Don Seltzer, a former resident who had lived in Arlington for 50 years, submitted this second letter to the editor about disability issues in town. It was also sent to the Arlington Disability Commission, the Select Board, ADA Coordinator Tim Ross; Christine Bongiorno, head of Health & Human Services; Mike Ciampa, head of Inspectional Services; Planning Director Claire Ricker and Town Manager Sandy Pooler.
In my previous email [published here April 7], I made a passing mention to 1500 Mass. Ave. I would like to elaborate on the serious noncompliance with accessibility requirements of both federal and state law.
Some background: This B1 Neighborhood Office property was purchased in 2019. The existing two-family house was demolished, and the heavily landscaped and treed lot was clear-cut, without consulting the tree warden or submitting the required tree plan.
In 2020, the owner submitted a proposal before the Redevelopment Board for a three-story, mixed-use building, consisting of street-level office space and four apartments above. There was some controversy regarding this decision because four-unit apartment buildings are not an allowable use in a B1 district.
5 parking places OK’d
The Redevelopment Board approved a plan that included five parking spaces. Four were full sized and one was to be for compact parking, according to the zoning bylaw, which allows up to 20 percent of parking spaces to be specified as compact.
One of the parking spaces was shown as striped for handicap access.
The driveway from the rear parking area to the Mass. Ave. entrance was on a gentle 2-percent slope, compliant with requirements for an accessible route.
There was apparently no stormwater mitigation plan submitted, despite the significant impervious surfaces being added. This was regrettable for several reasons. Test drilling at this early stage would likely have revealed conditions that would later cause construction problems.
This construction was delayed for more than a year. There were multiple problems encountered during excavation. Not surprisingly, this property in the Heights was found to have some underlying ledge, which proved difficult and expensive to remove.
The owner went to the Planning Department, asking for some major changes to the construction plans. Rather than refer the matter to the Redevelopment Board, as required under the special permit, the Planning Departmen gave its administrative approval to these major changes to the building and parking.
HP space eliminated
The owner was given permission to reduce the parking to five compact spaces, in clear violation of the zoning bylaw. The handicap-striped space was eliminated.
The 2-percent-sloped driveway was increased to a 15-percent slope, making it no longer accessible, and also creating a dangerous situation in its intersection with the sidewalk and Mass. Ave.
Inexplicably, the Redevelopment Board was never advised of these major changes, as required. When eventually advised of what had happened, its members expressed their dismay, but were unwilling to do anything to rectify the situation. The current parking lot violates both the American with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
There is another, far more serious noncompliance with this project. Both federal law and state law (521 CMR) are clear that the lowest level of dwelling units in the apartment building portion of the project must have accessible access, either by a ramp or elevator. It is remarkable and disappointing that the Redevelopment Board remains uninformed about this basic requirement. It is equally disappointing that Inspectional Services does not enforce this code.
I will repeat my comment from my previous letter. There is a vacancy on the Redevelopment Board, and it should be filled with someone who will be an advocate for seniors and those with disabilities, to balance those who prioritize bicycle parking over HP parking.
April 7, 2023: ADA requirements ignored at 99 Mass. Ave., writer says
This letter was published Sunday, April 16, 2023.
1) Contrary to Mr. Seltzer’s claim, the applicant was working with the Tree Warden — and the Special Permit required the applicant to comply with all requirements of the town’s Tree Protection and Preservation Bylaw and as required by the Tree Warden.
2) The Zoning Bylaw allows mixed use in the B1 zone, including residential mixed-use. Thus, contrary to the implication in Mr. Seltzer’s letter, the Zoning Bylaw does not prohibit having a mixed-use building with four residential units.
3) The Zoning Bylaw is clear that in addition to the requirements in a Special Permit, a project must comply with the State Building Code and, where applicable, the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board regulations. Those are in the purview of Inspectional Services once the Special Permit is granted.
4) Mr. Seltzer writes that the Planning Director allowed later changes to the project without the knowledge or approval of the Redevelopment Board. Even if that were the case, Inspectional Services, not the ARB, determines compliance with the Building Code and access regulations.
I am a member of the Redevelopment Board, but this response is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Redevelopment Board. It has not been reviewed by the Board.