[Rich, 02:11]
Special Places Repealed, and More! (but not that much more)

• Called to order at 20:02.
• Anthem plus three songs performed by the AHS Madrigal Singers.
• Mr. Moderator gave an explanation of tabling vs. postponing.
• When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 10 May.
• Ms. Mahon read an anti-hate resolution passed by the BoS, said that school information was not intentionally omitted from the Annual Report (there were circumstances beyond SchoolComm's control), and that the week of the 17th is Public Works Week, culminated with Public Works Day on 22 May from 09:00 to 12:30 at the DPW yard on Grove St. She also reminded all TMMs to try to come to TM some way other than alone in one car at the 12 May session.
• Mr. Tosti said the FinComm report to the Special TM will not be available until the night of the STM, as bids are only being opened this week and FinComm will not have the data finally in front of it until next Monday. He said the school articles in the STM will likely be tabled.
• Ms. Howard said the Vision 2020 Spy Pond Committee will hear a presentation on the Belmont Uplands land swap proposal.
• One may be interested to know that at this point, when we were starting business, it was 20:35.
• Article 2 removed from the table.
• Article 2 - Reports of Committees: Report of the
  • Capital Planning Committee report was received.
  • Article 2 tabled.
• Article 33 - Bylaw Amendment/Special Places Repeal:
  • Mr. Foskett asked what the possibility of litigation was and what likely outcome would be. Mr. Maher said that there was a good chance of litigation, but that the by-law has a severability clause and that he would not have allowed it to be voted on in that form if he did not think it was defensible. He said that when challenging a by-law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Mr. Foskett, referring to Aristotle, said that the by-law was neither good law nor good order as it was too vague, too arbitrary, and is unlimited in scope. He said it was vague due to its subjectivity, especially given the circular definition of a special place and that there is nothing outside of the minds of a currently sitting set of AHC commissioners that defines what a special place is and therefore there is no standard that can be applied. Mr. Foskett said the by-law was arbitrary and could not be fairly applied and that it is limitless what a special place could be and that there are no limitations on how to apply by the by-law. He said that in his view use of the by-law would be a taking, since there is no warning and no way to warn of property owner of what might happen and that the by-law, unlike zoning, does not grandfather anything. Mr. Foskett said it was worse that spot zoning. He also pointed out that in Mr. Winkler's story about Mr. Smith and the Jason Russell house, Mr. Smith paid fair value for the land he restricted and did not just seize it.
  • Ms. Olszewski said that she was one of the abutters affected under Article 32's Schwamb Mill proposed designation and that she was speaking for herself and other neighbors who want to see the by-law repealed. She said that the by-law required property owners to give up some rights and that some renovations are affected. She said that TM cannot just vote for something because it "agrees in theory", but must consider how the by-law actually affects people. She said the AHC can stop a permit if it "effects what makes a special place special." She wondered what criteria get used in that designation, what happens if a neighborhood already does not resemble a proposed special place, what happens if the AHC makeup changes, and whether or not an appeal to the BoS is limited to procedural issues or if the BoS can review de novo, as the by-law does not address this. She said there were no provisions for the BoS's hearing on a proposed designation to be after the AHC's hearings and that while notice is given, the notice does not do a very good job of telling abutters what the notice means. She concluded by saying that while trusting town boards and departments to use discretion and common sense may work for other things, by-laws which affect property cannot be left that vague.
  • Mr. Abbott said he agreed with the BoS recommendations on Articles 32 and 33 and that the language of the by-law had been legally reviewed. Quoting Justice Potter Stewart, he said special places were like pornography in that "we know it when we see it." He criticized non-lawyers for having legal opinions of the by-law and said much of the by-law language was taken from MGL Chapter 43 and has been well-tested. He urged the substitute motion be voted down.
  • Mr. Jamieson asked if Section 3(d) of the special places by-law applied to storm doors and any windows or just storm doors and storm windows. Mr. Maher said it was the latter.
  • Ms. Meister said she opposed the substitute motion. She said the AHC already has jurisdiction over 1700 properties, many of which became subject to its jurisdiction after an owner bought it. She said the context of a special place matters. She said it is not unusual for a neighborhood to have no members on the AHC. She said an opt-out clause is not feasible since the people likely to use it would be the people contemplating something the AHC would like to stop. She said the 100' radius was needed so that the mere existence of streets would not prevent things from being protected and that many other boards and commissions use 100' as a cut-off. As for the by-law both given and denying the AHC the ability to regulate color, she said the AHC has the ability to regulate the color of permanent exterior finishes like brick or granite, but does not have the ability to regulate paint colors.
  • Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question. Motion was approved on a voice vote, challenged, and approved 121-51, terminating debate.
  • Kohl motion to substitute defeated on a voice vote, challenged, and approved 98-78.
  • Mr. Moderator called for the vote on the motion as substituted but realized that people had become confused on what they were voting on and explained the procedure of voting to substitute and then voting on the motion as substituted and told people how to vote for the given outcome they desired.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted in doubt on a voice vote, approved 110-72.
• Article 34 - Home Rule Petition/Baby Safe Haven:
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize the BoS to seek a home rule petition to enact "Baby Safe Haven" legislation for Arlington.
  • Ms. Mahon said it was not about preventing adoption or abandoning child welfare programs but rather giving panicked teen mothers a way to safely abandon a child instead of leaving it to die. She asked one of the proponents to speak, but he could not be located.
  • Ms. Costa said that at first glance these laws sound good, but that there is no evidence they work and that little research has been done into the causes of baby abandonment. She said that there are only 2-3 abandonments per year in a typical state and that we have learned it is crucial for a child to have birth information for later medical reasons. She said the people these laws are intended for will not seek out havens and will be further encouraged to carry and deliver their child in secret and away from the medical system, further endangering them and that such laws say that a lack of personal responsibility is acceptable.
  • The proponent, a Mr. Morrissey, being located, was asked to speak. As he is a Lexington resident, he had to be permitted to speak. A number of people objected to his being allowed to speak, requiring a formal vote on the matter, with permission passing overwhelmingly on a voice vote.
  • Mr. Morrissey said that 11 communities in MA had approved a similar home rule petition, Boston being the first. He said that we have learned a lot about "Baby Safe Haven" legislation and that the people who wrote the negative report about them never contacted a single state agency in a state with a BSH law and that the laws have saved 250 children. He said advocates have been trying to get a BSH law passed in MA for four years and in that time there have been 10 abandonments with 6 deaths.
  • Ms. Mann asked the name of the organization Mr. Morrissey's wife belongs to. She answered it was Bonnie Babies, based out of Australia. Ms. Mann said she did not have a problem with the idea in the abstract but could only support it as part of a community-wide education and support program. She quoted a Planned Parenthood "Real Sex Ed Saves Lives" poster. She said in the face of federal opposition to funding sex-ed programs the community must rally. She said the law denies the reality of Arlington -- there is no hospital, how are the firefighters going to handle a middle-of-the-night drop-off, and a police station is not where a panicked mother would go, even with BSH laws. She said we have to take responsibility for life we bring into the world and is concerned about the speed with which these laws have passed. She urged a no vote on the motion.
  • Mr. Lobel moved to table, so that someone associated with the anti-BSH report could have a chance to speak at a later date. Motion failed.
  • Ms. Thomas said she read the anti-BSH report and said it appeared well-done, well-researched, and well-footnoted. She said there was 100 abandonments in four million live births last year and that there was no good evidence that BSH laws help or harm babies. She said it is better to encourage these mothers to seek medical attention and that it is wrong to encourage them to keep a pregnancy secret and abandon the child.
  • Mr. Kazarian said the legislation should be called the "Dump Your Child Act", that it seems like a bill of goods, and that it does not address root causes. He said it would make unwanted pregnancies more likely by making it easier to avoid the consequences of one. He pointed out that one cannot assume that a baby left at a "safe haven" would have otherwise died.
  • Ms. Lovelace said that in addition to being a TMM she is the executive director of the MA Alliance on Teen Pregnancy and was glad to hear people talking about a comprehensive approach to the problem. She said there is no information on the scope or nature of the problem and on the motivation for abandonments. She said there is no evidence that these laws work and that with recent large cuts to state teen pregnancy programs it would be unwise to spend limited funds on something as unproven as BSH laws.
  • Mr. McCabe asked if anyone in the world could abandon a child in Arlington if this were approved. Mr. Maher said that was true. Mr. McCabe said it was unfair to dump this responsibility on the AFD and APD and wondered if police and fire personnel would have to have special training, where liability would lie if a child died after being dropped off, and who makes sure the mother is being taken care of. He said it was too risky to approve now and that much more information was needed.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation defeated on a voice vote, challenged, and defeated 53-112.
• Article 35 - Home Rule Petition/Pacheco:
  • BoS recommended a vote to request a home rule petition as set forth in its report to allow Timothy Pacheco to be considered for a fire fighter's job despite being over age 32.
  • Ms. Mahon introduced Mr. Pacheco who said he has been an Arlington resident for 36 years and currently is a facilities manager at Harvard and a part-time firefighter in Littleton. He said he is an EMT-B, has hazmat training, and is trained to an FF-1/FF-2 level He said he believed that at his age he could do the job and deserves to have the chance to apply.
  • Mr. Rosselli said he supported the BoS vote and pointed out the proposed legislation would only allow Mr. Pacheco to compete and not allow him any preferences. Mr. Rosselli then read from a number of letters of recommendation on Mr. Pacheco's behalf.
  • Mr. Dunn said he supported the motion and that the Town should hire on qualifications and not on age. He said approval of these exception requests should be made the rule and that Town Meeting should approve this one and all future ones.
  • Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she is always against votes upholding age discrimination and to please vote in favor of the BoS recommendation. She noted that Ms. Dias voted against the BoS recommendation as she has done on all such home rule petitions.
  • Mr. Carrigan asked Mr. Pacheco how many times he had taken the exam. Mr. Pacheco said he had taken in five times. Mr. Carrigan pointed out he could have taken it 17 times. Mr. Carrigan asked what other towns Mr. Pacheco had applied for. Mr. Pacheco said he applied in Chatham, Sandwich, and Littleton. Mr. Carrigan said he disagreed with these case-by-case votes and that the Town should stop making exceptions for people who know how to play the system.
  • Mr. Kohl, while in support of the BoS recommendation, urged the BoS to figure out what specifically it does not like about the relevant MGL and to urge the legislature to fix the problem so the Town can accept it and stop asking for these exceptions.
  • Mr. Abbott said it is ludicrous to keep discussing exceptions over and over. He said the Town should stick with its policy and keep a young force, urging people to vote against the BoS recommendation.
  • Mr. Loreti said he was uncomfortable making personnel decisions in a political forum and asked how frequently these exception requests come up. Mr. Maher said that three of them have come up, but that this is the first firefighter one. Mr. Loreti asked if the Fire Chief was ok with the proposal. Chief Maimone said he was not against the motion but would like to see the Town make a final decision on accepting the relevant MGL or not. Mr. Loreti asked if the union had any problems with the recommendation. Mr. Maimone said it did not.
  • Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation approved on a voice vote, challeneged, approved 110-50.
• Article 36 - Home Rule Petition/Meeting Notices:
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Abbott made a subsitute motion of a resolution to urge the BoS to ask the state to host municipal ads on a portion of its website and to seek to use the internet as much as possible to reduce ad spending.
  • Ms. Mahon said the ITAC would be looking at the issue and that the BoS already has the power to go internet-only but rejected that option as unfair to those without internet access.
  • Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Abbott substitute motion defeated on a voice vote.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved on a voice vote.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 22:53 to 20:00 on 12 May.