 So, welcome to the fifth night, fourth night, one, two, three, one, two, five. Night of a special town meeting. Tonight might be our last evening tonight. There were a few more marks. So following the town meeting, if this is our last one during the early part of the new year, we're going to be sending out a survey and seek everybody's input about what they thought of this. And if they have, we're going to have an open response portion. So anyone has any questions or thoughts or feedback, you could give it to us at that point. We wanted to wait and do it in a survey fashion. So we had all the responses consolidated into one neat little area and make it easy for the team and I to go through and improve it for next spring. Because frankly, we're going to be here next spring, everyone. So get used to the idea and we're going to improve it as and keep improving it as we have over the last five nights, as you can see, the latest is the new vote button that Adam showed you the display for that he made up little slide. So underneath the launch zoom and participate area of the voting portal is a view votes, votes button. When you click that you can hit details and that's going to tell you how everyone is voted on the articles that we've already voted on tonight. That's a static page. It can't be manipulated or changed. That was one of our concerns that once we finished voting, everything's locked down and Mr. Pato was able to do that for us. That came as a request of one of the town meeting members. So we listen to you guys with doing what we can to improve this as best we can within everybody's ability. And one more thing on the phone votes, whoever phones in their votes to Ms. Brazil, just keep it brief and simple. Just tell her name, precinct, vote yes or no. She doesn't need the reason why you're phoning in the vote because if that can just, if you're telling her, oh, I'm phoning in the vote, it just slows it down and someone else may not get to phone the vote in. So just give Julie name, precinct, and vote yes, no, abstain, whatever. And then she'll get it right over to Ms. Solis who will put it in for you. Okay, I think that's all my little notes. So I recognize the chair of the Board of Selectment, Mr. John Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. It is moved that if in the unlikely event all the business of the meeting as set forth in the warrant for the special time meeting is not disposed of at this session, when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Monday, December 7th at 8 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Hurd. Second. Okay, Mr. Hurd's made a motion. It's been seconded. I ask the clerk to put one vote in favor of that motion. I'm going to call for any reports of any committees. Mr. Slotnick. Yes, Mr. Moderator. Larry Slotnick, precinct seven. I'm co-chair of Zero Waste Arlington. And I'd like to submit our report for a 2019-2020 fiscal year. Okay, I think that's been handed in. I believe it's been circulated through the TMM's email service list and it's on the Novus agenda warrant on the town meeting home page. Mr. Moderator, I move that Article 1 reports of committees be removed from the table. Thank you very much. Oh, before we do that, Charlie, Mr. Slotnick, did you want to tell us anything about your report or just submit it? Just submit it. And I hope that town meeting members take the opportunity to read through it. Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Mr. Foskets made a motion to move Article 1 on to the table. From the table. From the table. Okay. Second. Okay, it's been motioned to take it from the table. It's been seconded. Director Clerk to enter one vote in favor of that. Let's we received Mr. Slotnick's report and that brings it back to you. Any other reports? I don't believe so. It brings it back to you, Mr. Foskets. Mr. Moderator, I move that the recommended votes contained in respect. I'm sorry, I moved that Article 1 be placed back on the table and that the recommended votes contained in the respective boards of the Finance Committee select board redevelopment board and other committees before the meeting be before the meeting without further motion. Second. Very good. Thank you both. I've directed the clerk to enter one vote in favor of that motion. And Article 1 is on the table. That brings us back to Article 17. Mr. Korowski, it's going to bring Article 17 up for us. Mr. Moderator, may I close the attendance book? Yes. Oh, let me just get what it is, please. Thank you. We have 234 attending. I just want to make one comment. Every night of this special town meeting, we've had more town meeting members in attendance and participating than I can remember in any of my town meetings in the last, since 1994, when I first joined town meeting. We've had great attendance all throughout this special town meeting. Thank you. We're up to 235 now. All right. And we have three not voting yet. So we're going to round it up to 238 tonight. And it's like Ms. Lane Crowder has a point of order already. Ms. Crowder, what's your point of order? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Elaine Crowder, Precinct 19. This is a holdover from the one day. At the end of the meeting, there was something called a question or request for motion to reconsider. Yes. There are many new town meeting members. I'm among them. And I'm unaware of what that means. OK. A notice of reconsideration. It's actually described in our bylaws, Article 1, Section 1, Number 10 or 12, I believe. If anything that we voted on that night, town meeting member, if they voted on the prevailing side, so if it's a yes vote and you were on the yes vote side, you can make a motion to notice a reconsideration, meaning you think there are new facts or information out there that would sway the town meeting members to change their vote. And it has to be brought up at another meeting. We would make a motion to reconsider. We would have to ask you what your new information is. I would determine if that's actually new information or if you are just continuing the debate. If I thought it was new information that was relevant to the article, we would have a vote to reconsider. And that would reopen that article. And we would start the debate all over again. OK, thank you for that explanation. Yes, thank you. Is Pete and Jane Howard having trouble voting? They've been on, but they haven't been able to vote yet. Dennis and Andrew. Would you like me to unmute Jane? Yeah. Hi, Jane. Yes. You guys having trouble voting? I noticed you haven't been able to attendance vote yet. That's right. Do you want Andrew or Dennis to give you a call to help you out? Oh, wait, wait, wait. We can't get the vote. You sit. Yeah, Dennis is going to give you a call, Pete and Jane. Thank you. All right, so let's close the voting window. Should we verbal vote them in, Mr. Moderator? Yeah, we can verbal vote them here as attending. And Ed Trembly, go ahead and quickly vote before we close the window. That'll give us 240. Mr. Moderator, those two verbal votes have been entered. OK, I think we're all set. We can close the voting window. And we've had Ms. Crowder's point of order. And just to confirm, Mr. Moderator, we're restoring Article 17. Yes, sir. So the list has come back from the other day. I'm going to call Michael Byrne. Good evening, Mr. Moderator. Good evening, Mr. Byrne. Michael Byrne, Director of Inspectional Services and town meeting member for previously 13. I speak tonight to clarify some of the remarks made on Monday night. And from what I understand, an email sent to many of you this morning regarding Inspectional Services' lack of enforcement of the town's good neighborhood, which appears mostly to be based on the 2019 survey. As a history, the agreement came into effect in the spring of 2017 and remains in effect today. Since Monday's meeting out of Parliament has reviewed all applicable permits for the years 2018 and 2019, and I'm pleased to report that each applicable permit has to require a good neighborhood meeting submitted whether it was part of the demolition permit or building permit for any individual project. If I may, I'd like to make three quick points. One, is that the good neighborhood agreement is simply a notice to push up to others within 200 feet, letting you know that a project will be commencing and with the responsible parties' contact information, site plan, and assigned affidavit that they are in compliance. Two, I'd like to reassure town meeting that Inspectional Services does indeed enforce the good neighborhood and with many other laws and regulations, as we've already stated since Monday's meeting, the department has reviewed every project in the two previous four years that require a good neighborhood meeting, and I'm pleased to say we found all the being compliance. Three, I disagree that it isn't simply a cross-reference to the town by-law. Builders know this regulation, we know this regulation, and to my knowledge, most residents know this regulation. The only point I can see is it gives an easy way to stop a project and place undue pressure on us to do exactly that. I'll make it for instance. Let's say that someone asserts they didn't receive a good neighborhood agreement and the abutters that submitted has their name as it being sent. The abutter would then appeal the decision to the zoning board of appeals, and depending on their decision, it would then be appealed to court. All the while, an inactive construction site sits in that neighborhood. I realize that many spec builders have seen it as unwanted and everyone can have their opinion, but this added enforcement will also apply to the homeowner. That family who saved up are taken a second mortgage, lined up a contractor, and in many cases have put through the zoning court process. That's more than a simple cross-reference to an already understood in a forced by-law. We have not had issues with this by-law. One of the roles in spectral services is to enforce town-meaning pass regulations, whether in the zoning by-law or the town by-law. So for us, we will enforce whatever is passed as we always do, but I do believe having the same language in two by-laws will cause some confusion and obviously unneeded duplicity for by-law that by our count is working as this party's order. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. I call Mr. Mark McCabe. Oh, wait, Mr. Trembly has a point of order. Let's take Mr. Trembly's point of order. Thank you, Mr. Moderator and Trembly, prison 19. I was trying very hard to hear what Mr. Byrne had to say, and he sounded like he was in a tunnel. Yeah, it's a little garbly. Or if it's everybody. No, I was having a little issue with his microphone as well. Could we give him a chance to say what he had to say? Cause I didn't get all of it. I really wanted to hear what he had to say. If he can improve his microphone somehow. Anyways, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. Is this any better, Mr. Moderator? A little better, yeah. I'm sorry, I thought this is the only microphone I have. But let me try again. Michael Byrne. Well, if you could give us the gist of it. Well, it's really the whole thing in totality, but we're really just saying that in the town bylaw, that this bylaw is working fine. We've done the research for two solid years for every good neighbor agreement, and we do have an opposition. So the bylaw is 100% in enforce, is what I'm saying. It's working fine in the town bylaw, and I don't see a reason for it in the zoning bylaw, except for that it would make it easier for someone to potentially stop someone's project. And we do understand that many people see spec builders as unwanted, and everyone can have their opinion, but this added enforcement would also apply to the homeowner. I don't know if that's been thought out. That family who saved up would take it a second mortgage, find up a contractor. In many cases it's been through the zoning bylaw process. That's more than a simple cross reference that was already understood and enforced bylaw. We have not had issues with this bylaw. And then if I said as to one of the roles in the special services to enforce town meeting pass regulations, whether in the zoning bylaw or the town bylaw, so for us we will enforce whatever's passed as we always do, but I do believe having the same language and two bylaws will cause some confusion and obviously unneeded duplicity for bylaw that by our account is working as was loaded by this party. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope we'll be able to get that. Okay, Mr. Deist's point of order, please. Don, I would hope that you could remind people that when they're not speaking loudly enough, the microphones and many computers are not very good. So people have to speak loudly right into their computer. So when you can't hear them well, we can either. So I would suggest to you that you tell them right away that we can't hear them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deist. And Ms. Laurie Leahy, what's your point of order? Hi, Laurie Leahy, precinct 21. I am wondering if you can explain to us how people that are waiting to speak are called upon. What is the order? It's- You see, yeah, I've explained this- I said my first name, but- Yeah, let me go. I've explained this a number of times. You guys see, by alphabetical, by first name, that's how the system generates what you see. The enabling legislation requires us to show you who is on the speaker's list. I have a different list. My list shows me when people log on. That doesn't always mean that I'm gonna follow that list. Just like in town meeting in the hall, people raise their hands and we'd have to look around the room and see people's hands go up at different times. And it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has anything better to say than anybody else. So I get to choose as the moderator who gets to speak next. The list is that total prerogative of the moderator. Sometimes moderators make people raise their hands after every speaker and just pick and choose. We have, for a number of years, used a list that is moderator chooses from that list who he or she would think would be the next speaker. So your list is different from my list and then my list. I kind of go with who raised their hand first, but just because someone's better and quicker at the click button, doesn't mean they necessarily should get to speak against someone who may, I believe, has someone relevant to add to the discussion, such as Mr. Byrne, the building inspector, his points were, I thought, relevant to the discussion. That's why he got chosen. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. So now I'm gonna call Mr. McCabe, Mark McCabe. You can unmute yourself, Mr. McCabe. Mark McCabe, precinct two. I stand to terminate debate on article 17 and all articles before. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. Yes. Second. We have a motion to terminate debate. It's been seconded, it's not debatable. We'll bring up the voting for termination of debate. Okay, to terminate the debate is now, excuse me, the motion to terminate debate is now open. Time meeting members, please navigate over to the voting portal. Precincts one, two, eight first. Then precincts nine to 14, eight to 14. And now 15 to 21. Refresh your page if you have to. Click one to yes to terminate debate, two no to continue the debate and then cast your vote. If you're having trouble voting, please use the raise hand feature on the Zoom. Or if you're phoning in your vote, please call Ms. Brazil at 781-316-3071. 781-316-3071. We have 219 people have voted. We have 22 have not voted yet. Those last 22 would go ahead and vote. Mr. Moderator, a couple of people have their hands raised. Okay, one little thingy. Let's take Deborah Butler first, Ms. Butler. I'm just calling Julie for some reason. It's not letting me switch back over to the voting screen. So I'm gonna give her my vote. I'm in favor of ending debate. Okay, voting is. I can't switch over. Would you like someone to call you, Deborah? I'm in favor of precinct 19. Okay. Yeah, and I'm just, I'm voting in favor of terminating debate. Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Solis, did you get that? Sorry. Yep. Yes, it's all set. Okay, and Ms. Radosha. I'm having the same problem as Ms. Butler. I don't see the screen. And it's the first time this has happened to me. Okay, I will have someone give you a call. Okay. Do we want to record your vote? Well, my vote is yes, terminate debate. Thank you. Ms. Solis will enter that for you. And Beth Milovchuk has a hand up. Beth Milovchuk, precinct nine. Mr. Moderator, why are we taking votes over the public line? Because they called to report in a problem. And instead of calling Ms. Brazil, they chose to do that. We have been informing people, asking them to call to not do that, but they wanted to record their vote before they got off and got on with IT, which is also a phone call. So I think on the terminate debate, we thought it was a better idea to take their vote on that and get them back up live for the actual real vote. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Milovchuk. I do have a reason for what I do. Okay. We have six people who have not voted, or six people who have not voted yet. Ms. Border, Mr. Hamlin, Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Collins, Ms. Band, and Mr. Marshall. Those eight people can go ahead and vote. I'm gonna give you 15 seconds to vote before we close it down, five seconds. Before we close it, let's find out what Mr. Ruderman's issue is. Mr. Ruderman, you have your hand up. You have a voting issue. Sorry, Mr. Moderator, that was an error. Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, let's put the raised hand feature down. Let's close voting. The motion passes by 72%. It is a two-thirds vote. I so declare it. We have 167 in the affirmative, 65 in the negative. Debate is terminated. Okay, one of the tech teams check the chat. As soon as they run through the screens, we'll get to the vote. We'll get to the actual voting on the articles. All right, so we have here, first we're gonna vote on Mr. Ruderman's substitute motion in which he seeks to amend the zoning by-law, a certain section by amending at the section to such permits shall be issued until the building inspector finds the applicant is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Title VII, Article VII of the town by-law. So Mr. Ruderman wants to put in his cross-reference. We're gonna display that up in the screen for everyone to see before we start the vote on that. So you can see what Mr. Ruderman wishes to do with his substitute motion. Okay, let's open the voting window, Mr. Kralski. Okay, so voting is active. Precincts one through seven. Please jump over to the voting portal. Eight through 15, 15 through 21. Mr. Cristiana has a point of order. Hi, Mr. Moderator, Greg Cristiana, a precinct 15. I hope this qualifies as a point of order. I have a question perhaps for the town council of what the procedure would be if the language in the future needed to be changed and it appears in two places. That's not really point of order, but I'll answer for you. We would have to amend the town by-laws. You'd have to go back and do the same thing in amend them, but that's not a point of order. That's- Apologies, thank you. Yep, thank you. So if you're having a voting issue, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or call Ms. Brazil, 781-316-3071. And let's have Mr. Ford's point of order, Mr. Ford. I'm just wondering if this is a two-third of a majority vote. The motion to substitute is a majority vote, but the main motion is a two-thirds vote. Thank you. Thank you. That was a legit point of order, Mr. Ford. Very good. Okay, we have 24 town meeting members who have not yet voted. If any of this tech staff is with any of them, please let Gabriella know what their vote is so she can enter it for them. 12 people left to vote on Mr. Ruderman's substitute motion. Okay, all our verbal votes have been entered. Let's give those last eight people 15 seconds. Mr. Moderator, Carol Band has her hand raised. Oh, okay. Ms. Band, what's your point of order? Or excuse me, you have any trouble voting Ms. Band? I think she is. Hi, Carol, why don't you unmute yourself and let us know what's going on. I'm unmuted and I vote in favor. Okay, Carol, hello, Carol. Yes. Do you want one of the tech staff to call to help you through the issue? I think I'm on the phone with them now. Okay, very good. You could have just told them. Well, I did, but then you said you couldn't hear me. Oh, no, no, you could have told whoever the tech staff you're on the phone with and they'll relay it over to us off the public airwaves. Okay, great, thank you. So if anyone's on a tech call fixing and voting as you let the tech staff you're dealing with know what the issue is and they'll chat it to us and we'll enter it for you. All right, so Mr. Boyle, Ms. Murray, Mr. Slotnick, Adam McNeil, you still haven't voted. We're gonna give you 15 seconds and we're gonna close voting on Mr. Ruderman's substitute. Okay, okay, that's 15 seconds. And we are up to 246 town meeting members at this point. And close voting Adam. Okay, the motion prevails by 64%, 151 in the affirmative, 84 in the negative. So Mr. Ruderman's motion does substitute for the recommended vote of the redevelopment board. Once you run through the screen, we'll come up with the vote of the redevelopment board as substituted by Mr. Ruderman's motion. So Mr. Ruderman's motion becomes the main motion and we now have to vote whether or not we want to make that a zoning bylaw and that is by a two thirds vote. We've now enabled voting on the main motion, which is now Mr. Ruderman's motion to amend the bylaws to add that certain section in under certain sections for the cross-reference to the town bylaws. If you're in favor of this substitute or recommended vote, please vote one for yes, then vote two if you're not in favor then click cast your vote. You should have all been able to navigate over to the voting portal. If you're having an issue, please use the raise hand feature on the Zoom. If you're calling in, please call Ms. Brazil, 781-316-3071. Okay, we have 18 members who have not yet voted. If you can go ahead and navigate over, refresh if you need to, one for yes, two for no. Mr. Helmuth, Ms. Gromley, Ms. Leary, Samet, I'm not sure if that's a male or a female, and Mona Mandel, Samet Chabra, and Mona Mandel, Kate Leary. Those four people, I'm going to give you 15 seconds. Time's up. We're going to close voting. Passes has substituted motion carries by 69%. It is a two thirds vote. 164 in the affirmative, 75 in the negative. It's a vote and I saw the clear at 10, article 17. Okay, now, articles 18 and 19, both have recommended votes of no action. We have no substitute motions submitted for either of them. So I'd like to propose that we vote both of them at once. If any town meeting members are opposed to voting both of these no actions, which at the same time, please use the raised hand feature in Zoom. And then if that's the case, we'll vote them individually, but they're both no action votes. So all we are really doing is disposing of them. So I'm going to give anyone who wants to put us through that exercise, about 10 seconds to go ahead and do that, otherwise we're going to take votes on 18 and 19 in conjunction. Mr. Yontar has a point of order. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Timorkai Yontar, precinct seven. Could you kindly clarify what the meaning of a no vote on a recommended vote of no action would mean, if anything? Means nothing. A no action, we have to dispose of every single article in order to dissolve the meeting. If the meeting should vote no on no action, we would have to stay in business and keep voting on it until such time as no action prevailed, then we could dissolve the meeting. So we just have to get a majority vote on no action in order to clear the deck so we can move on to the next article. We have to dispose of every single article to move on. So one can vote no action if they want, but the drawback is that we have to just keep voting it until it wins. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. So it looks like nobody wants to vote them individually. So we're going to take one vote right now on 18 and 19 of no action on both of those. And anticipation of that, Mr. Korolski has set up a dual vote for us. So go ahead and vote, oh, wait a second. Don't go yet, I'm getting ahead of myself. All right, so one through eight, jump on over to the voting portal, nine to 15, jump on over and 16 to 21, go ahead and vote one, yes for no action or two, no for no, no, no, no action. And then click cast your vote. If you're having a voting issue, please call Ms. Brazil 7813163071 or use the raise hand feature and get our attention. Okay, we have 11 folks who have not voted yet. If you're having an issue voting, please use the raise hand feature. Mr. Helmuth, Ms. Malakodoum, Ms. Kaneth, Ms. Haas, Ms. Newberg, Ms. Giddelson, Mr. Marshall. Ms. Bethanne Friedman has a point of order. Ms. Friedman, what's your point of order? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Bethanne Friedman, please 15. Typically zoning by-laws need to be approved by two-thirds margin. Yes. If both for no action, does this still need to be? No, we're not approving anything with just basically the proponents of 18 and 19 did not want to move forward with them. So in order to get rid of them, we have to vote no action, which basically says we're not gonna do anything with these. So do you need a majority or two-thirds vote in that case? Majority. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, everybody has voted. And let's close the voting window. 99% nice. We have a 99% on no action for 18 and 19, 233 in the affirmative, seven, three no's and seven abstentions. Okay, once we run through the screens, we're gonna move on to article 20. There were votes on 18 and 19, and I so declare it. That closes those two articles, moves us to article 20. And do point of order for Ms. Friedman, or we just not clear that out? I think that was the same point of order. I agree. Yeah. Okay, we have a force article 20, zoning by law amendment, parking reduction in the B3 and B5 districts. We have before you the recommended vote of the ARB as printed in their report. As either Ms. Raider, Ms. Zemberi wanna speak to it. Oh, we have the video, cool. Are you ready for the video, Mr. Moderator, or should we wait for a second? Okay, Rachel wanna speak to it first? Yes, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Rachel Zemberi, chair of the redevelopment board. I'll just introduce proposed article 20, zoning by law amendment related to parking reductions in the B3 and B5 districts. This was voted to recommend action five to zero by the redevelopment board, and we will play the video which will explain this in greater detail. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Zemberi. Hello, I'm Rachel Zemberi, chair of the Arlington Health... Hold on, Adam, pause it. Rachel, turn your speaker off. Here we go. Go ahead, Adam, start again. Hello, I'm Rachel Zemberi, chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB, and I will be taking you through Warren Article 20 for the 2020 special town meeting. Article 20 is a zoning by law amendment submitted by the ARB to address alternatives to existing parking requirements in the B3 and B5 districts, which cover building blocks in East Arlington, Arlington Center and Arlington Heights, Arlington's primary business districts. The intent of the article is to encourage business development by removing unnecessary barriers that exist within the zoning bylaws. The zoning by law currently allows the ARB and the zoning board of appeals, also known as the ZBA, to evaluate and make a determination through their respective special permit processes to allow for parking reductions in business, industrial and multi-family zoning districts. This amendment would provide the ARB or ZBA with a new option to reduce parking requirements to as low as zero, only in the B3 and B5 districts where the businesses do not have the ability to create new parking. The encouragement of business development in our main business districts aligns with the town's master plan, which was adopted in 2015, the Arlington Heights neighborhood action plan, and policies being discussed in the development of Connect Arlington, the town's Sustainable Transportation Plan. The main points of this article, as indicated on these slides include, to address the challenge that many businesses face in creating new parking on existing lots when parking is either unnecessary, infeasible, or available through other options by providing special permit granting authorities with the ability to reduce the requirement to provide parking to as low as zero. Multimodal transportation options are available in these districts. To allow for the ability to reduce parking requirements for business districts as low as zero in these two districts, this would be provided as an additional option available to the ARB and ZBA where specifically appropriate, not as a default. And to proactively address an issue that can hinder business growth and expansion, the amendment is limited to business uses. As background, the B3 and B5 zoning districts make up three major business districts, Capital Square in East Arlington, Arlington Heights, and Arlington Center. There are 109 properties located in these zoning districts. The maps shown here identify the location of the parcels in the B3 and B5 zoning districts. There are no properties zoned B3 or B5 outside of these areas. By definition in the zoning bylaws, the B3 and B5 districts' activities are oriented towards pedestrian traffic and in the case of B5 centralized parking. It's important to note the relatively small scale of these parcels with coverage of the lot at or near 100% in many cases. Additionally, most of these properties are listed as architecturally significant structures on the local historic property inventory and in Arlington Center are also part of an historic district. In these two zoning districts, it is often impractical, infeasible, and unnecessary to create parking in a business. In the current zoning bylaws, section 6.1.5 allows parking reductions with consideration of shared parking, offsite parking, and transportation demand management or TDN measures. These can help address employee parking as well as offsite customer and visitor parking. A parking analysis or impact assessment can also be part of the board's review process. However, currently the zoning bylaws only allow the special permit granting authority to reduce to 25% of what is required in the required parking tables. Existing parking requirements in Arlington zoning bylaw can create a situation where the space required for offsite parking for a development or change of use can be almost as large as the use itself. The town bylaw places a priority on preservation of buildings. Lastly, the current supply of on-street and centralized parking is often sufficient to meet or even exceed demand. This bylaw does not change on-street parking or ADA accessibility requirements. In summary, this amendment supports a number of the town's strategic plans, aligned with the definition of pedestrian oriented activities in the B3 and B5 zoning district and eliminates a significant barrier to the development of new businesses in Arlington's three main business districts. We hope that you will vote favorable action as recommended by the redevelopment board. Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Semberry? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I have no further remarks. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Elaine Crowder. Mr. Moderator, Elaine Crowder, precinct 19. From the presentation, I understand the procedural rationale for this proposal, for this article. What I don't understand is the rationale from the standpoint of attracting customers to the businesses where there would be reduced parking. In the example provided, talking about a change of use from offices to restaurants where restaurants require more parking. I don't understand how that is going to help the businesses attract customers. Can someone speak to that, please? Ms. Semberry? Rachel Semberry, chair of the Redevelopment Board. I can speak to it in general terms in that in a change of use scenario, often what we find is that there is sufficient parking available on street parking or municipal lot parking to support the new business use even in a change of use scenario. So for example, one of the most recent examples of this was the change of use from a retail establishment to a restaurant establishment in the Arlington Heights neighborhood. And a study was done by the planning department to identify the current available on street parking demand. And it's the neighborhood's ability to support that change of use through the existing parking that was available in that district already. I'd be happy to, if there were further questions on that, I'd be happy to turn it over to Ms. Rait, the director of the planning department who could answer any further questions. Did that answer your question Ms. Crowder or take some more explanation? I would like to hear more explanation. I think it might have benefit the meeting. Ms. Rait, can you have anything to add to that? Jennifer Rait, director of planning and community development. Thank you. Just to tell you that Ms. Crowder that we as the redevelopment board as well as the zoning board of appeals, we assess each case in terms of the availability of existing conditions and information that we have assessed parking demand. We also, in this particular instance, we would be applying transportation demand management plans and measures, which would mean that alternatives would have to be established. So it wouldn't just be that there would be no parking. It would be that there would be alternatives available and that parking should be available. Some adequate parking should be available nearby. So it's not saying that there would not be any parking available for a change of use, particularly for a business that might appear to have a higher demand for parking availability. So everything is assessed case by case. This is simply enabling the board to have that ability to go down to zero as part of their review if they determine that it is difficult to develop, to redevelop an existing property in one of these districts to create new parking on that site in that location and when adequate parking is nearby. I'll add one more point, which is that in the B3 and B5 zoning districts of all of the parcels, almost all of them are 100% maxed out with a building on the parcel. So there's no room to create new parking. So I have nothing further to add, but I hope that that helps to answer your question. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Rae. Ms. Crowder. Oh, you got muted. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Okay, thank you very much. Phil Goff. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Phil Goff from precinct seven. And I'm speaking in favor of the ARB's recommendation for article 20. This is not only for myself, but this is on behalf of East Arlington Livable Streets Coalition, of which I'm the founder and the current co-chair. East Arlington Livable Streets is a neighborhood sustainable transportation advocacy organization. We have about 275 names and members on an email list. And at our recent monthly meeting, the 12 or 13 attendees, four or five of whom are actual town meeting members, and hopefully you're listening to this, the 12 or 13 attendees unanimously supported article 20 and the hope that town meeting will approve the warrant article. Article 20, we all thought it's a simple and logical policy response to the fact that Arlington features three pedestrian oriented retail districts. And while parking within the three districts, as explained earlier, the Heights Arlington Center and Capital Square, it's clearly critical as a whole. It's not required or really that critically important for each and every, or be placed on each and every parcel, most of which are quite modest in size and contain just a small business. So while town meeting approved the reduction of the, reduction of the required parking in the B3, B5 zones a few years ago, 2016, I believe. I think today we have the opportunity to provide additional relief to propose storefront businesses and to small scale and development projects that lack the opportunity to provide on-street parking. Providing that on-street parking, as alluded to earlier, that would require the demolition of buildings, historic buildings in many cases and leave a gaping hole in the fabric of the sidewalk realm within these pedestrian oriented districts. So I think requiring developers, businesses and the businesses there to provide the three transportation demand management measures or to share parking that's already in existence. These will not only reduce demand overall for parking in the three business districts, but will encourage more people overall to carpool, to ride transit, to walk, or to bike in town, to work, to shop or to eat in those particular businesses, something completely in line with the goals of the master plan and other planning efforts that we've done in the town. So just in conclusion to wrap up, I encourage town meeting to recognize the benefits of this proposal and to vote yes on Article 20. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Goff. Kevin Koch. You can unmute yourself, Mr. Koch. Okay, Kevin Koch presents 16. The Zoom administrators had to unmute both of my sessions. Oh, I see you're back to that. Okay, go ahead. Okay, so I was very skeptical that there's adequate parking and I really appreciated hearing from Mr. Goff about the fact that the people in East Arlington are in favor of this. It's my personal anecdotal experience that it's not so easy to find a parking place in a lot of these places. And I am skeptical that a lot of older people would avail themselves of all these other modalities that the town seems to want to push people into. And okay, so that's the opinion part. The question part relates to the wording in the article, section 615. So the only thing that's changing is the underlying part and the stuff relating to residential districts R567 are already in place and not affected by this. Is that correct? Ms. Rae. Jennifer Rae, Director of Planning and Community Development. Yes, that is correct. Only the underlined content that you see on the screen right here, which begins with when the applicable special permit granting authority is the added language. The rest of the language as was noted by one of the earlier speakers was actually amended in the zoning by-law in 2016, the 6.1.5 parking reduction. So the only thing you're voting on is that particular subsection when the applicable special permit granting authority. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Koch? No, thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Koch. Pat Handlin, Patrick Handlin. Moderator Patrick Handlin, a precinct five. I'm rising figuratively at least in support of this amendment and wanted to share an experience that to me underlines why it is important. I am not speaking on behalf of the zoning board of appeals but I am a member of that body. And earlier this year and late last year we wrestled with whether to grant a variance for a brew club pub in Arlington Heights. The circumstances were that it was moving into a retail space. As I recall, its parking demand was actually less than the parking demand in the retail space that it was replacing. Although I'm not completely sure I remember that correctly but it was more or less comparable. We had a parking study done by Ms. Rates department showing that there was an adequate amount of parking in the area and there was a considerable discussion on that which generally was favorable to the application. And you would think that what we would be considering is just the merits of how much parking is needed, whether it's provided, what conditions may be necessary in order to make sure that there's adequate demand management or something of that sort. That was not really what our problem was, however. Our problem was actually much more technical than that. The applicant came to us for a variance and only the zoning board of appeals could grant the variance. There's a very narrow state statute that determines whether or not we can grant a variance. And it doesn't mean is it a good idea or can it be done consistently with the neighborhood? It doesn't involve balancing very much. It involves a hardship that has to arise out of certain specific things like the odd shape of a lot. So we didn't get to choose, we didn't get to consider in the first place all of the things that you would think that we would consider and that increasingly irate citizens and residents from Arlington Heights were upset that we were not adequately considering because we were trying to figure out whether or not there was a plausible case for this to be authorized under the terms of the state law regarding variances. Eventually we approved and granted the variance, but this should not have been a hard problem. It should not have been a problem that took several meetings for us to work our way through. It's something that we ought to have been able to do in a common sense way, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of that. This isn't the only time this happened. In fact, soon after the parking requirements in these zoning districts were enacted, there was a case involving Cafe Barata, which was then located in the space that is now in Capital Square, which is now, as I recall, occupied by Tom Tavern. And the variance was granted in that case too under a rationale that would be hard to replicate today. And it's always been the case that when these things come up, they come to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we are forced to apply an odd rationale to them instead of just grasping the policy problems and actually attempting to resolve them. There's nothing in this that requires reduction to be given. It's a discretionary thing. And I think that the important thing about enacting this change to the bylaw is it makes the right body, which in this case probably would have certainly been the Redevelopment Board rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals, ask the right questions and make the right judgments in the public interest for deciding what shooter shouldn't happen here and that we should not be forced into trying to work our way through the arcane technicalities of state variance law in order to work sort of sideways to get to a sensible result. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon, it's very helpful. Daniel Jalkut. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Daniel Jalkut, precinct six. I am rising to speak in favor of this article. For a long time I've been as a person who's generally pro pedestrian, pro bicycle, pro public transit, pro alternative transit, I've been frustrated in the past when I've seen businesses that try to get established in Arlington seem to have to face surprising hurdle of satisfying the parking requirements. And I think I recall the last one I can recall, I think, I hope I'm accurate in this, I think common ground in the center may have had to struggle with this a little bit to try to prove that the amount of parking, their share of the local parking lots in the street parking would be sufficient to support the business. My initial reaction to that kind of thinking is let the business owners take on the risk. And I understand there are other arguments for requiring the parking, but a lot of factors go into running a business, opening a business. And I think people who open a business in an area that has limited parking probably understand that limitation. Not all businesses appeal primarily to drivers. And I think if there are other unwanted impacts on the neighborhoods, say for example, people may be concerned that a business would be so popular that maybe people would be parking in adjacent streets. I know I live near the Capitol Theater, for example, in better times. I have overheard my neighbors complaining about people parking on our residential street to go to the movies. It doesn't really bother me, but I can appreciate the issue. And I just think we run the risk by not allowing this flexibility that beneficial businesses to our community will be ruled out for what to me feels like a kind of a silly reason. And I think as society in general moves away from individual car ownership, we have to revise our laws to accommodate that. And I think it's probably kind of common sense clear that in 2020, maybe in particular in 2020, when most of us are working from home and walking to establishments near us, in 2020 the situation is different and more pedestrian friendly in some ways than ever. Pre-pandemic, post-pandemic, we have more public transit options, more ride sharing, more as we move on, we'll have like personal mobility, scooters, bicycle sharing, stuff like that. I just think we're moving towards a society that doesn't value the car as much as past generations have. And I empathize with the arguments, an argument that seems to come up a lot is the argument that particular individuals, say elderly people, people who rely on car transit will be not afforded access to these businesses, but if the rules as they are limit the business even being viable, then nobody will be afforded access to the business. So it was mentioned in a previous comment, somebody mentioned something that was like, of course there's not going to be no parking, but I think it's actually okay if there's no parking. A lot of places in this world have no parking. There's places in Boston that you kind of know, if you wanna go there, you have to take the train or take a cab or take a lift. And we are moving as a society, not only because of societal trends, but because Arlington being close to a major urban area, we're becoming more urban. And I know that's not everybody's cup of tea, but we have to accommodate the fact that we are becoming more urban, society's becoming more pedestrian and ride share, non-car ownership oriented. So I think at the very least, if I understand this article correctly, I think I do, the very least giving the board the authority to allow a business to not have a zero parking requirement seems like a really rational thing to do, especially in this time. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Jelkat. Mr. Ruderman, Michael Ruderman. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Michael Ruderman, Prec. 9. I am going to vote for this measure in great part on reliance of the assertions that have been made of the discretionary nature of the whole process from Ms. Rait and others. And they're promised to consider individual circumstances each time one of these businesses becomes vacant or subject to redevelopment. While I'm speaking, sir, could I ask you to go to the previous presentation and put up the slide that shows that depicts the affected areas in Arlington Center, if you would. Adam, can you bring up the thing that showed us the red pictures? Yeah, it's gonna take a minute to find it, Michael. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Okay. Next slide, I believe. Yeah. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator, for bringing that up. If we will arbitrarily say that North runs to the top of this image and East is to the right, I ask you to look at the B3 properties in the Northeast quadrant. Those are the ones that are on Broadway, approximate, running left to right, approximately from Mystic Street area to Franklin Street. I could tell you this without even looking at the map. Those are not storefront businesses. It is a very broad misrepresentation to call them storefront businesses. We have there four restaurants, two large format planned coffee shops, two schools, the second largest private employer in town and on the other side of Franklin Street, a large craft and art store which has its own parking lot, by the way. Like I said, this is my neighborhood. These are my butters. I see them out my windows. They're not storefront businesses. They are supremely dependent upon automobile traffic, both for customers and essentially for the daily delivery of the fresh products that make them work because most of them are food related. So as Mr. Jalcott envisions an urban Arlington that he would like to see and doesn't have very much problem with that, I would offer to him a vision of cars circling the block, looking for parking spaces on Friday and Saturday nights because there just aren't enough people walking up to those restaurants to keep them in business. In the before times, as one might say that they were fully staffed and operational. I'll simply repeat that I am relying upon the assertions of discretion and individual attention to particular circumstances because that quadrant of Arlington Center is by no means pedestrian oriented storefront businesses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ruderman. Ms. Malofchuk, Beth Malofchuk. You can unmute yourself, Ms. Malofchuk. I thought I had. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Beth Malofchuk, precinct nine. If we could refer back to the map that Mr. Ruderman kindly had brought forth. I'm generally supportive of this. I just seek clarification from the ARB as to why the residences on Prescott Street at 13 Prescott, 17 Prescott and 21 Prescott in Arlington Center are red, I guess included in this depiction in the request for this parking amendment because they're townhomes. You can look them up on Redfin. Yeah. Ms. Rait, are those previously B3 or B5 districts? Is that why they're included? It looks like they have B3. Jennifer Rait, Director of Planning and Community Development. Yes, this is a map indicating the areas that are zoned B3 or B5. So even if there happens to be residents there right now, it still is within the B3 or B5 zone according to our zoning map. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Rait. So Mr. Moderator, how is that relevant to the commercial parking? Well, I think what we're looking at is the actual zoning map as it exists and has existed since it was redone a couple of years ago, they are previously zoned B3, those houses you're looking at. So they would fall within the scope of this addition they seek to put into the article. They are in the B3 district. So should those townhomes revert back to businesses, they would not have the parking requirements, I guess. I guess it's just mystifying to me. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, I end my remarks. Thank you. Nancy Bloom. Yes, Mr. Moderator, Nancy Bloom, precinct 18. My concern is largely with Arlington Heights as Arlington Center does have significant amounts of parking on Mass Ave and municipal lots. There are no such public lots in the Heights. In a time now where people are not taking Ubers, often not taking the T are often taking their cars. This seems to be a very awkward time to be thinking about reducing parking. I know it is something that a variance that the ARB could decide not to do, but I'm concerned about the fact that they could do this and the businesses might suffer. So because I just, as someone who is often in the Arlington Heights business district and it's often very full and there's no place to park and you often have to park beyond the end bus station if you wanna be before Park Ave, it seems odd that we wanna reduce the option of parking for if there are gonna be more restaurants and businesses that we open late at night when people are less likely to take alternative ways of transportation rather than driving. So that's my comment about it. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Roderick Holland. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Roderick Holland, precinct seven. I was actually asked by a constituent who had come across this article, a question that I couldn't answer, although I thought I knew the answer. So I'd like to pass the question along. Does this, will this have any effect on the on-street parking ban overnight? No. Correct, Ms. Wright? Jennifer Wright, director of planning and community development. This does not have any effect on the on-street overnight parking ban. Oh, good. Thank you. And I support this warrant article. Thank you, sir. Leigh Bahiam. Leigh Bahiam, precinct 11. I will keep this brief because you've heard many, many people already speak to this, but I rise in support of this article and I just wanna remind this body how much time we have spent in the past talking about the empty storefront and how to make it so that businesses can thrive and survive in Arlington. And this, in my opinion, will directly affect that case. And therefore I ask that everybody please pass it expediently. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hyme. Barbara Thornton. Barbara Thornton, precinct 16. I think I'm gonna just channel, Leigh Bahiam. The commercial districts in any municipality thrive or fail based on many factors and they are pushed to failure very easily. If we want a thriving commercial district, and I think we do, with stores and cafes and services, then we must encourage them with just this kind of legislation. So I am in favor of this. Thank you, Ms. Thornton. Mr. Peter Howard. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Peter Howard, precinct 10. I have a question about 6.5C7. Provide bicycle or car sharing on site. What is bicycle sharing? The blue bikes or the green ones that used to be here. Is that correct, Ms. Rae? Jennifer Rae, director of planning and community development. Yes, that is correct. It would be shared bikes that are available to the people at the property or in this particular clause, shared parking. So which means, or car sharing, which means like zip car or some other car share service where people can utilize one vehicle and multiple households can utilize that same vehicle. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Howard. John Warden. Is that it? That's it, yeah. Am I on now? Yes, you are, sir. Thank you. I have trouble seeing this stuff. All right, I just, I want to note that a lot of these businesses have been or uses have been pre-zoning probably or pre-the current zoning. So as you say that, as has been said, sorry, John Warden preaching date has been said when the use changes is when the requirement to deal with the new bylaw or relatively new bylaw about parking comes up. So that's understandable. But there's some of these uses and the thing I want to be really sure of. Some of the B3s like the one across from the high school where we had two restaurants and the ACMI studio for students and so on being torn down to put up an apartment building. I want to be very sure that the language is strong enough to limit the ability of the relevant board to say no parking is required will be limited to the business uses because in that case there is fairly large lot. There is room for parking but they're going to have nominal business uses and a lot of residential uses. And what concerns me is that the former chairman of the Redevelopment Board in the discussion of that project stated that, and that was an exact quote is to substitute what he said is we are redevelopment authority. We can do whatever we want. And that, you know, it's like quoting Henry VIII. So I'm a little bit anxious about that that they wouldn't decide under if there's that kind of thinking is still prevalent in the board that they won't say, well, this is the business of apartments. So let's not require them to have any parking. I'd like to be really sure have assurances by the chairman of the board that they're gonna really, business parking means businesses where people come in and pay money or use their credit cards to buy something or get a service or something like that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Warden. Mr. Zemberry, can you assure Mr. Warden of such? Rachel Zemberry, chair of the Redevelopment Board. The proposed language that is being added is very specific that this is relative to businesses only. It does not provide the option for any of the special permit granting authorities to activate this option for a residential use. Very good, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Warden, does that satisfy you? Well, yes, that's a satisfactory answer to have on the record. I just hope that some subsequent chairman doesn't come well. Actually, the case I'm thinking about and you're gonna say this is outside the scope but it relates to zoning and the zoning bylaws when the mixed use bylaw was approved the chairman of the Redevelopment Board said this use will only include the stuff that's actually in that particular district. Then when it came to actually doing with mixed use he blew that away and said, well, we could do whatever we want. So you can see how one might be a little bit nervous about even the words in the law. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. We're gonna have one more speaker, Mr. Ed Trembly. Then we're gonna take our five minute break. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Ed Trembly, precinct 19. First of all, I've noticed that a good many of the speakers who really like bicycles live in East Arlington where it's flat. But we also talk about the heights and demand traffic demand management. Well, bike sharing is all maybe all well and good but Mike's impression of the green bike sharing program was that it was a total disaster that almost nobody wrote it. And the bikes wound up sort of spread and all of them were tipped over. So I don't think plan- Skull. I don't think that bike sharing is a viable, a really great idea because it doesn't seem to have worked well in the past. Secondly, they talk about transit. Well, at least in Arlington Heights, the only transit that runs from the sides comes down Park Ave. But there is no transit from anywhere near Turkey Hill or Westminster or Almond. So, and the hills up in the Heights are kind of fun. So they're riding bikes and taking transit to get to the Heights is a little bit of a challenge. Now, another concern that I have, first of all, these are older buildings and they all exist. And I would think that a business could either choose an existing space or not. And so I don't think this bylaw change affects existing buildings. But it seems to me what they might affect is if you tore it down and build a new one. Now, a number of these buildings in the Heights have little parking spaces tucked here and there at the end of the building or out back and the employees can park there. And if you make the parking zero, now the employees have to park in the street. And if they park in the street, then there's no place for the people who have to come in from the sides because there's no transit and they're not taking bikes. So I really don't understand how reducing parking to zero benefits anything. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trimbley. Okay, let's take a five minute break to give the staff a little mental rest. And we'll see you back in five minutes at 9.40. Hello, Mr. McCabe. I'm trying. Oh, you're unmuted. Go ahead. Okay. Mike McCabe, person two, I terminate debate on article 20 in arrow matters before it. Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe. Second. Mr. McCabe has made a motion to terminate debate. Mr. Foskett has seconded it. It's not debatable. I'll take a vote on motion to terminate debate. Mr. Kowalski is going to open the voting screens as seen as we see the grid. Precincts one through eight can jump on over to the voting portal, eight through 15 and 15 through 21 vote one, yes, to terminate debate, two, not to terminate debate. If you're having a voting issue, please raise your hand on Zoom. Or if you want to phone in your vote, please call Ms. Brazil at 781-316-3071. In the voting terminal, please press one for yes to terminate debate, two for no to not terminate. If you're having a voting issue, please call Ms. Brazil 781-316-3071. Please take a moment, look at your screen as 18 people have not voted yet. Okay, Ms. Mulan, Ms. Lutsky, Mr. Lever, Ms. Mahan, Ms. Hallett, or Ms. Hallett, I'm sorry, Ms. Radville, Ms. De Pratcher, Mr. Ruderman, Ms. Kelleher, Ms. Sullivan, Bealefield, and Ms. Rowe have not voted yet. Okay, there are eight people left. I'm gonna give you 15 seconds, about five seconds and time's up. Okay, let's close voting. Motion passes, 90%. We have 211 in the affirmative, 23 in the negative. It is a vote, and I so declare it, the debate is terminated. Once we run through the screens, we'll take a main vote. Okay, we're now gonna take the main vote on article 20. There's only bylaw amendment for parking reduction in B3 and B5 districts. As soon as we see the grids, okay. Precincts 127, please jump over to the voting screens, to the voting portal, precinct 8215, and 16221, please go to the voting portal, vote one for yes. If you want to amend the zoning bylaw, as recommended by the redevelopment board in their report, or vote one for yes, or two for no, and then click yes, cast your, excuse me, click one for yes, two for no, and then cast your vote. Having a voting issue, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom, or if you're calling your vote into Ms. Brazil, please do so now. Mr. Yontar has a point of order. Mr. Yontar, what's your point of order? Thank you, Mr. Moderator, team work, I Yontar, precinct seven. It's displayed on the screen, but would you please reiterate that this is a two-thirds vote? Yes, all zoning bylaw issues are two-third votes. Thank you, sir. All zoning, bylaw, two-third votes, all bonding and borrowing are two-third votes. Eight to 12 people have not voted yet. If you could go over there and vote. Claire Johnson, Karen Kelleher, Nada El-Nui, Jennifer Seuss, Catherine McParland, Flynn Monks, Melanie Brown, Mike Ruderman, Clarissa Rowe, if you guys can go ahead and vote. I'm gonna give you 15 seconds. That's it. Time's up, let's go on voting. Okay, the motion passes by 89%. We have 213 votes in the affirmative, 26 in the negative, it's a vote, and I so declare it. Bylaw is so amended. That's a vote, and I so declare it. That ends article 20 and brings us to article 21. Okay, this brings us to article 21. Ms. Zambary. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Rachel Zambary, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. Article 21 is relative to a zoning map amendment to rezone a town property. It was inserted at the request of the town manager, and it was voted five to zero to recommend action by the Redevelopment Board. We do have a video that we'd like to play that gives more information on this article. Very good, thank you. Kowalski, you want to play that video for her? Hello, I'm Rachel Zambary, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB, and I will be taking you through warrant article 21 for 2020 special town meeting. Article 21 was submitted by the town manager and is a proposed zoning map amendment to rezone a parcel of land belonging to the town of Arlington located at 51 Grove Street, adjacent to the existing Department of Public Works facility. The majority of the existing Department of Public Works facilities are currently situated in the industrial zoning district. In order to facilitate the renovations at the Department of Public Works campus, a portion of the salt shed and a fueling facility needs to be located on this adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel is currently zoned R1, single family residential district, and would need to be re-zoned industrial to accommodate the expansion and uses which are not allowed in the R1 and are allowed in the industrial zone. The main points of the article include the DPW facility has not been significantly renovated or upgraded since 1975. The town considered multiple conceptual plans to accommodate the program that is included in the redevelopment of the DPW campus. As the building program expanded, new space demands needed to be fulfilled, including existing office space for the Inspectional Services Department and relocated office space for the facilities department and the town information technology department. The project includes the renovation of four existing buildings and construction of a new operations building as well as new ancillary support buildings and dedicated vehicle parking. The R1 parcel has historic contamination due to a prior use with a gas holding tank. The R1 parcel has a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, engineered and direct contact barrier that makes it infeasible for use as a residential parcel in the future. The engineered and direct contact barriers will be maintained and routinely inspected to prevent exposure to underlaying contaminated soil for direct contact. In this slide, you can see the parcels is existing today. Note that the R1 parcel is shown in yellow and the industrial parcel is shown in purple. The majority of the Department of Public Works Yard renovation will take place on the parcels shown in this slide as industrial at 549 and 51 Grove Street. However, the proposed new salt shed will straddle the lot line to the south and be located partially on the parcel currently zoned to R1. And a fueling station will also be located on the parcel currently zoned R1. The zoning bylaw prohibits a municipal public works yard and associated maintenance, storage and office facilities in R1 zoning districts. As such, rezoning this parcel from R1 to industrial will fit the goals of the DPW yard renovation. The requested change is consistent with the historic use of the parcel for industrial purposes as evidenced by the gas tank location and historic contamination. The lot has an existing curb cut and is currently used as a driveway and parking for the DPW yard and a portion of an Arlington Public School playing field. Following the construction of the DPW yard renovation and completion of the new Arlington High School, the anticipated use will primarily be parking for the DPW and will connect to new parking at the Arlington High School complex. In summary, by rezoning this parcel and amending the zoning map, this change would provide the town with a consistent zoning district for the town yard municipal facility, allowing the town to meet the project goals and apply the appropriate and consistent zoning criteria based on the use of the site and support the development of the new municipal facility, housing operations that support essential services provided to the town on a daily basis. We hope that you will vote favorable action as recommended by the redevelopment board. Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Sanbury? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I have no further comments. Okay. I'm seeing no one wishing to speak so we'll go right to a vote. Okay, so we're taking a vote to rezone the Arlington zoning map as recommended. Precincts one through eight, please navigate over to the zoning portal. Precincts eight through 15. Go over now. And 16 through 21. Vote one, yes to rezone the parcel as the ARB has requested. Vote no or two. And then click cast your vote. One, yes to rezone the map. One to amend the map. Two to not amend it to leave it alone. So if we're going to rezone it, go ahead and vote one for yes, two for no, and then click yet cast your vote. If you're having an issue of voting, please use the racing and feature on Zoom or call Ms. Brazil. Seven, eight, one, three, one, six, three, zero, seven, one. Okay, we have five people who haven't voted. Lana Mendel, Daniel Jelket, Peter Young, Bill Hainer. Those four people would go ahead and vote. We're going to give you 15 seconds to do it. Daniel and Bill and time's up. And go ahead and close the voting windows. Motion passes by 98%. We have 237 in favor. Voting yes. We have four noes. It's a vote and I so declare it that terminate that ends article 21 and brings us to article 22. Mr. Rotary. Wait, he has to bring it up, Mr. Foskett. Sorry. Okay, Mr. Foskett. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Charles Foskett precinct date and chair of the finance committee. There has been no resolution of the collective bargaining negotiations. So as reported, we recommend no action on article 22. Okay. We have a recommended vote of no action on article 22. So we're going to go ahead and take a vote on no action on article 22. Thank you, Mr. Foskett. All right. So we're going to vote no action on article 22. Precincts one through eight. Go ahead and jump over to the voting portal. Refresh your page if you need to. Eight through 15. Go ahead over now. And now 15 through 21. One for yes for no action. Two for no for no action. And then click cast your vote. We have an issue with voting. Please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or call Ms. Brazil 7813163071. Okay, 13 folks haven't voted yet. Nine haven't voted yet. I'm going to give you 15 seconds. Ethan Simmer, Karen, Brendan Sullivan, Vadeline McClure, Lisa Reynolds, Dian Dunn, Bill Hainer. You guys want to take a second and vote? Okay. And that's it. Time's up. Close voting, please. 100% unanimous vote, they so declare it. We have 242 in the affirmative and zero in the negative. The first unanimous vote. Vote they so declare it. That ends article 22. We've already done vertical 23 and 24. Okay, the article 25 is now a force. Article 25 resolution, Black Lives Matter. Banner at Town Hall. So as I've announced, we're going to have two speakers. One for the proponents and one for the opponents of this. So we have two points of order. We'll take Ms. Crowder and Mr. Klein. In that order, please. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Elaine Crowder, Prusum 19. Yes, my point of order is about our previous vote. Can you explain what happens to this collective bargaining at this point? When does it then come before town meeting again? If they reach a agreement between now and the next town meeting, there'll be a article before set this spring annual town meeting to deal with the collective bargaining with retroactive to the beginning of the contract term. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christian Klein, precinct 10. I understand that there's a substitute motion submitted on article 25. And I wanted to ask how that would impact the way the discussion is handled on this article. Thank you. It's not going to impact it at all. The substitute motion is by Mr. Jacobi Brown in conjunction with the original proponent of the article. Ms. Katel Gulik, who is between Mr. Brown and Ms. Gulik, they're going to present the proponent's view of the article. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. And they'll do that within their seven minute time scope. Okay. So I'm not going to call anyone on the speaker's list because we have the, well, the only one I'm going to call is Mr. Eventually the opponent, but the first I'll call the proponent speaker, Mr. Jacobi Brown, who's going to present for the proponents. Yes, thank you very much. This is Michael Jacobi Brown, town meeting member of precinct 17. The original article is amended to read as follows, following the words display a Black Lives Matter banner on Arlington Town Hall. We would insert the words and believes the select board should continue to hear public comment about what other steps Arlington can take to reflect the spirit of this action and delete the remainder of the article. So the vote then would read that town meeting here by resolves to support the display of a Black Lives Matter banner on Arlington Town Hall and believes the select board should continue to hear public comment about what other steps Arlington can take to reflect the spirit of this action. And we have a video. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Second, okay. Mr. Brown has made his motion to amend and it has been seconded. So let's play Mr. Brown's video. Mr. Moderator, just confirming that's the video that came in today, the one that says updated. Yes. So she shortened her video for us. My name is Katal Gallick. I'm a resident of Arlington in district 19 and also a co-chair of Envision Arlington's Diversity Task Group. I appreciate you listening to my statement this evening regarding warrant article 25, the importance of rehanging a Black Lives Matter banner at town hall. Of course, I'm just one person out of many who are advocating for the banner to be reinstated. Many groups have endorsed this action, including the Diversity Task Group, as well as the Arlington Human Rights Commission, the Arlington High School Black Student Union, Arlington Helps Mutual Aid, Arlington Fights Racism, the Mystic Valley chapter of the NAACP, and specifically Dede Delgado, who is an anti-racist educator and activist, the founder and former director of Black Lives Matter, Cambridge Chapter. She was also a featured guest speaker for the town of Arlington's Black Lives Matter Day virtual event hosted by the Human Rights Commission this past summer. Furthermore, an online petition gathered over 350 signatures in the wake of the select board's vote to take down the banner. And for this warrant article, we collected over 200 in-person signatures in just 24 hours. All of this shows the broad support to maintain the banner at town hall. I would like to briefly address why I feel this action is so critical for our town at this time and some of the concerns that may have arisen around it. This is a moment in our history that cannot be ignored. It is an opportunity to affirm the humanity of Black Lives and to denounce the ongoing ways that Black Americans are systematically oppressed. No town or city is immune from concerns over racial justice. In fact, these are basic human rights and Arlington has recognized that through its efforts to promote racial equity. These values transcend politics and must not be reduced to left and right, Democrat and Republican, or pro-police and anti-police. These are all distractions from the central message behind Black Lives Matter and are ways that people project their own fears and assumptions onto a banner that gives hope to so many people. Of course, the efforts to change policies to make our schools more inclusive and to bring our community together are all vital. And I know that some people worry that a banner will make us more complacent and somehow infers that the job is now done. But we need to let our town and others know that our outward-facing profile matches the inward-facing actions so it is clear to all where we stand. Arlington does not need to shy away from making this public statement. Rather, it needs to embrace it. Inclusivity for all is important and hanging a Black Lives Matter banner does not take away from that idea. It encompasses the needs and rights of other marginalized communities such as the LGBT community and those who have all affirmed that this is a time in our history when we need to center Black Lives. I also believe a banner creates an emotional connection between the town and its Black and Brown residents. It lets them know they are seen and are an important and valued part of the community. Finally, I was recently asked if we could hang a banner that had different wording, which the town has recently done, saying that Arlington supports many different marginalized groups and is inclusive of diversity in general. There's also been the suggestion that we could hang a banner that says Arlington supports Black Lives rather than a specific Black Lives Matter banner. And to that I respond that as a white person, I really can't answer that question because to do so would be to co-opt a human rights movement that I did not create. It's the voice of Black people seeking equal human rights who can speak to that and I would encourage the town to keep speaking to and reaching out to its Black and Brown residents to determine if an alternate banner would achieve the same goal. Until then, refusing to rehang the banner remains a very visible gap in Arlington's commitment to racial justice. Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Brown? Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, thank you very much. No, I would just like to thank the technical people that are doing such a great job. I'd like to thank Arlington Community Media for arranging the video, which we shortened from six minutes to four minutes to make sure we fit within the seven minute limit. So I'd just like to thank everyone that's listened this far. Most people have been here for more than two hours and I appreciate everyone's attention to this. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, sir. Okay. Now I've been contacted by Mr. Ed Trembly. I'm going to call Mr. Trembly. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Ed Trembly, Prison 19. Ed, can you speak up or get closer to your microphone, please? Are you better? Yes. Oh, I'm going to turn you down a little bit. All right. First of all, let me make as clear as I possibly can that the phrase Black Lives Matter is not what we're talking about. I don't know anyone who disagrees with the phrase Black Lives Matter. We are talking about Black Lives Matter, the banner. Black Lives Matter, the banner is associated with Black Lives Matter, the organization. And if you go to Black Lives Matter, the organization's website and hit the donate button, you are redirected to act blue, the internet fundraising arm for the Democrat Party. Black Lives Matter, the organization raised over a billion dollars for the Democrat Party. Therefore, the Black Lives Matter banner represents a major fundraising arm of the Democrat Party. The Republicans have an internet fundraising arm too. It's called Win Red. Now, if you, if the selectman put a Win Red banner on the town hall, I think most of your heads would explode and I would agree with you. The town hall is a place where the town's business is conducted, policy is debated, meetings are of all stripes or hell. It should not be a place where one party is favored over another. Let's take it out of the political realm. If little did he put up a banner, then only the hockey would be within their rights to ask for their banner to be put up too. If football had a banner, why not soccer? If someone's banner was up for two days longer than another, somebody would get upset. Don't the select board have enough problems to deal with? Why open another can of worms? The town hall is for everyone and as such, it should not be political. I think the select board has made the correct decision to keep it that way. Please join me in keeping the responsibility for banners on town hall with the select board. Please vote no for staying on article 25. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Trembly. Okay, we've had our speeches by the proponents and by the opponents to the Black Lives Matter banner on town hall. We have before us, Mr. Jacoby Brown's motion. First, we're gonna vote on that and then we'll vote on the main article. So I don't wanna enable voting on Mr. Brown's motion. So Mr. Brown's motion would rewrite it so that it reads the town hereby resolves to support the display of the Black Lives Matter banner on town hall and believes the select board should continue to hear public comment about what other steps Arlington can take to reflect the spirit of this action. If you agree, Mr. Helmuth has a point of order. I can start the voting though and then take Mr. Helmuth's point of order. Mr. Helmuth has a point of order. I just was confused by something that was said very early on by Mr. Brown regarding his amendment. Did he say that this was submitted with the concurrence of the original proponent or not the concurrence of the original proponent? I believe with the concurrence. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Dice, what's your point of order? You seem to be going to a vote without a discussion, John. Is that true or not? Ed, yes, I've announced that on the first night of the meeting and I've said it several times in the meeting that all we're gonna do is hear from the both parties and then go right to a vote. This is a non-binding resolution that really is outside the scope of town meetings, authority and powers. So as we have done with resolutions in the past, we've heard from both the proponents and the opponents and then we go right to a vote. Well, I would just suggest, John, that this is quite an important issue. Mr. Dice, I'm not gonna change my mind at this point. Mr. Dice, I made that announcement in my initial letters to everybody and to the advocate and to this meeting. I'm not gonna change how we're proceeding here. We could be on for the next three days if we talk about this. And it's nothing that we have anything to do with. We do not control town hall. We do not control a policy of hanging banners. It's a select board issue and we're gonna tell them what we think, yes, up or down without a discussion and it's probably before the select board, so. Well, I don't understand why we can't simply go and our usual- Mr. Dice, please. Move to move the question. I'm not gonna change my mind how we're doing it. Thank you. Now Ms. Barron has a point of order. Ms. Barron, what's your point of order? Sherry Barron, precinct seven and member of the Arlington Human Rights Commission. Am I heard? Yes, ma'am, we can hear you. Okay, I also just would like to go on record as strongly objecting to this lack of discussion. You just said, Mr. Moderator, that this is nothing to do with us. Correct. Which is a completely incorrect statement, I believe. Ma'am, you're continuing the debate. What is your point of order? That it is under control of the select board but the select board represents constituents. The select board controls it, not us. Thank you. Mr. McCabe, Mark McCabe to point of order. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I was just asking to the town council is if we have any written criteria that would allow Haining Nibbana from town hall that doesn't exist as far as town day or any other things that exist for the town of Arlington. That would have been a question for the debate if we had one but I think that's something that we can bring up when the select board hear this article. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Finally, Mr. Foskets point of order. Yes, Mr. Moderator. You proposed there were only gonna be two speakers. I think all these points of orders have been carrying on the debate and I object to that. I do too, sir. Thank you. So let's go to the vote. First, we're gonna vote on Mr. Jacoby Brown's motion to amend. Okay, if you want to amend the recommended vote of the board, the select board as Mr. Jacoby Brown posits, please vote one for yes. If you do not want to so amend it, vote two for no. If you're having a voting issue, please raise your hand and zoom or call Ms. Brazil, 7-8-1-3-1-6-3-0-7-1. So if you want to amend, vote one for yes. If you do not want to amend, vote two for no and then click cast your vote. Mr. Jelcutt has raised his hand. Thank you. You have a voting issue, Mr. Jelcutt. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I don't have a voting issue, but. Don't please don't continue debate. Daniel Jelcutt, precinct six, I'm not continuing debate. However, I think that as a member of the town meeting it is in my, in my rights to say. Mr. Jelcutt, you are continuing debate, you're misusing the attendance raised hand feature. Please vote. Okay, we have 14 people who have not voted yet. Okay, 12 people who have not voted. Daniel Jelcutt, David Levy, Jane Howard, Janice Weber, Weber, sorry. Team Oriantar, Ian Thompson, Virginia Reedy. Mr. Moderator, David Levy has a point of order. Who does? David Levy, Levy. Oh, David Levy. Okay. What's your point of order, Mr. Levy? Mr. Moderator, David Levy, precinct 18, just to confirm this is the amendment motion. And so depending on past their fails we'll go out of the main motion after this. Correct. That's correct, sir. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, sir. Okay, for the last few people who have not voted yet please vote right now. I'm gonna give you five, 10 seconds or I'll give it a new one, 15. Let's close voting on the motion. The motion passes by 81%. We have 170 in the affirmative, 40 in the negative. Once we get through all the screens we'll go and take a vote on the main motion as amended by Mr. Jacobi Brown's motion. Okay, I'm not gonna take a vote on the main motion as amended by Mr. Jacobi Brown's amendment. If you're in favor of the main motion as amended please navigate over to the voting portal. Facing's one, two, eight, eight through 15, 15 through 21. Refresh your screen and vote one for yes, two for no. And then click cast your vote. If you're having an issue voting, please call Ms. Brazil at 781-316-3071. Mr. Yontar is having a voting issue. Mr. Yontar, is there anything to see on? There are five points of order. I believe those are old that we haven't, the only new one looks like Mr. Jamison. Mr. Jamison, the old ones didn't get cleared out. We already heard from Mr. Levy, Mr. Deisman-Sparing, Mr. Fogg, we haven't heard from him. What's your point of order, Mr. Jamison? Thank you, Mr. Ryder. Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. I just wanna make sure that I'm reading this substitute motion as you are. And if Adam could, yeah, thank you, Adam. I see no timeframe expressed in this article so that the select board can do what they wish. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Yes, sir. Mr. Ford. Bill Ford, precinct 18. Mr. Moderator, I just asked if you would, when you announced the vote this time, did you show the abstentions? I think in this article, it's very important that that number be brought to people's attention. Yes, the abstentions always do show, but I will announce them as you requested. Thank you. Okay, now I don't know if Mr. Deist, Ms. Barron and Mr. Levy have new points of order or those, they're old points of order. And Mr. Jalkett has a voting issue again. Mr. Jalkett, what's your voting issue? He has raised his hand. Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me, Mr. Moderator, Daniel Jalkett, precinct six. I don't know if you realize this, but there are still on the voting portal points of order listed for myself, David Levy, John Deist, Sherry Barron, William Ford, the reason I raised a point of order before, which I felt it was unfair that you cut me off on, was because I was raising a point of order to point out the possibility that our democratic process was being violated by not recognizing the points of order. When you muted me before, I felt that I had no outlet, whereas in town hall, I would be able to shout and say, you're misunderstanding me, I did not have that outlet. Now there are points of order on my portal now. I care about this process. Sir, I'm hearing those points of order. We're working through them. The Zoom feature raised hand is specifically for voting. I was hearing the other points of order. I took them out of order to attend to your voting issue. So if you've made your point of order, we can now clear that if that's your point of order. I feel that it was not understood previously that there were points of order on the register. And now that you recognize them, I'm happy to resign from this conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Deist, 18 folks have not voted yet. If you can please go ahead and vote. So when we're done with Mr. Deist and Ms. Barron's points of order, we can close voting. What's your point of order, Mr. Deist? I already discussed it with you. And that was enough. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Ms. Barron, did you have a new point of order? No, I did not. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. There are 12 people who have not, 10 people have not voted yet. Let's give them 15 seconds to register their vote on the article, which is as substituted by Mr. Brown's motion and time's up. Let's close voting, please. The motion passes by 83%. We have 166 in the affirmative. Yes, we have no votes of 34 and we have abstains of 38. So we have 166 in the affirmative, 34 in the negative. And that is a vote. And I so declare it, that ends article 24. 25. Our last article for the dissolve the town meeting. I wanna take one minute of your time. I wanna personally thank our staff, who have worked really hard with us, me, on getting this virtual town meeting. Adam Korolski, our project manager, Julie Weyman, a project manager, Emily Sullivan, Zoom controller, Gabrielle Solis, display controller, Novus, gender support, Ashley Marsh, select board report, select board support, Lauren Costa, select board report, Dennis Lowry, tech support, Lee Hins, Woo, tech support, Pat Libby, tech support, Chris Fickett, tech support, Andrew Willard, tech support, and Joan Roman, website communications. And also Lynn Diggins and Eric Hellman. These folks have really helped us a lot and made this town meeting possible. And I'd like to have everybody give them a round of applause somehow on Zoom. I'm not sure how we do that. Now, Mr. Foskett, can you take article one off the table? Mr. Moderator, I take the move. We take article one off the table. Second. Article one, maybe we take it off the table. It's been seconded. I'm going to have the clerk direct one vote in the affirmative for that motion. Mr. Moderator. Yep. I move that the meeting be dissolved. Motion is all the meeting seconded. All in favor say yes, yes. All opposed, the meeting is so dissolved. Thank you very much and we'll see you guys next spring. In January, we look for our survey and the open question portion of that. So we'll get back to you guys. I'm going to continue to make this great. Thank you all very much. It's been a great town meeting. Thanks.