Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB approves 12 Lachlan Ave site plan with engineering and fence conditions amid neighbor groundwater concerns
Summary
The ARB approved site-plan review for 12 Lachlan Ave (docket 390912) with conditions requiring town-engineer sign-off on stormwater/drainage solutions, cleanup of plan details, confirmation of garage ventilation, and fence/sight-line compliance; neighbors raised strong concerns about groundwater and construction impacts.
The Arlington Redevelopment Board on July 20 approved docket 390912 (12 Lachlan Avenue) with conditions after hearing detailed design, technical responses and extensive public comment about groundwater and neighborhood impacts.
Architect Brian Poisson presented a by-right site plan for two three-story residential buildings with parking underneath and shared outdoor space under the neighborhood multifamily housing overlay (Section 5.8). Poisson said the design provides one parking space per unit, individual bike storage and four proposed shade trees on-site plus one public shade tree. He also described a trench-drain/infiltration approach for stormwater and noted a photo-metric plan showing minimal light spillage.
Neighbors raised the meeting’s most persistent concern: groundwater. Resident John Shriver described repeated flooding episodes in nearby basements and said the local water table can render infiltration systems ineffective. "There's an enormous amount of ground water coming in," Shriver said, noting past pump cycles and citing cases where basements flooded when groundwater rose. Several neighbors said a close inspection and town-engineer review are required before the ARB signs off on the drainage approach.
The applicant’s civil engineer, Fred Russell, said the proposed trench drain was placed at the lowest workable location so the drain can flow by gravity to the infiltration system, and that the town engineer had reviewed calculations and was comfortable with the proposed location. The board nonetheless required a formal written letter from the town engineer confirming the drain location and the feasibility of the proposed infiltration approach.
Board members also asked the applicant to clean up plan discrepancies (noting an inconsistent condenser count across sheets), reconsider the horizontal stair windows to better match neighborhood fenestration patterns, confirm materials for the permeable deck, and provide engineering evidence that the partial-underbuilding parking would not trap CO (ventilation). The board required that any engineering-driven changes that alter the exterior architecture or site layout be returned to the ARB for review.
Member Carmen Houston moved for approval with the enumerated conditions; the motion was seconded and carried by members present. The board instructed planning staff to accept revised materials for administrative review and to require the town-engineer letter on drainage before issuing final administrative sign-off.
Next steps: Applicant to supply corrected plan sheets, engineering memos addressing groundwater and trench‑drain design, CO/ventilation analysis for the covered parking, and confirmation that fencing will comply with bylaw 5.3.12b regarding sight lines near driveways.
