[Rich, 02:21]
Session 3 Notes

• Called to order at 20:02.
• When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 5 May.
• Article 2 removed from table.
• Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
  • Conservation Commission report received.
  • Mr. Shea said that people cannot leave things only to the Human Rights Commission when things like hate literature drops happen, but that we all have to take action.
  • Article 2 tabled.
• Article 6 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Dimensional and Density Regs:
  • The ARB recommended a vote to establish various lot size, floor space, and setback rules for residential uses in business districts, as set forth in their report.
  • Mr. Faulkner said the recommended vote deals with a problem in the zoning by-law -- it allows residential uses in business zones but imposes no setback requirements on them, which the ARB has realized is detrimental. He said the ARB picked lot sizes slightly smaller than in residential districts and that was appropriate given the higher overall intensity in business districts. He said the ARB felt a 20' setback resulting in too much of a suburban look in a business district.
  • Mr. Loreti offered his substitute motion (really was an amendment) which would make the lot sizes and setbacks higher and decrease the allowed floor area for residential uses in a business district. He said he believed the ARB vote did not go far enough to restrict residential uses and that it is important to have consistency between residential uses in business districts and in residential districts like R2 that frequently abut them. He said the typical 2-family house is about 3000ft2, yet the ARB vote would allow houses much larger than that. He reviewed pictures in his handout illustrating the differences between what his motion and the ARB motion would allow. He said that zoning should be forward looking and not reactive, and that if one wants to protect businesses and does not want to encourage developers to build homes in business districts, one should vote for his motion.
  • Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she would like to see a positive vote on either the ARB motion or Mr. Loreti's motion. She noted how the BoS received many calls from residents who did not like the house that went up on Broadway practically right on the sidewalk.
  • Mr. Fischer asked how many lots were under 6000ft2 and if it meant a property owner could not build if the lot were under that size. Mr. O'Brien said that he had no idea how many such lots there were and that a residential structure could not be built on a lot smaller than that, but that a business structure could. Mr. Fischer asked if people could get a variance. Mr. O'Brien said they could ask for one, but there would be no grounds on which to grant one. Mr. Fischer said he was inclined to vote for the substitute motion.
  • Ms. Carlisle asked if a destroyed home could be rebuilt on a lot made residentially non-conforming by either change. Mr. Moderator said that there is an exemption to allow for the reconstruction of a grandfathered building that was destroyed by fire.
  • Mr. Taber asked if non-conforming lots would be grandfathered. Mr. Moderator said yes and Mr. O'Brien said that neither vote would be creating non-conforming lots because the restrictions in either vote only apply to residential use in the business district, not business use in the business district. Mr. Taber asked if the restrictions only apply to residential uses. Mr. O'Brien said yes. Mr. Taber asked if there was no minimum lot size for business uses. Mr. O'Brien said that was true in many cases. Mr. Taber said he would prefer to see the structures lined up rather than a zig-zag of differing setbacks.
  • Ms. Harrington said that residential uses were allowed in business districts 24 years ago, so why take so long to fix this zoning loophole. She also asked if this article had anything to do with the Time Oldsmobile lot development plan. Mr. Faulkner said that it took 24 years to realize there was a problem since not very many such houses were built until recently. Ms. Harrington asked if errors had been made and reiterated her question about Time Olds. Mr. Faulkner said it was more a case of not forseeing a pattern of development than an error, and that the Time Olds development would take place under the old rules, as its permits were pulled before the article was proposed. Ms. Harrington said she was impressed by Mr. Loreti and urged support of the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Tsoi said these houses only came up rarely. He said the ARB wanted to hold the street edge and so picked the 10' setback as the smallest setback that would give residences decent privacy.
  • Mr. Abbott said the substitute motion was well thought-out and that it should be supported to help keep "McMansions" off of Massachusetts Avenue.
  • Mr. Beck asked if a stairway or a foundation wall is the beginning of the setback. Mr. Faulkner said if a front porch is roofed and enclosed the setback starts there, else it starts at the foundation wall. Mr. Beck asked which set of rules apply if you have a 2nd floor residence above a business. Mr. Faulker said that it is something the ARB has faced before and that the appropriate rules apply to each floor. He said that if the ARB has special permit authority over the project, it acts to make sure the building is not funny-looking. Mr. Beck asked if the substitute motion de facto changed R2 into B1. Mr. Faulkner said no, as no zoning map changes were being made. Mr. Beck asked if the substitute motion was in effect changing B1 into R2. Mr. Moderator said no. Mr. Beck asked why the ARB did not simply ask to change the zoning on specific areas it wanted to protect. Mr. Faulkner said where the zones are were not being changed and that the ARB believes business districts should look different from residential districts, as they are different zones for different things, which is why the ARB chose the numbers it did.
  • Mr. Deyst said that the Morningside area benefited from a zoning change that discouraged tear-downs and that he was worried tear-downs would start in business districts without a change. He said that unlike Mr. Taber, he prefers a zig-zag effect and that he supports both motions.
  • Mr. Trembly said that he did not see how one could plow a driveway on such a development and still be able to get one's car doors open.
  • Ms. Fiore said she was very proud of Mr. Loreti and that he should be on the ARB. She said her fear when she saw the article was that it would be a developers dream and that the ARB does not act in rational ways. She said she supported the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Loreti substitute motion approved.
  • ARB recommendation as substituted approved by voice vote.
  • ARB recommendation as substituted approved 190-2.
• Article 7 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Floodplain District:
  • ARB recommended a vote come into compliance with the standards needed to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, which primarily involved incorporation state regulations by reference into the relevant zoning by-law, as set forth in the ARB report.
  • Ms. Mann recapped the ARBs reasons for the recommended vote, pointing out that the vote did nothing new.
  • Mr. Abbott said our by-law is more stringent that the state's and asked if the Town was loosening up or if the state was tightening. Mr. Stevens said the vote is on a zoning by-law change, not the wetlands by-law and does not affect the wetlands by-law. Mr. Abbott asked if it made our wetlands by-law less stringent. Mr. Stevens said it did not.
  • Ms. Fiore said she and some supporters had a substitute motion but could not offer it due to notice requirements.
  • Mr. Hollman asked why the ARB did not ask the zoning by-law be changed to remove the "1 inch" from the "may not increase a 100-year flood by more than 1 inch" clause. Ms. Mann said that was outside the scope of the article.
  • Mr. Moderator asked Ms. Mann why she was against incorporating Parks & Recreation regulations into the zoning by-laws but was in favor of accepting state regulations into the by-law. Ms. Mann said she was in favor of incorporating existing, promulgated, and reviewed regulations.
  • Mr. Cleinman asked what the Town was being asked to come into compliance with. Ms. Mann said it was requirements to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Cleinman said the program has not done a thing for people in Arlington who have experienced flooding and is angry about the program demanding the Town comply with its rules when it has done nothing for the Town.
  • Motion made on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • ARB recommendation approved by voice vote.
  • ARB recommendation approved 189-8.
• Article 8 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Wetland and Floodplain Overlay:
  • ARB recommended a vote to add a bunch of existing, delineated wetlands to the wetland and floodplain overlay to the zoning map, as set forth in its report. This would give the ARB special permit authority over relevant construction (in addition to the separate authority the Conservation Commission would have regardless of the recommended vote) as well as alert the public and the Building Inspector to the presence of wetlands.
  • Mr. Faulkner reiterated what the ARB said in its report. He pointed out that this vote in no way effects ConComm's authority. He said it would help get people to comply with the wetlands by-law since it would be easier for them to find out they were affected by it.
  • Mr. Greeley (as a TMM) moved an amendment to strike the area in the top map on page 13 of the ARB report (the Ryder Street area) from the vote. He said the owner is seeking a wetlands determination and would like to see this overlay addition held up for a year until the ConComm rules on whether or not it actually is a wetland.
  • Mr. Jamieson asked what the horizontally-hatched areas were in the map at the top of page 11. Mr. Faulker said it was an already-included wetland. Mr. Jamieson asked how this vote would affect construction and reconstructionf of roads. Mr. Faulkner said that the Town and state agencies are generally subject to the state and local wetlands rules even when they are exempt from Town zoning by-laws.
  • Mr. Rehrig said he might be confused about the effect of the zoning change. He said it looked like the purpose was to alert the community. Mr. Faulkner said that was a purpose, but it is also to put in some extra protections. He said that vote is not intended to cover anything that is not already covered under the wetlands by-law.
  • Mr. Caccavaro said that the wetland Mr. Greeley moved to delete from the vote is surface water that only appears after rainfall and that it is runoff from Ronald Road. Mr. Faulkner said the ARB had no objections to Mr. Greeley's amendment.
  • Mr. Kohl asked if the house shown between areas (1) and (2) on the map at the top of page 11 was really there or if it had been moved. Mr. Faulkner said it had been moved to be on Wright Street. Mr. Kohl asked if there really was a gap between wetlands (1) and (2). Mr. Faulkner said there was. Mr. Kohl asked if area (4) on that same map interfered with the 43 Dothan Street (the Sullivans) driveway reconstruction. Mr. Stevens said their permit has been granted.
  • Mr. Abbott said that adding something to the overlay map in question would not change restrictions on the property but would warn owners. Mr. Faulkner said it would also subject properties to an additional permit step (from the ZBA) but that ConComm is where the technical discussion would remain. Mr. Abbott asked if placing anything on the map would make it a wetland under various laws. Mr. Faulkner said it would not, as state law and the local by-law would control. Mr. Abbott said that there was nothing in the vote that would help a resident and that it seemed reasonable.
  • Ms. LeRoyer said she lived in the Ryder Street area and wanted to know who owned the affected property that Mr. Greeley was seeking to strike from the vote. Mr. Greeley said the Miraks do. Ms. LeRoyer asked the Miraks want to wait a year. Their lawyer said that the Miraks want to see this wait until the ConComm rules on the Miraks' wetland determination request.
  • Mr. Ford asked what ConComm thought. Mr. Stevens said ConComm had not had a chance to vote on Mr. Greeley's subtitute motion, but could not imagine there would be an objection to it.
  • Ms. Fiore said she was concerned about the amendment. She said the Town needed open areas to absorb water. She questioned why the Town should question ConComm's placing the Ryder Street wetland on the map.
  • Mr. Belskis asked if any of the areas on the maps were delinated or on WPA-1 filings with the state. Mr. Stevens and Ms. Beckwith said that all had been delineated and listed who delineated each.
  • Mr. Loreti said he stopped by the Ryder Street area in question and that it looked like a drainage ditch with some vegetation. He said he was against Mr. Greeley's amendment.
  • Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she supported Mr. Greeley's motion. She said the Town notified all abutters and that the Miraks have indicated they would like to see ConComm make a ruling on their determination request before the Ryder Street wetland is added.
  • Mr. Candelas said he has worked for both environmental agencies and for developers, and that the question of a wetland is more complicated than just "if it's wet, it's a wetland." He asked for clarification. Mr. Stevens said that a wetland is more than just marshes and bogs, but also streams and land subject to flooding. Ms. Beckwith said the laws talk about signs of wetness, "blotting" of the ground, and the presence of plants that are adapted for living in wet areas.
  • Mr. Greeley said the owners want to go before ConComm and get a determination on the area in question. Mr. Maher said the area is classified as an intermittent stream.
  • Ms. Harrington said she believed ConComm had already determined the area to be a wetland and that Mr. Greeley's motion should be defeated, since it appears to be special treatment.
  • Mr. Trembly asked if a previous ConComm board delineated the Ryder Street area. Mr. Stevens said yes. Mr. Trembly asked if that was the same board that let the Sullivans fix their driveway. Mr. Stevens said he did not know. Mr. Trembly asked if a wetland can be so designated if it is only wet two weeks of the year. Mr. Stevens said it could be. Mr. Trembly said the area in question is a rocky ditch that one would consider to be a pipe if it had a top on it.
  • Motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Greeley amendment defeated.
  • ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 24 - Bylaw Amendment/Recreational Vehicles:
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to amend the bylaws to ban motorized scooters, skateboards, ATVs, go-carts, mini-bikes, etc. from the public and private ways of the Town.
  • Police Chief Ryan said that they have had complaints from a number of senior citizens but that the police were powerless. He said these vehicles would be prohibited until such time as the Registry of Motor Vehicles allows them to be registered.
  • Mr. Taber said he felt the proposed bylaw would be invalid for vehicles that are not currently registerable. Mr. Maher said that was incorrect. Mr. Taber said he was annoyed by Mr. Maher's one word answer.
  • Ms. Fiore, after first getting confused about the text of the warrant article vs the text of the recommended vote, moved to replaced "provide" with "unless" in the final sentence of Section 2 of the proposed vote. Chief Ryan and Mr. Maher had no problems with this.
  • Mr. Leone asked about snowmobiles, as they are registerable. Chief Ryan said state statute kept them off the roads.
  • Mr. Coletta wondered if the skateboard definition was too restrictive, as it specifically mentioned 4-wheeled and 8-wheeled skateboards. Chief Ryan said those are the ones currently available.
  • Mr. Kohl asked if the phrase "any way" includes both public and private ways. Chief Ryan said it did. Mr. Kohl urged that the Fiore motion be defeated, since he felt made the vote say the reverse of what it is intended to say.
  • Mr. Fiore said that Mr. Maher said "unless" was fine.
  • Mr. Curro asked if "way" includes the bikepath. Chief Ryan said a separate by-law already bans all motorized vehicles from the bikepath except for those operated by municipal workers.
  • Mr. Kazarian said he agreed with what Chief Ryan wants. He said he also agreed with Ms. Fiore and Mr. Maher and Mr. Kohl. He offered an amendment to in Section 2 end the sentence in the third line after "by any person", start a new sentence at "No recreational vehicle" in the same line, and to strike the whole "provided said" clause in the final line of the section. Mr. Moderator said that both Chief Ryan and Mr. Maher said that was an improvement.
  • Mr. Foskett asked if this would ban Segways, and if so, that he would vote against the entire motion. Chief Ryan said it would ban Segways but that they would already be banned from sidewalks since they travel faster than 12mph.
  • Mr. Tully suggested that "4-wheeled or 8-wheeled" be changed to "four or more..." and then moved to postpone the article until 5 May so that Mr. Maher could take all the input and draft a cleaner article.
  • Article 24 postponed to 5 May.
• Article 25 - Bylaw Amendment/DPAB:
  • Ms. Mahon moved the article be tabled as it would make more sense to take it up after Article 47 has been decided.
  • Article 25 tabled.
• Article 26 - Bylaw Amendment/Revenue Manual:
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
  • BoS recommended vote approved.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 22:53 to 20:00 on 5 May.