Article 53 Beth Melofchik Materials¶
From: Shevawn Hardesty
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:13 AM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Stephen Revilak; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Vincent Baudoin
Cc: Jennifer Joslyn-Siemiatkoski; Claire Ricker; Joanne CullinaneSubject: SUPPORT OF
UPHOLDING THE LAW AS WRITTEN
I am concerned about the Board not complying with the laws as written. The laws/regulations were
established after an extensive public process with expectation that they would be complied with.
I am writing in response and in support of the work being done by Joanne Cullinane, Larry Slotnick.
Best, Shevawn Hardesty
shevawn@comcast.net
32 Everett St. unit 1
Inserted by Beth Melofichek, precinct 9
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Inserted by Beth Melofichek, precinct 9
From: Judith Miller
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 1:45 PM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Stephen Revilak; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Vincent Baudoin
Cc: Claire Ricker; Jennifer Joslyn-Siemiatkoski
Subject: Article 53
To whom it may concern:
I support Article 53 - uphold the bylaws as written. What could be more clear than that?
Judith A. Miller
32 Pine Ridge Road
Arlington, MA 02476
Inserted by Beth Melofichek, precinct 9
Inserted by Beth Melofichek, precinct 9, at the request of Gerry Leonard
Dear Precinct 9 Town Meeting Members and all Members who might read this:
I write as a resident of Precinct 9 to support warrant article 53, which would clarify the
rules for developers who want to build tall apartment buildings in the neighborhoods
covered by the MBTA Communities Act. The rule immediately in question—the
“commercial bonus”—allows developers to build as high as 6 stories (on Mass Ave) and 5
stories (on Broadway) as long as they provide substantial commercial space on the ground
floor. This is a laudable rule, which can serve both housing and commercial goals well, as
long as it’s applied properly. But the Arlington Redevelopment Board has, in my judgment,
been bending the rule unreasonably in its effort to approve as much new housing as
possible. I think the ARB is acting as it thinks best in pursuit of needed housing, but it has
sometimes failed to respect the rules as they are written (as well as the good reasons for
those rules). Article 53 clarifies the very important commercial bonus rule in a way that
accords with Town Meeting’s intended policies of substantial housing growth connected to
commercial spaces of an attractive, rentable size.
The commercial bonus rule in section 5.8.4.E.1 of the Zoning Bylaw says that a developer is
entitled to add an extra, rent-producing floor to their building if they provide ground-floor
commercial space that meets a few requirements. One of those is that the space be at least
60% of the “ground floor area” of the building. Obviously, this rule is meant to permit
unusually tall buildings for this area, not by right but in return for meaningful commercial
development. The extra floor has to be earned.
A majority of the ARB, however, has interpreted the rule to permit developers to reduce the
size of the enclosed ground floors of those buildings as much as they want, thus reducing
the required commercial space below any realistic number, while still giving the developer
the bonus floor up top. Why would a developer want to shrink the space so much? Because
it allows them to provide other amenities, primarily off-street parking, in the space that
Town Meeting wanted to go to a retail business or a coffee shop (etc.)--while still getting
the bonus floor! For example, if the footprint of the proposed building were 3000 square
feet, then normally the rule would require at least 1800 s.f. of commercial space on the
ground floor to qualify for an extra story up top. But if the developer wanted to provide
1500 s.f. of covered—but not enclosed—parking on the ground floor, the required
commercial space would shrink to a hard-to-rent 900 s.f. under the ARB’s interpretation.
And that interpretation would entitle the developer to the extra, full-sized story at the top.
The ARB would have no discretion to block the proposal.
The common sense of the commercial space rule is that, however large a building a lot can
support, the developer should have to dedicate at least 60% of that space on the ground
floor to commercial uses if it wants a specially tall building for that area. Article 53 does an
admirable job of explaining, in enforceable language, the policy that the original rule always
embodied. Article 53 makes no new rule, in my opinion, but simply clarifies that the ARB
has strayed from Town Meeting’s measured policy and restores the understanding that was
embedded in the rule to begin with.
I’ve tried to stick to the heart of the problem in this message rather than complicating it
with many important details, but I am happy to talk more about this issue with any TM
Member who is interested to learn more. Thank you for reading and for giving your time to
service of the town.
Sincerely,
Gerry Leonard
44 Palmer St
Precinct 9
