I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I try to publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.  Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Sometimes I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

At 7:59 Moderator John Leone started calling the meeting to order. The meeting started at 8:00.

The Menotomy Minutemen marched in and lead the meeting in the National Anthem.

A rabbi from Temple Isaiah in Lexington gave the benediction.

The moderator walked through the ground rules about submitting amendments, speaking time limits, and the electronic voting, aka “the clicker.” He announced that the budgets would be discussed on May 3. He did a test question about Mount Rushmore for people to test their vote.

The moderator announced that meeting documents are now online in an article-by-article format. This is a step towards reducing paper in meetings and I think it’s great!

The moderator administered the oath of office for newly elected and returning town meeting members. They were greeted with a round of applause afterwards.

Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Joe Curro made the traditional motion about permitting town officials and employees to sit “on the floor” with town meeting members. Non-members are seated in the viewing gallery on the 2nd floor.

Town Clerk certified that the meeting was properly convened and called by the Town Constable.

We voted to return on Wednesday for the rest of the business.

Article 2 – State of the Town.

Joe Curro gave the state of the town.

There were no announcements.

Article 3 – Reports

• Chairman Joe Curro submitted the report of the Board of Selectman. He introduced the department heads. The moderator also introduced other elected officials.
• Finance Committee Chairman Al Tosti gave the report of his committee and introduced the members of the Finance Committee.
• Chairman of the Arlington Redevelopment Board Andrew Bunnel gave the report of the ARB.
• Charlie Foskett gave the report of the Capital Planning Committee.
• Clarissa Rowe gave the report of the Community Preservation Committee.

At Tosti moved that the motions contained in the reports be the main motions for each article. For new town meeting members the importance of this vote is not obvious, but it is a big deal. This vote sets the starting point of each article’s debate, and that is very powerful in the long run.  If we didn’t make this motion, at the start of every article, the Moderator would have to call on someone to start the debate process by making a motion under that article, then find a second for the motion, etc. Instead, through this vote, we automatically start each article with a motion already made and ready for debate. That becomes key later on – the first motion sets the debate, and other amendments and substitute motions alter the debate.

Article 3 was tabled.

The moderator said that the consent agenda will be voted on Wednesday since some of the reports just came out.

Article 4 – Measurer of Wood and Bark. Elsie Fiorie was re-appointed without opposition.

Article 5 – Assistant Town Moderator. Eric Helmuth nominated Jim O’Conor and he was elected without opposition.

Article 6 – Mixed Use

ARB Chairman Andrew Bunnel gave the introduction. Last year town meeting approved mixed use. The feedback is that our law is too restrictive on interior usage. This change wouldn’t affect the outside or building envelope. This only changes mixed use zones, does not affect residential zones. It was approved 207-7-2.

Article 7 Artisinal Fabrication

Bunnel said that the ARB has found the current law to be too restrictive. We want to encourage businesses that use larger square footage, like shared workspaces, breweries, things like that. This change will encourage growth of our industrial-zoned areas. Approved 216-2.

Article 8 Resdiential Zoning Changes

Chairman Andrew Bunnel asked for extra time, 15 minutes. Some people voted no on the extra time. I just don’t get that vote. We’re making a significant alteration to our zoning bylaws. The bylaws are complex, the problems are complex, and the potential impact of these changes is quite large. The extra 8 minutes of education and discussion are worth it. Bunnel reminded the meeting of the debate on this issue we had at town meeting last year. Since that time, the Residential Zoning Study Committee had dozens of meetings, lasting 900 hours. The committee had a wide diversity of opinions. Driveways was consensus place to start. Looked at other towns, did walking tours in town, worked with many groups in town. Elisabeth Pyle and Steve McKenna walked through the details of the proposal. It would limit driveway slope to 15%. Steeper driveways are unsafe because of visibility. This change will also discourage garage-under-house design. That design removes front yards and creates badly-massed buildings that look 3.5 stories tall. The article would give builders/owners the choice of having only one parking space, not two, in the area behind the setback. Diagrams of proposed parking configurations were showed. They explained how cars can also be parked on the side of a building. The change requires a vegetative buffer for the side parking configuration. Ted Sharpe moved an amendment that would remove the changes to the parking rules. Chris Loreti is the author of the amendment, and he spoke in favor of the amendment. He does not think cars should be parked in front of houses because of the streetscape. Carl Wagner spoke in favor of Loreti’s amendment. McCaben moved to terminate debate, failed 105-100-3. Paul Schlichtman thinks that we are requiring too much parking and eating green space, and is opposed to the amendment. Zarina Memon supports the amendment. She wants to know why the motion has two changes in it, not one. Elizabeth Pyle explained that the problem is the under-house design, and that both changes are needed to fix that problem. Memon thinks that Town Meeting should do one thing at a time. What the speaker didn’t understand, or didn’t want to understand, is that the solution to a problem sometimes takes more than one change. Jalkut said that many households don’t want or need cars, and we shouldn’t require people to use space on parking

Break. 10 minutes.

Mr. Hanlon is in favor of the main motion and opposed to the amendment. There is a package of solutions over several articles tonight. The package is a compromise. Town Meeting shouldn’t pick and choose which parts of the compromise to take. He wants this process to keep going, and the process will halt if we disrupt the compromise. Ed Trembley thinks the long view supports having more parking spaces, not fewer. Brian Rehrig had a question about the phrase “for residential purposes.” A new town meeting member wanted to make an amendment, and was informed to make it in writing. Ed Starr moved to terminate debate, approved 190-21-1. Amendment failed 37-172-1. 200-13-2 main motion approved.

Article 9 no action.

Article 10 no action.

Article 11-14 – Construction Bylaws

We discussed them together, but take individual votes on the articles. Selectmen Chair Joe Curro expressed the support of the Board of Selectmen for all of the articles. They would increase notification requirements and other changes. Christian Klein proposed an amendment to Article 11 to add developer contact information to the notice. Bill Berkowitz asked if this changes were notification only, or more substantive. The moderator realized there was a prepared presentation by the proponents. Adam Auster asked for 10 minutes for the presentation for the 4 articles. He described the experience of site visits, and what the committee learned from site visits. Bill Copithorne gave a description of the notification requirements. Winnel Evans talked about Article 14. Bill Berkowitz thinks the changes don’t go far enough and wants more changes in the future. There was a discussion about the enforcement and fines on the noise violation. Annie LaCourt had several questions about how onerous these changes would be for the developer. She thinks these rules are overkill. I often agree with Annie, but I disagree with her in this case. The reason we’re proposing this set of change is that the more informal path she proposes did not work on the construction problems we had last year. I’m persuaded that we need a more formal set of rules to manage situations like we have had recently. Pete Howard asked why there wasn’t action taken against the developer at the Irving site. The answer was that the developer didn’t break the rules. Paul Schlichtman moved to terminate debate on all articles, approved 171-29-2. Klein’s amendment passed 195-9-2. Article 11 as amended was approved 205-3. Article 12 and 13 are taken together. 205-4 approved. Article 14 apporved 199-9.

Article 15
Postpone to April 26.

Article 16 – no action

Article 17 – Plastic Bags

Selectman Joe Curro reviewed the selectmen’s comment recommending the plastic bag ban. Christian Klein offered an amendment about the bag thickness that was accepted. Paul Schlichtman offered an amendment to exempt book sales. Juli Brazile opposed the amendment. Charlie Foskett is opposed to the ban – he thinks the bags are useful and not problematic. Jim Ballin asked for 10 minutes to make a presentation. There was a 10-minute presentation about the proposed change.  If the proponents had just let it go to a vote, they’d be home in bed tonight with an approved bylaw. I think doing the presentation was a tactical error.

We adjourned for the evening just after 11.