Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I'll call this meeting of the land use committee to order. We're having a joint public hearing with the planning board this evening. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting is being 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 Summerville's website and local cable access government channels. Could we please call the roll?

This is roll call. Councilor Davis. Councilor Klingen?

Present.

Councilor Saeed? Here. Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

Chair Yoon Kampen?

Here.

Alright. With that, we have four members present, so we do have quorum.

Excellent. So, colleagues, this is the first meeting of the land use committee for this year. We finally have some items before us for public hearings. And I'll just say before we go into recess to let the planning board start, just for everyone's awareness, we have two public hearings before us, and then we have a discussion item. So we're gonna have the public hearings first, joint with the planning board, then we'll allow them to adjourn their their joint meeting with us. And then the committee will stay on for a discussion that's not about a particular set of amendments before us. So with that, we will sit in recess while the planning board convenes their meeting.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Mike Capuano. I am the chairman of the planning board. With me tonight on the planning board is our vice chair, Amelia Aboff our clerk, Jahan Habib our members, Lynn Richards, Luke Schuster, and Michael McNeely. We will have I don't know if she's quite here yet. We will have, Coralie Cooper joining us. She may just be a little bit late on this link. The planning board also has a quorum. And what I'd like to do is have our clerk read into the record the notices of public hearing for this joint hearing with the Landis Committee.

Absolutely, mister chair. Councilor Estrasso, councilor Ma, councilor Davis, councilor Sate requesting an amendment to sections two point one point one and three point one point one two of the zoning ordinances regarding accessory dwelling units. Mayor Wilson requesting ordainment of an amendment to section 8.1 of the zoning ordinance to provide for larger buildings, additional dimensional flexibility, and fewer use restrictions for affordable housing projects. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you.

With the notices of public hearing read into the record and the role having been called with planning board, I would certainly welcome the land use committee to reconvene.

Thank you very much. Mister chair, can we, call the roll to establish quorum, please?

Yes. We can. Councilor Davis. Councilor Klingen.

Here.

Councilor Saeed. Here. Councilor McLaughlin.

Here.

Chair Ewen Kampen? Here. Alright. With that, four members have returned, so we do have quorum.

Excellent. And we we may be joined by councilor Davis. He's in transit, so that is why he's not here at the moment. So, colleagues, for each of these, we're gonna open up the item. We're gonna hear a brief presentation on the content. Then if there are kind of urgent questions, I I'd ask that those wait till after the public hearing. And then if there are clarifying questions that members of the committee has, we can certainly take those up. And, hopefully, we won't have too much discussion on these because, you know, the point of tonight is a public hearing. And at a future meeting, we will actually be deliberating. With that, can we take up item one dot one, please? Can you read that item?

Yep. Item one dot one, ID number 26Dash0204, referred for recommendation, requesting ordainment of an amendment to section 8.1 of the zoning ordinance to provide for larger buildings, additional dimensional flexibility, and fewer use restrictions for affordable housing projects.

Excellent. So, director Bartman, do you have a presentation on this?

I do, mister Shearer. I will share my screen. And I'm making sure you can see that, everybody.

We can, and we can see the whole screen. It's not a presentation.

Thank you, mister chair. Through you, good evening, members of the, city council land use committee and the Somerville planning board. My name is Dan Bartman. I'm the director of the planning department, for the city of Somerville, and I have a share very short presentation about the the amendment we filed for adjustments to the affordable housing overlay. Before I begin this, I wanna recall a, 09/18/2025 presentation that was given to the land use committee, about mass timber construction, which is also known as type four construction in the building code.

This presentation detailed how that was recently, amended, for the Massachusetts Massachusetts state and, now allows a more economical version of high rise construction in the eight story to 18 story range for taller buildings. And that compare is a in comparison to what's called type one construction, which is typically made out of steel or concrete. And so that, presentation kinda instigated a discussion about how tall we might allow buildings in the affordable housing overlay to be constructed if especially if they were built in the mass timber form, because it would reduce the price for building delivery, that we should consider, whether or not allowing a height change. That's where this started, Where it, then gained some additional, content was in our, ongoing review of compliance, for some affordable housing projects that were be using the overlay, whether they were in process or some of our partners out there in the community that build these buildings were, hunting sites and trying to do site fit outs, where they were encountering problems. So we then, in following that that presentation about mass timber, we interviewed, many of those partners and and for challenges that they were facing related to the existing, standards of the overlay.

And so this amendment reflects, their feedback and, looking at, embracing the mass timber construction type. There are four key provisions of this amendment. One is that, we adjust some language, to introduce a table of superseding standards. So the first edit identifies that table, as superseding the same standards of the base zoning district that this overlay is mapped on top of. A section about dimensional compliance that provides a 5% margin of flexibility for all of the dimensions that are on that table, table eight point one point six.

As a use a new use provision that would exempt buildings from being required to to reserve 5% of any floor space provided for commercial uses as space for arts and creative enterprise uses. That is a typical requirement in the M R 6 zoning district and some of the higher ones, but not all of them. And then the table that I referred to previously is on the second page of the amendment, and I wanna highlight that this is an entirely new table. And in the presentation here, I I recreated it, and I added, red line text. But the table in the amendment is entirely brand new.

It replaces the table that was there previously. It whatever edits we decide to land on, if you don't wanna make all of these, then we would edit that table, and I would, give you a new page that reflects all of the red line changes. But I wanna highlight here in the presentation, the only thing that changed from the old table to the new one is actually the building height, the number of stories, and a requirement for ground floor commercial units. And then we deleted something from the old table. But the entire table is a replacement so that it is easier to use for all of our partners that are out there trying to build these buildings.

Instead of having them flip back and forth, between the code for some standards that are superseded and some that are not, they asked for a complete table that just puts all of the dimensions they need to follow on one page. So that's what that's why the amendment does that. But on this page, it I added the red line text of the things that are changing if you were to combine base dimensions and, what was allowed in the overlay. I realized this is also small, so I made this zoomed inversion, to just highlight what we're talking about is that, on MR, which stands for Mid Rise 3, which stands for three stories through Mid rise six story districts. And any parcel that is using this overlay would be allowed to have an eight story building because it would be allowed to have a taller building than previously.

We've also adjusted the building height and feet. An apartment building has slightly different dimensions than a general building because the Ground Floor typically has some commercial space with a higher ceiling in it. That's why you see the difference between 96 feet and a 100 feet. As I mentioned previously, we've changed the ground story commercial requirement to just one unit, of commercial space, and then also deleted the upper story step backs that were, on the previous table on the prior on the existing version of this overlay district. The main reason for these, is that, one, an upper story step back is has cost the city either bedrooms in affordable units that are produced on that top floor, or it, cost us entire units, because the upper story step back can house more interior space.

And that the Ground Floor requirement for commercial space that's in the existing ordinance along with the 5% requirement for some of that space to be provided for arts uses can interfere with requirements, that the financing programs for these buildings, that our partners need to tap into to actually build these. They don't like commercial development. They certainly don't like stipulations about the land use that needs to occupy, that space, because they wanna maximize their investment for, residential units. And, but we are encountering, our partners in the community in, expressing interest in some, lots that are along our main streets. And most of our main streets have a pedestrian street designation on the zoning map that requires certain uses on the ground floor and for commercial space to front 100% of the building.

And so in realizing in our current market conditions that some of these sites that are have been undeveloped or remained vacant for a number of years now are are becoming ideal for an affordable housing project. And but because they're along our main street, we needed to step back and ask ourselves, what do we wanna do with the standards for the about pedestrian streets in these situations? And where we landed is that we want would still like one commercial space of any size, but one that has no land use restrictions on it when one of these buildings, wants to, use a site that's along our main streets. So that's a summary of all of this the edits to this section, and I'd be happy to answer any questions of the, committee or planning board if you have any.

Thank you, director. Are there clarifying questions from the committee or from the planning board? I see. Planning board member, Aboff.

Thank you. I believe that this building typology also usually has some more strict requirements in terms of just what the envelope appearance is and sort of, like, the the pattern of fenestration and, drag of a better word, sort of texture on a building envelope using this building typology might be different from what we normally see. I believe as the zoning is currently written, this urban design principles are prescriptive but also not required. Was there any thought given to addressing conflicts with urban design principles for a given section for this building topology also?

Through the chair. I'd be curious if you, have any specifics. We through our interviews with the affordable housing developers that are building in the city, we didn't, they didn't bring up any challenges specific to, like, the cladding or the amount of windows or, texture added to the to the building, facade design. So we didn't really explore making any edits in that way. We really focused on their feedback, and where they were encountering problem physical design problems or any kind of potential financial issues.

Thank you.

Director, I just wanna make sure that I understand the, exemption for arts and creative space. So many MR this lots around the city, an affordable project wouldn't require ground story commercial or any commercial space. So there's no whether or not we exempt it, it it's it's a moot point. Right? This is specifically for buildings on a pedestrian street, which is a, you know, a zoning term that we have certain areas of the the of the city are called pedestrian streets.

There is a requirement that they have at least one ground floor commercial space, but this would exempt them from having 5% of that be for arts and creative use.

And, yes, mister chair. And only in our highest density mid rise zoning districts because that standard's not across the board. So for instance, in an M R six district that would trigger, if it was on a pedestrian street, and but that requirement would require commercial space for the full width of the building aside from the, like, entry lobby, and that 5% of that commercial space be provided to an ace one of the ace uses. There's a lot of them that qualify, but that would not be required in this situation. It's just be one commercial space of any size would still need the front of the building, but not the full width and not not any kind of stipulation on what specific land use could occupy that space.

This wouldn't prevent an ACU from occupying the space. It would just not mandate a specific use in a desire to not create any kind of financial problems, by mandating a specific land use be in that same building.

Right. Okay. And the the motivation for this was hearing from affordable housing developers that their funders could have a problem on use restrictions. Is that right?

Yes. It wasn't specific to ICE uses, and and there was still some desire to potentially even provide some commercial uses that might benefit, the tenants of the building, and the broader community. So, like, for instance, financial services could be occupying that Ground Ground Floor that that helps people understand finance you know, sound financial planning. Those kind of support services go well with our affordable housing, buildings. That's just one example.

It could be a a small shop, all all kinds of different things. It could be an ACUs. But, ideally, they're they're probably thinking about putting in something that might support their residents more in nature. And so that's why we backed off of the specific land use requirement that's still thought of commercial space because it's on a a main street, not wanting it to end up with just, with typically at the a kind of a closed off residential frontage. One place that we thought about was if you ever have walked Broadway in South Boston.

There's a section of their main street there that there's a an affordable housing residential project, and so the main street has, like, a big gap. It's not that we didn't want that land use, but we asked ourselves, would we have liked to see some commercials still sprinkled in with that development if that were, you know, being built here? And and for us and our main streets, it was, yes. We would like to see some. But we understood that it we shouldn't mandate it the entire length because that would also cost us units just like that upper story step back was. So they they also expressed a desire to put in ground floor units because those are more accessible directly from the street and from the lobby entrance. So that kinda all lined up to us backing off of the the use restriction.

Okay. Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate it. Seeing no more hands raised, let's go to the public hearing.

Eventually, mister chair, I just wanna recognize that we have our, last member of the planning board who has joined us, Coralie Cooper. She has, I think, maybe had a little bit of an issue. She's she's logged in, and and is being shown as our staff liaison, Alvaro Espaza. She is not Alvaro, but, just to clarify, we do have a full contingent of the planning board present.

Excellent. Thank you, mister Scher. So members of the public, we're gonna open the public hearing. We're gonna ask that everyone keep their remarks to two minutes. Anyone wishing to speak, you can use the raise hand function, and I'll call on people in order, and then we'll unmute you on our end. We ask that you give your name and your address. If you're not a sum of a resident, then, you know, your your connection. And bear with us. This is our first public hearing of the year. So if there's technical glitches, apologies.

So I now declare this public hearing open. I see Amy Bennett and then Ethan Dussault. So let's go Amy first, please. Amy, you're unmuted on our end. Can you try unmuting on your end?

Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Sorry about that. Hi. My name is Amy Bennett. I'm a volunteer for the ArtStaysHere Coalition. I live in Dorchester, but I do lots of volunteer work in Somerville. ArtStaysHere mission is to preserve the current art space we have, create more inventory of affordable artist workspace, and affordable artist housing. I support building more affordable housing in Summerville and appreciate that we should support those willing to create 101100% affordable housing projects.

I understand there are hurdles to development, that development of 100% affordable housing is expensive, and those who seek to do so may not easily afford including Summerville's 5% arts and creative enterprise requirement. Somerville needs both affordable housing and affordable art space. It shouldn't be a choice of one or the other. We should support the city to develop policies that can support both. I request that the city move forward with long awaited policies for in lieu and in kind ACE payments as well as the creation of a Summerville Cultural Trust.

If these policies were in place, there may have been other solutions for this affordable housing overlay, other than losing, the required ACE set aside. In the meantime, I respectfully request that if 100% affordable housing is built and the ACE requirement is relaxed, that some of the affordable housing be earmarked for certified Summerville artists. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Amy. Next up, we have Ethan Dussault followed by Joshua, Michel. Ethan, you're unmuted on this end.

Okay. Am I coming through?

Yes.

Okay. Hi, everybody. Ethan Dussault. I live in Ward 4. I run an ACE business in Ward 2.

I play in Ward 3, and I'm a volunteer arts and cultural space advocate with ArtStays here. First, I wanna thank the city staff and my neighbors, including elected officials and housing advocates, for their work on bringing this important amendment forward. I'm largely in support of this amendment, so the following remarks are simply to name some reminders that crossed my mind when reviewing its text, reminders of just some of the work to be done as we collectively address the issues around the affordability crisis. As far as zoning goes, this is a relatively straightforward amendment. And while I feel like that should be a relief, I can't help but think that if we had already passed some of the long promised arts and creative enterprise related policies by now, policies like ACE and loop payments and ACE and kind contributions, we might have come up with an amendment a little more nuance than simply removing the commercial space and arts and creative enterprise space requirements.

Other ACE related policies that could have helped, for example, include percent for arts and the cultural trust, which is being promoted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the Arts Council, Mass Creative, Art Stays Here, and more. All this is to say that this amendment, though I support it at the end of the day because it will yield some really good results. It feels like a perpetuation of the either or narrative, and I'm always striving for creative ways to live up to that meme of the little girl with her arms up and shrugging, why not both? If we can bring into existence permissions for ACE that are long promised, then we will be better positioned to bring into existence more permissive zoning amendments that could help even more stakeholders. Thank you, and I I look forward to seeing these buildings with this built under this overlay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Joshua followed by Denise Provo.

Hello. My name is Joshua Mitchell of 1 D Clark Street in Ward 2. I really like this proposal. I think it's great to increase the flexibility of the affordable housing overlay by increasing the height, removing the step backs, and simplifying the commercial requirement. It'd also be nice, I think, to, decrease the minimum ground elevation to make the bottom floor units more access more easily accessible without taking up too much floor space. I do have a question, though, is if mass timber is more economical at eight to 18 stories, why are we starting at only eight stories instead of going even higher like Cambridge has done? It'd be much more efficient use of our public money to support the creation of these affordable housing projects if they're allowed to be taller. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we have former alderman and state representative Denise Provo. Welcome.

Good evening, mister chairman and planning board members. Looking for I would like to comment briefly on this proposal, which I find very complex. And I have trouble foreseeing what kind of unexpected consequences might flow from it. My first impression was that it might have been created to enable one or more specific projects, in which case, I would rather see a boatload of variances than a change to the entire zoning ordinance, which could very well play out in ways that we don't foresee. Affordable housing is a very important good, public good.

So are the arts, but so is open space, landscaping, civic space. And the flexibility is a good concept, but building in too much flexibility in a city as dense as ours brings a risk of losing a good balance among different public goods. I appreciate the intentions here, and I would be glad to see projects like this. I just hesitate to endorse encoding all of this permission into ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. And another former elected official is next. Beatriz Gomez Moacad, welcome.

I need to unmute myself. Thank you for listening to me. I was here just to listen. I'm here also as the housing development director for Somerville Community Corporation. I wanna thank the city, the city council, and the land use committee for considering this amendment to the affordable housing overlay.

I wasn't going to speak, but I wanna share some of my knowledge on affordable housing, understanding the challenges. I wanna explain why we didn't do, why we don't wanna include be open about what kind of commercial space we do. So most affordable housing projects rely on tax credits, and tax credits have something called eligible basis. That means a space is eligible, basically, if it's housing or supports housing. And in a competitive market where we wanna, you know, get every inch we can of funding to build, this is important.

I also, want to so this is why we are I think this is happening. I also wanna understand and folks understand the competitiveness of the market out there. This year, there were 105 applicants for tax credits, only 25 were competing throughout the state. And in order to be competitive, two things the state is looking. They want you to be building as of right.

So if you're going for variances, you're making yourself less competitive. There also is a cost issue. If you're they don't want you spending more than $65,700,000 per unit. I can tell you that's really hard to do in Somerville just when you have land costs and other costs. So there's a lot of challenges that I think folks don't understand. I just wanted to share. I think everybody has a right to speak, but I wanted to give you that background. And, again, thank you for considering, and do remember that the tax credit project as it would help, are required to have 60% AMI or less. It's an affordability that we really need in the city. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And let me applaud all of our speakers on the timing of their remarks tonight. Very much appreciated. Crystal Huff is next.

Hello. My name is Crystal Huff. My pronouns are theythem. I live in Ward 5. I would like to express my support for going slightly further than the zoning amendment personally in a couple of ways.

I'd love to see us remove any setback requirements in upper stories, honestly, even when next to NR zoning. Like, maybe that's controversial, but I think it's a waste of opportunity to house more people, and I am seeing too many of my neighbors displaced. I would also like to ask that the city council remove the zoning requirement that has, like, the half story rise for residential housing that was mentioned earlier. Like, this problem in the zoning has caused us to build all of our housing in an inaccessible fashion, and people are displaced from Somerville when they need accessible housing. And I would just like to see us stop requiring that our housing be inaccessible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Crystal, that is the last person with their hand raised at this point. Okay. We now have Meredith Porter followed by Tori Antanino. Meredith, you're up.

Hi. Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Avenue. I appreciate everyone's efforts on this. I do see a number of problems with it. One which I'm sure that Tori will comment on is that in the MR3 through MR5 zones, the maximum lot coverage is being increased from 90% to 100% and the minimum green score is being reduced from 0.25 minuteus 5% to 0.2 minuteus 5% of the numeric value, which I believe would be 0.19, not 0.15.

The minimum open space is being reduced from 15% minus 5% to 10% minus 5%, which I believe means 9.5%. There are many other changes that are being made here. It's very complicated. For example, the secondary front parking setback, the minimum is being increased from 10 feet or two feet to 30 feet. I think that's probably an error.

There are a lot of other things, side setbacks, number of stories we know about is being changed. Ground story fenestration for general buildings is being changed. Then in addition to that, it's somewhat complicated to say the least because if you look at the wording of this, it would seem as though these dimensional standards for the mid rise districts are the only dimensional standards that now apply, the ones that are called out in the table. In which case, Joshua, I believe it was, who talked about the ground story elevation being a minimum of two feet, that would be abolished because the way the wording reads in Section BII and AII and BII, the standards no longer supersede or supplement. These standards supersede and there's no reference to the underlying zoning district standards.

So it appears that these are totally replacing all of the dimensional standards. The table name is also being changed to superseding dimensional standards. So if that's the case, there are a lot of other requirements that are going away entirely. Example, lot

Meredith, can I ask you to please finish up the thought, and we'll take any additional comments written?

So other things like lot width are being eliminated and so on. So I think this needs to be worked out. Is there a requirement on roof mounted mechanicals, etcetera? So somebody should look this over. There's also issues like minor issues like

Meredith, I'm going to ask you to just please wrap up.

Mins? Okay.

We'll pass two minutes.

Open space and parking should be labeled min, and lot depth should be less than or equal or greater than or equal. I'll leave it at that. Very complicated. Thanks for your patience and listening to me.

Thank you very much. And to to everybody listening, we'll always be accepting written comment as well, if what you would like to communicate takes longer than two minutes. Tori Antanino.

Hi. This is Tori Antonino at 65 Boston Street. It's good to see, I guess, barriers to affordable housing creation being encouraged. I personally feel that open space and greenery is is a human right, and and so is housing. And I don't want these two to be at odds to each other.

So, personally, I would rather see this go even higher and to keep a little bit more open space for the residents who live there. If that is not possible, something I think that does add vitality to anyone's existence is having, like, a balcony with a space for a planter. There's just nature nourishes the soul. There is countless studies and articles supporting this. And, unfortunately, our current green score is doing what I feared would happen in the beginning, which is allowing the allowing the metric to be achieved by creating massive amounts of permeable pavement.

And so I don't know there is not a lot of space since this is built out to the lot lines, but I don't know what how the green score how green this place space would will be without the with the green score being so weak and then weakened. Luckily, there still will be a vegetative roof? I don't see that being exempt. So perhaps there'll be accessible roof options to the people who live here. Again, complicated even though it seems straightforward. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I do see a hand raised. We're we're not gonna have repeat speakers on each item tonight, but we welcome any written comment that there is. Is there anyone who hasn't spoken still wishing to speak?

Alright. So we will close this portion of the public hearing. Mister chairman, we're planning to leave the written public comment period open until next Friday, March 27 at noon. Is that correct?

That is the same for the planning board. That is that is correct, mister chair.

Excellent. So anyone wishing to send written comment that can be sent to is it planning1@SummervilleMA.gov?

I think for us, it's planningboard@SomervilleMA.gov. I do not know if it's different for you, or maybe we can get some some guidance on if there's a comprehensive place where all of the comment will go.

Director, please. I'm sorry. All all public comments should be sent to public comments at Somerville MA dot gov. That goes to the clerk's office, and then they're distributed to the other departments.

Exactly what I was hoping to hear.

Public comments at somervillema.gov. Alright. Thank you all very much. Is there a hand raise? No. Let's take up the next item, please, our next public hearing.

Alright. Next on the agenda, item 1.2, ID number 26Dash0234, amending sections two point one point one and three point one point twelve of the zoning ordinances regarding regarding accessory dwelling units.

Excellent. So just as a little bit of context here, this amendment, sponsored by cows counselor Strezo, I just want members of the public to hear counselor Strezzo reached out to me before the meeting and said after tonight's public hearing, she requests that this not be discussed in-depth until mid May. So just if folks are interested in the timeline here, this is not something that's going to be moving quickly. And we also have the city council's land use analyst here, Samantha Carr, to give a brief introduction to this item. Take it away.

Thank you, chair. For the record, Samantha Carr, land use analyst. Happy to speak to provide some contextual remarks to this proposal. Would it be possible to pull up the slides, or I'm happy to have those from my end as well?

It's not these ones. It is this one. Correct?

Yes. That's perfect. Thank you.

Thanks.

So just wanted to provide a few brief slides to to frame the conversation here around this amendment, walk through a couple of the key changes that are aligned in this text amendment. So touching upon a few categories here, I will note there's a few additional items you'll see in the red line version of the amendment, which includes introducing a definition for accessory dwelling units to clarify as the accessory building or backyard cottage use currently in Somerville as well as some verbiage added to the definition to specify both modular and on-site construction methods are permitted for this building typology. Outside of this, the main changes are happening to the building setback and building massing tables, which I'll speak to here. So first, for the building setbacks, this amendment poses to introduce two options for the setbacks in two categories. So the first would be for new construction items, and then second would be for utilization of preexisting structures.

For building projects that would fall in that first category of new construction, the existing setback standards would still remain in place. So that would be 60 feet for the primary setback from the lot line. This would allow the structure to remain tucked behind the primary structure on the property. For the utilization of preexisting structures, there's been introduced some more flexibility there to open up opportunities to potentially repurpose existing structures that might be on the lot, such as some carports that we see, in some of the older homes in Somerville. And the intention here was really to increase opportunities for incremental housing development using the resources that already exist on these lots.

As folks may be familiar with, there are some irregular shaped lots. There might be some that are narrower or more of a square shape that would have difficulty conforming to the setback standards for an accessory dwelling unit to be placed behind the primary structure. So for some of these smaller parcels that have less buildable space, the intention here was to also, allow, you know, potentially other options to explore for the accessory dwelling unit if there's a preexisting structure on the lot that could be leveraged to conform with the standards. The second piece here is increasing the maximum width and depth in the massing table for accessory dwelling units. And the intention here was to allow more prefabricated accessory dwelling units to be compliant with local dimensional standards.

The suggested measures were taken based on the scan of some of the main modular modular housing companies that produce accessory dwelling unit models in the region and were used to create an average standard for the measurements based off of that. So you'll see 40 feet was for the width there, which was kind of the maximum we were seeing for a lot of those prefabricated models. In doing so, the intention here is prefabricated units are one opportunity to reduce construction cost for accessory dwelling units. So from an affordability perspective, we're hoping this might unlock some opportunities versus site built construction. Modular housing opportunities provide kind of using that manufactured assembly line style and can help zero out some of the cost of materials and construction compared to our on-site labor for projects.

So hoping this provides some other opportunities for folks to explore. And then the last piece around massing and dimensional requirements was increasing the maximum floor plate and number of stories permitted. So currently, there's one and a half stories permitted for accessory dwelling units. Proposal suggests increasing this to two stories with the intention of increasing the livable space for residents to make full use of that second floor rather than the half story that's currently permitted. The maximum floor plate, similarly was an adjusted measure similar to the width and depth measurements to think about prefabricated structures and the average size of those, but also to introduce a little bit of flexibility for folks of how they wanna allocate that floor space.

We could go to the next slide, please. So we've touched upon a few of the goals in the previous slide, but just wanted to kinda tease those out for folks. So, really, the two areas are, one, to allow greater flexibility around the size of the accessory dwelling units as well as some methods of construction used to deliver the units with the intention of increasing living space for folks that are occupying the accessory dwelling units once they come to market and also reducing barriers to the use of prefabricated or modular structures. And second piece being to allow for renovation or conversion of preexisting structures, such as carports into accessory dwelling units to increase opportunities on size constrained lots and also allow for the sustainable repurposing of existing structures. And I will say, you know, the context of this amendment is specifically looking at regulatory mechanisms, around accessory dwelling units.

There has been an interest from the council in looking more comprehensively at policy solutions to reduce the cost of construction of accessory dwelling units and provide opportunities to allow these structures to be a more affordable point of entry to the market for first time homebuyers and families looking to pursue intergenerational living opportunities. So this will be a targeted conversation specifically around regulatory mechanisms, but there is an interest in exploring some other mechanisms from a policy standpoint that might be used to supplement this. Thank you for the time and happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there questions from the committee, from the planning board before we open up the public hearing? Alright. Let's do it. I declare this public hearing open. Members of the public, if you'd like to speak, please use the raise hand function, and then we will recognize you, in order. We ask that you keep your remarks to two minutes, please, and give us your name, your address, or your connection to the issue if you're not a Somerville resident. And I'll call on people in order as I see the hands. First, we have Heidi Meyer followed by Denise Provo. Heidi, we will unmute you on our end.

Take it away. Heidi, if you can unmute yourself on your end, we should be able to hear you. For the time being, I've seen that hand go down. If you would like to speak, just please use the raise hand function again, but we'll start with Denise Provo followed by Joshua.

Hello again, chairman and members. I'm I have sent you, some written comments, but just to give you the highlight of these, so that they're in public discourse. You may all know that the legislature enacted in 2024 a comprehensive bill titled the Affordable Homes Act, which creates statewide requirements that communities allow in their zoning ordinances for accessory dwelling units, which the state refers to as ADUs, but we don't in Somerville. And sets standards and parameters in them for size and other considerations. Somerville's zoning ordinances that deal with accessory dwelling units need to be brought into better conformity with the state law.

I've put a lot of links into my written comments so that people can access the attorney general's regulations, the state's guidance. I'm sure that you will take the time between now and mid May to look at these and bring Somerville's efforts into better conformity with what the state is requiring. Thank you for your your time and attention, and I look forward to further developments, so to speak.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Joshua Michel, and I know that I'm mispronouncing your last name. I apologize. Please correct me.

No worries. Hi. I'm Joshua Michel of one d Clark Street. I think this is a great proposal to increase the ability for homeowners fall types to create more and cheaper housing. I am really excited that this is enabling more existing structures and also has a prefabrication element to it.

Both are excellent ways to create homes at a cheaper price. And as we know, every house built decreases the competition for the rest of the housing in our city. I am slightly disappointed that there is a strict limit of 1,200 square feet on these ADUs. I would prefer to see that limit be a little bit higher, possibly at 1,600 square feet to better match the new maximum floor plates listed in these regulations. This would also allow builders to balance out the high cost of construction that we currently have and especially for handling, family size units. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Aaron Weber followed by, as I live and breathe, William White. Aaron, you're up.

Hi. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes. Great. My name is Aaron Weber. I live at 32 Summit Avenue, and I really like this proposal. The reason that I like it is that it makes it easier to build these accessory dwelling units. And I think I think they're great. I think they're an important component of of our city, and and we should do what we can to make them more possible. You know, some people have strong feelings that they might be too big or too fancy or that they won't be affordable enough. I I still think they're great. And in so many other situations, people keep saying we want larger homes, homes with three bedrooms for families with children.

And, I think that we should do what it takes to, make it easier to build these things. So thank you very much for for working on this.

Thank you very much. Next up, another former elected. Bill White, thank you for being here. Lower is yours. You're muted on your end. If you just unmute, we should be able to hear you.

Alrighty. Thank you, mister chair, to you and the honored members of the city council and also the planning board. Two minutes. Alright. I'm gonna have to talk fast. But The road to how it's paved with good intentions. Many years ago, I remember a former city council saying, we have to scrutinize everything that we do with a fine tooth comb because there were developers out there who are gonna take advantage of it. All of the admirable goals that we proposed have now been taken advantage of the developers in our residential neighborhood who was basically removing rental properties and anything that may be affordable by creating condominiums. Okay? The affordable housing goals of putting in a backyard structure, maybe to create additional rental units has been taken advantage of.

And it's very important that the city council I I think I want to express this because I've seen this representing numerous sum of the homeowners selling their residences. What developers do is anything that's for sale or even if it isn't, if it has size in the law to create a backyard cottage, they outbid everyone who may be interested in a home. They buy what's there. And if it's one or two stories, they will knock it down. So they knock it down, and they're putting out three luxury units in the triple decker and one backyard cottage, which is also luxury.

So if folks are concerned about the lack of backyard cottages being built for rental, it's not happening because developers are outbidding people because of the profits they're making. They're making huge profits, especially with the affordability requirements taking taking off. And then if they can split a lot, they're making millions of dollars with no affordability, and they're removing single families for any family in this who might wanna move to one to just live there. Two families, they're in one thing is they're knocking down. So if there are any tenants there, they don't have the advantage of the condominium conversion board.

That's because it's not a conversion. It's new construction. So developers who don't wanna deal with the condominium conversion board, especially, they're knocking them down. So this is only gonna create a more more of a windfall for developers in the city. I I appreciate the fact that it's being held further debate, so I will follow this up.

And this is something that's important that I will discuss further with my own zoning proposals that I've submitted because I'm quite concerned about how our property in our residential neighborhoods are gonna be taken away, and especially from people with, like, let's just think immigrants or something. In the old days, you could chip in and buy a two family home, two brothers, two siblings, whatever. And if there was a third unit, they could rent it out. These properties are taken away from them because of the condominium developments. So I I I think a long examination of what's going on in the city right now in our residential neighborhood is very important because we wanna have a mix of people and not just folks looking for election condominiums.

That's what's happening. I appreciate your allowing me to go over the limit, and I look forward to, you know, further discussion. Listen. I'm gonna submit something to the planning board because I believe the stuff I submitted to you, mister chair, in connection with my zoning amendments also would address this part. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bill White. Thank you for your time. Are there other members of the public wishing to comment? Okay. There are three hands currently. Meredith Porter, followed by Tori Antonino, followed by Jane Bestor. Meredith, the floor is yours.

Hi. Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Ave. I'll try to keep it concise this time. I like the idea of people being able to take prefabricated dwellings and do this sort of thing. I like the idea of them being able to reuse existing spaces and turn them into accessory dwelling units.

The problem I have with this is the increase in size for a backyard cottage in general. And I think that should be worked on. And the reason why I say this is because currently, developers are building large backyard cottages, so called, behind massive buildings on many lots in the city to try to just squeeze out every single square foot that they can. You'll see it all around if you have a look. And so as written, I think this amendment would make that situation worse.

And I'm hoping that you can find a way to improve this and rework it so that it will really do what you want it to do to benefit the people who who need this and not just to make our city a bunch of boxes filling up every lot to every square foot of of the in the edges of the lot. Thanks.

Thank you, Meredith. Next up, we have Tori Antinino.

Hi, Tori Antinino. 65 Boston Street. So it was a little hard from the presentation to really understand, the totality of this because there wasn't much definition given that was spoken around setbacks and increases. But so I I'm not sure how to fully articulate what I wanna articulate, but I'll try. And I guess in general, like, hopefully, there will be another public comment period once more details can be presented.

So so I guess, you know, from what I understand, the intent, again, the intent of this ordinance would be to allow for intergenerational, you know, families being able to live together for mother-in-law, father-in-law, apartment being able to be put in structure, opportunity for first time homeowners that it'd be affordable. But I don't see how this how this happens and how it doesn't become a cash grab for developers. I I just do wanna speak on we live we live in this very small area. Most of our backyards are called postage stamps. The majority of our open space comes from private on it's on private property.

The most of our trees are on private property. That's where our green space comes from until we're able to, I don't know, make more green space. We're we're right now, we're really low on the list of from municipalities for open space. So I just there's a lot of with the green score being so weak as it is, we are not getting the sort of landscape that we're we were hoping for. And so I feel like with these backyard cottages, we're creating back backyards that no longer have yards, that there's no longer space for habitat, no longer space for vegetation.

I see my time is up, but I'm this troubles me, and we're taking a lot of naturally, occurring, affordable housing and decreasing our stormwater capacity. Thanks.

Thank you, Tori. Next, we have Jane Bester.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Jane Bester. I live at 45 Ibbotts Street, Apartment Number 3, and I've lived in Somerville since 1985. I heartily endorse the deep concerns of Bill White and also of of Tore Antoninis concerns about green space in the city. I think the proposal is utterly detrimental to the future of the city and the preservation of of, you know, our residential the character of residential neighborhoods and the mix of people of different backgrounds and class orientations in the city. There's nothing to do with intergenerational families about this proposal.

Accessory dwellings are essentially have become are increasingly serving as second principle structures on a site. Everyone needs to understand that this is construction as of right. There is no possibility for neighbors to discuss the implications for their for the shadow on their property, for groundwater issues, for possibilities of, you know, access for the fire department, for just basic environmental concerns. Something terrible is really happening to this city in the way it's thinking about about building and the its use of the zoning code. Somerville is the nineteenth most dense densely populated city in The United States.

It's the most densely populated city in New England. It has the least public open space, the least public open space of any city in Massachusetts. And the demand for housing is coming from cities that have an excess of jobs and have not done their work as Somerville has done to build more affordable housing in line with the the state's requirements. I will submit written comments. Thank you. This needs to be seriously, seriously reconsidered.

Thank you very much, Jane. Is there anyone who has not spoken who would like to speak on this? Michelle Hansen.

Hi. My name is Michelle Hansen. 26 Warren Avenue. I actually oh, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Sorry. So I just I I know I'm not supposed to ask a question, but I am a little concerned of the fact that when when it was being presented, there was no pictures or anything. And I have to tell you, I kinda got lost. And I really am very interested in this because I think I'm partially for it and then also worried about the fact that if if you combine this with the splitting of lots, you end up with seven unit. You can ultimately maybe end up with seven units and no affordability at all. So, is this actually gonna be the only time there is a public comment on this?

Michelle, I'll make a general comment after that, but we're not gonna do a back and forth during the public hearing. No. No.

I don't wanna do it back. I just must say only thing I want to I mean, I'm not really gonna talk anymore other than that.

Okay. Yeah.

Well, thank you for your comments.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Going once, going twice. Alright. So this one, we're going to leave open at the request of, the sponsor until May. And let me remind myself the date we had in mind.

Yeah. The planning board intends to leave it open till May 1, which is the Friday before our May 7 meeting at noon. So Friday, May 1 at noon for the planning board.

Excellent. And we will match that. And, again, public comments can be submitted in writing to public comments at Summerville MA dot gov. So we've gotten a bunch of questions in the last couple days, about auxiliary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units in general. And so let me just say briefly, I anticipate number of discussions on this.

We, at our last city council meeting, received four resident submitted zoning proposals, several of which relate directly to accessory dwelling units. It's my understanding, although I I don't have the details, that the administration is also reviewing issues raised by the state regulations and how they compare to Somerville's and may be coming forward with a proposal of their own. It it's my general understanding that as a first order issue, the city needs to address some basic terminology discrepancies between our terminology and the state. Once that has happened, I think there is plenty of opportunity for us to get into the policy details itself. I think from my perspective, it's gonna be hard to have those conversations before we've settled some of the terminology issues.

But would there will be a public hearing. I expect it to be next month for the, zoning amendments that were submitted by residents at our last city council meeting. And so that will be another opportunity. And then, I I don't have a date, but I anticipate that the administration, may be coming forward with something of their own at some point this year as well. So that is, as I understand, the state of play on ADUs for the time being.

Thank you to everyone for coming to the public hearing. And I will say the item that we're gonna take up for discussion once the planning board adjourns is it has to do with ADUs. So we're gonna get a kind of discussion on this topic broadly without any specific amendments before us. And, certainly, no votes or proposals or anything like that will be discussed, during that. But for for people interested, you might enjoy the the conversation that we're about to have. And with that, let's give the planning board an opportunity to, get back to their business.

Thank you, chairman Ewan Kempen. The planning board will be returning to our other link at our regularly scheduled meeting, and we will be continuing our meeting at the other link. So at this point, the planning board will be stepping away from this link, and we'll see you all likely in a few weeks. Thank you so much.

Planning board. Alright, colleagues. So let's take up the last item on our agenda. Delaney, would you please read item number two?

Yep. And so we recess. We'll need to do a roll call to come back.

I don't believe we recessed, but if you say so, you're the boss. Let's do a roll call.

Okay. That is what Kim told me, so I I think we should do that. Alright. Councilor Davis. Councilor Klingen.

Yes. I hear.

Councilor Saeed. Here. Councilor McLaughlin.

Here.

Chair Yun Kampen.

Here.

Alright. With that, all four members are still present, so we do have quorum. And, also, chair Yun Kampen, to clarify, what would we like to do with those two items that we just discussed? Would we like to keep those in committee?

Yes. Those are kept in committee, and the public comment periods are held open for written comment as we mentioned.

Yes. Got it. Thanks. Alright. Next item, item number two, ID number, 26Dash0068, that this council work with the administration to clarify understanding of the rules for accessory dwelling units or affordable dwelling units as detailed within.

Excellent. So I believe that director Bartman or someone from planning has a presentation.

Hi, mister Cher. That would actually be myself. My name is Josh Manion. I'm the senior zoning review planner in ISD. Excellent.

And sorry. Before you get started, I see a hand from counselor Sayid. Did you wanna ask a question before we get started?

Yeah. Thank you, chair. Another question, more for request. I see that this presentation is not on attached to the item, so the public can open the presentation on their computers if they wish. Would it be possible for the clerk to do that?

I believe that the item is attached to the agenda overall. So

Okay.

You get out of the actual item. Let me just verify what I'm saying.

If you can explain that to the public chair, that would be great. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you for that, counselor Syed. So for members of the public, if you're clicking on the website for the agenda for tonight, there should be a number of attachments to it, and one of them is the presentation that we're about to see. This obviously a public record. Yes. It's called, land use twenty twenty six zero three nineteen LUC accessory dwelling unit. Oh, I'm sorry. No. It's presentation. Right? I'm sorry. The make sure I have the document named right. Yes. It's it's the one that says with 260068.

Thank you for coming confirming that, chair. And the other request they had, is, to we have many members of the public here. How do I put this, is to try and give the definitions, the abbreviations that we have in the presentation and just put it in very simple language. I that was a request that you heard from the public comment so folks can understand. You know, when it comes to zoning, there's a lot of technical terminology. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you. Joshua, please take it away.

Sure. So thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the council for inviting me here to speak on this. I can share my screen if that's easier. I have the presentation open to kinda navigate the slides. But Let me

Fine by me.

Sorry. I'm sharing the incorrect Can everybody see my screen?

Yes. Awesome.

So thank you again to the council for inviting me here to speak on this. And, you know, I do hope that this can kinda clear up at least some of the questions that were raised around the the previous two items. And I also wanna thank the planning staff and the legal staff and my colleagues in IST who have been working on this issue for the better part of 2025. There's a number of, as you say, discrepancies between the state's language and our zoning ordinance that have been difficult to parse out. And so we're hoping to to get some clarity and and finalize this and move forward to to to take up some of these other, amendments regarding ADUs.

So with that, I will step into the presentation. So just to provide a brief overview of, kind of what we're talking about, the, affordable homes act of 2024 was passed by the Massachusetts state legislature, that amended chapter 40 a, section three, which chapter 40 a for the members of the public is kind of the zoning enabling act in the state laws that basically allow, local municipalities to regulate land and buildings within, within their bounds. And the purpose of the affordable homes act was to encourage the production of accessory dwelling units throughout Massachusetts to provide, those incremental housing units, that were mentioned previously and to attempt to combat the rising housing costs, by increasing the quantity and diversity of housing options in the Commonwealth. The executive office of Housing and Livable Communities, otherwise known as the EOHLC, is the regulatory agency charged with, kind of setting the rules for how these ADUs were gonna be, regulated throughout throughout the municipalities, and those rules are spelled out in July CMR 71. So Summerville is kind of uniquely impact impacted by these changes, because our zoning ordinance is, as many have commented on, a little bit unique.

We use a form based code that is has very prescriptive standards and defines terms within itself and then is self referential. So, basically, meaning, like, the ordinance kind of, like, set again, sets its own rules and is not using the same terms that that the state does. And, additionally, we already sort of had an accessory building type that was already adopted in 2019, which is the backyard cottage, which is the only accessory building in the zoning ordinance. And then, again, there are just mismatches between the state's regulatory language and the zoning ordinances terms that have kind of caused some some friction between these two frameworks. So just, again, to kinda highlight some of the key terms here and, like, confusion around some of around this topic.

These are all terms that, you know, are laid out in the state regulations and then within our local ordinances and then also within certain other communities of interest. So the protected use accessory dwelling unit is specifically identified in the mass general law amendment to to 40 a section three and is further defined in seven sixty CMR 71. Accessory dwelling units as a concept are also defined within those CMR regulations. Affordable dwelling units, currently, the the zoning ordinance in Somerville, the acronym ADU is specifically referring to affordable dwelling units. And if you talk to any of the folks who do housing advocacy work and the folks in our housing division and office of housing stability, when they say ADU, they're typically referring to an affordable dwelling unit.

Similarly, accessible dwelling units are are referred to as ADUs by communities of interest advocacy work for, you know, accessibility to buildings and is often used as a colloquialism in reference to the MAB requirements. Similarly, the zoning ordinance and the state CMR language differentiate principal dwelling and principal building. Principal dwelling is a term defined in the CMR that basically refers to what we call the principal building. So there's just these, like, slight mismatches between the language that kind of have, again, caused confusion. Accessory buildings and accessory structures, the state very broadly just in in the CMR guidelines and then 40 a refer to accessory structures very broadly.

They don't differentiate three different classes of buildings as we do in the Summerville zoning ordinance. We have the principal building, an accessory building, and and then accessory structures. And then here is probably the kind of, like, the the original friction point with with these rules that were promulgated. Single family residential zoning district is I'll I'll kinda go on to define this a little bit more, but this was sort of the initial source of confusion for both the development community, the public, and city staff when trying to parse the Affordable Homes Act of 2024. The enabling legislation was published, I believe, in the 2024.

I think it was in October. And when we staff originally read it, you know, this is the language here. No zoning basically is saying that cities may not unreasonably restrict or require permits or discretionary approval for the use of land as an accessory dwelling unit in a zoning district that is a single family residential zoning district. When we originally, meaning ISD and planning staff, read this regulation, we just assumed it was not gonna be applicable to Somerville because we do not have a single family residential zoning district. We have the neighborhood residential zoning district, which does permit single family dwellings, but there is no cap on a single unit on on properties in the NR.

In the January 2025, the CMR guidelines were published in July CMR 7071. And in the definitions of that section, they specify that a in in those terms, the single family residential zoning district is any district which permits a single family residential dwelling as of right or by special permit, which for us at this time, we believe that to mean both the NR and the UR. There was a period where we were concerned that this actually was applying also to the mid rise and high rise districts because there is no density minimum requirement on the building types in those districts. So we've tried to work with the EOHLC and our legal team to kind of, like, parse out and confirm that that single family residential zoning district is really only applicable to our our residents districts and not the rest of our more dense and mixed use districts. Again, the city's legal team is kind of reviewing this further and has posed a number of questions to the state attorney general's office regarding the classification of principal building and principal dwelling as defined in the CMR guidelines and then to get confirmation that our interpretation here is that it is only applicable that these guidelines are only applicable to the two residence districts.

So very briefly, the kind of structure of the CMR guidelines are are as as written here. The intent section just reinforces the purpose is to, you know, empower property owners to develop additional housing stock of different typologies. The terms are defined, in section seventy one zero two. And then, again, this is kind of where we had to parse through and and identify all the differences between what our zoning glossary says these things mean and what the state guidelines say they mean. Gross floor gross floor area, for example, in the state guidelines refers to the floor area of compliant building code height in a building, which means, you know, at least seven foot two, whereas the zoning ordinance in Somerville defines gross gross floor area as all of the space regardless of ceiling height, interior to a building, any floor area inclusive of, you know, utility space and and things like that that would not be generally considered habitable by the building code.

Further, the compliance structures are kind of outlined in seventy one zero three and kind of identifies and I'll through this here shortly, but this is where we had the most trouble sort of piecemealing through what we could and couldn't apply because, again, our our zoning ordinance is very prescriptive, and very few other communities in the Commonwealth have different dimensional standards for buildings within the same zoning district. So this was a particularly challenging section to kind of parse through. So I'll kind of outline that here shortly. And then the reporting section basically requires municipalities to keep track of and report back to the state on an annual basis the number of dwelling units that were developed using the permissions and entitlements provided for by the CMR. So, again, with in terms of just defining terms, what the state is calling an accessory dwelling unit is a self contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping, cooking, and sanitary facilities.

And the the main kind of differentiating features here are the the highlight features are that they must maintain a separate entrance that can be, you know, either through the entry hall or a corridor shared with the principal dwelling or an entrance that is separated. And then, again, the the ADU may not be larger than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, in our terms, the principal building, or 900 square feet. So, again, it's not the principal dwelling, like, one unit in a detached house or triple decker that may have a floor area of 1,100 or 1,200 square feet. It would be the entire gross floor area of whatever number of units is in a detached house or triple decker or any of the other principal buildings provided for in our ordinance. And then finally, you know, the these the c aspect of this is really just providing that no municipality shall restrict the development of ADUs outside of may require restrictions on short term rental of of those units.

So here in seventy one zero three two, the state kind of outlines all of the regulations that we specifically may not impose on a protected use ADU. Up top, we may not require special permits, waivers, waivers in this sense meaning, like, a separate application process that is outside of a building permit process. We may not require variances or other zoning relief for the development of a protected ADU. And then further goes on to outline that we may not impose owner occupancy requirements, minimum parking requirements, use and occupancy restrictions, unit caps and density. This piece just meaning that we can't have, like, a district wide cap on the total number of ADUs.

And then, again, relationship to the principal dwelling, we can't regulate that. They they may not be attached or internal to to a unit or internal to the principal building. So kind of just, I know these slides are all very text heavy, so I do apologize about that. But, unfortunately, there's not a not a ton we can do to kinda gussy up, CMR guidelines, but, I did I did try to provide some graphics here to show what sort of forms of these a d u PADUs must be permitted by municipalities. So you can see they they could be internal to the principal building, whether in the basement or in the half story or on one of the floors of that principal building.

It can be external and attached to that principal building. It may be some combination of those two, and they could also be a separate detached structure. I would note that one of the open questions that our legal team is exploring with the state attorney general's office is whether or not a protected use ADU may still be permitted on a lot when there is already an existing ADU. In our terms, we already permit and this was we met with the EOHLC over the summer in 2025 and tried to explain to them that, like like, how this this this regulatory framework is uniquely impacting Summerville with our zoning ordinance because we've already provided for a accessory dwelling unit in the form of the backyard cottage that Frank that as others have noted tonight goes beyond some of the regulatory caps that are provided for here. And kind of the response we got was, yep.

That that does that is unfortunate, but you still need to comply with these regulations. So, currently, our understanding, with the caveat that, again, the legal team is trying to flesh this out more and get a firm response from the attorney general's office is that it may be that two accessory buildings must be permitted on the lot if the second if one of those is a protected meets the, guidelines of the protected use, accessory dwelling units. The next section of the CMR, kinda goes through the regulations that would be considered unreasonable. So this is kind of I I pulled this directly from the CMR guidelines. But, basically, any any any regulatory framework which is sought is determined to not serve a legitimate municipal interest achieved by local zoning, serves a legitimate municipal interest, but its applications to PADU does not rationally relate to the legitimate municipal interest, and then serves a legitimate municipal interest sought to achieve by local zoning and its application to a PADU, but compliance with the regulation or restriction will result in a complete nullification of the use or development of the PADU if it imposes excessive costs on the user development of a PADU without significantly advancing the legitimate interest of the municipality and its local zoning, or if it substantially diminishes or interferes with the user development of a PADU without appreciably advancing municipality's legitimate interest.

I realize that is all very confusing and that this has been, like, the biggest sticking point is trying to parse out and determine what the thresholds are for what what what is the state going to consider a regulate regulatory framework that results in the complete nullification of a p PADU. The imposing of excessive costs on the use of development of a PADU, that's also something that the state does not provide any additional, like, metrics for or benchmark for. So the this piece has been, I I think, the biggest sticking point with these regulations. So further with the the, like, the application of this unreasonableness section as it applies to the development of these PADUs, Again, any dimensional standard applied to a protected use ADU must be the same or more permissive than what is required for a principal dwelling. In our parlance, it's principal building.

A single family residential dwelling, which is any principal building that permits not more than one dwelling unit, or an accessory structure in the same zoning district. So I I've kind of tried to sketch out, and we've spent a lot of time kind of gaming out, like, absurd and, like, the worst case, if you wanna call it that scenario of what someone may use use the language of the section to effectuate with a accessory dwelling unit. Essentially, because the story count cap in our zoning ordinance is tied to the specific principal buildings, The way this regulation is framed potentially allows for a three story protected ADU if the principal building on that lot is a triple decker. It also permits a three foot minimum rear side and setback, rear and side setback unless the building is constructed of fireproof materials, in which case a zero foot setback would be permitted. This is because our accessory structure standards in section ten two two allow for outbuildings to be built on the zero lot line on the rear side of a lot if they are constructed of fireproof materials.

And because the state is specifically calling out an accessory structure, that that any regulation that is applicable to that accessory structure must also be allowed for these PADUs. They're basically saying you if there's a triple decker with a, you know, existing outbuilding that's on a zero side and rear lot line at the end of the lot and someone wants to convert that structure into a PADU, it could be up to three stories on that rear and side lot line, like, a zero lot line. Further, the the lot coverage, we feel and we feel like it's still applicable per the principal building's requirements. So the lot coverage kind of access our check on, like, the proliferation of, you know, multiple dwelling units or multiple accessory structures in addition to the principal building on a lot. But the state language basically provides an opening for proponents or applicants to make an argument that the enforcement of lot coverage is unreasonable because it would result in a complete nullification or deprive that owner of the the possibility of developing a PAD on the lot.

A second section that's differentiated from the dimensional standards requirements or the dimensional standards that are, you know, determined to be unreasonable by the CMR guidelines, The design standards any design standard applied to a PADU must be the same or more lenient than the design standard applied to a single family residential dwelling within the same zoning district. This means that certain requirements that we apply to accessory buildings like the back yard cottage, being that we must have utilities be underground, that there'd be a paved walkway three foot wide differentiated from the driveway that leads from the accessory building to the front lot line to provide access for pedestrians or for EMS services. In the outdoor amenity space requirement, none of these would be applicable under the state guidelines to the development of a PADU. What would be applicable would be the principal insurance requirement, fenestration standards, and dwelling unit orientation requirements because these are provided for specifically within the single family residential dwelling. So here is the kind of current guidance in terms of, like, when ISD takes in a building permit application for a PADU.

The attorney general's office has basically indicated that the application of these requirements must be reviewed on a case by case basis, essentially meaning where we may enforce the three or the three foot rear or side setback on a PADU. In one case, we may not enforce that. In another case, if they meet the fireproof requirements or if the applicant successfully makes an argument that the application of that requirement would, again, result in an unreasonable regulation as defined in the CMR. The next two points are the our city solicitor's office guidance to ISD. Essentially, we may, with a rational basis, make a unilateral determination as to the reasonable reasonableness of a given zoning dimensional requirement as articulated by the CMR in accordance with our ability to apply municipal regulations pursuant to that those CMR guidelines.

Again, we may not create a specific waiver process that is like a separate application from a building permit, because that's a specifically prohibited regulation, by the by the state language. And then further than that, ISD does not need to proactively make a reasonableness reasonableness determination. But if the issue is raised by the applicant, we will have to evaluate the merits, per the applicable regulations provided by the state. In addition so in addition to the open questions I've kind of identified earlier, there is an open question as to what the threshold is for whether given dimensional work or design requirement imposes excessive costs without appreciably advancing the municipality's legitimate interest. Our feeling and and planning staff's feeling is that we really need to develop a consistent and repeatable and locally specific performance test for what excessive cost means, because, no one wants to be in the position of trying to make this determination, and, you know, being accused of being unfair in one sense, where where we permitted something in another.

So, again, that that is brings me to the kind of end of the my presentation regarding the CMR guidelines. So I'm happy to take any questions on this. And I would also note that there is another half of my presentation here that is specific to how our backyard cottage dimensional guidelines are applied in the city. I repurposed those slides from the Municipal Civics Academy presentation I did last summer. You know, those slides are not responsive to this order by the council, so I will leave it to the discretion of the chair as to whether or not we wanna go through those.

But I am happy to explain how the dimensional requirements work for the backyard cottage as it stands now. Or if if the council would would like to add me back or another staff member back at another time, be happy to kinda go through that as well. But but, yeah, again, if if you have any questions about the protected use ADU things specifically, I'm happy to kind of field questions.

Alright. Everybody got that? Good. Thank you very much for that presentation. So while I'm waiting for colleagues to raise their hands, I have a couple questions to rattle off. Is the administration currently developing proposed amendments to try to reconcile this? We're developing

we're developing guidance. The proposed amendments, I s ISD specifically does not have proposed amendment frameworks. Our feeling is that and Matt and Dan both may override me here. But there are actually, I I may go ahead and defer to Matt.

Okay. Matt Zano's here and director Bartman. Who wants to go first?

Can go I can go first, but I'll end up deferring to Dan. But the chair, Matt Zano, ISD deputy director. My understanding from the ISD perspective is that we're, you know, we're pointing out, like, an enforceability issues that we are currently having, and I think well, maybe Dan's the better person to talk about it. But, like, the this is, a confluence of these amendments that are coming through at the same time sort of, is good to get the public outreach to sort of help develop the policy while we are also fixing all this stuff at the same time. So it's I think that it's gonna it's like a kind of organic process, but I'll let

Dan handle that as well.

Okay. Director Bartman?

Thank you, mister chair. I I we are working on potential solutions to this. We need to get some policy guidance from all of you on what direction you'd like to go in. There are some things that we can do that align with the state law that will give us more or less control because of how the state law works based on its relation. It draws its requirements based on standards you already have in your code for other things, and we could edit those things to then have an impact on the ADUs that are permitted even if they're protected ADUs.

We can make adjustments to our backyard cottage to bring that in line with the protected ADU standards. If we're not happy with the potential outcome, then a protected ADU could also manifest on a lot that already has a principal building and a backyard cottage. So there are some choices for us to make, in the future with how we want to adapt our code to deal with these changes, but there are the summary of this is that the state did some things that, that now impact us, and we have to respond in kind. And and I think the thing that ISD has to figure out in the meantime while we work on those changes together, are some guidance that Josh was referring to because a developer can propose this right now, and we have to analyze it right now. So they're trying to figure out those criteria with the law department based on our current situation.

And if we, you know, propose an amendment that could alter, how this all functions in the future. But we do have to figure out how our standards interact with the state's requirements.

Okay. So so big picture for members of the committee for the public. There's not, like, a juggernaut of some proposed amendments coming down the pike that we should all get ready for. It's more everything is on the table right now. Right?

Like, this is an opportunity if there are members of the council, members of the public who wanna propose policy changes relative to backyard cottages, ADUs, that it's kind of like that conversation is happening now, but we have time to have this conversation. That's the the point I wanna make. Let me just ask a couple really quick questions. One thing we often hear about is the effect of backyard cottages on green space, open space, lot coverage. It is my understanding that the lot coverage in any district is the same regardless of whether there's a backyard cottage or anything. And I just wanna kind of confirm that on the record. It does not it it doesn't allow you to reduce the amount of green space more than you already could. Is that correct?

Generally, yes. Each building type has a maximum lot coverage requirement provided for the ordinance. Any proposed backyard cottage would need to still meet the lot coverage requirement for the principal building that is on that lot. Similarly, if there is a green score that has already been applied to a principal building on the lot, a proposed backyard cottage, and even a proposed protected ADU as our current understanding of it goes. If that principal building was already subject to the green score requirement, they would still need to find a way to comply with the green score.

Okay. Thank you. And I'm just gonna rattle through these quickly, and then I'll recognize councilor Klingon has his hand up as well. One of the issues that's come up is the presence of basements. Right? So under building code, my understanding is that a basement can come, what is it, four feet out of the ground. Right? So, you know, for if you're standing next to one of these buildings that has a basement, which may or may not have been anticipated, it appears significantly taller. Right? It could we, at the zoning level, say no basements? You know, or could some of our buildings have height limits, just a strict height limit. Right? Is there any reason that we couldn't, if if we wanted to, have that on these?

I don't know that we could specifically prohibit basements, but we could amend the story count and story designation requirements or regulations that are noted in section two of the zoning ordinance? Because currently, you are correct. The zoning ordinance identifies basements as not counting as a story provided that the 1st Floor, the finished floor of the 1st Floor stands no more than five feet out of grade, which means, yes, the basement could stand at four foot 11 out of grade, effectively adding near five feet to the overall building height. I would also point out that there is not a building height requirement in any of the principal buildings in the NR. It is purely story count.

So what people are seeing is that, yes, developers are essentially raising the 1st Floor level to near five feet just under to comply with that section two requirement such that the basement is not counted as a story, and then they build 10 to 12 foot tall stories above depending on the building type. A triple decker, obviously, you could have three of those. Detached house, two and a half, and then our half story requirements are also, you know, unique to Summerville. So I I think I I think that answers the question, but correct me

if I'm wrong. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Two more. So the state limits these things to 900 square feet or whatever half the principal building. Did that number come from somewhere? You know, I could imagine plucking a number out of thin air. Right? No. Basis that you're aware of?

Not to my knowledge. Again, we we had a discussion with the EOHLC folks that was, just to be frank, not very productive, and we were joined by members of the planning staff at Cambridge. They did not provide a lot of context for, you know, where some of these regulations and dimensions came from.

Okay. Yeah. You know, maybe politics. Who knows? And then the the last thing just has to do with existing structures. How do I phrase this? If there is right now, say, a one story garage on a lot line, it exists. Could someone convert that to an ADU if they didn't change the outside of the building dimensions?

Yes. Provided that it is constructed with fireproof materials. Okay.

But they could could they extend it to be an ADU if it's if it's okay. They they could put down an extra half story or whatever.

Correct. Yes. They could add a story to it. They could add depending on what the regulations are for the principal building on that light on that lot, they would essentially, through the state guidelines, have access to the most permissive regulatory regime that is applied to the principal building or single family zoning or a single family residential dwelling or an accessory structure in that same zoning district.

And this is currently in Summerville under current regulations?

That's Yes. No one has developed anything, you know, availing themselves of that kind of most permissive standard, but this was kind of our, you know, our concern when we started engaging with law and and the state about it.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate all that. Councilor Klingon?

Thank you, mister Chiara. Through you. So, you know, just trying to process all this information and and understand where this leaves us for quote, unquote, out of compliance with the state's ADU legislation. So I guess my question is, did you say somewhere in the in the presentation that under the states, they don't have to, like I'm just using this as one example, but they don't have to put the utilities, like the electrical wires under the ground?

That is correct. That is a requirement for our backyard cottage, but it because that is not a requirement imposed on a single family residential dwelling, the principal building, or an accessory structure, it would not be permissible regulation to apply to a PADU.

So alright. So so in other words

In other words, they could

How we how are we gonna rectify that? Like, a you know, could it be challenged if somebody wants to do an ADU and doesn't wanna have to follow what Summerville says?

I think, you know, my understanding is if we wanted the underground utility requirement to apply to any potential a d protected use ADU, we would also need to impose that requirement on the principal building, the single family accessory dwelling, which in in our zoning is a cottage or an accessory structure. So it would need to be a uniform regulation applied to all buildings in that zoning district in order for it to be applicable to the PADU.

Okay.

Sorry. On this point, counselor, I literally spoke to a resident this morning who said that when they were building their single family house, they were required to put their electric their under underground utilities. That's not a requirement?

I

see director's hand up.

Thank you, mister chair. There's a difference between what might be written into the zoning ordinance and what the engineering division might, or department might accomplish through its site construction permit than specific sites they might require underground utilities, because they look at things on a site by site basis, and the zoning has a general statement about backyard cottages having underground utilities. So that's that's a nuance that leads to two different outcomes.

But our our zoning does not require underground utilities? For the principal building, no. Okay. Understood. Sorry. Floor is yours yours, council Cleen. No.

No. That that's really that's really I'm just I'm like I said, I'm just trying to understand how do we rectify the differences As as councilor and Kempen said, I know you're also seeing feedback from us because there isn't a slew of proposed changes coming down the pipeline. So, like, where does that leave us with things? Is there I mean, things are being built right now. Right?

Correct. I'll interject a little bit, the counselor to the chair to you. So just to clarify, these are for protected these things have to be protected use ADUs for them to supersede everything. Like, a general backyard cottage that isn't a protected use ADU doesn't doesn't get to to supersede the zoning stuff, but there is still the that that still exist the the this still exists as, like, a possibility that still needs to be reconciled. I do think that, like, from a policy making perspective, this is, like, a very opportune time for the council to deliberate on this as you guys are all kinda saying and, like, sort of, you know, figure out, you know, where the city wants to go with these types of things, which is already kind of going by with some of these amendments.

And then once that's sort of figured out, policy wise and then to craft them to craft something in a way that can get around the state requirements for not get around, but the way that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot, I guess, so to speak, through working, I would assume, with closely with the law department. So they are written in a way that it appropriately addresses the the regulations.

And I could I could put this in counselor speak. You know, my my take is so so one of our colleagues, right, put in the amendments that we had a public hearing for tonight. I think the the issue is that, as you can appreciate, it's really complex. Right? To change what we have without also fixing some of these other issues is gonna be hard.

So for any counselor that does want to propose changes, it's probably wise to work really closely with the planning staff and with our liaison to make sure that whatever you want to accomplish can be done legally. That that's, I think, where we're at is kind of so there's some the public has proposed some amendments that we're gonna hear. And then I think, you know, the way I'm hearing this is kind of like the floor is open for for counselors to think about what amendments they wanna wanna make. And, you know, I think planning staff is here to encourage us to work with them closely because it's a little more complicated than it might seem on the surface.

K. Thank you, mister Chair. Just last comment through you. So, yeah, it'd be good just to get sort of a, like, a side by side, like, sort of where the discrepancies are between what we have on the books and what the state is is, you know, has put on the books. Yeah. That's really I mean, it just just so I mean, by and large, it's not it's not it's not a in terms of number of of differences. So, I mean, is there a number we're we're talking about roughly? Is it like

Apologies, counselor. Do you mean in terms of, dimensional regulations or, like, glossary term like, terms and definitions?

Whatever differences is gonna bring us to, you know, closer into line with with what the state, has passed. And that's not gonna and that's not gonna, you know, keep put us that we're we're we're we're out of compliance with the states.

Sure. I would yeah. I see that Dan has his hand up, but I I would say it it's less of a like, I I think there are a number of glossary terms, probably about half dozen or so that we really should update. The affordable dwelling unit, we probably need to come up with a different term for that, to align it with the, you know, accessory dwelling unit definition that the state is is using. So there are a number of, like, smaller things like that that that we that we should change in terms of the dimensional regulations.

I think the unique problem that Summerville has right now is that very few municipalities in the Commonwealth have different dimensional regulations for buildings within the same zoning district. And, you know, frankly, without pushing the triple decker out of the in our zoning district, there isn't really a and, like like, fundamentally changing our form based code and, like, prescriptive dimensional requirements. There isn't a way that we're we're going to be able to like like, to say the saying, you have to allow these PA to use access access to whatever your most permissive dimensions are. And because we have a number of them, there there's, like, different kind of, like, yeah, modular, if you wanna call it, like, ways they can, like, shape the building. Again, all of this is subject to that 900 square foot cap.

So reasonably Sorry.

So on this point, you had brought up this example of, like, if there was a shed that they could build a three story a d PADU, but it would could only be 900 square feet total. Right? Correct. Yes. So, I mean So am I right? Because that's not like a real life thing we should really be worried about.

Right. That'd be 300

You you you look like you are worried. You think something's gotta build that?

There have been there have been a number of developers who have, you know, there have proposed some, yeah, unique, let's say, shaped backyard cottages as it stands right now. Like, currently, our backyard cottage requirements don't have, like, a minimum width or depth. So, you know, they there's one developer who's developing what we would, I think, generously call an ant farm that's only 10 feet deep. So, yes, it is like it is not likely that there will be an explosion of three story, very small footprint buildings that hit that just get up to that 900 gross square foot mark, but it is a potentiality that would, you know, create some kind of impact, and there are developers who are have are aware of this. So in situations where the lot is very tight and the bill there's existing buildings that they would not be able to comply with the backyard cottage requirements, which is the case in many properties across the city that the existing outbuildings don't meet the 60 foot front setback requirement.

There's, like, shallow lots. So in a in a situation where there is limited room for expansion to the side and they can't meet the backyard cottage dimensional standards, there's a a real potentiality that they could go up two stories to create, you know, a valuable dwelling unit in in their their eyes. You know? So I I don't think we'll see a ton of those kinds of things, but people have been kinda kicking the tires on them.

Yeah. And that's because of the the state thing. They're saying, like, you guys can't stop us at the local level. The state tells me I can do this because you allow a triple decker, you have to allow a three story.

Right.

Okay. I I could not have expected that there was a real chance of someone building a three story, 300 square foot per story thing, but

Sure.

Consider me educated. Yeah.

Got it. Thank you, mister chair. I have nothing else. I'll listen to Dan if he has more to add. Mister Rowan has more to add, but I'm all set. Thank you.

Thank you, counselor. Yeah. Director.

Thank you, mister chair. The, we also look at these requirements kinda side eyed, like, did they come from? Like, what's going on? I think one one of the things I wanted to bring up is that the state law also allows us to write a zoning ordinance in the format that we chose to. One of the sections of 48 says that we're allowed to divide the city into districts that include the class or kind of structures or uses permitted.

And so we did that both with uses and building buildings in our code. When you you and Josh have just highlighted the the issue is that because the triple decker is permitted in the district, that's the largest principal building, and so its dimensions have to be applied also to the protected ADU. Our our opinion is that our the unique aspect of our ordinance isn't that it's a form based code. It's that it's unique in Massachusetts because its level of deep it understands the level of detail and nuance lot to lot to lot that normal zoning ordinances don't. And so a lot of times, HLC writes standards for the generic zoning ordinance that you might find elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and it interacts oddly with ours because it's more advanced strip from a technique standpoint.

Because we we have dozens of additional dimensional standards compared to other towns and cities that, aren't facing some of the same urban development patterns that we are or or, development goals that we have, green space, ACE uses, things like of that nature. So I just wanna highlight that that's why that's why that interplay comes in because they're they're typically trying to draft this stuff for, all the communities across the Commonwealth, and that that's the unique thing that we run into. The second thing I wanted to highlight is that we're trying to advance rather quickly a maintenance amendment to deal with all the terminology differences. For many decades, Somerville kind of prided itself on using its own words. Right?

If you you might remember that we debated what to call the Backyard Cottage across, like, seven different names, and ADU was one of them at the time. But we chose Backyard Cottage because we wanted to name it what we wanted, as a city. Right? Like, that wasn't a name I proposed. It came out of the whole, process of adopting the backyard cottage into the code in 2019. But now because of the state law changes over since 2019, we definitely need to clean up that terminology. So we hope to get that in in, in, like I said, in short order so that we can actually have this conversation about how we wanna regulate these things without the confused terms still causing confusion. That's all I have. Great.

Well, unless there's further questions, why don't we keep this item in committee? And at a future meeting, we'll see if folks wanna, you know, offer more directed guidance to staff on where they're at. Or, of course, counselors can reach out to staff outside of the context of a meeting. Seeing. Counselor site?

Actually, chair, I have a question more about the process. I know we said that public comment would be open until, I believe, April 1.

May 1.

May 1. Sorry. Will there be any other opportunity for the public to make public comment in this committee or in this committee or, like, in a different way just because, personally, my constituents are reaching out to me about this. Like, people wanna understand, and they also I think after the agenda for this meeting was posted, people just, like, wanna engage with this, but figuring out how to do it. Yeah, I'm just thinking about how we can engage the public, put this information out there so we're also getting input as we are tackling, you know, this really big topic.

Certainly. Good questions. So we're gonna have a public hearing on the amendments that were submitted by members of the public, which relate to ADUs. That, I believe, will be in a month. I'm intending for that to be a in person hybrid meeting.

Councilor Strezzo has put in one set of amendments. We've just had a public hearing, and those are now being discussed. If other counselors have other proposals, those will also have public hearings. I mean, that's like the formal public process is that once a zoning amendment comes in, there is a public hearing. Outside of that, I I think it's kind of up to counselors to, you know, work with constituents and advocates to to come you know, we're not gonna have, like, a general purpose conversation.

You know, we're gonna consider specific proposals that that that come whether from the public or from the council. If there are counselors who wanna have a more general conversation about this, we certainly can. It won't be in land use, I'll I'll say. Like, the land use, we're we're gonna be considering amendments and, you know, making progress on passing them. We're deciding not to pass them. But that's that's how I would say that. It's there there are gonna be additional public hearings for additional proposals.

Oh, okay. Thank you. And then the other thing that counselor Clinton asked, and I I think for now, I don't really have the exact request, but I thought Concept can get made a really good point about having can we have, like, things side by side? Like, what exists right now and what the terminology we're trying to clean up in our zone in. There's the terminology.

There's, like, the direct department mentioned how, like, there's the backyard cottages. There's the ADUs. There's all these different things, how they exist in our zoning, and then some of the options we have or we can consider so that just to help us, like, as a council, start coming up with amendments. Again, I don't have a specific request right now because I'm still processing all this information, but that's something I personally will reach out to director Bartman to figure out how to do that.

Excellent. And I also just wanna, again, advertise our own staff as well. Samantha does great work and can assist. Planning has many irons in the fire, and we have our own staff. So feel free to reach out to to Samantha Carr as well. Alright, colleagues. Thank you. I very much appreciate all the input, and thank you so much to the staff for this in-depth presentation. It's obviously very dense, but I I like that members of the public who missed it, I think, can look at the slides and really understand what was discussed even if they didn't hear the audio. So with that, all items are gonna be left in committee, and I look forward to seeing you all next week. Have a good night, everybody. This meeting I guess we have to take a roll call on adjournment, don't we?

Yes. That we do. Alright. On adjournment, councilor Davis, Councilor Klingen.

Yes.

Councilor Saeed. Yes. Councilor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Chair Ewan Campen?

Yes.

Alright. With that, that's four votes in favor of adjournment. It is 08:32PM.

Good night, everybody.