UPDATED, March 8: Fifteen citizen articles are among those to be considered in this spring’s Town Meeting, and some of them seek to:
— Limit the sizes of homes that developers can build;
— Put strictures on when an Arlington official can lobby;
— Appropriate money to expand the capacity of “any school building” in town;
— Turn a town-owned Mount Gilboa property over the housing authority for affordable housing; and
— Return Precinct 17 to the Highland Fire Station for voting. Selectmen voted, 5-0, no action on March 7.
The full list of articles for the 2016 meeting plus details about them were available once the full warrant was published on the town’s website, which occurred Wednesday, Feb. 24. Town Counsel Douglas Heim says that not only was the warrant reviewed to make sure that articles were properly recorded, but the Special Town Meeting warrant opens and closes Feb. 22, and those added articles need to be inserted.
Brief looks at 15 10-registered-voter articles
This means the full draft warrant was not available to the public for two weeks after selectmen began holding article hearings, Feb. 10.
Meanwhile, here’s a brief look at the 15 articles brought by those who have obtained signatures of at least 10 registered voters. In most cases case, YourArlington asked the main supporter of an article to identify the problem that this bylaw change seek to address.
SCHOOL ARTICLE
A school article brought by Precinct 9 Town Meeting member Stephen Liggett asks the town to appropriate funds (the amount is unstated) to broaden the capacity, “temporary or permanent, of any town school building” and determine how the money would be raised.
Liggett presented the article to the Finance Committee on Feb. 22. He called the Fincom’s reaction “generally a positive one — engaged and respectful. There was some pushback about the costs, and whether the studies were really necessary and whether the results justify the costs.
“My response was that the voters deserve to have credible information about costs and confidence that due diligence was done before they should be asked to raise their own taxes. There was agreement at different times, as when I raised the possibility of ledge rock at the Ottoson and the likelihood that would dramatically increase costs.”
He wrote March 1 that “the Enrollment Parent Group and I have been very pleased and encouraged by the progress and activity over the past week — things are moving. … [T]he timelines are tight for both an addition at the Thompson and to complete a renovation of the Gibbs, and I want to do whatever I can to constructively help meet those timelines.”
In an earlier email, he wrote: “The situation is that I deliberately submitted a vague warrant article, because I wasn’t sure exactly what would make the most sense to request of Town Meeting in order to take steps to address the school enrollment challenges we’re facing. Working with the Arlington Enrollment Parent Group, we pulled together a presentation with essentially two requests: 1) to fund a Conceptual Design and Preliminary Cost Estimate Study for an addition at the Thompson, and 2) to fund Facilities and Expansion Studies for Ottoson Middle School and the Gibbs….
“Since then, … there has been a lot of activity to fund these two studies (or some variation) immediately in order to expedite the process because the timelines are so short.
“The question I am wrestling with is what this means for the warrant article I submitted. I am delighted to see the Town leadership actively working on concrete steps that will move the process forward. At the same time, there is much more that needs to be done.
“I am unclear on the exact process for warrant articles …. I am reaching out to members of Fincom for their input and guidance on this. Also, I submitted the warrant article on behalf of the Arlington Enrollment Parent Group. I want to get the perspective of others in the group about how to move forward … rather than deciding unilaterally.”
[The response to the request to explain this article was delayed initially because the editor was trying to reach the proponent using an incorrect email address.]
HOUSING SIZE
Seven of the citizen articles address issues about building size. Sponsoring four of them is John L. Worden III, the former longtime town moderator who has long kept an attorney’s eagle eye on zoning matters.
Worden’s articles seek to increase space between buildings as well as revise the bylaws related to large additions, height calculations and the definition of a “half-story.”
In response to a request for comment, Worden provided a lengthy explanation, titled “Citizens’ Group Files Zoning Articles Seeking Protection of Neighborhoods.” Here is the statement in full:
The Master Plan for Arlington, developed over a period of two years, accepted by the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) and endorsed at last year’s Town Meeting speaks of concern for the protection of Arlington’s residential neighborhoods, and the problem of tear-downs, mansionization and overdevelopment of side and back yards that have suddenly been exploited as buildable lots.
But apparently, local developers did not get the message, for they have continued the process of tearing down small, semiaffordable homes to put up massive new houses that loom over their neighbors, exploiting to the full Arlington’s minimal set back and side yard requirements and gaming the height limitation.
While such developments go on apace, the ARB and the Master Plan Implementation Committee have done some talking, and, at the last minute before the warrant closed, the ARB filed some very vague articles that might address some aspects of the issue.
In the face of this apparent inaction, a citizens’ group came together, developed some articles, attempted to discuss them with the ARB and inserted them in the warrant of this year’s Town Meeting. They don’t yet have numbers [as of the time Worden wrote], but will be described in the order in which they appear in the draft warrant:
1.) Garage Entrance Locations. Perhaps no single aspect of new houses has attracted more unfavorable comments than the side-by-side pair of garages, complete with 20-foot-wide driveway, and often located subsurface after a steep slope. By requiring the entrances to be 10 feet beyond the required setback (25 feet in R-1 zones, 20 feet in R-2), it is hoped to encourage builders to offset garages from the houses, or to put the entries on the side of the buildings, or to move them back to the traditional position toward the rear of the lot.
2.) Rear Yard Setbacks. The bylaws present require rear yard setbacks to be 20 feet, but not more than 20 percent of lot depth. The article would limit the 20-percent rule to those lots which do not comply with minimum lot size under current zoning.
3.) Amending Gross Floor Area Definitions. The open-space requirements of present zoning have an indirect effect of limiting the size of the building. However, under current rules, many parts of buildings are not included in the gross floor area computation. The definitional changes would pick up most of these areas.
4.) Side Yard Setbacks. Present zoning allows a new house to be built right up to 10 feet from the side property line. This was acceptable when most houses were fairly small, but when a new structure towering way above its neighbors because of a basement almost entirely at grade, two full floors and an attic that is almost a full floor, the visual and shadow effects are considerable. By not changing the 10-feet rule, but requiring at least 30 feet between adjoining buildings, this article may go some distance to address the problem.
5.) Revising Large Additions Provisions. Many years ago, an amendment to the zoning bylaw was approved requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for additions of more than 750 square feet. A large exception was provided – no special permit if the building was “on the original foundation.” Foundations have been interpreted pretty liberally. The changes proposed would eliminate this exception, and also make the law applicable to reconstruction or replacement of an existing house with a much larger one. The special permit process would require a public hearing, so that neighbors would have an opportunity to at least speak to an official board about how their neighborhood is to be changed. The ZBA would be mandated to consider consistency with the neighborhood in their decision
6.) Revising Height Calculations. The height limitation is 35 feet; this article would not change that, but it would require that the measurement be from the bottom of exposed basement to the top of the roof. This would seem to be logical, but it is not the rule now, particularly on lots with a slope.
7.) Revising Attic Measurements. This article would lower the height that is to be counted for a half-story, and include everything within that height in the floor calculation. The hope is to reduce the size of the almost “full floor” attics that now appear, and make them more consistent with the zoning by law limitation of third floor to a half story.
MORE ON HOUSING SIZE
Sponsoring three of the seven zoning articles is Wynelle Evans. The proposals would alter garage-entrance location, rear-yard setbacks and gross floor area.
Evans is a longtime Arlington who is “extremely concerned by the amount and scale of residential development that has exploded in the past several years. Teardowns are rampant.”
A producer of broadcast commercials and nonbroadcast programs for a variety of clients, she had a hand in three of these seven citizen articles — which would alter garage-entrance location, rear-yard setbacks and gross floor area. She said adopting the bylaws could have the following effects:
— Losing smaller, semiaffordable houses in favor of large expensive houses, making Arlington off-limits to people who can’t afford homes costing $800,000 and more;
— Changing the town’s demographic makeup, as Arlington becomes less available to those with lower incomes;
— Increasing development is placing pressure on town services, particularly our schools;
— Rising residential development costs a town more in services than it provides in new revenues, as shown by Cost of Community Services Surveys;
— Limit the sizes of homes that developers can build;
— Large houses obliterate large yards and informal green space as older houses are demolished and lots are built out to their maximum potential, sometimes with two houses on lots that formerly held one. These new houses tend to be homogenous and generic, leading to the loss of our distinct neighborhoods.
If successful, she said she expected her articles to affect the town by providing a means to put into effect the town’s master plan shows that the majority of residents are concerned about the scale and scope of residential development, and are in favor of preserving older housing stock and of preserving neighborhoods.
The master plan recommends that Arlington “encourage sustainable construction and renovation of new and existing structures” as well as “control the size and scope of development in existing residential neighborhoods.”
LORETI ON LOBBYING, EMAILS
Chris Loreti, a former member of the Redevelopment Board, is the sponsor of two articles — eyeing officials’ email addresses and lobbying. Selectmen held initial hearings Feb. 10 and voted to recommend no action on both.
The former article asks the town to provide email accounts for “exclusive use of town business” for selectmen, School Committee, Finance Committee, Board of Assessors, Redevelopment Board and “possibly others.”
The latter article aims to prohibit policy-making elected officials from lobbying ad engaging others to lobby on their behalf on matters affecting the town, “unless the specific issues have been approved at an open session of a public meeting of a public body of the town.”
Loreti explained that the purpose of of his article about email addresses is to provide individual, town email addresses to members of the major boards and committees, and possibly others. Its “intent is to make those members who use email more accessible and to provide better tracking of their email correspondence,” he told YourArlington.
Members of the listed boards are town employees, and as such, their correspondence about town matters is subject to the state Public Records Law. (Read a guide, which is undergoing change, to that law here >>)
“Giving them a town email account for the exclusive use of town business will make it easier to respond to records requests for such emails,” he wrote, “as the emails
will reside on the town server, where they can be easily searched and retrieved.”
He added a personal account: “Last year, I requested any emails of Finance Committee members lobbying against reform of the state Public Records Law, and apparently ruffled some feathers. Had this warrant article in place, the request could have been fulfilled by the IT department without even bothering the committee members.
“Indeed, recognizing the benefits of having a town email address, some board members already use or have used town email accounts, and others, such as members of the Human Rights Commission, have requested them.”
At the Feb. 10 hearing, David Good, chief technology officer for town and schools, indicated adding 40 or so addresses was doable. Some board members said they did not want to be forced to change addresses. That included Selectmen Chairman Kevin Greeley, who says he does no town business via email.
Nature of lobbying at issue
Asked about the purpose of his lobbying article, Loreti told YourArlington that it aims “to prohibit secret lobbying by town officials or those working on their behalf. The most egregious example of the type of activity this article is meant to prevent is the selectman’s lobbying against reform of the Massachusetts Public Records Law, one of the weakest in the nation.
“Not only did some of the selectmen lobby against an update to the law, the board paid a lobbyist — the Massachusetts Municipal Association — to do the same. All of this was done without any public discussion or board approval in a public meeting.”
“The result was that the bill the House was about to vote on last summer was significantly weakened before it was passed in the fall.
“In response, the Senate recently amended the House bill to make it much stronger. If this article passes, I believe town officials will be much less likely to lobby against the interests of Arlington residents using Arlington taxpayer dollars.”
Discussion about this article Feb. 10, draw a strong response from some board members, beginning with a sharp exchange between Greeley and Loreti.
Greeley asked: If I call up my state rep and discuss an issue about the town, not as a selectmen, but as a citizen, is that lobbying? After numerous interruptions on both sides, Loreti agreed it is.
Selectman Dan Dunn, named in a Loreti op ed as having lobbied the Legislature regarding Public Record Act changes last year, said he had done so as a private citizen.
Dunn cited a 2012 lawsuit Loreti brought against the town that was dismissed in 2014. Dunn said his main objection to the article is that it is an attempt to silence free speech.
Greeley said Loreti could respond.
“I don’t want to respond to slurs,” he said, adding he is “disappointed by the board’s lack of respect for the truth.”
DEMOLITION, PONDS
Carol Kowalski, the former planning director in Arlington from 2009 to 2014, when she became an assistant town manager in Lexington, has submitted as a citizen an article about demolition by neglect.
She explained that the article would give Town Meeting the opportunity to give Arlington a tool to help prevent the loss of unoccupied historic buildings where there is evidence of apparently willful neglect. Such neglect could lead to the razing of the historic building.
This type of bylaw is not new, but it would be new to Arlington.
Joey Glushko, who works in the town planning office, has brought an article on water-bodies funding. it is put forward annually by Vision 2020’s Spy Pond Committee, co-sponsored by Reservoir Committee and Conservation Commission (among others). It is among those listed a citizens articles.
The program of funds has primarily treated Spy Pond for water quality and invasive plant/algae control and the Reservoir for water-chestnut removal. It also looks to serve some maintenance/water-quality needs of other water bodies in the community. The articles seeks $50,000.
As of Feb. 22, this article was withdrawn, selectmen said.
MT. GILBOA, MUGAR?
Precinct 18 Town Meeting member John V. Belskis has sponsored an article seeking to transfer the large town-owned home at 1 Gilboa Road to the Arlington Housing Authority. The article would also remove that house from protection provided by Mass. General Law’s Article 97 and seeks a conservation restriction “protecting an equivalent” area of Arlington’s Great Meadows, in Lexington.
Belskis responded Tuesday, Feb. 16:
Article 97 (XCVII) of the State Constitution is a protection that may be placed to protect, preserve and enhance all open space. This protection was placed to preserve the open space on Mt. Gilboa when it was deeded as such by a previous land trust. It may be removed with legislation providing an equivalent area at another location.
By placing this property and its included housing under the Arlington Housing Authority and deed restricting it as affordable housing in perpetuity the property may then be included in the 1.5-percent safe-harbor calculation of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40B, which should then give Arlington an affordable land-area calculation of 2.2 percent.
Will this allow Arlington to dictate the terms it desires in any proposed 40B project (including the proposed Mugar project)?
Perhaps, but it must first be passed by Town Meeting and then placed in a bill before the Legislature to move the Article 97 restriction to the equivalent area. He appeared before the Finance Committee on Feb. 10 and provided great detail about the proposed article. He said he has not heard yet from the other town entities involved as to a hearing before them on this issue.
ARTICLE PROPONENTS YET TO BE REACHED
— Removal of restrictions on an easement and building at 54 Pleasant View and Spring Street. (David Dolan, 51 Robin Hood Road).
ARTICLE WITHDRAWN
Darcy Devney, an East Arlington resident, offered an article that would try to have the town “commit to a policy that encourages inclusion and designation of at least 5 percent — and no more than 10 percent overall — of handicapped parking spaces in any on-street parking in the Business District.”
But on Feb. 2 she she had withdrawn it. She said she had submitted it “just in case the Disability Commission didn’t have the time to take a vote, or voted no, on the identical warrant article.” She said they gave the measure a unanimous yes at its January meeting, and so the commission’s article will be on the warrant.
2016 Town Meeting warrant
This report was published Monday, Feb. 15, 2016, and updated March 8, to add slectmen vote ib Article 60.
NOTE: Those who have yet to respond or were not reached, can still provide information explaining his or her article, and it will be added later.
