Arlington Redevelopment Board - Apr 7th, 2025

Meeting held at 27 Maple Street. Materials were available from https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=2251&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda.

Review Meeting Minutes

The board approved their meeting minutes from March 17, 2025 and March 24, 2025.

Warrant Articles for 2025

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB Chair) Ms. Zsembery notes that this is the fifth of five nights of warrant article hearings. The board has already heard from applicants. Tonight they will discuss and vote on each of the proposed articles. Ms. Zsembery suggests doing article 25 last, and the board is amenable to that.

Article 26 - Transportation Demand Management Plan

Article 26 would add electric bike charging facilities and close proximity to frequent bus lines to the list of TDM measures available.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak says the board recognized the need for more TDM options in 2023, when we were working on multi-family zoning for MBTA Communities; the board wanted to expand the list of options that were applicable to residential-only development. He thinks these changes are an improvement, and they recognize some of the challenges inherent in smaller projects.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery adds that these changes were a culmination of multiple board discussions.

The board recommends favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery tells the board this will require a majority vote from town meeting.

Article 27 - Delete Inland Wetland Overlay District

Article 27 proposes to delete the Inland Wetland Overlay District from the Zoning bylaw; the matter is better served by wetland protection laws under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak supports the article. It removes any ambiguity over who has jurisdiction over wetlands. He thinks that should be the conservation commission.

The board recommends favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will require a two-thirds vote from town meeting.

Article 28 - Definition of Lot Coverage

Article 28 would add a definition for "lot coverage" to the zoning bylaw.

(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau thinks this clarifies an ambiguity.

(Eugene Benson, ARB) Mr. Benson notes that this change was requested by the ZBA.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will require a two-thirds vote from town meeting.

Article 29 - Parking in Residential Districts

Article 29 would rewrite the ZBL section on residential parking for clarity.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says that Section 6.1.10 comes up frequently in ZBA dockets, typically with requests for second driveways, or alterations to non-conforming single- and two-family dwellings. While on the ZBA he sometimes found this section challenging to understand and apply. He thinks the changes are an improvement.

Mr. Revilak thinks it would be helpful to have the ZBA chairs available to answer questions at town meeting. He believes they'll have a lot of examples to draw from.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will require a two-thirds vote from town meeting.

Article 30 - Screening and Buffer Requirements

Article 30 proposes to remove a section of the zoning bylaw that was partially duplicated during recodification.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson notes that the duplication appeared when the zoning bylaw was recodified.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says this redundancy crept in to the bylaw when it was recodified in 2018. He was on the recodification committee and his recollection is that there was a lot of things happening as we got down to the wire, and this was just something we didn't get to. He agrees that it's a technical correction.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this article will require a two-thirds vote. She'll ask the moderator to include it in the consent agenda.

Article 31 - Redevelopment Board Jurisdiction

This article would remove single- and two-family homes that abut the Minuteman Bikeway from ARB jurisdiction, and put them under the jurisdiction of the ZBA.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks the ZBA is best-suited to hear special permit requests for these properties.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston agrees. After hearing a few of these cases, she thinks it's outside the intent of environmental design review.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak thinks that Environmental Design Review is an excessive requirement for single- and two-family dwellings, and the ZBA would be a more appropriate special permit granting authority.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston notes that the Chair of the ZBA agrees with the change in jurisdiction.

The board votes to recommend favorable action on Article 31,

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this article will require a two-thirds vote at town meeting. She'll ask to have it placed on the consent agenda.

Article 32 - Rezone B1 Parcels

This article would rezone B1 parcels as B2A.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks this is a great idea, which will encourage commercial and business development.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson suggests having the parcel list appear immediately after the main motion, rather than making it an appendix. He's fine with having the use table comparison in an appendix.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak agrees with the changes to B2A's district definition. The board has gotten favorable feedback from a number of B1 property owners. He thinks B2A offers a more favorable set of dimensional regulations, and it permits a much wider range of commercial uses. He hopes this rezoning leads to new investment which will expand the tax base.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the article will require a simple majority vote at town meeting.

Article 33 - Zoning Map Adoption for B1 Rezoning

Article 33 contains the map changes that go along with Article 32.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this article will also be a majority vote.

Article 34 - Administrative Correction

Article 34 proposes to remove the date of zoning map adoption from the zoning bylaw. The date always lags zoning map changes by a year.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this article will require a majority vote at town meeting, and she'll ask to have it included in the consent agenda.

Article 35 - Zoning Map Adoption for Administrative Correction

Article 35 is the map change corresponding to article 34.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this article will also require a majority vote, and she'll ask to have it included in town meeting's consent agenda.

Article 36 - No Net Loss of Commercial Space

Article 36 proposes commercial space requirements for mixed-use buildings, along with restrictions on ground-floor residential. It was submitted by Kristin Anderson and ten registered voters.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau has issues with the main motion, and thinks it's too restrictive. He agrees with the petitioners intent, but thinks it will hinder redevelopment.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston is also concerned with the amount of restrictiveness, especially the part that would require second-floor commercial any time there's ground floor residential. She thinks it's rigid, doesn't allow for the uniqueness of different projects, and that the demand for second-floor commercial is not well-established.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson is sympathetic to what the petitioner is trying to do. He sees technical issues with the article. Mr. Benson thinks that subsection 5(a) is out of scope. He notes that 5(a) applies to all mixed use buildings while 5(b) only applies to buildings that are four stories or higher. He's concerned that 5(b) might incentivize 2--3 story buildings and is uncomfortable with the phrase "or areas not available to the general public". Mr. Benson thinks the main motion is too restrictive. He says that each project that comes before the board is unique and this will make it harder to deal with the unique aspects. Mr. Benson suggests trying to incorporate the concept into the zoning updates that are planned for the business districts.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak sees the main motion as trying to do two things: (1) Requiring 60% of the building footprint to be commercial space in mixed-use buildings of four stories or more, with restrictions on how that space can be split between the first and second floors; and (2) placing restrictions on first floor residential, which vary by building size.

He thinks these two elements interact in odd ways. For example, consider a three-story building that had Commercial GFA equal to 60% of the building footprint on the first floor, along with an accessible unit floor. The configuration would meet the spirit of the proposal, by providing 60% commercial space, but it would be required to have additional space on the second floor because of the accessible unit.

Mr. Revilak says he could be supportive of a simpler proposal: 60% without restricting how that space was divided between the first and second floors, and without additional restrictions on ground floor residential uses. In mixed use proposals that have come before the board, ground floor residential tends to be accessible, and he don't want to discourage that.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery appreciates the intent but agrees that the issue is more complex. She'd like to see if the concept can be woven into the zoning updates for the business districts. She's also struggling with when to apply 5(a) and 5(b). She applauds the intent, but feels it needs to be simplified.

The board votes to recommend no action on article 36, 5--0.

Article 37 - Multi-family parking reduction

Article 37 proposes to add multi-family housing to the types of uses eligible for transportation demand management bonuses. It would add cargo bike parking to the list of TDM measures, and allow the board to consider the availability of on-street parking. The article was submitted by Vince Baudoin and ten registered voters.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he's on the fence. The current main motion is simpler than the previous version. It's less restrictive and less complicated.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston is also on the fence. She appreciates the simplification, and thinks the proposal to consider on-street parking is forward looking. She would be comfortable moving forward, knowing that the on-street provisions wouldn't be usable yet.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson suggests several wording changes. He asks what would happen during snow emergencies.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak appreciates the clarification that multi-family housing is eligible for TDM. With the MBTA Communities act, multi-family isn't limited to Business and higher-numbered R districts.

Mr. Revilak likes the inclusion of cargo bike parking as a TDM measure. There are numerous cases where cargo bikes are a practical replacement for automobiles. He bought his cargo bike when the frame rot on his pickup truck was starting to get serious. Mr. Revilak didn't feel like he drove enough to justify the expense of a brand new automobile, so he bought the cargo bike to see how it would work. It's worked out very well for him.

Mr. Revilak understands that the Select Board voted to make the overnight parking pilot permanent during their March 24th meeting, so the ARB could conceivably consider the availability of on-street parking.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery agrees with having cargo bike parking as a TDM measure. She's also heard that the Select Board voted to make the overnight parking pilot permanent, but hasn't seen anything in writing from the board. She hopes we can do something more comprehensive in conjunction with the Select Board.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak agrees that the ARB and Select Board should have a discussion about how off-street parking requirements might be adjusted in light of on-street parking.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson isn't sure of the administrative details involved in taking on-street parking into consideration. He knows people in Boston that will circle the block looking for parking spaces.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin agrees that talking to the Select Board is a good approach. He says that residents with parking permits are allowed to park in town lots during snow emergencies. He says the Select Board agreed to limit permits to one per household, or two per apartment building.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks about the number of parking spaces available in town lots.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin says there are 300 spaces in the Russel Common lot and a smaller number available in the Railroad Lot. The Select Board currently limits the number of on-street permits to 125, and around 100 of these have been issued.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she's okay with the changes to 6.1.5.C and 6.1.12.

(?) A board member says that keeping those sections is an option, but expressed concern that the wording of section E doesn't line up with the way the Select Board has allocated on-street permit spaces. They think the language needs to be based on the number of permits that the Select Board will issue.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau appreciates the effort, and he thinks the petitioner is trying to encourage development. He thinks some aspects are a little too vague. Perhaps this can be brought back next year, or the Redevelopment Board could submit it themselves.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery is concerned about going forward with a reduction to 25%, without having a written policy from the Select Board.

There's some more discussion, and the board would like to revisit the idea next year.

The board votes to recommend no action, 5--0.

Article 38 - Use Regulations for Residential Districts

Article 38 proposes to allow some business uses in the R3--R7 residential districts. It was submitted by Andrew Greenspon and ten registered voters.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he's on the fence.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston appreciates what the article is attempting to do. She thinks it makes sense to allow office and retail uses in these districts, but has concern about some of the other uses.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he appreciates the more limited and focused proposal. He asks how many parcels there are in the R3--R7 districts. He's concerned about the possible loss of residential units. He'd like to have more commercial uses, but doesn't want to lose residential ones. Mr. Benson expresses concern about sewer system capacity, and he thinks there's a possibility of sewer problems from restaurants. He's concerned that we might be allowing some uses by right in the R3--R7 districts that would require special permits in the B districts. He wonders if some commercial uses could be treated as accessory uses.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak attended the comprehensive plan kickoff last Thursday, and two of the things he learned were: (1) 26% of Arlington residents that work, work from home; and (2) Arlington added 250 businesses and 1300 employees since 2013, a significant number of which started in peoples homes. Mr. Revilak gets the sense that there's already a lot of business being done in residential districts. It might be happening underground, but it's happening.

Decades ago, we got the idea of having really strict separation of uses: residential here, job centers here, shopping and amenities over there. This is only better to the extent that you like spending a lot of time driving from one area to the next, to the next.

Mr. Revilak says the current proposal has been scaled back considerably, and what's before the board is a reasonable incremental change. Of all the places Mr. Revilak has lived in MA, Arlington is the furthest he's had to walk to get to a corner store. His biggest reservation with Article 38 is that it's really not going to change that.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery was surprised to see uses of up to five employees allowed by right. She thinks that's not in alignment with the R3--R7 districts. She thinks this is a good idea, but not fully formed.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau suggests removing the restaurant uses, and changing the by-right uses in R3 to by special permit. The R3--R7 districts are limited, and mostly along Mass Ave. He thinks that having a business in the middle of a residential street could be awkward.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks there's an amalgamation of different things going on here, including home businesses and real businesses like restaurants. An alternative approach would be to increase the types of uses that are allowed as home occupations. He thinks there's too much mix and match in the main motion.

(Andy Greenspon) Mr. Greenspon says he got mixed messages from the board during the prior hearing. He thinks there should be a warrant article to expand the set of home occupations, but this isn't it. All of the R3--R7 parcels abut, or are in close proximity to business districts. Mr. Greenspon assumes that many of them are condos and apartment buildings. He thinks that a maximum of five employees is good for parcels near business districts. He also added a definition of "neighborhood creative/artistic" which are the lower intensity creative/artistic production uses.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he's spoken to Town Counsel and isn't sure if the "abuts a business district" language would comply with 40A's uniform districts provision. He says the MWRA has different kinds of sewer lines on side streets. He thinks Mr. Greenspon is choosing the wrong vehicle, and should look at expanding home occupations or rezoning some of these R district parcels to B.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says there could be a stipulation that the infrastructure is adequate.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak was surprised to hear Town Counsel's remarks, as there are numerous places where the zoning bylaw has regulations based on the proximity between districts.

There's more back and fourth about this.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery is challenged by the allowance of five employees. She thinks a catering business with five employees is essentially a restaurant. The uses being proposed here are larger than she anticipated.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau also had concerns about restaurants and catering.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks what number of employees Ms. Zsembery would feel comfortable with.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery thinks there's a difference between this and what there's a need for in Arlington.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he's worried about homes being converted to barber shops. He thinks it would be better to expand the list of allowable home occupations. He's concerned about losing homes to businesses that could be located elsewhere. He suggests trying to incorporate these ideas into the Arlington Heights and Capitol Square rezonings.

(Andy Greenspon) Mr. Greenspon says he's heard for several years that there aren't enough businesses in town. He expects the board to get push back if they try to rezone residential parcels as business in the Heights and Capitol Square. The R6 and R7 districts already have some business uses. He thinks the town should broadly allow the kinds of businesses that people want to start, so that there's more opportunity.

The board votes to recommend no action to town meeting, 4--1 (Mr. Revilak voted in the negative).

Article 39 - Add 17 Palmer St to the Neighborhood Multi-family District

Article 39 would add 17 Palmer St to the Neighborhood Multi-family overlay district. It was submitted by John E. Heraty and 10 registered voters.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson notes that the property owner requested the rezoning. He thinks it makes sense.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak thinks this makes sense in terms of the voting map, and it's contiguous with the existing Neighborhood Multifamily Overlay district.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery is also supportive.

The board votes to recommend favorable action, 5--0.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will require a 50% vote from town meeting.

Article 40 - Two-family construction allowed by right in the R0 and R1 Residential Zones

Article 40 would allow two-family homes and duplexes in districts that are restricted to single-family only. It was submitted by David Levy and ten registered voters.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he wanted to leave this proposal to town meeting the first time it came up. With the ADU bylaw, owners in single-family districts already have a way to get a second unit in.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston thinks this is a useful attempt at finding space for additional housing units. She says there was a question about whether the process for a map change was followed.

(Claire Ricker, Planning Director) Ms. Ricker says this is a use table change and not a zoning map change, so the process for zoning map changes doesn't apply.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks it's good to have this discussion. Any neighborhood in Arlington has new large homes being built, and this article would allow some of them to be two-family homes. The article keeps all of the existing dimensional regulations, so this won't result in larger buildings.

Mr. Benson says the supreme court ruled that zoning was constitutional in 1926, in Ambler v Euclid. The theory behind zoning was that industrial uses shouldn't be located in residential areas, but the court's decision said that people living in apartment buildings were like parasites that damaged the character of single-family neighborhoods. It's hard to see how two-family homes would be bad for a district, and there are two-family homes sprinkled throughout the R1 district today. Single-family homes in R1 sell for a bunch of money, even if they're located next to a two-family. He thinks town meeting should have a debate.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says this proposal came up in 2022. Since then, the region's housing challenges have become more problematic. According to the town's 2024 Annual report (which was just released) the average assessed value of a single-family is $1,077,060. Banker and tradesman puts the actual sale prices higher. In 2024, the median single-family sale price was $1,105,000.

Mr. Revilak doesn't see this article as changing the size of what gets built. We will continue to see 2.5 story 4000-ish square foot homes. The only difference is whether that building contains one dwelling that sells for $2M, or two dwellings that sell for around $1.3M each. With the two-family option, you're effectively getting new construction for just a little more than people are already paying for used buildings. With the enhanced stretch code and fossil fuel-free bylaw, Mr. Revilak thinks this is a good deal.

At a previous hearing night, there was a discussion about what towns that have done this. Mr. Revilak thinks it's more instructive to look at what states have done. Oregon enacted a state law in 2019 that requires cities and towns with over 10,000 to allow duplexes. Arlington's population is well above that threshold.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery is supportive of the proposal, but can't support the article due to the lack of public engagement. She says that only 11% of residents vote, and there was no notice to abutters.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak realizes this is a citizen petition, and there's only so much outreach an individual can do. He asks what level of outreach Ms. Zsembery is looking for.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she wanted to see precinct meetings before the warrant opened.

(Dave Levy) Mr. Levy says he's published several pieces in YourArlington and announced the article on the Arlington List. He included his phone number so people have the ability to reach him. He listened to the objections raised in the previous hearing, and published an article that was responsive to them.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says that she and the applicant have a disagreement about the level of outreach required. One of the reasons the board hasn't moved forward on this proposal is because of the outreach that needs to be done. She doesn't fault the petitioner, and understands that warrant articles can come from boards or individuals. She thinks that a favorable recommendation would be doing a disservice to people who don't know about it.

The board votes to recommend favorable action to town meeting, 3--2 (Ms. Zsembery and Mr. Lau voted in the negative).

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will require a two-thirds vote at town meeting.

Article 41 - Affordable Housing Overlay District

Article 41 proposed to establish an overlay district where affordable (aka, income restricted) housing would be allowed by right. It was submitted by Sanjay Newton and ten registered voters.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the petitioners have not submitted a main motion or sent the notices required for a map change.

The board votes to recommend no action, 4--0 (Mr. Revilak did not take a position on Article 41).

Article 42 - Amendment of Zoning Map to include Affordable Housing Overlay District

Article 42 is the map amendment that accompanies article 41.

The board votes to recommend no action, 4--0 (Mr. Revilak did not take a position on Article 41).

Article 43 - Public Shade Trees

Article 43 proposes changes to shade tree planting requirements in the zoning bylaw. It was submitted by Susan Stamps and ten registered voters.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he supports the idea of more greenery, but he thinks this proposes too many restrictions.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston notes that Arlington already has an approved tree list. She's not sure why the tree warden should have to approve each individual planting.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson believes these are good changes. He thinks the Arlington Brewing Company special permit was an example of where the tree warden provided valuable input to a planting plan. The motion gives the board discretion over the location of trees. He thinks these are appropriate changes.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak appreciates the removal of the annual reporting requirement, which he felt was too burdensome. He sees this article as getting the tree warden more involved in species selection, and encouraging trees to be located near public rights of way. Mr. Revilak thinks the proposed main motion provides special permit granting authorities enough flexibility to handle cases where planting near the street isn't feasible.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery doesn't want to add bureaucracy but she thinks that feedback from the tree warden seems useful.

There's discussion about wording changes.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau is concerned about having too many layers of bureaucracy. He thinks the town should be responsible for addressing heat islands on its own.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this is more about who's responsible for monitoring newly-planted trees.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks the tree committee should assume that responsibility. Mr. Benson asks the petitioner if she'd be amenable to striking the changes in section E.

(Susan Stamps) Ms. Stamps says she'd prefer to leave those in, but would be okay with taking them count.

The board votes 4--1 to recommend favorable action, but with no changes to Section 6.3.4.E (Mr. Lau voted in the negative).

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this will be a two-thirds vote at town meeting.

Article 44 - Affordable Housing Overlay District

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the petitioner hasn't provided a main motion, and hasn't sent the notices necessary for a map change.

The board votes to recommend no action on Article 44, 4--0 (Mr. Revilak took no position on Article 44).

Article 25 - Accessory Dwelling Units

Article 25 would bring Arlington's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaw into compliance with recent changes to state law.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that members of the ARB, ZBA, Inspectional Services, and the legal department have made several rounds of edits and comments on how to change Arlington's ADU bylaw. She received a memo from the legal department this afternoon recommending that the main motion follow the model legislation written by the Executive Office of Housing and Liveable Communities. She says the model legislation was only released in the last week or two.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak asks if the legal department had specific objections to the main motion we've been working on.

(Sarah Suarez, Assistant Planning Director) Ms. Suarez says that Town Counsel's advice was to follow the model code, and they felt the main motion we'd been working on didn't do that enough. She says the board needs to decide whether to follow the model legislation. The model legislation doesn't contemplate allowing ADUs in business districts, which is something that our bylaw allows. She notes that state law requires a second ADU to be a local use ADU.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson feels blind-sighted by this development. The model legislation would be a good starting point if we were a town that didn't allow ADUs. He thinks we endeavored to make changes that were consistent with state requirements. Mr. Benson outlines several of the modifications. He doesn't agree with making the same distinction between local and protected use ADUs.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak acknowledges that staff put together a proposal based on the model legislation, and that work was done on very short notice. He thinks it's a lot to take in at the last minute, and would prefer to stick with the draft we've been working on.

Mr. Revilak says the model legislation was released about a week and a half ago; since the board's last meeting. The document is annotated with lists of things that municipalities should and should not do in their ADU bylaws, and we updated our main motion based on those guidelines. For example, one of the "do not" items was "do not use terms in your bylaw that have different meanings than the definitions in the model code". Our bylaw defines gross floor area differently than the model code, and we've added a change to bring that definition in to compliance.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that we are not required to use the model code. He'd like to see Town Counsel review the main motion we produced.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston would like to see a review by Town Counsel, for compliance with the state law and regulations.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery thinks the model version needs more work. She believes there's time for Town Counsel to do a formal review of what we've proposed.

The board votes to recommend favorable action on Article 25 5--0, using the main motion we've been working on.

Mr. Benson motions that the board ask Town Counsel to review Article 25's main motion for consistency with state laws and regulations. The board votes in favor, 5--0.

The board will meet on Thursday April 10th, at 7:30 pm in the town hall annex for the purpose of approving the report to town meeting.

The board votes to close warrant article hearings, 5--0.

New Business

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the Comprehensive Plan kickoff event was last Thursday. It was very successful, with approximately 125 people attending. There were presentations and table activities. So far, feedback has been positive.

Ms. Ricker says that she and members of the Town Managers office met with MBTA General Manager Phil Eng. They discussed the Alewife Garage redevelopment and possible CSO mitigations. Ms. Ricker says that Arlington will get a seat at the table for these discussions.

We also talked about the bus turnaround in Arlington Heights, and the possibility of getting Minuteman access through their property.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak offers a summary of the Comprehensive plan kickoff event. The Comprehensive Plan Committee wanted to gather feedback on line, as well as from in person events. There's a project website at https://arlingtonma.gov/CompPlan, with survey questions similar to what was asked at the public event.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson also felt like it was a good event. He was happy to see new people turn out.

Meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm.