Town Meeting - May 18th, 2026

Night seven of Arlington's annual town meeting. Materials were available from https://www.arlingtonma.gov/town-governance/town-meeting.

Voting results: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77614.

Announcements

(Greg Christiana, Town Moderator) Mr. Christiana says that town meeting will not meet on the Memorial Day holiday. Motions to that effect will be made on Wednesday.

Mr. Christiana has heard complaints about the use of private messaging channels by town meeting members. Mr. Christiana says he cannot police the use of these channels and town meeting is not subject to Open Meeting laws. He asks people to consider the consequences of their actions.

(Nora Mann, Symmes Hospital Fund) Ms. Mann says the fund gives grants each year to non-profits that do work in healthcare.

(Marina Popova, Precinct 13) Ms. Popova is looking for help placing a large sycamore tree.

(Christine Deshler, Finance Committee Chair) Ms. Deshler says the finance committee is expecting several vacancies this year, and she'll be looking for people to fill these positions.

(Paul Schlichtman, Precinct 9) Mr. Schlichtman thanks town meeting for their love and support.

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

We began discussing this article on May 13 and deliberations continue tonight.

(Andrew Fischer, Precinct 6) Mr. Fischer says he thought about this article for the better part of the week and was concerned that someone was going to terminate debate. He's trying to say things that haven't been said so far. The ARB's consultant said that 10,000 square feet gives you 6,000 square feet, and he used to the word "footprint".

(Larry Slotnick, Precinct 7) Mr. Slotnick says he needs to allude to a private communications channel. The intent of past town meetings is irrelevant and we are just left with legal words. The current town meeting is not bound by votes of past town meetings. He reads the mixed-use bonus provision in the zoning bylaw. Select Board member Diane Mahon sent an email over the weekend, asking for a positive vote on the Cullinane amendment. She said that Arlington voters felt we needed more business development, even if it happens in small incremental steps. The Chamber of Commerce emphasized the need for larger commercial spaces. Article 53 preserves the intent of the bylaw. Businesses need more usable space and residents want a welcoming environment for businesses. What's happening on Broadway is the most drastic change in town. Broadway is mostly two-family homes and for the ARB to encourage a mixed use bonus without meeting the words of the bylaw just isn't right. He asks if we need to make Broadway into a commercial district.

(Gordon Jamieson, Precinct 12, Point of order) Mr. Jamieson asks people to say what their speaking in support of -- which of the substitute motions, or the ARB's vote of no action.

(Beth Melofchik, Precinct 9, Precinct 9) Ms. Melofchik asks what Mr. Slotnick supports.

(Greg Christiana, Town Moderator) Mr. Christiana says that's not a point of order.

(Grant Cook, Precinct 16) Mr. Cook says we passed the MBTA Communities zoning 2.5 years ago, and the goal then was to create housing. Commercial space was a tradeoff. The ARB made an appropriate call on an aspect that was not discussed during the hearings. The Cullinane amendment will erode the building of housing, and the building of commercial spaces that are viable. The Cullinane motion will result in fewer commercial spaces and fewer homes. He'll vote against the Cullinane motion. Mr. Cook prefers the current state of things. Let's not break what's just starting to work.

(Xavid Pretzer, Precinct 17) Mx. Pretzer says the Cullinane motion would take some of the buildings proposed off the table. There's simply not more room for commercial space on these lots. If town meeting adopts the Cullinane motion, we'll get apartment buildings with no commercial space, or single- and two-family homes. He asks people to vote against the Cullinane motion.

(James Fleming, Precinct 4) Mr. Fleming asks how the ARB has been interpreting "60% of the ground floor".

(Steve Revilak, Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says the board has been interpreting the denominator as the interior of the first floor. The denominator would include everything in the interior area, including elevators, stairwells, bike rooms, trash, mail rooms, hallways and the like.

(Eugene Benson, Precinct 10) Mr. Benson urges a vote in favor of the Cullinane motion. He was a member of the Redevelopment Board and one of the goals was not to put the MBTA Multifamily district on business parcels. Buildings are limited to three stories on side streets and four stories on Mass Ave and Broadway. The bylaw allows extra stories for ground floor commercial if it takes up 60% of the ground floor at street level. "Ground floor at street level" is not defined in the zoning bylaw. Three members of the ARB felt that "ground floor at street level" meant the interior of the building and the other two felt that parking should be included in the ground floor area. As developers devote more space to parking, the amount of commercial space will be reduced. The distinction is important because it depends on the definition. Mr. Benson thinks we'll get more platform parking. During the ARB's hearing, the Chamber of Commerce wanted the requirement to be 80% of the ground floor. This doesn't mean new commercial spaces. Without the Cullinane amendment we'll get fewer smaller commercial spaces. This is about right sizing commercial spaces, and our goal is to make this part of the bylaw not undefined.

(Ben Rudick, Precinct 5) Mr. Rudick works in real estate finance, but most of the work he does is in Asia. Construction costs have gone up and retail commercial spaces cost more to build than they can bring in. So, residential parts of the building are priced higher to accommodate. Developers are not making money had over fist. Requiring too much commercial is a good way to kill it.

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti moves the question.

Motion to end debate passes by voice vote.

Benson amendment to the Macaluso substitute motion passes, 186--34--0.

Macaluso substitute motion (as amended) passes, 167--45--2.

Cullinane substitute motion fails, 101--118--1.

Article passes, 160--61--1 (with the amended Macaluso motion as the main motion).

Article 30 - Repeal MBTA Prohibition

(Steve DeCourcey, Select Board) Mr. DeCourcey says that Article 30 seeks to repeal a 1980 state law that prohibits the MBTA from planning any subway extension in the northwest corridor, unless authorized to do so by state law. The Select Board voted to recommend no action, 4--0--1. Mr. DeCourcey says the Select Board can't file legislation that's specific to Arlington, and Lexington and Bedford might be affected by such planning. The Board feels the law expired when the red line extension was complete. The legislature appropriated money for the MBTA to study a red line extension Mr. DeCourcey thinks that satisfies the prohibition. At the end of town meeting, Arlington will have nine home rule petitions pending in the legislature and Mr. DeCourcey feels this is less important.

(Paul Schlichtman, Petitioner) Mr. Schlichtman would like to strike "file home role" and replace those words with "request".

(?) Someone remarks that home rule legislation is the only kind of legislation that towns can request of the legislature.

(Paul Schlichtman) Mr. Schlichtman says the MBTA needed a set of easements to finish the red line extension, which Chapter 504 granted. Those easements are still in effect so Mr. Schlichtman doesn't feel that the law has expired. Arlington is one of a list of communities that have been trying to encourage transit-oriented growth. The MBTA shelved plans for transit-oriented development at the Alewife Garage. Mr. Schlichtman is concerned that the MBTA will demolish the garage and not extend the red line. We repealed the state law blocking the MBTA in the center. This vote will tell our legislature that Arlington wants a seat at the transit planning table. He wants the vote to express our views.

(Michael Cunningham, Town Counsel) Mr. Cunningham says a home rule petition on this subject would be inadmissible because it would affect Lexington and Bedford.

(Guillermo Hamlin, Precinct 14) Mr. Hamlin thinks we should let the Attorney General's Municipal Law unit review the petition and decide if it's a valid home rule petition. He thinks town meeting should pass this and let the legislature know what we want.

(Pi Fisher, Precinct 6) Mr. Fisher recommends a yes vote.

(Gordon Jamieson, Precinct 12) Mr. Jamieson says he'll be voting in favor of the article.

(Steve Revilak, Precinct 1) In Mr. Revilak's copious free time -- which he doesn't always have a lot of -- he has a tendency to hang around with a lot of mobility and transit nerds.

On a number of occasions he's had conversations where someone will ask "where do you live". Mr. Revilak will respond "I live in Arlington". The other person will pause for a second, think, and say "hey, aren't y'all the ones who messed up the red line?". Mr. Revilak tries to take this with a dose of humility and answers "yeah mate, that was us".

Nearly fifty years after the fact, and people still talk about this.

Recalling Mr. Hurd's remarks about the override in his state of the town address, Arlington's finances are a bit stretched right now, and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future. A red line station in Arlington center could have provided opportunities for a lot of good transit-oriented development. If that had happened, our town's fiscal picture might look a lot better that it does today. But it didn't happen and we'll never know for sure.

A number of events in the last century prevented recent generations of Arlingtonians from having access to mass rail transit. Mr. Revilak hopes that we'll do everything we can to make that option a possibility for future generations. He asks town meeting to join him in voting for Article 30.

(Steve Moore, Precinct 18) Mr. Moore says he often respects and agrees with Mr. Schlichtman and Mr. Revilak, but not in this case. He asks who owns the Minuteman Bikeway.

(Jim Feeney, Town Manager) Mr. Feeney says the MBTA still owns the bikeway.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore says there was a plan to bring the red line to Arlington and the voters didn't want it. The Minuteman is still owned by the MBTA. The T could theoretically close down the minuteman and use it to extend the red line. Mr. Moore says the minuteman is a huge asset for the town and he wouldn't want to jeopardize it. Nothing should be allowed to threaten the Minuteman.

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti moves the question.

Vote on the Schlichtman substitute motion passes, 136--61--10.

Article passes, 145--54--11.

It's 21:30 and we take a ten-minute break.

Article 54 - Traffic Visibility

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says Article 54 is a citizen petition to amend Section 5.3.12.A, which deals with traffic visibility on corner lots. The Redevelopment Board voted to recommend no action on Article 54, 3--2. The majority of board members opposed the article due to lack of support from the Director of Inspectional services, and aesthetic concerns about the kinds of fences that would be allowed.

The board discussed the petitioner's substitute motion during their meeting on April 27th. While they did not take a formal vote, the general sentiment was as outlined in the ARB's report to town meeting for Article 54.

(Caitlin Monaghan, Petitioner) Ms. Monaghan says that any sort of fencing taller than 3' is prohibited on corner lots. This includes non-opaque fences that don't inhibit visibility. Safety depends on fence height. The town's children's center is on a corner lot and has a non-conforming 4' fence. 5.3.12.B allows taller fences in front yards, as long as they're not inhibiting visibility, but 5.3.12.A doesn't have this provision.

Ms. Monaghan's substitute motion would do two things. First it clarifies the position of the sight triangle. Second, it allows fences over 3' as long as they don't impede visibility and are less than 35% opaque. It would reduce the risk of children and dogs getting into the street. This would legalize existing safe fences and avoid the need to chose between non-compliance and usability of the yard.

(Gabe Knoll, Precinct 8) Mr. Knoll says this article has been put to the ARB twice and the votes have changed between the two hearings. He asks why inspectional services is opposed.

(Mike Ciampa, Director of Inspectional Services) Mr. Ciampa says the guidance for traffic visibility has been developed over the last 70--80 years. It considers things like elevation, parked cars, glare, weather, and other factors. You have to consider the line of sight and varying vehicle heights. He thinks taller fences will impair driver visibility.

(Gabe Knoll) Mr. Knoll thinks safety is a good goal, but the bylaw doesn't do that. The bylaw is not easy to interpret, it's not uniformly enforced, and there are lots of corner lots that don't meet the requirements. Regarding aesthetics, Mr. Knoll thinks it's undemocratic to prohibit less expensive types of fences that people can afford. He's not sure whether the non-conforming fences have variances.

(Christopher Moore, Precinct 14) Mr. Moore is concerned about fences because there are two sides on a corner lot. He thinks the distraction of the fence will be a factor.

(JP Lewicke, Precinct 2) Mr. Lewicke moves to amend the substitute motion by replacing the 35% opacity requirement with 25%.

(Christian Klein, Precinct 10) Mr. Klein asks what the maximum height of a fence is.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says it's whatever's determined to be safe.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein asks if that determination would be made by the building inspectors or by a structural engineer.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says it would be the building inspectors.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein thinks that vegetation growing the fence could be a maintenance problem.

(Elizabeth Dray, Precinct 10) Ms. Dray asks of other towns have similar restrictive rules.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa gives examples of rules in other towns. They're similar to Arlington.

(Adam Auster, Precinct 16) Mr. Auster asks where opacity is defined.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the zoning bylaw falls back to Webster's unabridged dictionary for terms that are not defined in the bylaw itself.

(Adam Auster) Mr. Auster believes there's a difference between functional vs perceptive opacity. He doesn't think it's clear how homeowners would know what the opacity of their fence is.

(Carl Wagner, Precinct 15) Mr. Wagner moves the question.

Lewicke amendment passes, 105--74--15.

Monaghan substitute motion fails, 62--129--7.

The Redevelopment Board's recommended vote of no action passes by voice vote.

Article 55 - Administrative Clarification to Bonus Provisions for Multi-Family Development

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Mr. Revilak says Article 53 proposes marginally stricter requirements for the use of the affordable housing bonus in the Mass Ave Broadway multifamily district, by changing the way that fractional units are converted to whole units. The Redevelopment Board voted to recommend no action on Article 55, 5-0. Board members preferred to have a single standard for fractional to whole-unit conversions, rather than having different standards in different parts of the bylaw.

The Redevelopment Board did not have the opportunity to discuss the substitute motions for this article.

(Aram Hollman, Petitioner) Mr. Hollman moves his substitute motion. He says it's about counting, and whether the ARB will follow the bylaw as written. Townwide, Arlington requires that 15% of units in multi-family housing be affordable. In the multi-family district, developers can receive a one-story bonus by providing 22.5% affordable units, and a two-story bonus by providing 25%. The zoning bylaw uses the words "at least" -- those are two critical words. "At least" means "greater than or equal to" and Mr. Hollman thinks the board should always round up. He wants to explicitly require rounding up.

(Sanjay Newton, Precinct 10) Mr. Newton moves Remy Macaluso's substitute motion; Ms. Macaluso was unable to attend this evening. Ms. Macaluso's motion makes it explicit that the bonus provisions use the same rounding as the rest of the bylaw. Her amendment also addresses a corner case where 15% and 22.5% might round to the same number. The bonus provision would require at least one more affordable unit than 15% would require.

(Xavid Pretzer, Precinct 17) Mx. Pretzer says that one of our biggest challenges is the complexity of the zoning bylaw. Having two ways of rounding was needlessly confusing. He asks town meeting to vote in favor of the Macaluso motion.

(Melita Marx, Precinct 12) Ms. Marx supports the article. She says many new developments are tall multi-unit buildings, and they're being allowed because of lose interpretations of the bylaw. This wouldn't reduce the number of affordable units because that's the point. She thinks the bylaw should require fractional units to get a bonus. It's a clarification rather than a rewrite.

(Daniel Jalkut, Precinct 6) Mr. Jalkut moves the question.

Motion to end debate fails, 105--78--10 (two-thirds vote required)

(Vince Baudoin, Precinct 1) Mr. Baudoin was a member of the MBTA Communities working group. He'd like to ask how these bonus requirements were arrived at. There are people in the room who worked on these provisions.

(Laura Wiener, Precinct 8) Ms. Wiener says she worked on the provisions, but more on the zoning side than the feasibility side.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, Redevelopment Board) Ms. Korman-Houston was also a member of the MBTA Communities working group. She says the intention was not to have two rounding standards. The words "at least" were intended to suggest it was okay to provide a higher percentage of affordable units. Affordable units operate at a financial loss and the market rate units have to offset that loss. There is a tipping point where too high of a requirement can't work financially. 22.5--25% is a reach, but it's achievable. We have to be careful about where we set standards.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin thinks it's too early in the process to change standards, and the Macaluso motion is reasonable.

(Aram Hollman, Precinct 6) Mr. Hollman asks how the Redevelopment Board interprets the affordability provisions.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak reads the requirement: "one additional story may be added if the total percentage of affordable units exceeds the requirements in Section 8.2.3 Requirements of this Bylaw for a total of at least 22.5% of all units." This says two things: the requirements in 8.2.3 apply, and they have to be exceeded.

The provisions in 8.2.3.A are probably most relevant to this discussion. Mr. Revilak reads two portions of that section. First, "In any development subject to this Section 8.2, 15% of the dwelling units shall be affordable units as defined in Section 2 of this Bylaw." That is the basic inclusionary zoning requirement. Second, "In determining the total number of affordable units required, calculation of a fractional unit of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the next whole number."

Mr. Revilak notes that both of these sentences use the word "shall". "Shall" is given special attention in section 2 of the bylaw, which says "the word 'shall' is always mandatory and not merely directory". He believes the rounding of fractional units is mandatory and notes that the bylaw doesn't give special consideration to the phrase "at least".

(Aram Hollman) Mr. Hollman says that 22.5% of units in a 15 unit building would be 3.375, and the board would round that down to 3, when the bylaw says "at least". He asks if Mr. Revilak sees anything wrong with that.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says "no".

(Carl Wagner, Precinct 15) Mr. Wagner thinks developers can absolutely provide 25% affordable units. He was at the hearing for 126 Broadway and thinks the developers were trying to mix and match parts of the bylaw. He applauds Mr. Hollman for bringing this article and thinks the ARB should follow the law.

(Eugene Benson, Precinct 10) Mr. Benson says there's something that everyone has forgotten to mention. Section G of the multi-family overlay says that Section 8.2 applies. He reads the bylaw the opposite way that Mr. Hollman does. The Macaluso motion is a belt and suspenders approach. He plans to vote against the Hollman motion and for the Macaluso motion.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton moves the question.

Motion to end debate passes by voice vote.

Macaluso motion is adopted, 154--36--5.

Hollman motion fail, 54--135--5.

Macaluso motion as the main motion passes, 170--25--2.

Article 59 - PEG Access Budget

Note: "PEG" stands for "public, educational, and/or governmental access cable television services".

(Christine Deshler, Finance Committee Chair) Ms. Deshler says we collect money from cable companies and pass this on to ACMi, but town meeting has to authorize the transfer.

There's no discussion on Article 59.

Article passes, 179--1--2.

Article 60 - Endorsement of Parking Benefit District Expenditures

(Christine Deshler, Finance Committee Chair) Ms. Deshler says that town meeting created the parking benefits district. We collect money from parking meters, which goes towards making improvements in the district.

(Julie Wayman, Deputy Town Manager) Ms. Wayman says we've budgeted for $514k of parking revenue, which is 90% of what we received in the prior year. We're adding the amount charged for parking enforcement, and some money for improvements to the Russell Common Lot, seasonal planting at watering, and replacing lights along Mass Ave.

(Gordon Jamieson, Precinct 12) Mr. Jamieson asks if two items involve personnel.

(Julie Wayman) Ms. Wayman says the enforcement line is for staff.

Article passes, 176--3--2.

It's nearly 23:00 and town meeting adjourns until Wednesday.