Mugar Update

While we have all been sheltering at home, there has been some progress with the Thorndike Place project.  There are newly submitted plans to ponder over in our excess spare time.

The last Zoning Board of Appeals hearing for the Thorndike Place project was held last December.  The next hearing was to have been held last week but has been continued until June 9.

The developer, Arlington Land Realty, has recently provided the Town with additional plans and materials that were requested by the ZBA last December.  Among them are a listing of the waivers sought of local regulations and fees under the 40B Comprehensive Permit application, and the results of a new survey of the wetland areas of the Mugar tract commissioned by the developer.

Various state and local regulations place limitations on construction within a 100 foot buffer zone of a wetland area.  The Mugar survey shows that portions of the main building would lie within this buffer zone.

Modified to show surveyed Wetlands and Buffer Zones

It should be noted that this survey does not agree with Arlington's own GIS survey of wetland areas.  The town's database places one wetland area about 100' further north, squarely centered on the proposed east building. The  buffer zone for this wetland area encompasses most of the building.

Mugar Survey of Wetland and 100' Buffer Zone

  

Town GIS Survey of Wetland area and Buffer Zone




 








Under 40B, the developer can seek a waiver from Arlington's wetland regulations but state restrictions must still be observed.  A hearing before the Arlington Conservation Commission will be required.  Their most recent record suggests a leniency towards wetland encroachment.  Just a few months ago they approved a plan to tear down an existing house on Spy Pond, replacing it with two McMansions that encroach upon the buffer zone.  They are not likely to be more stringent with a less visible wetland area with loosely defined boundaries.

It is also worthwhile taking a look at the floodplain boundaries.  A large portion of the Mugar tract is within the FEMA AE flood zone.

Modified to show Floodplain

Parts of both the East and West Buildings lie within the floodplain.  The plans show that the first floors are set at about four feet above the grade but the large parking garage underneath is six feet below grade in this flood zone.

A similar situation exists with the duplex townhouses proposed for Dorothy St.  Four of the twelve units are in this floodplain.  Like the main buildings, the garages are located underneath, well below grade.  But they also have basements with all of the utilities at this subterranean level.

Part of the Mugar  tract is also a federal Regulated Floodway.  It has special rules that strictly limit not only construction but any modification of the terrain.  The Thorndike Place plans show extensive landscaping and creation of a walking path through this area.

Next hearing is scheduled June 9.  Hopefully it will be safe by then to hold a real public meeting.

By Don Seltzer

The Heights Hotel VI - Jump Starting the Project

The Hotel Lexington project at 1207-1211 Mass Ave has been bogged down since its formal introduction to the Arlington Redevelopment Board last July.  There were several major zoning conflicts revealed at that hearing.  These are formidable but not insurmountable. Unfortunately the development team has been seemingly paralyzed by these problems.  Not only have they made zero progress in addressing these issues but they have not even acknowledged that they exist.  All that they have accomplished in redesign since last summer has been changing the materials of the facade and putting in a small circular driveway in front.

Let's see if we can jump start the process with ideas that tackle the chief zoning conflicts.

Problem #1 - The proposed four story hotel is simply too big for the lot that it is on.  On a 14,000 sf lot the zoning bylaw allows a maximum 21,000 sf of gross floor area.  The plans that have been shown so far come in at nearly 5,000 sf over the maximum.  Furthermore,  the design does not conform with the rules for upper story stepbacks.  For a building of this height the stepbacks must start at the third floor, not the fourth.  Finally, the portion of the project that is to be built on the town owned 1207 Mass Ave parcel is zoned B2.  The height limit for this part of the building is three stories, not four.

The simple solution?  Eliminate the fourth floor from the design.  This one action will bring the floor area within the permissible range, will eliminate the stepback problems, and make the number of stories conform with the zoning bylaws.  And the Peirce St neighbors behind the hotel will be grateful for a less massive structure looming over their backyards.

Four Story Design

Three Story Design

Problem #2 - The zoning bylaw prohibits a hotel use on the third of the property that lies within the B2 district. However, a restaurant is a permitted use.  Solution - Move the restaurant portion of the building to the right side, occupying two floors.  The ground floor could have a large bar area and casual pub style dining.  The second floor could be for fine dining in a quieter atmosphere.

The hotel lobby can now be on the left side of the building in the front.  The rear of the ground floor could have additional rooms looking out over the parking lot.  Yes, there will be a net loss of some rooms, but that will help alleviate the parking problems.  A 51 room hotel is simply way too much for a 14,000 sf lot.  The 121 room Homewood Suites in east Arlington is located on a 52,000 sf lot.

What about the third floor over the restaurant?  There are numerous allowable uses.  It could be an office area for both the hotel and the restaurant.  Strangely, the original plans did not include such an area which is usually considered to be a necessity for a hotel.  There could even be a catering service run out of this area, another allowable use for B2.

It has been five years since Town Meeting gave its approval for the Select Board to sell off 1207 Mass Ave to help pay for the Stratton School renovation.  It is time for the Town and developer to complete the sale and move forward with a project that benefits the Town and respects the neighborhood.

Next hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 16 in the Lyons Hearing Room, Town Hall. Look for the promised topographical survey which is key to some remaining questions.

- Don Seltzer 

A Warning From the Future

Tory Bullock, in "Dear Boston Luxury Condos"

Tory Bullock, a talented artist and lifelong resident of Boston,  takes us on a trip to a future that has already arrived in Boston, and that will happen here in Arlington if we're not careful. Bullock explains clearly how those shiny new condos springing up everywhere displace existing residents, and how this gentrification drives out the young, the old, those with lower incomes, the artists and strivers who keep a community diverse and vibrant.  Supplying new housing without prioritizing affordability isn't good for Boston, and it wouldn't be good for Arlington either.

You'll laugh, we promise!

(If the Facebook sign-in page pops up, and you are not signed in or not on Facebook, just click "Not Now" to watch the video)

https://www.facebook.com/tory.bullock/videos/10158191430305241/

The Heights Hotel Part V - What is Wrong with this Picture?

A small hotel seems to be just the kind of development that Arlington needs, and a good restaurant would be a welcome addition to the Heights neighborhood.  But the designers continue to struggle with fitting a 50 room hotel on two undersized parcels (one of which is still owned by the town) and complying with significant zoning requirements intended to protect the rest of the neighborhood, particularly the abutters on Clark and Peirce St.
Responsible redevelopment respects the rights of the adjacent homeowners.

The second hearing for the Hotel Lexington was held on Monday, January 27.  There was a good turnout of residents to observe and offer their views.  
You can watch the entire hearing here or just the public comments.

After a six month wait, we saw what the architects have been working on.
-New materials for the facade.
-A small circular driveway in front.
-A shrunken parking lot in the rear that will be valet only.
Still missing is the topographical survey that should have been provided on Day One.

The architects have also provided renderings of what the hotel will look like from Mass Ave, on the block between Lowell and Appleton.

Architect's Rendering of what Hotel should look like

It seems to fit well into the neighborhood, almost unobtrusive.  
But is it real?

What is wrong with this picture?  
Hint - count the utility poles.  Start with Pole A in front of Nicola's.  The hotel starts at around Pole B, the corner of Clark St.  The circular driveway and canopy should be between Poles C and D.  Pole D, directly in front of the DAV building at 1207 Mass Ave, marks the far end of the proposed hotel.  And the hotel is taller than those 40' utility poles.

It is clear that the architects have provided a visualization that is grossly inaccurate, showing an undersized building that occupies only a fraction of the total footprint.  At the next hearing, March 16, they will have a lot of explaining to do.

Google Street View

View of 1211 Mass Ave between Poles B and C

View of Town-owned DAV building, 1207 Mass Ave, between Poles C and D

How the Architect's Rendering compares to actual lot plan

The Heights Hotel Part IV - Is the Wait Over?

The Heights Hotel Part IV - Is the Wait Over?

A QUICK RECAP on the "Hotel Lexington" project.  The last real news goes way back to July 22 when residents gathered in the Lyons Room to hear the proposal and provide their concerns.  The developer left with a long list of potential problems and zoning issues to resolve.  The Redevelopment Board was left with the thorny legal issue of waiving both special permit fees and future inspection fees.  Some of these fees are set down in our bylaws by Town Meeting but were somehow negotiated away by the Town Manager and the Planning Department.  Tomorrow's hearing will address the fairly modest $5400 special permit fee but leave unaddressed the substantial inspection fees which could easily top $100,000.

After six months of cancelled hearings, the developer is back with a revised plan.  Most of the newly submitted material is about parking and traffic.  There will be no self-parking spots provided for either hotel guests or restaurant patrons.  All parking will be by valet.  The hotel is being pushed back about 12 feet to accommodate a small semi-circular driveway in front for pickup and drop-off.  This extra setback is a big improvement when viewed from the Mass Ave.  Not so good for the folks who live on Peirce St.  The back of the hotel will now be 12 feet closer to your backyards.

The traffic study makes interesting reading.  For the before and after traffic estimates, the long abandoned Disabled American Veterans club is modeled as a high turnover sit down restaurant and is being counted for current traffic volume.  Apparently six years ago it had a small kitchen in the back.

Environmentalists may be alarmed to discover that landscaped open space now means pervious brick rather than plantings.

What is remarkable about the materials submitted for Monday’s hearing is not what is there but what is missing. Several serious zoning problems were raised at the July hearing but the applicant has chosen to completely ignore them, perhaps hoping that they will be forgotten.  Nothing has been done on the Clark St setback requirement. The planned upper story stepback continues to be a floor too high. And there still isn’t a single square foot of the required usable open space.  The developer continues to ask for an exemption from the floor area ratio requirements even though the bylaw explicitly denies the Board the authority to make such an exception for this size property.

And then there is the elephant in the room that no one will address - a hotel use is simply not allowed in a B2 zone. 

The hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 27 in the Senior Center.  Hopefully the organizers have learned from last time and will arrange for microphones so that the public can hear what is being presented.  It would also be nice to have a projector and screen instead of flip charts so that we can actually see the drawings being discussed.

The Heights Hotel Part III - The Waiting Game UPDATED with new meeting date

The Heights Hotel Part III - The Waiting Game

UPDATE - Once again the next hearing has been cancelled.  Attorney Mary Winstanley O'Conner has written to the Redevelopment Board asking that it be continued to January 27th, without explanation of reason of the delay or why the developer waited so long to make this last minute request.

So, what’s up with the "Hotel Lexington" project?  The last real news goes way back to July 22 when residents gathered in the Lyons Room to hear the proposal and provide their concerns.   The developer left with a long list of potential problems and zoning issues to resolve.  The Redevelopment Board was left with the thorny legal issue of an estimated $100,000 in building permit fees that were being waived.  These are fees that are set down in our bylaws by Town Meeting but were somehow negotiated away by the Town Manager and the Planning Department.

Since then, hardly a peep.  There was a continuance to September, and then another to October.  At that time the developer postponed it again, this time for another two months until the  JANUARY 27th December 16 meeting of the Redevelopment Board.  Nothing more has been released for the public.

There has been some activity behind the scenes, though.  Back on August 12th, the developer did meet with some members of the Redevelopment Board to discuss the project.  Not at the public meeting that same evening, but just beforehand behind closed doors.  It was another of those unannounced, closed to the public, very private get togethers that leave the public in the dark about what is going on.  No minutes kept and not even a brief announcement of what went on or who attended.

Meanwhile, there has been a new development next door at 1215 Mass Ave.  The building that formerly housed Nicola’s is being converted into a liquor store.  The owner has already been before the Select Board and next will seek approval of the Redevelopment Board.  Whatever traffic studies the hotel developer has conducted need to be amended to account for the new use next door.

To refresh your memory of the history of this drawn out process, it was four and a half years ago that Town Meeting voted to approve the sale of 1207 Mass Ave. The Town budget actually included an expected $1,000,000 from the sale to help pay for the Stratton School project. The RFP bid that was accepted in late 2016 was for only $750,000.  The actual Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed just about a year ago, but the transaction has yet to be completed and it seems that the developer can back out of the deal if he does not get what he wants from the Redevelopment Board.

There is every reason for the developer to stall.  His purchase price for the town property remains fixed at the 2016 level even as real estate prices in Arlington have rocketed in the last three years.  More ominously, the Planning Dept is again pushing zoning changes for the Heights business district which conveniently has been defined as extending all the way to Forest St, thus including the hotel.  The proposed changes were authored by our old friends, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and go even further than the zoning changes that failed at Town Meeting last spring.  The new version would have that entire block of B2 (small businesses serving the neighborhood) rezoned to a super B3 district.  What does that mean for the abutting homes on Clark, Peirce, Forest, and Locke?  Think about higher and denser buildings, four or five stories in your backyard.

And for the developer, it means that many of those pesky zoning limitations that restrict him will go away.

Stay tuned.  Or better still, come to the hearing on JANUARY 27th December 16 in the Town Hall auditorium location TBA.

Density and Displacement

NIMBY v. YIMBY                                                                                                             

Density and Displacement

Zoning is more than a bloodless means of regulating what may be built and where.  It shapes demographics, economic zones, and the look of neighborhoods.  It can also give rise to strong emotions between planners and residents, between long-time residents and newcomers, and between local control and top-down initiatives.  At its worst, it provokes disparagement of those with differing views on what is important and how to achieve it, to the point of labeling them exclusionary and/or racist.

Broadly, there seems to be agreement in Arlington that many residents want to preserve aspects of the town that they love, such as our trees and green spaces, our older neighborhoods, and our unique small businesses; and also that Arlington is becoming ever more expensive, and that we need to provide affordable options for existing residents and newcomers both.

For a long time, the best path to creating more affordable, and more-affordable, housing was believed to be by allowing greater density and loosening zoning restrictions.  But density efforts have been in place long enough now for new research to emerge, based on outcomes rather than theory.  Much of it paints a different picture of what works to create affordable communities, and shows how current efforts have actually led to a decrease in affordable units, the displacement of existing residents at the lower end of the income spectrum, and a homogenization of economic and demographic diversity.

         “Real estate interests and some scholars argue that unaffordable housing costs

               are primarily due to a shortage in housing supply, and that any increase in

               supply—including luxury development—will ultimately help depress rents. While

               there is some evidence new housing production does eventually help lower

               median rent in the neighborhoods where construction occurred compared to

               other areas, these effects take decades to surface. Worse, by the time such

               price effects register, large numbers of low-income residents have likely already

               been pushed out ... During the decades analyzed, significant displacement had

               already occurred and median rents were hiked up by gentrification.”

                    -- “Here’s What We Actually Know About Market-Rate Housing 
                              Development and Displacement”

                              Amee Chew

                              Shelterforce.org

One of the most significant findings is that new development can actually decrease the overall number of affordable units, because it destroys “naturally occurring” affordable units when new units are built in their place.  Consider the older “garden apartments” in Arlington that line Mass. Ave. and Broadway, with rents at or below HUD-defined affordable rates.  Once targeted, they are likely be redeveloped as market-rate rental units, with a certain percentage of affordable units required.  The overall result is the addition of market-rate apartments to a community, a small number of affordable units, and a net loss of existing lower- rent units.

               “In Chicago, where rezoning also occurred to allow for more growth and taller,

               denser construction (known as upzoning), the changes have been shown to have

                 no effect on housing supply while ‘housing prices rose on the parcels and in 
               projects that were upzoned.' "

                    -- “Is It Time for American Cities to Stop Growing?” 
                              Vinnie Rotondaro
                              Vox.com

In “Neighborhood Upzoning And Racial Displacement: A Potential Target For Disparate Impact Litigation?” a paper from the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, author Bradley Pough says, “... upzoning changes are taking part in the same underlying activity as exclusionary zoning tactics: maximizing the value of land in the hopes of attracting or retaining mobile capital.  The perhaps not so obvious corollary to this activity is that, by maximizing the value of land, residents and elected officials are gradually pricing out consumers who can no longer afford this product.  In the case of exclusionary zoning, these consumers are the low-income minorities who, but for the cost, would move to the desirable suburb.  In the case of upzoning, these consumers are often the low-income minority renters already living in the neighborhood who are gradually pushed out (i.e. displaced) due to higher rents and pricier surrounding amenities.”

In “Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York," editors Tom Agnotti and Sylvia Morse also present the case that upzoning drives minority displacement.  They use neighborhoods in New York City as examples, where upzoning has led to an increase in average rents, a reduction in affordable housing units, an increase in white residents, and a noticeable reduction in the neighborhood’s minority populations.  They go on to say: "But rezonings are very difficult to deal with.  With zoning, most people don't understand it.  It's kind of a hocus pocus, a lot of technical terms, and the way they're explained at community meetings, they're explained in way that doesn't encourage most people to get engaged in any serious way - a lot of pretty pictures and maps, and a lot of nice sounding fairytales about how great the neighborhood's gonna be after the rezoning.  The big challenge today is to discredit this kind of charade."

Here in Arlington, the US Census indicates that we have around 7,200 rental units, of which 1,100 are subsidized, leaving roughly 6,100 non-subsidized rental units.  And of these, approximately one-third is in older, higher-density district apartment buildings.  The overall median rate for market rate rentals in Arlington, including studios, one-bedrooms, etc. in apartment buildings and two-and three-families, is $1,593.00, which is right between the HUD rates of $1,647 for a two-bedroom, and $1,484 for a one-bedroom.

By contrast, if we look at new market rate developments, we see much higher rents.  For instance, at Vox on 2, just across Rt. 2 from Arlington, a studio apartment starts at $2,275.  Two-bedrooms run between $3,085 and $4,395.  This building has 228 units.  At a 15% affordable requirement, it would have had to include 34 affordable units.  Our own Housing Corporation of Arlington currently has two projects underway which are 100% affordable, and which combined will provide 48 units.

The way to create affordable housing is to build affordable housing.  Trickle-down development will never supply affordable housing in meaningful numbers.

                “A real solution to the economics of American cities would require more work—more          

                taxes, more laws, more intervention from the federal government. Those things 

                are hard. Gentrification is easy.”

                      -- How to Kill A City
                              Peter Moskowitz

                “ ...despite stable economies, liberal leanings, and high involvement in municipal 
                politics in both New York and San Francisco, policies that could potentially help 
                poorer residents have been much slower to come and less robust than the influx of 
                new private capital that devours neighborhoods and displaces residents. In just 
                about every city [Peter] Moskowitz examines [in How to Kill A City], he finds that 
                choices by city and state governments limited the creation of affordable housing 
                and changed public-housing policies, giving poorer residents little refuge in 
                increasingly expensive cities.”
                     -- “The Steady Destruction of America’s Cities” 
                             Gillian B. White
                             The Atlantic

And as Pough says in the UPenn paper, “... while inclusionary zoning programs aim to counteract the lack of new affordable public housing units, in practice they often end up serving a demographic noticeably wealthier than the intended recipients of the original public housing programs.”

He goes on to say that there are methods of creating affordable housing, such as community land trusts, that are succeeding, and that “At its core, the community- based planning movement simply asserts that residents living in areas slated for change ought to have some real say in how their neighborhoods develop. ... While full veto power almost certainly is not appropriate, the ability to cast votes of consequence over the changes occurring in their neighborhoods is necessary for ensuring that municipal policies do not completely trample local considerations.”

                “Twenty years into this grand experiment, residents are bucking against what all this

                growth has wrought: high rents, displacement, and a gutting of the very character
                of  their cities.”

                     -- “Is It Time for American Cities to Stop Growing?” 
                             Vinnie Rotondaro
                             Vox.com

It's on again: Mugar property - 219 units threaten to increase flooding and load on Arlington services

By Aram Hollman

The proposed 219-unit development at the Mugar property near Thorndike Field in East Arlington is once again moving forward, despite the as-yet unresolved problems it presents to residents. Flooding, traffic, and education costs are all major concerns, and have not been realistically addresssed by the planners of this project.

Whether flooding can be mitigated, and to what degree, depends on the details, including topography. The closer a site is to the lowest point around, the less feasible it is to mitigate flooding, because that's where the water goes when it dumps, and Mugar's Florida swampland on Rt. 2 is pretty close to the low point.

State law requires that a property owner's "enjoyment" of his or her property, for example, by developing it, does not adversely affect one's neighbor's right to the same. To that end, developers must create "compensatory flood storage", additional flood storage on their property to ensure that their development does not simply displace flooding onto their neighbors' properties. In addition, any developer wants to protect his or her own investment from flooding. If you look at what Cambridge developers along Rt. 2 have done, they have sculpted out a retention basin inbetween Acorn Park Drive and Little River to compensate for some of the flood storage their buildings occupy, and they have raised their buildings several feet above surrounding ground level to keep them dry. These measures are inadequate, but, because those properties were initially developed before compensatory storage requirements were enacted, they need not be fully adequate. As a result, floodwaters spread out furth
er and higher, including into East Arlington.

In large storms, 3 of which occurred from 1996 to 2002 (large enough to shut down Rt. 2, and requiring Arlington and Cambridge Fire Departments to pump out homeowners' basements once the floodwaters started to recede), existing buildings displace floodwaters elsewhere, generally onto someone else's property. That is exactly what all those buildings in Cambridge will do, various flood abatement measures notwithstanding. Since then, many more buildings have been built in and near the floodplain, each one making its small contribution towards worsening flooding.

In 2016, the would-be developers of the Mugar property said that if they were allowed to build, they would "fix" the flooding problem on their property. It was not clear whether the fix that they proposed (additional regrading of the site) would actually solve the flooding problem, or simply displace it elsewhere. Furthermore, that fix was not overly expensive. The Mugars could have and should have done it simply to be good neighbors, and it would have given them some credibility as such. That the Mugars held on to this bargaining chip in exchange for being able to develop their property shows just how little they care about their neighbors or the rest of Arlington, despite words to the contrary. For Arlington to rely on the Mugars or their developers to ameliorate flooding is like having the Kurds rely on Donald Trump for security.

No matter how much development occurs on the Cambridge side of Rt. 2, it's wrong, and it's wrong to allow the Mugars to develop their property in Arlington for the same reason: It will worsen area flooding (haven't mentioned climate change thus far). The best use of the Mugar site would be to dig a big hole in the ground, call it Mugar Pond, and use it as compensatory flood storage for the surrounding area.

Of course, there's also the traffic. In the triangle bounded by the bike path, Rt. 2, and Spy Pond, there are roughly 500 residential structures. Roughly half of them are 2-families, so there are about 750 housing units. Lake St. is critical for residents of these units to get in and out of their neighborhood (notice that I'm ignoring the portion of Lake St. between the bike path and Mass. Ave, for which Lake St. is important, but not absolutely critical). Allowing a single project, all on one side of Lake St., to increase demand on this already-congested portion of Lake St. by roughly 30% is not only absurd and bad planning, but a safety hazard. As it is, drivers headed for even more congested Alewife divert to Lake St.

Then there's education. Any children in grades K-5 living at the Mugar Monstrosity there would attend the rather full Hardy Elementary School. Its population has increased from 300 in 2006 to 350 in 2012 to 450 today, a 50% increase since 2006. This has been possibly only because, systemwide, all 6th graders were relocated to the Gibbs School in 2018.

This 40B project, with 25% affordable units, would not make Arlington more affordable. On the contrary, it would make Arlington even less affordable than it is now. More affordable units push up the price of market-rate units. Arlington does not need more market rate units, but more affordable units, ideally 100% affordable.

In short, construction of over 200 units of housing on the Mugar site would worsen flooding in a flood-prone area, worsen traffic in an area that is terribly congested even by Boston standards, would further overcrowd the local elementary school, and would make Arlington even less affordable than it is now.

-- Below, is the text of a recent Newsletter alert from the Arlington Land Trust with details of the ruling against Arlington and allowing the Mugar development to continue.  Since it is not yet available on the http://arlingtonlandtrust.org/ website, we have included it here:

State agency rules against Arlington on 40B "Safe Harbor"   Mugar hearing resumption postponed at developer's request The state's Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), in a decision that is disappointing but not surprising given HAC's longstanding bias against local control, ruled this week that Arlington has not achieved a target that would have strengthened the Town's hand in controlling 40B development.