Town Meeting - May 11th, 2026

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

Voting results: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77592.

Announcements

(Adam Lane, Precinct 3) Mr. Lane says that Paul Schlichtman (Precinct 9) can't be with us tonight, and it's important for us to show support for one of our colleagues.

(Sue Doctorow, Community Preservation Act Committee Chair) Ms. Doctorow invites people to a 10th anniversary of the Community Preservation Act in Arlington.

subsubsection{Article 3 - Reports of Committees}

(Jim Ballin, Zero Waste Arlington) Mr. Ballin recalls that Arlington passed a zero waste resolution last year. Since then, Zero Waste Arlington has been building a roadmap for waste reduction. They've been involved in a number of efforts to replace single-use items with reusable ones. Arlington on Tap is growing, and now has seven outdoor water bottle filling stations. The groups tracks state legislation and does outreach via social media and in-person events. We're seeing more waste reduction in town. There are three open positions on the committee.

Article 72 - Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School and Out of District Vocational Placements

(Al Tosti, Precinct 17) Mr. Tosti says the Finance Committee voted unanimously in support of the Minuteman appropriation.

(Nikki Andrade, Minuteman Business Manager) Ms. Andrade says the school's budget prioritizes staff and students. They have a 2.9% increase since last year. Operating expenses are up 3.84%, capital expenses are down 3.97$, and 0.79% of the budget goes towards debt service. Arlington's assessment is $8,268,757 which is a slight decrease from last year. 18% of the school's other post-employment benefits are funded and they're using facilities rentals to offset debt service. Arlington currently has 189 students enrolled at the Minuteman.

No one wishes to speak on Article 72.

Article passes, 200--0--2.

Article 66 - Ottoson Middle School Feasibility Study

We began discussion of Article 66 on May 6th. The article asks for a $2.5M appropriation for a feasibility study to replace the Ottoson Middle School.

(Elaine Crowder, Precinct 19) Ms. Crowder asks how the $2.5M cost was arrived at.

(Jim Feeney, Town Manager) Mr. Feeney says we started with costs for the high school rebuild feasibility study and revised them in conjunction with our consultants.

(Elaine Crowder) Ms. Crowder asks what safeguards are in place to prevent cost overruns.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says the contract will be for a certain amount, and that amount cannot be exceeded.

(Elaine Crowder) Ms. Crowder asks what would happen if the Ottoson needed an urgent repair while the feasibility study was taking place.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says the feasibility study would not impact maintenance.

(Christopher Moore, Precinct 14) Mr. Moore is the chair of the capital planning committee. He says that the amount of the appropriation is the amount of the contract. We expect to receive a 44% reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Association (MSBA), even if the school isn't rebuilt.

(Fusun Yaman-Sirin, Precinct 11) Ms. Yaman-Sirin has two seventh graders who've told her disaster stories about the Ottoson. She asks if the feasibility study will assume grades 7--8 or grades 6--8.

(Liz Homan, School Superintendent) Ms. Homan says the feasibility study will consider the largest scope, which is grades 6--8.

(Fusun Yaman-Sirin) Ms. Yaman-Sirin asks about the size of the school.

(Liz Homan) Ms. Homan says we'll provide enrollment data and work with the MSBA to determine the building's size.

(Fusun Yaman-Sirin) Ms. Yaman-Sirin asks about committee work done so far.

(Liz Homan) Ms. Homan says we've just put the feasibility study committee together. That committee will guide the study process.

Article passes, 200--6--1.

Article 67 - Hardy School Feasibility Study and Schematic Design

(Julie Wayman, Deputy Town Manager) Ms. Wayman says we're requesting $375,000 for a feasibility study for HVAC replacement at the Hardy Elementary School. The system will need to be replaced in the next 3--5 years. We'd like to look at cleaner systems and have received support from the MSBA. The MSBA would provide a 44% reimbursement for the study and we'd be eligible for grants. An air source heat pump system would cost as little as $4.52M after grants and rebates, and a ground-source system could cost as little as $3.71M. The study would begin in the next fiscal year. System replacement needs to happen, regardless of the vote here.

(Eugene Benson, Precinct 8) Mr. Benson asks about the criteria used for system selection.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says that one of the things the feasibility study would look at is the viability of the site for geothermal. They'll also do a lifecycle cost analysis.

(Faton Limani, Precinct 15) Mr. Limani asks how certain the MSBA funding is.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says we'll get a 43% reimbursement for a heat pump feasibility study.

(Cale Pennington, Precinct 1) Mr. Pennington asks if there are conditions on grants for air-source and ground-source heat pumps.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says that some of the grants are merit-based. We've applied for a GreenWorks grant and should be eligible for MassSave programs.

(Aram Hollman, Precinct 6) Mr. Hollman worries that the anticipated grants and rebates are overly optimistic. While the projected final cost of geothermal is $3.71M, the up-front cost is $13.2M. He asks if there are more middle-of-the road estimates.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says that each funding source is individual. He lists the programs and their dollar amounts. The cost would be $3.71M if all of these come through.

(Matt Miller, Precinct 11) Mr. Miller says his daughter attended Bishop elementary and the schools in town are good. Bishop had a leaky roof. Mr. Miller asks why the Hardy School is getting this investment while the Bishop didn't.

(Greg Christiana, Town Moderator) Mr. Christiana says that question is out of scope for the Hardy's feasibility study.

(Gordon Jamieson, Precinct 12) Mr. Jamieson asked why this school was chosen for improvements.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says several of our school buildings are reaching their end of life. The Hardy school has the second-highest energy use and qualifies for reimbursement due to recent envelope repairs.

(Gordon Jamieson) Mr. Jamieson asks if the Hardy was the first school we renovated.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says the school was renovated in 2001. He's not sure if it was the first.

(Eileen Cahill, Precinct 13) Ms. Cahill asks if the scope of the feasibility study will be limited to comparing alternatives.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says the MSBA grant is for the installation of a heat pump system. There are two types, ground source and air source.

(Eileen Cahill) Ms. Cahill asks if the study will get into operating and maintenance costs.

(Jim Feeney) Mr. Feeney says the study would look at lifecycle costs, including operations and maintenance.

(Eileen Cahill) Ms. Cahill is concerned with the high costs of heat pumps. She hopes the study takes the temperatures of our winters into account.

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

Article passes, 211--7--2.

Article 44 - Floodplain District

Town meeting began discussions of Article 44 on May 4th, and we resume with that article tonight.

(David Morgan, Environmental Planner) Mr. Morgan says the changes to the Floodplain District zoning are necessary for Arlington's continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Lots of people were in the speaking queue from last week. A number of them pass on speaking now.

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

Benson amendment passes, 200--7--6.

Main motion passes, 210--1--2.

Article 45 - Portable and Temporary Signs

(Note: I'm presenting articles and answering questions. I captured what I could from these discussions, but it's not everything.)

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Arlington's zoning bylaw allows the use of temporary signs, like A-frames and wall banners, without limiting the number of these signs that a business could have. Article 45 would limit businesses to one A-frame sign per business. It would also reduce the length of time that temporary wall signs could be displayed, from 60 to 30 days. The intention here is to encourage businesses to replace temporary wall banners with higher-quality permanent signs.

The first provision sets a limit on one A-frame and one temporary wall banner sign per business. The second provision limits display of temporary wall banners to 30 days. The Arlington Redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 45, 5-0.

(Ed Trembly, Precinct 19) Mr. Trembly asks if this is a solution in search of a problem.

(Katie Luczai, Economic Development Coordinator) Ms. Luczai says this change would provide the town with more enforcement power. Some businesses have multiple temporary signs, and some have multiple A-frame signs that clutter the sidewalk.

(Ed Trembly) Mr. Trembly asks how many businesses in Arlington are struggling.

(Katie Luczai) Ms. Luczai says that a number are facing challenges, but she can't quantify it.

(Ed Trembly) Mr. Trembly asks how much a sign costs.

(Katie Luczai) Ms. Luczai says that A-frame signs cost around $100. The cost for permanent signs depends on the sign and the contractor.

(Ed Trembly) Mr. Trembly says that simple permanent signs can cost thousands of dollars, and even tens of thousands of dollars. He doesn't want to inflict extra costs on businesses.

(Courtenay Wilson, Precinct 15) Ms. Wilson asks if the limit on temporary wall banners would apply while a building was under construction.

(Katie Luczai) Ms. Luczai says there's an exemption for businesses that have temporary signs due to construction.

(Courtenay Wilson) Ms. Wilson asks what happens when a temporary sign is left up for more than 30 days.

(Katie Luczai) Ms. Luczai says they start by talking to the business. The goal isn't to punish them.

Article fails, 131--83--6 (two-thirds vote required).

Article 46 - Animal Daycare uses

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Article 46 is comprised of two elements. First, it would add a definition of Animal Daycare to the zoning bylaw. Second, it would allow this use by special permit in most business districts. The exception would be B4 the vehicular-oriented business district, where the use would be allowed by right.

Currently, animal daycare is only allowed (by right) in the Industrial district. Arlington's industrial districts are small, which means there's little opportunity to provide this service in town. But there are people interested in providing these kinds of services and there are people interested in using them. So, we are proposing to allow animal daycare in more areas of town.

The left side shows the new definition. Note that animal daycare is a daytime-only activity, and overnight boarding is not allowed. The right side shows the changes to the use table. We're proposing that animal daycare be allowed by right in the B4 district, and by special permit in other business districts.

The Arlington Redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 46, 5-0.

(Paul Selker, Precinct 9) Mr. Selker asks why the ARB isn't recommending the use by right in all districts. He's tempted to make an amendment to that effect.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the ARB is taking an incremental step with Article 46, but he takes Mr. Selker's point.

(Austin Brown, Precinct 6) Mr. Brown asks about the number of noise complaints generated by animal daycare services.

(Jim Feeney, Town Manager) Mr. Feeney checked with the director of inspectional services, and there have been no noise complaints about the animal daycare facilities in town.

(Austin Brown) Mr. Brown says he's worried about noise.

(Pi Fisher, Precinct 6) Mr. Fisher moves to amend the article, so that animal daycare is allowed by right in the B2, B2A, B3, and B5 districts.

(Carl Wagner, Precinct 15, Point of order) Mr. Wagner questions whether such a change can be allowed as a floor amendment.

(Greg Christiana, Town Moderator) Mr. Christiana thinks the change to the use table is easy enough to understand, and in scope of the warrant language. He'll allow the amendment.

(Jo Babiarz, Precinct 15) Ms. Babiarz says that even in the business districts, animal daycare would be subject to animal control laws. "Animal care" could include small animals. She's in favor of the Fisher amendment, and says that daycare was good for her dog.

(Andy Greenspon, Precinct 5) Mr. Greenspon is in favor of the article, but on the fence about the amendment. He's concerned that the amended article won't receive a two-thirds vote.

(Larry Slotnick, Precinct 7) Mr. Slotnick asks there these businesses are located.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak asks for a zoning map to be displayed. He notes that the business districts are primarily located along Mass Ave and Broadway, with a few pockets elsewhere. They're not contiguous districts.

(Gordon Jamieson, Precinct 12) Mr. Jamieson asked two questions during the break. First, does "by right" mean that one of these businesses could just set up shop. Mr. Revilak said yes. He also asked if there are state laws that animal daycare has to follow. The answer to that question was "yes" as well. He's okay with the amendment.

(Liz Pyle, Precinct 8) Ms. Pyle favors the main motion but not the amendment. She doesn't think it's fair to spring it at the last minute. She's concerned about noise and would like local review of these businesses with public hearings. By right means that animal daycare could go anywhere. Special permit means review by a local board. She urges town meeting to vote against the amendment and for the main motion.

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

Fisher amendment fails: 31--182--4.

Article passes, 194--24--1.

Article 47 - Definition of Building Height

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Article 47 is a resiliency measure for the floodplain district, that would allow existing buildings to be elevated, or new buildings to be built, above the base flood elevation.

Our zoning bylaw has limits on building height. In single and two-family districts, it's 35' feet for a single- or two-family home, and the height is measured from the average grade of the adjoining curb. Article 47 would change this definition so that height is measured from the higher of (a) the average grade of the adjoining curb, or (b) the base flood elevation for a 100 year storm.

How would this look on the ground? A portion of our Floodplain District is around the Alewife Brook, where the base flood elevation is 6.8 ft. That's 6.8 feet as you'd see the elevation on a topographical map; basically 6.8' above see level.

If you were to stand at the intersection of Thorndike St and Herbert Road, the curb is about two feet below that base flood elevation. So, a 100 year flood would cover the intersection with around two feet of water.

By allowing building height to be measured from the base flood elevation, Article 47 would make it possible for home in this area to be raised two feet -- give or take -- so that it would be above flood waters.

This article was suggested by the chair of the zoning board of appeals. They had a case where someone was rebuilding a home in the floodplain district. Building codes require the lowest level of habitation to be above the base flood elevation, and they were running into challenges with building height.

First, we add the sentence "In the Floodplain District, building height is the vertical distance of the highest point of the roof measured from the higher of (a) the average grade of the curb line abutting the property, or (b) the base flood elevation established by FEMA" to the definition of building height. Second, we strike a reference to section 5.3.19.A, which is redundant with the reference to 5.3.19. The Arlington Redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 47, 5-0.

The board had an informal discussion about the Benson amendment during our meeting on May 4th. While we did not take a formal vote, board members were supportive of the amendment.

(Eugene Benson, Precinct 10) Mr. Benson has an amendment that would add the text "provided that the lowest habitable floor is above the base flood elevation". He says this would apply to existing buildings, so they could only get the extra height if elevating.

(Christian Klein, ZBA Chair) Mr. Klein thanks the ARB for bringing this forward. He says the ZBA works with the ARB when they find issues in the bylaw. In a case the board heard someone wanted to rebuild a home in the floodplain district and the base flood elevation was four feet above grade. That level needs to be floodable.

(Steve Moore, Precinct 18) Mr. Moore asks if there are floodplains along Mill Brook, and if the businesses are affected.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says there are floodplains along Mill Brook. Businesses could still build in the floodplain because the ground stories of commercial buildings are not considered habitable.

(Sanjay Newton, Precinct 10) Mr. Newton asks if an unfinished basement would be considered habitable.

(Mike Ciampa, Building Inspector) Mr. Ciampa says no.

Benson amendment passes, 208--6--3.

Article passes, 211--3--2.

Article 48 - Residential Parking

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Article 48 was inspired by some of the site plan review cases that have come before the ARB, involving properties in the MBTA Communities multifamily districts. We have residential parking standards in section 6.1 that apply to single-, two-, and three-family homes, and we have residential parking standards that apply to special permits. This leaves a gap where a docket involves site plan review, but not a single-, two-, or three-family dwelling. Article 48 seeks to address that.

First, the main motion amends section 6.1.10 to say that "Location of parking spaces" applies to projects under site plan review.

Second, 6.1.10.A is changed to include projects in multi-family overlay districts, under site plan review.

The Redevelopment Board voted 4-1 to recommend favorable action on Article 48 (Mr. Baudoin dissenting).

(Faton Limani, Precinct 15) Mr. Limani asked why Mr. Baudoin voted no.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin says he didn't have particularly strong feelings. He objected to the need for ARB review in order to have a second driveway.

(Aram Hollman, Precinct 6) Mr. Hollman asks if the part about 300' is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak doesn't recall mentioning anything about 300' in his presentation.

Article passes, 191--12--9.

Article 49 - Home Occupations

(Steve Revilak, Arlington Redevelopment Board) Article 49 was a citizen petition filed by James Fleming and Andy Greenspon, to update the zoning bylaws rules for home occupations. The redevelopment Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 49, 5--0.

(James Fleming, Petitioner) Mr. Fleming says commercial spaces are expensive, hard to find in Arlington, and often involve the negotiation of a multi-year lease. Article 49 allows a home occupation to take one additional step, while staying in the owner's house. It would allow one employee and wares could be sold on site. It sets expectations on hours of operation, deliveries, and traffic. There are also some organizational changes to that section of the bylaw. Someone designing knitware, for example, could hire an assistant and put up a small sign. Display of goods couldn't be visible from the street. It would also allow a maximum of three music students, where the current bylaw limits you to one.

(Courtenay Wilson, Precinct 15) Ms. Wilson has questions. She feels like there are a lot of unknowns. She plans to vote against the article.

(Robin Bergman, Precinct 12) Ms. Bergman says she's going to support the article. She is a knitware designer, and it's hard to find commercial space to work. Her rent increased 4x over the last ten years and she now leases her space in West Concord month-to-month. She might lose her space. The last time she had to move, she had to look at 75 spaces before finding one. There are lots of challenges, especially for small creative businesses. She notes that lots of people do contract work from home.

(Mike Ciampa, Inspectional Services Director) Mr. Ciampa says home occupations are allowed, if there are no employees and no visitors.

(Robin Bergman) Ms. Bergman is in favor of having one employee. She says her neighbor gets more amazon deliveries than her business does.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton moves the question.

Motion to end debate fails, 137--69--4.

(Beth Benedikt, Precinct 21) Ms. Benedikt asks about enforcement and parking.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says that home occupations are challenging to enforce. They can't be seen from the street.

(Beth Benedikt) Ms. Benedikt asks about fines.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says there would be fines for actual violations.

(Jane Biondi, Precinct 7) Ms. Biondi asks how the hours of 7am to 9pm compare with other types of businesses.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says they are similar to other business operating hours.

(Jane Biondi) Ms. Biondi says she'll vote yes.

(Matthew Miller, Precinct 11) Mr. Miller asks what escalation avenues there are, if parking gets out of hand.

(John Hurd, Select Board Chair) Mr. Hurd says the Select Board sets parking polices, and inquires about these policies go to the Select Board.

(Carl Wagner, Precinct 15) Mr. Wagner says we voted on something similar last year, and we need to weigh the needs of the neighborhood. Single proprietors are already allowed. It would allow the use of yards. Home occupations will cause employee problems because it's not a good environment to work in. He says this isn't what we need in the residential districts. We have low traffic now but this moves the neighborhood too more of a business district. He says it will bring major changes to where people live.

(Diane Fabiano, Precinct 17) Ms. Fabiano thinks this could damage our neighborhoods. Businesses are different than neighborhoods. Her apartment complex doesn't have restrictions on home businesses because they're not something we used to have. There are problems with her building's private parking lot. She asks how this would be monitored, and how many visitors there could be.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa says that occupancy limits are the only restriction on visitors.

(Pi Fisher, Precinct 6) Mr. Fisher asks how many people he could invite to a house party.

(John Hurd) Mr. Hurd says there is no limit on the number of visitors a person can have. And there are no restrictions on who can park on a public street.

(Pi Fisher) Mr. Fisher says this seems like a way for people to make money doing something they might have done as a hobby.

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

Motion to end debate passes by voice vote.

Article passes, 159--47--5.

(Christine Deshler, Finance Committee Chair) Ms. Deshler moves reconsideration on articles 66, 67, and 72.

Meeting adjourned.