In Search of the Public in the Arlington Redevelopment Board’s Public Hearings

Several members of the public were not allowed to speak at the March 1 public hearing for this proposed development at 10 Sunnyside Ave.

 

As the membership of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) and Town Planning Staff have undergone a nearly complete turnover in recent years, it is appropriate to consider how the board is conducting its Special Permit public hearings.

As demonstrated by its March 1, 2021 meeting, the board is simply not allowing enough time on its agenda for its Special Permit hearings.  Two Special Permit hearings were scheduled for the first 45 minutes of the meeting, when an hour was not even sufficient for the first hearing.  This should have come as no surprise to the ARB, as first one was a significant, new proposal.

The solution proposed by the chair to those members of the public who were denied the right to speak during the hearing—to offer comments during “Open Forum” later in the meeting or to provide written comments—is no solution at all.  Public hearings are held to provide the public the right to be heard, and the testimony of the public is to be on the record during the hearing process. 

The ARB chair does not get to pick and choose who can present testimony during the hearing. Under Massachusetts law, all members of the public have the right to be heard during a zoning hearing. Among those members of the public denied a chance to speak on March 1 were representatives of the Disability Commission, who should have the opportunity to weigh in on all projects in the planning stages in order to accommodate their needs.

The ARB and staff that support it clearly don’t understand the intended role of the public in public hearings. This is true not only in their willingness to conduct hearings as if they are proforma presentations by developers with predetermined outcomes, but also with their willingness to engage in ex parte communications with developers that come before them for special permits. (An ex parte communication occurs when one or more members of the board meets or speaks privately with a party to the special permit outside of the public hearing.) 

It is widely acknowledged that ex parte communications with those appearing before planning boards like the ARB are inappropriate even if not explicitly prohibited by law. Yet unlike other towns which ban the practice, the ARB actually defends it, and has refused to address it in its rules and regulations.

One attorney on the ARB has even made the astounding claim that private communications between a developer seeking a special permit and members of the ARB are not ex parte because the applicant (developer) is the party to the special permit—as if there were no other parties, such as abutters who might want to hear those conversations as part of the public hearing.

As currently managed by town staff, the ARB increasingly puts the interests of developers over the public interests. This is reflected not only in the board's attempts to minimize public input but in its disregard of the requirements of Arlington’s Zoning Bylaw.

The ARB is supposed to be giving enhanced review to the Special Permits it acts on—through a process called Environmental Design Review (EDR). Instead, based on a politically motivated and legally untenable memo prepared by Town Counsel last year, it is using EDR to reduce the basic protections written into the zoning bylaw, such as the requirements for open space.

Where's the Open Space?  887 Mass Ave

If the ARB is going to disregard the public process and use EDR to weaken Arlington’s zoning bylaw in direct contradiction of the purposes for which EDR was established in the first place, it raises the question whether the ARB should even be in the business of granting Special Permits. It is too late to put that question to Town Meeting this year. But maybe next year, it will be appropriate.

Chris Loreti
Former Arlington Redevelopment Board Member and Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member

Giving Away the Store: What's Happening to Our Business Districts and Job Opportunities?

Recently several residents have posted to the Arlington List that Arlington cannot “develop enough commercial base to really make much of a difference.”  Actually that is completely wrong — we do have plenty of commercial/industrially zoned land — 43 acres of it to accommodate a good number of start ups, health specialties, life sciences, service sector,  biotech and software companies etc.  Plenty to bring excellent high paying jobs and internships although not huge amounts of commercial taxes.  What we don’t have is enough available land, partly because those who own many of the 43 acres of industrial parcels are land hoarding, waiting for the coming changes going to do away with protective zoning.  This cannibalizing and land banking of the industrial districts is planned by the Town Manager and Planning Director, to allow residential building in the industrial sector for exploitation by residential developers.  They cannot succeed if Town Meeting refuses to approve such damaging zoning.

 

These slides show why our business districts are so important: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hn1nW_pBsGL6j7JXceQrhmBicY08xSd/view?usp=sharing

Arlington has very nearly reached the statutory goal for 40B compliance of 1.5% of buildable land for affordable residences, which would make us exempt from 40B projects.  40B projects have almost zero benefit to low-income residents.  40B developers can and do ignore our zoning protections and wreak havoc on the environment and town and school planning.  Nevertheless the Planning Director neglects to help the Town reach that 1.5% goal, and instead pursues the alternative goal of 10% of total housing units required to be affordable, while encouraging 40B development.  

 

That goal is inappropriate for land-poor Arlington.  It would cause massive displacement of low-income tenants due to demolition of existing naturally affordable housing.  It would demand between 3,000 and 6,000 or more new units if 40B projects were built to reach the 10% “affordability” goal.  (The exact numbers required depend on parameters in place at the time of calculation).  If we were to allow 40B projects on all our industrial land, parks, and open space, and add many high towers, the Planning Director could reach her 10% goal for Arlington.  Or, alternatively, well over 10,000 new units would have to be built if inclusionary zoning projects alone are used to reach the 10% goal.  See what could happen here:

http://rindge.arfrr.org

No one expects a large company like Moderna to plop down its headquarters in Arlington.  Arlington does not have that kind of campus land.  What it does have is 43 acres of industrially zoned land ideal for many small energetic companies and startups.

 

These slides show the kinds of small businesses we have, and what we might hope to attract: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17nGY6SniYXMicdR2DC-TJnJns7bRz--w/view?usp=sharing

For many years such companies have failed to find accommodation in Arlington and have found no help from the Town even for vacant properties.  I am familiar with some of these companies, but the example I know best is that of our son.  He needed only about 3,000 square feet of industrially zoned property but was told there was nothing of that size available at the time in Arlington.  He could not wait indefinitely to start since there were other M.I.T. students who were graduating and hoped to join him.  And so he found a small commercial property in another town.  Venture capital is not easy to put on hold.  His company went on to make some of the best equipment in his field in the world supplying international markets.  Although small, it provided many jobs at all levels, always with health benefits and local education initiatives and internships — one of their early Northeastern University interns eventually became the company’s Chief Scientist.  This exemplifies the kind of loss that our leaders are continuing for Arlington.   

 

Arlington’s Town Manager is in a good position to influence land use and housing policy.  His Arlington position and very high salary (higher than the Governor, or Mayor of Boston) has enabled him to move out of Arlington (already very dense at second densest Town in Massachusetts) to a large home and spacious grounds in a distant, less-crowded town.  And so he and his family will not be affected by the dense zoning he favors for Arlington.  Arlington taxpayers have supported him in his meteoric rise to leadership roles in various municipal or regional organizations.  Under his leadership as Chair of the Massachusetts Municipal Association the protective role of that organization for local zoning is gone.  Arlington will no longer be safeguarded by MMA from rampant zoning changes desired by the Manager and also by the Governor to reward his developer donors.  

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/02/opinion/governors-bill-does-little-affordable-housing/

And so will we lose our industrial land with its potential for commerce and industry, our open space, and our existing, affordable apartments, to real estate investors and residential developers?  Will we accept this loss, along with escalation of taxes, overcrowding of schools, increased homelessness, and displacement and eviction of low-income residents of all races — removed to make way for new lucrative residential construction? 

 

Or will Town Meeting stand up to prevent this loss?

 

Patricia B. Worden

Town Meeting Member, precinct 8

 

 

Read more at “Developers’ Dream,” at: 

https://blog-arfrr.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-developers-dream.html