2012 Session #3, Monday April 30th, Article 8, The Amendments

Two separate amendments were offered on Article 8. Both were intended as "Poison Pills," meant to make the original article unattractive and therefore not worth the proponents efforts to pass it. The first read:

in part b, 6, by striking out the words "at the time of the Special Permit application" and inserting in place thereof the words "on January 1, 2012" in part c, 3, by adding at the end thereof the words "and that at least one of the owners is 65 years of age or older, or disabled." in part c, 4, by inserting, after "he or she" in the sixth line, the words "is 65 years of age or older, or disabled and" and adding, at the end of said paragraph the words "otherwise the permit shall lapse, and the accessory unit shall be merged with and become a part of the principal unit, the kitchen being removed." in part c, by adding a new sub-paragraph 5 as follows: 5. An accessory apartment may also be permitted to provide an accommodation for an elderly person related by blood or marriage to one or more of the owners, but such permit shall lapse and the accessory unit shall be merged with and become a part of the principal unit, the kitchen being removed, when the elderly person dies or vacates the unit.

This amendment would have restricted the occupation of any accessory apartments to people 65 or older, or disabled, and to a blood relative or spouse of one of the owners. It was not made clear, but questioned whether this would have been legal under non-discrimination laws. I voted against this amendment. The second amendment I found more interesting. Still meant to discourage the passage of the original article, it read:

The other unit must be rented at no more than an affordable price as defined in Article 11, Section 11.08.

Outside of Town Meeting I did a fair amount of searching, and asked a lot of people questions about what an "affordable price" would be. The referenced Town Bylaw reads:

Rental Units priced such that the rent (including utilities) shall not exceed 30% of the income of a household at 60% of median income;

After collecting different answers from different sources, I determined that the current affordable price would be $965 for a studio or $1,103 for a one bedroom on the low end, and $1,467 per month on the high end. Since these accessory apartments are defined with a maximum size of 700 square feet, I believe the affordable price defined by the amendment is more than sufficient. The standard size of a first-floor apartment in my neighborhood of East Arlington is roughly 1,100 square feet. The average rent in our area as best I can determine is roughly $1,400 per month. Going just by the cost per square foot, a rent of $891 would be appropriate for a 700 square foot apartment. I voted in favor of this amendment. The idea that this was meant to discourage passage of this Article highlights the need, in my opinion, for a much more robust understanding on the part of Town Leaders of the need for more affordable housing in Arlington.