Arlington Redevelopment Board - Mar 23rd, 2026

Meeting held at 27 Maple St. Materials were available from https://arlingtonma.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1897.

Review Meeting Minutes

The board approved minutes from their March 9th meeting.

Discussion of 1207--1211 Mass Ave

The board meets with the applicant for the proposed Lexington Hotel at 1207--1211 Mass Ave for an update on project status.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor, Attorney) Regarding the status of the hotel, Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says that Mr. Doherty continues to look for a company that's interested in operating a finished hotel. Planning Director Claire Ricker may have identified someone who can assist Mr. Doherty in finding an operator.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak is sorry to see that Mr. Doherty has seen so many bumps in the road. The hotel pre-dates his time on the board, but he thinks it's a good project. He's glad to see Mr. Doherty continuing the effort.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin is glad to see Mr. Doherty continuing his efforts.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston hopes the project can continue. She asks Mr. Doherty about potential timelines.

(Jim Doherty, Applicant) Mr. Doherty was hoping to find an operator by last Thanksgiving, but that time has passed. He'd like to work with Planning Department staff. The special permit for the hotel will expire in 2027. Mr. Doherty might consider a residential use if he has no luck in finding an operator.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery says it would be okay to parallel-path a residential project. She asks if there are any impediments to that.

(Mary Winstanley O'Connor) Ms. Winstanley O'Connor says there aren't any impediments. She says Mr. Doherty would like to work with staff first. Ultimately, they're looking at the highest and best use for the parcels.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this is an important site for redevelopment, and she's interested in seeing that move forward.

(James Doherty) Mr. Doherty says he has a rendering of a possible residential project, and it seems feasible.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she looks forward to seeing that development move forward.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau encourages Mr. Doherty to continue pursuing the hotel. The special permit will expire in 2027. He asks Mr. Doherty to speak to the auto shop and ask them to keep their site tidy.

Warrant Article Hearings

This is the fourth night of warrant article hearings.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau outlines the hearing process. Applicants will have up to seven minutes to make a presentation, after which the board will ask questions. The chair will take comments from the public and return the discussion to the board.

Article 52 - Rezoning of Certain Parcels from R-1 to R-2

This citizen petition proposes to rezone a handful of R1 parcels to R2 in the area near the Thompson school.

(Steve McKenna, Petitioner) Mr. McKenna says that Norcross St. has a number of two- and three-family homes on parcels that are zoned R1. He wants to adjust the zoning to make the area more consistent, rather than spot-zoned. Mr. McKenna outlines several inconsistencies in how the land is zoned versus what's actually built there. He'd like to have the zoning more accurately reflect the actual land uses. After sending notices to abutters, Mr. McKenna received generally positive feedback. He also got requests from nearby owners to have their properties included too.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery says it would be helpful for Town Meeting to have a list of parcels and how they're currently used, in addition to a map.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says he can provide a list of specific parcels and their current uses.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery doesn't have any specific issues. She understands the article is specific to parcels around Norcross and Gardner. She asks why two nearby parcels on Gardner weren't included. Likewise for nearby lots on Norcross Circle.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says the parcels on Norcross circle actually have their frontage on Granton Park Road. The two lots on Gardner are on the other side of Prince Hall Cemetery, and he wanted to focus on the ones around Norcross.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston says she looked at parcels on Michael and Silk streets, and asks why they weren't included.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna agrees that there are inconsistencies there. They could be part of a later discussion.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston asks if Mr. McKenna has spoken with everyone.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says he sent letters and held two zoom meetings. Some owners live out of state and have been hard to reach.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston thinks that will be important to mention during town meeting. She asks if Mr. McKenna has satisfied the map change requirements in the bylaw.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says he worked with the planning department on that, and believes he's met the requirements.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin thinks Mr. McKenna's proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood. He thinks that the warrant language constraints Mr. McKenna from expanding the area further.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says this area around the Thompson School has a mix of R1, R2, R3, and R5 residential districts, so there are single-, two-, and three-family homes, as well as townhomes and apartments. It's a very diverse set of housing types. He asks how much money Mr. McKenna spent to satisfy the certified mail requirements.

(Steve McKenna) Mr. McKenna says it was between three and five hundred dollars.

(Kin Lau, ARB Chair) Mr. Lau suggests giving town meeting some context to understand how the properties are currently used. If this is successful, the board may look at other areas of town. He thinks this is a more thoughtful approach than changing district definitions.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Susan Elmore, 50 Norcross St) Ms. Elmore says these lots are variable in size, and she can see this is going: someone will buy a home which opens up the possibility for a tear down on a small lot. The lot sizes are not consistent, and we need clarity in the enforcement of zoning rules. She says that Norcross is a narrow street with no street trees.

(Wynelle Evans) Ms. Evans asks if converting a one-family home on a 4800 square foot lot to a two-family home would be increasing the nonconformity.

(Aram Hollman, Whittemore St) Mr. Hollman asks how wide the narrow lots are. He questions the appropriateness of two family zoning on narrow and deep lots.

There are no more comments from the public.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says the zoning requirements for single and two-family homes are the same, and it's okay if a lot can fit a smaller two-family. He says that non-conforming lots can be changed, as long as they stay within the non-conformity.

(Stephen Revilak) Mr. Revilak says that R2 requires 6000 square feet and 60 feet of frontage for a two-family home, which is the same as R1's requirement for a single-family home. There are non-conforming lots all over Arlington, not just on Norcross St, and there are laws governing how these lots are treated. State law treats non-conforming single- and two-family dwellings exactly the same. Lots with 5000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage are given protections by state law. Some changes to non-conforming lots have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, who has to find that the changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood before allowing an alteration. There's also a significant body of case law on the topic.

Article 53 - Administrative Clarification to Bonus Provisions for Multi-Family Development (mixed-use)

This article is a citizen petition to change the requirements for the mixed use bonus in the Mass Ave/Broadway multifamily district. The board has interpreted the "60% of the ground floor" requirement for commercial space to be relative to the interior of the ground floor. The petitioner's motion would require the 60% to be measured relative to the building's footprint.

(Joanne Cullinane, Petitioner) Ms. Cullinane says she's seen the board adopt novel definitions of ground floor during site plan review, which use zoning bylaw terms that never appear in the bonus section. She thinks this robs the town of viable commercial space. She thinks the board should base the 60% on the definition of "Building Area" in the state building code, and that the board has misinterpreted by bylaw by using gross floor area. She says developers can build four stories of residential by right, and the commercial space initially proposed by the developers of 126 Broadway was too small. She says 259 Broadway should have 1785 square feet of commercial space, but the developers only proposed 1200. The developer of 126 Broadway has purchased 128 Broadway and is planning to combine the sites. She says they're proposing a larger building using arbitrary terms. It's unclear how much commercial space there is. The loss of commercial space will be cumulative. Ms. Cullinane wants the 60% measured relative to the building footprint. She says the current process is uncertain and sacrifices commercial space. She feels here clarification will protect the letter and the spirit of the law, and produce larger commercial spaces.

(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau objects to Ms. Cullinane's use of the words "misinterpreted" and "misunderstood" in her presentation. The board had a discussion about how to apply the requirements in the bylaw and voted on their interpretation. A split vote does not mean the board is misinterpreting the requirements; it means there was a difference of opinion among board members. Mr. Lau notes that Supreme Court decisions are rarely unanimous, which also reflects a difference of opinion. He says the building code definition that Ms. Cullinane is citing says nothing about ground floors, and that the zoning bylaw's definition of building requires it to be enclosed by exterior walls. When assessing the value of buildings, the assessors consider interior areas, not exterior. He thinks the board's interpretation was well-considered.

(Steve Revilak) Ms. Revilak asks Ms. Ricker to display the plan set for 259 Broadway, which is a mixed use building in the Mass Ave Broadway multifamily district that the board recently approved. As approved, this building would not comply with the petitioner's main motion. Mr. Revilak would like to talk through several modifications that would allow it to become compliant with the main motion, and see how folks feel about them.

The proposed building has 1785 square feet of commercial space, which is slightly more than 60% of the ground floor interior. One option would be to add approximately 500 square feet of commercial space at the rear of the first floor. This would shift the parking area back and leave insufficient space for a drive isle. One could reconfigure the parking area for 2--3 spaces, but that would require more of a parking reduction than the board could grant. In short, simply making the commercial space larger would result in a configuration the board could not approve.

Mr. Revilak gives a second scenario. One could shrink the upper stories so they have the same footprint as the ground floor. The commercial space would now be 60% of the building footprint, but it would entail removing four to six apartments. Mr. Revilak asks the petitioners if that's the kind of outcome they were hoping to see.

(Joanne Cullinane) Ms. Cullinane doesn't provide a yes or no answer. She says she wants a strict interpretation of what she feels town meeting approved in 2023.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says this configuration complies with the main motion, but the commercial space is the same size as what the board approved, 1785 square feet.

(Joanne Cullinane) Ms. Cullinane says she's okay with a 1785 square foot commercial space.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak gives a third set of modifications to achieve compliance with the petitioner's main motion: remove the commercial space and the top floor, and pull the building in to provide 15' front setbacks. This would be a smaller building with fewer apartments, and it would have +0 square feet of commercial space instead of +1785. He asks the petitioners if this is the kind of result they were trying to achieve.

(Petitioners) The petitioners don't provide a clear answer.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak has a final question for staff: do they have any opinions on the viability or marketability of the 1785 square foot commercial space that the board approved.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker believes the space would be attractive to commercial tenants, because it's new and larger than a number of spaces in the area.

(Larry Slotnick, Petitioner) Mr. Slotnick says that what happened with 259 Broadway is great.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin says he's a new member of the board and isn't accustomed to resident cynicism. He thinks the language in the petitioner's presentation is unhelpful. He says the petitioner's way of seeing things is not the only way, and he notes there are challenges with commercial and parking competing for space. He thinks the main effect would be to reduce the area of the second floor and the amount of residential developed. He's curious about how the Executive Office of Housing and Liveable Communities would feel about this. He thinks it would be good to clarify the requirement and suggests "50% of the building footprint". Mr. Baudoin doesn't see 60% as being feasible, but 50% might be.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston thinks there's a need for clarification in the bylaw. The board prioritizes commercial space but she doesn't support the interpretation that the petitioners are putting forward. She feels the approach would reduce the amount of residential space, and potentially the amount of commercial. She doesn't think that builders will strive for 60% of the footprint. She thinks the petitioner's interpretation is well-intentioned but counter-productive.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery agrees that there's a need for tighter language, but she prefers the larger dimensional requirement. She like's Mr. Baudoin's approach but thinks it may be out of scope of the warrant language. She disagrees with the way the board was characterized in the presentation. She thinks that developers aren't creating viable commercial spaces in the way they're treating facades and signage. She thinks the petitioners are mis-interpreting the building code. She says that all board members push for viable commercial space, and we take it seriously. She can't support the main motion as written.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Gerry Leonard) Mr. Leonard says there's a price to pay in the neighborhoods. That doesn't me we shouldn't build, but builders should provide value. He says it's important to get meaningful commercial space and there is ambiguity in the bylaw's language. He doesn't think gross floor area reflects commercial space. Mr. Leonard says he was in Lynn and saw apartment buildings with unenclosed parking underneath. He'd like to see a stronger process to ensure that we're ending up with real commercial spaces.

(Jeremiah Van Buren, 215 Mass Ave) Mr. Van Buren agrees that there's a need to clarify the language. As written, this proposal would not be achievable in a lot of districts. He thinks there needs to be an exception for necessary infrastructure, and this goes a bit too far.

(Grant Cook) Mr. Cook remembers the debates at Town Meeting. 60% was what we thought was appropriate. We have regulations on the first floor, and until you untie the knot of parking, we'll have a battle where commercial and residential lose to tarmac. If commercial and residential are important, then we have to address parking.

There are no more comments from the public.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she found the public comment helpful.

Article 55 - Administrative Clarification to Bonus Provisions for Multi-Family Development (affordable housing)

This article proposes to change the way that the percentage of affordable units for the multi-family district overlay bonus is converted to whole units. The petitioner would like all fractional units to be round up, rather than rounding up at 0.5 of greater.

(Aram Hollman, Petitioner) Mr. Hollman says his proposal would clarify the number of affordable units necessary to qualify for the affordability bonus in Section 5.8.4.E(2). Arlington's base zoning requires that 15% of units be affordable, and it rounds up at 0.5 or greater. Mr. Hollman feels the 5.8.4.E(2) bonuses are unique in the bylaw, and the words "at least" should be interpreted as always going up to the next whole number. He thinks that rounding up or down is a misreading. Mr. Hollman says this would have a very modest effect. The number of affordable units required would change by zero or one. He shows a spreadsheet to illustrate the differences. He thinks the intent is to always round up, and in some cases this will produce an additional affordable unit. Mr. Hollman says the clarification is consistent with supporting affordable housing and removing an ambiguity. He says that Arlington is not interested in allowing unnecessary development.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak thanks Mr. Hollman for providing his spreadsheet of calculations, and he agrees that the difference will always be zero or one unit. Mr. Revilak asks Mr. Hollman if he has a sense of how many additional affordable units would have been permitted, had this language been included when the town adopted MBTA Communities multifamily zoning in 2023.

(Aram Hollman) Mr. Hollman says he doesn't know.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says the board has yet to approve any projects using the affordable housing bonus, so the difference is zero.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin notes a typo in Mr. Hollman's main motion.

(Aram Hollman) Mr. Hollman acknowledges the typo and thanks Mr. Baudoin for pointing it out.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin says he understands the main motion treats the affordability bonus differently, and he could support it.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston thinks it's problematic to use different standards for different calculations. She thinks we should have one standard. We already have an established standard, and it would make sense to use that consistently. She could consider language that says the affordability bonus requires at least one unit more than the 15% base zoning.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery appreciates the attempt at clarification. She says the board debated the interpretation and she doesn't agree with adding additional rounding provisions. She says that board members had different interpretations and she suggests a wording change.

There's back and forth on the wording.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery disagrees with the way the bonuses were characterized in the presentation. She doesn't think they should be characterized as sacrifices.

(Kin Lau, ARB Chair) Mr. Lau says he can't support this the way it's written. He suggests changing the wording, or increasing the percentage required for the bonus. He says the numbers chosen were not arbitrary, and affordable housing means losing money on the affordable units. There needs to be a certain number of market-rate units to cover that.

There's more back and forth.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he's concerned about unintentional effects, and the possibility that people might stop building affordable units.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Gerry Leonard, 44 Palmer St) Mr. Leonard says the board should be stricter about commercial space if it wants to get more affordable units. Market rate units will go for what they go for, and the clarification seems straightforward.

(Joanne Cullinane, Newland Rd) Ms. Cullinane says that affordability standards can be different and must be different. Base projects would still have more affordable housing. The bonus rules are optional, and she would prefer a strict standard.

(Carmine Granucci) Mr. Granucci says the bonuses exist to incentivize. If they're not practical, they won't get used.

There are no more comments from the public.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin says he does agree with Ms. Korman-Houston's point about having a consistent standard.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak also agrees. He would be open to discussing changes to the percentage requirements.

Article 56 - Development Standards – Off-Street Parking and Bicycle Parking

This article proposes to give the ARB the ability to reduce long-term bicycle parking requirements in the MBTA Communities district, when the project involves 100% affordable housing.

(Neal Mongold, Petitioner) Mr. Mongold says that articles 56 and 57 were proposed by the Housing Corporation of Arlington (HCA). The proposal wants to recognize the difficulties in developing 100% affordable housing.

(Andrew Wofford, Housing Corporation of Arlington) Mr. Wofford says the changes are related into indoor bike parking regulations, and would allow a lower parking ratio for 100% affordable housing. Mr. Wofford says that HCA's tenants don't take full advantage of the bike parking they've been required to build. The Downing Square/Broadway properties have 48 units, and the tenants have 31 bicycles and 72 long-term spaces. Emma's court has 40 units, and they needed to build a separate bike parking structure which required additional space and cost. Mr. Wofford thinks that one long-term bicycle parking space per unit would work.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak says he understands the challenges in funding affordable housing developments. One has to seek grants for a land acquisition. Once you have the land, you'll have to look for another set of grants to cover design and permitting costs. And once you've got a permit, you'll have to look for another set of grants to fund construction. He understands that there's a big gap between HCA's costs and what they take in for rent, and that policies which narrow that gap are beneficial.

Mr. Revilak has mixed feelings about a bike parking reduction. Both Arlington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have emissions reductions goals, and personal vehicles are a significant contributor to emissions. By contrast, bicycles generate little to no emissions and he believes that policy subsidies could encourage more people to use them.

Mr. Revilak notes that projects that provide affordable housing get a 10% reduction in auto parking requirements, per Section 8.2 of the bylaw. He would be in favor of increasing that number, or eliminating parking minimums for 100% affordable housing projects.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin suggests wording changes, and he generally agrees with Mr. Revilak. He asks why they've proposed the change in Section 5.8.2, rather than in Section 8.2 where it could apply more broadly.

(Andrew Wofford) Mr. Wofford says they didn't consider that possibility. HCA encountered this as a challenge in the Mass Ave/Broadway multi-family district and focused on the overlay.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin could see changing this in the affordable housing overlay, and he doesn't think the extra flexibility hurts.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston is sympathetic to the challenges. She asks if the petitioners know what the office of Housing and Liveable Communities (EOHLC) wants in terms of bicycle parking.

(Neal Mongold) Mr. Mongold says that EOHLC typically wants one bicycle parking space per dwelling, but they have the ability to be flexible with that.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston says she's sympathetic. She thinks it would be optimal if there were an option to use EOHLC's standards.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery agrees with the request for flexibility. She'd like to have this put into the base zoning, so the board could use it to relax requirements more generally.

(Kin Lau, ARB Chair) Mr. Lau says he's generally supportive. He asks if about half of the bicycle spaces at Downing Square/Broadway are used.

(Andrew Wofford) Mr. Wofford answers in the affirmative.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if the space is used for other storage, and would more storage be necessary if some of the bike parking were removed.

(Andrew Wofford) Mr. Wofford says there is some use of bike parking for other kinds of storage, but that's not ideally operationally.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Larry Slotnick, Grafton St) Mr. Slotnick says he lives near 117 Broadway and the bike storage is long and skinny. There's a lot of kid stuff and other paraphernalia stored there, and the space could be used more efficiently. He thinks that statutory bike storage could be reduced, and maybe better planned out.

There are no more comments from the public.

Article 57 - Development Standards – Bonuses

This article proposes to change the mixed-used bonus requirements in the Mass Ave/Broadway multifamily district for projects that include 100% affordable housing.

(Andrew Wofford, Housing Corporation of Arlington) Mr. Wofford says this article would reduce the ground floor commercial requirement for the mixed use bonus from 60% to 30%, for projects that provide 100% affordable housing. It would also allow non-profit missions as a commercial use. This would provide additional relief for 100% affordable housing projects. The setback relief in the mixed-use bonus makes a big difference. Mr. Wofford believes that non-profit organizations are the most likely to use this provision.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB) Ms. Zsembery appreciates the challenges that HCA had with Emma's Court, but she believes that setbacks are importantly tied to commercial use. She doesn't think that non-profit missions are an appropriate commercial use, but the majority of the board already agreed that they are. Her goal is not to add redundancy or additional complexity.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston thinks the use question is an interesting one, and she thinks that a non-profit use is appropriate. She thinks that provision would be useful in the bylaw regardless. She feels that the reduction in commercial space is more than we could support. The bonus were added to the bylaw to encourage things that met town goals. She thinks commercial needs a robust amount of space, and we have to be mindful of what the next tenant is. She thinks the reduction runs contrary to what we considered when creating the bonuses.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin says the article has limited scope. He thinks we need robust spaces that are lively and dynamic.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak reiterates his earlier remarks about the benefits of policies that narrow the funding gap for affordable housing projects. Last year, town meeting voted to establish a committee to work on an affordable housing overlay. He thinks that would be a much fit for Mr. Wofford's proposal. The Affordable Housing Overlay working group is a town body that holds public meetings. He encourages Mr. Wofford to take part in that process.

(Kin Lau, ARB Chair) Mr. Lau says he can't get behind setback relief without having commercial space.

There are no comments from the public

Article 58 - Frontage (Facade) Build-out Ratio for Single-Family Dwellings

(Claire Ricker, Planning Director) Ms. Ricker says she received an email from Article 58's proponents asking that the board suspend discussion and make a recommendation of no action. They'd like to work on their proposal and try again in 2027.

There are no comments from the board or from the pubic.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says the board will discuss and vote on these articles on March 30, but will not be taking public comment that evening.

The board votes to continue the warrant article hearings to March 30th.

Open Forum

There are no speakers for tonight's open forum.

New Business

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that next Monday, the board will have an opportunity to vote to approve a new appointee to the Envision Arlington Standing Committee.

There will be a Comprehensive Plan open house at 6pm on Thursday, in the Arlington High School cafeteria.

The Arlington Heights Business District feedback session has been rescheduled to April 14th.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston notes that early voting has started for the annual town election.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks if board comments will be reflected in the draft comprehensive plan that's presented Tuesday night.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the comments will be reflected.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd like to see a sample board for Emma's Court.

Meeting adjourned at 21:35.