[Rich, 03:14]
Session 4 Notes

• Called to order at 20:03.
• When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 10 May.
• Ms. Mann announced that some people in town are planning a Million Mom March sympathy protest on 9 May at the corner of Pleasant St. and Massachusetts Ave.
• Mr. Greeley said there would be an Alternative Transportation Fair on 16 May. He also challenged TMMs who came to tonight's session single in cars to come a different way at the next session.
• Mr. Scott said the Festival would have biking and walking tours of Arlington in the morning, exhibits at the Rec Center on Summer St. starting at 11:30, and a children's bike rodeo in the early afternoon.
• Article 24 - Bylaw Amendment/Recreation Vehicles:
  • Resumed after being postponed until tonight.
  • Mr. Moderator announced that when an article is resumed after being tabled or postponed, he tosses the existing speakers' list and starts it fresh.
  • Ms. Mahon offered an amendment to strike "motor scooters" and its definition from the BoS recommended vote in Section 1 and to replace Section 2 with a single sentence saying no recreational vehicles could be operated on any way in the Town.
  • Mr. Maher apologized for the bad drafting job on the original motion and also apologized to Mr. Taber for his curt answer at the previous session. Mr. Maher mentioned that a by-law almost identical to the recommended vote passed in Waltham and another municipality.
  • Chief Ryan said that the intent was to produce a by-law that could survive state law changes without having to keep coming back to TM for maintenance changes. He said the proposal has been brought to TM for guidance.
  • Mr. Fiore asked if the motion as amended would keep Segways off sidewalks. Mr. Ryan said it would not. Mr. Fiore said he wants Segways kept off sidewalks as they are too large and dangerous.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked Chief Ryan how many complaints related to these types of vehicles there were. Chief Ryan said about one per week. Mr. Carreiro said that he favored a by-law allowing responsible use by responsible people over an outright ban and that he would vote against the Mahon amendment. He said that he was unsure on the original amendment but would likely vote against it.
  • Mr. Hickman asked if there will be no regulation of motor scooters if the amendment passed. Mr. Maher said there would not, but that the original definition of motor scooters coupled with the Section 2 change would outlaw motorcycles. He said the main concern is skateboards and motorized skateboards. Mr. Hickman said he liked the original motion with Mr. Kazarian's amendment. He said too many motorized scooters are in operation in his neighborhood and that they are both a nuiscance and a public safety hazard.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked if the original intent was to ban recreational vehicle (RV) use by all persons or just minors. Chief Ryan said by all. Ms. LaCourt asked why adult use should be prohibited. Chief Ryan said that sidewalk operation is bad no matter who the operator is. Ms. LaCourt asked about use on streets. Chief Ryan said there is a public safety risk there as well. Ms. LaCourt asked if there were any circumstances under which Chief Ryan would consider RV use safe. Chief Ryan said perhaps if bike lanes existed. Ms. LaCourt said she was hesistant to restrict the behavior of adults, especially to protect them from themselves.
  • Ms. Lieberson said she has never seen a motorized skateboard, but has seen a number of motor scooters operated badly and so was against the amendment.
  • Mr. Abbott said the article had been postponed for good measure and that it is still not clear. He moved to postpone it to 12 May.
  • Mr. Maher said the problem was that people had a different opinion of what should and should not be banned and that the recommended vote as amended was quite clear. He said the BoS would not change it further but that TM was of course free to amend it as it saw fit.
  • Mr. Curro pointed out that "recreation vehicles" and "recreational vehicles" were both used.
  • Mr. Moderator asked Mr. Kazarian for a written copy of his amendment from the previous session. Mr. Kazarian said he gave a written copy to Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher confirmed that, but said he could not find the copy. Mr. Kazarian dictated his amendment. Mr. Moderator said that in light of what Mr. Curro found, "recreation vehicle" should be changed to "recreational vehicle" wherever it appeared.
  • Ms. DeMille (I may well have missed the name) pointed out that the Mahon amendment would exempt motor scooters from the by-law and asked if that changed the intent of the recommendation. Chief Ryan said it would, but that he and the BoS were trying to simplify the vote. Ms. DeMille asked what the rationale for the fine was. Chief Ryan said that since it costs around $200 to buy a typical banned RV, a $100 file was felt appropriate. He also pointed out that the police would use their discretion.
  • Motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Abbott motion to postpone defeated.
  • Mr. Moderator said he would break the Mahon motion into three separate votes because an affirmative vote on the portion pertaining to Section 2 would render moot the Kazarian and Fiore amendments. Mr. Loreti complained about the amendment being considered in pieces as it was offered as a single motion. Mr. Moderator said he was exercising his statutory power as moderator to regulate the conduct of the meeting and was splitting the motion. Ms. Phelps pointed out that the Mahon amendment would change the title of Section 2 as well as its body. Mr. Ford asked if the motion was Ms. Mahon's or the BoS's. Ms. Mahon said the BoS had not formally voted on it, so it was hers. Mr. Oesterle asked if TM could accept or decline pieces of the Mahon motion separately. Mr. Moderator said it could.
  • Part C (Section 2 rewrite) of Mahon motion to amend defeated (which also rendered moot the Fiore motion).
  • Kazarian motion to amend approved.
  • Part A (remove motor scooters from list of RVs) of Mahon motion to amend defeated.
  • Part B (remove definition of motor scooters) of Mahon motion to amend defeated.
  • Mr. Tully asked exactly what the text that was about to be voted on would actual ban.
  • BoS recommended vote as amended by Mr. Kazarian in doubt on a voice vote, then approved 125-38 on a standing vote.
• Article 27 - Bylaw Amendment/Dog Parks
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to make it clear that dog parks on town parks are required to be fenced in.
  • Mr. Loreti said the text assumed that a dog park was within a town park, and asked if a dog park not within a town park would have a fencing requirement. Mr. Maher said the text only applies to land under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
  • Mr. Rosselli made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • BoS recommended vote approved on a voice vote.
• Article 28 - Bylaw Amendment/Adjustment to Town Fees:
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report since the Town Manager is compiling a revenue manual in anticipation of setting fees being done by the Town Manager and BoS.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• Article 29 - Bylaw Amendment/Newsracks:
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm recommended a no action vote because the Newsrack Committee was not ready to present anything.
  • Mr. Maher said that Mr. Tosti was correct, but that the Committee would have something for TM next year.
  • FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• Article 30 - Bylaw Amendment/Control of Parks:
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to require a permit for all organized groups to use a playing field and to give the Town the power to force permitted users off the field under threat of an up to $200 fine if the field is closed, and would bar the town from charging any fee to issue the permit.
  • Mr. Gilligan complained about the vote not saying what it was amending.
  • Ms. Mahon said user groups met with the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) and brought up frustration with seeing groups using a field when it is unplayable condition and that the police have no power to order groups off a closed field.
  • Mr. Carabello said that some organized groups are causing problems because there is no way to remove them from a closed field and that the PRC has had out-of-town organized groups use Town fields without a permit. He said the recommended vote would also allow the PRC to force people off the field when fields are closed for bad weather.
  • Ms. LaCourt said she supported the spirit of the motion but that it was flawed because if the purpose is to protect the fields, should not all people be able to be forced off the fields? She also asked why there is a fine and that the resolution of a problem should simply be expelling people from the field. Mr. Carabello that the recommended vote would let the Town force off organized groups without a permit. Ms. LaCourt asked if that would not open a loophole, as the Town would be unable to force off unorganized groups. Ms. Mahon said the proposed by-law would not apply to small groups. Ms. LaCourt again said that if one wants to protect the fields, why not force off everyone when a field is closed and pointed out the MDC does just that. Ms. Mahon said the intent is to keep out organized groups when a field is closed. Ms. LaCourt said that non-organized groups can cause significant damage and therefore should be able to be kept out as well. Ms. Mahon said that leagues do a good job of educating their players to stay off closed fields and that the Town does not want to enforce field issues too tightly -- it would prefer to handle small group issues informally.
  • Mr. Maher said the point of the proposal is to give the Town the power to force permitted users off closed fields. He said the police can shoo off small groups and that TMMs should trust the police to use common sense.
  • Mr. Leonard mistook the text of the warrant article for the recommended vote and asked a question about some language in the article. Mr. Moderator reminded him that TM does not vote on articles and asked everyone to ignore the text of the article and focus on the recommended vote.
  • Mr. Bloom asked if an "organized group" was defined anywhere. Mr. Moderator said it was not. Mr. Carabello said that organized groups can apply for permits and that a definition of "organized group" could be discussed in the future if there were problems. Mr. Bloom said he was worried about a scenario like some local employees going out one lunchtime to play softball and being fined for not having a permit. Mr. Moderator said to give credence to the ability of the police to use discretion and common sense. Mr. Carabello said that if that use was occasional the PRC would let it go, but if such a group did it a lot, the PRC would tell the group to apply for a permit.
  • Mr. Abbott said the article was OK but wondered if there already was authority in the by-laws to force non-permitted users off a field. He also said that he did not agree with the fee prohibition and moved to amend the vote to strike the sentence prohibiting permit fees. Mr. Maher said there was not authority elsewhere in the by-laws to force off unpermitted users. Mr. Moderator asked if the PRC can set fees. Mr. Maher said it could not and would have to go to the Town Manager and BoS to set a fee.
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm supported the BoS recommendation and informally supported Mr. Abbott's amendment. He said that the Town's fields are getting killed, cost a great deal of money, and that the Town must take control of the situation. He said enabling the Town to bar play on wet fields would be an improvement and that the police can discern the distinction between a few children playing and some organized group. He said it allows the Town to prevent out-of-town groups from using the fields and that the Town should not let out-of-town groups (especially adult groups) tear up the fields. He urged favorable action on the BoS recommendation and Mr. Abbott's amendment.
  • Mr. Deyst said he agreed with everything Mr. Tosti said and that it is frustrating to try to close a budget gap while bleeding money on playing fields. He said a $200 fine is not enough since $200 of field damage can be caused very easily on a wet field. He moved to amend the $200 to $500. Mr. Maher said state law limits the Town to a $300 fine. Mr. Deyst changed his motion to amend to $300 and pointed out that the fine is "up to $300" and that the police would use discretion when levying fines.
  • Mr. Rehrig pointed out that there are two references to fines in the relevant places of the current by-law and that the vote only fixes one of them. He also pointed out that since one fine covers all violations under the by-law being amended, that if passed the $300 fine would also apply to having intoxicating liquors at a playing field. Mr. Moderator administratively amended the recommended vote to fix the reference issue by in the third line of the second paragraph of the new Section 4 replacing "for the second time" with "both times".
  • Mr. Allision made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Abbott amendment approved.
  • Deyst amendment approved.
  • BoS recommendation as amended approved.
• Article 31 - Bylaw Amendment/Wetlands Protection:
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
  • Ms. Mahon said the BoS only voted no action because it was told no people currently needed relief.
  • Mr. Carreiro made a substitute motion to eliminate the sunset clause of the ConComm's current variance power. He pointed out that the substitute motion would not allow the ConComm to grant variances for above-ground work. He said that the claim that a no action vote is fine because no one currently needs relief misses the point and that the Sullivan's experience last year shows there needs to be a process in place so that if someone has a similar situation they do not have to try to convince TM to enact another exception.
  • Ms. Fiore asked if any ConComm members were present. There were none. She moved to postpone the article to 19 May but was told the Special Town Meeting began that night. She then moved to postpone the article to 17 May because she felt it was important to hear from ConComm.
  • Mr. Gilligan said he opposed to the substitute motion because ConComm does not need the variance power. He said ConComm has hearings and issues orders of conditions and can make those as weak or as strong as it sees fit. He said that Mugar could take us to court if the substitute motion passed and that the ConComm did not need a variance power last year and did not need it now.
  • Mr. Pachter said he opposed the substitute motion and that it should be left to TM to grant exemptions as needed, as TM should be the body to make such exemptions.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked what the Sullivans could have done for relief if they had not been able to take advantage of the exemption created for the Pierce project. Mr. Maher said there would have been no process for them to get relief. Ms. LaCourt asked how they would maintain their driveway if the variance power expired. Mr. Maher said the work done under the variance has the right to be maintained even if the variance power disappears. Ms. LaCourt pointed out that even if the Sullivan's are now all set even if the variance power sunsets, a future similarly situated family would not and that a better process needs to be in place than such a family begging TM for an exemption.
  • Mr. Tully said he agreed with Ms. LaCourt's thoughts and could not understand why TM would not approve the substitute motion. He said ConComm should be left to make variance decisions as it is the expert body in the field, not TM. He said it would be wrong not to have have a mechanism for relief in place.
  • Mr. Dunn, referring to people who said a variance power is not needed, said that the Town and the School Department and the Sullivans would say otherwise. He said those who say to just let people in need to relief come to TM are mistaken because he believes the Sullivans never would have got an exemption through TM on their own and that the exemption only happened because of the big guns of the Town were had to push for an exemption because of the Pierce work.
  • Mr. Judd said he saw nothing wrong with giving ConComm more discretion. He said that the possibility that someone could file a lawsuit is no reason to not allow ConComm to issue this type of variance. He said we have to be mindful of property rights and that there is no need to save ConComm from itself.
  • Mr. Hickman made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
  • Fiore motion to postpone defeated.
  • Carreiro substitute motion in doubt on a voice vote. Approved 95-66 on a standing vote.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved on a voice vote.
• Article 32 - Special Place/The Old Schwamb Mill:
  • Ms. Mahon said the BoS recommended a vote of no action after having originally voting for positive action. She said abutters the Arlington Historical Commission (AHC) first talked to were in favor of the designation, but later discussions showed many who were against it.
  • Ms. Meister said that the AHC submitted the article after talking to Mill trustees, set up a study group, ascertained which properties were affected and had some informal talks with people in the area that indicated the neighborhood was in favor. At this point the BoS made its original vote. Later discussions, the public hearing, and another neighborhood walk-through showed much stronger opposition to the designation. The BoS then reversed itself to no action and the AHC voted to not submit a substitute motion.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 33 - Bylaw Amendment/Special Places:
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Kohl offered a substitute motion to repeal the entire special places by-law. He pointed out that last year the by-law only passed by one vote. He said that it belongs in the zoning by-law and not in the town by-laws; that the by-law is unfair to abutters by not allowing them to be excluded the way property owners can be excluded from historic districts; that both the 100 foot radius and measuring from lot lines regardless of where structures are on the lots is arbitrary; that the by-law is badly written, as it has inconsistencies about whether or not color is reviewable, does not provide for what happens if the AHC is tardy in its hearings, and in some cases requires people to ask the AHC for permits the AHC has no discretion to deny; and that permitting processes already existing provide sufficient protections.
  • Mr. Winkler said he opposed the substitute motion. He said that the Jason Russell house had to be rescued from having line of sight to it blocked by three surrounding houses and if the special places by-law existed when those houses were built, that blockage likely would not have happened. He said there is a process for owners to follow, as they can take their case to the BoS if they cannot reach agreement with the AHC. He said that a restrictive by-law can protect you from your neighbors and that if one feels positive about Arlington, special places, and history, one should vote down the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Leone said that the vote did pass and that the attorney general signed off on it, and that the by-law was not inappropriate. He said it should not be in the zoning by-law because it is not zoning but rather historical regulation of special places. He said it is not unfair to abutters and that if the neighbors do not want a designation made, the AHC would not recommend it be made. He said it is the Town's job to regulate people's property rights for the good of the Town. He said the by-law was not arbitrary and that there was a lot of discussion on the 100' vs 200' radius. He said 100' seemed to cover one or two lots out and that lot lines are the relevant things to use since they are marked in plans and their locations are known precisely. He said the wording is taken primarily from the historic district by-law, where it has worked very well. He said that without the by-law, there is no review process if you are doing something that is allowed by right under the zoning by-law and you are next to a special place. He said the process to get a permit if you are an affected property is very quick and that TM has plenty of input into the process. He asked that the substitute motion be voted down and that the special places by-law is a good by-law.
  • Motion to adjourn approved.
  • Adjourned at 22:57 to 10 May at 20:00.