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
