Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this committee meeting of land use. I call this meeting to order. I'm Councillor Ben Ewen Campin. Let me bring up the warning to read at the beginning. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the City Council's Land Use Committee will be conducted via remote participation, and we will post an audio-video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, I can. Councillor Davis.

Here.

Councillor Klingon. Councillor Klingon, I do see that you are here. But I cannot hear you.

Yeah, sorry. Here, present.

No worries. Got it. Thank you. Councillor Saeed. Here. Councillor McLaughlin. Yeah. Chair Young-Campin.

Here.

All right. With that, all members are present, so we do have quorum.

Excellent. So we have agenda items one and two, our approval of the minutes for May 21st and June 18th. Seeing no discussion on those, let's lay those on the table for approval at the end of the meeting. So colleagues, I was informed today that there are going to be six amendments coming at our next city council meeting from the administration. So we have a lot of work coming up. And one of our goals is to clear the path and take care of business. So that is why we're going to try to have as regular a cadence of meeting as we can all fall. And tonight we have two items on our agenda that we have had public hearings on, that we've had a little bit of back and forth on. And I think we're in a good place to deliberate tonight and see if the committee is ready for a vote on one or both of these. So let's read agenda item number three, please, clerk. And we'll take that up first.

Item number three, ID number 26-0746, referred for recommendation, requesting approval of the Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Financing Zone. Plan in form of agreement for Assembly Square in East Somerville.

Excellent. So I see a number of members of Economic Development are here. Who would like to kick us off?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Katie Weiss. I'm an economic development planner with the economic development team. I'm happy to share more details. I can give a reminder back in July, I believe right before the committee and the council took a break for the summer. I gave a presentation about the urban center housing tax and commit financing zone that we are proposing for the East Somerville and assembly square neighborhoods. I'm happy to refresh the committee's mind about the details of that. But tonight, what we are looking to do is deliberate and move forward the zone itself, which encompasses parts of Assembly Square and parts of East Somerville. Going forward, that would allow projects to come to us, development projects to come to the city and request the use of an urban center housing tax increment financing deal. But that would be in a future time, it would require a public hearing and it would require deliberation from the finance committee. Tonight would only be to allow for this district to be created. So depending on what the chair prefers, I can share more information or we can launch into discussion and I'm here to answer any questions.

Excellent. I think I'm happy to open it up for questions and deliberations. I think just to table set my recollection of the council's conversation around this is that the goal is to encourage development to happen without giving up on our 20 inclusion area or better you know put put simply that's what we're trying to do here right um housing starts are really really really down and so one option that you know you could imagine would be, well, let's get rid of the affordable housing requirement, make it cheaper. Obviously there's not been a lot of support for that in Somerville amongst elected officials or the public. And so this is an alternative where you still get the affordable housing and the way that you do it is by relieving some amount of the future tax levy. So we've deliberated on this a bit, but counselors, are there questions on this, comments?

Councillor Clare. Yeah, Mr. Chair. So just to recap and confirm from the folks at Economic Development, this would give us the option to use this tool in this area without having to go through a whole lot of hoops. But at the same time, we also I can say there's an upturn right so say development starts pick it up, and you know we're not forced to enter into these agreements, the developer was to come along and say hey, this is the zone here. We can we want to use this tool, are we bound to have to use that this active tool.

Through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilor Klingon. No, that's exactly correct. We would not be obligated in any way to use this tool. It just provides the opportunity to launch negotiations to see what kind of projects we can try to move forward.

Thank you. And then just for quick follow-up, Mr. Chair. And so in doing this, it's streamlined, like as far as the process goes, In the past, when we've done that to 99 Broadway. Is more of a an involved process, this would with this, this is basically would allow us to do this locker. That correct.

I see director now carny would you prefer to respond.

So it's really sure.

This actually enables us to get to where we were with 29 Broadway. The state has to approve the use of this tool in any part of the state. And so we need this approval for the district in order to move forward any particular project. What's been pretty typical was 299 was actually pretty typical because there haven't been that many of these active zones created in the last 10 years. So it's been more typical that communities have had a zone and a project coming at the exact same time. We thought the tool was very effective in moving things forward with 299 Broadway. And so the idea is, let's see if we can use that to unlock some of the sites that have been really stuck and are sitting vacant across East Somerville and Assembly Square.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, again, I was just sort of trying to recap and, but ultimately, I mean, it sounds like the work council has something to say, but, but, you know, this has been a helpful tool. And if, you know, while we're in a downturn, and we don't know when things are going to bounce back, it'd be good to have all the tools in the toolbox. And as stated by the chair, it wouldn't affect, or we wouldn't lose the ability to impose 20%. inclusionary, so I'll listen to discussion, but I'm leaning towards in-payments.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor McLaughlin, this map is all in Ward 1, so we're interested to hear from the Ward Councilor again, please.

That it is, Mr. Chair. So you correctly pointed out the two options that we could either eliminate the affordable inclusionary rate or we could give this octave. There is a third option where we do nothing and nothing gets built. And that's the situation we're presently in. And that's the least acceptable to me. I have spoken to a lot of people from the city and people in the development community and in my community that we zone this area to get built for housing. And right now with the building costs, the interest rates and the affordable rates, it's just not happening. so that's why i support this uh and i'm happy that east somerville is included not just assembly i fought for that because i've had many businesses on that street that have been abandoned long before this recession happened and long before the interest rates and building costs went up i'd like to see something happen in this neighborhood and get more housing and make sure 20 percent is inclusionary, the highest rate in the state. So if you look at a place like Burlington, Vermont, they did something very similar to this, where they gave tax incentives to get the inclusionary rate. The other alternative is to just have 100% market rate. So I view this as more of a compromise than anything. So that's why I put it to answer council claiming this question too i also brought up to the city the idea of making sure that we're not giving away a tax deal and then a few years later the market turns around and this is a windfall for developers that'll be something that can be negotiated later but i just want to say that out loud because that's what i will expect the city to negotiate an arrangement that says that you know if the market is around and you actually don't need this tax deal that we would get our money back or that the deal would be renegotiated. So that's why I support this and I thank you very much.

Excellent. I appreciate that and second to everything that the ward counselor just said. Are there other questions, comments from the committee? Seeing none, Councilor McLaughlin, do you wish to make a motion?

I move to approve.

Excellent. Councillor McLaughlin moves to recommend approval of agenda item number three. Seeing no further discussion, can we please call the roll?

All right. On recommending approval of item number three. Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Klingon.

Yes.

Councillor Saeed.

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Chair Yuenkampen?

Yes.

All right. With that, that is all votes in the affirmative.

Excellent. Thank you all. And thank you very much to Economic Development. I know that this has been a lot of work and we're all hopeful that this will unlock some good projects. And with that, we will take up agenda item number four. Claire, can you please read that?

Yep. Agenda item number four, ID number 26-0835, referred to recommendation by Councilors Davis, Ewing, Camping, Klinging, Councilor Link, Embaugh, Hart, Seat, and Wheeler, proposing an amendment to section 2.1.1 of the zoning ordinance regarding homeless shelters.

So the big question, will this get the votes? Just kidding. So, Councilor Davis, I want to defer to you. And we also have some slides that our analyst, Samantha Carr, put together. How would you like to proceed?

Yeah, no, thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing from Ms. Carr. Just as a reminder for anyone who's maybe tuning in that didn't see the discussion in chambers, at the council level, this was something that I submitted based on feedback during the process of ultimately opening a homeless shelter in Ward 6. And the fact that there is at least some confusion, let's say, about the way our current zoning was drafted and suggestion that we ought to clear that up and go through the process here to make the zoning more clear. And I thought that was a good idea. So that's where we are. And that's the intent here to enable potentially additional shelters around the city with a more clearly stated process. And I should note that my specific ask was that whatever the process be, that there still would be required neighborhood meeting, communication to sort out logistics and that sort of thing. And so I'm sure we'll hear from Ms. Carr, but that was kind of the one wrinkle that I wanted to make sure we still had in there. So there's still a collaborative process as we move forward with this.

Excellent. And Samantha, before we turn it over to you, just one note, the planning board has made a positive recommendation on this. And this is available if you just search the agenda item number in the city council website. But they note that they recommend considering a revision to require a special permit in what they call residential districts, which I I didn't hear their deliberations. I assume they're referring to the neighborhood residents, but I just want that on the record that that was their recommendation. And with that, Ms. Carr, please take it away.

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to speak to a couple points from folks that were raised at the previous session where this item was deliberated, if we'd be able to flash to the slide deck. So just wanted to provide a couple contextual slides to follow up on some inquiries from the council in June when we last took up this item. So the first request was just having a map side by side comparison of what the zoning might look like if this amendment was adopted to both include the neighborhood residence district as well as a scenario without the inclusion by right of shelters within the neighborhood residence. So this first map is inclusionary of that scenario. If you go to the next slide, you'll see the difference without the NR parcels included. So Just taking a brief contextual look between the two. And I have included both maps as attachments to the handouts for this meeting. If folks want to enlarge those in a PDF version. But you can see a fairly substantial portion of coverage is deteriorated in terms of removing the NR districts from the scenario for this item. And if you do progress to the next slide, There's some additional contacts that we received from Stummerstadt, just to put that further into percentage numbers. So thinking about the distribution of parcels across the city, currently 74% of all zoned parcels across the city are neighborhood residential parcels and 60% of all dwelling units. exist within the neighborhood residential district. And they've also included a helpful summary chart here where you can see approximately 23,000 units are within the neighborhood residential district versus 7,000 in the urban residential and then roughly 8,000 in the remainder of non-residential zoned parcels in the city. So this just gives a little bit of comparison to think about when we're deliberating whether or not to include this zone within the proposal. And happy to speak to that further if folks have any questions about that piece. And then two other things to consider in the conversation this evening, if we flash to the next slide, there was some additional conversation around whether there should be a widened scope of additional uses to consider in relation to this item. So one term that was previously mentioned in conversation was domestic violence and sexual assault refuge centers. doing a little bit of diving into this. Typically, the use case for this type of facility would be treated as a Dover protected use, so a use falling under religious or education institution coverage, and would therefore be accelerated outside the permitting process that we're considering here. The context of this item specifically is permitting the use of homeless shelters that don't fall under a Dover protected use. So that might mean they're not operating under a primarily predominant religious or education institution and are still seeking approval to be cited in locations throughout the city for these particular types of shelters due to state confidentiality and privacy concerns regarding survivors. who would be residing within the facility, they're typically brought through the Dover process to provide additional anonymity to the project address and public hearing process related to the facilities. So just wanted to provide that context. Happy to discuss that use further if there's interest, but that's the typical process that would be followed for a facility to be cited and therefore maybe outside the scope of this particular item we've been considering The two other uses that I've highlighted here are kind of demographic-specific shelters. If folks have an interest in parsing out the use table to regulate those differentially from the overall blanket category of homeless shelters writ large, so the first option to consider here would be family housing stabilization shelters. And those would be shelters primarily dedicated towards families woman experiencing pregnancy or parents and children that are amidst a rehousing emergency. They typically include additional supportive services, including employment counseling and school supports for children that are residing within the shelter itself. So, this would be currently, if we didn't include any additional verbiage, a use that could be considered under homeless shelters writ large, but if there is an interest in getting to that level of specificity in the table to, say, permit this type of shelter in certain zones versus The overall blanket category being perhaps more restrictive in certain zones that's something that can be considered. If we did have an interest in going down that route, this would be an additional use that would be added under institutional housing as a separate line item in the tables. And then similarly, the second consideration here would be for runaway and homeless youth shelters, which are similarly capturing a particular demographic of folks looking for shelter in place. And this typically would be for youth between the ages of 18 to 24 that would be residing in the facility. So there's a bit of an age-based restriction to folks being able to access the particular site. similar process there if there was an interest in allowing this particular type of shelter facility distinct from overall homeless shelters writ large in particular zoning districts, that's a term that could be explored for addition within the item. And then lastly, there's a few uses that are grouped here under the right column. And this is just more for informational purposes after having some conversations with the planning team about blanket category of community or group residence that's currently housed under institutional housing uses in the code. These are a few types of facilities that are federally protected and are permitted currently under the community or group residence designation. So in another scenario where those weren't protected uses, that might be something to consider in the conversation here. But currently there is coverage for these facilities under the community or group residence use. So that's inclusive of the list here, including sober living houses. transitional housing, veteran group housing, and supportive housing for aging adults with disabilities. So capturing the full spectrum of transitional and supportive housing, as well as shelter-based housing options. And then the last piece, there's a few dense slides here, and I'm happy to kind of flash through the highlights of them and include them as a point of reference for folks. But this portion of the presentation was coming from a request from the planning board at our joint public hearing in June, asking for a comparison of what is the baseline current conditions in Somerville compared to peer communities of how homeless shelters are treated as a permitted use. So just a brief summary slide here of the current conditions prior to this item being introduced. So currently in Somerville, homeless shelters are allowed by special permit in the urban residential district, the mid-rise three to mid-rise six districts, as well as the high-rise district. And this is just inclusive of some additional considerations that are taken into account when a project comes forward to be considered for special permit. So folks are considering locational suitability compared to other principal uses of the site, what the impact of the project would be to affordable dwelling units housed in the location under consideration, the concentration of similar uses in the neighborhood and particular demand being seen from the community where a site is being proposed to be hosted. And just as a reminder for folks, what this item would be proposing currently is to provide allow either urban residential or neighborhood and urban residential use by right as well as the mid-rise districts three to six the high-rise districts and two of the special districts that allow residential housing which include the powder house school district and assembly square mixed use district with the caveat that properties that are fronting pedestrian designated streets would not allow ground store uses of this particular permitted use for those buildings. And we're currently not considering commercial districts to allow this as a permitted use outside of what would be protected under the Dover Amendment. And if we go to the next slide, this portion of And this is the categories I was speaking to here for the proposal. Thinking about the peer comparators, I've looked at a couple of peer jurisdictions and happy to kind of flash through the high level takeaways here. So looking at a direct neighbor in Medford, As a comparison, Medford uses the category of lodging or boarding house to fall under homeless shelters as the closest proxy as a transient housing use. If it's treated as this category when the project comes through for a proposal, then the conditions would be slightly more permissive in Somerville compared to Medford. As it's currently allowed as a special permit use in the urban residential, the mid-rise districts and the high-rise district, whereas in Medford, we're seeing roughly the equivalent of the urban residential and a couple of the mid-rise districts. So roughly mid-rise three and mid-rise six allowing by special permit. And the next slide for Cambridge. This is something that came up a lot in the review that it's fairly common for cities to not particularly reference this as specified use within their use tables. So it's open to a bit of interpretation and discretion as to what would be the closest fit for the use or whether this would be a use variance that was requested. But for Cambridge, taking a look at likely proxies Institutional uses of the other category, which are institutional uses not specified or lodging houses for transient facilities. So taking a look at institutional housing uses, Somerville does allow homeless shelters currently in different zones, but in a greater proportion of the city's landmass relative to zoning coverage, as the residential districts encompass a greater proportion of the city's land area compared to commercial areas. Where currently Cambridge allows this use by special permit primarily in the commercial and industrial zones of their city for lodging houses if a facility was deemed under that sub use Somerville is less permissive as Cambridge does allow this use, both in the residential and commercial districts across the city. And then looking at Boston, Boston was an interesting point of comparison. Currently, the city's adopted form-based districts as well as traditional zoning, so took a brief look at both of those contexts to consider for comparison purposes. So taking a look at the form-based zoning, currently the city has two distinct uses, shelter facilities and supportive housing, which are treated as discrete categories within the code. Looking at the category of shelters, Somerville is currently more permissive in low density, so residential zones, but Boston is more permissive in kind of high density corridor, downtown intensive use zones, as well as along commercial nodes in the city itself. So Currently, there is a conditional use for shelter facilities along the Main Street mixed-use corridors, the major squares, placemaking squares, as well as civic squares, and I've provided a brief description of what those entail. So we're really seeing conditional use and incentivization of this type of facility in those mixed-use and largely downtown commercial zones. In terms of the skyline districts, which are including low-rise but high-density and high-rise development on major growth nodes, they are allowed by right. And the supportive housing category is more broadly permissive in Boston compared to Somerville's current use permitted of homeless shelters. Supportive housing is allowed by right throughout the district's So they have parsed out that level of specificity for supportive housing, which might be including a variety of services versus a shelter-based facility. And then looking at traditional zoning in Boston, because both of those elements are still in play, you'll see a similar pattern to other jurisdictions in terms of looking at transient group housing facilities, such as lodging houses, dormitories, or hotels. If a facility were to fall under Boston's traditional zoning, currently it is more permissive than Somerville. This use is allowed in the residential zones by special permit and buy right in the commercial business zones. So in other words, more extensively allowed than what's currently permitted by special permit in Somerville. And then there's a secondary use in the traditional zoning for Boston group care residences. That might be another likely use that this could be nested under if a project was submitted for consideration. So if a project came under the group care residence, this would also be more permissive than Somerville's current regulations. So this use is allowed in the residential zones by special permit and by right in the commercial business zone. So very similar to the lodging facilities we just previously discussed. And then lastly, looking in Malden as a peer comparator, Malden's code was an interesting case. The use is not mentioned, and these use categories are a little bit broader in terms of interpretation of this being a potential sub-use or permitted use under that category, but the closest proxies in their code would be a motel or nursing home facility with the logic that a motel would be a proxy for a transient residence and a nursing home would allow the logistic provisions for more on-care facilities. active on-care site usage, so some of those supportive elements of the site. And it's worth noting that if neither of these uses was deemed an applicable proxy for a shelter, a use variance would need to be sought from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which would be quite a time-intensive and arduous process for that particular facility to be sited within the city. If the facility was considered under the motel use, Somerville, kind of similar to in Cambridge, allows the use in different zones, but in a greater proportion of the city. So right now, Malden allows the motel use by special permit in the business districts, the highway business and industrial corridors, whereas compared to Somerville's regulations in the residential district, which cover a much larger portion of the city's landmass. And then for the nursing home, if a shelter was to fall under the proxy of a nursing home use category, Somerville is less permissive, as this use is allowed by right in several residential zones, as well as the commercial and highway business zones of the city. And there's also a group dwelling residence that could be another option to consider under Malden zoning. So if the use fell under this category, Somerville is less permissive than Malden. This is allowed both in the residential and commercial zones. There's higher coverage of the use. And so in conclusion, I know that was a lot of information to digest given the tables and the different cities that were under comparison, but these are some of the key takeaways from that research. So Somerville's current regulations most closely align with peer community in Medford in terms of the scope of where homeless shelters are permitted and the allowance of the use by special permit. And then we're seeing broadly a split between two trends from peer jurisdictions. So in some instances, Somerville allows the shelters in the residential zone rather than the commercial zones, but by doing so allows them in a greater proportion of the city. And this is in compared to Cambridge and for particular uses in the Malden example. And in other cases, Somerville is less permissive due to the requirement of a special permit, which is one thing that's being considered with this item amending the current regulations, as well as the restriction of shelters to residential rather than residential and commercial zones. So conversely, if some cities are being more permissive to allow in both use cases, they are seeing a higher degree of coverage for the facilities there. And then the other trend that's come forward is that Somerville is less permissive of supportive housing when compared to its peers. So if there has been a bifurcation split of that use to allow a supportive housing exclusive use, as well as homeless shelters, typically supportive housing is more permissive in terms of where it's permitted zoning-wise throughout the city. typically allowed by right development and or by special permit across a broader spectrum of zones. We are starting to see some new reforms and trends like Boston's adoption of the squares and streets and skyline form-based zoning that are becoming more permissive of both of these types of uses. So we're in a good environment to be considering these changes relative to our peers in the region. And the remainder of the slide deck is just looking at the particular use categories and definitions themselves. So I'm happy to just point to those as a reference if folks had additional interest in digging into like the sub uses that are included in the definitions for the uses that were included as peer comparators in the slides. and happy to answer any questions if folks wanted to chat through the maps further, wanted to discuss particular use changes or additions or any of the peer comparison research. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate that. Are there questions on this presentation, colleagues? All right, well, Councillor Davis, how would you like to proceed?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Ms. Carr. So, you know, when I presented this, as I... when I first was before the council, I noted that the amendment as drafted includes the neighborhood residence district, as we heard a whole discussion of. But the reason for that was so we could have a discussion about it, right? And hence, here we are. I think there is, you know, in thinking about it at the time, there was some arguments sort of either way or some considerations um and i i still would value any input from from my colleagues in that i will say that um you know my thinking initially before i started digging and and um you know, and seeing now laid out in Analyst Carr's slides is, you know, kind of reinforces what that digging sort of turned up. But, you know, my initial kind of thinking in terms of including neighborhood residents were two things, two sort of just specific examples. At one point in years past, a friend owned a home uh a house somewhere in somerville that not they're you know not their primary residence and wanted to donate it to the homeless shelter to be used as a family shelter um and that ultimately didn't didn't fly the zoning you know didn't allow it and this is this is i think this may even have been pre pre-zoning overhaul but it was a while ago anyways um and then the other example is um was in a house in a neighborhood residence district in Ward 6, actually, where there were... It was owned by a church, so there's a whole, but let's set Dover Amendment aside for a moment. It was used as supportive housing, recovery housing, a couple of different varieties operated by companies that specialize in operating those types of facilities. And I never heard a peep from anybody about it. It was perfectly fine, right? And so the thinking was like, well, we certainly don't want to have any interpretation of our zoning preclude the second example there. And maybe there's a way to enable what wasn't allowed in that first example. I think that some of the earlier slides here that Anil's car showed kind of lead me to thinking that maybe maybe there's a more nuanced way of addressing sort of that, that thought process that I had, um, that probably isn't something we do right now. Um, slide that mentioned um family housing stabilization um runaway homeless youth shelters that you know perhaps a future amendment could add some definitions to um you know to enable those like we enable similar to what to my mind sound like similar types of of uses and you That seems like it might be a pretty good, I hesitate to call it a compromise, but for the lack of a better term, a pretty reasonable approach. I think the thing that is, if we go back to the slide that shows the maps at the very beginning, it's a pretty stark difference between including the neighborhood residents and not including the neighborhood residents. But what isn't here is, what is permitted now, right? And everything here requires a special permit, right? And so... I think that we would be accomplishing, I think there's an argument that we would be accomplishing a good deal of, we'd be making progress in sort of our approach in enabling these types of facilities. And I'm not proposing this. I'm just, I'm kind of thinking out loud here because no one else wanted to talk about it. So I'm going to throw it out there for people to kick around. I think there's an argument to take the approach of, of not changing the designation for neighborhood residents from the way it current stands, which is that homeless shelter as defined right now would not be permitted, making the changes so that in urban residents and the other districts, it is permitted by right with the neighborhood meeting. That lifts a lot of barriers, I think, doing that. And that was my ultimate, that was my initial goal and objective here. So I I think what I set out to do would be accomplished by doing that. But I do think that there then, it would be worthwhile to have a conversation about, are there uses that are fully appropriate in the neighborhood residences that we should make easier and make sure that there aren't barriers to that. But it sounds like that, I think from what Ann's car said, that's a little more of a nuanced amendment than what we have in front of us. So maybe that's a next step if we feel that that's the right way to go. You know, that said, there's other, you could also just leave a special permit requirement in the neighborhood residence. You know, you can also imagine how that might play out, I suppose. But I'm trying to kind of play the devil's advocate with myself here that I think there's, I think some folks would raise some concerns that, you know, wouldn't be without basis if we were to go with the entirely more permissive approach. But I could be convinced otherwise. So I'll stop talking. I'll try to set up some kind of things to think about there. And if any of our colleagues have thoughts or analyst Carr or anyone else, I would love to hear them.

So I can share how I've been thinking about this. And I have not really been considering the nuanced difference between the family shelters and runaway shelters, et cetera. I think that for me, the question has been, should the neighborhood residents be included by right or by special permit? And that's how I've been thinking about kind of the two options that I'm going back and forth on. And just to kind of talk out loud how I've been thinking about it, I think... So sometimes when we're talking about allowing something by right, for example, the affordable housing overlay, there are folks in the community or you imagine this is like throwing open the floodgates and things are going to just start happening. In reality, I in my experience, the way it goes for these kind of uses that don't make anybody money is. is that they're actually very rare. They're rare, unusual things that every once in a while, there is the money, the property ownership, the political will to do one of them. And when those magical circumstances happen, we don't wanna be the kind of barrier, right? We want them to be able to happen when those things do happen and acknowledging that's gonna be rare. So that would lead me to say, it's okay. We don't need a special permit process. A neighborhood meeting should be sufficient. On the other hand, I think, so in Ward 3 is the warming center that the city has run for the last two years. And I'm extremely supportive of it. And also, I am keenly aware that there have absolutely been challenges with that. That's in a neighborhood resident zone. Well, I don't think the parcel is an old school, but, you know, the street is largely neighborhood residents. And You know, many parts of it work very well, and many parts of it are also really challenging. And there have been meetings, and the city has responded to things, but I would just say... it totally makes sense to me that there might need to be a public process around a situation like that. And I don't, you know, negotiations might not be the right word, but kind of accommodations to specific concerns. And that would lead me to think, I think a special permit. So it kind of comes down for me, I'm kind of how I'm thinking about the special permit process. Is this going to be something that is, um, assumed to be granted and it's just okay there's going to be a meeting but they're going to grant it or is it going to be assumed to be like no there's going to be major major major pushback on all of these and incredible political you know obstacles and actually the special permit is really going to mean they're not going to happen and where i come down currently is that i don't think it's either of those i think it's going to be a legitimate process um you know i think the the various planning and zoning boards take this process seriously and will not automatically Approve or not approve one of these things. We'll seriously listen to what the concerns are and decide whether it's an appropriate permit to grant. You know, maybe that's optimistic or naive, but that's kind of coming into this meeting that that's where my head was at was. I fully support the intent of this and for the neighborhood residents, it would make sense to me to have it be by special permit. But I definitely like my interest has been peaked by what Councilor Davis is talking about of whether there should just be nuance about the nature of the shelters and neighborhood residents. So I'm totally open to rethinking where I'm at. Any colleagues wanna share their thoughts at this point? Councillor Klingon.

Well, admittedly, not having followed this discussion super closely, but I just want to say that I'm somewhat confused as far as where it talks about additional uses. I think when I think of a shelter, well, there's drop-in shelters, but then there's also family shelters like we used to have on Cross Street. where they sort of have, you know, people living there for an extended period of time. But when I think of like group homes and stuff like that, you know, I mean, the fair housing, I know that there's like a, there's like a group home up near me and I remember the neighbors were, I'm probably blaming the exalt, the former alderman that he thought he could have blocked it. But I, you know, explaining to them that we can't. So that would be like something that happens in the neighborhood residential where you have like a group home

So I'm just, I don't know, I'm just not following.

So are you talking about opening up a drop-in style shelter and neighborhood residential?

Yeah, Councillor Davis, do you want to respond?

Yeah, I'm happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to Councillor Klingon. Essentially, yes. I think if I understand your question, Councillor Klingon, that, you know, the slide that's here on the right, if I understand it correctly, Annalisa Carr, please jump in if I'm wrong, but I think what we're saying is that, you know, there are uses that are currently permitted, like the sober living houses, transitional housing, veteran group housing, etc., And and there's there's a few on the left hand side that maybe aren't, but we could certainly could consider including those to be to be you know, allow those in neighborhood residents and what we have in front of us now would allow a homeless shelter as it's defined, which is, you know, any kind of shelter that you could, you can imagine, right. You know, including what you described as a drop-in shelter, you know, in the neighborhood residents, either by right, always with a neighborhood meeting and conversation. But, you know, the question is whether it would require a special, whether it would be permitted at all or permitted with a special, a special permit. And so that's what I was trying. The point I was trying to make was I'm seeing all this laid out. I think that there is an argument for, you know, maybe addressing some of the nuances in the neighborhood residents to allow other uses other than how you described, Councilor Kling, a drop in shelter that are worth considering. And that's what I was trying to lay out. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to explain that.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Councilor, through the Chair.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Yeah, I mean, I agree with what Councilor Ewen Kemp had said that, you know, Whenever we have something in front of us, we can imagine sort of whatever you want to call doomsday scenarios that are probably never going to materialize. But we also want to make sure that we're being permissive enough that we can address the needs of our community, you know, without being too, quote unquote, nimby. Yeah, I'd like to kind of think on this a little more. I'll follow up with more comments.

Councilor Said?

Through you, Chair. First, I want to thank Ms. Carr for the presentation. I'll be honest, before getting your presentation, I have not been thinking about all the different types, all the different uses in neighborhood residents. So this is very helpful to see also how other town cities are approaching this. So I think it's worth that we discuss and we give it the time it needs, like for neighborhood residents, all the different types that we would like to see there. I am supportive of homeless shelters in neighborhood residents. I see why, you know, we would, like, I'm inclined to approve something that would special permit, not just a neighborhood meeting. But I think, again, there's a whole piece of what are all the different things that we'll be approving. Is it anything or first defining all the different types that we're going to see there before we approve neighborhood residents with special permit or without. And I do have a question to staff here about... the special permit is this different from the special permits that we get for you know anything that we're trying to build you know in the city is how how is this different uh if we were to go with you know homeless shelter you know in neighborhood residents require a special permit what does that mean you know for the public and also for us

Deputy Director, do you want to take that one? The special permit process in this context?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. This process wouldn't be, you know, this special permit process for a homeless shelter wouldn't be treated any differently than a typical special permit process. You know, the findings would be made by the respective granting authority and conditions may or may not be imposed based on the the conversation that unfolds um so you know there's there's really no difference um the process would would be the same it probably um you know obviously on a case-by-case basis depending on what is proposed might generate more discussion or maybe different uh lengths of time for a hearing but um otherwise no thank you thank you director and you know there will be a list of

Considerations that the planning board or the zoning board, I guess zoning board in this case, would refer to, right? It would have to do with site-specific issues, et cetera.

Yes, that's correct.

Councilor Saeed, is that all you have?

Yeah, I'll say it.

Well, Councillor Davis, I will admit I came prepared to vote, but I'm more than happy if you want to take some time to think about a potential amendment to this. Obviously, we should do that then. Oh, and I see Ms. Carr.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to raise one other consideration for folks in the conversation this evening in terms of the timeline for this item. So because it was introduced prior to the summer recess period and had a 90-day window for final action following the public hearing process, September 16th would be the final day for action for this active item. So just wanted to raise that as part of the conversation. And of course, if folks are interested in continuing to iterate on it, an additional item could be brought forward, but would require a new public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Certainly relevant. So thinking out loud here, but we could prepare possible amendments to this for our next regular meeting. we could move on what's before us in some version, or obviously we can resubmit and have another public hearing. Not the end of the world if there's stuff that councillors want to work on. But that's helpful to know. Thank you. What do you think, Councillor Davis?

Thank you, Annalis Carr, for reminding us of the timing of this. I'm open to whatever... we collaboratively, whatever the consensus is here, I think given the way this was presented, how I laid it out when I submitted it, the idea that I specifically wanted to have a conversation about the neighborhood residents and that approach, I think, and the compelling argument that the chair made, i would be perfectly comfortable um and we'd have to i guess a quick conversation here about the about the the mechanics but if i would be perfectly comfortable um you know proposing an amendment to the proposed amendment this evening to uh to change the to change the status of neighborhood residents to require a special permit leaving the rest as it was. I think that would be the only change. We'd literally have to change one P to an NR on one of the tables to accomplish that. That seems like a reasonable approach. And I still think there's a conversation about other uses that maybe wouldn't be considered homeless shelters, like in those other slides we talked about. But I think that's a separate conversation because probably not close enough to what was advertised and what we had the hearing on anyways. I'm kind of inclined to do that, make that change, recommend it out if that's the will of the committee. Then, you know, if we get feedback, if the rest of the council members next Thursday have concerns, we can always, you know, effectively send it back to committee, re-advertise, have another hearing and continue the conversation. We don't want to rush anything, but that feels like a perfectly reasonable landing point if that's where we ended up tonight to me.

Thank you, counselor. I agree. I think that that is where I would want to go. I guess I'm just thinking through the mechanics. Would the motion be to ask our staff to draft the amendment just to make sure that we're dotting all the I's, catching all the places to have homeless shelters by special permit in neighborhood residents? Just want to confirm that that's the intent instead of trying to do the line edits tonight, unless you're extremely confident that, you know, it's just that final table.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I think ultimately, yeah, I think that that's probably correct. I mean, and I see analyst Carr has her hand up today. I think we probably can identify where that change would be. It's probably changing, you know, you said 1P to an SP, but I think that we should... the motion should be to do for the concept. And in the discussion of that motion, we could point out, we think this is where it's going to be, but, you know, request that we have a version before us that reflects that concept, if there's anything else that we realize tomorrow that needed us to be there. I'd like to hear Analyst Carr on this, Mr. Chair, if we could. Assuming, Samantha, that you want to answer that question.

Yes, Analyst Carr, please.

Yes, through the chair. Thank you. Just wanted to say I'm happy to prepare. It's quite a small change to the current document before us. So happy to respond if the vote is to recommend approval, amending the amendment to allow by special permit in the neighborhood residents to have that document prepared for the council meeting next Thursday. Thank you.

Excellent. Councillor Klingham.

Yeah, so just a quick question to where we might have the answer. So as it stands right now, like say if a place like a VinFen place has like a license to do a group home, they don't go for a special permit as it stands now, correct?

Analyst Carr, you know the answer to that one. VinFen.

Through the chair, if you were to go towards the end of this proposal, actually to the summary table. Let me see. I think I've got it pulled up.

I was looking at it.

A little bit further down the document. The page or. Yeah, thank you.

It's 38, right? 38? I believe so.

Thank you. And if you go down to the residential categories, institutional housing, so the sub-use that's treated particularly for institutional housing, community or group residences, this is the current summary table between the districts. So you'll see in the residential zones that is a permitted use currently. And it's my understanding that the facility you were speaking to, Councillor Klingin, would fall under that and happy to defer to the planning team if there's any other nuance to consider there. Thank you.

So that would be community or group residence? Is that what you're saying?

Through the chair, that's my understanding. Yes, thank you.

Okay. Councillor Klingin, do you have more on that? No, it's just, yeah, I mean,

I think that if you're having a place for the unhoused people to show up more like a drop-in versus like a family shelter like we had on Cross Street before it closed. My mom actually worked there. I don't know that I think we would need a special permit. I don't know how to differentiate between the two, but I definitely am leaning towards... you know, I do think a little bit of a moral bus and just a community meeting, um, just so that we know who the player is and, you know, kind of if they have a track record or what, what the situation is going to be, um, in that area in terms of responsibility and, and, you know, responsiveness and, and, and all that. Um, I, I do think that a special permit may, um, maybe warranted again, just depending on the specific, um, type use, but I certainly, if it's classified as a shelter, but it's family shelter or not, you know, not just drop in or like wet shelter, I'm not a shelter expert. So I just wanna make sure that we're, you know, doing what makes sense for, you know, for a neighborhood street and so on.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Davis.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I wanted to just jump in again here and just sort of thinking about the logistics. And I would value the input of anyone from Annalisa Carr or anyone from planning or the clerk just to kind of check me on this. I think there might be, it might be worthwhile to actually take a vote to amend the text so that at least as long as we get it right, what we would then potentially vote on next Thursday is the item before us, is the text that's before us, just so there's no question about having a separate submission or anything like that. I won't speak to the legality of whether that would work or not work. I'm not saying there's any issue with that at all. I'm just saying if we have what's before us, and I think, Annalise Carr, am I correct that it would be I think both columns in the table 3.1.16 and then the summary table at the end, are those the places we need to make a change to do what we're talking about? Through the chair?

Through the chair, yes, that's my understanding. I don't anticipate there'd be additional changes to the document beyond that, but of course, happy to take a scan to make sure we're dotting the I's and crossing the T's. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, if I could.

Yes, please.

Unless anyone has a strong feeling otherwise, and I see Councillor Klingon's hand up. Before I make a motion, I'm happy to hear any.

I'll wait till I'm called on.

Councillor Klingon, go ahead.

It's just a thought. I just was like, I see, you know, we're searching. I see that we're homeless. I was just thinking, And I don't know, maybe it's already in here. You know, like I said, I didn't scour the document, but what if there was a way to differentiate by calling it like emergency housing or something along those lines, which might help differentiate. But I don't want to sidetrack what you're doing. So just throw that out there while you were figuring out the logistics.

Okay. Yeah, let's finish up what Councillor Davis was thinking.

May I go ahead, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. Thank you. So looking at the text of the proposed amendment that's before us on, what is page three? So this is the, yeah, I think that should be it. Yeah, yeah. And there, that's that table there. So table three, and just scroll back up a little bit. The use tables have two columns. If you look at the language in the beginning, the first column, column one is just sort of the generally applicable, what use is allowed in the zones. The second is for adaptive reuse of buildings. So this is a scenario where you can see what it says. It's a commercial building type. constructed before the ordinance. So there's some sort of outliers and anyone on the call, please correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong, but as it was explained to me, and as I recall, there are some outlier buildings. And so there were some reasons why we might want to treat some of those differently. I don't think we have to worry about that in the context of this, unless someone disagrees. But I think my inclination would be to make the change for the sake of not getting into what adaptive reuse of specific buildings might apply to the neighborhood resident zone, maybe just make this change across the board. And then if there is some reason to reconsider it, we can certainly do that Thursday, but that's a really nuanced issue if there is anything. So section, table 3.1.16, section 3.1.16 in our zoning code is the section that addresses residential uses. So this is the table for the neighborhood residents. and the uses that are permitted there. So this is what we're talking about. And so if you can see on the screen in the section under residential, the red language homeless shelter is added there with a P for permitted in both column one and column two. Mr. Chair, I move to amend the proposed amendment before us to change The P in both of those columns to be SP, which would mean it requires a special permit in the neighborhood residence zone for a homeless shelter. Homeless shelter is a defined term, which is actually at the bottom of the submission here, if folks want to take a peek at that. But we've talked about that in the past. I don't think we need to get into that. But it's down there. And then... Should I do this in two votes? Let's do this in, well, no, let's do it because it has this exact same effect. So let's do it in one vote. So my motion is to make two sets of changes. The one I just described to change those in table 3.1.16 permitted uses for homeless shelter from P for permitted to SP for special permit in both columns. And then in the summary table down below, which is section nine something. scrolling you're all there oh there you're there first table 9.1.1 which is a summary table um to uh make a corresponding change to uh if you scroll down to residential categories there you see um for homeless shelter for just the uh well actually wait yeah so for just the first column nr to change that P to an SP. That would effectively just, it's the same change, it's the same substantive thing, it just makes the summary table reflect the substantive change we made above. I believe those are the only changes we need to make this, so I so move, Mr. Chair. I would welcome discussion on the motion as well as any feedback from anyone with more zoning expertise than me if I've gotten any of that wrong.

All makes sense to me. Discussion on the motion. Are there counselors who want this as two motions so they can throw an insane monkey wrench where they vote for the substantive change, but not for the, just kidding. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none, let's call the roll on these changes to have homeless shelters and neighborhood residents be by special permit.

Okay, just to make sure I have this fully reflected accurately, we're changing both columns of the first section from P to SP, and then we're changing this first column, this NR column, just this one in this section from P to SP. Just that one, right?

Correct. Mr. Chair, I'm going to say it out loud to Annalisa Carr. The first change in 3.1.16, that's entirely about neighborhood residents. The UR table is pages later. The summary table, neighborhood residents, is just that very first column. So that's why the motion is what it is. I got that right? I see nodding heads. I see thumbs up for folks who aren't looking at the cameras. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Davis. Okay. Does the clerk have those?

Yes. Changing table 3.1.16, change the P to SP in both columns. And in table 9.1.1, change the first column, which is the NR column from P to SP. On that motion. Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Klingon.

Yes.

Councillor Sait. Yes. Councillor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Chair Young-Kampen.

Yes.

All right, with that, that is all votes in the affirmative of this motion.

Excellent. Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to recommend approval of the change, the amendment to the zoning code as amended this evening. Yeah, that's it.

On the item as amended, is there any discussion? Seeing none, let's call that roll.

All right. On the item approved as amended, Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Klingin.

Yes.

Councillor Saeed.

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Chair Ewan Campin.

Yes.

All right. With that, that is all votes in the affirmative as well.

Excellent. Well, thank you, Councillor Davis, for leading on this and to everyone for getting this over this important hump. Seeing no further business before the committee, can we take off the two items from the table and adjournment in one vote clerk?

Yes, we can. And I'll just read those first two into the record. So items number one, ID number 26-0942, approval of the minutes of the Land Use Committee meeting of May 21st, 2026. And item number two, ID number 26-1147, approval of the minutes of the Land Use Committee meeting of June 18th, 2026. So taking both of those items up together for approval as well as adjourning. Councillor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Klingon?

Yes.

Councillor Saeed?

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Chair Young-Kampen.

Yes.

All right. With that, it is 7.42 p.m. and we are adjourned.

Excellent. Thank you all. Great meeting. Have a great weekend, everybody. Bye-bye.