Very First Project Proposed for Broadway Using MBTA Act Bonuses Violates The Bylaw on MBTA Act Bonuses

On October 20th, the ARB heard ten members of the public, including abutters, voice concerns about a project to put a 5-story building containing 14 units on a small lot where a 2-family now stands. (One more person liked the proposal and one was neutral). The proposed project at 126 Broadway is in a residential neighborhood full of houses and low-rise apartments. Residents expressed real concerns about the project’s size, its ugliness, the impact of cars parked on the street 24/7 (9 of 14 units come with no assigned parking), accessibility, snow/trash removal, pedestrian/student safety, and, most importantly, the very legality of the project as proposed. 

Arlington’s Zoning Bylaws contain very specific wording in the section on bonuses to be earned under by-right development in the MBTA Act Overlay, which these developers opted to use instead of our traditional Inclusionary Zoning. Specifically, the requirements for a fifth floor bonus in the Mass Ave/Broadway Multifamily (MBMF) district in Section 5.9.4.E(2) of the Bylaw read:

• (2) In the MBMF Overlay District, one additional story may be added if the total percentage of affordable units exceeds the requirements in Section 8.2.3 Requirements of this Bylaw for a total of at least 22.5% of all units (emphasis added).

This is the bylaw presented to the public and subsequently voted upon by Town Meeting. As is clear, the words “at least” are baked into the requirements. Our Inclusionary Zoning bylaw (8.2.3) is mentioned only in that these requirements are to exceed those. MBTA Act zoning requirements replace regular Inclusionary Zoning rules once a developer chooses that route. A developer must adhere to either MBTA CA regulations or our own Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Mixing and matching is not allowed.

At the last ARB meeting for 126 Broadway, a member of the Board told the developers they had not met any of the possible requirements for either a bonus fifth floor or for a zero setback from the sidewalk. Last night, all ARB members suddenly opined that the requirement for a fifth floor had been met (and they agreed on the zero setback in a split decision). In doing so, the ARB is letting developers bend a carefully worded law that was crafted so that adding a fifth floor (NOTE: on Mass Ave, sixth floor bonuses will also be in play), or getting permission to extend tall buildings right up to the sidewalk, would require stringent concessions. To any reasonable person, “for a total of at least 22.5% of all units” means exactly what it says. It sets a minimum threshold. This building proposes 3 affordable units out of 14, which is not “at least 22.5% of all units.” There is no rounding down from a minimum threshold.

This is the first project on a main street to seek to use relaxed MBTA Act zoning rules. Do not let unelected individuals on the ARB twist and weaken the few safeguards established to prevent developers from thwarting residents’ wishes and flouting our laws. Do not allow them to set a precedent whereby they will seek to ignore the requirements for bonuses for every single project under MBTA Act zoning going forward based on cherry-picking from different sections of our laws. 

The NEXT MEETING on 126 BROADWAY is set for NOVEMBER 17th. Time is TBD. Please attend this meeting and ask the ARB to uphold the law they crafted and which TMMs passed. Please also send letters to the ARB, the Planning Director, and the Town Manager, who appoints ARB Members:  

ARB Members:

rzsembery@town.arlington.ma.us, EBenson@town.arlington.ma.us, KLau@town.arlington.ma.us, SKorman-Houston@town.arlington.ma.us srevilak@town.arlington.ma.us Planning DIrector: cricker@town.arlington.ma.us Town Manager: jfeeney@town.arlington.ma.us Project plans here: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74865/638961282453370000

Stepping Up, or Stepping Into the Abyss?: How Regional Pressures are Exacerbating Arlington's Fiscal Problems and Intensifying Gentrification

In discussions about Arlington’s role in easing the state’s housing crisis (more appropriately described as an affordability crisis), the town is time and again selectively compared to large cities such as Somerville and Cambridge. Sometimes even members of Arlington’s own Town government and Redevelopment Board make such misguided comparisons. 

This ought to give us pause and make us wonder how much those who represent Arlington in discussions about housing and development know about, or consider, how local conditions can sometimes be exacerbated by regional initiatives. Do our representatives plan comprehensively, or do they accept the knee-jerk idea that Arlington must somehow “step up” even if stepping up means stepping into a financial abyss that decreases economic diversity in town at the same time?

Including the state’s largest cities, Arlington has the thirteenth highest population density in all of Massachusetts. (This data is from the MassGIS Bureau of Geographic Information, which uses more generous measures for municipality’s square footage compared to the census itself: https://www.google.com/urlq=https://arcg.is/1iPST50&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1756738020315651&usg=AOvVaw3tRryqEFf5-3K-TP8rDqjW). Excluding water bodies, as the US census does, Arlington has 8,991.8 people, and 3,973 housing units, per square mile. 

Communities are being asked to step up to contribute to the alleviation of a regional housing shortage. So… What if our neighboring communities were to build out to the same density as Arlington? How many units would they have to create before they would match Arlington’s level of density, and how far would that go towards meeting the state's housing goals?

Remarkably, if the ten Greater Boston communities below were to build out to Arlington’s density, 241,164 new housing units would be built, which is enough to meet the state’s entire estimated demand (All of the data upon which the following analysis is based comes from the 2020 US census: https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDHC2020.P1?t=Populations+and+People&g=160XX00US2501640) 

What if we were to measure Arlington instead against the Town Manager Twelve, the dozen communities we usually turn to for comparative analysis? This group includes Brookline, Watertown, Medford, Melrose, Belmont, Stoneham, Winchester, Reading, Natick, Needham, and Milton. Of these towns, only Brookline and Watertown have slightly higher density than us, and the other nine have much lower density. If these communities were to achieve parity with Arlington, that would increase our regional housing stock by 201,642 units.

Within the Inner Core of twenty-one communities with which the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) lumps us, if Lynn, Medford, Quincy, Melrose, Belmont, Waltham, Newton, Saugus, Needham, and Milton were to build so as to match Arlington's density, they would add a full 216,632 housing units to the Greater Boston area.

Even within the Metro Mayors/ Coalition, made up entirely of cities, if Medford, Quincy, Melrose, Newton, and Braintree were to build to Arlington's density, they would add 108,325 housing units to the Greater Boston area.   

Our Town employees and unelected volunteers on the Arlington Redevelopment Board are supposed to consider local pressures alongside regional pressures. So how does our need for a healthy commercial tax base compare with that of our partners in the Metro Mayors’ Coalition? As a whole, the non-residential portion of all property taxes collected in the cities in the Metro Mayors’ Coalition is a whopping 44% ( This data is from the MA Department of Revenue Data’s Analytics and Resource Bureau for Fiscal Year 2025: https://dlsgw.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdpage.aspxrdreport=dashboard.trendanalysisreports.taxlevybyclass).  If we look at the MAPC Inner Core, with which we are also lumped, that grouping as a whole takes in 43% of their total revenue from non-residential taxes.

In Arlington, a puny 5.27% of our tax levy derives from commerce and industry. This situation results in frequent property tax overrides, with another looming deficit projected at $13.5 million for fiscal year 2027 (beginning in July 2026), and rising to $24.9 million by fiscal year 2029. (See Appendix D of Arlington Finance Committee’s Report to Town Meeting 2025: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/73684/638802179946530000)

With such uneven terrain beneath us, it seems prudent that residents ask who needs to “step up” such that new development does not cause the cost of living to skyrocket ever more rapidly in communities like Arlington. Planners working in concert with the state seem oblivious to the precipice ahead in their rush to create simplistic formulas that ignore our town’s financial problems and current density levels. Worse yet, their plans promise to be ineffective in lowering prices. The reality is that the town is in demand among higher-income newcomers, and it cannot support development without the destruction of perfectly good cheaper housing while also unleashing consequences that worsen the financial situation for many residents in tenuous straits already. 

One would expect regional planners to consider each town’s fiscal needs and constraints as they come up with plans to allocate density mandates. Alas, it appears they forgot to do such an analysis for the town of Arlington (or they simply choose to look away from the abyss?). Nor is our own planning department speaking up about our town’s unique constraints. If they were to serve the Town’s best interests, they would address Arlington’s lopsided finances as a crisis affecting the town’s fiscal viability, and recognize it as our most urgent priority. New development, including the mixed use projects that contain less commercial space than existed before, has done nothing but exacerbate Arlington’s fiscal problems.

Even if we can manage to fill the town with ever wealthier people to foot our rising property tax bills, this is hardly the inclusive community that residents have said they want. Loss of economic diversity within town boundaries as current residents continue to be forced out under the crushing weight of ever-rising assessments and taxes (affecting homeowners and renters alike) is worthy of opposition if one believes Arlington has a right to want economic diversity as a goal. Do planners at the state and town levels understand that they are undermining that goal, or do they blindly think that a few “subsidized units” are going to make up for the intensifying gentrification their plans are unleashing on a much larger scale?