[Town Meeting] Town Meeting info ASAP

[Patricia Worden]

Vote NO on Article 8 final vote

 (but first vote
Yes on amendments to Article 8 just in case it passes)

 

Data and concepts presented by the ARB in seeking Town
Meeting’s support for Article 8 need clarification.  One example is particularly important because
of Watertown’s demographic similarities to Arlington.  ARB’s table of Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaws
Comparison of Towns includes Watertown.  However,
Watertown no
longer permits any new accessory apartments.  After attempting an accessory apartment program
for some years there were so many complaints that accessory apartments
permitting was terminated and has not been allowed since 1994.  Numerous complaints were apparently related to
overcrowding and parking.

Following is information about accessory apartments or lack
thereof in neighboring and nearby communities.

First: Status of accessory apartments for our closest neighbors:

Belmont
NO; Somerville
NO; Medford
NO; Winchester
NO; Woburn NO.

Cambridge
Yes by special permit in houses
built before June 1, 1940 and not increased by more than 250 sq. ft. since then;  also requires bigger lot size.  Lexington
Yes with 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot
size.

Second: Status of accessory apartments for some communities in
metropolitan area:

Brookline NO; Braintree
NO; Brockton
NO; Chelsea
NO; Everett
NO; Malden
NO; Melrose
NO; Needham
NO; Quincy
NO; Watertown
NO; Wellesley NO.

Yes for
the following municipalities, but as indicated by Mr. Radochia these all have much larger lot requirements
than Arlington (as much as 80% to 1,000%
larger): Acton, Bedford, Burlington, Concord, Lincoln, Newton, and Waltham
– It
should have been made clear by the ARB that the lot requirements for accessory
apartments in these municipalities range from 10,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.,
compared to Arlington’s at 6,000 sq. ft.
(9,000 sq. ft. for 308 houses in R0).  Arlington’s
population is already more dense than these and should not be made more so by
almost 5,000 new apartments enabled by Article 8 with their increase in school
costs and reduction of open space. Likewise vehicle density in Arlington is increasing and parking
enforcement increasingly problematic and should not be worsened by approval of
Article 8.

Third:  Affordable rents:  If we establish accessory apartment
permitting in Arlington we should recognize that
the only pressing housing need in Arlington
is for affordable housing.  Communities which have recognized the need for
affordability include Wayland which
allows accessory apartments only for a person or a family receiving rental assistance from the Wayland Housing Authority and
on lots of at least 15,000 sq. ft.; and Wrentham
which recommends in its Master Plan that affordable accessory apartments with
deed restrictions should be enabled to create scattered site affordable housing
having the units count towards the Chapter 40B inventory.

Fourth:  The amendments we have
proposed are the bare minimum to protect the Town and neighborhoods from
developer exploitation.  They address the
needs presented by the ARB – except affordable housing which the ARB seems to
think unimportant – but when the “need” ends, then the use should end and the
permit expire and the unit be merged with the house as is specifically
required, for example, in Beverly and Maynard. 
Under the ARB’s proposed Article 8, if unamended, nearly 5,000
additional apartments could be added to Arlington, none affordable, which could
under 40B require 500 more units – a building 4 times larger than what’s going
up at the Brigham’s site – which a developer could build in your neighborhood
(since 40B developers need not observe local zoning rules).

The safest course for Arlington
is a “NO” vote on Article 8.

John L. Worden III, TMM Pct. 8                                                       Patricia Barron Worden,
TMM, Pct. 8

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20120429/968ad69a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pbw handout 2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32256 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20120429/968ad69a/attachment.doc>