 Good evening, everyone. I'm calling this meeting to order on Wednesday, June 1st, 2022, night 11 of annual town meeting. So let's close voting here on the attendance check-in. As always, this is just a test vote. So no worries if you weren't able to get your vote in in time. It's just a way of checking that the voting system is working. And then when we're done cycling through, so you can verify if your voting was actually working. After that, we will do the Star-Spangled Banner. Okay, thank you, Mr. Hammer. So before we get started, I want to make some brief opening remarks. First, I've discussed with the chair of the Finance Committee, Mr. Foskett, that we'll take Article 49 out of order to ratify the collective bargaining agreement that's been reached. The deputy town manager will introduce the article and the agreement later in the evening sometime after the mid-meeting break when we're between articles. Second, I want to stress the importance of civility as we take up Article 38 tonight. And I want to briefly discuss the debate during Article 11 about domestic partnerships to make this point. Some of the individuals involved in that debate contacted me afterwards to share their concern that the term fear-mongering was an unfair accusation used against them. I've since watched the video of that debate from May 2nd, and I agree that the term fear-mongering was used not just in general, but was directed at the intentions of supporters of the Moore Amendment specifically. And I regret that I didn't catch that at the time, and I apologize to Mr. Moore, Ms. Mann, and Ms. Stamps for my failure to hold the line on civility that night. Going forward, and especially during the debate on Article 38 tonight, I will step in as needed if anyone crosses the line in casting aspersions on the intentions of others, especially those engaged in the debate. Next, let's discuss the swearing in. Any time meeting members who've managed to not take the oath of office at this point, please check in with Ms. Brazil, the town clerk. I recognize the chair of the Select Board, Mr. Diggins. Here's moderator. It is moved that if all businesses of the meeting is set forth in the warrant for the annual town meeting, it's not disposed of at this session. And when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Monday, June 6, 2022, at 8pm. Okay, so we have a motion from Mr. Diggins. We don't finish tonight, then we will. Yep, and we will reconvene Monday, June 6 and we have a second from Mr. Foskett. Let's enable raise hands and zoom and if there's any objections to that motion to reconvene Monday, June 6 if we don't finish tonight. You can raise your hands now to object. So it is a one objection. So it is a nearly unanimous vote or actually looks like that hand is lowered so let's kind of I'll consider. There's one hand back. So it's an overwhelmingly positive vote in favor of that amendment so we are that motion so we will reconvene next Monday, June 6. Now, with raised hands and zoom, do we have any announcements or resolutions that anyone wants to share can you should you can raise your hand and zoom now if you have an announcement or resolution to share. Okay, seeing none. I now call for reports that are ready to be received. Mr. Foskett. Okay, we have a second from the table. We have a second from Ms. Brazil and raised hands and zoom if there any objections to taking article three from the table so we can receive reports from committees, seeing no objections. The motion passes and now we have article three in front of us. So, through raised hands and zoom does that does anyone. Do any committees have any reports to be received by town meeting. You raise your hand now. Seeing, seeing no hands. Mr. Oscar. Mr. moderator, Charles fossing 10 I move that the article. Okay, second to lay article three on the table we have a second from this Brazil. Any raised hands and zoom for any objections to laying article three back upon the table until next time. Okay, seeing no objections article three is back on the table, and we now have article 37 before us where we left off last Wednesday. And so we, let's say, can we bring up the, we bring up article 37 and bring the speaking cube back, and given the, the messy unorthodox way that we left the meeting on last Wednesday for which I apologize and I wrote a letter about that which I want the labor here. Let's say we do have three points of order. These are dated from May 25. Why don't we, why don't we bring these folks up see if there's still a point of order that they intended to raise let's bring up, or did they just disappear points of order just disappeared for me so I guess those have been cleared. We do have a, so where we left off to recap, without getting into the gory details from last Wednesday. We did have a floor motion from Miss Mosina, which I did not allow to move forward. And she is, we've since been in contact and Miss Mosina has a motion that's ready to be shared tonight so I do want to bring. Usually we would do this at the beginning of debate of an article but since we're in the middle of it and we do have this this motion. So let's give Miss Mosina an opportunity to bring that up, because this is the second time that she's speaking on this article. The limit is according to our town bylaws is five minutes rather than seven minutes, which is what all speakers get the first time around. So this is this will be her second and only appearance. And she'll have five minutes so if we can bring up Miss Mosina to introduce her amendment and so that we can, and then we'll continue debate from there. If Miss Mosina is present. Can you request to be added to the speaking queue, or just go ahead we don't need to wait for that. I'll just set a timer on my own so we know when we've had five minutes. Miss Mosina you ready to speak. Good evening, Mr. Moderator thank you. Yes, Angel Mosina precinct 15, nothing more to add to the amendment than what's written on it it's pretty clear I think it's not controversial is just basically reflecting the source of the authority here of the building inspector in state law just clarifies that that we're creating this out of thin air. And can we can we bring that up quick display that so everyone can see. Thank you. Yep. And if anyone has any questions for Miss Mosina of course she can speak again. She just can request to be on the speaking queue again that's all. So this is the. And so, Miss Mosina you actually have to make the motion. I moved to amend article 37. Do we have any seconds. Okay, we have a second from Mr. Siano. And so this this amendment the Mosina amendment that we're seeing before us right now is now under consideration under article 37. This is a motion to amend the main motion. Anything else Miss Mosina before we move on. That's all. Thank you. So let's now go back to the speaking queue and we have Mr. Rosenthal next. Can you hear me. Yes I can name a precinct. Mark Rosenthal precinct 14. Let's see. So I had a question about this article, which is, does this specify penalties. The wrong party just determines that a certain that a structure is unsafe or does it just specify that inspectional services is the only party that has responsibility for making that determination or what. Let's see, do we have Mr. Klein with us who might be able to answer that for anyone on the panel might be able to answer that feel free to raise your hand and Christian Klein precinct 10. Mr. moderator this this particular section does not institute any kind of penalties, essentially what would happen. If a, if somebody else was to determine that said structure was unsound. Then follow through with the building inspector that's fine if they were to demolish it on their own. Then that creates a similar situation to situations that have occurred before in town and there would need to seek a process through the zoning board of appeals to try to regain their development rights on the property. So I would ask that if possible, if, if Mr. champ is available to further clarify that point. Do we have Mr. Champa with us. I see him in the zoom. Mute who's not actually actively speaking. But Mike champ of director of instructional services. So, I think that there's a little confusion here and that what Mr. Klein is, as basically said is that the reason that it's important that this be in the bylaw is that obviously if if a home is taken down without the permission of the building department, there's, there's fines that are laid out a process through mass general law. But the zoning implications of it are much more extreme, because if it's a non conforming lot, they may not be able to rebuild that house on that lot. It loses all protection as an existing non conforming structure. I think that's why this is so important that it be in the zoning bylaw. It's not so much that it changes anything about mass general law. Does that answer your question Mr. Rosenthal. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take Mr. Slickman next name and precinct place. Paul Slickman precinct nine motion to terminate debate on all items under this article. Which is the main motion and the Mazzina amendment. We have a second. We have a, we have a point of order from Mr. Benson. Let's bring up Mr. Benson's point of order. Thank you, Mr. moderator Eugene Benson precinct 10 on new town meeting. So I apologize that this is out of turn, but we had no debate on the amendment. That is correct. And so it'll be up to, it'll require two thirds vote of town meeting to decide whether they wish to terminate debate, or if you can't reach the two thirds threshold to terminate debate, then we'll continue debate. So it's up to 10 meeting members at this point to decide whether or not. Thank you. So, if we have a second from, let's say, so I'll take the time to make sure there's not a lingering second from before. This is a new second from Mr. Siano. And so let's bring up a boat now. We have another point of order from miss Weber. Let's bring that up. Janice we have a precinct 21. I want to know what all the noises in the background glasses and dishes and everything clamoring. I'm not sure I can answer that question, but I will say if anyone on the there is some background noise that miss Weber is referring to that is a bit distracting. So if you're on the panel, or if you're in the speaking queue and you've been kind of queued up to be able to unmute your mic, please leave it muted until you've been called on. Thank you. So we had a motion to terminate debate by Mr. Slickman and a second by Mr. Siano so let's bring up a vote now on termination of debate of article 37, and all matters before, which includes the mozina amendment. And so we're as usual we're voting in waves. If you see some yellow highlighted text that you're in wave, you're in wave three or you're in the next wave just sit tight and it'll open up. In a couple of seconds. If you're able to vote please go ahead and vote. And we're voting here on whether to terminate debate on article 37 and the amendment to the main motion. If you wish to terminate debate. Vote yes, if you want to continue debate vote no to Mr. Benson's point. If, if for instance, you wanted more debate on the amendment to better understand it. This is your chance to vote no. The vote here covers both the main motion and the amendment together. We're at 30 faster at 208 right now to 14. So let's just give another 20 seconds until we close voting termination of debate 15 seconds, 10 seconds, five seconds until we close voting on termination of debate. Okay, let's close voting. This is a two thirds vote, and the motion passes very close 153 in the affirmative 62 and negative 71.2% just over the two thirds threshold so we're not going to cycle through all the votes at this point but we're going to go on to a vote now on the Muzina amendment. So if you wish to amend the main motion with the Muzina amendment to add a legal reference to mass general law. You can vote yes. And, and while we're waiting for the votes to come in, can we bring up the text of the amendment so folks know what they're voting on. The underlying text there would be added by the Muzina amendment if you're in favor of making that addition of that underlying text to be added to the main motion, then vote yes, if you don't wish to add that reference to state law, then vote no. The main motion on amended. And this is a majority vote on whether to amend the main motion. If you're in favor of the amendment on screen, amending the main motion for article 37, then vote yes. If you do not wish to amend the main motion vote no. Which I do want to point out, there is a, I'll make an administrative change here and just noticing because there was an earlier version of this amendment and so something that has not been updated. In this version is that the text if you look at the underlying text by the director of inspectional services or their designee. Yep, the highlighted text here. It actually should not be underlined, because that's actually not being modified by this version, like this final draft of the amendment that highlighted text appears in the main motion that is not being added by the amendment there wasn't earlier revision of this amendment, which did modify that text slightly, but it was decided to not move forward with that so the highlighted text is already part of the main motion by the director of inspectional services or their designee is already baked into the main motion. It's only the underlined text following that I apologize for us not catching that until now. So the only text that would be added is as authorized under the provisions of GL chapter 143. Okay, we have a point of order from Mr. Jameson, let's take that. Thank you very much, Mr. moderator Gordon Jameson PC 12 very quickly is this supposed to be mgl versus GL. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Mr. Heim. Does it matter if it's mgl or GL. I'm town council, it's not. Okay, so it sounds like it would just assume that general laws referring to mass general law, apparently. Okay, so we have. Okay, so basically all but four votes are in so let's just wait another 10 seconds instead of voting was open a long time that politics along to catch and explain that correction five seconds. So for those voting, the Mazzina amendment. This is a majority vote, and the motion passes 68% and we'll we'll cycle through the screens here. It's only termination of debate that will skip the voting screens. But for any of these votes, including termination debate you can always click the view votes button in the portal, and you can see the full votes. We don't have any member any precinct at any time. So the Mazzina amendment is successful has successfully amended the main motion now, after we're done cycling through the screens will take, take up a vote on the main motion as amended by the Mazzina amendment. I trust that in the records, we can make the administrative change to fix the underlining. Okay, so let's bring up the vote on the main motion. Okay, and this is a two thirds vote on the main motion. We're zoning by law with with to define who may make the determination that a structure is unsafe. This is as amended by the Mazzina amendment. Yeah, someone's asking the Q&A about like, is there a call in number we can use in case or. In case we can't speak or be heard on zoom. Can we put those instructions in the zoom and if there's a phone number maybe I could even recite it to folks. Okay, that should be coming up shortly. So we're voting on the main motion of article 37 as amended by the Mazzina amendment. And this, the main motion amends the zoning bylaw to define who may make the determination that a structure is unsafe. If you're in favor of the main motion as amended, but yes, if you do not approve of the, the main motion vote no. And this is a two thirds vote. We're at 214 votes. Let's just go another 20 seconds before we close. 15 seconds. I'm getting feedback. Thank you. 10 seconds. Still getting feedback. Five seconds. Let's close voting on article 30. And it passes 215 of the affirmative six in the negative. And we'll just cycle through the screens here so article, the main motion of article 37 as amended is successful. And after we're done cycling through all the precinct screens with the votes. We will go to article 38, which is now before us. And we anticipate a lot of interest in discussing article 38 so let's make sure that we have when the article opens that the speaking queue is available for folks to add their names to it. Okay, so let's, let's open up article 38 now. Okay, so why don't we bring up. Ms. Zembury to the chair of the ARB to kick us off on article 38. I believe there's a video for this. Let's bring up this Zembury. Thank you, Mr. moderator. However, I believe that the proponent of the article. This is not an ARB article. So I believe that the annual court has a video to introduce this article. Okay, Ms. Zembury, while you're there, do you want to speak to have been doing this for other chairs of other reporting boards or committees? Do you have anything to add about the vote from the ARB on this article? Thank you, Mr. moderator, Rachel Zembury chair of the redevelopment board. I will just add that the redevelopment board voted favorable action three to two for this article. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's bring up Ms. the court to introduce this article. So, I'm Annie Laquart precinct 15 if someone would simply play the video I submitted. I believe it will take up all of my time. Okay. And while bringing that up before I bring that up. Some folks are saying in the Q&A that they're not able to get into speaking queue. I see several speakers in the queue at this point is over 30. This house. Let's pause that. If you're still unable to get into speaking queue at this point if it's not opening up for you, try reloading your browser window. I was saying that too many users connected. I see. So there's some server issues there. I apologize for those technical issues. So hopefully folks are able to get in. And I'll do my best to try to bring folks in who have not spoken as much. And so let's play Ms. Laquart's video now. Thank you. Last summer, this house was torn down and replaced with this house. Article 38 came about because I watched this house go up and decided that after seeing this happen many times. It was time for me to do something about the future of the community I love. One of the things I have always loved about Arlington is that it was a community like the one I grew up in. In my hometown, middle managers like my dad lived on the same street as the families of guys like our next door neighbor who worked on the assembly line. Here in Arlington, my kids went to school with kids whose parents were nurses and lawyers and teachers and computer programmers and beauticians and plumbers among many other occupations. They had friends who could visit their grandparents or family friends by going upstairs or downstairs in the two family houses they lived in. If you had asked me when my kids were little what the character of my community was I would have told you about these things. I am not a Luddite and I love that we are becoming a more racially and ethnically diverse community. At the same time we are losing the economic and generational diversity, I believe makes Arlington the place where, despite its flaws, I was proud to raise my kids. Why is this happening. It's happening because there is a regional housing shortage in the greater Boston area. We are an entering suburb with great schools and good public transportation. And on the majority of residentially zoned land in town, a detached single family home is the only type of house you're allowed to build. The cost of land makes small homes really expensive. If a small home is in bad shape or outdated and the land cost to the property is higher than the value of the structure. The property is attractive to a builder looking to redevelop it. It's less attractive to a family who can't afford to buy the house and renovate it. Right now, on most of the lots in town, a builder has only one option. Build a single family home and build it as big as needed to maximize profit. Article 38 gives them another option. Instead of building a single family home, they could build something like this. Article 38 is not about affordable housing. Half of a two family in Arlington is never again going to be an affordable option, according to the federal definition. It is about creating a new stock of smaller homes that allow more people to get a start here or long term residents to downsize and stay in town. It is about filling in the missing middle. I would urge anyone who also wants to see more affordable housing in town to vote yes on articles 39 and 41. Realizing two family construction in all of our residential districts is not a radical change. There are already two families in these districts that were built before we outlawed them in 1975. The effect of article 38 would be incremental over time. Last year, there were approximately 300 single family homes sold in Arlington. On average, there are 27 tear downs a year. The effect of article 38 would be for some of those tear downs to result into family construction. To choose to build a two family, it would have to make personal sense for a homeowner or economic sense for a builder. It would also have to make sense on the lot. Given the size restriction in the article, it will not make sense on a very large lot that can't be subdivided. Given the restrictions on non conforming lots in general, it would have to make sense within the footprint of the current building on the lot. Not all home sales result in tear downs and not all tear downs are builders building on spec to sell the home. Under article 38, I believe that gradually neighborhoods will come to have a mix of housing types. This has been the experience in Minneapolis according to the staff member I talked to in their planning department. Article 38 is not going to solve all of our housing issues. It will add one tool to the toolbox we will use to shape the future of our town. Two family homes are more sustainable than single family homes. If a single family is redeveloped as a two family in Arlington, the home itself is more environmentally efficient per occupant than a single family. A new home in Arlington close to major job centers with accessible public transportation is more sustainable than a new home built further from Boston on what is now open land. Because of current building codes, any new construction is going to be more energy efficient than older homes in Arlington that may not be well insulated or have triple pane windows. Article 38 does not make any changes to zoning other than allowing two units in the newly constructed home. All the zoning regulations that protect open space and limit impermeable surface when a new single family home is built still apply. The tree by law has the same requirements whether a builder is building a single family, a two family or a duplex. This is true in the R2 district as well. Our current zoning did not prevent the builder who built the house I showed you from considerably increasing the building footprint in the paved area. From an environmental perspective, if a builder is going to tear down a small home and build something new, a two family or duplex is preferable. Christians have also been raised about the impact on various aspects of the town's infrastructure and capacity. We have had a much higher population in the past and our infrastructure handled it. Article 38 would not result in so many more housing units that our population will reach or exceed its previous peak. What lies beneath these questions is the idea that we have reached some limits to how many people can live in Arlington that new residents will only cause deterioration and our quality of life. Given that the population is lower now than in the past, our community can handle growth and welcome new neighbors. This is the question I hope you will ask yourself as we debate this article, since our community will certainly evolve. What direction do we want that evolution to take? It is true that we will be one of the first communities to make this change if we do it. Certainly we will be the first in Massachusetts. I think that is who we are. We are leaders not followers. This is one small step we can take to do our share to increase the supply of housing in the region, bolster regional environmental sustainability, and hang on to the real character of our community, which is created by the diversity of our neighbors, not the structure of our homes. Okay, that's the end of the video. We do have a point of order from Mr. Weinstein. Before we take that I just want to point out that there was a correction to the correction was already made but if you're looking at the kind of the print copy or the ARB report. You'll see on page 23 that footnotes have been added by the main motion and therefore should be underlined, but they're not underlined in the ARB report. This has been corrected in the annotated warrant, but you might be looking at an outdated copy of that. And so, with that, let's take the point of order from Mr. Weinstein and then we'll introduce two amendments that have been proposed. Mr. Weinstein, name and precinct and your point of order. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Jordan Weinstein, precinct 21. If this wasn't such an important, at least to me, and I can see by the speaking list, important to many of us, article, I wouldn't even be raising this point of order. However, I'm very disappointed in the way that the system handled the attempt of those of us who wanted to speak to speak. I was among the first I could guarantee it to press my wanting to speak button as soon as the portal changed to allow it. Yet I ended up cycling through and having to wait about a minute at least to arrive at position number 36. I would like to see us start over again in the selection of speakers and allow some sort of democratic way and justifiable way to or legitimate way to speak. I think this had this been done in person at Town Hall, you would have seen our hands go up. We wouldn't be dealing with this but I think the system really dealt many of us a curve ball here and I object to it. Okay, I appreciate the concern. Mr. Weinstein. What I will say is this that the my my best guess as to what happened here is that the load on the system from all those operations being submitted in a very short period of time. I put this server server into an overload state which rejected then any new requests to come in and people were probably as a result kind of bounced out and waiting at that kind of that server overloaded screen right and in person. It's like if you compare it to what would happen at Town Hall, if we started this article at Town Hall and that 3040 50 people raise their hand all at once. It's not clear that you would actually get a more fair result. But I think as the moderator and the clerk are trying to kind of determine like hands and add them to a list in person. And so I think the problem is whether we were in person doing it the traditional way or the way that we're doing it through the portal, which is clearly imperfect and has some technical issues with being overloaded when there's lots of requests being made whether it's votes or in this case, hands being raised to speak all at the same time. What I would say is that I will make a concerted effort when we're back in person to try to use other techniques that are more fair. When we have the equipment and the technology to do so such as using voting clickers in the hall, which should be able to resolve this issue, hopefully once and for all, but that's not we're at right now and I appreciate the frustration. But again, it's like we're, we're probably no worse than what we'd be doing in person with dozens of hands going up physically in the hall at the same time. So another point of order from Ms. Leahy. Lori Leahy precinct 21. I also experienced the same thing as Jordan. But I would like to ask that you, you've mentioned this several times that you would call on both sides to speak if that became became clear that only one side of the issue is being voiced. Alright, thank you. Thanks for the point. Yeah, I will be tracking number of speakers for and against as we go through the debate and if I determine that's significantly lopsided, then I will take the time to ask for folks to kind of even that out. What I'll likely do is ask for raise it for instance we get lots of folks speaking say in favor just kind of picking a random side. And we, and we need to balance it out with more speakers against, I might ask for raised hands and zoom for anyone who is on the speaker queue already and wishes to speak in kind of the same way as we would against if that's the side that we need to elevate and so that's how I plan to proceed with that we'll we'll see how well that works in practice. Thank you. We have another point of order from Mr. Goodsell. Thank you, Mr. Myers. It's the Ian Goodsell from precinct 11 might mind I suggest that maybe to address Mr. Weinstein's point. I'll go through the list, but just just pick them at random pick speakers at random as opposed to going through it in order that that might that might that might address his concerns and everyone else's concerns as well. The last thing I'll say about this is that I believe the system has inadvertently already selected speakers somewhat randomly as a result of the overload situation so adding a layer of randomness on top of that might give the perception that it's more fair but in practice is not really going to be any more Thank you. So let's so before we head to the speaker queue. We still have two amendments to introduce so let's bring up Mr. Newton, and we don't have to. Well, so we have one more point of order from Ms. Gruber so let's take that before we dive into the amendments. Name and precinct please. Rebecca Gruber precinct 10. I'm not sure if this is a point of order but seeing 50 plus people on the speaker list. Could we has a group agreed that limiting ourselves to two or three minutes per speaker is much more reasonable than the five to seven minutes people might choose to speak. This number of speakers will take the entire evening as it is with two minutes. That's true if we exhausted the speaker queue but I suspect that before we get to 50 to 50 port speaker will probably have a motion to terminate debate, and one of those will will be will probably be successful before we get through 50 speakers is my guess. I think that'll work itself out. Take your point that like folks, it would be good for folks to, and this is generally true, especially true to miss groupers point in this particular case that there's so many people, people wishing to have a voice on this. I think that, please do consider self regulating how long you're speaking to make your point as concisely as possible with this number of speakers it's really unlikely that we'll get through, like a dozen or two dozen speakers, and here really unique new perspectives. But if you do have unique new perspectives, please share them as succinctly. As much as possible to miss groupers point. I can't enforce that people speak for less than seven minutes because that that's enshrined in the town bylaws. We would need a suspension of rules to change something like that which I'm not going to entertain at this point. That's something if we were going to work that out we should have worked it out in advance. I'll go ahead with the current rules, but with. I urge folks to again self regulate as much as possible to have a really crisp concise non repetitive debate. So we could have the most informed voting on this at the end of debate. Thank you. So, let's, let's bring up Mr Newton to introduce his amendment. Good evening Mr moderator son to Newton precinct 10. I moved to amend the recommended vote of the Ellington redevelopment board under article 38 by changing the footnote to two tables as noted in my submission available in the annotated warrant labeled the Newton amendment. Okay, can we bring up the text of that. And I see we have so we have a motion by Mr Newton to introduce. The amendment and we have a second from Miss Brazil. So, we now have the main motion and the Newton amendment before us. And so anything else you want to add, Mr Newton, now that we have it on screen. Yes, please. Mr moderator, the unamended main motion from the air be limits the size of each unit to know more than 1850 square feet of heated living space, which is the limit of the size of a starter home per state standards. And then from the air be says this limited to be by deed restriction. For those who are unfamiliar, a deed restriction is filed in land court, or the registry of deeds, and is binding on future owners. If you're a homeowner, you may remember your lawyer doing a title search when you purchased your home, which would have turned up any deed restrictions among other things on your property. Deed restrictions can be used for good things, like ensuring that subsidized affordable housing stays affordable housing. Deed restrictions can be used for bad things, like prohibiting vegetable gardens and line drying of laundry. In the early part of last century deed restrictions were even used to prohibit the sale of property to Jews or people of color, including right here in Arlington. The Newton amendment would enforce the size restriction on new two families in the R zero and R one zones as part of the normal inspection process, rather than creating a cumbersome and unnecessary deed restriction. Ineligible for a building permit to add living space for three years, preventing any gaming at the system. After three years, the Newton amendment would put residents in these starter homes on an equal footing with their neighbors by allowing them the possibility to expand the size of heated living space by finishing a basement or an attic, adding a bedroom. Without the Newton amendment, the main motion will prohibit families from modifying their home to meet their changing needs. It leaves no possibility really other than moving for families whose circumstances change over time. For example, some of my neighbors have finished additional space after having an additional child or getting a new job, which required them to work from home. If their homes had had deed restrictions, such as the ones put in place that would be put in place under article 38 without passage of the Newton amendment, those families could not have adapted and quite possibly would have been forced to move out of Arlington. My amendment will ensure that only starter home size duplexes and two families are built in the R one and R zero zones, but it helps families in those starter homes to stay in Arlington by allowing them the possibility to modify their homes when their needs change. Lastly, my amendment respects future town meetings. A deed restriction would not change based on any zoning changes made by a future town meeting. For example, if town meeting changed or removed the size threshold in the future, the deed restrictions would remain in effect for any properties built between now and then. The Deeds restriction holds a little upside for our policy goals and real downside for the future owners of any homes created under this article. I hope you will join me in voting yes on the Newton amendment. I also hope that you will join me in voting yes on the main motion. I'll be voting yes because the climate wind end up with two modest units in the place where a very large single family would have gone. I'll be voting yes because the individual units of a two family will be less expensive than a large single family. I will be voting yes because I want us to lead our neighboring communities by example, as we do on so many issues. And I'll be voting yes as a small step in unwinding the racist legacy of zoning in our country. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Newton. Let's bring up. We have a point of order from Mr. Siano. Name and precinct please. Mr. Siano, can you unmute Mr. Siano if you can hear me. You should be able to unmute at this point. Got it. So my point of order is the last gentleman that spoke. Name and precinct please. Forgive me Frank Siano precinct 15 the last gentleman that spoke was speaking to his amendment, and I suggest you Mr. Moderator it was unfair for him to comment on the main motion. That's my point of order. That's fair. Thank you, Mr. Siano. And when introducing an amendment. Well, that I have been considering that like the proponents time to speak, I guess. Yeah, that is a fair point when we're introducing amendments. Let's keep the comments focused on the amendment itself. Thank you. So let's bring up this. We now have Ms. Nathan raised a point of order. Michelle Nathan precinct 11. I hope. I'm new. It's still new to this. So I hope this is appropriate. I just wanted to make sure that if we vote. If this passes. Is it clear then that we're voting for the main amendment or we're just voting for this one and it doesn't impact the main amendment. Thank you. When you say the main I mean the main motion which seeks to amend the zoning bylaw. Yes, thank you. Right. I mean, there are cases I mean just to clarify. There may be there may be cases where someone might wish to vote for an amendment, like a motion to amend the main motion, and then vote down the main motion, like there's not, you're not required to vote for the main motion if you voted in support of of an amendment that makes sense. There may be cases which will actually cover tonight where there can be an incompatible like a logical incompatibility between not just a semantic incompatibility but like a syntactic incompatibility between amendments and that actually is the case tonight and I'll point that out after we've introduced the second amendment. Okay, so we're going to start with Ms. Penneron. Let's bring her up. Good evening, Kristen Penneron precinct 20. Thank you, Mr. moderator. I'm so sorry for taking time on this but I'd like to go back to the two speakers ago point of order to clarify. Is it really the case that individuals who are speaking to the proposed amendment are limited from speaking in regard to the main amendment. I had understood that they would be able to use the full amount of time that would typically be allotted to speakers. Is that not the case I would like to understand this better because it's relevant to the discussion we're having now and because it's relevant to the way that town meeting as a whole functions. Right. Thank you in advance for clarifying I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. That's something that we haven't actually settled as like a matter of policy at this annual town meeting. I really would have to have more time to think about what the right policy should be going forward. I take Mr. Seattle's point and his point of order that the time should be spent focused on on the amendment as opposed to advocating and the rationale for that and reason why I think it makes sense is that I just want to be brief about this because a lot of folks are you know want to speak on the substantive aspects of this this article is that someone is elevated ahead of the speaker to in this case ahead of 43 other speakers in order to introduce their motion. And when they're given that priority. I think it does make sense for their speaking time to be focused on the amendment that they're bringing forward, irrespective of the virtues of potentially of the main motion that it might be in support of. And so if someone did it does seem more fair to me that if someone wished to speak who is introducing a motion to amend wish to speak to the virtues for instance of the main motion that they can't they do have an opportunity to get back into speaking to you like everybody else, which then puts them at a disadvantage to talk about that because we've already had over 50 people get in the queue. So I don't think there's any perfectly fair way to handle that. But if we can if the folks introducing the amendments could use their kind of privileged time ahead of the speaker queue to try to stay as focused as as much as they can on the amendment that they're introducing, rather than the virtues or vices of the main motion, that that's where we should try to land, not going to set an explicit policy about that but I think that would be the right thing to happen. And I believe Mr Newton was was pretty well within those parameters, as he only mentioned fairly briefly, his support of the main motion. So thank you. Hopefully that clarifies about it. We haven't really fully nailed that down but I don't, I also don't want to spend a lot of time nailing that down right now in the middle of the meeting thank you. So let's bring up Ms baby ours now to introduce her amendment as well. And if we can get that up on screen as Ms baby ours is speaking name and precinct please. Josephine baby ours precinct 15. And thank you Mr moderator for this opportunity to present these amendment. I would like to just say in response to two comments made by the earlier speakers that a discussion of this article in its own is not discriminatory discriminatory against any group. I have five questions about article 38. And I'd like to address them. The first is, is this article actually feasible. Secondly, will the town retain its own zoning codes for quality. As some speakers hope it will. Third who is going to be in charge of this enforcement of the deed. And fifth, there are some legal issues raising their heads here, whether or not this is a taking. And fifth, will this amendment produce the benefits of the town wants. I'd like to thank both town council town clerk Brazil, and you Mr moderator because you have worked with me over three separate amendments. My entire goal was to try and delay this. And I think, administratively, we will come up to some answer about how that is to be done with all of the interest intricacies of the zoning. My first point is it feasible. The home advantage team website known to folks in the town says that in 2020 a single family went for 1,069,000 a two family. The average was 1,168. So if someone were to renovate a single family into a two family, you have about $100,000 give or take to play to play with. If someone was built in the 1950s you probably have asbestos. We did. You probably have lead paint if you painted since the 19, since before 1973. More feasible and allowed under the guidance that we're talking about here is a four family. A single family at 1850 square feet. The cost would be roughly 1,008 and each unit would sell at 712. So, in contrast with some of the Minneapolis affordable housing that goes for 299. We're at least in a market where we won't find single families likely at the 712 price point. The new growth because that has been raised. If a single family is valued at 1.0 million. And the two family at 1.2 the new growth is really limited to 200,000. So this, I see where you're going with this and say I know that the nature of your, your amendment. It's a pretty long wind up, to be honest, for the delay that you're looking for in this taking effect. And so I think a lot of the points that you're covering I'm confident will be brought out in debate by folks who can dig more deeply into those, those points which I think warrant kind of deeper discussion. Like the presentation of this amendment. I think I think the meeting at least I would appreciate I think the meeting would appreciate coming to the point a bit more sharply. All right, well, we'll move on to the draft guidance. Yeah. And the draft guidance will allow multifamily housing as of right, and it will control any other zoning or bylaw passed by the town, except for those dealing with public safety and convenience. So this means the current setbacks for height restrictions, treat protection and everything that Arlington enjoys our void, if we don't meet that requirement. The guidance at five and again I admit this is a draft guidance and hasn't gone very far but if you're looking to tie into the funding provided by the state this is what you have to confront. It's a reasonable size, multi minimum multifamily unit capacity says basically if you don't hit the minimums. You are going to be faced with whatever the state and the MBTA community decides you must do. Let's go then. So, what I'm trying to say there is the law may not be with you and allowing you to go with a single family to family 1850 swear foot. It may be forcing you into a larger type of redevelopment that would be more appropriate for Mass Ave. Who is going to enforce this provision. It has to be in the deed and as far as I know the only town official who's involved with the sale of a property is the fire department. So I can't imagine that the fire chief would be interested in looking at the deeds, but it has to be done if it's going to happen. And as another speaker mentioned this is done by deed either in the land court or in the Massachusetts registry of deeds. And so now you have the problem of what happens if the seller doesn't put it in. And it's not in the deed to be penalized the buyer, do we penalize the seller who has taken the money and presumably gone somewhere else. We expect that we're going to have town, we're going to pay town people to go to the different registries and track all this down. It's not clear how this is going to work or how it's going to be enforced. And I would suspect that people can come up with work arounds. If you put it in the deed, this is my fourth point if you put it in the deed, you now have a taking that can be compensable under this point of you are at the six minute mark so you need to wind up your remarks. So, you actually move the amendment or also have nothing to actually vote on. So I need so it could be a taking that could cost the town money. And then lastly, we don't really know what's going to happen with it so at this point I would like to move the amendment and ask the town to seriously consider this amendment. Thank you. So we have a motion for us. Before we take any seconds to, we do have a point of order from miss Elliott, let's take that. Thank you, Mr. moderator. I appreciate your patience, but I believe that entire presentation was on the merits of the main motion. And if we are going to have rules that prohibit people from introducing amendments and using them to speak on merits, I would appreciate if they were administered equitably. Thank you. My interpretation that I'm taking is that it was a very long wind up. In my opinion, excessive long but I mean, the speaker did have that time allowed to them was a wind up for I believe expressing why a delay would be needed for this to take effect. Okay, so we have a motion to put forward the baby ours amendment and we have a second from miss Desmond so we now have that be ours amendment in front of us as well as the Newton amendment. So, I do want to actually before we get back into the point of order from miss Penron, I believe I saw in the q amp a that I believe she was saying that she may have been prematurely muted. Can we bring up miss Penron. Did we cut off her remarks that was not my intention. Mr. moderator, thank you very much, Kristen Penron precinct 20. I do think the remarks might have been cut off I was just trying to ask you some intelligent questions about the way that this article and its proposed amendments are being made. I think several speakers have shared similar concerns, and I would like to have a very, I would like very much to have a fair and unbiased discussion about this. Thank you very much. Thank you. So let's go back to our request I'm not sure what that's in reference to, but we already have the two amendments in front of us. So let's now go to the speaking queue. Let's take up Mr. Mr bagnell. Thank you Mr moderator, Alex bagnell precinct nine. Miss baby are has raised the possibility of this article being a taking. Could we get a legal opinion on that. Whether it's a taking or what a taking qualifies whether or not it would constitute a taking article 38. Mr. Heim. Do you have any interpretation on whether article 39, 38 is is a taking. Hi, I'm Tom counsel. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Good evening, Tom meeting. I'm not sure what context in which what what the amendment mean or the previous speaker means by taking. Usually, when we're talking about taking you're talking about the government. We're proposing some kind of either directly saying, we're taking your property and we'll compensate you for it. Sometimes there's something called a constructive taking. I don't think that a zoning bylaw amendment that allowed for two family homes where there were previously single family homes would constitute a constructive taking, and even a deed restriction to limit the growth of. The size of a property. I don't see that as a taking constructive or otherwise I understand the overall argument perhaps analogy, but I don't think the town would face significant liability as a taking. Thank you. Okay, thank you. There have been some discussions of this article's equity considerations. What role might the passing of this article play in the town's equity goals and or our upcoming equity audit. Let's see. Let's let's try a December. Do you have an answer for that? Rachel's I'm very chair of the development board. I believe that the appropriate person to answer that would be the, the town manager. Thank you. Mr. chapter. Thank you, Mr. moderator Adam chapter lane town manager. I don't mean to doubly pass the the rush from but I think we have our director of diversity equity inclusion Jillian Harvey here who probably can most directly speak to that question. As Ms Harvey here. Yeah. Thank you for that name and title please. Jillian Harvey director of diversity equity inclusion division. And just to confirm Alex you were asking about how this would impact the equity audit or the role of it. So we're actually just in the process of starting that and housing is going to be one of our main focuses. And I know that for me I'd see that this amendment, you know, allowing two family homes in a single family in single family zones by right. It's a very small but realistic actionable step that could help the town work towards some of the recommendations that were laid out in the fair housing action plan. And that's something that we assessed last summer and that's something that is also being provided to our consulting group that we're working with on the audit. Along with that they'll be doing their own work out in the community to assess folks needs, their perceptions about housing and how it impacts the town. But to the history of zoning and its relation to D I Arlington is just like every other community in the greater Boston area. And it's not exempt from benefiting from historically discriminatory housing practices and land use policies, which have had pretty lasting effects that are evident and clear today. And the amendments in the bylaw that, you know, we've had the last, I'd say three to five decades, whether intentional or not does restrict growth and development and down. And so that's something that throughout this audit will also be looking at because these types of policies are rooted in inequity. And so, you know, for me, a lot of people in Arlington say they value diversity and inclusion. And believe that Arlington is a welcoming community and they want to see more quote unquote diversity, but by law says otherwise because it's nearly impossible to allow growth and folks to move into this town. So I think we're in a specific socioeconomic bracket. And so this will be a pretty big focus of the equity audit that we're getting started. Great. Thank you very much. I would add that, you know, the thing about systemic inequality is also that preserving the status quo benefits those of us who have already benefited greatly and continues to marginalize those who have been and are being harmed. Concentrated wealth requires concentrated poverty. Given the history of exclusion and systemic inequality that is baked into single family zoning. I think the right question is not what harm can it do to weight or how might it harm me but rather how much more harm are we willing to do before we start making any real change. As Jenny Schultz writes in Fixer Upper, our current housing systems create enormous costs disproportionately borne by vulnerable populations. The interconnectedness of these housing policy systems make it difficult to solve one piece at a time. Rolling back exclusionary zoning across enough localities to improve regional housing production and affordability will require affluent homeowners to accept changes in their neighborhoods. I have to conclude with a quote from the color of law. When we become Americans, we accept not only citizenship privileges that we did not earn, but also its responsibilities to correct wrongs that we did not commit. It was our government that segregated American neighborhoods, whether we or our ancestors were witness to it. It was our government that must now craft remedies. That's us folks. We are that government. Please join me in voting for this remedy and for the Newton amendment. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. Before we take the, let's say, let's go to the next speaker. I've been Rudick precinct five. I had intended to give a presentation describing what life is like in one of these new two family duplexes, and how great they are and how I've had no problems and how energy efficient they are and the neighborhoods they create etc etc. But I would instead like to yield my time. We have one of the foremost experts in housing policy as a resident of Arlington, Dr. Catherine of the nine Stein doctorate from Harvard University, and currently serving as associate professor at Boston University. I yield my time to her. And Dr. Einstein is a resident of Arlington, I believe you said. Yes. Okay, she has the right right to speak introduced by a time meeting member of Dr. Einstein. Go ahead. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Yes, state your name and address. Yeah, so I'm Catherine Einstein. I live at 22 Sutherland Road. I'm a resident of the Heights and precinct 20. And I'm also a former member of the ARB and the housing plan implementation committee and a professor of political science at BU. I specialize in local politics and housing policy and have published peer reviewed research on land use politics using data from Massachusetts and elsewhere with my fellow Arlington resident and town meeting member Max Palmer. Recent research indicates that article 38 will have a small but positive effect on the housing supply in Arlington, and will not substantially change our neighborhoods. We know from academic research that places with more land use regulations, such as single family zoning, have higher levels of racial and economic segregation, and that the production of more market rate multifamily housing is a critical part of addressing housing affordability. Indeed, research in this field has been extraordinarily consistent. This finding has been replicated in multiple studies in urban planning and economics, building more market rate housing is absolutely critical and high demand metropolitan areas like ours to bring down housing prices. While new construction duplexes are expensive data from Arlington and elsewhere shows that they are significantly cheaper on average than new construction single family homes. Recent analyses of the states of California and Oregon and the city of Minneapolis, all places that have already implemented a reform exactly like the one proposed in article 38 suggests that the effects of this article will be quite modest. While new construction of duplexes are expensive they will be significantly cheaper on average than new construction single family homes. Today, you'll hear a lot of calls for delay tonight. My research, along with fellow Arlington resident Max Palmer shows that delays like these are extraordinarily common common and housing politics, and contribute to explosive increases in housing costs. Doing more studies is always appealing, and to many people there will never be enough studies to act, but delay can feel like a neutral compromise option, but have a profound and negative impact on our housing market. I encourage town meeting members to support article 38 and the important first step that it represents for our housing market. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rudick, anything else. I really like to say that the views expressed by Dr. Einstein, and by the previous speaker are not fringe. They are not rare in Arlington. I am the founder of a group called Arlington neighbors for more neighbors that advocates for secure abundant homes for everyone. We have over 400 members and are overwhelmingly in support of this article. Please join me in voting yes. Thank you. Yeah, so before we take the next speaker. I just wanted to point there was a question in the q amp a about seconds like did we actually get seconds for the month. I did recognize seconds for both amendments. I thought I verbalize that but if I didn't I apologize we had Ms Brazil seconded the motion to put forward the Newton amendment and Ms Desmond. I wanted the motion to put forward the baby ours amendment. So they are seconded and in front of us. Let's say let's take mixed pretzer. Next, speaking to you. Thank you Mr moderator, as even pretzer precinct 17. When I talk to people in Arlington about what their issues are on the most common thing I hear is people talking about their concerns about housing costs. It may be increasing and many people are rent burdened or worried about their ability to continue to live in Arlington. Long term, many of these people aren't eligible for the subsidized affordable housing which is very limited supply. It may be because of waitlist maybe because of income levels it may be because the subsidized affordable housing is only available to citizens and immigrants who are not yet citizens aren't eligible for it. We can't count on only subsidized affordable housing meeting our housing needs. Article 38 also won't solve all our housing problems, but it's an important positive step, you know a small step but a good step towards that you know towards addressing these issues to sort of how article 38, you know creating these new duplexes can sort of help address housing costs at various levels I want to draw an analogy to used cars I don't know if any of you have tried to buy a used car recently, but one thing that really is that due to supply chain issues, new cars were not be able to be produced in the levels they normally were. And so many people that would normally be buying a new car. Instead, we're, you know ended up buying used cars and because it's increased demand for used cars. Cars that were you know three four or five years old cars in worse condition, we're being bid up the prices that were above the list price for new cars and so people that would never be able to afford a new car that needed a way to get around or suddenly faced with not even being able to find a used car that they could afford the same thing happens in housing. If we don't build housing for people that you know that we don't build housing for people sort of that middle class levels. Then they'll build up housing that otherwise would be naturally affordable by. The other thing I want people to keep in mind is tear downs are already happening. This article isn't going to cause tear downs to happen. That's not going to happen before. You know, tear downs are going to happen when homes need to be replaced, or when when it's, you know, when a home, you know is outdated and a new home would be economically attractive what we're choosing here is whether that town tear down leads to a multimillion dollar large detached single family home, or it leads to two size limited units that will each be substantially cheaper than than the multimillion dollars single family home that otherwise would have been built here. I think that from my point of view, building the two homes is much more attractive we have two family homes and single family areas that predate current zoning, and they are an asset to our neighborhoods, more homes like these to replace the sort of naturally affordable homes we've already lost to tear downs would just make our neighborhoods stronger. The point is, it's definitely the case that Arlington would be a leader in doing this before other communities, but we're also not alone. Our neighbor Lexington, in fact has in their comprehensive plan, a strategy of, enabling more different types of housing across town, including two families own homes or multi family homes in areas that are currently single family zoning so they have not done this yet but this part of the conversation that's going on elsewhere in the region. It's our opportunity to lead the way and be part of a regional solution that could go beyond our borders I think Arlington is at a great position to lead the way to creating war homes for people that need them and addressing our housing issues and I hope you can join me in supporting the main motion and the Newton amendment, and I think that for people who are facing housing cost burdens we can't afford to wait any longer than necessary so I hope that you will not see see I need to delay this any further. Thank you. Thank you. We've now had three speakers by my count has spoken in favor of these three speaking slots and not counting individual speakers, who's yielded time. Can we enable raise hands and zoom. And if you want to if you wish to speak against the main motion and potentially to the amendments as well but against the main motion raise your hands and I'll try to balance this out a bit. So the one that disappeared. Why is that. Okay. So now is a difficult challenge of picking folks who are actually on the speaking queue. I see the earliest person I see in speaking queue these raise their hands, I think is a miss out let's take Miss Evans name and precinct please. Thank you so much. Winnell Evans precinct 14. Thank you to the people who have lived here for a long time I am floored by what's happening to home values and I'm concerned about how this is changing our town. The middle class town I moved to many years ago is now an affluent suburb. It's increasingly difficult for people without big bank rolls to buy a rent here and increasingly difficult for those on low or fixed incomes to stay here as property taxes rise along with valuations. The ones who drafted article 38 acknowledged that it will not solve this problem, but they say it will provide housing choice. This choice will be for those who can afford million dollar plus homes only. What we already see before anything at all has changed is that in every case when a single family in an R2 district is replaced with duplex condos, each new unit sells for several hundred thousand more than the demolished single and sometimes for close to twice its price with almost all listing at over a million bucks. The economics of replacing single families with duplex condos are obviously very attractive. Article 38 will simply accelerate this process. The demolition of smaller older more attainable homes and buyers will now be competing directly with builders for those houses. Smaller homes may not have great rooms and open floor plans in the latest greatest kitchens and they may require work, but that is the very definition of a starter home. And these houses are how I and many others gained a foothold in this town. Minneapolis is one of the four communities in the US that have eliminated single family zoning effective in December 2018. The R22 data from the Minneapolis area Realtors organization has charted a 28% decline in the affordability index since then in the 16 counties that comprise the Twin Cities regional area. What are the factors that are contributing to this? How are they similar to or different from factors that might be in play here? Wouldn't it be a good idea to explore this? The RB itself stated that it wants to see more robust data driven information about this article. Article 38 will provide choice for those who can afford million dollar houses at the expense of those who can't. It will put upward pressure on the valuations of nearby homes. It will ultimately make our community less affordable, less diverse and less inclusive. Exactly the goals our housing plans strive to achieve. In fact, two members of the redevelopment board voted against this article, citing concerns with its failure to align with Arlington's comprehensive housing strategies. We are meeting the needs of higher income buyers, its middle and lower income buyers as well as renters who are being shut out. We focus our resources on furthering the work the town is already doing and planning, supporting our housing corporation, our most successful creator of capital A affordable housing, getting the transfer fee pass to fund our affordable housing trust fund, establishing an affirmative fair marketing plan, considering down payment assistance, including alliances with nonprofit developers to create affordable projects and exploring community land trust to acquire and maintain older starter homes. I firmly believe that allowing two families by right will only fuel the upward trend in prices and that any size limits will be eliminated as soon as possible. For these reasons, I urge you to join me in voting no on article 38 and all amendments. Thank you so much. We're almost at the 930 mark. Let's take a 10 minute break. Let's come back at, let's make it around. Around number 940 it's come back at 940 and I am keeping track of pros and cons and questions being asked because I want to make sure we also have an opportunity to hear folks who simply have questions and want to focus on directing questions at folks who might have answers. So try to keep space for that as well. So let's come back at 940. Thank you. Okay, it's 940 so let's come back. And I will take at this point two more speakers against the main motion before we go back to the kind of randomized speaking queue. And if we need to rebalance again at some point then we'll we'll do that again. And the goal is to like not is to have minimal disruption to the flow of debate so we're not going to be kind of raising hands all the time but just to rebalance every so often. So let's take Ms. Baron next is Baron name and precinct please. If you're able to unmute. Thank you Mr. moderator Sherry Baron precinct seven. Hear me. Yes, I can go ahead. I'll rise in opposition to this article. I have a statement to make and then I have a question and I'll keep it as brief as possible. I haven't yet heard or read any convincing argument or benefit that would prompt me to take the step to eliminate single family zoning in our town. And while I agree with the opponent's positions regarding increased home sizes, shrinking lawn space loss of trees, drains on scarce resources and increased reliance on town services. My biggest concern is diversity in our town. When my husband and I moved here in 1976 Arlington felt like a small town. There was a wide array of housing available for people of varying income levels. We chose a two family on Highland Avenue for our starter home. And from there we moved to Morningside, and finally landed here on Raleigh Street in a standard average size colonial. We had affordable choices. If article 38 passes, Ms. La Courte suggests we will increase the diversity of our neighbors. If article 38 passes we will deliberately and knowingly tighten the circle of who can and cannot live in Arlington. We will become and we've already are headed there to be a rich town. In which young families and individuals in the middle income level won't have the opportunity to share the life that so many of us value. Put plainly, we will price people out. Early into my tenure on the Arlington Human Rights Commission, we crafted a mission statement that includes these words and I quote. Dress the importance of and our commitment to the ever changing tapestry of our town. The change that will occur as a result of the passage of article 38 will only serve to create a situation where diversity slowly dies and eventually becomes unsustainable. I hope that the members of town meeting gives serious consideration to what kind of town they want to live in and how to keep Arlington a welcoming community to all who want to live here. And I have a question. Since 40% of the Arlington Redevelopment Board voted against article 38. And if they are here with us, I know Miss Zenberry is and if Miss Tinted Callis is here as well. Would you kindly ask them to explain to town meeting their reasons for their negative votes. Thank you. Sure. Miss Zenberry since you're readily available. Can you speak to your dissenting vote. I'm happy to be chair of the Redevelopment Board. I'd be happy to share. So, all of the discussion regarding the votes of the Arlington Redevelopment Board board meetings are covered in the report to town meeting by the Redevelopment Board. To hit the highlights. I'll just note that the members who voted against favorable action were in favor of the concept of the article. I personally was concerned about not having seen an engagement plan with town members and town meeting members as part of the materials that we were able to review as we reviewed the article. I also, at the time we had the Redevelopment Board had endorsed the housing production plan, but it had not yet been reviewed and endorsed by the select board, which it has as of today. And the two members, including myself who voted against the article had the hopes that this type of innovative article, which we believe again will lead to greater housing choice in Arlington could be creatively partnered with other strategies identified in the housing production plan to create a more comprehensive policy potentially in the future. Thank you. There's Baron anything else. Yes, is Miss Tentecullis present. I don't is Miss Tentecullis present or Rachel Zanbury chair of the Redevelopment Board Miss Tentecullis is not present. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Miss Zanbury. Great. Thank you, Miss Baron. So let's take one more from folks who have their hands or the next person I believe I had in order is Mr. Gersh. Let's bring him up. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. John Gersh precinct 18. Ladies and gentlemen, fellow town meeting members. Whether or not it's a good idea to eliminate single family zoning is debatable. And we are debating it here. But what is not debatable is the fact that your constituents, the people that we are elected to represent have no idea what is hanging over their heads in this town meeting. We are discussing no less than the elimination of single family zoning, which has been around far longer than any current resident. It's all they know. How dare we consider dropping this bombshell on our unsuspecting neighbors. The election turnout last time was what 20% it's pitiful right. But that means for certain that at least 80% of the residents that we represent have no idea that we are talking about eliminating single family zoning. I am willing to debate whether this is a good idea. But what I am not willing to do is pull the rug out from under my good neighbors. Imagine that the first clue that they have about this change is when the house next door to them is replaced by a 5500 square foot monster. It's larger than virtually any McMansion going up today with two or more families depending on the ad use of duration. There will be a backlash. And now, look at the amendment offered by Mr Newton. We haven't even yet eliminated single family zoning and already attempts are being made to remove the modest safeguards built into article 38 by the ARB. How dare we. You convinced me that rank and file Arlingtonians want this change. It's not affected by this change. And I'll play ball. Do your diligence, because I am not convinced. These are the people we represent. And delaying implementation until 2023 will make no difference whatsoever. There will still be an inevitable backlash directed at you. But the damage will have already been done. For now, please let me sum this up just as simply as I can. Three words. In fact, forget about it. Thank you for your attention. So we've had three speakers for and three against now there were some questions kind of sprinkled in between there but if I can lower their hands now in zoom I've recorded about a dozen people and match them up to the speaking queue. So I have plenty of speakers against to pull from now thank you. So now if we can get any raised hands from folks who maybe undecided and have questions. So we can get those questions aired to hopefully help folks make a decision on this. I see Mr Solomon's at the head of the queue speaking queue and he's raised his hand so you're the obvious next choice Mr Solomon name and precinct please. Yes, Joe Solomon precinct 16 can you hear me. Yes, I can go ahead. Terrific. I just had a couple questions I was reading through the annotated warrant and I've seen some emails come through and Mr Gersh brought up a point about size so. I was curious if anybody from the town had any concerns about the impact on the town's infrastructure from passing article 38 infrastructure. Do we have Mr Rademacher present from Director of Public Works. Not sure if Mr Rademacher be the best person after but Mr Rademacher. Michael Rademacher director public works. This is not a very straightforward question because it's not clear the number of additional units that would be developed or constructed with this although I would say that the town of Arlington has had greater population in the past and our infrastructure. I was able to meet the demand that being said it is a more aged infrastructure now and will require us to continue making improvements. So, I think we can handle some limited increase, but without knowing the exact amount it's tough to say exactly. So it sounds like it's unpredictable since we don't know how many, if this went into effect how many people would actually take advantage of it is that accurate. Mr Salman. Yeah, just one other question. If there's anyone in particular like to direct the questions that feel free to let me know and I can see if they're available to answer. Yeah, I also had a question there's a proposal that there's some way that a building could be built with two of the 1850 square foot units and to ad use I was curious if there was someone from. Maybe a, you know, building inspection or whoever certifies that at when it's constructed who could give a little bit more detail on whether or not that would be allowed. Let me direct that question to Mr Champa. Would that be allowed with ad use be allowed to be combined with with article 38 of the main motion passes. I'll give us a moderate and Mike champ director of instructional services, a builder would not be able to build a duplex in this case with two accessory drawing units for sale. Not being it accessory drawing units need to be applied for by the person that's going to live there. Even if that were the case it would change adding accessory drawing units doesn't change the use by zoning but it does by building. So the building code would recognize it as a three or four family and they would then be required to have fires sprinklers and fire alarm systems and so the short of that is no builders wouldn't be selling these with accessory drawing units already built in. That's terrific. And maybe just one last question, given Mr markers point around the unpredictability of the volume added I'm curious if there are any studies that were done by planning or any notes with a range or some guidance for us on on the potential impact given the housing stock in Arlington and in recent trends. Okay, let me direct that question at this rate director of planning and community development. Has there been any studies or any sense of what numbers we're talking about here. Jennifer rate director of planning and community development. We performed a study of reviewing replacement homes in 2019, which was published on the town's website. And in our research we looked at current rates of demolition and large additions and between 2010 and 2022. 322 permits were issued in Arlington for substantial residential construction projects in Arlington slow density residential zoning districts. 261 referred demolitions and 61 for major renovations. So on average, there are 27 permit applications filed per year. And we believe that we don't have any sense that that would be any different if this particular article were to pass. So therefore, you might be looking at 27 home homes per year. In terms of those demolitions and replacements. Thank you. And with that, is it possible just to circle back to Mr. Rotemacher with if it's 27 homes that's, you know, 50 plus units. Does that raise any red flags. Yeah, so Mr. Rotemacher, if there were projected just then this is obviously just a guesstimate. If there are 27 homes or 27 single family homes that were split into two family homes or duplexes. Can you speak to the load that would have on the town's infrastructure. Sure. Michael Rotemacher director public works. I, at that rate, I would not be concerned about the strain on the town's utilities. Terrific. That's all for me. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Mr. Solomon. I see also, Ms. Friedman has her hand raised. So let's take her next. If you have, if you're undecided you have questions. Ms. Friedman. Bethan, can you hear me. Yes, I can go ahead. Bethan Friedman, 15. I have a question concerning the limited size of the unit. From reading it, it refers to heated space. And I'm wondering, what's that to preclude a developer for just heating, let's say the first floor and building two additional floors and making essentially two McMansions instead of two reasonably sized structures. Can somebody specifically in the context of referring to like to the Newton amendment about the limitation and square footage and heated. The heated space is that is that we're referring to. Yeah, that if it's heated space versus total space. I'm not sure if I think the initial article refers to heated space. Also, excuse me, so I take it back. So with the amendment referring to heated space, I said, there's nothing in that that would preclude a if that should that amendment should pass in the article that we're voting on is an amended, amended article with that preclude developers and just not heating second floor or first floor and essentially building a couple of McMansions to McMansions instead of like doesn't allow for basically partially heated large for large partially heated homes that that that in their entirety exceed these these limitations and square footage. December. Mr. December, did you have an answer to that. Sure, I'd actually like to defer to inspector champa but before I do I'll just note that this specifically is both both units within the entire structure would need to fall within all of the requirements that are that are currently in in place. And the heated living space refers to the exclusion of addicts or basement space. Or building out additional square footage should it exist in an existing home, but I'll turn it over to inspector champa to give a little bit more color to the definition of heated space. Mr. Champa to to miss Friedman's question. If you have a question about the concern build beyond those limits and only partially heat the space to conform to these regulations. Yeah, my chapter director of instructional services so the wording is finished heated living space and so just by not eating it doesn't. Doesn't, doesn't change the fact that it's finished space if they're finishing a space that then it would count into the area they would literally have to leave the rooms unfinished and they would require permits to finish those in the future, which they wouldn't be able to do because of the restriction. So just one correction to what I said earlier, it's not specific, I apologize, but it's not specifically the Newton amendment that introduces the language around the 1850 square foot limit of heated living space that that's clearly in the in the main motion so I apologize for that, but I don't see the word finish in the main motion, only 18 if we bring that up the text so everyone can see what we're referring to. So the, the footnotes added to the tables in the main motion. Do you do plug stallings jump. Neither unit. Yada yada yada shall exceed 1850 square feet of heated living space. Does that change anything, Mr. It does not. My champion director and special services it does not miss a moderator because a heated space. A living space has to be finished so heated living space is a finished area. Okay, can we scroll down here it's in and show the tables with the, the footnotes beneath them so that's what we're referring to as the footnotes. Yep, that's it. Okay, so that's assumed to be living space so so if the developer built a, you know, a 2,500 square foot space that only 1850 of which was heated, then that would be a problem. Yeah, well they wouldn't be able to do that I mean if it's, they, they, I know that everyone is afraid of a go around but it's just, they wouldn't be able to do it the wording protects it enough they can't create anything that could be turned into living space. Just because they didn't heat it, they can't, they also can't finish that area because it that that would be living space, finished area is living space. Miss Friedman does answer your question. Yes, thank you very much. Great, thank you. So let's go back now to the queue. And next person I have in order is Mr. Lewton. Hi, Marvin Lewton precinct 16 and disclaimer, I live in a two family house in an R one district that predates zoning. And a number of points that people have raised that and I'll just, I'll just touch on a few of them. First of all, over the last couple of years I've done a lot of questioning of my neighbors, most of whom live in single family houses, and none of them are remotely concerned by the presence of my house or other two families like it on the street. So I think that the idea that we're going to kind of rise people by by turning Arlington into a community of two families is it's just clearly not happening. In terms of kind of the tear down issue that people are concerned about. The unfortunate reality that I don't think a lot of people right now, want to live in small capes. And particularly ones that that are old enough that they have the lead in asbestos issues that Miss Babiar has mentioned. If you look at the, certainly in this neighborhood if you look at all the capes that have been turned, you know, torn down, they've been replaced by significantly larger houses. I know any number of what looked like really nice houses that were a couple of blocks away from me that that just aren't there anymore and, you know, much, much larger structures are in this place. In terms of sizing, you know, the State Department of Planning and Community Development did an analysis on on, you know, what houses were most likely to be torn down. They took a sort of pre-1980, 1500 square feet. You know, these properties are a tiny percentage of the houses that currently exist in the R0 district and are maybe 10% of the ones in the R1 district. So even if every single one of those was turned into a two-family structure, it's still at a relatively small proportion of the overall houses in the area. So I think that it's, I'm trying to think of a nice way to say, I think that opponents who talk about the end of single-family housing in Arlington are exaggerating at best and I think just making statements that are a little bit overblown. In terms of the pricing of these properties, yeah. It would be nice if two-family houses, you know, half of the two-family sold for less than they currently do, but it's undeniable that half a duplex is going to be significantly less expensive than a single-family house that would be twice its size under the current zone, you know, under the proposed amendment. You know, so right now if you take the 30% of income figure for a mortgage, you know, you're talking about the average single-family and house in Arlington is going to require somebody to have a household income of $400,000. We really loved, as other people have mentioned, the income diversity that existed in Arlington when we first moved in and a lot of that is lost. I'm under, you know, I'm under no kind of, I don't live in a fantasy world and I know that we're not going to get truly affordable housing out of this article, but the only way to get truly affordable housing is to subsidize it and we have to figure out where that money is going to come from. I think it's going to make life more affordable for people and just provide more options and more people that don't have huge incomes and I think that that's worthwhile. In the interest of not tying up everybody's time because there are a lot of people on the list. I'll stop now, but I think that article 38 is is a great way to actually increase diversity in town to make it more affordable for people that can't afford single-family houses, particularly at the prices that they're going for now. And I would hardly endorse everybody's, you know, positive vote on this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Luton. Okay. And so let's say, let's say, let's take, so we've had four speakers for so far and three speakers against and to who've just answered or just asked questions. Let's take another speaker against just about the balance. Let's take Mr. Leonie next. Yeah, it is right hand raised earlier to speak against. Good evening, John. The only precinct date. I'm rising to speak against this article. Not for any reason other than I'm just looking at the reality of it. My day job is I do a lot of real estate in town. I represent buyers. I represent sellers. And yes, I do represent contractors. Any single-family house that I envision coming on if we pass this will get sold to a developer. It will get knocked down and they will build a two-family house that is going to be priced at over a million dollars easily each unit. I envision that we are somehow creating affordable housing by this. We're going to increase the ability to diversify our housing stock is to our fantasy. I don't see it happening. Not with the prices that Arlington houses are getting nowadays. This is not the way to create affordable or diversified housing in town. The other reasons that I'm going to vote against this is strictly looking at the reality of our physical infrastructure. We already have schools that are at capacity. We voted $100,000 earlier this meeting to retrofit the peer school to create more classrooms. If we create even 30, 40 new housing units per year, where are we going to put those kids? We're going to have to either create new schools or reconfigure all of the schools we have. These are not things that we should take lightly with a article that has not been put through the normal study process that an ARB article would be put through. The second thing with the physical structure, 50% or more of our fire calls are for medical help, ambulance, EMS, etc. Will the fire department be able to handle an increase of housing of this nature of this scope in a quick timeframe? We may have to increase our firefighters. We may need more trucks. These are all expenses that we as a town have to consider before we take a step such as this. We're looking at a override as Mr. Foskett has told us within the next five years, potentially $50 million. Can we afford to buy in additional school costs and firefighter and perhaps police force as well? It's going to create marginally smaller amounts of property tax to be able to pay for these services. I think that this is an article that we are rushing to take care of. We're going to increase our density, which we're also already the second densest town in the Commonwealth. That's towns and be the 11th or 12th densest municipality in the Commonwealth. Arlington has done its part. I'm not saying that we shouldn't increase our housing stock. I do not think that this is the way that we should go about it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leone. So we've now had four speakers speaking for four against two of any questions. I do want to allow folks to raise hands again if they accept and make sure we're getting enough questions in since we're a little bit lopsided toward for and against. So if you're interested in asking questions, feel free to raise your hands in zoom. Well, Miss Seuss, who actually happens to be next in the speaking queue. So let's take Miss Seuss next. Thank you. Hi, thank you. Actually, I wasn't planning on restating comments I've made in my letter. So it's Jennifer Seuss precinct three. But I do want to ask some questions about the teardowns. We've heard a lot that there are 27 teardowns on average in town. Do we have any sense of how many of those torn down are in the R1 are zero district versus the are to district or be district or something. Is there any, any sense of that? Ms. Zimbari, do you happen to know. Rachel Zimbari chair of the redevelopment board, I would like to defer this question to Jennifer rate please. Okay, Ms. right. Jennifer rate director of planning and community development. Yes, we do have that information for 2021 2020 and 2019. Is there a particular year you'd like me to. I guess, just as just a sense. So I mean, we've been talking about 27 small houses being torn down potentially developed into two family is that is that the number if every family I mean, aren't some of the houses being torn really in the R2 district right now. I guess just a different sense not not. Not year by year. Okay. So, in 2021, last year, 27 of the 55 demolitions were in the R0 and R1 versus the R2. And then this particular year we found to be a little bit unusual because there were a number of non conforming three and four unit structures in the R2 that were demolished, and actually replaced by two families, and three two families that were demolished and replaced by a two family. The prior year in 2020 just to give you a point of reference, six of the 12 homes demolished were in the R0 or R1 versus in the R2 and the be district. So, a little bit all over the place but definitely not, not all of the, the units. Do we know if it's only builders who are tearing down houses or do sometimes owners tear down houses we have a sense of what that distinction is for the numbers. Jennifer Ray, Director of Planning and Community Development. Yes, I do. In this past in 2021 again, there were four of the overall 32 tear downs were by homeowners and the remainder, the balance were by builders. So we do, we do have that information. Yes. 20%. Okay. And then when a house is torn down currently our current trends, what's usually put into its place. So, so we know, you know, in an R2 district, potentially it's a two family but in the R1 and R0 do we have any sense of how large those houses are. You know what's generally put up in the place. I'll take the first part of the question, if that's okay. With the first part of the question in the single family demolitions which were, you know, there might be a total as I mentioned of 32 in 2021. And a number of those resulted in two families, but not a significant number there were a total of 13 units added as a result of the 32 single family demolitions. So a total of eight, I'm sorry, nine, two family structures were created as a result of those single family tear downs. No, I was just saying, so in the R1 and R0 when a house is torn down, how big is the unit that's put in its place in general. Do you have any trends on that, any numbers? We do have numbers on that as well. Mr. Moderator. Yes. Okay. So over the decades we found that at least in the 20 in the, not in this most recent decade but in the 2010s we found that the median finished area was 3440 square feet of finished area again living space of the 145 homes that were built over the course of that entire decade. So, and that is bigger than in the 2000s. In that period where 128 homes were built, the median finished area was 2,953 square feet. Okay, so the median is over 3,000, which means obviously there's some, they're bigger, some are smaller. Do we have any reason to think that the number is still going up? Is that still our trend or are we sort of holding steady? I believe these numbers reflect where we are today in terms of the overall, you know, again, on the median, you would find about that level of median finished area. Okay. I just have one more question. Thank you to the meeting. Now, no longer on the school committee so I have not been studying the numbers as carefully as I used to. Could I ask somebody, would anybody be able to tell me whether the schools can handle an increase of, you know, an extra 20 houses being built each year or like enrollment? Enrollment, yeah, yeah. I mean, I say the numbers very, very carefully a couple of years ago but I haven't been looking at them as carefully recently. Yeah, do we have Ms. Exton with us? The chair of the school committee could potentially answer that. Do we have Ms. Exton, Elizabeth Exton among town meeting members? Yeah, we have the superintendent list tonight and we're not finding Ms. Exton and the attendees at the moment. Okay, that's it for my questions. Thank you very much. Thank you for the patience of the meeting. Great, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Seuss. So we've had, let's see, there's been questions in the Q&A about like, are we going to have a straw poll at some point to terminate debate? I don't know when that's going to happen. Obviously, we're way past 15 minutes but there's also a lot of folks who want to speak. And so when we get to at least five folks who've spoken like five, four, five against and five with questions, we get to that point. I'll consider doing a straw poll and we'll take it from there. So far we've had four speaking four, four against and three with questions. I'm going to take, let me take two more from the queue since they might fit into one of these categories and we'll take it from there. So let's take Dr. Warden next. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Please go ahead. Name and precinct, please. Yes. Patricia Warden, precinct eight. Article 38 is the most discriminatory article Arlington has ever considered. The article 38 units are affordable only by those earning more than 200% of area median income. They completely exclude the families of medium or limited means of all races and color. The most racist article that I have ever seen. It will ruin Arlington's excellent record as for diversity, equity and inclusion by creating housing only for the rich. So, in all the decades I have been in Arlington. Article 38 is just about the worst. This is the most fundamental change in our zoning in our town. It is a change to the districts which are fundamental to all zoning patterns. I used to have a newspaper that most everyone thought that would have been a banner headline saying, quote, Arlington redevelopment board proposes an end of a single family zoning. So, people would know what was possibly about to happen and could take action, but now what passes for a newspaper does not report for election does not report term meeting. No, if people even see the warrants that is buried in a bunch of advertising liars that probably go right into the researching. They are unlikely to read it or see what is being proposed. And real people do not check out the town's website every few minutes. People don't know what could happen in their neighborhoods. Such fundamental change should not happen without substantial buying by a majority of the population. The road calls from the town regarding snow and whatnot. But they didn't bother to inform anyone about the possible and a single family zoning. Arlington has started share and more to deal with the so called housing crisis. We are already the different densest town in the state. The 12 dances community we have less commercial and industrial tax base than just about any, any case. No other community in Massachusetts has taken such a dramatic step as abolishing single family zoning. If the comments made about Lexington, my daughter owns a house there and this will be used to her if you're considering anything remotely I'd like this, which is unlikely because one of the planners is very strongly pro affordable housing. If this is a contest for the worst ideas. It's one we do not want to win. I just wrote no on the article, which I do have a few more comments to make on. I would like to say that it will cause our entire time to become a great big unpleasant demolition construction site with developers and their dependent architects lawyers and politicians. We are making vast profits with by right development of huge four units and two family library homes, only for the wealthy, and in every residential district. The next home will be for maximum profits and not required to be energy efficient and zero not required to prevent them powering over a button is a blocking the sun from neighboring homes and solar panels with the large shadows, not required to provide any affordable not required to avoid clear cutting of trees, since for developers the funds are negligible compared to their profits, not required to address rising infrastructure costs costs of new schools. Not required to address increased parking demand, not required to address the loss of embodied energy and materials in the chair down. There is nothing about article 38 units that will benefit the trans people except those of our leaders who are members of Metropolitan Area Planning Council, or for density advocates for whom this side article would be a major policy victory. This is the most dense town in Massachusetts after studying nearby municipalities, the half a dozen or so of the surrounding communities were required to reach Arlington's density, there will be no shortage of available homes in our region. To Arlington's great benefit, Arlington would then cease to be the object of its leaders relentless drive to maximize density. They could instead focus on retweeting, retaining and increasing business commercial interests, and the benefits to the community regarding a violence of the surrounding and safeguards for the environment, which are the responsibility of the Arlington Big Development Board, and are spelled out in section 1.2 of the zoning fire of the town of Arlington. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Warden. Let's, let's take Ms. Dorton next. Ms. Dorton, are you able to unmute. Do we have a number perhaps that Ms. Dorton can dial into. We had this issue last week. It's posted in the public chat. Ms. Dorton, are you able to dial in to the zoom call. Yes, we can hear you. I'm so sorry. I will make this shorter. Ms. Dorton precinct 16, and I am happy to speak in favor of this article 38. Well, this article is not going to eliminate single family homes in Arlington. Now single family zoning controls over 75% of the town's residential zones. Given the history of exclusion and segregation behind the concept of zoning, it seems reasonable to allow in more two families homes that would be scattered throughout the town, rather than in one district. In Arlington, a recent piece from the Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies argues that eliminating single family zoning will enable a slow process of multifamily housing development, not large scale neighborhood change. The joint center has published multiple recent pieces for by right family zoning. I want to raise that because I have often heard that we're not providing enough data. This article that we're that is being proposed tonight is not to provide affordable housing. The Arlington Housing Trust Fund, I'm very excited to, to anticipate what they're going to do to provide affordable housing. The housing corporation of Arlington and we have the Arlington Housing Authority that can provide affordable housing, as Marvin Lewiton said earlier, affordable housing costs money to to subsidize and we don't yet have that money. But hopefully, this bill will provide homes for households that make less than $400,000 per year $400,000 is significant because that's about what it costs to buy a home that's coming on a single family home that's coming to market right now. I would like to lower that with this article and allow people who are making between 70, 150,000 and 200,000 to be able to buy a home in Arlington. With the general mortgage assumptions of 20% down 5% over 30 year mortgage and a monthly payment of 30% gross income, a $200,000 a year income could buy a home for a million dollars and $150,000 a year income could buy home for $750,000. That's the target and I agree with people these are these are these duplexes are not going to be cheap but that's the target range that I think they're likely to fall in for new homes that are energy efficient and and up to current sustainability standards. And what will this do is will allow these people to purchase a smaller home in Arlington and to buy a home here. It's a 21st century starter home that given its restricted size will remain a starter home for decades into the future. I hope that my fellow town meeting members will vote for it. Thank you. Let's take a couple of speakers. Next, who raised their hands earlier with questions. See if they still have questions I believe Ms Weber had her hand raised earlier I believe to ask questions. I didn't have a question I wanted to speak so I'll wait for my turn. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have your hand raised earlier to ask questions on article 38. Name and precinct please. Alan Tosti precinct 17 of my questions are really pretty straightforward. Mr moderator what is the vote required to pass article 38. The quantum of vote is a two thirds vote. Yeah, go ahead. It needs a two thirds vote to pass. I'll double check that I believe that's the case. Yes, two thirds vote correct. Okay, thank you very much. And just add a little bit of color to that the, like the majority vote on zoning by law changes applies to multifamily housing, which is three or more family housing. Which does not apply in this case because it would be turning them into two family homes or duplexes. So it remains at the default for zoning by law amendments which is a two thirds vote. We'll take one more person who had their hand raised I believe to ask questions. Ms. Pagliostati. We bring up Ms. Pagliostati if she had questions for article 38. Is she not in this. She wasn't the cube for there. Yeah. Name and precinct place. Jan Palisodi precinct date, can you hear me. Yes, I can go ahead. Did you have questions on this article that you wanted to ask. Yes. My question is, is there a way, is there any mechanism that this kind of issue of addressing equity around equity concerns around single family housing. Is there any way that it can be addressed at a more of a regional area, or does it have to be only the town of Arlington, because my concern is, you know, is there a way to avoid having Arlington be the target for developers. By passing this, the main motion. Yes, yes, is there a way to have more of a regional approach to addressing this rather than just the town of Arlington. Well, it's really outside the scope I think of this argument. The article is clearly scoped to what Arlington can do in this regard. Are you asking are there more effective means that would be regional, but it's not again, that's not really in the scope of this article. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll say I'll take, can we, since we didn't actually have a question really answered there, let's take another question. Can we enable raise hands for folks who have questions, folks who are already in the speaking queue, who have questions. I see. Ms. Callagher is, I think, closest to the top. Let's take Ms. Callagher next. Thank you, Mr. moderate. Yes, I can name and precinct please. Karen Callagher precinct five. I think some of my questions have been answered but but some haven't. And so I thank you for the opportunity to ask them. One of the prior speakers spoke about the specter of waking up to a 5500 square foot building next door and I just wanted to ask for clarification on that I think it was answered by a subsequent question but I think that article 38 wouldn't allow that but I wanted to ask if that was the case I think Mr. Rademacher answered that question. Mr. Rademacher, did you answer that question already. Not that one specifically but in his response about 80 years. They would be able to do 80 years and it was good. Can you clarify the question. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm glad to. I think that there's a limit of each unit to being 1850 square feet, which would add up to something like 1700 square feet, 2700 square feet total. I don't know how a 5500 square foot building is possible in light of Mr. Rademacher's answer on the 80s and I just wanted to confirm that that is in fact correct that that 5000 square foot building is not possible. Yeah, I think that might have been directed to Mr. Champa, Mr. Director of Inspectional Services. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Mike Champa, Director of Inspectional Services. Yeah, that's correct. They would not be able to build a 5500 square foot home using this regulation. They would be limited to the 3700 square feet. Thank you very much. I'm not sure who this should be directed at, but maybe it's Ms. Ray. Does 38 change the dimensional requirements on any lot in any zone in Arlington that allow a larger change any other sort of requirements about how big a building can build on a lot. Can you build like a, with Article 38, you're asking, can you build a larger kind of floor area or footprint home? Does it change any of those things at all? Ms. Ray? Jennifer Ray, Director of Planning and Community Development. No, this would not change any dimensional requirements or open space requirements or parking requirements or anything related to density requirements either. This would be exactly the same. The only thing being considered is a use change. Thank you. So it can't change the size of the building, how high it is, what the setbacks are, any of those things that might affect the massing on the site. It doesn't make a larger McMansion possible. In fact, a McMansion is still possible. There's just one more thing possible, which is that there could be two families in that building instead of one. Is that correct? That's my, Ms. Ray, is that a fair assessment? That is correct. And does it in any way relax any energy efficiency requirements, any green space requirements, any sustainability requirements that are already in place. Does this article change those in any way? For the, for the total building. If we enact article 38 for any lot in town, are we reducing our sustainability requirements that we otherwise impose? Will they still be there exactly the same way they were? Ms. Ray? Let's just not alter any of the other requirements of the zoning bylaw that are already in place, including some of the points that you mentioned about sustainability or if somebody wanted to create an energy efficient home. And it also does not alter the town bylaw requirements regarding tree preservation. So it all remains the same and would need to be compliant with such. I appreciate that. Thank you. And then, you know, we previously someone asked Ms. Sembury to speak to as a ARB member who voted against this article to speak to her reasoning and I wondered if we could ask if the ARB members who she suggested there was a fair amount of consensus among the committee about this direction, but some some members were comfortable moving forward at this point and I wonder if we could ask if the current zoning board ARB members who voted in favor of this might wish to speak to their yes votes. I don't know if we have those folks present. I'm not aware. I mean, I didn't ask for for members of the ARB other than obviously the chair Ms. Sembury to be present at the meeting. I'm not sure if they're available to speak. But perhaps Ms. Sembury, maybe you could speak to the rationale behind the three of the five members who voted in favor. Ms. Sembury, can you speak to to that? Yeah, yes, Rachel Sembury chair of the redevelopment board. There are two members of the redevelopment board who voted in favor of this article who are town meeting members here with us this evening, Steve Brevillek and Jean Benson. So if the moderator would allow them to speak, I'm sure that they would be happy to do so. So we have about a minute and 15 seconds left on Ms. Keller. Her's time. Can we bring up Mr. Brevillek? Thank you, Mr. Moderator Steve Brevillek, Arlington redevelopment board. I voted in favor of this mainly for two reasons. One, I think it is a good policy and based on what we have seen over the last few years in the home replacements we've studied over the last 10 years, I think it's fairly easy to reason. It's fairly straightforward to reason about the impacts. I believe this would be a fairly gradual change, as stated earlier, there are only about 27 demolitions per year. And the other part of the reason for voting yes is I felt that this issue has come before the ARB before and I thought it was time to give town meeting an opportunity to weigh in. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Keller. 10 seconds left. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I see the points made in the Q&A about the nature of these questions. Obviously the questions from the previous speaker do paint a particular picture in a particular direction. And so I will allow one more speaker against to kind of balance the airtime. And so next on my list, I have Mr. Wagner, who had raised his hand earlier to speak against Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Before starting my time, could you please bring up the short slide deck that I submitted to the town? Can we bring that up, please? Can we reset my time also to the point where the slide comes up? Thank you. I'm Carl Wagner, Precinct 15. I ask you to vote no on Article 38. The reason to vote no is that the article would make us more expensive than if we vote yes. They've we vote no, excuse me. Despite its stated goal, it would make us less diverse in our housing stock and in the people who can live here. And in drastic reduction of our open spaces, our climate resiliency and our trees, especially in the housing crisis, this is the wrong thing to do. Next slide, please. Thank you. A group of pro-density articles were proposed for town meeting in 2019, including proposals that would let balconies and roofs be called open green space. And after many members spoke against the density articles, the redevelopment board, the ARB, changed its vote to no action and pledged that the public should be better aware and more involved in major zoning and density changes. In 2020, at the special town meeting, the proponents of an article very similar to Article 38, which included Mr. Revelak, pledged that their goal was to improve affordability, diversity, and our environment. But they were unable to demonstrate this. As a result, the ARB did not support the article at that time. Now in 2022, the ARB supported the motion for a stated goal of housing choice. But this housing choice is a misleading title, as it would actually remove housing choice from many of us. It would remove lower priced homes while adding only much higher priced units. And it would eliminate choice for lower income renters and buyers. Next slide, please. Arlington today has some of the most inclusive zoning laws in the entire state. Our lot sizes are small, we're walkable and close to good transit, and we have a wide mix of multi-family, two-family, and single-family homes. Single-family zoned homes, I don't know where the 70% number came from, we've checked it, are just 39% of our town. Arlington is actually cheaper to live in or rent in than all the communities that border us, except one, Medford. One of the great things about us is this mix, housing diversity that supports different types of renters and owners. For example, when I moved here, we lived in the two-family zoning, and then 10 years later, we were able to stay in the town by moving to a single-family zone. Our daughter could stay in the school system. My wife and I could continue to have the great transit and walkability that our town offers. Next slide, please. If Article 38 goes through, many of these inclusive good things that I just described would quickly disappear in Arlington via acceleration of tear downs and acceleration of housing cost increases. This is a table of all the recent sales of single-family homes that then turned into two families in Arlington with some recent two-family condo sales from the R2 districts also shown. The numbers are small, I'm sorry, but the start takeaway here is that in every case, when a single family is torn down in Arlington, the price of the two new units that replace it each individually exceed the home demolished and usually by a law. Article 38 passes the affordability of our town will not just be heard because the new condos cost so much more than the single units. In addition, the property taxes in the immediate area of the new condos usually go up, which puts stress on people in fixed incomes like the elderly, and it pushes displacement of our neighbors. And there's the fact that the least expensive houses are the very ones bought up by the developers to be turned into the new condos, so it would remove the least expensive units while adding high-priced units. Also, the additional density threatens to cause increased costs of services like our schools, roads and our infrastructure, and these will need to be expanded or rebuilt to help the higher load of people, traffic, students. The quality of these services could also suffer even as we'd be paying more for them. Next slide please. Here is a typical before and after photo. The new units will typically max out at the size of the structures that are allowed with awkward compromises as you can see on parking and also permeable green open space and trees loss. Although we do have a tree law to protect us against the loss of trees, it really requires the developer to just pay a fine to the town. Even if it's a fine like the $23,000 at a recent Lancaster Road teardown, the developer will just pay it and remove the trees. The law is a cost simply. The tree canopy and open space will disappear. Think about the waste of teardowns. Town meeting has seen a lot of good proposals to try to prevent them, but this one goes the other way to encourage teardowns. Research has shown that it's better to renovate and to insulate our classic and older structures rather than to tear them down, losing all that embodied energy as wasteful rubbish. Next slide please. I'll try to be quicker. Here's another Arlington image of what can happen. Next slide please. We're in a housing crisis, meaning housing costs are going up. As the chart demonstrated earlier, if Article 38 passes, there would be dramatic price increases in 39% of our town. This is absolutely the wrong response to the housing crisis now. Instead, if the rest of the town manager 12 towns that we compare ourselves to added new housing to come up to near our current level of density, the Metro Boston housing shortage would actually be solved. The housing choice promoted by the article is really for higher home prices than what we have now, and it would remove the choice of middle and lower priced homes and for those buyers and renters. Even though a stated goal is more housing diversity in Article 38, it would actually reduce housing choice for the middle set of owners and renters, and it would go further to exclude most lower income residents. The effect is reduced diversity. There's another problem. FY we are at the six minute market one minute. Thank you very much almost done. There's another fairness problem. Thousands of Arlington residents made the decision to live where they are now of residents who did actually find out about this article and contacted me nearly every voice every email says do not support article 38 do not support the amendments. This goes against that 2019 pledge made by the ARB to better involve the public and to get their support on major major zoning changes. And there are a lot of amendments. I ask you to vote no on all the amendments to article 38 because they will still promote two family units in the single family zones, and they would still cause the core problems of making us more expensive, less diverse, and and hurting our open spaces with any amendments the article will still unfairly article altered the zoning for thousands of people. Even with the living space limitation amendments, there could be two family structures with ad us enormous on our standard 6000 foot lots with cars somehow cited legally or else for four units. Please don't know an article 38 and the amendments that come with it to end single family zoning. It'll worsen our town. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Wagner. So we've now had at least five speakers each for questions for speaking in favor and speaking against. I do at this point want to do a straw poll for whether there's interest in terminating debate so let's enable hand raised raised hands and zoom. And if you are interested, again, this is a straw poll. If you're interested in terminating debate, please raise your hand. I've identified the 200 and let's say make sure I write the nominator 231 members in attendance. We reached the 75% threshold that I had set earlier in the 15 minute rule which has been kind of lengthened here to allow significantly more debate. So we're having 73 or actually 174 raised hands to to trigger selection of someone who wishes to terminate debate. Next. And while we're waiting there we do have a couple of points of order let's take, I think, you know, these are new. Let's take Ms Weaver first has a point of order. I'm using 21. I moved to to dissolve the meeting tonight. I'm not going to take any motions from a point of order, which I did at that one meeting but not going to not going to make that same mistake again. Thank you. Let's take Ms Babi ours next point of order. Yes, Mr moderator is just a question were we to vote on on a collective bargaining agreement at this meeting. We were and I checked in with Mr Foskett and it's okay if we just kind of push that to Monday's meeting instead. Thank you. We can make as much progress as possible on article 38 tonight. And okay so looking at what we have as far as raised hands. We have 128 raised hands out of 231 members which comes out at about 55%. Again this is a straw poll it's not exact and folks might be having trouble finding raise hands in zoom. You know, so it's not an official count, but it's to get a temperature check so just a signal to town meeting members that 55%. Actually it's up to 132 now. 57% of town meeting members have affirmatively raised their hands to indicate interest in terminating debate. And so that's not good. So that's not going to trigger me to select someone out of order just to terminate debate but if someone is inclined to do that from the speaking to as we go through in the natural order than that they're free to do so. Let's see if the points of order have been cleared. So we are now at 1055 so let's take another speaker from the queue and so we'll take Mr Blandi next who's in the number one position. Thank you Mr moderator, can you hear me. Yes, I can go ahead please. Okay Charles Blandi precinct six. I moved the question and all matters before it. Do we have a motion to terminate debate do we have any seconds we have a second from Mr Hamlin. So let's bring up a vote on terminating debate on article 38 and all matters before it. Okay, so we're opening voting on whether to terminate debate on article 38 and the two amendments before it. If you're in favor of terminating debate vote yes. If you want to continue debate vote no. And while folks are voting I'll enter there was a question in the Q amp a why would we. It's very logical rational question why would we have a threshold of 75% for ultimately for a motion that only requires two thirds as termination of debate requires only two thirds vote. And so this is basically the original 15 minute rule that I had introduced, and allowing some latitude tonight because there was a lot of interest in hearing a diversity of speakers, and as far as the 75% threshold that was chosen. Because I don't want to exercise too heavy a hand in terminating debate, or to pressure folks into terminating debate if that's not what the meeting wants to do. So, yeah, I could have said it lower but you know this is a first step to try this out to see how it works in practice. And this may be adjusted in the future. Okay so we have over 200 votes in vote yes if you want to terminate debate vote no if you want to continue debate. 208 votes in. Only about 16 both active voters in the portal who have not voted yet so let's just give another 15 seconds until we close voting on termination of debate of article 38 and all matters before it. 10 seconds until we close voting, five seconds, get your votes in. And let's close voting on termination of debate. And motion passes with 76%, 165 affirmative 51 and negative. So let's go ahead, we are getting close to 11 o'clock but let's try to get these votes in. Before we adjourn to be nice to be able to complete this article in one evening. So we're going to take the Newton amendment first. And so we'll enable voting, and let's bring up the text of that after voting opens. Okay, so if you are in favor of Mr Newton's amendment which you can see listed here with the added text underlined vote yes, if, and voting yes would amend the main termination with these changes. If you're against the Newton amendment that you're seeing here then you can vote no. And this is basically adding the like, effectively adding the phrase like for for three years following the date of the initial sort of certificate of occupancy occupancy for such dwelling and adding that text for both of the footnotes. So if you want to add that, that extra language about three years following the date of the initial certificate of occupancy vote yes, if you want to leave that out, but no, we're just over 200 votes cast now. And all the amendments are always a majority vote, even though in this case the main motion is a two thirds vote. The majority votes and so it's just another 30 seconds. Before we close voting 20 seconds, 10 seconds until we close voting on the Newton amendment. Five seconds. Okay, let's close voting. Remember this is a majority vote, and the Newton amendment fails. 101 and the affirmative 116 in the negative. We'll wait for these, the voting screens. And then next we'll vote on the baby ours amendment. Procedurally, Newton amendment failing makes it simpler to deal with the baby ours amendment because otherwise, there would be a conflict that we'd have to resolve. Just wait for the voting screens here and then we'll take up the vote on the baby ours amendment immediately afterward. Okay, let's let's open voting now on the baby ours amendment. Okay, so voting is opening by waves. So please bring up the text of the baby ours amendment so we can see what we're voting on. They don't already have it open and the this is all available in the annotated warrant but just to have it on one place. And can we scroll down so we can see the changing context. All right, so it's adding the two family and duplex dwelling uses with D restrictions shall be allowed as of December 1 2023. So it's basically pushing back the effective date of when two family dwellings and duplex dwellings are allowed in R0 and R1. So they will not be allowed before December 2023. So if you're in favor of making this change to push back the effective date of the change in definition of R0 and R1 to allow to family and duplex or duplex dwellings vote yes for this amendment. If you're not in favor of pushing that back to December 2023 vote no. And again this is just the amendment to the main motion. And this is a majority vote to change the main motion. 213 votes in 216. Okay, we have only about 12 active members who in the portal who haven't voted yet so let's just give, we'll give 30 seconds, 20 seconds until we close voting on the baby ours amendment. 10 seconds until we close voting. Five seconds. Okay, let's close voting on the baby ours amendment. This is a majority vote to amend the main motion. And the motion fails. 29 the affirmative 194 and the negative. Okay, let's open up voting screens to cycle through. And then after that we will take up vote on the main motion of article 38 unamended. Okay, let's open up voting now on the main motion for article 38. And this is a two thirds vote voting should be opening depending on which, which wave you're in using a message about your connection will be retried after short delay just sit tight. So we're opening up for everyone. Okay, so now voting on the main motion of article 38. While we're waiting for the votes to come in, can we spring up the text of the vote language for article for the main motion says changes the definitions of the R zero and R one districts to no longer be limited to single family. Allowing for two family and duplex dwellings and changing some footnotes to that same effect. So if you're in favor of allowing two family dwellings or duplex dwellings in the R zero and R one districts, you can vote yes. If you're opposed to that change in the zoning bylaw, you can vote no. We have 218 votes in about 13 members who have been recently active in the portals to wait for so let's just give another 30 seconds to get those votes in 20 seconds until we close voting. 15 seconds, 10 seconds. We do have votes coming in by phone so I will wait a little bit longer to make sure we can get those those in flight votes to actually land. Okay, so there's Brazil I'm just waiting for the signal that you're done taking votes that are that were in flight. We have some votes or folks asking for confirmation of votes in the Q&A so let's just make sure we have those. Okay, let me just give another 10 seconds. And then we'll close voting. It looks like everything that was in flight has gotten gotten through five seconds and then we're going to close voting. Okay, let's close voting on article 38 main motion. And this is a two thirds vote and the motion fails 49.8% of the vote. It's short of a two thirds threshold so it fails we'll wait for the screen the voting screens to cycle through all the precincts 112 and the affirmative 113 in the negative. So the main motion for article 38 fails. And as well we're waiting for so that that closes article 38, but just wait for the screens to go by while we're waiting for the screens. Before I recognize a motion to adjourn, let's enable raise hands and zoom one more time. And please raise your hand and zoom if you have any notices of reconsideration for any of the votes that we took tonight. If this requires that you voted on the prevailing side and wish to reserve the right to reconsider a vote at a later time before the annual town meeting is eventually dissolved. So if you'd like to give notice of reconsideration now is your chance. So we have raised hands from it disappeared. So, Mr. Warden's hand and it disappeared. So I get folks. Okay, Mr. Warden, bring up Mr. Warden, so he can give his notice of reconsideration. Mr. Warden, are you able to unmute. Yes. I can hear you. Yeah. Mr. moderator, John Gordon precinct eight, having voted on the prevailing side. I give the notice of reconsideration on which on article 38 article 38. Great. Thank you. Any other notices of reconsideration for tonight. The moderator. Yes, Mr. Fosca. I move we adjourn. Okay, do we have a motion from Mr. Fosca to adjourn do we have a second. The second from Miss, Miss Brazil let's keep raised hands enabled and zoom any objections to adjourning. Now at 1112pm. If you have objections to adjourning and you want to just keep doing this all night you can raise your hands. Seeing none I declare that a unanimous vote and we are adjourned until until Monday. See everyone. Good night. Have a good night everybody.