From Abbottfk at rcn.com Mon May 1 12:53:57 2006 From: Abbottfk at rcn.com (FREELAND ABBOTT) Date: Mon May 1 13:18:35 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] [Fwd: Re: Substitute motions] Message-ID: <44563D25.50308@rcn.com> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "John Maher" Subject: Re: Substitute motions Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:01:39 -0400 Size: 57304 Url: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060501/698453e6/Substitutemotions.mht From jamiesga at yahoo.com Mon May 1 13:17:54 2006 From: jamiesga at yahoo.com (Gordon Jamieson) Date: Mon May 1 13:18:36 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Fincom Report to Town Meeting for FY 2007 Message-ID: <20060501171754.69623.qmail@web51115.mail.yahoo.com> I note also that the fincom website also posts a copy of the Capital Planning Committee Report to 2007 Town Meeting for those of you out there that like looking at the numbers... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us Mon May 1 14:10:32 2006 From: rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us (Rich Carreiro) Date: Mon May 1 14:10:46 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Another substitute motion for Article 21 Message-ID: I am likely to offer the following as a substitute motion under Article 21: VOTED: That the Town establish a Part-Time Elected Officials' Benefits Study Committee, whose membership shall be: * A member of the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee, appointed by the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee. * A member of the Retirement Board, appointed by the Retirement Board. * A member of the Finance Committee, appointed by the Chair of the Finance Committee. * A member of the Board of Selectmen, appointed by the Board of Selectmen. * A Town Meeting Member, appointed by the Moderator. The Committee is charged to study and recommend whether or not part-time elected officials of the Town should have limited retirement allowances, whether or not part-time elected officials of the Town should pay for healthcare benefits in excess of what the General Laws provide, and, if the Committee finds they should exist, what those limitations or excess payments should be. The Committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the 2007 Annual Town Meeting and then be dissolved. -- Rich Carreiro rlcarr@animato.arlington.ma.us From rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us Mon May 1 16:05:18 2006 From: rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us (Rich Carreiro) Date: Mon May 1 16:05:35 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Slight change to my Article 21 subst motion Message-ID: Slight change to the previously-posted text -- the word "paid" has been added before "part-time" in the paragraph containing the committee's charge in order to clarify its scope. VOTED: That the Town establish a Part-Time Elected Officials' Benefits Study Committee, whose membership shall be: * A member of the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee, appointed by the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee. * A member of the Retirement Board, appointed by the Retirement Board. * A member of the Finance Committee, appointed by the Chair of the Finance Committee. * A member of the Board of Selectmen, appointed by the Board of Selectmen. * A Town Meeting Member, appointed by the Moderator. The Committee is charged to study and recommend whether or not paid part-time elected officials of the Town should have limited retirement allowances, whether or not paid part-time elected officials of the Town should pay for healthcare benefits in excess of what the General Laws provide, and, if the Committee finds they should exist, what those limitations or excess payments should be. The Committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the 2007 Annual Town Meeting and then be dissolved. -- Rich Carreiro rlcarr@animato.arlington.ma.us From vze27qbd at verizon.net Mon May 1 16:12:59 2006 From: vze27qbd at verizon.net (John Belskis) Date: Mon May 1 16:25:15 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Town Meeting: Substitute motion to Article 55 Message-ID: <000f01c66d5b$a58fbcf0$0201a8c0@Johnnew> The following is a substitute motion to Warrant Article 55. It has been reviewed by town counsel. It is also an agenda item before the BOS Monday 5-1-06. DATE: _______________ ARTICLE 55 - APPROPRIATION/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM I, John Belskis, do hereby offer the following Substitute Motion: VOTED: That the Town shall comply with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) recommendation of using the Geographic Information System to accurately determine the Town's status as to its 1.5% land area exemption for M.G.L. c. 40B implications. The study and involved pertinent data will be overseen and validated by a committee of seven representatives, one from each of the following: Housing Authority, Board of Assessors, and Redevelopment Board chosen by each of said boards, and the Director of Planning and Community Development or his designee, and three citizen representatives selected by the Town Moderator. Signed: ___________________ John Belskis TMM Pct. 18 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060501/7b2966b0/attachment.html From paul at schlichtman.org Mon May 1 17:01:11 2006 From: paul at schlichtman.org (Paul Schlichtman) Date: Mon May 1 17:08:38 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Amending the substitute motion - Article 21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32635.65.160.83.221.1146517271.squirrel@webmail12.pair.com> I am contemplating offering an amendment to Mr. Carreiro's substitute motion, as follows: While we are at it, we should look to see exactly WHO gets a salary/stipend and why. VOTED: That the Town establish a Part-Time Elected Officials' [Salary and] Benefits Study Committee, whose membership shall be: ? A member of the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee, appointed by the Post-Employment Medical Benefits Committee. ? A member of the Retirement Board, appointed by the Retirement Board. ? A member of the Finance Committee, appointed by ? the Chair of the Finance Committee. ? A member of the Board of Selectmen, appointed by the Board of Selectmen. ? [A member of the School Committee, appointed by the School Committee] ? A Town Meeting Member, appointed by the Moderator. The Committee is charged to study and recommend whether or not paid part-time elected officials of the Town should have limited retirement allowances, whether or not paid part-time elected officials of the Town should pay for healthcare benefits in excess of what the General Laws provide, [which part-time elected officials should be paid] and, if the Committee finds they [benefits for paid part-time officials] should exist, what those limitations or excess payments should be. The Committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the 2007 Annual Town Meeting and then be dissolved. -- Paul Schlichtman - http://www.schlichtman.org Arlington School Committee - http://www.arlington.k12.ma.us Past President, Massachusetts Association of School Committees - http://www.masc.org From donnaroserussian at yahoo.com Tue May 2 13:27:47 2006 From: donnaroserussian at yahoo.com (RUSH) Date: Wed May 3 00:16:59 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] ARTC TM Conservative Caucus Warrant Review Meeting Message-ID: <20060502172747.32974.qmail@web37915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Arlington Republican Town Committee Town Meeting Conservative Caucus Warrant Review Meeting All Town Meeting Members who are Republican or Conservative Independent or Libertarian are urged to attend. Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 Time: 7:30 PM Place: Town Hall Town Meeting Enclosure Agenda: Discussion and review of TM Warrant Articles to be better informed and to better serve The Town and all constituents. Please be prepared with the next articles next to be taken up. (Article 51 will be next before us, and we will likely reach the budget.) Information about how to join the Arlington Republican Town Committee will be offered. The ARTC TM Conservative Caucus is a sub-committee of the ARTC. Donnarose Russian Agri Chairwoman, Arlington Republican Town Committee TMM, Precinct 10 Charlie Simas Vice-Chairman, Arlington Republican Town Committee TMM, Precinct 3 Glenn Parker Secretary, Arlington Republican Town Committee TMM, Precinct 6 www.arlington-gop.com ~ RUSH Navy Hymn Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave. Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep it's own appointed limits keep. Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee for those in peril on the sea! Amen. ~ William Whiting __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060502/1d9e30c1/attachment.html From maaaronb at msn.com Tue May 2 22:41:07 2006 From: maaaronb at msn.com (Marc Butler) Date: Wed May 3 00:17:15 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Article 7 Substitute Motion Message-ID: I am attaching my Article 7 proposed substitute motion (as as .DOC and as a .PDF) This is my attempt to alleviate the concerns raised buring the debate/discussion on Monday. I intend to move to postpone consideration to May 8 so everyone has time to read the substitute and I can also get comment from Town Counsel. I also include the plain text version below -- Marc Butler Pct 19 Article 7 Bylaw Amendment / Control of Storm water Quality and Quantity VOTED: That a new Article 13 “Storm water Management” be added to Title V Regulations on the use of Private Property to provide as follows: Article 13 Storm water Management Section1. Purpose The bylaw supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit program, and is designed to result in the protection of water resources. The goals of the NPDES program and this bylaw are to reduce the amount of storm water runoff, to improve the quality of storm water runoff that does occur, and to reduce flooding. The purpose of this bylaw is to protect, maintain and enhance the public health, safety, environment and general welfare by establishing a standard of practice which will ensure that soil erosion and sedimentation control measures and storm water runoff control practices are incorporated into the site planning and design process and are implemented and maintained, Such efforts will control the adverse effects of post-development storm water runoff and non-point source pollution associated with new developments and redevelopment. To accomplish these ends, all land development activities shall maintain the after-development runoff rate so that it will be equal to or less than the pre-development runoff rate. Application of recognized and accepted Best Management Practices for storm water control are encouraged, as well as practices of “low impact development,” such as reduction of impervious cover and preservation of green space and natural areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Small but important improvements in reducing storm water runoff problems can be achieved by individual homeowners and small project designers. These include, but are not limited to, these examples: 1. Minimum land clearing; 2. Protection and maintenance of vegetative buffers; 3. Pervious paving systems for driveways and parking areas (such as Ecopavers or plastic grids that hold soil in the voids and can be planted as lawn, but withstand vehicle traffic); 4. Rain barrels attached to downspouts for use in landscape watering; 5. Trench drains and drywells; 6. Raingardens planted with native plants that are “thirsty” – such as blueberries, red-twig dogwood, or pussy willow. Section 2 Terms and Definitions Best Management Practices -- The most effective and feasible methods that accomplish the goal; they may be structures or technologies used to manage or treat water (such as leaching catch basins or detention ponds), or behavioral practice (such as use of integrated pest management or low phosphorus fertilizers) which will prevent or reduce the discharge of pollution or the rate of discharge. Building footprint -- The outline of the total area covered by a building’s perimeter at the ground level. Rate (of runoff) -- Measured as cubic feet per second (cfs) – the flow of runoff reflected in speed and volume Runoff -- Rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface. Storm water -- Storm water, snow melt; the flow of water which results from precipitation and which occurs following rainfall or snowmelt. Section 3. Applicability This bylaw is applicable to the following development or redevelopment. A. All new development resulting in a structure where the building footprint exceeds 1,750 square feet; or B. Development activity resulting in an increase to the impermeable area of a lot by more than 350 square feet – such as, but not limited to, additions, roads, parking area or driveway, pool, play areas – such as for playing basketball or tennis, accessory structures which are subordinate to and detached from the principle building on a lot. Section 4 Standards No application may propose an increase in the rate of surface water runoff. The short-term goal of this program is to prevent increases in storm water runoff; the long-term goal is to decrease the amount of storm water runoff. These goals can be addressed by integrating storm water runoff controls into new development plans; and introducing runoff reduction measures, to the extent feasible, at locations where changes are proposed within existing development. A. Where new construction results in a structure with total footprint square footage in excess of 1,750 square feet, the total rate of post-construction discharge must be reduced by 30%-50% from the pre-application level. A waiver requesting a lesser reduction may be requested from the Engineering Division; see Section 5 BG., below. B. In areas subject to flooding as indicated on the Town’s Wetland and Flood Plain Map and on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (as periodically updated and amended), the Engineering Division may require the applicant to reduce the rate of runoff to a level reflective of site constraints, up to 50% of the pre-application level. A waiver may be requested from the Engineering Division; see Section 5, below. C. Where development activity results in an increase of the impermeable area of a lot by more than 350 square feet, the total post construction discharge must be reduced by 30% - 50% for discharge originating within the confines of said lot. Discharge which originates from other land surface must be reduced by 10% - 30%. Section 5 Procedure A. Application: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any activity subject to this bylaw, a grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division, consistent with the specifications to be established by the Arlington Department of Public Works. A fee of $25.00 per hour shall be established to cover the costs of review of the plan. Said fee not to exceed 10% of the cost of the project for projects otherwise costing up to $3,000; 5% for projects otherwise costing $3001 --$10,000; and 2% for projects otherwise costing over $10,000. B. Review: The Engineering Division will review the application, and within 14 days approve, approve subject to conditions, or approve with modifications, or reject the plan. The applicant may request a waiver when strict adherence to this bylaw can be shown to constitute significant hardship due to unique topologic aspects of the site or due to extraordinary fiscal hardship. A waiver may be granted by the Director of Public Works, after consultation with the Town Engineer. Further relief from the decision of the Director of Public Works may be sought from the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals, who shall make a de novo determination after a hearing on the merits. C. Prior to project completion the Town Engineer or his representative shall determine if there has been compliance with the storm water plan; if found to be not in compliance, the applicant will be notified of remaining work to be done; if found to be in compliance, a certificate of completion will be issued. Section 6 Responsibility for Administration A. The Town of Arlington Engineering Division, subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and Town Manager, shall establish administrative procedures for the review and approval of storm water management plans, and fo long-term follow up which will include provisions to ensure there is an adequate funding mechanism for proper review, inspection and maintenance of storm water facilities implemented as part of this bylaw. Failure to promulgate rules and regulations will not have the effect of suspending or invalidating this bylaw. B. The Engineering Department will utilize the policy, criteria, and information, including specifications and standards, of the latest edition of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s revised Surface Water Discharge Permit Regulations at 314 CMR 3.06(11)(b)5 Storm Water Management Policy for execution of the provisions of this bylaw. This policy includes a list of acceptable storm water treatment practices, including the specific design criteria for each storm water practice. The policy may be updated and expanded periodically, based on improvements in engineering, science, monitoring, and local maintenance experience. _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Article 7 Substitute Motion.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28594 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060502/8050d1a9/Article7SubstituteMotion.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Article 7 Bylaw Amendment.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59392 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060502/8050d1a9/Article7BylawAmendment.doc From loretic at BATTELLE.ORG Wed May 3 15:21:35 2006 From: loretic at BATTELLE.ORG (Loreti, Christopher P) Date: Wed May 3 15:56:40 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Information and Amendments on Article 28 Message-ID: <84BDB1FCF2AD1F48A6782BAF861668E772DC10@WS-BCO-MSE4.milky-way.battelle.org> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Deferral Info and Amendments.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73728 bytes Desc: Deferral Info and Amendments.doc Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060503/335bb9e8/DeferralInfoandAmendments.doc From loretic at BATTELLE.ORG Thu May 4 10:14:55 2006 From: loretic at BATTELLE.ORG (Loreti, Christopher P) Date: Thu May 4 11:14:37 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Help Wanted on Article 28 Message-ID: <84BDB1FCF2AD1F48A6782BAF861668E7776135@WS-BCO-MSE4.milky-way.battelle.org> To the Town Meeting Members on this List: I have two amendments I would like to offer on the latest Selectmen's vote on Article 28 related to the senior property tax deferral (loan) program. (Please see the Selectmen's Supplemental Report, which was distributed last night.) Unfortunately, I will be out of town next week, and won't be able to introduce them at Town Meeting. I am sending this message to see if any of you would be interested in introducing these amendments in my absence, thus allowing them to be debated on the floor. The two amendments would do the following: 1. Set the income limit for eligibility at $40,000. The Selectmen's current vote is for $30,000. My amendment would return it to $40,000, as the Selectmen had recommended in their original vote. 2. Change the interest rate that the Town charges on the deferred amount from the fixed, 6% rate in the Selectmen's current vote, to a variable rate. (I understand the Finance Committee voted last night to propose a variable rate as well, one with a floor that would never allow the rate to go below 6%.) Please note that these amendments apply only to part (a) of the revised Selectmen's vote on Article 28, and not to the new part (b), which was just added to the vote. Part (b) deals specifically with property tax exemptions (reductions) and is completely unrelated to the deferral program in part (a). If you are interested in submitting one or both of these amendments, please contact me by reply email, or give me a call at 781-869-1419 (work) or 781-641-2578 (home) before Sunday. I'll be happy to fill you in on the details, and provide you with the rationale for these amendments and the text for them. Thanks, Chris Loreti TMM, Precinct 7 Information contained in this communication may include confidential, privileged, proprietary or business sensitive information. Unauthorized use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any unauthorized disclosure, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this document is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060504/0340c455/attachment.html From jdleonetm at yahoo.com Sat May 6 22:35:31 2006 From: jdleonetm at yahoo.com (john leone) Date: Sat May 6 23:03:37 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Warrent article 20 substitute motion Message-ID: <20060507023531.43102.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WarrantArticle20 substitute motion.doc Type: application/msword Size: 19456 bytes Desc: 3411409495-WarrantArticle20 substitute motion.doc Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060506/e3e4014e/WarrantArticle20substitutemotion.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WarrantArticle20-TMBriefing.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: 447259836-WarrantArticle20-TMBriefing.doc Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060506/e3e4014e/WarrantArticle20-TMBriefing.doc From pbworden at comcast.net Sun May 7 22:54:05 2006 From: pbworden at comcast.net (pbworden@comcast.net) Date: Sun May 7 23:33:24 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Amendment for Town Meeting Message-ID: <050820060254.23293.445EB2CD000ADC1700005AFD2200735834020A0B9D01990D9F@comcast.net> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/msword Size: 19968 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060508/2f222b57/attachment.dot From jones at carr-jones.com Mon May 8 11:04:41 2006 From: jones at carr-jones.com (Alan Jones) Date: Mon May 8 11:12:06 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] 55 Venner Rd info pack Message-ID: <905E6AFAB5E63247ABFEDC62ADC602810346A4@cji-srvr1.carr-jones.local> Here is an info packet with assessor's data, lot lines, and a photo of the properties. Note that there are apparently two parcels involved, same owner, one classified as an unbuildable lot. -- Alan ------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Harper Jones, Carr-Jones, Inc. jones@carr-jones.com, 781-820-0306 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 55venner.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1182201 bytes Desc: 55venner.pdf Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060508/b2c09fe9/55venner.obj From rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us Tue May 9 10:56:00 2006 From: rlcarr at animato.arlington.ma.us (Rich Carreiro) Date: Tue May 9 10:56:01 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Update on Marie Krepelka Message-ID: Ms. Mahon asked me to pass this along. While not strictly related to TM business, Marie is known to many TMMs and in light of the ovation we all gave her the first night of this year's annual meeting, I felt people would be interested in knowing: > Please know that Marie had surgery yesterday, the doctor feels that > the surgery went well, however, what should have been day surgery > turned into them keeping Marie overnight because she had difficulty > breathing and as a result she's on oxygen. We have no idea of > when she'll be home and we'll keep you updated. > > Unfortunately, Marie's mother passed away early this morning. > Funeral arrangements have been delayed until Marie's discharge. -- Rich Carreiro rlcarr@animato.arlington.ma.us From pbworden at comcast.net Wed May 10 00:32:14 2006 From: pbworden at comcast.net (pbworden@comcast.net) Date: Wed May 10 08:59:31 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] proposedsubstitute motion Article 20 Message-ID: <051020060432.25863.44616CCD000BE2D8000065072200761064020A0B9D01990D9F@comcast.net> Proposed Substitute Motion: Article 20 Easement/55 Venner Road I, Patricia B. Worden, do hereby submit the following SUBSTITUTE Motion VOTED: That the Town hereby votes to abandon the easement for side lines at 55 Venner Road, Arlington, MA. (as taken and established on April 6, 1942 and recorded at Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Book 6591, Page 1) if and only if the following condition is applied: Prior to the recording of said abandonment, the Owner shall grant to the Town, or to a charitable corporation empowered to hold such restrictions, a conservation easement in perpetuity, or for the maximum allowable period, for the area defined by the side lines but excluding therefrom sufficient area to enable changes necessary for universal accessibility for the existing house; said area to be so excluded to be determined by the Arlington Redevelopment Board. __________________________ Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8 May ___, 2006 Article 20 concerning release of any Town easement at 55 Venner Road raises the specter of a development of two or three McMansions at that address as was the case at the corner of Gray and Scituate Streets. The difference is that the Town can refuse to release the easement at Venner Road and thus protect the site and the neighborhood from this fate. The neighbors of whom I asked advice about this matter were completely unaware of the attempt being made to remove the restriction and permit building. They are very anxious about it and hopeful that Town Meeting will protect the area and keep it as they thought it would be when they purchased their homes. It has been suggested that the family could avail itself of a reverse mortgage or move to a more appropriate home nearby rather than despoil the land and lose another lovely lot and yard for children. It was suggested at the BOS meeting of Monday, May 8 that a Conservation Restriction on at least part of the land be considered a way to resolve the problem. Clarissa Rowe then made the incorrect statement that a conservation restriction on a lot of that size could not be done and the only one she knew of was a lot of one quarter acre in Stoneham. Perhaps she had a memory lapse because she and I have talked several times about the conservation restriction that my husband and I placed on a building lot right on her street – Brantwood Road. That restriction is to prevent any building on the lot which is to be kept open in perpetuity. Current rules would permit such restrictions for 30 years. It’s very important that the Town moves to protect the site and the Town’s interest in it because it is clear from a letter which Ms. Long, the daughter of the owners of 55 Venner Road, released to Town Meeting members on Sunday that the attorney representing the family is from the office which represented the Winchester developer, Michael Collins who did the McMansion development at the corner of Gray and Scituate Streets and other unfortunate development situations. The Town got short-changed on release of a repurchase covenant at the request of this developer’s team at their Water Street Site. Indeed as an argument in favor of releasing restriction at Venner Road Ms. Long refers to the release of building lines on Massachusetts Avenue to allow development under Article 16 of 2004 as setting precedent favoring release at Venner Road. However, the only precedent that vote set was of a scam perpetrated on the Town – a “bait and switch” operation whereby the BOS and the Tow n Meet ing voted affirmatively for the Article having been told that if they passed the article the historic Atwood house would be moved to one of the two sites (and also that some affordable units would be supplied). However, after the article was passed the developer simply reneged on that commitment and the Town did not gain any of the promised benefits. The Town Counsel and ARB had not secured adequate written protection. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060510/73bc42ab/attachment.html From loretic at BATTELLE.ORG Thu May 11 13:31:18 2006 From: loretic at BATTELLE.ORG (Loreti, Christopher P) Date: Thu May 11 14:02:10 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Article 20/55 Venner Road Information Message-ID: <84BDB1FCF2AD1F48A6782BAF861668E782B733@WS-BCO-MSE4.milky-way.battelle.org> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PAPERSTREETSArticle.doc Type: application/msword Size: 79872 bytes Desc: PAPERSTREETSArticle.doc Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060511/e363d92e/PAPERSTREETSArticle.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sketches.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 268866 bytes Desc: Sketches.pdf Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060511/e363d92e/Sketches.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CLEAN-EasementSeminarQuestions(5).doc Type: application/msword Size: 136704 bytes Desc: CLEAN-EasementSeminarQuestions(5).doc Url : http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060511/e363d92e/CLEAN-EasementSeminarQuestions5.doc From KazChaz at aol.com Thu May 11 15:53:00 2006 From: KazChaz at aol.com (KazChaz@aol.com) Date: Thu May 11 15:57:15 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] Article 20/55 Venner Road Information Message-ID: <3e9.2186ca0.3194f01c@aol.com> I read the materials posted by Mr. Loretti. They are interesting, but don't really have much applicability to the Venner Road situation. The following is what I have unearthed so far. I understand that the rules of this list prohibit advocacy, so I will simply set forth what I have learned. Under MGLc 41sec 80, the town can establish exterior lines for (the future widening of) a road "and thereafter no structure shall be erected or maintained between the exterior lines of the way so established.... Lines established under this section may be discontinued in the manner provided for the discontinuance of a highway or a town way" . That discontinuance is governed by MGLc 82 sec 21, which stands for the proposition that only TM can discontinue a road, or, if I'm reading correctly the case of Mahan v. Rockport, 287 Mass 34 (1934), the unused exterior lines drawn for the road. When the exterior lines established by the town cause damages to the owner of the property on which the lines have been drawn, the owner is entitled to damages, by operation of MGLc 41sec 81, which states in pertinent part: Any person injured in his property as aforesaid or by the establishment or discontinuance of exterior lines under section eighty may recover the damages so caused under chapter seventy-nine..... Thus I surmise that what happened those decades ago is that the town by drawing an exterior line on the Venner property that forbade building within the line drawn, were deemed by statute as applicable to the facts of the case to have caused damages to the owner, and thus was required to pay to the owner as compensation for his damages the amount of $2,000.00. In no sense can that be seen as an "investment" by the town. The town now no longer requires the right to widen the road. However, on the formal legal side the positions remain somewhat murky. This does have similarities to an easement, and it cannot be said that a court would not analyze a challenge to an adverse action here in the same way it looks at easements. Under the "abandonment of purpose doctrine", it's safe to say that if what the town owns is determined to be in effect a road-widening easement, that eaement will be judicially extinguished. Moreover, as I learned from what the town mamager wrote in yesterday's handout, the town itself in its order of taking back in 1942 referred to what it took as an easement, even though, under the statutory scheme referred to above, it was not necessary to do so. Common sense suggests that a reasonable negotiated resolution is in everybody's best interest. Anyone who wishes to learn more about how all of this seems to work should feel free to contact me. Chuck Kazarian Precinct 6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060511/b480de55/attachment.html From KazChaz at aol.com Thu May 11 22:20:00 2006 From: KazChaz at aol.com (KazChaz@aol.com) Date: Thu May 11 22:22:05 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Town Meeting] Article 20/55 Venner Road Information Message-ID: <431.aba9b7.31954ad0@aol.com> A number of folks asked related questions, so I'm replying to the whole list, with apologies for not answering each question. I There are many ways an easement can arise on your property, and as many ways that same easement can become extinguished over time. There is a huge body of complex law with regard to the creation and dissolution of easements. However, when a town draws exterior lines that go through your land, there is nothing in the statutory framework for doing so that describes those actions as the creation of an easement. They are what they are: exterior lines up to which a road can be widened. It is by the words of the statute, not by creation of a common law easement, that the owner of the land affected by the line is prevented from building. The statutes that allow this also allow for the erasure of the lines by vote of town meeting. No vote of town meeting is needed to extinguish an easement. To me, a complicating factor is that, God knows why, the Town seems to have in 1942 issued an Order of Taking, in which they describe what they took as an easement, without any necessity for describing it that way. So if the town took an easement, would a court see the exterior lines as a common law easement? If so, would the doctrine of "abandonment of purpose" apply, and result in a ruling that the lines are no longer valid? There are lots of paid-for easements that have become extinguished over time, so the mere fact that the towm paid for it 60 years ago is probably not relevant. As to whether the abutters have any rights to damages arising from abandonment of the exterior lines, I can find no case on it. The measure of damages would probably be the diminution of value in the land, same as a Chapter 79 taking. To me it seems unlikely that any recovery would be had, because the "convenience" damages (loss of what? open space, sight lines?) are not cognizable under any legal theory I can determine, except as they might diminish value. How would they prove their homes are less valuable just because the exterior lines were abandoned, and another home was built nearby? If would be different if abandonment of the exterior lines meant they could no longer get to their homes, couldn't get municipal services delivered, lost the use of a piece of their land, etc. Anyway, I'm done for now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060511/90264c41/attachment.htm From jdleonetm at yahoo.com Fri May 12 17:07:37 2006 From: jdleonetm at yahoo.com (john leone) Date: Fri May 12 17:17:10 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] 55 Venner Rd. location. Message-ID: <20060512210737.15707.qmail@web33313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi. The attached link to Google maps, will bring up a map showing the location of 55 Venner Rd., Arlington, Ma., for the enlightenment of the TM members. For some reason, Google knows the address as 23 Spring St., which in reality it should be the locationof the house. It's the house with the dot pointer. You have to copy and paste into browser address bar. http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=23+spring+st,+Arlington,+MA+02476&ll=42.407428,-71.166375&spn=0.001026,0.002682&t=h&om=1 John D. Leone, Precinct 8. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060512/047b0432/attachment.html From dgagnon at rcn.com Sun May 14 20:15:03 2006 From: dgagnon at rcn.com (DJG) Date: Sun May 14 20:20:27 2006 Subject: [Town Meeting] 55 Venner Rd. location. References: <20060512210737.15707.qmail@web33313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01c677b4$9dcb41c0$1e477392@cable.rcn.com> Well after reading and observing over the past two weeks I must say this has become a hot and contentious issue. I am providing the following without regard to suggesting a position, rather I intend for this to be factual and objective based on the facts at hand. I hope to be heard at the next TM to voice my opinion. As a licensed Real Estate Broker and Commercial Appraiser I think I should weigh in an a couple points of clarification and facts.I only hope my professional experience can shed some light on the reality of this issue and in clarifying certain prior opinions stated which are somewhat factually inaccurate. First of all, single family real estate is owned primarily in fee simple ownership meaning an absolute ownership. However, this absolute ownership by definition is subject to such things as taxation, escheat and eminent domain. The bundle of rights inclusive in fee ownership are always to be subject to these 3 items. It is iinaccurate to claim that because someone has their name on a deed means they have absolute right to that property, especially with eminent domain. The case before us at 55 Venner Road was subject of eminent domain. The concept of eminent domain includes "just compensation" to a fee owner when land is taken or encumbered by an easement and results in a dimunition in value. As has been factually submitted, the fee owner of this property was "justly compensated" for the eminent domain taking for easement purposes back in the 1940's. The fact that the deed is still in the homeowner's name is not unusual. In fact, it is rare if ever, that a governmental authority exercising eminent domain for easement purposes will take title to the land. It just does not happen. Other more common easements in this area would include a water/sewer line easement. While an exception might exist, it is safe to say a municipality never takes title to land for easement purposes. Which brings us to this issue. The concept of "just compensation" is a key ingredient in this issue. This is common law established throughout the US so as to prevent a governmental authority from coming in and taking possession of land, ie land grabbing, without recognizing the fee owner and its value. This was the case with this property. In contrast when an easement is vacated, it is also common that if a significant value is created that the governmental authority vacating such easement is justifed to receive "just compensation" for the creatrion of value in vacating such easement. Again, this is common law and is standard practice throughout the US. One issue came up regarding the vacating of a 10 foot easement for the Banknorth branch bank site on Mass. Ave. In this case, it would not result in an increase in value. Being a commercial site, having a 10 foot wide strip of land in front of the building would not increase value and in fact the vacating of that piece of land created a situation where the public good was served in that the building was able to be located further away from the residences behind it. But be certain that it did not create any additional value as a commercial site. The site could just as easily have been developed as it is now. The difference being that the vacating of the easement allowed the positioning of the building further from tthe adjacent single family homes. I have appraised sites along Mass Ave in Arlington. This easement to be sure did not create value by vacating a 10 foot strip of land. The situation at 55 Venner road is complettely different. According to the Zoning Bylaws of Arlington, in an R-1 zoning district which this property is within, there is a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Thus, a site which has a minimum site size of 18,000 square feet is able to be subdivided "By Right" and be developed with three single family homes. As it has been noted, two homes may be built on this site if the easement were to be vacated. Be certain that three homes can be built "By Right" if this easement is vacated due to the site size exceeding 18,000 square feet. This is what happened at Gray Street at the corner of Scituate Street. "By Right" implies that it meets zoning requirements and there is really no way to prevent a land owner from doing such development, it is "By Right" per the Zoning Bylaws. As this relates to this situation, the vacating of the paper road lines would thus create a site area exceeding 18,000 square feet. This in turn could be regarded as something similar to an assemblage, which is the assembling of two or more lots to create single ownership in a larger lot. What this would do would resemble the opposite of an eminent domain taking. This in essence would be a way of creating value. And in Arlington, an average 6,000 square foot single family lot is worth approximately $350,000 to $400,000 if not more. Therefore, there is little doubt that if this lot all of a sudden became a developable site allowing 3 single family homes it would be highly desirable and have an increased value of $700,000 to $800,000. >From an appraisal standpoint the question would be with this creation of value to whom this value flows to: The fee owner, the Town or both. This is something that would require significant research and observance of market activity. Nevertheless, it is clear based on my experience that by vacating the paper road lines, significant value is created and in my experience a portion of the value would flow to both the fee owner as well as the Town. The Selectman's substitute motion which in part suggests that an appraisal be performed and that the fee owner pay 50% of the value demonstrates to me they have an objective understanding of this appraisal problem. It is clear they did some homework on this issue and understand that there is in fact value created and that this value flows to both the fee owner and the Town. While this ratio can be debated and analyzed, the outline of the motion stating a 50% payment of the appraised value appears to be reasonable under these circumstances. In summation, I think this issue clearly goes way beyond just allowing the current homeowners the ability to accommodate their living circumstance. In talking with the few I have, there is probably little resistance as to whether or not to allow the current owners to be accommodated. The most significant issue before Us as I see it is that by vacating these paper lines a significant enhancement in value is created and for the Town to simply not expect "just compensation" really flies in the face of precedent set across the country as a common practice in easements being vacated. As a Town Member acting in the best interest of the Town and in these times of ever increasing pressure on budgets, it would seem derilict for the Town to not act prudently as it represents the Tax Payers of this Town. I look forward to further discussion of this issue and hope for an amicable resolution to this complex problem. David Gagnon Precinct 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060514/01be8da8/attachment.html