Article 53 Jennifer Cutraro Materials¶
From: Diane Krause
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Kin Lau
Subject: I support Articles 53 & 55 before the ARB tonight
Article 53 clarifies that the commercial use bonus requires 60% of the full ground floor to be
considered eligible to build more than 4 stories allowed by right.
I believe that “60% of the ground floor” is to be interpreted as 60% of the total ground-floor square
footage at street level—consistent with how the language was drafted by the MBTA Act Committee,
and then presented to the full ARB, and then debated and approved by Town Meeting as is. I
strongly support upholding our bylaws as written and respecting the extensive public process
behind th
Article 55 safeguards the Boosted Affordability bonus. This should also be upheld as written, not
open to interpretation.
I strongly urge you to support Articles 53 and 55.
Thank you.
Diane Krause
High Haith Rd.
Inserted by Jenny Cutraro, Precinct 11
From: Belinda Chu
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Stephen Revilak; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Vincent Baudoin
Cc: Claire Ricker; Jennifer Joslyn-Siemiatkoski
Subject: Support for Articles 53 and 55
To ARB members,
I am writing to state my support for Article 53, which seeks to affirm the original meaning of the
bylaw by defining ground floor, per state definitions, as “everything under the horizontal projection
of the roof or floors above.”
Arbitrary reinterpretation of the bylaw undermines the original intent of the bylaw, fosters distrust
of the efficacy of the town's governing process, and does a disservice to Arlington residents.
Allowing developers to use a diluted interpretation of the Commercial Use bonus would have a
significant detrimental effect to the Town of Arlington.
Belinda Chu
88 Broadway
Inserted by Jenny Cutraro, precinct 11
--
From: Carol Luddecke
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:19:25 PM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Stephen Revilak; Eugene Benson; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Claire
Ricker
Subject:
Dear ARB members:
I don't have time to craft a great letter, since I know you may not be accepting input much longer,
but just want to send a quick note to say I'm very concerned about the idea of allowing 0% setback
for the project at 126 Broadway and that I'm hearing you're all inclined to bend the agreed-upon
rules to give the developer what they want even though it shouldn't qualify using rules. Didn't we
just agree to these new rules and aren't they already allowing more development than before? Why
are you letting them push it even more where the proposal is clearly a stretch? I don't get it. This is
a very bad precedent to do this on the first project.
Again, apologies for the imperfect letter, but hopefully you catch my drift. Please don't allow this.
Carol Luddecke
Precinct 16
781-354-5913
Submitted by Jenny Cutraro, pct 11
