Town Meeting - May 13th, 2026

Night six of Arlington town meeting. Materials were available from https://www.arlingtonma.gov/town-governance/town-meeting.

Voting results: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77602/639143502351030000.

Announcements

(?, Friends of Arlington Town Garden) The Friends of Arlington Town Garden will hold a fundraiser on June 5, from 6--9pm. They'll be honoring Jim Feeney. The friends group needs money for operating costs to maintain town gardens.

(Sue Doctorow, Community Preservation Act Committee) Ms. Doctorow invites people for cake, to celebrate ten years of the community preservation Act.

Article 3 - Reports of Committees

(Rebecca Gruber, Town Meeting Procedures Committee) Ms. Gruber presents the report of the Town Meeting Procedures Committee. The committee submitted two articles to amend town bylaws this year. They undertook two efforts to make Town Meeting more accessible. The first was three pages of background information in the warrant booklet. The second was a table of links to hearing materials.

Article 10 - Wetlands Protections

This article was postponed from April 29th, due to issues with scope.

(David Morgan, Conservation Planner) Mr. Morgan says a substitute motion has been submitted to Town Meeting, which avoids the scope issues of the original motion. Definitions have been moved to section 2. Section 5 refers to Conservation Commission regulations with respect to applicability. Section 12 specifies fines, and allows staff to enforce the Wetlands Protection bylaw. Fees were removed from Section 16, and there was a section added regarding consultant fees.

(David White, Precinct 21) Mr. White moves the substitute motion.

(Ben Rudick, Precinct 5) Mr. Rudick moves the question.

Motion to end debate fails by voice vote.

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti asks how the Select Board feels about the amendments.

(David Morgan) Mr. Morgan feels they're okay.

(Greg Christiana) Mr. Christiana notes that Eugene Benson (Precinct 10) had an amendment posted to the annotated warrant for Article 10's original motion. This amendment was never moved, but it was incorporated into the substitute motion.

(David Morgan) Mr. Morgan says the substitute motion is in scope of the original warrant language, and he's happy with it.

(Wynelle Evans, Precinct 14) Ms. Evans says the substitute motion doesn't list police officers as enforcing officers. She asks why that is.

(David Morgan) Mr. Morgan says that omission was intentional. The police department is authorized to do enforcement under a separate provision in the town bylaws.

(Matt Miller, Precinct 11, Point of Order) Mr. Miller says the text of the speaking queue is very small.

White substitute motion adopted, 192--3--12.

Article passes, 204--4--7.

Article 21 - Home Equity Theft Ban

(John Hurd, Select Board Chair) Mr. Hurd says the Select Board voted to recommend no action on Article 21, 5--0. Town Counsel advised the board that the original main motion would have been pre-empted by state law.

(Guillermo Hamlin) Mr. Hamlin moves his substitute motion. He says it's intentionally narrower to stay within the limits of state law. It doesn't attempt to superseded state law. He wants to clarify and codify a local preference for transparency. The motion doesn't eliminate the town's collection power and it does not compel expenditures. The goal is to let people know what their rights are.

(Sanjay Newton, Precinct 10) Mr. Newton asks what the substitute motion would require, or not require of the town.

(Michael Cunningham, Town Counsel) Mr. Cunningham says it doesn't require anything new, but codifies state law.

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti says this is a solution looking for a problem. The supreme court ruled that taking an entire property is illegal. The state legislature did the same. Putting state laws into our local bylaws puts us at risk of conflict if the state laws change He urges a no vote.

(John Hurd, Precinct 18) Mr. Hurd says the substitute motion is different that the original one. The motion would allow for payment plans, but provides no parameters for what those plans should look like. Mr. Hurd thinks payment plans sound like a good idea, but it needs more thought.

(Jim Feeney, Town Manager) Mr. Feeney says that state laws allow municipalities to set up payment plans, but those laws have a list of parameters that local communities have to specify. He says the substitute motion would create additional notice requirements for the town.

(Andy Greenspon, Precinct 5) Mr. Greenspon moves the question.

Motion to substitute fails, 18--190--10.

Recommended vote of no action passes by voice vote.

Articles 50, 51 - 0 Lot Concord Turnpike/Assisted Living

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says this pair of articles involves a parcel at 0 Lot Concord Turnpike, which is owned by St. Camillus church. Article 50 proposes to rezone a portion of that lot from R1 to R6. Article 51 proposes to add dimensional regulations for Assisted Living Facilities on lots of 20,000 square feet or more. These changes would allow an assisted living facility to be built on the site in the future.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor, Petitioner) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says that Article 50 proposes a zoning map change to allow for the construction of an assisted living facility. Article 51 would allow such facilities to be 50' and three stories tall, with a maximum floor area ratio of 1.2. This has been in the works for while, and St. Camillus chose HYM to develop the site. It's been approved by both the Boston Archdiocese and the Vatican. She thinks will offer benefits to the town. There's a need for this use and the land is currently tax-exempt. The new use would add approximately $600,000/year in property taxes and provide financial stability to the church. Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says the church will enter into a development agreement with the town, so that only an assisted living facility can be built there; no apartments.

(Seamus Joyce, HYM Investments) Mr. Joyce says that HYM is a Boston-based company. The facility would be managed by Experience Senior Living, and CBI are the architects. They intent to build 145 assisted living units. The facility will be staffed 24/7. They purposefully designed a 50' buffer around the property line. They'll provide 0.7 spaces per living unit, which is far more than the 0.4 spaces required by the zoning bylaw. The parking spaces will mostly be for workers, and a number of parking spaces would be maintained for the church. They will not build on the former dump site across the road, and they've tried to make the building residential-looking. The facility would accommodate Arlington residents. It would be low-impact with no school-aged children. It would also allow the church to remain open.

(Barry Jaspan, Precinct 18) Mr. Jaspan is an abutter, and he's been concerned about the development and the dump. There used to be a fence around the dump but people would throw all kinds of stuff there after hours. The church land next to Poet's corner is not for sale and they plan to resurface the parking lot on the other side of the street. This takes away the risk of digging up the dump. He is concerned about the increased risk of traffic, but thinks this is the best possible outcome. If it's not this developer, it will be some other developer.

(James Fleming, Precinct 4) Mr. Fleming asks if the zoning change will affect the property assessment.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says it will. Zoning will affect the assessed value.

(James Fleming) Mr. Fleming asks what justifies the change in value.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says it's hard to quantify. Changing from R1 to R6 increases the value of the land.

(James Fleming) Mr. Fleming understands there are two sources of value, the land value from zoning, and the structure.

(Gordon Jamieson, Board of Assessors) Mr. Jamieson says the land is currently owned by a non-profit, and will remain untaxed until it is sold.

(David Bean, Precinct 8) Mr. Bean introduces Bill Finnerty. Mr. Finnerty is an Arlington resident who'd like to address the meeting.

(Bill Finnerty, Resident) Mr. Finnerty says he's a 60-year resident of Arlington. The warrant article doesn't mention the church name, and the developers want to whisk this through. They want to sell off the church land and this will be a massive complex. Nobody can afford the $15,000/month they'll charge. There are six nursing homes within a mile. It's a high-density land grab. Everything will be gone, including the 200-space parking lot. The beautiful open space will be gone. The other side of Dow Ave was never remediated. It's not safe to cross Dow Ave. St. Camillus is alive and thriving, and on solid financial footing The tax would be a 0.2% rounding adjustment. It will generate fire and ambulance calls and stress the infrastructure. 40B is an idle threat, not a plan. The developers want to get a foot in the door. God's home is priceless. If it's gone, it can't be replaced. Please vote no.

(Ed Trembly, Precinct 19) Mr. Trembly asks about parking.

(Seamus Joyce) Mr. Joyce says the facility will have 100 spaces. He expects 30--50 to be used by staff.

(Ed Trembly) Mr. Trembly thinks there will be a need for visiting therapists.

(Seamus Joyce) Mr. Joyce thinks there will be enough parking. The plan to run a shuttle bus between the facility and the Alewife T station. The project will have to go through a special permitting process and parking will be scrutinized then.

(Ed Trembly) Mr. Trembly asks if the parishioners had a chance to vote on this.

(Seamus Joyce) Mr. Joyce says he had several meetings with the parishioners and Father Mark Bishop. Father Bishop stressed that the transaction would allow the church to stay open.

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti says this is a no-brainer. We've been looking for businesses that would provide jobs nd tax revenue. Sunshine Assisted Living has very little parking. Lots of baby boomers will need this service and it will help people stay in the community. He sees very few negatives.

(Sanjay Newton, Precinct 10) Mr. Newton moves the question.

Motion to end debate passes, 165--50--5.

Article 50 passes, 207--10--3, and we move on to Article 51.

(Jo Babiarz, Precinct 15) Ms. Babiarz asks if there will be a financial review of the contracting group, and whether a bond will be required.

(Greg Christiana, Town Moderator) Mr. Christiana thinks that out of scope for a dimensional table change.

(Jo Babiarz) Ms. Babiarz assumes that both amendments will be approved. She asks if there's been a feasibility study done for the $15,000/month that they will charge.

(Greg Christiana) Mr. Christiana thinks that's out of scope as well.

(Charlie Foskett, Precinct 10, Point of order) Mr. Foskett objects to the moderator excluding financial aspects of the project.

(Jo Babiarz) Ms. Babiarz says the developers expect people to be living there. She asks if there is a benefit to the people of Arlington. How is $15,000/month affordable? Is the $15,000/month figure accurate?

(Seamus Joyce) Mr. Joyce says the price is a factor of size and need. This facility is a bit on the smaller side but it would still be economical. The number of units would be discussed as part of the special permitting process.

(Jo Babiarz) Ms. Babiarz says that Mass Health and Medicare provide therapy, and those people come in cars.

(Steve Moore, Precinct 18) Mr. Moore agrees with Mr. Foskett's position. He questions this developer and this arrangement. We've seen some plans and will expect something similar. He asks what would keep the developers from doing something else.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says they're in the process of finalizing a development agreement with the town, to only build an assisted living facility on the site.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore says the developer will expect a certain profit. He asks what will guarantee that the property is maintained.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor expects that to be addressed by the special permitting process.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore says he's supportive.

(Sue Doctrow, Precinct 21) Ms. Doctrow asks if inclusionary zoning will be applicable to this facility.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the inclusionary zoning section of the bylaw lists the uses to which it's applicable, and assisted living is not one of them. So no, it would not be applicable.

(Christoper Moore, Precinct 14) Mr. Moore asks what thoughts have gone into water and sewer infrastructure.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says that things are in a very preliminary stage. The building is close to one of the town's sewer lift facilities, and it's in the response area for the Park Ave Fire station. We will have to look at the impacts of that.

(Christopher Moore) Mr. Moore asks if there will be a way for the town to recover extra costs.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says that could be part of the special permitting process -- to identify any possible needs for upgrades to the water and sewer system, for example.

(Christopher Moore) Mr. Moore thinks that's a good thing, though there are details to work out.

(Carmine Granucci, Precinct 21) Mr. Granucci moves the question.

Article passes, 207--4--3.

(Rod Holland, Precinct 7, Point of order) Mr. Holland says his voting clicker was very slow to respond.

We review the results of the vote. Mr. Holland's vote was recorded but one Town Meeting Member's vote was not. The moderator will let the vote stand as-is.

Article 52 - Rezoning of Certain Parcels From R1 to R2

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says article 52 is a citizen petition that proposes to rezone a small number of parcels in the vicinity of Norcross St from R1 to R2. The Redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 52, 5--0.

(Steve McKenna, Petitioner) Mr. McKenna says he's met with the planning department, the ARB, and town staff. He says this article is about creating fairness. Some of the Norcross St. Parcels are zoned R1 and some are R2. Several of the R1 parcels have two- and three-family homes on them. The R1 zoning creates financial and practical disadvantages for these property owners. A two-family lot can be worth $100,00 more than a single-family one. Much of the area is already zoned R2, so this is not about density or character. This wouldn't change other aspects of zoning and it's not intended to favor developers. It's meant to treat homeowners fairly. Mr. McKenna met with these property owners, and some have lived here for 40--60 years. Some have refinanced their homes, and the additional equity would help them.

(JP Lewicke, Precinct 2) Mr. Lewicke says that if anyone is skeptical of two-family zoning, this is a great opportunity to try the change out on a small scale.

(Christopher Moore, Precinct 14) Mr. Moore asks if Mr. McKenna has a financial interest in this transaction.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says he does not own any of these properties.

(Christopher Moore) Mr. Moore asks if the assessed value would increase.

(Gordon Jamieson, Board of Assessors) Mr. Jamieson says assessments are based on sales, not potential value.

(Christopher Moore) Mr. Moore thinks this isn't a bad thing. We should think how this will affect the use. He says it's modest and worth a try.

(Cale Pennington, Precinct 1) Mr. Pennington says he owns one of these homes, and some of his neighbors have had concerns about green space. He asks how this would change open space.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the dimensional regulations for R1 and R2 are very similar. A two-family dwelling would need two parking spaces versus the one needed for a single-family home. R2 has a twenty-foot front setback requirement while R1 has twenty-five. The two districts have identical requirements for open space.

(Topher Heigham, Precinct 15) Mr. Heigham asks if the owners have been notified.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says they have.

(Topher Heigham) Mr. Heigham asks if they're supportive.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says he set up two zoom meetings and one in-person meeting to answer questions. The majority were in favor.

(Topher Heigham) Mr. Heigham is glad to see that this is a targeted change. He'll support it.

(Adam Lane, Precinct 3) Mr. Lane lives in the area, and he's concerned about the narrow street. He's concerned about parking on Norcross St. He asks about parking and navigation.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak believes that Norcross Street is a public way, so anyone who wants to park there can do so. He notes that the redevelopment board does not have jurisdiction over public ways.

(Susan Stamps, Precinct 3) Ms. Stamps lives on Grafton St, and Norcross St is on her regular jogging route. She thinks this is a great idea. There's room to build two-family homes and this is a great area. More two-family homes by right for young families would be positive.

(Pi Fisher, Precinct 6) Mr. Fisher moves the question.

Article passes, 173--39--3.

Article 53 - Administrative Clarification to Bonus Provisions for Multi-Family Development

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says that Article 53 proposes stricter requirements for the mixed-use bonus in the Mass Ave/Broadway multifamily district. The redevelopment board voted to recommend no action on Article 53, 4-1. The majority of the board felt that the proposed requirements would make the mixed-use provisions difficult to achieve, thereby reducing the opportunity for new commercial space in the Mass Ave/Broadway district.

The Redevelopment Board discussed the Cullinane substitute motion at their May 4th meeting, and the sentiments were essentially the same as those expressed in the ARB's report on Article 53. The redevelopment Board did not have an opportunity to discuss the Macaluso substitute motion.

(Joanne Cullinane, Petitioner) Ms. Cullinane move her substitute motion. Ms. Cullinane says that Arlington adopted MBTA Communities zoning in 2023, and that included a mixed-use bonus. The bonus required that 60% of the ground floor at street level be used for commercial space. Members of the ARB have been split on what "ground floor" means. There were thousands of stakeholders involved in the process. The consultant used the word "footprint" at the ARB hearing, and footprint is everything under the building. If the commercial space isn't 60% of the ground floor then we'll get small spaces. There will be congestion on Broadway and vacant shops. If areas are exempt from the ground floor, we could end up with smaller spaces. The MBTA Communities district allows people to build four story residential buildings by right, and those buildings will have setbacks. She thinks that public trust is damaged by abrupt changes.

(Remy Macaluso, Precinct 3) Ms. Macaluso more her substitute motion. She shows a slide with a five-story mixed-use building at 80 Broadway. The building pre-dates the MBTA Communities act. The left side of the building has commercial space on the ground floor and the right side has podium parking. Commercial spaces in the mixed use projects we've seen so far are economically feasible. The 50% requirement in Ms. Macaluso's motion would prevent token commercial spaces, like an apartment building with a rental office on the ground floor. Ms. Macaluso is okay with the Benson amendment.

(Eugene Benson, Precinct 10) Mr. Benson moves an amendment to the Macaluso substitute motion. It's a wording change to clarify what "50% of the building" area means. He plans to vote for the Cullinane motion, and thinks the Macaluso motion is a compromise.

(Robin Bergman, Precinct 12) Ms. Bergman reads a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, in support of the Cullinane motion. In 2023, the Chamber expressed concern that commercial spaces on 60% of the ground floor would be too small.

(Aram Hollman, Precinct 6) Mr. Hollman attended the hearings for some of the mixed use buildings that were permitted and he's concerned that the ARB spent time defining terms. He says the board resorted to using terms that are not defined in the bonus section.

(Samia Hensa, Precinct 1) Ms. Hensa asks if someone can explain how the ARB is interpreting the requirement.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin shows a series of slides to explain the ARB's interpretation and the tradeoffs involved in the substitute motions. He shows a mixed-use building with commercial and a lobby on the ground floor, and some podium parking behind the building. The ARB has interpreted the 60% as being relative to the enclosed portion of the ground floor, which doesn't include the the podium parking underneath the building. This interpretation is consistent with the Macaluso motion, but wouldn't be permitted by the Cullinane motion.

With the Cullinane motion, the commercial space would have to be made bigger. That may not leave enough room for the residential lobby, trash storage, stairways, elevators, bike storage and the like. Another way to meet Cullinane's requirements would be to reduce the size of the upper stories by taking away the parking podium. This doesn't make the commercial space larger. Residential space is worth more than commercial space, and reducing the size of the residential space might prevent the building from penciling out. Another option would be to build a purely residential building, with no commercial space.

(Christopher Moore, Precinct 14) Mr. Moore asks about the negative vote from the ARB.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the negative vote came from Ms. Zsembery, who isn't here this evening. As he recalls, Ms. Zsembery felt there should be strict requirements for use of the mixed-use bonus.

(Carl Wager, Precinct 15) Mr. Wagner says he went to the hearings for 126--128 Broadway. The MBTA density overlay is in a residential district and the new building will be bigger than what's here. If we allow extra floors and zero setbacks the new buildings may block corners. Mr. Wagner says the ARB voted for a trash and recycling bonus.

(Note: I have no idea what Mr. Wagner is referring to in the last sentence).

(Pi Fisher) Mr. Fisher moves the question.

Motion to end debate fails, 119--80--3 (two-thirds required).

It's about 23:00, and there's a motion to adjourn. So we are done until next Monday.