Article 53 Larry Slotnick Materials¶
Submitted by Larry Slotnick, precinct 7
, but it only provides five,
and plans to charge at least $175 per month for those spaces. This prohibitive cost may
inadvertently result in more daytime and overnight on-street parking. Despite the efforts to
incentivize the use of bikes and public transportation, which we enthusiastically support, the
reality is that most residents will need (or at least insist on) at least one car, adding a substantial
number of cars to an already barely tenable situation.
A request for fewer spaces goes to the discretion of the ARB, which can and should assess the
On the Broadway side of 259 Broadway, the
building pushes up hard against the zone where parking meters begin, as a response to the
growing parking congestion as you approach the center of town. Around the corner, Palmer St. is a
narrow street of houses on very tight lots, many of them two-family houses, generally with single-
width driveways. The stretch of cu
sign at the corner is already a no-parking zone. Several Palmer St. residents have purchased
annual overnight parking permits because their buildings lack off-street parking, so the few
available on-street parking spots at the Broadway end of Palmer St. are already allocated.
During the day, it is often impossible to have two-way traffic for the length of the street,
forcing passing cars to pull over and squeeze past each other. Although residents try to make
space for Tuesday garbage trucks, for example, the street remains a tight-fit obstacle course for
garbage trucks, delivery vehicles, and especially firetrucks. In fact, we just recently had an
experience with firetrucks struggling to respond to a serious fire in the middle of the block. All of
this has been exacerbated by
years, associated with a slow-moving mid-block construction project, the two years (or so) of
work on the water main that travels under Palmer St, the usual round of renovations and
servicing, and now the year of construction that was started-then-stopped, and must be
completed, at 259 Broadway
From: Susan Pace
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 3:06 PM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Stephen Revilak; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Vincent Baudoin
Cc: Claire Ricker; Jennifer Joslyn-Siemiatkoski
Subject: Support for Article 53
I am writing to express my support for Article 53, as presented by Larry Slotnick and Joanne
Cullinane.
Commercial space is essential to a healthy tax base in Arlington and should not be an afterthought
when new developments are built in the MBTA corridors of Arlington.
Furthermore, our bylaws should not be open to interpretation and distortion. Bonuses should be
difficult to obtain and only issued to developers who significantly benefit our community by the
building of their project. New housing alone should not be sufficient to reduce setbacks and raise
building heights. The current bylaws already give developers the ability to build larger structures
than were previously allowed in these zones.
Sincerely,
Susan Pace
91 Marathon Street
Inserted by Larry Slotnick, precinct 7
Submitted by Larry Slotnick, TMM P7
(Cover letter for Christian Webb lette, from Article 53 proponents)
The July 19, 2025 letter (below) from Dr Christian Webb raises concerns about the scale of
buildings that can rise to 65 feet tall (5 story) in a predominantly 2.5-story residential
neighborhood. The size of the proposed 126 Broadway building has impacts on traffic sight lines
(affecting automobile, cyclist and pedestrian safety) and overall congestion. A four-story building
creates shadow and restricts access to sunlight for abutters and pedestrians to begin with, and
the impacts are greater when a building receives a fifth floor bonus. Further, these impacts are
particularly acute when the project receives permission to build with a zero sidewalk setback
only available to those projects that meet the commercial bonus requirements.
The letter (below) speaks to the tradeoff between burden and benefit and why the bonus rule
was intended as a strict threshold. This is why the commercial use bonus was not intended to
enable any lesser amount of commercial space to be used to satisfy the 60% ground floor
threshold. Instead, developer bonuses were meant to bring the maximum intended BENEFIT of
the bonus to those affected. To realize this intended benefit, the rules should be strictly
enforced, and a full 60% of the ground floor ‘footprint’ allotted so that the neighbors - and the
town - receive maximally viable commercial spaces, rather than token ones that do not honor
the spirit of the rule's intention.
=====================================
From: Webb, Christian A.,PHD Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 7:17:12 PM
To: Claire Ricker Cc: Renata Cardoso Subject:
RE: Docket #3862 - 126 Broadway Site Plan Review
Dear Chair Zsembery and Members of the Arlington Redevelopment Board,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed mixed-use development at 126
Broadway (Docket #3862). As a longtime Arlington resident who values our community's
character and livability, I respectfully request that the Board carefully consider the following
issues.
The proposed 5-story, 50-foot building represents a dramatic departure from the established
residential character of this neighborhood. The current two-family home fits harmoniously within
the existing streetscape of primarily 1-3 story residential buildings. This massive structure would
tower over neighboring homes, fundamentally altering the intimate, family-friendly atmosphere
that defines this area.
The building's bulk and massing, despite architectural attempts at modulation, remains
incompatible with the human scale that makes our neighborhood walkable and welcoming to
families with children.
Broadway already experiences significant traffic congestion, particularly during peak commuting
hours. Adding 14 residential units plus a commercial space will substantially increase vehicle
trips, pedestrian activity, and delivery traffic at this corner location. This is compounded by the
fact that a multi-story building was recently constructed directly across the street at the same
Broadway/Everett intersection, already increasing traffic in this area.
Of particular concern:
● Child Safety: This intersection is heavily used by children walking to and from Thompson
School on Everett St. Our neighborhood has many families with young children who
walk, bike, and play in the area. The Broadway/Everett corner is a key crossing point for
school children, and increased traffic density from this large development poses
significant safety risks that have not been adequately addressed in the application
materials.
● Parking Pressure: While 18 garage spaces are proposed, realistic parking demand will
likely exceed this supply, pushing additional vehicles onto already crowded
neighborhood streets.
● Corner Location: The Broadway/Everett Street intersection will see increased turning
movements and potential sight line issues with a building of this scale, particularly
dangerous given the school foot traffic.
● The commercial space at the bottom could exacerbate the above issues regarding traffic
and parking spots.
● Shadow and Light: The shadow studies show significant impacts on neighboring
properties (including our house at 100 Everett st, which is immediately next door).
I want to bring to the Board's attention that many residents in this immediate area have only
recently become aware of this significant proposal. Since learning of the project, several
neighbors
have spontaneously approached me expressing serious concerns about this large construction
that would dramatically change our neighborhood character.
There also appears to be confusion among residents about the hearing schedule - whether the
primary hearing is July 21st or the continued hearing on August 11th. As more neighbors
become
aware of this proposal, I expect you will receive additional correspondence expressing similar
concerns. The scale of this project and its potential impacts warrant ensuring that the affected
community has adequate opportunity to provide input.
Given the significant scale of this proposal and its potential impacts, I respectfully request:
1. Extended community input sessions to ensure all affected residents have opportunity to
comment
2. Stronger conditions addressing parking, delivery schedules, and construction impacts
3. Consideration of reduced scale alternatives that better respect neighborhood character
4. Clear communication about hearing dates and continuation procedures to ensure proper
community notification
While I support thoughtful development that meets housing needs, this proposal goes too far in
prioritizing density over community character and quality of life. Arlington's strength lies in its
diverse, livable neighborhoods, and we must be careful not to sacrifice what makes our
community
special in the pursuit of maximum development.
___________________
I trust the Board will carefully weigh these concerns and work with the applicant to develop a
more
appropriate proposal that respects both housing goals and neighborhood livability.
Thank you for your consideration and service to our community.
Could you kindly confirm receipt?
Respectfully submitted,
Christian
100 Everett St. Unit 1
Christian A. Webb, PhD
Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School
Director, Treatment & Etiology of Depression in Youth Laboratory
Co-Director, Center for Depression, Anxiety & Stress Research
McLean Hospital
115 Mill St, Belmont, MA 02478
T: 617-855-4429, F: 617-855-4231
e-mail: cwebb@mclean.harvard.edu
March 23, 2023
Dear ARP members, Planning Director, Select Board members and Town Manager,
My name is Annem Chan Waiy, I am an Arlington resident and architectural designer. I have some
experience with developer’s projects and Zoning Bylaw in Cambridge and Somerville and I have seen
how there are always gaps on the Bylaws and developers tend to interpret rules differently than the City
or Town officials. Then projects become precedents to others, pushing the rules on their own
interpretaon, in favor of them and not our community. We trust in you to enforce those rules.
I am in favor of the proposed Arcle 53 that seeks to preserve the intent of the MBTA Act Overlay “Bonus
Rule for the Commercial Use” and the definion of “60 percent of the ground floor”. Our current Zoning
Bylaw Secon 5.8.4. E Bonuses (1) it is clear: “the ground floor at street level will be at least 60%
occupied by eang and drinking establishments, businesses services, childcare, or retail uses.” Arcle 53
proposes even more clarity to the rule so there will be no room for misinterpretaon.
We trust in you to enforce those rules and to represent us as a community.
Thank you,
Annem Chan Waiy
Inserted by Larry Slotnick, precinct 7, on behalf of Annem Chan Waiy
From: Douglas Funkhouser
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Rachel Zsembery; Kin Lau; Shaina Korman-Houston; Eugene Benson; Claire Ricker; Stephen
Revilak; Jennifer Joslyn-Siemiatkoski
Subject: Comments on the Broadway Project and Possible AHO
I will miss your meeting on the 12th. I wanted to register my concern about the proposed projects
at 126 and 259 Broadway. The projects lack adequate parking, setbacks, and open space; make a
perfunctory nod toward providing commercial space; are too tall and too dense; and don't provide
the correct number of affordable units. Bonus rules are being proposed for approval when they
should not be allowed. Neither project represents an improvement for the Town, and they don't
respect the interests nor the needs of the abutters and other neighbors.
The draft "affordable housing overlap" plan proposes residential development at a large number of
Town sites. Many of these sites are now occupied by businesses, Town parking, and other viable,
worthwhile, and diverse existing uses. We need to support current and potential new businesses in
order to keep the Town vital and interesting. I grant that some of the proposed sites are
developable, but they should be proposed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with careful
attention to building heights, site density and unit maximums, commercial space potential, parking
(especially), setbacks and open space. An overlay may simplify approvals, but in fact each
individual project needs thoughtful review. And, perhaps most importantly, the proposal has come
to you without adequate input from various Town constituents.
I don't believe it is the role of the ARB or any other Town group to make projects "economically
feasible" by waiving important project requirements and planning principles. Developer interests
and Town interests are very different, and developers naturally test resolve. We should not
privilege developers at the expense of the long-term interests of the Town.
Thanks for listening.
Doug Funkhouser
Submitted by Larry Slotnick, precinct 7
Submitted by Larry Slotnick, precinct 7
Cover letter for context provided by Larry Slotnick
Regarding Alexandra Lee's letter with the names of 17 neighbors at the bottom, I agree that her
argument didn't explicitly call out the ground floor commercial space calculation. But the letter
quite clearly alludes to the two developer benefits that are relevant to that particular bonus. One
element is the extra story (or floor) and the second is the zero setback from the Broadway
sidewalk lot line. So, I feel it can be directly implied that since the bulk of the letter discusses the
impacts of both the building's mass and the absence of a Broadway setback, the implied
message is that the Applicant has not earned a right to those deleterious ground floor
commercial space bonus elements.
=====================================
To: Arlington Redevelopment Board
CC: Claire Ricker, DPCD Director
From: Alexandra Lee, Harlow Street resident and 32-year Arlington taxpayer
Date: October 14, 2025
RE: Proposal for Building at 126 Broadway
Dear Members of the Arlington Redevelopment Board,
This letter will convey my perspectives on the building currently being proposed at 126
Broadway and the larger context of development in East Arlington.
In the overall world of development, the best projects and outcomes seem to be derived from
thoughtful visions for a community with robust community input and willing developers to leave
something better than they found it. This premise may not be at work with the development
being proposed for 126 Broadway.
The Broadway Corridor Redesign Project is underway I believe, although I have received no
information about community input to date. Does it not make sense to complete this vision
before undertaking proposals that will satisfy the MBTA overlay zoning district? The overlay calls
for significant development along Broadway possibly on almost every lot.
Is there a master plan for development of the entire length of Broadway impacted by the MBTA
zoning so that residents and taxpayers can see the overall vision? How can you proceed
without a vision to share?
The proposal for 126 Broadway will set the tone and precedent for the entire corridor. If the
town allows overbuilding with this massive five-story, out of context building designed with little
thought to fitting in, the neighborhood character will certainly suffer. You have heard this input
from many of the nearby residents.
Reviewing the correspondence from the proponents, most of them live further than half a mile
away from 126 Broadway and it calls the question, would they support this project if this
development were proposed next to their homes?
Please consider the overreaching mass of this new building as it relates to the adjacent
two-family homes. The design could be significantly improved and the questions that you posed
to the developer at the September hearing were excellent in this regard. The windows on
different floors not being aligned, the lack of trim on some windows, the heavy horizontal lines,
the need for windows to the adjacent property on the first floor commercial and so on were a
great start to the discussion.
I don’t believe the color scheme was addressed (mustard yellow/olive green or grey) but I would
strongly hope that the grey could be selected to help make the building fade away rather than
stick out as a sore thumb any more than it already will. It is also curious as to why the designer
felt the need to use vertical clapboards on the top two floors, making it stick out even more. The
building as designed feels like two shipping containers dropped out of the sky onto the lot with
little thought for context.
The step back from the sidewalk, if increased, would go a long way toward reducing the overall
massing. If all new proposals built on Broadway were to go right to the lot line, a canyon effect
will follow, not really the nature of East Arlington! In addition, the step back on the top floor could
extend to all residential floors, not overwhelming the corner completely. This tactic was used
successfully at 80 Broadway last year.
The step back at the corner also impacts maintaining the existing trees as the corner tree
extends 12’ over the line from the sidewalk. Will this tree be maintained or cut down, that would
surely be a loss. We value mature trees in this neighborhood.
All the earlier comments still apply regarding increased traffic, on-site parking options, the safety
of children crossing to Thompson, the shade this will throw on the neighboring houses and
gardens, the lack of drainage and so on.
This building is almost the same as the height of the Capital Theatre on Mass Ave and that is
too large for this lot size. Setting this kind of precedent for the entire corridor would be
damaging to the character of the neighborhood and the town.
In closing, the critical need for more housing is a reality but it can be added incrementally
without taking such a big bite from the apple. There is plenty of space on the one-mile
Broadway corridor to add housing at more modest levels and maintain the neighborhood values
and aesthetics.
Thank you for your consideration and I and our neighbors look forward to your response.
Alexandra
Cc: Clarissa Rowe
Betty Stone
Lauren and Sarah Scott
Dexter and Yael Beals
Angela and Sean Alton
Anna Precht
Adam Fischer
Tom Robertson
Sheelah Ward
Abigail and Scott Rice
Andi Doane
Susan Dorson
Natasha Strom
