What Happened At The August 29th Working Group MBTA Density Overlay Meeting

 What Happened At The August 29th Working Group MBTA Density Overlay Meeting

Note: We will add a video recording here of the 2 hour meeting, where public input was restricted, if a video becomes available. Shane Curcuru's MenotomyMatters.com website has posted a good summary of the latest map(s). The metrics are uncertain on how the Working Group arrives at the units of housing zoned for (it could be very different including 'density bonus floors' that are gifted to developers: https://menotomymatters.com/townhall/mbta-udpates2/

We attended (via Zoom) August 29th’s Working Group meeting.  They are still getting their ideas together for their final report and planning to include all "the valuable feedback" they received from the public....We note 2/3rds of public forum comment on July 25th - the only public forum meeting were voices of concern for their plans.  

The WG discussed grants that were of questionable value in Arlington.  What continues to puzzle us is why a middle to upper middle class suburban town like Arlington wishes to obtain grants such as urban renewal and site readiness of contaminated properties, etc. How many sites do we have here? These are grants that places like Fall River and Lowell truly need and qualify for. Arlington is not that place. The mania to write grant proposals and receive grants for unnecessary study groups and using the destruction of our town to accommodate this mania is beyond us.

The MBTA density overlay law forbids requiring/preserving commercial uses.  Recently, though the Commonwealth relaxed this position somewhat with the allowance for some incentives to have some commercial within these density overlay buildings.  The mixed use discussion was that they will not modify their plans to include, seems to us to be a good way to meet at least 25% of our required units.  The WG went back and forth on how to describe why they would not consider this new modification   Interesting that it was very important to WG Member Rebecca Gruber to include that such a modification "was not an improvement" to their plans..

They appear to still not have a complete draft ready - just an outline so far. There was a discussion on whether all maps should be included in the final report. Possibly will be included in an addendum. Afterall, they were created with great "public feedback", as they said. Ironically, they also noted that a postcard will be going out to 4,500 homes that are most affected in Arlington Residents as the first time many people affected will learn of the density overlay.  They anticipate that many residents will attend the Sept 11 meeting.

The public will need to learn quickly about the WG proposals and write many letters to TMM and the ARB by that date.

WG Member Laura Weiner mentioned that they must include the "convincing calculations" regarding incentives.  Planning department employee and WG Advisor Teresa Marzilli offered to provide useful suggestions to the ARB concerning tenant rights, among other totally off-topic concerns.  Such suggestions would be irrelevant on the question of the MBTA density overlays.  Various members of the WG discouraged this. WG meetings are all over the place.

There was no discussion of the plan itself this week.The WG will submit the plan to the ARB and will counsel them to "review the current zoning". 

Our takeaway was that the public who are concerned about the WG proposals had better reach out with our letters and conversations, particularly to people that can really make a difference. Also, individuals from every affected neighborhood need to attend the Sept 11 Town Hall meeting to make their voices heard.

There were a number of people who signed the ARFFR petition calling on Town officials to limit compliance to what is required by the state, not to exceed it,  on the Zoom call.

Resources:

Working Group and other contacts:

https://contacts.arfrr.org

Maps of where is affected:

https://densitymap.arfrrr.org

Petition to ask Town officials to comply, but not exceed the requirements:

http://petition.arfrr.org/

More information about the MBTA density overlay:

https://mbta.arfrr.org

 

What Happened at the August 15th 7pm MBTA Density Overlay Working Group Meeting

 

What Happened at the August 15th 7pm MBTA Density Overlay Working Group Meeting
(at the Police Station)

Sample building introduced by a WG member

The Working Group met again at 7pm, Tuesday Aug 15 at the Police Station.

Recording of the Meeting
Here is the video of the meeting, captured on Zoom:
Part 1   https://youtu.be/dJ1N-MI2-Uk

Part 2   https://youtu.be/hvKEk6-vKZY

There were many members of the public between the Zoom link and those in person.  Comment was restricted

The Takeaway From The Meeting

They were expected to vote on a roughly  11,000 unit  density overlay map and scenario of density overlays, where currently 3,000 homes are.  They continued to keep building heights too high for Arlington’s existing abutters and neighborhoods: 6 floors on Mass Ave, 5 floors on Broadway, 4 floors down side streets from the main streets - going back 350’.   They kept restricted building setbacks - making open space and shade trees less likely or impossible.  It appears they barely acknowledged public concern on the size and overcompliance scope of their proposals.

Latest Density Overlay Maps From The Meeting:

(Town website link):

Last page of link (red edits - ARFRR)

Link to map and scenario from Town website:
https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/66453/638277948066500000

See below for latest building/lot dimensional proposals

Example Buildings
This building image was proposed by a member of the WG.  Notice that there are no parking spots or open space.  The WG has proposed no minimum parking in these structures.  These could be placed up and down Mass Ave from Lexington to Cambridge, except for historical and business districts exempted. 5 story buildings are still authorized for Broadway and 4 story buildings for side streets leading away from those two main streets.

 

Motions, Comments and Decisions From The Meeting:

A WG member mis-characterized Belknap St as R1 (Residential single family zoning) on large lots, and made  similar statements about Paul Revere Rd.  The East Arlington density overlay was previously moved by the Working Group on 8/1 so as to exclude the area of the WG member’s home.  The lost area was voted to be placed in Arlington Heights…

MOTION: retain 7.5’ step back for 5th and 6th floors where there is a 0’ front setback on front face only, except for corner buildings.

Pass Unanimous

MOTION: 60% of ground fl commercial must be commercial use; 80% must face the street

Pass 5-1

MOTION: allow 4 stories in neighborhoods to be 48’

Fail 4-2

MOTION: allow 4 stories in neighborhoods to be 46’

Pass 4-2

MOTION: WG authorizes Claire and Laura Weiner to “work on” language of zoning changes

Pass 5-1 It appeared final votes on density unit numbers, location of map and details of setbacks, heights, story heights and other details would be put off until the next meeting of the Working Group. The WG will presumably have to complete its proposal at least several days ahead of the Arlington Redevelopment Board's meetings to review these proposals, set for September 11.

Screenshots

What Happened at the August 8th MBTA Density Overlay Working Group Meeting

 

What Happened at the August 8th MBTA Density Overlay Working Group Meeting

Map: What meeting the law could look like, but the WG refused to vote on it

THE 08/08/2023 MBTA COMMUNITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING WAS A LOT.

Video of meeting:

The three video segments of the Aug 8 WG meeting are now available at

P1 Utile presents several zoning options, including a minimum compliance scenario. 

https://youtu.be/GwivAee76iI

 (ARFRR has a petition to ask the town for a minimum compliance proposal at

 http://petition.arfr.org

 Please sign and share if you can)

P2 The WG removes the density overlay zone from a WG member's property, eliminating east Arlington Neighborhood district and moving it to the Heights

https://youtu.be/hVlJin-My7g

P3 Discussion of building heights and plans

https://youtu.be/xeI2xBuCjvo

Notes by Kristin Anderson, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 11.

I brought lemonade and cookies for everyone who showed up at the Police Station. But I really should’ve brought popcorn because there was so much drama!

There were 42 people on Zoom. 20 people from the public were physically in attendance. And everyone from the Working Group was there, except ARB Member Kin Lau. The town’s awesome planning department people were there, as well.

One big thing about the night’s attendance was that ARB Member Kin Lau was not there. It would’ve been a very different evening and a different plan for the town had he been there. His absence meant that none of the votes taken were tied. Kin Lau has voted against 15’ setbacks necessary for trees and he has voted in favor of zoning that lead to the elimination of local businesses.

The most vocal member of the Working Group is back from summer vacation. They took control of the meeting, per usual, by interrupting everyone. 

There will be another WG meeting next week, on 08/15/2023, before Utile creates a plan to be sent to the state for compliance testing. 

The ARB will not meet to discuss the plan until 9/11.

__________________________________________

NEW PROXY INPUTS UNIT CAPACITY FORMULA:

Utile has created a new way to calculate “unit capacity” which takes open space into consideration. This is because the state’s compliance calculator doesn’t take into consideration setbacks. Utile assembled “proxy inputs” to simulate how setbacks restrict development. The calculation uses “open space”, which Utile defines as “any space on a lot that does not include a building.”

Where the state’s compliance calculator calculates 20,213 units from the July 25 map, the new proxy inputs formula arrives at 10,957 units. The purpose of the formula is to correct the flaw in the state’s model. Our new numbers are roughly half of the state’s compliance numbers.

Is it confusing? Yes. The important thing to realize is that the capacity unit numbers we will now see are new and are not the state’s numbers for compliance. The new numbers represent what the consultant believes is developable. My understanding is that the Working Group is thinking they want to create a plan that reflects the spirit of the legislation. So with the new Proxy Inputs Formula, they should see a better representation of what is actually developable. 

To better understand how the Proxy Inputs Unit Capacity Formula works, here are two of the charts presented at the meeting by the Utile. Utile is referring to the 07/25 map as the “base.”

The state’s compliance calculations for the Town Hall presentation on 7/25/2023:

Utile’s new Proxy Unit Calculations for the 7/25 map, taking open space into account:

——> We might ask for a copy of the new proxy unit calculator.

____________________________________________

FINANCIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS:

When asked by one Working Group member how much development the map might produce, Matthew Littell said that there’s no way to know how much development we might see unless we perform a “Financial Economic Development Analysis.” 

—-> If the scale of what is being proposed greatly exceeds what the state is requesting, it is a good idea for the Planning Department to get a Financial Economic Development Analysis. 

______________

ALTERNATIVES:

In response to the turnout and public comment at the 7/25 public meeting at Town Hall, the consultant Utile provided some scaled back options which proposed reduction of “sprawl” into the neighborhoods off the main corridors. 

_______________________________

THE MINIMALLY COMPLIANT PLAN
(not voted on or adopted by the WG):

In the 08/08 report, Utile offered a “minimally compliant” district map. This would be Utile’s 8/8 “Alternative A2 - 3 story Neighborhood Multifamily Subdistrict Center / Heights” map. This “minimally compliant map” eliminates East Arlington. This plan would also keep the buildings at 3 stories, which would limit the change in character of the neighborhoods and reduce future development and housing. This minimal compliance is calculated using the Proxy Unit Calculator, not the state’s compliance calculator. The total number of units calculated with three stories maximum is equal to  2124 units, using the Proxy Unit calculation.

Utile’s minimal compliance map, using the Proxy Unit calculation.
Pink is 3 story. Blue is 4 story.

_________________

EAST ARLINGTON:

Some time was spent looking at the East Arlington map. The working group voted to scale back the East Arlington map from the July 25th presentation. Here was an emotionally charged discussion which included threats between WG members and cheers and jeers from the attending public, as well as ugly eyeball glares and scowls. 

The most vocal WG member, who is also an architect, a developer, and a resident of East Arlington did not like their neighborhood being burdened by the zoning changes. So they successfully fought tooth and nail to get much of the zoning removed from the neighborhood parts of East Arlington. Then this same WG member asked that the housing be moved from East Arlington to the Heights. Another WG member called this approach “horse trading.” The MBTA Communities Housing zoning was characterized by one WG member as a “burden” to neighborhoods multiple times. It was interesting to hear a developer and Working Group member make this statement and then watch them move that “burden” from their neighborhood to another neighborhood, just a couple miles up the street.  

As a result of this, the WG voted 5 to 4 on Utile’s “Alternative B1: Tiered” plan, modified to eliminate most of the 3 story subdistrict in East Arlington (the pink), except where needed for contiguity. The parcels needed for contiguity will become part of the 4 story district. This plan shows more 4 story buildings off Mass Ave and Broadway. However, the district is slimmed down and goes only 150’ into the neighborhoods. 

The WG voted in favor of this map for East Arlington,
except with nearly all of the pink parcels removed from the plan:

wsweweeeeeeeeweewwewwewseweweweswseeeeeeeeeeeeeweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwfrrffffffrrffffffffffffr

Some of the East Arlington neighbors who came out for the meeting were very happy about this and cheered. They came away from the meeting thinking this particular WG member is the heroine who saved East Arlington.

I was seated next to a Bates Road resident and asked them if they thought this plan looked better. They sadly shook their head and said, “my house is still on the map.” Their house is not protected by a 3 story buffer. If the development happens, their house will be right up against 4 story buildings that aren’t even on Mass Ave because they are behind a commercial district that faces Mass Ave. 

—> We might consider 3 story building maximums on all parcels not on Mass Ave or Broadway.

_____________________

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS:

The WG voted in favor of the 7/25 “base” plan for Arlington Heights. This includes 4 story buildings 350’ off the main corridor in the brown and up to 6 stories in the blue. It also includes a number of businesses that can be eliminated by developers by right.

The WG voted in favor of this map for the Heights:

The Center/Heights section of the map = 1123 units + 2569 units = 3691,
using the new Proxy Units formula. 

There was discussion of including a new section in the single family district in the Heights, south of the proposed Heights Business District, and west of Park Ave. I do not believe that this was voted on. And I do not believe that Utile will add those new neighborhoods to the map. To the best of my knowledge, those neighbors have heard nothing about this plan. It will be politically perilous to include new neighborhoods to the map at this late date.

________________

THE BUSINESSES:

There was very limited discussion about leaving room in the Center and Capitol Square for the ARB to Master Plan in the future, per our “Vision” document. Nothing was voted on. 

There was ZERO discussion of the R properties on Mass Ave west of Pleasant Street that are currently housing businesses and churches. I’ve sent a list of the businesses to the Planning Director and I’ve asked the WG to vote on eliminating these parcels from the map, but so far the WG is too busy to vote on this or perhaps they don’t care about businesses and are ignoring that request. 

——> We should protect these businesses and the churches. The Town has stated that it prioritizes local businesses and shared public spaces. These businesses are at risk of being eliminated. Churches are a community gathering space and they are also businesses, in so far as they accept money and provide services.  

Personal note: I spent an enormous amount of my youth at church (Sunday School, Sunday Service, Pilgrim Fellowship, Summer Vacation Bible School, Winter Bible Camp). As an adult, I hate the patriarchal nature of it. Therefore I had a hard time coming around to realizing that churches should be protected. But churches really should be protected because they are community gathering places.

Here is a list of the parcels that include businesses and church properties that should be removed from the map:

LOC_ID	St #	Street	Address	Owner	Existing Use Descriptions
F_751997_2974018	275	MASS AVE	275  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	MAC LEOD NORMAN J TRUSTEE	General Office Buildings
F_751307_2975035	339	MASS AVE	339  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	339 MASS AVENUE LLC	General Office Buildings
F_745581_2978094	1008	MASS AVE	1008 -1010 MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	BOWES ROBERT E/TRUSTEE	General Office Buildings
F_745451_2978088	1012	MASS AVE	1012  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	KATZ ALAN H/TRUSTEE	General Office Buildings
F_745396_2978235	1026	MASS AVE	1026  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	JOHNSON REALTY  INC	General Office Buildings
F_751430_2974315	302	MASS AVE	302  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	CALVARY METHODIST EPISCOPAL	Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc...
F_753436_2973016			21  MARATHON ST, MARATHON ST, ARLINGTON, 02476	CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR CHURCH	Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc...
F_743668_2979198			0 LOT APPLETON PL, APPLETON PL, ARLINGTON, 02476	THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH	Other (Religious Org.)
F_743704_2979011			0 LOT APPLETON PL, APPLETON PL, ARLINGTON, 02476	THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH	Other (Religious Org.)
F_751307_2974333			14  LINWOOD ST, LINWOOD ST, ARLINGTON, 02476	CALVARY METH EPIS CHURCH	Rectory or Parsonage
F_750751_2976631			25 -27 MEDFORD ST, MEDFORD ST, ARLINGTON, 02476	ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCH OF BOS	Fidelity House
F_754433_2974042	43	BROADWAY	43  BROADWAY, BROADWAY, ARLINGTON, 02476	43 BROADWAY ARLINGTON LLC	Mixed Use (Primarily Commercial, some Residential)
F_751972_2974068	279	MASS AVE	279  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	BOYER ERIC & SOFIA	Mixed Use (Primarily Commercial, some Residential)
F_746551_2977667	925	MASS AVE	925 -927 MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	B.F. ARLINGTON PROPERTIES LLC	Mixed Use (Primarily Commercial, some Residential)
F_751930_2974106	281	MASS AVE	281  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	MERZON REALTY LLC	Medical Office Buildings
F_752324_2973458	232	MASS AVE	232 -242 MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	CRONIN LISA/TRUSTEE	Small Retail and Services stores (under 10,000 sq. ft.)
F_745068_2978658	1071	MASS AVE	1071  MASS AVE, MASS AVE, ARLINGTON, 02476	A & B MARBLE DESIGN	Small Retail and Services stores (under 10,000 sq. ft.)

__________________________________________________________________________

BONUSES 

Developer bonuses were discussed, incentivizing SITES green building standards and also affordable housing with bonuses.Setting up competing bonuses leads to developers choosing one over the other options (commercial on the ground floor, green building standards, affordable housing). We should be trying to get developers to do all three. So it would be best to find a way to incentivize all of these things without setting them up to compete with each other.

__________________________________________________________________________

BUILDING HEIGHTS

Building heights were set at 13’ per story.