Arlington Heights Business District Rezoning: Will Our Planning Department Heed Resident Input and Prioritize the Town’s Fiscal Health This Time?

• What, When, Where, and Why?
• Heights Business District Rezoning, Act One: Flashback to 2018
• So, How Did MAPC Spin the Results?
• Heights Business District Rezoning: Act Two: What Did 1,239 Heights Residents Ask For in Spring of 2025?
• So What Will the Town Propose Next, and What Can Residents Do to be Heard?

What, When, Where, and Why? 

Arlington is embarking on plans to redevelop its three main Business Districts: in Arlington Heights, Arlington Center, and East Arlington. This in addition to overseeing all MBTA Act proposals for buildings now allowed to be 4-6 stories high, by right, along stretches of Mass Ave and Broadway, and 3 stories on the side streets off those thoroughfares. 

Ostensibly, the aim is to revitalize our business areas, making it more attractive for residents to shop and work in Town. If done carelessly, though, these plans could do nothing to move the needle when it comes to increasing commercial space - and commercial tax revenue as a share of all revenue - in Arlington. In fact, this could simply eke out a "no net loss of business” disguised as victory, and at great cost: higher taxes, more traffic, reduced pedestrian safety, fewer trees and green space, a wall of buildings on our sidewalks, and less sunlight.

The Heights is the first business district up for rezoning, so it is essential that all residents follow the process carefully to ensure the Town zones this three-quarter-mile-long stretch so as to reflect residents’ wishes and the Town’s fiscal needs. (For background information on Arlington's fiscal problems as the thirteenth most densely populated municipality in Massachusetts, with a near total lack of a commercial base to alleviate rising valuations and taxes, see ARFRR’s September blog post, "Stepping Up or Stepping Into the Abyss?"). 

Prior attempts at rezoning the Heights have, to put it bluntly, been marred by outright state interference. Resident oversight is badly needed to prevent continued interference as planning for the area picks up steam.

In this post, we review how the 2018 process to rezone Arlington Heights was hijacked by the state’s Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which had been hired to conduct an economic analysis of the neighborhood. We also illustrate how the Planning Department seems intent upon overriding the latest round of public feedback once more in order to push plans that fail to reflect the public input they have received.

Given pressure from the state to prioritize housing over what Arlington needs to right its ship - commercial tax revenue - the Planning Department and the Arlington Redevelopment Board have been moving to eliminate zoning rules that make Arlington what residents say they want and love - a Town with a touch of urbanity. In turn, they have targeted front and side setbacks that provide breathing space between buildings and people, and redefined rooftops and balconies as “open space.” 

The reason they have pushed these changes is clear: Lacking buildable land, they seek to eliminate Arlington’s pockets of gaps and greenery to create buildings large enough to hold a bit of commercial space on the ground floor while prioritizing infrastructure for as many residential units as possible above. (This infrastructure often takes up more than 50% of the ground floor.) 

Heights Business District Rezoning, Act One: Flashback to 2018

In 2018, Arlington set up an all-volunteer Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Implementation Committee while the Town’s Planning Department simultaneously hired a state entity (MAPC) as consultant. They held community forums to ask residents what they would like a consolidated business district in the Heights to look and feel like, with said forums “facilitated” by the state entity.

The summary shows that most residents voiced a preference for “village style” architecture of no more than three stories and more open space for community gatherings. 

So, How Did MAPC Spin the Results?

In a tone-deaf move, the proposal crafted by MAPC called for heights of up to 5 stories for all parcels in the re-zoned district, further restricted open space by allowing the requirement to be met in part by balconies and rooftops, and provided no thoughts on how adherence to design standards would be enforced.

Additionally, it was suggested Gold’s Gym and surrounding businesses be rezoned from Industrial to Planned Unit Development, allowing buildings up to 65 feet high, despite the recommendation of our existing Design Standards to keep heights along the bike path to 3 and 4 stories, “to discourage excessively large building heights in close proximity to the Bikeway.”

It is worth noting the redevelopment incentivized by this rezoning would displace tenants in the apartments above businesses now. These units tend to rent for lower rates, and currently serve as existing attainable housing. A variety of housing plans for Arlington recommend preserving existing “naturally occurring” affordable housing.

MAPC’s report was entitled, “Arlington Heights Business District Rezoning Recommendations.” The residents’ survey was folded into a longer report, which opined, remarkably, that Arlington Heights could support an astonishing 84 more shops, including 18 more restaurants, 18 more clothing stores, 6 more hardware stores, 7 “other” retail, 3 home furnishing stores, 3 office supply stores, and 3 electronics stores: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46654/636942124172100000 

In order to accomplish these grandiose ambitions while prioritizing mixed use buildings that are largely residential, it called for buildings that would be 3 stories tall “by right,” and 5 stories by Special Permit, instead of the 3 story maximum that residents said they wanted. Furthermore, they called for zero setbacks from the sidewalk, and zero space between buildings, along a three-quarter-mile corridor representing a consolidation of the five business districts in the Heights now. 

Then a curious thing happened. The MAPC report was abruptly relabeled “Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan” and in one swoop the Planning Department moved to adopt a plan that contradicted a survey of residents, that residents themselves had paid for, with the state as hired hands:

Heights Business District Rezoning, Act Two: What Did 1,239 Heights Residents Say in Spring of 2025?

The MAPC written “Recommendation/Action Plan” gathered dust during the COVID pandemic until the fall of 2024, when the Planning Department moved to re-do the survey in response to feedback at a community re-engagement event. A survey was created, circulated, and the results publicized in March of 2025. 

This time, the largest share of respondents said they would like to see 2-story buildings, and repeated that they would like more open space for public events. https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74658/638853494163770000

The overwhelming majority of respondents stated that increased business opportunities are the most important priority for the Heights. In fact, the lowest weighted importance was accorded to housing creation in this district, and housing creation here received even lower priority than “Other,” which encompassed a variety of free-form replies. While 76.7% of respondents ranked local business as of the highest importance, only 32.5% of respondents considered mixed use development as "very important" for the town. 

Residents have seen how mixed use projects in Arlington to date lead to a reduction in the number of commercial tenants, as when 882 Mass Ave lost 75% of its commercial space, and 190-200 Mass Ave is set to lose 51% of commercial space, due to mixed use.

Elsewhere, we see that green space, housing, and more public parking are listed in descending order after businesses, albeit from a list of pre-ordained choices. 

Most people indicated they are generally satisfied with the selection of businesses in the Heights, as the Heights has gained beloved mainstays since 2019, including Roasted Granola, the Heights Pub, and Home Taste. The fear that we could lose treasured businesses was palpable at the community reengagement session. 

Residents listed pedestrian safety as the most critical issue and asked for additional parking (one of the top two “missing elements” listed, after a post office). Most of all, residents stated that they prize the “small town feel” of the Heights: 

They also said that what sets the Heights apart is that it is “quaintly historic, closer to nature, and offers beautiful views”: 

So What Will the Town Propose Next, and What Can Residents Do to be Heard?

It seems that 2-story buildings with a multi-floor commercial component would satisfy residents’ desire for buildings that preserve the small town feel the area is known for. We have an opportunity to rezone this area, guided by the expressed wishes of residents, the Town’s most critical needs, and its Design Guidelines. Will our Planning Department respect those wishes, or impose further transformative changes here, as with MBTA Act rezoning and the possibility of a town-wide Affordable Housing Overlay allowing more large apartment complexes in more places?

In their newly proposed map, Planning has moved the boundary of the proposed Business District to the west by one block and removed the Industrial area where Gold’s Gym sits from the zone.

However, they have also added all of the residential parcels that abut parcels on Mass Ave. to this new overlay. Of course, they have yet to say whether they will follow the public’s lead and propose two-story buildings that are mostly commercial. We should be able to prioritize gaps and greenery that provide the Heights with the small town feel residents say they cherish. If the Planning Department aims to push zoning allowing buildings to be taller than two stories, and closer, with no side or front setbacks, then they will have blatantly disregarded residents’ wishes again.   

Watchful oversight of the process, rather than forms of “engagement” that are repeatedly disregarded by the Town, is necessary now more than ever.  It is the only way to right the ship and help the Town regain some of the trust that they have lost.

The latest Survey Summary ends with a cryptic statement suggesting that they hope to jettison residents’ wishes and our fiscal needs in favor of the MAPC wish list:

        “The Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Implementation Committee will use the community response data provided through the survey to conceptualize a vision of what residents think Arlington Heights could look like in the future. This concept will then be brought back to the public for comment and revision. 

           After a unified vision has been vetted by the community, the Committee will return to the recommended actions as stated in the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Action Plan (2019) by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council which included recommendations related to zoning, design standards, parking, wayfinding, streetscape improvements, placemaking at the MBTA-owned Arlington Heights Busway, and other local regulations with the goal of identifying how the corridor could reach its full potential to accommodate additional business opportunities and housing units, including mixed-use developments….” 

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
See the calendar of in-person and Zoom meetings regarding this large rezoning project here: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/town-governance/boards-and-committees/heights-neighborhood-action-plan-implementation/agendas-minutes Also, please attend and/or write letters to the Planning Department, the SelectBoard, and Town Meeting Members telling them to heed residents’ wishes this time: https://sites.google.com/view/arfrr/calendar-contacts

Very First Project Proposed for Broadway Using MBTA Act Bonuses Most Likely Violates The Bylaw on MBTA Act Bonuses

In a potentially precedent-setting case, the first project seeking bonuses under the MBTA Act provisions of our Zoning Bylaw contains fewer Affordable units than required by the Bylaw itself. Nonetheless, the Arlington Redevelopment Board has indicated it is poised to allow developers a fifth floor bonus in contradiction to the Bylaw, based upon a novel “interpretation” of the Bylaw. This would open the door to future rule-bending in all projects built in the town’s MBTA Act Overlay going forward.

On October 20th, ten members of the public, including abutters, voiced concerns about the project at 126 Broadway, which proposes a 5-story building made up of 14 units for a small lot where a 2-family now stands. (One more person liked the proposal and one was neutral). The project is in a residential neighborhood full of houses and low-rise apartments. Residents expressed concerns about the building’s size, its ugliness, the impact of cars parked on the street 24/7 (9 of 14 units would have no assigned parking), accessibility, snow and trash, pedestrian / student safety, and - most importantly - the legality of the project as proposed. If the ARB is allowed to let this project go forward despite the fact that it contains 3 affordable units when 4 are required under the provisions of our bylaw, then every development seeking MBTA Act “bonuses” in Arlington will demand a similar reduction in the number of affordable units required to gain a bonus floor or smaller setback.

Arlington’s Zoning Bylaws contain very specific wording in the specific section on bonuses to be earned under by-right development in the MBTA Act Overlay, which these developers opted to use instead of our traditional Inclusionary Zoning. Specifically, the requirement for a fifth floor bonus in the Mass Ave/Broadway Multifamily (MBMF) district in Section 5.9.4.E(2) of the Bylaw reads:

• (2) In the MBMF Overlay District, 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 (emphasis added).

This is the bylaw on bonuses that was presented to the public and voted into law by Town Meeting. Clearly, the words “at least” are baked into the requirements. Our Inclusionary Zoning bylaw (8.2.3) is mentioned only in that these requirements are to exceed those. A developer must adhere to either our MBTA Act regulations or our older Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Mixing and matching is not allowed.

At the previous ARB hearing on 126 Broadway, a member of the Board told the developers they had not met any of the requirements for either a bonus fifth floor or for a zero setback from the sidewalk. At the October meeting, all ARB members suddenly opined that the requirement for a fifth floor had been met (and they agreed on the zero setback bonus, despite debate amongst themselves on that decision). In doing so, the ARB is letting developers bend a carefully worded law. The law was crafted so that adding a fifth floor (NOTE: on Mass Ave, sixth floor bonuses will also be in play), or getting permission to extend tall buildings right up to the sidewalk, would require stringent concessions. To any reasonable person, “for a total of at least 22.5% of all units” means what it says. It sets a minimum threshold. This building proposes 3 affordable units out of 14, which is not “at least 22.5% of all units.” There is no rounding down from a minimum threshold.

This is the first project on a main street seeking to use relaxed MBTA Act zoning rules. Do not let unelected individuals on the ARB twist and weaken the few safeguards established to prevent developers from thwarting residents’ wishes and flouting our laws. Do not allow them to set a precedent whereby they will seek to ignore the affordable unit thresholds required to earn bonuses for every single project under MBTA Act zoning going forward based on cherry-picking from different sections of our laws. 

The NEXT HEARING on 126 BROADWAY is set for NOVEMBER 17th. Time is TBD. Please attend this meeting and ask the ARB to uphold our law as written and presented to our Town Meeting. Please also send letters to the ARB, the Planning Director, and the Town Manager, who appoints ARB Members, asking them to uphold the minimum threshold:  

ARB Members:

rzsembery@town.arlington.ma.us, EBenson@town.arlington.ma.us, KLau@town.arlington.ma.us, SKorman-Houston@town.arlington.ma.us srevilak@town.arlington.ma.us Planning Director: cricker@town.arlington.ma.us Town Manager: jfeeney@town.arlington.ma.us Project plans here: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74865/638961282453370000

Stepping Up, or Stepping Into the Abyss?: How Regional Pressures are Exacerbating Arlington's Fiscal Problems and Intensifying Gentrification

In discussions about Arlington’s role in easing the state’s housing crisis (more appropriately described as an affordability crisis), the town is time and again selectively compared to large cities such as Somerville and Cambridge. Sometimes even members of Arlington’s own Town government and Redevelopment Board make such misguided comparisons. 

This ought to give us pause and make us wonder how much those who represent Arlington in discussions about housing and development know about, or consider, how local conditions can sometimes be exacerbated by regional initiatives. Do our representatives plan comprehensively, or do they accept the knee-jerk idea that Arlington must somehow “step up” even if stepping up means stepping into a financial abyss that decreases economic diversity in town at the same time?

Including the state’s largest cities, Arlington has the thirteenth highest population density in all of Massachusetts. (This data is from the MassGIS Bureau of Geographic Information, which uses more generous measures for municipality’s square footage compared to the census itself: https://www.google.com/urlq=https://arcg.is/1iPST50&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1756738020315651&usg=AOvVaw3tRryqEFf5-3K-TP8rDqjW). Excluding water bodies, as the US census does, Arlington has 8,991.8 people, and 3,973 housing units, per square mile. 

Communities are being asked to step up to contribute to the alleviation of a regional housing shortage. So… What if our neighboring communities were to build out to the same density as Arlington? How many units would they have to create before they would match Arlington’s level of density, and how far would that go towards meeting the state's housing goals?

Remarkably, if the ten Greater Boston communities below were to build out to Arlington’s density, 241,164 new housing units would be built, which is enough to meet the state’s entire estimated demand (All of the data upon which the following analysis is based comes from the 2020 US census: https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDHC2020.P1?t=Populations+and+People&g=160XX00US2501640) 

What if we were to measure Arlington instead against the Town Manager Twelve, the dozen communities we usually turn to for comparative analysis? This group includes Brookline, Watertown, Medford, Melrose, Belmont, Stoneham, Winchester, Reading, Natick, Needham, and Milton. Of these towns, only Brookline and Watertown have slightly higher density than us, and the other nine have much lower density. If these communities were to achieve parity with Arlington, that would increase our regional housing stock by 201,642 units.

Within the Inner Core of twenty-one communities with which the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) lumps us, if Lynn, Medford, Quincy, Melrose, Belmont, Waltham, Newton, Saugus, Needham, and Milton were to build so as to match Arlington's density, they would add a full 216,632 housing units to the Greater Boston area.

Even within the Metro Mayors/ Coalition, made up entirely of cities, if Medford, Quincy, Melrose, Newton, and Braintree were to build to Arlington's density, they would add 108,325 housing units to the Greater Boston area.   

Our Town employees and unelected volunteers on the Arlington Redevelopment Board are supposed to consider local pressures alongside regional pressures. So how does our need for a healthy commercial tax base compare with that of our partners in the Metro Mayors’ Coalition? As a whole, the non-residential portion of all property taxes collected in the cities in the Metro Mayors’ Coalition is a whopping 44% ( This data is from the MA Department of Revenue Data’s Analytics and Resource Bureau for Fiscal Year 2025: https://dlsgw.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdpage.aspxrdreport=dashboard.trendanalysisreports.taxlevybyclass).  If we look at the MAPC Inner Core, with which we are also lumped, that grouping as a whole takes in 43% of their total revenue from non-residential taxes.

In Arlington, a puny 5.27% of our tax levy derives from commerce and industry. This situation results in frequent property tax overrides, with another looming deficit projected at $13.5 million for fiscal year 2027 (beginning in July 2026), and rising to $24.9 million by fiscal year 2029. (See Appendix D of Arlington Finance Committee’s Report to Town Meeting 2025: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/73684/638802179946530000)

With such uneven terrain beneath us, it seems prudent that residents ask who needs to “step up” such that new development does not cause the cost of living to skyrocket ever more rapidly in communities like Arlington. Planners working in concert with the state seem oblivious to the precipice ahead in their rush to create simplistic formulas that ignore our town’s financial problems and current density levels. Worse yet, their plans promise to be ineffective in lowering prices. The reality is that the town is in demand among higher-income newcomers, and it cannot support development without the destruction of perfectly good cheaper housing while also unleashing consequences that worsen the financial situation for many residents in tenuous straits already. 

One would expect regional planners to consider each town’s fiscal needs and constraints as they come up with plans to allocate density mandates. Alas, it appears they forgot to do such an analysis for the town of Arlington (or they simply choose to look away from the abyss?). Nor is our own planning department speaking up about our town’s unique constraints. If they were to serve the Town’s best interests, they would address Arlington’s lopsided finances as a crisis affecting the town’s fiscal viability, and recognize it as our most urgent priority. New development, including the mixed use projects that contain less commercial space than existed before, has done nothing but exacerbate Arlington’s fiscal problems.

Even if we can manage to fill the town with ever wealthier people to foot our rising property tax bills, this is hardly the inclusive community that residents have said they want. Loss of economic diversity within town boundaries as current residents continue to be forced out under the crushing weight of ever-rising assessments and taxes (affecting homeowners and renters alike) is worthy of opposition if one believes Arlington has a right to want economic diversity as a goal. Do planners at the state and town levels understand that they are undermining that goal, or do they blindly think that a few “subsidized units” are going to make up for the intensifying gentrification their plans are unleashing on a much larger scale?