Broadway Blockbuster

On December 19^th, the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) will continue its public hearing to approve the tallest building on Broadway in Arlington.  

 

Even if you don’t live near this development, here is why you should care:

 

·      It sets a new precedent for the height of mixed-use buildings in town—higher than what most residents deemed acceptable in Arlington’s latest Master Plan

·      It will block the views, sunlight, and solar panels of nearby homes, and the same thing could happen to you if you live near a commercial district

·      The Redevelopment Board is again allowing residential development without any usable open space, thereby violating the town’s Zoning Bylaw

 

This 5-story, 55-foot mixed-use extravaganza will be located at the corner of Winter Street, surrounded by two- and three-family homes and low-density apartments, all of which are limited to 35 feet in height.  

 

The building will have no setbacks on two sides, and almost none on a third side.  And it will be on a lot not much larger than that required for a single-family home.

 

What’s wrong with this picture?  As shown in the plans submitted (extracted in the figures here), the development is completely out of scale with the Broadway neighborhood, as well as the two-family homes nearby.  And it covers almost the entire lot.

Winter Street Elevation

Building Footprint

The development violates Arlington’s Zoning Bylaw in numerous respects:

 

1.  The front yard setbacks are inadequate. Zoning Bylaw section 5.3.8 requires 20’ setbacks on both the Broadway and Winter street frontages. The plans, however, show no setback on Broadway and only 2’ on Winter St.

 

2.  The step-back for the top floor is non-compliant.  Zoning Bylaw Section 5.3.17 requires an upper story setback of at least 7.5’ along all street frontages for buildings in excess of three stories in height. No step-back is being provided along Winter St. 

 

3.  The proposal lacks any usable open space.  Zoning Bylaw section 5.3.21.D requires usable open space equal to at least 20% of the residential floor area.  The proposal contains no open space that meets the definition of usable. 

 

The proposal also violates at least two other standards needed for its approval:

 

1.  Due to its location near lots zoned and used for 2-family homes, it is limited in height to at most 4 stories and 50 feet unless the ARB finds those properties would “not be adversely affected due to existing use or topographic condition.”

 

Since neither the existing use nor the topography can be considered mitigating in this case, and it has been shown that the solar panels two houses away will be adversely affected by the 55’ building, the ARB cannot possibly make the necessary finding.

 

2.  Projects subject to Environmental Design Review by the Redevelopment Board, as this one is, are supposed to go through a higher level of review. Standard 3.4.4.B requires that they relate harmoniously to the scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity.  This proposal does neither.

 

So how can the ARB approve a project that violates Arlington’s Zoning Bylaw in so many ways?

 

Relying on a deeply flawed memo written by Arlington’s Town Counsel in 2020 (to rationalize the approval of other projects with zoning violations), the ARB claims it has the authority to waive requirements of the bylaw when it sees fit.

 

This claim is made by no other Planning Board in Massachusetts and is completely contrary to Massachusetts state law, the associated case law (see: Colabufalo v. Board of Appeal of Newton 143 N.E.2d 536, 336 Mass), and Arlington’s Zoning Bylaw.

An exception to local zoning requirements is a variance.  And the only board in town (in any city or town in Massachusetts) that can grant a variance is the Board of Appeals.  In a departure from past practice, the current ARB has decided it is special and doesn’t need to refer projects to Arlington’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance.  

 

Why would it adopt such a position?  It is nothing personal against the ZBA.  The ARB knows that in order to obtain a variance, specific conditions in state law must be met.  In practice, these conditions are very difficult to meet, meaning that variances can often be overturned if appealed.

 

Rather than trouble itself in observing legal niceties, the ARB does what it wants to: give mixed-use projects its approval, and leaves it to the abutters to go to court if they don’t like it. 

 

Will this happen with 80 Broadway?  Stay tuned.  You can catch the drama at 8:30 p.m. Monday, December 19, 2022 at the ARB’s continued public hearing on the project.  This in-person only meeting will be at the Arlington Community Center, 27 Maple St., Arlington, MA 02476.

Preserve the Woodlands at Hill's Hill

Barry the owl, seen at Hill's Hill  photo courtesy savehillshill.com

Preserve the Woodlands at Hill's Hill

contributed by Beth Melofchik

The Arlington Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) intends to create a mountain bike park at Hill's Hill, and clear the top of the hill for a pump track.  They have requested $400,000 for repurposing this woodland, replete with several types of native oak, shagbark hickory, big tooth aspen, and native cherry.  During climate breakdown is this the best use of this woodland?  Can Arlington afford to lose native trees on public land?  What are the high value trees?

An environmental impact study has not been done prior to PRC deciding to move forward with a Community Preservation Act funding request.  The location of Hill's Hill woods is in proximity to the  Mirak heat island and along the Mill Brook Linear Park.  Imagine Arlington Great Meadow heading east to the Reservoir, Hurd Field, Buck Field, Hills Hill Woods, Old Schwamb Mill, Wellington Park and on into Arlington Center.  This runs along the Minuteman Bike trail and Mill Brook.

Visit https://savehillshill.com to learn how you can take action.

Why is a luxury mountain biking park an inevitable build for Arlington?  They first tried to establish it in the historic Menotomy Rocks Park, then in Crusher Woods.  Neighbors and outdoor lovers, those with an understanding of passive recreation and the importance of access to woods and access to green space for all, organized and those parks were preserved.  Now Hills Hill Woods is on the drawing board for this bike park, at the behest of PRC.

The proposed Pump Track,  photo courtesy savehillshill.com

Has a market survey been done?  Why do we need a mountain biking park with a pump track?  Who will use it?  How much do mountain bikes cost? To what cohort of the population of Arlington would it cater?  Are there other sports fields serving this group?  Are there other parcels in town of a less strategic value to our tree canopy and habitat preservation?

Is there a better use of $400,000 of CPA funds when Arlington faces colossal overrides?

Has this project been reviewed by the Tree Committee, Sustainable Arlington, Clean Energy Futures Committee, and Open Space Committee for potential impact on extreme heat, storm water retention and habitat loss?  I remind the reader that Arlington offered the Reservoir beach with an entry fee and the splash park at the Thompson School as cooling centers last summer during periods of extreme heat.  Arlington needs all its shady spots, we cannot afford to lose access to any woodland.  Arlington needs trees absorbing storm water.

An image from the website of the project contractor

Trails are already being created at Hill's Hill without PRC authorization.  One excavation pit at Hill's Hill is 3 feet deep.  This is a hazard to birders, hikers, walkers, anyone out enjoying the sunshine and woodland.  An unknowing child on a bike could topple in or even someone's pet.   This hazard is on town owned land administered by PRC.

We may need to change how we live and consume.  Sustainable Arlington and the Clean Energy Futures Committee informs us of that, but we also simultaneously need to preserve what we have in our parks and green spaces for us and for our children and grandchildren.

Time out.  What is the best use of the woodland at Hills Hill?  

Tune in.   JOIN THE ZOOM CALL FOR THE CPA COMMITTEE, Wednesday Nov. 2, 6pm - 8pm

• Date:11/02/2022 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 
• Location:Zoom Conference Call
  

Location: Conducted by Remote Participation 

Please register in advance for this meeting with this link:

https://town-arlington-ma-us.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMsc-upqDwjEtQlKdik6go8GMDPlRWMpHFu

Agenda 

1. Introductions
2. Election of Officers
3. Review and approval of minutes
4. FY24 projected CPA revenues
5. Discussion of FY24 CPA Preliminary Applications received
6. Vote: Inviting FY24 Final Applications
7. Other business.

Downloadable Agenda:11022022 Agenda Community Preservation Act Committee

GUIDE TO THREE ZONING ARTICLES FOR 2022 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING

A number of zoning Articles are before Annual Town Meeting this year, and of those endorsed by the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB), we support or are neutral on many.  However, we oppose the three Articles discussed below, and hope you will contact your Town Meeting members and ask them to vote No on Articles 38, 39, and 41.  See below for contact information, letter template, talking points, etc.

 

ARTICLE 38

ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/TWO FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN R0 AND R1 RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Article 38 would allow two-families by right in R0 and R1 districts, ending single-family zoning.  So far, a revised motion from the Arlington Redevelopment Board and a citizen's amendment have been submitted.  The revised motion would limit the size of each duplex unit to 1,850 square feet of heated living space; and the Newton amendment would allow construction of larger units as long as the portion greater than 1,850 square feet is unheated for the first three years.  The amendment opens up all kinds of loopholes for developers.  Under the ARB restriction, the principal structure, excluding any ADUs, was limited to 3,700 square feet in two and a half stories.  The Newton amendment opens the door for a developer to put that 3,700 square feet into the first two floors, with another "unheated" 925 square feet into the upper half story.  All of the floors could be finished and air-conditioned, and so used for many months of the year, but the upper half story could not be "legally" heated for the first three years.  Each condo would be 2,300 square feet, likely selling for $1.2M or more.  The entire structure could be a massive 4,625 square feet, larger than all but 40 single family homes in R1.  

We recommend a no vote on Article 38, and all amendments, for the possible consequences mentioned above, and for the following reasons:  

♦ Unclear intent. 

The proponents have acknowledged that this Article it isn’t about adding more-affordable housing, but about providing “choice.”  Given that new duplex units are listing at $1M and up, this means choice for buyers who can afford those prices, not for the middle-and lower-income buyers whose options are much more limited.  Article 38 will do nothing to make Arlington more diverse, more equitable, or more inclusive. 

 

♦ Failure to meet ARB requests for supporting information.

A very similar Article was proposed in 2020.  At that time the ARB asked for comparative studies, and a plan for education and outreach.  Neither was provided.  This year the ARB made the same requests, and again, neither has been provided.  

 

♦ Lack of evidence that increasing market rate housing does anything to ameliorate the lack of attainable and affordable housing.  

The proponents provided two links to info from Minneapolis, where upzoning was enacted several years ago.  Both sources acknowledge that property values have since increased, but say nothing about the effect on attainable housing.  A body of research indicates that upzoning drives up nearby property values and draws higher-income buyers to communities with desirable amenities, such as Arlington.  Housing units enabled by Article 38 will not be affordable.  Low- and middle-income buyers trying to purchase a modest home will be outbid by developers who profit by replacing small affordable houses with two or more housing units.  This isn’t speculation: In every recent case where a single family has been demolished in an R2 district, each new duplex unit has sold for more than the demolished structure. 

 

♦ Unintended consequences.

A 900 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit is allowed to be added to each of the two 1,850 sq. ft. units in two-family houses (the size limit suggested in the ARB amendment to Article 38).  Article 38 actually enables four-family homes on each lot in a single-family district.  The size of such a structure could be huge, as much as 5,500 sq. ft.   

 

Article 38 will accelerate population growth, leading to an increase in taxes town-wide as increased costs of infrastructure, schools, services, etc. rise along with increasing population.  Multi-million dollar overrides will become more common.  Residents on fixed incomes, especially our older residents, will be hard hit. 

 

Article 38 would contribute to acceleration of climate change by exacerbating sustainability issues including tree loss, loss of embodied energy in teardown activity, and the large energy consumption of construction.  At the very least, new construction enabled by Article 38 should be required to be NetZero.

 

♦ Lack of endorsement.

Two members of the ARB have voted No Action on Article 38, citing concerns about a lack of coherence with a comprehensive plan, such as that recommended by our Master Plan.  The Master Plan Implementation Committee has likewise voted No Action. 

♦ Amendments to limit living space wouldn’t offset the negative effects

A maximum living space amendment would do little to prevent the harm this Article would cause, as most Arlington single family lots are 5-6,000 square feet. The units would still be built to the largest size and sales price possible, driving teardowns. Increase in load on services, schools, traffic and infrastructure would be the same.  And as allowed by the most recent amendment, the 1,850 square foot per unit restriction would be moot after three years. 

Allowing two-families in all residential districts by right should not be an experiment.  If enacted, it should be supported by studies, and should consider the input of affected property owners.  We urge you to ask your Town Meeting Members to vote NO on Article 38, and on the living space size-restricted Amendments. 

To learn more, please visit:

 

ARTICLE 39

ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR MIXED USE STRUCTURES 

 

Article 39 would allow mixed-use structures in our commercial districts to increase their Floor Area Ratio by an as-yet unspecified amount. The proponent suggested an increase of almost four times our current FAR, which is at least double that of similar communities; the ARB then recommended essentially a doubling of our current FAR for most instances.  We oppose Article 39 for the following reasons: 

 

♦ Lack of understanding of how FAR interacts with other regulations.

FAR is a complex calculation, and must take into account many aspects of a site’s particular limitations, including but not limited to Open Space requirements, allowed height, setbacks, etc.  The proponent has not presented comparative studies from other communities, or a justification for the change here. 

 

♦ Impact on struggling business districts.

In 2019 a Mixed-use Bylaw was passed which intended to drive renewal of our business districts by amending their allowed uses to provide larger structures and greater residential use.  The mixed-use projects that have been proposed and completed since then have instead created buildings that are almost entirely residential with token office space on the ground floor.  Allowing even larger mixed-use buildings will further the inroads of residential uses, and weaken our already struggling business districts, as well as encouraging enormous residential buildings without the parking, setback, or open space normally provided to residents of multi-unit buildings.  

 

Our business districts deserve better. We urge you to ask your Town Meeting Members to vote NO on Article 39 and an insufficiently researched "compromise"  FAR-doubling Amendment.

 

ARTICLE 41

ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT/APARTMENT PARKING MINIMUMS 

 

Article 41 would reduce or remove the required parking space minimum per unit in apartment buildings.  We oppose it for the following reasons: 

 

♦ Impact on 2-car families.

We all want to work for a less car-dependent world, but we’re not there yet.  Many of the tenants of the apartment buildings affected by this proposal work jobs that are in locations, or that have hours, that make public transportation problematic for them.  Especially for those in East Arlington, parking is already limited.  Further, the ARB already has the power to reduce parking requirements in certain situations.

 

We urge you to ask your Town Meeting Members to vote NO on Article 41.

 

________________________________________

 

 

Town Meeting Members will vote on these Articles and others at our Annual Town Meeting, which begins April 25.  Please contact your Town Meeting Members and ask for their NO vote on Articles 38, 39, and 41, using these resources:

 

Find out what Precinct you live in:

https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/58918/637739538761300000

 

Find your Town Meeting Members’ email and telephone contact info:

https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/60527/637850149936870000

 

Send an email to Town Meeting Members, using link above.  

Start with the 12 in your precinct. 

 

Use our template for ideas on what to say:

http://template22.arfrr.org

 

Include the link to our flyer or download and attach Article 38 Flyer: 

http://flyer.arfrr.org

 

Call Town Meeting Members Using link above.

Start with your precinct, and get your friends and neighbors to call too.

 

Use our Article 38 Talking Points: 

http://talkingpoints22.arfrr.org

 

 

Fiddling with FAR - Article 39

Floor Area Ration - Article 39 on the Town Meeting Wararnt - April 2022:


In reviewing the presentation posted in support for Article 39, Increasing FAR Limits, I was immediately struck by the serious factual errors it contains.  The petitioner does not understand how Floor Area Ratio is calculated and the examples given for existing Arlington properties are grossly incorrect.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the presentation to suggest an understanding that FAR is not some independent metric, but is just one interrelated element in an array of dimensional restrictions, as noted in the Planning Department’s memo.

The primary reason that the Capitol Theatre Block is non-compliant with today’s zoning bylaw is not the FAR, but that it lacks any rear yard setback.  Our ZBL respects the rights of adjacent homeowners to not have 35 - 60 ft tall buildings built right up to the property line.  The chief impediment to erecting a Capitol Theatre building today is the need for a 30 ft rear yard setback, as a buffer from the adjacent residential properties, and also to accommodate required landscaping and parking.

Supposing that there were such a 30 ft wide strip added, the FAR would drop to 1.36, completely compliant with the current B3 FAR requirement of 1.4.

The presentation for article 39 also cites the office building at 5-11 Water St as typical of a development that could not be built today.  However, the petitioner has incorrectly calculated the Floor Area Ratio.  The real FAR is 1.66.   5-11 Water St is already compliant with the B5 FAR limit of 1.8.


For his vision of what could be built under the proposed article, the petitioner cites last year’s proposal for the Christo Block, at 190 Mass Ave.  The presentation features a highly distorted perspective view which suggests that the 50 ft tall building would somehow appear to be no taller than the 30 ft tall utility poles adjacent.

The claim is that the only reason that this building could not be built was the unreasonable FAR.  As this Board knows, there were many residents who spoke eloquently on the detrimental impact on their neighboring homes.  There were numerous other ZBL violations such as insufficient rear yard setback, failure to comply with 5.3.17 on upper story setbacks,  5.3.8 on street yard setbacks for corner lots, and zero usable open space.  And then there was the little matter of eliminating nearly 80% of the street level commercial space on a block that is central to the Capitol Square business district.

FAR is but one interrelated element in an array of dimensional requirements in our ZBL.  If the other requirements could have been met, it is likely that FAR would not have been an obstacle to the redevelopment of this block.

Not every lot is suitable for 5 story buildings.

Don Seltzer