What had been expected to be a long, contentious Town Meeting turned more peaceful Wednesday, April 24, with a Redevelopment Board surprise: In a unanimous vote, members withdrew their “density” zoning proposals, which had drawn sharp controversy since December.

Town Meeting agreed with the recommended no action, voting to support it, 208-10-1, and agreeing to have all involved work for the next year on proposals aimed at increasing affordable housing and business vibrancy.

A substitute motion by Jon Gersh (18), seeking to return Article 16 to its original form, drew comments. Steve Revilak (1) asked why inclusionary zoning had added only 54 units among five projects since 2001. Planning Director Jenny Raitt said too few developments large enough to activate the bylaw had occurred. Starting in 2012, the Brigham and Arlington 360 projects were large enough to do that.

Praise, challenges

Ted Peluso (6) urged for change in the town’s zoning laws, while offering a broader view. He praised the Redevelopment Board for its work, noting three ongoing challenges any such effort faces — those seeking no change those aiming for some change and others eyeing much change.

“We live across from Cambridge and Somerville, whether we recognize it or not,” he said. “How do you deal with that? … We won’t succeed in keeping the way they were. … The best thing to do is plan for it.

He called the Redevelopment Board revisiting the articles “a very good idea,” adding, “Don’t conclude we shouldn’t make any changes.”

He urged the six elected people behind him — member of the Select Board and the moderator — to express how they think the zoning effort should take shape.”

Debate ended on a 166-55-0 vote. The vote on Gersh motion failed, 90-123-3.

Related zoning articles — 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 — all were voted nearly unanimously no action on voice votes.

Parking reduction

Article 14 is a measure to reduce the parking requirements in an R7 zoning district, aligning with R5 and R6. Bunnell said the program has been working and called the change a “simple administrative correction.”

Marian King (1) expressed concern that parking won’t be available for low-income residents, who, she said, have greater need for cars.

Daniel Jalkut (6) said he is in favor, adding that the number of cars is not an issue to be controlled by zoning.

Gordon Jamieson (12) said this issue affects a small part of the town. Raitt said it affects three parcels in R7.

After debate ended on a voice vote, the measure passed, 181-34-2.

‘In-law apartments’

Article 15 (accessory dwelling units, or “in-law apartments”) drew more comment.

Bunnell said the proposal was in response to the master plan, adopted in 2015. The aim is to add low-income and senior housing, applying to structures already built. The plan includes a number of the restrictions and limits, including requiring a special permit

Diane Mahon (14) expressed concern about the number of permits and workload. Michael Ruderman (9) noted that earlier Town Meeting had voted down two similar proposals. Asked what happens if someone pursues such an apartment without a permit, Michael Byrne, head of inspectional service, said the state building code calls for up to $1,000-a-day fine.

Michael Quinn (10), on the Council on Aging board, said he strongly favors in-laws apartments. He said he watched the March 8 meeting of the Residential Study Group on videotape — see it here >> By the end, he said there was no disagreement that Art. 15 was “fatally flawed.” He urged a better process and asked for no action.

After a 13-minute break, Christian Klein (10) said that, as a strong proponent of the apartments, he was “torn.” He said that because R0 and R1 districts encompass most of the town, this article could increase affordable housing significantly.

To his question about public safety, Fire Chief Bob Jefferson expressed some concern about how home layouts might change, but he said his department could adjust.

Elizabeth Pyle (10), a Residential Study Group member, said the group asked for year delay after identifying many areas of concerns, including using units for AirBnBs. She said the Redevelopment Board ignored the RSG’s recommendations and did not return to the group after the board made changes to the measure.

Brian Hasbrouck (9) said he favored the measure and provided a personal story: His dad had passed away in such a unit with family nearby.

Patrick Hanlon (5), a member of the RSG, said he thought issues have been largely resolved, including the short-term rental bylaw to be considered later in Town Meeting. He is in favor of this version of the bylaw.

John Worden urged a no vote, saying the article would alter R0 and R1 districts too drastically.

Paul Schlichtman (9) is concerned about illegal AirBnB use under this proposed bylaw. He asked the meeting to adopt Article 35, to test AirBnB regulations first “before we implement the architecture.”

The vote on the measure, 137-82, but it failed because it was nine short of two-thirds.

17 through 21

Article 17 (sign bylaw) aims to put the town in compliance with state regs.

Following questions from Paul Schlichtman, suggested changes from Klein, questions from Bill Berkowitz (8) had a couple questions and complaints from John Worden about a sign on Mass. Ave., the article was approved, 207-8.

Articles 18 (flood plain) and 19 (inland wetland districts) were considered together.

Bunnell said the review process does not change, and inconsistencies were corrected.

The former was supported, 214-2, and the latter, 210-1-1.

Article 20 (religious, educational uses) aims to have the “Dover Amendment” apply to the town. John Martin (10) drew laughs when he said that lawyerly language didn’t “make sense to me as a person.” The article passed, 207-4.

As to Article 21 (bicycle parking), Redevelopment Board member David Watson said the current bylaw links the number of bicycle spaces to the number of car spaces. The new bylaw makes bicycle parking independently calculated. It also further clarifies what a bike rack must be.

Peter Howard (10) made clear that it is only on new development. Jalkut called the article a good idea. The measure passed, 207-7.

A Special Town Meeting has been scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday, April 29. The warrant, including Special Town Meeting articles, are available here >>

The following information was reported by Dan Dunn, as a Town Meeting member:

The moderator read the consent agenda. Several articles (10, 43, 64, and 65) were held (removed) from the consent agenda. We approved:

Article 12 Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Corner Lot Requirements
Article 13 Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Apartment Building Parking Requirements
Article 23 Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Publication of Supporting Docs – Zoning Board of Appeals
Article 25 Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Driveway Slope
Article 31 Bylaw Amendment/Rename Community Preservation Committee
Article 42 Home Rule Legislation/Town Treasurer
Article 46 Acceptance of Legislation/Establishment of a Commission on Disabilities Fund
Article 49 Acceptance/Local Option Taxes
Article 55 Positions Reclassification
Article 66 Appropriation/Miscellaneous
Article 67 Appropriation/Water Bodies Fund
Article 69 Appropriation/Harry Barber Community Service Program
Article 70 Appropriation/Pension Adjustment For Former 25 Year/Accidental Disability Employees
Article 71 Appropriation/Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund
Article 73 Transfer of Funds/Cemetery
Article 74 Use of Free Cash
Article 78 Resolution/Indigenous Peoples’ Day
Article 79 Resolution/Overnight Parking Exemption Program For Medical and Financial Hardships

They were approved 201-8.

Consent Agenda – 2/3 votes

60, 72 and 77 were held. We approved:

Article 59 Rescind or Reappropriate Borrowing Authorizations from Prior Years
Article 61 Appropriation/Financing of Construction or Reconstruction of Sewers and Sewerage Facilities
Article 62 Appropriation/Financing of Construction or Reconstruction of Water Mains and Water Facilities
Article 76 Appropriation/Long Term Stabilization Fund