Arlington Redevelopment Board - Mar 10th, 2025
Meeting held at 27 Maple St. Materials were available from https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=2225&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda.
Review Meeting Minutes
The board approved minutes from their February 24, 2025 meeting.
Docket 3798 - 821 Mass Ave
(Claire Ricker, Planning Director) Ms. Ricker says the applicant has provided a set of updates based on the board's feedback from the previous hearing. This includes changes to materials, the building facade, and updated dimensional worksheets.
(Mary Winstanley O'Connor, Attorney) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says that she met with Mr. Rojas, Mr. Lau, and Ms. Ricker and received useful feedback from them. Her client has gotten a demolition permit from the Department of Inspectional Services and they've sent abutter notices for the demolition. Ms. Winstanley O'Connor believes the demolition will require ARB approval to proceed.
(Andres Rojas, Architect) Mr. Rojas says his surveyor produced new dimensional worksheets -- one applies to the CVS and the proposed building, and the second is just for the proposed building. He says the lot area devoted to the mixed use building will be less than 20,000 square feet, so he'll need relief from that requirement.
The exterior has been reduced to two materials. The brick will approximate the brick color of the CVS. They've also added trim and step runs to mimic the details of that building. The parapet is slightly higher, with a mix of lighter- and darker-colored brick. They've added a cornice line to the first floor and sills to the windows. They've added triple windows on the southeast corner to tie in with the triple windows on the church next door. There are some changes to the floor plans. The ground floor entrance extends out a little. This space creates seating nooks in the residential levels above. There are still four units, including one accessible unit. There will be (1) one-bedroom, (1) two-bedroom, and (2) four-bedroom apartments.
(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau says he was hoping to get more of a shadow line on the facade. The rear tower in the back look different that the front and that seems out of balance. Mr. Lau suggests using a treatment for the rear that's similar to the front. He appreciates the undulating top cornice, but would have preferred a chamfered corner.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas says that's a problem with the sketch-up model. The cornice will be mitered.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau appreciates the sign band. He says it looks more like a mixed-use building.
(Rachel Zsembery, ARB Chair) Ms. Zsembery agrees that the sign band is better, but she's struggling with the flatness of the new tower element. With different materials on the first and second floors, the tower creates a challenging mass of brick, which is very imposing. Ms. Zsembery suggests doing something to break it up. Having the sills and lintels the same color as the brick doesn't help. Ms. Zsembery doesn't love the recessed entry and says it feels like an imposing space. She struggles with the towers but appreciates the reduction in materials. She says that brick mixed-use buildings generally have a wrapped first floor.
(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston has no questions for the applicant.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson believes the building meets the standard of being harmoniously related to the surroundings. He asks if the wall between the commercial spaces is structural, and whether it could be taken down.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas says the wall isn't structural. It could be taken down for a tenant that wanted the entire first floor.
(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak says the zoning requirements for mixed-use in the B4 district vary by lot size; there's one set of regulations for lots under 20,000 square feet, and one for lots with 20,000 square feet or more. There isn't a minimum lot size for mixed use, so the applicants will not need relief for that.
Mr. Revilak noticed the nooks in two of the residential rooms. With doors, they could be good spaces for videoconferencing. He thinks the building looks better than the previous iteration.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says the bike parking requirements may change, depending on the type of commercial tenant they get.
The chair opens the hearing to public comment.
(Marina Popova, 25 Ridge St) Ms. Popova says that 460 residents signed a petition to save the pine tree on the property. She says it's not hard, if there's the will to do it.
(Susan Stamps, 39 Grafton St) Ms. Stamps says she didn't see the street tree planting location on the plans. She wants to confirm that street trees will be planted, and that they'll be large shade trees.
(John Worden, 27 Jason St) Mr. Worden says the whole thing about the building is his fault, because he said something should be done when the CVS sign permit was re-opened. He says the Housing Corporation of Arlington and Arlington Housing Authority worked out a plan to develop affordable housing on the site, but the owner was only willing to give them a ten-year lease. Now the building will be totally disintegrated. Mr. Worden asks if the pine tree will remain.
(Peter Blume, Jason Terrace) Mr. Blume has lived here 38 years. He's heard a lot about how the new building will match the CVS, but less about how it will match the church. He thinks it would be better to tie its appearance to the church. He says the applicants will not deprive the town from relief of the view of the building, and that it looks out of place next to the church. Mr. Blume thinks people will be shocked, but they'll get used to it. He wonders if the applicants have reconsidered the tree.
There's no more public comment.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the tree has been experiencing health issues, and the plan is to remove it. Even if the building were moved, the tree's critical root zone would likely be damaged by construction.
Ms. Zsembery isn't satisfied with the appearance of the building, and doesn't think she can get to yes tonight.
(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston is okay with the building, but it's not the building she was hoping to see.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he'd be comfortable with moving forward, if the applicant agreed to meet with Ms. Zsembery and Mr. Lau.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau likes the idea of moving the front door out. He asks if the parapet is 6' high.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas says its 5.5 feed.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if it has to be that high.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas says he understood that the board didn't want tenants placing things on top of the parapet. He also wanted to provide a sense of privacy.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks what's inside the top tower.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas says that's the top of the stair tower.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau suggests lightening up the brick a little. The brick in the CVS building is more reddish.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery is concerned about the ability to work through these issues without coming back to the board. She says the building looks very flat, and thinks the architect is missing an opportunity to have a contrasting water table.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he gets the gist of what his colleagues are concerned about, but doesn't think the board has provided enough guidance on what to do differently. He wants Mr. Rojas to have a clear idea of what to do, if the hearing is continued.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he's willing to continue the hearing, if Ms. Zsembery and Mr. Lau can meet with the architect.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas would like to nail down the changes with a few of the board members. Right now, he's a little confused about what to do.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd feel more comfortable if we could get to a better place.
(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor asks if the board would be able to approve the demolition of the existing structure tonight.
(Andres Rojas) Mr. Rojas notes that the slide being projected shows the location of the street trees, and they are spaced 25' apart as the bylaw requires.
The board votes to continue this hearing until April 14, 5--0.
Docket 3348 - 821--837 Mass Ave
The board re-opens Docket 3348. This was the original special permit for the CVS, and it has a condition involving the house at 821 Mass Ave.
The board discusses how the modify the special permit conditions, and whether to permit the demolition. They board doesn't feel they'll be able to draft language for that tonight.
The chair opens the hearing to public comment.
(Peter Blume, Jason Terrace) Mr. Blume feels like this is a selling out of the streetscape of the town. He says the chain link fence and missing porches don't look nice, but that's by design, for neglecting the property. Mr. Blume says he's uncomfortable with rewarding the treatment of this property.
There are no further comments.
(Eugene Benson) With respect to the requested demolition, Mr. Benson says it really amounts to having chain link fence around a house or having chain link fence around a hole.
There's some further discussion, and the board continues the hearing to March 24th.
Warrant Article Hearings
This agenda item concerns zoning articles for the 2025 town meeting.
Article 27 - Delete Inland Wetland Overlay District
(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the the inland wetland district was created over 50 years ago, in attempt to achieve wetlands protections via zoning. It predates Massachusetts's Wetland Protections Act.
(David Morgan, Planning Department) Mr. Morgan is concerned about the relevance and continued use of the Inland Wetland District. Protection of water bodies and streams is the purview of the Conservation Commission, they also oversee the flood plain, and there is already a flood plain overlay district in the zoning bylaw. The Conservation Commission is also tasked with overseeing development adjacent to any sort of wetlands.
Mr. Morgan says the definition of the Inland Wetland District is internally consistent. It defines the district in terms of elevation, but wetlands are not defined by elevation. Flood plains are, but wetlands are not.
The Wetlands Protection Act defines protected areas based on the edges of a water body, where the wetland overlay district defines them from the center of the body.
The wetlands protection district refers to a water table map, but there is no such map. Mr. Morgan says that measuring the depth of a water table is a very technical and difficult thing to do, and the zoning bylaw provides no methodology for how the water table is to be measured.
The bottom line is that the inland wetland district has been superseded by a body of law that makes much more sense.
Mr. Morgan lists some of the objections raised when this article came before town meeting last year. One objection took the position that the inland wetland district was a belt and suspenders approach, but the district doesn't do that. Another concern involved cherry-picking of language around the 200' riverfront area; the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over these areas.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that Mr. Morgan made a nice case. He thinks it would be helpful for him to work on the background statement for this article. He thinks we'll need to be proactive about answering questions from town meeting members. Last year, people were concerned that there would be some little piece that wasn't covered by the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Benson doesn't think such a little piece exists.
(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks we'll need to explain ourselves well enough to avoid confusion.
The chair opens the hearing to public comment.
(John Worden, 27 Jason St) Mr. Worden says he voted against this last year. It was not understood that other laws do as much or more than what the inland wetland district does. He says it's hard to hear some of the speakers and board members.
There's no further comment from the public.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak thinks the inland wetland district creates ambiguity over which board has jurisdiction over wetlands. He's concerned that ambiguity could leave the town open to legal challenges.
Article 25 - Accessory Dwelling Units
(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that Article 25 seeks to bring Arlington's ADU bylaw into compliance with changes to state law.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he's spoken with Inspectional Services and Town Counsel about some of the provisions in the ADU bylaw. Both agree that the provisions of 5.4.2.B(7) apply only to garages.
Mr. Benson reads his suggested rewording to section 5.10.2.B(1)(3). The gist is that ADUs that meet the accessory structure setback requirements would be allowed by right, but ones that did not -- garage to ADU conversions, for example -- would require a special permit.
(Note: this is very similar to the existing bylaw.)
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak noted the change to how the large addition provisions of the bylaw would be applied; the portion of the addition used for a protected use ADU would be exempt from that requirement. Mr. Revilak thinks that's a good approach.
(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston asks what would happen if someone wanted to build an ADU on top of a garage that was within the 6' setback.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that would require a special permit.
There's a discussion about a section of the state regulations which says that municipalities shall require a special permit for more than one ADU per lot, and how that should be addressed.
(Wynelle Evans, 20 Orchard Place) Ms. Evans would like to make four points. First, the staff memo mentions a meeting where Inspectional services stated that there was no safety reason for the 6' setback. She asks about abutting ADUs. Second, what if someone proposes an ADU within 6' of a lot line. Third, what are Type I and Type III construction; these aren't defined in the zoning bylaw. Fourth, without an owner occupancy requirement, could an ADU be turned into a condo.
(John Worden, 27 Jason St) Mr. Worden asks what the rules are for ADUs that are built as separate structures. Also, would it be possible for someone to build a large addition as an ADU, and then convert it to part of the main house.
(Marina Popova) Ms. Popova isn't clear about the ownership requirements. She asks if a developer could build a home without an ADU.
There are no further comments from the public.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that ADUs built on a lot line can't have windows, and would need significant fire protection. This requirement comes from the state building code. Type I and Type III construction are also defined in the state building code.
The board continues to answer questions asked by the public. Ms. Zsembery reads the questions, while Mr. Benson and Mr. Revilak do most of the answering.
Regarding the question about ADUs within 6' of a lot line -- they'd require a special permit, as they do today.
State law does not allow municipalities to have owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, but they do have to be held in common ownership with the primary dwelling. One wouldn't be able to turn an ADU into a condominium under separate ownership.
It's technically possible for someone to build a large addition for an ADU, then turn the addition into part of the main house. The ADU would still need to meet egress and fire safety requirements, along with having its own kitchen and bathroom. It would likely be easier and less expensive for someone who wanted a large addition to simply seek the special permit.
Since state law prohibits an owner occupancy requirement, it would be possible for a builder to construct a new home with an ADU. Mr. Revilak feels that may have been the legislature's intent.
Article 26 - Transportation Demand Management Plan
(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that Article 26 came out of the board's last goal setting meeting, where board members wanted to increase the set of TDM options available to smaller, and residential only projects.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery questions the provision about offering a guaranteed ride home. She doesn't think the measure is well defined.
(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston notes that the board discussed provisions of item 10 before. What's there is more onerous than she would advocate for. She'd reduce or eliminate the requirements around bus frequency and would increase the distance from one-eighth to one-quarter mile.
(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak points out a typo in the background section. He'd also like to see item 10 apply to properties within a quarter-mile of a bus stop.
(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery agrees that a quarter-mile is an appropriate walking standard.
There's further discussion about the bus frequency requirement. The board agrees to leave it in. The 77 is the only bus which meets the frequency requirement. The next most-frequent bus is the 87, which only serves Arlington six days per week.
The board discusses the use of the "propose" vs "provide" in the main motion, and chooses to go with "provide".
The chair opens the hearing to public comment. There is none.
The warrant article hearings are continued to March 17th.
Open Forum
There are no speakers for tonight's open forum.
New Business
(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the board will meet on April 10th to finalize their report to town meeting. That meeting will start at 7pm.
(Steve Revilak) Last month, Mr. Revilak discovered that Massachusetts has an Unlocking Housing Production Commission, and they've released a report called "Building for Tomorrow". He says the report contains a set of recommendations for how the commonwealth could go about producing more housing. The recommendations fall into four categories
- Economic Incentives and Workforce Development
- Land Use and Zoning
- Regulations, Codes, and Permitting, and
- Statewide Planning and Local Coordination
The report's land use and zoning recommendations include:
- Eliminating parking minimums statewide, for residential use.
- Requiring municipalities to establish TDM requirements as a condition for allowing off-street parking
- Allowing two-family homes on all residential lots, and four family homes where the lot is served by existing water and sewer infrastructure.
- Eliminating minimum lot sizes statewide, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
- Incentivizing or requiring zoning to align with comprehensive plans.
Mr. Revilak says these are only policy suggestions at this point, and he hopes the legislature will take them into consideration.
(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson notes that the PDF version of the zoning map includes the multi-family overlay districts, but the town GIS maps to not. He thinks that would be a worthwhile addition.
Meeting adjourned.