the ARB voted to recommend a vote of No Action on this article.  The Moderator noted there were names in the speaker queue, but as there is no substitute motion, and No Action cannot be debated, we would proceed straight to the vote.  The article passed on a voice vote.

Article 14 was introduced by Mr. Helmuth.  He noted the Select Board recommended positive action on this article.  He thanked town staff, representatives, and residents for their professionalism and support for this article, and he looked forward to the presentation.  The Moderator recognized Talia Fox, the Sustainability Manager, but Ryan Katosfsky, the Chair Clean Energy Future Committee (CEFC) came forward to present.  This article would prohibit new fossil fuel development in town.  Its goals align with the Clean Heat bylaw passed in 2020.  This article proposes adjustments to align with updated state guidelines.  This is the next step on the Town's journey to net zero.  Electrification helps to move towards zero faster.  This is part of the Town's action plan.  He noted that we have been here before.  Town Meeting debated and passed a home rule petition in 2020 with 92% approval.  The State rejected the home rule, but created a pilot program which the town leadership would like to join.

Ms. Fox, the Sustainability Manager noted that up to ten communities can be enrolled in the pilot.  Arlington needs to pass this article again as home rule was not approved.  The goal is to better align the proposed bylaw with the state guidelines and technology improvements over the last three years. Enforcement would be through the specialized stretch code.  The proposal redefines major renovation.  It would prohibit new indoor fossil fuel appliances. A waiver process will still be implemented.  It will have a slightly higher square footage threshold for multifamily hot water generation.  The effective date was revised.  These rules would not apply to repairs and additions.  It includes options for waivers and exemptions for some uses.  Joining the pilot will help meet current net zero goals and avoid expensive retrofits later on.  She encourages passing the article.  The Moderator asked the members to reference the Annotated Warrant to find a proposed administrative correction.  Its acceptance was passed on a voice vote.  TMM Meeks, also a member of the CEFC strongly supported the article.  It is a continuation of work started in 2020.  He hopes it will pass by a large majority as it did then.  This time, it includes a prohibition on new indoor cooking appliances.  In 2020, this was not a part of the discussion and would have been quite contentious.  Since that time there has been more discussion of the harmful effects from using them.  He encouraged support of the article.

TMM Trembley said he didn’t know where to stand on this article.  There will be an all-electric future. How many new electrical substations will we require?  The Moderator asked if anyone knew.  Mr. Katosfsky couldn't give a count or whether any would be needed at all.  TMM Trembley noted that Cambridge will need five new substations.  The first will be built in Kendall Square at a projected cost of $1.4B.  He hopes Cambridge rate payers will pay for it.  ...  He knows we hate natural gas.  (The Moderator said we don't actually know that.  The member should stick to facts and not cast aspersions on others.)  TMM Trembley apologized and noted that many things make housing expensive.  Utilities are a part of that.  His electric bill is 10x his gas bill.  Cooking appliances can be replaced by induction coils.  We could spend thousands on a new stove and thousands more on new utensils, but we keep talking about affordable housing.  ... It gets really cold.  Global warming might mean no more snow, but air source heat pumps don’t keep up.  They sometimes need supplemental heating coils.  You can spend a lot to get a high efficiency heat pump that works down to 0 degrees.  You can spend less on one that goes down to 20 degrees, but it might not keep up. ... (The Moderator noted that this is speaking time, not thinking time.)  TMM Trembley said the struck him as a really bad idea.  It will be expensive, we don't have the infrastructure, and we don't have the technology.  It strikes him as a really bad idea.  This is just a "rah rah" ... (The Manager again told him to stop casting aspersions.  Stop being performative.  You are probably correct, but don’t do it.)  He said he would shut up now.  (The Moderator quipped that when it gets cold, we do salt the roads, but we won't get into that now.)  TMM Leone had a couple of questions.  He asked if he could convert his oil furnace to a new natural gas furnace.  Ms. Fox said the restriction only applied to new construction and major renovations, so long as it wasn't part of that, it would be allowed.  TMM Leone asked whether he could still connect a new natural gas service to his house.  Ms. Fox repeated, yes as long as it is not a part of a major renovation.  (The Moderator asked that any other home improvement advice be solicited after the meeting.)  There was a motion to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.  The recommended vote was reviewed on the screen.  The article passed 178-23.  The Moderator asked the members to hold their applause until after the meeting was dissolved.

Article 15 was introduced by Ms. Deshler.  The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval.  Alex Magee, the Deputy Town Manager and Finance Manager noted that we were voting on the ratification of the union contract with patrolmen.  This is mostly a retroactive action.  The Meeting is voting to transfer funds to pay for salary increases in past and current years.  This will further the Town's goal to align salaries with comparable communities.  There will be a total increase of 14% over three years.  This also includes a 2% increase for the use of body cameras.  TMM Phelan passed.  TMM Newton asked whether in Section 6 is a 2% increase in pay based on the body camera policy.  What was included in that agreement.  Chief Flaherty said she could not discuss particular requirements while some contracts are still being negotiated.  The agreement includes best practices, covers when to wear, how to use, where to place, when to operate, and other issues.  It is a 26 page guideline document.  Mr. Cunningham said he was sorry to interrupt, but discussion of negotiations could impact both parties. TMM Newton asked what was the rationale for the wage increase when the policy has not been drafted?  Mr. Magee said it was a change in working conditions, and that is negotiated into the contract. TMM Newton asked why the Town had supported a change in pay ahead of determining what the agreement would include?  Mr. Magee said that was on the table.  TMM Newton asked how the department was creating the policy.  Chief  Flaherty said the department would be working with groups including the Police Advisory Committee.  TMM Newton commented that making policy with a mediator during negotiations is not the way to develop policy that will be acceptable to the town.  TMM Pretzer, following on TMM Newton, said it was a bad look to bribe officers to accept a public safety device. ("Hold on" from the Moderator.)  He rephrased that this does not give confidence.  There is a lack of public input.  With an override looming, Arlington must do better to inspire confidence from the public.  The Moderator noted that this article is an appropriation in support of the negotiated settlement.  Town Meeting cannot negotiate the terms of the contract. Members need to keep in scope.

TMM LaCourt had some questions.  There was something important the Mr. Magee mentioned.  Part of the negotiation was to put salaries in a range where they would be competitive with similar towns.   It is also not unusual to negotiate working conditions.   This contract as the Finance Committee discussed will considerably increase costs.  She asked if the increase was related to an increase in population.  (No)  She asked if there was an increase in the number of positions.  (No)  Will this contract maintain a consistent level of service. (Yes)  TMM Yontar moved to terminate debate.  The motion was seconded and passed on a declared ⅔ voice vote.  The Moderator reviewed the recommended vote language.  The article passed 175-18.

The Moderator noted that only Article 12 remained.  Article 12 was presently on the table, and there is no other business.  He asked for notices of reconsideration.  (Article 15 was noticed by Ms. Deshler.)  We were reminded to return our handsets.  The Moderator then accepted a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and passed on a voice vote.

 Take the weekend to review all the documents related to Article 12, and we will reconvene Monday at 8:00pm.