{"citations":{"019e0120-06f0-7d4f-8f29-3b5b04a6d7ba":{"num":1,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0764-7409-9b12-703d4d3f10da":{"num":2,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-076d-7c1b-918e-d53c78840b4c":{"num":3,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-07a1-701d-a856-2054c4126ec4":{"num":4,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0784-7c16-9541-693359380e32":{"num":5,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-078c-7690-9a72-d0c7aab7833a":{"num":6,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-075b-7304-bf44-9721b4ce4bcb":{"num":7,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0798-787b-95b1-b7553052fa75":{"num":8,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-07b3-7922-a855-1f16e9871b79":{"num":9,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0805-795a-8d57-5a4f5e288c8f":{"num":10,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0822-7122-8689-7ca63aca56f8":{"num":11,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-082c-793a-a1f9-c02a80a7e19e":{"num":12,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-085f-7de3-aafd-8355c3a9bba6":{"num":13,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0869-71f8-b8d7-cfb577830de1":{"num":14,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0897-7ce3-bc7e-bd3656ad9de7":{"num":15,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-08b9-7a4e-9a81-fc9edd1a9645":{"num":16,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-08ca-78ce-882e-3a4d905d5557":{"num":17,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0900-760e-8ce3-1d2baf8cf1fe":{"num":18,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0963-74f6-94bc-3f01fcfe3767":{"num":19,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-098c-79ba-91cf-c9b4778d2b13":{"num":20,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-09ac-7691-9ac7-5a7367db9142":{"num":21,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-09be-7b19-9b38-1adff151c5e8":{"num":22,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0a07-7e6e-93a1-99e3d19936d4":{"num":23,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0a10-7f06-8677-1054b2c997a1":{"num":24,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0a19-7a05-a0ad-5cd31aa7a823":{"num":25,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0a79-7a3a-bdf5-8b195fc7decb":{"num":26,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0a8a-74ae-adc8-038fbfd713d1":{"num":27,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0ac1-759a-ba2a-58d774e1a9bb":{"num":28,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0aca-7ef4-abe0-76e948f4a298":{"num":29,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0ad2-7570-b8ac-4e9247275987":{"num":30,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-0af7-76f3-aa5e-020b8d226fc5":{"num":31,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"},"019e0120-070a-7b18-83fc-dc120153b196":{"num":32,"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012"}},"sources":{"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012":{"sourceItemId":"019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012","title":"Annual Town Meeting — 2026-05-04","videoUrl":"https://dkjpoal1tejoa.cloudfront.net/sites/a1000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/source-items/019e0107-9c46-7a49-ae38-2e08a3d94012/Annual_Town_Meeting_-_May_4_2026.mp4","chunks":[{"id":"019e0120-06f0-7d4f-8f29-3b5b04a6d7ba","content":"Speaker 1: \n\nSpeaker 2: Okay, it's 8 0 3 and I'm calling night three. Let's settle down. Let's quiet down. I'm calling to order night three of the Arlington annual Town meeting.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, a reminder that, uh, some quick announcements. Reminder that budget night is this Wednesday, May 6th, expect to cover Article 64 through 67. Also, I apologize for interrupting some speakers to clear the speaker queue. I've gotten feedback on that loud and clear. Um, I'm working, I'll be working with the operator to, um, make sure that we're clearing the speaker queue in more predictable ways that aren't interrupting folks. Um, next, uh, sometimes when I get requests from town meeting members for materials to be added to the annotated warrant, uh, it's submitted the names of multiple town meeting members. Like at the top it says, like, submitted by town meeting member A from Precinct one and TMMB from precinct two. Um, going forward, I wanna ask that requests from town meeting members, uh, be attributed to a single town meeting member, which is the one sending the email.\n\n","timeStart":0.085,"timeEnd":82.005,"chunkIndex":0},{"id":"019e0120-06fa-78c4-a198-a276c8ac9807","content":"Speaker 2: It'll just make it a lot easier to manage. I don't have to get like permission, make sure that like the other person actually knows all the content and all that. Uh, and it's just easier to juggle with the, the high volume of email that we get for such requests. Also, speaking of requests to add materials to the annotated warrant, um, uh, there's been lots of submissions, uh, for attachments, especially for Article 53. Um, uh, let's say I've approved, I think 15 so far, and there's like almost 30, uh, total, uh, that I'm still wait, uh, trying to get through, uh, because I, I do have to review them for scope and so on. The current guidelines allow this, so I'm not calling anyone out as doing anything that the rules say that they shouldn't be doing. Uh, but people are submitting a volume of requests that's higher than I anticipated when I came up with these guidelines and discuss them with the town meeting procedures committee over recent years.\n\n","timeStart":82.095,"timeEnd":131.205,"chunkIndex":1},{"id":"019e0120-0701-751e-83be-a3a5cccbdeaa","content":"Speaker 2: Um, so the, the rate of requests that I've been getting, especially for Article 53, has not been sustainable for myself, uh, since, uh, as I mentioned, I need to check the materials for scope and relevance. Uh, I don't want unrelated materials that are outside of the scope of the article, uh, to be taken up space in the annotated warrant and to, and consuming your time trying to figure out a puzzle over, like, why is this even here? So I, I do that filtering for you. Um, and nor does the town clerk necessarily have the time, uh, like checking the materials for accessibility. Uh, 'cause that's something that we're really trying to prioritize this year to make the materials more, uh, accessible for screen readers, et cetera. Uh, and so the volume is just higher than we anticipated when these guidelines were put in place. And so, um, the, I don't intend to, like, the situation isn't so dire at this moment that I need to change the guidelines in the middle of this town meeting. 'cause I really try to avoid that. Um, and, uh, uh, but I will definitely be discussing changes to these guidelines with the Town Meeting Procedures committee, uh, shortly after, uh, this town meeting is dissolved. Uh, 'cause we need to find a more sustainable, balanced way of approaching this. Um, okay. And with that outta the way, uh, please rise for the national anthem.\n\n","timeStart":131.785,"timeEnd":205.965,"chunkIndex":2},{"id":"019e0120-070a-7b18-83fc-dc120153b196","content":"Speaker 2: Yeah. Special thanks to Ko Tanaka on piano. Thank you. Uh, let's see. Lastly, before we get started, I want to welcome guests of ours from our sister city, Naga Oio Japan. I believe they're in the balcony. Yes. Welcome. It will be visiting Arlington for the week. And thank you. And welcome to Arlington. Welcome back to Arlington for many of you. Okay. Uh, Mr. Hurt.\n\nSpeaker 4: Thank you. Mr. Moderator. John Herd, chair of the Select Board. It is moved that if all of the business of the meeting as set forth in the warrant for the annual town meeting is not disposed of at the, this session. When the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Wednesday, May 6th, 2026 at 8:00 PM at Town Hall.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, we have motion that if we don't finish tonight, um, uh, we'll a, um, adjourn back to here on Wednesday at 8:00 PM All those in favor say yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay. Uh, it is affirmed. It's a majority vote. Uh, let's now take a test vote. Okay. True or false? The, at the completion of the first night of town meeting last Monday, 37 articles had been disposed. That's the most ever in a single night at Arlington Town. Meeting one for true, two for false. Okay. Let's, uh, let's close voting and it passes 109, the affirmative 79 and negative five Abstentions. Uh, is this really loud or echoey? That's good. Okay. Um, okay, let's, let's cycle through the, the vote screens. I, I, I don't know. It's really a question for, I, I think that's a question for the clerk. Uh, the clerk keeps the record, so I don't know. I just run the meeting.\n\nSpeaker 5: ,\n\n","timeStart":287.125,"timeEnd":443.735,"chunkIndex":3},{"id":"019e0120-0717-7b4b-a8c8-27aa3b4cb31b","content":"Speaker 2: You think I have that kind of time during time meeting to research like . Alright. Okay. That takes us to, let's see, lemme just double check here. Ah, uh, do we have any announcements or resolutions tonight? Yeah, over here. Ms. Dry.\n\nSpeaker 6: Good evening. Elizabeth Dre, precinct 10. I'd like to invite fellow Arlington to day Sister City project board member Stephanie Kunz to address you and give you a brief update of what we've been up to in the last year. Stephanie is a Arlington Town member.\n\nSpeaker 2: Did you speak, let she have a meeting member? Or, or\n\nSpeaker 6: No, she's just a, a resident. I'm sorry. A resident.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. She has the right to speak. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Welcome. Uh, just let us know your, your, your name and address. Yeah, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 5: Introduce, yes. Introduce, yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Hello Town meeting members and thank you for all your hard work on behalf of Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm sorry. Just name and address, please. Okay. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 7: Just for the record, my name is Stephanie Konz and I am at 46 Westmoreland in Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 8: And, uh, I am Caitlyn Rahm, and I live at 63 Chester Street.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":451.165,"timeEnd":533.825,"chunkIndex":4},{"id":"019e0120-0723-71c7-a5b9-b67595832d0e","content":"Speaker 7: I've lived here in Arlington with my husband Charlie, for almost 22 years. We have raised our two children here, the second of whom is about to graduate from Arlington High School. And I'm here to speak tonight about Arlington special relationship with the community of Tete El Salvador in our organization, the Arlington Teosinte Sister City Project, of which I am a board member, as well as Kaitlyn, as well as Elizabeth. When I spoke to this group two years ago, we had just come back from a delegation trip reaffirming the importance of person to person connections. Tete is a wonderful community nestled in the hills of Chiat mango, and is a village rebuilt in 1988 by Salvadorians leaving a Honduran refugee camp. Arlington has been connected to them since 1988 with the rebirth of that community emerging from Civil war. Our sister city relationship is a model of solidarity, friendship, and cultural exchange.\n\n","timeStart":535.915,"timeEnd":597.525,"chunkIndex":5},{"id":"019e0120-072d-7b22-b0ce-e9f9c19ae1f9","content":"Speaker 7: Currently, Tete is facing challenges of an increasingly centralized and authoritarian Salvadorian government. At the same time, the village is thriving in many ways. They continue to have their own town council or direct ivivva with local elections every two years. At Arlington Tete Sister City Project, we focus on multiple areas of common interest. First of all, we focus on education within our own schools, learning about tete as part of the second grade World Studies program at Arlington Public Schools. And we recently had a very exciting curriculum meeting about it. We also look ways for ways to get middle school and high school kids involved, often through our Spanish language teachers. Secondly, we sell crafts made by the Tete Sewing Cooperative, as well as Salvadoran coffee roasted locally at events such as town day. We also have a monthly coffee club for anyone living in Arlington. All proceeds go to support Teosinte in the Sister City program, mainly by contributing to high school and Uni University scholarships.\n\n","timeStart":598.515,"timeEnd":663.235,"chunkIndex":6},{"id":"019e0120-0742-7d18-81a4-edefe21a7c18","content":"Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any of the other, any other announcements or resolutions tonight? Okay. Seeing none. Uh, now call for reports of committees. Uh, are there any re reports to be received tonight? Uh, Ms. Desler, would you make that possible for us?\n\nSpeaker 9: Christine Desler, chair of the finance committee. I move that Article three be taken from the table. Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. We have motion to take article three from the table to receive reports. And we have a second. All those in favor say yay. All those opposed say nay. It is unanimous. Uh, so Mr. Jameson, you got a report and do we have slides up? Okay, you have have four minutes.\n\nSpeaker 10: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Gordon Jameson, precinct 12 and co-chair of Envision Arlington's Physical Resource Task Group. Our charge is to educate the public on how our town government works and the people who are responsible for the planning and management of town finances. Over the years, we've involved in the government primer, which you may have seen, the state of the town address warrant, article order financial organization quarterly, um, water and sewer billing, my tax dollars. And we still have a project ongoing where we'd like to get profiles of all our leaders up on the web. Next slide, please. Tonight I'm here to talk to you about our M-B-A-T-M-B-T-A assessment. If you go to the, uh, finance report, the, the summary page C one down in the assessments on the lower left, you'll see $3.6 million that we spend on to the give to the M-B-T-R-A.\n\n","timeStart":766.495,"timeEnd":878.845,"chunkIndex":8},{"id":"019e0120-074b-741e-ab87-f6b95d88f8b5","content":"Speaker 10: And that's number we believe is much higher than it should be. And this is due to the simple fact that Arlington is misclassified as a rapid transit slash commuter rail service community in legislation that is part of Mass General law. And we estimate that, that that means that Arlington is over assessed by over two and a half million dollars annually since 2000. That's $50 million. We could have done other things with. Next slide please. So, legislative solution change Arlington's classification within the relevant legislation from 14 cities and towns, high service to 51 cities and towns lower service making it 13 and 52, uh, additional. In addition to our, um, belief that this is the right thing, the M-B-T-M-B-A-T-M-B-T-A Communities Act also provides, um, support for this and that we are classified as an adjacent community and not a rapid transit or commuter rail community. And the adjacent communities are, um, uh, uh, classified as a lower service MBTA recipient.\n\n","timeStart":880.905,"timeEnd":952.765,"chunkIndex":9},{"id":"019e0120-0752-7a9e-a887-7802ab045f7b","content":"Speaker 10: We, uh, approached Senator Friedman and she and her staff helped us draft legislation, um, with the input and support from Town Council Cunningham and the assistance of Representative Carlee and Rogers. I think I see Sean in the back there. Thank you. And, um, so we, and we filed that legislation that said CS Senate S 20 S 26 29 was filed. A hearing was, um, uh, held last fall where I testified, you can look that up and see my testi justification for three minutes. And then it was referred to a study committee next, which is where things usually go to die. Next slide, please. Uh, so, um, we were requesting your help request a support from the select board, the town manager, the town meeting, of course, our legislative team on Beacon Hill to get this important piece of legislation passed by the legislature. Why is it important? It's two and a half million dollars a year, folks. It's not chump change. So if passed this year over the next four years, that's $10 million. Thank you for your time.\n\nSpeaker 2: And before you go anywhere, Mr. Jameson, uh, uh, did you I don't, I don't remember hearing a motion to receive the report.\n\nSpeaker 10: I move receipt.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. A motion to receive the report, uh, uh, from Mr. Jameson. Uh, and we have a second. All those in favor say yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay. It is, it is received. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 10: Thank you. Mr. Moderator.\n\nSpeaker 2: Any other reports of committees to be received by town meeting? Okay, seeing none, Ms. Desler,\n\nSpeaker 9: Christine Desler, chair of the finance committee. I move that Article three be laid upon the table.\n\n","timeStart":954.505,"timeEnd":1053.485,"chunkIndex":10},{"id":"019e0120-075b-7304-bf44-9721b4ce4bcb","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. We have a motion to put Article three back on the table and a second. All those in favor say yay, nay. All those opposed say nay. It is not unanimous. Thank you. But, uh, it is, it is back on. It is a two third, two thirds vote. Thank you. Uh, always keeping things interesting. Okay. Articles 10 and 21 are held until May 13th. Uh, we resume now with Article 30. Um, I believe Mr. DeCoursey from the select board is going to introduce this article. And, uh, can we clear the speaker queue please?\n\nSpeaker 10: Thank you. Mr. Moderator, Steve DeCoursey, member of the select Board actually gonna move to postpone this article until May 13th. I had a conversation with the proponent before the meeting and he had requested it, but I also agreed to meet with him between now and then. Um, and maybe there's some areas of agreement or better understanding. So there'll be a tighter presentation on the 13th.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. We have a motion to, um, it was postponed, correct? Correct. Uh, until May 13th, uh, all, uh, article 30. Uh, all those in favor of postponing article 30 until May 13th. Say, yay. All those will opposed say nay. It is unanimous. It's unanimous. I call it before I heard that . Um, it is now tabled until, let's see.\n\nSpeaker 5: Oops,\n\nSpeaker 2: Lemme just update my notes quickly. Five 13th. And so article 30 will be taken up on May 13th, also known as second first night of town meeting, um, or redo night. Okay. It takes us to Article 31. Uh, Mr. Hurt and, and Speaker Q is, is clear right now, just\n\n","timeStart":1054.555,"timeEnd":1158.205,"chunkIndex":11},{"id":"019e0120-0764-7409-9b12-703d4d3f10da","content":"Speaker 4: Trying to not touch the microphone, but we're gonna give it another try. Thank you, Mr. Moderat. John, her chair of the select board. Article 31 seeks to is a home rule legislation, which seeks to authorize the filing of home rule legislation to exempt Arlington from the provisions of general law Chapter 61 B that allows owners of certain types of land defined as recreational to apply for and receive a reduced property tax valuation. The select board voted favorable action by vote of three to one. Mr. Helmuth accused himself recused himself. Mr. Dsi voted in the negative. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Um, seeing no requests to, oh, Mr. Gucci. Oh yeah. Come on up. You have a presentation? Yeah. Okay. If we share\n\nSpeaker 5: A presentation?\n\nSpeaker 2: I have, yeah. Yeah. Can we, uh, show Mr. Gucci's presentation who's also the, uh, the proponent, I believe of the petition? Correct.\n\nSpeaker 5: Alright.\n\n","timeStart":1158.205,"timeEnd":1221.765,"chunkIndex":12},{"id":"019e0120-076d-7c1b-918e-d53c78840b4c","content":"Speaker 11: Uh, Carmine Gucci Precinct 21. Alright, so hopefully this is a, uh, a no brainer here. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, just wanna talk about what 61, uh, chapter 61 B. Uh, it gives, uh, 75% reduction in assessed value, uh, for certain types of recreational land. It was generally designed for farms in the open space, but how, however, the two private country clubs in our town have been taking advantage of this, uh, to dramatically reduce their tax obligations. Those two clubs, uh, Belmont Country Club and Winchester Country Club hold 59 acres of private land in Arlington. That's almost 2% the total of the town, of the five and a half square miles of Arlington. Um, doing so, uh, and removing Belmont's, um, uh, Belmont Country Club's exemption would allow for us to have about $18,000 a year in additional revenue. And these two properties, these two country clubs, because of the way Chapter 61 B is written, they're the only two properties in town that would qualify, uh, for this, for this exemption.\n\n","timeStart":1222.665,"timeEnd":1282.125,"chunkIndex":13},{"id":"019e0120-0784-7c16-9541-693359380e32","content":"Speaker 11: Uh, next slide please. And just to give you a little, uh, thing showing of the disparity here. Uh, Belmont Country Club, uh, pays, uh, about, uh, 544 540 $5 per acre. They're 11 and a half acres of land in town. Uh, they pay about $5,800, uh, a year in tax. Uh, Winchester Country Club has not, this year, did not apply for 61 B. It's something that these, um, uh, pieces of property have to apply for every year. Uh, we'll get to that in a minute, but right now, as a golf course themselves, they are taxed as a golf course. They pay about 4,500 i per acre. And now compare that to what a average, uh, the land, the average, uh, of folks, uh, who have a single family home, uh, is about $35,000, uh, per acre. Um, next slide, please. Um, and so, uh, what I was saying, Winchester Country Club has gone off and on again with the 61 B.\n\n","timeStart":1282.385,"timeEnd":1339.565,"chunkIndex":14},{"id":"019e0120-078c-7690-9a72-d0c7aab7833a","content":"Speaker 11: And so right now we are, uh, budgeting for the assessment of what their property is Sands, uh, 61 B, if they do next year apply for 61 B, um, they could, we will potentially lose out on about $25,000 a year in tax revenue. And so combined here, there's about 50, $50,000, uh, or $43,000 a year in, um, in tax, uh, revenue. Um, next slide. Uh, so asking you to vote yes for this. Again, this is a home rule petition. We would have to petition the state to ask us to be exempt. Uh, Belmont, both Belmont and Swamps got two years ago in their town meeting, have, uh, done similar, uh, home rule petitions. They are now in the State House, uh, waiting for, uh, law change, uh, like Mr. Hertz, uh, said, uh, select board favorably, uh, three to one. And then the Board of Assessors and Human anonymously, um, uh, supports, uh, this, uh, uh, this article. Um, all in all, a private country club should not be receiving a 75% tax discount, particularly while Arlington homeowners are asked to pay more throw overrides. Everyone should be paying their fair share. So thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Uh, let's see. We have, let's, we can switch over to the speaker queue. Um, I, I don't think we were able to make the font larger, is that right? Sorry about that. Um, we'll, we'll continue to look at that, see if we can improve that. But, um, the, so we have only four speakers in the queue, so if, if it's fewer than five, as I said before, I'm not gonna bother shuffling it. We'll just take them in order. Uh, Mr. Tosi,\n\nSpeaker 12: I don't play golf. I,\n\n","timeStart":1339.865,"timeEnd":1442.045,"chunkIndex":15},{"id":"019e0120-0798-787b-95b1-b7553052fa75","content":"Speaker 2: Uh, name and precinct,\n\nSpeaker 12: Okay. Uh, STI precinct, uh, 17th, um, I don't play golf. I haven't done that since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts petitioned me to stop.\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, do.\n\nSpeaker 12: And, uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: I think I folks or Josh, can you a step a few, uh, inches from the microphone? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 12: Um, and I think, you know, trees would be better than grass, but there is one good public thing that these golf courses do in that is there large amounts of land which are not packed with houses, um, which are green, which have some trees around it. It's just open space. And the town of Arlington desperately needs open space, whether it's from the Belmont or from the Winchester. So I guess my question is, um, is there any way that not allowing this to happen could incentivize them to, you know, close down the golf courses and put up multimillion dollar houses? I have no idea what the financial condition of the two golf clubs are. And my second thing is, I'd be interested to know, um, why Mr. Ersi, uh, voted in the negative on this. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So to answer the first question, is there anyone intended to owns a golf course in Arlington? So I, I don't know if anyone con, uh, does, I don't think we could really speculate on that. Um, and your, your second question was about, uh, um, Mr. Desi, did you want to clarify your negative vote on this?\n\n","timeStart":1442.265,"timeEnd":1532.965,"chunkIndex":16},{"id":"019e0120-07a1-701d-a856-2054c4126ec4","content":"Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Steve DeCoursey, member of the Select board. Um, I voted against this because I, I understand the issue with golf courses, the recreational land statute. There's actually a lot of a number of really good things about it. One of the def the definition of recreational land includes land that is open to members of a nonprofit organization. That's how the country clubs qualify. So my feeling was, as I heard the presentation, that's really the clause that the pro, the proponent is, is getting at here. There are other aspects of this that, um, are, are very favorable. You have to have at least five acres of land, and it, it's maintained in, in open space. So I thought it was over-inclusive in terms of, um, its application. And while there is only the golf courses right now, who knows what would happen in the future if there ever was five or more acres available for that type of use.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you, Mr. De Ersi. We'll take, uh, Sam Polk next.\n\nSpeaker 5: In\n\nSpeaker 2: Case you're wondering, some town meeting members have requested to be referred to by first and last name, so it might seem inconsistent. Mr. Uh, go ahead. One,\n\nSpeaker 5: One,\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, I don't know. I didn't hear anything. So,\n\nSpeaker 13: Uh, test testing. Yep.\n\nSpeaker 2: Name and\n\n","timeStart":1535.955,"timeEnd":1611.725,"chunkIndex":17},{"id":"019e0120-07ab-7e7e-96ac-9abd9bd1d2de","content":"Speaker 13: Precinct. Okay. Uh, Sam Polk, precinct 12. Um, so I'm a proud, uh, JV, former JV golf, uh, um, bench warmer, um, , but, uh, I'm admittedly not the town's, uh, leading expert on recreational land. So I have a couple questions related to how the land use policy works. Um, so Mr. Moderator, uh, I was wondering if you could walk us through, uh, how chapter 61 B affects the property tax bill compared to ordinary, um, residential and commercial assessments?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, I'd be happy to intro invite Mr. Cunningham to, uh, walk through that piece of legislation.\n\nSpeaker 13: Sorry.\n\nSpeaker 14: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Michael Cunningham, town Council,\n\nSpeaker 5: Don't bring the mic up. Leave it right there.\n\nSpeaker 14: And the question was related to how the tax rate works or,\n\nSpeaker 13: Yeah. Um, what's the, how, uh, how much money would the town get back if this, if 31 would be passed?\n\nSpeaker 14: I probably can't answer that one. I can tell you in general, the statute was enacted in 1979, which is designed to protect, you know, residential, recreational uses of Mr. D course. You described, there are certain criteria under the statute that has to meet, it has to be five acres minimum, and, and, you know, maintain for open public use or the private use. In this case, in some, you know, for golf courses, the dollar difference, I would probably have to defer to our assessor or perhaps town manager.\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Feeney, can you answer that?\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank\n\nSpeaker 15: You. I actually would defer to our director of assessments, Dana Mann, who's in attendance. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 14: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Mann, director Mann.\n\n","timeStart":1611.965,"timeEnd":1710.495,"chunkIndex":18},{"id":"019e0120-07b3-7922-a855-1f16e9871b79","content":"Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Dana Mann, director of assessments, um, would you repeat the question? I, there seemed to be two questions there.\n\nSpeaker 13: Yeah. So I, I just wanted under wanted to understand like, so maybe, maybe it is two questions and I just don't understand the policy, but I, I'd love to understand like what, what money the town would get back in the, in the form of tax revenue as a result of this specifically.\n\nSpeaker 10: Sure. So I can tell you that, uh, in fiscal year 25, Winchester did apply for the 61 B, and the discount from, uh, full and fair cash value, um, was approximately $2.4 million in value, which equates to approximately $24,964 in taxes that were discounted for the fiscal year. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 13: So assuming similar for Belmont, um, maybe,\n\nSpeaker 10: Uh, it's, it's about 18,000.\n\nSpeaker 13: Oh, oh, okay. And change. Sounds good. Um, Mr. Moderator, I had a different question. Um, so I was curious about the, uh, specific services that are provided to these properties, um, such, such as public safety, road access, drainage, that sort of thing. Um, are all public services provided, uh, to these properties despite their tax rate deduction?\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Feeney, do you know, are, are, which town services, if any, are provided to these properties?\n\nSpeaker 15: I don't have an explicit list of the services, but I can tell you that there are no, uh, applicable exemptions, any call for service that we get, we would provide.\n\n","timeStart":1713.865,"timeEnd":1810.525,"chunkIndex":19},{"id":"019e0120-07bc-7b02-93a9-d9b5cc1d931f","content":"Speaker 13: Okay. Um, so it sounds like we would get tax revenue from this, um, and, uh, this would be just applying an existing tax rate on, um, private entities that are already receiving public services. Um, so I'm gonna support this measure and, uh, I urge you to as well. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You, Mr. Wagner. Next.\n\nSpeaker 16: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Carl Wagner, precinct 15. I rise to suggest that this is not a slam dunk, not an obvious yes. We'll just get a lot more cash for ourselves. In fact, there are at least two things to consider on this. One is that, um, I don't know if you're aware, but the multi-family housing we have, the apartment buildings, we have like the Brigham, where Brigham ice cream used to be. They cost us money in our taxes. The rest of the residents are paying to cover what they don't cover in their services. And the 70, yeah, I got you. The 75% reduction may be too little in order to make the net positive to the town of taxes, we should probably look at, should we cut it 66 or 50 or some percent after a study? But I tell you, if we cut this to we, they pay everything.\n\n","timeStart":1811.675,"timeEnd":1885.945,"chunkIndex":20},{"id":"019e0120-07c4-710a-8771-b30d83813770","content":"Speaker 16: They don't have children that live in the grass or on the trees that go to school. It's a, it's a business just like our other businesses that don't have children. And more than 50% of the taxes that the town and the businesses pay go to schools. They also don't really have roads except in the periphery. So by changing this to they pay taxes, we get an immediate cash hit. And then I guarantee you both of these, uh, places, both of these uses of open space and of, of whatever they're called, clubs, golf clubs, they will close and then we'll get multifamily housing on those areas. And you might say, well, that's great, but that changes the use of Arlington. It's gonna make traffic and all sorts of congestion, and I guarantee you we'll be paying more in our residential taxes if it converts to multifamily, just like for the Brigham. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, next we have, uh, Mr. Miller, Matthew Miller, followed by, uh, Andrew Fisher.\n\n","timeStart":1886.215,"timeEnd":1942.025,"chunkIndex":21},{"id":"019e0120-07cc-76a4-b4c2-b6270e6781d3","content":"Speaker 17: Thank you Mr. Moderat. Uh, Matt Miller precinct 11. So, uh, listening to the arguments, I, I understand that lots of grass is good for the environment. Absolutely. Golf courses do use a lot of water though. So if you're using a lot of water, it kind of balances it out. So I'm, I'm kind of don't have a strong stand on it, but what I would like to know is if we do make a change, is there gonna be a retro or is there gonna be a change, uh, from the communities of Belmont and Winchester that would like actually cost us more money? Uh, that's all I have is the fact that if we like, try to get $25,000 or whatever the amount is, and then we have to pay $50,000 more because they counteract us, is that really benefiting us?\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm not, not sure I understand the que counteract how, like,\n\nSpeaker 17: Uh, so, so right now we're saying that, uh, certain other towns get a benefit, right?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, uh\n\nSpeaker 17: Yes. Other towns get a, a reduced tax cost. Is that true?\n\nSpeaker 2: No. No. These are, these are property, these are taxes on property that, that is within Arlington's borders? Correct.\n\nSpeaker 17: Okay. So understood. Yes. Okay. So we're gonna lose, we're losing taxes right now. If we're losing taxes, if they do similar, uh, agendas, then we might pay more taxes.\n\n","timeStart":1945.885,"timeEnd":2040.905,"chunkIndex":22},{"id":"019e0120-07e8-718b-8b90-e2bbd8eef960","content":"Speaker 18: Is is the public allowed to use this open space?\n\nSpeaker 2: No. It, it's, it's private ownership, correct?\n\nSpeaker 18: Well, it's kind of hard to justify letting them off the hook. Uh, and very quickly, uh, fun aside is Charlie Lions always argued against two tiered charge for water. Like the water doesn't go through the sewer because these country clubs pay us a ton of money, or at least Winchester pays us a ton of money for water. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Jameson, followed by Mr. Greenspon.\n\nSpeaker 10: Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Gordon Jameson, precinct 12th, and member of current chair of the Board of Assessors. Um, in response to the previous comment on open space, as I, uh, speaking of from a town meeting member's perspective, um, it is private land and, uh, it doesn't really provide open space activities to Arlington residents at will, like Robin's Farm, park behind my house. Would, um, one of the other comments suggested that, um, we treat, uh, the, um, to my estimation, treat the, um, again, as a town meeting member, that we treat the, uh, the golf clubs as their own gated communities in that they will, um, they will not have to, um, bear the cost of any schools or other services of the town.\n\n","timeStart":2151.345,"timeEnd":2236.795,"chunkIndex":24},{"id":"019e0120-07f1-7568-a76f-5f963f9954fb","content":"Speaker 10: Um, and just to reiterate with the director as, as a member of the Board of assessors now with the director spoke, um, in 2025, the fiscal year, both Belmont and Winchester applied for 61 B, and they both received a 75% discount on their assessed value and the taxes that accrued at the normal rate at upon that discount. Um, the proponent was, uh, mentioned to me across the aisle that he thinks the, um, the, he believes that the initiation fee for the Winchester Country Club is $80,000. I don't think these, uh, entities are anywhere close to shutting down. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator, the last comment with the town meeting member.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Greenspon, followed by Benton Killick,\n\nSpeaker 19: Andy Greens Spawn Precinct five, oh, sorry, Andy Greens Spawn Precinct five. Um, Mr. Moderator, do we know the environmental effects nominally of golf courses, grass, the fertilizer that's used, things of that nature,\n\nSpeaker 2: The, the environmental impact? Like, can, can you, uh, can you, can you explain the relevance of answering that question under\n\nSpeaker 19: The , uh, relative to the burden it places on the town and the taxes we charge them or do not charge them?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, I'm not sure if anyone here can quantify that. Um, I'm not seeing anyone volunteering to hazard a an answer to that. Okay.\n\n","timeStart":2239.135,"timeEnd":2329.685,"chunkIndex":25},{"id":"019e0120-07fc-78ba-848e-495003e1a7ce","content":"Speaker 19: I point this out because a previous person suggested that the open space of the golf course wasn't net good for the town. I'm suggesting the environmental effects of a golf course are arguably worse than almost any other thing that could, could be there. I mean, if we could just put trees, you know, that'd be great, but we don't control it. It's private land. So, um, I would argue that's a huge environmental burden on the town, um, relative to the, uh, property tax they're currently paying. Um, my other question is, what are these, uh, areas currently zoned, the Winchester and Belmont Country Clubs?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, does anyone from the redevelopment board know how? Yeah. Uh, Mr. Lac, how Winchester Country Club is zoned?\n\nSpeaker 5: I'm not sure ,\n\nSpeaker 19: I I can ask another question while somebody checks. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 2: Go, go ahead.\n\nSpeaker 19: Um, lemme just check what my other question. Oh, um, it's related to this, but hypothetically speaking, if either of these country clubs wanted to develop within whatever they're currently zoned, would the town be obligated to build roads for them?\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Ach, are you still looking into that? Or Mr. Fee? Oh, Mr. Feeney, go ahead.\n\n","timeStart":2329.965,"timeEnd":2404.625,"chunkIndex":26},{"id":"019e0120-0805-795a-8d57-5a4f5e288c8f","content":"Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. Monterey. Jim Fee town manager. Uh, to answer your first question, I do happen to have their property record cards. It looks like the two parcels owned by the Belmont Country Club are zoned R one, and those owned by the Winchester Country Club appear to be R zero. Uh, now with that being said, if they were to, uh, seek to do some sort of subdivision, they would have to, uh, build their own roads. And if they were built to town specifications, they could be accepted by the, uh, select board at that time. Is the, and we would maintain them moving forward,\n\nSpeaker 19: Is the select board obligated to accept them even if they're built to those conditions? So that would be them paying for it.\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Uh, uh,\n\nSpeaker 15: That's\n\nSpeaker 19: The\n\nSpeaker 2: Moderator.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Feeney,\n\nSpeaker 15: As far as I understand, they would be under no obligation to necessarily accept them.\n\nSpeaker 19: Okay. This is just to point out, some people argued you could build tons of multifamily housing on these properties if these country clubs wanted to, you know, it doesn't seem like they want to do this, but even if that were a hypothetical, it's R one and R zero and they would have to pay for all the things to actually develop it. It wouldn't cost the sound money. I support, um, the motion as is for the property tax or for the tax revenue. Thanks. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Ruman, followed by Pi Fisher.\n\nSpeaker 20: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Michael Ruman, precinct nine.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, is that mic on? Nope,\n\n","timeStart":2409.815,"timeEnd":2495.085,"chunkIndex":27},{"id":"019e0120-080e-70fd-ae0f-899d0a319dbb","content":"Speaker 20: Take four. Michael Ruman, precinct nine. Um, chapter 61, 61 A 61 B, were responses to, uh, Massachusetts legislation that required all properties to be assessed at full market value. What would happen to farms, forests, wood, lots, things like that, that would now be under this intense pressure to be developed since they were gonna be taxed at at at their highest and best use rate. Well, sorry, chapter six.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can, can you step back a few inches from the microphone please? Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":2495.675,"timeEnd":2529.045,"chunkIndex":28},{"id":"019e0120-0818-7895-a26d-47804a7ed39e","content":"Speaker 20: Thank you. Uh, chapter 61 allows certain owners of private land to claim a break to get out from under some of this development pressure. Um, I think 61 is agricultural and horticultural land. 61 A is forest land and 61 B applies to owner private party owners of recreational land. It's our choice if we want to, through, through the special legislation, decide that we do not want to grant this break. The break was designed to take away the development pressure that otherwise would force, typically farms, uh, you know, wood, wood lot managers to exceed, to accepting the best market offer for, for, uh, uh, higher development. It's a break. It has other protections that in order to the town, um, the, the unpaid taxes have to get reclaimed. The town has certain rights of first refusal, but basically it's a tax break for certain, for certain properties that the law says maybe we want to keep the way they are. But if we don't want to afford that protection, we don't have to. And I'm in favor of Mr. Gucci's, uh, um, uh, motion here to, to ask for the legislation to give us the choice of not giving that protection to 61 B. Personally, I don't think the benefit the public receives is equal to, to the benefit that the private party receives. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, PI Fisher next, followed by Mr. Hamlet. Let's see. Satellite room. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 21: Hi, Fisher Precinct six.\n\nSpeaker 2: Is your mic on?\n\nSpeaker 21: Uh, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Now the green light is on. Hey,\n\nSpeaker 2: There we go. We can hear you now. Go ahead. Sorry about that. Hi, Fisher\n\n","timeStart":2529.095,"timeEnd":2637.655,"chunkIndex":29},{"id":"019e0120-0822-7122-8689-7ca63aca56f8","content":"Speaker 21: Precinct six. I move the question.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. We have a motion to terminate debate, uh, and we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under Article 31, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say, nay, nay debate is terminated is two thirds vote. So we'll proceed now to vote on the main motion under Article 31, which is a majority vote to authorize filing of home rule legislation to exempt Arlington from Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 61 B requirements regarding, uh, reduced property tax valuations for recreational land. If you're in favor of authorizing the filing of that Homer legislation, press one for Yes. Uh, if you're opposed, press two for no, or three to abstain is a vote on the main motion, and it is a majority vote quantum. Okay. Voting is closed and the motion passes. 198 in the affirmative. 18 in the negative two. Abstentions takes us to article. We clear the speaker queue now, please. And, uh, that brings us to, okay. The speaker queue is now clear. Article, uh, 32, uh, Mr. Herd.\n\nSpeaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Article 32 was submitted by Ms. Keel and 10 registered voters. It seeks for home rule petition requesting permission for the town of Arlington to ban the use of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides in Arlington. The select board voted favorable action by a vote of four to zero. Mr. Helmuth recused himself. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. And I believe, uh, we have a town meeting member to introduce the, uh, the proponent of the petition. Um, Ms. Rito Rito, I'm sorry,\n\nSpeaker 22: Suzanne Rito, who sent 20. I'd like to introduce Laura Keel of Resident of Arlington and founder of Save Arlington Wildlife. Thank\n\n","timeStart":2637.975,"timeEnd":2786.525,"chunkIndex":30},{"id":"019e0120-082c-793a-a1f9-c02a80a7e19e","content":"Speaker 2: You. Okay. And Ms. Keel is a, a resident of Arlington, correct? Yeah. And so, see, do we have Ms. Keel? Yes,\n\nSpeaker 23: I'm here.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. In the satellite room. So I guess we just have the one display so you won't be able to see the speaker. And so I, I pause the speaker queue here. Okay. Um, uh, so we can see Ms. Keel, but which has slides. So we'll switch over to the slides. Welcome. Go ahead, you have the floor.\n\nSpeaker 23: Thank you. My name is Laura Keel and I'll be, um, presenting on Article 32, which is a resolution to file a home rule petition in the state legislature to ban first generation anticoagulant rodenticides on all property properties within Arlington borders. That is because due to state pesticide preemption law, we can't ban any pesticide on private property unless we get special state permission via a home rule petition. Arlington already has filed a home rule petition on the second generation anticoagulants. In fact, we were the first community in the Commonwealth to do so back in 2022, becoming a trailblazer. Since then, over a dozen municipalities have followed suit and a dozen more are prime to pass this town meeting season. Next slide please.\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm sorry. Can you step like a few inches from the microphone? Yeah, it's like really loud down here. Thank\n\n","timeStart":2786.525,"timeEnd":2857.205,"chunkIndex":31},{"id":"019e0120-0836-7208-802b-6587110f6f2f","content":"Speaker 23: You. Next slide please. So, um, what are first generation anticoagulants? They include warfarin, difa known chlorasone. They interfere with vitamin K production in the body, which helps the blood to clot. So any human or animal that has these in two high doses in their body cannot clot their blood and they will die via, um, internal bleeding. Without medical intervention, rodents like rats and mice have developed a very robust resistance to these poisons. So they don't really work in controlling rodents. However, the predators have not developed a resistance to these, um, compounds. And so we are seeing a lot of harm on these non-target animals. Next slide please. So, EF guards are having a profound impact on our wildlife lab. Studies have shown that eastern screech ELs and American kestrels, which are two species that reside in nest here in Arlington, are 30 times more sensitive to the EF guard dione than other birds.\n\n","timeStart":2857.205,"timeEnd":2910.725,"chunkIndex":32},{"id":"019e0120-084c-7d8d-871b-472295f4238f","content":"Speaker 23: And that includes lethal sensitivity. American kestrels are on a severe decline here in the United States. The EF guard chlorasone interferes with the thermo regulation of hawks, meaning they can't stay warm and frigid weather or cool and hot weather if they have this in their system. In 2024, in a 72 hour period, we found four dead owls and hawks in Arlington during a cold snap and all had chlorasone in their system and highly discernible levels. The the F guard dione, um, exposure has been linked to serious and fatal cases of mange in fur bearing mammals like Bobcats and over in California, has been responsible for plummeting populations of bobcats in certain regions to the point of near extra patient. Next slide please. This case es the case of epcor r have escalated here in Arlington. Last summer, there was a gray fox reported to save Arlington wildlife dead in a backyard.\n\n","timeStart":2910.745,"timeEnd":2965.765,"chunkIndex":33},{"id":"019e0120-0855-7c07-be56-938ac455c711","content":"Speaker 23: That's the photo. Um, it was brought in for an necropsy. My organization funded it had widespread internal bleeding in its abdominal region. And the surprise was that the primary poisoning agent was not an escar as originally suspected, but the esgar chlorasone at almost 700 parts per billion. Just for context, lethal threshold starts at 100 parts per billion. So it was nearly seven times that rate. Gray foxes are a species of special conservation need in the state. They are in a serious decline in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States and rodenticides have been highlighted as one of the contributors to these declines. Um, this is the only denning, um, population of foxes we have in Arlington is this one family that only was reported last spring. So it's very sad to see that one has already succumbeded to an anticoagulant. Next slide, please. Agars are also very dangerous to pets and children.\n\n","timeStart":2966.185,"timeEnd":3021.725,"chunkIndex":34},{"id":"019e0120-085f-7de3-aafd-8355c3a9bba6","content":"Speaker 23: Vets are reporting higher rates of vet visits and even casualties among cats and dogs with EF GA exposure, whereas child exposure rates have actually increased in the past decade, 60 to 80% in children disproportionately impacting low-income children of color. Next slide, please. I often get asked, well, what about controlling rodents? The truth is, there's not a single study that finds that anticoagulants reduce rodents in contiguous ecosystems like urban and suburban landscapes. And in fact, what data does exist shows that in the Boston Metro area, rat and mice numbers are climbing with the rise in the use of anticoagulants. Instead, sanitation and exclusion are known to be the most superior forms of reducing rodents in an area. So dumpster management, cleaning up brush, et cetera, as well as supplemental controls like rat contraception, deterrent, supplemental trapping, and dry ice. Next slide please.\n\n","timeStart":3022.085,"timeEnd":3077.785,"chunkIndex":35},{"id":"019e0120-0869-71f8-b8d7-cfb577830de1","content":"Speaker 23: Next slide. So a single gray fox, like the one that died in Arlington, consumes between 1500 to 3000 rodents per year. When one of these predators winds up dying from these rodenticides, that is, those rodents will go on to procreate, make more rodents. We are inciting a trophic cascade of our wildlife by diminishing our predators and artificially boosting our rodent numbers. Next slide, please. There is a lot of precedent for having first generation anticoagulants. Um, this home rule petition California's moratorium is, um, applicable to all anticoagulants, both first and second. The state legislation pending at the State House seeks to ban both generations of anticoagulants. Um, as does the current legal petition that is pending before the pesticide board here in Massachusetts. Several municipalities in Massachusetts have already passed al petitions that actually seek to ban both generations of anticoagulants and several more are again, positioned to pass this town meeting season. Next slide, please. So this warrant has widespread support, Arlington Conservation Commission, sustainable Arlington, friends of Spy Pond Park, mystic River Watershed Association, M-S-P-C-A and the select board have all voted to endorse this article. And I hope I will also, we will also have your support tonight at town meeting. Thank you very much for taking my comments and I'm glad to answer any questions.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you, Ms. Kiel. Thank you. Okay, so let's switch over to the speaker queue. And we have, uh, four speakers, so I'll just take them in order. Uh, Adam Lane, followed by Sam Polk, followed by Mr. Jameson. Go ahead.\n\n","timeStart":3079.335,"timeEnd":3183.655,"chunkIndex":36},{"id":"019e0120-0875-7627-8950-0ea75b530cfe","content":"Speaker 24: Adam Lane, precinct three. Uh, I'm very much philosophically in support of this, uh, of this article. Just a question though, for the proponents, which is how would the ban be enforced? What penalties do we have in mind? Obviously, uh, anticoagulants would, could be brought in from neighboring, um, municipalities. Uh, just how, how are we going to, if pardon the expression, police this?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. Um, uh, Ms. Rito, do you wish to answer that or, um, let's see. Does it specify? I don't think it specifies in the vote language what the, um, what the specific legislation would be, doesn't it? Oh, it does. Okay. Um, uh, Ms. Keyto, did you wanna address this? Oh, or Ms. Keel? Yep. Up there. Yep.\n\n","timeStart":3183.845,"timeEnd":3238.905,"chunkIndex":37},{"id":"019e0120-087d-75e1-a8ef-cd3bbb83c441","content":"Speaker 23: So, well, one, the home rule petition is also a pressuring mechanism to help urge the state to really, um, pass a statewide legislation that would allow all municipalities to do this. But for those who may have not know right now, the environmental bond bill actually has a resolution in it, um, that was passed by Senate votes that would, um, allow any towns and cities with a home rule petition on either or both generations of anticoagulants to be automatically opted to ban these outright in their communities. But it also would direct the pesticide board to come up with sort of a blanket way on how to municipalities can do that. So it would offer guidance. So I don't know about if we're going to be passing these piecemeal, I see that it's more likely the state's either gonna do statewide legislation, um, in which case we are kind of offering that pressuring mechanism, or it's gonna pass in that act where it allows all of the municipalities that have opted in with these home roll petitions. But it'll offer guidance on how to do that.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. And yeah, specified in the vote language that the part of the legislation that would be filed would be, would specify the town of Arlington may regulate through local bylaw, uh, or board of health regulation or ordinance, the use of first gen, but it doesn't specify what exactly. That'd be a future action by the town of in one form or another.\n\nSpeaker 24: All right. Uh, thank you both for clarifying. And, uh, I value Arlington Wildlife. I saw bald Eagle flying over Mass Ave last week. Um, I am in support of this measure. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":3239.845,"timeEnd":3338.595,"chunkIndex":38},{"id":"019e0120-0886-7db5-8676-be6ac5dbe8a9","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Jameson followed by Mr. Sano, but it doesn't say request to speak, so it might have been a, a missed press button. Uh, Mr. Jameson, go ahead. Thank\n\nSpeaker 10: You, Mr. Minor. We or Gordon Jameson Precinct 12. Um, I believe I'm correct that this, that we've already, um, passed something analogous for second generation, is that correct?\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?\n\nSpeaker 10: Yes, it is a question. Second generation, have we already passed home rule legislation to ban those?\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, has second, uh, let's see. Has second generation, uh, anticoagulant, uh, Mr. Uh, Cunningham, what is the status of second generation anticoagulant decide?\n\nSpeaker 14: Thank you, Mr. Mar. Michael Cunningham, town Council. Yes. This town meeting did pass that, but it is, it's in the state legislature. It has not been passed by the state legislature.\n\nSpeaker 10: Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. And Mr. Moderator. Um, I found, uh, several things in the, in the proponents at this, um, proposal. Quite interesting. The concept of a moratorium in this state as California has, might be an interim playing to for our legislatives, uh, team on Beacon Hill to consider. Second thing is, um, are any of the animals that are, um, falling prey to quote unquote to this, um, these chemicals endangered? And then we might be able to enact, uh, legislation or control through the Federal Endangered Species Act or anything in the state that that has level And lastly? Yep.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yep. Go ahead.\n\n","timeStart":3338.765,"timeEnd":3432.325,"chunkIndex":39},{"id":"019e0120-088f-7c8b-b100-5cb8fd989ec5","content":"Speaker 10: And last, and lastly, the comment about children, especially of lower economic, um, stature. Um, when I was in Cincinnati on the, the, on the, um, a faculty member on the College of Medicine at the University of Cincinnati, um, my department, not my expertise, but my department was, was basically founded in many ways on discovering the toxic, um, um, uh, effects of lead. And much of, much of lead exposure to lower economic children is hand to mouth. Um, a a, a constant child. They put their hand on something that in, in the urban environment is dust that has at that time leaded gasoline. They would put it to their mouth and they would ingest lead that way. Um, um, and I I, I would make the analogy that this is exactly what's happening with, um, our, some of our children at this time. And that might be another mechanism for, um, forcing action. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. And I'm, I'm a strong proponent of this. Thank you. That\n\nSpeaker 2: It, did you wanna an, like, answers to your question about, uh, like endangered species affected, or was it, that\n\nSpeaker 10: Was sort of a rhetorical question. Okay. For our legislative, uh, team. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Got it. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Sano, did you ever request to speak? I don't think so. Okay. Uh, Mr. Hamlin, followed by Pi Fisher\n\nSpeaker 25: Guillermo Hamlin Precinct 14. I move the question in all matters before it. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":3432.745,"timeEnd":3531.715,"chunkIndex":40},{"id":"019e0120-0897-7ce3-bc7e-bd3656ad9de7","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. We have a motion to terminate debate and we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under Article 32, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say, nay debate is terminated is a two thirds vote. So proceed now to a vote on the main motion. It is a, uh, um, jardy vote to authorize filing of home rule legislation to allow Arlington to prohibit the use of first generation anticoagulant Rodenticides. Okay. Voting is now open. If you're in favor of, uh, the town filing for home rule legislation, uh, in this regard, press one for Yes. If you're opposed to filing home rule legislation, press two for no or three to abstain. Okay. Voting is closed and the motion passes. 213 in the or 211 in the affirmative three in the negative one. Abstention, uh, it is a majority vote. Uh, takes us to Article 35. Uh, Mr. Herd, and can we clear the speaker queue please? Okay. Queue is, queue is cleared. Mr. Herd, go ahead.\n\nSpeaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. John Herd chair of the Select Board Article 35 seeks endorsement of the program year 52 CDBG applications. If it's appropriate this time, Mr. Monterey, I'd like to make a small motion to correct a clerical error in the language.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yes.\n\n","timeStart":3532.385,"timeEnd":3631.835,"chunkIndex":41},{"id":"019e0120-08b0-7456-b09d-008a8f91010f","content":"Speaker 4: So I move and John heard chair, the select board in Tom, meeting member for precinct 18, I should say. I move to amend the main motion by replacing the words federal fiscal year 2026 with program year 52. It's correcting the year that is listed and it's also moving forward where refer to the program year, which is a more accurate way to refer to the program. So the, before I bring up Ms. Ricker, the select board V voted favorable action six to zero, which A-C-D-B-G vote includes the town manager for favorable action on this article.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. And I think, uh, Madam Clerk, you need a signature, I believe.\n\nSpeaker 5: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, do, do we happen to have this in a digital form that we could present Ms. Al? Do, do we have it in digital form? Do we have it in digital form or the\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay. They can present the text and it's\n\nSpeaker 2: Pretty clear. Yeah. Okay. So let's bring up the text and we can talk through this and, and do we have a second? I didn't hear. Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay. So,\n\nSpeaker 4: And with that, I would like to invite our Director of Planning and Community Development clear Rick to further elaborate.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yep. So where it says Federal fiscal year 2026, which is split across the first two lines of the vote language, it would replace that with program year 52, which is the upcoming federal fiscal year. Is that correct? No, it's not. Oh, it's how long. Okay. Okay. Um, so that motion has been seconded and is now before us. Thank you. Um, director Ricker.\n\n","timeStart":3634.215,"timeEnd":3749.955,"chunkIndex":42},{"id":"019e0120-08b9-7a4e-9a81-fc9edd1a9645","content":"Speaker 26: Alright. Thank you very much. My name is Claire Ricker. I am your Director of Planning and Community Development here for the town. Um, you have the, uh, CDBG report to town meeting in front of you, which should have details on awards, uh, that were granted this year. I'm going to give you a little background. The Community Development Block grant, or CDBG program is a federal program administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, or hud. It was established in 1974 under Title one of the Housing and Community Development Act. The core purpose of the program is to support the development of viable healthy communities. And this is achieved by investing in, and this is HUD's language, decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities with a particular focus on be, uh, benefiting individuals and households with low and moderate incomes. Arlington has participated in the CDBG program since 1975 and had rec and has received just over $60.5 million in total funding over that time as an entitlement community. Arlington's annual funding is determined by a federal formula that considers population poverty levels, housing conditions, including age and overcrowding and population growth trends. Although demand for the program has increased nationwide, HUD's overall budget has remained relatively flat. Uh, meaning more communities are competing for the same pool of funding. As a result, Arlington's allocation has remained relatively steady, but slightly declining in recent years.\n\n","timeStart":3750.105,"timeEnd":3836.635,"chunkIndex":43},{"id":"019e0120-08c1-7827-88b5-67a8989e0720","content":"Speaker 26: Each year, Arlington is required to submit an annual action plan to hud. This plan outlines how the town intends to use its annual CDBG allocation. This plan is based on the town's five year consolidated plan. A consolidated plan includes broad goals and objectives to address priority needs with resources available from hud, including a five year strategy for use of CDBG funding in the town of Arlington for years 2025 to 2030. It's also based on prior year's funding levels and program performance and community priorities and eligible applications. The final budget is dependent on Arlington's actual HUD allocation. Uh, this year, if final award differs from the estimate, all project budgets are adjusted proportionally no activity may exceed its requested funding amount. All adjustments must comply with federal spending limits for public services, planning and administration. Also, if additional funds are received beyond projected needs, the town would prioritize a DA accessibility improvements for the Veterans Memorial Park redesign project.\n\n","timeStart":3840.465,"timeEnd":3899.835,"chunkIndex":44},{"id":"019e0120-08ca-78ce-882e-3a4d905d5557","content":"Speaker 26: The town anticipates, uh, receiving $1,050,000 in new HUD CDBG funds this year with approximately $204,000 in reprogrammed prior year funds and approximately $5,000 in program income. Primarily loan interest from the Arlington Home Rehab program. So the total anticipated funding available this year is $1,254,000, uh, for priorities and proposed uses and affordable housing. We, uh, propose continued support for the Housing Corporation of Arlington's Capital Improvement Program, which focuses on preserving existing affordable housing and improving energy efficiency and sustainability there for public services, which is subject to a 15% cap of the total funding. Uh, we proposed to continue support for a range of community-based services, including arts programming and scholarships through, uh, Arlington Center for the Arts. Food Access programs for seniors through Arlington Eats educational support programs at the Arlington Housing Authorities Learning Center, youth Mental Health Services through A YCC afterschool and enrichment programs for youth through the Boys and Girls Club and Fidelity House Transportation and Volunteer Coordination through the Council on Aging Employment and Job Readiness programs for youth English language instruction for non-native speakers, recreation Department scholarship support\n\n","timeStart":3902.615,"timeEnd":3978.565,"chunkIndex":45},{"id":"019e0120-08d3-71ea-885e-117e027a646d","content":"Speaker 26: For Infrastructure and public facilities. This year, the demand for infrastructure funding significantly exceeded available resources with, with request totaling over $1.5 million. The town prioritized funding to allow projects to move forward or advance critical phases in program year 52 for ongoing projects, we have a DA accessibility improvements at Arlington Housing Authorities Chestnut Manor, which is phase two of that project, annual A DA sidewalk Curb, curb ramp improvements done by DPW and the Robins Library. A DA restroom upgrades continued as a multi-phase effort for new projects. We have the community garden at 21 Pond Lane, the tree planting component, Jason Russell House Museum, a DA accessible entrance, a Minuteman Bikeway stairway stairway replacement with a DA accessible ramp is in the planning phase and the parliamentary building a DA restroom, uh, design phase for that project for planning and administration, which is subject to a 20% cap of overall funding. Uh, those funds will support planning staff time dedicated to CDBG related work, including community engagement and outreach, data collection and analysis, housing and land use planning, affordable housing studies and implementation and economic development, uh, planning. Um, these, uh, dollars also fund long range planning studies supporting housing affordability and economic opportunity and general program administration and compliance management. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Um, let's, uh, switch over to the speaker queue. Uh, we have three speakers in the queue. Uh, I'm not, uh, it doesn't show an intent of request to speak, but I'll give you a chance anyway. Uh, Ms. Uh, CITAs, maybe that was a key press in error. Next we have, uh, Mr. Luton Marvin Luton Pass. Okay. Uh, okay. We have no other speakers. Oh, Mr. Jameson.\n\n","timeStart":3981.705,"timeEnd":4093.245,"chunkIndex":46},{"id":"019e0120-08dc-71ae-ba1d-39d70682a94e","content":"Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Gordon Jameson, precinct 12. I want to commend the, uh, select board and the people this planning department who help put this together on including the cost of fringe benefits of the salaried employees that are listed here. And I hope that in future, and that that would include hopefully the pensions in healthcare in particular, and I hope in future fi FinCon reports, those, those offsets will be reflected in the pension and insurance, um, budgets. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Trembley followed by, uh, Ms. Ledowski\n\nSpeaker 27: At Reley Precinct seven, uh, 19 rather. I was just curious. The, uh, uh, Nerman Bikeway steer replacement. Where, where are those stairs?\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?\n\nSpeaker 27: I'm just curious. The Minuteman Bikeway stair replacement, I'm just curious where the stairs are. I mean, there's, there's lots of, I can think that they could be. I'm just curious which set of stairs they're, uh, planning to replace, and also how did they come up with, uh, 3,211 individuals?\n\nSpeaker 2: Well, I think, uh, one question at a time, like the stairs to the, uh, Minuteman Bikeway, is that what it was?\n\nSpeaker 26: Sure, yeah. The, uh, stairs, uh, for the Minuteman Bikeway, um, uh, aimed to increase safety and accessibility and restore connectivity between the minuteman bikeway and the linear park along Millbrook. Um, it is an old set of stairs located off the Minuteman Bikeway, uh, near the Mill Street intersection.\n\nSpeaker 27: Okay. And how did you come up with the, the figure of benefiting 3,211 individuals?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, I didn't come up with that, but Director record. Do you, um,\n\n","timeStart":4099.475,"timeEnd":4209.445,"chunkIndex":47},{"id":"019e0120-08e5-70ea-bf3a-4cbc8340b0c3","content":"Speaker 26: You know what, I would have to check on that number for you and get back to you. I'm not sure either.\n\nSpeaker 27: Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Ms. Ledowski followed by Mr. Sullivan.\n\nSpeaker 5: This is the working one, right?\n\nSpeaker 2: I don't think so. I think these two, the middle and the left.\n\nSpeaker 28: Jennifer Luki precinct three. Um, Mr. Moderator, do you, I'd like to know for each of the items, they list a proposed cost and a recommended price, uh, and then list the number of people that, that will serve. When it is something that's based on, like individuals like reducing fees for something, is that based on the requested amount or the smaller, uh, recommended amount?\n\nSpeaker 2: I don't know. Director Ricker, do you have an answer to that question?\n\nSpeaker 5: I do.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, there's not, does anyone have an answer to that question? We don't seem, uh, can you\n\nSpeaker 5: Repeat the\n\nSpeaker 2: Question? It can repeat the question. Like the,\n\nSpeaker 28: Yes. So are the number of individuals served by these projects based on calculating from the requested amount or from the recommended amount, which is typically quite a bit lower,\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Feeney,\n\nSpeaker 28: They're all good causes. I'd just like to know how many people were, were able to serve.\n\n","timeStart":4209.985,"timeEnd":4293.465,"chunkIndex":48},{"id":"019e0120-08ed-7278-8856-a1a67b6ae86c","content":"Speaker 15: Sure. Jim Feeney, town Manager. So for those projects listed under public facilities and infrastructure, no matter the funding amount, I don't think it would change the number of individuals served. Uh, that may be, uh, the case though for some of the public services where the scholarships are. Yeah, I think so. Uh, potentially those amounts are amended, but I do believe they are reflected to, uh, show the actual dollar of value proposed because the application tells us what the cost is, uh, per participant in the program.\n\nSpeaker 28: Thank you. And then second question, uh, for the community garden, is that intended to be like individual garden plots that people would, would be, uh, like subscribing to or signing up for or more of a Park Lake space that everybody could use?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, director Ricker, the, uh,\n\nSpeaker 26: Garden plots, sorry. Record Director of Planning and Community Development. Um, are you, uh, talking about the project at 21 Pond Lane? Yes. Uh, the project at 21 Pond Lane is, uh, uh, uh, proposed to be a, uh, community open space. I don't believe that there are individual garden plots planned there, but, um, I'm certain that that's something that could be considered in the future,\n\nSpeaker 28: Not recommending one way or the other. Just very curious to see what we're planning. Thank you very much. Sure.\n\n","timeStart":4295.135,"timeEnd":4366.465,"chunkIndex":49},{"id":"019e0120-08f7-7148-b5ee-9e4f24f2b3b2","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Sullivan, followed by Mr. Greenspon. Pass. Mr. Uh, Mr. Greenspon pass pass, uh, Mr. Toti pass pass. We've reached the end of the speaker queue. We will proceed to the vote on the amendment to the main motion, uh, the herd amendment, which I will repeat again, I think, I don't think we have it in digital form, but, uh, it would amend the main motion. Actually, can we bring up the main motion? Yes. So the end of the first line and the beginning of the second line of the vote language where it says federal fiscal year 2026, the amendment would replace that with program year 52. Um, okay. So let's bring up a vote on that amendment to the main motion.\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: The light is on the, and there's the, the display. Okay. So voting is now open on the herd amendment to replace federal year 2026 with program year 52 in the vote language. If you're in favor of that change, press one for yes. If you're opposed, press two for no. Okay. Voting is closed on the amendment and the motion passes. It is unanimous 208 in the affirmative. Uh, uh, no opposition. And so now we have the main motion as amended. Let's take a, let's open voting on the main motion as amended by the herd amendment.\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh,\n\n","timeStart":4367.075,"timeEnd":4467.765,"chunkIndex":50},{"id":"019e0120-0900-760e-8ce3-1d2baf8cf1fe","content":"Speaker 2: If you're pressing your buttons on your handset, you're entering the speaker queue. We're just waiting for voting to open on the main motion of article 35. Voting is now open, so if you're in favor of the recommended or the, uh, the amended main motion to endorse the community development block grant application under the Housing and Community Development Act, uh, as amended by the herd amendment, uh, press one for Yes. If you're opposed to the endorsement of the CDBG application, press two for no, or three to abstain. Okay. That's closed voting, and it is unanimous 210, the affirmative zero and the negative three abstentions. That takes us now to, uh, article 36, Mr. Herd. And can we clear the speaker queue please?\n\nSpeaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Moderat. John Herd chair of the Select Board. Article 36 is a vote to reauthorize and set the expenditure cap for existing revolving funds. The select board voted favorable action by vote of five to zero, and I'll invite our town manager to detail a couple of items in the, uh, select board report.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Feeney?\n\n","timeStart":4468.585,"timeEnd":4550.315,"chunkIndex":51},{"id":"019e0120-0913-75b7-b27d-0cddd0f1d017","content":"Speaker 15: Thank you, Ms. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Herd. Jim Feeney, town Manager. I just wanted to note, uh, two of the revolving funds that we are proposing an increased expenditure limit for, uh, one being private way repairs. And that is due to an article that this, uh, body will consider later in the meeting, article 79, which seeks to authorize the borrowing of a significant sum of money for the repair of private ways in kelwin manner. As such, we thought it was prudent to reset the expenditure cap this year as that project is slated to cost just over $1.5 million. So that's why there's a significant increase there. And then we are also proposing to increase the expenditure cap on field user fees, knowing that we were going out to bid for our next three year contract for, uh, aeration seeding fertilization testing, uh, of soil. So we were expecting an increase, uh, in that contract value, which had been set for three years and will now be getting reset for the next three years. So we wanted to be prepared for any contractual increase there that we see this spring. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. And this, uh, article, article three six was initially on the consent agenda. It was held, uh, by Ms. Benedict. Ms. Benedict, did you wanna address this before? And there's no other speakers in the queue anyway.\n\n","timeStart":4554.925,"timeEnd":4629.42,"chunkIndex":52},{"id":"019e0120-091c-7e8c-932c-b2dbe4493d67","content":"Speaker 29: Beth Benedict Precinct 21. I feel like in light of the recent override, it's important to have clarity on how the town is spending its money. And I have some questions pertaining to this revolving fund article, not because I have problems with how it's being spent, but I'd like some more clarification on some of the categories here and why there are what's happening with the excess money that's being not being spent. For example, if you look at the Rob Robbins House Rentals, there is was $75,000 was allocated, but only $6,000, and something was speced. If you look at the board of health fees, $150,000 was allocated, but only $43,000 and changed, not changed 300,000, but was spent field user fees, as you were just explained, a hundred thousand dollars was allocated only $30,000 and $236 was spent. And then white good recycling fees, $80,000, only $38,000 was spent. So my question is, what can the extra funds be used for, and is there a plan to spend the excess in appropriate ways instead of returning the money to the revolving funds? So that's my question. I have a couple other questions too, revolve about some of these other categories. I'm not sure who could answer those questions, but I would like some answers.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Feeney. Uh, so the que like, there's a, if you can explain the differential between what was allocated and what was spent and if the, if there's other things that could be done with the differential, uh, other than putting it back in revolving funds.\n\n","timeStart":4636.975,"timeEnd":4740.675,"chunkIndex":53},{"id":"019e0120-0925-7060-88b9-10f9f7fed720","content":"Speaker 15: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Benedict. Just want to clarify that the expenditure cap that's being authorized by this meeting is not an allocation or an appropriation. Revolving funds only work off of money in money out principle. So they have to generate their own revenue for expenditure. So there is no, uh, general fund dollars or, uh, dollars from property taxes supporting revolving funds. They're simply due from, uh, fees for programs. So as we talked about with articles, I think it was 24, 25 and 26, there is a table contained in the town's bylaw that lists all of the warrant articles. I mean all of the revolving funds when they were authorized in the fees and receipts that can be credited to that account, but then also the program or activity expenses that are payable from that fund. So those would be the only, uh, permissible uses for the fund, for the dollars remaining in those funds, unless, and until we sought to terminate any of those revolving funds, at which point the balance that would remain would close to the town's general fund and the revolving fund would cease to exist in the future.\n\nSpeaker 29: Okay. So I had some questions about some of these other categories. May I proceed\n\nSpeaker 2: Please.\n\nSpeaker 29: So if you look at the Conservation Commission, there has been no money allocated this year. And I'm curious to know, is this no longer being funded or are the funds going somewhere else?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Feeney, the Conservation Comm, uh, commission, the, uh, there's number of zeros in that table. Ms. Wayman,\n\n","timeStart":4741.625,"timeEnd":4846.485,"chunkIndex":54},{"id":"019e0120-0947-76ab-9cb7-6629dac85f85","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you Mr. Fsco. Uh, Mr. Jameson? No, I was actually sincerely asking 'cause if, if it is a second appearance, then it's a different time. It's a five minute limit. This is the first time in this article? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I I, I wasn't making a joke, I promise. Alright.\n\nSpeaker 10: Thank you Mr. Moderator. Gordon Jameson, precinct 12. Yes. I've been up a few times tonight. Um, uh, for your information, if you go to the last, next to last page of the select board report, you'll find a detailed, um, a more detailed explanation of where the monies that were spent went. And I thank the, um, the, the powers that be for, um, including that over the last several years at my request number two on my list, um, on the Board of Health. There's a sizable amount of money there. I hope that the, uh, the budgeting, um, people working looking forward can find ways to use that to offset salaries and benefits in the Board of Health and related Board of Health, uh, activities and the Robins Library of Rental and the town Hall rental. Um, that the, the extra money looks like a great thing we could use to maintain and for capital costs that we do like when we refinished the floor here in Sundries. And my last, uh, comment is, um, I was quite intrigued by Mr. T's comment, and I hope that in the future we would get a delineation of, um, the funds, uh, reflected in the, um, summary of financial, um, uh, status that's sent to, to, uh, residents in the town every year. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator.\n\n","timeStart":5182.325,"timeEnd":5279.995,"chunkIndex":58},{"id":"019e0120-094f-7f3a-af74-4d6f35c2828e","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you Mr. Jameson. Uh, Sam Polk next, uh, followed by, uh, Mr. Green Spa.\n\nSpeaker 13: Sam Polk, precinct 12. Oh, I moved the question, or I mo Sorry, what's the wording? Uh, you're good. Okay. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 5: ,\n\nSpeaker 2: Don't say anything else. Uh, we have motion to terminate debate, um, and it's like all matters on the article, but there's only one. So it's unambiguous. Uh, uh, and we have a second. Did I hear a second? Yeah. Uh, all those in favor of terminating debate under article, uh, 36 Say Yes. Yes. Or yay. That's fine. Uh, all those opposed say no. Okay. It is a two thirds vote. Debate is terminated. Um, so we'll now proceed to a vote on the main motion of Article 36. Uh, and this is a majority vote to reauthorize, uh, multiple existing municipal resolving revolving funds for fiscal year 2027 and set their expenditure limits. Voting is now open. If you're in favor of reauthorizing this, press one for Yes. If you're opposed to reauthorization, uh, of the revolving funds, press two for no or three to abstain. And, uh, we will go to a, we will go to a break after this, uh,\n\nSpeaker 5: This\n\nSpeaker 2: Vote. Okay. Voting is closed and the motion passes, uh, two 11, the affirmative two and the negative two Abstentions, uh, that disposes of Article 36. We'll now take a 10 minute, uh, break and we'll come right back in 10 minutes. Thank you. Say we're, we're picking up at Article 38 and let's clear the speaker queue, please. Okay. Speaker queue is clear for Article 30 eights and, okay. Let's quiet down. Let's see. And Mr. Hurd, are you introducing this article? Are you introducing 38?\n\n","timeStart":5280.045,"timeEnd":5416.475,"chunkIndex":59},{"id":"019e0120-095a-7f58-b6d7-d49d37e66236","content":"Speaker 5: 38? I don't think so,\n\nSpeaker 2: But I thought, I thought it was the, was not the select board who Oh, you did. Oh, okay.\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. You want, okay. Okay, go ahead. Okay. So my apologies Mr. Lac will be introducing Article 38, and we have a slide presentation for Article 38. Okay. Let's settle down everyone. Mr. Lac, you have the floor. Stay quiet please.\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 31: Uh, thank you Mr. Moderator. Uh, waiting for slides for Article 38.\n\nSpeaker 2: Let's,\n\nSpeaker 31: All right, well, there we are. Okay. Okay.\n\n","timeStart":5416.975,"timeEnd":5487.975,"chunkIndex":60},{"id":"019e0120-0963-74f6-94bc-3f01fcfe3767","content":"Speaker 31: I am Steve Lac, vice Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and I will be taking you through Article 38, extending the charge of the Affordable Housing Overlay Committee. So last year, a citizen group filed a, an article to create an affordable housing overlay district. Uh, this article did not make it to town meeting, however, town meeting did vote to create the affordable Housing Overlay District Committee. Uh, the committee's charge included conducting outreach to the community, sharing draft proposals, soliciting community feedback, and submitting zoning and map amendments to the 2026 town meeting in order to establish an affordable housing overlay district. Now it takes some time to get committees formed and the Affordable Housing Overlay District Committee began meeting in September, last September, 2025. They've been holding regular public meetings. They've organized one community forum, and they've made two presentations to the Arlington Redevelopment. Board. Planning efforts like this are not easy. They take a lot of time and effort. And while the Affordable Housing Overlay District Committee has made significant progress and developed some general ideas, they would like more time to refine their proposals, share them with the community, gather and gather feedback. So this is what we're seeking with Article 38 to allow the committee to continue their work for another year in anticipation of bringing a proposal to town meeting in 2027. So, next slide, please.\n\nSpeaker 31: Uh, next slide. So, the redevelopment board's recommended Vote to Town meeting is next slide, that the charge of the Affordable Housing Overlay Committee be extended to 2027 annual town meeting. The Arlington Redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 38 by five to zero. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":5489.655,"timeEnd":5608.125,"chunkIndex":61},{"id":"019e0120-097c-7397-868c-4eab560b12d8","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. And so let's switch over to the speaker queue. We have four speakers in the queue. We'll take them in order. Uh, Mr. Curran, Kevin Curran? Nope. Uh, Mr. Wagner, uh, followed by Mr. Zimmer. We have seats in the front for folks who are on deck to speak. So yeah, Mr. Wagner, you have the floor.\n\nSpeaker 16: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Carl Wagner, precinct 15. I didn't want to go to the public meetings of this committee, uh, every two weeks, but I basically did, and I think I'm the member of the public who attended substantially all of their meetings since Article 41 was not passed by this body in 2025. And the a RB did not recommend passing of it. If you remember, an interesting motion I'd never heard in my many years of town meeting came up a motion to commit. And, uh, various bodies sent seven people to be in this committee. One of them, the only one who actually was a representative of low income people, uh, at residents, didn't actually attend after the inaugural meeting. So it was six people who share a focus on making affordable housing development. Unfortunately, the reason I think we should just let this committee expire without renewing it under the current terms, is that those six people have a affordable housing developer focus.\n\n","timeStart":5609.615,"timeEnd":5695.025,"chunkIndex":62},{"id":"019e0120-0984-750f-903d-b01957e4f246","content":"Speaker 16: And the changes proposed, which are not up for debate today, but you really should go look at their proposal, particularly the language in the fourth draft, because the changes proposed affect all residential and business zones. They are specific at the moment in 50 sites, but they could be changed dramatically. And you and your stakeholders, business people, uh, members of the public who represent, uh, other people than developers really should be involved in this. We need a broad stakeholder review of if such a change in Arlington goes forward, if we say yes to this, then you extend the existing six people with the addition, finally, of a member of the Arlington Housing Authority, which is a great breath of fresh air, but it's still not enough for the largest changes that we might see in Arlington after the MVTA density overlay. So I ask you to vote no, which will just naturally allow Article 41, which was a no, which turned into this to expire. And then if it's necessary for us to have an affordable housing overlay, we should make a much broader based, uh, effort with, um, with better representation of all the interests in Arlington. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Thank, uh, Mr. Zimmer. Next, followed by, uh, Mr. Palmer Pass. Mr. Palmer, followed by Andrew Fisher.\n\n","timeStart":5695.485,"timeEnd":5777.365,"chunkIndex":63},{"id":"019e0120-098c-79ba-91cf-c9b4778d2b13","content":"Speaker 32: Uh, thank you Max Palmer Precinct two. I'm a member of this committee. Um, happy to answer any questions. All we're looking to do is extend the charge of it not to pass or change any zoning in any way right now. The committee's put a lot of work into studying affordable housing finance, identifying plausible sites. Uh, our current proposals are not in any way overlays of any significant zones in the town, but rather focused on specific properties that would yield large enough sites for viable affordable housing in the future, the kinds of places where we could actually build it. So we're just looking for more time to work with the a RB. We have a plan for public engagement, um, for after town meeting, and then in the fall to really craft a really careful proposal for your consideration next year. So all we're asking for is the time to do that right now. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Fisher, followed by Mr. Hamlin,\n\nSpeaker 18: Andrew Fisher Precinct six. Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Uh, I'm, I'm confused. This is referred to as a, a resident or a citizen committee. Um, what does that mean? Does it, does that it it kind of intimates that this is an ad hoc committee that was not voted by town meeting. It,\n\nSpeaker 2: It, it was, uh, it was created by town meeting through, I believe, a motion to commit last year. It, it was created by town meeting.\n\nSpeaker 18: I, I just wanted to say, I didn't know that we were creating a meeting by a motion to commit.\n\n","timeStart":5780.945,"timeEnd":5871.345,"chunkIndex":64},{"id":"019e0120-0998-7ba3-8cdf-025082f413c2","content":"Speaker 2: Yeah, there was, uh, just very briefly, the, the, um, I forget the article number, but it was, um, uh, Mr. Cunningham, do you have Yes, you have the information? Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 18: I, I,\n\nSpeaker 2: I, and I will say that, uh, creating the committee is one of the kind of intrinsic powers of town meeting under that. The, um, the particular article from which this committee was created, you won't see anywhere in the article texts, which might be confusing. You know, anything about creating a committee, uh, because it's one of the intrinsic powers and it's in town meeting time that a motion to commit or refer to committee, uh, can create a committee, even if that does not appear in the article text. So it's a, uh, it's an interesting case that that looks like it's outta scope, but it's actually allowed, uh, allowed explicitly by the rules. Mr. Cunningham?\n\nSpeaker 14: Thank you Mr. Barn and Michael Cunningham Town Council. And it was Article 41 last year, as Mr. Wagner noted, and I think he correctly set out the, the, the options here for town, meaning this current, uh, motion and article would allow for the charge of the committee to be extended through next year's town meeting. If town meeting now does nothing, the, uh, committee would expire at the end of this town meeting.\n\nSpeaker 18: Okay. Alright. In, in any case, I'd urge no vote on this. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Hamlin followed by, uh, Jessica Hearn, Luma\n\n","timeStart":5871.615,"timeEnd":5947.445,"chunkIndex":65},{"id":"019e0120-09a4-7053-8291-48fcc91b9953","content":"Speaker 25: Guillermo Hamlin Precinct 14. I'm looking over to the draft site list that's provided to us on the site. And if you could indulge me, is it appropriate to extend it beyond 2027 for 2028 town meeting?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, no. That would be out of scope. It goes beyond the extents of what is specified in the article text.\n\nSpeaker 25: Okay. The reason why I at least wanted to shoot my shot there is 'cause I'm looking over this draft site list and there's plenty of work to be done. And I think that the work being done by this group is admirable, sufficient. And I am voting to extend their charge to make sure that they get this work done because I support the work that they're doing. I hope that you join me doing the same. It's unfortunate we can't extend it further, but that's within scope and I abide by it. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, let's see. Next we have Jess Ahern Luma, followed by Mr. Greenspon. Um, someone can make a motion to refer this to the committee. I don't recommend that, but\n\nSpeaker 5: ,\n\n","timeStart":5955.885,"timeEnd":6017.845,"chunkIndex":66},{"id":"019e0120-09ac-7691-9ac7-5a7367db9142","content":"Speaker 33: Uh, Jess Luma Precinct 12. Uh, so I was not here at last year's town meeting, but I do know that 77% of those of you that were supported this with the creation of this committee. And I see no reason not to let them continue Their work costs us basically nothing to let them do what they're doing. Um, I've heard some folks imply that the committee membership is maybe skewed or there's a different way that this was formed than other committees. But I've taken a look at the Motion to Commit last year, and it looks very similar. I'm on a commission and we have a very similar formation where other boards or committees in town, such as as select board or town moderator, appoint people to the commission. Um, so you end up with people with different perspectives who all care about that particular issue. Um, and I would for like to be able to see what their proposal is. We have not seen any official proposal yet, so I would like to see what they come up with, evaluate at the time. We can debate, we can vote at that time, um, with whether we wanna support whether they are proposing or not. So I urge you to vote yes. Let this committee complete the work that you have asked them to do. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You. Thank you. And welcome to Town Meeting, uh, Mr. Greens Spa on your next, I remember I had to add new functionality to my spread my tracking spreadsheet to support a motion to commit. So thank you for that. Mr. Greens spawn. Go ahead.\n\nSpeaker 19: Andy Greens spawn Precinct five I motions to terminate debate on all matters before this article.\n\n","timeStart":6021.185,"timeEnd":6096.335,"chunkIndex":67},{"id":"019e0120-09b5-7999-bbd2-320fee541459","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. We have motion to terminate debate, and we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under Article 38, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay. Nay. It is not terminated. Okay, we have five standing and we will take an electronic vote. Okay, let's make sure we don't lose the speaker queue here. Okay. We now have a motion to terminate debate in front of us. Uh, voting is now open. If you wanna terminate debate under Article 38, press one for yes. If you wanna continue debate, press two for no or three to cancel, or three to, um, um, can't cancel anything to abstain , there's no cancellations, there's no motion to cancel. Okay, let's close voting.\n\n","timeStart":6097.205,"timeEnd":6147.585,"chunkIndex":68},{"id":"019e0120-09be-7b19-9b38-1adff151c5e8","content":"Speaker 2: And this requires two thirds vote and, uh, debate is terminated 1 64 in the affirmative 46 and the negative one abstention. That is a two thirds vote. Uh, so we'll now proceed to voting on the main motion. And before we open voting, I just, uh, want to summarize. This is a, uh, majority vote on whether to extend the charge of the Affordable Housing Overlay Committee, which was created last year by town meeting by a motion to commit, uh, to extend the charge of that committee to next year's 2027 annual town meeting. Let's, uh, open voting now under Article 38. If you're in favor of extending the charge of that committee to next year's town meeting, press one for Yes. Uh, if you want to let it expire this year, press two for no. Okay. Let's close voting. And the motion passes 169, the affirmative 41 negative four abstentions. That takes us now to article, uh, 39. Um, let's see. And who do we, Mr. Relock, do we have you again? Introducing. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Lac. Sorry. Speaker Q is clear. Sorry about that. Yeah, it's already cleared. Go ahead, sorry. Okay, well, uh, slides come up. I'm Steve Ack, vice chair of the Arlington\n\n","timeStart":6148.845,"timeEnd":6230.555,"chunkIndex":69},{"id":"019e0120-09c7-7171-81f1-5c051621ba71","content":"Speaker 31: Redevelopment Board, and I will be taking you through Article 39 and administrative clarification to accessory dwelling units. Uh, next slide. Uh, so last year, town meeting voted to adopt changes to our A DU bylaw for the purposes of bringing it into compliance with some new state requirements. So when the Attorney General's office was reviewing what we passed, they noticed a problem. It wasn't actually in the text that they changed, that we changed, but they still noticed it. And the problem was that our bylaw requires a special permit for ADUs within six feet of a lot line. The Attorney General's office sent us a long memo about this, which you can find on the annotated warrant, but essentially saying that, um, you know, you cannot do this. So, state regulations for a DS only permit a special permit for an accessory dwelling unit in two circumstances.\n\nSpeaker 31: One, when the municipality has elected to allow additional ADUs on a lot, and a special permit is required. And number two, for development in a protected for the, for the development of a protected use, a DU in a floodplain or aquifer protection overlay. So the special permit requirement in Arlington's, A DU bylaw meets neither of these provisions, which essentially means it's unenforceable. So the Municipal Law Unit recommended changing the special permit requirement to a finding, and that is what Article 39 proposes. Next slide. Uh, next slide. So the text of the amendment. So the main motion strikes the text acting pursuant to section 3.3 grants a special permit upon its finding and replaces it with the words fines. So the redevelopment board voted to recommend favorable action on article 39 by a vote of five to zero. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":6230.755,"timeEnd":6349.565,"chunkIndex":70},{"id":"019e0120-09e0-70e8-9c69-91f6d86c6752","content":"Speaker 2: Okay. Um, the Speaker Q has been open and there are no requests to speak, so we'll proceed to vote on the main motion of Article 39. What\n\nSpeaker 5: Press\n\nSpeaker 2: The button. Oh, people have been pressing buttons. Uh, it looks clear to me. Is, is it open now? Okay. Try pressing your buttons now if I'm still not seeing any requests. Oh, uh, Mr. Fleming, but raise your hand if you were requesting to speak. Okay. I only, okay, I see three people now in the queue. Okay. Uh, Mr. Fleming followed by, uh, sorry about that. I'm not sure what happened. Followed by Ms. Band\n\nSpeaker 34: James Fleming, precinct four. Um, I'd like to make a floor motion, or sorry, a floor amendment that is very small in terms of number of characters. I think this was just an oversight in the drafting of the article. In section 8 1 3, there is a reference to the section that we're modifying that is in the, uh, non-conforming uses section. And in 8.1 3D, it refers to the special permit being issued in the section that we're modifying and we're taking that out of the section that we're modifying. So the motion is, or the amendment would be to strike the text special permit issued in section eight one 3D and replace it with the, uh, finding basically what we're doing in, okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can you repeat the motion text again? Strike the text.\n\nSpeaker 34: Strike the text. Special permit issued from 8.13 DD\n\nSpeaker 2: As in David\n\nSpeaker 34: D Yes, D as in David. And replace it with finding,\n\nSpeaker 5: See those numbers.\n\n","timeStart":6351.635,"timeEnd":6468.965,"chunkIndex":71},{"id":"019e0120-09ec-742f-9d5f-8e1386f44b5a","content":"Speaker 2: Um, let's see. Special permit issues. I'll search for that. Can we bring up the, uh, recommended vote language?\n\nSpeaker 5: Uh, see, I'm looking at one second.\n\nSpeaker 2: I don't see a special permit issued.\n\nSpeaker 34: It, it's not in the section that we're looking at. It's in a different section of the bylaw that refers back to this section.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yes. So the article text, uh, which I assume is why folks are yelling, scope says the C of the town will vote to amend section 5 9 2 B as in boy, one E is in Edward. Three accessory dwelling units, requirements of the zoning bylaw to revise a requirement for permitting certain accessory dwelling units as of right, so and so on. Uh, so it does appear pretty hemmed into section 5 9 2 B, which would not be covered by eight one 3D in terms of scope.\n\nSpeaker 34: Okay. So we can only touch this one section.\n\nSpeaker 2: What's\n\nSpeaker 34: That? We can only touch this one section then\n\nSpeaker 2: Based on the article text. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 34: Okay. Nevermind. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: And there is the, uh, or take any action related there too, but as many folks know, I take a a very narrow interpretation of that.\n\nSpeaker 5: Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. So next we have, uh, Ms. Evans, followed by Sam Polk.\n\n","timeStart":6470.025,"timeEnd":6561.205,"chunkIndex":72},{"id":"019e0120-09f5-7a18-963b-81ba59ceb41f","content":"Speaker 35: Thank you. Winne Evans Precinct 14. I have, um, two questions please. The attorney general's letter, um, to the town closes by saying that they recommend this change. So my question is that seems a little like it leaves it up to us. So I want to know if this is absolutely required, and I would also appreciate a little bit more elucidation on the difference between a special permit and a finding and what is lost and gained, um, between those two. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Let's see. Mr. Cunningham or someone from the redevelopment board? Mr. Cunningham. Thank.\n\nSpeaker 14: Thank you, Mr. Monterey. Michael Cunningham, town Counsel. I'll probably leave the second half if it's okay. Mr. Montey to Mr. Lac. The first question I could answer though, um, generally when the Attorney General's municipal Law Unit uses that language recommended, uh, it's a gentle way of suggesting that we do it.\n\nSpeaker 5: .\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Lac, do you wanna handle the other question?\n\n","timeStart":6564.655,"timeEnd":6624.165,"chunkIndex":73},{"id":"019e0120-09fe-73ed-9d7b-cc63637345d9","content":"Speaker 31: Yes. The difference between a special permit and a finding? Uh, so in this context, you know what we're looking back at, uh, taking the text of the main motion and, you know, a little bit more language on either side. The current bylaw uses the phrase, uh, shall be allowed only if the applicable special permit granting authority acting pursuant to section 3.3 grants a special permit upon. Its finding that the location of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, et cetera. Now this would the motion before you would change this language so that it would read shall be allowed only if the special, applicable special permit granting authority finds that the location of such accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So essentially, the special permit granting authority, which is in all likelihood would be the zoning board of appeals, still has to use the same standards, not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, but where a special permit requires a two thirds vote, a finding requires a simple majority. Um, and hopefully I got that right, Mr. Cunningham Ham. Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, next up Sam Polk.\n\nSpeaker 13: Let's see if I get this\n\nSpeaker 2: Right this time. Uh, name and precinct, uh,\n\nSpeaker 13: Sam Polk, precinct 12. I moved to terminate debate and on all items under this article.\n\n","timeStart":6627.185,"timeEnd":6716.295,"chunkIndex":74},{"id":"019e0120-0a07-7e6e-93a1-99e3d19936d4","content":"Speaker 2: Perfect. Um, we have a motion to terminate debate, and we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under article 39, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay, uh, debate is terminated is two thirds vote. So, uh, this is a majority vote on the main motion to amend the zoning bylaw section 5 9 2 B as in beta to require a finding instead of a special permit for accessory dwelling units within setbacks. So voting is now open. If you're in favor of making that change to the zoning bylaw, press one for yes. And if you're opposed, press two for no or three to abstain. Okay. It's closed voting and the motion passes 109 hundred 98 in the affirmative eight and the negative five abstentions. That takes us now to Article 40. And let's clear the speaker queue. Uh, Mr. Lac, do you wanna lead us off for Article 40? Speaker queue is cleared and now open? Yep.\n\n","timeStart":6717.085,"timeEnd":6792.055,"chunkIndex":75},{"id":"019e0120-0a10-7f06-8677-1054b2c997a1","content":"Speaker 31: Okay. Good evening. I'm Steve Lac, vice chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and I'll be taking you through Article 40 zoning map change requirements. Next slide please. So, section 1.5 of Arlington zoning bylaw contains a requirement that someone petitioning for a change to the zoning map has to send notice to all property owners and immediate abutters affected by the change by certified or registered mail. So this is an Arlington specific requirement, and it does not have a counterpart in state law. So certified and registered mail is significantly more expensive than first class. So certified mail is $5 and 30 cents in addition to postage, uh, for a total of $6 and 8 cents per letter. Uh, first class mail, of course, is 78 cents. So the requirements for certified or registered mail can be cost prohibitive for anything beyond the smallest map changes. And there's no guarantee that they produce better notifications.\n\nSpeaker 31: The recipient is going to get the same notice in the mail regardless of how it's delivered. So Article 40 proposes to change the certified or registered mail requirement to first class. This will be less of a cost burden while still preserving a requirement that notice be given. Next slide please. So moving on to the text of the main motion. Next slide. So we propose striking the words certified or registered mail and replacing them with the words first class mail postage, prepaid. The redevelopment board voted to recommend favorable action on article 40 by five to zero. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":6792.725,"timeEnd":6890.935,"chunkIndex":76},{"id":"019e0120-0a19-7a05-a0ad-5cd31aa7a823","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. Let's, uh, let's show the speaker queue and, uh, let's see. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 speakers. Let's go ahead and just shuffle. Okay. Uh, Ms. Anderson, you are the winner. You're up first followed by, uh, Ms. Cahill. Mrs. Cahill, sorry.\n\nSpeaker 22: Uh, Kristen Anderson Precinct 11. When I receive certified, um, mail, I treat it differently than, uh, first class mail. Um, so I will be voting against this. I also prob I think it probably doesn't make a huge difference, um, the cost of it. Um, so I urge you to vote no on this. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You. Okay. And next we have, uh, Mrs. Cahill followed by Mr. Lu Luki, not here.\n\nSpeaker 36: Eileen Cahill, precinct 13. I urge you to vote against this because I think if we do make a zoning change, people need to realize it. And I agree that it's, you notice the certified mailing, I know it's been on town meeting the last couple of years. The proposal to change universally the zoning throughout the town to eliminate single family zoning. And one of the arguments for that was that we need to notify people about it. People have no idea they live in the resident. And when you have a in the town and you have a conversation with them, they're like, no, that can't happen. They have no idea. And the residents of this town deserve to know this is their investment, their property. They need to know if the zoning around them is changing. There's a reason that this was in the books. We shouldn't just go and change it just because it's more convenient. So I urge you to vote against this. Thank you. Thank\n\n","timeStart":6891.585,"timeEnd":7024.795,"chunkIndex":77},{"id":"019e0120-0a22-7c53-8f16-2ba2950f1d5c","content":"Speaker 2: You. Mr. Lewicki, followed by Mr. Jameson,\n\nSpeaker 37: JP Lewicki, precinct two. Mr. Moderator, I was wondering if you'd be able to address the difference in a map change versus a use change for purposes notification,\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, map change versus use change notification? Yeah, like in terms of like notification requirements. Yeah. Um, Mr. Blac, can you answer that? What are the notification requirement differences between a map change versus a use change?\n\nSpeaker 31: So the map change requires a notification to the property owners affected, and all abutters changes to any other part of the zoning bylaw, including use tables just are follow the same. Notice there, there weren't articles, just like any, any, they're just like any other warrant article.\n\n","timeStart":7024.795,"timeEnd":7077.325,"chunkIndex":78},{"id":"019e0120-0a29-72f3-b2c9-bb7c2452e5f4","content":"Speaker 37: Thank you. So a couple years back, I was one of the proponents who brought forward the, uh, three Family Everywhere warrant article that we ended up, uh, going with a no action on. If we had brought that forward, there would've been absolutely no notification requirement under the current bylaw because it would've been a use change. Basically, you can look at any current zone and you can change anything about it at all that you want to, and it will have absolutely no effect or absolutely no notification requirement. You don't have to mail out letters. Uh, the a RB might ask you to do public process, but you don't have to. Uh, Arlington Town meeting has a long history of having a lot of citizen driven activism where people like you and me ask town meetings to do all sorts of different things. It's cost and time prohibitive to do certain kinds of notification that, um, if I, let's say that I had decided, uh, when I was working with Three Family everywhere, or an article that I prefer to change, maybe these like one or 2000 houses, um, in, into being a three family, uh, or into, into, uh, allow, yeah, into being into the kind of R three, for example.\n\n","timeStart":7078.015,"timeEnd":7164.605,"chunkIndex":79},{"id":"019e0120-0a40-7c8b-9590-a29d78813178","content":"Speaker 37: Uh, that would've taken, I, I don't, I'm not sure of the exact cost of registered mail, uh, but with kind of volunteer time, cost of printing, cost of just amount of time spent at the, the, uh, post office getting it out. Uh, you're talking about kind of many, many hours and thousands of dollars of costs. If we change it to first class mail, then when people like me are thinking about future warrant articles to make significant voting changes, what we'll be able to do is we'll actually consider smaller changes. I'm not saying I'm always gonna do crazy large scale zoning changes, but what we are able to, what we would be able to do is to say, okay, hey, maybe there's a more targeted thing. Let's, let's consider moving these, um, this one area of Arlington. Let's kind of, if we're gonna try two family, let's try it. There. There was a small scale, uh, example of that later on this town meeting, um, that I think is still forthcoming, but that kind of took a, a great deal of coordination and effort. Uh, so people are still gonna be receiving, uh, mail. It's gonna go out to every, like every single affected town, uh, affected person in the town. Um, not just the people in the actual zone, but the ones around it. So I do urge you to vote yes on this article.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Jameson. Followed by Mr. Greenspan.\n\nSpeaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Gordon Jameson, precinct 12. I have two questions. Um, about how many, um, certified, um, l letters do we send out on this? Um, for, based upon the current requirement per year?\n\n","timeStart":7165.345,"timeEnd":7276.355,"chunkIndex":80},{"id":"019e0120-0a61-777c-b003-92d7a2cd9ce8","content":"Speaker 19: Andy Greenspan, precinct five. Um, just to get a sense of the differences here, if I had a proposal, um, for map changes that involved a hundred parcels, or no, it's not parcels, it's the butters, right? Um, a hundred of butters of parcels. Um, under the current rules, how much money would I have to pay out of pocket versus this proposed change?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Ack, can you do that math?\n\nSpeaker 31: So it's going to depend on the shape . So if your a hundred abutters were all little line all on one side of the street, each with one parcel behind them, then you'd have a hundred on the rear and another two on each end. Uh, that would be 102 abutters at a cost of $6 and 8 cents a piece, which is $612, 6 20, 6 30 something, 600 and something bucks. Now, if it was a perfect square, you would have 10, 10, 10 and 10. Um, you know, 10 by 10 you're a hundred properties. So plus four in the, so it would be 10, 20, 30, 40 plus four more is 44 at $6. So it would be about 250 bucks.\n\nSpeaker 19: And under the, in this proposal, how much would it be roughly?\n\nSpeaker 31: Uh, so it would be 78 cents per letter. So, uh, a hundred letters at 78 cents a piece, or 102 letters at 78 cents a piece is $78 and roughly about 80 bucks. And for, uh, 44 it would be, uh, like 35.\n\n","timeStart":7553.055,"timeEnd":7650.595,"chunkIndex":84},{"id":"019e0120-0a6a-7eea-9484-4b16b84e9d25","content":"Speaker 19: Okay. Um, Mr. Moderator, another follow up question. Question. Um, so under the current rules, if I'm a citizen who has an idea, um, that I want to do, that's a change that I would want to bring before a town meeting, that's a map change. Um, I am trying to understand, I'd have to pay the six, roughly $7 per a abut how much would the a RB have to pay if or the town slash arb have to pay if they wanted to do the exact same change of their own desire or sponsorship? Like\n\nSpeaker 2: It's the same change, but without going through the citizen petition process? Hmm. Without going through the citizen petition process? Yes. It came from like the planning department for Mr. Lac\n\nSpeaker 19: Or, or the planning department, anyone who's not a citizen petitioner. Right. How much would they have to pay in comparison?\n\nSpeaker 31: Well, uh, to, to just build on your earlier question, I, I gave answers for how much you would have to pay. The planning department also has to send first class mail to the same, essentially the same list of people. Now, if the a RB were proposing it, the redevelopment board would not have to send certified mail, but the planning department would still have to send, uh, first class mail to all of the abutters. So essentially you're getting, um, you know, if it's, if it is a redevelopment board article, each citizen, each abutter is notified once and if it's a citizen petition, they're notified twice.\n\n","timeStart":7651.425,"timeEnd":7732.525,"chunkIndex":85},{"id":"019e0120-0a72-7585-929c-29a7db668832","content":"Speaker 19: Okay. That I didn't know. Okay. So it seems like currently the current process if you're a citizen is duplicative because I have to pay for this example, $700 of which I don't have, even though I want to do something democratic, uh, and the a RB or planning staff have to pay anyway. This proposed change would still have to notify all the same people, but it would just be me as a citizen exercising my democratic, what I believe democratic rights and ethos and goal of civic participation and advocacy on in town at equal with the town itself, we are the taxpayers. The town is accountable to us. It doesn't seem fair that I as a citizen am basically cost prohibited from trying to propose changes that we can even debate a town meeting, because if I can't pay that money, we don't even get to debate it. So for those various reasons of pro democracy and civic participation, um, and that, um, everyone's going to be notified the same way. Abutters are still getting notified, but we're just, all of us are now equal with the town and the A RBI support this article. Thanks.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Hyam, followed by Mr. Moore, Christopher Moore Moore. And when Mr. Hyam comes up, he can puzzle over how much does it cost the average, uh, uh, taxpayer, Wendy a RB, or has to set it. Okay, Mr. Hiam? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 38: Thank you, Mr. Moderator for Hiam Precinct 15, move to terminate debate in this article and all related matters. Second.\n\n","timeStart":7733.875,"timeEnd":7813.825,"chunkIndex":86},{"id":"019e0120-0a79-7a3a-bdf5-8b195fc7decb","content":"Speaker 2: Okay, we have motion to terminate debate, and we have a second. Uh, all those in favor of terminating debate under article. Uh, where are we at? Uh, 40 Say yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay, nay debate is terminated is the two thirds vote. Okay, so let's, this is a two thirds vote on the main motion as well to amend the zoning bylaw section 1.5 to require zoning map change, change, change petitions, uh, be sent via first class mail rather than certified mail. So let's open voting now on the main motion under Article 40. Voting is now open. This is a two thirds vote. If you're in favor of that change to the zoning bylaw, uh, that the, that zoning map change petitions be sent via first class mail rather than certified mail. Press one for yes, uh, or two to reject that change to the zoning bylaw. Okay, voting is closed and the motion passes 146 in the affirmative 64 negative three abstentions. That is a two thirds vote. That takes us now to Article 42. And can we clear the speaker queue, please? Let's see.\n\nSpeaker 5: Article\n\nSpeaker 2: 41 was on the consent agenda. We're at article 42, Mr. Lac.\n\nSpeaker 31: Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Steve Lac, vice Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and I will be taking you through Article 42, parking and loading standards. Next slide, please.\n\n","timeStart":7814.055,"timeEnd":7910.155,"chunkIndex":87},{"id":"019e0120-0a82-7b7c-b660-7ad37b483da9","content":"Speaker 31: So, article 42 was motivated by mixed use projects that have come before the A RB. So in these projects, there is always a tug of war between the interior space of the first floor, which includes a commercial space and the space needed to satisfy the zoning, bylaws, parking requirements. So we'd like commercial spaces to be bigger, but the bylaw also has dimensional requirements for parking lots that we have to satisfy. So parking spaces have to have certain dimensions, drive aisles have to have certain dimensions, and buildings have to kind of basically fit in around them. Now, narrowing a drive aisle allows the parking area to become a little smaller and the ground floor, including the commercial space to become deeper. So this is what Article 42 proposes to do to reduce the required width of the drive aisle from 24 feet to 22 feet. So it'll allow for a modest increase in commercial space, probably between 102 hundred square feet, given a lot of our smaller lots in, um, a lot of our smaller lots. So, next slide please. So when considering this change, the board looked at drive aisle requirements for some of our neighboring communities, which, um, you can see maybe not so well on the screen here, but, uh, these range from 20 to 24 feet, and what we're proposing is 22 right in the middle of that. So, next slide. So the main motion consists of changing the number 24\n\nSpeaker 31: To number 22 in two places, once on the text in the left, and one in the table on the right. So the redevelopment board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 42, 5 to zero.\n\n","timeStart":7912.175,"timeEnd":8025.645,"chunkIndex":88},{"id":"019e0120-0a8a-74ae-adc8-038fbfd713d1","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. Let's switch over to the speaker queue. We have one speaker so far, Mr. Trembley, you're up. Mr. Trembley? Yep. Here he comes. He's running, uh, followed by, uh, Ms. Marks\n\nSpeaker 27: Ed Trembley. Pretty precinct. 19. I got a question for all of you. Could I see a show of hands of how many of you have a commercial driver's license?\n\nSpeaker 2: You don't have to raise your hand. We, we vote with clickers here,\n\nSpeaker 27: Or I don't see any hands. So there's move of all over, uh, continuously to reduce the size of lanes. In this case, it's the drive aisle. And I can tell you since nobody drives a truck, that you have no idea how much fun it is to try and drive big vehicles through small, narrow lanes. And I know we're only talking about two feet, but anything is an issue. Trucks are eight and a half feet wide. They have mirrors that stick out. So if you have two trucks that are trying to pass each other in this drive aisle, and somebody's parked their car at 90 degrees and sticking out a little bit, we might have a problem. And there's also, you know, we're making blanket laws here. So if we're trying to deliver with small tractor trailers, it's not that easy to get around in some of these drive aisles. So I would say that in, in order to keep, uh, the deliveries coming to all these stores that you like to go to. And, and I would say that, um, since a lot of people get things by delivery truck, do we not do this and\n\n","timeStart":8027.015,"timeEnd":8145.615,"chunkIndex":89},{"id":"019e0120-0aa6-7cb8-bd7c-c8e6fe688396","content":"Speaker 27: Not make a driver's life harder than it already is, and also not risk, um, accidents. You know, they may, they they're minor, but even a minor accident, it's still thousands of dollars. It makes all of our insurance rates go up. So I would suggest we not do this. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Ms. Marks, you're next. Just a reminder, we do have seats open in the front for folks who are on deck to speak. Ms. Marks, you have the floor.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.\n\nSpeaker 26: I am Mita Marks from Precinct 12. Um, and on the face of it, this article will probably not make much of a difference, except that it makes already ridiculously tight parking areas even more cramped. Um, however, this request speaks to a larger problem, which is the desire to shoehorn developments that have insufficient lot sizes and parking spots for the number of units they are trying to fit in. Many buildings have parking for less than 50% of the units with no provisions for parking. Although I understand we are trying to encourage public transportation use and these affordable developments, the reality is that many people will still have and need cars and will have no place to park them. In these instances where there is an insufficient lot size to give adequate parking for the number of units in the building, the solution is to build a smaller building, not shrink the size of parking spaces in order to meet requirements. Please vote no on Article 42. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. And next we have, uh, Ms. Gruber, uh, followed by, uh, Remy Macaluso.\n\nSpeaker 5: \n\n","timeStart":8150.055,"timeEnd":8281.325,"chunkIndex":90},{"id":"019e0120-0aaf-731e-9b8c-8c83c82c1e17","content":"Speaker 29: Rebecca Gruber precinct 10. Um, I just have a couple questions. One, um, I'm presuming you didn't come up with the dimensions of this drive aisle randomly. So, uh, how does this compare to other neighboring communities,\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Lac? Yeah. How, how did you arrive at, uh, 22 feet?\n\nSpeaker 31: So we looked at neighboring communities, including well neighboring communities, and they're all very consistent in, in the range of 20 to 24. Arlington was at the top of that range. Uh, we discussed going down to 20 members of the board felt that 20 was a little too narrow, so we settled on 22. And for context, uh, an interstate highway is about 11, has a, has roughly 11 feet lanes.\n\nSpeaker 29: Okay. And not to, um, be facetious. I'm presuming that the trucks that come into Arlington are about the same size as the trucks that come into all the other towns around us.\n\nSpeaker 2: I don't know if anyone can, I think people can use their imaginations on that.\n\nSpeaker 29: So I don't think this is about development as much as it is about making it easy for us to have access via trucks in, in new construction, correct.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, Mr. Lac,\n\n","timeStart":8286.215,"timeEnd":8372.205,"chunkIndex":91},{"id":"019e0120-0ab8-7ade-9b2a-a1376a8610af","content":"Speaker 31: Well, specifically this was motivated by permitting mixed use buildings and wanting to have a little more space for commercial. That's sort of like the typical layout of a, of a, the, you know, the first floor of a mixed use building is you've got some section that is, you know, building and typically has a business, um, you know, a lobby, a trash room, et cetera. And then you have the parking. So if the, a typical our regulations for a parking space or 18 feet, you know, you have the drive aisle on that. That's it, it, it functions almost like a dimensional restriction on where the, you know, the wall of the building ends. And we're trying to find a way to move one of those walls back a little bit to enlarge a commercial spaces. So\n\nSpeaker 29: I'm understanding this as common sense, as opposed to some great way of getting more construction, more development in this town, and more commercial use that we want. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Ms. Macaluso, followed by Mr. Greens spa.\n\nSpeaker 39: Hello?\n\nSpeaker 2: Oh, satellite room? Yes. Satellite room. Yep. Yep. Can we switch the video? Um,\n\nSpeaker 39: Uh, I can't say anything here. Is everything good with the video?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yep. We can see you and hear you. Go ahead. Awesome.\n\n","timeStart":8374.115,"timeEnd":8453.495,"chunkIndex":92},{"id":"019e0120-0ac1-759a-ba2a-58d774e1a9bb","content":"Speaker 39: All right. Um, Remy Macaluso precinct three. Um, I want speak to address the concerns about, um, car insurance rates going up because of this. Um, I do not own a car. I do not need a car. Uh, we live in Arlington. We have excellent public transit here, and we have a large number of businesses that we can walk to for all of our needs. Um, if you are concerned about your car insurance rates, I would consider joining me. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Greenspon, followed by Sam Polk,\n\nSpeaker 5: A\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Polk, Sam Polk, pre precinct 12. I move to terminate debate\n\nSpeaker 5: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. We have a motion to terminate debate, and we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under Article 42, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay. Uh, it is a two thirds vote. Debate is terminated. So we're gonna take a vote on the main motion of Article 42, which is a two thirds vote to amend the zoning bylaw section 6.1 point 11 to reduce the minimum required drive aisle width for, for, for 90 degree parking for 24 feet to 22 feet. If you're in favor of that change to the zoning bylaw, press one for yes. If you're opposed, press two or three to abstain. Okay, let's close voting. And the motion passes. Uh, it's 144 in the affirmative 58 in the negative three Abstentions. It is a two thirds vote that takes us down to Article 43. And can we clear the speaker queue please? Speaker Q is now clear for Article 43. Mr. Lac?\n\n","timeStart":8453.955,"timeEnd":8571.005,"chunkIndex":93},{"id":"019e0120-0aca-7ef4-abe0-76e948f4a298","content":"Speaker 31: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm Steve Lac, vice chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and I'll be taking you through Article 43, Marke Z. Next slide, please. So, article 43 was motivated by the towns two theaters, the Capitol and the regent. They're historic Arlington institutions that have been around forever. They've also got old Marques signs, and they're, you know, that the owners of those establishments are interested in updating. So, article 43 proposes to allow digital display technology on marque signs. It provides a modernization path where these businesses can show what's playing via a programmable digital display board, rather than by needing someone to go up on a ladder and swap out individual letters. Next slide, please.\n\nSpeaker 31: So, to provide an idea of what this might look like, here are some pictures of the Cabot Theater in Beverly, whose Marques signs have digital displays. The display is being used in a very traditional sense for a Marques sign to show what's playing at the theater. So, next slide. So here's what Article 43 proposes to do. So, digital displays would only be allowed on marquees signs and only by special permit. The displays would have to be architecturally integrated into the marquee signs. Displays would have to be limited to events happening on the premises. They would not be able to be used for general advertising. Displays would have to be equipped with auto dibbing technology to adjust brightness, and the displayed material would have to be static without motion animations or flashing. Three redevelopment board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 43 by a vote of five to zero. Thank you.\n\n","timeStart":8575.455,"timeEnd":8680.715,"chunkIndex":94},{"id":"019e0120-0ad2-7570-b8ac-4e9247275987","content":"Speaker 2: Thank you. We have two speakers in the queue. Uh, we'll just take them in order. Uh, Mr. Lane, followed by Ms. Crowder.\n\nSpeaker 24: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Adam Lane, precinct three. I live right around the corner from the Capital Movie Theater. I hope you will all agree with me that it is a fantastic amenity that we have in our town. Um, I think you may also agree with me that, uh, the current economic environment for, uh, theaters is, uh, um, undergoing a lot of transformation at the moment with competition from streaming services and young people being unable to be, uh, transfixed by anything other than their phones. I think we should do everything within our power to, um, help these, uh, institutions that add so much to our civic life. And I hope you will support this measure. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Ms. Carter, would the Sitco sign qualify here? It's moving. Could we put that on top of, uh, ah, thank you, Ms. Crowder?\n\nSpeaker 29: Elaine Crowder Precinct 19. Um, I am wondering how this, um, connects with our current dark skies bylaw, and whether there was any consideration given to the amount of uplighting generated by all three sides of the digital marquee sign.\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm sorry, what was the, how does it affect which portion of the bylaw?\n\nSpeaker 29: How Oh, dark skies, how it interconnects with the dark skies bylaw, whether there was any consideration given to the up lighting. Got it. From,\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Relock, can you answer how does this, uh, interact, if at all? Or, or was it consideration the dark skies bylaw?\n\n","timeStart":8681.285,"timeEnd":8786.605,"chunkIndex":95},{"id":"019e0120-0adc-783c-866a-8dca147318fd","content":"Speaker 31: So these are not uplights, so it's, the display would be, um, you know, it is a panel with, with essentially LEDs. Uh, this is where, as far as dark skies, this is where the, uh, requirement for auto dimming came in so that it could be brighter during the day and then less dimmed or dimmer at night. Uh, you could sort of see that on the slide of the Cabot Theater, where there, the daytime photo is, uh, bright and colorful, and the nighttime photo is, uh, you know, is dimmer.\n\nSpeaker 29: Does that also, um, uh, account for the amount of light that is actually going up from the sign, uh, that could affect migration of birds, et cetera? And, and, and\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Robert, does it take into consideration the, the, any uplight from such a sign?\n\nSpeaker 31: The, the display would be on the side, so the light would be going out to the sides rather than up.\n\nSpeaker 29: Okay. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You. Uh, let's see. Mr. Liani followed by, uh, Ms. Wilson.\n\nSpeaker 40: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Uh, Fatton Liani, Princeton 15. This is a limited, well regulated modernization for a theater Marcus that improves safety and supports local venues while protecting neighborhood crafters. So I support it. Thank you. Thank\n\nSpeaker 2: You. Uh, Ms. Wilson, followed by Ms. Griggs.\n\nSpeaker 5: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 41: Hi, Courtney Wilson, precinct 15. Um, quick question, um, about the energy usage for these. We currently, they must light it right now at nighttime, but not during the day. But if we use LED lights or whatever the marque lighting changes, what's the energy usage difference?\n\n","timeStart":8786.785,"timeEnd":8908.085,"chunkIndex":96},{"id":"019e0120-0ae5-7c92-ba94-378f257857bb","content":"Speaker 2: Um, Mr. Relock, was energy usage difference a consideration? Do you have, have any guess as to how that might be impacted? So\n\nSpeaker 31: That was not a consideration. Um, in terms of Ms. Luci, do you know how the, is there backlighting on the, on these currently? Okay, so LEDs are, they are efficient. Um, but no, we did not directly, uh, consider energy usage in the deliberations of this article.\n\nSpeaker 41: Okay. And the, just a question, 'cause these are privately owned companies, right? So they would be paying the cost of the energy, but energy's still at a premium right now, too. Right. Okay. And I guess right now that the marque are not being lit during the day, but they, with the, this new LED lighting, they would be lit during the day. Okay. All right. Something to think about.\n\nSpeaker 2: Right? There's not a requirement to install them, it's just, it's they're being allowed. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Uh, Ms. Lan, uh, followed by Mr. Moore more? Michelle Lan, oh, there you're,\n\n","timeStart":8910.065,"timeEnd":8983.045,"chunkIndex":97},{"id":"019e0120-0aee-71ef-914d-0a43ea0a7928","content":"Speaker 42: Hi, Michelle Lan, precinct four. A little bit nervous. Just a couple of quick questions. I think this is a really great idea. I think it's, you know, about time we shift into the 21st century when it comes to illumination and the marquees. My two questions are, um, will there be any requirement as to what will be displayed on the marquees? I text only, or will the establishments be able to project images, um, illustrations, photographs, things like that. So how do you regulate that? And the second question is, how do you determine how dim the light gets at night? Especially considering if there are neighbors living close by that might be offended by really bright lights at night.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. Uh, Mr. Relock, do you have answers those questions? Um, like requirements on what's displayed, whether it's text or images?\n\nSpeaker 31: Um, yeah. So the, um, in terms of the text, so the content shall be limited to the display of EV events, performances, or activities occurring on the premises. Um, display shall be, uh, no animated features, flashing, rotating motion picture or a application creating the illusion of motion allowed on the display.\n\nSpeaker 2: So it sounds like static images would\n\nSpeaker 31: Be, so I think static images would be okay. Text would be okay. Animated stuff or scrolling text would not be okay. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 42: So images like illustrations or paintings could be up there\n\nSpeaker 31: In addition to I believe that's, that's allowed, yeah. That, okay. There's, there's room to allow that, yes.\n\nSpeaker 42: Okay. And the second question is about how dim the lights may get at night. Who regulates how dim the LEDs will get at night?\n\n","timeStart":8989.025,"timeEnd":9089.765,"chunkIndex":98},{"id":"019e0120-0af7-76f3-aa5e-020b8d226fc5","content":"Speaker 31: So I think this is one of the motivations for requiring a special permit. Uh, so typically, um, I, you know, with a lot of ex building exterior lightings, applicants are asked to provide, uh, lighting studies mm-hmm . So I, I would picture that being part of the, uh, the permitting process. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 42: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Moore.\n\nSpeaker 43: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Christopher Moore, precinct 14. I move to terminate debate\n\nSpeaker 5: Second.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. And we have motion to terminate debate. And we have a second. All those in favor of terminating debate under Article 43, say, yay. Yay. All those opposed say nay. Uh, it is a two thirds vote. Um, uh, debate is terminated. So this is a, the main motion now will be a two thirds vote on amending the zoning bylaw section five two or 6 2 5 D to allow electronic displays on marquee signs, uh, by special permit. So it's open voting now on article. The main motion under article 43 voting is now open. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 5: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Let's close voting. And the motion passes 190 in the, in the affirmative 12 and the negative three. Abstentions, it is a two thirds vote. Uh, can we clear the speaker queue please? Uh, and that'll take us to Article 44. Uh, Mr. Rev, the speaker queue is now clear. Uh, Mr. Relock, you have a floor and we do have one amendment, uh, on this as well, which we'll bring up after Mr. Ak. Go ahead.\n\n","timeStart":9089.905,"timeEnd":9194.155,"chunkIndex":99},{"id":"019e0120-0b11-74db-8c68-90340a8a7df7","content":"Speaker 31: Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm Steve ak, vice chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and I'd like to introduce Article 44 Floodplain District. So Article 44 has a lengthened main motion, which is based on model language from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Adopting such language will be a, will be a, will be a requirement for Arlington's continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Arlington Redevelopment Board voted five zero to recommend favorable action on Article 44, and I would like to introduce David Morgan from the Department of Planning and Community Development to present the article. Thank you. Yep.\n\nSpeaker 2: Mr. Morgan.\n\nSpeaker 44: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Good evening everyone. David Morgan, environmental planner and conservation agent for the town. Uh, for the past year or so, we have been working with a version of the updated, uh, floodplain District language in the Conservation Commission's regulations. This is sort of a, uh, protective move that we made so that we would maintain our compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program until such time as it could come before town meeting for an update. We've coordinated with inspection services and DPW around this and all has gone smoothly, and we've made arrangements such that if it doesn't pass town meeting these changes, then we'll still have that in place for a year. So, be reassured that our, uh,\n\n","timeStart":9194.865,"timeEnd":9290.485,"chunkIndex":100},{"id":"019e0120-0b1a-7fdd-b8d1-69259c63afc8","content":"Speaker 44: Compliance is not in jeopardy. However, we, we do want to bring things up to date as is required by FEMA and DCR. So the first change that I would like to highlight is the stated local purpose for flood resilient standards, and we've added a number of, uh, new standards to those including, uh, protection, uh, against public emergencies from water quality contamination and pollution due to flooding. Also, to avoid the loss of utility services, uh, that would be damaged by flooding, illuminating new hazards to envir, sorry, emergency response officials, eliminating costs associated with the response and cleanup of flooding conditions and reducing damage to public and private property resulting from flood waters. We needed to do a handful of administrative things with this article, including specifying where the flood rate insurance map can be found lives in the Conservation Commission office. That would be my office. And, uh, it will always be on file there. It's also on the website for just a matter of record. There are a couple of terms that'll be changed directly in Article 40 and then, or I'm sorry, uh, in the, in the section of the bylaw that is the Floodplain Overlay District. Uh, just two definitions there. Specifying what a structure and, uh, variance mean in terms of, uh, flood protection. There are a number of changes to the definitions associated with floodplain that will go into the definition section of the bylaw.\n\n","timeStart":9292.695,"timeEnd":9399.775,"chunkIndex":101},{"id":"019e0120-0b22-761e-ae3c-87b24893b95e","content":"Speaker 44: Another administrative change here, just designating the floodplain administrator. A professional role that's, uh, required by fema, and that will be me, the conservation agent. There are a handful of things that are also in the Floodplain overlay District, as it stands, but are being restated and or slightly changed in their definition. That's requiring permits for all, uh, proposed development in the floodplain overlay district, and then prohibiting encroachment within the floodway, which is the area that is act actively moving water during a flood. There are some things here that are just pro forma, and we need to include because they need to be included everywhere. That would be, uh, requirements for review of subdivision proposals. We don't have such a thing in Arlington at present, so it's just protective measure for the future. There are requirements for, uh, securing and, uh, anchoring and elevating recreational vehicles such that if somebody's got a boat outside their house in a flood, that could very easily carry away. So in order to prevent damage, we're looking to ensure that those are secure and properly elevated outside of the floodplain. There are two requirements to notify officials when the floodplain changes, and that could be due to any activity that changes the base flood elevation, meaning where the water goes, and also to notify officials if there are any changes to a water body such that the course of, uh, a brook or such is, is altered\n\n","timeStart":9401.505,"timeEnd":9514.805,"chunkIndex":102}]}}}