Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 07-15-2026

It is now 6 p.m. Welcome to the July 15, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight I will serve as your acting chair and Brockelman. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals will be conducted via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the city website's meetings and events page or by emailing zoningboard at somervillema.gov Tonight our voting members are Zach Zaremba, Olivia Mobayed, Brian Cook, Cecilia Dalian and myself and Brockelman. The clerk

Olivia Mobayed, acting as clerk Kit Luster and Alvaro Esparza So we'll start with the general business approval of the meeting minutes. And I believe the minutes of May 20th, 2026 have already been approved. on the June 17th meeting. So we only have the minutes of the June 3rd, 2026 meeting to approve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve the minutes for the June 3rd, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Seconded by Cesia Roll Call. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed? Aye Zach Zaremba? Aye Cesia Dalian?

Aye

and Anne Brockelman, aye. It's approved. And tonight we have public hearing for two Locations, two addresses but three cases. So Aliyah Mobayed will you please open the meeting? Yes.

I would like to open two cases. The first is 6 Wheatland Street, CP26000018 Adam Dash on behalf of Nelson Group Construction Corp seeks relief from SCO 417C to build a primary front facade of 74.7% where 80% is the minimum per SCO417C in the mid-rise 3MR3 zoning district, which requires a hardship variance. And I'd also like to open 6 Wheatland Street ZP26000019 Adam Dash on behalf of Nelson Group Construction Corp seeks relief from SCO 1036 AI to build a new Thank you. So can the applicant...

Raise your hand. Okay, I see Adam Dash, Steph. has promoted you. Anybody else?

Yeah, Clerk Evan... This is Adam Dashby. The architect, Evan Stallman, has his hand up in attendees and Jeremy Henry is part of the... Development team as well. I don't know if he's here to be promoted or to watch. I

This is Kit. I've just promoted Jeremy Henry and Evan Stellman.

Fantastic, great. Can I share my screen, Kit? Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street in Somerville. I'm representing NPO Properties LLC. Evan Stallman of KDI Architecture is here with me, the project architect. And we're here tonight regarding the two variances for the residential project proposed for 6 Wheatland Street. Let me see if I can... I still can't share, but the variances as you said are for relief from primary front facade build out and the landscape buffer requirement abutting an NR zone. Here we go. Okay, so you should be able to see my screen now. So this is location of the project. Let me show you a little bit better. This is a picture of the property right here this house so you can see here I would note that

I know before we get into it that NPO Properties also needs a site plan approval for the building in the MR3 zone and a special permit for housing use from the planning board, but that's not on for tonight. So as you can see, this is an existing long vacant two-family detached house. It abuts this blank wall here to the left of the Commercial Building, which is 273 Broadway. As you can see at the stop sign, that's Broadway. This commercial building faces Broadway and this is the first house in on Wheatland. It is actually pushed up against the side of this house here to the right, which is in the NR zone. Our house is only 2.3 feet from the NR. This is the existing site plan. Again, you can see this is Broadway on the left. There's Wheatland Street on the bottom. You can see here

Brick wall here of the building, the commercial building right up on the lot line on the left of Six Wheatland and then you can see how Six Wheetland is shoved all the way over to the right by this house here. So going here, this is the zoning map. So you can see here we are in this purple which is the MR3 and then the rest of Wheatland turns into NR You can see here in this deep purple, this is the old Star Market site on Broadway that's currently being redeveloped into two large... Residential buildings along with a new park, new civic plaza, new retail storefront which is going to greatly change this neighborhood in a good way. The main rear abutter to the property is also on Broadway. That is the Elizabeth Peabody House facility you may be familiar with. So the applicant is seeking to demolish that existing house that I showed you and build a new three-story, five-unit residential apartment building in the MR3.

That new building is a conforming building type in the MR3 zone. The existing detached house is not an allowed building type of the MR 3 zone. The Historic Preservation Commission has already determined the existing structure not to be significant such that no demolition delay was imposed. The new project is going to have five parking spaces. You can see here, this is the proposed new house shoved over to the left. away from the abutter on the NR on the right shoved over to the left by that blank brick wall for the commercial building with a driveway on the and there's parking here. Evan Stallman will go into the details a little bit more The main thing to keep in mind right now is the narrowness of the lot. That is what's making the need for these variances tonight It makes constructing an MR3 compliant building

Very difficult unless variances are granted due to the fact that the lot is too narrow To sort of put everything in that we want to put in I should also note that this is not in the transit area so people having cars it's kind of something that's going to be important need to have a driveway and again five units one would be affordable five parking spaces that are tucked back here. Evan do you want to discuss the building itself a little more?

Sure thing um So you can stay on this sheet and I'll discuss the variances we're requesting if that's okay.

If you need me to change slides, just let me know.

Sure. So on the site plan, Wheatland is at the bottom. We're proposing a driveway at the right side of the structure and we have that as a 10-foot wide driveway in order for Eversource to access the rear of the site For the transformer there. And because we have that 10 foot setback at the right side, it pushes our maximum facade build out less than 80%. So that's one of the variances that we're going for. So at 80%, the minimum facade width would be 34 feet with that 10 foot driveway at the right side to provide access for those five parking spaces. We're at about 74 feet 0.7% which are 31 foot 9 inches um And the second variance we're going for is to request relief from the required landscape buffer between the driveway and the right side bot line.

The zoning code stipulates that there would need to be a six foot wide landscape buffer at that right side lot line. And that would push the driveway over to the left and then further push that... Fassad, Bilbao, Barians, Deburr and Deny Compliance. Next slide please. These are just the area plans. I won't go through these in great detail, but we're proposing five units here. Unit one shown on the top left two images and March there that is a 1900 square foot unit with three bedrooms, three bathrooms. The remaining units are front and back on the second and third floors They're about 1,250 square feet each with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Next slide please

So these are just the zoning diagrams. The top left one there shows the ground coverage that we're proposing. The bottom two diagrams show the open space that we are proposing for the site A majority of it at the ground floor is at the rear there, and then we're utilizing a green roof on the majority of the roof structure. And then the diagrams to the right show the extent of the facade build-out variance that we're seeking. The bottom one is an elevation view showing the outline of the structure. And then that red shaded region to the right would be what we would need to build in order to comply with the facade build out. Of course, if we did that, we wouldn't have adequate space for the driveway at the right side of the structure. Next slide please. These are just the four clans. I won't go through these in great detail.

I'm happy to come back to them if you have any questions or comments regarding the layouts or anything. And these are the proposed elevations, that top elevation there is the Wheatland Street elevation. So at the left side, we're proposing the primary entry at the bottom left of the structure there and we extend that massing up beyond the roofline with a cornice at the top. The right side of the building is separated by some PVC trim and it's clad with a smaller exposure cementitious siding and we're opening up to a balcony at the top floor there. We're proposing double hung windows throughout the entire building, PVC trims already cementitious siding The bottom image here is the right side elevation. So that is the elevation that faces the driveway.

Wheatland would be on the left and you would have the cars come in off of Wheatlands and Park under the rear portion of the structure towards the rear of the site letters. And on the next sheet, we have the other two elevations So this top elevation here is the rear-facing elevation. To the right, that gray massing you can see the one story brick building adjacent to us We're carrying the materials from this side of the structure to this rear elevation so you have that smaller exposure cementitious siding and it's broken up with a larger exposure siding. within the recessed balconies and between the heads and the sills of the upper story windows. And this bottom elevation here is the left side elevations so you can see the upper two stories peeking out over The single story structure that's adjacent to us on the left side.

Again, we're carrying the same materials across this side of the structure. We broke up the upper two stories with some alternate Siding colors and exposures. And then on the far right of the proposed structure, you can see that that's power that extends beyond the main parapet wall that accentuates the entry at the front of the structure. Next slide, please. And these are the proposed sections, diagrammatic sections of the site. So the bottom one there Wheatland Street would be on the right You have your lobby at the ground floor. Unit one occupies the first floor and basement, and then the remaining units are on the second and third floors of the parking Trash and Bike Parking would be at the left side of the ground floor of this section. And then, the other two sections are

The top right one is towards the front of the structure where we have Unit 1's basement, and then the top left section is through the rear of the Next slide, please. These are preliminary wall types. We'll skip through those and then These are the proposed massing elevate or massing perspectives of the structure. So that top left one is looking from Broadway towards Wheatland, the top right one is looking from across the street at the development towards Broadway. And then the bottom two perspectives aren't real views that people would see, we had some of the adjacent instructors give a sense

The massing within the immediate context, but those are the rear perspectives at the bottom of the sheet. And that is all that I have to present. I'm happy to hand it back to Adam.

Thanks, Evan. And this is the landscape plan with the green score which is compliant just so we're clear. So thank you, Evan The proposed residential structure is a good buffer between these commercial structures along Broadway and then the residential characters that goes down along Wheatland Street. And as I stated, the proposed building is being pulled back from the house to provide more of a setback than currently exists and pushed up against this commercial blank brick wall where nobody cares. The proposed structure will comply with the zoning except for the very small primary front facade build out that Evan described because the lot is narrow which is unique in the MR3 zone there. This creates a hardship to build a building type permitted in the MR3 zone without needing some relief. And the relief sought for the variance for the minimum facade build out is very small

As Evan said, the requirement is 80% and we are at 74.7%, such that the variance is only for 5.3%. It's hard to have a functional residential otherwise compliant building without this small A primary front facade build-out variance. The difference will not be noticeable to passersby, as it's such a small percentage. Creating more housing is a goal of the city. It will create more density near the old Star Market sites, new development in the main thoroughfare that is Broadway while providing a buffer between Broadway and the NR zone. and pulling the building closer to the commercial blank wall and away from the NR residential abutter. So it'll meet the 10-foot setback requirement There's no substantial detriment as a result of the facade build-out relief in this. The development, as I said, meets the goals of the MR3 zone and Summer Vision.

will comply with the green score and have one affordable unit. As for the landscape buffer, again due to the narrowness of the lot and at not being in a transit area such that the residents will want a car there's no room for the required landscaping buffer against the NR lot line to the right there which has a condominium building to the The setback and the green score will comply. It just will not have the six-foot landscape buffer. It's unique being on Wheatland, and I can... in this part, especially this MR3 zone of Wheatland here at this end of the street. So having to provide the landscape buffer would not allow for a functional residential structure of a type required in the MR3 Zone and would not for driveway which is needed for the parking due to the property being outside the transit area and removing the parking to install the landscape buffer would put more cars on the street and narrow the building

and cause a further requirement for a larger variance for the front facade build out. And so that's our substantial hardship. Building a residential structure at 6 Wheatland, which has long been vacant will require relief of some form or another, likely why the property has been vacant for so long. Pulling the new building away from the NR abutter to the right seems to be the major benefit here. The project will have landscaping, as I said. It does comply with the green score. So the relief is really more about where the landscape goes on the lot than whether there is any so instead of along here it's back here and up here The landscape buffer variance does not create substantial detriment. The building will have the required setback from the NR side. The cars will be off the street. The purpose of the MR3 and Summer Vision...

To create housing will be met near the new Star Market site development in the major street of Broadway, and the building will create a buffer between the Broadway commercial uses and the neighborhood residences on Wheatland. there will be one affordable unit the green score and other dimensions are going to be met and this activates a currently abandoned site I do want to bring up What's happened since we've in the past like week or so and that the state budget passed which changed the law regarding variances. I was just pulling this up and let me see if I can share this with you so you can take a look. And this is from the Mass.gov website. So, this is the change in Chapter 40A. And so it deleted a bunch of language and it says, and I've highlighted the relevant part that the permit granting authority which is you shall after public hearing and notice grant upon appeal or petition with respect to particular land or structures a variance from the terms of applicable zoning ordinance or bylaw

If the permit-granting authority specifically finds that a strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in a practical difficulty, that's the new standard we're going to be using from now on. Down here it says, in making the determination, the board shall weigh the benefits to the appellant or petitioner and to the public interest. including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the public health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. And may also consider so this shall is that you have to take a look at the practical difficulty, whether there's a practical difficulty as the standard and then you shall determine weighing the benefits of the appellant... I'm sorry. The petitioner in the public interest in supporting housing production and you may also consider these other things whether the practical difficulty relates to soil condition shape or topography of the land or structure, whether the strict and

Forcement would impose a financial hardship, whether the benefit was sought can be achieved by another means and whether the practical difficulty was self-created. So all this second may stuff is sort of what the old standard used to be basically but that's now a may not a shall So, just pointing that out because my understanding is that this law takes effect immediately. Nevertheless, this came long after we filed our application and all of that. So just throwing that out there. But anyway, we're hoping that the board would grant the two variances requested as we believe they meet. Both the old and the new standards. However, you want to take it up. And we're here for questions.

Thank you. Thank You Mr. Dash and thank you for the update on the state law I think we staff at some point we should talk to City Solicitor as well and get educated on that. I'd like to ask one quick question before going to public comment. The 5%-ish facade variance relief that translates to what dimension is it inches or feet well the standard in the zoning ordinance is just is percent it's not inches or right but when you do your zoning study if you were to comply would be what

Evan, do you have the number? Two foot three inches.

You would have to... Okay, so we're talking about two feet wider. Thank you. I'll now open the public comment portion of this hearing so you would like to speak on this application members of the public please raise your hand and staff will unmute you. You will be given two minutes to provide your comments Please state your name and address for record each time you speak.

This is Kit, I currently do not see anyone with their hand raised

Okay, I see 21 participants. So let's leave it open. We'll go to board discussion and then maybe we'll ask again. Any questions or comments from board members? Olivia Mobayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a slight formality. I just wanted to note that the percentage for the front facade in the narrative submitted by the applicant was 76.5%. But we are hearing today and in the staff report that is 74.7%. Can you all just confirm which number is correct?

Yeah, it's the 74.7. We did a... I believe we filed a supplemental narrative and we've certainly been working with staff and PSUF and everybody else throughout the course of the project and that is Thank you. No further questions. Good catch.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So now I'm a little confused about whether we're going to have to go through and elicit or discuss findings for the required criteria or whether we can reach a decision based on the practical difficulty posed by the dimensions of the lot and other requisite items as presented in the narrative. Is it your understanding, Madam Chair, that we should still go through the three criteria and establish our own findings for those criteria?

I think we should since City staff have not approached us on the language change. I think we should proceed as usual because that would be more due diligence anyways. Staff has their hand up. Kit, did you want to weigh in on this?

Yeah, we're waiting on further guidance from EOHLC, the executive office of Healthy and Livable Communities, I believe. And we've been instructed to continue or our directors have instructed us to tell you that to continue with the three criteria As normal for now while we wait for their further guidance.

Okay, thank you.

But we're working behind the scenes on presentations and getting you all the information that you need for moving forward.

Okay, some kind of update orientation.

I would also note, Acting Madam Chair, that it did say that you may still use those old criteria. It didn't just say you don't have to. So I don't think there's any harm in doing that and I think it complies with either or. There are a lot of good things in that law as well. And variances are now good for two years instead of one year and can be renewed for another two years, and it prioritizes housing. You don't... Do housing and non-housing zones and such. Things that don't relate to this, but it's actually very exciting as far as housing creation, the new law.

Thank you. It looks like the city is... The city is keeping abreast of that and they'll let us know. Thank you. Let's just keep going with this. Cecilia?

Yeah, so for me when I look at In the project, just as big picture, it seems like a trade-off between do you want to have a driveway and be able to park cars off the street or do you wanna make your building comply with the zoning ordinance? I think there's definitely... There's definitely value for people living in that building to have off-street parking and the neighborhood to get cars off the street is always, I think, desirable. I mean, if this parcel were categorized as NR similar to the adjacent parcels it would actually have to have a 60% build out which would make it worse. Anyways, I mean, I support the variances just for the reason of trying to get cars off the street and I think it's still receiving landscaping and...

Seems to be have taken, you know, I like the way that the building shifted to the side on the parcel to make room between other buildings and it's sort of tucked behind the brick building. So anyways, I would I would Thank you, Cecilia. Zach Zaremba?

Thank you. I just want to add to that, in that neighborhood in particular, I think it's important to offer off-street parking because it's near the store market development and at the time the concern of everyone living around there was the impact on parking so... I think within reason, anything we could help support that is a positive.

Yeah, so if you did a diagram of the lot and then you came out from the side to the required facade build-out, you would not have enough driveway left. Is that right, architect?

Yeah, it would be less than eight feet and we would need to have a minimum of 10 feet for Eversource to be able to get to the rear of the site to service that transformer.

Thank you. Any further discussion on This first variance facade, do we want to move on to the landscape buff requirements? Okay. I could start with a question. Could you put the site plan again? So, the landscape buffer requirement would also go down the driveway as well? Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

I'm just getting the plan up. Hold on.

So we're already too narrow It would go down the right side of the driveway in a theoretically wider lot.

Yeah, and there's specific landscape element requirements in the zoning code as well. So there would need to be One large tree for every 30 feet of plot lines. So that would eat up some more space on the right side of the property area.

Thank you, and then the back complies? The back landscape is there a dimensional Requirement.

Yeah, so we meet the open space with that new arch tray and the green roof

Yes, you mentioned the green roof. So that's on top of the entire building and that's what contributed to your green score then?

Yes.

Thank you. Questions from the board on the landscape variants? No. Okay, so let me See if any members of the public feel like they would like to raise their hand at this point.

This is Kit. I do not see anyone with their hand raised currently.

Okay, so I'll close the public portion of this hearing. It sounds pretty straightforward not a whole lot of comments or controversy From board members, should we go through the criteria then? Olivia Mobayed.

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. For the first criteria I guess we should start with the front facade For the first criteria related to special circumstances for soil conditions, shape or topography of the parcel of land or unusual character of the existing structure. do we find that the criteria has been satisfied and if so how?

Brian Cook

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my impression that it's because of the narrowness of the lot the presence of a commercial building to the left side when facing from the street and the necessity of moving um the structure away from the other residential property which is in a different Zoning District impinges on the ability of the applicant to meet all of the zoning ordinance requirements. and that they've met them to the best they can do given the impingements of the narrowness of a lot, the presence of the commercial building. and then a separate zoning district on the other side of the property.

Very well articulated.

for criteria two unless anyone has anything to add to criteria one where literal enforcement of the provision of this ordinance for the district Where the subject land or structure is located would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner or appellant due to said special circumstances. Has that been satisfied?

I think I can add one observation as well. While literal enforcement would negate the dimension of a driveway, So they couldn't have a driveway parking at all. Anyone else, Brian Cook?

I would just add that it would aggravate other zoning requirements. So in fact, this solution minimizes the relief needed So making an adjustment to the front build-out would create other problems that would require additional variances. And so this minimizes, in fact... and would create a substantial hardship for them to try to meet those in another way.

Thank you. And the third criteria?

Without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating the intended purpose of the specific district. I could add to this one that based on the public meetings that have occurred We've heard from residents that they would like the parking on this property to exist, to avoid additional street parking demand. It seems to satisfy some of the public desires for this project.

Thank you Yes, Brian Cook.

I would just add that it reinforces the developments nearby and makes for improvements The Master Plan and the Summer Vision 2040 and other efforts to improve this area beyond the substantial developments in the former star market area.

Thank you and I guess my feeling is overall design is a design Thank you so much for joining us. Do you want to make a motion? Are we ready for a vote, everybody?

So I think we can vote on the front facade.

Yes.

Okay, just to clarify. May I motion?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

You were muted.

Sorry, thank you. I move to approve the hardship variance for zoning relief from SEO 417C in order to build a primary front facade of 74.7% where 80% is the minimum per SCO 417C and the mid-rise three zoning district based on the statutory criteria previously discussed with the conditions in the July 9th, 2026 staff report.

Seconded. Okay. Roll call vote. Brian Cook?

Yes.

Olivia Mobayed, Zissia Dalian, Zach Zaremba, myself and Brockelman yes motion passes unanimously Okay, should we discuss the three criteria for the second variants?

So first criteria related to soil condition, shape and topography of the parcel. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Again, it's the narrowness because to fit building driveway and buffer requires a certain width. And this is an unusually narrow parcel. Should we move on to the second one?

Sure. Criteria two related to literal enforcement of the provision of ordinance for the district where the subject land is located would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise.

Anyone?

Madam Chair, I believe the conclusions from the first variants apply here as well. Any attempt to make an adjustment creates other impingements on zoning ordinance requirements. So this is the best solution under the circumstances and would create hardship trying to solve them in a different way.

Yes, and the third?

The third criteria about being granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good Or nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of a specific district?

I think it's the same as before. Should we just say it's been noted for the previous variants? And okay, would you like to make a motion?

I move to approve the hardship variance for zoning relief from SCO 1036 AI in order to build a new three-story apartment building. that does not meet the landscape buffer requirements in the MR3 zoning district based on the statutory criteria previously discussed with the conditions in the July 9, 2026 staff report.

Can I have a second? Second. Second. Roll call vote, Brian Cook Yes Olivia Mobayed Yes Lucia Dalian Yes Zach Zaremba Yes. Myself and Brockelman, yes. The motion passes.

Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Thank We have one other case tonight. Kit, are you letting in the applicants team?

This is Kit. If you are here as part of the applicant team for this next case, please raise your hand and I will promote you to panelists. I'm promoting Jessica Barty and Michael Okay, I'm going to promote Ellery and Oscar.

Good evening. Is your team here, everybody?

Hi, good evening. This is Jessica Barty. We're waiting on Ram Eskara. Is he on? I've just promoted him. Oh, excellent. Thank you so much. This is everyone? This is our team. Yes.

For the public, this is 75 Myrtle Street. Will the clerk open the case?

Yes, Madam Chair. I move to open 75 Myrtle Street CP 26000013 Selco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless proposes the installation of a building-mounted wireless communication facility in the urban residence zoning district, which requires a special permit.

Thank you. And the 75 Myrtle Street team, please be reminded that you should state your name and address before beginning your presentation, and each new speaker should state their name and Jessica Vardy, would you like to present or just tell us about the case?

Thank you Madam Chair. We would welcome the opportunity to give a brief presentation on the project. So thank you very much, I'll kick things off. I'm Jessica Barty an attorney at Robinson and Cole 53 State Street Boston Massachusetts I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Selco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. With me tonight on behalf off the applicant we have Michael Gimo also an attorney at Robinson and Cole, Ellery Lyon a project manager at Centerline Communications, Ram Akara A radio frequency engineer at C squared systems and Oscar Suarez, an engineer and project manager at Dewberry Engineering. And if I may share my screen to provide some visuals. Great, thank you so much.

Okay, I'm gonna... Let's try to make this full size. Okay, great. So this is an aerial image of the site and surrounding neighborhood. It's taken from the city's GIS. The site is outlined in red, and it is located at 75 Myrtle Street. It contains an existing 5 story multi-unit residential building that is owned by the Somerville Housing Authority. This site is located in the Urban Residential Zoning District and the Affordable Housing Overlay. Just to orient the board, so we have Myrtle Street running along here to the west of the site.

We have Perkins Street up here to Florence Street is to the east and Pearl Street running to the south of the site. The application before the board, Verizon proposes to construct and operate a roof mounted wireless communications facility on the existing building. and the project requires a special permit from the board pursuant to sections 10.10.3 and 15.2.1 of the City of Somerville zoning ordinance Planning staff has recommended approval of the special permit. Okay, so the next image this is an aerial image of the roof of the existing building with the proposed facility installed.

As proposed, the facility will consist of three sectors of antennas labeled Alpha, Beta and Gamma. The alpha sector is located up here. It is in this corner of the roof facing north along Myrtle Street. We have the beta sector in this at the intersection of Pearl and Florence Street. And then we have the Gamma Antenna Sector in this corner facing west-southwest at the Intersection of Pearl & Myrtle Street. So each sector will contain four antennas, which will be located within a screen wall enclosure. That enclosure will be colored to match the facade of the existing building and the enclosure will be attached to a ballast mount which will be attache to the roof of the building.

Utilities will run inside the building from the basement to the stacked electrical rooms and up to the roof where they will then be secured along the roof Run over to the equipment area, which is over here. So this is another aerial image of the roof with the proposed facility installed. It shows the proposed setback measurements from the edge of the and in particular it shows that the proposed antenna sectors will be set back at least 10 feet from the edge of the roof in compliance with section 10-10-5A1B of the zoning ordinance. This image is a close-up of the proposed equipment area to be located on the roof.

It'll be located in the south part of the roof near the existing HVAC system over here. The equipment area will be located on a 9'9 x 14'1 steel frame platform and will contain an equipment cabinet and battery cabinet. and a small GPS antenna will be mounted to the railing of the platform, which is right here. Okay, so this is an elevation drawing from the south side of the building. It shows that the top of the screen wall enclosure It shows the top of this green wall enclosure at a height of 56 feet and 7 inches, which is 10 feet above the existing roofline. Here's the existing roof line is that dashed line.

The centerline height of the antennas will range based upon the antenna type and those There's also an existing stairwell penthouse right here. that's located on the roof at a height of 57 feet and that will remain the tallest appurtenance on the This sheet is a detailed elevation drawing showing each of the antenna sectors and the GPS antenna. It shows that the screen wall enclosure will extend 10 feet in height above the existing roof line, in compliance with Section 1010.5 A1A of the Zoning Ordinance.

It also shows that the antenna sectors will not project above a plane inclined at a 45 degree angle from vertical beginning at the edge of the roof, which is in compliance with section 1010. 5A1C of the zoning ordinance. Okay so next, Dewberry Engineering went out to this site on June 27th of 2025 and took photos from three locations around the site. and prepared photo simulations of the proposed facility from those photo locations. So this is an image of where those photos were taken So this is photo location number one.

It is the view facing northeast from Myrtle Street on the other side of Pearl Street and here is the existing building This is the proposed view from that first location. It shows the proposed gamma sector within this screen wall enclosure colored to match the facade of the existing building. This is photo location number two. It's the existing view, it's facing northwest from Pearl Street at the corner of Florence street and this is the proposed view from that location showing the proposed beta sector within the screen wall enclosure colored to match the roof of the facade or excuse me, color to match to the facade of the existing building.

And then this is the third photo location. It is a view facing south from Perkins Street at the corner of Myrtle and This is the proposed view showing the proposed alpha sector within this green wall enclosure colored to match the facade of the existing building. That I will pass things over to Ram to discuss the need for this facility and explain those coverage maps that were included in Exhibit B of our application.

Hi there, this is Ramacharya with C-Squared Systems. I hope everyone can hear me. Business address 65 Dartmouth Drive in Auburn, New Hampshire. I can go through the five sets of plots to kind of give a sense of Verizon's need in the area where the current existing sites are and how the proposed site will improve Coverage and additional capacity to the areas of Somerville. Just to quickly introduce the plot, the existing sites are shown in black icon and at the center of the plot in blue is the proposed rooftop facility. What you're seeing in this plot is the existing 2100 megahertz coverage for Verizon. It shows you where you can get usable signal. The green and yellow shaded areas are where there is reliable coverage, the gray and white areas are marginal coverage and one of the objective of the site is to provide improved coverage in these yellow and gray as well as white areas. Now, if we go to the next slide, we can see how the proposed site will improve

areas along Washington Street, Pearl Street, Broadway and Route 28 as shown by the shaded green compared to the previous plot. So now if we go to the next plot This plot here shows you how the surrounding sites are currently serving Somerville and surrounding areas. We have color-coded the area served by each site, and as you can see by the various different colors in the map, the surrounding They're serving a large portion of Somerville. Specifically, a lot of the areas by the proposed facility is currently being served by the Boston Sermon Square located to the northeast there. and it's shown in color red. And so what that has done is it's putting a lot of burden on that site alone. There are also other sites in the area that are also being put under a lot and because of that you might experience drop in performances in these areas.

And if we go to the next plot, Here shown in the green area is what would be served by the proposed facility. It kind of cleans up the area, provides a single dominant site to serve the usage in the area around Washington Street, Route 28, Broadway, Pearl Street. and what follows from that, the surrounding sites can take some of that burden off. And a benefit from that is they can serve areas closer to them With the proposed facility, it will help improve the quality of service by increasing the network capacity, enhancing coverage, improving signal quality as well with faster data speeds and more reliable connections. and the final plot, if we go to the next plot is a view of the topography in the area. This is helpful to include because it kind of helps describe why each site covers where it does The site sits slightly in an elevated area, so it does a nice job of providing coverage all around.

And that's all I have. So back to you, Jessica.

Great, thank you Ram. So in sum the special permit should be approved because the facility meets all relevant standards under the zoning ordinance for development of a wireless facility as described in detail I'm happy to review those standards if the board wishes, but otherwise I will turn things back over to you Madam Chair. Thank you very much and we are here to answer any comments or questions the board has. Thank You

Thank you. So I'll go to the public comment portion of this hearing again, if you would like to speak on anything regarding this application please raise your hand staff will unmute you You will have two minutes to provide your comments.

This is Kit. I currently do not see anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, let's... Move to Board Discussion Zach Zaremba

I'm not an expert on cell tower equipment, but is there any impact on the residents that are installing this? I think it's public housing for seniors and we're disabled people. So I just want to have a better understanding of that, especially on the top floor. Any sound vibration and everything else might disrupt people moving there.

Ms. Barty your team answer?

Thank you very much Madam Chair. The Verizon is required by its FCC licenses to ensure that any sort of RF emissions exposures comply with the standards imposed by the FCC, which are controlled by the federal government. And also with respect to noise there, noise should be minimal if any As a result of this facility, the facility also will not generate any odor or glare traffic. There will be no on-site employees so the impacts from the proposed facility should really just be a benefit as a result of the improved service in this area for those on the Verizon network. If anyone else from our team has anything to add, Happy to defer to them as well.

Thank you. Anything else, Saksaremba?

I understand you want to expand the coverage in that area particularly, but was there a criteria as to why you chose this building specifically?

I will let Ram or Ellery take the lead on this answer.

I can answer that. This is Ellery Lyon from Centerline Communications located at 750 West Center Street in West Bridgewater. The initial search ring was chosen for this area on near the hotel and apartment building along Atlas Street. I reached out to multiple taller buildings in the area, which they were ultimately ruled out as candidates due to high rent costs. In suitability to the network, therefore I researched south of this area and located 75 Myrtle Street. And if you look at the surrounding area, it's all residential homes and that's why this location was chosen.

So it sounds like height Yes. You'll look for a high rise first. Correct. Big salary.

No, no problem.

I would also note that the zoning ordinance prioritizes sites for towers and antennas. The first type of property being prioritized, that being those owned by the city or by the Housing Authority. So that was another key component in consideration for utilizing this site for the proposed facility.

Thank you. Anything else, Zach?

No, thank you. That was hopeful.

Okay. I think Brian Cook had his hand up next. Brian Cook and then Cecilia after Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Along similar lines to the question of the choice of the building And this is more a question for staff than it is from the applicant. There's no evidence in the record, at least from the They aren't required to sign off on this sort of thing. I understand that it's the city of Somerville and the Housing Authority is a department within the city, but there is a separate commission that runs the Housing And I saw nothing in the documents to suggest they've even been aware of this. So as a part perhaps of ISD's review, was there consultation with the housing authority? Again, for the staff. Okay.

This is Aldo. I do not have an answer from that actually, Brian. I did not see anything from ISD review. They submitted the proper comments and they went back and forth with the I did see the POA was signed by the owner of the building in this case, however nothing else was mentioned. Require from either of the departments.

Right, right. Okay, I mean there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that I could see under the relevant section for a special permit that requires it. But we tend in the city to want to make sure we get buy-in from all of the affected parties, whether it's required or not. So I was a bit surprised that there's nothing in the record to suggest that the housing authority was even made aware of it. And I just, Madam Chair, if I may, just follow up on Zach's question, which is it's not so much the question to me about the operation of the facility but the construction of it. There must be some noise and vibration being created when they're placing these antennas and the foundations. The basis for the antenna as well as the testing before it's operational. And I wonder what kind of mitigation

will be done or at least in terms of the hours in which it'll be undertaken that might address any concerns that the residents of the public housing facility might have.

This might be a question for staff regarding all construction permits. Are there any... Special considerations when it's on top of an occupied large high-rise building.

These are all from staff. So similar to any building permit, after the special permit is provided they will follow with the with pulling the building permits and there will be a building enforcer that will work with them. It depends, there's a new sort of regulation I don't have an answer specific for high-rises. However, there will be another level of stuff that will be reviewed and that follows through the regulations.

I guess Michael, GMO if you'd like to answer.

Yes thank you also to Mr. Cook this was an RFP that the housing authority issued for the rooftop antennas that Verizon responded to. So they should be aware of this and there would have been plans, at least preliminary plans attached to that response. If I'm not mistaken, they, I believe the owner was also asked to sign a consent on the application as well. Yes.

Okay. Scythia Dalian?

I wanted to address one of those special permit criteria, which is visual impact. In the photo from Perkins Street The two previous corners or vantage points at the... Sort of renderings were done from, you know, I would say they were not visually offensive. But I think from Perkins Street, I found the screening to be... very prominent and I would say it is to me it was sort of visually a little bit It had visual impact and wondered whether it's not possible to move the... Unit in, further away from the edge of the building or lower it down a couple feet.

Can the applicant please... Speak to that and perhaps bring up the image again before or after images.

This would be helpful.

Okay, certainly one second.

I guess I would add to that while we're talking about this matching. Is that just paint? I wasn't sure what the screen material was.

I believe it to be paint that would match the facade of the existing building.

Is Oscar Suarez part of the applicant team?

He is. Yes, he's an engineer from Dewberry Engineering.

His hand was raised.

If I could address that question for you if you don't mind. Yes, please. Yeah, so the screen walls are made out of fiberglass which would basically be painted to match the existing building facade and all that proposed equipment for antennas will be installed behind those screen walls. There would be four phases for that so you will not see any antennas from any vantage points. Now they're on the photo sims.

And would you say this is a typical construction? If it's a red brick building, you paint it kind of brick red if it's concrete, you kind of match the gray

Exactly. And yeah, exactly. And by the way, this is Oscar Suarez with Dewberry Engineers and 99th Summer Street in Boston.

Thank you. Jessica Barty, were you still trying to answer? Remember Scythia Dalian's question? As well, or is Scytia... Are your questions answered?

No, nobody's really addressed what I... I didn't ask about the materials. I was asking about the visual impact and the height and location of that particular screen.

And whether it can be moved.

Yeah, can these be moved farther? I mean, I'm looking at the roof plan. Can they be moved further a little bit away more away from the edge of buildings I would not say that has no visual impact, it's actually quite prominent.

Oscar, would you be able to address the design and the location as to why the alpha sector was located here? I mean, I know there were careful design efforts to locate these sectors earlier. In order to comply with the dimensional standards for wireless facilities, which included the 10-foot setback minimum and

Yeah, of course. So basically Alpha Sector is located on that corner. That location specifically was picked by the RF engineer to cover the coverage map that it was previously depicted. Unfortunately, what happens is if you push the antennas backwards over the enclosure backwards, you have to gain more elevation so that enclosure would actually have to be higher to be able to clear that existing parapet wall. So it's something that you work together. So if you push antennas back, you have to raise it up. So If you were to push it on this case the screen will be even bigger So the minimum that we can work with, with the equipment that we have installed inside is 10 feet. Which is set back 10 feet as well.

You mean set back from the edge of the roof?

Correct. Yeah, the minimum distance from the edge of the roof to the front face of the screen wall is 10 feet.

Well, actually on this one it's six foot six. It's ten feet to the cabinet but it's 6'6 too. I don't know maybe on the roof plan that's Support underneath. It's hard to tell.

Yeah, so if you can go to Viroma and Jessica to Sheet C1. Certainly. Those dimensions there that are depicted on the top right corner of the plan. If you can go back one more, please.

Yeah, those are the ballasts.

Those are the support frames that basically almost flush with an existing roof. So those only are like four inches from the roof level. Now, if you go to the next page or the next sheet that gives you the actual setbacks from the Roof Edge to the enclosures themselves.

This is for the alpha sector that we've been talking about.

Correct, and it seems a little bit more prominent on the photos because of the vantage point that the photo was taken from The other ones as closer as we can get to the side and or farther than we can go so that we can still depict the screen walls on the photograph. So those were the best vantage points we could take the photos from, from The Public Ways. Obviously, we're not going to be able to go into somebody's property to take the

So can you keep the zoom in? Oh, sure. The 10 feet it's from the screen so what we're seeing is actually half of that. Do you agree, Cecilia?

Yeah, it's the dark rectangle you see inside of there.

That's a screen and that's 10 feet from the edge. But the visual impact is actually what you're seeing in Rendering is the screen outside, right?

Correct. It's in a side rectangle that Jessica basically moved her mouse around. That's the outline of the screen. And the other square, if you will, the 12 by 12 balance frame is that support frame that will support the screen wall right above it.

That's what we're seeing, right? From the outside.

No, you see that eight foot and a half by three foot and half box. That's where you see on the rendering.

This is the ballast mount that's located. It's attached to the roof. What you're seeing in the photo simulations is this darker rectangular box and these are the antennas. within that enclosure.

Okay, exactly and all that equipment antenna are going to be mounted inside the screen wall which is eight-and-a-half by three-and a half ten feet to the top of this green wall

So, Member Dalian's question as to could these be moved back from the edge? Your answer was it couldn't because there was a relationship.

Correct. It will be a relationship with the antenna height so if you push antennas backwards, you would have to raise a foot to be able to mitigate that setback requirement It's not more like from a zoning requirement. It's more for RF2. It works one-to-one ratio to be able to transmit the antennas outside the roof level.

Hi, just this is Ramachari with C-Squared System. Just to add to that like Oscar was saying if you push it back then you would have to raise the antenna such that when the signal's propagated you don't want any signal to hit the top of the roof So essentially you want to have a nice clear path that doesn't obstruct any sort of surface. Thank you.

Thanks, Ram. And if I may, Madam Chair, the zoning ordinance limits the height of these roof-mounted antennas to 10 feet.

So there's diminishing returns if you move it back and you can't get it higher so there's only so far you can move it back because it's a proportional relationship.

And we have to be at a minimum 10 feet setback from the edge of the roof.

Okay. Other questions? How does everyone feel? For staff, this is a special permit Again, it complies. But all such antennas need a special permit. Is that right? That's why they're in front of us today?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. I didn't close the public comment portion. I will wait 30 seconds and then I'll close.

This is Kit. I still don't see anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, so let's close the public comment portion and then In terms of procedural, you need a special permit from us. Is there a site plan review?

No Madam Chair Okay

Is everyone ready to vote then?

I have one more question, if I may. I apologize. It took me a minute to formulate it. It regards the radio frequency emission mitigation plan. I've read the table and it says it's met at every one of the locations that it's at or below 100% of the required. Maximum permissible emissions and I just would like clarification on what those mitigation uh What is the mitigation that is involved in assuring that the standards are met? Jessica Barty, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Cook. If I may, there's... I'm trying to find the sheet in the site plan package which is an exhibit A of your Application Package. There is a mitigation plan showing the barriers on the roof, those are physical barriers and they show so there will be EME physical barrier mitigation as well as signage for contractors that would be on site to maintain The facility as needed. and that mitigation plan is established via the OSHA regulations which are outlined in more detail in Exhibit D of our application. And with those, that mitigation planning place

A consultant found that the proposed facility would comply with the emission standards.

Okay, thank you. I was just making sure I was connecting the dots in the documents so that I understood that. Thank you. Certainly.

And I would just note that Verizon's... Pursuant to its FCC license, Verizon has to comply with those RF exposure levels.

Okay, I think we should proceed. Will the clerk please make a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair. I move to approve a special permit finding under MGL Chapter 40A Section 6 to install a building-mounted wireless communication facility and the UR Zoning District with the conditions in the July 9th, 2026 staff memo.

Any second?

Second.

Seconded by Brian Cook. Roll call vote, Brian. Olivia Mobayed, Sucia Dalian, Zach Zaremba, myself and Brockelman. Yes, the motion passes.

Thank you very much. Have a good night.

Okay, the team is left. So should we adjourn? Can you please make a motion to adjourn, clerk?

Yes, Madam Chair. I move to adjourn the July 15th, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals.

Seconded by Cecilia Dalian roll call vote Brian Cook

Yes, and thank you to the acting clerk.

Zach Zaremba.

Yes.

Lucia Dalian. and Brockelman. Yes, the meeting is adjourned July 15th, 2026 ZBA meeting. Thank you.

Thank