Report Excerpt:VOTE: No Action (4-1, Mr. Revilak dissented)
DISCUSSION
Article 38 proposed to allow some new commercial uses by right in residential districts (R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7). It also encouraged entrepreneurship by allowing newly formed businesses to start off in homes without facing the need to pay for expensive commercial space. Lastly, it offered a new use definition for neighborhood artistic/creative production.
The Board members stated that they appreciated the intent and flexibility of the petitioner during the process to bring this article to Town Meeting. Article 38 went through several iterations based on prior feedback from the Board. The revised article concentrated on residential parcels already abutting or located near the business district and other commercial uses. This was an intentional shift away from relaxing home occupation standards in Section 5.10.1 of the Zoning Bylaw, which has often been identified as a potential zoning reform. In limiting the proposal, the focus changed to expanding commercial opportunities in some residential districts. One member described the Article as a small and incremental change for neighborhoods that could make a significant difference to the 26% of residents who work from home in Arlington. According to the petitioner’s research, there are approximately 1,900 parcels in the R3-R7 districts, or 15% of total parcels.
Members had a number of concerns. These included the understudied impacts on infrastructure, particularly sewer capacity, from introducing new uses like restaurants and catering businesses in residential districts. One Board member noted that the proposed changes would make uses by right in residential districts that are only allowed by Special Permit in some business districts and noted that two rows of the Office Uses table could be combined, as proposed by the Article. Several members also noted that the revised Article would still not allow for some potentially beneficial commercial uses in neighborhoods, such as corner stores. Some noted that the proposal could result in the loss of residential property as residential buildings were converted to commercial use, and expressed their disappointment with that potential “trade-off” of residential units for the new business uses.
Several members brought up concerns they had previously expressed to the petitioner, including the number of employees allowed per business and other potential amendments to expand business uses in the residential district (such as adding occupations as a residential accessory use, or revising Section 5.10.1). Overall, the Board felt that the Article would not address some of the most significant issues preventing the expansion of commercial opportunities in Arlington and was overly broad.
The dissenting member of the Board felt that the R3-R7 districts were appropriately located for the type and scale of business uses proposed.