[Rich, 01:14]
Session 3 notes

• Called to order at 20:03.
• Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 4 May at 20:00.
• Article 22 - Bylaw Amendment/Newsracks
  • Mr. Maher corrected where in the existing by-law the new wording would go and recapped his description from last time.
  • Mr. Dunn asked if anyone would be refused from putting up newsracks. Mr. Maher said no.
  • Mr. Burke asked where the $15,000 figure came from, saying it was nonsense. Mr. Maher said that is what the manufacturers charge but that the newspapers vendors would pay off the Town's cost over five years. Mr. Burke said it could be done more cheaply.
  • Ms. Carlisle asked if the cost was $75,000 and if there is any indication it would be attractive to vendors. Mr. Maher replied finding that out is the point of the proposed pilot program.
  • Mr. Abbott asked if the plan was legally-blessed. Mr. Maher did not know of any municipalities in Massachusetts doing this but that it has been done elsewhere and that if the vendors indicated that would challenge in court, he would not recommend going forward any further.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation defeated on a voice vote and doubted.
  • BoS recommendation defeated 84-89.
• Article 19 - Bylaw Amendment/Noise
  • Mr. Fitzmaurice said the current bylaw restricts hours, not noise level and that 85dB was a good goal. He said the ARB and BoS have expressed concerns in the alst day and moved to table.
  • Tabled.
  • Mr. Spangler gave a demonstration of an 85dB rock crusher.
• Article 23 - Pleasant Street District
  • Arlington Historical Commission recommended a vote to enlarge the Pleasant Street Historic District by adding various properties on Academy, Ravine, etc.
  • The AHC Chair said the expansion would fill the gap between the Pleasant Street and Jason/Grey districts, that the process was driven by the residents, and that in both formal and informal hearings, no opposition or negative feedback was presented.
  • Mr. Rehrig thanked the AHC for guiding the neighborhood through the process.
  • Mr. Judd asked if the Pleasant and Jason/Grey districts would remain distinct, if any negative feedback was heard, and if any legal problems were forseen with the expansion. The AHC chair replied "yes" and "no" to the first two and Mr. Maher replied "no" to the last.
  • Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • AHC recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 12 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
  • Ms. Worden introduced Mr. Griffin, an AHA director.
  • Mr. Griffin said that nothing Town Meeting could discuss would do anything about 264 Massachusetts Avenue.
  • Mr. Dunn reiterated his online comments and urged a vote against Mr. Abbott's substitute motion.
  • Mr. Foskett said substitution motion would have a substitutive effect and not an additive one on the number of affordable units and urged it be voted down.
  • Mr. Abbott said there is currently nothing that requires approval of the marketing plan or a local preference and that his motion is not purely substitutive.
  • Ms. LaCourt (as a TMM) asked if there was any reason aside from cost why the AHA could not buy a market-rate unit and rent it out. Mr. Griffin said DHCD would not allow it. Mr. O'Brien said DHCD is not intrinsically opposed but is concerned about cost. Ms. LaCourt said she was against the substitute motion since the purpose of the existing zoning by-law is to increase the number of affordable units available for purchase.
  • Mr. Judd, noting he is an AHA tenant, said the substitute motion was straightforward, the AHA has had excellent performance, that he trusts the AHA more than the ARB, and urged support for the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Holman asked if this was an attempt to make units affordable in perpetuity. Mr. Griffin said it was, but noted that the inclusionary bylaw units are as well. Mr. Holman asked if this was an attempt to extend the units down to renters. Mr. Griffin said it was. Mr. Holman asked what the rationale was for a preference for Town employees. Mr. Griffin talked about preference procedure. Mr. Holman noted that since Arlington has no residency requirement for Town employees, he would like to know the rationale. He asked if it would substitute rentals for purchases. Mr. Griffen said it would.
  • The Moderator noted that the Rule Against Perpetuities would stop the inclusionary bylaw units from being affordable forever, whilst the AHA would keep its units affordable forever becuase its charter is to rent at affordable rates.
  • Mr. Leone said he was opposed to the substitute motion and to taking a unit designated as being for a homeowner and making it a rental forever. He mentioned he had a client who just won a spot in the Park Avenue Extension development and was so happy to have a chance to own. He said we cannot take that away from people.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Abbott substitute motion defeated.
  • ARB recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
  • Mr. Ellis said his substitute motion would essentially only effect the Symmes property. He said the current bylaw killed Fish's original proposal by eliminating the $2 million subsidy the clustered special needs units would bring. He said getting that back would reduce the development from around 275 units to around 240 units and that even the developer says the development is too big. He said it merely adds flexibility and the ARB can choose not to waive clustering on any project and that lowering the density is very important to the neighborhood.
  • Ms. Mann said she was against the substitute motion because there is a much higher relative need for affordable family housing than elderly housing, because the change will have problems being upheld at Symmes because all the bidding by all bidders was with clustering prohibited, and that bad facts make bad law, as trying to do everything with the inclusionary zoning will make it ineffective. She also said there is no demonstrated need for these kinds of units and it can be accomodated in other ways.
  • Mr. Curro supported the substitute motion. He said the special needs units would help attract and keep medical uses, increase the number of affordable units, lower density, and guarantee that the nurses' building would be renovated.
  • Ms. Friedman asked what the HCA director felt. Ms. Wiener said the relative need is for family housing and that the proposal would eliminate 40 units of that.
  • Mr. Spangler introduced Ms. Dash of SNAC.
  • Ms. Dash said the inclusionary bylaw increased density by 10%, an unintended consequence. She said the law needs to be reconsidered and not to lose neighborhood concerns in discussions of "the common good".
  • Mr. Abbott said this would merely give the ARB the authority to waive the anti-clustering provisions and that he found it hard to believe the ARB would not want the authority to do something. He said the substitute motion was reasonable and supported it.
  • Mr. Jamieson asked what "special needs" meant. Mr. Ellis said it could mean someone who would need a specialization to their unit. Mr. Jamieson asked about "best interests of the Town". Mr. Ellis said various boards have that as a decision criterion and it means what it says. Mr. Jamieson asked if this was a spot zone, to which Mr. Maher replied negatively. Mr. Jamieson asked about waiting lists. Ms. Wiener said "special needs" is affordable housing with a services component and that the ARB had 85 people applying for four units. The HCA executive director said they had a 50 person waiting list and Ms. Worden said the AHA had a waiting list of around 50 for elderly units and 30 for 2BR units, with a wait time of over five years. Mr. Jamieson asked if any other subsidies were available. Ms. Wiener said subsidies of $0.5 to $1 million were available. Mr. Jamieson said he was against the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Dohan introduced the executive director of the HCA.
  • The executive director urged a no action vote, saying the substitute motion could cause discrimination. He also said 75% of the affordable housing in the Town is for elderly and that future affordable units need to be more diverse.
  • Mr. Foskett said the inclusionary bylaw has been effective for many years and that its consequences were known to Fish, the other bidders, Town Meeting, and all those engaged in negotiation. He said the substitute motion would be "spot unzoning" and would undo years of work and negotiations.
  • Mr. Fischer asked what the inclusionary zoning income limits were. Ms. Worden said 80% of median income and said median income was around $49K. Mr. O'Brien said 15% at 80% of median income and 5% at 120% of median income and that median income was actually around $54K. Mr. Fischer asked why the ARB did not want the waiver authority. Mr. Faulkner said it would send the wrong message about what the Town wants and that while the ARB could turn down clustered developments one at a time, it would prefer better proposals in the first place. Mr. Fischer said he did not buy that and that if he knew the inclusionary bylaw would prohibit building low-income Alzheimer's units, he would have voted against it.
  • Ms. Worden said the substitute motion was marvelous and should have been brought by the ARB. She said there are 420 Section 8 units in addition to the 200 family units and said that up to 140 elderly units could be lost to expiring use provisions. She said handicapped units can need special doors and so forth and that clustering them allows care providers to work much more efficiently. She accused the ARB of violating the bylaw.
  • Mr. Rehrig said that something being subsidized does not mean it is good and that if subsidies are available for special needs units, then those units are least in need of our legislative assistance to be built. He urged the substitute motion be rejected and asked for the ARB's reaction to being accused of violating the bylaw. Mr. Tsoi said the ARB did not violate the bylaw.
  • Mr. Judd moved to adjourn.
  • Meeting adjourned at 23:00 to 4 May at 20:00