Residents offer opposition, questions, support
UPDATED, Jan., 7: Should Arlington, already a dense town, encourage city-style density in order to draw more housing and vibrancy to its business districts?
That question, and related ones, lay behind responses Monday, Dec. 17, from the Redevelopment Board and residents to the initial public proposals about zoning changes on which Town Meeting will vote next spring. The plans undoubtedly face many changes before April. A public forum was held Jan. 10.
First, what is proposed? Two memos with “multifamily recommendations” in the titles provide details: Read No. 1 and No. 2.
Alexis Smith, senior housing planner for the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), a regional agency, described the proposals to a crowded meeting Dec. 17. In essence, they hope to increase density, catalyze business vibrancy and advance the goals of the 2015 master plan. The plans target “higher-intensity districts” (R4-R7 districts and B) where multifamily and mixed-use developments are permitted.
Range of responses
The proposals drew a range of responses as 14 residents spoke — from outright opposition to questions to expressions of support.
Members of the Redevelopment Board appeared to support the effort generally, but raised questions that call for more study. Let’s hear from the officials first.
Dec. 13 meeting spurred initial suspicion
The zoning proposals drew swift responses on social media last weekend following discussion at a Dec. 13 meeting at Town Hall involving town planners, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and Citizens’ Housing And Planning Association (CHAPA), a nonprofit that aims to increase affordable housing.
Posts on the Arlington email list brimmed with suspicion. A writer who is part of a group in Somerville drew an objection because he did not live in town.
Another poster who does not live in town complained about CHAPA, “who will be telling us how we can change the character of our neighborhoods …. I don’t understand why our Manager and Town Planner have to introduce an outside influence to do what we expect them to be doing and what we hired them to do.”
Erin Zwirko, town assistant planning director, said the meeting was open to the public and posted on the town’s online calendar. The purpose of the meeting was to kick off municipal engagement here (described below).
The goal is to create a broad group of stakeholders to elevate the conversation around housing production, especially affordable housing, in the community. The two-hour meeting in the Lyons Hearing Room drew about 35 people.
MAPC was not a host of the event, Zwirko said, adding that town residents who work for MAPC attended.
Here’s what CHAPA says about its Municipal Engagement Initiative: It seeks to build support for affordable-housing production in communities across the Commonwealth. CHAPA staff will work with community groups and municipalities to conduct public education efforts in support of housing production, with an emphasis on affordable housing.
Staff will work with communities to develop strategies that work within the context of each community. This initiative will also work in concert with efforts of other organizations providing technical assistance and other support to communities.
CHAPA says that while all communities will benefit from public education and community discussions about the need for housing development and how it benefits communities economically, each community is unique in its character, land, zoning, and housing stock.
“CHAPA will work to implement a community engagement strategy in each individual community that works within each unique environment. CHAPA’s community engagement strategy will be based on the collaborative model CHAPA uses at the state level, focusing on building coalitions that work together to address each community’s housing challenges,” it says .
Member Kin Lau said he saw the changes as trying to create a “rhythm” along Mass. Ave., as to how businesses and residential properties are set back — or not — from the street. “I don’t see that as an urban edge,” he said.
Smith admitted, “It’s something we struggled with.”
Member David Watson commented on this part of Smith’s memo: “Decreased front and side yards are more consistent with traditional main street building patterns and create a stronger and more consistent street wall, which enhances pedestrian experience. The front yard setbacks proposed here are still sufficient to allow room for a bench, landscaping, or other pedestrian amenity. The side yard setbacks allow for a continuous street wall in business areas, while providing relief where apartment districts abut residential districts.”
‘Street wall’?
He called the term “street wall” unfortunate and the “opposite of what we really mean.” If the town wants “to enhance experience, talking about a wall, does not sound appealing.” Read one definition of “street wall” here >>
He asked the consultant to think carefully, “balancing against something that looks like an urban canyon.”
The height proposed is one story more than town zoning allows now.
Member Gene Benson said he agreed, noting the number of zoning districts in the Mass. Ave. corridor. “I’m not sure we’re reaching our goal with this,” he said. “It’s worth kicking back to committee to take another look.”
He said that requiring special permits does make an approval process more difficult, yet he said that the rule results in a better process, because of suggestions the board makes. Chairman Andrew Bunnell agreed with this.
As to parking, Benson, a proponent of bicycling and transit, called for further study. He doubted the call for one parking space per household.
Watson, also a cycling advocate, agreed with Benson about parking and asked for updated bicycling guidelines that include parking requirement for bikes.
14 residents speak
At 8:15 p.m., the public had its turn, and 14 commenters of the estimated 25 present, some in the hallway, lasted until 9 p.m.
Precinct 18 Town Meeting member Jon Gersh asked, “Why should people be excited about this?” He asked for the “best pitch without referring to the master plan.”
Bunnell made clear that he had to refer to the master plan. He said the 1975 set of zoning laws presented “certain roadblocks to redevelopment.” He said making these changes would affect the housing stock, lead to more condos and small apartments, let more seniors stay in town and affect the tax base.
Precinct 11 Town Meeting member Carl Wagner expressed clear opposition: “Arlington does not want to increase its density,” he said. “Get that straight ….
“In 2015 I voted for what I thought was a good plan,” he said, referring to the master plan. He said Arlington is the second most dense place in state (Brookline is No. 1, he said).
“Creating affordable housing does not come from letting developers build more,” he said. Decrying turning “turning Mass. Ave. into an urban jungle …. We don’t want to look like Kendall Square. We want to be a city — want to be a town.”
Consider impact on schools
Precinct 9 Town Meeting member Jo Anne Preston cited the impact that increased development would have on the public schools and asked planners to take more time to consider these changes on all of Arlington.
She said that the building of the 245-unit Legacy apartment complex in the Center has not prevented vacant storefronts nearby.
Asia Kepka, a resident who is an artist, said she bought two-family in town 20 years ago, but would not be able to afford one now. She said that “it scare her” that a developer of large project in Brighton, has bought property near her.
Precinct 1 Town Meeting member Steve Revilak, who was active in last year’s zoning-presentation efforts, offered support for the changes. “I like this proposal,” he said. “More growth makes sense. To date, we have never had a by-right development option.”
He added that he is happy to see dimensional changes to townhouses. He said he checked documents reflecting the 1975 zoning changes and ARB history: saw that Pleasant Street residents did not want townhouses.
He called this “a modest proposal.”
What part of 185,000 target?
Resident Wynelle Evans, among those questioning last year’s zoning-presentation efforts, cited the demand for housing, forecast at 185,000 units for all of Mass. by the Metro Mayors Coalition in October.
She asked: How many of that total will Arlington provide, and how many will be affordable?
Planning Director Jenny Raitt said the only goals the town has are related to its housing-production plan, which the Select Board approved in July 2016. Read about it here >>
John Worden, the former Town Meeting moderator and involved in zoning issues since the 1970s, suggested that those involved talk to neighborhoods rather than developers. At that point, Bunnell broke in, and Worden continued that, as he sees it, the town’s “great concerns [are] about teardowns …. not density.”
He called the 2016 vote of the housing plan “invalid,” but Raitt contradicted him.
Chris Loreti, a former member of the Redevelopment Board who is knowledgable about zoning issues, said he thought some of the comments from board members that night “got to the heart of matter.” He said he liked the reference to “the rhythm of corridors,” adding, “We need discussion of that rhythm.”
As to special permits, he wondered whether the board has ever rejected one.
Slow process, involve town, board urged
Loreti’s main plea was one he made during last year’s zoning discussion — slow down, get more public support and don’t rush the matter to the 2019 Town Meeting.
Pam Hallett, who identified herself as a Town Meeting member, spoke positively about the proposals, while pointing out a matter with which she disagrees — vehicle parking. She cited a survey concluding the town has an overabundance. She also asked that bicycle rules be scrutinized. Hallett heads the Housing Corporation of Arlington, a nonprofit that seek to improve the stock of affordable housing in town.
Speaking in support of the changes were resident Ben Rudick, who expressed pro-growth views; Neal Mongold, an architect who supports density, though he is not a fan of open space on rooftops; and Charlotte Milan, the town recycling coordinator, who called the plans “modest” and wants fewer parking spaces.
The work on the zoning proposals is supported by a planning-assistance grant from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs totaling $24,380, Erin Zwirko, town assistant planning director, told YourArlington in response to questions. That is used to pay the town’s MAPC consultant.
The regional agency matched $6,095 (25 percent) in technical-assistance funds to the grant. The MAPC technical-assistance funds require a match from the town. Planning Department staff is tracking to spend 120 hours of in-kind time, which equates to about $11,400.
Town link to Housing Production Plan | Town link to affordable-housing information
July 20, 2016: Enterprising, 5-year housing targets approved
Feb. 3, 2016: Trying to shape a vision for housing, 35 use their imaginations
Dec. 23, 2015: Zoning board readies one of its Mugar project defenses
This news summary was published Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018, and updated Dec. 19, to add sidebar. The sidebar was updated Jan. 7 to correct MAPC’s name.
