Arlington Redevelopment Board - Jan 27th, 2025

Meeting held at 27 Maple Street. Materials were available from https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=2198&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda.

Discussion of Board Articles for 2025 Town Meeting

(Claire Ricker, Planning Director) Ms. Ricker says that staff and members of the Board worked on the warrant article language, which has been reviewed by Town Counsel. She's provided the board with a supplementary memo on Transportation Demand Management. She says the board will need to file two articles for changes to the B1 district: one to amend the zoning bylaw and one to amend the map.

The board discusses the warrant language, one article at a time.

Accessory Dwelling Units. There's discussion about which zoning bylaw sections to include in the warrant language. The board will remove the phrase "to bring ... into compliance".

Transportation Demand Management. The board adds the phrase "of the Zoning Bylaw".

Rezoning B1. Parcels. There's discussion about the need for two articles, and the board will file two.

Inland Wetland District. The board will add Section 4.1.2 to the list of sections to be changed.

Definition of lot coverage. The board makes a minor change, replacing the work "of" with "in".

Parking in Residential Districts. The board adds the phrase "the location of".

Screening and Buffer Requirements. Mr. Benson proposes a re-wording, which the board agrees to.

Redevelopment Board Jurisdiction. The board adds the phrase "of the Zoning Bylaw".

Administrative Correction. The board adds the phrase "of the zoning bylaw".

Discussion of Warrant Article Hearings Timeline

(Claire Ricker, Planning Director) Ms. Ricker reviews the review timeline she's proposing to the board, which has one night for ARB articles, one night for citizen petitions, one night for map changes, and one night to deliberate and vote.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB Chair) Ms. Zsembery suggests adding one more hearing date.

The board will add March 17th as an additional hearing date.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks when the ARB's report to town meeting is due.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the board will need to finalize the report by April 14.

Discussion of 1207-1211 Massachusetts Avenue

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the state's Bond Bill extended most special permits by two years. This includes the permit for 1207 Mass Ave, which was extended during the Bond Bill's tolling period. She says that staff are working to determine if other special permits are affected.

(James Doherty, Owner) Mr. Doherty outlines appearances he's made before the board. He's currently looking at three options: sticking with the hotel as originally permitted, developing the parcels as mixed use with residential and commercial, and bifurcating the project according to the two different properties. So far he's ruled out the third option.

Mr. Doherty says he'll continue to try to make the hotel work, but he's aware of changes made to the zoning bylaw over the last few years, including the regulations for FAR, setbacks, and upper-story step backs. The new regulations are more favorable, so he's also considering a residential use as an alternative. Parking would still remain underneath.

Mr. Doherty says he's done a block plan, and will bring something to the board in a few months.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks if Mr. Doherty is looking at residential instead of a hotel.

(James Doherty) Mr. Doherty answers in the affirmative.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks Mr. Doherty if he's considering moving the building closer to Mass Ave.

(James Doherty) Mr. Doherty answers in the affirmative.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says that will require a new special permit, as opposed to amending the existing one.

(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau agrees that a residential project would require a new special permit. He says the board may not be willing to grant the same concessions for a residential project. He asks what's holding up the hotel.

(James Doherty) Mr. Doherty says the hotel was proposed with four stories and 50 rooms. 50 rooms is on the low end for the industry, and the board approved 48 rooms. He's tried hard to make it work, but this isn't a premium location for a hotel. Lots of things have to go into the mix before you can get financing. He's also encountered challenges with the small room and restaurant sizes.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston asks when Mr. Doherty will be back before the board.

(James Doherty) Mr. Doherty says that a lot of effort and expense went into planning for the hotel, and it's hard to walk away from that investment. He says the hotel isn't completely off the table but the governor and the state are looking for more housing. Mr. Doherty says he wouldn't consider the hotel if he was starting from scratch today.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak thanks Mr. Doherty and looks forward to seeing what he brings forward.

Review of Meeting Minutes

The board approves minutes from their Jan 13, 2025 meeting, 5--0.

Docket 3831 - 1323 Massachusetts Ave

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says this docket is related to signage for a pizza restaurant. The applicants are seeking relief related to the number of signs.

(Applicant) The applicant would like to leave the signs as they are.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the restaurant has more signs than the board can approve. The prior tenant put up the signs illegally, and did not comply with our sign bylaw. She says that cabinet signs aren't an approved sign type. They'll have to be removed and replaced with a sign band. She says the business is allowed two signs, but they've got fourteen.

Ms. Zsembery notes that the business has two facades, and could consider a window sign with a phone number. The Park Ave side has a plastic board tacked over where one of the signs was. She says that needs to be glass, or some other durable material.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says the bands on the bottom of the windows are considered signage. The neon lights in the windows are also considered signage. He'd encourage the applicants to come back with a new sign package.

(Applicant) The applicants say the were issued a building permit, and that there was some confusion of the permit and the signs. They'd also like to keep the cabinet signs.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says it's unclear from the photos as to whether the upper signs were cabinets or a sign band, but from up close it's clear that they're cabinets. There's a trim band around each of the cabinets, which breaks up the area. He'd like to see one continuous band rather than sections. He'd also like the signs to follow the bylaw's 60% width requirement. Mr. Revilak says the sign band on the Park Ave side is small, and suggests the applicants consider a wall sign for that facade. He thinks the current signage is very busy.

(Applicants) The applicant says they discovered a number of problems with the property after signing the contract with the landlord. They'd like to minimize the cost of redoing the signs.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston realizes the applicants inherited an aesthetic from a non-compliant building. Keeping the top signs would be a step in the right direction. She suggests taking a look at what could be done with two or three signs.

The chair opens the hearing for public comment.

(Mark Wilke, Prescott St.) Mr. Wilke asks if these are proposed or existing signs.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says they're both.

There's no more comment from the public.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery suggests continuing the hearing with a new package that consists of two or three signs. She'd prefer to see the cabinet signs removed or refaced. She also suggests removing the signs that are pictures of food. She notes that LED signs and window films are also considered signs. She asks the board for their thoughts on keeping the cabinet signs.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau would like to see the cabinet signs removed, unless the applicants can demonstrate hardship. He says there's a blade sign near the payphone in front of the restaurant, and that's considered a sign too. He says this is a prominent corner and it's been in violation for a long time.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that cabinet signs are not allowed. He suggests going back to the landlord.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak would like the top band to be one continuous area.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says the metal sheeting on the Park Avenue side is also inappropriate.

The board votes to continue the hearing to March 17th, 5--0.

Docket 3837 - 1011 Massachusetts Ave

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says this docket is related to a non-conforming three family dwelling. Inspectional Service's records show the building as two apartments and an office, but it's been a three-family for years.

(John Leone, Attorney for the applicant) Mr. Leone says he's here tonight to get the town records to match how the property is used.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he has a spreadsheet of assessment data from 2013, which lists the building as a three family home. Having been a three family for over ten years, Mr. Revilak wonders why this isn't simply a pre-existing non-conforming use?

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks how long the building has been owned by the application.

(Scott Heffron, Applicant) Mr. Heffron says he purchased the property a year ago. He says it's a three family, with appropriate egress routes and utility metering.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if the building could be converted back to a two-family with an office.

(Scott Heffron) Mr. Heffron says that would require removing a full bathroom and a kitchen.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if all of the units are occupied.

(Scott Heffron) Mr. Heffron says the lower two apartments are rented, and the top one is vacant.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he had a hard time understanding the floor plans. To him, it looked like there was a studio and a one-bedroom apartment on the first floor, and a five bedroom apartment on the second and third floors. Mr. Lau asks if it's a boarding house.

(John Leone) Mr. Leone says it's not a boarding house. Boarding houses have different code requirements, such as having a lock on each door. Mr. Leone says his applicant would like to re-mortgage the property, and interest rates are better for all-residential properties.

Mr. Leone says that Inspectional Services sent him to the Redevelopment Board for a special permit, in order to have the property categorized as a three-family.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Ian Chin) Mr. Chin says the owner didn't mention that the building was for sale. He asks what a prospective buyer could do, and thinks the applicant's intentions are ambiguous.

There's no more comment from the public.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says this is unusual for a special permit application. He'd rather the board be able to make a finding that the building is a pre-existing non-conforming use, according to the statute of limitations in Chapter 40A. He's okay with issuing a special permit, because the statute of limitations on unpermitted work has lapsed.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says there are lots of non-conforming aspects to the property. Approving the special permit would increase the non-conformity with respect to lot area per dwelling unit. He's up in the air about what to do.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston would prefer to resolve this a different way, but she's okay with the request for a special permit. This feels like an administrative action.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau isn't comfortable with granting the permit. He thinks the property could be more valuable as mixed use.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks what would happen if the board does nothing?

(Steve Revilak) For Mr. Revilak, the main consideration is that this building has been a three-family for more than ten years, according to the assessors records. If it had been converted to a three-family (say) two years ago, Mr. Revilak's response would be "you need to put the office back", but that's not the case here. He thinks it's a legal nonconformity.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery agrees that this is an administrative change.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he could vote in favor of granting the permit if the decision said that the building had been a three-family for more than ten years, and the board was granting the permit so that Inspectional Services records could match the assessors.

The board discusses what they'd like the decision to say.

Permit granted, by a vote of 5--0.

Docket 3834 - 30 Mystic St

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the applicant proposes to renovate an existing two-story office building on Mystic St. The new tenant will provide services such as child care, Chinese language lessons, and adult day care. After a discussion with ISD, Ms. Ricker says staff have come to the conclusion that the language school and child care are covered by the Dover amendment, but adult daycare is not. As a result, staff's memo focuses on the adult day care use and the associated parking.

(Alan, Architect) The applicant's architect says the existing building is two stories and about 25,000 square feet, and they're planning to do an interior renovation. There will be three primary uses: child care, adult day care, and a Chinese cultural school. Renovations will be interior-only. They plan to add long-term and short-term bike storage, but the landscaping and parking lot will remain the same. They hope the new use will not cause additional traffic and they'll try to plan the sparking schedule. He says the center will bring educational, cultural, and care services into the community.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says this is a wonderful use, and range of uses.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak asks about the dimensions of the elevator.

(Architect) The architect says he doesn't have precise dimensions, but it's 47 square feet.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he asked because one of the bicycle rooms is on the second floor. A standard bicycle is around 6' long, and he thinks the elevator will accommodate that.

Mr. Revilak noticed an accessible bathroom on the first floor. He asks if that bathroom has a shower.

(Architect) The architect answers in the affirmative.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks how the number of required parking spaces were determined.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker describes how staff calculated the need for 80 parking spaces.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks how many people will be staffing the facility.

(Applicant) The applicant says there will be twenty to thirty employees.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if the adult daycare will rely on drivers.

(Architect) The architect says they'll have eight vans, which will fit into regular parking spaces. They're planning to have a maximum of eleven van trips per day.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if children will be dropped off by car.

(Architect) The architect answers in the affirmative. The north parking lot will be used for drop offs.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks about arrival patterns.

(Architect) The architect says there are three vehicle entrances. The south lot will be used for employee parking and van drop offs. The north lot has two entrances, the smaller of which is twenty feet wide. That lot can accommodate drop offs as well as the elderly who drive themselves to the center. He says they've done their best to organize traffic, and they'll monitor driving for the first few months.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston believes the state has extensive design requirements for day care centers, and especially for outdoor play areas.

(Architect) The architect is aware of the playground requirements. He says there are two fenced outdoor areas on the property, as well as a playground within 0.3 miles. Their long-term plan is to build a playground on the site.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston says the front entrance opens into a large activity area. She feels like there's a lack of division, and encourages another look at the entrance way.

(Architect) The architect explains how the interior space is zoned. The location of the offices was chosen to help ensure safely.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if all of the uses are non-profit.

(Applicant) One of the applicants answers in the affirmative.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if the applicants only need relief on parking requirements.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the board can grant a parking reduction in conjunction with a transportation demand management plan.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says the van pooling, extra bicycle parking, and showers are all TDM measures. He'd feel comfortable granting that relief.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Tori Buckwalters (?), 47 Mystic St) Ms. Buckwalters thinks this is a wonderful project. She says the intersection can be very gridlocked and the driveway is close to a pedestrian crosswalk. She suggests moving a curb cut to provide more flexibility, along with installing one-way signs.

(Steve Moore, Piedmont St) Mr. Moore says he expects to see more of a landscaping plan for this renovation. He thinks the site needs shade trees. He says traffic in this are is congested, and the applicant should provide a traffic management plan.

(Mark Wilke, Prescott St) Mr. Wilke's main concerns are parking and traffic congestion. He says the area gets gridlocked in the morning, and he's concerned about traffic congestion. He asks the board not to grant the permit until there's a clearer idea of traffic flow. He's concerned about people parking on the street, but likes how van use will be confined to one parking lot.

(Beth Melofchik) Ms. Melofchik says she has three concerns: traffic, choke points, narrow streets, safety, and trees. She says the area is a heat island and she'd like some consideration shown for neighbors. She'd like to know the decibel level of the HVAC systems.

There's no more comment from the public.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau doesn't think the renovation should trigger the public shade tree bylaw. He understands that traffic could be challenging, and agrees that Mystic Street is a congested area. Mr. Lau wouldn't stop the project over traffic concerns.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston says the sidewalk is narrow, which could make it difficult to place public shade trees. But they could be placed in back of the sidewalk.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery thinks the applicants could increase the tree canopy.

(Architect) The architect says he's discussed landscaping with his client, and they have plans to do more in the future.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks it's okay that the parking lot is four spaces short. The Russell Common lot is right across the street, and can serve as an alternate parking area. Mr. Benson says that parking in the front yard is prohibited, but that's a pre-existing non-conformity on this site. Mr. Benson says that shade trees could be proposed within the lot. He thinks the applicants need to provide a traffic study.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak reads the applicability section of the shade tree bylaw. He doesn't think that an interior fit out qualifies as "redevelopment" under that section. He's okay with the traffic and circulation materials the applicants have provided. With the van pool, Mr. Revilak expects the proposed use to generate fewer trips than an ordinary office use.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery would like to see the shade tree bylaw applied.

There's further discussion among the board. They agree to administrative approval of a tree plan and a transportation demand management plan. They will not require a traffic study.

Permit approved, 5--0.

Discussion of Citizen Petitions for 2025 Town Meeting

Neighborhood Businesses

(Andy Greenspon) Mr. Greenspon plans to propose a warrant article that would allow some business uses in residential districts. He's proposing this due to the town's need for more business space. It would allow small restaurants, personal services, small retail, offices, and creative artistic production in the R0 through R7 districts. None of the district's dimensional regulations would change.

Mr. Greenspon says the 2015 Master Plan had a lot to say about the lack of business space in Arlington. He'd like there to be equitable access to amenities. He shows walkscore's walkability plot for Arlington, and thinks that allowing businesses in more areas could improve walkability. He'd also like to promote some level of entrepreneurship.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he's been reading issues of the Arlington Advocate from 1976, and came across an article where our State Senator pointed out that only 5% of Arlington's land allows business uses. That number is still accurate today. He thinks that allowing neighborhood scale businesses in neighborhoods could help with this situation.

Mr. Revilak says the walkscore map shows how some parts of town are walkable while others are not, partly because there's nothing to walk to. Over time, he thinks this can help reduce the number of car trips. In that regard, this is actually climate policy.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says this is an interesting proposal, but he's concerned about people converting existing housing into non-housing uses. He thinks it could incentivize people to convert housing to other uses. Arlington has fewer empty retail spaces, but we do have them. He doesn't see evidence that we need businesses in the R districts. He thinks it could lead to traffic on side streets. Mr. Benson suggests considering specific streets, and avoiding areas with poor walkability.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston suggests talking with (Economic Development Coordinator) Katie Luczai. She thinks there's a mismatch between what businesses want and what Arlington has. She suggests that Ms. Luczai might be able to help think about areas that could meet our needs.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery understands the impetus for Mr. Greenspon's article. Arlington's challenge is with not having enough of the right kinds of space. She thinks we might want to identify specific nodes to create more opportunities for businesses to locate here. She suggests thinking through proximity to residents.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he'd like to see more definition. He doesn't think a restaurant would fit into a single-family neighborhood. He suggests talking to business owners and realtors. He thinks some uses could be great, like realtors or attorneys offices, but he'd concerned about unintended consequence.

Affordable Housing Overlay

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says that Arlington has both a need and a desire for more affordable housing, and one of the objectives of this proposal is to create a predictable permitting path. In the past, affordable housing developers have told us that they need four things: sites, funding, alignment from the community, and permitting. In order to build affordable housing, one needs to leverage state and federal subsidies. The Housing Corporation of Arlington has successfully done this, but there are requirements for state funding and it's a competitive process. Thirty units is about the smallest project that's eligible for funding.

Mr. Newton outlines the affordable housing overlay proposal. 70% of units would be affordable at 60% AMI for rentals and 70% for ownership, to match the town's inclusionary zoning requirements. Mixed use would be allowed, and it would be required in the B3 and B5 districts. The overlay would include all residential, business, and industrial zones. There would be no changes to yard setbacks, and he's proposing a parking requirement of a half-space per dwelling. Mr. Newton would like to see the board support the article, because the notice requirements for a map change are more than a citizen group can take on.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks that non-profit developers would embrace the idea. He asks about ordinary developers.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says the affordable housing overlay is not targeted to market rate developers.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks we'd be lucky to have three projects funded in fifteen years. He asks what areas of town would be affected.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says the overlay would apply across the entire town. Dimensional requirements would modulate with the base zoning.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau thinks this sounds like 40B. He asks what the difference is.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says the difference is that the overlay would allow by-right development, whereas 40B is more of a negotiation.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks why a developer would go this route.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says there's more certainty to by-right development.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston likes how the overlay covers the entire town, and how it contains provisions for home ownership.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says those requirements mirror our inclusionary zoning bylaw.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson is wondering about the process for moving forward. He thinks it's worth having a conversation about whether to include the industrial districts. He'd like to know how the board can get behind this.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery would like more discussions around the business and industrial districts. She says there's a lot more nuance in the proposal now, and she appreciates where it's moving towards. She notes that we're very close to the closing of the warrant.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he's been helping Mr. Newton's group with this proposal, and has no feedback to offer at this time.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he's supportive, but it might be hard for the board to get fully behind it in time for town meeting.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd like to have further conversations about how the board can work together with Mr. Newton's group.

(Sanjay Newton) Mr. Newton says the people working on this proposal have tried to make the overlay impactful for affordable housing.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery would like to have another conversation with Mr. Newton at the February 10th board meeting.

Open Forum

(Carl Wagner, Edgehill Road) Mr. Wagner applauds the board's review of the Greenspon article. He says that cities sometimes have businesses at the end of residential streets, but they can create drug use, illegal activities, and rats. Mr. Wagner says his group, Arlington Residents for Responsible Redevelopment is concerned about the process and effects it could have on the town. He says this should be a town process, and thinks there are lots of problems with citizens proposing warrant articles.

(Rebecca Peterson, Florence Ave) Ms. Peterson says that no one knows about the Affordable Housing Overlay, and it's too much coming on the heels of the MBTA Communities act. She says that high buildings could block her sunlight and allow people to peer into her bathroom window. She thinks that people would not welcome businesses in residential neighborhoods and most types of businesses would not be good in residential areas. She thinks that restaurants and nail salons shouldn't be allowed next to residential homes.

New Business

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says she's received confirmation that Arlington remains compliant with the MBTA Communities Act, even after EOHLC adopted their emergency guidelines.

Meeting adjourned at 23:10.