Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, Michael. Call this meeting to order. This is a joint meeting of the land use committee and the planning board. We're primarily, doing public hearings tonight. Thank everybody for being here. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting of, the land use committee will be conducted via remote participation, and we will post an audio video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the city of Somerville's website and local cable access government channels. Can we please call the roll to establish quorum?

This is roll call. Councilor Davis? Here. Councilor Klingon?

Present.

Councilor Saeed? Here. Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

Councilor Ewing Kampen?

Here.

With all five councilors present, we have quorum.

Excellent. So we're waiting for our colleagues from the planning board to join us virtually. Correct? So I'll just take this opportunity to give a brief introduction to tonight's agenda. We're doing this meeting hybrid, so there are people here in person, and there are also peep people joining us online. And I mentioned this just to ask for your patience with as we deal with the technological issues. The purpose of tonight's meeting is public hearings. There's not going to be votes. There's not going to be substantive deliberation. There might be questions from committee members from members of the planning board to more fully understand what's being proposed, but the deliberation possible votes will be at future meetings.

Tonight, we are going to be having public hearings on a series of amendments, all of which were submitted by members of the public. So we're gonna take up first an amendment related to dormers. This was submitted by a group of registered voters. Next, we're gonna take up a proposal from a property owner in Union Square, seeking to change the zoning of their parcels. And then we have four independent, but sort of conceptually related amendments submitted by Bill White, a name that all of us recognize, that we will take up at

the same time. And for each

of these, we'll have a presentation from the proponents. We'll ask if there are clarifying questions from the city council, from the planning board, and then we'll open up the public hearings. And I think we're just waiting for the planning board now. Is that correct?

K.

Bear with us. We're waiting for our colleagues on the planning board to come, and then we're gonna go into recess so that they can launch their meeting. Councilor Davis moves that I sing a song. The motion is rejected unanimously. We will stand in recess until the planning board is ready to convene.

And then after they open their meeting, we will return. Folks just arriving. We are just in recess waiting for the planning board to join us. The most recent update is that they will be here in just a few minutes. Thank you for your patience.

Welcome, planning board. We are in recess at the moment. So if you wanna start your meeting as soon as you have quorum, please do so.

Right.

I'm Lily Abuff. I am chairing tonight's planning board meeting. Have I have with me tonight Jahan Habib, Lynn Richards, Michael McNeely, and Coralie Cooper. The planning board has quorum. If I can ask at this time for Jahan to please read the board's notices of tonight's hearing items into the record.

Absolutely, madam chair. 26 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance sections three point one point eight c, three point one point nine c, three point one point ten c, three point one point thirteen k, three point one point thirteen I, three point two point twelve I, and three point two point twelve m, file number two six dash zero two eight seven. Union two Associates LLC requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 2 And 9 Union Square, 286290298 Summerville Avenue from Commercial Core 5, C C 5, to Mid Rise 6, M R 6, file number 26Dash0257. 29 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section three point one point one two, backyard cottage, file number 26Dash0330. 14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance section three point one point one two, backyard cottage, file file number 26Dash0329.

14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section twelve point two point two regarding affordable dwelling units, file number two six dash zero three two eight. 29 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section one five point seven point two point d, zoning board of appeals board rules. File number 26Dash0327. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you very much. That was a lot. Alright. With that, I think we can invite the land use committee to reconvene when they're ready.

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

This is roll call. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Clayton?

Present.

Councilor Saeed? Here. Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

And councilor Yun Campan?

Here.

We have quorum.

Excellent. Everyone, thank you very much for your patience. My apologies for the delay getting us started tonight. I'll just say briefly at the outset here, tonight's meeting is a series of public hearings. There is not going to be a vote tonight on any of these items. There's not gonna be substantive deliberation. We're gonna take these items up in the order that they're on the agenda. We're gonna get a presentation from the proponents. All of tonight's items were submitted by members of the public. If there are clarifying questions from the committee, from the planning board, we'll take those.

But the goal here is for us to have a public hearing. I just wanna mention logistically, there are folks here in person, and we're gonna ask you come up as you wish to speak. And when you do so, please sign in your name. We have a bunch of, we want a record of everyone's name who speaks for our record of the meeting, and we'll go back and forth between groups of people that are here in in person and people who are online. We have around 30 people here joining us virtually. Thank you all for being here as well. With that, let's take up the first item, please.

First item is agenda item one. Committee minutes approve of the minutes of the land use committee meeting of 12/04/2025.

Seeing no discussion, that item is approved. Next item, please.

Agenda item 2.1, a public communication submitted by 26 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinances section three point one point eight c, three point one point nine c, three point one point one zero c, three point one point one three k, three point one point one three l, three point two point one two l, and 3.20.12 m.

So as you can tell from those numbers, I'm sure, this, proposal relates to dormers. I understand that we have member of the proponent team here joining us virtually and a presentation. I believe so. Is this this is Elliot Borenstein. Correct?

Hi. Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have I sent in the presentation.

Yes. We're bringing up your slides. Thank you for sending these.

Okay. Hello. My name is Elliot Borenstein. I'm a member of Somerville Yimby. And tonight, I'll be talking about our zoning amendment to simplify the rules around dormers and to allow three stories on more building types, including updates from the amendment that we submitted last year. Next slide, please. So the problem. Current dormer rules onerous, expensive, and less energy efficient. They are not in keeping with existing dormers throughout the city, and they limit how much living space we can add to the city. Our amendment lifts most of these restrictions and simplifies the zoning rules.

And new for this year, we have incorporated feedback that PPZ gave us, on the amendment we submitted last year. Next slide. So on the right, you can see the current, zoning rules for dormers. As you can see, there are a large number of dimensional and standard restrictions, and I'll briefly go over each of these, and the problems they cause. Next slide.

So first is face width. This requires dormers to be mostly windows. You can only have 18 or 36 inches of non window wall space depending on the type of dormer. This rule decreases energy efficiency since even the best window is much worse than a solid insulated wall. It causes strange window configurations, which can meet the letter of the rule, but probably not the spirit of it.

There are more photos of that later in the presentation. It makes it harder to partition the new space. Interior partition walls can be hard to fit in, and you can end up with situations like a bed up against a bank of windows. It adds significant cost. High efficiency windows are quite expensive, and having a wall full of windows means much more complex and expensive framing, necessary to carry snow loads compared to a a more solid wall.

And finally, every other floor in a building is only required to have 15% fenestration. So dormers are are kind of a strange outlier here. And on the right, there are a couple of examples of newer dormers that do follow the rule, and I'll have more of that as we go along. Next slide, please. So here are some, older nonconforming examples that would be illegal to build with our current rules.

They have fewer windows and more wall space, but they look like perfectly normal dormers. Next slide, please. Next is setbacks. Current rules require a three foot setback at the front and rear of the building, one foot down from the ridge of the roof and one foot from the sidewall or up to one foot from the sidewall. This is a purely aesthetic restriction, and we've been told it's basically to stop dormers from looking like a full 3rd Floor.

They limit flexibility for what you can do in our older housing stock. For example, depending on where your existing attic stairs are, a three foot setback can be the difference between making a usable bedroom or making a large closet. They're more expensive to build since the ridge setback requires more complex framing again than just attaching directly to the ridge, and they don't match most of the existing dormers around the city that do go to the ridge. And here is an example of a conforming dormer with a large bank of windows and setbacks on all four sides. Next slide, please.

Here are more nonconforming examples of older dormers. You can see they go all the way to the ridge and they line up with the sidewall of the building. Next slide, please. Finally, cumulative width. This rule restricts the width of dormers on each side of the house to be at most 50% of the width of the roof.

This greatly limits flexibility for what people can do with their homes. Many existing dormers in the city are larger than this, including quite a few that go the full width of the roof. Some even have full width dormers on both sides of the house, which none of that would be allowed right now. Here, you can see a conforming example that kinda has everything. It has setbacks on all sides.

It has a strange configuration of tiny windows, and it's exactly half the width of the roof. Next slide. So contrasting that, here are several examples of full width dormers, including one with full dormers on both sides of the house in the upper right there. They don't really look out of place or out of scale. They just look like part of a normal house. Next slide. And here are a few more examples. You can note that the setbacks on either end of these three are pretty minimal, but definitely not three feet. Next slide. So our amendment.

On the right, you can see our proposed amendment. We replaced face width with a flat 15% fenestration requirement, which is in line with the requirement on all other floors of the building. We removed setbacks in the cumulative width maximum. So, basically, building code in the house type can dictate any needed restrictions like they do for all other floors. And that will let people build what works for their home and their family.

And finally, not shown here, but in the amendment, we bumped excuse me. We bumped all house types in the NR District that are currently restricted to only two and a half stories up to a full three stories being allowed. This brings them in line with triple deckers, which were legalized a few years ago. And it also makes things like accessibility projects, for instance, elevators, easier to build. Next slide.

So, what are the benefits? It provides more flexibility in what can be built while reducing costs. People can expand their homes upward in a way that fits their needs. It puts less strain on city resources. Dormer projects frequently end up at the ZBA, which then requires city staff time. This would avoid the need for those projects to go to the ZBA. It meets the city's climate goals by allowing for more insulation and better efficiency, and it meets the city's housing goals. Families can build the space they need while staying in their homes and in their communities. And rental units can have more bedrooms so that people have more more people have a place to live. Next slide, please.

And finally, here's an overview of, in the upper right of what changed between the amendment that we submitted last year and this current version. Essentially, we incorporated language and changes suggested by PPZ. We simplified the wording on the fenestration dimension rule. We brought back a few minor aesthetic rules that they felt were important, and we, readded the prohibition on flat roofs. The main difference between our amendment and what PPZ proposed to us is that they wanted to maintain a, two foot front setback on side facing dormers, but they did remove any other setbacks.

They removed the ridge and the the rear and so forth. We feel that keeping a front setback is arbitrary. And as I discussed earlier with the closet versus bedroom example, it restricts flexibility and renovations. After we first talked about it with them, PBZ ran a survey to gauge the public's feelings about changes to dormers. The results of that survey, which they can talk about in more depth, showed that most people either don't really care about dormers or agreed that restriction should be removed. So we felt that that justified leaving the setback out of our amendment. But other than that, that that's our proposed amendment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Elliot, and thank you for all your work on this. I know, as you mentioned, this is, this is something that you all have been working with staff on for several years at this point. So so thank you for your dedication. I would like to open the public hearing on this item, and I'll ask if there are members, in person who would like to speak. Please just come up, we'll form a line, and please sign in on that sheet so we have your name. Folks, when you speak, please introduce yourself. Give your name. If you're comfortable giving your address, we would appreciate that for our records. And we're gonna ask everybody to keep their remarks to two minutes because we have a a packed agenda tonight. So there's currently one person in the chambers.

We'll hear from you, and then we'll take hands from online. So please raise your hands if you're online wishing to speak about this. Please. Hi. My name is, Christopher Beeland.

I live at 38 Jay Street in Davis Square. Sometime within the past few years, I got a postcard in the mail that said one of my neighbors was doing something with their dormers that was nonconforming and that there would be a hearing, and my input was, requested. And I asked my husband how he felt about it. He felt the same way I did, which is who cares? Why are we not just letting people do whatever they want with their dormers?

It doesn't make much sense. So my response was, please stop asking this question. And, you know, the bureaucracy's hands were tied, so I'm here tonight to say, please stop asking this question. Just let people do what they want with their dormers. The city has a declared housing emergency, and I think raising the limit of the existing houses to three stories, especially since it doesn't cause any displacement, it doesn't these regulations can't you can't regulate away ugly.

And as this presentation showed, like, just letting people do what they want with the dormers, like, it seems to be fine. I can't imagine how it would ruin anyone's life living next door to that. And, you know, we have to have more housing. And I think this is the least we could do to deal with a housing emergency. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any hands online? Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item virtually? You can raise your hand. If you're here in the chambers, just come right up, please.

You can speak and then sign in. Welcome.

Okay. I'm Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Ave. I just wanted to say that this seems like a very reasonable change to me. People need to make changes to accommodate more space, and, I don't think this is really going to interfere with feel of the city, if you like. I appreciate the effort that's gone into this. Thanks.

Thank you. Other members of the public wishing to speak on this? I'm gonna count down from five. There we go. Welcome.

Hi. Hi. We my name is Susan Feindel, and I would just say that I think there initially was reason for setbacks, and we haven't heard much about the background of that. And I know that if there are more structures without a setback, that the amount of light that comes into my tiny, tiny plot of land where I can grow vegetables and have plants will probably not have any light. But but besides that, I I just think it it it would be good to have a little bit more consideration of what was the original reason for the setbacks.

And if the original reason doesn't hold up, fine.

Thank you very much. We have a hand online. Sarah Dunbar, you're unmuted on this end.

Oh, great. Thank you so much. I just wanted to voice my support for amending the norm zoning. I think it's, like, needlessly restrictive and, agree with the proposal put forward by Somerville. You.

Thank you. Are there any other hands? Anyone else wishing to speak, please?

Mike Grunco, 51 Berkeley Street. I have more it's more of a question, and that is how many applications for, dormer changes are coming to the planning board each year? What percentage of them are coming from, owner occupied dwellings, and what percentage of them are coming from, developers who are trying to go ahead and maximize their investment. So if those answers could be given, I'd like to hear them.

Thank you very much. I think that is a a good question that we will take up when we deliberate this in committee. Thank you for raising that. Anyone else wishing to speak? Alright. We're going to keep the oh, we got one. Welcome.

Hi. Wig Zamore. I I didn't study this ahead of time, so I'm just reacting to the presentations. I I have two comments. One one is I think, the traditional dormers are fine, in most situations.

I appreciate the need for content contextual sensitivity, and I hope the planning board staff and others will pay attention to that. Secondly, I do want people to keep in mind that the original summer vision, the three year effort, the primary outcome was that the community had to move toward live work balance. The fact that we, are desperately short of jobs relative to residents comes attached to some other facts, which are that our our housing for lower income and middle income people does not cover the costs of those people. And it is necessary to continue to move toward live work balance in order to have the free cash flow from commercial properties, especially upper story, that we have equity needs for here and environmental needs for here. That is fundamental to summer vision.

It is a platform of it. You know, we we have this very unusual situation where the manufacturing economy disappeared. We now live in a research economy. The jobs in that research economy economy are overwhelmingly in Boston and Cambridge. In fact, by the ratio of point seven, those two communities are short housing for 750,000 people. They have massive free cash flow from the offices and labs, and they are massively short of housing. When Summerville picks up the slack for them, Summerville does that at the expense of the lower income and middle income people in this community. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Alright. Seeing none, we are going to leave the written comment period for this item open. Chair Aboff, I would like to keep this open for two weeks, which would bring us to May excuse me, April at noon. Does that work for the planning board?

Yes. Our proposal would have been to leave it open until Friday, May 1 as well.

Friday, May 1. Thank you for correcting me. So if there are members of the public wishing to submit written comment, please send that to public comments, with an s,@SummervilleMA.gov. Are there any questions, clarifications from the planning board or city council before we move on to the next item? Alright. Seeing none, let's move on. That item is kept to the committee.

Agenda item 2.2, public communication from Union two Associates LLC requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 2 And 9 Union Square, 286290 And 298 Somerville Avenue from Commercial Core 5 to Mid Rise 6.

Excellent. Is the are you folks here in person to present this? Welcome.

Hello. Jameson Brown from, Hamilton company is joining remotely.

Just a moment. Mister Brown, you should be unmuted.

Hello? Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Welcome.

Thank you. So I'm Jameson Brett. Sorry. Should I go ahead?

Yes.

I'm a principal with the Hamilton company and 1 Union Square Development, the owner of the site. I apologize for not being able to make it in person. I had a long standing commitment I needed to travel for, but some members of our team are there in person, including our architect, Tim Talon. I I do live and work in Boston, and if anyone is interested in meeting in person after this or, just wants to speak with me, I'm always available. The Hamilton company is a family owned private real estate company.

Over 95% of our properties are based here in Massachusetts. We own and operate over 6,000 multifamily units in a million and a half square feet of commercial space. We buy existing properties as well as do ground up development. It's a small but growing part of our business. But we've always been very selective about our development sites.

We identified this site over ten years ago when we acquired the first property at 2 Union Square. We've officially been working on a development on the site for around five years. Initially, that was for commercial lab development. We would have liked to have done that project, but as time went on throughout the process, the market changed. And with millions of square feet in that market sitting vacant of of lab space sitting vacant and millions more approved, It's just not economically feasible.

And I should also mention during that process, one of the hot button issues that came up was whether we had development rights for the property And working with Somerville and ISD, ISD released a memo stating that we do have the rights and explaining the path to entitlement, which we've submitted as part of this filing. So we'd like to thank ISD and Somerville for working with us on that. As we look for alternative uses for the site, there is a lot of demand for housing in Somerville as as well as the state. Looking at the zoning, if we were to change from commercial c c five zoning to residential MR six, we think we could build around a 150 to 200 units, which includes 30 to 40 affordable units. We can also provide some long lasting community benefits as well as public space.

On that note, I'd like to turn things over to Tim Talen, our architect, to go through the slide deck to go into a little more detail on some of the design elements of our project.

Thank you, Jamison. I'm Tim Talan with Elke's Manfreddie Architects. I'm also a Somerville resident. I know some of you from various things, over the years. But I'm here tonight, as the architect for the Hamilton Company, on this zoning amendment.

If you can go to the next slide. Our goal with this amendment is to propose zoning that's right for this specific site, that respects the physical planning work that the community and the planning department have done over many years, but also realizes newer goals that the city council set, as well as the State has set for the production of housing around transit. The site is located in Union Square, just south of the Union Square Plaza. If you go to the next site, spanning from, Prospect Street, about 400 feet, of width, along Summerville Avenue, from the existing Dunkin' Donuts to the Bukkyung Korean restaurant. Go to the next slide.

So today the site is primarily single story buildings that have outlived their functional lives and parking lots. It's essentially 100% impervious, and there's about 100 feet of curb cut along Somerville Avenue into these parking areas that limits the ability to plant street trees and complete the streetscape along that street and also creates conflicts with sidewalk and bike lanes there. And if you go to the next one, clearly there's an opportunity to enhance this site, and that's how Somervision, Somerville's comprehensive plan designated this site as a location to enhance. And that's important. It's not an area to transform, not an area to conserve, but enhance.

And we think this proposed amendment is in keeping with that. If you go to the next. So we also looked at Union Square's neighborhood plan, which was implemented in 2016, about ten years ago. It identified a number of opportunities on the site and kind of set the framework for the physical form, identifying that there wanted to be two buildings on this site. And then importantly, also identifying the importance of the corner of Summerville Avenue and Prospect Street, saying specifically that buildings should be set back there, that open space should be created.

The image in the upper right hand corner is interesting. It's a very conceptual image from Washington Street looking south towards the T Stop, a building set back on that corner and some type of public space there. Next please. So why are we here? Jameson talked about this, what we had previously proposed, a lab building on the site is no longer economically viable to To develop current zoning, CC5 does not allow for residential uses.

And at the same time, I think as we all know, Greater Boston has a housing shortage. But it's important, the context of this is important as well, and that's that, it's a different time today than when this zoning was initially passed. Millions of square feet of commercial development have been built in Union Square and much more is planned. If you go to the next slide, just looking at what's been built since 2010 and what's planned for now, and beyond. The majority of that has been commercial development since 2010 and that's a good thing.

That's a good thing for the city for a number of reasons. But looking out at what's planned beyond that, for other parcels around Union Square, Boynton Yards, and elsewhere, it's more than 5,000,000 square feet additional commercial development. And if all that were to be built out, everything that's planned, it's almost 75% commercial. Go to the next. So proposing a change from CC5 to MR6.

Next please. The big difference between those, is the biggest difference is, that CC5 does not allow residential uses. MR6 does allow for residential uses. Dimensionally, are similar, not exactly the same. There's a few differences.

MR6 allows for six stories, one additional story, some additional height, and slightly smaller building width and overall floor plate size. The Union Square overlay district specifically identified this site as having a 75 foot height limit. And that's something we're willing to abide by and keep. We don't need that additional height. Next, please.

So just comparing other what else has been contemplated for this site with a six story residential building, you can see that they're very similar in overall scale. There is a setback at the fifth and sixth level that would be required with MR6. But the intent here is this is really a neighborhood scaled residential building, kind of bridging between the scale of the historic center of Union Square and what's the much bigger buildings that have been built to the East. Next, please. We did look at shadow studies for the site, you know, the implications of a 75 foot building.

It kind of validated what's already in zoning. You could see this is a fall day, September 21. Diagram on the left shows shadows, by hour as they track throughout the day. You can see that those shadows are reaching across Somerville Avenue, but not into the Union Square Plaza, at least on that day. And that's pretty important, for such an important public space. You can see the picture on the right is the farmer's market. It'd be very different, otherwise. Go to the next. And so there's the opportunity, if this is made, able to move forward to realize a number of, benefits. One is the improvement of streetscapes, around the project, which I mentioned earlier.

That would include, the creation of a two way bicycle lane, on the West Side of Prospect Street, kind of filling what is a pretty, pretty glaring gap in the network currently. It would also fill in all those curb cuts along Summerville Avenue allowing for continuous sidewalks, and bike lanes on the north side. Next please. We know the importance of open space, and in particular, green space in Somerville, and how limited we are in that space. We're proposing the creation of a park, civic space on the site.

Current zoning does not require it. The MR6 wouldn't require it, but we would commit to creating that space here. I think there's the opportunity here for a space that isn't the same as other spaces in Union Square. The plaza is always going to be the center for activities and events and the new space that's been created on the East Side Of Prospect Street on the D2 Block is really facilitating a connection through it from the T stop and into Union Square. This could be more of an oasis, something that is more heavily landscaped, a place to pause.

Go to the next. And then one of the things that I think we've heard, for many years throughout the whole, planning process around Union Square redevelopment is the desire for indoor civic space. For Union Square, just to be a commercial center, but to be a neighborhood center, and for people to have a reason, people who live around here to have a reason to come here other than just to shop or to dine. There was, there had been two branch library locations in Union Square, one along Bow Street. Not quite sure where the one on the left was, but there used to be branch libraries in all of Summerville Squares.

So we've begun exploring the possibility of locating a branch library, or some other type of indoor civic space, on the Ground Floor of this building. And we think that's a really exciting, opportunity. If you go to the next. And we know libraries today have a whole variety of, different, uses, not just books. I especially like the image on the right, the idea that there's a connection between an interior civic space and an outdoor civic space.

Next, please. So this was the site plan that we had, the very conceptual diagrammatic site plan that we had proposed back in 2022, the idea of a single commercial building on the site. If you go to the next, shows again very diagrammatically conceptually, but what two residential building footprints would look like on the site. MR6 does have the floor plate limitations, so it would be two residential buildings under those requirements. But then maintaining that civic space of a similar scale, the outdoor space, on the east side of the site along Prospect Street.

I mean, just to give a sense of the scale of that, that's similar to Winthrop Square and Harvard Square, which some of you may be familiar with. We go to the next, ground floor plan. Again, this is very diagrammatic. This would be worked out during, design and site plan review. But the idea is that Summerville Avenue is lined with new commercial space, and that could be occupied and tenanted and subdivided in a whole variety of different ways.

But if there was to be an indoor civic component, a branch library or something similar, it could be on the East Side of the building on the Ground Floor opening up onto that open space. And then along Everett Street to the South, kind of facing a smaller scale neighborhood, the possibility for smaller scale units, perhaps townhouses facing out onto that street. Next. So just to summarize, a whole bunch of possibilities, if this was able to move forward. As Jamieson mentioned, the creation of 150 to 200 total housing units on the site, on a site that today is significantly underutilized.

That would include 30 to 40 units, affordable units on-site, looking to provide the 20% of affordable units on-site. I'm not looking for an exception to that. Targeting a mix and one of the things I think we've heard, is a desire for larger units, two and three bedrooms, not just studios and one beds. So targeting a unit mix that includes half, at least half, two and three bedrooms, there would be a material impact in, in tax revenue, Details to be worked out, but relocation, assistance for existing businesses and then a whole bunch of improvements to the public realm. The city plan, pedestrian, bicycle, streetscape improvements, open space, and then the possibility, of an indoor civic space.

And if you go to the last one. So, you know, there's a lot of process to go. We're in the first section zoning map change. There will be, should the city council decide to allow this to move forward, improve this, there would be a whole special permit, and site plan approval process to work through the design. But we hope this has given a sense of what is possible, and are committed to an open, an inclusive engagement process if this does move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation. Are there questions from the committee, from the planning board before we open the public hearing? Alright. Let's get to it. Folks, if there are people in the chambers wishing to comment on this, please come right up. Either before or after you speak, sign in so we have your name for the records. And if there are members of the public online, please use the raise hand button, we will recognize you. Welcome.

Hi. Christopher Bulent, 38. It looks like a spectacular, development. I just wanted to, comment about the change from commercial court to mid rise, and I would ask you to contemplate eliminating the commercial core category progressively throughout the city. This mostly affects, Davis Square and Union Square, but, it's very difficult to predict demand for residential versus commercial development.

The city tried to do it in 2019, and even, you know, a few years after that, it was already out of date. And the zoning may last for thirty or fifty years, and I think it's good to let the market figure out what to target. So this would be a good step in that direction, I think. Though I respect and have served with WIG, I don't agree that we need to aggressively pursue commercial developments. We don't need to keep this lot as a commercial only lot.

We the Commonwealth has spent billions of dollars investing in rapid transit to bring people between work and home across municipal boundaries. I think we should take advantage of that. And there are some weirdnesses in proposition two and a half that I think mean that we need to have residential and commercial development balanced, if the you know, the market moves back and forth, and I think it will follow, the balance that we need. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Sarah Dunbar. We will unmute you on our end.

Okay. Thank you. Do you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Great. I agree strongly with the person who just spoke before me. I think, the commercial core zoning is problematic, and that it especially in places like Davis Square and the heart of Union Square, being able to have flexibility in, I guess, doing a commercial building at times or doing mixed use residential is the right approach. And I think in this particular location, M R 6 will be much nicer and more appropriately scaled, to the context also. I hope going forward that you guys look at the plaza in a couple other locations. I feel like that could be an interesting thing to get, public input on. Thank

you.

Thank you very much. We have someone in person. Welcome.

Hi. Megan Minger, Putnam Street. I guess I kinda disagree with the prior two comments. I think the lack of commercial space in Somerville is putting a heavy tax burden on the residents. People mentioned Cambridge and Boston, which have a significantly higher commercial, base that helps take that tax burden off residents.

I understand that there is a large need for housing and that we're in a really serious situation, but I don't, I think the the the neighborhood master plan was very intentional in what they created with this. And it is not just this d six block. It spans the entire Union Square area, which I think needs very nuanced and contemplative assessment of changes that might be necessary as the market shifts. I think having this one property with an exception moving into residential is maybe a disservice to all the work that was done in the master planning process and can be revisited in the future. Additionally, I I think there's lots of other commercial needs that are in the city.

I have in laws that come to visit, and there's not a hotel that they can come visit us in walking distance from them right here that is near the train also so they don't have to have a car. And there's whatever. I'm not a planner. There's a thousand different other things that are useful. So I guess, all in all, I think I want the planning department and the city to take a bigger bigger look and more detailed look at what changes are necessary to the master plan, not just this one. Thank you.

Thank you. Saw someone else in person. Welcome.

Hello. My name is Michelle Hansen. I live on Warren Avenue. So my worry here is that what we're gonna do is we're gonna decide, oh, the market's bad, so we're gonna make everything, change it so that we don't have a commercial core or whatever people want. And just because hammers aren't swinging doesn't mean that we should change everything to accommodate people who want to not do affordable housing. They're this can be 20% affordable. Yes. But 80% of it will be unaffordable. And what we don't need in the city of Centreville is any more unaffordable housing. What we what we have here in the city, what I believe, is that we have an affordability crisis.

I think some of role, does its share. I think historically in housing, everybody else who works in the city and and, you know, as I think Wig said earlier, like, look at Cambridge. Right? They have all this space. They give all this tax revenue, and we're gonna take one of the major commercial areas in the city of Somerville in the middle of Union Square, and we're gonna say, hey. You know what? We don't need that tax money. And you know what? By the way, we're just gonna let a bunch of rich people live there. I think that's baloney. And I think what we should do is take our time and think about what we're doing. And if, you know, somebody wants to come back and say, hey. We're gonna do 50% affordable, sort of like what happened on Broadway, then maybe we might be able to have a conversation. But until that happens, I don't think that this is, a really good idea. And I understand it's just additive.

You could still do you could still do commercial later on, but you're you're allowing, you know, you you would allowing the residential to come in and not saving this space would to me would be, just a crime in this area, to be honest with you. And at the end and also, I would like just to thank Ben for having this public hearing, in person. I just it's another a different topic. I think that some of these things that we talk about like this, which is very important to me personally, and some of the stuff that's gonna come later, when we do that, I think we should be doing a lot more of these things in person. I think that the community should have the ability to be seen, and it should be everything should be online and in person.

But when it comes to important stuff like this, I think that the city council should be in person. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Mike Grunco, 51 Berkeley Street. If I'm correct, this property of a 150 to 200 units would have no parking. Am I is is that is that correct, sir? No. There would be some parking. Some is a number. Right? What's the number? To be determined. To be determined between zero and two hundred.

Oh, for now, we're not gonna do a back and forth local

disaster.

I'm sorry. I

Point taken.

Union Square is the most is really the most vital commercial square in the city, traditional commercial square in the city. And to go ahead and and and assume that because things are a little slow right now that we should just go ahead and throw up a six story 200 unit apartment building there, to me, is is is an aggregation. There are almost no vacant storefronts in Union Square, and and the popularity of what's going on there and the future of it, things that could eventually happen to the old post office building with Don Law owning it and so on. There's room for much more in the way a restaurant and entertainment district and excitement in that in that neighborhood. And this would push that whole section of the of the square into doldrums.

I think I would like to see a comparison between the revenue that would be generated by a commercial building in that site, whether it takes a few years to build, few years longer to build than this, residential building, but that we should look at the benefits and the expenses of both proposals before any decision is made. And I would lean strongly towards enhancing the commercial, sense of Union Square. Thank you.

Thank you. And please sign in folks who are speaking as well. We have a few more folks here in person, and then we'll take some hands online. Welcome.

Hi. I'm Michelle, and I just have to say I agree with Michelle who just came up, everything that she said. I wanna say, first of all, that coming up here and speaking in public for most of us, including myself, is really uncomfortable. But I just felt compelled to do so because I think this is an important issue. I first moved to the area forty years ago this summer as a student, and I had an apartment.

My apartment was a $147 a month in Harvard Square in a rooming house on Trowbridge Street. I now I own a place in Waldo on Waldo Street, which I was lucky enough to get before the housing market went crazy. I now have two jobs as a nanny and a pet sitting I have a pet sitting business I've had for sixteen years to afford to pay my property taxes, have doubled recently in Somerville. My property taxes have doubled in the last fifteen years since I've moved here. If you go online right now, you can see that the vacancy rate, this myth about we have a housing crisis in Somerville, please stop saying that.

We have an affordable housing crisis in Somerville, not a housing crisis. Anyone can Google right now what is the vacancy rate of apartments in Boston area. We have 2,600 apartments right now for rent in the Boston area that are vacant. Okay? This development that's coming into Union Square potentially, this is again, the percentage of affordable housing is disgraceful. I would be a 100% for this building if it was at least 50% affordable housing. What's the average rent here? $3,500 a month for a four bedroom unit that they're gonna build. It's not affordable. Please stop saying we have a housing crisis here.

Please say we have an affordable housing crisis here and understand that residents that have lived here for a long, long time, forty years, are barely hanging on to be able to afford to live in Summerville at this point. That's my situation, and it's many, many people that I know. Thank you.

Thank you. If you would also please sign in for our records, you wouldn't mind. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Hi. Wig Zamore again. Consistent with my former remarks, I feel the same way about this project, and I I I won't elaborate. The the last four speakers were were right on on on the mark. I do have to say, you know, I have great, great respect for Tim Talan and his family. I'm so glad they're in our neighborhood. Also mention, Michelle is part of the Union Square Neighborhood Council. I live outside that district, but I get to observe a lot of their meetings. I appreciate all of their work. So I I think I will, just leave it there.

I will say one thing, though, about the park placement. We shouldn't be putting parks small parks on busy traffic corners. The health effects of those locations when there is traffic remain devastating. The particulate matter regulations apply to regional pollution. They've done nothing for traffic for for local traffic pollution or for aviation pollution. So that that's another, concern when when we're locating things. So e even if you did go ahead with the building in that in that location, we better to have a a park that was a little bit protected from from the exhaust. Thank you.

Thank you. We're gonna take two speakers from online. Heidi Meyer, you are unmuted. Welcome.

Hi. This is Heidi Meyer on Wesley Park. I believe I'm being heard.

Yes.

Good.

Okay. A few different things. I'm just trying to picture six stories. I guess it could be, like, 30 units on each floor, you know, give or take with townhouses. So I'm just trying to imagine that if it's a 180 on six floors just to say that.

And then, it occurred to me that maybe day care, child care would be something that could potentially be part of the street level stuff. I don't I don't I have no idea how that would go forward with the city. And then and I support I I wish there was a way to have the park be, I don't know, somehow a step removed, but I don't know how to envision it. But I agree. I don't think I rather it wasn't right on that corner unless there was, like, really good kind of wall with lots of, you know, view, you know, space in between the bricks or something.

So you could see that there's people in there, but have some kind of mitigation for safety and and some pollution. And then the last thing is really way out, which is, you know, all this wonderful new, you know, lucrative as it were redevelopment. I just wish there was, like, a transfer tax or that there was just a way that, you know, every single unit that gets put together for the market, like, just some fractional amount of money that could go into an affordable housing trust fund, that for me would be just wonderful. And I I have no idea if it's a home rule thing with the state, but I would be I would be so glad if we could come somehow make a connection because it it doesn't feel very dynamic to just be like, okay. 20 or 30 units.

I don't know. It just feels like we could maybe generate more. So that's all I wanna say. Thank you.

Thank you, Heidi. You say it.

Brian.

You should be unmuted.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Great. Thanks. I'm Brian Hoe Kleitner. I'm with DLA Piper. We're counsel to US two as the city's selected master developer for Union Square, including this site.

And, I submitted a letter, but I wanted to speak on a couple of points. Number one is that this is an extraordinary request for relief with what's effectively spot zoning. We don't think it's an appropriate use of the city council or planning board's discretionary power. And that's particularly true here where there's been years of process and approvals that's documenting, a careful plan, including the Union Square revitalization plan adopted by the city and DHCD, the master plan disposition agreement, development covenant, Union Square overlay district zoning, coordinated development special permit. And the common commonality to all of these things is they require a master plan approach.

Hamilton's proposal is inconsistent with all of them. Ignoring this master plan approach will jeopardize long promised public benefits. One example is the overall plan provides for a 27,000 square foot neighborhood park, and that's only possible because there's a master plan approach. If if this is undertaken on a parcel by parcel basis, those kind of benefits cannot happen. We also outlined in our letter, we disagree with the interpretation of the zoning code and believe that a master plan special permit is required under zoning for what Hamilton has proposed.

They haven't explained how they could possibly comply with those requirements. Then finally, Hamilton's proposal would violate binding legal agreements, including the MLDA, the master land disposition agreement between US two and the SRA that would create significant uncertainty. That agreement calls for eminent domain as a possibility, which would really make Hamilton's proposal impractical or create uncertainty. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure. Bill Shelton.

You should be unmuted, Bill.

Bill Shelton, 65 Austin Street. You, counselors, will soon be calculating what services you have to cut from our budget, and you have you will be having to do that because of the gross imbalance in our property tax base. Only 18.8% of that base is commercial, and that would belie the contention of the developer's architect and his Yemi supporters that we have a surplus of commercial uses. We do have something like a million square feet of empty lab space because the only industry more imitative than real estate is Hollywood. So and in fact, Hamilton wanted to build more lab space, and now they wanna imitate the top of the market housing developers.

We have a grossly unbalanced tax base because past city legislators and planners didn't have the discipline and courage and foresight to wait through economic cycles and and to wait for better commercial development. Instead, well connected developers converted all factory uses to housing. Mike Grunko asked for a comparison between the net tax revenue for what is proposed and what is in the in the neighborhood plan. And the diff and I can tell you that because the city paid to find out. The units that are now proposed would be would generate a net revenue of 300 to $400, office space, a little more than $3,000 per thousand square feet, hotel space about $8,000 per square feet, and r and d space somewhere between those two.

The neighborhood plan was a betrayal of both neighborhood residents and and and express wishes of of the community, and this would be a further betrayal.

Mister Shelton, you hit the two minute to the second. It was very impressive. Alright. There are no hands online. Is there anyone else in the please.

My name is Jane Bester. I live at 45 Ibbotson Street, in Somerville. And I wish to strongly endorse the comments of Bill Shelton and others on the it's very great significance of maintaining the area as a commercial core and of, you know, having an intelligent intelligent master plan approach. I have to say also, I mean, the it's clear that this is going to be mostly high end housing. I also have to say, I was really struck.

I knew nothing about the reputation of Hamilton company before I learned about this development. And I started asking around, and I discovered that the name of the company is synonymous for SLEEZE. They have a reputation developed not over years, but over decades of being the the big among the biggest slum landlords in the Boston area. And I do not think that Somerville needs to lower its standards of integrity by allowing Hamilton to embark on a major residential housing project in Somerville. Again, commercial property is absolutely essential to provide the services that we need.

We need affordable housing, not or housing in general, and we need a great deal more public open space thoughtfully designed in a way that enhances community fabric and neighborhood viability. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I am Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Ave. I have to say that I agree with the previous comment that this would appear to be spot zoning. That seems to be a serious problem on the face. Also, I believe that we need more affordable housing and not merely more housing. I strongly agree with that sentiment as well.

And I think I'll also, yes, we do have a need for more revenue in this city from commercial space. We don't get that much out of it from housing, though I certainly see the need for affordable housing, but not just housing in general. So, given those concerns, I would be opposed to this. Thanks.

Thank you. I see some hands online.

Tori

Antonio Antonino. Excuse me.

Thank you. Yep. Tori Antonino. 65 Boston Street. So I I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal, on several reasons.

We

spent fifteen years, I think, you know, trying to figure out the UniSquare master plan, going through choosing a a master developer, working really hard to, you know, get the Union Square Neighborhood Council established, who negotiated a CBA with US two. And and we this was decided to be a commercial area because we Union Square is prime for commercial to host commercial needs and and because we desperately desperately need the commercial tax base that allows us to to stay afloat. And right now, especially, we are experiencing a downturn, and our our fiscal health is is not what it what it needs to be. And so every time we have a commercial opportunity, a commercial opportunity that's been zoned, we need to keep it as such. And for those who are saying, oh, lab buildings are not being filled, no.

They're not. And perhaps that's not what this commercial space needs to be. Green and cleantech seems there is a need for clean green and cleantech space, as seen in the Summernova, approved zoning. So in additionally, the the UniScreen Neighborhood Council has assigned community benefits agreement with the with US two based on the completion of all the seven dispositional part parcels. This very possibly, RCBA could be at risk if this zoning were permitted and that Hamilton were able to to build here.

So I'm I'm very concerned about this project. I do not support it. I do not support the rezoning. Thank you.

Thank you. There is a hand raised, but we're we're not having, people comment more than once on the same item. Is there anyone else in the chambers wishing to speak or online? Going once, going twice. Alright. We will leave the written comment period for this one open for one month. So that would bring us to Friday, May 15 at noon. Cherry, that, sound about right to you?

We will align our public comment period to also close it on May 15 at noon. Thank you.

Excellent. We'll keep this item in committee. Thank you to the proponents and to everyone in the public for speaking on this. And now, colleagues, at the request of the applicant, we're gonna take up the next four items together. They're all coming from, Bill White, and we have a a single presentation on all four items. And then we're gonna have, we're gonna open all four public hearings, then have them simultaneously. And this is because the the comments we've gotten so far are kind of on aspects of multiple of these. So feel free to comment on one, two, three, or four of these, when you come to speak. We have a very distinguished proponent, Bill White, our former colleague. Thank you for being here. Great to see you.

Good evening, mister chair, honorable members of the legislative of the land use committee, and also the planning board. It's a pleasure for me to be back here in the chambers and especially being able to testify on something in

Mister White, I realize we need to read the items. I apologize.

Oh, I'm sorry. And I didn't my ad

I got too excited to see you. Foul, though.

Okay. Agenda item 2.3, a public communication from 29 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section three one twelve backyard cottage. Agenda item 2.4, public communication from 14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance section three one twelve backyard cottage. Agenda item 2.5, a public communication from 14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance section twelve two two regarding affordable dwelling units. And agenda item 2.6, a public communication from 29 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section fifteen seven two d, zoning board of appeals board rules.

Excellent. Sorry for that mistake. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Bill White, 290 Revolution Drive, Somerville, Massachusetts. Let me try to explain the genesis of why I'm here tonight because, you know, the day I decided to retire from the city council, I never thought I would be coming before this body presenting zoning amendments. But, basically, I've come across things with regard to backyard cottages and lot splits that have caused me tremendous concern.

One of the areas where it's come across is in my real estate practice. Essentially, I represent a lot of old sommovilians when they're selling their homes, God forbid when somebody passes away and the estates sell them. And what came to my attention was two things. One was it was a relatively higher price that was being paid. And second, it seemed that all purchases were limited liability companies.

I didn't find instances where one of the regular homeowners were coming to buy property. And, you know, I started talking to the brokers. I'm saying, well, you know, what's going on? So essentially what's going on is for a lot of these older houses, especially that may need work, developers don't care about the work that has to be done because they are buying them. And especially if there is a sizable enough lot where they can put in a backyard cottage, that what they do is they're knocking down the existing buildings or if it's a single or maybe a two family, they essentially got it, put on an additional floor for the three units.

And then as of right, they put in the fourth unit. Now that fourth unit is generally squeezed in to try to make sure it's 1,500 square feet. So for folks who are thinking about way back when maybe it will be like a garage that will be converted or an old cottage house. No. You're getting four condominium luxury units being put in in our neighborhood residential districts on small lots.

So there's an example of one which is the back of a backyard cottage, which is only two thirds of the way done because the roof and then the I'm sorry. The the top within the slanted roof is not even there. And now I want you to try to keep that in mind. And then also if we could go to the next photograph. K. There should be a follow-up photograph. Okay. Maybe you have to, like, zoom it zoom it out. Okay. So yeah.

So that bottom one, I don't know if you're able to increase the the size. Yep. So now if you could just bring that up. Okay. That's good enough.

So this development is going in as of right, in a neighborhood residential district under the current manner in which the office of PPZ is implementing the zoning ordinance. Now I have tremendous respect for that office, and I'm not here to criticize them. I'm just here to say that they're wrong. They're wrong because I believe they're violating the zoning ordinance, but I also believe they're violating what at least had been my understanding of the intent of what a lot of the voters were thinking about when we rezoned the city. So let's think about this for a second.

Right now, you have in the front will be the three family house. So that's the three family of the three unit condo, and then the back one is the backyard cottage, again, which would be 1,500 square feet with the height, which you can sort of garner from from the prior photograph. So that's four units on a 3,100 square foot lot, which comes out to 775 square feet per dwelling unit in our residential district. If you go to any surrounding community, I would know of none that would permit that as an as of right project. Okay?

And based on what I could find, the average residential district in Summerville is 1,000 to 1,600 square foot per dwelling unit for a three decker. And again, because the way most of our housing is constituted, it's on one footprint, you just go up. So the higher you go up, it really doesn't impact the overall lot size. But here, you add on in the back the 1,500 square foot backyard cottage, and you get a level of congestion that is just I mean, it's do we really want these to fill in our neighborhood residential districts? And and let's think about, I mean, like, the impact on green space.

Where the heck is there going to be any green space? Because in the middle there has to be the driveway and the access to get the ambulances to the back, which they have to do by zoning. So I don't I mean, it meets the green square, but I can't see how. For a long time, we, you know, we were concerned about impervious soil and water runoff. There's no place for the water to go in the ground there.

They're again being created as luxury condominiums, and they're replacing rental units with no affordability requirement. None. And we spend how much time with the condominium conversion ordinance to try to protect tenants? Because these units are getting demolished, there's no protection. So you could evict a unit, you know, you could evict somebody there, sell it the next week, the developer comes in and they demolish it.

And they have no protection at all. So what you're doing is you're effectively replacing much of the way of rental units in our neighborhood residential districts with condominiums and upper end condominiums. So you're it's a class. I mean, think about the effect that it's having on class. Right?

Because the developers are outbidding any residential homebuyers because of the huge profit that they're gonna make. I would love to have somebody just look at this for instance, and whatever the purchase price was, you could easily figure out construction costs now by the square foot, the level of the quality of the stuff that goes in, and then you can see what they're going to charge. I would assume it's a multimillion dollar profit with no affordable unit. And what this does too is because it's in our residential district, it takes the not only the availability of, say, somebody wanted to get a starter home, because a lot of these homes again need improvement, so the purchase price would be a lot lower. So people like handy people or maybe you want to have like a couple of brothers or sisters, whatever.

The immigrants in the old days, would ship in and they would buy a house and then there would be a rental unit available. These were all gone. All being taken away. And every year, I think when I was at the ZBA hearing, that they said there were 30 of these ongoing and I don't know how many were done in the past. And it's periodic because every time a lot becomes available, the developer comes in to purchase.

So it's only if they're buying a thousand in a year or anything, but every year a 100, a 150 maybe get whittled out of the possibility of any affordable units being there. And what's going to happen to the children in the school system, for instance? My understanding of the statistics that have been available, it's sort of been maintained, believe, but that's as the population has gone up. So if you look overall as a whole, as percentage of our population, the schools, the children in our schools is also going down. What do our zoning ordinances say?

So I look at this, and, again, I want people to understand that I am representing Denise Provo, okay, in a land court action, not here. This is all pro bono. Any of this zoning work that I'm doing is pro bono. I've actually also filed an open beating law complaint with the attorney general as far as how these lot splits are being undertaken. That's also pro bono. I am just so upset about what's going on, especially things that I worked hard for while I was on this board, and I see every body. And I see these things coming in. It it's it's, anyway, upsetting to me. So what do our zoning ordinances say? I don't know if you can go to my notes now.

Okay. I don't know if folks can read that or if you could maybe make it okay. So this would be on the next page. Okay. So lot splits. Yep. Right up there. I'm gonna start. So when properly exercised, I think we all agree, zoning provides protection to our communities. And the law embodies that because it requires public notice for one, public hearings like we're having now, and usually a super majority passage by the city council.

So let's go to our zoning ordinances. They do not allow the current ZBA procedure because what does the ZBA says? Lot splits are allowed as of right and it's determined by the Director of Planning, Preservation and Zoning. And basically, there's sufficient fronting on the lots as they're split, it is approved. It does not show up in an agenda anywhere.

Nobody in the neighborhood receives any notice that's going on. The decision is approved, and nobody knows about it either. You learn first most of our residents when the construction company shows up on the next door lot to knock the house down. That's anyway, so what does our zoning ordinance say? And then I'll explain how the ZBA and PPZ got to this point.

So our zoning says development review is subject to basically site plan review. And it says specifically that the subdivision of land requires subdivision planning approval. And then it goes on to say, but lot splits require site plan approval. See site plan approval for more information. Clearly in our zoning ordinance you have to get site plan approval.

Now why site plan approval? The original ordinance that implemented it was, I think, put in a few years before I started. But as it was explained to me, the reason why they have the site plan approval process was because most of these are infill in an existing neighborhood where houses have been plotted out. You have lots established and you have people living in these, and the lot split is now gonna permit double the development to take place. So even our zoning ordinance today requires that process.

And it's it's I'll submit this. No need for me to go over. But as if you look at the zoning, it is quite an you know, an involved process. It requires notice. It requires a public hearing. It gives the ZBA tremendous authority to be able to tweak the development that's proposed so that the concerns of neighbors can be addressed. And also it can take into account what the existing neighborhood is like and how this proposed development should be put in. Okay? And it's clear stated here that these procedures are required. Okay?

So that's ending the zoning analysis. Now what happened was way back a few years ago, you folk I'll explain. Basically, you folks amended the ZBA's authorizations to enact rules and procedures of a minor site plan approval process for development activities that do not require the procedural steps for site plan approval, but is still deserving of plan review. The ZBA looked at that and they said, Oh, okay. And it was actually PPZ that provided the amendment which they adopted.

I didn't see any debate on it. But essentially it implemented the process that they follow now where there's no public knowledge of what's going on and it is a routine rubber stamp. Nobody has a concern about in the city about any of the development that's gonna go in. How, for instance, as you saw in that photograph three feet away, remember, these backyard cottages, which we thought would be like a garage or whatever, are now a foot and a quite, you know, a story, I believe, story and a half tall depending on how far they go down with these big walls three feet from the property line. So in the lawsuit that I filed, I I mean, I don't wanna, you know, tempt the face, but I would be absolutely shocked if this zoning provision is upheld by the land court because and maybe some of my institutional knowledge will help.

Because one of the things that was always explained to me is that you can only grant authority to a ZBA by a properly noticed zoning ordinance that is procedurally followed. You cannot give them ultimate discretion. So this body could decide to do away. If you said, ah, we don't we don't want site plan review. Well, there'll be a public hearing on it, and a lot of folks will probably come in and say they may not like that to allow all of these things as of right.

But this body can do it. The zoning board of appeals cannot enact rules and regulations that bypass the requirements of chapter 48. You cannot allow a zoning code to be amended by rules and regulations of a zoning board of appeal. That's the law is pretty clear. And you also can't give them the discretion.

Now you folks certainly could figure out, well, maybe there are some things here that don't require a formal site plan approval process. But it would be up to you to amend the zoning code to identify what those are and then to establish the procedure that the ZBA should follow in deciding whether to issue a permit or not. This this this just can't be done. So the reason I introduced this was, one, to let all of you folks understand that this is what's going on. I guess if you agree with it and say, yeah, we we don't mind all of this being in secret, however, hopefully, you know, unless the attorney general plays a role and says that it violates the open meeting law because it's a public body essentially doing everything in secret.

Or you may say, gee, you know, this isn't really what we meant when we passed this amendment. We don't wanna, like, prohibit people in the neighborhood from participating at all. That is your call. I've presented it to you folks. But this is a tremendous problem.

And and if it continues on in this city, you're gonna see our demographics change worse and worse. Okay? So now we deal with backyard cottages. So the first question is, this is the way PPZ is instructing the building inspector to determine building permits is that a backyard cottage can be a 1,500 square foot luxury condominium with three bedrooms and a finished basement located three feet away from the neighboring lot lines. Now, what I've proposed is to limit it because the and again, this is going to be challenged because the in the land court because it is overly broad.

You have photographs, which I'm binding, but I don't think a lot of people would consider a back a small backyard cottage to be able to go up to 1,500 square feet, but also to be a luxury condominium. I always thought it was gonna be rental, but be that as it may, this is now what's coming in. And one way to change it is basically you currently have the word ancillary. Okay? It's called there are ancillary structures and then there's also an ancillary excuse me.

So anyway, the current zoning has ancillary in it. Usually, ancillary means it's secondary. It's not primary. It's used in conjunction with something. So I remember way back when we voted on it, the answer was, yeah, it was gonna be rental. You assumed a situation where somebody owned a two or three family home or maybe even a single, and they wanted to put an an additional dwelling unit. They could either put it on the structure or if the structure was already built, put it in the backyard. Right? We'd have a nice backyard cottage. So what I'm doing is I'm proposing a language amendment to make sure that it is ancillary.

As you'll see, it ties it in with other things that are ancillary so it could not be a condominium. There is no way one could consider a fourth condominium unit to be ancillary to a three condominium unit. It just it doesn't fit. And if folks are concerned, wait a minute, can we discriminate between condominiums? Yes, you can. A number of communities, okay, were faced with the same situation. Last one, checked them. The last one was Worcester. ADUs cannot be condominiums. Many of them, many communities, what they want is the ADU to be rental because they have a need for rental units in the community.

The attorney general's office has applied on that and they say it does not violate the law that was passed requiring ADUs. So that's one of the things you know, I would really ask you folks to seriously consider. And then the other thing is that it's also ambiguous because it doesn't say whether you can have a finished basement or not. So what it does define it is by floor plate. So because the floor plate limit is approximately 500 square feet, the way the building department is looking at it is, yes, you can have 500 square feet in the finished basement, 500 feet in the 1st Floor, 500 square feet in the 2nd Floor, and you get your 1,500 square feet.

Now the state guidance, okay, the sample or the code of state regulations that implements the state law has a limit of at least 900. So what I propose is, let's think about that 900 because one thing is you probably won't get many luxury condominiums. Maybe you'll end up getting rental units. And at least if it's going to be so close to somebody's backyard, it's not a behemoth like they're currently building. So I've put in those two proposed amendments and now an affordability requirement for lot splits.

Because the because it is currently in an NR district for which there's no affordability requirement, the building department cannot enforce any type of an affordability requirement when you have a lot split in development going in. What this proposed amendment does is it says that one totals the number of units that is going to be built on the lot looking at it before it was split. So if you're gonna do like the the example I have here, four on each half, there would be a total of eight units built, and you would require affordability for that. I think it makes sense, especially if they're to make a mill you know, over $1,000,000 on these luxury condo developments. Now if folks are concerned about what the affordability requirement would be if it were rental, then you can pass one of the earlier amendments and just don't allow condominiums.

And if you make sure that it's ancillary and it's not going be a condominium, then you wouldn't necessarily have to adopt this. I wouldn't. I would only do it if it's going to be a luxury condo and if you're going to be getting rentals, we need rentals. Anyway, so that's basically where I stand in having observed all of this. And and one other thing I'm gonna throw out for consideration, and I know this is not a time to debate about, you know, a lot of these these issues about creating extra housing.

But one of the concerns that is expressed is that when certain communities like Somerville, let's say, don't look at some of these concerns about impact on neighborhoods, okay, and just go to massive production everywhere, you get gentrification. That gentrification serves no benefit for the host community. Okay. Studies show that there's no reduction in rent by creating luxury condominiums in the host community. Metropolitan studies say, yes, there is a filtering effect ultimately after a long period of time, but it filters into other communities.

So it would work its way down to, you know, communities that there's less of a demand for and less luxury housing, but not in Somerville. So if you really follow it, what you're going to end up doing is sacrificing our residential neighborhoods for housing benefits that are going to flow down to non Somerville communities. Now some people may say, yes, that's a good idea. We're all in life together. We're all in the same world.

We have to help the greater Boston area. So if we don't have any more kids in our schools, we don't have many more immigrants, we don't have any working class folks who can afford to live here unless it's an affordable unit that they get through the lottery. I wouldn't like to live in that city, but, again, that is your call. I've thrown this out, you know, again, for your consideration. So I appreciate, you know, all all the time that you give me, mister chair, and and, you know, and members.

Thank you very much, Bill. I actually have two clarifying questions, before we open the public hearing, if you wouldn't mind. So the first one is is on the image you showed of the lot. So my understanding of our neighborhood resident zoning is whether there's a backyard cottage or not, 60% of the lot can be covered, period. End of story. When I look at this picture, it's a, you know, trick of the, you know, perspective. But I I recall when you sent this to us, you had said this was generated by artificial intelligence. The Can you verify Yeah. What what I will verify the accuracy of

the Yeah. The three of them are Denise's. Okay. The fourth one, she was lucky because there was an old tree on it. But what I did was I just did a mirror image of the backyard cottage that was actually there, and that is what showed up on the plans.

Okay. So it's a real photograph on one side.

Right. And the and the one on the left I think that maybe the top one or maybe the the entire on the left is just a mirror image, which is what's in the plans.

Okay.

Absolutely what's in the plans. I wouldn't want to pull a fast one over on anyone. And at the ZBA hearing, they said it fit the green requirements. I I honestly don't know how, but I'm not, you know, a landscaping engineer.

And then second, I just I this is, you know, for for my own information as I consider all these. So regarding lot splits, I've heard various things. I don't pretend to be an expert, and I I I know that you are. My understanding is that in basically, the state, it's if you're creating two conforming lots, that it's an administrative process. Is is your understanding different? And and if so, think it would be very helpful for me and the committee if you could provide information about how this has handled It the could be.

Okay. Alright. Going way back in 1993, this the then Board of Aldermen got a home petition where they were exempted from the subdivision law, which basically allows the city to do all regulation of subdivisions, also lot splits, lot and lot merges. So the city got that, and then right when they got it, they said, well but even though we've exempted ourselves from the state law on our own, we are going to have a process for lot splits. And again, it was because the nature of the city, you know, largely built up, well established neighborhoods and a lot of these come into play where somebody had a big, you know, a bigger a lot than and somebody wanted to demolish a house or whatever.

And they wanted the city council, then the board of aldermen throughout all of our zoning kept it. Okay. So by virtue of that exemption. Now if you don't want me again, that's within this if you can get eight people and, you know, the the public agrees, you could do that. You know, it's possible with certain dimensions you could say, well, wait a minute. If it's a 20,000 square foot lot, do we really have to go through this? But I think you really should. Okay? I mean, this is just me as somebody who's like, for the folks who live in neighborhood residences, you you you shouldn't have that type of density as of right on a small on a small lot of that size.

Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions from the council or the planning board before we open the public hearing? I know there are a lot of people to speak on this item, these items. Alright. So, clerk, remind me. To open the public hearings, do I just say the public hearing is open on all four? We've read the items. Alright. So for for members of the public, you're welcome to speak on one, two, three, or four of these.

We're again, if you're online, please use the raise hand function. If you're here in person, please come up to the podium. And either before or after you speak, please, leave your name, and if you're comfortable, your address. I declare these public hearings open. Thank you all for being here.

Okay. Yes. There should be one sheet that is for all four of these items. No. It's one sheet for the four. Correct?

Yes. Yes.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. My name is Kate Byrne. I live at 33 Oak Street, Summerville. And I just wanted to speak on to do an add on to what Bill has presented, which is in our neighborhood right now, two days ago, right around the corner from my house, a house was torn down, and it's exactly this.

It's gonna be split into two lots. There's gonna be three there's gonna be two single single there's there's three family homes on each side of the lot with cottage behind it, which is gonna be as high as the as the according to the drawings, this is as high as the three families. Okay. Down the street from my house last week, a perfectly fine four family house was torn down. It used to have a lot of really nice tenants in it, and the landlord put it up for sale.

I tried to work with the tenants to tell them that they could get help from Community Action Agency, but they, you know, they I don't know what happened. Anyways, they moved out one by one and, you know, the the sold. And, again, it's gonna be three family homes, two side by side. It's gonna be split lot, and with cottages behind it. So those are the two things.

And I'll do this try to do this quickly. There are three developments going on on Prospect Street, which Oak runs into. Right around the corner from us, there is a nonprofit development on Webster that's going on at the same time. And I can't don't anyways, that's the deal with that is is that not only are we having our neighborhood destroyed but and gentrified, but we we can't park on the street because all of the all of the in the trucks and the development people are parking on the streets. They dumped when the when the blizzard happened, they dug out their their development and brought it down to Oak Street and dumped it on our corners.

So, yeah, it's just no. It's just more of the same. Thank you. Thank

you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening to all of you, and thank you for having me here and considering my comments. I guess I will sort of merge them together as that seems to be the the best way to move forward. They are interconnected, but I rise strongly in support of all four of Councilor White's proposed amendments. I will start off by saying I'm a fan of accessory dwelling units, and I have one in my house, which is where it belongs in a dense urban area.

And I I'm just gonna read a flicker of the testimony that I offered to the planning board and to your honorable board on the twenty fifteen proposed zoning, which is I commented that the draft zoning makes residents a, b, c, and zones disappear and consolidates them into neighborhood residents and urban residents. Looking at what is allowed and disallowed in these zones, I think the more accurate name for these new districts might be uncomfortably dense and even denser than that. And I noted that transforming Summerville into a place of much greater densities will incentivize the destruction of our legacy housing stock. And here, it's all come to pass. And then in my comments on the proposed 2019 zoning, these are from December 2018, I start with, we should put Summerville on a density diet with plenty of greens, because all of this new development that completely covers lots is taking away what little green space we have.

And in Summerville, most of our green space is on private property, not public. And Summerville has the least green and open space per capita of any community in the Commonwealth, which is a problem in lots of ways. Now I will sort of dive into I won't duplicate what's been said before, but just make a couple of points about the separate amendments. The first is basically says accessory means accessory when it comes to accessory dwelling units. And you would think that doesn't need to be said because the definition of a backyard cottage in Somerville is a small accessory building.

But it is, as has been observed, been the basis of issuing permits for large freestanding buildings, which are sold separately. Now just to to give an illustration of what accessory means, we think of it as something that's related to something else but in a subordinate way. So if I'm wearing a suit and I put on a hat, the hat is accessory. If I put on a belt, the belt is accessory. If I put on another suit on top of it, that's a whole other thing.

But that's what is going on in Summerville. You know, the the large individual houses that are being put in back of three unit development, oversized three unit developments, and sold off separately. They're not really accessory units. They are another principal structure on the lot that's being called something else, which is is just wrong. It's a it ends up dismissing any notion of affordability.

And, you know, you can you can get more data on what's happening with affordability in Somerville on Zillow and Instagram and developers marketing, I think, than any place else. And it it's pretty astonishing and and really makes me weak because it is, as has been noted, destroying community here. And in the process, creating a sort of shantytown effect. Because where there are not really any backyards, and that would be Somerville, you get units that are behind one building and then in the backyard setback, essentially, of the building behind it, you get three wooden buildings in a row, which doesn't seem that safe from a fire safety viewpoint. And frankly, I think it would be a lot more humane to tear down the whole existing city and rebuild it with attached row houses made of brick or stone because our our proliferating units of this type.

And there's another one that's being built just exactly like the photograph that Councillor White showed at 112 Albion Street and other places around the city. It's the same, you know, as Kate described, split the lots and double the capacity, which wink wink, you expand to four units. So that's that's one aspect of these backyard cottages that's problematic. And the other, of course, is pure size. In 2024, Massachusetts passed the Affordable Homes Act, which basically requires that zoning codes allow for accessory dwelling units under certain circumstances, one of which is that those units meet the definitions that the state has put down.

One is that they are a maximum of 900 square feet, which is, of course, tied to the purpose of accessibility. The other very good things about the state definition, especially in dense urban areas, is that they don't have to be freestanding. They can be attached to existing houses or inside existing houses, which is a much better, less wasteful use of urban land than sticking them in nonexistent open spaces. So these are these are aspects of the state law which are are actually mandatory for accessory dwelling units because that's that's the way the law is written and interpreted by the attorney general. Accessory dwelling units that meet these standards are called protected accessory dwelling units, and they're the ones that municipalities have to have.

In the slideshow after the last ZBA meeting or PowerPoint, whatever it was, about accessory dwelling units, I believe it was acknowledged that Summerville could continue to have its pre state law backyard cottages, but it would also have to allow protected accessory dwelling units. So now we've got five buildings or five units on a lot. And I can tell you from overlooking a building site in the past year, there is no place to put snow on these lots If it weren't for open foundations to shovel snow into, I don't know what would have become of all that snow behind me because there's, like, eight to 10 feet between the front building and the back building. Nobody in these units, look at the floor plans, has a space to keep a snow shovel because the basement is the master suite. So these these are things that will need to be addressed.

And and, of course, it it will address the affordability as well. And, of course, in in the Affordable Homes Act, these are accessory dwellings. They're not just pretend accessory dwellings. I'll go quickly through the rest. What councilor White has said about lot splits is convincing to me, And I think should it should be obvious to anybody who looks at a map of the city.

And and I think that probably the planning department has the capacity to show you what the city would look like if it were completely built up with dwelling units in every space big enough to hold them. You can see the direction that our present laws are taking us in. And, you know, this idea that somebody sitting at a desk can take a a pencil through a plot plan and make it into two units without considering conditions on the ground is I don't know if you it is misguided. Let's call it that. And, of course, this all happens without notice to a butters or anybody else anybody else.

But I I would made a list of conditions that could exist on a property that people in the neighborhood would probably know about that would contraindicate an automatic lot split. These include easements, encroachments, disputed boundaries, shared driveways or other amenities, and subsurface conditions, including high water, ledge, or the root systems of enormous trees. So I'm coming to the end here. But as far as the requirement for inclusionary affordable units for those developers who who who are being cute with lot splits. Yeah.

Definitely. Because whoever spoke earlier and said, we don't need more housing. We need more fill affordability was absolutely right. So thank you all for listening.

Thank you. And I I should have said this earlier. I'm I'm not gonna be extremely strict with the two minutes when we're asking you to talk about four amendments at once. So please do keep it as brief as you possibly can, but I'm not gonna, you know, cut people off if they're here to talk about multiple of the amendments. Yes. We have some hands online. We'll take someone in person first, please.

Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Ave. I'm speaking up in favor of all of these amendments. We've got a bunch to fit in here, but basically, affordability is really important in housing here. Livability is also really important. There are developers who are packing these units in so tightly that really the city if this continues, the city will be less livable over time.

The lot splits are a problem. I've talked with many of you about that in the past. Even as as Denise pointed out, even abutters aren't given any notice of these lot splits. That's unconscionable. It's not even possible for them to find out about the lot splits in many cases.

They're not necessarily being recorded in the database, in the zoning database, so that if you go out there and look for them, you can't find them. In one case, I had to go to the city clerk's office and pay to get a copy of a lot split decision to find it. That's how bad it is. These things really need to be public. They're being used to do things like divide lots so that they can be as narrow as, 27 feet wide, which is the width that's required for a semi detached house, so that now you can take that lot and then the other lot so you've got a 54 foot wide lot now you can put a three family house on each one of those two.

You now have essentially a six unit house with no affordable units. That's why this requirement for affordable units in the combined development is essential. And it's in harmony with the section applicability under affordable housing, which says that it's applicable in the case of lot split subdivisions or lot splits that result in two or more lots intended for residential use, legacy, or development at any time. So that's totally consistent. As far as the ADU well, as far as far as the not ADUs, this is very confusing, as you all know, the, accessory dwelling units go.

These were originally conceived of by, I think, almost all the public as something along the lines of granny flats or in law apartments or housing that people could create to make a little bit more space on their lot. We weren't thinking about developers coming in and trying to create whole new good sized houses on the property. So for all those reasons, I'm strongly in favor of of all of these amendments. Thanks.

Thank you. Take two more speakers in person, please.

Hi. Wig Zamore again. I'll be brief. I'm strongly in favor of this amendment put forward by councilor Emeritus White. His amendments are contextually sensitive to owners, renters, and the community at large.

I do think if passed over over time, you'll need a dedicated staff person who's sensitive to these contacts to work work on these with the with the landowners and and the butters. I also think that, immediate abutters and their abutters are likely the only people from whom you may have issues, so so that you should, look for that over time. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Michelle Hansen, Waranav. So this is what I know. I'm I know that I don't completely understand everything that Bill White said, and I but I do appreciate the amendments, and I agree that something needs to be done here. I know that my great grandmother lived in probably the most densely populated in the city in the country.

I know that my grandmother did. I know for sure my mother lived in the most densely populated city in the country, which is summer was Somerville. And I know that I live in the most densely populated city in New England and one of them in the country. So the idea that developers I don't know if this was, like, a mistake in the zoning or it was done on purpose. I'm not quite sure.

But it seems like a loophole that allows developers to take property sort of like where I live, where you could literally put this is what I understand from what I'm hearing here. That you could take you knock down the house. You could build three two triple deckers. We also have a we call it a barn, but it was a carriage house. You could put one of those ADUs, which I'm not against ADUs necessarily, but you could put one there. And then we have a backyard, and you can put another one. I'm pretty sure that that's what you would be allowed to do, and not one of them, not one would be affordable because the lots are split. Right? So that does not seem fair. It doesn't seem right.

Also, the majority of green space in the city of Somerville is on private land. And I very don't wanna say this, but we have four backyards that meet each other. It it the loss of something like that in Somerville is actually a big loss if if we don't because because we have such limited green space. We have the most tar top, I believe, still. You can tell me if I'm wrong. We still we have more tar top than green space. Right? And, yes, I understand. I live in a city, but, like, the joke growing up, I went to I went to school in another city. Oh, you live in Somerville. You can put your hand out the window and touch the next house. Do you know what I mean? You can hear everybody's conversations. It's true. I don't mind it, but do I need to hear more people's conversations?

Just seems a little bit like it's it's not gonna solve the affordability problem. It is going to take away the green space. Seems like a gimmick that we're allowing developers to just make as much money as possible. We are not we are talking about like, earlier, we were talking about the commercial space. This is not gonna help us with our tax base.

It doesn't make any sense that we continue to allow this to happen, period. So I am, however, for the idea of you to use. I think they should be something that, we do follow what the state of Massachusetts does. I think it's a way for, say, friend elderly people to, like, stay in place and stuff like that in an affordable manner. Now I also would like to say that this whole process to me is a little ass backwards.

This is a very complicated issue. I have no idea how most people in the community would be able to have an actual co coherent, like, conversation about this. So I don't understand I don't know how we're gonna fix this, but, like, I don't think people know ADU. Like, they don't know what you're talking about. They don't know what lot splits are. They don't know. Now she did a good job. I understand. I'm on the neighborhood I'm talking as myself. I am on the neighborhood council, New Square.

I understand more about zoning than I ever thought I would. But, like, most people don't. So I think that there needs to be a real recognition of this is the kind of thing that happens in the city and got passed, and people didn't complain about it because they didn't understand it. So I'm worried about that. I'm worried about getting all the green space and everything like that. And, again, no affordability. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jane Bester, 45 Ibbotson Street, Summerville. Let's be clear about what's going on. The developers would not be taking these initiatives if the city council and the planning board, the planning staff had not changed the rules and the interpretation of the rules. The buck stops with you and the mayor. The last mayor was tossed in large part because people were getting really fed up about what was going on.

Lot splits, as they're currently conducted in Summerville, are untenable. They are destroying the fabric of communities and making a joke of Summerville's claims to be as you know, striving for sustainability. They're promoting gentrification. And the I must say, my last two experiences at attending meetings for this the zoning board of appeals and a subsequent meeting were revelatory. Members of the public with respect to the issue of the knowledge gap were treated with scarcely veiled contempt by some members of of of by some participants, members of those boards, but also Dan Bartman and company.

When I suggested that the height conception of basements itself as a as a means of getting around the height requirement, for example, one and a half stories for for the supposed accessible accessory dwellings, which is Denise Provo has suggested are in fact second principle dwellings and not accessory at all. It was simply denied by the members of the ZBA. And then later on, the one honest member of the staff who spoke to the issue actually admitted that this was a problem and furthermore suggested that the green score in Somerville knee was too low and needed to be amendment, and I myself plan to introduce an amendment to you to consider changing the rule. I think that the city needs to entirely reconceptualize the way it's handling the zoning issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

We're gonna go online. We have four hands. The clerical just read your names and then unmute you.

Aaron Weber.

Hi. My name is Aaron Weber. I live at 32 Summit Avenue. I am opposed to these amendments. First, I wanna say I find it interesting the prior proposal this evening was roundly criticized for reducing the city's commercial tax base, but tax revenue has not come up at all in the conversations around this item. So I'll go ahead and mention it. Backyard cottages generate badly needed tax revenue for the city. If we're serious about wanting more tax revenue, we should be serious about allowing revenue generating housing in these residential districts. Second, size.

I'd like

to remind everyone that back before 2019, a common objection to legalizing backyard cottages was that they'd be too small in the same way that people object to new apartment buildings because they'll have studios, and, that just attracts childless transients who bring nothing to the community. You'll note the prior proponent preemptively offered to build extra three bedroom apartments just to seek neighborhood support. These amendments seem to argue that 1,500 square feet is too big and also simultaneously so small that residents won't be able to keep a snow shovel or raise children. I don't understand how councilors White and Provo can demand smaller homes and simultaneously claim to support, the city, keeping families with children around. I also don't understand their claims about homeownership opportunities.

First, we see claims that developers building ADUs are hogging all the homeownership opportunities. But also condos shouldn't be built. Condos are affordable homeownership opportunities. Those are reasonably priced homes. As to green space, redevelopment can and does often increase the amount of open space on a lot in Somerville because new construction does follow our green space rules.

The use of AI generated imagery to claim otherwise is profoundly misleading. I and a lot of people in Somerville believe that housing is a human right. And, well, if housing is a human right, then building housing should be allowed by right. Somerville's backyard cottage rules are working as intended to permit the construction of small to medium sized residences in our residential districts, and the council should reject these amendments and continue to allow this construction. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Becca Wolfson.

Hi there. My name is Becca. I've been a renter in Somerville for more than twelve years, and I've lived in my current apartment for more than eight. I'm not gonna share my address because I'm in the middle of an active issue with a landlord and feel fear retaliation. But Ben is my city councilor and knows how to get in touch with me and can vouch for my residency.

I'll also admit that most of my comment isn't precisely related to one of these items, but some is. And I'm sharing a broader story for your deliberation process that's somewhat relevant to a few of tonight's items around zoning changes and housing stock and impact to renters. And my issue is timely and urgent to me, and I wanted the opportunity to make folks aware. As a result of progressive Somerville policy to enhance density that I support in theory and typically in practice. Me and my three housemates across two units in the three story home that we dwell in are being displaced and picked out of our apartment apartments with less than two months notice.

Due to the triple decker by right policy that was passed not that long ago, my opportunistic landlord is renovating and separating out the 2nd And 3rd Floors of a building that had previously only been permitted to be two units. He waited an extraordinarily long time to tell us about this renovation. And when we didn't comply with his vision of how the construction would take place and also according to him due to a fire department requirement that necessitates a sprinkler system be installed, We're all being kicked out of the building. So me and my housemates are an example of tricker triple deckers by right creating renter displacement. I think the same could be possible with cottage units or changing housing stock with dormers.

I'm likely gonna have to move out of the city of Somerville. I've been trying to figure out exactly what my ask is. One small thing I can think of is a possible requirement if a landlord is going through the permitting policy with the city to do a major renovation, to rezone, to build a backyard cottage, or something else that this committee oversees would be to provide proof that they have disclosed their project and their process with the current tenants so that they have the information about what's going on early and how they may be impacted. If I had an idea that I may need to move, may have needed to move, I would have more proactively started to look for a new place or try to negotiate my ability to stay much earlier in the process. And to relate back to these amendment discussion items as someone desperately trying to find a reasonably affordable rental unit, I really like the idea of requiring that ADUs or backyard cottages be either rental units or owner, you know, family in laws, occupied.

I'm not a housing policy expert. I'm pro housing and pro affordable housing. I'm not saying that I don't want us to have progressive policies as a city, but I also, you know, want it to be really clear that there are real life unintended consequences, and it's not just due to big developers or for luxury condo development. And I wanted to share that now. Thank you.

Thank you, Becca.

Sarah Dunbar.

Thank you. Sarah Dunbar at 79 Columbus Avenue. And I don't support the amendments, but I appreciate a lot of the concerns that have been voiced. I do think, accessory dwelling units should be allowed in a variety of ways and not just as, like, a backyard cottage 60 feet back. And I think that the concern about lot coverage, you know, makes a lot of sense.

So if there was more variety in how people could add accessory dwelling units, then, there wouldn't be as much filling of the lot anyways. And to that end, I I think in general that the neighborhood residential zoning should be looked at comprehensively to try to figure out ways, that maybe people could have five or six units, so you would start to have affordable units being added if people are doing these bigger developments. But a couple of clarifications I feel like are important because I think a lot of issues are being confused in this conversation. I am an architect, and you can't just tear down, an older house in Somerville. You have to there is a demolition delay ordinance.

And so if a house is over 75 years old, that demolition delay can be invoked by the historic committee commission. And so it it can't just be torn down immediately. And so I just wanted to clarify that and then say that I also think displacement is a big concern, and so we should figure out how to try to keep people in place, but also add affordable density. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. We'll do one more, hand that's raised, and then we'll return to the room.

Julian Bradley Lewis.

Welcome, Julian. Julian, you're unmuted on our end.

Hello.

Yes. We hear you now.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, members and Ben. My name is Julian Lewis. I'm a Somerville property owner and business owner.

I've been in the community for fifteen years. I would just like to state for the record that I do strongly oppose the four zoning amendments in the white petition. The city the city's planning department and land use commission has recently opined on this matter as the amend as an amendment similar amendment was brought forward just about six to eight months ago by a city councilor. We have a form based zoning in the city of Somerville, which is a result of years of public planning process, neighborhood input, and a master plan. That defines land plotting, I e lot splits, as only approved via minor site plan approval if the newly created lots conform with all the dimensional requirements, I e, setback zoning, frontage, depth, etcetera, that are set forth in the city zoning ordinance.

And this is zoning that was debated within this community for years and part of a master plan. Just recently, the city loosened regulations for neighborhood residents to incentivize additional housing. That framework deliberately removed affordability mandates from small scale neighborhood resident projects because three to 12 unit buildings simply cannot, subsidize affordable units. That wasn't an oversight. It was smart policy, and it's already producing more housing.

These amendments also seek to eliminate minor site plan approval for lot splits. What we need is less red tape for conforming developments that meet the city's zoning standards. This combination means delays, uncertainty, significantly fewer projects getting built. The results won't be more affordable housing. There will be less housing overall. Even in mister White's own letter, he admits the real goal is to stop developers from outbidding homebuyers. That's a market complaint, not a legitimate zoning purpose. I would urge you to reject all four amendments as they will only serve to reduce the overall housing supply in Somerville. Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you. We'll return to in person. Welcome.

Thank you. Michael Grunco, 51 Berkeley Street. Fifty five year, fifty fifty five year owner of a three family house in Summerville and very proud to be a good landlord to my tenants. I'm happy to have a yard in the back of my house. I tore down a garage to go ahead and put that to have more green space.

And I see what Bill has pushed Bill's proposals here as being in defense of some of that green space. We can't go ahead and keep eating it up with more and more structures. Summerville, if you look at it carefully, you can see that it was not the beneficiary of the work of Frederick Law Olmsted. We have no emerald necklace. We barely have, you know, more than a concrete necklace here.

But we we we are definitely been victim of generation after generation of of developers who have made houses, built houses so close to one another that you can barely walk between them. And now there's a new generation of that coming in, and the net effect of that is to go ahead and displace current residents of modest income with a gentrified neighborhood. That is what is happening. It's been happening for years. It's been happening for decades, and we have to stand up to that.

And if we're not gonna create more affordable housing, then we have to keep the affordable housing we have. As far as I'm concerned, yes in my backyard. What happens to yes in my backyard after they fill their backyard? Are they now just yes or are they yes in your backyard? Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Michelle again, Waldo Street. I just wanna give a little bit of a background of how this situation came about. I don't think a lot of people know that there was a house on this lot where there now are four jam structures in this strong in this space. Naima and we were all working to try to, I don't know, preemptively strike this development because we could see what was coming down the line here.

And to Sarah who spoke earlier, it isn't true. You can actually rip down a house, an historic property in Summerville, very easily because of loopholes about the time's constraints. So Santana properties only had to wait I believe it's a year and a half I'm not sure exactly what the timing is for a historic preservation to let go of a property in Summerville, But as long as the developer or the homeowner who purchases the home waits a period of time, they waits out it's how long is it? I'm sorry. Two years. As long as they wait out so sorry?

Eighteen months.

Eighteen months. Right. So as long as the developer waits out the eighteen months, they are free to rip down any home in Somerville that they want. We had this beautiful White House that Mary, my neighbor, lived on for, oh my gosh, seven I don't even know how long she was there. She passed away. A lovely young family bought the home at 17 Hudson Street. They were so frustrated with the process of trying to get the permitting they needed to replace that single family home. They couldn't wait anymore financially, so they had to let the house go. And who came in and bought that home? Developers bought it because they were the and then they could come in and rip down the home because the waiting period was almost up for that structure.

So there isn't protection for historic homes in Summerville. That is not true. This situation that we're dealing with, this development is right across the street from where I live. I watch it every day. I invite anyone who lives in Somerville to please come by and walk and see what they're putting on this small piece of property. It is incredibly ridiculous. It also not only does it ruin the neighborhood for the sense of density, but you think about the infrastructure of Somerville. Think about the roads we all drive on every day, all the public services that we use. This city is bursting at the seams. Anybody drive down Central Street every day, drive down Highland Ave every day?

How uncomfortable is it? We can't keep supporting more and more people buying property, buying property, buying property. Also, for the people that talk about the tax base, I have owned my home since 2011. Mentioned before, my taxes have doubled in the last two years living in Summerville. My property taxes have doubled. How many new apartments have been built in Summerville in the last ten years? 3,000 new buildings. 3,000 new structures. Have my property taxes benefited from all the increased homeownership in this city? They have not. They have not. So this thing about, like, building more, who is affordable housing? These are gonna be million dollar units. I bet you anything. That 17 Hudson Street is all gonna be million dollar condos that are gonna go there.

This is not affordable. It's not sustainable. And I just think the city I just don't understand how people on the city council and the zoning board can, good faith, year after year after year, let this happen. There could have been a beautiful two family homes could have been built on this property. They would have made probably $4,000,000 selling those homes. They could have put this lot, and they could have easily instead of building, like, how many? Five apartments that are gonna be there? Six? Seven. Seven apartments.

They could have made tons of money building two beautiful single family homes, protecting green space, having families wanna buy those homes that are well off given, but they would've they could have developed that space perfectly differently. The city has no oversight in how these developers are coming in and building on these properties, what they look like, do they respect the scale of the neighborhood around them. There's no respect for the housing that is there next door. It creates tension. It creates distress.

When they ripped down that White House, I it was so upsetting to me to just watch that just be knocked over with no protection for that home. So, please, I am asking you as a resident, as a taxpayer, as somebody, as I said before, who has two jobs just to be able to afford to stay living in my own home. Please stop this from happening. Accessory dwelling units, if they're built as an accessory to a home, sure, but that is not what's happening. Please walk by 17 Hudson Street and see what is going into that space. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome. Hi. Chris Bielen, 38 Jay Street again. So I live in the NR zone, but I'm surrounded. I live in a triple decker. We have an IUR apartment building on one side. Across the street, we have an MR three apartment building. And the apartment like, if you look at the residential streets behind Harvard Square, there's brick apartment buildings. I find them nice. The apartment buildings that are around me, one of them is kind of slumpy, typical vinyl siding.

The other across the street is a newer one that's nicer. It's nice. I'll I have a better view of them than they do of being my triple decker. And, like, I find that level of density fine. They're great neighbors.

I really don't understand why people are upset about adding, like, one more unit in a three unit lot. The I feel like the overregulation that I'm speaking against these amendments because the the overregulation that they represent and would make worse is what's causing the gentrification of the city. Like, I have a friend who has to move out of Davis Square, because there's just like, people say that there's vacant apartments, but, you know, you need to have a 5% vacancy rate for to have a healthy housing market and to give renters and, buyers opportunities to compete, to have to force the owners to compete for their business, and they have to compete on price. If there's only a 1% vacancy rate, even if, you know, there's millions of units in the Boston area, if there's only, you know, one percent of them vacant, then that's, like, less than the the friction that it takes to list an apartment and find you know, take whatever time to find someone new and maybe do some renovations. So, like, the the housing market market right now is very unhealthy, and this whole, like, I don't want any more neighbors next to me attitude is exactly why.

And so I also wanna say let's see. Oh, right. One of the things I'm worried about in these amendments is so also on my street, what I've seen happening is, you know, buildings will go vacant because people cash out or they pass away or they move to Florida and retire and they sell them. And we've had a number of buildings on the neighboring streets get, like, gut renoed or, like, replaced with a modern building. It does have to conform to all of the requirements in our modern zoning code.

And it seems like to me when the new building goes in, there's plenty of room for all the things that have to happen in our neighborhood, and those buildings are nice. The buildings that are not nice are the ones that are not getting renovated. And it seems like part of the goal of these amendments is to prevent anyone from coming in and renovating and then selling to someone that doesn't have the money on hand or the time. It's like I've done renovations, it's a lot of personal suffering to go through to renovate a house, especially if you're trying to live there. So some people, when whatever their life circumstances, just need to come into some place that's already renovated.

But what I don't want to have happen is us to, you know, try and make things affordable by making them bad. I don't want us to go back to Slummerville. I want it's it's healthy and necessary for my streets to to thrive, to have the flexibility to do that. So that is one of the reasons I'm opposed to these amendments. Yeah. I think that's all for now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Susan Fendel, thirty nine Simpson. I am sad to hear that people actually believe we can achieve affordable housing, take pressure off the housing market by building and building and building, and that will create affordable housing. That kind of attitude has been adopted by many well intentioned people, but, frankly, they've all drunken the Kool Aid. It it is not true.

We've seen the facts bear that out, and the written comments I submitted, I believe, have examples of neighborhoods where you build higher priced housing, and it does nothing for low income and middle income people. And in addition, the the build build build impetus that these people have leads to governmental agencies and entities adopting ordinances, rules, regulations that wave very necessary environmental green space setback maximum height requirements. There are alternatives to achieve to achieve affordable housing. That includes publicly owned social housing. It also includes and this is in response to people who cry the crocodile tears about the elderly in Somerville not being able to age in place.

There is something called shared housing where students, families live with the elderly person. The elderly person gets services, not not usually medical services, but things like cleaning, transportation, companionship in return for the student or the family having reduced rent or free rent. And this has been done in Boston, and it has been done across the country. And yet Summerville has not looked into this program at all, and it would be very helpful to a lot of people here. And I have, in my written testimony, sites to resources concerning that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Janine Fay. I've lived in Prospect Hill on Monroe Street, 41 Monroe Street for fifty years this I'm just speaking because I'm so upset. I'm so upset. I totally support the amendments that, Denise and Bill have brought up. I'm a retired real estate agent. I know the value of land. And you're in a serious, really heavy moment in time. How are you gonna respond to the stuff that's going on here? It's and to put together green and open plus affordability with height is is completely crazy.

There's gotta be other ways to be doing this. And as if I can just talk for a minute from height, viewing Union Square, I mean, two buildings that are in there are a failure. I mean, is that really clear? They're they're offering free rent for a month if you buy in the Bacon Building, if you rent in the Bacon Building. And the other darker building in front radiates bad energy. And the only thing that's good about it is that Ebisushi is gonna be able to have an affordable restaurant so the place doesn't look completely dead and empty. But are you gonna represent people there's gotta be housing for teachers, housing for municipal workers. What are you gonna do to make that happen? Good luck.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. I'm Pat Jill, and I leave at 67 Dane Street where I've lived for fifty five years, and I live in a three generation home, which we would not have been able to buy today. We bought it because it was dilapidated, and we fixed it up and improved it over many years. There's a neighbor around the street who tried to do that with his dilapidated house, but he was under financial strain and had to sell it instead of it to a family, which he wanted to do, to a developer, and it's now two luxury condos. I'm gonna try to stay a few more minutes, but I support these amendments.

The backyard cottages are much different than the affordable the accessible what are these things? The accessory dwelling units that I supported in the Affordable Homes Act. There are no longer any affordable requirements in these developments, and these profession provisions greatly increase the value of this land for developers and encourage those developers to outbid homebuyer buyers and eliminate naturally occurring affordable housing. In these developments, tenants are displaced and even homebuyers are outbid. Even before these provisions, MAPC did a study that found that over half the three deckers and almost two thirds of the two family homes in East Somerville were sold to developers.

That is worse now partly because of the provisions in our zoning law. Building more housing is important, but as Chris Swan noted, you can't build cheap and old and cheap. Affordable housing requires subsidies by either public funds, which are declining, or higher costs and units in the same development. New construction costs around a billion dollars per unit. Those units will never be affordable.

In fact, a study of six studies, which I think Bill White referred to, showed that increased market rate housing slowed rent increases in the submarket of high income people, but affordability worsened for lower and moderate income renters. Preserving naturally occurring affordable housing is crucial. The Healy administration, which supports development, also wrote, we are at risk of losing the homes we have, especially the affordable ones. The availability of modestly priced homes and apartments is dwindling as they are acquired and upscaled by investors who sell or rent at much higher price points. Bill White's proposed amendments would help level the playing field between developers and potential homebuyers.

They would preserve help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and protect tenants. And I hope for your favorable consideration of these and other beneficial proposals. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have two hands online.

Frank Malls Mallsbenden.

Hi. My name is Frank Mallsbenden. Live in Davis Square. I think Michelle, I believe it was, was right when she said, that there's a loophole being exploited right now. And so the result of that loophole is that, the ordinance basically is created on an even playing field, tilted in favor of developers. I think that the amendments written by councilor White, who knows what he's doing when he's writing amendments, solve for this loophole. And when you're speaking against these amendments, what you're really doing is advocating for planning via loophole, and I don't think that planning via loophole is good planning. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill Shelton.

I'm just gonna swallow here. Bill Shelton, 65 Boston Street. Somerville's under siege by avaricious developers who see an opportunity created by zoning regulations that were created with good intention, but which we now have evidence needs to be changed, and Bill's proposed amendments offer that. One of the things that I've heard over and over again tonight, which is just misleading, if not disingenuous, is that building a lot more unaffordable housing will somehow create affordability for people who live here, that we have a crisis. And as press speakers have said, we don't have a housing crisis.

We have an affordability crisis. Many of the advocates for building a lot more unaffordable housing are say that it's a matter of supply and demand when and even if all you only build unaffordable housing units, then certain people will bid up creating the availability of less affordable housing units, and then eventually, supply and demand will equilibrate at a lower price point. That has some truth nationally, and it has some truth regionally. And in fact, we're in this mess regionally because virtually every other city in Greater Boston has been more restrictive than Somerville has. But the but the real re excuse me.

The real evidence in the peer peer reviewed, studies are those cited by Bill Wright, which are that the host community does not benefit. Gentrification is gentrification, and we lose the people who wove the fabric of our community. And we and we have lost so many of those people. I can't count the people I love who have been priced out of the city. Well, my time is up, so I will I will end it there.

Thank you. We have one more hand online.

Corey Antonino.

Hi. This is Tori Antonino. 65 Boston Street. I feel compelled to talk, because for my understanding, the ADUs, they were initially proposed, was so that we can increase the affordable affordability and increase people's ability to stay in Somerville. In fact, a month ago when this was, the amendment was being discussed to make, EDUs more easily, more easily permitted, I was assured by city councilors who said, Tori, these are this is for people who want to stay here.

It is for the elderly. It is for people who live here. We wanna create these opportunities and to have these accessibility these ADUs so, you know, people can die here, that they can age in place so that parents can move in and be with their children. And it's just it sounded you know, it's so dreamy and and sounds, oh, of course, this is so important. But when the rubber meets the road, that's not what's happening.

And I really wanna ask city councilors to have, like, a moment of truth. Like, if you're telling me this and this is not what's happening, you you gotta be honest with yourself because these ADUs are are not increasing affordability. They're being bought by developers and condoized, which would be great if they were affordable. But that there's this sort of mythology that these are allowing people to stay in Summerville is not true. And so for those city councilors who who support these ADUs, just make sure just tell us truthfully that these are not for people who live here, that it is for people who can afford a million dollar homes.

If you if you drive by down take a left at at the end of Highland, right, onto 28 past the bridge, not far on the right as you go towards 93 is this huge sign. It's a huge banner. It says ADUs built for a million dollars, and it's right on the other side of an ADU. And that ADU could not be built 10 feet back from the original structure. And I look at that, and I'm like, well, that's where a tree would have been.

That's where a backyard would have been. That's where naturally impervious surfaces would have been. We are not only displacing our diversity of people who who used to live here, who are desperately trying to stay here, but we're reducing habitat for our wildlife, who make who make life worth living in the city. And, you know, we have the green score, which does not address the the effects that these ADUs are going to create, which is impermeability, fewer naturally occurring green spaces, increased storm water, which is already you know, we're already being, ours those fees are already increasing, which increases the unaffordability or the affordability crisis that we're in. So I just I just really ask for a soul searching.

I support Bill White's amendments. Please let lot splits please let them be also subject to the inclusionary housing. And and it's not about people not wanting more neighbors. I just think quality of life for everybody here is also important, not not just housing at at the housing unaffordable housing that is just, making Somerville less affordable. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on these items? Comments are welcome. Respectfully, haven't you spoken before on this?

I only spoke on one

of the things, and there's four.

So I just wanna speak to one thing. I'm asking that when people use the word Slummerville that the city council pushed back. Slummerville is a place where my family came from Italy. We were welcome here. We were able to afford it. We were working class people. We continue to be working class people. Just because working class people and immigrants lived in a place close together did not make it a slum, and I wish that people would stop using that word because it is incredibly offensive to the people who were brought up here and whose families come from here. And it should be offensive to the people who live here now because why? Because we have more unaffordable housing that makes us not a slum.

We are a good city. I know a lot of people wanna live here. I still live here. It's for a reason because it's a great fucking great place to live. So I do not appreciate that, and I would wish that we just retire it because it was never true. So thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We have a hand online.

Kate Davis.

Thank you. This is Kate and Jeff Davis, and appreciate you giving us the time to to speak, and we appreciate listening to everybody's comments. I Kate and I purchased we're at 163 Morrison Avenue, which is a a three family. We purchased that almost exactly a year ago. We did purchase that with the intent to rent it out, which we continue to do to three three tenants, one of which has been in there for probably seven or eight years at at this point.

We did, about ten months ago, enter into a plan to build a cottage, and we have recently completed those plans to to build that cottage. You know, we followed all the the rules and regulations that are currently in in place, and as you can imagine, spent, a fair bit of money on that. Our request today I mean, we obviously, appreciate everybody's comments here is that if if the amendments are passed, that a reasonable grace period is allowed for owners like ourselves that have entered into you know, have made good faith efforts to put the right plans in place and build a building in accordance with the rules and regulations that that were in place. So I and I I think my time is almost up, but thank you for letting us comment.

Thank you. We currently have no hands online, and I don't see anyone approaching the podium. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Going once, going twice. Alright. Thank you all so much. We're gonna keep the public comment period the written comment period for this open for a month. That'll give us until Friday, May 15 at noon. You can send written comments to public comments with ans@SummervilleMA.gov. Thank you all, everyone who took the time to be here tonight.

Thank you, chair.

Chair Aboff, please.

If I can just say just as one member of the planning board, I'm very grateful to councilor White for putting this amendment forward and bringing it to our attention because as this has been happening under the purview of the ZBA and the NR District, I personally was unaware of those, particularly the lot split issue, and just want to express my thanks to everyone who came out to sort of articulate their concerns and experience.

Hear, hear. So we're gonna leave this item in committee, and we will take these up again for deliberation discussion at a future meeting. Colleagues, we have a very brief discussion of one more agenda item. Are there before we go to that, are there any other questions, comments that people wanna make on the amendments we've heard public hearings on tonight? Alright. Let's oh, councilor Quangan.

Oh, I just wanna thank everybody who spoke this evening and and thank, former councilor White for, bringing those forward, for our consideration, and, you know, we got we got some thinking to do.

Yes. Does the planning board wanna take this opportunity to, return to your meeting?

Thank you. I will put the planning board in recess so that we can reconvene at our meeting link. Thank you very much. Good evening.

Excellent. Thank you for being here. Good night. Clerk, would you please read the next item?

Agenda item three, a request of the mayor 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.

Colleagues, I just wanted to briefly update you on some conversations that I've been having with staff. It's my understanding that the mayor's office is taking a look at some things that they might want to propose here. And I've also asked, miss Carr, our analyst, to prepare two amendments, on my behalf for us to deliberate. One of them is to rethink that parking setback that we discussed at our last meeting, which is would be kind of stricter than market rate developments. And the other is to consider for a 100% affordable buildings to go to nine stories instead of eight.

We'll discuss this when I actually introduce it, but it's the same premise about what mass timber actually makes possible. So I think that's worthy of a debate. And I just wanted to let you all know that I'm hooking those up, and I look forward to taking this up at an upcoming meeting. Questions, comments on that? Alright. That item will also leave in committee. Seeing no further business before the committee, councilor Davis moves to adjourn. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Yep. We have to vote on to the minutes. And oh oh, we did that. We have to do it roll call.

Oh, no. Never mind. Sorry. That's what

I was thinking we're here. We're good.

Those items are approved, and we are adjourned. Thank you all.