Full Text¶
2
3
8
2026 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Arlington, MA
Article: 53
Warrant Article Title:
ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT / ADMINISTRATIVE
CLARIFICATION TO BONUS PROVISIONS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
Warrant Article Text:
To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 5.8.4.E(1) Bonuses,
of the Zoning Bylaw, to clarify the definition of the words, “where
the ground floor at street level will be at least 60% occupied by
eating and drinking establishments, businesses services,
childcare, or retail uses,” so as to clarify the proportion of the
ground floor that must be occupied by the specified commercial
uses in order to qualify for the bonus provision in either of the
MBMF overlay districts.
Requested By:
Joanne Cullinane and Larry Slotnick and ten registered voters
Report Excerpt:
The Board recommends No Action (4-1 Ms. Zsembery
dissenting).
Article 53 proposes to clarify the definition of the words “ground
floor at street level” to clarify the proportion of the ground floor
that must be occupied by commercial uses in order for a
development in the Massachusetts Avenue / Broadway Multi-
Family (MBMF) Housing Overlay District to qualify for a mixed-
use bonus provision. Per Section 5.9.4.E.(1) of the Zoning Bylaw,
the mixed-use bonus provision on Broadway allows for an
additional floor above the four-story maximum, as well as a zero-
foot front setback. Further, the mixed-use bonus provision on
2
3
8
Mass Ave allows for two additional floors above the four-story
maximum and a zero-foot setback. The majority of the Board has
interpreted the meaning of “ground floor at street level” as the
enclosed ground floor space and not the total building area.
Article 53 proposes to define the ground floor at street level as all
enclosed and non-enclosed building area within the horizontal
projection of the roof or floors above it, which would include
covered parking areas.
The Redevelopment Board has discussed this issue at multiple
meetings, and Board members have not been unanimous in their
interpretation. During the public hearing for Article 53, the
proponents and Board members referenced regulatory definitions
and procedures that were central to the discussion. These
included MA Law 780 CMR 502.1 of the Massachusetts Building
Code, which defines the term Building Area as “everything under
the horizontal projection of the roof or floors above,” which the
proponents believe is the most appropriate way to define “ground
floor at street level.” One member of the Board indicated that
according to MA Law 780 CMR 1002.1, the term Gross Floor
Area is “the floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior
walls of the building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts
and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, closets, the
thickness of interior walls, columns, or other features,” which the
majority of Board members believe is the most appropriate
definition. In addition, one member of the Board noted that Town
Assessor’s Office bases its square footage calculation for taxation
purposes of ground floor areas with covered parking on two
different rates, one rate for the enclosed ground floor area and a
different rate for open parking areas underneath buildings.
The majority of Board members did not support the article
because they felt it would reduce the opportunities for mixed-use
development on the Mass Ave and Broadway corridors. If
approved, the main effect of the article would likely be a reduction
in the size of both the residential portion and the commercial
portion of projects as developers sought to comply with the
regulations by reducing the upper story sizes. Most Board
2
3
8
members felt that developers may not use the mixed-use bonus
at all given the difficulty of fitting in necessary building services
and required parking on the ground floor, as well as the required
amount of commercial space. Several Board members felt that
the article would be unlikely to create larger commercial spaces
because it does not address parking requirements. One Board
member noted that for a version of this proposal to be successful,
it would have to account for the fact that the ground floor is unlike
any other floor, with many demands on its space, including
parking.
The dissenting Board member agreed with the proponents of the
article who stated that the article would clarify the ambiguity in the
bylaw around how to define “ground floor at street level” to
determine the amount of commercial space that should be
provided in order for a project to qualify for the mixed-use bonus.
The dissenting Board member agreed that requiring commercial
use of a percentage of only the enclosed ground floor space will
result in commercial spaces that are too small to be viable. She
believes that developers often do the bare minimum to qualify for
the bonus, which is evidenced not only by the small sizes of
commercial spaces but also the way façades and signage are
treated. For the magnitude of the bonus provided and the sizes of
these developments, the dissenting Board member said that
Arlington should receive meaningful commercial spaces. The
dissenting Board member agreed with the proponents’
interpretation of how to define “ground floor at street level” and
supported the article.
Board members agreed that clearer language to describe the
mixed-use bonus is needed in the Bylaw. Some members raised
additional concerns about the wording of the article which may
introduce new ambiguity regarding whether spaces such as
covered outdoor dining areas, bank drive-thrus, and roof
overhangs would be included in calculations of ground floor area.
Furthermore, any change to the MBMF or Neighborhood Multi-
Family Housing (NMF) overlay districts would be subject to review
for compliance with Section 3A of Massachusetts General Law
2
3
8
Chapter 40A, which requires MBTA Communities such as
Arlington to zone for multi-family housing by right. The state has
determined that Arlington’s Multi-Family Housing Overlay Districts
are currently compliant with those requirements.
Board members agreed that the three bonus provisions in Section
5.8 are intended to incentivize development in the overlay
districts. Some members noted that during community
engagement for the MBTA Communities zoning (as well as for the
Comprehensive Plan Update over the past year), many people
expressed a desire to have more spaces for small businesses in
town, and the mixed-use bonus was intended to encourage
builders to build such spaces. The Board will continue to work to
maximize the productivity of the commercial spaces created in the
overlay districts regardless of the interpretation of the square
footage required. However, the majority of Board members
believe that Article 53, if approved, would hinder rather than help
this process.
Vote Language:
That no action be taken on Article 53.
Redevelopment Board Report
