[Rich, 00:59]
Business...

• Veteran TM watchers might be interested to know that Caryn Cove, the Personnel Director and former executive secretary of the Board of Selectmen is engaged to be married. Mr. McCabe announced Ms. Cove's news to the meeting, to the obvious surprise (and perhaps some sheepishness) of Ms. Cove.
• The Annual Town Meeting was opened and notices of reconsideration from the prior session were taken, since it had been forgotten to ask for them. Ms. Harrington served notice on Article 28. The Annual Town Meeting was then immediately recessed to place us back in the Special Town Meeting.
• STM - Article 3 - Symmes Advisory Committee Report: The BoS recommended a vote essentially to "accept and fully endorse" the SAC report. Mr. Foskett (SAC Chair and TMM) briefly reminded us that the recommended vote to accept and endorse the SAC report leaves control with TM (since any plans would require a rezoning of the site which requires TM approval), that the report had been endorsed by the BoS and the Redevelopment Board, and that the SAC believes its guidelines allow for a financially viable redevelopment of the site. Ms. Worden intensely read a long statement expressing dissatisfaction with the SAC's treatment of proposed medical uses and apparent distrust of the SAC in general. Mr. Kohl asked what the actual legal effect of the proposed vote was and if it bound the Redevelopment Board at all. Town Counsel replied that the ARB is not bound but that "everyone expects" it will follow the SAC recommendations. Mr. Kohl reminded the boards that TM has to approve any development plan and that TM should reject the plan if it does not conform to the SAC guidelines. Mr. Dohan (member of SAC Residential Working Group) said that the report has lots of tradeoffs and that no one got what they wanted. Ms. DiBona reported that the Arlington Housing Corporation and the Arlington Interfaith Alliance endorsed the SAC guidelines, especially on the need for affordable housing. Ms. Thomas echoed previous speakers in saying the report is a compromise and said she respect Ms. Worden's dissent. Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question, which failed 93-84 (needs 2/3rds). Mr. Taber likened the process to hiring an employee requirements are set, but one does not know what one has until an actual employee is hired. Mr. McCabe asked how the ARB had authority over the site, to which the Moderator replied that the terms of the site purchase gave the ARB jurisdiction. Mr. Fischer asked if it would be possible to separately vote on "accept" and "fully endorse" since he could not fully endorse the report. He said he would like to see the existing buildings reused. Mr. Ellis offered an amendment to strike "fully" from the phrase "fully endorse", saying he was doing so as a symbol and reminder that the report is not a proposal. Ms. Rowe said she supported SAC's work and asked it to continue in operation, especially once the proposals come in. She would also like to see the ARB to get the neighborhood involved in the development process and put in specific protections for open space. Ms. O'Donnell offered an amendment to make a Community Center a requirement (conditioned on traffic not being excessive), not merely a preference. Ms. Fiore asked what medical facilities would be on the site. Mr. McClennan replied that 30,000 sq. ft. of space is currently being actively used, that some organizations are interested but probably will not be able to afford the space, and that some medical providers are "eagerly awaiting" the RFP. Ms. Friedman (a SAC member) said the report guidelines are in keeping with the goals of health care, housing, open space, and revenue neutrality that have been expressed by the public. Mr. Roselli move the previous question. Mr. Ellis's amendment was approved on a voice vote. Ms. O'Donnell's amendment was rejected on a voice vote. The BoS recommendation as amended was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
• STM - Article 4 - Urban Renewal Plan: The ARB recommended a vote to make some minor changes to the Urban Renewal Plan adopted by TM last year to bring the plan more into line with current market conditions. One of the main changes proposed is to change "to promote the conservation and improvement of the existing buildings..." to "to promote new construction and/or the conservation of existing buildings...". Ms. Harrington offered an amendment to replace "and/or" with "as well as" because she was concerned that the "or" would give the ARB authority to have the buildings demolished and felt it was too early to do so. Mr. Chaput said that the ARB did not object to the amendment and believes some sort of "medical presence" will continue. Mr. Gilligan asked if the amendment would mandate that the buildings be used, if it would adversely affect the RFP, and if the buildings would have useful rehabilitative value. Mr. McClennan said the change would tell developers to not draw up plans that would involve demolition but otherwise would not affect the RFP. He said that if no good plans leaving the buildings came up, TM could always undo Ms. Harrington's amendment next year. He also said SAC's architects say the buildings are useable but are not perfect. Mr. Foskett said the buildings are old, might not be economically rehabbed, and as rehabbed may not be competitive with new buildings. He believes that the amendment could discourage proposals that do not reuse the buildings. He pointed out that the site currently costs the Town $500,000/yr (though that is not currently funded out of the tax rate) and urged TM to give the ARB full flexibility to work with developers. Mr. Jones opposed the amendment, saying he would like to see the buildings come down because they are "butt-ugly". He said he would like to see them replaced with attractive, energy-efficient buildings. Mr. Fischer asked if the amendment would preclude an RFP allowing for the buildings to be demolished. Ms. Harrington and Mr. Chaput replied in the negative. Mr. Fischer said he supported the amendment. Mr. Rehrig said he beleived the amendment had no effect but would appose it. Mr. Reed moved the question, which carried. Ms. Harrington's amendment was approved 101-51. The ARB recommended vote as amended was unanimously approved.
• STM - Article 5 - Wetlands Variance: The BoS recommended a vote giving the ConComm a narrowly-drawn and time-limited power to grant hardship variances with respect to compensatory storage. Mr. McClennan explained that the recently approved wetlands by-law allows no provision for variances and that this could cost the Town extra millions of dollars when fixing up Pierce Field (at the high school), and implored TM to approve it. Mr. Trembley noted that the Sullivans, Dothan Street residents, have been trying to fix their street for 13 years and have cleared all hurdles except the final one, which cannot be cleared due to ConComm's lack of power to grant a variance. He asked if the proposed vote would remove that hurdle. Mr. Stevens (ConComm Chair) said it would. Mr. Trembley asked if the sunset provision would prevent the Sullivans from repairing the road in the future. Mr. Stevens said it would not, since the special permit that would be issued could allow for repairs and the permit would survive the sunset. Mr. Trembley asked if the proposed vote would allow the Sullivans' telephone pole to be replaced. Mr. Stevens said it would if it were included in their plan and application. Mr. Trembley urged TM to approve the recommeded vote and said the entire scenario, both at the Pierce Field and with the Sullivans should make TM think twice when adopting new zoning or wetlands regulations. Mr. Bernardin asked if the site was on the state list. Mr. McClennan said it has been on the list since 1994. Ms. Mahon said that while she was convinced about the need for the local wetlands by-law two years ago, she is concerned about the precedent the proposed vote sets, wondered if the vote can be successfully defended in court if it came to that, did not like the idea of the Town bending the rules for itself and holding itself to a lower standard than it holds others to, questioned whether the by-law adopted two years ago should stay in place, and cautiously asked TM to vote against the recommended vote.
• Special Town Meeting adjourned to 20:00, 14 May 2003.
• Annual Town Meeting adjourned to 20:00, 14 May 2003.