 It is Monday, October 23rd, 2023, and I call to order the third and potentially final night of the October special town meeting. I'm happy to announce the return of bake sales to town meeting tonight. Anyone who wants to volunteer to organize these in the future, please contact me. The Arlington High School girls tennis team and the Thompson PTO will be selling baked goods. At least one of the bake sales had already been selling some treats before the meeting. They'll be in the side hall on the parking lot side of town meeting. Tonight we will cover Article 12, which seeks to introduce MBTA community's overlay districts. I expect this debate to be lengthy, highly technical, and at times contentious. The stakes are particularly high. I expect all of us to be on our best behavior. I'm aware that we have some high school students in the audience. I want to thank the youth of Arlington for their engagement on this important issue. And I ask that all of us who participate in these deliberations set a positive example for our future voters and leaders. Town meeting is the forge in which we fashion debate into decisions. Let's all demonstrate tonight that we're worthy of this long-standing institution of democracy. I'll have more to say about Article 12 after our opening agenda items. We'll now, Mr. Helmuth, will lead us off on the piano with the national anthem. Please rise. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Mr. Helmuth, you're up again. Thank you, Mr. Chair Eric Helmuth, Chair of the Arlington Select Board. It is moved that if all the business of the meeting is set forth in the warrant for the annual town meeting is not disposed of at this session, when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 8 p.m. Okay, we have a second. All those in favor of reconvening at 8 p.m. Wednesday, if we don't finish tonight, say yes. All those opposed, say no. We will reconvene Wednesday night, I so declare. You don't have to be enthusiastic, but you should say yes. Okay, we'll now take a test vote. I don't think we agreed on one, so whatever we have on the screen, this makes sense. Will we finish all the business by the end of the night? If you wish to vote yes, press one. If you wish to vote no, press two. Three, if you wish to abstain. This is a non-binding vote. This is important, though, to make sure your handsets are working for voting because we're going to have a series of important votes later tonight. Okay, let's close voting. And we'll cycle through all the screens so everyone can verify whether their handsets are working. Okay, let's keep the chatter down, please. Okay, that should be all the precincts. Any issues with your vote on the test vote, please raise your hand or walk to the side table here with all the electronic equipment so we can sort out any voting issues. Do we have a hand raised over here? Yes. Is this an issue with voting, a point of order? Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. I attempted to vote and my vote did not seem to be registered. Also, I was expecting to see a green globe and I don't see it up there so what should I be triggering on to know when to start voting? I believe I saw the green bulb on. It must have, voting must have closed and the bulb must have turned off by the time you voted. You can bring your handsets to the side and they can verify that it's functioning properly. Thank you. See, it's on. Okay. To avoid the time-consuming gymnastics of reports to committee, I'm just going to skip the removal of Article 1 from the table to receive reports unless anyone can show a hand. If you are a chair of a committee or vice chair in their absence who have a committee report, please say it now or forever hold your peace. It would be nice if we didn't have to do this every time or if we could just do this abbreviated version every time so maybe I'll talk to the Procedures Committee about doing that in the future so we will move on. Okay. We now resume with Article 12 and I have just some brief remarks before we get started specifically on this article so welcome to the main event. When debate concludes, I am going to be particularly stingy tonight about entertaining points of order because I'm going to make it very clear every step of the way what we're voting on. What I cannot make clear are the implications of what you all are voting on. That is ultimately the responsibility of all of you to ask questions and seek the information that you need to make an informed decision on the 14 amendments. I know you think it's 13, there's actually a 14th that's come in, and the final main motion and to do so while debate is still open. We have lots of experts in this room, whether it's members of the Redevelopment Board, the Planning Department, the Town Manager and his staff as well as proponents of the amendments and members of various housing advocacy groups on all sides of this debate. So please utilize the significant expertise and diversity of opinions that we have in this chamber to get the information you need to make informed decisions. I've provided a color coded overview outlining the proposed changes to the zoning by law as well as showing the sections of the ARB's proposal where the amendments are proposing changes to that recommended vote. This is not a replacement for the official vote language. The overview details, the order in which presentations of amendments will be made and the order in which town meeting will vote on the amendments. As I said, there's one additional amendment which I'll discuss when we get to it. Okay, and so with that, the last point I'll make and then we'll move into the actual debate is that we're gonna have, as I announced in advance, we're gonna have two speaker queues that we're working from and this will make things a little bit more complicated and please bear with us as we try to do this for the first time. We're gonna have the speaker queues that you've been accustomed to for the last couple of town meetings now which we'll try to show so folks can see where they are in the live speaker queue that you get onto using your handset. Actually, and let's do that now. So on my mark, let's open the live speaker queue. Are we showing that right now? It looks like we are. And so the live speaker queue is now open, okay. I have an additional speaker queue and let's switch over to that. And so I'm managing this queue from my computer here on the stage. And what'll happen here is let's just review these columns very quickly. I don't wanna take too much time on this. Let's scroll to the left, please. This is the time order sequence of the requests that came in through the online form that was shared with town meeting members in advance. And so we have a column for whether they requested to speak in favor called pro, if they wanna speak against, that's the con column. There's if you wanna have questions about amendments, that's column E. If they had a live question which they did not share with me, that's the live quest column F. Other means other comments and then submitted questions means that someone submitted a question in advance. And so let me just describe how that'll work. If someone, let's say like for instance, Ms. Friedman has a submitted question that's checked off. And so if we get to Ms. Friedman in this list, if I recognize her, I will read her question and we'll try to present it on the screen best we can. And if Ms. Friedman at that point wishes to make other comments, like say, wants to follow up from that question once she gets an answer to that, she has the right to do that with her speaking time. And so Ms. Friedman can walk up to a podium while I'm reading her question aloud and hopefully that saves us some time. Yes, Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, because the point of order I have is it has everything to do with the words that you're speaking. I find that the system is particularly distorted I used to work in audio so I'm sensitive to that but a lot of people are shaking their heads. I couldn't understand 50% of what you just said to us. So I think we really have to get this audio system straightened out so we can actually understand what's going on. Okay, thank you, Mr. Weinstein. So I'll try to speak more directly into the microphone. Is this helpful or is this just muddling the sound more, okay. Well, Mr. Weinstein is a professional in this department, I appreciate it. So if I'm a little further away but speaking louder, great. Thank you, thank you for that. And so to start us off here, actually I'll start with Ms. Friedman. So she submitted a question in advance so I'll just jump down to that now so we could actually run through this exercise and we'll use Ms. Friedman as an example but we're actually beginning debate now. And so I'm going to mark this here and then we should see if we scroll over and we'll see Ms. Friedman's question. Mr. Jamison, do you have a point of order? I'm sorry? Oh yes, you are right, thank you. Ms. Deschler, thank you, Mr. Jamison. Christine Deschler, Chair of the Allington Finance Committee, I move that Article 12 be removed from the table. Okay, we have a second. All those in favor of removing Article 12 from the table to bring it before us, say yes. All those opposed, say no. Okay, it is now before us. And actually I'm jumping ahead here so we're actually going to go through a series of presentations. I was getting ahead of myself, I apologize. And so we're going to start with the presentation of the Redevelopment Board. So we could bring that up and we're still working with the speaker queue that we had. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Rachel Zemberi, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. I would like to request 12 minutes from town meeting to introduce this complex article. Okay, we have a request with a second for 12 minutes. All those in favor of giving Ms. Zemberi 12 minutes of speaking time, say yes. All those opposed, say no. Okay, it passes. So we are giving Ms. Zemberi 12 minutes starting now. Go ahead. Great, thank you. Rachel Zemberi, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. I'd like to take you through Warren Article 12, a proposed zoning by law amendment related to the creation of an overlay district for multifamily zoning in Arlington to address the MBTA community's legislation. Next slide. In 2021, the state of Massachusetts created the MBTA community's legislation and guidelines for compliance. This legislation was created with the express purpose of addressing the housing shortage in the state of Massachusetts by requiring all communities served by or like Arlington directly adjacent to the MBTA subway or commuter rail lines to change their zoning regulations to allow multifamily housing by right. Multifamily housing is defined by the state of Massachusetts as dwellings of three units or more. Next slide. In addition to allowing multifamily housing as of right, a provision that does not currently exist in Arlington zoning bylaws, the district must meet size and other eligibility requirements. Next slide. Article 12 has been created not only to comply with the MBTA community's legislation, but is also reflective of the stated goals of Arlington's master plan, the housing production plan, net zero action plan, connect Arlington, our fair housing action plan and affordable housing trust action plan. These goals include creating more housing closer to the places in Arlington in our business centers that we go to every day and increased access to public transit by expanding walkable transit oriented neighborhoods. We also are looking to create greater housing choice for Arlington residents and potential residents at various life stages and income levels. By passing this article at this fall's special town meeting, Arlington will remain eligible to participate in the state's fossil fuel free demonstration pilot, which was approved by 92% of town meeting members. Arlington will also be able to participate in programs such as the mass works infrastructure funding program, which will be critical to addressing projects such as the reconfiguration of the intersection at Mass Ave and Ableton streets. Next slide. Next I'll take you through the key concepts of the plan. Next slide. Much of our current zoning bylaw regulations state back to a down zoning of our land in a zoning bylaw overhaul in 1975. At that time, the bylaw eliminated provisions to create multifamily housing as of right, meaning that all multifamily housing creation requires a special permit. That is still the case today. The MBTA community's overlay district is intended to address many of the impediments that currently exist in our zoning bylaw to facilitate the creation of multifamily housing in our major transit corridors. Next slide. The state created a calculation method to determine the potential capacity based on the zoning rules. Capacity in this calculation is a measure of whether a zone is of reasonable size. It is not a measure of how much new housing will be built. Capacity is based on what could be built if every single lot were redeveloped to the maximum limits, a scenario that is highly unlikely at best over the next 50 to 70 years. Next slide. For reference, let's look at a few examples of what multifamily housing looks like that already exists in our community. And in most cases, predates the 1975 bylaw change. It ranges from triple-deckers to stacked fourplexes, from multiplex units to courtyard apartments. Next slide. We have examples of higher intensity density and housing already existing in Arlington from recently developed affordable housing properties to large apartment buildings along Mass Ave that again predate the 1975 zoning bylaw. Next slide. Upon the release of the MBTA community's guidelines, the town embarked on an ambitious and comprehensive engagement plan that has spanned almost a full year. Next slide. In November of 2022, the ARB voted to establish a working group to work directly with the Department of Planning and Community Development and the town's planning consultant to draft the framework and locations of Arlington's MBTA community's zoning district via rigorous community outreach, stakeholder engagement, and iterative mapping. Many of the major milestones are highlighted in this slide. The community input and engagement was instrumental in shaping the final structure and content of the plan for the overlay district. Next slide. In addition, they sought to capture more perspectives and raise greater awareness through office hours, visible presence at community events, and pop-up events. They also conducted information sessions and solicited feedback from town officials, committees, town organizations, and volunteer groups. In short, a lot has gone into this proposal. Next slide. With that background, let's move to the specific language of the proposal. Next slide. At the outset, the following guiding principles were developed, encouraging more housing in a variety of sizes and price points, housing located near public transit, housing to provide a customer base in support of local businesses, multifamily housing spread across Arlington, and ensuring compliance with the MBTA community's legislation. Article 12 delivers on each one of these goals as written. Next slide. As you can see, the map submitted with the article reflects three sub-districts, which are distributed throughout our three business districts that follow along our primary transportation quarters. Next slide. The plan proposes a capacity of 3,216 units based upon the state's calculation methodology. We expect multifamily housing to begin to come to the market at a reasonable, slow, and steady growth rate over the next 50 years, at numbers well below the state's capacity calculation. Next slide. The properties included in the proposed map can be described in three sub-districts, the Mass Ave sub-district, the Broadway sub-district, and the neighborhood sub-districts. Next slide. Each of these sub-districts has distinct setback requirements and height limits. For example, in the neighborhood sub-district, the side setbacks are larger and the height limit is lower in keeping with the existing context of the neighborhoods. Next slide. Parking requirements are similar to other areas of our zoning by-law that relate to mixed use and multifamily residential properties, and developments are encouraged to consider providing fewer parking spaces through parking reduction options already contained within the zoning by-laws. Next slide. Affordable housing provisions are proposed to align with Arlington's current inclusionary zoning provisions subject to the approval of the state. Next slide. There are also three bonus options included in the article. They are not available to redevelopment in the neighborhood sub-districts. They are also not cumulative beyond the height restrictions of up to five stories in the Broadway sub-district and up to six stories in the Mass Ave sub-district. Next slide. The first bonus option is a mixed use bonus requiring a significant portion of the first floor of the property to be dedicated to specific commercial uses. If utilized, the project may push forward to the lot line consistent with many mixed use developments already in the business districts and may add up to two stories for developments on Mass Ave and one story in the Broadway sub-district. Next slide. The affordable housing bonus allows for additional stories in the Mass Ave and Broadway sub-districts if a higher percentage of the residential units meet affordability requirements. Next slide. And the final bonus is an environmental bonus. Currently our zoning by-law requires projects that come under in the environmental design review to provide a lead checklist but there is no process to ensure that these provisions are incorporated into the final project. Requiring projects to pursue and achieve lead certification which is a third party review and approval system by the US Green Building Council is a much higher bar that would allow a project to add an additional story. Third party certification of an equivalent green building standard such as passive house, living building challenge or well may be proposed for acceptance. Next slide. Assuming the town meeting votes to support Article 12 we'll move on to next steps. Next slide. This includes the submission to the state for review and approval prior to February 2024. Next slide. The ARB voted four to zero at our October 2nd meeting to recommend favorable action on Article 12. The ARB also reviewed all proposed amendments prior to this evening at our meeting just before the start of town meeting and voted to support the article as written with the consideration of two warrant articles or excuse me, two amendments. The ARB split support for consideration of the Bagnall Fleming amendment and indicated support of the intent of the Anderson amendment but prefer that it not include the 40% threshold. There are community members who believe that we should be moving faster and aiming for higher density and those who believe we should be moving more slowly and aiming for lower density. This plan has taken all of these viewpoints into consideration and has evolved significantly over the past year in response to the public process while still remaining in alignment with the legislation and our town's strategic plans. Several of the amendments that have been proposed could, if adopted, result in a zoning bylaw that falls outside of compliance with the MBTA community's legislation. The Attorney General has made it clear that she does not view compliance with this legislation as optional and there are significant consequences for any community that fails to comply, including ineligibility for state grant programs that we rely on as a town in our budgeting and liability under federal and state fair housing laws. We could be sued as a town for noncompliance. In addition, adding on unvetted amendments, they may incrementally bring the motion closer to the line of failure to comply also effectively undercuts a year of collaborative work by the town and the residents to create what is a reasonable and measured approach to compliance that is in alignment with Arlington's progressive values. We are proud of the work that we have done together as a town to get to this point and we request that the town meeting support the unamended Article 12 as presented. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Zenbury. Before we take the next presenter, I'm just going to remind folks of what I announced last night briefly. Mr. Wagner, you can come up to the podium in preparation while I speak this. Before I take speakers from the speaker queue, each proponent will have the several amendments we have will have a single initial speaking slot in which to introduce all of their amendments if they have multiple of them and advocate for their position within the scope of the article, including other amendments which may not have been presented yet. And this is the fairest way that I can see to allow speakers the opportunity to speak on the issue without using their one speaking slot. They can have a second speaking slot later on potentially if I recognize them according to the town bylaws for five minutes rather than seven. I think it's unlikely that we'll get through enough speakers that we would cycle back but we'll see how it goes. Mr. Wagner, you have the floor for seven minutes. Point of order, thank you. Carl Wagner, Precinct 15. Before my time begins, Mr. Moderator, because I have two amendments and an overhead presentation to make on the main motion, could I ask if the town meeting would please give me just 10 minutes so that I could make that all in that time? Okay, so Mr. Wagner's requested 10 minutes to cover his remarks and his two amendments. All those in favor of allocating Mr. Wagner, 10 minutes for speaking time, say yes. Yes. All those opposed, say no. No. It passes. Mr. Wagner, you have 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Could you reset the time please for me? To 10, thank you. These buildings you see on the first slide were made from the central image supplied by a member of the working group proponents who is also on the ARB. They show what could be allowed under Article 12 if the developer bonuses are allowed to continue. See the existing house on the right, usually only about 30 feet high, the predominant type of housing in the area where this would go in. See the three-floor bluish building on the side street, which is called NMF districts. See the lack of setback on the front sidewalk of the main building, which on Mass Av would go up 78 feet. The height of two telephone poles, by the way, which is on our battle road from 1775. And also notice the incredibly close side boundary setbacks between the buildings that would be allowed. Next slide, please. Slide two. The public are one of two missing stakeholders in this process. A four-person ARB approved a nine-person working groups proposal for this. Of the ARB that voted, two members who voted were also the proponents. The data show that around half to two-thirds of the public of Arlington, some of them are here tonight, do not support an unamended Article 12. Here you can see on the slide that over 700 people, I think it's now 750, have asked the town, meaning they are now asking the town meeting members to only approve a plan that is scaled back. In the only open forum on Article 12, two-thirds of the comments that were made were concerned like this. In written comments to the ARB, the percentages were similar. The town is taking a vote on the largest changes in Arlington in our lifetime. We are elected by the people who choose to live here. They have spent a lot of time and money to live here. They have investments in their lives. We should respect the over 50% majority of the public's expressed concerns. We should work for the voters and taxpayers. Next slide, please. Slide three, affordability. Affordability is the second of two missing stakeholders from the process. The state requires us to make a density overlay zone or zones for 10% of our current housing stock in market rate housing, which would override our current affordable housing rules. Unamended Article 12 worsens our affordability, only offering that if we build more expensive new units for a diversity of incomes, they call it, there will be trickle down to lower incomes. Lower incomes means us. The proponents provided no evidence that the production of higher priced apartments than what we currently have will help affordability. There is much research, though, that shows this does not result in more affordable housing. Next slide, please. Slide four, our stronger inclusionary zoning bylaw should receive a state determination before we accept Unamended Article 12, before we allow these developer bonuses to go in extra two floors or bumping out to the sidewalk to make enormous buildings with no open space. The state's affordability housing law is fewer units at a higher rental price than our own pending law. Keep that in mind. This is not a pro-sustainability proposal either. Solar panels will be shaded unless we restrict building size such as removing density bonuses. And there are no open space requirements. The reality is the more we allow, the greater the heat islands and street canyons will be. Next slide, please. Slide five, it's not about housing choice. It's not about economic diversity, social justice or equity. There is nothing in the proposed plan to require or even encourage these unsupported claims. It's not about family housing. The proposal has nothing to encourage housing with two or more bedrooms. The proposal limits on parking to just one space will likely discourage families. It's not about encouraging a missing middle home or buyer or resident. That's actually us already. We are it. As the master plan points out Arlington is unique in Boston's inner suburbs for its diverse housing stock. The proposal overlay would actually encourage tear down and replacement of our missing middle as we, they call it, our middle with affluent buyers and renters in high rise apartments. Next slide, please, finances. Even at 2046 units, a number many of us know well now, the state compliance level, these zones buildings will increase burden on real estate taxes, town finances and deficits and the rents of the people who live all throughout the town. A report prepared by three respected members of the finance committee points out that the more units we make above 2046, the worse our financial situation becomes, the higher the deficits, the need for new real estate taxes goes up and higher rents. What the proponents should admit to you is that they are proposing to over deliver a state tax on us. Do you pay more state taxes than required? Next slide, please, slide seven. You know, if we don't amend, which I'm not proposing, but if we don't amend, we have until December 2024, the adjacent towns have that time and many of them are taking it to get this right. This is incredibly important. The fossil fuel ban pilot project suggests that we should be one of 10 cities to reduce our pollution by banning new fossil fuel in several types of development. But if we were to let larger polluting cities, such as I believe Somerville is next in line, we would see an overall reduction in regional pollution, which is ultimately what we want. And we could learn the best practices from how to do a fossil fuel ban by waiting until the end of the pilot and then adopting the fossil fuel ban in the best way. Now for possibilities if we didn't get this tonight, we could take this to spring town meeting. The best variant though would be to amend the size, scope and negative consequences out of Article 12. I propose to you to basically amend all of the amendments in support except for the bagnell, four floor and more amendment. Another possibility is that in spring, we could have a better working group. The current working group did not include advocates for affordable housing, schools, town finances, open space and trees, the elderly and the disabled. All groups like that should be included and were included for example in Lincoln. Next slide please, the summary. Most of the public who have spoken have told us, have told you they do not want town meeting to exceed the required state mandate because they are worried about negative and unintended effects beyond simply making market rate housing. This is not an affordable housing act. Making more of it will not make more affordability. Article 12 has a negative impact on town deficits and your constituents property taxes, my constituents property taxes and rent costs. The negative financial tax impact effect grows as we add more units and more density. More Article 12 makes Arlington poorer. Without amendments, Article 12 is too large. It will make living here harder for people on fixed middle and lower incomes and it will promote only an affluent class. I'd like to go please now to the last slide if I may. Looking, sorry the last slide is slide 15. It's all the way down at the bottom deck. I apologize, thank you. Looking at these buildings again I have two amendments which I wanted to mention to you. Wagner Amendment 1 simply makes it the larger front street dimensions, the big building you see that will not be applied to the parcels on the side streets, the NMF, which is currently the case if we approve the unamended article. In my proposal the side street, the three floor buildings will be the rule for the entire building when a parcel fits in both districts. I hope you'll support it. In the Wagner Amendment number two looking at the buildings, by removing, yeah the same buildings, by removing the density overlay which allows these 78 foot buildings on Mass Ave to be built we could bring our buildings back to a more reasonable size for our battle road and for our neighborhoods. And there's no reduction in the compliance level as it was mentioned in the past speaker. We want to be careful of amendments that have drastic reductions in our compliance. Three, two, one, six is the number the proponents have told you that is not reduced at all because the proponents never calculated numbers for the density bonuses. It also would remove the building back from the street to whatever the setback of the zone allows, meaning we could have more trees and open space and our town won't look suddenly like assembly square without business or like Kendall Square without business. Finally, if I could ask with my remaining 33 seconds to go to slide 12 please, I want to just show you, the building on the left is what you can get in the smaller missing middle housing that we already have with some open space and some setbacks and it's not incredibly high. The building on the right has none of that. Could we please go to the slide? I think it's called 10 that has the, let's see, could we go back one more please? Maybe to slide eight or nine. Okay, we're about out of time. All right, we're about out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Yeah. Oh, hold on one second. Mr. Wagner, I don't believe you moved your amendments. You can just do that. Thank you for the five seconds to say, please I'd like to move my amendment one and move my amendment two. Okay. Well, let's move one at a time because, well, some of those were for amendment one and some were for amendment two. They are now pending before us. Thank you. Ms. Deschler, what, you had something to say? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christine Deschler, Chair of the Finance Committee. I want to clarify for the body that the Finance Committee has taken no position on Article 12 whether for or against. We simply felt we simply did not have enough data to be able to make a recommendation to you. So please keep that in mind when people reference the Finance Committee, we have not taken a position. Certain members of the Finance Committee acting in their personal capacity have taken positions but that is not reflective of the Finance Committee as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. Ms. Babiarz to introduce her amendment. And as she comes up, I just want to call out that there are, some amendments may have some effects on the recommended vote from the ARB that might increase the number of units within the two proposed overlay districts and some may reduce that. And that can have a scope impact. Usually I wouldn't be engaging at this level on the substance of an article. In this case, the substance can impact whether it remains within scope. So I may point that if the presenters don't point that out, I might bring that to the attention. I don't take a position on this, but to bring that to the, other than I certainly have to take a position on scope. And so just calling that out that I may need to interject at some points at the end of presentations if that wasn't addressed when an amendment has been presented. Ms. Babiarz, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for your time. I'm Joe Babiarz, 59-Edge Hill Road, precinct 15. I support affordable and equitable housing in Arlington, but I don't see how this overlay gets us there. My issue is with the economic viability of the plan. So I've done a pro-form of business plan. Do I have any qualifications to do this? Hopefully not as much as the October 11th feasibility study that's been commissioned. But I've been a private property investor for over 30 years. My husband has done real estate for more, finance for more than 40. And when I talk about the future market coming in, I have worked with colleagues who are in pharma and in IT, so I'm pretty well aware of their salaries. So what does the recent set of sales have to say about Arlington right now? On Ridge Street, a $5,000 square foot house sold for $2 million at $400 a square foot. There was on 15 Mary Street recently an 1,800 square foot condominium that sold for $1 million, but the price per square foot comes out to $420 because the smaller you go, the more expensive it is to build. So I was corrected by a colleague on my email saying that, you know, the Mary Street has some functional obsolescence in its system, so you really, if you're going to do it from scratch, you would be up to 540 square foot for the 1850 building. So the thing is supersizing increases the overall price but brings the square footage price down and having condos increases the actual square footage price. So what would I do if I wanted to start developing this? And believe me, I'm in my ninth year. I'm ninth inning rather. I'm waiting for a grandchild. I'm not about to start to do this, so don't come to me with your ideas. But basically, I would go to the people who've got the bucks and I would hit a bunch of middle managers in Cambridge. The average salary there is between $200 and $250,000 and I do know through colleagues that some of them are willing to spend a million bucks for both the acquisition and the permits that go along with it. Why do they want to come to Arlington? Because if they have one or two kids, they can save $60,000 a year in private school tuition, multiply that by 12 and you've got a pretty hefty down payment for what they're doing. So, you know, with a 10% down, you can buy a million dollar home or two and with this income and spend about 91,000 in finance. What this potential list of buyers eliminates completely, the Arlington police, the fire and the teachers. All others who we define as middle class. From the website in Arlington Elementary School Teacher makes $55,000, that gets them according to the mortgage calculators, the house of 350,000 tops. So, what is the bill that I would do? Again, I was more conservative. There are some other folks who would go even further with this, but I would stick to three unit build. I would do maybe, I just like to sort of skate underneath the and make it possible. So I would do under 4,200, that way I don't have, 4,200 square. That way I don't have to do the conditioned space. I can get rid of some of the extra environmental requirements. I definitely would have buyers. I'd get somebody to come in, be a partner with me. Go ahead and pick up the tab, that way I don't have to worry about financing. Then we turn it into a, I'm giving you the financial. So if you're worried about I'm not being in scope, what I'm trying to say is that affordable isn't there. So what happens after that? I have to look at, I have to look at what happens with affordable, because that's who I'm really trying to place into this. Correct? Well, affordable requires some kind of government subsidy. Cambridge developers stopped at 12%. Cambridge is in a unique position. They just put $40 million of free cash into affordable. We don't have that here. We just did 400,000 out of free cash. So my view is that I would like to reduce the scope, reduce the size of the affordable units back down to 2050. Why? You'd get compliance. You don't have to worry about getting sued by the state. And number two, you'd have some bargaining power to be able to get more affordable. Wait for the cash to come in. There is some evidence that HUD is thinking about giving money for affordable housing. There's some evidence that the state is thinking about doing that. But if you take the entire block and have it open, market factors will come in and take it away from you. And you won't have an opportunity to do the affordable. So I'm looking forward to hearing from the feasibility contract on October 11th. And the data from that study has got to be able to inform what happens here and what we can really build. But I'm asking you to vote this amendment because it would mean that we have complied with the state statutes, the statute requirements. And we've left ourselves some room for improvements down the road. So I thank you very much. And I move that my motion be, come up. How do I say that? I'm sorry. That's good enough. Ms. Baviaris is moving her amendment before the meeting. Do I have a second? Okay. It's now pending before us. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Borden, you're up to present your two amendments and any other comments you might have. Is this audio okay now? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, John Worden Precinct 8. I have, is this the right microphone? It's working, yes. Thank you. And everybody can hear me. And I hope this doesn't fall on the floor and it'll make a lot of noise. I have two amendments. And if you picked up a sheet at the back of the hall, there's one on one side and one on the other side. And the first one is about a subject that's been talked about at some length. They're affordable housing. And affordable housing is something that we in Arlington have been quite devoted to for a long period of time. But if you read and a lot of people have talked about it and talked about it as though this article 12 recommended vote was going to bring us affordable housing. But if you actually read the plan, there is no requirement, no requirement that any affordable housing be included in the 3,216 or whatever units that are projected. We have our own affordable housing by law, 15% at 60% of AMI. The state bureaucrats have irrigated to themselves the power to what laws they will observe and what laws they will ignore. They have so far chosen to ignore our law but we have now just recently filed an application and maybe if they're feeling charitable towards us, they may allow us to enforce our own law in our own town. If they don't, then we're stuck with the 10% limit which is otherwise in there. So if you're in any event, if you're in favor of affordable housing which I trust most of you are, you should support my amendment because without that, there was no mandate, no requirement that any affordable housing be required or would happen. So this is really a litmus test of people who talk about affordable housing and those who wanna walk the walk and actually support affordable housing and your vote on this will be that test of where you are. Are you talking or are you doing the job? My second amendment is based on, we know from the Bible that says, love your neighbor as yourself but this provision, the neighborhood, the neighborhood multi-family district where you shove a large mid-rise apartment building in the midst of a bunch of one and two family homes is like, it's just the opposite of it. Stick it to your neighbor if they happen to live near Mass Avenue or Broadway and I don't think that's a fair way to do things. I'm not proposing that you do away with it although that would be the best idea but I am proposing a few minor modifications. One, that this three-story building in the midst of these much smaller houses will at least be set back to the same limit as the neighborhood already is. 25 feet in our one zone, 20 feet in the R2 zone and the other would create a formula as they wanna have, if you've read the proposal, they wanna have a five-foot side yard set back and what I'm saying to that is I'm not saying to do away with it but I'm saying you can have it five feet if as long as that the next building is at least 15 feet from the border so that the standard distance between buildings is 20 feet like it is every place else. So that is my amendment and I suggest that you show your love for your neighbors by taking these rather minor adjustments to that thing and I would say that who is my neighbor? The first, I don't know how much time do I have left Mr. Margarita. It's two and a half minutes, Mr. Warden. Two and a half minutes. Two and a half minutes? Yes. Oh good, well then. All right, I timed myself at home but I guess I must have been speaking, I must have, maybe I forgot to say something. But anyway, the concept of who is my neighbor. When my very first town meeting, 1970, I stood at this or maybe some other point. Now these look like newer podiums. Others were kind of old and rickety. But and worked with a group, the people in East Darlington down where it's now precinct, mostly precinct two were threatened with the first new guard development which is going to be a bunch of people threatened with the first new guard development which is going to be a bunch of high-rise towers in the wetland. They didn't call it the wetland, then they called it the swamp. And I didn't know anybody from East Darlington but it struck me that doing that to that neighborhood, they were doing that to me. They were doing that to you because we're all in this town together and you can't put it to one part of the town and say, well it's all right because it's them. It's those East Darlington people. It's those Heights people. No, we're all together and we have to stick together and you have to think about this. If you had to have this three-story building, a three-story square box building stuck in the middle of your residential neighborhood, would you like it to be at least modified a little bit as I've suggested? That's... So I move... No matter where I move, my amendment one... Do we have a second? Do we have a second? And my amendment two. Both Warden amendments are pending before us. Thank you. And Mr. Warden, before you go anywhere, I just want to ask because your second... the Warden amendment two may have, on my reading of it, may have an impact on scope in terms of do you have an estimate or any analysis on the number of units that it would decrease because if it's beyond a certain amount, that could put us into a scope quandary. If I may, Mr. Moderator, I disagree with your theory on scope. And I had that responsibility for 19 years in this hall. But pushing the building back by five feet in one case and 10 feet in another is not going to reduce the number of units in the building. It's still going to have... It could be a three-unit building. It could be more. Who says the unit has to be the whole floor? So I don't think that has anything to do with the scope. It's not going to reduce the number of units, which is what we're looking at, the number of units. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Warden. I would like to take Mr. Loretti next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Chris Loretti, precinct seven. I move to amend the ARB's recommended vote under Article 12 in three ways. To require that at least 15% of lot areas be landscaped open space. To reduce the maximum building heights in feet for four to six-story buildings. And to remove the lead gold certification bonus. I'd like to thank the ARB for its efforts putting forth this article. As someone who lives in the neighborhood district, I believe the board effectively tempered the enthusiasm of the working group in many ways. Still, some improvements are needed. My first amendment pertains to landscaped open space. At present, the ARB proposal contains no requirement for landscaped open space, which is unprecedented for the residential zoning districts in Arlington. As described in the master plan, open spaces and benefits of natural resources are a treasured commodity within densely developed communities, and Arlington's current open space requirements are reasonable. This amendment requires the same amount of landscaped open space as town meeting just voted for business districts. It ensures that if the required front yards are not landscaped, other areas are. It does not reduce capacity. Setback limits the building size. Those setbacks provide more than adequate area for landscaping. As an example, if you have a 60 by 100 foot lot, the required front yard plus the five foot strip in the required side yard extended to the rear of the property line would yield 18% open space versus the required 15. And if you're concerned about mixed use developments that have no front yards, they don't matter because they're not used in the capacity calculation. They don't even comply with the requirements of the MBTA communities act. This amendment ensures a minimum amount of green space for trees and plantings, ensures that the lot is not entirely covered with driveways and parking, and supports the ARB's design review goals for landscaped open space. I'll grab the next slide, please. My second amendment pertains to building heights. This amendment simply aligns the maximum building heights in feet with the way four to six-story buildings are actually being built in town. The ARB based its height limits on 13 feet per story. 13 feet may be appropriate for first stories, but not for upper stories. This slide shows three ARB permitted four-story buildings. None exceed 45 feet, even though greater heights are allowed. The same is true for the new development permitted across Lake Street from the Capitol Theater. A 45-foot height limit works for four-story buildings. The other building shown here is five stories on Broadway. It is 55 feet, the same as the proposed limit. For six stories, 78 feet is really excessive. 66 feet is sufficient. Moreover, the height buffer the ARB claims would apply to six-story buildings really doesn't, as the ARB has not specified a lower height for the buffer area. This change remedies that omission. In summary, this amendment imposes realistic height limits based on 13 feet for the first floor and 10 and a half feet for upper floors. It promotes the ARB's EDR goal that developments be related harmoniously to the terrain, to the use, scale, and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity. It does not reduce capacity or total floor area as it does not affect the number of stories. My third amendment is to remove the lead gold bonus. It is bad public policy to give a bonus or benefit for something that would be done anyway. Many buildings permitted by the ARB already meet or exceed the lead gold standard according to their architects. Several are shown on this slide. Another whose application was withdrawn was planned for 10 sunny side that also met the gold standard. Lead gold is not even the most stringent lead standard. Platinum is. And many of the points needed to achieve it result from the building's location and the need to comply with state and local regulations on energy use and the environment. In addition, the ARB has no effective way to enforce compliance since certification is not done until the building is completed. The most damaging aspect of the lead bonus is that it makes the affordability bonus undesirable. Why would a developer make the sacrifice to provide more affordable housing when they could get the same bonus by doing practically nothing to get lead gold? This amendment will remove an unwanted bonus. It will require that developers make a meaningful contribution if they want the bonus and like the other bonus provisions, removing it does not change the capacity. I ask to support these amendments provide a minimal amount of landscaped open space, reduce the maximum heights and remove the lead gold certification bonus. But I should note that Mr. Wagner has done me one better by removing the mixed-use bonus entirely. I asked you to support his amendments too. I never imagined that if I bought that neighboring house on Broadway, I'd be able to construct by right a five-story mixed-use development, another hotel, Lexington, for example, five foot from my property line and 10 feet from my neighbor's home. And at 65 feet, the development could be twice the height of that home and be built right up to the sidewalk. I don't think I should be able to do that. It is not what the MBTA community's act is about. And in this case, it wouldn't even result in any permanent housing. But that is what the ARB proposal allows. Mr. Wagner's amendment would prevent this. Like mine, they result in an overlay that is more consistent with the goals of the MBTA community's act to provide multi-family housing consistent with community standards. I ask you to support my amendments and his as well. And I'd like to move my first amendment and I'd like to move my second amendment. And I'd like to move my third amendment. Okay, thank you. Before I accept those motions and those seconds, which are sitting in limbo right now, I just want to address and I apologize, Mr. Wagner, if you already covered this in your remarks and I missed it, do you expect any scope impact on your amendment one in terms of changing the parameters of the open space as far as number of units and how that could impact the capacity? Do you expect any impact there? I don't, Ms. Water, because as I explained, that landscaped open space can be met in the required setbacks and it does not change the unit numbers at all. Okay, thank you. And I accept all those motions and those seconds. Thank you. Those are now, the three Laredi amendments are now pending before us. That brings up Mr. Bagnell. Can we bring up the Bagnell Fleming presentation please? Okay, there it is. Hi, Alex Bagnell, precinct nine and resident of the neighborhood district. I move to amend the motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we now have the Bagnell Fleming amendment before us. Thank you. James Fleming and I propose a very simple amendment to article 12 to increase the maximum allowable building height in the neighborhood multifamily district from three stories and 35 feet to four stories and 46 feet. This would return the main motion to the recommendation of the working group and raise the total capacity of the overlay districts from 3,216 to 3,844, an increase of 628 units. These figures were calculated using the same spreadsheet used by the working group and available to us all. While we appreciate the ARB's efforts on 12 and wholeheartedly support the main motion, we think that the reasoning behind the working group's proposal was sound and deserves reconsideration. As you can see from the graphic on the left, our current zoning allows for up to two and a half stories and 35 feet. Now, a half story is not a half height story. It is a story where you can only have half the floor area devoted to usable living space. The main motion in the center graphic allows the third floor to all be usable living space. We think this is a very small step and propose that one more story on the parcels near our major transportation corridors, shown in the third graphic. Some points in favor of the fourth floor, elevators. So as the working group notes in their report, buildings that are four stories or taller will have an elevator and meet other accessibility requirements. This was a major driver behind the working group choosing to allow by-right residential to be four stories tall in all sub-districts. We have heard from many community members that a lack of housing with elevators and other accessibility features is a barrier to residents with different abilities finding housing and a barrier to seniors looking to downsize and stay in Arlington. Inclusionary zoning. Simply put, taller buildings are more likely to have more than five units and thus are more likely to trigger our inclusionary zoning by-law. While we are unlikely to see a lot of new income restricted units with either three or four story limits, every little bit helps. My proponent James will follow with a bit about interesting bit about code. On the broader question of Article 12, I offer the following. The housing market is like a game of musical chairs, but where getting a chair depends not on your reflexes, but on how much money you have. In a functioning housing market, there are more chairs than participants. Everyone can fairly easily find a place to sit. A few chairs are unused, creating pressure to make the chairs better to attract buyers and tenants. We have spent the last 50 years, which coincidentally, as of next year, aligns with our downzoning, aligns with the court-ordered desegregation of the Boston schools. We have been adding players to our game, but not bringing in a corresponding number of chairs. This has led to a game where there are more players than chairs, and not everyone can find a place to sit, with low-income households getting the worst of it. Adding some more chairs to the game is a benefit to all players. To perhaps overextend the analogy, even if you bring in your fanciest massaging Aeron chair to the game, i.e. new construction, it does help make it easier for everyone to find a place to sit. We all clearly highly value and benefit from living in Arlington. It's a great place to live. For me, the question boils down to whether we share our good fortune with a few more people, or we reinforce the barricades and pull up the ladders behind us. I think we should share our bounty. Housing is not a zero-sum game. We need to move beyond the scarcity mindset that tells that if someone else gets a bigger slice of the pie, our piece will inevitably be smaller. We can make a bigger pie. Providing for the needs of our families does not have to mean denying those possibilities to others. We ask for your support of this amendment and for your support of a meaningful main motion. At this point, I would like to invite James Fleming, a resident of Arlington, to come talk about what he has found about building code. Mr. Fleming is resident of Arlington and you have the right to speak. This is still under Mr. Bagnell's time with two minutes and 10 seconds remaining. Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. Thank you for really hearing me. Name and address? James Fleming, 15 Monroe Street. One of the main imbitances for filing this article is stated in the letter that we filed is that the building code requires fireproofing requirements for multi-family housing and that these building codes increase the cost of construction. I'm sure if you asked someone like Mr. Ciampa about the specifics, but I wanted to talk to you about the costs. As evidence, I'm going to read to you a statement from the proceedings of the now defunct National Housing Association formed in 1911 to create model zoning codes for places to adopt across the country. This statement is from the organization's founder. He opens with, the question is how can we keep apartment houses and tenement houses and flats out of our city? He goes on to say, the easiest and quickest way to keep the apartment house is through the fireproofing requirements. If we require multiple dwellings to be fireproof and thus increase the cost of construction, if we require stairs to be fireproofed even where there are only three families, if we require fire escapes and a host of other things all dealing with fire protection, we are on safe grounds because that can be justified as a legitimate exercise of police power. In our laws, let most of the fire provisions relate solely to multiple dwellings and allow our private houses and two family houses to be built with no fire protection whatsoever. The fireproofing requirements were designed to increase the cost of multi-family housing and make it infeasible and we still have those requirements today. This amendment is necessary to spread that additional cost over more units so that anything can happen or if something does happen to make it less expensive. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. Next up is Ms. Anderson. My name is Kristen Anderson and I move to amend Article 12. Okay. We have a motion to... For under Article 12 the Anderson amendment and we have a second. It is now pending before us. Go ahead, Ms. Anderson. I move to amend the Anderson amendment and the next second floor will is replaced with second floor may. Okay. And so what we have here is what's called a secondary amendment. It's an amendment to an amendment. You can't go any deeper than that fortunately. Can we just bring that up here? And so what Ms. Anderson is asking us for is this red text here if you can see it in the middle to replace will with may within her amendment. And so we're going to take... This is not strictly just an administrative or Scrivener's error that we're correcting. It actually has a substantive change in the meaning. We're going to pile this with all the other amendments. So the secondary amendment will be stacked on top of the Anderson amendment. And that's the order in which we'll take them. Go ahead, Ms. Anderson. Both amendments are stacked before us. Go ahead. Thank you. Can you start the slide show presentation? Thank you. I run a business in the Heights and I have attended every MBTA community's working group meeting since April of this year. My interest in attending those meetings was to protect the town's businesses and encourage a path towards greater commercial growth. Over the past 100 years Arlington has experienced the erosion of its commercial base. We have been losing space for businesses and we have been losing jobs and the services that businesses provide to our residents. We have been losing our commercial tax base which has led to tax overrides. The good news is that we can use zoning to protect existing businesses, create opportunities for new businesses, realize commercial growth and change course. Next slide. In article 12 we have been using zoning. The redevelopment board has created pathways for future commercial growth in the Heights, the center and East Arlington. What the ARB has done provides the town with the opportunity to plan for future commercial growth. So thank you to the redevelopment board for that. Next slide. Article 12 provides a mixed use incentive to developers. We have a total of 60% of the ground floor is occupied by businesses. Developers are allowed to build right up to the street and they are allowed to go up an additional two stories for a maximum of six stories. On Broadway, developers can build right up to the sidewalk and go up one extra story for a total of five stories. Next slide. The article 12 mixed use incentive requires commercial use on the ground floor. What does my amendment do? It requires 60% commercial use on the ground floor and if amended my amendment makes it optional for developers to include 40% commercial use on the second floor. The goal is to increase the amount of commercial space in these buildings resulting in larger commercial spaces but without disincentivizing development. Multilevel commercial use could result in interesting, creative, and captivating two-story configurations for restaurants, health clubs, daycare facilities and other types of businesses. Examples of two-story commercial include Boston Sports Clubs at Station Landing, Summerville's Bow Market and Legal Seafoods in Boston. Next slide. In a recent letter to the redevelopment board the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce stated quote, the chamber supports incentivizing mixed use development on both the first and second floors. Arlington is in need of higher quality commercial space to attract a desirable mix of retail and commercial businesses. However, we urge the board to incentivize second floor commercial space. We are concerned that the 60% requirement will result in spaces that are too small for the types of businesses and retail that supports the needs of the local population. Again, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce wrote in her letter to the ARB to one, incentivize second floor commercial space and two, that the 60% requirement will result in spaces that are too small. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. So my amended amendment would encourage but not require additional commercial use. It makes second floor commercial use optional but it encourages it and the goal remains to encourage and increase commercial use by 67% on Mass Ave in the Overlay District. Arlington simply does not have enough commercial space for new businesses and when I tell people this people sometimes complain about empty storefronts but there aren't that many empty storefronts these days and according to Steve McKenna who has 38 years of real estate experience in Arlington empty storefronts in town exist because the spaces are too small. There are plenty of businesses looking for available commercial space however available spaces are inadequate and in fact I spoke with Matt from the Arlington Brewing Company he told me that his company has been looking for commercial space for 18 months now and has had no luck this is because adequate commercial space simply does not exist in Arlington in an email he wrote about the difficulties of trying to find commercial real estate he said quote it has been a real challenge for Arlington Brewing Company despite the fact that we have a strong business and incredible following and strong financial backing we have still struggled to bring this town something that the community supports so my amendment is meant to encourage the increase in the amount of commercial space by 67% in the Overlay District on Massav and provide more opportunities for new businesses in Arlington with greater commercial growth note that the amendment makes optional second floor commercial use it is not required the amendment does not affect compliance as the state's compliance numbers do not include incentivized bonuses so I hope that you'll support my amendment and vote yes for it and I was going to make a beer joke but I'll hold off on that thank you no you will not get a free beer for voting for these amendments Mr. Lane can you come up next Adam Lane precinct 3 I move to amend article 12 we have a motion to amend article 12 with the Lane amendment I hear a second it is now pending before us go ahead Mr. moderator town meeting members fellow citizens of Arlington thank you for this opportunity to speak before you tonight when I was elected to town meeting this spring I could not have imagined that my maiden speech would concern so important and frankly contentious a subject let alone that I would be presenting an amendment to the article in question whatever your feelings about article 12 we can all agree that it at least represents and I choose that word carefully represents a significant change to the future shape of our town because of this I am grateful to the members of the study committee and the ARB who have put so much thought and consideration into the legislation before us tonight in fact I have wrestled for some time with the very notion of this amendment since it feels somehow inappropriate to suggest my understanding and expertise is on a par with theirs I hesitated to because I firmly believe in the goals of the housing overlay and its necessity as part of a wider ranging effort to address dysfunction in our regional housing market transportation system and our economy writ large to tinker with the guidelines presented herein thus is no small matter and yet as I studied the overlay proposal one aspect of it began to trouble me with more time and some exploration of the urban landscape both in our town and for comparison nearby communities I have reached the conclusion that there is one ill-conceived part of article 12 which I hope you will address by voting in support of my amendment tonight the concern is this the guidelines for developer bonuses are structured in such a way as to allow the construction by right in the overlay area of six story buildings without any setback on Mass Ave and of five story buildings without any setback on Broadway to my mind this is unfortunately a recipe for the depreciation of two of the most frequently traveled by ways in our town by ways that I might add bound either side of my precinct and I feel a genuine responsibility to my constituents to ensure that the many benefits that will derive from the overlays passage will not be tainted by blight to their neighborhood and I believe buildings of that mass and height built almost on top of the sidewalk will overwhelm the streetscape and create a claustrophobic feeling that will adversely affect the quality of life for all Arlingtonians both those here today and those we hope to welcome to our town in the future now of course big buildings themselves are not objectionable we have many around town on Mass Ave of course some of them are six, seven even eight stories tall and all in a style I would charitably describe as breath taking the mediocre but the fact is they work perfectly well in our urban fabric because they are setback from the road and sidewalk usually nothing more than space plus sometimes a little landscaping ameliorates the presence of their mass and my amendment would preserve the ability of developers to build by right tall buildings, gold, LED certified, fully handicapped accessible, affordable unit containing buildings just so long as they are not flush with the sidewalk but where they intend to build with no front setback they will be limited to a more modest human scale height three stories max on Broadway and four stories total on Mass Ave since it is wider I can think of no better example in town a high volume structure that is nevertheless a good neighbor than the capital theater building which sits with no setback from the sidewalk but does not loom because it is limited to three stories now since we can't legislate aesthetics I can't promise that even a three story building won't prove an eyesore but with this restraint we will ensure at least that we will have in some total pleasant and desirable streetscapes I hope too that setback commercial spaces will encourage the establishment of restaurants and cafes with patio seating out front so popular since the pandemic and only likely to become more so as our spring and fall growth steadily warmer in short Mr. Moderator I feel this amendment is a reasonable compromise between the need for units and a desire to preserve even enhance the liveability of our public spaces and I respectfully ask for the members support. Thank you very much. Thank you. I believe we already moved it correct? Ms. Evans you're next. Winnell Evans precinct 14 my amendment seeks to restore the intended function of the neighborhood multi-family districts as buffers between the neighborhoods and the newly allowed heights along Mass Ave rather than allowing them to become essentially new neighborhoods as in the current article 12 proposal it focuses on the Arlington Heights district for two reasons because the east Arlington neighborhood multi-family district has already been reduced to the minimum depth possible to retain required contiguity with that capacity now shifted to the west and because Arlington Heights has the steepest grades where taller multi-family structures will impose on existing neighborhoods most significantly the amendment combines the Arlington Heights and Pierce Forest neighborhood multi-family districts to retain required contiguity and acreage requirements and does not affect the acreage or unit capacity required to keep the Arlington Heights district as the primary district could you please show the map in some areas in the expanded Arlington Heights district the proposed neighborhood multi-family district stretches to blocks back into the neighborhoods this is not a buffer this is a new neighborhood combined with the proposed elimination of minimum open space requirements minimum lot size minimum floor area ratio minimum lot frontage and other current regulations this represents a pronounced change to neighborhoods within article 12's proposed district especially those that contain undersized and otherwise non-conforming lots the further the proposed district stretches away from the south side of Massav the steeper it gets school monotomy and robins are some of the steepest streets in town because on uneven lots overall height is determined by a calculation of the vertical distance of the highest point of the roof above the average finished grade of the ground the appearance of height can be greatly increased depending on grade even a two-and-a-half-story structure on a grade with a garage underneath can give the appearance of a much taller building reducing the spread of these districts to the flatter areas closer to Massav would minimize that effect in keeping with the MBTA Communities Act recommendation that rezoning quote encourage the development of multi-family housing projects of a scale density and aesthetic existing surrounding uses unquote in order to include the Pierce forest district which is that little blob on the upper left which was originally a separate district in order to include it so as to retain the required contiguity and acreage this map adds five connecting parcels and that is the diagonal gray line connecting that to the district right below it these are three two family parcels along Lowell street abutting the Pierce forest area and two multi-family apartment building parcels along Massav abutting the district south of Massav all are currently zoned residential there is no language in article 12 that says parcels in a neighborhood multi-family district cannot front Massav or Broadway if the two Massav parcels became their own small Massav Broadway multi-family district would become eligible for redevelopment of mixed use buildings of up to six stories they are already close to a half story above grade as it is and one of the main goals of this amendment is to limit tall structures on the steeper streets south of Massav this amendment still allows for compliance beyond the minimums required and it still allows for six plus unit buildings depending on lot size and or the ability to combine lots the proposed amendment would remove a net 90 parcels from the neighborhood multi-family district which exists in a combined total of 350 units when you put together the Massav and neighborhood parcels including approximately 13 parcels that are listed on our historic structures inventory which are currently protected only by a one-year demo delay most importantly it addresses the majority of the many many emails I have received from constituents the majority of whom are concerned about how their neighborhoods will be affected and finally as our consultant Uteal has advised this can be a phased process and the first iteration in their words should be simple for consensus, acceptance and ease of administration we can always expand these districts it will be much harder to reduce them we can respond to this in the next comments and as we've just mentioned we'll go to Article 12 and respectfully ask for your support thank you and we have a motion to move The Evans amendment we have a second now for us I would like to use the remainder of my time to speak very briefly about the bagnoll amendment the ARB heard unfiltered comments districts at three stories and 35 feet. If these four-story buildings are allowed by right directly behind the four-story buildings allowed by right on Mass Ave. and Broadway, how did they serve their intended purpose as buffers to our neighborhoods? Visually, they simply become extensions of the multifamily, Broadway, and Mass Ave. District. In fact, at 46 feet, they are close to five stories in appearance. They would overwhelm abutting undersized and non-conforming lots, which are especially common in East Starlington. And again, the issue of grade is important. Four stories on a steep slope can appear as five or six stories. And there is nothing about four stories that requires an elevator or about three stories that prohibits one. Three stories is in line with the recommendations that our consultant, Utile, has made for the neighborhood districts of their clients in Lexington and Newton at three stories and two and a half stories respectively. Finally, if our application to require our own inclusionary zoning is denied by the state, builders will have the option to build nine-unit structures with no affordable units, which allowing four stories will further incentivize. These projects will likely mean the redevelopment of older two families and small apartment complexes on side streets and the displacement of those residents. It's possible that we could see a decrease in relatively affordable units, even with an overall increase in housing. Please vote no on the Bagnol amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Evans. And let's take Mr. Leone to introduce his amendment, and then we will take a break and come back and go into the speaker cube. Mr. Leone? Good evening, John Leone, precinct eight. I do have a financial interest in this piece of property. My family has owned this building and this property since 1956. It's a family house. My sister still lives there. Except for about six years in the late seventies after my grandparents died, it's been occupied by a member of our family. We've been excluded. As you'll see up here, hold on, let me get this to work. It's supposed to work, it's not working, darn it. Okay, that yellow, that's our property. As you'll see, we're surrounded by the summit house, six stories. In front of us is the row of taxpayers, town tavern, et cetera. Those could go up, too. They can go up to five or six stories, depending on the zoning that they have. On the corner is the library. The town might get the idea that, gosh, we could knock that down, build the six-story building and put a library on the first floor, create additional housing. On Cleveland Street, we have three rows of houses, all included in the neighborhood district. They can go anywhere, depending upon how we vote tonight, from six stories to three stories. On Winter Street, the four properties to our immediate north are all included in the neighborhood district. So we're excluded. On Winter Street, on the other side, 1416 is included. And that big parcel right in front of us is the summit house, already six stories. So why are we excluded? Well, first, I don't know, but maybe I do. The house is on the National Historic Register, so we can't do anything with that house except with the permission of the Historic Commission. So we can't come in and knock it down and build a six-story building. What I'm concerned about, though, is you'll notice our property is L-shaped. The front portion that borders the buildings on Mass Ave is where the structure is. And it goes all the way back to the Fox Library and those buildings, building lots on Cleveland Street. So we have 18,000 square feet. We're a huge taxpayer in the town. We're kind of getting left out here. What I'm concerned is, if those two houses on Winter and the three houses on Cleveland want to do this and they want to build a bigger building and knock their house down, they may approach us and say, can you sell us part of your back lot? If we're excluded, we couldn't do that. That would prevent them from buying a portion of that back lot and building a bigger building, which would create additional housing. So what I'm trying to do is preserve our rights to do something in the future, if we wish. And also, those are the five property owners. Behind us on Winter Street, the fourth one in, that's been 40 deed. There's seven units back there already. It goes almost all the way back to Cleveland Street back yard. So we're not trying to prevent this from going through. We just want to be included so that we have rights preserved in the future. So what all I'm asking is that you include five to seven Winter Street into the Overlaid District for the neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leonie. Actually, Mr. Leonie, did we move that motion? So I moved my amendment to add five, seven Winter Street, which is owned by the A&E Realty Trust, which is our family trust. Of course, we're lawyers, it's held in a trust. So we need a second. Okay, we have a motion, Mr. Leonie, for his amendment, and we have a second. It is now before us as well. Thank you. So let's now take a, well, aim for a 10 minute break. We have baked sales over here on the side by the parking lot side of town hall over this way, unless we set up another one over there. Oh, there's one on each side. Okay, so you can go to near the side to get baked goods. We'll be back in 10 minutes. Thank you. Okay, to get us started off here, everyone, let's please end our conversations. Get back to our seats, please, so we can move on. We still have a lot of business to cover tonight. And while everyone's finding their way back to their seats, can we bring up on the display, on the projector, the, let's see. Let's bring up the pre-submit queue. We'll have two queues, remember, a live speaker queue, and then the, what I'm calling the pre-submit queue, the questions that were submitted in advance. That form is actually still open, so you can still kind of get on that queue as well. And so what I'll do here to start us off, let's get my glasses on, here we go, is, okay. Can we scroll over to the side? Can everyone read this? Okay, so I'm going to interpret this. Mr. Warden already had his speaking time, and I don't want to use this for his potential second speaking time with a limit of five minutes. So I'll interpret this, I think, rightly so as a point of order. Why does the moderator need this information ahead of time for the queue for registering requests to speak or ask questions in advance? As you can see, if we scroll to the left, it's so that, part of it, so to give you folks some opportunity to specify what it is that you want to speak to, that helps me kind of balance the debate among a diversity of perspectives and whether it's questions or advocacy, so everyone can get a more kind of well-rounded perspective on all these difficult, challenging technical issues. And so with that, I will take out that point of order. And now I will take, let's see, I said before I would take Ms. Friedman, so I'll put up her question here. And we're kind of running through it right now, but this is for real. When I was, in cases where I recognized someone to speak who submitted a question in advance like this, I will read the question, giving the person an opportunity to come to the podium in that time if they have anything further to say, or if they have follow-up questions. So Ms. Friedman says, you still have to introduce yourself when you come up, but Ms. Friedman says, what protections of any are there to prohibit a developer from using the changes in neighborhood zoning to just build a bigger McMansion instead of a multifamily dwelling? And so does anyone from the ARB or Mr. Revillac, do you want to field that? Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Steve Revillac, Arlington Redevelopment Board. In the multifamily overlay districts, multifamily housing is a required use and a McMansion is not multifamily housing. So no, you could not simply use the dimensional regulations in the multifamily district to build a bigger McMansion. Thank you. Ms. Friedman, anything else? Well, from my understanding, with previous discussion, that the old zoning can still apply. So if somebody wanted to build a McMansion, they could using the existing zoning rather than the overlay. Is that correct? Mr. Revillac? So when building one gets to choose, whether to follow the regulations of the overlay or the underlying base zoning. And yes, if the underlying base zoning permits a large McMansion, then yes, a person could still have that option. Well, given that, I'd much prefer to see a three-family house versus a McMansion, because I think all of us know when there's going to be a tear down, something big is going to be built. And I'd rather have a three-family built than just another McMansion in these neighborhoods. And then secondly, just for a point of clarification, in the business districts, does the same thing apply that developers can go back to what is existing now and build within those specifications versus the overlay? So none of the overlay district includes parcels that are in the current business districts. So if someone were to, in the business districts, the business district zoning applies, a town meeting recently voted to remove single and two-family dwellings isn't allowed by right use in the business districts. So you could also not build a McMansion in the business districts. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next, if you scroll down in the pre-submit queue to row 30, Ms. Kelleher, and I'm jumping way down because she wanted to introduce a speaker. I mentioned the youth of Arlington tonight, a speaker who apparently has the PSATs tomorrow and needs to head out around 10 p.m. Krista Kelleher, precinct five. I'd like to introduce John Barr on behalf of the Young Arlington Collaborative. Okay, and is Mr. Mixbar a resident of Arlington? They are. Yes, Mixbar. Around two years ago, my... I'm sorry, name and address, please. Oh, John Barr, precinct five, 24 Park Street unit two. About two years ago, me and my family were looking for a new apartment for my grandmother who decided for multiple reasons that she wanted to move out, and it was a real struggle to do so, honestly. We spent months looking and there was both a very small supply of things that even came close to meeting our specifications, which were that they were close to our house because it was necessary due to her health that she be close enough to us that we can quickly get to her and that had accessibility features like elevators so that she could actually be able to live there and be mobile. And yeah, we had multiple houses that either didn't have multiple apartments that either didn't have elevators, didn't have other accessibility features or were just simply too far away, and that's leaving aside the ones that we immediately ruled out because they were too expensive. She... Eventually, we did find one en masse ave, but today, if that building didn't exist, it could not be built and so we would have absolutely no options. And for me, as someone who after college is interested in possibly moving back to Arlington, I would really like the opportunity to have a house like that and not be forced to live with my parents after college. And I think that that's something that a lot of you is probably parents can relate to. I would imagine that you don't want your kids to have to be forced to move back in with you after they get out of college. And this is something that we've run into actually with the Young Arlington Collaborative. We've been searching for members in the age bracket of 21 to 39 and we've really struggled and part of that was I admit because of a failure of our ability to outreach, but part of that was also because there's simply a small amount of young adults in Arlington at this point because they've been priced out. The prices of housing in Arlington has increased a massive amount. Our house is now worth almost double what it was and overall, the house prices in Arlington are now higher than they are in Winchester. So, and I don't think that's acceptable because we should be able to find at least one person who is willing in the age bracket of 21 to 39, which is a pretty wide age demographic to come serve on this, to come serve on the collaborative. And I don't think that's okay. A counter argument that I've heard often to this is that it will somehow, as that building these multifamily houses will ruin the character of Arlington. It'll create these giant buildings. They'll ruin the sort of suburban character of Arlington. But what I see is ruining the suburban character of Arlington. People have talked about it. It's that like our retail spaces are dying and part of that is because of a lack of space, but part of that is because of a lack of young people who get out and go to these, go to these establishments, patronize. Currently, a lot of the places in Arlington Center, the only things that I can see keeping, the only people I can see keeping them alive are the high schoolers. And I think that there should be more young adults who do that and that's just not present currently. And people say that like by changing that character, it will also decrease home values. And I personally find that doesn't make sense because the thing is a lot of the incentive that at least my family had when moving to Arlington was the vibrant both in social terms and in demographic terms, character of Arlington. There were people just starting families. There were people who already had families. There were smattering of young adults. It was great. And that's being ruined by the fact that no one can afford to live here. And I would ask you all to consider what you want out of the character of Arlington. Do you want it to be, as I've heard proposed by multiple people, a place only worried about the bottom line, are we worried about making that doubling of housing become a tripling or quadrupling? Or do you want it to be a place that we can enjoy, a place that you would want to leave your house and go for a walk around Arlington center to see just people? Because during COVID, we haven't seen people. And I think that that's something that we should all want. And so I ask you, do you want our character to be one of relentless capitalist growth? Or do you want it to be one of community where people of all ages can live together and enjoy it? Thank you. Thank you. And let's, again, let's hold our applause until the meeting is dissolved and good luck on your PSATs tomorrow. Hope they have essays on affordable housing. Let's say, I will now take someone speaking in opposition, scrolling down someone named that I have not recognized. It's a lot of recognizable names here who've spoken for. I'm going to skip down to Mr. Stern. Michael Stern, precinct 14. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm standing in favor of the Babiars Amendment because I think that a basic compliance with the MBT overlay is the most practical, logical, and beneficial direction for the town to take. For months now, we as town meeting members have been inundated with emails from each other and from our constituents. Will the MBTA overlay produce affordable housing? That's a big one. For every yes viewpoint supported by data, there's a countering viewpoint also supported by data. Will the overlay strengthen town finances or weaken them? Same thing. For every yes viewpoint supported by data, there's a countering viewpoint also supported by data. I think the MBTA Communities Act and the ARB proposal offer many positive changes that can make Arlington better. But tonight, let's not overshoot a required overlay by 60%. Let's start with a basic overlay of 2,050 units and then see how the developers respond. Do they build six-story buildings with a commercial first floor that has vibrant businesses? Or do the commercial levels sit vacant? Are some of the buildings blocking the solar access and the panels that a budding residence invested tens of thousands of dollars in? Let's find out. Are we finding the buildings accrued to town finances or is the influx in children pushing us deeper into a deficit? Do we like the buildings aesthetically? Could we see existing apartment landlords now seizing upon a new profitable opportunity to build larger structures? Do they begin to notifying their existing tenants that their leases will no longer be renewed? Why not have it, why have a two or three-story apartment building when a developer can have five or six stories and lots more units? And how many existing renters get displaced? So the fact is we don't know. We don't have empirical data. We'll only have data and knowledge when we get experience of the impact when we see what actually gets built. What's it like for the families and neighborhoods that get rezoned? What's it like to hear that your street and neighborhood may be permanently altered? Here's a quote from what one of my constituents told me about her experience with the process. Hi, Mike. The information that we have received has been very fuzzy. No one seems to have a clear picture of the situation. So she's not a theorist about how Arlington should be rezoned. She's at Ground Zero. She lives in a single family on a little street that comes off of Mass Ave. That has mostly single families on it. Yet someone can buy up her neighbor's properties and, by right, build a three-story, 15, 20-unit building with 15, 20 cars coming in and out of it. How does she feel about this? Quoting. I would say, based on conversations with neighbors, we would want our tiny private street exempt from the zoning change. We would like our town meeting members to vote against the proposed plan. My fellow town meeting members, so many of you have contributed a remarkable amount to this discussion. But let's give ourselves some time to learn, to see how these significant changes in zoning, to see how it unfolds, before we commit to a zoning overlay 60% bigger than what's required. I'm an investment advisor, so in my work we call this hedging. Let's hedge our bets a little bit. Let's keep some dry powder. Let's start with 2,050 units. Let's hear from impacted residents. Let's learn. Let's see what actually gets built. Maybe we'll get fabulous developments. Maybe we'll want to have 7,000 units in the overlay. Maybe the streetscape will be improved. I think that's quite possible. But we don't know. And maybe we'll feel that we're not enjoying what we've rezoned. So by going with the Baviar's amendment, maybe we'll feel glad we didn't commit ourselves to buy right development with an overlay 60% greater than what we needed. And I'll just close. Let me emphasize I'm very much in favor of all the principles espoused by the MBTA Act and the ARB's proposal. But I strongly recommend we go for basic compliance at the start. So let's vote for the Baviar's amendment. Let's go ahead and vote for the Evans amendment, for the Wagner amendment, for the Lane amendment, and for the Wharton amendment. Thank you. Let's switch over to live speaking queue and we'll take Mr. Yontar from the top. Hi everyone. Please note that my remarks are as a private citizen and not my capacity for town. I'd like to declare my blue horn support for ARB 12. And nevertheless, I urge you to vote for it. You've all heard the phrase, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You may not know it to close kin, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the necessary and adequate team. That's what ARB 12 is. You offer faint praises. It complies with state law and it is directionally correct. The Commonwealth, its infinite wisdom, decided that one way to mitigate the housing crisis was to twist the arms of 177 seasoned towns by threatening to withhold critical funding if they didn't change their zone. Given that our town is about to go on operating override, now is not the time to jeopardize any state funds. Every dollar that we can secure is necessary. For that compliance reason alone, I would vote yes. Furthermore, we do indeed have a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis. Our Commonwealth does and our town does. We need more housing. Will the zoning changes from ARB 12 solve any of these? Alas, no. It has been too watered down. At most, we'd see about 1,000 incremental units over many decades. In the next 10 years, the ARB estimates a net increase of only 50 to 200 units. Perhaps 1,600 will be affordable. I personally wish the ARB had been bolder. The MBTA community's working group stated that one of its guiding principles based on feedback from town residents was to, quote, encourage multifamily housing spread across Ireland, unquote. To really make a difference, they or the ARB could have proposed zoning free family housing by right in all of our residential districts. Instead, we've had this article that covers less than 4% of the town's planned area. Still, this is better than nothing. While neither perfect nor very good, it is directionally correct and adequate. And as I said, it comes with state law and is necessary. And so please join me in unenthusiastic way. Voting yes on Article 12. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yontar. Let's switch back to the pre-submit queue and I'll take the next speaker in opposition who hasn't spoken yet, which is Mr. Frensosa from Row 9. Mr. Frensosa. Alexander Frensosa, Precinct 6. Considering we're talking about the MBTA Community's Act, I'm honored to be the first person to talk about the MBTA. And one of my constituents reached out to me concerned that with the large amount of units that we are adding, that it could cause an additional stress on the already faltering MBTA system that we are hoping that these people will be dependent on. So in honoring my constituents who in majority have reached out to me saying that they are concerned that going too far right now could cause problems in the long term, I urge you to support the Baviar's Amendment and I'm happy to keep it succinct. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take from the live speaker queue Mr. Jamison next. And the public for participating in this process as well as the moderator, the clerk and their staff to provide us such great information online and organization in the back. I'm in favor, so we've been spending 10 to 12 years in this town, all of which would have been a town meeting member even more years than that. Developing plans, let's do something, let's do this, let's do Article 12. Most of you know I focus on numbers sometimes, sometimes too much. I believe this will provide long-term incremental new growth that will help not as much as it might have before it was made a mirror shadow of its former self by cuts but will help our financial sustainability. At that point I want to address the thing put apart by some of the members of the FINCOM independently. On the back first paragraph, they list the assessed value of that property that they refer to. I'm going to put very quickly put on my chair of the Board of Assessors hat here for a second. Their analysis is inherently flawed for two reasons. The way the assessment process works for buildings that are being built such as that one is we can capture new growth till the end of June. In June the director visited that building, estimated the total final value and then assessed how far it was, how complete it was. His estimation that the building was 50% complete. Therefore the building value was reduced by 50% because you don't pay for the full thing until you finish it. Next year that value will go up significantly when the building is completed and eventually perhaps even more when income and expense metrics are used to value the property. I want to quickly go through the amendments and my thoughts very quickly. Wagner one, no, I think it's mostly a corner issue that many people speak to and I'd rather have it, the high corner be a wrap around to the side street rather than not. The B.R.B. agreement, I think that people say let's only do a little bit, come on boys and girls. People were worried about 20,000 and now it's only 3,000. No, on Varsie. Warden one, I'm plus minus, I think it's superfluous but if you want to vote for it go ahead. Loretty one, no, he was worried about paving over the front yard, text in the article specifically states that no parking is allowed in the front setback. Bagnell and Fleming, I'm torn on this one. I like the A.R.B. So I would like this to be the case because I would like, I turned 70 this summer in 15 years, I might need an elevator and as the other gentlemen said, his grandmother would need an elevator so in that regard I'm leaning yes but that's your idea in your camp. Anderson, I really like Kristen's article. I'm voting a strong yes on that. Mr. Lane's amendment, there's an important part of our business parcels, even those ones that no one likes by the high school. Those are business parcels and in business parcels the required setback is zero. That's why when you go in East Arlington all the storefronts pretty much line up with the sidewalk along Mass Ave and give you a nice view and a nice continual path down the road. Mr. Lane's amendment in my opinion while thoughtful would have setbacks and heights restrictions. It's like a Lego set that's gone horribly wrong. Mr. Warden's amendment two, just another way to reduce the size of the project, no. And there may be some scope issues there. Mr. Loretty three, he makes a good point I think about the lead, so I'm plus minus on that one. He states that it will happen anyway. I'm open to that. But the reason that's in the bonuses is because I talked to someone at the ARV at halftime. There are three major things that people wanted. They wanted affordable housing, something else that I can't remember right now, and sustainability. And that is why that says one of the bonuses. The Evans amendment, I'm plus minus on that one but I understand the logic. The only amendment I would recommend yes. So in closing, for years many of the opponents of this article have told us they're against mixed use zoning, they're against the high school, they're against Poets Corner, and they're now against the MBTA. But there's one thing they don't tell you that they're for overrides because if we don't have development in town, we will have overrides. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Jamison. We'll take Mr. Bear next from the live speaker queue. And for the record I've seen Mr. Jamison's board of assessors hat, it's a nice trihorn hat. Mr. Bear, the balcony, go ahead. I have some questions that I'd like the ARB to respond to concerning the amendments that people have proposed. For instance, the warden amendment about affordability. If we don't get the waiver to allow us to have the 10% of town affordability, is there an affordability requirement still in place? Ms. Ember? Rachel Zember, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, in the article, the main wording of article 12, it reverts to the percentage that is required by the state. So there is a minimum requirement. We are proposing in the base article, which is in essence similar to what the warden article is proposing to go above and beyond what the state requires with our inclusionary zoning. And in the same vein with Mr. Loretty's lead amendment, does the ARB think that the lead bonus is good or bad and it seems to be right in New York is? Great. Ms. Ember? Yes. Rachel Zember, Chair, the big difference, there's a big difference between certifiable and certified. So currently what's required in the environmental design review process, which again is not part of what is required as part of the MBTA community's overlay district. So in that space, a certifiable building means that a developer or an architect fills out a checklist of what they may do in order to receive approval. There is no requirement that they follow up with certification, which is a significant amount of money and time, which is required by the developer and the development team, architects, engineers, et cetera, to outlay. Certified requires that they go through the third party certification system by the US Green Building Council. So by requiring that they actually achieve that plaque, that certification, there is a significant amount of work and dedication, money, and insurance that that will actually be followed through. When it comes to value engineering, if the certified requirement is not there, that is typically the first thing to go out of a project or any Green Building attributes of a project. So 13 feet is typically the industry standard for floor to floor. One of the reasons why we pushed forward with 13 feet is it provides some flexibility, not only for mixed use, again to Ms. Anderson's amendment should a developer look to use a mixed use zoning bonus. There is the opportunity for them to go up to 13 feet on more than one story. In addition, a lot of the units that are going to be developed, even if they're just residential, are pretty deep. So having a larger floor to floor allows you to have larger windows in order to pull light into the space. So being able to give that flexibility and that option of the larger floor to floor we thought was really important to the successful development. I think someone said that even in a floor to floor building, you might not need an envelope. It might not be legally required to have an envelope. Is that correct or? That is correct. I would actually like to defer to Mike Champa to cite the specific zoning, excuse me, building code, which is the requirement for elevators relative to heights. Mr. Champa. Mike Champa, director of inspection services. So the section you're referring to is in the international building code accessible means of egress. It requires an accessible means of egress when there is any story that is four or more floors above the level of exit discharge which would make it actually a five story building. An elevator is one of the ways that that regulation can be met. However, there are exceptions. So it would not necessarily be required that an elevator be installed if you were to reach that five floor threshold. Thank you. Let's take Mr. Gershnecht from the live queue. And we can remove Ms. Keller. Her she spoke just moments ago. Mr. Gershnecht. All right. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. John Gersh, precinct 18. So I watched very carefully the working groups, proceedings, didn't say much, but I was watching, watching the sausage being made. And I saw numbers floating out from the low amount, you know, from the required amount of 2046, 3,000. So 7,000, even heard 20,000 floated. So I'm watching with increasing trepidation, increasing distaste, if you will, and enter the ARB. And they scaled it back, right? So they have a proposal on the floor that is some 3,000 units. And most importantly to me, scaled back the neighborhood height zone to three stories. And I want to thank you guys. You have exceeded expectations and you have come up with something that even I, to my own surprise, could possibly support, give or take an amendment or two. No, I'm serious here. This is good work. This is progress. Now, enter the Bagnell amendment. Now this is going to undo the three-story change that sort of kind of got my heart. It's going to increase the capacity of the overlay district. And I can safely say for myself and for all of the town meeting members that I know well and I know quite a few, this is a deal breaker. I would vote no on the main motion, okay? And these people that I know well will vote no on the main motion. If you want to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater, by all means, support the Bagnell amendment. I strongly recommend that you do not support the Bagnell amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gersh. We'll take Mr. Benson next. And then we'll flip over to the pre-submit queue after that. Mr. Benson. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Eugene Benson, Precinct 10. Let me start by saying I'm voting yes on the Anderson amendment and no on all the other amendments. In the seven minutes I have, I'm going to try to speed through as many as I can. We are all lawmakers tonight and we want to get this right and we want to have a zoning by-law that's understandable and makes sense when we're done. I must sort of give you a little background first. In order for the zoning by-law to become law after it gets approved here, the attorney general must approve any change, as we know. To do so, the AG looks at whether the change is consistent or conflicts with state law. As we saw a few years ago, they rejected one of our zoning by-law amendments as being inconsistent. State law now includes the MBTA community's law. Similarly, whether we adopt Article 12 will have to be approved by the state executive office of housing and livable communities to make sure it's consistent with the compliance guidelines. If EOHLC or the AG rejects Article 12, we will have to start over again for the spring and we will lose the fossil fuel demonstration project. So let me talk about a few of the amendments first. Let me start with Mr. Warden's amendment on affordable housing. Everything in his amendment is already in Article 12. I don't know why he's putting in this amendment. It will just confuse further readers if it's adopted because there'll be two separate provisions that say the same thing. It will be surplus and you know a few years ago we recodified the zoning by-law to get rid of surplus and to get rid of confusing things. I don't want to bring it back. Additionally, if you look at his extra word and it actually says things like that has already been approved by the attorney general in town meeting. We could say that for every part of the zoning by-law. It's just a gratuitous unnecessary and it makes trouble so I'd ask you to vote against that. The Baviar's amendment I think is very interesting. Limiting the number of parcels in the district may violate the uniformity requirements set forth in Section 4 of the state zoning code which says similar structures and uses in a district require the same rules because whether the parcels can be redeveloped or not in the overlay would then depend on whether they exceed the cap or not. We don't have that anywhere else. It's not uniform. If you're in the cap, if you're not in the cap it's different. In addition, the compliance guidelines note that zoning will not be deemed compliant if it imposes requirements in the multifamily district that don't exist anywhere else. We don't have a cap anywhere else in our zoning by-law. Now I don't think we're gonna get to 2050 units in the next 10 or 20 years. So what's the point of the Baviar's amendment? I think the problem is I can't be sure if the attorney general or EOHLC will throw it out or not but we don't need to take the chance on that. We can just say we're not gonna reach this number in the next 10 or 20 years. If we get close, town meeting who's ever entered our 10 or 20 years or even less can revisit it. So please don't take a chance. Please vote against the Baviar's amendment. Warden II setbacks. I don't know where to start with this. So let me start here. It's not uniform within the overlay district because if you're in the underlying R1 you have a different setback than in the underlying R2. That's not uniform in the overlay district. It may get thrown out. Secondly, you know what this district is most like? Gonna be like the R3 district which allows three families. In the R3 district, there are different setbacks which are much less than what Mr. Warden is proposing. Also, look at his amendment of 20 feet from the adjoining structure. Do you know how structure is defined in the zoning by-law? It's not a house only. It's a garage, a swimming pool, a fence, a patio. Imagine if you have two fences on each side, 20 feet in from the fence. If you have a 50 foot lot, you're gonna have 10 feet wide buildings to comply with this part of Mr. Warden's article. Please vote against Mr. Warden's article. It just makes no sense whatsoever. The Wagner amendment and the Lane amendment. They're different, but I'm gonna put them together. One of the beautiful things that's coming in Article 12 is the incentive for mixed use on the ground floor and with the Anderson amendment, which I propose, which I support, allows commercial on the second floor. Mr. Wagner's amendment would prohibit that completely. So you would get no new commercial development in any of these buildings on Mass Ave or Broadway. That's antithetical to where the town is going to all the town requirements. Mr. Lane's takes away a lot of the incentive by requiring the buildings be pulled back 15 feet. As you know, walk in Capitol Square, walk in the center, walk in the heights. The commercial is up to the street. You can look in the window. It's a much better look at what's going on. Also, you lose a lot of capacity by pulling back 15 feet, much less likely to get the commercial that we all want. I ask you to vote against both of them. Loretty, number one, amendment on open space. Article 12 now requires a front yard setback of at least 15 feet, and the front yard setback is landscaped. Shall be available for trees, landscaping, benches, chairs, play areas, art, similar sorts of things. It's already there. You add Mr. Loretty's, you have this. What does that mean? Do you apply one? Do you apply both? Do you add them up? It just complicates and makes the zoning bylaw where we don't want it to go. The Bagnell Fleming Amendment, the reason- Where at time, Ms. Benton, if you could finish your last sentence, please. The reason I voted against it at the ARB and I vote against it now is that the MBTA, CA compliance guidelines say multifamily districts should encourage the development of multifamily housing projects of a scale density and aesthetic comparable to what's there. I don't think four stories does that. Thank you. Switch over to the pre-submit queue and let's say Mr. Weinstein had a question. Mr. Weinstein had a question, so I'll start the question while you come up if you want to follow on, Mr. Weinstein. Please share with town meeting the application submitted to the state by our DPCD, Department of Planning and Community Development, requesting that Arlington's affordable housing bylaw be allowed to be part of our implementation of the MBTA, Communities Act overlay. Was that shared, Mr. Weinstein? And introduced up and you can take it from here. Jordan Weinstein, precinct 21 Lennon Road. Yeah, I guess I'd like to direct that to the Department of Planning and Community Development to find out what the status of our application is. Director Ricker. Sure, thank you. My name is Claire Ricker. I am the Director of Planning and Community Development. We are currently working with MAPC to complete an economic feasibility analysis as soon as possible. Contract with M was signed in early October and the work is well underway at this point. If a contract was, I'm sorry to follow up on this but put you on the spot, but we're dependent on the outcome of that to be able to pass legislation here. And we knew about this at the beginning of the summer why wasn't an application or a contract signed way back when so we would have some tangible response from the state. Again, Claire Ricker, Director of Planning and Community Development. We had not identified a funding source by that point. You had what? Had not identified a funding source for the EFA at that point. Okay, all right, thank you. I just think that it should have happened earlier so we didn't have to deal with this questionable thing that we might be voting on or the absence of affordable housing. But I'm actually primarily here to urge a no vote on the Bagnale Fleming Amendment. I agree with John Gersh who is just up here that it really is a deal breaker, even for me. And if that amendment goes through and we see an expansion of the density of this overlay back up to 7,500 or 6,000 I think that is just not acceptable at this point. And it goes back in what the ARB had in its wisdom, as some have said, had decided that less is more and better especially in this case where we wanna go slow and see what happens. I have to say that in hearing the amendment articulated by Mr. Bagnale and Mr. Fleming, I never thought that I'd hear an argument for increasing building height because it's just as costly to the fire department to put out a four story fire as a three story fire. I thought that was an interesting way to characterize the value of going four stories. In any event, I think this amendment allows buildings to rise back up to four stories and I agree with a member of the ARB that it just is not in keeping with neighborhood construction. I think we're gonna be surprised at the height of some of these three story buildings that are gonna be put up. I also don't buy the cost or the pace at which this may proceed. If this is multifamily by right, by right and this is the important phrase by right. When you buy a piece of property as a developer or a limited partnership as was alluded to before, you get a whole bunch of investors together to purchase property. This is going to be a windfall. We could see a lot of rapid development. I just think that we're fooling ourselves to discount this and make ourselves feel more comfortable that what we're passing is not gonna happen very quickly. There's no evidence of that. Finally, I'd like to say that I just today read the finance committee report and with all due respect to finance committee chair, before completing this report of the chair, it's called the report of the chair in the finance committee report, the chair wrote that, and I'm quoting here, while it's the consensus of the finance committee that housing, which increases the population of the town, will increase the overall cost of delivering services to our residents and that the more population increases, the more costs too will increase. What is indeterminable, and this is what's important because this argument actually has, it only has one side that actually has data. The data is supporting and is hard and fast. If we increase population, we're going to increase the costs to our town. And a great deal has been made about how the growth in population will pay for itself. But the chair goes on to say, what is indeterminable? We don't know. Based on currently available data is whether revenue generated by the development of new housing will be capable of offsetting these additional costs. We don't know, and that to me is the best argument for keeping it small, keeping it lean, keeping it as the ARB has set it up right now and not to expand it like the Bagnell Fleming amendment would do. I don't think we want to live as a social experiment, as some have said, to see just what happens. I think we want to see what happens but have some say over it because we don't know, keep it small. Just to finish my time, I'd like to just go through the amendments briefly and say that basically I support all the other amendments with the exclusion of the Bagnell Fleming amendment. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Weinstein. Let us scroll down to, I believe, the next person from the pre-submit queue here who wanted to speak in opposition was Mr. Tozi. Mr. Tozi? Mr. Tozi, here he is, yes. Mr. Tozi? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Bob Tozi, precinct 20. If the MPP communities zoning wasn't a law of the past, and this came before us, we'd be saying to ourselves, is our town up for sale? I say this as the developer who wants to build in Allington needs to approach the town and get the land zone to build what they desire. This could take many meetings, months, even years with financial costs. And here we are rezoning 2000, 3000 or potentially more units for the developers to build on if they buy out current owners. When a property is sold, what was once a place to live at possibly a more affordable rent is gone and replaced by market rate housing. Where once a single, two family or small apartment building stood that offered housing options is replaced by higher density housing offering less, not more housing choices. As properties are bought by prospective developers, the area says property values could increase, causing higher taxes for other owners in that very same area. Who will be these new owners? Investors from out of town, out of state or even out of country. China is currently the largest foreign investor in US real estate. I volunteer with the Allington Heights Community Association and we work with many local business owners to make the Heights Business District better for everyone. What hinders this is when the buildings are owned by out of town owners, that only see the property as an investment in the source of income. No links to our community and less interest in the look or maintenance of the buildings or if a storefront is rented or not. While well-intentioned residents support this extensive rezoning, it is not solving the high costs of housing in Allington. Yes, we have a structural deficit, but no complete study has been done to show any additional tax revenue will even offset additional town costs. Proponents say there is a chance it could slow the growth of structural deficit. Some have pipe dreams that if we build enough, then housing costs will decrease. Allington is a highly desirable community which only increases the cost of housing. We can't build ourselves out of the high costs of housing. We could work together to increase the number of affordable housing units in Allington. When residents comment to me and others on new development in Allington, they're usually upset with what's currently being built. We are not a nimby community though. As we are the ninth most densely populated community in Massachusetts with 7,960 people per square mile. I have been a longtime supporter of more trees and in recent years this town meeting has showed how we value trees for resonance in our environment. Yet with zero ZPACs allowed under the developer bonuses, there will be no space for trees or any green space. I respect our state representatives, Garberley and Rogers, and agree with the state goal of adding more housing. But as they throw to us as town meeting members, this law is not perfect. And we as town meeting members, representatives are best able to apply this law to our own community. That as I've noticed already heavily densely populated. The two biggest responsibilities of town meeting are budgets and zoning. 177 communities in Massachusetts have to comply with this MBTA communities act law. But most are addressing it not now, but in 2024 and not rushing zoning changes this year without more time for public input and more understanding of long-term consequences. If you lived in this overlay, would you vote for this? Well, never not taking straw polls or not. I guess that's sarcastically, but that is if you intended to stay in Arlington and not sell out due to the high price you couldn't can't refuse. These are complex issues that we shouldn't be so quick in responding to. Once passed, as been noted, it takes two-thirds votes to reverse and decrease zoning density. We can pass a more modest response to the law and observe effects in Arlington and other communities and then respond accordingly. For now, please do vote against the, excuse me, the Fleming-Bagnale Amendment and consider the merits of each of the other amendments on their own merits. And thanks for listening and voting, not for the goals of the state, but for what are the best next steps for Arlington. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take Mr. Levy next. Good evening, Dave Levy, Precinct 1895, Brian Cliff Street. I rise in favor of the main motion. I was going to call Senator Cindy Freeman, also a town resident here, but she had to leave after it is after 10, so you get me instead of our Senator, unfortunately. But I would think about senators who've said things about housing. I'm reminded of Senator Brian Schatz who recently gave an interview or a couple years ago about housing. And he said that if you really want to increase housing and affordable housing, you have to just build more housing. At some point, the way we solve this problem is to bring more supply into the market. And I think he's absolutely right. I think a couple of years ago, if you would have asked me what I've supported this motion, I think probably not. I would have been scared, would have scared about the process for the Finance Committee, not completing its analysis. I would have said we needed more studies. But I have been persuaded by three or four examples, including my own. In 2015, when we were looking for our first house for our young family, my kids were just two and one at the time, we were fortunate enough after being shut out of our own town where I grew up in to be the one out of 11 bitters for the house we currently live in. It means 10 other families had to walk away that day saying they're not gonna be able to live in Arlington. Fast forward today, I have a cousin and a cousin-in-law with kids that age now, looking to buy a house more expensive than mine, a true fixer up her. It was listed for roughly $900,000 on Mystic Ave, you all know it. It's sold for $1.2 million. So they're out, even though they've done everything right. One of them attended state schools. They put themselves back into school for secondary degree. They've played by the rules and they've been told that Arlington cannot support their family. I think about the high school student that was here earlier. I think about all our high school students, quite frankly, my kids not yet ready for high school, but it scares me when you look at what is for sale today in the town of Arlington, and you don't need to be a mathematician to say, unless you graduate the top of your class. So I'm looking at the valedictorian, maybe a couple others, go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Columbia, go to a graduate school, pay back fortunately, and hopefully have parents that can pay for your student loans, okay, or other costs. If you're not in that lucky top 1%, this town is not for you, given the housing supply and demand. It's not our fault, but the reality is, since 1970, growth of housing in Arlington has grown by about 11%. The number of adults living in the state of Massachusetts has grown by 40%. It's just classic supply and demand. We have not built to satisfy the needs of our state, and we've got to change that. The people who are opponents tonight are absolutely right. The first units will be the most expensive, but we keep building, and we keep building, and we keep building, and they will become more affordable. That is how supply and demand will work. I think we have to try. It's not fair to ask our Arlington High School students to be as competitive as possible, to only execute into the top schools and college and graduate, and hope that their parents can support them all the way through it to come back and live in this town. I think that's asking too much. If you are police, if you are fire, if you are teachers, if you are a nurse, as one more example for you, when I went for a procedure in the Concord Medical Campus, the intake nurse, again, doing the right thing, we'd all be proud to have a son or daughter to be a nurse. She and her partner, they live outside of Worcester. They tried living close, even though her partner lives and works in Brookline in a middle-class job, it's just too expensive. So now they're forced to commute an hour and a half each way to work. The person who actually inspected my fridge on Friday, Kevin, from Yale appliances, we've all bought equipment from Yale appliances, he started his day basically at the New Hampshire border, and it took him an hour and a half to get to my house. We have to do more to build housing in this town, to give people who will not be Harvard graduates a chance to be a part of our community, and we've got to start now. So I urge you to support the main motion. I think the Anderson Amendment is a lovely addition to it because we do need more commercial space. I thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Let's hold our applause. Mr. Goldsmith, next, from the live speaker queue. Good evening, Gary Goldsmith, Precinct 11, Beverly Road. Thank you, Mr. Moderator and town meeting members. I heard a quote this week that we don't inherit from our parents, we borrow from our children, and I thought that was quite to the point of this evening's meeting and this article. It's true that there is very little that's perfect, except possibly our grandchildren. But nonetheless, I think that article 12 returns that payment with interest. I appreciate the thoughtful and inclusive work of the working group and the ARB on this. I am suggesting voting against all of the amendments, except the Christian amended amendment. I support the concept behind the lane amendments, but I think that it produces uncertain and unknown consequences that we may not meet our requirements and that we will construct structures that are undesirable for commercial tenants. I understand the concerns behind the Laoni amendment. I asked about this and was told that the reason for that is because no properties that are within the National Register have been singly included and a variance can be applied for later. I would certainly support that variance. I think the 1L amendment contains a great deal of uncertainty and complication. I think the Bagnell amendment, really the reasons to vote against it, speak for themselves, both for neighbors and for neighborhoods. Two points to make, the changes that we are talking about are not changes that will occur tomorrow next week or next year, a few of them will, but for the most part we're talking about changes that will occur over the next 30 to 50 years. I'd also point out that although we're talking about the number of units, that is based on a 1,000 square foot unit. If the units that are built are 2,000 square feet, it's half as many units that are actually built. My point is not that we, my point is that we don't know what will be built and it is likely to be fewer than the total number that we are speaking about. I think David Levy spoke eloquently to the needs of the town, the needs of our children and I would encourage support for Article 12. I believe I have reached my goal of not using all of my time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let's hold our applause. Ms. Bloom next. Thank you Mr. Monument. Nancy Bloom, Precinct 18. I've been listening carefully. There's so much to learn about all of this and understand and I'm trying to get through all the various, various viewpoints. But I have a question in particular. I'm trying to figure out how this affordable housing thing fits and I understand that the contract was just signed and has not been done. I believe that's what someone said. I just want to know how this all fits together in terms of what happens if the state says no, we're not going to do this. I understand there is a something for this from the state. I just want to know how it all fits together. Director Ricker, yeah. Sure, hi. Claire Ricker, Director of Planning and Community Development. Should the state deny our application, our economic feasibility analysis that shows that we could apply our inclusionary zoning? We would revert to what the state allows currently, which is 10% of units built must be affordable to people at 80% of the area median income. So we would have an affordability restriction. It would not be as restrictive or robust as what Arlington has today, our inclusionary bylaw, but it would not be no affordable housing. Is that way, if they denied that, could we appeal it? Is that, I just, I'm just curious. I don't see why not. I haven't heard of an appeals process. I will be talking to the state later this week. I could certainly get that answer for you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Let's take Mr. Sullivan from the speaker queue, the live queue next. Mr. Sullivan. Oh, did the microphone up there are passing? Pass. Okay. See, do we have a question here? Let's switch to the, the pre-submit queue. Mr. Siano had a question. Feel free to come up to the podium if you have more to say. Let's see, let me put the question up there. Explain the reasoning behind setting notice to owners impacted by the proposed zoning change that did not state simply this change if approved will increase density in your neighborhood and will allow three to four family dwellings where there was one or two family units. I can't explain that, but anyone from the ARB or Planning and Community Development Department? Director of Planning and Community Development. The notice that went out was the legal notice we are required to send to a butters and the language on it is pretty prescriptive. I think it, you know, obviously is not as clear as I would like it to be, but we are required to send that legal notice to a butters and those impacted by this zone. So, by Frank Siano. Name and precinct, please. Frank Siano, precinct 15. So that really is my question. I had asked someone when notices sent to home owners that will be impacted if this passes and I was told yes, that's exactly, I was told yes, notice was sent and then I learned that it was a strict legal notice and I just wonder as Louis Brandeis, a jurist here in the highest court of Massachusetts and the US Supreme Court said the law was supposed to be the ultimate of common sense. So for homeowners that receive that prescriptive legal notice, they're gonna sit and go, I would think, oh yeah, whatever. But instead of a notice that says this, if this passes, this is what will happen in your community. I don't get why the ARB, why you didn't send a simple notice like that or a little, at the bottom of the postcard, what this means to the home owner, so that way we as town meeting members would get feedback from the home owners. We don't want this, or we do want it. So that's why I asked. I mean, Mr. Stanley, a town council may have an answer to your question. I think it was moderator Michael Cuttingham acting town council. The reason why those legal notices are so bland and Justice Brandeis probably wouldn't approve is because to do otherwise would require interpretation of what that would mean. So I think that that's one of, typically that wants to be avoided. The notice required by law will give the property owner the opportunity to appear at a public hearing, testify and learn about what exactly the proposed zoning bylaw will mean in terms of changes. Please speak to the microphone so we can hear you. Everybody that has worked on this, but I just wish a simple notice had been sent out. And if I may, I'm supporting all of the amendments with the exception of Bagnell, Fleming, and I pray that others do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Let's switch to the live speaker queue. We'll take Mr. Fisher next, Mr. Ezra Fisher. We'll take one speaker and then I'll entertain motions to adjourn. Ezra Fisher, precinct four, can I make a motion to adjourn? No. No, thank you. During conversations about Article 12, I've done my best to keep up with all the technical zoning implications, how many floors where, what the incentives are, et cetera. At some point, I just admit to myself that I'm not a professional town planner, just like I'm not a professional or even an expert in finance or education or any of the other important topics we as town meeting members have a responsibility to weigh in on. Luckily, I don't think we need to be experts. We do need to be brief though, okay. So what I try to do is understand enough of a topic so that I can decide how it fits with my values. Most articles are fairly easy to do this with. One article might distill to helping poor people, another to encouraging local business or preventing government overreach. Some of the harder ones pit one of my values against another, like protecting jobs or first lowering the cost of living. In the case of this article, simplifying my decision-making process to a value-based one was pretty easy. We have a housing crisis, people need more places to live. Passing this article will allow for more housing. People having places to live is a good thing. Another thing I do is listen to the arguments on both sides before and during town meeting and make up my mind that way. I actually want to commend everyone on what I think of as the do less team tonight for not using this phrase, but I heard it a lot both in pamphlets and in precinct meetings before this. And that phrase is the character of the town. Now, the first thing that comes into my mind when I hear that phrase is how it's been used in our country throughout the last 50 years as a sort of code for keeping black people or poor people out of a place. It's honestly jarring to hear it used at all. And again, thank you so much for not using it tonight. But I try to assume good intentions and I do think that the people who were using it before town meeting meant it in good faith and I think they meant how the town looks and feels. Even so, that's not really what character means to me or how I think it should apply in our decision making about this article. The more important questions of character here, whether our town is optimistic or pessimistic. Do we do our part to help solve a crisis a year early and with gusto or do we do the least we can by law as late as we can? Do we operate based on fear or courage? Are we a town that welcomes people whoever they are or do we turn a cold shoulder? These questions are much more important to me than any of the specific details. I hope that when all the debate is over on Wednesday and we start voting, we're all able to vote based on those values, thanks. Thank you. And before we adjourn, I just want to thank everyone for a very thoughtful and respectful debate tonight. So I'll even let you give a round of applause to yourselves for that, thank you. Okay, so I think I heard a motion to adjourn. So we didn't vote anything tonight so there's nothing to, no notices. Oh, there's a point of order. I already did. I took a picture of the speaker queue. We have a second. All those in favor of adjourning say yes. And everyone who is opposed, go home. We are adjourned until Wednesday at 8 p.m. See you then.