[Rich, 01:08]
Session 4 notes -- enlightenment?

• Meeting called to order at 20:04.
• Ottoson Select Chorus sang the National Anthem and did a 3-song mini-concert.
• The Moderator commented about how some other towns actually have precinct activity and that Arlington used to.
• Voted that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 20:00 on 9 May.
• Ms. Lowenstein asked everyone to pray for Ms. Krepelka (BoS executive secretary and a TMM) as she recovers from breast cancer surgery.
• Mr. Judd announced that the Hurd 5K Walk for the benefit of the Arlington Association for Retarded Citizens will be on 15 May. He also moved a resolution that the Town wish Ms. Krepelka all the best on her recovery, which was adopted by unanimous consent.
• Article 2 removed from table.
• Article 2 - Committee Reports
  • 2004 Annual Town Report was received.
  • Ms. Rowe, introduced Ms. Thomas, who will be leaving to take the Knight chair for medical journalism at the University of Georgia, to give the tree committee report.
  • Ms. Thomas said the committee quickly realized there was no political will to pass a tree-protection bylaw and so re-focussed on education. She noted the committee now has a website at http://www.arlingtontrees.org. She said the Town has also started a pilot program using Reservoir Dam remediation funds where by residents can put up half the cost of a street tree and the Town puts in the other half via those funds and that as a result the Town has actually planted more trees last year than were removed.
  • Article 2 tabled.
• Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
  • Mr. Judd said he was puzzled at the ARB's objections and said this would only give some flexibility. He wondered why changing the MU zoning is fine for the ARB article in the STM but not here. He moved an amendment to the substitute motion written by Mr. Fischer which would further restrict waivers to only MU districts.
  • Mr. Jones moved the previous question. Failed.
  • Mr. Deyst said that rules changing in mid-stream can cause difficulties. He said changing the rules could result in a series of lawsuits and delays which would put the Town's $13 million investment at higher risk.
  • Mr. Loreti asked if the substitute motion would require the ARB to grant a clustering waiver. Ms. Mann said "no". Mr. Loreti asked if it requires the ARB to make two findings. Ms. Mann said "yes". Mr. Loreti asked if the substitute motion would change the requirements for uniformity of appearance and quality. Ms. Mann said it would because the nature of clustering changes the units' appearance and that Fish's proposal would have the clustered units looking quite different. Mr. Loreti said the bylaw already has exceptions and that the developer can even buy his way out of the requirements. He wondered if negotiations would really have to start over and asked about legalities. Mr. Maher said that if this change had happened between the RFP and designating a developer there would have been lawsuit issues but forsees none arising out of this. Mr. Loreti asked how the substitute motion could undo SAC's work. Mr. Tsoi disagreed with Mr. Maher's assessment of lawsuit possibilities. Mr. Loreti asked if any losing party has talked about suing. Mr. Tsoi says none have but that nothing has been passed yet. Mr. Loreti said he supported the substitute motion.
  • Ms. Leiberson said we have no affordable assisted living even though it had once been discussed as a priority. She said the meeting is very divided about the need for it and therefore should vote for the substitute motion to preserve flexibility.
  • Mr. O'Conor said he has two austistic sisters who have had problems living in non-clustered environments but nevertheless was against the substitute motion. He said he does not want to weaken the bylaw and force the ARB into more appeals. He was also worried about this setting a precedent of "quarantining" people with similar disabilities.
  • Ms. Harrington said that suggestions Mr. Ellis and his neighbors want to harm the bylaw are ludicrous. She said the substitute motion would in fact allow Fish to build a proposal that was lauded when it first came out. She said she did not understand the vehemence of opposition. She said she was unsure of how she would vote.
  • Mr. Lavalle said he was unsure how to vote. He received clarification that what we were voting on read "may remain", not "could remain". He asked if the developer was in favor of the substitute motion. Mr. O'Brien said he had received a draft letter from Fish saying they would like to build the clustered units if the substitute motion passed.
  • Ms. Fiore said we were arguing over something that might happen and that we change bylaws all the time. She said a provision should be made for clustering.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on all matters. Debate terminated.
  • Judd amendment defeated.
  • Ellis substitute motion defeated on voice vote.
  • Ellis substitute motion defeated 69-110 on voice vote.
• Article 17 - Bylaw/Lighting
  • BoS recommended no action.
  • Mr. Hurd said the primary reason for no action was concern that it was an improper use of enforcement resources.
  • Mr. Gilligan made a substitute motion which read:

    In all residential neighborhoods no outdoor floodlighting or decorative lighting, except lighting primarily designed to illuminate walks, driveways, outdoor living areas, or outdoor recreational facilities, and except temporary holiday lighting in use for not longer than a four-week period in a calendar year, shall be permitted. Any permanent lighting permitted by the preceding sentence shall be continuous, indirect, and installed in a manner that will prevent direct light from shining on to any street or adjacent property.

    Mr. Gilligan than introduced Ms. Tolman, a resident of the Town, to speak to the substitute motion.
  • Ms. Tolman thanked the Town for obeying disabled-access rules. She said the intent of the motion is to reduce light trespass, pollution, and glare, to conserve energy and make the Town more attractive. She said the motion is mostly borrowed from Cambridge and many other municipalities have much more specific bylaws and none have had problems. She said a "reasonable person" standard could be used when deciding what violations to go after and that Cambridge says enforcement takes few resources.
  • Ms. Fiore said she supported the substitute motion. She said believed there were some incidents of harrassment by light which were involved.
  • Mr. Hayner asked who picks which four weeks of the year holiday lighting can be put up. The Moderator said a resident would pick his own four weeks. Mr. Hayner said the concept is excellent but worries about the wording.
  • Mr. Carreiro, saying he had received a question about it, asked if the proposal would prevent illumination of US flags. Mr. Maher said it would. Mr. Carreiro said that while he thought the final sentence of the substitute motion was a good idea, he would like to see everything before that stricken. He said he did not want to amend from the floor but suggested that perhaps a future speaker could offer an amendment but that for now he would vote against the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Coletta asked if the enforcement issues was that too much of a burden would be placed on resources, or if so little enforcement was needed that it would not matter. Chief Ryan said given how stretched the police department was, enforcement would be very unlikely.
  • Mr. Streitfeld said he liked the intent but had problems with the wording. He moved to postpone to 11 May.
  • Postponement failed, vote doubted.
  • Postponed, 104-33.
• Article 25 - Home Rule Petition/Pacheco
  • BoS recommended no action as the Legislature's action made this moot.
  • No action approved.
• Article 26 - Home Rule Petition/Board of Survey
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Maher said the proponents have the right idea but are going about it wrong and that it would be better to adopt the state's subdivision control law, which 351 municipalities have. He said despite the proponents' assertions it is about land control since one cannot build unless there is frontage and on big enough lots, new roads are needed to provide that frontage. He said the BoS can only consider width, grade, and direction and that the current MGL on Boards of Survey has exactly the same restrictions on discretion as the Town's 19th-century Special Law. Mr. Maher said the substitute motion would require the BoS to find a road a necessity in order to approve it. He said that the subcontrol law would put the decisions in the hands of the ARB, who are more well-versed on land use and planning than the BoS. He also said the subdivision control law has well-developed caselaw around it while leaving the BoS to interpret a high standard would likely prompt lawsuits. He said the things the proponents want the BoS to consider are what the ARB would have to consider if the Town accepted the subdivision control law. He said that developments can get very emotional and so it would be better to have the decisions made by an appointed, expert body than an elected one.
  • Ms. Worden said the standard is "reasonable necessity", not "necessity". She said the Town deserves the protections 347 other Towns have and that rather than wait for the subdivision control law to be reformed, the Town should protect itself now. She said the chance of suit must be balanced against the public benefit and that the chance of suit was low. Ms. Worden said the Town has too many streets and the BoS must be given the ability to reject them.
  • Mr. Abbott asked if the BoS really has such little authority. Mr. Maher said that if the proposed street meets Town standards on grade, width, and direction, the BoS is required to approve it.
  • Mr. Loreti asked if the Planning Board has any current authority. Mr. Maher said only for uses that would not be by right. Mr. Loreti asked if the subdivision control law could be adopted piecemeal. Mr. Maher said it was all or none. Mr. Loreti asked if the BoS could give a report in six months on the feasibility of adopting the subdivision control law. The Moderator said the BoS would do that.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Worden substitute motion defeated.
  • No action approved.
• Article 27 - Acceptance of Legislation/Tax Exemptions
  • BoS recommended accepting legislation to ease eligibility rules for senior tax exemptions and to double the exemptions from $500 to $1000 as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Maher explained the changes and said it is not known how many additional people will apply.
  • Mr. Jamieson said this is part of the five-year fiscal plan and pointed out the BoS report said this is to encourage people to vote for the override.
  • Mr. Judd said it is worthy but will not change minds on the override.
  • Ms. Dunn asked when limits were last changed. Mr. Doherty said that exemption amounts were increased last year and two years ago. Ms. Dunn asked when asset and income limitations were increased. Mr. Doherty said they had not been, aside from increases in the income limits caused by indexation to social security benefits.
  • Motion made on the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation approved.
• Article 28 - Home Rule Petition/Symmes
  • BoS recommended no action as this article will be covered in the 27 April STM.
  • No action approved.
• Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to seek legislation removing school-side secretarial staff from civil service.
  • Ms. Donovan said the secretarial union asked for this in contract negotiations as there has not been an exam in seven years and no list exists. She said the union preferred contract-based protections and its own seniority list.
  • Mr. Roselli asked for a total of 20 minutes and received it. He said the voters approved civil service in 1934 and that the secretaries do not know what they are doing. He discussed the procedures and duties around provisional appointments. He asked why we are being asked to take these people out of civil service when we recently put the police and fire chiefs back in. He said he opposed the BoS recommendation.
  • Mr. Lavalle moved to postpone to 11 May.
  • Postponed.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:10 to 9 May at 20:00.