=Review of Meeting Minutes=

The board approved minutes from their April 27, 2026 meeting.

=Comprehensive Plan Discussion=

Stantec consultants Steve Kearney and Phil Schaeffing presented the
comprehensive plan to the board.

(Steve Kearney, Stantec) Mr. Kearney says this was an 18 month
process. It started with visioning and a survey of existing
conditions. There have been 6,300 visits to the project website,
3,453 votes on the interactive map, and over 1100 survey responses.
Mr. Kearney says Arlington's was the most active comprehensive plan
steering committee that he's worked with.

(Phil Schaeffing, Stantec) Mr. Schaeffing says the community weighed
in throughout the plan. There was agreement in some areas and tension
in others. For example, on the subject of housing there was tension
between people who wanted a more diverse set of housing options and
viewed this as an equity issue, versus a desire to "maintain
neighborhood character".

The plan tries to make the point that topic areas do not exist in
isolation and are related to each other. Equity and Diversity and
Sustainability and Resilience considerations appear in each chapter.

The plan's vision statement was based on the one in the 2015 Master
Plan, but updated. Each topic has a set of goals, which are supported
by strategies. Mr. Schaeffing gives a brief summary of each chapter.

Land use. Arlington has a fixed amount of space, and Arlington needs
to make thoughtful decisions. The minuteman bikeway is a unique
community asset.

Economic Development. The main recommendation is the creation of a
strategic economic development plan. Also to support the business
districts through placemaking.

Housing. The main goals are allowing more types of housing in more
locations, and finding sustainable funding sources for affordable
housing.

Connectivity. Adopt vision zero to eliminate bicycle and pedestrian
fatalities. Review parking regulations and consider additional
parking benefits districts. Continue to advocate for improvements to
MBTA service.

Historic and Cultural Resources. Goals include updating the arts and
culture plan, preserving historic buildings, and integrating public
art.

Natural Resources and Open Space. A number of goals relate to
resiliency. For example, mitigating heat islands and flooding,
improving water quality, and expanding the urban tree canopy.

Public Facilities. Continue to work on net-zero goals, address
athletic field maintenance and use, and modernize town-owned
buildings.

The final chapter contains an implementation matrix.

(Vince Baudoin, ARB) Mr. Baudoin thought the plan did a good job of
capturing the moment that we're in. He has some typo-related
comments, which he'll email to Ms. Ricker. The 2015 master plan
talked about reducing parking requirements, but the new plan is less
explicit about that. He suggests adding language to LU-6 to reflect
that goal.

(Shaina Korman-Houston, ARB) Ms. Korman-Houston also has comments
about LU-6. We've talked as a board about how codes have become a
barrier at times. She suggests expanding on the LU-6's idea of an
audit.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak was a member of the steering
committee, and he's spent a lot of time on this effort over the last
18 months. He appreciates the work that Stantec did to go through all
of the public input and distill it. He thinks we got input and ideas
from a broad cross-section of residents.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says that we wrestle with the issue of
balance as a board. She suggests making that challenge more
prominent, perhaps as prominent as equity and sustainability. She
thinks that LU-5 should mention balance. She thinks that LU-10's
recommendation for neighborhood scale businesses in residential
districts is too specific. She thinks that H-1's recommendations for
two-family homes in single-family districts is too specific, and H-5
might conflict with what the board has been trying to do in business
districts. She agrees with the near-term priority items, but notes
that the board spends several months out of the year dealing with town
meeting related things.

(Kin Lau, ARB Chair) Mr. Lau asks the Stantec folks for their opinion
on what the town things. He asks if people want growth?

(Steve Kearney) Mr. Kearney says there were strong feelings about
wanting more housing growth and more commercial options. He was
surprised at how few voices asked to freeze things in place.

(Phil Schaeffing) Mr. Schaeffing says there was a lot of interest in
having more businesses, and an understanding that having more people
helps with that. People connected housing to equity. The growth
concerns were more about traffic and the design of buildings.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak doesn't think the goals in H-1 are too
specific. Arlington's housing production plan recommends allowing
more types of housing in the single- and two-family districts, and he
thought H-1 was taken from those recommendations.

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin agrees with Mr. Revilak regarding H-1.
He'd like to keep LU-10 as well.

(Shaina Korman-Houston) Ms. Korman-Houston agrees that Russell Common
should be on the list of short-term priorities. She's okay with LU-10
because the first word is "explore".

(Vince Baudoin) Mr. Baudoin suggests additional points for LU-6. To
evaluate and consider reductions in minimum parking requirements, and
to consider replacing parking minimums with parking maximums.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says we've made a lot of progress on
residential parking minimums since 2015. But our non-residential
parking minimums are very suburban. He thinks they'll become a
challenge if we start seeing more commercial-only development.

The board votes to approve the new comprehensive plan, with some edits
to be included, 5--0.

=Town Meeting Warrant Articles=

There's general support for the Benson amendments to Articles 44 and
47. The board discusses the Cullinane substitute motion for Article
53 and the opinions are largely unchanged since the hearing.

Meeting adjourned at 19:58.

[[Category:Public Meetings]]

2026-02-28T20:52:52Z

SteveR: initial revision

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.

[[Category:Public Meetings]]