[Rich, 01:57]
Session 5 -- by a hair's breadth

• Annual Town Meeting called to order at 20:04.
• Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 11 May at 20:00.
• Annual Town Meeting declared in recess by the Moderator.
• 27 April Special Town Meeting called to order.
• Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 11 May at 20:00.
• Article 1 - Reports
  • Report of ARB to STM received.
  • Article 1 tabled.
• Article 2 - Zoning Bylaw/Symmes
  • ARB recommended a vote to remove ", and must include a significant medical use" from the MU district description.
  • Mr. Tsoi asked for a 50 minute extension for a total of one hour. Objections were received, so a vote was taken. Extension of time approved. Mr. Tsoi said the site was originally zoned H, but since all the proposals received had a mix of uses, the change to the new MU district was needed. He said that since the the BoS, ARB, SAC, etc. all wanted to see a medical use, mandating that in the bylaw seemed the right thing to do. He said that at last September's STM the ARB was only given an hour to consider the Worden amendment (adding the medical use mandate) but that it appeared to capture the agreement between all the boards and so the ARB endorsed it. Despite that, he said it now had to be taken out because it leaves open the possibility the entire site could become non-conforming and that possibility has caused lenders to refuse to finance the project and would even cause them to refuse to give financing to individual condo owners. Mr. Tsoi next asked Mr. Maher to speak.
  • Mr. Maher said "I blew it". He said he should have realized the ramifications of the Worden amendment, that though he did not get it until 16:00 on the day of the vote, he should have realized the problem and admitted he failed to give the Town good advice. He said he was the one who convinced Town officials to endorse the amendment. He said that the consensus of attorneys he has spoken to is that MGL 40A in fact prohibits what the Worden amendment does, but that some other attorneys he respects have different opinions. He said that "to a man" every attorney he has talked to says no lender would agree to financing with the current zoning language in place because of the possibility that the entire site could become non-conforming.
  • Mr. O'Brien said back in October the CEO of Mount Auburn said she was very concerned with the zoning language and felt it would cause financing problems. He said the Town developed a legal opinion to try to convince lenders but they would not accept. He said a lawyer the Town and developer hired (as part of trying to sell the legal opinion to financers) also agreed lenders would refuse to lend. Mr. O'Brien pointed out the copies of recent letters from Mount Auburn and the law firm stating this problem. He said after that October meeting there was much discussion on how to get financing but that the parties were forced to the conclude it could not be done.
  • Mr. Tsoi said that if the language were removed there would still be protections. He said the LDA had just been renegotiated to remove the ability of the developer to buy out of the MOB and replace it with residential units. He said the ARB is committed to getting a medical use and that the ARB must come back to Town Meeting for approval of any non-medical use at the MOB site. He said that if the repeal of the Worden amendment failed, the project could not proceed and the Town would have to sit on the land. He said that even if a developer could be found who did not require financing to build the project, that developer would not proceed because it would never be able to sell the condos because lenders would refuse to give financing to prospective condo buyers for the same reason they would refuse to give financing to the developer. Mr. Tsoi said when the problem was discovered the developer could have stopped all work but instead has moved ahead on the MOB and that the public hearings are almost complete on the special permit for the MOB. He said that for each year the project remains stalled, the cost to the town in interest and foregone tax revenue would be $1,500,000 to $2,000,000.
  • Mr. Bilafer pointed out that a representation of medical use was not the only representation made to the voters. He said a representation of revenue neutrality was also made and he considered that equal to the medical use representation. He said a no action vote would stall the project completely and would delay it at least a year. He said the delay would put $200,000 of debt service into the FY06 budget and $600,000 into the FY07 budget which would be paid for by a tax increase. He said he is firmly convinced Town officials are committed to having a medical use and that the ARB motion should be supported.
  • Mr. Hurd said the BoS has not wavered in its commitment to get a medical use on the site and that the ARB motion should be supported.
  • Mr. Tsoi said this was probably the most important vote the ARB has put before Town Meeting in his ARB term and that the ARB was asking for the tools it needed to implement the project. He urged a vote in favor of the ARB recommendation.
  • Mr. Fischer asked for and received an extra five minutes. He said there is much evidence that the existing building is worth $12,000,000 and therefore should not be sold for $8,100,000, that he did not want to vote on this tonight and that he did not want the existing building demolished, as hospitals are commanding high prices. He said there is a shortage of beds and mentioned Winchester Hospital's acquisition of new land to offload outpatient services and MGH using operating rooms at Waltham Hospital. He said we should just sell the building, as medical office use is of little value and that more hospital beds are needed. He introduced Ms. Kolague(sp?), a resident of the Town.
  • Ms. Kolague said she is a Symmes abutter and would love to see additional medical uses. She said the Town needs to look at using the building as a hospital and asked what terms have been offered to medical providers and whether a real medical use broker had been used for marketing. She said the zoning change should be delayed until use of the existing building was further investigated.
  • Mr. Fischer moved to recess the STM until 13 June to give more time to look at selling/using the existing hospital building.
  • Ms. Harrington urged a no vote or at least a vote for recessing. She said the ARB mislead Town Meeting in September by not informing the meeting that it knew there were problems with the amendment because it wanted favorable action on changing the site from H to MU. She said the ARB should consider why people distrust it. She asked how we could believe that the ARB would not change the LDA to be more favorable to the developer. She said that anyone who would have voted against the rezone last September if the Worden amendment was not in place should vote against removing it here.
  • Mr. Tsoi rose to a point of personal privilege and said the ARB did not hide anything. He said the developer was cautious about the amendment but the ARB felt it would be in the best interest of the Town and endorsed it.
  • Mr. Lavalle said that voting to repeal the Worden amendment would betray promises made about having a medical facility but that voting no action would be bad as well. He said he did not like being backed into a corner and would vote no.
  • Mr. Judd said that Mr. Fischer's motion was the wisest course of action and that taking a vote tonight would be hasty. He said he was frustrated with the course of events and would not mind Lahey leaving town and never coming back because he believes Lahey did not care about the best interests of the Town. He said that if voters knew what they know now, they may well not have approved the purchase. He said that we were being asked to take things on faith and so asked what other things like NESWC, Minuteman, snow removal, and pothole repair that we have been asked to take on faith. He said he would abstain "in disgust" on a vote on the ARB motion and said he supported the motion to recess.
  • Mr. Kazarian said he would vote in favor of the ARB motion and noted that since we had already agreed to the sell the land, all that is before the meeting is a simple zoning change. He said that even though the zoning mandate of a medical use would be gone, the LDA still has protections. He pointed that another reason he was voting yes was that if the Town took the land back via the LDA, even the Town would be unable to develop anything without the zoning change because lenders would refuse financing to the Town for the same reason they would refuse it to the developer. Mr. Kazarian asked if the developer could interfere with Town use of land reverted back to the Town. Mr. Tsoi said the developer had some rights to challenge Town use if it materially damaged the value of the rest of the site or competed with what the developer was building and that he could not imagine the Town proposing a use that would compete with the developer's plans for the rest of the site as such a use would be residential.
  • Mr. Rehrig said that SAC had endorsed the Worden amendment, seeing it as a way to reinforce use intentions. Despite that, he said it needed to be repealed as had been previously explained. He said we have gone through an exhaustive four-year public process of balancing desires and fears about the site and that people would have to accept that no proposal would satisfy everyone. He noted the current proposal meets the SAC goals that Town Meeting had twice endorsed and that in 2002, 2003, and 2004 Town Meeting had voted to approve the nature and scope of of the development proposal. Mr. Rehrig said that while a medical use cannot be guaranteed unless the Town goes into the healthcare business, there is a concerted effort to get that use as the LDA is geared toward making the medical use happen and that if the developer refuses to attempt the use, the Town gets the MOB site back plus a penalty fee. He urged support of the ARB recommendation.
  • Mr. Bernardin said he felt like the frog in the heat-it-slowly situation. He asked why the Town bothered to buy the property if there were going to be 250 residential units there and said we would only be asked to give up more.
  • Mr. Doherty asked how much of the $14,000,000 is left. Mr. O'Brien said the Town borrowed $11,500,000 and hs spent $11,000,000. Mr. Doherty said the Town's effort has been well-intentioned but misguided and that a lot has changed since the vote. While he said he believed the Fish proposal was the best and the ARB made the correct decision, he endorsed stepping back and exploring further options, such as spending $2,000,000 to buy down the density. He urged a vote to recess or for no action.
  • Ms. Lowenstein said she had been asked about the fact that the ARB is not legally obliged to come back to Town Meeting to get approval for a non-medical use. She detailed how all the ARB members are long time residents with a lot invested in the town and could not imagine the ARB breaking its promise to return to Town Meeting for such a vote.
  • Mr. Abbott said he opposed the ARB motion as he only voted for the rezone last year because of the Worden amendment. He said a no vote is necessary to uphold the credibility of the Town and Town Meeting. He noted the LDA terms are controlled by the ARB and said he did not like how the medical marketing has been done. He urged a vote to recess.
  • Mr. Ruderman moved the previous question. Debate terminated, doubted, debate terminated 116-49.
  • Fischer motion to recess defeated, doubted, defeated 58-110.
  • ARB recommendation approved 115-57 (a one-vote margin since 2/3 needed).
• Article 3 - Abandon ROW
  • BoS recommended a vote to release a right-of-way on the Symmes site.
  • Mr. Maher said this was a matter of cleaning up the title and was missed when Town Meeting released other items last year. He said the ROW was no longer used. The Moderator said a 2/3 vote was required.
  • BoS recommendation approved 138-7.
• Article 4 - Home Rule Petition/Symmes
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to petition for home rule legislation allowing revenues from the Symmes site to be partially sequestered.
  • Mr. Maher said Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved this at the September STM but for some reason the Legislature did not like that and required a re-vote. He said the idea is to keep the project off the tax rate by keeping sales proceeds, fees, and tax revenues in the project instead of letting them flow to the general fund. He said the Treasurer and BoS would have discretion on when to transfer monies from the special fund to the general fund.
  • Mr. Fischer asked what is magical about the legislation that would keep it off the tax rate and asked why this was not done with Gibbs and other properties. Mr. Maher said no representations were made about Gibbs and that without this special legislation state law would require the assessors to put the debt service on the tax rate. Mr. Tosti said that there are two money streams -- debt service going out and tax revenues coming in and that this legislation would keep the two connected. Mr. Fischer said the proposal was too complicated and unnecessary and urged a no vote.
  • Mr. Sullivan said that when money from the project comes in it would normally be available for Town Meeting to spend on anything and that the legislation would force it to be spent on debt service.
  • Mr. Ford asked what happens when the debt is paid off. Mr. Maher said that when the State declares the debt is paid off, the fund will terminate and any remaining monies will go into the general fund. Mr. Ford said he felt Town Meeting should have the say on what to do with any yearly surpluses. Mr. Maher said that since state law reserves it to the Treasurer and BoS to set debt repayment schedules, they should have the discretion to decide how much money is kept in the fund to pay the debt and how much can roll into the general fund.
• Motion to adjourn STM approved.
• Motion to adjourn ATM approved.