Somerville Planning Board 10-15-2026

Good evening. It is 6.01. This is the October 15th, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Planning Board. I'm Vice Chair Amelia Aboff. I'll be chairing tonight's meeting and with me are our Clerk Jahan Habib and members Coralie Cooper, Lynn Richards, and Luc Schuster. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Planning Board will be conducted via 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 As a reminder to members of the public who are in attendance, if you wish to share a comment please state your name, street of residence and city of residence for the record at the beginning of your testimony. We have one approval of minutes and One case to hear tonight, which is 222 Broadway and then have discussion of the number of zoning amendments that we heard that were opened at the Land Use Committee two weeks ago. So let's just quickly do meeting minutes.

These are the minutes of September 17th, 2026. Has everyone had a chance to review the September 17 meeting minutes? Any edits or... Yes John

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one small edit. I noticed there was a typo for the public hearing section. So this is on the last page for 8 Medford Street. The last... The last paragraph, which starts with following a motion by Chair Capuano seconded by Vice-Chair Aboff. Just where it says mid rise four there's a small typo it says MR dollar sign instead of 4 so just to correct that Thank you so much.

Thank you for your sharp read, Jehan. All right. So seeing no other edits or comments, I move to adopt the September 17th, 2026 minutes as drafted with Jehan's correction. Seconded by Jahan. Alhar, can you please call the roll?

Jahan Habib Aye Lynn Richards Aye Luc Schuster Aye Carly Cooper Aye Amelia Ebal

Hi. All right, wonderful. Moving on we will next take up 222 Broadway which was previously opened and read into the records this is being continued from October 1st I understand the applicant has modified their request. Does someone from the applicant team want to speak to provide us with an update on your application or does the case planner want to seek to the modification?

Madam Chair, this is Alvaro. I just promoted the applicant.

Thank you for joining us, Ms. Sullivan, and my apologies again for the run of show at our previous meeting. We didn't mean to leave you hanging while we went into committee.

Not a problem at all. I understand things happen. All right, so we yes obviously have decided to amend since the last meeting but I did if I could um I didn't want to address one thing Just because there was a comment that made just before we got into recess at the last meeting somebody from the board had asked or made the statement that it was, and I'm paraphrasing here. Obviously this was two weeks ago. It's great that we have made improvements to the property but why weren't we more proactive Proactive about making them and basically we were only doing them because we wanted something. And then we went into recess, and I just wanted to address that because some of the improvements that we made for example getting rid of that bench that was brought up by one of the neighbors, nobody had ever complained about that bench prior to me going for this permit.

So if it was so problematic and unsafe you know it's something that could have been addressed by going into the store and talking to the manager and saying hey I don't feel safe so that kind of goes both ways we'd never known that it was problematic So I just kind of wanted to address that comment. That being said, we have decided to amend our filing to just ask to be able to open Till 10 o'clock at night.

Thank you for that update. No problem. Good, yes?

Hi, this is Kit. I just wanted to double check if it was 10 or 11.

I'm sorry, it's 11. Okay. Just wanted to

So this is a revision of the request, no longer aiming to be 24 hours, but now updating the current hours from 5am to 8pm to 5am. All right, since that is... A change compared to what we heard last time, I would like to open it up to public testimony again tonight in case there are any folks wishing to provide updated comments on this modification. Alvaro, process-wise do I need to do we're already we just need to reopen right? If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on the updated, modified hours proposal from Nicole's team, please raise your hands and Alvaro will unmute you.

I see one hand currently, so Claudio Fideli, I'll allow you to speak.

Hello? Is it me? We can hear you.

Hi, Claudia.

Oh, I'm not Claudio. I'm Dale. Do you need Claudio?

Your username appears as Claudia, but if you want to give public comments... That's so strange.

Okay, I don't know why that's happened, but I'm definitely not Claudia, I'm Dale. From 8 Melbourne Street. Hopefully he's able to get onto the chat. Well, anyway, so I'm from 8 Melbourne street. I still am against this claim of 11 p.m., as I said last time there was um what do you call it there were I said quite a lot last time in terms of like there's drinking on the property I found loads of like alcohol on my property I still at the moment as well like I am granted that Nicole said about the whole like bench situation we have actually already complained about the bench like and I went into store but nothing was done so just so you know the bench is on Somerville property by the way it's actually their

Okay, well you just said this stuff earlier so I'm just replying to that. And then also the barriers on the fence are like leaning into my property as well and that hasn't been fixed or done I think just generally yeah you put the wall up which is good but there's still like the bins outside the front are still like open and when I go like Around there at night I just had like a random spot check and they were still full of garbage which is actually causing problems for the rats. and then I've got a whole family of rats coming into my garden at the moment where my garden is totally clean there is nothing in my back garden whatsoever I'm very cautious and i also have like rat traps out as well but there's still problems there and i had a look around the property as well

of Dunkin Donuts and there's only still two rat traps so I don't know I just I'm still against this and also the fact that it's so like I don t want it to be loud at night and this is a residential neighborhood 9 would be okay, but not 11.

Thank you Dale and thanks for being respectful of the timer. Understanding that was not in fact Claudio, there is another hand named Claudio perhaps that is a different attendee.

Do I get to respond at all or I don't want to do anything wrong?

This isn't really the time for dialogue. After this, we can have some discussion and we will turn to you for additional questions. Thank you.

Okay, I'm allowing Claudio Fideli to speak.

Hi! Hi, my name is Claudio. All right, thank you. Let's start. I have no problem with extending the hours. 11 seems really late. Nothing around here opens that late. Stop and Shop closes at 9. The gas station closes at nine. Everything here closes early. The only thing that's open late at night is the soccer field across the street. That's the only thing I live at 238. The lights from your location shine right into my back door because of the way that lines of the houses are set up but those same lights go to my backdoor so i have the same issues I have the same visibility issues, I see the same people hanging around. I see trucks parked there not going into the store. People hanging around in there and not going to the store This happens all the time.

It's not just a one-time thing and Nicole, this is nothing against you. We're talking about what's been going on at the location, okay? I have no problems with the business expanding whatever you want to do that's great but we live here so just you know you're going to understand our end of this 11 o'clock may sound great, but we're all asleep at 9 o' clock. So nobody's taking our point of view in this. Dale and people on Melbourne Street, they go to sleep even earlier than I do. They get up to work at 5 in the morning. You're asking us to live with all this. and just close our eyes to it. It's not fair to us either and I understand how you feel as a business person but as a neighborhood, you have to understand how we feel as well. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance who wants to give comment on the updated proposal? Overall, I don't see anyone. Do you?

No, Madam Chair. I only see both Clive Fidelis but I'm lowering their hands.

Thank you. All right so seeing none we will close public testimony and turn to discussion amongst the board. I would love to hear any thoughts that anyone wants to start us off with. I will try to take Chair Capuano's practice of leaving mine to the later stages of the conversation.

Luke. Happy to try and kick us off with thoughts. I genuinely hear the concerns of the abutters It also does, from a city perspective feel like a reasonable place to have a Duncan that's open later. So I entered this pretty inclined to support the idea I already appreciate them also scaling back the proposal to go till 11 rather than 24 hours. One small thought on the margin I have is just, I wonder if there's any Benchmark, Norm you know elsewhere within Somerville to think about how late in the evening it's reasonable to have things go and like

What's on my mind is just I feel like in other contexts, 10 o'clock is often the quiet hours start at 10 o clock or something. 11 feels an hour later than my rough benchmark is for that kind of thing. I don't know if a further compromise on the margin would be moving this to 10. Obviously, that's still not going to satisfy everyone. Many people do go to bed before 10 also so that's a challenge but that's one thought and I'll just say on some of the cleanliness and upkeep of the parking lot discussion it's so hard to to know from our vantage point which version of stories is right. I found the back and forth at our last meeting helpful, and it did seem like at least to some degree there's been a good faith effort by the business owners

to do cleanup and that it wasn't just at the last minute so you know my sense is there's been some good faith there in terms of the business owners also but I don't think that should fully drive this planning decision either because largely That's an enforcement side of things anyway. So just a few thoughts to get us started.

If I can respond briefly, Alvaro and Linus, but I did look up sort of what the standard hours were in the ordinance that wouldn't have triggered a special permit. And I can't recall what section it was in because I had to dig for it, but I'm pretty sure that the default that doesn't require this is 9. So to the extent you're looking for sort of what is the de facto, Kit and Alvaro please feel free to correct me on either the chapter and verse here.

This is Kit. Yes, the zoning ordinance says that since this is a pre-existing nonconforming formula business that any change in the hours outside of I need to check the earlier one. I think it's 7 a.m. to 9 p.m would require the special permit and then after any planning board decision They would also require an extended hours license from... City Clerk's Office, which I actually now that I'm saying that would need to check if 11 p.m still triggers that but I know that the 24-hour proposal they would need

Thank you.

And I saw your hand next Yeah, I'm going to follow in Luke's footsteps and just provide a few thoughts. To be honest, I am torn kind of right down the middle on this like on the one hand I, again, hear the residents' concerns and there's not a lot of great guidance from the city. on this and we also don't have a lot of precedent so it's not as though we can say oh well you know in this scenario two years ago we granted x y x y and z so I'm really torn around this because as Somerville becomes this denser and more populated with more mixed use integrated without we're going to kind of run into these issues I think more often.

On the other hand, you know Somerville is evolving and it is perfectly reasonable for us to think again think 10 years down the line. Are we going to be a very sleepy suburb that closes down at 8 o'clock or are we going To my mind, with what kind of Luke was saying in some ways we're setting a bit of precedent here and how we want Somerville to go forward. and I would love to hear from my other planning board members if you all think about it in that way as well. So, that's all I had Amelia. Thank you.

Corley and John, I didn't see which of you had your hand up first.

I'll go ahead. Yeah, I'm also sympathetic to the residents. They did list a number of Complaints, you know, noise and runes and garbage etc. People partying I also did think that the applicant seems to have made a pretty decent effort to address some of those things. And we want them... to continue to improve. And I'm wondering if there's kind of a mechanism to allow them to go forward and have this extension of hours but make it somehow conditional like i know that you know i don't even know if this is possible but i know the ISD does give them a license um and does do periodic inspections unless I'm wrong.

And I'm just wondering if there's a way that we could request that they do stepped up inspections or more detailed, you know Greater Frequency or something for some period of time if we grant this extension of business hours. So I was wondering if that was something we might look into or ask that question.

I think that's a great compromise and a great question, Gurley. And I am not sure what powers the planning board has to include conditions that require things of other of like operating departments that aren't ISD. Kit or Alvaro, I don't know if either of you I have a good answer to that offhand. This is the kind of thing that the chair would know, so my apologies for not having this recall. But we can certainly come back to that and maybe get an all-or-all

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Similar to the other planning board members, I'm also torn because I'm very sympathetic to The concerns that the nearby neighbors, the residential neighbors have conveyed. And I'm trying to counterbalance that with the With the good faith effort of the applicant team to scale back the hours going from 24 hours to closing down at 11 o'clock. One item I do want to double check with, and I'm not sure who to ask this question, so I'm going to put it out there. So on McGrath Highway, going further up, I believe there's a Dunkin' Donuts in the... in the gas station. It's been a while since I've been to that gas station, so I may be wrong. But if there is a Dunkin' Donuts that's So to speak up the street. And if that's open later, does that impact things?

And perhaps applicant team can answer or if the staff have any insights into that If they could share, I would really appreciate that as well.

I'm actually just looking up how late that one's open.

Sure, please.

I just want to talk a little bit. The reason why we want to extend, and I don't know if you were on this last meeting, we are going to be going in for another special permit. Very soon, as soon as I can get a property survey Which is also why the parking lot hasn't been repaired fully We're going to be co-branding this location We're gonna be adding a Jimmy John's in So that's kind of the reason for, for the ask here. Let me find that other location that you're wondering about though.

Sure, and that additional information is also very helpful because I'm also keeping in mind if you have plans for future business expansion how that could whether serve the community or serve folks who work later on at night or have different shifts or different availabilities. So that is very helpful and if you or someone else can certainly confirm the status of the that one is open until 9 45 which is very strange um okay it's just half hour sure but 945 is what it says on the app okay okay sounds good well thank you so much for confirming and uh thank you thank you madam chair as well thank

Ms. Holland, if there's anything else that you wanted to say I'm happy to give you the opportunity

So I do this a lot. We operate in 23 different towns and every town is different and unique and there's challenges and positives everywhere we go, but it is kind of tough. A Unhoused people with Dunkin Donuts and things of that nature. And I hear it all the time about how we attract homeless, and I've been in meetings where they actually won't approve us in the city of Boston because they feel we attract Unhoused. And I know that a lot of activity goes on at the park across the street from us. There's a lot drinking that also happens there, and I don't know if that's ever addressed but Bigger issue that probably needs to be looked into because I think what happens is the people go to the park and then they come over to Duncan. So it's challenging, and I just wanted to give that feedback.

Because it's actually something I looked into after my first meeting. I made a proactive call to the police department. I got all the calls for service for 2026, and if you were to look in this all public record, anybody can do it. Most of the calls that are out to that location are just proactive policing. There was one arrest and it was a... Guy that met his boss there and the guy owed him money and they got into a fight in the parking lot. It could have happened anywhere so After our first meeting, I definitely tried to find out as much as I could about a lot of the things that were bothering people. That's what I found out.

Thank you. I, like many board members, am of two minds about this. As other members will know, always try to go back to sort of the letter of the law and what the ordinance says and the intentions because that is what our remit as the planning board is and I do think that extending the hours of this non-conforming use given the intention of the MR district in which it is located is not aligned and so I personally was prepared to have a hard time supporting it on that basis, despite my sympathy to the applicant and the situation. But I will say listening more and more to the neighborhood It sounds like the activity that is bothering the neighbors is activity that's happening not by patrons, but because there is an empty parking lot.

And I actually find myself wondering if having More eyes on the street and feet going in and out of the building and staff at the property for more hours is the thing that would deter people who aren't customers from drinking in their cars in the parking lot here. So I'm, like all of you struggling with how to reconcile that potential angle. It's hard for me to right now develop a sense of how folks might be inclined to vote if we were to vote tonight, but this is a special permit so it will require four of us to pass. were you able to

track down any ideas in response to Corley's idea about additional sort of operating administrative check-ins?

This is Kit. I don't believe that the board can condition extra inspections that would be done by city staff or a city department. I do not believe that could be conditioned Thank you.

What about Coralie's idea, because I had a similar thought on it of that it's a conditional approval. that that it's conditional on what well that the and again I understand what Kit just said so this may be um as as wackadoo but um that You try that. I mean, we're not building a building that it's tried for a year and If the issues are mitigated and everyone is behaving, then it becomes permanent. I don't know if we have that authority either. It seems very unlikely but it also seems a way forward.

That would be similar to the way that we have handled some things with cannabis uses. I think that we probably have the power to approve this for... Approve this for a year and ask that the applicant come back in a year to give us an update on how relations with the neighbors are and how operating is going. And that will also give the neighbors another opportunity to provide an update. That would be an unusual thing to do, but I think that we have examples of that to draw on and

Amelia, you're the chair. I just feel that all of us are kind of split on this. Anyway, maybe some a little bit less so. I know I don't want to be the first one to vote.

I'll just say, thinking about this more I would not like to just fully vote this down. So for my perspective, I'd love to find something that's not just a full denial. I'm open to the one year idea if that is of interest to folks. I already do view the 11 o'clock request as a version of a compromise. So, I'd also support just the existing proposal or moving to 10 if that was of interest but I'd like to get to yes on something from my viewpoint.

Thank you, Luke. And I will say, again, if we get to a point where it looks like you would not have a successful vote missile, then I will encourage you to withdraw without prejudice so that we can continue the conversation at a later date rather than having a no vote that would prevent you from coming back. Jahan?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm inclined to concur with Member Schuster simply because I know that there are concerns and very valid concerns conveyed by the neighbors, the residential neighbors. However, making an effort to lose the hours and also keeping in mind that and many more. A location that's open till 9 45 p.m um that's further up the road um it does

It does sway my views a little bit more towards what the applicant has been proposing in terms of the reduced hours, meaning closing at 11 o'clock as proposed this time around. and also I don't want to presume but since Ms. Sullivan did mention the Jimmy John's consideration for a future date that also is something that I consider and keep in mind that it might expand the food offerings, not just Dunkin Donuts sandwiches and donuts which are great I know but There's other options. If they are going to be available, it might have a certain benefit to folks who Either awake or working, or coming from work or other considerations. So I just wanted to share my thoughts. Thank you so much.

Ms. Sullivan, would you be open to a condition that asked you to come back to the board in a year to give us an update on how operations are going and gave the opportunity for neighbors Have a forum to voice any issues? Sure. If, depending on how other members of the board are thinking about it, I'm inclined to propose... Either a condition Aligned with that, going to 11 o'clock or to suggest that we ask the applicant to consider 10.30 as a further compromise and then take a vote on that time threshold to Luke's point of trying to find Happy Medium, Bertra Hans of Thank you so much for joining us.

I'm not going to stay open until 11. Like, I'm going to do what makes sense. So 11 may be more than we need but I wanted to at least ask since I've already come this far. We're obviously going to the thing that makes the most sense For the business. So if it is 10, then we'll change it to 10 but I wanted to at least ask for 11 But if 1030 is the compromise and that's what gets us to...

I'm just trying to toe the line here to see what... I appreciate it. So thank you for your patience. How do other board members feel about 1030 or 10 or the come back in a year condition? Let's try to get to a consensus. Coralie

Yeah, I'd support the coming back in a year if we think that... You know, we have a realistic opportunity to go back to the earlier hours in a year if things were really not going well.

Kit and Alvaro, do you need... Additional time to check on that because I know that we have done similar uses in the past, but I also know that to the extent this is Nonconforming and we are extending a non-conformance. I don't know what the rules are to dial that back again.

I would appreciate a little bit more time to check that out. I just want to make sure how to write that condition language and make sure everything's okay before there's a vote there.

The other thing I would feel very comfortable with if this were simpler and if this was open to people is if we were to take a vote tonight to extend to 10 o'clock and ask Ms. Sullivan to come back in six months to extend it to 11 o' clock and with the intention of having a much faster process at that time since we've already heard the background. So I guess I'll put that on the table as just trying to get to a point where we can close this out this evening. Is that something, Luke?

Just a question about Kit asking for more time. I couldn't tell if that was A few more minutes right now during this meeting or is it more time coming back at a subsequent meeting? I'm reading from Amelia's response that maybe it's actually more about a subsequent

I'm double checking in the background.

So, I don't want to make her on the hot seat. We're double checking In the background right now But I do think that It might, you know, if the board would feel okay about it I think that it might be a little cleaner for If the applicant also was okay with a 10 p.m time and then they in however long could apply for a plan revision of some sort. But I think there would need to be an application to trigger that. at some point.

Just since I had the floor up, I appreciate all this and everybody's trying hard to get to a good place here. So, this is all in good faith. I worry that we have a track record of even on really simple matters like this one not settling it even at one meeting and so even punting for six months this could take up two different meetings because you know of one small detail. A little bit of an instinct on my end to avoid the six-month approach.

I'm going to say, I'm gonna make a motion that we extend to 1030 and with a condition that Ms Sullivan's team is committing to voluntarily not as part of a filing an application but come back to us in six months to give us an update on how things are going and we'll make sure and that she will communicate to the neighbors that they have a forum Participate in that discussion? Is that acceptable? Okay, all right. So that's my motion seconded by Jahan. Alvaro, can you please call the roll?

Yes, Madam Chair. Jahan Habib? Aye. Lynn Richards? Aye Luc Schuster? Aye Coralie Cooper? Aye Amelia Aboff?

Aye Thank you so much. Good luck Thank you. All right, so that was our only item of... Well I don't think I read the right thing hang on I'm sorry There's a script Following public testimony, review of the submitted materials and deliberation of the required considerations outlined by the Somerville Zoning Ordinance, please apply that preamble to my previous motion. I don't think we need to take the vote again. Thank you Alright, thank you so much for standing with us Fiona. I know that our other item of business was discussion of the amendments that were presented during the Land Use Committee two weeks ago. I have a number of questions.

We do not yet have the benefit of public comment being received, so we will continue this discussion at our next meeting but we will also have another land use committee meeting at our Some discussion now to make that a shorter conversation on the 5th. We should make every effort to do so. Lynn?

I just want to say for the record that I reviewed the Video from the Land Use Committee as well as the video from the Planning Board meeting and sign the affidavit so I'm up to date.

Thank you so much. So Fiona, did you have... Items that you wanted to start with or was this just for us to pepper you with questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this is an opportunity this evening to really have a discussion and Go through some questions and concerns following up from that October 1st land use committee meeting as you stated. I don't have kind of a more formalized presentation beyond the materials that were presented at That meeting, obviously we know that the comment period for each of these five amendments is open until the 30th and there will be further deliberation which a planning board recommendation will eventually follow. So I'm really, I'm here to kind of explain and try and answer any questions that you all have and provide some additional clarification. I suspect that we'll be Discussing in more depth the proposed protected use ADU amendments that are

currently under public comment but I am prepared to talk about any of the others as well knowing that particular concerns were raised at the land use Committee meeting regarding height and the size, and how these backyard cottages that we are going to be proposing to use. for Compliance with the State Law are materializing in Somerville. Totally understand and appreciate feel for the responses that were provided and understand that there are certain steps that we are continuing to evaluate and can take as a division. Obviously we've seen these backyard cottages materialize in a way that's We are proposing to have that as the max gross floor area for our

Backyard Carnage Amendment. But, and I apologize, I shouldn't have just jumped right in. Please feel free to you know if I start going off on that particular amendment if there's other questions or we want to take another one first please let me know

No, thank you. Let me just to give this some... To try to give us a little bit of structure. Does anyone have questions for Fiona that are about something or discussion amongst members for anything other than the ADU amendment? Let's cover that first. You're muted.

Excellent, thank you. So I made notes on the ground story requirement Right of eliminating that as a requirement. I was taken back by the presentation where it said that there is no public purpose for an elevated ground floor. And that actually is just blatantly wrong. I mean, when you look at development that has occurred over the last 200 years The ground story is elevated for design reason to get the first floor, the living area kind of Off the Eyes of the Street. It's to provide additional privacy, so I understand the tension with the accessibility but I just felt that it was just

The ground story, eliminating the ground story requirement felt like a broader discussion was needed than just a simple, there's no public benefit. Why are we even doing this? and so I wanted to stop and make sure that we talked a little bit about that and what we would be giving up if it went forward. And then ironically, the very next issue was well there are other ways we can have entrances on the side or on the back and I was like okay so we're giving up this public space or this public privacy and and the design aspects of how many houses in Somerville and Boston are built. and for accessibility. And now we've just created kind of opportunities for greater accessibility, for back entrances and side entrances. So to me the two issues kinda felt and Amelia.

I don't know if you want to dive into it. I also have issues, I also You asked, does anyone have something other than ADU? And I did. I have something on parking and Ground Story.

No, thank you for raising the ground story. Let's stay on that one for a moment. I think that was a comment more than a question, but if there were questions to Fiona embedded in that, I'm happy for her to respond. I appreciate you raising this and I respect your perspective on it. I completely disagree, I would put accessibility way before anything about urban design in this moment but let's hear it they're both worth taking

Sure, absolutely. Thank you Madam Chair through you thank you Lynn for the comments we do appreciate the feedback so I think you know the comment of kind of the way that was phrased maybe in the meeting probably not an accurate representation of how we as a division feel. We are trying always to forward accessibility and compliance with ADA, as well as universal design. and this was one of the kind of options that had been presented in the past. I know that this has been discussed previously, and this is an opportunity for us to look at our regulations and see where can we make improvements How can we make life a little bit easier and make sure that we are kind of like forwarding the goals of Summer Vision and general goals of Universal Design.

All that being said, I totally hear what you're saying and agree the presentation was initially not It seemed more blunt than maybe as intended. However, we understand that there is a kind of a trade-off between allowing kind of removal of the elevation as well between design and accessibility. Our stance is a division, is that being able to remove that minimum will just allow for more accessible buildings to become part of the Building Stock in Somerville. Not necessarily taking anything away, just having that option was the goal really and in terms of the Amendment for the entrances. So again, similar to kind of

Modification I was just discussing, we are allowing for the opportunity to provide side entrances without taking away the ability to, you know if and many more. Practical ways of utilizing space and I do apologize if it did come off as blunt during the meeting initially, but these are options that we've evaluated and talked through with ISD. More like low-hanging fruit in ways that we can kind of provide alternatives for folks in Somerville to be able to access their properties within the code.

Thank you for that explanation. And Amelia, I hear what you're saying Let me ask a clarifying question on this because this is something I actually feel pretty strongly about, probably as strongly as Amelia feels about accessibility. So a developer would have the option of either having it right on the level or raising it as how houses are built now you know two or three feet Correct? It's optionality. It's not a requirement that now all doors have to be at ground level. Is that my understanding?

Through the chair, yes. That's correct.

My expectation of how this would shake out, which I'm just projecting but I imagine For buildings that were already going to have elevator access or are already going include accessible units, they would be more likely to make this design choice and for buildings that we're already going walk up only Thank you for joining us. I can't say how it will happen, but I would imagine that people will be making choices that are sort of contiguous with the other accessible or non-accessible design features of the building.

Thank you, Amelia. I actually found your comment to be extremely helpful so thank you. You're muted, Amelia. Was there anything else on this one? No, no, no. I'm good that was the kind of one conversation that i wanted to have on it we can move on to let's go just as contentious as the adu

Well, I don't have a letter to read from Mike this time so easier for me but please Lynn go on.

Um it's like Lou Corley do you guys want to okay um I'll jump in so I really appreciated, so I also have a question in that when the mobility person was doing the presentation said that they wanted to decrease the parking maximum. and here was what we wanted to decrease. And then the chair, Ben, whose last name I can't pronounce, Ewen-Champe said so this is just fixing typos and the mobility person said yes we're just fixing type O's and I was like wait a minute wait a Minute these aren't typos you you're actually changing the standard I think the chair misunderstood, but the mobility person agreed that it was just fixing typos.

So are there actual typos in the current regulation or are we actually... Changing the parking ratios.

Through the chair, so my understanding was when the original amendment was submitted in 2024 there was A ton of proposed changes and there was a few that did not actually make it into the code. And though this is, The original intention of the 2024 amendment is just being carried over into what's being proposed currently. It was accidentally omitted for one reason or another, so the intention remains the same I'm sorry, I hope that I'm answering your question correctly.

Please let me know if I'm missing anything but- Well because you're not like Are there typos in the code or are we changing regulations?

Through the chair, because there was omissions from the first time, the regulations are changing now. Yes.

So they are changing. That's not like... Okay. I understand that there's this 2024 issue, but if it wasn't passed and it wasn t in the code like it s Anyway, but the bigger issue is I wanted to amplify the comments made by Chair Capuano in that I... And I'm a new urbanist. I'm cyclist, I walk and bike everywhere right? But I feel that Somerville is becoming very anti-car and I think unless we pull up and think about more district parking options this kind of

you know development developed by development approach is going to come back and have a lot of negative repercussions on the city of Somerville. And so we talked about district parking in Assembly Square and Chair Capuano mentioned district parking in Union Square. I'm new to the board, we haven't moved forward at all with district parking anywhere but this kind of piecemeal approach feels very, feels punishing to those residents who need their cars for their work. So for example, people who own landscaping businesses who need trucks to put in their equipment. People who work in the healthcare industry

I have a roommate who is a perfusionist who gets called at 2am to go to the hospital because somebody needs open heart surgery. So I again my personal feelings are like yes let's use a car etc etc but I think we also are trying to create a Somerville that is open for everyone. and when we really ratchet down parking requirements that it makes it so difficult for people who actually you know use vans or or use their cars for work we're not talking just white-collar workers going to Boston or working from home if we're trying to create a diverse Somerville We need to ensure that there are opportunities for parking, which is why district parking is so important.

And then the other piece Mike had great statistics on how many parking permits We're issuing how many cars are registered and I would like to add to that the number of weeks, weeks, that the red line is down. Weeks in a given year. We are not, I have been in countries that have phenomenal public transportation and we are not there yet. So I just think that the city needs a more balanced approach and I frankly was a little shocked at some of the decreases on the parking maximums. And it just, I've tried to raise this issue with Dan Bartman that the city needs to take a broader more comprehensive approach to how we're going to be managing parking and we can build garages

that can be transformed into something in 10 years. We can build that adaptive reuse into the building but taking a comprehensive approach is necessary and so kind of further ramping down like we can't park anywhere, we're not going to have cars when the trains don't work. people you know who don't work in offices necessarily but services our hospitals, our landscaping etc. need vehicles and I think that They're not being represented in the comments. So that is both less of a question and more of a comment following on Chair Capuano's comments.

Through the chair, thank you Linda. I totally appreciate the comments regarding you know we need to be kind of thinking holistically about all the types of folks that are in Somerville that are needing cars and although this amendment will allow um the ability to apply for a special permit To have additional parking, I can definitely take the comments received tonight and speak to the mobility team and see what flexibility there is.

Thank you. I have some comments on this one too, but Luke do you want to go first?

Sure. I'll be quick because they're all process observations slash questions. If I'm tracking, so I shared Lynn's confusion about what we were even talking about two weeks ago because of the preface about it all being technical stuff and I kind of glossed over. And then when Chair Capuano's letter was being read like oh this is substance I think if i'm tracking what's happening here is the act of making the technical corrections to match the intent from two years ago just creates the opening for people to comment on the substance of the discussion from two years ago and therefore were sort of backsliding into a substance conversation that wasn't even necessarily intended by making technical amendments. Is that sorta right, just to confirm that I'm tracking what's happening?

Yes, through the chair. I would agree that because of the prior errors, the conversation has now opened up to be about the more substantive content again.

And so I guess just given that, maybe we're in just a weird spot. But Lynn shared a bunch of thoughts about parking like big, big thoughts around urbanism and how to address parking in a place like Somerville All interesting stuff that I'll have reactions too but i don't even know quite like what i should be reacting to um so you know that's what's on my mind just like it is just bogged down and processed before i even have big thoughts about parking policy I don't even know who that thought is for a response from, but you know, I'll leave it out there in the ether.

Through the chair, I think it would be helpful during the next joint Hearing to maybe provide some additional context for folks about some of the history and how that's affecting what's being proposed now, just so people can understand a little bit more. If that's helpful, I will definitely make a note to include that in the presentation.

I think that would be very helpful and I'll also suggest to Luke and Lynn and sort of speaking for Mike here Why don't we add an item of other business to a future meeting that doesn't have a lot Let's write a two paragraph policy statement on behalf of the board to send to mobility or whomever. And like, we need a forum that's not Edits, like we're out here to give comments and edits. We need a different forum I think for communicating a lot of the big picture things that everyone seems to have in their heads so we should address that in our recommendations but also let's See if Chair Capuano is open to that. Corley?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well just my initial reaction to the parking you know the basically the changes that were never made but are being proposed now it seems to me that that really aligns very much with summer vision and increasing density in in this city, and so for that reason I support it. And I do have a couple of questions though. I mean, I'm assuming that there's been analysis to show that we wouldn't be actually, would there be places to park for people who I mean, I'm not sure we know the answer to that. And like often when the city proposes to eliminate in certain parking spaces along corridors

They do an analysis, you know, Citi does an analysis of how many spaces are occupied at certain times of day and, you For the parking. So, you know, and I just want to make another comment also in that is that, you Reducing the maximum kind of takes away a marketing tool. So it, you know, it takes away, it could take away Well, we have three spaces over here. For every X people, and that business only has two. So it kind of takes away that tool. That's more of a question though. Is that an objective here?

Through the Chair, so Mobility has crunched the numbers and definitely will be able to provide their analysis. I don't have I'll be able to connect with them on providing that as backup information. but in terms of taking, you know as you said kind of forwarding the goals of some revision obviously we don't want to continue to incentivize excessive use of single occupancy vehicles especially in our transit areas but we do understand that you know We do need to be able to provide an avenue for some parking and through our discussions and mobilities work, they were able to formulate this approach.

With that being said, you know Understanding that there will definitely be certain impacts from a marketing perspective, sure. I think that is likely but I guess probably the numbers will be able to kind of attest to why the decision was made to pursue this, especially because we need to understand I fully understand like how much space they're being occupied versus not and how much actually parking will be taken away if at all really. So to your point, definitely understand the concerns and I hear you. And I think that it's definitely, we'll have make sure to come prepared with the numbers from the mobility team.

I think Coralie's point on market... Sorry can I riff on that? I think the point on marketing is, is the right thinking. And I would say like my concern just always trying to where the developer had is like I'm not 100% sure that some of these are numbers that are financeable. So remember, even developers who want to be doing a low parking building have to be answerable to a bank or pension fund and banks and pension funds are still in the 90s when it comes to like where we think we are in transit. So I'm sure that because this has been in the works since 2024, there has already been some like thinking and discussions on that. But I would love if Mobility could please just sort of confirm what conversations have been had to like I'm hoping that we have spoken to a couple of the usual suspects developers to confirm that

A maximum ratio of 0.6 per thousand for an R&D building is acceptable because I'll say like, I have friends who work in research labs and they drive in at 4am to check their cell cultures because those cells need to be, I don't know what you do with cells but something needs to happen every six hours You know, so I think of that as a use that's a little bit hospital-like in terms of sometimes being on very much its own schedule that the tea does not run. Coralie?

Thank you. Yeah, and I just want to clarify, I'm not sure if I worded that correctly. So when I said a marketing tool, I was thinking that in the negative sense that it's possible that businesses and companies would want to build more parking than is needed as a kind of a marketing tool, but that it could lead to more parking then we need. So that was the sense that I meant in

Thank you for that clarification. I'm sorry, I took it the wrong way. I don't want people to go to A retailer that's in Medford and not Somerville because it's easier to park there right like we have to I absolutely think that this is aligned with big picture the Somervillian vision goals but just thinking of some of the Other elements. And I'm going to throw a real curveball in now, so please bear with me.

To support the point that you just made we had that exact conversation with the developer of the lab building In Assembly Square, that mobility wanted a ratio I think of 0.5 and the developer was saying in Boston it's 0.9 right and that was a real tension. And so he never threatened to say, well we're gonna go into Boston but he was trying to say listen if the other as you were saying around Medford if the other ratios are higher. And again, I'm not talking about like let's do a lot of parking here, etc., etc., I'm just worried that we are going too low, too quickly and we're gonna lose some of our economic competitiveness.

Madam Chair, I apologize. I got disconnected from the meeting sorry i missed it uh the last about 60 seconds um but so that sorry about that we were talking about comparison communities and their ratios.

Lynn was just quoting a recent example from a project in assembly row where we were going back and forth with mobility and the developer on the ratios and the point that was being made by the developer that I think Lynn and I feel is valid is that The market for a lab building is relatively indifferent between Watertown, Somerville, Boston, etc. And to the extent we are making it more difficult for people to build buildings by limiting their financing options, we will not be the Beneficiary of those developments. Understood. All right, so I'm going to throw a curveball in. I think my ask here is just that you relay this to mobility. I don't expect it to get reflected in this amendment but I really want to raise it. So with all of this conversation about ADUs and open space and land use, like I've been thinking about what the longer term future looks like. And here's my crazy pitch.

We're a long ways away in the market cycle from underground parking being something that is like economically reasonable to do voluntarily. But we're going to be back there someday. And I don't think we should have parking maximums on underground parking. I think if a developer thinks that they can make money building a deeper hole and filling it with cars for a zillion dollars, and my neighbors can then turn their driveways into places for open space or ADUs, and park their cars underground three blocks away. I want that version of Somerville! I think that's really a stretch, but also underground parking is the one resource we have that isn't competing with any other land uses. and it's really expensive so it will be again like a while before anything like that is even on the table and I'm sure some of my developer colleagues would be laughing at me right now but there you know there's a

A monthly parking price where that actually does pencil. And if in five or 10 years we are approaching that, I think that it would be great for people to have the option to move their cars off of the streets, out of their driveways use that space for something else and so I would love for us to think like a little bit more Futuristically, I guess about that as like a differentiated resource than surface or above ground or street parking. Because I think it would be a great thing to be proactive and planning for, and those opportunities only come along once every so often. So I don't think we should like miss a bunch of them.

Thank you. Yeah, that's a good point. I'll make sure to bring that back. Absolutely.

Thanks so much. Anyone else on parking? Okay. Does anyone need a break before we move on to ADUs? Are we good to go? Luke?

One other non-ADU thing on my mind, I think it's just not for tonight but i'll just raise it since we're having a slightly broader conversation is the permitting process reform conversations that the planning department's going through and um just checking on kind of where that is you know there was it's come up a couple times over the last few months with us so I if the intent for this is purely the five amendments that were you know discussed with land use totally fine to just put a pin in that for later but I think that that

I don't know if you know. Is that going to be on the agenda for the joint hearing on November 5th?

through the chair so they there are future amendments that are going to be proposed that will be on an upcoming agenda I believe it's going to November 19th. There are also um amendments uh being discussed on the 5th that pertain kind of more closely to what we're discussing this evening. But there are future amendments as being presented in a stack through the end of the year and into early next year as part of the five-year zoning review that align with the permit streamlining efforts. and the Bloomberg Harvard project. So you will see a lot more information coming. So this is just the first amendment stack, we're calling it as part of that effort but more to come.

So Luke, I think we'll have other forums to review that but also if you want to discuss tonight. I think We certainly can it's just not um maybe we could leave that till after the ADO discussion since we have more of a timeline on that one

Yeah, absolutely.

However you'd like to proceed, Madam Chair. And I'm fine. I'm genuinely fine not discussing it all tonight. But I'll just say out loud in case it's helpful for thinking about how we sequence this. It's like the... Something about how those conversations went felt like I was scrambling the whole time to piece together what the master vision of it all was. And it seemed like there were, if I'm remembering correctly from the conversation, somewhat interrelated pieces of the proposed streamlining process. So just... Slight anxiety I have is if we're going to get one-off pieces of that discussions in November, is that still going to be a challenge for us in vetting them if we are not seeing how at all the broader vision is for how they fit together?

I think that's a great point. Fiona, I don't know how your team is planning to present them but I will say if it would be helpful to have a short conversation with The chair or myself ahead of a presentation to just we can try to maybe flesh out for you like the context that would be helpful to the rest of the board in understanding the grand vision. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Happy to meet with yourself and Chair Capuano to discuss. We are strategically introducing these amendments so that they align nicely with one another and will will make sense. I know it does seem like there is a lot coming and there's a lot of discussions being had about permanent streamlining broader conversations, but we are having a very providing very intentional approach to our submissions so that things will line up nicely for sure. But we will debrief Plenty between now and then, for sure. So everyone is on the same page.

Thank you. And thank you for raising that, Luke.

And thanks for undertaking the initiative, by the way. It directionally feels like great work to be doing. So thanks for that.

All right, onwards to ADUs. I've got a lot of questions here, I will say, and I also think I have maybe a stance that I'm happy to Cut to the chase about if it's useful. So I'm happy to let others go, but otherwise I will maybe jump in with my list if I may. What is an internal ADU and how is it different from a condo? I've never heard of this concept before, and it's possible that I just need to educate myself. First of all, the framework of now there's a new thing that's an idea that's internal to a building structure. I would love if you could just explain it to us.

Sure, so the internal... Thank you for the question. So the internal ADU is basically providing the unit within the principal structure as opposed to I feel the conversations have largely been about kind of the detached accessory dwelling units that are often like to the rear of a property or, you know above a garage or what have you. but internally to you is typically you see them kind of materialize in basements or as like a kind of a bump out to a structure or in the attic um they are within the confines of the uh principal dwelling unit so that's how we're that that's the internal is kind of the terminology and we're differentiating them from like a condominium

Because they're still part of the same, like what is the legal structure that is associated with an internal ADU? Is it Are we creating a new housing typology here in adopting that? We've got to understand that it came down from the state or... Maybe I need to frame my question differently. Is that allowing sort of the carve out of existing principal structures just into different shapes that would not have been allowable under the previous zoning for that to be operated as either a rental or A condo or is there some other third thing that's happening there?

So if I'm understanding your question correctly, so the concern is if there is an ability to kind of conduise a unit within a principal structure separately?

I'm just trying to understand like what is the hypothetical where that's happening? So let's say you've got a house and it's got a basement. Yeah, Lynn, please.

like Santa Cruz in 2005 you know started to do this so imagine that you own your house right and And so you need extra income and you create a rental unit in your basement. So the idea of eternal ADU kind of came from the idea that you are a homeowner and now you can create a rental unit on your property. So it wasn't It wasn't, in my experience it wasn't that a developer was going to create an internal But that the internal ADUs were something, it provided a structure for existing homeowners to modify their principal residence. Does that make sense? So it's starting with, like my neighbor downstairs is thinking about she's got this 400 square foot space. And I was like, well you can make it an ADU.

It's not that the developer did it, but now she could make it an ADU and her daughter could move in. So it's a mechanism for existing homeowners to modify their own units now I don't under that's the question that I have which is where you were going is it possible for a developer because they're making ADUs kind of external so can a developer make an internal one and if so then Amelia's question comes up of like how is that any different from

I'm just trying to understand how it impacts the density that one can fit on a lot. So like, I've got a lot of questions on the freestanding ADU piece but this one was when I hadn't thought about before so you know is that allowing an additional It sounds like this is not allowing an additional footprint as part of the principal structure. The principal structure still has to live by the rules that it was already bound by, it can just be divvied up differently now. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes, unless you're pursuing an extension to the property in order to create additional habitable space for the protected ADU.

But that would still be through a discretionary process of some kind. That would probably be the ZBA. Yes. Thank you. And it looks like we are headed in this amendment to Defining ADUs as backyard cottages and sort of merging those definitions, but it also looks like we are discussing making it much easier to use existing structures as ADUs. And I think that an existing, like... garage structure that could be converted into an ADU is not going to necessarily meet the form-based code topology of a backyard cottage so I just want to voice that I might be missing a step but I think that might be confusing to be trying to merge those definitions because if we have If we have existing structures that are being adapted, they will not necessarily meet the form-based code definitions of backyard cottage because that's a topology, not a structure. Right?

Yes, so the goal is to be able to allow for adaptive reuse of these existing structures to allow protected ADUs to kind of come into being instead of solely relying on The Backyard Cottage option which is what Somerville has been predominantly seeing but I will make a note that we need to just confirm the congruency between those things. But we are using the Backyard Cottage for our compliance, as you said. So again like wanting to open up options for Somerville property owners to be able to kind of instead of having to completely reinvent the wheel and develop a new building typology like a backyard cottage still having the option to be able to kind of do things with an existing garage or carriage house which do exist um you know in the carriage house was the other example I was thinking of is like I don't think you want to stay ADU as backyard cottage because that is a specific

Set of dimensional standards, whereas carriage house is also a reasonably frequently occurring accessory structure. Right?

Yes, it is a frequently occurring accessory structure but we would be reconciling the differences between what the state law requires and our regulations for backyard cottages to All right, so humor me.

So let's say I've got a property with a carriage house and I'm ready to convert it into an ADU. I can still use the carriage house typology like form-based code standards. I don't have to then modify it to comply with the backyard cottage standards, right?

These are backyard cottage standards. So you would need, so you would more or less like the ADU laws is that you cannot basically be overly restrictive if the requirements apply to the principle Dwelling, then you can't be more restrictive to the ADU. But if you are using like a carriage house, you can use that typology to meet the requirement for an ADU, for a protected ADU Thank you. I'm sorry. I love these questions are like this. So that's fine. Sorry for long-winded answers. I just want to make sure I'm accurately answering. And I'm also sorry to all the rest of you for putting me through.

Once the adaptive reuse language is in place, what would be the permitting path for the adaptive re-use of an existing nonconforming accessory structure? So let's say single story masonry garage. What does that path look like once this is enacted? Is that one of the things that is tied into the new ZBA versus planning board responsibilities?

Yes, so this should be as long as you're not increasing the existing nonconformity it would be allowed.

Okay and that was my next question what do we what do you mean by does not increase the structures non-conformities? So let's say It's a single story garage and it's non-conforming. but now I'm going to convert it to an ADU and so I'm gonna make it three stories which is what is allowed on my principal structure. But isn't that like just on a definitional level, like isn't increasing the structures nonconformity?

Yeah, it would ultimately be a finding that would have to be made by the ZBA for to allow that to happen through the new through the new law, the variance changes. But realistically you can convert and go You can pursue a protected use ADU through adaptive reuse up to that limit, yes. And then imagine there would be a subsequent variance request

So the thing where the dimensional standards can't be stricter than the principal structure, that only applies to new construction then?

Yes, let me actually follow up with if that's all right. Let me just make sure that I... I'm so sorry.

I was going through this and really struggling to understand what was meant by that.

No, yeah, no, and I apologize. answering very correctly and understanding the question so let me make a note.

And I'm just waiting for Luke or Lynn to jump in to either correct or rescue me so feel free. Do you know where we stand on the lot split topic that was raised earlier in the summer and sort of postponed in relation to knowing that this conversation was coming down the road? Because I think my opinion about this would also be informed by a better understanding of that

Sure, so understanding that what has been happening out in the field in terms of the lot splits and then creating units through that method is So it is an administrative approval if you meet the minimum requirements for frontage and lot dimensions, then you are able to split your lot. In terms of any movement, there hasn't been anything that us as a division have done or are looking at it. Like we're not factoring in the lot splits into these amendments at this point. We do recognize that is something happening, but in terms of Compliance with the law and trying to kind of rectify our zoning to do that. We haven't weighed the lot split issue as heavily because it is...

Basically, a right if you're meeting those requirements to be able to proceed with splitting your lot and developing. But it is a good point. It is definitely something that has been brought up. And I think that there's some amendments that will be discussed later and future meetings that will share some folks are sharing those concerns.

I hate to give you homework, but I think it might be really helpful in a future meeting to be able to look at like a typical lot size and the principal structure and ADU footprints that would be permitted on it, and the amount of total footprint that would permitted if it were eligible for a lot split. And just understand like The actual maximum capacity that we are talking about for a typical Somerville residential plot. I at least would find that very helpful, I think in processing sort of the implications of this if that's Okay, awesome. Thank you. Yeah, that's no problem. And then this is minor but just in the language at edit where you're editing the definition of backyard cottage and sort of striking out the other permitted uses Thank you so much for joining us.

Residential is allowed in the backyard product topology. So I'm nitpicking, but maybe take a look at that. Big picture, I would really like to understand how we are currently handling Green score in relation to accessory dwelling units and how this would change that understanding that this is a piece for state compliance. I think some of the comments that we heard last time about just like overall how dense is Somerville and how do we balance our desire to facilitate the development of housing with also addressing our need for environmental reasons The vibe maintains some amount of open space in our districts. So I'd love to understand that and If you are prepared to go into that tonight, that's great. But also if that's a longer conversation, we can table it.

Sure. So again, we've been considering the green score and the impacts. However, it becomes challenging because Again, we can't apply anything more permissive than What is applied to the principle? So we're still looking at green score and the effects of this on that. And we do have proposed amendments coming up address some changes to green score. But it is a little bit tricky because we really have to be very, very careful about how we regulate in compliance with the law and making sure that we're applying the they call it a reasonableness test because the state will automatically reject any attempt to unreasonably regulate which the green score like may fall into that um but if again you know this

How we're kind of navigating it is that the green score still applies. It just can't be more restrictive or prohibitive to allowing a protected ADU to come into being because it is a Dover-protected user.

Would the creation of a protected ADU trigger a Greensport compliance submission?

Yes, yes.

I think it would also be helpful so i'm going to say like this I think this is a big one and I don't know how other playing board members feel but that I think This is a really big one to understand as we consider what the default footprint of these can be whether it's 900 square feet or something else and so I think understanding like I know we've got the green score and it's very clever and it is designed to do some specific things but Presumably other municipalities are addressing this with standard like FAR or bot coverage or open space ratios. I think it would be potentially helpful to understand What we think our closest peers are doing for compliance with this in relation to whatever metric they use for maintaining some amount of open space in NLR equivalent districts. I know the green score is its own special lunky thing, but whatever precedent we can maybe look at, I just am concerned about the potential for an overwhelming amount of density if this were to go off the rails, right?

and then I told you I was getting to a point I'm going to say definitely one of your further word members sorry for taking up all this time but I think that we should think about Limiting the square footage here in the spirit of having these be more affordable units. If there's no A affordability requirements that we are allowed to Thank you for watching! whole case built here and so if your team has more of these metrics at hand I would really love that but i don't want to create homework like when we have a income restricted for sale unit through the city's inclusionary program A two bedroom that's like 1200 square feet goes for like $300,000.

So think of that as one threshold for how we think of an affordable for sale unit in the city. And if you think about the like what feels like affordable for uh you know missing middle housing luke you can probably tell us this better than anyone like what throw a number out um

I don't know about per square foot, but as a sale price, I mean, a $500,000 home.

So backing into a $510,000 at the average sales price that we're seeing in Somerville, which is like, I We're talking about something that's, I'm gonna now do math on the spot, but like 600 to 700 square feet. and obviously we can't go that low because of the state requirement that it can't be lower than 900 but that makes me really feel like we should be taking the 900 because I'm All for the development of more housing, but I think we hear over and over that we don't need more housing. We need more affordable housing. Like even though there is this restriction on having it be capital A affordable, I think we have the opportunity to have a kind of interesting backdoor here. And when I looked on Gisela like The ADU type developments that have actually sold in the last few years, most of them are coming in at like 1.2 million right and we don't I don't know that we need more of that

A freestanding three-story mini house is really attractive to exactly the type of people that I think we're often hearing are like, Not that we want to keep them out, but like not the families that we're trying to retain here or trying to make big things at a accessible price point. So I would love for us to think really hard about how to balance the desire to create more housing in general with with the fact that this actually could be a really good opportunity to leverage that minimum square footage that the state would allow us to use and try to keep some kind of a lid on what the prices for these would be. Please, thank you.

Can I jump in, Amelia? Oh, I didn't hear you call my name. Oh, sorry. Yes, please. Fiona, can you talk a little bit about where the city came up with 1,700 max square feet for an ADU? I was dumbfounded when I heard that.

Sure, through the chair. So what we have been seeing through building permit data as well as discussions with folks that are developing these units is that they are Typically materializing in 24 by 24, which is 570 square feet times two and a half stories. So it's coming out to about... 1720 square feet now because we have heard and I just want to be clear that we are Oh, you know open to the conversation obviously with you all in the land use committee and members of the public to look at the maximum gross floor area.

But what we are seeing materialize out in the city are backyard cottages that are penciling at this number. Granted, they are kind of You know, they're forming in a way that is higher largely because of The basement area being included and being able to go up to a certain height for the building code and roof choice but we looked at what was going on and kind of what would make financial sense and actually allow these protected ADUs to even occur. And what we were hearing repeatedly was that the 900 square foot was not enough Accommodate kind of viable habitable living space when you incorporate things like heating and cooling in those types of elements. So we

We formulated a suggestion through the amendment to do 1750. So that's where that number came from.

I will say my understanding of the state law, which if you think I'm wrong, I would love for us to check before the next conversation. is that it requires there to be a threshold for it as a right But that's not to say you couldn't still have it at 900 or 1,000 square feet but allow it to go up to your 1,700 square feet. by a discretionary process. It doesn't have to be a one-size-fits-all, it can still have a base that's as of right and a bonus. Not bonus, but...

Sure, so the law requires as we know 900 square feet but it's the local municipality has the ability to make a policy decision to go higher as of right. So that opportunity is afforded to municipalities. It's just the final number that we land on, but you can't require A discretionary permit approval for what materializes as the protected use ADU. So if Somerville does decide 1750 is the number, You have to allow it by right. You can't require additional...

I think what I'm trying to say is you could differentiate between the protected use ADU, which is as of right up to let's say a thousand square feet and a non-protected ADU which could go up to 1,700 square feet but by special permit. I don't think that the law preempts that so long as you have the thing that complies as one of the options on the menu.

That's correct. The law does not preempt that.

So I would encourage us to think about that dimension of this as well, potentially. Thank you for humoring me.

I think for me, Amelia again that the whole idea of ADUs originated you know gosh almost 20 years ago when places, particularly in California, were really looking for more affordable housing. But it wasn't developer-led, it was homeowner-led. That a homeowner... was aging, needed to build like had a garage could convert the garage. The homeowner could move into the garage and rent the principal unit and whatnot it was designed to really give homeowners new more options on the land that they owned and how they wanted to you know live so for me who looks at these things nationally I was I was shocked to come into Somerville and to have the ADUs kind of developer-led.

I mean this is less of a question and more of a perspective so I really appreciate Amelia's comments because in some ways the city now is trying to accommodate This variant that I haven't seen before. Which isn't to say that it's, I mean certainly California since they put it in their state law has seen a massive increase in it. It's very difficult for a lot of homeowners, I saw this in Arlington Virginia, very difficult you know even at two or three hundred square feet to you know pencil out and build an ADU and then rent it out. It's like a 20-year payback period so I understand the economics in some of these

high real estate areas and why it's becoming more developer-led but that doesn't mean that we still can't kind of support again to Amelia's point of different choices or a wider range of choices so I want to kind of support Amelia on that. I want go back to the green score when Amelia was talking a little bit increasingly it's become clear to me that like there was some building that we recently talked about and they had 18 inches From the side of their building to their property line, and it was the whole line of their

there might have been some landscaping or whatnot but even if it was two feet right that's not what we're trying to get at so in some ways This green score is artificially clamping our hands. And I, for one would like the city to start thinking more broadly that in land-constrained areas such as the Teal Square redevelopment payment in lieu of. that while they are unable to meet the green score on their property, which by the way it's a bad design and they probably could have, they then can pay into a fund where the city can use to To augment or to beautify or to create more green space. So you're still contributing. Like Somerville is really small. You know, we talk about stormwater management in a sewer shed. We talk about a ped shed, a transit shed.

The green score should not be done on a property by property basis. It needs to be done in a neighborhood basis so if if like again using the teal square because that was something that I just heard recently as an NLB able to do it where else in ward seven can be augmented or beautified in a way that residents can enjoy So if the ADU, if adding an ADU is going to call into question some green score maybe the relief then is payment in lieu of and augmentation of an existing park or creation of a new park.

I like where you're at overall on the payment in lieu. Personally, I think that feels less acceptable to me in an NR district than in a commercial district because I think you're really impacting the whole... Fabric of the Neighborhood was sort of what the ratio of green space is in our district, whereas in a more of a downtown you don't expect there to be as much greenery and like the loss of it feels less impactful in my mind. So I generally agree with you, I just wanted to throw in that nuance.

No, I agree with you on that nuance. And you know the rules of how everything is governed in Somerville a lot better than I do and I certainly wouldn't want to put it out there and then have everyone do Instead of 25%, all of a sudden it becomes 18% and now it's up to the city to sort this out. But I, for one, am disturbed by the city's site-by-site perspective instead of thinking more holistically on how a number of sustainability issues issues including but not limited to the green score storm water etc etc and so um There needs to be more of that thinking. And so Fiona, as we talk about this ADU, this is what Amelia or Luke was saying that all of this is interconnected

as we talk about allowing more ADUs you know by right and then we're going to bump into the green score it signals to me that we kind of need to rethink that um to offer I don't even want to say relief but um and as I said in the teal square place it's like give me a pencil I could have solved the issue but um We need to be thinking more, I don't want to say regional or holistic but kind of more neighborhood wide versus site-wide. because what we're trying to get to is when you walk down the street, when you in a three block square area, you've got this feeling if your sight constrained in one area could something happen A block over. So you're still kind of preserving that neighborhood level, but Amelia raises a good point.

Well, just because it's not just about the vibe, right? It's about stormwater and it's about, you know, island effect. And it's a bunch of things that you sort of have to anyway.

Yeah. I think we're in more agreement versus not. Oh, and the other point when Amelia was asking you to do or requesting some additional information on the ADU. I for one... I don't know if you have this information or if it's easy to get, but what's the potential number of lots that could be split? Like when I walk around Somerville or bike around Somerville, the lots feel really, really constrained to me. So are we talking about the lot splits? Is it 20% of the existing lots? 10% of the existing lots, like what's the scope of the problem? And as we talk about ADUs Again, what's the scope of potential there? Because so many of the lots that I see are really almost fully built out.

So I must be traveling in a different part of Somerville than where all these things are being built. But understanding like the potential scope could be really, really helpful. Like... 50% of the properties in Somerville right now could accommodate an ADU. or it's only five percent like what's the scale that we're looking at and even if they're rough numbers I think that that could be really helpful for us.

Through the chair, yeah. I think that would be a helpful data point based on the existing conditions today if lots were split. We can get that information. Yes?

Not only lots were split, but the lots that could accommodate an external ADU. Backyard Cottage or Garage that could be converted, something along those lines. The garages would be easy. How many places have garages? I mean, that's got to be part of our property roles.

That was the other nomenclature thing. I'm nitpicking again, I'm sorry. I think it could be confusing to define protected ADUs as backyard cottage if they in fact can be things that are not in the backyard Lots of people's garages are in front of or to the side of their houses and to the extent we're talking about non-conformity.

Also, I hear you that yeah, that can be that definitely can be confusing. Um, yeah.

I'm also wondering why you said like it takes 1,700 square feet for it to pencil? Like for the pencil for who? Like if I wanted to try to build a Cottage for my aging parents to live in in my property I don't need it to pencil I need it so who are we trying to make this attractive for is just a question and again I know we We do need developers to build housing. I'm not trying to be, but we've heard a lot about whether this is an initiative for developers to undertake or homeowners to undertake.

Luke?

On that point, I'll connect that to a couple of things like thoughts I was having that wanted to share. I guess just starting with a question directly to Fiona about This proposal allows, I guess what's already happening in many places which is an ADU to get built and then sold condo-ized separate from the principal structure I think within the new state regs, we do have the ability to prohibit that. So I guess is that right? And did you all consider that in this process?

So through the chair, thanks for the question. So we have so yes this amendment is definitely Thank you so much for joining us. These without any kind of conditions, so by right obviously. But we are having the legal team look into reviewing single ownership requirements and condoization there's still a lot of conversations that are being had at the state level. There was an interesting decision that came out in response to the town of Georgetown and we're still kind of working on that but right now, we are not proposing any

Any conditions related to that and not focusing on use or occupancy requirements because the regs are pretty explicit about... That is prohibited. But we will keep an eye on what is going on at the state level and also have our legal teams definitely clued in on the conversations about ownership and condoizing.

And just to confirm one of the last pieces, your understanding is that the current regs prohibit us from prohibiting conduization of these?

Yes.

Currently, yeah. Yeah, but that may be changed or something because this all relates to I think something that's tough in this conversation is how Faithfully, we are sticking to the word accessory in this whole process. And I don't know, in a way it might relate to some of where Amelia started like a lot of these structures don't feel accessory to the principal dwelling they just feel like another house and I think that is what's tough here you know my personal vantage point is like I think what's happening is a lot Pro Housing folks who are desperate to get more housing and more density are excited about this state law as an opportunity to do that and whether it's literally accessory to the principal dwelling or not really in that spirit is almost immaterial because if it's getting more housing, that's all for the better.

I'm kind of off that perspective, but I can see how that feels a little bit like a sleight of hands to people when they're being told these are ADUs. But then it's a 1700 square foot single family home you know there's something that like I get why that feels like a mismatch to people um so that's just an observation I guess but but but You know, if at some point the state regs change I guess and we could have a provision that says you can't split this off and have it be under separate ownership. That to me would actually feel kind of consistent with the idea that this should be accessory to the principal dwelling So that's why that's on my mind. And then I guess it might make it harder to pencil for a private developer coming in and doing the project from scratch, but it might shift

The use case for these more towards something we want as a community. I guess the main other thing i'll just throw out there is obviously We could go all the way down to 900 square feet. We could stick at this high anchoring of 1750 or somewhere in between, you know? And the one tension I feel here a little bit is like In other conversations, we talk a lot as a planning board about wanting more family-friendly housing where we're getting a third bedroom and This does feel like an opportunity to squeeze in some three-bedroom, you know, certainly that 1,700 square feet can get a third bedroom. But I, you What's a middle ground number that makes three bedrooms plausible and still feels accessory enough to pass people sniff test about the intent of this?

You know, Luke, I raised a son and lived for 26 years in an 1162 square foot house. It was three bedrooms, one bath. And Arlington, Virginia probably had... Thousands of those. It was a brick rambler, they were all built in 1948 and so while I just raised one son most people raised three or four kids one bedroom three or one bathroom three bedrooms so um that's entirely possible just just saying

Is there a requirement that the utilities for these be freestanding or is that something that has come out of the idea that they want to be condoized?

So the utility requirements that we have currently are that they're supposed to be underground, but we cannot require that. So that's part of the zoning amendment that we're proposing striking that language.

If it's directly related... A mini split that has another head that's running off of a condenser that's connected to the main house, right? Like they should... To Luke's point, if you did have common ownership and you weren't planning to kind of minimize it, you could maximize that square footage more by not having so much infrastructure internal to the ADU. I think that's how these have historically been done in communities where they're more common, although I don't know the details.

You could, yes.

Sorry, Coralie? Okay. Thank you. Fiona, I wonder if you know if there's any data that compares the cost for a condo versus... Rental of the same type of unit like we had a conversation with Dan Bartman a few months ago and I thought I understood from him that you know I'm trying to understand the impact of condoizing on affordability. So you can have very, very expensive rentals that are owned by the principal structure or the occupants of a principal structure. And it could be condo-ized and it could very expensive, a very expensive condo. Do you know of any data that says if you condoize, it could potentially be a much more expensive unit than if it's owned by the principal building owner?

or is there you know I'm just wondering like do we really know what the impact on affordability is in allowing for condoization?

Through the chair um We do, I think our housing division has definitely been doing some analysis and we can circle back with them and get those numbers.

Thank you. Yeah.

Are we out of questions? Okay. Thank you so much, Fiona, for your patience and perseverance through these questions. We look forward to continuing it with you in two weeks. or whenever timing is right. I know that we will have another joint hearing, so we'll see. But thank you for your consideration of this initial round of questions. Yeah, Luke?

Just to second what you said, Amelia. Fiona, I mean, thank you so much. You guys are in the middle of so many really big, tough, naughty... Thank you.

Thank you all. I appreciate it. No, it's been a really enjoyable conversation and I look forward... And I apologize for not having all the data at the ready. but it's these types of conversations that are great because then we know what to bring because it's going to be the questions that others have as well so I really do appreciate your time and the opportunity to Answer some questions and have a good discussion. Thank you all.

Alvaro, can I ask you? I know that the chair and Michael McNeely were unable to join tonight. If they have other specific questions or requests of the team If they're going to add any other research questions, do you think that we could ask them to send those by email so that we can have a more robust discussion with all of the data they would want to for the next conversation?

Yes, Madam Chair. And for any sort of amendment or anything like that comes like this, feel free to always send an email to the planning board email and then cc me so that way I cannot miss it and then I can pass it down to any staff or prepare for the meetings. Thank you so much.

All right. Do folks, Luke do you want to switch gears Planning Board and ZBA responsibilities topic or should we leave if folks are game to stay I'm happy to have some discussion on that otherwise we can call it here for this evening uh

I'm interested in learning about the broader picture of the process, but I don't at all need it to be now or you know and i don't think anybody planned to have that tonight so Mostly my inclination would be maybe not unless, you know, Fiona or we thought this was just a good chance to take that off a little bit.

Sure, through the chair. Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions we are based on the last discussion that we had. We are reevaluating that amendment. I know that it is on the agenda for the next land use committee for discussion at this time so definitely more to come but i'm happy to provide any additional Thank you so much for your time. is that the amendments, that next amendment stack that is coming is going to be very informative and

and kind of assist with why we even proposed the board jurisdiction amendment in the first place. So there's more permit streamlining efforts to come that I think will put into better context Why we are proposing what we're proposing and why we're kind of looking at the roles and responsibilities and making some shifts. So, the end goal is to obviously not add onto your plates And with those future amendments, I think that will become more clear. But I'm happy to answer any questions tonight but please know that more is to come on that and we are workshopping

that's helpful and on the like more on our plates stuff I mean you know if there's a strong good argument for why we should take on more and we think about how even that I would be up for Just still understanding the case for it and how it fits with other things. So anyhow, this is a helpful update for me.

I was guessing that this might be one of those things where we often spend a lot of time deliberating and providing our opinion, and sometimes the council is just going to do what the council's going to. And to the extent this is an administration goal and part of a bigger picture streamlining process. I will admit, I had sort of assumed that we were possibly going down that path where regardless of how individual board members might feel about it that this was the direction we were headed and you know I also look forward to hearing like what the rest of the program is so that we can understand that but I wouldn't expect there to be too much more back and forth, personally. One fashion or another. I could be wrong, I have no insider information here. Sometimes council's going to do what council's

So I will say that we definitely want to make sure that conversation is being continued well before it goes to council. Again, you know just hearing the valid concerns that you all shared last time you know we want to be cognizant of that and realistic and make sure that we are providing a full-fledged program that again like does not create The rough game plan is to potentially pause the discussion on the board jurisdiction amendment until the other amendments DAC moves through The process. So we want to kind of do them in conjunction with one another instead of taking that one up first without you all having that full context. So that's the plan right now.

Thank you. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the meeting? If not, at 8.04 I move to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Board seconded by Jahan. Alvaro can you please call roll?

Rehan Habib? Aye. Lynn Richards? Aye Luc Schuster? Aye Carly Cooper? Aye Emilia Aboff?

Aye Thank you so much Thank you everyone. Good night. Take care.