The citizen participation process including presentations, discussions, public hearings, letters and comments has been long and arduous. The issues are complicated and sometimes feelings run high. In such situations, there can be a feeling that citizens have not been heard. This document, “Guide to Zoning Amendments Related to Multifamily Uses and Mixed-Use“, summarizes many of the issues that have been raised and the changes that have been made in the zoning Articles as a result of the citizen participation in the public review process. Citizens have been heard.
Related articles
A municipality’s master plan is intended to set the vision and start the process of crafting the future of the municipality in regard to several elements, housing, history, culture, open space, transportation, finance, etc. Arlington began a very public discussion about these issues and the development of the Master Plan in 2012. In 2015, after thorough community wide discussion, the Master Plan was adopted by Town Meeting. This year, 2019, the focus is on passing Articles that will amend the current zoning bylaws in order to implement the housing vision that was approved in 2015.
State Representatives Dave Rogers (Arlington, Belmont and Cambridge) and Sean Garballey (Arlington, Medford) have sent a letter to Town Meeting Members backing the MBTA Communities Plan. They write:
We believe the plan in front of Town Meeting provides a meaningful framework to address the housing shortage in Arlington.
To read the full letter, click here for PDF.
(Barbara Thornton, Arlington and Roberta Cameron, Medford)
Our communities need more housing that families and individuals can afford. From 2010 to 2017, Greater Boston communities added 245,000 new jobs but only permitted 71,600 new units of housing. Prices are escalating as homebuyers and renters bid up the prices of the limited supply of housing. As a result, one quarter of all renters in Massachusetts now spend more than 50% of their income on housing. (It should be only about 30% of monthly gross income spent on housing costs.) Municipalities have been over-restricting housing development relative to need. The expensive cost of housing not only affects individual households, but also negatively affects neighborhoods and the region as a whole. Lack of affordability limits income diversity in communities. It makes it harder for businesses to recruit employees.
Over the last two years, researcher Amy Dain, commissioned by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, has systematically reviewed the bylaws, ordinances, and plans for the 100 cities and towns around Boston to uncover how local zoning affects multifamily housing and why local communities failing to provide enough additional housing to keep the prices from skyrocketing for renters and those who want to purchase homes.
Interested in housing affordability and why the cost of housing is increasing so dramatically to prevent average income residents from affording homes in the 100 municipalities around Boston? Arlington and Medford residents are pleased to welcome author Amy Dain to present her report, THE STATE OF ZONING FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN GREATER BOSTON (June 2019). Learn more about the so-called “paper wall” restricting production, common trends in local zoning, and best practices to increase production going forward. Learn about efforts in Medford and Arlington to increase housing production and affordable housing and how you can get involved. Thursday, July 25, 2019, 7:00 PM at the Medford Housing Authority, Saltonstall Building, 121 Riverside Avenue, Medford. (Parking is available.)
To access the full report, go to: https://ma-smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03/FINAL_Multi-Family_Housing_Report.pdf
The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, which commissioned the study, provides the following summary of the four principal findings and takeaways:
1) Very little land is zoned for multi-family housing.
For the most part, local zoning keeps new multi-family housing out of existing residential neighborhoods, which cover the majority of the region’s land area.
In addition, cities and towns highly restrict the density of land that is zoned for multi-family use via height limitations, setbacks, and dwelling units per acre. Many of the multi-family zones have already been built out to allowable densities, which mean that although multi-family housing is on the books, it does not exist in practice.
At least a third of the municipalities have virtually no multi-family zoning or plan for growth.
Takeaway: We need to allow concentrated density in multi-family zoning districts that are in sensible locations and allow for incremental growth over a larger area.
2) We are moving to a system of project-by-project decision-making.
Unlike much of the rest of the country, Massachusetts does not require communities to update their zoning on a regular basis and make it consistent with local plans. Although state law ostensibly requires municipalities to update their master plans every ten years, the state does not enforce this provision and most communities lack up-to-date plans.
Instead, the research documents a trend away from predictable zoning districts and toward “floating districts,” project-by-project decision-making, and discretionary permits. Dain found that 57% of multi-family units approved in the region from 2015-2017 were approved by special permit, 22% by 40B (including “friendly” 40B projects), 7% by use variance, and only 14% by “as-of-right” zoning.
There also seems to be a trend toward politicizing development decisions by shifting special permit granting authority to City Council and town meeting. The system emphasizes ad hoc negotiation, which in some cases can achieve a more beneficial project. Yet the overall outcome is a slower, more expensive development process that produces fewer units. Approving projects one by one inhibits the critical infrastructure planning and investments needed to support the growth of an entire district.
Takeaway: We would be better served by a system that retains the benefits of flexibility while offering more speed and predictability.
3) The most widespread trend in zoning for multi-family housing has been to adopt mixed-use zoning.
83 of out of 100 municipalities have adopted some form of mixed-use zoning, most in the last two decades. There is a growing understanding that many people, both old and young, prefer to live in vibrant downtowns, town centers and villages, where they can easily walk to some of the amenities that they want. Malls, plazas and retail areas are increasingly incorporating housing and becoming lifestyle centers.
Yet with few exceptions, the approach to allowing housing in these areas has been cautious and incremental. These projects are only meeting a small portion of the region’s need for housing and often take many years of planning to realize. In addition, the challenges facing the retail sector can make a successful mixed-use strategy problematic. Commercial development tends to meet less opposition than residential development, even in mixed-use areas.
Takeaway: We need more multi-family housing in and around mixed-use hubs, but not require every project to be mixed-use itself.
4) Despite their efforts, communities continue to build much more new housing on their outskirts rather than in their town centers and downtowns.
About half of the communities in the study permitted some infill housing units in their historic centers, but her case studies show that these infill projects are modest in scale and can take up to 15 years to plan and permit.
On the other hand, many more units are getting built in less-developed areas with fewer abutters. This includes conversion of former industrial properties, office parks, and other parcels disconnected from the rest of the community by highways, train tracks, waterways or other barriers. This much-needed housing can be isolated even when dense, and still car-dependent because of limited access to public transportation and lack of walkability.
Takeaway: We need to allow more housing in historic centers as well as incremental growth around those centers. Furthermore, we need to plan an integrated approach to growth districts so that they can be better connected to the community and the region.
I’ve had an annual ritual for the past several years: obtain a spreadsheet of property assessments from the Town Assessor, load them in to a database, and run a series of R computations against the data. I started doing this for a number of reasons: to understand what was built where (our zoning laws have changed over time, and there are numerous non-conforming uses), the relationship between land and building values, the capital costs of different types of housing, and how these factors have changed over time.
I’d typically compile these analyses into a fact-book of sorts, and email it around to people that I thought might be interested. This year, I’m going to post the analyses here as a series of articles. This first installment contains basic information about Arlington’s low-density housing: single-, two-, and three-family homes, as well as condominiums. Condominiums are something of an oddball in this category — a condominium can be half of a two-family structure, part of a larger residential building, or somewhere in between. There’s a lot of variety.
Here’s a table showing how the number of units has changed over time, since 2013.
land use | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single Family | 7984 | 7983 | 7991 | 8000 | 7994 | 7994 | 7998 | 7999 |
Condominium | 3242 | 3304 | 3367 | 3492 | 3552 | 3662 | 3726 | 3827 |
Two-family | 2352 | 2332 | 2308 | 2282 | 2263 | 2218 | 2183 | 2139 |
Three-family | 207 | 201 | 196 | 194 | 193 | 190 | 185 | 182 |
Arlington’s predominant form of housing — the single family home — has stayed relatively static; we’ve added 15 over the last seven years. The number of condominiums has increased significantly: +585 over seven years. That, coupled with the reduction of two-family homes (-213) and three-family homes (-25) leads me to believe that a fair number of rental units have been removed from the market.
Next, I’d like to look at how these homes are spread across our various zoning districts. (The “Notes” section at the bottom of the post explains what the zoning district codes mean).
Zone | Single-Family | Condo | Two-family | Three-family |
---|---|---|---|---|
B1 | 8 | 22 | 13 | 11 |
B2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | |
B2A | 1 | 18 | ||
B3 | 59 | 4 | ||
B4 | 1 | 59 | 5 | 5 |
B5 | 1 | 1 | ||
I | 8 | 18 | 7 | 1 |
R0 | 502 | |||
R1 | 6798 | 168 | 200 | 7 |
R2 | 647 | 1816 | 1881 | 124 |
R3 | 4 | 39 | 11 | 17 |
R4 | 23 | 79 | 2 | 3 |
R5 | 3 | 616 | 5 | 4 |
R6 | 2 | 686 | 8 | 7 |
R7 | 1 | 243 | 2 | 1 |
A few points to note:
- R0 is our newest district, which was established in 1991. It consists only of conforming single-family homes.
- R1 is Arlington’s original (per 1975 zoning) single-family district. It’s predominantly single-family homes, but there are a fair number of two-family homes, and even a few three-families. The presence of condominiums suggests additional multi-family homes (that consist of two or more condominiums)
- R2 is predominantly two-, and three-family homes. Although three-family homes are no longer allowed in this district, R2 has the largest number of three-families in town.
- Residential uses are no longer allowed in the industrial (I) districts, but the I districts contain 34 homes. These buildings pre-date the current zoning laws (aka “pre-existing non-conforming”). A good portion of the Dudley street industrial district is a residential neighborhood.
I’m pointing out these conformities (and non-conformities) for a reason. The zoning map (and use tables) dictate what is allowed today, along with specifying a vision for the future. Our zoning bylaw happens to contain a strong statement to this effect: “It is the purpose of this Bylaw to discourage the perpetuity of nonconforming uses and structures whenever possible” (section 8.1.1(A)). Despite the strong statement of intent, it can take decades (if not generations) for a built environment to catch up with the bylaw’s prescriptions.
I’ll finish this post with a breakdown of how condominiums are distributed across the various zoning districts:
Zone | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | delta |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(N/A) | 14 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -14 |
B1 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 6 |
B2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
B2A | 19 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | -1 |
B3 | 55 | 55 | 61 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 4 |
B4 | 47 | 47 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 12 |
I | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 0 |
R1 | 140 | 144 | 146 | 148 | 150 | 154 | 162 | 168 | 28 |
R2 | 1355 | 1406 | 1456 | 1518 | 1574 | 1670 | 1723 | 1816 | 461 |
R3 | 22 | 25 | 28 | 31 | 31 | 37 | 37 | 39 | 17 |
R4 | 65 | 67 | 67 | 79 | 79 | 79 | 79 | 79 | 14 |
R5 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 616 | 0 |
R6 | 630 | 632 | 635 | 683 | 683 | 683 | 686 | 686 | 56 |
R7 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 243 | 0 |
The last column (“delta”) shows the difference between 2013 and 2020. The largest increase occurred in the R2 (two-family) district, followed by R6 (medium-density apartments, where most of the increase took place in 2014) and R1 (single-family).
That it will do it for the first installation. In the next post, we’ll look at how the cost (assessed values, actually) of Arlington’s low density housing has changed over the last seven years.
Here is a spreadsheet, containing the various tables shown in this article.
Notes
Arlington’s zoning map divides the town into a set of districts, and each district has regulations about what kinds of buildings and uses are allowed (or not allowed). The districts mentioned in this article are:
- B1 (Neighborhood Office district)
- B2 (Neighborhood Business distrct)
- B2A (Major Business District)
- B3 (Village Business District)
- B4 (Vehicular-Oriented Business District)
- I (Industrial District)
- R0 (Single-Family, large-lot district)
- R1 (Single-Family Distict)
- R2 (Two-Family District)
- R3 (Three-Family District)
- R4 (Townhouse District)
- R5 (Low-Density Apartment District)
- R6 (Medium-Density Apartment District)
- R7 (High-Density Apartment District)
Arlington’s Zoning Bylaw describes each district in detail (see sections 5.4.2, 5.5.2, and 5.6.2)
A report by Mass Housing Partnership’s Shelly Goehring looks at Arlington’s housing development history and policies to understand how municipal action and inaction can contribute to housing inaffordability and can limit the population diversity within a community. The report implies that it has been difficult historically for reputable housing developers to work with the regulatory structure within Arlington to get housing built.
Massachusetts has the nation’s 2nd largest gap in homeownership between households of color (31% own homes) and white households (69% own homes).
See the complete report for more information.



The cost of building a residential unit, single or multi-family, correlates directly, if not precisely, with its cost to resident tenants or owners. The following study and data (using Assessor’s data) demonstrates that higher density housing is more affordable than single-family housing. Whether you look at the median cost of all housing across the Town or the unit costs of the newer, more expensive, apartments built in the last decade, density yields lower prices. The town wide median is $438,900 per unit.
The newest projects (420-440 Mass Ave., Brigham Square and Arlington 360) range from $249k per unit to $412K per unit. These three developments alone contributed 414 new units of housing to the Town.
Discussions of “affordability” represents a spectrum of terms. Units can be affordable because zoning and market conditions allow the units to be built for less money than a single family home. Or they can be affordable because the builder has received subsidies that reduce the cost. Or they can be affordable, as in the case of inclusionary zoning, because the permission to build is contingent on at least some of the units being “permanently” (99 years) available to qualified tenants or buyers based on legal restrictions.
from Karen Kelleher, Reporter
Interested in new policy developments on housing production in the Greater Boston area? The latest research from Mass Housing Partnership (MHP) is of interest. They just released (Dec. 18, 2019) in interactive map showing relative housing density around every mass transit and commuter rail station in the system, concluding that the region could add 235,000 units if every community allowed density as of right in the area around transit.

CHAPA has legislation pending that would require municipalities served by transit to allow higher density as of right within a certain distance from transit stations. You’ll see that the density around Alewife is not too bad in the context of the entire system.

This is mostly because of very high density in Cambridge near Alewife, but the density of two and three families in East Arlington shows better housing density than the sea of single family zoning around many commuter rail stops.
You can check it out here:https://www.mhp.net/news/2019/todex-research-brief
During the last few months, Arlington’s Department of Planning and Community Development and Zoning Bylaw Working Group have been conducting a study of the town’s industrial districts. The general idea has been to begin with an assessment of current conditions, and consider whether there are zoning changes that might make these districts more beneficial to the community as a whole.
To date, the major work products of this effort have been:
- A study of existing conditions, market analysis, and fiscal impact. Among other things, this slide deck will show you exactly where Arlington’s industrial districts are located.
- A set of test build scenarios.
- An initial set of zoning recommendations. These are high level ideas; they’d need further refinement to fit into the context of our zoning bylaws.
- A survey, to gather public input on several of the high-level recommendations.
The survey recently closed. I asked the planning department for a copy of they survey data, which they were generous enough to provide. That data is the subject of this blog post.
The survey generally consisted of pairs of questions: a yes/no or multiple choice, coupled with space for free-form comments. I’ll provide the yes/no and multiple choice questions (and answers!) here. Those interested in free-form commentary can find that in the spreadsheet linked at the bottom of this article.
208 people responded to the survey.
Industrial Zoning questions
(1) Which of the following uses would you support in the Industrial Districts? (check all that apply) (208 respondents)
Industrial | 62.02% |
Office | 76.92% |
Breweries, Distilleries, and Wineries | 86.06% |
Mixed Use (Office and Industrial Only) | 67.31% |
Food Production Facilities | 55.77% |
Flexible Office/Industrial Buildings | 68.27% |
Coworking Space | 68.75% |
Maker Space | 63.46% |
Vertical Farming | 65.38% |
Work Only Artist Studio | 63.94% |
Residential | 42.79% |
Other (please specify) | 12.02% |
(2) Would you support a waiver of the current 39-foot height maximum to allow heights up to 52 feet if the Applicant had to meet other site design, parking, or environmental standards? (207 respondents)
Yes | 74.40% |
No | 22.22% |
(3) Would you support a small reduction in the amount of required parking by development as an incentive to provide more bike parking given the districts’ proximity to the Minuteman Bikeway? (208 respondents)
Yes | 68.27% |
No | 30.77% |
(4) Would you support a variable front setback of no less than 6 feet and no more than 10 feet to bring buildings closer to the sidewalk and create a more active pedestrian environment? (207 respondents)
Yes | 66.18% |
No | 28.50% |
(5) Would you support zoning changes that require new buildings in the district to have more windows and greater building transparency, as well as more pedestrian amenities such as lighting, landscaping, art, or seating? (207 respondents)
Yes | 81.64% |
No | 13.53% |
Demographic questions
(7) Do you….(check all that apply) (206 respondents)
live in Arlington | 99.51% |
work in Arlington | 23.79% |
own a business in Arlington | 9.71% |
work at a business in one of Arlington’s industrial districts | 1.46% |
own a business in one of Arlington’s industrial districts | 1.46% |
patron of Arlington retail and restaurants | 76.70% |
elected official in Arlington | 6.80% |
(8) What neighborhood do you live in? (207 respondents)
Arlington Heights | 30.43% |
Little Scotland | 2.42% |
Poet’s Corner | 0.97% |
Robbins Farm | 5.80% |
Turkey Hill/ Mount Gilboa | 11.11% |
Morningside | 4.35% |
Arlington Center | 10.14% |
Jason Heights | 8.21% |
East Arlington | 20.77% |
Kelwyn Manor | 0.00% |
Not Applicable | 0.48% |
(9) How long have you lived in Arlington? (207 respondents)
Under 5 years | 19.32% |
5 to 10 years | 15.46% |
10 to 20 years | 19.81% |
Over 20 years | 45.41% |
According to US Census data [1], 72% of Arlington’s residents moved to Arlington since the beginning of the 2000’s (i.e., 20 years ago or less). The largest group responding to this survey has lived here 20+ years, implying that the results may be more reflective of long-term residents opinions.
(10) Please select your age group (199 respondents)
Under 18 | 0.00% |
18-25 | 1.01% |
26-35 | 13.57% |
36-45 | 22.11% |
46-55 | 25.13% |
56-65 | 20.60% |
66-80 | 16.58% |
80+ | 1.01% |
(11) What is your annual household income? (188 respondents)
$0-$19,999 | 1.06% |
$20,000-$39,999 | 1.60% |
$40,000-$59,999 | 5.32% |
$60,000-$79,999 | 9.04% |
$80,000-$99,999 | 4.79% |
$100,000-$149,999 | 23.94% |
$150,000-$200,000 | 17.55% |
More than $200,000 | 36.70% |
Full Survey Results
As noted earlier, the survey provided ample opportunity for free-form comments, which are included in the spreadsheet below. There were a number of really thoughtful ideas, so these are worth a look.
Arlington Industrial District Survey
Footnotes
[1] https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2501640-arlington-ma/, retrieved August 10th, 2020