Out-of-town readers: Yeah, it’s Town Meeting time again. That means you get more Arlington information than any reasonable non-resident would want. I’m going to try to deliver at least one non-Arlington post per Town Meeting post – something to keep you amused as I blather on.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

I got to the meeting very late tonight. I was supposed to get in from JazzFest in plenty of time, but the low ceilings over Logan caused many delayed flights, including mine. Really, I didn’t need to spend five hours in Charlotte today . . . I didn’t land until 9:15, arriving at Town Hall just before 10. I’m sorry and disappointed that I missed some business tonight. Some things I’ve seen before – ceremony and swearing in, for instance. However, I’m sorry that I missed Selectman Clarissa Rowe’s State of the Town. I’m sorry I missed the opening comments from our new Moderator John Leone. And I’m sorry that I missed Article 5!

Article 5 – Sign Permitting. The article would change the criteria for putting up signs in Arlington. As I said, I missed the debate on this article, so I can’t report comments on it. However I can report on the outcome of the vote, and some of the related technical matters. Rich Carreiro posted this nice summary to the Arlington email list. Please note that I’m only posting an excerpt of what he said:

The ARB’s recommended vote received 122 votes in favor and 62 against. Since it was a zoning article, it requires a 2/3rds supermajority and therefore failed (by either one or two votes — I can’t remember if an exactly 2/3rds vote is a pass or a defeat).

When we came back from the break, the Moderator instructed the tellers in future standing votes to ignore anyone not standing in front of a chair in one of the main banks of chairs, because some tellers were (justifiably, IMHO) complaining about having to figure out who was and wasn’t TMMs amongst the people standing at the back wall of the hall. Note: I include Rich’s comments about legitimate voters because it comes up again in Article 12.

This lead some people on the losing side to complain and ask for a re-vote. The Moderator held firm and eventually pointed out that the standing vote already been taken, the only escalation possible would be if 30 or more people requested a roll-call vote. That didn’t happen.

At this point, a person (Dick Smith) who had voted on the prevailing side, served notice of reconsideration. Specifically, he said something like “I announce my intent to move reconsideration at a later, probably this Wednesday.” There was some confusion over whether he was making a motion to reconsider right then and there, but that was worked out and the Moderator announced that a notice of reconsideration had been served.

Presumably Mr. Smith will make his motion to reconsider Article 5 on Wednesday as he stated, but I don’t believe he is bound to that, and can in fact make his motion at any time before TM dissolved.

A motion to reconsider requires a 2/3rds vote to carry. If the motion to reconsider carries, Article 5 will be back before us as if we had never taken a final vote on it. If the motion to reconsider fails, Article 5 is dead for the year (the by-laws only allow an article to be subject to a motion to reconsider once).

I walked in just after the motion for reconsideration was proposed – I heard the questions about it, but nothing before that. I’m sure that Rich has this accurately described. There was a contentious debate; there was a very close vote; there will be an attempt to reconsider the vote. When votes are close, the losing side tries to lobby a few votes and change the outcome. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It’s not dirty pool; it’s the way the system is supposed to work. Furthermore, anyone who cries foul because “people went home at the break” should reconsider their position. If you can’t show up at Town Meeting, then you aren’t counted. I say this knowing full well that I missed the original Article 5 vote. I’m not complaining that someone tried to pull a fast one by calling a vote while I wasn’t there. I’m apologizing for missing the vote.

Article 6 and Article 7 – Postponed. (Or maybe tabled – I didn’t have my notepad out of my bag yet).

Article 8 – Updating Regulation of Temporary Window Signs. Mr. West of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) explained the ARB’s recommendation. The proposal is to limit the size of the posters to 25% of the window and to require businesses with temporary signs to refresh the signs at least every 30 days. Paul Schlictman brought up the illegal flag-sign outside Verizon’s office; he made his point that the rule is unlikely to be enforced, just like the current rules. Cindy Friedman, through a couple questions, drew out the fact this would affect (prohibit) the signs that are common in the Democrat’s election office on Mass Ave, and Town Counsel Maher gave his opinion that the political sign element was unenforceable. Chris Loreti of the ARB spoke in favor of the change. I paraphrase him: “The ARB likes seeing windows. We want you to see inside the buildings.” There were questions about the $20 fee, and it was determined to not apply to this type of window. Evidently the fee is for more than 60 day signs. The funniest part of the night for me was this revelation: the $20 fee is not held in an account, or deposited to the General Fund. It is kept. . . . in a filing cabinet. There were a couple speakers against the article who spoke in favor of the property owner’s rights and decision making capabilities. I understand the motive of this. There’s an ethnic food store right near my fraternity house in Cambridge that covered all the windows with posters when they opened in the early 90s. The store is still there, and so are the original posters, now yellow, faded, and nasty-looking. A thirty day renewal cycle would sure make the storefront look better. But I’m not sure I want to prohibit these business owners from doing what they want. If the ARB had a really stripped down proposal for old posters, I might vote for it. The actual proposal is far outside my comfort zone. I’m not going to vote to limit political speech. I’m not going to vote for the 25% restriction. Furthermore, I’m unhappy that the ARB is saying things like “We like to see windows, and we like people to see inside the building.” That is a level of zoning that I do not approve of. The motion was moved, and the article was defeated by a voice vote.

Article 9 – Bylaw housekeeping. Kevin O’Brien explained a couple housekeeping updates. Approved unanimously.

Article 10 – Outdoor Restaurant Parking Requirements. ARB Member Bruce Fitzimmons gave the proposal. The change would permit restaurants to have outdoor seating without providing the parking spaces that would be required for permanent seats. It was approved unimously without discussion.

Article 11 – Shared Parking. ARB Member Bruce Fitzimmons explained that this would permit businesses going through an ARB environmental review the opportunity to satisfy their parking requirements through a long-term business arrangement rather than owning the parking spaces. The example given was that a restaurant and a bank might share parking since their hours don’t overlap. There were a few questions. One was about liability: the liability is not covered by this change and must be negotiated by the parties sharing the spaces. There was a question about whether the “signs were just the horizontal ones, or the vertical ones too.” The moderator explained that this was the parking question, and signs would be discussed in the appropriate point. This question was totally out of the blue. Anyone following the meeting understood that this question was way, way too late. As I heard it I said to myself, “Wow, she’s this clueless and she has a vote. I hope she’s generally more savvy than this.” She was sitting right in front of me and I watched her a bit. She had a heavy accent, and I was idly wondering whether the source of her confusion was a language problem, inexperience, or something else. I mention this because she reappears in Article 12. The article was approved unanimously.

Article 12 – Green Buildings. ARB Member Chris Loreti presented the article. He talked about LEED building standards. He said that this proposal wasn’t a requirement for LEED certification, just to require a checklist review. It only was necessary for ARB environmental reviews. The first question was how long it takes to fill out the checklist; Loreti did not know. This was the first question asked, and it should have been the first question the ARB answered. How can I assess whether or not to add a new requirement to the permitting process if I don’t know how much it costs? During the debate it came out that certification costs tens of thousands of dollars, and the checklist would be cheaper than that. That is not enough information. Selectman Annie LaCourt moved for a postponement because Sustainable Arlington was not present, and the motion was defeated. I voted against the postponement. If you want to speak to Article 12, you should be there for the first meeting. At the very least you should arrange a delay with the presenters. She explained that Sustainable Arlington wanted a stronger article, one with requirements to design, not just fill out a checklist. Tommy Caccavaro spoke against this as too costly for developers. Loreti defended the change as something that would just make the developer look at options, and not actually require anything. Selectman Clarissa Rowe talked about being a landscape architect and she saw the tens of thousands of dollars spent on LEED, and how she supported the article. She threw me for a loop. At first I heard her emphasize the cost and I was thinking “Clarissa Rowe, opposed to a pro-environment article? Wow, that’s unexpected.” And then I heard her support and I was confused. Eventually I realized “She knows it’s expensive but thinks that’s just fine.” A head-scratching speech all around. There was disagreement about how green or LEED-compliant the regular Mass building code was. There was a question about what triggered an ARB environmental review; the answer was long, but it involves the main streets of Arlington (Mass Ave, Broadway, etc.), large buildings, etc. but rarely regular homes. There were several comments on the cost of LEED certification and checklists. I wasn’t convinced this was a good idea. I need to know the cost. Some people thing this went too far; others think it doesn’t go too far. That would generally be a sign of a good compromise. In this case, I think it was a decision made in ignorance. The change was approved 103-38. Here is where our confused questioner from Article 11 comes in. During the vote, a woman (I didn’t recognize her) sitting next to the confused questioner (CQ, for short) asked “Are you a Town Meeting member?” CQ said she wasn’t. The first woman immediately told the CQ that the CQ had to leave the room – CQ wasn’t a town meeting member. CQ hesitated. Stephen Gilligan came by, counting votes. CQ finally stood up, and was counted in favor of the change! Again, the woman told the CQ to leave the room. The woman tried to tell Stephen Gilligan not to count the CQ, but I’m not sure if he understood what had happened. The CQ left the room. Whether the CQ vote counted or not, the actual outcome was not in doubt. But I have to wonder about Article 5!