Discussion:The petitioner explained that this article, to allow the two-family and duplex use in the R0 and R1 districts, should be adopted for four key reasons: addressing the racist legacy of single-family zoning in Arlington; improving environmental sustainability; increasing housing choice; and allowing for more affordable homes. The petitioners pointed to a number of actions that allowed Arlington to develop into a community consisting of predominantly single-family homes occupied by white owners, and proposed this article as a way to reverse previous actions.
The ARB believes that this article can address the important issues that the petitioner refers to in the presentation. The ARB also believes that it is important for the Town of Arlington to consider the past actions of both the Town and private entities, reflect on those actions, and determine a way to mitigate and reverse those actions. The ARB understands that this article reflects a larger policy conversation that the town should have, and is interested in hearing from Town Meeting Members on this topic after hearing a wide variety of opinions during the course of public dialogues. However, in addition to other concerns about the proposal, the ARB recognizes that there is no clear understanding of the impact of similar rezonings due to the recent nature of similar zoning changes in other States and there was no public engagement regarding this article.
The ARB discussed changes to the proposed motion that would improve the article and potentially address topics heard during the public hearings. Those items include:
1. Requiring that any two-family or duplex home that is built appears as a single-family home;
2. Codifying certain design requirements to maintain the appearance of a single-family home as well as minimizing changes that may alter the streetscape view; and
3. Capturing the value gained by building two homes versus one home by requiring a percentage payment to a municipal affordable housing trust fund based on the sales price or assessed value.
The ARB recognized that regulating appearance is a subjective proposition and the language of these three points would need further research and review that would be difficult to complete within the timeframe for Special Town Meeting. As such, the majority of the ARB recommended no action on this article and referred the topic to the Department of Planning and Community Development to identify an existing or new study committee for further study. The minority opinion believed that the right course of action would be to allow Town Meeting discussion on the article prior to referring the topic for further study.