Arlington Residents For Responsible Redevelopment, a grassroots group of neighbors, first created our Zoning Resource and Comment Guide for 2019 Town Meeting, when the Town proposed sweeping density Articles. Our goal, then as now, is to provide Town Meeting Members and all Arlington residents with information on the substantive issues that will be discussed during Town Meeting, as well as our comments. We hope the information below is useful to you.
For a condensed guide, see our Open Letter on the 2021 Zoning Articles, which we sent in April to Town Meeting Members.
Please let us know your thoughts on it at: askarfrr@outlook.com
OVERVIEW:
Town Meeting begins April 26, 2021, in virtual-only session. The public may attend. Click here to watch live: https://acmi.tv/2021-annual-town-meeting
Town Meeting receives proposed Articles inserted either by a resident with 10 supporting resident signatures, or by Town officials or boards. Each Article is reviewed by the Town Board relevant to the scope of language. All proposed zoning changes are subject to approval by the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) following a public hearing on each zoning article. If the Board votes in favor, it develops a recommended vote to Town Meeting, which constitutes the main motion on the article. A Town Meeting Member acting on behalf of the proponent, another interested party, or TMMs themselves may move an Amendment (change) to the recommended vote of the ARB, or they may move to replace it in its entirety with a Substitute Motion. If the Board disapproves of the article, it votes “No Action” as its recommended vote for Town Meeting, which essentially removes the Article from likely passage by Town Meeting without much, if any, debate. In that case, the proponent or other interested party may make a Substitute Motion, in order for Town Meeting to be able to have a zoning change to debate and vote on. The deadline for Substitute Motions video presentations this year was April 19. Substitute Motions may be presented no later than 48 hours before an Article is discussed.
and online version of the warrant (with proponent materials):
We have selected some of the more consequential zoning Articles, and present them along with background and recommended vote. This Guide covers the following Zoning Bylaw Articles, and 2 Town Bylaw Articles (see below):
ARTICLE 21 RESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE EARNING AT OR UNDER 60% AMI (newly added to our review)
ARTICLE 25 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER (newly added to our review)
ARTICLE 35 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/INDUSTRIAL USES
ARTICLE 39 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MIXED USE
ARTICLE 40 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
ARTICLE 41 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/DEFINITION OF FOUNDATION
ARTICLE 43 ZONING BYLAW/ADOPTION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ARTICLE 46 ZONING BYLAW/TEARDOWN MORATORIUM
ARTICLE 48 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/ADA/MAAB STANDARDS IN ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
ARTICLE 49 ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/SIDEYARD SKY EXPOSURE PLANES
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 21
VOTE/RESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE EARNING AT OR UNDER 60% AMI
To see if the Town will vote a warrant seeking to earmark a majority percentage of municipal funds allocated for affordable housing for those households/individuals making at or under 60% AMI; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted by J. Sanbonmatsu, L. Kiesel, and ten registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT Judith Garber's substitute motion, which would earmark a majority percentage of the affordable housing funds available in the Affordable Housing Trust for those in lower or moderate income categories. The Town’s current AMI requirement is set at “up to” 100%, which is $83,300 for a single-person household, and $119,000 for a 4-person household. 60% of Area Median Income is $50,000 for a single-person household, up to $71,400 for a 4-person household.
__________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 25
HOME RULE LEGISLATION/REAL ESTATE TRANSFER
To see if the Town will vote to authorize and request the Select Board to file Home Rule Legislation or other Special Legislation which would permit the Town to impose a real estate transfer fee or tax for the purposes of acquiring, creating, preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and supporting affordable housing in the Town; said fee or tax to be levied on the buyer, seller, or both on the purchase price of qualifying real estate, the proceeds of which are to be deposited in an Arlington Affordable Housing Trust Fund established pursuant to Section 55C of Chapter 44 of the General Laws; to set forth the rate, the qualifications for applicable transfers, and exemptions of and to such a tax or fee; and to authorize the procedures and requirements necessary for the collection of such fee; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted by the Select Board at the request of the Housing Plan Implementation Committee)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT the Select Board’s recommended vote in support of Article 25,
which would establish a transfer fee to fund the creation, preservation, and restoration of affordable housing. The details are to be determined, but the overall impact will be to provide a funding source for affordable housing.
Gordon Jamieson Amendment Materials:
___________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 35
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/INDUSTRIAL USES
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw to update and modernize the Industrial Zoning Districts by amending SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS to define new uses; SECTION 5 DISTRICT REGULATIONS to clarify the applicability of the upper story building step back, to redefine the Industrial Zoning District, to clarify amenity requirements in the Table of Maximum Height and Floor Area Ratio and to add development standards, to include new uses and amend existing uses in the Table of Uses, and to provide additional standards for uses; and SECTION 6 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to adjust the parking requirement for light manufacturing, to include standards for the Industrial Zoning Districts, to include standards for the Industrial Zoning Districts; and to adjust the bicycle parking standards for light manufacturing and office, medical or clinic uses; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of the Redevelopment Board)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to REJECT the ARB’s recommended vote on Article 35, which allows residential uses in Industrial Zones, and vote NO on the Pete Gast Amendment. Please vote to SUPPORT Kristin Anderson’s Amendment that removes residential uses from the original Article. The ARB’s Industrial Zoning Article offers no support for businesses, and will accelerate the erosion of these districts by allowing residential use. This curtails any hope of adding jobs here in town. Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand it.
Kristin Anderson Amendment Materials:
View the text of the Amendment
Pete Gast Amendment Materials:
View the text of the Amendment
BACKGROUND:
The "new uses" include residential mixed-use in the industrial districts, sneaked into the final version of the Economic Analysis of Industrial Zoning Districts. Nothing else in the Article is of much importance. It is all about aspirational hopes and what, short of design standards, we should have if suddenly we were flooded with proposals to build all sorts of growth-industry office buildings on the Mirak tract and Gold’s Gym site. Only the introduction of residential development matters.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 39
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MIXED USE
To see if the Town will vote to amend the definition of Mixed Use in the Zoning Bylaw to clarify that as enacted by Town Meeting, land uses individually prohibited in any particular zoning district are also prohibited as part of Mixed Use developments in the same zoning district; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of Christopher Loreti and 10 registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT Jon Gersh’s Substitute Motion that will return the definition of “mixed use” to the way the 2016 Annual Town Meeting voted for it, so that only the land uses individually allowed in a particular district are the ones that can be permitted in a mixed-use in that district. In passing Article 31 of the Consent Agenda, Town Meeting agreed to an administrative correction to the Zoning Bylaw clarifying that when land uses are not allowed by right or special permit, they are prohibited. Article 39 clarifies the definition of mixed use to ensure that that is also true for mixed-use projects. Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand that when Town Meeting designates a land use as prohibited in a particular zoning district, the ARB shouldn’t allow it to be snuck into a mixed use.
Jon Gersh Substitute Motion Materials:
View the text of the Substitute Motion
View the Gersh Substitute Motion video presentation to be shown at Town Meeting
BACKGROUND:
At 2016 Annual Town Meeting, Members voted on the Mixed-use Zoning Bylaw. Two members of the previous Redevelopment Board made the presentation and answered questions from Town Meeting Members. The concern of Town Meeting Members regarding what uses would be allowed was evident. Over and over the Redevelopment Board members explained that “only the uses that are permitted in a particular district are the ones that can happen in a mixed-use in that district.” Here is a video clip which clearly shows what Town Meeting thought it was voting on in 2016.
The limitation on uses couldn’t have been clearer, and that was what Town Meeting voted to approve. Yet a few years later the Board became uncertain about this intent and it was suggested that the actual language of the bylaw was flawed and sufficiently ambiguous that any uses without restriction could be part of Mixed-Use in any business district.
Last year the Board went rogue, choosing to grossly misinterpret the 2016 Bylaw on Mixed-Use as allowing any two uses in any business district. The immediate consequence was their approval of the Hotel Lexington project located partially in a B2 district, which does not allow this type of use.
Such an interpretation is diametrically opposite of what was promised to Town Meeting. It is the duty of the Board to fix the problem, and to amend the language of the Bylaw to reflect what Town Meeting actually approved in 2016. To shirk that duty and recommend No Action will cause great harm to the credibility of the Board when it speaks at future Town Meetings.
This Warrant Article clarifies the stated intent of 2016, preventing the Board from using the current ambiguity in wording to justify putting any use that it wants in residents’ backyards.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 40
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw in Section 5.2.4, by inserting in the last sentence of said section, after the word footprint, the words “if allowed by special permit” and by inserting, after the words residential use, the words “provided that the addition or expansion is for affordable housing” so that said sentence will read as follows: In the case of an existing commercial use, the addition or expansion of residential use within the building footprint if allowed by special permit shall not require adherence to setback regulations for residential uses, provided that the addition or expansion is for affordable housing, even if the residential use becomes the principal use of the building; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of John L. Worden III and 10 registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT John Worden’s Substitute Motion that would require the conversion to be made by Special Permit only, and to be made to create lower-cost housing. Otherwise, developers may be able to convert unrented retail space in mixed use structures back into market-rate residential space. Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand it, even though a vote of “No Action” is proposed.
John Worden Substitute Motion Materials:
BACKGROUND:
This has become all the more urgent since the Redevelopment Board, contrary to their strong promises made at the 2016 Town Meeting when mixed use was approved, has seen fit to allow exactly what was warned about in support of an amendment (not approved by the Meeting) to establish some rules. What was warned about proved, unhappily, be true – they will approve an apartment building with one little shop in the corner and call it mixed use. That is exactly what happened with the oversized building they approved on Summer Street; opposite the high school; and the one that the Redevelopment Board approved at 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. Where is the ground floor of vibrant commercial uses to serve the residents above and nearby?
This amendment would at least allow some consideration of whether to preserve the token commercial use under these mixed-use developments which are essentially apartment buildings where they don’t belong, on lots that are too small, with few of the minimal setbacks and parking requirements that straightforward 100% apartment buildings would require. If residential use is to be increased, at least it should serve a social purpose – affordable housing.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 41
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/DEFINITION OF FOUNDATION
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw in Section 2, by adding a new definition as follows: Building Foundation: The masonry or concrete structure in the ground which supports the building. It does not include porches, decks, sheds, patios, one story attached garages, carports, or the like; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted by the Redevelopment Board at the request of Patricia B. Worden and ten registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT Patricia Worden’s Substitute Motion that would ensure that foundation means only foundation, not porch, garage, etc. Without it, tear-down structures could be rebuilt to much larger sizes beyond the actual foundation. Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand it, even if a vote of “No Action” is proposed.
Patricia Worden Substitute Motion Materials:
View the text of the Substitute Motion
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner requested that the article be inserted in the 2021 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. The amendment is embedded into the Warrant Article. Since that time the petitioner has received advice for improvements from Christian Klein, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and become aware of various materials now being developed for foundations, and so now requests that the following language be submitted for Article 41 in place of the version filed in 2020:
Proposed vote under Article 21:
Voted to amend the Zoning Bylaw in Section2 by adding the following new definition:
BUILDING FOUNDATION: The entity supporting the building and constructed of masonry or concrete or other material of appropriate industry standards for such purpose, whether insulated or non-insulated. It does not include porches, decks, attached storage facilities which are not part of the original structure, patios, one story attached private garages (except in the case of a single story building), carports, any accessory structure or the like.
Explanation:
The bylaw provision for large additions (Sec. 5-18 B (6)) requires a special permit unless the addition is entirely within the existing foundation.
The foundation of a structure is very obvious and easily identified. However, past practice in Arlington has shown that the identifiable foundation has often been ignored and redefined as something larger, enabling a much larger addition than would be allowed without a special permit.
We have plenty of small- or medium-size older or antique houses in Arlington which are reasonably affordable. This is despite the unfortunate statement to the contrary made by the Planning Department in their report to the Select Board on behalf of the Residential Study Group, based on selective and erroneous sampling, and not approved by the Residential Study Group. These hundreds of small homes have made wonderful naturally affordable homes for downsizing retiring seniors and starting couples who can raise the roof to expand for a growing family. But these homes are now targeted and brokered just for developers of massive rebuilds and are rarely available on the open market. It is a quick and easy windfall for a broker to keep a list of developers planning teardowns to arrange for a quick sale to the developer because the broker may then have the opportunity for not one but two or three commissions – the original house and the one or two much more expensive million dollar homes replacing the teardown.
The Zoning Bylaw provides that raised structures on the foundation may be built without a special permit under the large addition provision. The rationale for this is set forth above. However, since foundation is not defined, Inspectional Services have interpreted foundation in such a way that the tiny cape or ranch turns into the large McMansion. Some porches, decks, carports, and attached garages are commandeered to become part of the “foundation.” This definition does not prevent owners from constructing large additions, but would just require a special permit in cases where the addition exceeds 750 square feet, which was the original intent of the large addition bylaw.
The requirement for developers to apply for a permit if expanding beyond the foundation is of paramount importance to provide notice to abutters. That is why the definition of foundation is so important.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 43
ZONING BYLAW/ADOPTION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on the property of single family, two-family, and duplex dwellings; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of Barbara Thornton and ten registered voters)
BACKGROUND:
This Article leans towards the laxest of restrictions, and offers no protections for abutters. As many have noted, in the more-dense parts of town, such as East Arlington, adverse effects will be particularly noticeable.
The current proposal is much worse than the 2019 version submitted by the ARB and rejected by Town Meeting. For example, it would allow ADUs "by right" instead of only by special permit. ADUs could be in garages and other accessory buildings, on lot lines, with additional levels, so that 2-families become 4 families, and many other changes not allowed in the 2019 proposal that Town Meeting rejected. However, despite the inferiority of this Article, ADUs could work in Arlington, if properly set forth.
A reasonable approach would require at least as good a proposal as what was rejected in 2019. Ideally, Town Meeting would form an ADU study group to determine a better proposal, as the RSG was intended to function before being disbanded without being allowed to study this issue. The Article should only be supported with the Amendments listed.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 46
ZONING BYLAW/TEARDOWN MORATORIUM
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw by adding to Section 8 a new provision substantially as follows: there is hereby established a temporary moratorium on the demolition, in whole or in part, of older small affordable houses, for a period of two years from the date of final adjournment of this Town Meeting, or when the Town establishes a method of protecting such houses in order to promote the Town’s goals of economic diversity and affordability, whichever first occurs. For Purposes of this provision, the term “older small affordable houses” shall mean houses built before 1950 with a footprint of less than 1,000 square feet; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of Lynette Culverhouse and 10 registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT Lynette Culverhouse’s Substitute Motion that will allow the sale but prohibit the demolition of these moderately affordable houses, particularly for lower and middle income buyers, and slow the increase in property taxes and housing costs that comes with teardown/mansion replacements in our neighborhoods Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand it.
Lynette Culverhouse Substitute Motion Materials:
View the text of the Substitute Motion
View the Culverhouse video presentation to be shown at Town Meeting
BACKGROUND:
Arlington has thousands of small, older homes that are moderately affordable to middle income families, valued at between $600K - $800K. Dozens come on the market each year and a significant proportion are bought by developers with the intention of simply demolishing them to build larger luxury homes in their place. Often these houses are never publicly listed, with Realtors brokering deals before reaching the open market. Recent history shows developers buying these homes for an average of $650K and selling the replacements for about $1.5M.
This citizen proposed Article would implement a temporary moratorium on the teardown of homes built before 1950 and with a footprint of 1,000 sf or less. It would not prohibit their sale, only their demolition. During this moratorium, the town would conduct a study of the impact of teardowns on affordability, Net Zero energy goals, environmental aspects, and preservation of architectural history.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 48
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/ADA/MAAB STANDARDS IN ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
To see if the Town will vote to or take any action related thereto: To see if the town will vote to amend the Arlington Zoning Bylaws, Section 3.1 (“Administration and Enforcement”) to add a new clause inserting additional language asserting that all permits, including Special Permits, are conditioned upon compliance with all applicable Massachusetts Architectural Access Board and Americans with Disabilities Acts standards for accessibility, or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted by the Select Board at the request of the Disability Commission)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT the ARB’s recommended vote in support of Article 48, to ensure ADA compliance in all projects. Recent zoning decisions appear to have been made with the assumption that enforcement and administration were not critical to project approval. Development projects that appear before the Redevelopment Board typically receive minimal scrutiny for ADA compliance. A recent example is the Hotel Lexington project in the Heights, where concerns of non-compliance were passed on to Inspectional Services for later review at the time of final plan submittal.
Disability Commission Article Materials:
View the DCA video presentation to be shown at Town Meeting
BACKGROUND:
A study of recently built public buildings in Arlington, particularly schools, found numerous deficiencies in compliance with Federal and State ADA requirements for accessible access. The cost of fixing these problems would have been avoided if caught at an earlier design phase.
Private development projects that appear before the Redevelopment Board typically receive minimal scrutiny of ADA compliance. A recent example is the Hotel Lexington project in the Heights. The Board dismissed concerns of non-compliance, passing them on to Inspectional Services for later review at the time of final plan submittal. It will be a costly deferral. The kinds of revisions that will be required for the project to meet ADA standards will be so significant that they should trigger the reopening of the Special Permit hearings and another round of review and delay.
This is the second citizens' article proposed by Arlington’s Commission on Disabilities. It does not add any new standards or requirements for any development. It simply elevates consideration of these existing requirements to the level of Redevelopment Board or Zoning Board of Appeals hearings.
____________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 49
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/SIDEYARD SKY EXPOSURE PLANES
To see if the Town will vote to or take any action related thereto: To amend Section 5.3 of the Zoning Bylaw by inserting, at the end thereof, a new sub-section 5.3.23 which describes the Purpose & Intent, Applicability, Definitions, Standards by District, Dimensional and Density Regulations and Exceptions for Sideyard Sky Exposure Planes to accommodate new construction while protecting public health, safety and welfare in Residential Zoning Districts.
(Inserted at the request of Ted Fields and 10 registered voters)
RECOMMENDED VOTE:
Please vote to SUPPORT Ted Fields’s Substitute Motion that will provide more precise ways of controlling building mass and height to minimize impacts on neighboring properties, including solar installations. Sky Exposure Planes are widely used throughout the United States, including in Natick and Cambridge, which use them in residential and commercial zoning districts. Please consider speaking up on the importance of this issue so that other TMMs understand it.
Ted Fields Substitute Motion Materials:
View the text of the Substitute Motion
View the Fields video presentation to be shown at Town Meeting
BACKGROUND FROM PROPONENT TED FIELDS:
Sky Exposure Planes are more precise ways of controlling building mass and height to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. They allow architects/builders to flexibly allocate building mass towards the center of lots rather than crudely limiting building size, as do current alternatives such as larger setbacks, reduced lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratios (FAR). Sky Exposure Planes are widely used throughout the United States, particularly in Western states. Some communities in Massachusetts, including Natick and Cambridge, use them in residential and commercial zoning districts.
Article 49 introduces Sky Plane standards to existing zoning requirements for Side Yard Setbacks in Single Family Residential 0, 1 & 2 zones. Article 49 applies only to new single-family homes built after January 1, 2022; alterations or additions to existing single family homes in these zoning districts are exempt. Sky planes are angles that start at a lot line and extend inward (toward the center of the property) and upward at defined intervals. Buildings and structural components may not extend above/beyond Sky Exposure Planes in Article 49. A 1:1 Side Yard Sky Plane rises one foot up for every foot of inward horizontal distance from the side lot lines. In Article 49, minor roof overhangs, gable roof ends, small dormers and flush-mounted solar energy systems are exempt from Sky Plane thresholds. Finally, new homes that meet Arlington's affordable housing standards are exempt from Article 49.
Sky Exposure Planes focus building height into the center of a lot, away from neighboring properties. Article 49 updates Arlington’s zoning regulations with modern tools that:
a) Protect older dwellings from oversize impacts from large homes,
b) Allow construction of larger homes in response to current housing market conditions, and
c) Permit homeowners to make repairs and build additions on their homes without dealing with Sky Plane regulations.
