AMPUp Advisory Committee - Feb 26th, 2026

Meeting held via remote participation. Materials were available from https://arlingtonma.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1632&compileOutputType=1.

Draft Plan Open House

Planning Director Claire Ricker has reserved space for a Draft Plan open house on March 26th. The committee weighs the pros and cons of postponing the event, due to the town election and override vote on March 28th.

Ms. Ricker has been in contact with members of the Select Board, and believes there will be time to present the plan to them in advance of town meeting.

The Department of Planning and Community Development filed a warrant article to ask for Town Meeting's endorsement of the Comprehensive Plan. It used the same language as the 2015 article for Master Plan endorsement. Town Meeting endorsement would be beneficial, though the Redevelopment Board is the approving authority. The Select Board no longer holds hearings on resolutions, so a different board may provide a recommended vote to town meeting.

Stantec Update

(Steve Kearney, Stantec) Mr. Kearney says that Stantec has revised the draft strategies since the committee last met in January. The revisions are based on input from town staff, the Town Manager, and the public. The current draft has been shared with the Committee, the Arlington Redevelopment Board, and Town department heads.

The document provides the town with broad policy directions. It's supposed to tie into, rather than replace, more specific planning documents.

(Phil Schaeffing, Stantec) Mr. Schaeffing notes that committee members received a low-resolution draft, so the document could be emailed to committee members without bouncing. As a result, some of the graphics aren't very clear. The web version will be a larger file, with higher resolution images.

Mr. Schaeffing provides the committee with a high-level overview of the document. The first chapter contains background material on Arlington and explains how the new plan is a continuation of work done in 2015, with adjustments that came out of public engagement. He acknowledges that the town is under funding constraints, but this is a ten-year plan.

The community engagement chapter tries to highlight the amount of outreach done, the amount of feedback received, and the ways in which outreach was conducted. It highlights several themes from resident feedback.

The community vision section presents the vision statement, which may undergo further editing. It introduces the cross-cutting themes of equity and diversity and sustainability and resilience. The section outlines demographic trends and conditions that positively and negatively influence the town.

(Lillian Hartman, AmpUp) Ms. Hartman has a comment about the summary on page 19. She doesn't want it to feel like the plan will contribute to Arlington's structural deficit.

(Rebecca Gruber, AmpUp) Ms. Gruber thinks the committee needs to have a conversation about the process for suggesting edits and providing feedback.

(Steve Kearney) Mr. Kearney would like to have the input sent to Ms. Ricker.

(Ann LeRoyer, AmpUp) Ms. LeRoyer says she provided a lot of edits and suggestions, and she doesn't understand why some of them aren't reflected in the current document. She has some concerns about the areas of emphasis.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing asks Ms. LeRoyer to elaborate on those concerns.

(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says there's not a lot of recognition for town volunteers. She thinks the document is mechanical and doesn't quite represent the quality of life in town.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says it's been challenging to balance the feedback from staff, the public, and the committee. She hopes everyone gets something they want and no one is completely happy. The plan tries to balance different priorities from different places.

(Steve Revilak, AmpUp) Mr. Revilak says he's planning to submit comments with a spreadsheet. One column for page number, one column for section heading, and one column for comments.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing says the next few sections are devoted to topic areas. The land use section acknowledges that there's very little vacant land in Arlington. Most development will be redevelopment of existing properties, which can lead to competing uses and priorities. It recommends a study of the Russell Common lot, and notes the benefits of the Minuteman Bikeway. Call-outs are used to highlight cross-cutting concerns.

(Steve Revilak, AmpUp) As someone who will use the comprehensive plan, Mr. Revilak feels the overall document is well organized and easy to use.

(Rebecca Gruber) Ms. Gruber felt the layout was engaging and user-friendly. She notes minor differences between section titles and the way they were listed in the overview section.

(Dave Fatula, AmpUp) Mr. Fatula asks about having all of the implementation details at the end of the document. He thought they might be listed in individual chapters.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing says the implementation section was intentional. He think the lower level details will be less interesting to the general public than the overall picture.

(Arthur Prokosch, AmpUp) Mr. Prokosch suggests having individual sections say "see implementation strategies", perhaps with hyperlinks.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing moves on to the economic development chapter. It talks about Arlington's place in the region's economic center and issues and opportunities for the town. It suggests simplifying and clarifying the regulatory process and developing an economic strategy plan. The economic development goals were slightly reworked to focus on commercial and industrial development.

The housing chapter wants to acknowledge the town's limited ability to address the housing crisis, while noting what the town is able to do. Arlington wishes to be a welcoming community and that means having housing available to those who are looking for it. This sections notes Arlington's adoption of the enhanced stretch code as a means to require more energy-efficient buildings.

(Dave Fatula) Mr. Fatula likes strategy ED-1, but believes that having a central place for communications is important. He thinks the strategies focus too much on retail. The cultural and historic resources section has a strategy devoted to communications, and that should be in the economic development section too. He asks Stantec about communications strategies or portals that have worked in other towns.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing says that ED-4 was intended to note the need for a form of central communications, and it can be re-worded. The language from the historic and cultural resources section could be replicated under economic development. Stantec discussed this with the town manager who noted the limit's of staff's ability to run a communications programs. Business improvement districts have worked in other communities. They're separate business-funded organization that works with municipal government.

(Dave Fatula) Mr. Fatula agrees that business improvement districts work, but the plan doesn't present them in a town-wide way. He feels the need for a broader economic development plan.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing thinks that part of the point behind ED-1.

(Lillian Hartman, AmpUp) Mr. Hartman notes that ED-7 references ATED, the Arlington Tourism and Economic Development committee. She suggests using their full name. A lot of Arlington's businesses are small businesses. She asks if there was any interest in B2B networks for people running businesses out of their homes.

(Dave Fatula) Mr. Fatula says there's a lot of interest from the Chamber of Commerce. The issue is a volunteer economic development organization versus what's actually budgeted for. He says that all types of businesses are interested in a central communications portal.

(Lillian Hartman) Ms. Hartman suggests broadening economic development topics to go beyond properties in the business and industrial districts.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing moves on to the connectivity chapter. It notes that Arlington's streets are already laid out, and that there's interest in improving mobility and access. Mobility goals are often in support of other things. The chapter recognizes that there are populations that can't or don't want to drive.

The historical and cultural resources chapter has a brief history on the things that help to make Arlington unique, including civic organizations and community volunteers. The business districts have a historic character but do need modernization. The strategies have changed to better balance historic resources with arts and culture.

The natural resources and open space section talks about the ecological and health benefits of open space, and Arlington's limited ability to add it. It covers the tree canopy, stormwater runoff, water quality, nature-based infrastructure, and heat island effects.

The facilities and services section focuses on town buildings, parks and playground, local roadways, and changes in town demographics.

The implementation section lists all of the strategy recommendations along with the different groups that would be involved in their implementation. Timeline prioritization is a work in progress.

(Lillian Hartman) Regarding strategy M-4, Ms. Hartman asks how roadway construction is currently planned.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that DPW has several engineers and there's a transportation planner position in her office. We have a small budget for transportation improvements and would have to apply for capital funds each year in order to work on these goals.

(Lillian Hartman) Ms. Hartman asks if Ms. Ricker would like to hire an engineer in the planning department.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that DPW's engineers can design small projects, like pedestrian bump outs. We generally hire consultants or outside engineers for larger projects.

(Lillian Hartman) Ms. Hartman asks if the DPW is excited about item M-4.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says the transportation planner and DPW engineers work closely and discuss when outside engineering assistance is needed.

(Arthur Prokosch) Overall, Mr. Prokosch is really impressed with the amount of detail and context in each section. It's not always noted when a single strategy addresses multiple topic areas and he asks Stantec to consider addressing that.

(Steve Kearney) Mr. Kearney asks Ms. Ricker how she'd prefer to receive feedback.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker likes the idea of a spreadsheet, but will discuss with Stantec.

(Rebecca Gruber) Ms. Gruber would like see something about how individual comments are addressed. She thinks that individual comments aren't a way to build consensus.

(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer says there were many in-person meetings for the last plan, and they were valuable. There are conflicts and different priorities and talking together is a way to resolve them.

The committee agrees to have an in-person meeting on March 5th and 6:30 pm. Ms. Ricker will book a room.

The committee discusses the need for a chair. Ms. Hartman offers to do this if no one else is interested.

(Lillian Hartman) Ms. Hartman asks about a section of the plan that talks about fiscal stability.

(Claire Ricker) Ms. Ricker says that came from meetings with the town manager.

Open Forum

(Susan Stamps, Grafton St) Ms. Stamps thinks the committee has done a good job. She says the 2015 master plan made a huge deal to the tree committee. They learned that the town was losing tree canopy to development and didn't have anything to regulate the cutting of trees on private property. The town's tree protection bylaw was informed by the 2015 master plan. Unfortunately, we still have the same situation now, and we're still losing tree canopy. She thinks there's a need to emphasize this in the section on natural resources and open space. She'd like to see a tree canopy assessment and an urban forestry plan. There's been no mention of the tree bylaw and Arlington was one of the first communities to have one. The tree bylaw needs a lot of improvements. We don't have a lot of room for a public tree canopy and need more trees planted on private property.

Meeting adjourned at 8pm.