UPDATED, Feb. 12: Arlington, whose history twists and turns back 380 years, now has an antidote to the vagaries of time — a wide-ranging guide to growth.
Voting 4-0 on Wednesday, Feb. 4, the Redevelopment Board adopted the town’s first comprehensive master plan, described under state law.
The vote, culminating a public process that began in October 2012, was subject to a list of 27 recommended changes to the draft supported by the Master Plan Advisory Committee.
“You are amazing,” said Planning Director Carol Kowalski, referring to the advisory panel. The 11 members, who are volunteers, include professional planners.
“No, you,” an advisory member called back.
The board vote followed an hour’s discussion as well as a unanimous voice vote from advisory members present to support the 27 changes.
In a related matter, the board also voted, 4-0, to include a warrant article asking Town Meeting in April to support a resolution for the master plan. The article will be an opportunity for meeting members to discuss the plan, which the Redevelopment Board has adopted.
Globe, Feb. 6: Arlington nixes proposal for more development
Who cast votes
Board members voting were Andrew Bunnell, chair; Bruce Fitzsimmons; Michael Cayer and Andrew West. A fifth seat, a governor’s appointee, remains unfilled after Christine Scypinski resigned last year.
Charles Kalauskas, chair, presented the advisory board’s list of changes. (See the complete list below.)
“Encyclopedic” is the word Fitzsimmons used to describe the lengthy plan. See the main link to documents here >>
The mass of detail covers a range of issues related to town growth — its limits and its development.
That detail raises a larger question: What impact can a document, no matter how detailed, have on Arlington, whose 42,000 people squeezed into 5.5 square miles, is largely built out?
A lot of residents toiled 30 months to make sure the plan has an impact. The answer to the question is a devilish one, and it’s likely in the details.
Full list of recommended changes to the draft submitted Feb. 4, 2015
UPDATED, Feb. 12: Final revisions recommended to the Redevelopment Board by vote of the Master Plan Advisory Committee, and accepted by vote of the board for inclusion in the master plan.
These revisions are based on comments made at the Jan. 12 public hearing and written comments received through Jan. 20, 2015:
1. The Committee recommends inserting concern for capacity of the public schools, high school accreditation, the size of the high school campus, and the need to rebuild or renovate the high school into the introduction of the plan, inserting the schools as an example in the Public Facilities and Services Chapter recommendation for a Space Needs Analysis (p. 132), and the associated implementation step (p. 155).
2. The Committee recommends adding a Housing Recommendation 5 to pages 7 and 63, to study and plan for increasing the supply of smaller, over-55 active senior market-rate housing and for affordable/subsidized housing to meet Arlington’s population trends.
3. Housing Recommendation, page 7. Regarding minimum parking requirements, the Committee recommends substituting the word “modified” for the word “removed.”
4. The Committee recommends removing the phrase, “accessory apartments” from page 31.
5. The Committee recommends adding the Mill Brook study area as high priority for both redevelopment and preservation, Land Use Recommendation 9, pages 5 and 36; and adding the three village centers as priority redevelopment areas.
6. The Committee recommends noting in the introduction the contrasting public opinions on parking which underscore the need for further study already included in the Implementation section, p. 150.
7. Comments were received promoting locations for the development of Class A or Class B Office Buildings or an Innovation Park for economic development in Arlington. The Committee recommends adding this to the Economic Development Recommendation on pages 7 and 75, and adding an Implementation step to study and identify appropriate locations and regulations to encourage new
Office Buildings or an Innovation Park.
8. The Committee recommends adding an Implementation step to study and consider amending setbacks, floor- area-ratios and other techniques that could address concern for neighbor impacts of new large homes constructed in existing established residential neighborhoods.
9. The Committee recommends adding an Implementation step to update Arlington’s sustainability action plan and noting explicitly the concern for flooding.
10. The Committee recommends adding an Implementation step to consider mechanisms to ensure a balance of housing and a significant business component in future mixed use buildings.
11. The Committee recommends adding an implementation step to study methods of regulating the removal of mature trees on private property and discover what other communities have done in this situation.
12. The Committee asks the staff to provide examples of problems with multiple uses requiring special permits, and discontinuity of zoning districts, and to add this in the introduction.
13. The Committee recommends adding an Open Space recommendation to identify and study small parcels of open space that could be acquired with Community Preservation Act funds.
14. The Committee recommends adding the following recommendations and Implementation steps: “Use more native and natural choices for landscaping on Town-owned properties; consider replacement of some grass areas with native groundcovers; consider a bylaw to require more native landscaping for new developments.”
15. The Committee recommends changing the Design Guidelines implementation step to “near-term,” and editing pages 142 and 152 so Design Guidelines refer to both commercial and industrial districts, to be consistent with other sections of the master plan (e.g., Page 5, Key Recommendations).
16. The Committee recommends adding the phrase, “for economic development” to the Historic & Cultural Resource Areas Recommendation 3.
17. p. 10 and p. 94: Multiple units in historic houses are recommended as a possible alternative to demolition; replace “multiple units” with “alternative uses” to broaden options.
18. p. 17: Under the topic heading “Households and Families,” the text material and the chart material are not clear and should be more clearly expressed. Statistics in the chart and the text don’t agree; clarify what Table 2.4 is illustrating.
19. p. 18: The text on p. 18 paragraph 3 describes the median incomes for Arlington, Lexington and Winchester over a 40-year period (see chart, p. 19), and reports a decrease in the size of the gap between the two communities. In fact, the data suggests that the gap is increasing between the two communities. The data should be verified and the text corrected as needed.
20. p. 77: The reference to “sandwich board signs” should be removed. The signage mentioned refers to permanent signage, while sandwich board signs are temporary signs.
21. p. 101: second column, under the heading “Floodplains,” the wording of the Conservation Commission’s permitting authority will be changed to “and can be allowed only by permit issued by the Conservation Commission.”
22. Change recommendations and implementation steps on Certified Local Government for the Historic District Commission to “study,” as more information is needed before pursuing this status.
23. References to Transfer of Development Rights in Recommendations and Implementation section should be softened; change to “future study.”
24. Add to p. 29, “or other combinations or live-work residential and commercial uses.”
25. Ensure consistency of the above changes in the Implementation table, as well.
26. Add Appendix J Zoning Diagnostic
27. Remove transect numbers or numbers from the Housing Type map and the Parcel Land Use map.
KEY LINKS
Full draft of town’s master plan >>
Explanatory information and links about draft plan >>
Read about the plan as it is developing in various areas >>
This report was published Thursday, Feb. 5, 2015, and updated Feb. 12 to add updated copy from the town planning director.
