Somerville Planning Board 05-21-2026

Good evening, everybody. It is the May 21st, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Planning Board. I'm Mike Capuano. I am the Chairman of the Planning Board. With me tonight is our Vice Chair, Amelia Aboff. O'Clerk, Jahan Habib, our members. Michael McNeely, Lynn Richards, Corley, Cooper. We have a quorum for the purpose of this meeting. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, the meeting of the Planning Board tonight will be conducted by remote participation. A video recording of the proceedings will be available on the city's meetings and events page or by emailing planningboard at somervillema.gov. This meeting is being recorded. So we have a number of items on our agenda tonight. I'm going to be taking them out of order. But the first is going to be the minutes from April 16, 2026.

Does anybody have any suggested revisions for the draft meeting mass of April 16th? Check. Seeing none, the chair moves to adopt to the draft meetings of April 16, seconded by Amelia. Alvaro, can we please have a roll call?

Zahran Khabib Aye Lynn Richards Aye Coralie Cooper

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Aye. We have meeting minutes. Now for the remainder of the meeting, here's what's going to happen. The planning board will shortly go into executive session, which will be a separate meeting between the members of the planning board and council. Secondarily to that, we'll reconvene here and we will take up the remainder of our agenda. We have two different items that hold. One has been continued. One will need to be continued. We'll take up a new matter that it will be publicly heard. And we'll also take up several items that have been the subject of a joint hearing between this board and the land use committee. for amendments. So what I'm going to do right now is ask for Alvaro to put the committee into recess after motion by the chair.

The planning board will reconvene under a separate link that I believe you all have received for an executive session to discuss a matter under current litigation. So the chair moves to Place the meeting in recess, seconded by the Vice-Chair. Seconded by the Vice-Chair, and please call the roll.

Thank you, Habib.

John, you're muted.

Oh, geez, aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

All right. Okay. So the planning board is going to log out of this meeting. There will be a placeholder while we are in executive session and we will reconvene after that. So see you all shortly.

Are you with us?

Yeah. Are we ready to reconvene? Yeah. Okay. Let's do that when you have the opportunity. Okay. Should I just call the roll call? Just make sure that we're back on the record and then you can call the roll call.

Okay, we're back on the record. Jahan Habib?

Aye.

Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Coralie Cooper? Sorry, Carly, couldn't hear you.

It's all about Here's the thing. We can see you. We acknowledge your presence.

Okay.

We can hear you. Just say aye.

Aye.

Here we go. Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Michael McNeely. Emil Aboff, Michael Capuano.

The planning board is back. We have a quorum. We have returned from our executive session. and the Planning Board has a number of other items on its agenda that we need to address. So, as a first item, 222 Broadway has requested to continue its request until July 16th. Chairman moves to continue that agenda item to July 16th, seconded by Amelia. Aboff, please call the roll. Johan Habib Aye Lynn Richards Aye I think it might be just a little low.

Michael McNeely? Aye. Amelia Aboff?

Aye.

Michael Capuano?

Aye. That agenda item is continued. One McGrath Highway has already been continued to June 4th, so there doesn't need to be anything more done with that. We have 120 Middlesex Avenue. which needs to be read into the record and also needs to be they've requested to continue so I would ask the clerk to read into the record the notice of public hearing for 120 Middlesex Avenue

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. 120 Middlesex Avenue, EWCH Assembly Road, LLC. LLC proposes to develop a 19-story lab building in the Assembly Square Mixed-Use District, ASMD, which requires site plan approval. ZP26-000038. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They have requested to continue to June 4th. Chair moves to continue. Seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please. Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper. Yes. Michael Magnoli. Aye. Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Aye. The agenda items continue. 32 Webster Avenue after the record is open for them until discussion of the various amendments that we have to discuss. So I've asked the clerk to read that in.

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. 32 Webster Avenue. 32 Webster Holdings LLC, Kinvara Capital, proposes to develop an apartment building in the mid-rise for MR4 zoning district, which requires site plan approval, ZP25. Dash zero zero zero zero nine seven 32 Webster Holdings LLC slash Kinvara Capital proposes to establish residential housing in the mid-rise for MR4 zoning district, which requires a special permit ZP25-000. 108. 32 Webster Holdings LLC slash Kinvara Capital seeks to construct a mechanical penthouse that exceeds the maximum height in the mid-rise for MR4 district, which requires a special permit. ZP26-000040. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We'll be holding this agenda item until we have gone through some of our other business, but I want to make sure they were read into the public record for the purpose of this meeting. So... Planning Board a number of weeks ago held a joint hearing with the Land Use Committee at which time various proposed amendments to the ordinance were proposed by various different stakeholders. and the planning board over the last several weeks has had the written record open for a number of these items and that period has expired so it is now the time for us to take up These agenda items and these proposed amendments for the purpose tonight of making recommendation to the Land Use Committee on these proposed amendments.

So the first one that I see, at least on mine, is dormers. 26 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance, various sections. and in short, it allows the increased height of detached house, semi-detached house and duplex building types in the NR District Two and a half stories to three stories and reduce restrictions on gable and shed dormers in our NUR. We've taken both public testimony orally and written and We had some preliminary discussion about this agenda item in a meeting previous and it was the request of the planning board that staff come back and give their Perspective on this proposed amendment.

And so I would ask for that to occur now.

Save that. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Dan Bartman, I'm the Director of Planning, Preservation, and Zoning for the City of Somerville. I'm happy to answer any specific questions. Our general assessment of the proposal is that we find ourselves Similarly aligned related to relaxing the dormer standards, but we do not support the change to the building types to three stories. One of the challenges with that is permitting buildings to have a full height third floor nullifies the reason for having dormers in the code in the first place, because we have building types that have a half story. that's permitted and dormers and cross gables all project from that half story by definition. So really what we're doing is limiting houses currently to a pitched roof that we then allow some things to project from.

If you then allow that building to have a full height pop third floor, any dormer that they decide to build or a pitched roof that they decide to build is just them deciding not to use all of their entitled build-out. in the zoning ordinance. And we have buildings like that today. Most specifically, some of the row houses in the city are allowed to have a full third floor and their dormer standards aren't enforced. if they want to propose a dormer as long as it's within the dimensions of a full third floor then they can build that dormer whatever design they see fit with whatever amount of fenestration they see fit as wide as they want because it's all leading to them realizing their entitlement. So either the code needs to have half-story buildings in it and dormers or it needs to have... Full story buildings and no dormers. So really those two things kind of don't go together.

That was the real challenge with actually enforcing the amendment as proposed. ISD would have to look at Each one of these and be like is it a dormer or is it a third floor and they're going to default to the third floor entitlement and so it really ended up nullifying the dormer standards anyway. So if you don't support changing all of the building types in the NR district to full floors, then the question that remains is just about the dormer dimensions. We've experienced a lot of feedback over the years about dormers. Of course, anytime you try to regulate the incredible diversity of our world you end up simplifying it into categories that don't fully represent the dynamism that is out there right even when we went around measuring all of the buildings of Somerville

To make the building types in the code, we removed the outliers at the top and bottom of our data set on purpose to regulate better representation of the majority of the city, but we knew that Things on either end were not going to be compliant. Same thing in this situation. We have some buildings that are narrower or wider than each other, some of them that built their half stories with a We call it a knee wall. It's the amount of the half story being lifted off the floor or the finished floor of that third floor, right? If it's two feet. of like a sidewall there and then the pitch roof happens you have more space than if that pitch roof comes right down to the floor right and that two foot knee wall is not there That has an impact on where your dormer can go.

Similarly, if your building is narrower, your dormers get pushed out as far as they go towards the outer edge of the building because you're trying to get headroom. inside your narrower building, right? And the wider your building is, the less you actually even can put in a dormer to solve your headroom issues. because our buildings have a diversity of widths to them. Some buildings just ran into not being able to build a dormer using our standards. So just trying to paint a picture that there's all that Thank you. Inspired by Somerville Yimby's last proposal, which was last fall, we ran a survey as part of our five-year zoning review project.

Asking people within the public to answer that survey and presented relaxed dormer standards that were very similar to what Somerville Yimby has proposed from the dimensional standpoint. For example, also 15% windows, also allowing some dormers to... Extend the whole way back on the building. Where we differed from them is that we asked a question on if there should be a front setback. for dormers from the front of the building, from the facade. Because we are aware of members of the public that don't want to see all of the houses have Flat roof third floors. They want to maintain some of the existing physical design of our existing buildings. And in providing a setback, even if you have a full width dormer that extends the whole way to the back of the house,

When you stand at the front of the house, it creates a slight optical illusion that maintains that pitched roof appearance at the front of the building. This is kind of a historic preservation perspective, right? Like historic preservation looks at what is visible from the public realm. So similarly, we said, okay, well, if I'm looking at these buildings, how would I maybe try to get at that desire? that some members of the public have to maintain that physical appearance of dormers projecting from a pitched roof. And that's what we came up with. We actually walked around the city taking photos from the front and looking to see if the dormers had setbacks or not and found the ones that have a slight setback of two to three feet end up creating that kind of visual optical illusion that it's a dormer, not a full... loss of the pitch roof of the house right in it but I want to acknowledge like that's only at the front

We asked people what they thought of that, and about 90% of our responses were to relax the standards for dormers. Many people also thought that we should go further than what we were presenting and not have that front setback. We tried to target as many people as we could. Unfortunately the survey fell just short of the minimum number of people you would want to have the Lowest confidence level that the responders represent the city. So I wanna highlight that we did not reach a response rate where the data is representative of the broader city. What I do think it still represents is some opinions of some of our residents within the city, right? And we shouldn't discredit opinions of the public. But I want to highlight that the survey fell just short of being able to be representative of the broader opinion.

So what we're dealing with is unique opinions that do exist. One of those that took our survey was really upset at the potential loss of the appearance of pitched roof houses with dormers projected from them. So much so that they didn't even like our two to three foot setback that we proposed and wouldn't adopt any of the relaxation of the dormer standards. So I'm just trying to highlight that these varying opinions exist within the community and we do run into buildings that have kind of fits related to trying to build dormers that will work with their building because of the diversity of the housing stock. So in following that train of thought, we have found ourselves being supportive of more lenient dimensions.

Allowing dormers to go all the way up to the ridgeline but not project above the roof Allowing dormers to... Go all the way out to the sidewall, but not to interrupt the eve of the building unless they have to, because the finished floor of that half story is below the eve. that you can never project further than the rear wall so that all of those things are aligned with The proposal that Somerville-Yimby put forward. So that means that we find ourselves in alignment with them on many of the proposed dimensions. But we would still advocate for a front setback of dormers from the facade. and not to include the portion of the amendment that allows houses, semi-detached houses, detached houses to have a flat roof third floor.

that makes them into a triple decker with slightly different width dimensions rather than pitched roof houses with dormers and like I said if we were to do that it's indicating to me that we should make other code changes because it leaves behind Tools that aren't necessary any longer.

Thank you very, very much for that kind of overview and your insight on behalf of PPC and the administration for that particular amendment. I know where I sit on this particular proposal, and I would welcome the input of my colleagues because we will have to make a recommendation to the Land Use Committee this evening.

Yeah, Amelia.

The extent the city is taking the position of sort of alignment with many of these, but also departure from a handful of them in a meaningful way, is there any intention to put forward a competing amendment by the city?

at this point we've talked through the similarities and differences with the land use committee and they intend to take action to amend The proposal that Yimby had put forward, because of how we overlap, if you were to think about it like a Venn diagram, they don't... They're not looking for us to resubmit a whole new proposal because they can amend the language of YIMBYs as they see fit to get to the outcome that they're looking for. I've already had that meeting with them, and so they're waiting on your recommendation on the full proposal by YIMBY, and if it has any nuances to it. I can share what I know that they've done, if you would like. It is to not include the changes to the building, the number of stories for those buildings, to maintain a 15% fenestration percentage for dormers,

to have a front setback but to all of the other not breaking the eave not projecting further than the sidewall not going above the ridge of the roof all of that is would be maintained the same they are however waiting for your feedback to see if any other changes are desirable thank you

Anybody else on this particular one before I go? So I thought this particular proposal was interesting. At the last meeting, I kind of Reflected on the history of the dormer ordinances that we have over the last number of years. And I look at this particular proposal and I share the concerns that Dan reflected insofar as it effectively makes the... Distinction between dormers and just having a straight up third floor, almost indistinguishable.

and we as a city kind of have historically had a respect for a variety of different building types and building styles uh historic building styles with pitched roofs with dormers with Decker Abdulmas, with functional Abdulmas also, some things like that. And also I've had somewhat of a pushback on just making a straight up three stories universally throughout the city. We've pushed back on that a little bit recently, but I'm still of the opinion that I like the idea of two-story and two-and-a-half-story buildings. I think it adds to the diversity of building types in the city. And so some of the concerns that Dan identified are things that I share on this particular item. One that I think is too broad-based. I think it could be further narrowed.

I'm not sure as as one particular number I would be particularly welcome to expanding Dormer Opportunities, the way Dan might have proposed in the future. That's just me. I tend to be a little bit more conservative than some other folks on this particular issue because I do like the variety of building styles and types in the city. And I think it's respectful of where we came from and who we are. But what I would propose as a recommendation is not a yes and not a no. It would be a neutral recommendation with maybe some color on and reflection of other proposals that the administration might be proposing.

to address this issue and how the planning board might come out on those is to be seen as to what exactly the proposals might be. but for the proposal that's in front of us which is all we can make a recommendation on not something that may not come down the pike in the future My suggestion would be, and my position on this one would be, to make a null recommendation with some consideration that Review of the dormer ordinance is appropriate and should be done by and through PPZ with the City Council and with engagement with the neighborhood and with other groups and not just be a and advocacy group proposal which is not always something that

fits with long-term planning and the way that the administration, the city officials, our boards, the rest of the public might see things. So I... Always welcome people's engagement. I'm glad this has been brought up again for discussion. But as a recommendation as one member of the planning board, my recommendation would be to make a null recommendation with some color. I see Michael. Yeah, sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to say that on this matter, I think I'm aligned with you and a lot of the things that you stated. but I do want to just add an asterisk and say that you know for any folks that are listening to our deliberation now like I am still very excited and supportive of this alternative process to updating Zoning, Ordinances, Neighborhood, Input. I really want to continue to know that this is important to us. And so again, although I might disagree with the full proposal that has been brought to us, I want to encourage folks to continue to engage in it. So I just want to add that color because my vote might not otherwise carry that.

I think, and when we come up, Michael, with a proposed recommendation, which should happen, I think fairly quickly, I think we can turn this around. I'm going to take a look and Amelia will take a look to make sure that it reflects the discussion that this board has had on this issue, similar to what is going to happen. to the other agenda items uncertain and which is what happened with agenda items in the past as it relates to proposed amendments. So I don't think that you're Consideration here is going to go unwarranted. This is absolutely going to go into the narrative of what's going to be going to the Land Use Committee on the summary of what the board has discussed.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And just to make sure that I didn't Minced my words a little bit there. What I wanted to say is I'm supportive of this process being a way to update ordinances. I know frequently I've often voted against making community-based Proposals and Adjustments. But I do think this is an effective tool. I think that sometimes our processes are too slow to react to the changing interests of the city and its people. So I just want to Again, I know I often keep voting against them, but at the end of the day, I want to make sure that outside of the details of this, that that concept is still there, that people appreciate that this is important to us.

Yeah, Michael, I'll agree with you. I think that outside perspectives really do can and can cover how the city operates, right? And how we operate as a board. Some of the priorities that the administration may have and This is what makes municipal government awesome, right? People get to be engaged, and even if they don't get exactly what they want, they get the discussion and the ball rolling on what might happen next. I'm fully on board with that perspective. Yeah, Amelia.

I'm aware that this is sort of the second version of this proposal that The MD group has put forward and that there has already been sort of a very long ramp for them of getting to this stage. So to the extent that our recommendation can, to Mike's point Be supportive of that effort and supportive of sort of the council's board order or what have you to effectuate a city approved version of this. I would certainly sort of Be supportive of any language we can provide that acknowledges this as a priority because I know that this has already been a very long process from their perspective. I also want to revisit my question from last time, or my ask from last time, about the fenestration requirement, which it sounds like is something that's being kept in the version that is currently under consideration by Council.

I continue to feel like that's something that is potentially very low impact to the city aesthetically and to neighbors and which could be an easy win. Thank you so much for joining us. accept their proposed revisions too?

I will tactfully decline from adopting that portion of a recommendation based on create a discussion on honorifics as a whole, as one person.

Lynn, yeah. Michael, I'm wondering, going to Amelia's point about the process, I'm wondering if we can flip how you're thinking about this. I I I substantively you and I agree substantively um on it not and the city as well not to go to three stories but to change the dimensional standards and so instead of putting in a you know null response with some color as you said why not instead flip it to say here are the all the areas in which we agree but we don't but we disagree on this on this major area which is going to going to uh three stories so kind of just like Changing the frame. Yeah.

I get that. The question becomes, though, are we voting yes on the... Because... This is not an amorphous issue and a continuous discussion. This is about the proposal that is before us. So the question is, do we recommend, do we not recommend, or do we have no recommendation on the exact language that is in front of us? Unless we are wholeheartedly in favor of the that is in front of us that's not a yes recommendation that is that is something less than that and that has been the historic position of this board is if we are not wholly on We make a null recommendation with consideration.

because a yes recommendation says we like the proposal that is in front of us. And I don't hear that from at least some of the members who have spoken already. That's the distinction.

Thank you for that clarification. I would agree with that. As I spoke last time, I was against moving to three stories in this process. I hear what Amelia is saying too about the fenestration I have a slightly different perspective on it but I can easily see neighbors and like oh if we can just put you know fewer windows we can create a bathroom here or we can do something else so I would support her you know her argument on that we should we should keep the Be more liberal with the fenestration requirements. I don't have the dimensional standards up at the moment.

I'll just say this one. I have a window of my bathroom right on my shower it is frosted glass it's fine I have plants I'm sure people want frosted glass and plants and a shade when I'm taking a shower.

Carly, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope you can hear me.

Yes, thankfully, yes.

Okay, great. Well, two points. One is kind of a procedural question. I think you may have answered it, but a null vote, that means the board does not revisit this issue. Is that correct?

Yeah, either way, we're going to have to make some sort of a recommendation to the Land Use Committee tonight. The no recommendation is not a yes, it's not a no, it's neither a yes nor a no, but we've appreciated it. What's before us? And we have some thoughts. Okay. Yes. In my estimation, just to clarify, a yes vote is we like what's in front of us and we think this works. No vote is no. We don't. A null vote, which is something that we generally do, is we've got to split on this one. We don't know if this is good, we don't know if this is bad, but this could get somewhere good.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. And then I'd just also like to add that I support what Amelia said about the fenestration. It seemed like there were good arguments against requiring the The amount of demonstration that is currently required.

Thank you. Anybody else before we move to make a recommendation? Okay. Albert, you have kind of our Comments on the record here. You can draft up a recommendation, which would be a no recommendation. that colors in kind of what everybody has talked about, some of where we agree, some of where we disagree, to give the Land Use Committee the full picture of kind of the discussion that we had, right? Yes. Okay. So with that in mind, the chair moves to make a recommendation. There is no recommendation on this particular agenda item, but that this particular agenda item does, I think, merit additional.

Discussion and consideration based on some of the discussions that we've had tonight and in the previous discussions that we've had on this particular amendment and as will be reflected in the recommendation that you'll type up for us. Seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please.

Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely. Aye. Amelia Aboff?

Aye.

Michael Capuano? Aye. Okay.

That agenda item is dispensed with and moved along to the Laying Use Committee Subject to approval by me and Amelia as the actual length. So next one I'm going to look at is Union Square. This is US 2 Associates asking for a zoning map amendment for a number of parcels. Union Square and we have received oral testimony as well as written testimony and that has now closed and it's up to board discussion by the board. Who would like to go first?

Okay, Amelia. I see Amelia's actual hand. We're doing Simpsons hands, man.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I was so eager to say that I oppose this map change. Ha ha! This is a parcel that's been subject to so much scrutiny and master planning and thought and negotiation over time. and I want to be responsive to the overarching desire to see more parcels that are available for housing and I know that's a difficult thing to square with this conversation but Union Square has been subject to such careful and diligent planning that unless Dan is going to tell us otherwise, I would be loath to change it in something that Books and appeals like opportunistic spot zoning in response to market conditions and isn't aligned with the longer term strategic plan for the neighborhood.

Gohan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 100% agree with Madam Chair's position on this matter. I have similar spot zoning concerns. Also, I'm still concerned about the fact that The sanctity of the master plan needs to be maintained while I'm very supportive of the need for additional housing. and very cognizant of the market conditions for laboratory spaces. I think this is a bridge too far for me to support so I just want to go on record for saying that. Thank you very much.

Sure. Lynn?

Thanks. So, Amelia, or Michael, when we were I just want to understand your position a little bit better because on the one hand I agree on the other hand when we were hearing A proposal for a lab building, tall, tall lab building, like 16 or 17 stories in Assembly Square. Michael asked the question, what happens if you're not able to create lab space here because articles have been coming out that the lab market was softening and this was about a year ago and Michael asked that I thought very good question and they came back and they're like well we'll we'll be back then in a couple of years in front of you asking if we can change this to housing and Michael said something non-committal like oh well I look forward to hearing about that.

So while on the one hand Amelia I understand about this kind of spot zoning I also know that that some of these plans that we have these neighborhood plans take more than a decade to to create and and the the lab market has kind of fallen out Boston has has I think 30 or 40 percent excess It didn't feel willy-nilly to me. And kind of going to what Michael said earlier To me, it feels like this kind of process enables the city to be more nimble as things change. So from my perspective, I would approve that, given... Given kind of what I've heard over the course of the year and kind of how I believe Somerville operates and

Why we can use this board to be more surgical in some changes?

Well, we have sides.

Amelia raised her hand.

Did you? Oh, now I see.

Now I see. I was hoping she would like kind of like talk a little bit. Through you, Mr. Chair, may I respond?

You can respond for yourself.

I think that no I hear you Lynn and I want to be receptive to that and I think what I would say is The balance between the overall amount of residential development and the overall amount of commercial development in Union Square is maybe just Thank you so much for joining us. Probably feel very open to a map chain, you know, with all these numbers, Summer Nova and, like, the housing, the... Building topology that is desirable for a tough tech use. And that seems like a conversation that would be worth having. We've just had this whole zoning push about the space that needs to be built to accommodate that type of space in the market.

I guess, you know, I'm sometimes unsympathetic to Michael saying, I remember we looked at this and it was only eight to 10 years ago. and now I'm finding myself in the position of saying I remember when we looked at this and there were so you know it was such a drawn out and extensive and carefully balanced process and I think the vacancy rates for the new construction in Union Square are still quite high in the residential development to the best of my understanding so I also just don't see this as see I don't see this residential as something that would get off the ground in a timely fashion. I don't see the residential in Union as currently sort of thriving in its niche in the market. and abandoning a well-structured plan in response to sort of a developer ask doesn't feel strategic to me but I also

I'm going to put Dan on the spot and say, you know, if the city is thinking differently about how, you know, Union Square is developing at this point in time, I would be interested to hear that. But... I think of assembly differently because so much of it is commercial development and so you know a building Looking at it neighborhood by neighborhood, you're always trying to strike that balance. And I feel like Assembly already has more going for it in terms of, you know, the loss of the loss of 300,000 square feet of lab and assembly to go to residential would feel different than that swing in union to me. But, you know, it's a fair point.

Through the chair, I was name dropped, so I thought I'd respond. The position the city's taken related to this item is one primarily focused on The development of the Union Square neighborhood plan, the redevelopment plan, the master land disposition agreement signed between the Somerville Redevelopment Authority and the chosen master developer. The development covenant with that same master developer that the city of Somerville has signed. The community development or benefits agreement that the Union Square Neighborhood Council has signed. agreed to with the chosen master developer for Union Square in that the city council taking action to rezone the property will reset those relationships and that We've been building those relationships for about a decade or more.

And really, that's what the decision would be that's happening to rezone this property would be causing a reset. Every property owner in Union Square that's one of the D parcels has the right to develop using the base zoning on their property. um that causes a if they were to build um we are like if they apply for a permit and they qualify for it and they compliant then we're obligated to issue those permits um like for site plan approval or something like that and that would cause a reflow of the project meaning that US2 would have to figure out how to redistribute what they're trying to build on the remaining lots and may or may not run into problems.

That is a known situation that US2 is operating within in Union Square, and that's why the Redevelopment Authority has eminent domain rights over those same parcels. so that if a property owner happens to make a proposal that is not in line with the proposed master plan that the Designated Master Developer and the Somerville Redevelopment Authority could decide to take action by acquiring that site to build what the chosen master plan indicates. A way of circumventing that entire setup that we've been operating under is for the city council to rezone the property to the point where it incentivizes that exact situation to happen. In opposition or conflicting with all of the agreements that we've all signed through those processes.

So the question for us really became, are we resetting? by supporting this map change so we have no We have not analyzed things from a market standpoint, from an urban design standpoint, because all of this has been for us mainly about are we sticking with the agreements that we've signed? Is the Neighborhood Council sticking with the agreements they've signed? Is the Summer of Redevelopment Authority sticking with those agreements, for example? Or are we deciding on a reset? and we have come down on we're sticking with those agreements. So for that reason, we are not in support of changing the zoning. The base zoning on this lot. And if an adjustment to new market conditions is to take place, It's fully capable to be executed by US2 and the Somerville Redevelopment Authority to pivot for them to submit a revised master plan that moves the parts around in Union Square so that they could

might build a residential building on that site if a commercial one's not viable any longer. But for the delivery of the entirety of the rest of that project, Changing the property from under them could cause them an inability to actually execute on everything that's in that approved master plan. and would inhibit our ability to actually there are parts of the development covenant that the city has with US2 to like repair streets as they build out Union Square and we're supposed to follow along with them That would undermine our ability to execute on all of those agreements as well. So you can see how for us this became more about all of the agreements and the prior planning that had come in. has laid the groundwork for the redevelopment of Union Square.

That was a much more thorough explanation than my... It was very, very complicated. There are a lot of pieces. Thank you, Cam.

Oh my god, Dan, that was exactly kind of the context and the broader understanding of this that we needed. Thank you so much. And thank you, Amelia, for like... Meeting my question and trying to tease it out, I feel really good now about saying of voting against this change.

Who else? Me. Okay. Amelia. Dan. I love you both. Here is... We both come from, by the way, I respect the fact that you now see the wisdom. of History. Every so often I have to remind myself that I'm actually a pretty bright guy, that I actually did study the classics, right? Now I'm thinking back of Cicero. We study history not to be smart about where we came from, but to be wise about where we're going. And that's what this is. We went through years and years and years. As one member of the plaintiff board, I went through three different resounding of Union Square, including the most recent in whatever year that was where the master developer after a lengthy process came to a

and agreement with the city, agreement with the neighborhood association, which is not something that we can officially take position on. But it was a lengthy process with many, many moving parts that got us to a place where we are. And Lynn, I want to... reflect on what you said as well. I'm going to have some questions about the next person that comes before us after these amendments are done. as to why a lab building is being proposed where it's being proposed. So we'll see where that goes. But for the purpose of this particular proposed amendment, I look at this both historically as well as the fact that it's being proposed by somebody who bought this building after the zoning had been put into place and is now looking to change it. I always look at that with a little bit of a skeptical eye. This is no different.

I don't know what the best use of this particular parcel is. If we as a community want to revisit the master plan along with the entity that was involved in the master plan. We should do that along with the neighborhood associations, along with the community as a whole. I'm not necessarily in favor right now of Subjecting ourselves to the liability for spot zoning. And This is not the right way to go about this. If this is the way that this particular subsequent purchaser of this plot wanted to look at rezoning, they should have, in my estimation,

uh done this through the appropriate channels through pbz uh through neighborhood processes and not just as i don't like what i have I don't like what the market is bearing out today. I would like to change this. Irrespective of what they're proposing, may or may not be good. They might be having a daycare full of puppies and that's great too, but that's not how this works. So I'm not in support of this particular application. What I don't want to do... Necessarily his vote did not recommend in my view as one person and no recommendation generally falls afoul of us getting sued. So in these circumstances, I tend to prefer a null recommendation with the context that we've discussed. If you all feel differently, we can make that recommendation.

Historically, when I've made a no recommendation, it's because it's unlawful. This is not unlawful. With that in mind, does anybody have any comments, concerns, questions about the proposed vote that I am going to make? Michael, yeah

I don't know if this will actually tip the scales at all but I would be bold enough to recommend denying if other members felt that as well.

I understand. I see a minute.

I differ to you on the legal risk but would also support that. I think that saying that we sort of back the city's obligation to Perform in its covenants seems like a reasonable basis to because that is part of the fact pattern here it seems like it might be a moment where we could safely go that route but I trust your judgment.

Amelia, I mean, we're not the permanent granting authority. We're a recommending body, so any litigation will not be levied against the planning board. If it's the will of the board to make a negative recommendation, that will not be my motion, but I'm more than happy to make the motion on behalf of somebody who supports that. Okay, so the chain moves to make a null recommendation with the context discussed by members of the planning board, seconded by Amelia. All for open, please take a roll call.

Erhan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely. Aye. Amelia Abel.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Hi. Thank you all for that agenda item. What I'm going to do is put us in recess for a brief five minutes and then we're going to come back and talk about ADUs, cottages, and good things like that. So the planning board will be in recess until 7.30 on the dot.

I will see you soon.

My God, we're back again.

So, we have a number of other... Dan, I... Respect.

I don't know if I'm embarrassed for getting that reference or not.

So, we have a number of other items on our agenda, several other amendments. And the reason I wanted to group these, actually, Dan, for the same reason that I wanted to Ask for your opinion on behalf of the administration of staff. of some of these ADU and backyard cottage amendments, right? So there are a few competing. And it's also my understanding that You all might be drafting your own at some point to address this. So before we get started on discussion of individual proposed amendments on backyard cottages and ADUs.

I was hoping you might, if you're in the position to do so, give us a Heads up on what you and your staff are looking at doing to address some of the concerns that have been raised in proposals that have been made by councilors and also by former councilors and members of the public.

Sure thing, Mr. Chair. So my staff is actually in collaboration with the Inspectional Services Division right now to write an amendment for both backyard cottages and accessory dwelling units that will bring us into compliance with the ADU law at the state. We are... Currently implementing what the law makes us implement, but we need to bring our ordinance into consistency with that law. It's actually very complex. But we do have an amendment in process right now. We don't believe it will take very long, but it could be that you'll see it at the end of the summer, depending on how timing works with the budget. is going to happen in June and the city council tends to go in recess in July. So we don't know the timing of all that, but we are working on it behind the scenes each day right now.

That amendment will need to understand whether or not our backyard cottage is the qualifying ADU under the state law. We need to answer questions about how large our backyard cottages can get because the ADU law mandates that you must permit what is called a protected ADU. that is not allowed to be larger than 900 square feet unless we decide to allow it to be larger than 900 square feet We recently were working off of a determination by the Attorney General's office that our backyard cottage could count as a more permissive Thank you so much.

Another detached building that had another unit in it. meaning could there be three buildings on a lot in the NR district with five units because of what the state law is implying? For many months, the answer was yes. And the reason that we didn't have clarity on that is all of this is being handled the same way that other protected uses exist in MGL 40A, the State Zoning Act. These are commonly referred to as Dover Act uses, the same way that churches and schools are protected, that we must be permitted in zoning districts. are being required to permit accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts the same way.

There is then an established case law about how the Dover Amendment gets implemented that is not as similarly robust as the standards that were put out for MBTA communities. So there's a lot that our legal department has had to comb through with interpreting the state's requirements for our specific community and our specific zoning ordinance that has taken months for us to untangle. There were aspects of the standards that the state wrote in. Implementation criteria for the state law. There was aspects of that that were not investigated that are nuances related to each city. For example, Cambridge passed its upzoning while this law was coming into place.

Their base zoning district across most of the city is four stories permitted or six stories with some additional affordable housing and no density measure. If you haven't... In not having a limiter on the number of units, the state law for ADUs contemplates The protected ADU not counting against density limits, but also must be permitted. So as an example, if you're not counting density, which unit in a proposal is actually a protected ADU? Right? If you could propose unlimited amounts of units. So immediately there was like a counting problem that wasn't apparent when these standards were being developed. Things like that have manifested in each community as each community has worked to implement this law in combination with their own unique zoning.

So there's been a whole lot of work to try and get to where we're at today. And the competing... Backyard Cottage slash ADU amendments don't address many of those issues. So that's one thing that we have to take into consideration We are working closely with Councilor Strezo moving forward to make sure that we also take into consideration the work that she has done. Put in on these issues in the amendment that we were working on. We're trying to work through the baseline of what the state mandates that we do related to our zoning locally. and then we will be engaging her. And some of the amendments that were put forward by various numbers of community members that are before you today do touch some of those same items.

Like the first one gets at regulating the total square footage of a backyard cottage at 900 square feet. in line with the state law. So some of these proposals are in line with those outcomes and things that we are also considering and looking into as part of that larger project. But I do expect a backyard cottage slash ADU amendment to bring us into compliance with state law or consistency with state law by the summer. So that's the trajectory we're on. There's lots of questions to still answer. One complicating thing is that the dimensions of the backyard cottage or protected ADU that you must allow, those are drawn from what's permitted elsewhere on the lot.

So if the dimensions of your principal building allow for a three-story triple-decker with a large footprint, those are the dimensions that your new protected ADU actually inherits. that creates unique situations, right? Like it might be limited to 900 square feet but be allowed to be three feet tall or three stories tall. That maybe creates something unique back there that we're trying to model. Yeah, like what is that? Is that 300 square feet for three floors, right? Like... and Treehouse.

Right.

So there's a little bit of like, what would be... We're trying to parse the dimensions that we might have to use to permit for the PADU and asking ourselves questions like, oh, maybe we need to figure out how to regulate... Thank you for watching! Backyard Cottage ends up with a height regulation that's reasonable for our community but to put that in place I actually might have to regulate the principal structure with that same height limit. but if it's for the backyard that's probably fine right because the building doesn't go all the way in the backyard So we're working through weird nuances related to the state law in getting to this conclusion, but we are very far along and are just kind of working through the final pieces.

and like I said anticipate something in the summer in the meantime happy to be responsive to any of these proposals in front of us and provide feedback

No, Dan, thank you very, very much for that context and the heads up on what we might be seeing in the next few months. Thoughts both on kind of what you have proposed as a preliminary measure, but also what's been proposed to us by the councilors and by Councilor Attorney White. Before I get to that, obviously, I want to kind of see where my colleagues are on some of these amendments. So I think it makes sense. to look at all of these cohesively because they all relate to similar issues. We will have to take separate votes on every single one, but because they all relate to the same general issue, in various aspects of the same general issue.

I think it makes sense for the purpose of the discussion to talk about what you want to talk about as it relates to the amendments that are before us. If you want to segregate your discussion based on a particular amendment, you're more than welcome to do that, but I don't think that's necessarily... The most important thing that we do. I kind of want to get your gauge on all that, particularly in context with what Dan was just mentioning about a proposed administration amendment. or a series of amendments that might be coming up in the next couple of months. Who's got what?

I see a real hand and a fake hand. I will recognize the fake hand.

All right, this may not be... My last comment, but it's a first comment and it's a process one, which is given everything that Dan said, it feels to and given to what you said earlier on process like, yes, we like all of this. and or or not um it seems to me that this feels premature that it's it's better to kind of wait for the For the city to get done, and I don't know, Michael or Dan, I'm hoping you can clarify, but instead of kind of going through these individual bits, the bigger issue for me is one issue. is is this like if the city's coming down with things and coming down with a pike then isn't this all premature like shouldn't we almost say to the people who who put this in well just wait the city's coming in with something

and if you still don't like it then um xyz and as a small second point um i was really irked uh with the presentation that um somebody gave that that uh the person who is well known with a picture Was it real? Was it not? I never felt that there was a straight answer and it just made it immediately. No, no, no, that's not really real. We just copied it, but that's what's going to be there. And it just reduced my... confidence in what he was presenting was valid in that I never felt we got a straight answer on that picture. Anywho, but process, Dan or Michael?

So process-wise, I'll say this. We have a number of amendments that are before us tonight that are required to have a recommendation made to the Land Use Committee this evening. The fact that there is a potentially competing... Proposed amendment that Dan and his staff is working on is helpful context, but it is not dispositive about what I read. Our remit is tonight. We're obligated to make a recommendation on these things tonight. Whether we think they are appropriate, inappropriate, that's what's here tonight and that's what we have to deal with. but I think it is very well taken that Dan has reflected that there will be at some point in the next several months

a an administration-led community-based and drafted amendment that will reflect the concerns related to these issues so We need to take these up tonight. They may or may not be... I don't necessarily agree that they're premature because they came out obviously before the city came out with anything and I don't know when the When Dan and his staff started this and whether they had any discussions with any of the proponents for these particular amendments. So I can't speak to the prematurity of those. But I will say. You have to look at these separately, but also in context.

Thank you.

Yeah, Gurley.

Mr. Chair, I have a number of questions, but maybe I'll start with one and see if Dan or others have thoughts on this. But a lot of the... The discussion around these amendments Thank you so much for joining us. you know you can end up with i think the example is a million dollar adu which sort of not what's not the intent of uh having an adu um but i mean if if If it remains part of the primary structure and it's a rental unit, couldn't you also have a very high rental you know very expensive rental essentially in in the backyard and I'm just trying to understand if you know making the change one of the changes that's proposed would would help with affordability

through the chair yes that's that's true there's even a weird if you choose to look at price per square foot even the smaller units actually have their price per square foot go up although like you are you will you be priced out most of the time of a two bed or a three bed anyway so like that's not the way that everybody looks at housing but when when we do an analysis a lot of times it points to the fact that When you build smaller, you actually jack up the price of it relative to older construction of the same size, for example. The code does not regulate price point. of Market Rate Housing, and there is no affordable housing requirement in the entirety of the NR zoning district. So whether or not these are rentals or for sale units, which I believe is where the testimony was using the word condominium,

that is a sole choice of the person producing the housing unit the zoning ordinance does not regulate that one way or another If somebody builds and creates rental housing and then goes to convert that to condos in Somerville, it has to go through the condo conversion process. But when they are originally created, it's developer choice or property owner choice of how those units are. So there isn't anything in zoning that actually causes that to happen. One of the other things that the state is pushing related to its ADU law and something along the same line that Somerville a position that Somerville took when we adopted backyard cottages in the 2019 version of the code which is still in play today was that we should not have

Thank you for watching! or familial status or any connection. We just want to produce another unit that allows anybody to live there. and that's really what the state is also pushing and one of the aspects of this or these proposals is I think frustration over the disconnection between those two things and the desire for them to be they use the terms accessory or ancillary to whatever the primary structure is not only in size but also in relationship and we chose a long time ago not to force the

Ancillary connection between whoever's living in that back unit in the backyard cottage and whoever's living in the main building. So there is some disconnect about what we're trying to achieve from a housing perspective and what these amendments want to propose. But I do want to highlight, I think you're on... Absolutely on point with just because this is a rental does not mean that it will be an affordable rental for the majority of Somerville. a lot of our new housing that is produced is a high price point and a lot of the households in Somerville would be priced out of it so we're naturally most of our new housing is talking about A new community member joining us.

Okay, thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I could just bring up one other point that I thank you. I'm sorry.

You have all the time you want. You have no expiration.

Thank you. I sympathize with the suggestion that the board rules be changed about splitting. Lots, just because, well, frankly, just because I've seen a number of these lot splits and they do, they are extremely crowded. So I think maybe the suggestion that there's more input into that, the lot splits might be a good idea.

Through the chair. The crowded nature of the resulting development is it actually is a result of the dimensions of the code otherwise that regulate the building that then goes on that lot, not the actual dimensions and regulations of lots. So that's one of the things to differentiate here. People moving lot lines, dissolving lot lines, creating new lot lines happens all the time. It doesn't necessarily happen to build buildings. We have an example on my desk right now where two existing houses on the same lot are would just like to be independent lots and they're adding a lot line between the two existing houses. If that were to require full site plan approval, that would be two neighborhood meetings, design review, and then a public hearing.

to add a line to a property between two existing houses that does not cause any impact to those existing houses and certainly doesn't, in our opinion, warrant all of that process. to add what ends up being an invisible line on a piece of paper that's recorded at the registry of deeds. as compared to buildings that result from having empty land available to build. So if we think the lots are too crowded, It's because of the dimensions that are allowed for a principal building in combination with the dimensions that are allowed for a backyard cottage. the size that they're allowed to be how separate they're allowed or required to be from each other how much resulting open space remains on the lot it's really not related to the fact that somebody is dividing that parcel in half in an absolutely compliant manner.

The other factor we ran into with this is that there isn't really an impact that I can mitigate through any kind of permit condition. when you're doing things like just splitting land for existing houses or splitting land for buildings that must absolutely be compliant with the zoning ordinance So if people are building compliant buildings and dividing their land in a compliant manner, that's the you know, what by right development really is. The use of discretion to decide whether or not somebody should split their land or should build those buildings, is because of normally because of unique situations or that it's improper to build necessarily on those on those properties and so we're using discretion to tell you yes or no in these situations people are absolutely required to be

100% compliant with the zoning ordinance so when that's the case why are we putting them through all of that process really becomes the question and it actually has high cost on the potential for any development Anything that requires to come to a hearing in front of you can also be appealed. That's why the Affordable Housing Overlay District does everything that it does to move everybody into the buy-right world where their permit cannot be appealed. That's because we don't require a permit for them in that situation. This is actually the same. This is all buy right stuff that through different processes are being allowed to move forward in a compliant manner in a buy right world. And that's why we've defended that kind of opinion related to how minor site plan approval has been used in the past.

Something that we are very sensitive to and it's grown over time is the fact that in 2019 when we adopted the new code it made a majority of the city of Somerville in the NR zoning district by right. and that meant that a lot of the ways that people had become used to knowing about whether or not development was happening on their block or right next door to them through a permitting process was no longer required and so a lot of people found themselves being surprised because By right development happening in their neighborhoods. And we absolutely want to work towards a world where we can help everybody know about development before it happens, even if it's by right, even if it's 100% compliant. And we hope to actually work towards raising the level of awareness through a number of tools that are potentially out there. There's some examples from other states that have done this. where they've moved their communities into a by-right world but but the public has said well how are we supposed to know about what's happening next to us whether or not there'll be a building under construction while I'm trying to work from home

like we don't have an infrastructure in place to help everybody know that and one of the reasons they're reacting to lot splits the way they are is because the development all of a sudden pops up in a manner that is by right and doesn't trigger notifications. So a lot of our read related to that is that it's really a different issue about a lack of awareness and lack of understanding about when somebody might dig up the property right next to you in this buy right world that we now live in and that that might be something that we work to solve but still not require lot splits to go through all of that process. if that needs to be codified in the zoning ordinance we're happy to do that but it doesn't necessarily change our opinion in that that would be onerous to do to that type of development activity

Thank you very much for that clarification.

Dan, I do like you very much. You're a very bright guy. You're a good friend. I'm going to wholly disagree with you on lock splits. It is an issue that I have been fighting since the last time we got sued on this in 2010. As it related to the corner of Benton Road and Summer Street, the old Joby House, the planning board at the time, 2020-2012, um, The planning board at that time was an advisory board because it was still considered to be a ministerial thing that was subject to, at that time, it wasn't... George is his predecessor, I think, her decision. And the planning board took it out of that discretion and said, we want to take this up. And we denied that.

for a variety of reasons, not the least of which, Amelia, I'm very sorry, I saw your hand. I'm ranting right now. The planning board at the time saw that decided that was not a good use of a lot split, decided that should not be under the discretion of the director of planning and zoning. And we had copious public testimony exclusively in opposition to that lot split. We voted against the lot split. We determined that the proposal was going to be so intractable that it was going to have no conditions that could have remedied. The lot split and the building was going to go up there. We got sued. We lost.

The land court required us to split that lot and permit basically the building that was then at. Now in the year of our Lord, 2026, now Central Street is completely effed. Everybody cuts up and down Benton Road. Benton Road is an absolute mess. What contributes to that? is a lot split in the additional housing and the additional cars that are coming in and out of that driveway on a regular basis. So to say that it's not necessarily something that shouldn't be within the purview of the planning board and the community to identify as a problem and try to rectify I don't think that reflects the reality of how lot splits actually impact neighborhoods and neighbors.

I'm using that as one example. There have been many. I heard that. I saw, you know, the agita picked up. It's like, I remember these discussions. I have been a party to, you know, neighbors who have tried to do lot splits and the whole thing. It is a... Valid and significant concern. That is something as one member of this planning board who has been on here for a number of years has always been opposed to being a ministerial change and one that I always thought should require more public input than it does. So for that particular aspect of attorney-wise proposals, Again, we're talking about these in a global context. Looking at this in a solo context on that particular proposed amendment, that's something that I would be more in favor of if we can push that towards more public.

testimony and public engagement and take ministerial what otherwise ministerial lot splits out of a closed process um That is me. That is my rant on that one item. I heard that and I said, thank God somebody's talking about something that I've been angry about for 20 years. If not long, officially 20 years. Amelia, had you had your hand raised and did I fail to call on you?

I didn't have my hand raised. I had a follow-up question to Dan Corley's exchange and then another unrelated question, if I may.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go on.

So, if the issue... I've shared Corley's maybe like gut reaction when that the issue of the lot splits was one that seemed at its face to be valid based on just the um The perception that those lots have been overbuilt or that they're sort of uncomfortably full. And I appreciate your calling out that that may in fact be a result of the dimensional standards. Would the summer amendment that you're Discussing would be something that addressed those dimensional standards because I guess, you know, absent all the issues that are In front of us tonight, I would like to discuss some kind of an action that would... Reign that in a little bit if others also feel like that was an inappropriate total volume. And I'm not sure where that stands, if that's already part of a city initiative or if that should be part of this conversation.

Through the chair, let me share that the administration shares the opinion that backyard cottages are manifesting larger than we anticipated them being when we first passed the ordinance in 2019. I think that's a product of combining The most obvious one is that many of the backyard cottages that have come into existence have a basement. and they've been adjusting the topography of the lot to be able to fit that basement in but it's raising the building up Some amount that is increasing the expected height. Add in different building components onto that structure and then it gets much larger than we were expecting and doesn't look like the photos that were included in the code. that were meant to represent what we were expecting to see. So I do think that we will see limitations on their size.

what that is specifically yet I don't know that's what we're working through with ISD we don't think that it means just banning basements for backyard cottages what if you build a basement with only one floor on top of it That's not as tall as a one and a half story structure on top of a basement. But something that regulates the total amount of square footage but still allows the dimensions to you know take the shape that they need to would be a limiter on the on the how I'm sorry. I've also had conversations with city councilors about how, for instance, you're not allowed to violate the...

lot coverage or open space requirements of a lot just because you put in a backyard cottage you actually have to still follow those those standards but when you add a backyard cottage to a The rear of a property, it looks much more full even if that 60% is met than if there was a giant front building in all of the... remaining lot coverage uncovered lot was in the back right like that would be look they would appear to be much more open than if you put the backyard cottage there and spread out the remaining open space and so a couple of them have asked me questions like maybe we need to have a rear yard preserved to some degree like a minimum dimension of that so like we're trying to investigate all of those things because I agree with you many people have that opinion not only are they larger but they're consuming more space and and the I think our expectations were different than what's coming into existence.

So I think a lot of that will be handled through adjusted dimensions, including a total gross square feet for The Backyard Cottage or PADU. I also expect those things to merge and become one thing so we don't have to have the confusion about what is what any longer. So I think that would address some of the concerns you're bringing up related to overbuilding a lot.

And I just want to also say, so to go on the subject, I wish I had the address in front of me. I'm just looking at a map. But I also have sort of had that observation with Becker cottage developments that are not part of this sort of lot split typology that we were looking at. I think the one that I'm thinking of is on Albion Street. where it's just it's filling a lot and you know I'm excited to see that there's sort of a triple decker and an extra unit going in back there but the Overall sort of mass on the lot just feels overwhelming and I'm sure there are many more that aren't on my daily walk that are having a similar experience. Thank you for that. Okay, and then second question. In terms of the issue that was raised about whether there needs to be about the rental versus condo ownership and sort of what the Who the users of these backyard cottages are likely to be?

I'm just having a little bit of a difficulty reconciling at this point what we're talking about. The ordinance defines it like an ADU is an accessory dwelling unit and the ordinance defines accessory clearly as being under the same ownership and control as the primary unit. So how... Was it that backyard cottages were not... defined as accessory before and now with the shift towards the compliance with the state they will be or can you just spell that out a little bit more clearly because I've got myself all twisted up in it and I'm sorry about that.

Through the chair, it's not accessory related to ownership. It's accessory related to the land use. The intensity of the land use is used the most inside the principal structure. So when you look at the definition of accessory building, it's related to the principal use on the lot, not the ownership of the dwelling units in the principal structure.

Does that not seem inconsistent with the idea that people would have had when we approved this?

That they thought that they were owned by the same?

I don't want to speak for Amelia, but I think she's addressing some of the many comments that we've received as it relates to what accessory means.

I can add two levels, two aspects of context.

Before you go, Dan, I want to let Amelia finish her question. I don't want to step on her.

I'm just like, I'm just, I'm reading. The definition of accessory structures. And it might be that I'm not looking at the right definition.

The wrong definition.

Okay. Okay. So an accessory doll, I mean it. is not an accessory structure. It's an accessory.

This is the other confusing part of our ordinance. When we proposed the ordinance in summer of 2019, it had principal building types. Principal Buildings, and Accessory Structures Only. We did not propose a backyard cottage. The city council asked us to include a backyard cottage in the process, and unfortunately it got named. Accessory building type. So we have principal building type, accessory building type, and accessory structures in the ordinance. And accessory structures and accessory buildings are not the same thing. Accessory structures are Pools, Pergolas, Chicken Coops, Cinderblock Garage There's a bunch of things in Article 10 that are called accessory structures and it does not include the backyard cottage. So you got to look at the definition of an accessory building. And that's what's in relation to the primary use on the lot.

The accessory structures are like ancillary things used to support the principal use of the lot. And I agree with you, those terms are absolutely confusing. It's contributing to all of the issue that we're dealing with and is absolutely something we're fixing in the ADU law. or with the proposal that we're coming forward to bring us into compliance with the ADU law because they also co-opted the term ADU right so now we have a bunch of defined words in our zoning ordinance that don't line up with things at the state level and causing confusion about what are we talking about here so even one of these amendments is along the line of trying to sort out that confusion between an accessory structure and an accessory building there is only one accessory building in the entire code it is a backyard cottage so we have to Those definitions are absolutely causing confusion for everybody involved.

but the backyard cottage I believe there's also the second thing I was going to bring up is I believe there's testimony from 2019 of us calling attention to the fact that the backyard cottage is not does not have an accessory ownership relationship to any of the tenants in the building. It could do that, but we weren't mandating that and many places were mandating that. Other places were mandating owner occupancy. The state law prohibits a requirement for owner occupancy but does allow you to potentially require that somebody on the same lot owns that backyard cottage. Shared ownership but not owner occupancy. We've always been working towards a world where owner occupancy was not required and ownership by somebody in one of the principal unit buildings is not required to own the backyard cottage.

which severs the accessory nature except for the land use aspect of that and that's why the accessory building only mentions land use, not a relationship to any of the other tenants in the principal structure and not any relationship to ownership.

I as one member do not remember having that conversation in 2019 and would imagine that that explanation is the source of a great deal of conflict and confusion on this topic. I understand that it will be a process to get that corrected in the ordinance, but would it serve anyone to... Put that clearly in writing somewhere else on another website belonging to the city.

As one member, Amelia, my official response is ditto. I'm not saying that conversation did not occur in 2019 and I want to be respectful of the conversation and discussions that did occur in 2019 that I apparently don't recall. But this is one of those circumstances, as we were talking about before, we can have a discussion about revisiting what happened in 2019 and whether that's still where we want to go. I don't know if this particular amendment is the right mechanism by which we do that. But I think that at least you and I, several of the items that you've raised, Amelia, and some of the items that other members have raised.

I think there is some consensus that there is some merit to the issues that have been raised and that there needs to be A revisitation of some of the principles behind these ADUs and backyard cottages and what it is, what they mean, how they are regulated. and how we permit them so I don't want to as one person I don't want to get too significantly deep into these if it is the consensus generally of a planning board that these particular amendments are not what we want to recommend. That we want to have a further discussion with staff on addressing the issues that are raised in these and other aspects throughout the public process.

So am I off base in thinking that that's kind of where the board is? that these raise good questions that need to be discussed and addressed but might not be in these particular minutes That's where my head's at. Please tell me, certainly, if any of you don't agree with that, either through the proposal by Councillor Alderman White or by... Strezo, et al. Yeah, Coralie.

I was thinking slightly differently and kind of along the lines of what Lynn brought up, that It might be worth seeing what the city comes up with, with this revision that aligns the city with the state first, and then I agree with you, Carly.

Procedurally, we have to move these along tonight. If we had some additional time, we could also not take any action and the Board of Aldermen can do what they want to do in a couple of weeks, irrespective of whether we make a recommendation or not. I would like to make a recommendation. and that has to happen tonight so if you're not ready to make a recommendation that's okay but I I think it would be beneficial for the board to make Some sort of a recommendation so that the council can evaluate everything that's before them, including what might be in front of them.

Yeah. Using your regular hand again. You are really trying my eyes.

Are we... Is it your intention that we articulate... Three bullet points of what the board collectively is beginning to think about these, or that it be a truly open-ended, we agree this should be further discussed?

No, I mean, Amelia, like, every time we've made a recommendation to the council, it has been with color and context, right? And some suggestions, and I don't see this any differently. So we've made certain points of discussion as it relates to aspects of these proposed amendments. I think all of that needs to be put into the What I'm going to suggest is a no recommendation. Just like we just did with the previous analysis, we genuinely think this might be a good idea, but... We're not going to recommend it. We would like you to consider X, Y, and Z. And specifically what I would include is in context with and in consideration of The administration is going to come out with its own amendments to address the same thing.

That's kind of how I see it. if you see it the same way great if not please tell me if you would like to make a different recommendation I'll work with that Mr.

Chair I don't disagree with that I just I think that I don't feel like we've heard consensus from the group. I feel like a few people have spoken on certain topics so I just wanted to Yeah, I mean...

Unfortunately, local people have gone on this night because we do have to move on this evening and he's not here. However, incorporating these things... I don't see, unless we expressly make them as such, I don't see these as the planning board thinks you should do X. When we have made recommendations in the past, occasionally what we've done, as I think you know, is the planning board has had discussion on these agenda items, and even though we're not necessarily in... Conformity with this particular recommendation the planning board has had discussions such that you can continue these discussions. These are items that we've raised. If we make a recommendation that follows that pattern, is that something you'd be comfortable with? Okay. Yeah.

Amelia, were you, I'm sorry, before I move on to Lynn, I just want to make sure you had your thoughts out. Yeah, Lynn.

This is going to be impossible for you to do, but maybe not. You just said, I'm going to make a null recommendation and what I suggest is I'm going to we will make a null recommend I just wanted you to repeat that and I meant to I was beginning to interrupt Amelia and I was like that's not polite but can can you repeat the the can you repeat what you are proposing to say I want to listen very carefully because I agree with some of the conversation tonight I disagree with some of it and so I'm really trying to To thread that needle. And you came really close. And so I wanted to listen. If you can just say that again.

Not the first time I've heard that. So... The way I see it, and the way that I would propose it for a recommendation, and also I appreciate the question, Link, because I think it gives Alvarez some clarity on the recommendation that he's going to have to type up that we'll review. The planning board generally does not take a position positively or negatively on the amendments either by the councilor or by The formal element on whether they should be adopted. However, the planning board has had discussions on and takes consideration for certain items that have been raised. in those proposed amendments, including but not limited to the issue of lot splits, of the size of the units, of the ownership of the units.

The Planning Board also recognizes that the administration is preparing at some point in the somewhat near future a series of amendments that may address many if not all of the issues that are raised in the competing amendments that are before the board tonight. The board's vote, in my opinion, would be to make a null recommendation. with a reflection of not a particular recommendation by the board one way or the other, as we've sometimes done, but a reflection of the discussion by the board.

on certain agenda items that we would like the council and the land use committee to consider as it also considers the fact that the administration will be coming out with its own amendments. So they can look at it in context with what's potentially going to be recommended tonight. All of that is a lot of jumble. and a lot of equivocation, which as a lawyer I'm really, really good at. But you tell me if that's something that aligns with where your head's at.

Before I answer your question, I want to ask you another question. You're right, it's a lot of lawyer speak, if I may. Amelia at different points throughout our time together since I've been on the board will often say, you know, it doesn't really matter what we put forward because the city council is going to do X or the land use committee is going to do X. and with that kind of recommendation I'm sorry I mean like I find it actually kind of refreshing to understand like where this is going to land and and I guess that's my question to you on this with that much equivocation and the land use committee gets this it's like I don't even know what this means

and and so um I think you're trying to throw I don't I don't I don't I I I have no answer to that but um you know we could make and we have in the past A forceful recommendation saying we absolutely agree with X and we absolutely disagree with X. And the Land Use Committee and the Council have declined to agree. Respect our recommendation. It happens. They are the determinant in these situations. We are only a recommending body. Whether the land use committee and the city council as currently constituted will take any consideration for the deliberation that we had tonight or not, I don't know. That is up to them.

Because it seems to me that each of these issues, like going to lot splits for example, we could probably spend an hour just discussing lot splits if we wanted to get to some consensus on how we feel about it right and I haven't like I've been holding back comments because it's like are we really trying to get to and and sometimes it's important for us as a uh as a board to like yeah we we need to get to consensus on x y and z i'm not so sure we need to tonight you've got lot splits we've got the the massing the sizing dan raised a whole bunch of issues and so I think the only way forward is is a null recommendation unless we wanted to spend like the next four hours kind of discussing in detail and to me that feels please don't make me do that No, no, no, no.

But that feels premature in part, as I said, and I know you have mentioned several times, we have this in front of us, we have to move on it. and that kind of in-depth conversation understanding it feels premature until the city comes out with their work.

Yeah. Yeah, which, Lynn, based on our remit tonight, which is to make some sort of recommendation or not, we can decide not to act, which I'd prefer not to do. But we have to do something tonight, either act or not act. and if we act my suggestion action would be to make a null recommendation on all of these amendments with Alvaro making in his recommendation A summary of the discussion that we've all had on the particular agenda items thinking what needs to be thought about what needs to be considered what needs to be revised. while putting that in context with the fact that it may need to be synthesized with the sitting proposals in a few months. That's where I'm at. I'm being...

I'm going back to my day job of being an in-house government lawyer and making no decision about anything ever.

But that's my recommendation. For me, that's where, weirdly, I feel most comfortable.

You've chosen the wrong career path then. Come work with me.

Oh yeah, no, unless we have like four hours to kind of go through each of these things. Just one of these topics is robust. Anywho, so thank you for all your patience and kind of really diving down into our recommendation. I really want to understand before we vote what that verbiage is going to be.

Yeah. That's the proposal by me. Obviously, we have a bunch of other members who could provide additional revisions or modifications. Yeah, Amelia.

Alright, just for clarification, Lynn, are you looking for us to articulate something more specific than Michael's very general equivocating statement? Or are you agreeing with the... Vote with the general language.

I was agreeing to the vote with the general language because I think it would be impossible for us to really... I think it would be very difficult for us tonight to dive into and to get consensus on each of these different and I think there's maybe five different proposals and even if we had that time and the inclination it would still be premature because we're essentially doing the city's work for them and I'd like I'd rather have this city spend more time and thought so I agreed with Michael in coming up with that kind of middle path forward. I just really wanted to understand it. So I wasn't saying we should get clarity on it. I was looking for that middle path forward.

Whoso else has thoughts? I had a, and Alvaro, you'll be able to write this up. because you have a recording of it. I have made a presentation of a proposed recommendation which is null with context. I'm not going to attempt to repeat it but You all understand kind of where I'm at. Will you agree to make a no recommendation with the caveats and discussion points that I've addressed, Pat? will be included within that recommendation, because if so, I'd like to move to... I technically have to do all five of these things, but all five of these things.

Okay, let me get this to cheat sheet.

On 29 registered... So here's what I'm going to do, just to make it easy. I'm going to read the title of the proposed amendment. I'm going to say... I'm going to make a recommendation that we make a null recommendation as discussed and that we'll just continue through, okay? So 29 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section 3.1.12 backyard cottage file number 260330. The chain makes to make a null recommendation with the context as discussed, seconded by Amelia. I'll offer a roll call, please.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael Magnilli. Aye. Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

All right. 14 registered voters requesting the zoning text amendment to amend the zoning. Ordinance Section 3.112 Backyard Cottage File 26.0329. The chair members make the same recommendation, seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please. Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Aye. 14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section 12.2.2 regarding affordable housing dwelling units file number 26.0328. Jay makes the same recommendation, seconded by Amelia Rocco.

Jahan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely. Aye. Amelia Aboff. Michael Capuano. Aye.

14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend zoning ordinance section 12. We just did that. 29 registered voters requested a zoning text amount to amend zoning ordinance section 15.7.2.D CBA board rules file 26.0. 327. Same motion seconded by Amelia Rocco. Johan Habib? Aye. Dean Richards?

Aye.

Coralie Cooper?

Aye.

Michael Magnulli?

Aye.

Emilio Aboff, Michael Capuano.

Strezo, Councilor Mbah, Councilor Davis, and Councilor Sait requesting an amendment to sections 2.1.1 and 3.1.12 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units filed 26.0234. Same recommendation, seconded by Amelia Rocco. Jahan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Carly Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely, Amelia Aboff, Michael Capuano. All right.

Those were all the amends before the planning board tonight. We have before us 32 Webster Avenue. So if we could, Dan, yeah.

Are you just peacing out? Well, my amendments are done. I haven't eaten in many hours now at this point.

Man, go get a sandwich, make yourself some pasta, do something.

I'm very sorry to have kept you so late. no no it's okay thank you for having me tonight thank you we appreciate we appreciate your input thank you

Let's get 32 Webster Avenue, the applicant team, whoever needs to be shared, share them up.

I'll be promoting the Team 2 panelists right now.

Are you like echoing or that's just me?

I don't know. Can you all hear me perfectly? You're good now.

Yeah.

Hi, everyone. I'm Phil Sima, the architect for the project. I don't know if anyone from the development team also chimed in as a panelist and wants to kick the project off or not.

I just promoted all the team. Sure.

Hey everyone, our landscape architect also is Michael Joachim is in the waiting room. He might be speaking on a few things as well. So if we could promote him as well, great. Thank you.

I believe that's all the team.

Did you say someone was in the waiting room, David?

Yeah, Michael from Verdant. He said he was in the waiting room.

What's his last name?

Joakim. J-O-A-C-H-I-M. And promote it as well. There he is.

Thanks for that.

We're all here.

I guess I'll kick us off. Ryan Wittig for 32 Webster Holdings, Kinvara Capital. We have Phil Seema from Balance Architects and Michael Joachim from Verdant Landscape Architecture. As you know, we're here. Presenting for a request, you have all the, I don't know if you already introduced what we're requesting, so I won't repeat it, but basically we're We're requesting a special permit for residential housing within the MR4 zone. And I think I guess we'll just hand it off to Phil now and let him get into it and take it from there.

Great. Well, thanks, everyone. I'm going to start sharing my screen. Just give you one second here. All right. Okay. Thanks for staying up late. Thank you for giving us the time to make this presentation.

This is not late for the planning board, I will guarantee you that, my friend.

Thank you for keeping it early for us. So I'll go for a full review of the project. So the project is on the corner of Newton Street and Webster Ave. Quite prominent, really raises up along a hill here. This is showing the existing building that will be removed for the new construction on the site. A couple of photos of the existing property, you know, just overgrown weeds and vegetation. But again, really in the heart of Union Square and quite a prominent property. Corner for the city. Looking at the tax parcels, there's really like a mix of building typologies within a couple blocks of this neighborhood. Next door is going to be an MR6 A new development there that's fully affordable. And then we're right butting up against some smaller, almost single-family homes along it. So we really tried to bridge that gap of

of what is happening in this part of town and again the aerial context images that you can see really show the scale the typology the different materials um that are you know integral to this site So we are MR4, we do abut NR as well, and that shapes a lot of our geometry for our building. We're not on a pedestrian street, we're very close to public transit, and we're outside of this overlay district. So the architectural site plan. We'll give a big overview of what's going on here. We have our primary entrance accessible at grade on Webster. And then new street tree plantings, which Michael can talk about. on Newton and on Webster. We have an egress door that comes out on Newton. We have a transformer vault manhole that is screened and at grade with the

With the street there, some light wells and then an outdoor area for the basement unit. The site slopes basically a full story from the top of the corner all the way to the back. So we're really trying to take advantage of what that can do to our building. uh using some of the natural light that's just created by the topography we're not going right up to the property line over here we're giving it a five foot setback uh just to give some breath to the adjacent structure next door And then, dimensionally compliant, but we still are seeking those two special permits. I'm going to skip over these. These are more for ISD, but just showing dimensional compliance with the Somerville zoning ordinance. Just a couple of things to keep in mind. We are using building components like bays and balconies. that extend past that setback, which is still in compliance with the Somerville zoning ordinance.

what's really interesting over here is we start to get this large setback because of the NR abutters over there so this creates a beautiful kind of roof deck and overlook on the fourth floor and then we have a common roof deck on the top floor for the balconies that do not have or the units that do not have balconies in the project So it's looking at the basement floor plan, where we come in at grade, where we have our bike room, where we have our trash room. This is all slab on grade. Typical, we have our MEP space, we have an amenity space. We also have three units in the basement. So there's one bedroom unit with a kind of large deck out there where the topography really drops. Then a couple studios with some light wells and vegetation, which Michael can discuss when he presents. we've kind of looked at the overall site plan but really showing you how this works internally so you come in common entry elevator stop gets you up to the first floor over here

We have our bike storage, we have our trash room, and then a mix of one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and studios. The floors repeat on the second and third floor. Some one bedrooms, studios, two bedrooms on this really prominent corner, and a number of balconies for most of the units except the ones where we can't encroach on that setback. Floor is exactly the same. This is the fourth floor where we have that large step back. So all these units, a two bedroom unit, one bedroom, two bedroom, they have these really nice roof decks as well as a green roof. and this floor really has kind of larger units you know this is a thousand square foot two bedroom 1200 square foot 1200 basically over here so quite generous unit sizes for this project a large roof deck with a green roof

We're putting the mechanicals on the left side where again there's a six-story building going up directly adjacent to us so that kind of is pushed towards that end and then also taken away from the residential side which is on the plan north over here. I'm going to skip some of these, but we have 29 units. We're doing the net zero construction, so fully passive house, net zero ready for this project. So these are the elevations. So we're proposing a through-collar fiber cement panel. And the building's quite long. So we're really trying to break up the mass, break up the scale of it. So you see this kind of material composition that's happening on the left where the bays are coming out as a different color in the middle we're truly you know trying clearly to identify the entry to the building and also create a partition between these two building typologies over here.

We're leaning a huge comment when we first presented this and I'll just quickly go over some of the earlier design options was we had a black and white and wood scheme and and a butter said I'm so sick of buildings just being black and white like can't you architects use any color so we really started to play into that and introduce some different much warmer pastelly tones into this but again the balconies have a different or sorry the bays always have a different color than the rest of the facade to really bring them out and then we'll talk more about this corner but we're really we're trying to and we worked with the UDC a lot how do we embrace this corner how do we make it very special it's very prominent so we work to kind of introduce uh unique geometry for those balconies that really invite people to kind of look at this and celebrate that corner. So this is it on Newton Street. Again, that same red material wraps around the side. Bayes. It's almost like a copper and brick kind of modern interpretation of these colors.

And then around the back where it's facing the residential side, we have some warmer colors with wood tone in it. And then we have some fencing and screening with vegetation and actual physical fencing to kind of create that separation between the existing building that's there and our new proposed building. So this is on that rear yard. that we're seeing again the vegetation will be clearer in the landscape plans but again trying to break down the mass of this large building into kind of smaller more sizable bite-sized pieces This is on that side yard where we're adjacent to the six-story building that's going up and we do have some louvers for our trash room so that we can not have it be basically refrigerated, reduce energy costs. We're trying to really enhance the sustainability of the project and still bring in that same color palette that's around the side onto this side as well. I'm going to skip this. This is just for zoning compliance. Here is a section of the building.

You can really see the difference in elevation between the sidewalk and the rear yard over here. So almost that full story. It's kind of apparent here as well. So there were massing of the building. So this is on Newton Street where you're seeing the step back over here. Some really great opportunity that we think could happen along this step back green roof area, the common roof area over here, vegetation along the sides. some of the bays and balconies that we're showing again so this is that rear yard facing the residential going down Newton and then you have Webster up here screening around mechanical units and then you'll see for that special permit because we have an elevator that's going to the penthouse no matter what it can't be 10 feet because an elevator has a four-foot overrun with a hoist beam so it basically Any elevator that goes to a penthouse is going to need relief for a special permit.

And then the main facade there, where you can kind of see that prominent entry, balconies and bays, and activity, that 12-foot sidewalk widening it up. So this is our photorealistic rendering of it. We can get a better sense of the materials. We're trying to keep it clean, keep it contemporary, but still kind of related to some historic material compositions that you might see like a copper and a brick for us it's going to be really important all the joints all all the reveals on here that they really match up that they look very intentional that that difference at the residential entry where It's a clear material contrast and it's even inset from the project just to give it a little bit of depth and relief at the same time. This is what we're looking at on Newton Street. again some of these bays projecting out really nice balconies and that that kind of that one little piece right on the corner that that helps to differentiate it and kind of lighten up the geometry of the overall building

Here you're looking down from Newton Street into the screened area where there's vegetation and then again this is our really exciting view which most people there's you know a lot of traffic that comes by this area so really Trying to do something that pulls people into the building. We've even created a small landscaped area under here that is the inverse angle of that kind of upturned balcony area. So some of the materials that you saw in here are indicated on this plan. And then I will just go and show quickly kind of the relief that we're asking for in terms of special permit. So specifically at the elevator, as I'm sure all of you know, these passive house buildings, they have a lot of insulation. A lot of depth that starts getting added to the roof because we're proposing an accessible common roof deck that kind of raises that floor height of that penthouse level. So the elevator goes up and then the elevator needs another four feet.

So you're basically at 15 foot eight by the time you do the elevator head house. where the rest of the penthouse we've tried to compress to the absolute minimum level where we still are you know have that common roof deck and the green green roof that's up there we've managed to get that to 10 foot 2 the requirement is 10 feet so That's with a seven foot six, you know, code minimum hallway height up there as well. So trying our best to keep it low, but just at the elevator, it can't change. So I think at this point, Michael, are you good to present? I can pass the screen to you.

Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.

Thanks.

So I will bring you all through our proposed landscape plan. and so where I want to start is the streetscape improvements that we're proposing I'll start along Webster Avenue where we have two existing green ash trees we're proposing to keep them as well as enlarge the tree wells they're in so that we get a minimum of 40 square feet for those tree wells we're also proposing to add an 18 inch height tree guard in those tree wells which is Standard width, Somerville, complete streets guidelines. And what this will do is it'll allow us to create a four foot wide furnishing zone with permeable unit pavers, which help with sustainability and aesthetic of the walkway.

and then we're also setting back the building eight feet which will give us that wide of a sidewalk which is making it just a more walkable area we're also including bike racks on this street And now we'll bring you to Newton Street where we're proposing three new street trees. These are, again, following Somerville Complete Streets guidelines. We're also including a four foot wide furnishing zone with permeable unit pavers, visitor bike parking racks, and those 18 inch height tree guards. Just like Webster, Avenue. They were including an eight foot wide concrete sidewalk. So it's just going to make it a much better pedestrian experience all around. Now if we look at the perimeter of the site we are proposing six foot wood privacy fencing and what this is going to do is help privatize the development

but we're also substituting that with some tree planting so rather than just one straight privacy buffer we're kind of cleaning it up a little making it a smoother transition a little bit more natural Up here at the back, as Phil mentioned, we have a vaulted transformer and what we're doing is While it is a utility area, we're doing what we can to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. So we're proposing a horizontal wood screen around it, permeable unit pavers for aesthetic and sustainability purposes. Moving around the site, we're fitting in four more trees with shrub plantings, perennials, and this is to, like I said, create a nicer transition between the two properties but also enhance the experience of these private decks at the basement units.

Around this basement unit we have a larger private deck area and so we're looking to balance usable space for them but also planting area to respect the abutters and make it a more pleasing space to be in. On this side where Phil also called out the setback we're proposing next to the 24 Webster new development, we're proposing some trees to help Create a nice transition between the two properties, some buffer for the units in the trash room, and some carbon to help alleviate some of the grading issues that Phil mentioned earlier. This here is our roof deck plan in which it might give you a better idea of the layout we're proposing. Sedum green roof, lightweight planters, a large deck space for the residents with pedestal pavers, furnishings.

and we see this as being the main gathering space for the residents of this building. It's worth noting that the roof area is located furthest away from the abutters in an act to help alleviating privacy concerns that they may have. This page is our green score compliance page. It just shows that we're compliant with the CoolScore standards and What we're doing to make the site more sustainable and in line with Somerville's goals. With that, I will stop sharing and pass it back to Phil.

Thank you. I'm happy to present other options that were shown to the UDC if that's of any interest. If not, I can open it up to comments from the board.

Not quite yet. So the UDC is an advisory board to the planning board. They're not the current granting authority. And what I imagine you would have gone through with the UDC is what you would have presented here tonight. So I respect that. Before I want to open it up to the board, unless anybody has any significant comments or questions right now, where we're at right now is public testimony for the Well, I see eight people in the waiting room here for the public. If anybody wants to express public opinion on this particular project before the planning board gets to have some back forth with you all. So at this point, does anybody on the planning board have anything significant that they want to raise prior to public testimony?

Okay.

Seeing none, what I'm going to do now is opening up to public testimony. For the folks that are in the attendee room, I see at least one person has raised their hand, but I would welcome anybody else that wants to provide testimony to also exercise their raised hand button, and I will call on you in the order in which I see you. Ordinarily, we keep a two-minute timer. I'm not going to do that right now because there are not too many people. but I would also ask you to respect the time of everybody here tonight and not go on for 45 minutes if you can possibly help it because we will also be keeping the written comic open as well so if there's something that you don't think that you can adequately address in oral testimony you are more than welcome to provide written testimony as well to supplement so First person that I see is Michael Katz.

So what I will ask anybody providing testimony to do is give your name and your address to the record and then your testimony.

Michael, you should be able to speak now.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Mike Katz. I live at 3 Emerson Street, which is just one house further from your unit. I guess what I'm most concerned about, you've done some nice work from what we saw originally. Kind of wish you had sent us some of these plans so that we The neighbors had a chance to see it before tonight, but that's under the bridge now. I'm concerned about the height of the unit. I understand where you're talking about. I understand where you're going. I know you have, we have it all. We have a taller building next door. I'm aware of all this. I'm concerned about the afternoon sun.

I have solar panels on the roof. I'd prefer not for them to be useless. So I just, I'm throwing that out. I haven't seen any kind of shadow studies. I don't know what we're talking about. And I'll stop there because, you know, there we are.

If I could just quickly address my role. Not quite yet, sir.

I appreciate you willing to engage. This is not that time.

This is only public testimony. It's not a back and forth. Does anybody else want to provide oral testimony? Please raise your hand. Going once. Going twice. Seeing none, I will close that portion of the hearing. and open up the discussion by and among members of the planning board and of the applicants team and of staff. Just so you all know, I'm going to take a quick look at my Calendar and the next time that the planning board meets is going to be the 4th of June.

So it's the intention of the chair to leave the written comment open until noon on the It's noon at 9 a.m. on the 29th. So 9 a.m. on Friday the 29th at Planning Board at SomervilleMA.gov for anybody that would like to provide written testimony. Um, so, sir, uh, Mr. Wittig, I know somebody had asked a question and I certainly, uh, Welcome you to respond to that question, and the planning board will have comments and questions for you.

Yeah, I should have mentioned this from the outset. Obviously, as a requirement to get to this stage that we're at, obviously, we've had several or two community meetings hosted by J.T. Scott which Mr. Katz had attended both and nothing nothing in our plans that we're presenting tonight has changed at all materially from what was last presented to the community. The building is fully dimensionally conforming on all aspects of the requirements for the MR4 zone. and the only reason we're seeking relief on the head house for the elevator is because it's providing handicap access to the community accessible roof deck. Were we not would that roof deck not be accessible to the entire building we would not be seeking relief and the rest of the building would remain in complete conformity so um

just reiterating everything that we've presented that we're presenting tonight has been presented to the community nothing has changed since our last presentation except maybe maybe some of Phil's uh The photorealistic renderings, we may have some fresher photorealistic renderings that look nicer and more detailed than what was last presented, but nothing materially has changed. and what was presented to the community and as I mentioned everything's fully dimensionally conforming except for that head house.

Mr. Whittaker, can I ask you or your team to respond to Mr. Katz's concern about Shadow issues as it relates to his... Obviously, you're within the bounds of what the film requires, but at this particular... might impact some of his natural light. Not that's going to be dispositive on the way I look at this. Curious enough.

Speak to the head house position, Phil, on how that might cast.

Yeah, we've done a full shadow study, which I can just pull up quickly to show everyone. Yeah.

Yeah, particularly in reflection of this member of the community's house as well.

Was it three?

He's number three.

Yeah. Yeah.

So right corner.

Yeah, so basically March 21st, pretty much the same as September 21st. So this is looking at the existing and the proposed. So you're seeing it in the morning at 9 a.m., 12... uh 3 p.m and then so basically no sun from the uh from that that kind of the equinox period um the summer The shadows are very steep because the sun is quite high. So this is June 21st at the solstice. Again, so in the morning, at noon, in the afternoon. So really no impact there either. Oh, except that's 6pm, but most of that appears to be coming from the taller building, the six-story building that's there.

and then... Can you go back to that other?

Sure. So as I'm looking at this, the existing... and this gentleman's house is at number three and the existing shadow would cover this this gentleman's house and yours would just do a little bit more

Yeah, I mean, the angle of that, actually, it wouldn't cover three, but there will be shadow nonetheless from that six-story building that's there.

Sure, but I'm looking at what the existing rendering shows and it looks like it's pretty thorough coverage already.

Correct. and then yeah so it went you know September 21st basically the same as March 21st Winter is just going to be a disaster. There's shadows everywhere. So everything, even a tree is going to throw a shadow on the house. But nothing in the morning, nothing at noon, at 3 p.m. There's shadow, definitely. but there's going to be shadow from the fact that the hill goes up and two is probably casting some shadows so all of this should be I believe on the Somerville's website for this project but I'm happy to make it all available

It would be, for the purpose of this public hearing, I think it's beneficial for people to see the exact issues that members of the public have raised. So I appreciate that. Who on the Platinum Board would like to have some discussion with this applicant besides myself? Michael, thank you, and Jahan. Okay, thank you. Thank you for sparing them.

Jahan, you can go first.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate the presentation. However, as I look through the the plan documents, my impression is that this project is essentially calibrated to Meet the bare minimums across every single metric. Green score is 0.26 against the 0.25 minimum. The unit count sits below a 30-unit threshold. The affordability count is exactly 20% via the partial buyout. and then if you combine the five affordable units plus the 0.8 fractional buyout which really lands at the 20% threshold. So I guess my main concern is that reading Some of the neighborhood meeting reports. It seems like there were community members who had specifically flagged the fact that there's a school nearby and requested two and three bedroom units.

and what I'm really curious about is for the applicant to share the proposed unit mix breakdown by size and also affordability tier and explain why a fractional buyout was preferable to Instead of adding one additional family unit, I'd love to discuss a little bit more on the affordable unit side as well as how this project was compiled together to essentially meet the minimum requirements here.

I'll speak first to the unit mix. It's really, as Phil went through the... you went through the floor plans there's nothing per se egregious about any of the we've got an efficient mix of unit numbers we're getting essentially the a good amount of units out of the building's footprint So to add, to bring three unit mix into the mix, That would require us to eliminate additional units and shrink some of the other size units. So we looked at that. We tried to entertain that. but given the footprint of the building and it's not it's not a large site it's not a big building it's a four-story building you know conforming with the zoning To add three bedrooms into the mix would require us to eliminate units and it just makes the project less and less viable for us.

Understood. And if you wouldn't mind commenting regarding what I mentioned around the bare minimums, whether it's the green score, the buyout consideration, what was the driving force behind those decisions?

Sure. I mean, maybe Phil can speak. I'll let Phil speak to the green score piece. That's a little bit more. Once again. I'll let Phil expand on that, but it's also once again a function of the site and the, you know, it's a 9,000-ish, correct me if I'm wrong, the size of the site, the building's footprint and the site we're trying to work within the confines of our of our site footprint. We're adding a green roof. We have two levels of green roof. So we are adding green features into the you know footprint of the building as much as we can to maximize the you know green and outdoor experience once you're in the building but given the tight footprint of the lot itself doesn't lend itself to much exterior landscape Activation beyond what we've already done, which I think Ferdinand's done a great job with. And then the partial buyout of the final affordable unit

I mean, at the end of the day, I wouldn't say we're dogmatic one way or the other about providing an affordable unit versus the buyout. It's just... I know that's not the board's purview. But that's just the reality of something that we're working with. It's a tough financing environment, and we're trying to stack the deck in the favor of getting this project approved and getting it out of the ground, which isn't. An easy thing given the cost of construction, the cost of financing, and giving that buyout of that last affordable unit gives more clarity as to what the overall picture looks like.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak about some of those minimums. And Michael, I don't want to overstep you, but a big consideration. We have a lot of properties or a lot of projects that we do in Somerville. which I'm just going to share my screen at the same time where the property line you know there's a 12-foot wide sidewalk requirement and a lot of times a lot of the property of that sidewalk is within our property so that's what's happening here and we always consider okay well should we make that permeable and that could have some effect on some of the green score or should we do the whole thing in concrete for durability especially for accessibility reasons right like no matter what we need to have a you know a concrete coming out from the entrances and it's always like we come back to it should be concrete basically for accessibility and so

We want to hit that green score and we do hit the required green score and that like if you can see right like just that huge band is all public sidewalk that's within our property line so that's you know if we're able to shift the building away we can get a lot you know we could easily kind of increase that green score it's a consideration that comes up on multiple projects and you know Michael can chime in on that but that's my how we approach that

I appreciate the response. Mr. Chair, if I may ask the applicant team another related question. Since we're talking about the design... Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it's late, but this is a rather pressing question, at least in my world. So in terms of the design itself, I know you spoke about the design and And I understand that there's the Mass Department of Transportation taking consideration. Has your design been stress tested for it? And what I mean by that is that Condition 8 in the memo Effectively concedes that the Webster Avenue Bridge project may render the design infeasible and force a major amendment. There is that potential for that. I'm not speculating that it will be the case, but... I do want to mention that the neighborhood meeting report also references vague terms around coordination with Mass Department of Transportation, but we haven't seen any submitted documents or showing any

Taking Footprint, Timeline, or even a Fallback Design. It may be premature to have that conversation, but I do want to bring this up and see whether the applicant team has thought about it and if there's any additional background information they could share.

We have thought about it and we have stress tested it. The frontage on Webster Ave really wouldn't be affected the discussion about the potential. And once again, the building that we've presented here today is Presenting with the reality as it is today. So we have to do that. Should the taking take place in the future, it mostly affects the Newton street. side of the property which would essentially just narrow the sidewalk further and it wouldn't render the sidewalk the future potential sidewalk Unusable or unpassable, it would be a 10-foot sidewalk as we're showing. It would be much more in line with the existing sidewalks that already exist now with the new building being there.

Understood. I think it would be helpful, at least speaking for myself as a board member, if you do have additional information of subsequent meeting to share that as well. Simple because both of my questions are somewhat interrelated where I mentioned the Project is looking to meet the minimums. And should there be a shift, whether it's coming from the mass DOT side or some other factor, We want to make sure that we're asking the right questions here and making sure that your team is aware and apprised of whether there's a shift necessary later on. So that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you to the applicant team. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also thank you for Member McNeely to give me the chance to ask these questions. Thank you.

You are always welcome to ask as many questions as you want. I love it. Michael, let's go.

Yeah, I'll second that. I think you teed up some of my later questions well, so thank you. So the very first one I think should be pretty quick. Can you just confirm whether or not the rooftop is accessible to the public or if it's for residents only?

Yeah, the rooftop on the highest level at the penthouse is common. And then for the fourth floor where the building steps back, there are three private roof decks there.

Sorry, so just again the common phrase, that's not a public thing, that's a residents of the building thing.

Oh yes, it's not open to the general public, it's just to the residents of the building.

Okay, thank you. Next is I wanted to talk a little bit about the vaulted transformer. So I think like one of your earlier neighborhood meetings, there was discussion about that vaulted transformer being Feasible, and then, you know, obviously now it's in your application to firmly be a vaulted transformer. I guess I just want to first confirm that's the case. It absolutely is proposed as a vault. Design.

Yeah, it's absolutely proposed. I can't, I don't know if Matt or Ryan remember where the conversation is at with Eversource and the work order, but we've had those conversations and, you know, Sorry, Remy.

Yeah, we had preliminary exploratory discussions with them, I think, because there was a concern about the height, or I guess the... The elevations, given that we're sloping, it was believed that we should be in line, but they We can't submit a work order until we have an approved project. We've had preliminary discussions, exploratory. but they're kind of you know they're busy we have other projects where it's challenging just to get them to get transformers on things that we're actually coming out of the ground on So as much as we would love to get ahead of this as much as possible, we can only have exploratory kind of Theoretical conversations with them and then they won't open up a work order or fully design it without an approved plan.

Yep, trust me, I very much understand how that can go. I just want to make sure it was crystal clear on what you are hoping for.

Yeah, our goal, our 100% goal is to have a vaulted underground transformer. That was something that came out of the neighborhood meeting that we had. We originally showed a pad mounted transformer because we said, Hey, we would rather show you this in the event that this is what ends up being here so that you can see it and that it's here. And they said, well, we're going to ask that you push for the vaulted transformer. which is what we will push for and which we're prepared to do. But a little bit of that will come down to final design and approval by Eversource.

Okay, good. Can someone from the city remind me whether or not switching this from a vaulted to a stand-up transformer would trigger a material enough review that would come back to the board?

Hi, this is Kit Luster, the case manager for the project. I believe in the past those have come back to the board and I know for previous projects the board has also added a condition that could um similar to the condition already added but specific to transformers to have it automatically be A major amendment and come back to the board if it was going to significantly impact the facade and design of the project.

Okay, yeah, that might be a good thing to follow up at our next meeting, you know, on the heels of Jahan's comments around everything kind of being at the stressed limits, I am concerned as one member about that design change. I just want to make sure we've got that. kind of built in and I apologize my last question is a little bit more open-ended but you know to that end of you know again kind of stress testing some of the limits of what is How are you making the rest of the building more accessible for

Thank you for watching! Narrative you can provide there. I want to really lean in your interest in accessibility that you brought up earlier by choosing not to use perennial papers and hope that that's a theme that you can run with a bit.

Yeah, sure. I mean, happy to talk about that. Obviously, our front entry is very large, you know, fully accessible. We've decided not to use pavers along the property just because it does create a more accessible sidewalk. We have an elevator in the building that services all floors. Every single unit is Group 1 and Group 1 requirements for AAB. Make basically huge bathrooms, large kitchens that are going to be much more stringent than if you did in a renovation. We don't have any group two units in the project, but every single unit in the building. is group one with all the required door clearances, kitchens, bathrooms, and again, why we're asking for that special permit for the elevator access is to provide a fully accessible

Roof that's common to the people in the building and then again there's the hearing impairment that five percent of the units will have you know before the hearing impaired so We think this is going to be a great building for anyone that is in need of any accessibility amenities.

Just to add on that, Phil, I think we should also talk about our bike room design and the, I think, I want to say... I don't want to start being a complaining developer, but we did have a lot of back and forth on the bike room design originally. We had it in the basement to allow for a... A little bit better design building from a unit perspective so that we would have a residential unit on the ground floor where we now have the bike room. So we brought the bike room up to have it be more easily accessible to people using bikes and also the handicap bike, obviously. So we did go to great lengths to design the bike room for maximum accessibility to not only just

All bike users, but also accessible bike users.

Yeah, thank you for bringing it up. That was the last comment I wanted to have, which is that, like, I really appreciate that you guys landed on bikes. I think, you know... Since you're not going to have any parking, you definitely need to beef up the bike parking availability, so thank you for making sure that's in there. That's all I got. Thank you.

Go, Glenn. Without you on mute though.

Since you brought up bikes, I just had to chime in. How many bedrooms? There's 29 units. How many bedrooms are you going to have?

That's a great question that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head.

How about you count and figure it out right now?

I guess what we have I mean basically you need to count the number of two bedrooms we have and then everything else is one bedroom essentially so so how many two bedrooms do we have

I thought you had some studios in there too, right?

That's essentially one bedroom.

Yeah, we'll call it a one-bedroom unit, a one-bedroom in a studio.

A fake bedroom. I've lived in a studio before. That's not really a bedroom. I was also 21 years old and that was crap.

So 35 bedrooms.

35 bedrooms and so... You're allowing for 29 bikes for 35 bedrooms and that's assuming that one person sleeps in a bedroom. I'm assuming that there may be a couple of couples there. I know Michael's a big biker. Michael, does your wife also bike? Do you guys share a bedroom? Not to get too personal. But my point is that you've got these 35 people.

I'm going to moderate this part of the question.

But you got at least 35 people, hopefully that you're going to have living there, probably upwards to 45 to 50 and you're providing 29 biking spaces. and and Ryan I I just have and then you did it in such a way of like we're so awesome and in my mind I was going to bring it up before you said like how great are we doing such a great job on the bike room and I'm like This just isn't going to be enough, right? anyway I I that was that was my sense um and I kind of wanted to you know oftentimes the board will say can you provide more bedrooms etc etc but I do know that it's in the transit area that it's a quarter of a mile but I also know that no parking is going to be built no parking permits there people are going to be using

using their bikes and to the extent and having a few racks outside the building is temporary bike parking doesn't doesn't get you know additional parking for the people living there so I would encourage you to think creatively about how you could create more space for bike parking because there will be an issue is it hooks from the ceiling how and you've met the you've met the requirements by the code um which actually flags for me that i should uh talk to the to the city about increasing the number of bikes required by bedroom um anywho i i I think, I don't think it's enough bike parking. Sorry, Michael, to disagree with you. I know you're really gung-ho on it, but I was doing the math on it and I was like, I, for one, have four bikes.

Now, I understand that's a little excessive, but... I have one book, it's down the cellar right now, but irrespective. Anywho, that's, it was less of a question and more of a comment, Michael, so I'll cede it. I'm also a little preachy.

I've also never been one who didn't ask a question and just had a comment. So we're about to enter into that territory now. We're heading into 930. This is what happens. yeah yeah we're all getting a little punchy so um anyway thank you yeah Amelia did I see your hand earlier or was I hallucinating because it's 9 30.

I didn't have my hand raised. My colleagues have covered many of the topics I would have, so thank you for that. I won't keep us longer than necessary. I wanted to just quickly touch on two points that I don't think have come up yet. Did you say that you don't plan to condition the trash room?

We plan to have it be, yeah, open with vents on the side.

So I... I fully appreciate the idea of sort of trying to end the conditioned envelope but from a sustainability perspective but I do want to ask like functionally whether Thinking of the temperatures we've had in the last two days, an unconditioned trash room containing the trash of 29 units is going to become a nuisance to your tenants to Passerby. I don't want to undo something that you would approach from a sustainability perspective, but as I heard that I did sort of cringe and I wonder if anyone has thought through that. So that was one question. And the second was just in terms of the sort of facade design that you have focused in on, I can imagine the sort of architectural context that you're drawing from with the brick and copper

I think usually when they see a Copper Patina color palette, it is in much more of an accent. Rather than sort of full turquoise building panels. And I don't like to play architecture critic, so I'm going to leave it there. But I would just encourage you to think about whether that will, you know, we're Thank you for watching! I'm not sure how much this is supposed to be referential versus sort of a design statement and maybe at a future meeting you could just articulate that for us a little bit more.

sure happy to do that at a future meeting for sure and um yeah the trash is a great point yeah i think we we would certainly work with our MEP engineer to ensure some minimum ventilation a lot of ways we kind of see this as you know an overhang where there could be a dumpster under it not too much different from that because we are providing a significant amount of openings on the side but Yeah, when it gets to 97 degrees, certainly.

I was just looking at your design and it looks like several feet below and behind there is one of your larger units with a beautiful patio. And I just wonder how usable that patio would have been yesterday.

We will be having a private trash removal, so this trash isn't going to be marinating for like a week. We're going to have multiple, you know, multiple stops per week to eliminate the trash and clear out the trash and I have the trash in my house underneath my front deck and the barrels are closed and we sit on the front deck and the trash right below us and I've never gotten a whiff. And my trash comes once a week, so we'll be having multiple trash runs every week. So obviously we want to have a great experience for the owners of the building.

Do you have financing in place for this, Larry?

We do not, no. We've had discussions, but obviously we need to have an approved design set.

I'm just curious of that for anyone who's coming forward with a residential project right now. So thank you.

It is exactly 9.30 on the dot, so I won't be too long. I am also not going to be all that couched. A few items really raise my concern here. One, you've talked about, Lynn actually had a very good point about the number of bedrooms versus the number of bike spaces. Fully respect that point of discussion. My concern is actually the number of bedrooms per unit and the unit count. and this board has regularly for years and years and years as some of you know who have been before us before um Strongly encourage people to have more than just two bedrooms, particularly close to transit because

God, where am I going to possibly find a one-bedroom condo or a one-bedroom apartment in some of our two-bedroom apartments? They're all over the place. We need more than that, particularly in a space like this, which is going to be a decent sized unit. And Ryan, I don't want to call you out on it, but effectively your response to that is we couldn't make enough money based on... Making a three-bedroom unit, and I don't find that to be all that convincing because there are other people who have been in your position who have done just that, including the folks over at Lindell's. Sight, as well as people next to Porter Square on White Street, they have all found a way to at least incorporate some larger family site units. Many of whom Lynn, I'm sure, will have three, four, five bikes, which, great, good for them. I hope they do. And so that's my aspect number one as to why I'm a little bit concerned about your proposal.

Concern number two, and I'm dating myself a little bit by this reference, but I do recognize that there are at least other two Gen X folks here in the room here tonight. I'm going back to my in living color, you know, men on. on film as it relates to the design of your building and the colors that he used and the structure. I hated it. Okay. It looks like every building that has been built in Greater Boston and across the country for 10 years. And it looks generic. And it could be so much better and articulated and fit in with the neighborhood. It looks like everything. Thank you for watching! Right by the T-stop, there are a lot of different ways that this could be effectuated such that it could be an interesting looking building.

And I think that would... Go a long way in looking at how I see this application. I think this is a first pass to be honest. I respect what you're trying to do. I want to help you get there. This is for me not the project that I want to see here. I think there are vast improvements that can be made both as to how the building looks and how the building operates internally. and how it serves the neighborhood by being a community-centered, family-centered hub. I'm not saying you can't have studios. I'm not saying you can't have single bedrooms. I'm not saying you can't have a couple of two bedrooms. But you, like... For one member, look at how this works in the grand scheme of things.

We are as a community trying to encourage families to stay here and you can't have, you know, Two parents and a kid in a one bedroom or a two bedroom. It doesn't work, especially as that child grows older. If we want to have people come here and stay here, There needs to be some additional flexibility in some of that unit count particularly as well. So I would, as one member, encourage you to come back to us with something that's a little bit... Differently thought out. I want to help you get to a place where I'd be supportive of a project as it's presented. I don't want to be unsupportive. I'm trying to give you Where I see this project going, having been on this board now for 18 years.

I want this to be a good project.

Time is actually not our friend here in this process. It's taken us quite a while to get in front of you today. So we're trying to be efficient, frankly.

Ryan, I respect that. That is how this goes. Time to you is something that I respect, but it's also... A broader concern that I have to consider as it relates to this neighborhood and this community.

I understand. I'm Matt Moore here with Convara Capital. I have a question about particularly the design. So we went back and forth with the design review board multiple times, and we presented multiple scenarios, options for them. This is what they came up with, right? And then we didn't necessarily agree with what they picked, but we did have other options. And just frankly speaking, It just, is there a way we can kind of streamline working together with the design review board and the planning board so it's not, it just seems so broken that it's just back and forth.

I'll be frank with you. You are certainly not the first person to have... I've been in the situation where the UDC or different view board has looked at something which has recommended something that the planning board has rejected. right so they're an advisory board they're not the perfect granting authority we are and That is something that I think we as a city administration need to figure out a better way to work with these particular professionals. So I... Again, as one member, everybody else on the board might be like, we love the design and might you be an idiot? What are you talking about? That's just kind of how it goes. I tend to think that might not be the case based on... The history of my relationship with some of my board members.

But with the UDC and folks like that, They can give guidance and that is not always where this board sits. And I don't know right now the best way to resolve that. I understand your frustration. in having gone before them having multiple different what we have done as a board in the past is ask applicants to say please give me the Panoply of things that you've given to the UTC and see if we like one that you've already come up with that will work with your project that they particularly might not have liked. We've done that with a project on Broadway by Padao Circle. One of the ones I can think of. So if you've got other designs that will work with your project, show me. I'd love to see them.

Just because they designed this one and elected this one does not mean that that has to be what you need to present. I appreciate that that's what you felt you probably should. But that's not the end of the story.

Understood. And I agree with your feeling about the building as well. And we can show you what else we have. if that would be helpful.

That would be great. I will tell you.

My view of what makes a beautiful building is very much rooted in the old New England brick style. That's probably not. Where people are right now, but if you can make something that looks like Lowell House, I'll be a happy guy. It's not going to happen, but I get it.

Would you like to see the options? We have them up.

Tonight? Tonight, no. Okay. No, it is getting late, and respectfully, I do want to move along. But I do also want you to come back with us in a few weeks to be able to address the concerns broadly that have been raised by me, but also by my colleagues. If you can. And if you can't, that's also helpful to know. We've certainly asked for people to come back to us with certain expectations and they come back and say, I absolutely can't do it.

We will put our heads together and discuss. Just off the bat, just to be transparent, there are things that we can work on and there's things that we can't. Again, feasibility, I think Ryan mentioned earlier, there's things that just... There's a lot of things squeezing developers and projects are really hard to get out of the ground right now.

I respect that. Rates are where they are now and all that stuff. Let's work together. I do want to get to a project where the board and particularly me can be supportive. So let's keep going. Sorry to interrupt. Either way, we're going to vote on this tonight anyway because we've kept the record open for a couple of weeks anyway. So let's see where we're at in a few weeks. And if you need more time, you need more time. Thank you, appreciate it. So, thank you guys very much. Does anybody else have anything you'd like to add at this time of the evening prior to Memorial Day weekend before everybody can get off there? Okay, just looking at the calendar right now. The next meeting that we have is the 4th. Do you all think that June 4th is a good time to continue, or would you like some more time after that?

We're good for the 4th. Sorry, I don't want to speak on behalf, but yeah.

Yes, please.

Okay. Yep. The chair moves to continue this agenda item on to the June 4th meeting, seconded by Amelia. Could I have a roll call, please, Alvaro?

Jahan Habib?

Aye.

Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Coralie Cooper?

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Hi.

Amelia Aboff.

Hi.

Michael Capuano.

Hi. Great. See you all in a few weeks and best of luck, please.

Thanks. Have a good one.

Thanks, everyone. With nothing else before the planning board, as it is Thursday before Memorial Day weekend, despite it being a rain out. Does anybody else have anything they'd like to add for the good of the meeting? Seeing none, at 9.42 p.m., the chair moves to adjourn. Seconded by Amelia Rocco.

I'm Ilya Aboff. I'm Michael Capuano. Thank you all very much. Good night.

Have a good weekend.

Thank you. Take care.