 Okay, let's get started here. It's closed voting on the attendance check-in. Again, this is just the test vote. So don't worry if you didn't get your vote in time. It's eight or three PM, calling the meeting to order. This is Monday, June 6th, 2022, night 12 of our annual town meeting. Let's wait for the screens to go by so you can verify that your vote actually got in. Okay, let's bring up the Star Spangled Banner. Okay, I just have some very brief opening remarks and then we'll jump right in. Let's see, so we're gonna wait when our deputy town manager, Mr. Pooler, is out for part of the evening. And when he returns and when we're between articles after his return, we will take up article 49 for collective bargaining. And so at that point, when Mr. Pooler is available in the meeting, I will recognize Mr. Foskett to lay several articles on the table so that we could jump ahead to article 49 to take up that article and then we'll go back to where we were. And let's see, also there is one article tonight coming up, which is a no-action article, article 45 for which I do not have yet a substitute motion for that. And so there's nothing to actually debate or discuss on that without a substitute motion. And so if I would entertain though during announcements or resolutions, anything that someone might be willing to speak to on that article, but not during debate on the article because there's nothing that's in scope for a no-action article unless there's a substitute motion. So with that, let's see, swearing in. I think everyone's probably been sworn in by now, and like 12, but if you haven't been sworn in yet, please contact the town clerk of Ms. Brazil about getting sworn in as soon as you can. And now recognize the chair of the select board, Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. It is moved that if all visits in the meeting as set forth in warrant for the annual town meeting is not disposed of at this session, then when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Wednesday, June 8th, 2022 at eight o'clock p.m. Okay, so we have a motion by Mr. Diggins. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second from Mr. Foskitt and that's enable raise hands and zoom any objections to if we do not finish tonight, reconvening at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8th, two days from now. I see one objection. Seeing only one objection, I declare that a majority vote. And so we will reconvene on Wednesday, June 8th at 8 p.m. If we don't finish tonight. And now call for any announcements or resolutions. You can raise your hands and zoom if you have any announcements or resolutions for the meeting tonight. Mr. Reminder, any announcements or resolutions are limited to four minutes of speaking time according to our town bylaws. Okay, I don't see a raised hand but I see in the Q and A that Mr. Rudick, do you have an announcement or resolution you'd like to speak to? Yep, I see he has his raised hand now. Mr. Rudick, say Mr. Rudick, you should be able to unmute at this point. Ah, sorry about that. No worries, name and precinct. Ben Rudick, precinct five. Please to announce that since our last time meeting and this one, my daughter, Tova was born. She was born on Friday at seven pounds, 12 ounces and joined siblings, Micah and Talia. She was also born 13 minutes after getting into the delivery room. So she was almost born in the car and I'm really glad that she wasn't. So I hope that she has a long and healthy life here in Arlington and maybe gets to serve on town meeting someday or so. Thank you. Well, congratulations and thank you for being here so shortly after her birth. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other, I see other folks can't see this who are not on the panel but there are congratulations coming into the Q&A. So normally you'd be hearing applause and unfortunately you can't hear that. Okay, seeing no other announcements or resolutions, I'll now call for reports that are ready to be received. Mr. Foskett. Just a moderator. Yes. Charles Foskett, precinct 10. I move that Article 3 be removed from the table. Okay, do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Ms. Brazil to Mr. Foskett's motion to remove Article 3 from the table so we can receive reports from committees. Any objections in Zoom, please raise your hand. I see only one hand so I declare that a successful vote. So Article 3 is now in front of us and we're now ready to receive reports. Raise your hand in Zoom if you have any reports that are ready to be received by a town meeting. Let's see, Ms. LaRoyer. Ms. LaRoyer, let's see, are you able to unmute? Yes, okay. Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Ann LaRoyer, precinct 17 and I'm the chair of the Open Space Committee and I'm pleased to provide a town meeting with a short report on the updating of the Open Space and Recreation Plan for 2022 through 2029. You may recall that in 2020, town meeting approved the recommendation of the Community Preservation Act Committee to provide funding for a consultant to help our volunteer committee with the preparation of this Open Space Plan. We're very grateful for that report and that support and we've been working with the consultant that we hired, Horsley-Witton Group and with the staff in the Department of Planning and Community Development for nearly a year and a half now to prepare the current draft document. The plan is part of a comprehensive participatory process and must adhere to guidelines developed by the Division of Conservation Services in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. That organization also grants the final approval of the plan. Many of you participated in the public forums that we held, listening sessions, interviews and the online survey that were all part of the information gathering stages during 2021. We were very pleased that more than 1,000 people responded to our survey. The feedback and the comments from all of these different outreach efforts have guided the needs analysis and the formation of goals and objectives that will help Erlington plan for its open spaces and recreational resources over the next seven years through this plan. We expect to have a final draft report within the next few weeks and we'll be sending it out for review to key boards and committees, including the Select Board, Conservation Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Redevelopment Board, Disability Commission and other groups that will be instrumental in helping us implement the action plan. After we receive state approval, the open space plan will be posted on the town's open space committee website and printed copies will be made available for town offices and libraries. We'll be sure to send out a town alert to let everyone know when the plan is posted for the public. Thank you again for your participation in this planning process. All of us on the committee look forward to continuing to collaborate with town departments, community groups and residents to implement the many goals and objectives that we've outlined in the plan to protect, enhance and maintain our valued open spaces and recreational facilities for many years to come. Thank you. Great, thank you, Ms. LaRoyer. Do we have any other reports of committees that are ready to be received? Okay, seeing none. Mr. Foskett. Mr. Moderator Charles Foskett, precinct 10. I move article three, be laid upon the table. Okay, we've motion to lay article three upon the table. Do we have a second? Mr. Moderator, Julie Brazil Town-Clarke, Patricia Warden has raised her hand. Oh, okay. I didn't say that until just now. Before I recognize the second. What's the one motion? Was that? Yeah, so you have motion withdrawn and Dr. Warden, do you have a report to be received by town meeting? No. Actually, can you hear it? Yes, I can. Actually, I press mine because John had raised his hand two or three minutes prior to me and it was really for him because he, because you didn't notice that he had raised his hand. So could he speak, please? Yeah, Mr. Warden, yeah, go ahead. Can you unmute him, please? Unmute him. No, John, you can speak on mine. We're bringing it up now. So Mr. Warden, you should be able to unmute. Okay, I've unmuted him. He's going to speak on mine. Okay, let's go ahead. Mr. Warden, go ahead and name and present. Now the microphone. Where's the mic? No, this isn't gonna work. You just speak in tomorrow. I can hear you now. Oh, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, I just, I tried to raise a hand in order to make a report under resolutions, but I couldn't, it wouldn't open. And then I raised, I put it in as a point of order, but that was not recognized, apparently. I just want to report on article 45 that I had held that because Sophia Miliazzo, a former town meeting member from our precinct who was deer-mandered out of her seat, she filed this article, I actually signed it. And, but I reached out to her when I saw that it was coming up and she wasn't here, I reached out to her and said, did she want me to do anything about it? And my sense is after trying email and telephone that she does not wish to pursue the article at this time. So I withdraw my, the hold that I put on it under the consent agenda. Thank you, Sarah. Okay. Yeah, so I don't appreciate the use of the language that she was deer-mandered out of her seat, but that notwithstanding, this is out of order. I'm allowing it in this case that she had technical difficulties because I did see a raised hand very briefly when I was calling for, from Mr. Warden, when I was calling for announcements and resolutions, but then the hand immediately dropped. So you're supposed to hold it on the hand there? But it should stay up until it's taken down. So anyway, so we're not going to get into the technical troubleshooting of that right now, but in any event, the message is clear that Ms. Igliazzo is not pursuing any substitute motion for Article 45. And so we'll deal with that when that comes up. Thank you. Any other reports of committees? Okay, seeing none, I get Mr. Foskett. Mr. Moderator, Charles Foskett precinct 10 and move that Article 3 be laid upon the table. Second. Okay, we have a motion to lay Article 3 upon the table. We have a second from Ms. Brazil. Any objections to laying Article 3 on the table? It's a two-thirds vote and I see no objections. So I declare that a unanimous vote to lay Article 3 on the table. And so we now have Article 39 in front of us. Okay, since this is a zoning argument, let's see, okay, do we have Ms. Zembury here to introduce the, at least the ARB's vote on, recommended vote on Article 39? Good evening, Mr. Moderator, Rachel Zembury, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. The Redevelopment Board voted four to one to recommend favorable action on Article 39. The Redevelopment Board identified that this would eliminate an impediment to development at a scale that is otherwise permitted by the zoning bylaw and identified as desirable in the master plan. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I do see, I see now in the portal that there was a point of order raised by Mr. Warden at, it looks like 8.09 p.m. So I assume that that's the one that he raised earlier that was not visible until now. Let's see, okay. And let's bring up Ms. Pretzer who was the proponent of this resident article. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. David Pretzer, Pre-Sync 17. I ask that the pre-recorded video for this article be played. Okay, we bring up the video, please. Hello, I'm David Pretzer, town meeting member from Pre-Sync 17 and the proponent of this article. And I'd like to talk to you about War and Article 39. Arlington has some lovely mixed use buildings that were built a long time ago. Why don't we see more buildings like these? Part of the picture is floor area ratio. 2016, Arlington town meeting voted to allow mixed use buildings as tall as five stories near transit corridors, but we haven't seen much of this development. Why? Part of the reason is floor area ratio. So what is floor area ratio or FAR? It's a limit on the floor area of a building based on the size of its lot. So for example, a building with a floor area ratio of two would have a floor area that's twice the size of its lot. Ignoring other requirements, this could be a two-story building covering the full lot, a four-story building covering half the lot, or any other building with that floor area. Article 39 would only impact Arlington's business or B districts, so I wanted to explain what those are. Arlington's B districts are several different classifications, along Mass Ave and Broadway with some adjacent areas. They allow commercial and mixed use buildings, and they currently have a mix of single-story and multi-story buildings. So what are the limits today in these districts? Current zoning limits the FIR to a number between 1.0 and 1.8, depending on the specific district. So while today's zoning theoretically allows mixed use buildings between three and five stories in these districts, these FIR limits make this impractical because you could only build that high if the building only covered a very small portion of the lot. The main motion in Article 39 would address this by doubling the FIR limit in these districts to a maximum of 3.0. Why should we increase these FIR limits? This is in line with Arlington's Housing Production Plan and Master Plan. It will produce new subsidized affordable units via our existing inclusionary zoning percentage, which only successfully produces subsidized affordable units if actual housing is built. It will support public transit and create more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, which is important for our climate goals. It will increase Arlington's tax base via new growth. It provides a practical alternative to 4DB development, which will often be entirely residential rather than mixed use and thus not include any commercial space at all. And it will bring a new life to our existing commercial areas along Mass Ave and Broadway. So why is 3.0 specifically a good limit? Well, it's called an Arlington's Housing Production Plan as a more appropriate FAR to encourage buildings above two stories. And it's in line with several nearby communities, a bit less than Watertown Central Business District and at the same level of Belmont's Cushing Square. One thing I want to be very clear about is that this article would not change any of the other requirements that apply to these buildings. All mixed use buildings still require a special permit which provides an opportunity for community input. And it does not change the existing height limits, the open space and setback requirements, or the parking requirements that apply to these buildings. These unchanged requirements still determine what can be built and make sure that it's appropriate for the area and for Arlington's goals. To help you get a sense of what this article could make possible, I want to share some examples of buildings that this change could help allow. This is the Capitol Building in East Arlington. It's a lovely mixed use building. It's a three-story building with an FAR of 1.7, which is more than allowed under current zoning. If this is the FAR of a lovely three-story building, you can imagine that the FAR needed to build a comparable five-story building would be notably higher. This is a building that was proposed for East Arlington about a year ago. The proposal was for a four-story building with an FAR of 3.2. It would have included 20% affordable units, which is above the inclusionary zoning minimum. The proposed FAR would have been higher than many buildings because it would have built units above parking and efficient use of Arlington's limited space. The Arlington Redevelopment Board was unable to give a special permit due to the FAR issues, but with Article 39, a modified version of this proposal and others like it would be possible. Finally, for comparison, I wanted to include a mixed use building in Watertown that has an FAR of 2.8 and includes both commercial space and housing altogether. In conclusion, in Article 39, we have an opportunity to allow new buildings like the ones we love, strengthen the vitality of our commercial corridors, increase Arlington's tax revenue, and make the four-to-five-story mixed use buildings that TownMeeting already approved possible in practice by increasing the FAR limits in our business districts for mixed use. This is a small but important change to promote housing creation, address climate goals, and support public transit and walkability. It's TownMeeting's role to guide our town's future, and by passing Article 39, we take a strong, positive step for Arlington. Thank you. Great, thank you. And so we had one, before we get into debate, there was one amendment that was proposed for this by Mr. Wharton. Mr. Wharton proposed an amendment that would require that 80% of the floor, the first floor must be used for business or commercial purposes. I initially accepted this amendment, but upon further review, as I've discussed with Mr. Wharton over email over a number of days, I'm ruling the amendment out of scope. The text of the main motion is focused, I'm sorry, the text of the warrant article, excuse me, is focused on increasing the maximum floor area ratio. And so the amendment by restricting uses, including some currently allowed uses, I consider out of scope. And so I will not be entertaining that motion on this article. And so with that, let's open up the speaking queue and start with Ms. Thornton. Yes, Barbara Thornton, precinct 19. Thank you very much, precinct 16, sorry. Thank you very much. I'm here to speak in favor of this. I have spoken before in various times about the importance of supporting our commercial development in Arlington, particularly making it a comfortable walkable municipality with interesting shops and driving down Mass App. Now it's a bit of a disappointment to see so many places that have closed because of the pandemic. So I look forward to actively supporting this. It's a small technical fix to make the height limits that town meeting already passed in 2016 work in practice. It doesn't result in taller buildings or less open space than currently allowed. It just is more practical and efficient use of space. This promotes new tax revenue via new growth which reduces our need for overrides in the future. It makes vibrant pedestrian friendly buildings like the ones we love possible in most places along Mass Ave and Broadway. And to my early point, it helps retail and cafes survive because there will be more people per building to shop there and to eat out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thornton. Let's take Mr. Wagner next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Thank you, Karl Wagner, precinct 15. Article 39 would increase the floor area ratio or FAR in the business district mixed use structures. I ask you actually to vote no on this proposal because the mixed use structure bylaws already allow extremely large building masses, little to no open space for residents and inadequate parking. Article 39 would actually result in no change anyway. So it could be seen as a useless change at this point. However, it could result in unintended consequences later. I'll try to explain. The FAR we have currently is part of a combination of metrics for the dimensions of a structure. The proposed increase is roughly to double the current FAR standard. The original proposal that the ARB heard was even more dramatic without serious documentation of why or what the change number would mean. They are also without much research or serious documentation as to why the current FAR in the law was inadequate or what the change to 3.0 could lead to if other restrictions were removed. The FAR increase doesn't even change building sizes now as the proponent has put into the article. While setback height, open space and parking requirements exist. So since the proposal won't change anything that it intends to change, the concern here is that this could lead. Mr. Wagner, can you hear me, Mr. Wagner? Your audio is not coming through. Mr. Wagner, if you can hear me, the last thing I heard was this would lead to and then I couldn't hear any more audio after that. Let's see, what can we do? Mr. Wagner, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, the last thing I heard from you before your audio cutout was this would lead to... Okay, thank you. Let me just pick up where I am because I'm sure I'm running out of time. The two new mixed-use buildings on Mass Ave by Stop & Shop show that even under our existing mixed-use bylaw, building mass allowed is already very large and is not helping our businesses. Rather than proposing just making it bigger, changes to our mixed-use law should improve the original intention of the law to support retail and other first-floor neighborhood businesses by adding accessory apartments above, not to allow for the construction of enormous multifamily residential buildings without the normal bylaw rules that residential apartment buildings fall under without open space or adequate parking for future residents. And thinking about mixed-use buildings that we've just seen built in our town, does just doubling them in any way seem like a good idea without research and documentation of the effect? I hope you'll agree that we need this first. Instead of 39, we should be improving our mixed-use law so that it stops being a way to avoid building apartments that don't have setback, that don't have open space or parking and so that they contain businesses at least on the first floor. I ask you to vote no on Article 39, but yes on John Warden's amendment, if it were allowed, I guess, which would make sure that 80% of the first floors of mixed-use buildings were for businesses. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. And apologies for the technical difficulties there. Let's take Ms. Garber next. Hello, Judith Garber, Precinct 4. I have a question. Would mixed-use buildings still require a special permit so that citizens, not citizens, sorry, that Arlington residents could voice their concerns? Was that the end of your question, Ms. Garber, or does it sound like your audio cut out? That's the end of the question. Oh, okay. Let's see, let's take Ms. Ember, do you have an answer for that? Yes, Rachel Zembery, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, there would still be a special permit process required for mixed-use developments. Thank you. Okay, thanks, given that I'm in favor of this proposal, I've spoken to the proponents and some members of the ARB on why the FAR3 makes sense. And what they said was that it allows us to achieve the height requirements that are currently allowed in the mixed-use buildings without going beyond our current open space requirements. So, and it also is a similar FAR for mixed-use buildings in other towns like Belmont and Watertown. I also wanted to note that so the proposed mixed-use building for the capital square area would still have been above the amended, this FAR of three, so it would still have to be amended a little bit beyond what was proposed. So I think this is very reasonable article and I look forward to voting for it. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Garber. Let's take Mr. Gibson next. Hi, Chad Gibson, precinct four. I was wondering, Mr. Moderator, two questions. One is this vote is a majority vote or a two-thirds vote? This is a majority vote. Okay. And Mr. Moderator, I don't know if you have someone on the panel, maybe that could help, but I'm interested in, if there's any link between this type of change in the FAR and anything we've seen from businesses in the businesses are either deciding to not rent out or do modifications, doing changes to their buildings to support businesses or things like that. If there's been any, there was a while where we had issues with just empty storefronts and I'm wondering if any of that could be linked to FAR restrictions. Is there anyone that could speak to that? That's Ms. Zembery. Any linkage between FAR restrictions and empty storefronts or? Sure, Rachel Zembery, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. I'm actually going to ask if Steve Revolac, a member of the Redevelopment Board could address this question in the absence of Jennifer Rae, who was the former Chair of the, excuse me, former Department Head of the Planning Department. Yep, Mr. Revolac from the Redevelopment Board. Steve Revolac, Arlington Redevelopment Board. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. There was, to Mr. Gibson's question, there was one, I know of one relatively recent instance from last July, where a property owner wished to redevelop their parcel. It was 192 Mass Ave, which used to be Christos and the Adventure Pub. And they were basically thwarted by the FAR limits. They were proposing 3.2 and this predates my time on the Redevelopment Board, but looking over the minutes from that meeting, they were basically told by the Board that you have to obey the FAR regulation for this district, there's not room for negotiation and the applicant withdrew. They did not feel that they could build a financially viable building with the FAR in that business district. In terms of owners of properties, that owner happened to send a letter to the Redevelopment Board supporting Article 39. Thank you. Mr. Gibson, anything else? I was also interested, you drive through Arlington to ride your bike or walk through our business districts and for a town that's been here forever, I'm not from here originally, it's just surprising that we consider ourselves so dense, yet some of our business districts are just not dense anymore, right? Single story business areas that go for blocks and blocks and you're like, why is it this way? Why do we not have more people living in our business districts, especially with the crunch and housing that we have? And a lot of times those houses I'm imagining would be one or two bedroom apartments that likely don't even bring many kids here. So worries about impacts to our schools are probably not that likely. And I'm just, I don't know if anybody from maybe the building inspector or someone can give us some history of why we haven't seen this type of development in town or why these building owners have not done anything to increase any of the density, is the FAR the reason or is there other reasons? Let's see, Mr, do we have Mr. Champa, the Director of Inspectional Services with us tonight? Looks like we do. Mr. Champa. I do have a comment. Mike Champa, Director of Inspectional Services. Yeah, there's actually a direct link between the FAR and the businesses. We have a lot of, the pandemic's left us with a lot of vacant storefronts and the buildings are older and they're not accessible. They don't have fire prevention protection up to today's standards. And it's actually making those spaces less leasable. And I know that the commercial property owners, at least a couple that are a long time Arlington commercial property owners are motivated to do something, but the FAR doesn't really, doesn't work into the plan of what they would do with the building, whether it be upgrading or replacing. So they're kind of stuck right now. Some of these buildings have unleasable spaces and property owners that want to do something with them, but the BFAR doesn't really fit into a business plan. Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I appreciate that insight. I move for favorable action on this article. Thank you. All right, thank you. Let's take Mr. Wharton next. Can you hear me, Mr. Moderator? Yes, I can. Name and precinct close. Very good. John Wharton, precinct eight. The reason I filed, well, let's go back to mixed use. When mixed use was approved by the town meeting in 2016, we were presented with the prospect of vibrant storefronts, shops, restaurants and all kinds of good stuff and people living upstairs, but it hasn't happened. Mixed use buildings have been approved, but what do we have over in Summer Street, and no one mentioned that Summer Street is a, is also in a mixed use zone. We have one little office and apartment building right close to the street. In, down next to the high school, across the street from the high school, we have a mixed use building right on the street, the ground floor of totally blank windows. Down in Broadway, we have the housing corps new building, and that has one half that is devoted to a food pantry, and the other half, as far as I can tell, is voted to a for rent. So the, and then there's another building going up across from the high school at the corner of Laughlin, that I don't know what's going to go on the ground floor, but the problem is that the redevelopment board has not insisted that the new building redevelopment board has not insisted that the ground floor carry out the undertakings that they gave to town meeting six years ago. And that is why I filed the amendment to sort of prod them along and let developers who want to do this say, look at, say, well, the law says we got to do this ground floor with, you know, make it mainly commercial like we're supposed to, and that we can't just sort of game it like we've been doing. And I don't know if 80% is the right number, but I know, I don't know how much space you need for bicycle parking and a lobby, I suppose it depends maybe on the size of the building, but then I looked to, we did pass article 28, which the redevelopment board proposed and town meeting approved, got a lot of guidelines for nice ways to enhance the appearance of new building, new commercial buildings. And I thought, well, it's not going to do much good unless we really have some commercial stuff in there. And the important thing, I think we've lost three of our restaurants in the center during the pandemic. I don't know who's- And two across from the high school, thanks to a mixed use building. And I think, Arlington for a while was a restaurant mecca and everybody came here to have nice meals and have a drink while they ate nice food, but that's sort of faded away. So I know that I understand that restaurant facilities are, you can't just put a restaurant anywhere, you have to have a bunch of particular facilities that work for the venting and the cooking and all that stuff that goes into a restaurant. But so I would, I guess all I can do at this point is encourage the redevelopment board to carry out their promises and insist that we really get these vibrant commercial uses in these buildings, whatever they are. And I'd like to see that happen before we start increasing the FARs that basically have just been resulted in apartment buildings too close to the street with limited space for both the residents and the buildings and the businesses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ward. That's it. Mr. Palmer next. Maxwell Palmer, precinct two. I'd like to make a motion to terminate debate on this article and all matters before it. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Palmer to terminate debate. We have a second from Mr. Siano that I recognize. So let's bring up a vote on termination of debate. Get rid of this. We'll get back to the portal. Okay, so we're voting now on whether to terminate debate on article 39. If you see some yellow highlighted text in the portal saying that your voting controls will be enabled in two more waves or in the next waves, just please sit tight. And within several seconds, you should be allowed to vote. If you see voting buttons, please go ahead and vote. And we're voting again on whether to terminate debate on article 39. If you wish to terminate debate, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. All right, just over 200 votes now. Let's just get another 30 seconds before we close voting on termination of debate. 20 seconds until we close voting. 10 seconds until we close voting on termination of debate of article 39. Five seconds. Okay, let's close voting. This is a two-thirds vote and the vote passes. So debate is terminated. We're not gonna cycle through the screens on termination of debate votes. We're gonna go straight to voting on the main motion. Voting should be opening momentarily. So the waves of voting across precincts should be opening now. Can we bring up the, let's see the article text. And it's specifically, this warrant article seeks to amend the zoning by-law to increase the maximum floor area ratio where FAR allowed for mixed use structures in the business districts. And if we scroll down, so you can see the table where the changes are proposed. So changing those maximum floor area ratios and the right-hand column of that table. In several cases, it's doubling the number. In other cases, it's limited, not quite doubled. I think three is the maximum that it goes up to. So doubled up to three, I believe. So if you're in favor of these changes to the maximum floor area ratio in this table, you can vote yes. If you're opposed and you wanna keep the zoning by-law as is in this regard, then you can vote no. I have over 200 votes cast now, so let's just wait another 30 seconds before we close voting. 20 seconds until we close voting on the main motion of article 39. 10 seconds until we close voting. Five seconds. Okay, let's close voting on the main motion of article 39. The motion passes 175 in the affirmative, 39 in the negative and we will wait for these screens to cycle through while we're waiting for that. Someone was asking in the Q&A what the vote was, on the vote to terminate debate. Apologize, I didn't, usually I do read that out. I didn't read it, I'll try to read that out in the future before we jump to voting on the main motion. And that brings us to article 41. And so Ms. Zembery, do you want to introduce this article, at least the ARB's vote on this? Yes, thank you. Rachel Zembery, chair of the redevelopment board. The redevelopment board voted five to zero unanimously to recommend favorable action on this zoning by law amendment related to a reduction in apartment parking minimums. This article aligns with both the master plan and Connect Arlington, the sustainable transportation plan. The master plan set forth the goal of establishing parking ratios that reflect the actual need for parking in our towns. Thank you. Okay, and the proponent of this article is Mr. Fleming. Could bring up Mr. Fleming to introduce this. Mr. Fleming, are you able to unmute? It looks like you're unmuted, but I don't hear anything. Mike not working, please play the video. So we just bring up Mr. Fleming's video. James Fleming, present three article proponent. Let's start with a question. What is a parking minimum? It's the minimum amount of parking you have to have if you want to have a building in Arlington. You can build more if you want, but you can't build less. There are minimums for almost every kind of building in town. For example, this is a single family home. Single family homes are required to build at least one parking space. This home looks like it has two, so they're okay. Two is greater than one. However, they couldn't tear the driveway up and not have a parking space because zero is less than one. This is a section of the zoning by law which dictates the minimum parking requirements for residential uses. As we just saw, single families are required to build one space per unit as are two and three families. However, apartments are required to provide a different number of spaces per number of bedrooms, usually greater than one parking space per unit. This is data from the American Community Survey, which is conducted by the census and which helps local officials, community leaders and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities. This chart shows the number of cars for renting household in Arlington as of 2020. For the purposes of this presentation, note that four in five households had one or fewer cars and one in five had no car at all. This proposal would change the parking minimum for apartments such that apartments are required to only build one space per unit. This brings them in line with other types of housing in town. Note that an individual apartment can still have two spaces even if an average of one space per unit is built and that public housing for the elderly is not affected by these changes. We have evidence that builders are willing to provide one or fewer spaces per unit. A proposed development in East Arlington in 2021 had about one half space per unit and the development currently being built kitty corner to the high school originally proposed one space per unit. This is the reason that I'm so interested in this. Unneeded parking wastes land that could be put to better use. By way of example, this is an apartment building at the end of Oxford Street just before Broadway. According to town property records, it has about 10,000 square feet of apartments and about 4,300 square feet of parking. The building is valued at $1.3 million and the parking lot at $6,800. The parking space is 40% of the living space but is valued at less than 1% as much. Think about that. Living space is worth 80 times as much as parking so it also pays 80 times the tax revenue. From a money perspective, parking is almost like empty land. By requiring more parking than needed instead of allowing it to be used for something else like another apartment, the town is leaving tax revenue on the table. Unneeded parking also costs residents money. Depending on conditions, a single space can cost between $5,000 and $12,000 in the Boston area and a whole lot more if basement parking is required. If an owner wants one space per unit but is forced to build more, the rents must be higher to cover the cost. Someone has to pay for it. You might ask about guest parking. The town allows 14 nights of on-street overnight parking for guests in front of the host's apartment which strikes a balance between flexibility for residents and enforcing the overnight parking ban. What about handicapped parking? There are, these are two excerpts from the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Regulations which governs handicapped parking. In Massachusetts, if you move into an apartment building and you need an accessible parking space, the building owner must provide one for you. If they do not have enough because they only built the minimum, they must find a way to provide you with one. In short, if you need an accessible space, you're going to get one. In summary, minimum parking requirements for apartments would be reduced so that only one space per unit would be required. You should support this because the majority of renters don't need more than one parking space and excess parking deprives the town of tax revenue. Thank you. All right, so let's head to the speaker queue and let's... Can you hear me now? Oh, yes, I can. Go ahead, do you have anything more to add? Awesome, thank you. No, I'm just, I'm making sure this works because you're going to be hearing a lot from me tonight. So thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Fleming. Let's say, so, okay, let's take a speaker out of order, speakers that we haven't heard from before. Let's take Mr. Westcott first. Oh, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Name and precinct, please. I thank you, Mr. Moderator. Charles Westcott, precinct 18. I'm not clear how this affects the ARB's review process. Can I ask the chair a few questions? Yeah, you can ask through me. The chair of the ARB, Ms. Denver? Sure. Yeah, your questions. So first, does the ARB review all new apartment building projects? Ms. Ember? Rachel Zembery, chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, we review apartment buildings and mixed use with residential, which is the majority of what we see that are required to come for special permit for projects that are built in town, apartment buildings that are built in town under what's called a 40B that is not reviewed by the Redevelopment Board, but it does go through a process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So to follow up on that, does the board have the authority to make reductions in the minimum number of parking spaces? Ms. Zembery? Rachel Zembery, chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, there is a provision in the Zoning Bylaws whereby the Redevelopment Board can reduce the parking for developments that come under a special permit by a percentage. Okay, so given that, I mean, since the passing of the mixed use bylaw, has the ARB ever rejected any request for a reduction in parking? Ms. Zembery? Rachel Zembery, chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, the Redevelopment Board has, rather than outright rejected requests, what we try and do is work with developers to find alternate ways of meeting the transportation needs of either their residents or their business users. So there are several options within the parking reduction section of the bylaw, which we require the developer of the property or the owner of the property to enable on their property in order to be even eligible for parking reduction. We have at times identified that the developer of the property has not adequately met those. And at times we have also identified that the parking reduction which they're looking for is beyond what we feel the needs are for the property. Thank you. So you have then generally worked with developers to help them reduce their parking exposure below the current minimum. I haven't, but Ms. Zembery, what answer? Rachel Zembery again, chair of the Redevelopment Board. Yes, it's our goal to work with developers in any case to make their project feasible and also to protect the interests of the town and the future users of the property. So yes, it is always our goal to work with developers to create the best possible outcome for the town and for the project. Okay, and just one more follow-up. That is with or without Article 41. Ms. Zembery? Yes, that is correct. That is with or without Article 41. We definitely work together with developers. Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Zembery and Mr. Moderator. All right, thank you, Mr. Westcott. Since we're going out of order, I'm ready to let's take Ms. Latowski next since I don't think we've heard from her. Thank you, Jennifer Latowski, Precinct 3. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Go ahead. So, Arlington has made these mixed use developments a priority along our business corridors, large as an important way to bring less expensive housing to Arlington, which is exactly what so many of us have stressed that we need. And these current rules that require more parking spaces per unit definitely reduce our ability to produce that. Furthermore, the rules don't make sense and they're not fair for apartment units to have a higher requirement for parking than a single family or a two-family home. It just doesn't make sense. So, these excess parking space is waste space that could be better used having more units on the same footprint or more open space or more amenities for the business and the tenants. They're expensive. As the video clearly showed, they cost a lot of money to produce or to build which gets passed on in terms of rent directly reducing affordability. As well, if we allow buildings with more units, more of them will reach the threshold for providing affordable housing. I think that passing this article gives us a, is a very important tool to being able to increase the amount of affordable housing in the town, both sort of capital-A affordable and this general sense of affordable. Furthermore, it is being targeted to streets in the town where we have transportation options. And so this is where we have our major bus routes. This is where we have some of the major bike routes. It's the right place to do it. So I'd like to really encourage town meeting members to vote yes for article 41 to reduce these parking minimums to a reasonable and fair level. Thank you. Great, thank you, Ms. Latoski. Okay, let's go back to the natural order of the speaking to you. Let's take Mr. Wagner next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me this time okay? Yes, I can. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm on an iPhone. Hopefully it'll work better than my laptop. Carl Wagner, precinct 15. Article 41 would reduce the parking that developers are required to provide in apartment buildings down to one space regardless of whether one bedroom, two bedroom or three bedroom or up are the apartment size. Currently, two bedrooms and three bedrooms have more than basically one space. 1.5 average for two bedrooms and two cars or two parking spots for three bedrooms. While article 41 expresses a desire that we all have to reduce car reliance and usage, I ask that you would vote no on this article because worse than being wishful thinking it's actually a punitive measure that will hurt renters and condo owners that are not here yet of course, particularly those in two bedroom and three bedroom units. Also the ARB already has as they noted the ability to reduce parking requirements. I didn't hear the chair say it, but I believe it's 75% they can reduce when applicants meet with them. Even in Cambridge, the community in our state that has done the most to promote alternate forms of transport and to reduce the roles of cars, Cambridge has had to admit that ownership there hasn't fallen below 1.5 cars per unit. There are fairness issues in providing inadequate parking to renters and condo owners just because we want a goal in our minds. And those people are less able to advocate often in things like town meeting for their needs and in other bodies. With our current housing crisis, a multi bedroom apartment is likely to be home to multiple adult workers who may have to work in different locations, old night jobs or have multiple generations with multiple vehicles. Not everyone can commute to Kendall Square by bike partially because not everyone works in Kendall Square or at transit connected workspaces. The proponents argued that only one car is currently required per unit in new single and two family construction. This avoids however, the fact that most existing homes in Arlington have parking for at least two vehicles and that in many cases where there are at least two adults living in a home, there is a need for two vehicles. I don't live in multifamily apartment buildings nor does Article 41's proponent as far as I know. So why did I decide to vote no and why do I hope that the town meeting members will? Because taking away from the quality of life and the amenities of another housing type and from those that might not be here to advocate for themselves tonight seems to have equity and justice issues to me and it seems frankly unfair. I ask that you would vote against arbitrarily forcing future apartment dwellers into one car space and that you would vote no on Article 41 and any amendments that would reduce parking from the current requirements for future renters and condo owners. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Let's take Ms. Hyam next. Leba Hyam precinct. So sorry, I just blanked on precinct 15. I'm rising to talk in favor of this article. Pretty much Arlington is in this catch 22 of we have empty storefronts and storefronts need pedestrian traffic and we have good transit. We wanna make sure that we continue to attract good transit systems and in having apartment buildings that have limited parking so that people that choose to live in them are committing to one or fewer cars also increases the reliance on mass transit and also on local businesses. And so we're not putting an undue burden on people who are already there and saying you had this and now you no longer will. We're pretty much setting an expectation for the future. And if people who wanna live in apartment really want two or three cars, there are other communities that are further out that offer a lot more parking than we do and are not as dense as we are and are not as reliant on a vibrant town, center centers and a massive corridor of businesses. So I do encourage everybody to please vote in favor of this article. Thank you. All right, thank you, Ms. Hyam. Let's take Mr. Rudick next. Hi, Ben Rudick precinct five, going to speak quietly because I've got this baby on my lap. Putting on my professional hat for a second, I spent the last 13 years working in commercial real estate currently as a vice president of capital markets for a group that primarily does large real estate projects in Asia and Europe, but have done a little bit of stuff in the US, nothing in Boston, nothing in Arlington, nothing in New England, no interest or conflict here, but I have some professional experience that I would like to bring to bear. Regarding parking minimums, I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding that developers will willingly build something that does not have enough parking. When you go to build something, unless you have a giant pile of gold under your mattress, you have to borrow money, you go to a bank and you ask them for that money and the bank says explain to me why it's a good idea, do diligence. And one of those pieces is a traffic and parking study to show that whatever you're proposing to build is going to be viable and that the tenants or owners that will be coming to your residential building, for instance, want whatever it is you're selling, including the availability of parking. These investors and banks have a very, very good sense of what people want and need and they are not going to build something that is not commercially viable nor will they ever get the money to do so. So I wouldn't be concerned about reducing parking minimums and then resulting in buildings that don't have no parking because I just don't think that the forces of capitalism will allow that to happen. I'd also like to point out that the ARB voted 5-0 unanimously to support this. And so the previous comments noting that yes, variances can be given but I can imagine it's a bit of a headache for them to be asked for and then have to give variances on every single project to make them make some degree of sense. And as a previous speaker noted, the money goes somewhere that if you are using up more land for parking and not for whatever you're building, then that cost is going to be passed on to tenants or owners or whoever uses that space. So anyway, I am strongly in support of this and I'm happy to provide expertise where I can. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Rudick. Let's take Mr. Moore next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christopher Moore, precinct 14. I move to terminate debate on article 41. Okay, we have a motion to terminate debate on article 41. Do we have any seconds? We have a second from Mr. Siano. So let's bring up a vote on whether to terminate debate on article 41. Okay, so voting should be in the process of opening up. If you're able to vote, please vote. If you see yellow highlighted text, it's not your turn yet, but just sit tight and within several seconds you will be able to vote. We're going to hear on termination of debate of article 41. If you want to terminate debate, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. And this is a two-thirds vote. Just passed a 200 votes cast. Let's give folks another 30 seconds. Okay, 20 seconds and so we close voting on termination of debate of article 41. 10 seconds, five seconds. All right, let's close voting on termination of debate. Okay, and the vote passes. It's 191 in the affirmative, 27 in negative. So the debate is terminated. Let's now open up voting on the main motion of article 41. And the main motion is a majority vote. Okay, so voting should be in the process of opening up depending on which precinct you're in and which way if your precinct is in, if you're able to vote, please vote. If you see the yellow highlighted text, just sit tight and you'll be able to vote shortly. Could we bring up the text of the main motion? This is to see if the town will, will amend the zoning bylaw to reduce or remove the minimum vehicular parking requirements for apartment building uses. And if we scroll down to the table, we can see what is being proposed to be changed as far as parking requirements. So if you are in favor of the changes in this table where the underlying sections are added and the stricken sections are to be removed, if you're in favor of those changes, vote yes. Okay, we have a point of order. Let's bring up Mr. Warden for his point of order. Mr. Warden, are you able to unmute? Can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Oh, thank you. Sorry, Mr. Matter, I just, the question, did the point of order- Name and precinct and your- John Warden, precinct eight. The question is, why is this a majority vote? Isn't this a zoning bylaw? Let's say. Ms. Zembury, can you answer? I understand if it's, Ms. Zembury, can you give a rationale for why this is majority rather than two thirds? Rachel Zembury, chair of the redevelopment board. I'd actually like our town council, Doug Hyne, to answer that. He can cite the mass general law requirement which allows the majority votes. Mr. Hyne, can you clarify why this is majority vote rather than two thirds for a zoning bylaw amendment? Mr. Matter, can you hear me? Yes, I can, yeah. I could hear you for a second. Are you still there? Ms. Mimey. So the voting threshold, the voting threshold, sorry, Doug Hyne town council, the voting threshold for zoning bylaws ordinarily two thirds, if it's subject to the so-called housing choice law which creates additional housing units in a direct relationship with, by the action of the legislated body, zoning amendment, that's subject to a simple majority. Thank you. Boys, that's in. Okay, yeah. Mr. Wharton, I think that, did that answer your question? Well, it does, but the extra units are gonna be built if you put an extra unit where you would have put parking. I think that's an awfully thin rationale for changing the quantum of vote. Well, that is what, Mr. Hyne, do you have the citation for the mass general law that's applicable here? Doug Hyne town council. Actually, I think it's listed here in the report excerpt right there that's being highlighted right now. Is that the correct? What we're talking about is money and it's categories. I apologize. Yeah, so yeah, what's listed here is MGL chapter 40A, section five, such that the zoning by law may be enacted by a simple majority of vote rather than two thirds, super majority that applies to other zoning amendments. Okay, let's see. So, we're moving forward with this, like there does not appear to be any error here. We're moving forward with a quantum of vote here of. Mr. Monitor, I'm sorry, may I? Yeah, Mr. Hyne, go ahead, please. I'm sorry, my connection is having a little bit of a difficulty and I apologize for that to members of town. There are essentially, just if there's more detail needed, there's essentially nine categories of things that are essentially subject to the reduced threshold. One of them is essentially reducing the parking requirements for residential or mixed use development under a special permit. So that's what we're talking about here. It's highlighted specifically as one of the aspects of the housing choice legislation, which enabled these lower voting thresholds. So it's not highly attenuated. This one's actually fairly straightforward and clear in one of the ways in which chapter 48 section five was amended. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hyne. I mean, I'm satisfied by Mr. Hyne's explanation and rationale on that. So I consider that matter closed. Thank you, Mr. Warden. Okay, so we have just a handful of folks who have not voted. Let's just give folks another 20 seconds before we close voting. If you haven't voted yet, please get your vote in. 10 seconds. So let's close voting on the main motion of article 41. Five seconds. And let's close voting now. Okay, passed by 76%, 168, the affirmative, 53 in the negative. So the main motion of article 41 passes. So we'll wait for these voting screens. In any event, it's beyond two thirds threshold as well, but the threshold was set at a majority. And while we're waiting for these screens to go by, I did get word that Mr. Poole, our deputy time manager is here with us. And so before we go on break, after we finished the last couple of screens, I would entertain a motion from Mr. Foskett to lay some articles on the table so that we could bring up article 49 to vote on collective bargaining while Mr. Poole is here. Okay, so we've gone through all the screens. So we currently have article 42 before us. Mr. Foskett, do you have a motion that you'd like to? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator Charles Foskett, precinct 10 and chair of the finance committee. I move that articles 42 through 45 be laid upon the table. Second. Okay, we have a motion to lay articles 42 to 45 on the table and we have a second from Ms. Brazil. And that would bring article 49 before us because we've already disposed of the other article, the interviewing articles. So do we have any objections to laying articles 42 to 45 on the table so that we can take up article 49 next after which the intention is that we'll go back to article 42 by removing those articles from the table. So if there's any objections, feel free to raise your hands in Zoom. Let's make sure raised hands are enabled. And as is our relatively new policy, if the number gets sufficiently high, then we would take an official vote in the portal. But if we can do it through raised hands, that would be much more efficient quicker. So seeing no object, I see one hand, that hand has been removed. Okay, seeing no hands raised, I consider that a unanimous vote. So articles 42 through 45 are now on the table and that brings us to article 49. Just a moderator. Yes, Mr. Foskett. Yes, I would like to move the Finance Committee's amendment that's posted on the website for article 49 and would request that Mr. Poole, the Finance Director and Deputy Town Manager be allowed to speak to it. Okay, so do we have a second to Mr. Foskett's motion to amend article 49, the main motion of article 49? And just to be clear, what's posted, just so folks are clear, what's posted on the annotated warrant is the amended version of that, in case that wasn't clear. The original version, I believe Mr. Foskett correct me if I'm wrong, the original version of the main motion is in the Finance Committee report. Yes, that's correct. And so what you see in the annotated warrant is the proposed amended text for article 49. Okay, so we have a second from Mr. Quinn to Mr. Foskett's motion to amend the main motion of article 49. Okay, so can we bring up the text from the annotated warrant while Mr. Puller announces this? And while we're waiting for that, there was a question in the Q and A about if Fincom amended their report and if so the amended report vote should be before us automatically. I believe that it's not the case. Mr. Foskett, can you verify that that is not the case, that we do have to vote on the amended version here that we're seeing? Yes, sir. We haven't voted on 49 at all. So the version... I think the question is about the Fincom, has the Fincom report itself been amended to change the recommended vote? I think that's the question. Yes, it has. Oh, it has. But to your understanding, go ahead. The amended vote has been supported by the Finance Committee. Okay, but to your understanding, Town Meeting needs to still amend the main motion with this amended version? Or with the version that's been amended in the Fincom report be before us automatically as the main motion? I think that's the question. I can answer that question directly. I'm not that expert in Town Meeting time. Perhaps, sir, time has an answer to that. Mr. Heim, do you have an answer? Because I was only impressed that we would need to vote on this as an amendment to the main motion. Mr. Heim, do you know if that's not the case, if the change in the Fincom report, the change, I believe, in the recommended vote in the Fincom report that's already been amended before we took up this article just now at Town Meeting, does that mean that the amended version that's in the amended Fincom report, is that automatically supersede the replace effectively the main motion of Article 49? And then Mr. Monterey, Doug Hunt, Town Council, folks can hear me a little bit better. I apologize for that. We can, yeah, we can. So the main motion is the Fincoms motion. So whatever Fincom is recommending is the main motion. They're not seeking to really amend their own report. They've essentially provided an updated version of their vote that accounts for this. Is that a correct understanding, Mr. Foskett? That's correct. Then I think this main motion is what the motion is before. It doesn't need to be voted on as an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Monterey. Great, thank you, Mr. Heim. And Mr. Gleone had mentioned in the Q&A, we can withdraw that the previous proposed vote could be withdrawn. So if that's already been removed from the Fincom report, and according to what Mr. Heim just said, what we have, the recommended vote that we now have before us is just what's in the annotated warrant that we do not need to actually take a vote of Town Meeting to amend the main motion. Okay, so thanks for bearing with us. And so what you see now here in front of us, and you'll see this again in the annotated warrant is now the main motion for Article 49. This was amended in the Fincom report as Mr. Foskett explained. So this is actually the main motion that is before us. And we have a point of order from Mr. Rosenthal. Let's take that. Mark Rosenthal, Precinct 14, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay, in the annotated warrant, Article 49 down at the bottom has a link to Article 49 collective bargaining revised 5.25.22. How does that relate to the main motion? Ms. Brazile, can you explain the change there from the revised May 25th version? Truly for Seltown Clerk, it is the main motion. Okay, that's what I thought. The 5.25.22 is the main motion that we're voting on. Yes, Ms. Brazile can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that prior to May 25th, when this text was approved by Fincom, there was a different, there was a different vote language here in the annotated warrant, which was substituted in place by Ms. Brazile when the Fincom report changed. Is that correct, Ms. Brazile? Truly, Brazile, Seltown Clerk, yes it is. And I left just to help people who had already printed it out. I left the original vote language and moved it up to the report excerpt just to try and make sure that if anybody had printed it out, they could still see the million dollar number, the 1.3 million dollar number. But what we're voting on is the vote language, which Fincom revised. Right, so the original vote language was literally just that one sentence that the sum of 1,323,000 so on. And that now has been replaced and subsumed in the Fincom report with the vote language down below, which has all the detail of the tables and a total of $389,052, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Great, thank you, Mr. Roosevelt. Okay. Let's see, is debate now open for articles? Mr. Moderator, I had asked Mr. Puller. Oh, right, Mr. Puller, yeah. Mr. Puller, do you want to introduce this? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Sandy Puller, deputy town manager and finance director for the town. So tonight we have before you on article 49, the successful conclusion of collective bargaining between the town and three of our unions, plus some changes to pay for non-union members. First of all, I would like to acknowledge both the work of our HR director, Karen Malloy, whose vision and persistence in these matters in bargaining with me and made this all possible. I would also like to thank the cooperation of the union president and their bargaining teams. We have very good relations with these unions. Our labor relations with our collective bargaining agreements is a very important part of the town. And so I would like to thank them for all the work that they did to get us where we are. There are three collective bargaining agreements here. The first is with the fire union for a contract between FY 2022 and 2024. It contains the basic wage pattern that we have with all of our unions of 1.5% in FY 22, 2% in FY 23 and 2% in FY 24. It expands a stipend that we pay people who have their emergency medical technician licenses from 3.75% to 5% in FY 23 and 5.5% in FY 24. We also made some minor adjustments to the size of steps within the agreement. We made all these financial changes so that we would keep the fire personnel at the 72nd percentile of pay compared to the town manager 12 communities. That is where the fire union was at the beginning of this contract and that is where they will end up at the end of this contract. We also put in language to recognize Juneteenth and provide paid compensation to them for that. For the librarians union, the Robbins Professional Librarians Association, we kept to a pay system that was economically equivalent to the 1.5, 2, and 2%. However, we structured it differently with them as we tried to do with unions if they would like to see a different structure. This is a two year contract that covers just FY 23 and 24 with a 0.5% co-op each of those years. We added two new steps for grades three and four and another new step for grades one and two. And excuse me, there are four steps in these scales. We added two new for grades one and two and a new step for grades three and four. We also increased the longevity payment by $700 but to make it more comparable to those of other unions. Under the contract, the library will no longer close on Good Friday and will be open for regular hours on Saturdays during the summer instead of the limited schedule they have now. As the next thing that is on the Finance Committee report are changes for the pay for non-union members, management members and our one elected official. These are changes reflecting the same 2% COLA increase that we have for the other unions. And finally, we have a settlement of the Ask Me contract. These are the town employees, mostly in DPW and in the school custodians as well as all of the unionized administrative staff in town offices. We maintain the same one and a half to 2% pattern. We also made market adjustments which we've done with this union in the past of 25 cents per hour or $450 for FY23 or 30% per hour or 566 in FY24 and created a new step for employees with 10 years or more of service. We also changed how we are dealing with snow and ice to try to increase the number of workers who are available for those events. We've gotten rid of the existing stipends we've paid there and instead are gonna pay double overtime instead of time and a half. We've also secured the right to contract out sanding operations during those periods. We regularly contract out certain ploughing operations but sanding operations is something that we have done for the first time. We're installing GPS or have the right to install GPS in town vehicles and to use assessment centers. In other words, testing people's skills as opposed to just a written test for certain promotions particularly those positions where there's an issue of safety involved and we've recognized Juneteenth all in all. We are happy with these settlements. They've been ratified by all the unions. They fit within our salary reserves and I would very much hope the town meeting supports this so that we can move forward with these unions and get them their pay as retro pay for this year and adjust their wages for January for excuse me July 1st, 2023 for the second year of the contract. Be happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time. All right, thank you, Mr. Poehler. And administrative correction that we've already made so this might be just an updated version of the document that the one administrative correction we made is that you see like two items labeled C, the second one should be D of course. And if you look at the annotated warrant it has the updated lettering for item D. Mr. Moderator. Yeah, yes, Mr. Posca. For the sake of clarity, I would just like to add two comments. Is that the amount of appropriation against the tax rate is still as in the original language of 1,323,572. The 389,052 is the amount of that 1.3 million that is not being appropriated to the various settlements but is going to be set aside in a salary reserve account for future bargaining agreements. And secondly, that the town meeting is being asked here to do two things. First to approve the appropriation sums and the transfers as outlined by Mr. Poehler. And secondly, and very importantly within the prerogative of the town meeting to ratify the collective bargaining agreements without the town meeting's application, we have problems. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Posca. So all we have before us is the main motion. There's no amendments on this as we discussed earlier. We just have the vote language that's before us here that was amended in the FNCOM report, which is, so we're going with the new recommended vote that you see here. So I believe the speaker queue is open, correct? So anyone who wishes to speak on this should be able to request to speak. Seeing no speakers, let's go straight to voting. And then we'll take a break after voting on Article 49. Okay, so voting should be in the process of opening. If you see the yellow highlighted text that your voting controls will be enabled in the next wave or in two waves, just sit tight. And within several seconds, you should be able to vote. If you see the voting button, please go ahead and vote on the main motion of Article 49. That's in the revised May 25th version of the FNCOM report. And it's also in the annotated warrant if you go to Article 49. If we bring up that text just so everyone can see it as well. Okay, so we're in favor of the collective bargaining agreement and this total sum of $389,052 being appropriated to be set aside for funding future collective bargaining agreements, vote yes, if you're opposed, vote no. We're at 210 votes cast now. So it's just a handful of folks who have been recently active in the portal who haven't voted yet. So let's give them another 20 seconds, 10 seconds until we close voting, five seconds. Okay, let's close voting. This is a majority vote. Okay, the vote passes, 212 in the affirmative, one in the negative. We'll just wait for the voting screens. We are gonna, let's say, we'll take a 10 minute break now. So we'll come back at 9.52. If you're not interested in watching all the voting screens or you're in one of the earlier precincts, feel free to go on break now and we'll come back at 9.52. Actually make that 9.53. We'll come back at 9.53. All right, see you then. It's 9.53, so let's come back. And we now, at least for the moment, have article 73 before us, Mr. Foskett. I would entertain a motion to remove some articles from the table is Mr. Foskett there. Ms. Brazil, would you be interested in removing some articles from the table? Julie Brazil, precinct 12. I move that we remove articles 73 to 77. Well, those are not on the table. It'd be 42 to 45. You're right, I'm sorry, 42 to 45. So we have a motion to remove articles 42 to 45 from the table. Do we have a second? It looks like... I second that. We have a second from Mr. Foskett. Any objections? Let's make sure raise hands and zoom are enabled. Raise your hand and zoom if you object to removing articles 42 through 45 from the table. Seeing no objections, I declare it a unanimous vote and that brings us to article 42. So let's bring that up. Looks like we're not presenting any screen here in zoom. So, okay, so Ms. Zembury, can you kick us off as chair of the Redevelopment Board and tell us about the Arabian's vote on this article? Thank you. Rachel Zembury, chair of the Redevelopment Board. The Redevelopment Board voted five to zero to recommend favorable action on article 42, the Zoning By-law Amendment related to open space uses. The Redevelopment Board felt that this amendment was a positive action to remove a redundant requirement for an applicant looking to seek a special permit for a temporary use of open space. Thank you. Thank you and let's bring up Mr. Fleming who's the proponent of this article. Yeah, Mr. Fleming, I'll go ahead and name and precinct. Yep, James Fleming, precinct three. I would only ask that the prerecorded video please be played. Yeah, let's bring up the video. James Fleming, precinct three, article proponent. These are two pictures of the Aronaut beer garden hosted in Arlington Center, taken in 2018 and 2019. The town allowed the use of Whittemore Park for the event and it was a hit. Over a thousand people attended the beer garden when it opened in 2018 and 600 when it opened in 2019. Local restaurants sold food and ice cream, musicians played and residents enjoyed themselves. To me, this is a great example of the town using its public space to create a fun place to live and support local businesses. This is an excerpt from the Zoning By-law that describes some of what is allowed to happen in the open space district, which includes all parks and some other spaces in town. According to the director of Parks and Rec, this table is used to determine what is not allowed in parks. This proposal would allow two new rows, one to allow outdoor recreation, such as a fitness class, and one to allow cultural arts and entertainment activity, such as live music or a theatrical performance, both for and not for profit. This is similar to the temporary rules the town adopted to allow businesses to use town parks during COVID. This proposal would more or less make them a permanent feature of the town by-laws. Another thing to note is that some of the rows in this table were labeled as SP, but changed to Y. And SP means that the use is only allowed by special permit, which is administered by zoning boards. By way of example, if an event were to request a special permit, it would take about two months, which can be useful if a permanent change is being considered like adding a parking lot to a park, but it seems like an unreasonably high bar for a temporary event. The outcome of this process is also not determined by parks and rec who control the land. Why was this not a problem for the beer garden? The beer garden was possible because Whitmore Park is controlled by the select board, which voted to allow it. Changing the SP to a Y means that a special permit would not be required for temporary uses here. Removing the special permit requirement and allowing these new uses does not mean these events would be unregulated. This is a summary of Title IV Article I of the town by-laws, which describes regulation on activity in town parks. In a park, you cannot have alcohol or make an enormous amount of noise and advertising is allowed only with permission from parks and rec. According to the parks department, someone who wants to host an event would be able to go to parks and rec for permission and the parks and rec commission would determine the rules for the event. In general, there would be no circumstances under which someone could do something without permission from the associated department. In summary, this proposal would allow more types of activity in parks, with the parks department determining the what, where, and when of events, including prioritization of uses and any fees. You should support this because the town has successfully used public space to foster community and support local businesses, and we should do more of that. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Fleming. Let's see. And so the speaker queue is open and we have some speakers already waiting to speak. Let's take Mr. Moore first. Christopher Moore, precinct 14. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I move to terminate debate on article 42. That was quick. Do we have a second? To Mr. Moore's motion to terminate debate. We do have a second from Mr. Siena. So let's take a vote on terminating debate. Okay, so voting should be opening up. It may already be open for you if you're in the first wave of precincts. Otherwise, if you're getting the yellow highlighted text, just please hang in there and then several seconds you should be able to vote. And we're voting here on whether to terminate debate on article 42, if you're in favor of terminating debate. Vote yes, if you want to, I would say continue debate, but if you want to start debate, vote no. Again, we're voting here on whether to terminate debate on article 42. If you want to terminate debate, vote yes. If you want to continue or at least start debate, vote no. We have about 200 votes in. So let's just close voting in 30 seconds, 20 seconds until we close voting on termination of debate of article 42. 10 seconds until we close voting. Okay, let's close voting. Is it two thirds vote to terminate debate? And the motion fails. 121 in the affirmative, 77 negative. So let's go back to debate. We will not wait for the screens. So let's go back to the speaking queue. Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. Hold on a sec. I'm not selected the next speaker yet. Okay, here we are. Let's take Mr. Rosenthal. Name and precinct, please. Mr. Rosenthal, are you able to unmute? Yes, can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. I note that when the beer garden was first being run, Aeronaut, which I believe is not a local or a certain company, was given the use of Whitmer Park for free and they made a profit off of it. And yes, it was very popular, but particularly given the upcoming override, I think we should be looking for any opportunity where somebody wants to use a resource owned by the town, somebody from outside the town, that we should consider what the value of that resource is. And so I'm wondering if these proposed changes are going to essentially give away our resources, our parks and whatever, the use of our resources profit-making companies for free. Let's say, Ms. Zember, do you have an answer to that question? Or we can go to, let's start with Ms. Zember. Sure, Rachel Zember, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. This currently just, that's out of scope of this article, this specifically deals with the allowable uses, not any type of fee for use. If there is further question regarding that particular arrangement, I would defer to Len Digg, and Chair of the Select Board, who previously oversaw, the Select Board previously oversaw that approval. Mr. Rosenthal. Okay, I think that answers my question. Thank you very much. Okay, let's take Mr. Bagnall next. Alex Bagnall, precinct nine. I'd just like to note that the Arlington Commission for Arts and Culture voted in full support of the passage of this article, and is excited about the opportunities that it presents, including reducing the barriers to artists using the parks and increasing opportunities for local artists and arts organizations. And I hope you will join me in voting for it. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Bagnall. Thank you, Mr. Varaglou, next. Mustafa Varaglou, Piesington. I guess you can hear me. Yes, I can. Go ahead. So I guess I'm generally in favor of this. Those of I just wanted to check if the Park and Rec Commission had voted on this or given any feedback to this proposal because I think a lot of the space will be under their purview. Mr. Fleming, as the proponent, do you know if the Parks and Rec Department had voted on this or had discussed this? Sure, James Fleming, precinct three. I don't know if they've taken a vote on it. I had originally talked to Joe Connolly, who's the head of the Parks Department when drafting the article. And I had asked him for feedback on the final motion before we sent it off to the ARB. And he had said that there was no circumstance under which the Parks Department wouldn't have the ability to set terms and conditions for whatever gets used. Okay, that's reassuring. Then the other one, and I don't know if you could answer if anybody can answer this. When we have events like Shakespeare in the Park and Melania Rocks or the July 4th celebration, those events are held essentially for free for participants. Do the organizers, which are either the friends or the drama society, if I'm correct, do they pay any permit fees for using this space? Is that a thing? Mr. Poole, do you know if fees are accepted or do you know who might know that? Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Sandy Poole, Deputy Town Manager. I don't know, I would think Mr. Connolly would know if he were here, but I'm not personally familiar with the fee structure for those events. All right, I see Mr. Chapter Lane has his hand raised, so I suspect he might have an answer. Mr. Chapter Lane. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Adam Chapter Lane, Town Manager. Just a billing only a little bit more on what Mr. Poole just said. I don't know the exact amount, but I do believe the Parks and Recreation Commission is really a nominal permit fee. It's not a fee that's looking to approximate the use of base, but rather a fee that pays the department for the processing of the application and the issuance of the permit or license. Yeah, I mean, I think we should vote this forward. And my only concern would be that there's an event every weekend and we lose access to parts of the park on a regular basis, which I doubt would happen, but if that does, then I guess we can always come back and ask for some way to mitigate that. But otherwise, I think it'd be great to bring more culture and more events and bring people together in the parks. That's a great resource. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Varaglou. Let's take Ms. Benedict. Beth Benedict, Precinct 21. You know, I am generally in favor of this article, but I do wonder about the parameters and who sets those parameters for who can be participating in these events. And how that happens. I know that happens to the Arts and Cultural Committee, but I also wonder if there are gonna be new parameters set and if so, who would set them? And how would that be decided? Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Zemberger, do you have any answers to those questions? Rachel Zemberger, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. The bodies that typically have journey over these types of open spaces are the select board, the Parks and Rec Department and Conservation Commission. I would be happy to defer to the chairs of any of those commissions to speak more broadly about the access and restrictions. Thank you. So take me a step back. Ms. Zemberger, does anything change in regards to the decision-making process? Like it's not changed by this article, because then that would be out of scope. The rules there are not changing. Ms. Benevik, anything else? No, that's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Well, we have no more speakers in the queue, so let's open voting on the main motion. Okay, voting should be opening up now. Once again, if you're seeing the yellow highlighted text that your voting controls will be enabled in the next wave or in two more waves, just please wait for that to for your voting controls open up. Otherwise, please go ahead and vote. And this is a two-thirds vote on the main motion of Article 42, voting on whether to amend the zoning by-law to expand the allowed uses in the open space district. Can we bring up the text of the main motion, the voting language, please? And so if you're in favor of the changes in the table, section 5.6.3, the use regulations, if you're in favor of these changes, you can vote yes. If you don't want these changes, you can vote no. Again, this is a two-thirds vote. Okay, we're over 200 votes cast, so let's just be voting open for another 30 seconds, 20 seconds until we close voting on Article 42, 10 seconds until voting is closed. Okay, let's close voting. And the motion passes 199, the affirmative eight in the negative, and we'll wait for these screens to show all the votes across all the precincts. The main motion of Article 42 passes. Okay, once you cycle through all these voting screens by precinct, we will have Article 43 before us. Okay, so Ms. Zemberg, do you want to introduce or at least tell us about the ARB vote on Article 43? Yes, Rachel Zemberg, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. The Redevelopment Board voted 5-0 to recommend favorable action on Article 43 for the Zoning By-law Amendment related to zoning map requirements. This article primarily seeks to clarify not only who receives notification, but how they receive notification for petition for a change to the zoning map. It does not change the process, it merely clarifies it. Thank you. Great, thank you. And let's bring up Mr. Fleming as the proponent of this article. James Fleming, Precinct Three. Sure, so this article came about as sort of a last minute one as a response to Article 40, which got voted down, which was a zoning map amendment during which I learned a couple of things. One of which is that if you want to rezone a property in town that is not your own, you don't actually have to notify the owner of the property, you only have to notify the abutters. And I think it's because whoever wrote that provision in the by-law had imagined that someone would only ever try and rezone their own property. So that seems like an edge case to clear up. The second... Fleming, did you say that Article 40 was voted down? Yes, sorry, Article 43 came about as a result of me filing Article 40 and going through that process and learning things about this. Voted down by the ARB. Yes. And so we voted on no action. Okay, got it. Exactly, exactly. One meeting to vote that down is voted down by the ARB, sir. Yes, sorry for the confusion. No worries, go ahead. So during the process, I learned that one is that you don't have to notify whoever is being rezoned, which doesn't matter if it's yourself, but it matters if it's someone else, which is what I learned. The second is that the planning department in my filing of this article was confused about what exactly an abutter meant. And the reason is that there is a provision in state law that talks about something called parties of interest, which has a very, very broad definition of what a butter is, as opposed to what the traditional definition would be, which is sort of like properties that immediately are adjacent to the property in question. So this would clarify that section of the bylaw to mean the immediate abutters. And then the third thing this article does is it clarifies what the planning department currently does when the map amendment is proposed, which is that they take the state definition of parties of interest and notify, in effect, everyone within 300 feet of the property being affected. So all of this is more or less just writing down what already happens and clears up something that I found in the process of filing an article. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Fleming. So we have one speaker in the queue. It's Mr. Rosenthal. Let's bring up Mr. Rosenthal. Name and precinct, please. Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. Just looking at the article, I find it a little confusing and I'd like some clarification because the warrant article text says, to see if the town will vote to amend this section of the bylaw to modify or remove the requirement to notify abutters of a zoning map amendment, which sounds like the intent is to keep abutters, that the effect would be to, that abutters might not find out that a change that's going to affect them is happening, whereas when I read through the language that's been changed, it sounds like the effect is the opposite of what's in the section warrant article text. So maybe I'm misunderstood, I probably am misunderstanding something here, but I'm finding it a little confusing. Okay, so the language in the warrant article text is to modify or remove. So Mr. Fleming, can you clarify? Sure, James Fleming, precinct three. So the article was written to be overly broad by design because I didn't know at the time what the actual motion would need to be to clarify everything. That was something that wouldn't happen until later when I worked it out with the ARB and the public hearings in March. So we ended up, because it was written overly broad in the article, we were able to come up with something that is a modification that fell within the article scope. And I wasn't sure at the time if it was that we would need to, if the right course would be, basically if the ARB recommended to remove it entirely, I would want that to be in scope or if they just recommended modification, then I would want that to be in scope. And to be clear, the actual vote language is not to remove it, which is the question, but it is a modification. And just to be clear, as far as scope in the main motion, in the warrant article text, unlike an earlier article that we looked at, like there's no language in there about expanding or restricting. It's modifying or it's not really giving a balance to like whether it's increasing or decreasing the scope of that's being applied, right? So to Mr. Fleming's point, it's very broad in the warrant article text. Mr. Rosen, anything else? Yes, so let me just be clear what I think this is, what I think is going on. If I understood Mr. Fleming's presentation at the beginning correctly, it sounds like there are a couple of different definitions of what in a butter is, and the state has one that's broader than the commonly perceived definition, which is owners of property that actually is adjacent to, shares the boundary with the affected property. And so this is, if I understand correctly, this is cutting back on the notification of a butters that are by some state definition of butters but don't fit within the common understanding of what in a butter is, is that correct or have I confused things? I'm not following. Can you more succinctly ask your question? If I could think of a more succinct way. Mr. Monterey, if I may. Mr. Fleming, were you able to interpret Mr. Yes, so to hopefully try and answer Mark's question, I think what Mark is saying is that the definition of a butter in the zoning by law as it stands had to confuse the planning department as to what exactly it meant because there is a state definition of parties of interest, although it doesn't explicitly mention a butter. When I filed article 40, which did get filed successfully, the only people that I actually ended up notifying were the immediate butters, and that was accepted by whatever the processes that accepts warrant articles. So immediate butters seems to be the threshold to clear. And so this just clarifies that that is the threshold to clear. And then the rest of the text is what the planning department already does anyways when a public hearing is announced. Okay, can I ask Mr. Fleming, can you clarify for me the difference between immediate butters and parties of it? Who is in the set of parties of interest other than the immediate butters? Sure, so state definition of parties of interest is long and unwieldy, but the effect is that it is everyone within 300 feet of the property. I see. And immediate butters is just those that have a property line that is shared. Thank you, I think I understand now. Thank you very much. Great, thank you, Mr. Rosenthal. I'll say Mr. Warden next. Mr. Warden, are you able to unmute? Yeah, it looks like you're unmuted now, Mr. Warden. Thank you, Mr. moderator. John Warden precinct eight. I just want to be, we want to be clear because I too know a fair amount about zoning was confused by the language of the article and the report. So, and I know that it seems to me that the common way that looking at two different things, one is who has to get noticed that an article is filed to change the zoning map and when I gather what Mr. Fleming is doing is somehow, if I want to change the zoning of the property next door, I have to notify that person as well as the butters that I'm filing such an article. Right, I mean, based on what Mr. Fleming just described that it'd be the immediate of butters and based on the reference to state law that it would be essentially properties within 300 feet. Right, well, not, I think, Mr. moderator, if I may, or maybe I don't have a clue. There's a filing of the article and the way the law is presently written, it seems it assumes, as Mr. Fleming stated, that the law assumes that whoever files the article is going to be the owner of a piece of property that he's got to notify the person's next door or across the street, whatever, butters that he's filing that article. When it comes to the hearing before the redevelopment board on that article, they have to notify a butters and traditionally, I think what they've done is a butters and a butters of a butters within 300 feet. So there's two different notice things that go out. One is the actual filing of the article and the other is the notification of the hearing. And that, and those notices would be given by a certified mail, I gather, as has been done here before. The only real change is to be sure that the property owner whose property is about to be, or was proposed to be changed, himself or him, or him or herself knows that this thing is going down the road. Is that correct? I think he said certified mail, but what I see in the boat language, if we could bring that up, is that it's Department of Planning and Community Development shall provide advanced notice of the redevelopment board public hearing on the petition by first class mail, postage prepaid to the petitioner, the owners of the land, butters of the land and so on. No, that's for the hearing, for the filing of the article, isn't Mr. Fleming's proposal to be sure that when you file the article, you notify everybody who's involved, including the owner of the property. I'm sorry, yes, such petition shall show that copies of the petition have been sent by registered or certified mail to all owners and immediate butters of the land referred in the petition. Oh, okay, all right, that does clarify. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. Let's see, we have Mr. Mills next. This is as bad as I thought. Mr. Mills, can we bring him up? Is Mr. Mills present in Zoom? Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Kevin Mills, precinct one, move the question. Okay, so we have a motion to terminate debate. Do we have a second? Yeah, we have a second from Mr. Siano. So let's open voting for termination of debate on Article 43, okay? Voting is in the process of opening. If you see the yellow highlighted text, just hold on for just a few seconds while that opens up voting for your precinct. And if you're able to vote, you see like the cast vote button, please go ahead and vote. Voting on whether to terminate debate on Article 43. If you're in favor of terminating debate on Article 43, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. Okay, we're at 200 votes cast. Let's just give another 30 seconds before we close voting on terminating debate. 20 seconds until we close voting, 10 seconds, five seconds. Last chance. Okay, let's close voting on terminating debate on Article 43, okay? And the vote passes 197 in the affirmative, 10 in the negative. So let's go straight to voting on the main motion of Article 43. And this is a two thirds vote and we're voting on whether to amend the zoning bylaw to clarify the requirement to notify a butters of a zoning map amendment. If you're in favor of the changes to, with the intentions of clarifying the requirement to notify butters of a zoning map amendment, vote yes. If you disapprove of those changes, vote no. If you see the text, choose your vote in the voting portal, please go ahead and vote and click the cast or vote button and confirm your vote. And we're voting on the main motion of Article 43, which seeks to clarify the requirement for notifying butters of the zoning map amendment by amending the zoning bylaw. If you're in favor of that change, vote yes. If you disapprove of that change, you could vote no. Can we bring up the text of the voting language, please, while we're waiting for the votes to come in. We're over 200 votes cast now, so let's just wait another 30 seconds before we close voting. And this is a two thirds vote, 20 seconds until we close voting on Article 43, 10 seconds until we close voting. Okay, let's close voting. And the motion passes 194 in the affirmative, 12 in negative, and we'll just wait for the voting screens by precinct to scroll by until we've seen all precincts. And after we're done cycling through the screens, we will take up Article 44. Okay, so Ms. Zembery, do you wanna kick us off on Article 44 and tell us about the ARB vote on this on the main motion? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Rachel Zembery, Chair of the Redevelopment Board. The Redevelopment Board voted four to one to recommend favorable action on Article 44, zoning bylaw amendment related to restaurant uses. The Redevelopment Board felt that this increased threshold, moving from 2000 to 3000 square feet for the requirement for a proposed restaurant to appear before the Redevelopment Board through the special permit process was something that we would want to recommend given that it now aligns with the requirements for retail, small businesses and medical offices. It also noted in our report that the restaurant industry of all of our commercial industries is the most regulated in town given that they must submit applications for permits through the Board of Health, the Inspectional Services Department and the Select Board currently in addition to requesting a special permit through the ARB depending on restaurant size or whether it's going through change of views. Thank you. All right, thank you, Ms. Zembery. Mr. Fleming, can you bring up Mr. Fleming who is the proponent of this article? Do you wanna speak to this? Sure, James Fleming, Precinct Three. I would ask that the prerecorded video please be played. Okay, let's bring up the video. James Fleming, Precinct Three, Article Proponent. This was Common Ground, a restaurant that sat on the corner of Mass Ave and Broadway in Arlington Center. Since the building was built before the current zoning bylaw, there was a point of contention when the restaurant opened, not enough parking. However, there was a process available to try and open anyways, the special permit. Special permits are a tool to regulate uses that are allowed, but where the impact is a perceived threat to the town or those nearby. This is a section of the zoning bylaw showing an example of when restaurants need a special permit. These apply when a restaurant replaces another type of business or brand new building is built. For restaurants, anything under 2,000 square feet can usually be done without a special permit and anything over 2,000 square feet requires one. Here's what the timeline for a special permit looks like. The applicant advertises in a local paper, has public hearings, and if approved has to wait for any appeals. If everything goes smoothly, a special permit takes about two months of time. During the hearing, the applicant's site plan and a good chunk of their business plan get presented, public comments are heard, and the town has wide latitude to ask for changes. In the case of Common Ground, here is a summary of the special permit that was issued. The owner was required to reduce seating at the restaurant, have restrictions on live music, and more. According to the owner, he wasn't happy with these changes, but accepted them after just two public hearings because he could not afford to keep stretching out the process any further with each hearing costing $10,000. Note that this cost is not a fee imposed by the town. It was the cost to prepare and present application materials to the town as part of the special permit. This is a guy who had already launched a successful restaurant in Alston and who had the money and willpower to open a 5,300 square foot restaurant, and yet the cost of going through the special permit process was high enough that two hearings was all he could afford to do. To me, if this is a problem for him, what about the entrepreneur who wants to open a smaller restaurant, say 2,500 or 3,000 square feet? Will they choose to open their restaurant somewhere else? Maybe they won't do it at all. This article would increase that threshold from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet so that slightly larger and slightly more numbers of restaurants can be opened in town without a special permit. For scale, Arlington Diner in East Arlington is 2,000 square feet, which is the current upper limit. Penzi Spices in the Heights is 3,000 square feet and would become the new upper limit. Note that these regulations only apply to cases where the size of the restaurant is the trigger for the special permit. If a restaurant needs a special permit because there isn't enough parking, they would still have to go through it. In summary, this proposal would allow slightly more restaurants without requiring a special permit reducing the barrier to entry for restaurants in Arlington. You should support this because the town and its residents want more restaurants and making it easier to open a restaurant will make that goal more possible. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Fleming. We have one speaker in the queue, Mr. Ruderman. So let's bring up Mr. Ruderman. Name and precinct, please. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Michael Ruderman, precinct nine. Seeing as Bob O'Gwin, the late owner of Common Ground, is not available to speak, it's really hard to quote him and test the presumption that those quotes from years back are accurate. I was a participant at all of the hearings for Common Ground's applications and permits living just around the corner from them. And then and now, there was and is a great amount of skepticism that that $10,000 figure was real in any sort. It was commonly taken to be an exaggeration and the voicing of his frustration at the process. And yet he went through the process and had a very successful restaurant for a number of years. I don't think that the 2000 square foot threshold is a burden. Look, with the sake of this argument, where Common Ground is located, wedged in tight in a commercial block surrounded by other storefronts and just around the corner from a residential district on both sides of Broadway Plaza, just around the corner, what happens at Common Ground, the parking, the trash pickup, what had been the 4 a.m. trash pickups, what had been the 6 a.m. deliveries, what had been the illegal parking on side streets, what had been the ignoring of the access alley and the parking all over the streets for deliveries, all those things affect the neighborhood. And it was not unreasonable to bring in the neighborhood in such a tight and side-by-side location to have the neighborhood express its thoughts on the provisions which allowed Common Ground to open. And it did open. And like I said, Bob Aguin is dead. We can't ask him how successful his business was before it failed. But it went on for a long time. It outlived him. I don't think those restrictions were owners. I think whatever happened to Common Ground certainly was not a matter of the agreements that the owner and the neighborhood and the town, all parties, came to Common Ground Thrive. The process worked. Nobody was completely happy with the outcomes. That's a compromise. And I don't think we should change the threshold to have that kind of compromise. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Rubin. Let's take Mr. Jalkett next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Daniel Jalkett, precinct six. I move the question on article 44. We have a motion to terminate debate on article 44. Do we have any second? We have a second from Mr. Moore. So that's open voting on termination of debate of article 44. Voting should be opening shortly. If you see the yellow highlight of text, just please sit tight and wait for voting to be enabled within several seconds. If you see a cast vote button, please cast and confirm your vote. And this is a two-thirds vote, determinate debate. So if you wish to terminate debate on article 44, vote yes. If you wish to continue debate, vote no. We have, I don't remember. We're at 190 votes cast at this point. 196. All right, 200 votes cast. Most of the folks who have not voted yet have actually been idle for some time. So let's just give another 30 seconds until we close voting. 20 seconds until we close voting on termination of debate. 10 seconds, five seconds. Okay, let's close voting on termination of debate. There's a two-thirds threshold and debate is terminated. 155 in the affirmative, 52 in the negative. Just let's go to, let's open voting now on the main motion of article 44. Okay, so voting is in the process of opening. Again, if you see the yellow highlighted text, just sit tight and voting will be enabled very shortly. And if you see a cast vote button, please go ahead and vote. We're voting on the main motion of article 44. This is a two-thirds vote to amend the zoning bylaw to change the square footage threshold above which a restaurant use requires a special permit from 2000 to 3000 square feet. If you are in favor of that change to the zoning bylaw, vote yes. If you disapprove of that change, vote no. This would increase the threshold above which restaurants are required to submit a special permit. Could we bring up the voting language for this article? While folks are voting. So the changes in that table are what we're voting on here. The striking out 2000 and inserting 3000 for the square foot gross floor area which is the threshold for whether a permit is required or a special permit should say. And that's in both row and two rows of that table. Striking 2000 and inserting 3000 square feet for the threshold. We're at 200 votes cast now. So most of the folks who have not voted yet have been idle for some time like over half an hour. So let's just give folks another 30 seconds before we close voting. Again, this is a two-thirds vote, 20 seconds until we close voting on article 44. 10 seconds, five seconds. All right, let's close voting on article, the main motion of article 44. Okay, and the motion passes 173 in the affirmative 31 in the negative. It is an affirmative vote that meets the or exceeds the two-thirds threshold. So we'll just wait for the voting screens. And then once we're done cycling through all the precincts with all the votes, we will open article 45, which is the last of the zoning articles on the annual town meeting warrant. I will note that it is 10, 50 PM. We'll see if there's substantial debate on this, then obviously that'll overflow until Wednesday. But if there's very little to no debate, then we'll see if we can close out article 45 tonight. Oh, sorry, as Mr. Jamison put in the Q&A, this is a no action article. So we actually will not have any debate on this because we have no substitute motion. So we will go straight to voting on article 45. Thank you, Mr. Jamison. So without a substitute motion, there's literally no scope because then so there's nothing really to debate. So you can vote yes, you can vote no. Either way, it's gonna be no action taken. You can vote yes to affirm, to signal in a non-binding sort of way, your support for the no action recommended vote by the Redevelopment Board. You can vote no to signal again in a non-binding way your disapproval of the recommended vote of the ARB. But either way, no action will be taken by town meeting officially. 106 votes cast and I believe the last wave probably just opened up now for voting. Okay, while we're waiting for votes to come in, let's take, we have a point of order from Mr. Harrelson. So let's take that. Good afternoon, Mr. Moderator. Good evening. This is Brooks Harrelson, praising 16. I just have a question. This is chose as a two-thirds vote to pass on a no action article. Oh, that's a good question. Let's say in my notes here, I do have it listed as two thirds in my notes as well. Mr. Moderator. Mr. Heim, go ahead. Yeah, do you have any? It's a two-thirds votes required to amend the zoning bylaw. So we don't need a two-thirds vote to take a vote of no action. Thank you. So Mr. Heim, does that mean that is it? Majority will suffice, Mr. Moderator. Majority will, thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Harrelson for pointing that out. So if we reach the majority threshold, we will take no action. If we reach the two thirds threshold, we will take no action. If we don't meet the majority thresholds, we will also take no action. Okay, we're at just over 200 votes cast. Let's just take another 20 seconds, 10 seconds until we close voting. Okay, let's go ahead and close voting. Okay, and the motion passes and 184 to, in the affirmative, 11 and negative, both therefore take no action. Actually, I'm gonna say that let's just, we'll skip the rest of the screen since this is just a no action vote anyway. And so article 45 is disposed of. And so that takes us now. I do see at the time that it is 1055. But let's actually just get started on article 73, which is now before us. So we're now into the resolutions, which are the last five articles, the annual town meeting warrant. There are also potentially motions to reconsider, which might be given. So, but let's at least look at article 73. And this was from the select board report, Mr. Diggins. Do you wanna speak to the select board's vote on article 73? Sure, Mr. Moderator, it's a good thing. I didn't have complete confidence that we wouldn't get to these resolutions tonight. I'm all prepared. But first off, I see Mr. Fosk is here. No, it's just down, okay, fine. So let's get started. The select board voted unanimously in favor of this resolution. To the extent a resolution can educate us on a given issue, this one does a superb job. The Clean Energy Future Committee, along with our town manager and many other town managers, town administrators and mayors have made a strong case, as strong a case as they can, to the Department of Energy Resources, which can be abbreviated as DOER, the doer. The state legislature has done its part too. What remains to be done to get the doer to actually do something meaningful for the net zero cause, I'm not sure, but if the town votes favorable action on this article, it will send a signal that Arlington is not giving up on its request to do all that it can as a community to achieve net zero. Finally, for an excellent explanation as to why we need this resolution, I strongly suggest that you read Mr. Patrick Hanlon's letter that was recently added to the annotated warrant. As always, Mr. Hanlon documents are thorough and clear. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. All right, thank you, Mr. Diggins. And we did have, let's see, Mr. Levy, I believe, was prepared to speak on this from the Clean Energy Future Committee. Do we have, Mr. Levy is also a town meeting member. Can we bring up Mr. Levy to speak? Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Name and precinct. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. David Levy, precinct 18 town meeting member and also member of the Clean Energy Future Committee of the town of Arlington. I'll be very brief as this is a resolution. As select board member, Len Diggins said, what we were asking the Department of Energy Resources to do as part of its mandate from the state is essentially give Arlington and all their towns the tools that we need to help combat climate change and make achieving reduction in carbon emissions of reality. What we think sending a strong action like this can do is ask the Department of Energy Resources to adopt the stretch code, which they have to do by the end of 2022, which then would come to town for a vote. To adopt the stretch code, it actually makes achieving net zero for all new buildings a reality. We have several points listed in what that stretch code should be. But effectively what we're asking them to do is help our buildings be all electric, help them be solar ready, help them make using renewable energy resources reality, eliminate fossil fuel usage and also take further actions in terms of the building materials that are used to make them. Essentially, the way I think about this, Mr. Moderator, is if you wanna quit smoking, you actually have to stop smoking and allowing us to have the option of having a stretch code mandated by the, denacted by the Department of Energy Resources that would essentially make all new buildings in the town of Arlington net zero would give us the ability to stop using fossil fuels in our building footprint and put this town on the path to being net zero by 2050, which is what we've been managed to do by the select board. We think as a member of the Clean Energy Future Committee, we think this is incredibly important for achieving our goals to be net zero by 2050. And we think other towns will follow our lead. And with that, we ask for your approval as town meeting to send this signal to the Department of Energy Resources to give us the stretch code that we need to help us do this. So with that, I would yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. And thank you, Mr. Levy. And as I pointed out, I mentioned in a letter that I sent, I forgot how many days ago, but that when we get to the resolutions, which were now to article 73 to 77, that I asked for any, if there was any interest in speaking against any of the articles, please let me know in advance. And I received no emails or phone calls about any interest in anyone speaking against any of the resolutions. And so we don't have anyone to speak against this. There are speakers in the queue, but as I mentioned in that letter, the procedure that I can follow for the resolutions is that we'll have one speaker for and against if there is a speaker against who let me know ahead of time. And as I said, no one has. And so it's just basically this might have the proponents and then I will entertain a motion to terminate debate. And if the meeting decides that it wishes to debate a resolution, then the meeting can vote to continue debate. So with that, I will ask for raised hands in Zoom for anyone who is interested in, especially if you're on the speaking queue, that'd be easier, but anyone who's interested in terminating debate and I see a hand from Mr. Moore. And before we take that, we have a point of order from Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Thank you, Karl Wagner, precinct 15. I would like to propose that we adjourn. I'm not entertaining a motion to adjourn at this point, but we will take a vote first on, or we will entertain, as I said, a motion to terminate debate on this article. Thank you. So let's bring up Mr. Moore who raised his hand with an interest to move to terminate debate. Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christopher Moore, precinct 14. I motion to terminate debate on article 73. Okay, we have a motion for Mr. Moore to terminate debate on article 73. Do we have a second? We have a second from Mr. Siano. So let's vote on terminating debate on article 73. Okay, so voting should be opening up now for, this, is this the termination of debate vote or is this the main motion vote? Sorry about that. Let's bring up a vote on, so that vote record will be stricken. Let's bring up voting on termination of debate of article 73. I recognize that we are past 11 o'clock, but hopefully we can dispose of this article fairly quickly. Okay, so we're now voting on termination of debate of article 73. If you wish to terminate debate on this resolution of article 73, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. And as I mentioned, as I wrote in a letter in recent days, this is the process that will follow for the remaining resolutions as well. Again, for the remaining resolutions after article 73, if there's any interest in speaking against any of those resolutions, please contact me. You can contact me by email, by phone. And if this motion to terminate debate succeeds, then we will proceed to a vote on the main motion. If the termination debate vote fails, then I will at that point entertain motions to adjourn after accepting any notices of reconsideration. We have a point of order from Ms. Stamps. Let's bring her up. Ms. Stamps, I see that you're unmuted. Is your microphone working? So I cannot hear you. Ms. Stamps, are you able to, I can't hear anything. Are you able to enter your point of order by typing it into the Q and A perhaps? I'm not seeing any messages or hearing any audio from Ms. Stamps. Perhaps someone from the IT staff can contact Ms. Stamps about her audio issue. Oh, I see in the Q and A Ms. Stamps just posted. Can I ask the meeting if we can get through the resolutions tonight? I'm not gonna hold folks later than I need to to get through article 73 since we already started that before 11 p.m. So I don't intend to go past article 73 tonight. The voting is going somewhat slowly. I don't know if there's some connection errors or what or people just signed off for the night. You're at 185 votes and it seems to have slowed down. So there's only a handful of folks who have not yet voted who have been active in the portal within the last 10 minutes. So let's just go another, let's take Mr. Warden's point of order and then I'd like to close voting very shortly. Mr. Warden, are you able to unmute? You hear me now? Yes, I can. Name and precinct. Okay, Mr. moderator, I just wanna point out that you like your distinguished predecessor had a rule on resolutions. You'd hear one speaker for and one against and then we vote. So it's really not necessary to go through this termination of debate business. If there's no speaker against the resolution, then we can go directly to the vote by following the literal terms of your own rule. But I suggest you could speed things along by doing that. Thank you, sir. I refer you to my most recent letter about the procedures I put in place for the resolutions. Thank you. Okay, so let's just go another 20 seconds and then we'll close voting on termination of debate. 10 seconds. Okay, let's close voting. The debate is terminated 170 votes in the affirmative 13 in the negative. So let's just open voting now on the main motion for article 73. And that should be our last portal vote for the evening before we adjourn. Okay, voting should be in the process of opening. If you're in the first wave of precincts, you should be able to cast your vote right now. If you're in the second or third wave, just please sit tight and should open very shortly. We're in 160 votes so far. It looks like a lot of folks have been inactive since about 1056 PM or earlier. There are 176 votes. Okay, let's just see voting open for another 20 seconds. Given the number of recently active folks in the portal who haven't voted yet, which is a relatively small number at this point. 10 seconds. And this is a majority vote. Five seconds until we close voting. Okay, let's close voting on the main motion of article 73. And the motion passes 170 in the affirmative eight in the negative. So article 73 passes. Okay, so while we're waiting for these voting screens, now that article 73 has been disposed of, let's just leave these up and let them cycle through. At this point, can we enable or enable hands and raise hands in Zoom and anyone who is interested in giving notice of reconsideration for any articles that we've voted on tonight? Anyone who voted on the, you had to have voted on the prevailing side of that article. You can give notice of reconsideration. Mr. Foskett, you have your hand raised. Yes, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Charles Foskett, precinct 10, chair of the finance committee. Having voted on the prevailing side for article 49, I serve a notice of reconsideration. Okay, noted. I take it that Ms. Brazil will take note. Okay, we have a point of order from Mr. Jamison. Let's bring Mr. Jamison up. And after we take that point of order, I will entertain a motion, for instance, from Mr. Foskett to adjourn tonight after we take this point of order. Mr. Jamison, name and precinct? All right, Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Very quickly after Mr. Foskett moves to adjourn, I will be voting no so we can finish tonight. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Okay, well, that does not require a point of order. It just requires an objection when we take a motion to adjourn. Mr. Foskett. Mr. Moderator, Charles Foskett, precinct 10, I move we adjourn. Okay, do we have a second to Mr. Foskett's motion to adjourn? Second. With a second from Ms. Brazil. Raise hands in Zoom if you object to adjourning. There was a number of hands up. So let's do some quick math here. Where are we at? I see 30 hands raised in Zoom of 154 participants and I'll subtract out the folks who are not 10 meeting members, which is two. Double check out of the quantum vote, correct? It's just the majority vote. And so, okay, it's now up to 31. It's stabilized, which is only 12%. So I can confidently say that the objections fail and I declare that a positive vote for adjourning. So this meeting is adjourned and we will reconvene Wednesday night, June 8th at 8 p.m. Thanks everyone. And thanks everyone for staying late. Apologies for keeping everyone long. All right, have a good night.