What is the Good Neighbor Agreement?

The Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA) is a Town Bylaw requiring builders to give detailed notice of their plans to abutters when demolition of a house or the construction of a large addition to an existing house is planned.  (A large addition is defined as an addition that is 50% or 750 square feet greater than the existing house.)  

Formally, it is the Notice of Demolition, and can be found in Title VI, Article 7 of the Town Bylaw: 

https://www.arlingtonma.gov/town-governance/laws-and-regulations/town-bylaws/title-vi-building-regulations 

The GNA was developed by the Residential Study Group (RSG), itself formed by Town Meeting to address the impacts of new development on established neighborhoods, after much comment from residents about the negative effects of demolitions and new construction.  The RSG created a survey about how development affects neighborhoods and sent it to abutters of new construction and large additions completed within the past three years (of 2017).  From the responses, the RSG identified the most-often mentioned complaints, one of which was complete lack of notice before a project begins.  Too many homeowners were unpleasantly surprised to find major projects going on in their neighborhoods, sometimes right next door, with no warning.  

The RSG then drafted a construction agreement, based on those in use in other municipalities and with significant modifications based on group input, to specify what developers had to provide to abutters prior to beginning demolition and/or construction.  The resulting GNA was adopted by Town Meeting in 2017.  It requires builders to send the following items to all abutters within 200’ of the site, at least seven calendar days before work begins, or within seven days of applying for a Building Permit, whichever date is earlier:  

• complete contact information 

• site plan for any applicable residential demolition, open foundation excavation,  alteration, or construction project  

• information detailing the hours of operation for the project 

• anticipated completion date 

• work schedule 

• health, safety, and abutting property protections 

• noise abatement measures applied by the developer or contractor of the project 

In addition, the developer must provide the Building Inspector with a list of the recipients, a copy of materials sent, and an affidavit stating the date of the mailing.  Failure to comply will result in a fine of $200.00 per day, upon notification of the Building Inspector. 

Title VI, Articles 12 and 13 go on to provide definitions, detail the requirements for site maintenance during construction, and specify fines for non-compliance.  Those site maintenance requirements are: 

1. All waste shall be managed and secured daily so as not to impact site abutters or the surrounding area; and at a minimum, dumpsters shall be cleaned or removed every thirty (30) calendar days; 
2. Portable restrooms shall be secured, maintained, free from the public way, and placed at least ten (10) feet from adjacent residential properties unless otherwise permitted by the Town through the Building Inspector or his or her designee; 
3. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored in safe, secure and non-obstructive locations on the site, or as otherwise permitted by the Town through the Building Inspector or his or her designee; 
4. Construction equipment and materials no longer to be used on the site shall be removed from the site within 14 calendar days, unless otherwise permitted by the Town through the Building Inspector or his or her designee; 
5. A drive entrance pad, or its equivalent, shall be placed, utilized, and maintained on site to provide an area where construction vehicles entering and exiting the building site can remove mud and sediment from tires prior to driving on public or private ways, unless determined technically infeasible by the Building Inspector or his or her designee; 
6. In interests of public safety and protecting abutting property owners, lateral supports shall not be removed from any footing or foundation without first protecting such footings or foundations against settlement or lateral translation. 

Fines of $50.00 per category upon first report of violations to the Building Inspector, and $100.00 per category per day thereafter will be imposed.  

It was hoped that the GNA would go some way toward making the experience of residential construction more predictable and less stressful for abutters.  To gauge its impact, the RSG sent a follow-up survey one year later, to abutters of 24 selected projects completed after the GNA went into effect, a total of 1,280 households.  Of those who replied, itself a disappointingly low number, only 48 remembered receiving notice.  A public records request showed that only 3 developers had submitted all the required materials.  So far there has been no action on the part of Inspectional Services to remedy this situation. 

Enforcement is a key issue in many Bylaws, especially those related to zoning, and it often falls upon residents to bring attention about instances of non-compliance to the appropriate official.  Without enforcement, the work of the RSG is rendered moot.  More importantly, the faith of residents in our Town’s governing and enforcement bodies is undercut. 

What does all this mean for your neighborhood? 

If there is a project going on in your neighborhood and you live within 200 feet but do not receive a complete packet from the builder, or if the site is not properly maintained, please contact Inspectional Services to let them know.  If you don’t feel you get a satisfactory response, contact the Town Manager.  

Their contact information: 

Inspectional Services 

781.316.3390 

inspectionalservices@town.arlington.ma.us 

Adam Chapdelaine, Town Manager 

781.316.3010 

achapdelaine@town.arlington.ma.us 

And while ARFRR does not address individual issues of enforcement, we do keep track of enforcement issues overall.  Please let us know about instances of GNA non-compliance, at askarfrr@outlook.com 

The Heights Hotel Part II - What happened at the meeting and more...

Artist's conception of the proposed Hotel

(This is part II of our research and observations on a proposed hotel at 1207-1211 Mass Ave in Arlington. You can read our earlier post on the blog here.)

We’re gonna need a bigger room.

Back on July 22, the Redevelopment Board correctly anticipated the strong neighborhood interest in the proposal for a boutique hotel on two lots at 1207-1211 Mass Ave and moved the hearing to the larger Lyons Conference Room.  Even so, it was standing room only with some of the crowd spilling out into the hallway.  Perhaps next time the Board will arrange for microphones and speakers so that everyone can hear the proceedings.

It was not a pleasant evening for the developer.  The Board started off  by calling the submitted plans preliminary, not sufficiently detailed for the Board to make an informed decision.  Several of the Board members focused on traffic concerns and the requested drastic reduction in on-site parking.  The proposal of a 5’ deep curb cut on Mass Ave for bus loading was received very poorly because of safety reasons and the sacrifice of a public street tree.  A detailed, professional traffic study was requested for the next hearing.  Clearly the developer and his architect have a lot of homework to do.

The residents who attended had quite a bit to say about traffic also.  It was observed that the site is located between two terribly designed intersections only 400 feet apart, those of Mass Ave. with Appleton Street and with Lowell Street.  Access to and from the hotel would be via Clark St, a private way that offers two bad options for exiting cars and buses.  Either turn left and attempt to turn on to Mass Ave at a corner with very poor visibility, or turn right and take a circuitous route through the residential neighborhood.  Residents noted the safety issues posed by the proximity of St Athanasius Church and the Ottoson School, along with the narrowness of Mass Ave along that stretch.  Over and over, residents of that neighborhood told the Board that cut through traffic and overnight spill-over parking were already ongoing problems on Clark and Peirce Streets. Several neighbors challenged the appropriateness of such a project on a B2 lot zoned specifically for small neighborhood-serving businesses.  Another resident wondered about whether the developer had any experience in the hotel and restaurant industries.

Various serious zoning problems were also raised.  The developer’s plan calls for a building that comes right up to the property line on the Clark St side.  The zoning laws for a corner lot require a 20 foot yard setback along that street front.  Similarly, the developer failed to provide the required upper story stepback on that side of the building, and improperly put the stepback on the Mass Ave side beginning at the fourth floor rather than the third.

Perhaps the biggest question, which went unanswered, was how could a hotel even be built on the B2 lot (1207 Mass Ave) when the zoning laws clearly prohibit such a use.  The Board was reminded of the assertion that it made repeatedly to the 2016 Town Meeting that the new Mixed Use bylaw prohibits as part of mixed-use developments uses that are prohibited individually within the same zoning district. The Board was also reminded of its promise to Town Meeting that it would be the protectors of the character of neighborhoods, particularly citing the B2 district. (link to video)

Two residents spoke in favor of the hotel proposal, citing the economic benefits and the removal of the current eyesore (ironically created by the present owner/developer).  Another resident noted that the HCA owned twenty-one subsidized apartments in the vicinity, and that the boutique hotel would be a wonderful place for visiting friends and relatives of the tenants to stay.

The developer and his architect have a lot of work to do, and initially requested that the hearing be continued to at least September.  Now they say they will need until late October to revise their application. Among the key issues facing them:

• One third of the site is in a B2 district which prohibits a hotel as a use.  The Redevelopment Board does not have the authority to override this prohibition.  Neither does the Select Board, the Town Manager, or the Planning Department.  Only Town Meeting can vote this change.

• Traffic flow through the residential neighborhood.  Should part of Clark St be made one way, with an expensive light controlled intersection at Mass Ave?  How to deal with the other private way owners?

• Floor Area Ratio.  The developer is asking the Redevelopment Board for permission to exceed the zoning limits but the Board does not have that authority for lots under 20,000 sf.

• Usable Open Space. The original plans do not include any areas that meet the zoning definition of Usable Open Space.

• Major redesign to conform with the required Clark St yard setback and the third floor upper story stepbacks on both street sides.

• Waiver of special permit and building permit fees, likely to top $100,000.  The Select Board promised these waivers in the RFP for a mixed-use development despite not having the authority to waive fees on their own. Now they are belatedly going to the Redevelopment Board asking if it will give permission for the waiver of the $5300 or so for a special permit fee.   The Redevelopment Board Chair at its August 12 meeting noted that he and another ARB member still had questions about the ARB’s legal authority to grant such a waiver.  The bigger issue of the expected $100K in building permit fees remains in limbo.  Legally, it seems that this is another issue that needs to go before Town Meeting for approval.

Indulging in speculation, the developer may simply punt on the hotel idea and come back to the Board with a mixed-use proposal for an apartment building that would feature 16 luxury one and two bedroom units.  This may have been his intention all along, dangling the idea of a high revenue hotel during the negotiations to purchase the town-owned land, in order to sweeten the deal.  Now that a purchase and sale agreement is signed, he is going through the motions with a hotel designed by an architect that has never designed a hotel before, violating at least a half dozen zoning laws. In the coming months, look out for a possible bait and switch.  

The Heights Hotel - History and Details

1207 Mass Ave - Proposed Hotel Site

The Heights Hotel - History and Details

In our blog entry this week, we look at the hotel currently proposed at 1207 Mass Ave.

There is a meeting on this issue on July 22nd (this) Monday night  at the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) session at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor conference room.

It was news to many Arlington residents this week that the Town was negotiating the development of a hotel on Mass Ave in the Heights.  Actually, it has been a long drawn out process that has not gone as first envisioned.  Here is the background story…

It starts about six years ago when the Select Board discovered to its great surprise that it had owned the land at 1207 Mass Ave for more than a century and was landlord to the soon to be vacated Disabled American Veterans club.  A working group was formed, including Selectman Steven Byrne, to figure out what to do with this newly found asset.

They looked first at ways to utilize it as a town building for office or meeting space.  They considered it for a food pantry site.  There was much talk of a shared space/incubator. They looked at rental options.  The Select Board concluded that the best option was to simply sell it outright and use the money to help pay for the Stratton School renovations.  They went before the 2015 spring Town Meeting with their case and received approval to dispose of 1207 Mass Ave.

The optimistic view presented to Town Meeting was that the sale might realize $1M or more, and the 2016 fiscal year Capital Plan actually earmarked that amount for paying for Stratton School costs. Four years later, the funds from a sale have still not materialized.

The first round of RFP bidding did not go well, with a few nibbles but no bids.  The Town lowered its asking price to $750K and in late 2016 received one offer from the owner of an abutting property.

The Select Board had to deal with an awkward situation.  The sole bidder was James Doherty who had been on the Board of Assessors during the early days of the process.  He had purchased 1211 Mass Ave next door just a few years earlier, and the town lot was probably more valuable to him than other buyers because of the development possibilities.  His proposal was based upon the new mixed use bylaw passed by Town Meeting in 2016.  He proposed combining first floor retail with some sort of residential use above, specifying either apartments or a small hotel.  The latter was particularly attractive to the Select Board with its promise of revenue from hotel occupancy taxes.  Remarkably, no one seems to have noticed that the hotel use was prohibited in the B2 district of the DAV lot.

The awkwardness of the sale arose from selling town land to an "insider," a recent member of the Board of Assessors who also had a personal connection to a Selectman who had served on the working group exploring options for either keeping or selling the property.  The Select Board handled it with great delicacy.  Selectman Byrne properly recused himself quietly from deliberations and voting in March 2017, and the name of the buyer was not uttered during the meeting.  The Town Manager was authorized to enter into negotiations.

The negotiations dragged out for a year and a half, finally concluding with a Purchase & Sale agreement last fall.  The buyer ended up with a very nice deal for himself, receiving a waiver of all special permit and building fees.  In appearing before the Redevelopment Board next week, he will not pay the approximately $5K fee set by the Board.  Going forward, he will not pay any building permit fees.  

This is not chump change.  For a project of this size, the building permit fees will amount to many tens of thousands of dollars, likely topping $100K.  It is not clear that the Select Board or Town Manager even has the authority to waive these fees; they are set down in the Town bylaws.  It also seems that if the developer does not get the Special Permit he seeks, he can back out of the deal and the Town gets nothing for its efforts of the last five years.

And that sets the playing field for next Monday’s hearing...

Arlington Spy Pond property seeks to get around conservation and zoning rules

Arlington Spy Pond property seeks to get around conservation and zoning rules. 

Some of you have been following the doings at 47 Spy Pond Lane.  The current owner wants to sell it to a developer who wants to subdivide and build two large homes that just happen to intrude well into the 100 foot protection zone.  The developer seeks to obtain a zoning/conservation easement, to go around the rules governing construction by Spy Pond and in this neighborhood.

The hearings have dragged on for many months, in part because the developer's project plans have not complied with  the Commission.  The next hearing is for this coming Thursday (July 11, 2019) at 7:30pm at the Senior Center, Main Room - 1st floor (27 Maple Street)

ARFRR has written a letter regarding this continuing situation (click here to read it) and encourages Arlingtonians to take interest in the matter.

YourArlington.com has been covering this long-running issue.  You can read their latest story on it here.

Arlington Just says "NO" to the Density Articles at Town Meeting

Arlington Residents For Responsible Redevelopment was formed late in 2018 when the Town first began hosting meetings slanted towards increasing density.  We noticed the input of outside organizations such as CHAPA and MAPC with limited inclusion and awareness by town residents and businesses.  We began to attend and publicize the Town's steps and meetings, as the extent of the Town's efforts to change Arlington's zoning by-laws became clear.  This culminated in the April 2019 Town Meeting questions that the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) and planning department put forward for Town Meeting's review.  After a full night of debate with most TM Member speakers voicing concern or their intention to vote against the density articles, the Town was forced to withdraw them at the beginning of the subsequent night.  You can watch the head of the Town's ARB changing the Town's recommended vote on their own density Articles to "No Action" here.  You can watch the debate from April 22 Town Meeting, which forced the Town to remove their Articles here.

It is thanks to all of us in town taking the time to look at what the changes would do to us, and saying that 1) zoning bylaw changes need to come from the taxpayer stakeholders and 2) changes need to be made carefully in a process that includes residents, businesses and taxpayers.

ARFRR continues to support zoning and zoning changes that make Arlington a better place and that represent the intentions of those who live and work here.  Watch our future blog posts to stay informed about redevelopment issues of concern to Arlingtonians.

Carl Wagner
ARFRR