Somerville Planning Board 04-02-2026

Good evening everybody. It is 6.06 p.m. on the 2nd of April, 2026. My name is Mike Capuano. I am the Chairman of the Planning Board. With me tonight is our Vice Chair Amelia Aboff, our Clerk Jahan Habib, our Members Lynn Richards, Michael McNeely, and Coralie Cooper we have a quorum and pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the Planning Board is being conducted via remote participation. A video of these recordings will be available on the City's website by emailing Planning Board at SomervilleMA.gov or otherwise on the city's website. This meeting is being recorded so we have a number of items on our agenda tonight. The first is 222 Broadway

And I believe this needs to be opened and then continued. Is that right, Alvaro?

No, that actually was open on the last hearing and it was continued.

Okay, wonderful. So this is already continued April 16. The next is 1 McGrath Highway. It needs to be read in. So I would ask our clerk to please read in the notices for one McGrath Highway. There are several of them.

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. One McGrath Highway. Summer Bridge Hotel LLC proposes a major revision to the previously... Previously site plan approval case PNZ21-028 in the High-Rise HR Zoning District, ZP25-000113. Summerbridge Hotel LLC proposes to establish a hotel use in the high-rise HR zoning district which requires a special permit CP25-000114. Summer Bridge Hotel LLC proposes to establish a formula business in the high-rise HR zoning district, which requires a special permit, ZP25-000115.

That applicant has requested a continuance to June 4, 2026. The chair moves to continue that agenda item to June 4, seconded by Amelia. Please have a roll call.

Jahan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Carly Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano The agenda item is continued. Next is 365 and 369 Somerville Avenue. So it is my understanding that there was a correction to the legal ad. Yes. Yes. Please ask for that to be read into the record if it hasn't already. Has this already been read in?

No, this is a new advertised. Okay, let's please have that read in.

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. 365 Somerville Avenue. Somerville Family Dental PC requests to remove a condition of a previously issued special permit, DRA-2020-1. 0125 in the Mid-Rise 5 MR5 Zoning District, ZP26-0000002. 369 Somerville Avenue. Somerville Family Dental PC requests to remove a condition of a previously issued special permit DRA 2020-0125. in the Mid-Rise 5 MR5 Zoning District, ZP26-00003. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

I see that we have Adam Dash who's been unmuted and shared. Adam, I assume you're representing this applicant.

I am Mr. Chair, Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street, representing Somerville Family Dental PC. If we could promote Nicolash Gorokanti, who's the dentist and owner of the LLC. He's in the attendee list. Meanwhile, as you heard, In 2020, the Somerville Family Dental was granted a use special permit to operate its dental office in the two ground floor units, which are 365 and 369 Somerville Avenue Pedestrian Street District. They're operated as one dental office. That special permit decision added Condition 3, which said this use runs with the applicant Nicolash Rao-Gurukanti, who's here. and is granted only to this applicant and is non-transferable. The special permit shall terminate immediately if the applicant ceases to occupy the space. So the applicant's occupying the space, they're operating fine. He's currently seeking to remove that condition tonight. That's all. Nothing else is changing. Somerville Family Dental is still there.

They're asking to remove the condition because the practice has been operating successfully for six years now. The condition prevents Somerville Family Dental from restructuring, bringing in partners, selling the practice. What happens if Dr. Gorkonti gets disabled or, God forbid, dies? Or they make any other change to ownership? There are no plans for any of this. It's just he wants to put his affairs in order just in case. Going forward in that if something happened to Nick with condition three in place, Somerville Family Dental would lose its special permit and have to close. All its employees would lose their jobs. All the patients would lose their dentists. and you'd have a vacant storefront on Somerville Ave. Well, two vacant storefronts, I guess. So, none of that seems, any different owner of the practice is still going to be subject to the same review and approval if they wanted to make any changes as Dr. Gorkanti is.

This board did not put this type of restriction of a note when we did 120 Beacon Street, the vet office in 2024, which was a similar thing, ground floor, pedestrian street district. This kind of restriction was not placed on that applicant. Condition 3 also does not further compliance or create any impact. Any owner, again, as I said, would have to follow the same rules and regulations. The staff report also comes to that conclusion that removing Condition 3 would have no impact. I would note that Nick spoke with Councilor Ewen Campen and says that he had no objection to this application. Therefore, he's here if you have any questions for the doctor, but the applicant requests that condition 3 be removed from the planning board decision in case DRA number 2020-0125, dated June 25, 2020. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Dash. Dr. Gorokanti, do you have anything you'd like to add at this point, or are you just kind of here to answer some questions if we have them?

No, I wrote a little something to read to you guys. Is it okay if I read it? Of course.

I would just say, before you actually read into the record, I would just ask you to identify yourself and your address of the record.

Yep. Good evening. My name is Nicholas Gorokanti. I go by Nick. I own Somerville Family Dental. It's at 365 Somerville Avenue. We are requesting removal of a condition that ties the permit specifically to me as an applicant. The dental use is not changing in any way. There are no physical changes proposed and there will be no change in hours, traffic, or neighborhood impact. Your current zoning already ensures that any further different use would require separate review and approval. So this condition might not be necessary. Removing it will help ensure continuity of care for our patients and stability for my staff while allowing the practice to continue serving the committee for a long term. The use is not changing. The impact is not changing. And any different further use would still require your review.

Thank you very much. OK. I will have a few questions, not necessarily of you or Attorney Dash, but of staff. I'm going to hold off until we open it up to public testimony. And does anybody on the planning board have any comments or questions that they'd like to make prior to that opening? Okay, seeing none, what I'd like to do is open up this public hearing for anybody that wants to speak in support of this application. Please raise your hand on the little raised hand button that we have, and I'll call on you. Once, going twice.

Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the public hearing and open it up to anybody that wants to speak in opposition to this application or otherwise express concern. Please raise your hand. Okay. Once, going twice, I'm going to close that portion of the public hearing. and bring it back to discussion by the planning board and with the applicant and with staff. So I'm actually going to start real quickly just as a point of kind of clarification here and I'm wondering if Sarah Sear and Alvarez are so wonderful. So what the applicant's asking seems to be pretty straightforward, that this particular condition doesn't run with him as the applicant, it runs with the site. Is this something that's a common thing?

condition that we usually throw in is something that has been modified over the years because one of the things that I heard was somebody who was issued a permit in 2024 is not necessarily subject to this Is this outdated? Is this something that we need to just correct for the purpose of uniformity with how we conduct business today?

If I may, Mr. Chair, I can answer that one. Yeah, when Nick first came in for his permit, there were limitations on the uses on pedestrian streets and Somerville Avenue is a pedestrian street. It did not allow for personal services and other uses. So that has since changed in the ordinance. It was one of those issues that a dentist's office is not a, you know, certainly has coming and going and meet all the, you know, lots of the criteria that we want. from a pedestrian street. which is why the ordinance was actually changed after the fact but in order to let Nick sort of open his business that was the condition that was applied at the time so as as you know it is

Now, no longer true, so.

I just wanted to have that on the record from you, Sarah, that if, you know, Am I stating this correctly? If he were to apply today, that condition would not be included.

That is correct. Yes, that condition would not be included. He would still have to, as he said, he would still have to come to the board.

I want to make sure that I understand what's being asked and the public's understanding of what's being asked. Does anybody on the planning board have any comments, questions, suggestions of the applicant, their attorney, of... the planning staff okay great so seeing none scanning one more time seeing none Following public testimony, review of the submitted materials and deliberations of the required considerations outlined by the ordinance, I move to approve with the conditions outlined in the staff memorandum. The condition removal to previously issued special permit. Seconded by Amelia.

Can we please have roll call?

Jahan Habib. Aye Lynn Richards Aye Coralie Cooper Aye Michael Magnulli Aye Amelia Aboff Aye Michael Capuano

And following public testimony review of the submitted materials and deliberations of the required considerations outlined by the ordinance, I move to approve with conditions outlined in the staff memorandum The conditional removal to previously issued special permit DRA 2020-125. Seconded by Amelia. Please have a roll call.

Jahan Habib? Aye. Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Coralie Cooper?

Aye.

Michael McNeely?

Aye.

Amelia Aboff? Aye. Michael Capuano?

Congratulations. Good luck.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Good evening. Have a wonderful night.

So now before the planning board. A matters of a business and the first is going to be I'm going to take them in this order because Sarah's here. The Arts and Innovation District Urban Design Framework Discussion. So we had a presentation on this. We may have some further discussion. And I think, Sarah, are we expecting... What is the action that the planning board needs to take on this particular action item? Is this an approval? Is this a recommendation? Is this an adoption? Is this further discussion? Is this something that you need tonight? Or is this something that we can deliberate on for a period of time?

Kind of keeping timeliness kind of in front of mind here.

Thank you. This is a document that essentially is a neighborhood plan. So it does require adoption by the planning board. As far as timelines go, I don't think we need a vote tonight. What I would like to hear is your discussion. You've received memos from the Urban Design Commission with their comments.

And respectfully, those were very detailed and very professional.

Yeah, so we can go over the memos if you like, but before we do that, I would rather... Make sure that the planning board themselves have an opportunity to weigh in with comments so that there's one consolidated edit with both I appreciate that, Sarah.

And I know that that UDC recommendation The UTC has viewed this particular presentation. Proposal. So it says my internet connection is unstable, which is a little weird. Can Hearing me is fine. Seeing me, I feel bad for you. Okay, wonderful. Does anybody want to weigh in on some of their thoughts of the presentation that was given? Yes. And I see your regular hand. And because we don't have a ton of people I can actually see your regular hand in the future, I would please ask for people to raise their little Simpsons yellow hand.

There we go. It's more of a process question, Sarah. As I said before, I felt that this version was just so much better than the prior version. and I love that you then said that this is a neighborhood plan. But I was rereading it tonight and there's nothing really substantial. That's like, can you add more of this? Can you add more of that? Like everything that I had asked for was integrated. But my question to you is that these are design guidelines, right? I mean, as I read it through, I was envisioning that it's really meant for the architect and urban designer to craft a Building and a site plan which will then come back to the planning board where we then can further interpret and not massage but have those kind of more concrete.

So these are not requirements but guidelines. And so I'm trying to understand that the role that they play in the broader development process.

Through you, Mr. Chair. They are design guidelines and you'll notice that there are sections that are called designs that are called development standards and are more regulatory and more important. then the actual design guidelines but this is a document that as you said is meant to be used by the art developers and their their architectural team um to as they're designing master plans and buildings for this particular area. I think the planning board will definitely use it. The Urban Design Commission, which is why they wanted to weigh in so much, will definitely use it for evaluating. proposals as they come forward.

So while with an adoption of the UDF, then it does become something that is Was I regulatory? It is what we want to see as a community and can push designs towards the meeting of those guidelines so it's it's sort of an in between a a true regulation we're not allowed to um Massachusetts is a commonwealth, so you're not allowed to have design regulations in an ordinance, but we can include

So as a follow, thank you very much for that. And apologies to the rest of the board if you all knew that. So as a for example, I did not.

There's a distinction between Commonwealth and a state as it relates to that.

I don't know if it relates to that. I do know that Virginia is also a commonwealth and they have the same regulation that there are no... No design can be included in, can be regulated. Maybe it is a state thing as well, but...

Frankly, that distinction is really fascinating to me. I want to know how Pennsylvania does it too, like Commonwealth. Not that it's going to detract how I... you know view this particular program I'm just really interested how how well it's distinguished from states uh this seems to be one of them maybe which is which is weird but cool

So as a follow up, Sarah, I could see a proposal, a development proposal coming through. and as a planning board member I would be scrutinizing how they handled street level stormwater management given all the stormwater issues that Somerville is facing. Now you have stormwater kind of integrated no pun intended kind of throughout the document like in like flooding and here here there's like specific areas within the neighborhood where you want to see it But then there's verbiage kind of scattered throughout. So my question to you is do I need to make sure that street level stormwater management or green infrastructure is integrated into every single section?

giving me the ability to comment on proposals that come through or is it in there enough that if a proposal came through that wasn't in one of the identified like flooding sections I could still bring it up?

I believe the idea of sort of integrating it throughout the document was that it can be brought up so the the idea that I mean Just because there are certain areas where flooding mitigation is going to be absolutely critical. That isn't meant to... minimize stop thank you minimize um uh stormwater management in in other areas of the district so the fact that you know sort of any rain garden for example is going to be a benefit to the larger problem

Okay, because I got pushed back in Assembly Square because it wasn't in the neighborhood plan. So going forward, I want to make sure that we're covered, legally covered, that we can bring it up kind of moving forward. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Yeah, Amelia.

I want to go back to the topic of the UDC memo in a moment, but just in Sarah's clarification around what type of plan this is, I recall at the beginning of other plans that we reviewed as a board, there has been a cheat sheet being like, here are the six types of plans. This is plan number three, and I see that that is not present in this document, and I am now confused because I thought I was confident in what type of plan this was, but Sarah clarifying that this is a neighborhood plan has me off my game. So I just want to make sure that... I don't know if it's something that would be worth clarifying in a final edit of the document to... reinsert that page with the you know call out of like this is the plan type we're talking about here but are there ways in which the enforceability of um

To Lynn's question of an urban design framework varies from a neighborhood plan or if this is intended to be functioning more like a neighborhood plan, I think of that as something that has content that goes beyond design intent. And is it worth taking another month to draft supplementary information that is a little bit more expansive to take this from A design-specific framework to something that does map out more aspirations and other dimensions for this area, if we're not going to update it for another five to ten years.

That is a very good question and I should have added the term light. to my statement about a neighborhood plan. So because we haven't, as we mentioned last time, sort of this process happened backwards because this wasn't a full scope neighborhood planning process. We need a document to help guide the design. And so that's why it's focused on just the design pieces and works hand in hand with the zoning without getting into some of the larger Neighborhood, Thank you so much for joining us. So,

It is something that we can definitely add what we've always called the plan forward to this document. And I think you're right. I think that will clarify where it fits in the scope.

That might be helpful, and I know that I'm a dissenting voice on this, but it remains my perspective that the developer has by and large gotten what they wanted out of the city in this process. In a context where there was not a particular invitation for them to do so, like they sort of arrived on the scene and pitched something and we... made them go through the hoops but largely accommodated their desire to redone something that was not part of the city's initiatives in that time. So if the answer is we delay their efforts by Another eight weeks to flesh this out to incorporate other aspects of things that are priorities for the city in a document that won't be updated for another 10 years.

I would feel comfortable advocating for the city to take that position, especially understanding that the Draft design guidelines that are available to them are unlikely to change in a meaningful way and they already have the majority of what they need to be advancing their efforts. Again, just my two cents, but... I don't want to keep doing things halfway because the developer is putting us in a corner. That's not the role of this board, is not to be responsive to that type of action.

Thank you. If you don't need the comments, I don't mind that.

I had some comments on the UDC memo, but that feels like a different topic.

Do you mind if I join in on your comments that you just made? Are we on some sort of a time frame to be able to make this recommendation? And her answer, and Sarah, tell me if I'm misreading you, is no, not necessarily. So I don't feel compelled as one member of this board to push any sort of recommendation towards a vote. based on the representation of our staff. Amelia, I wholly share your hesitation, concern,

to follow the timeline of the dives of any particular developer or developing team and you know that I yeah I don't fold in either deal. So I think this deserves a thorough review. I think this deserves thoughtfulness and deliberation. consideration of what other boards have suggested to us as I think you're about to discuss so I'll just say this as one member of the board I don't feel any compunction to move forward with this. With more speed than it deserves. I think it deserves consideration. I think it deserves discussion and deliberation.

So I totally share where you're coming from on that. With that being said, I know you have some additional thoughts that you'd like to raise based, at least what you said, on what the UDC suggested, which was submitted, I think, a couple of days ago. Very detailed, very thoughtful. And so, yeah, I'd love to hear what people think about that. So, Amelia, you're still on.

Thank you. In response to the question of what do we think specifically about the UGC memo I think I As one member of the board agree with many of the comments, but I think the last page of the materials that were provided to us give me a little bit of pause. I think an issue that we often bump up against as a City in the regulatory process is the UDC's being an arbiter of taste without authority on the planning board. Having less taste but more authority, perhaps. And I feel like the language The changes that they are proposing on page five of the memo that was sent to us muddy the water a little bit about what the prototypical building in this district is intended to be.

and um potentially set us up for more conflict with them so like i would appreciate the opportunity for staff to take those comments into consideration and like re-articulate What the intention is and make sure that both boards are bought into it. I don't have a stance as to which perspective is right, personally. I just see it as an area that is ripe for... Disagreement, given the sort of nuance around like historic buildings, buildings influenced by historic buildings, buildings that are drawing upon taking inspiration from historic buildings. It's a lot there. So thank you.

Yeah, I don't know if that's something that Sarah necessarily can respond to at this point, but I think it's something that we can consider as a board. But unless, Sarah, you think this is something that you... would like to respond to at this point.

Sorry, I was scribbling like crazy. I apologize. No, I think some of those suggestions, the idea of rewriting to try to get to the intent but something my personal opinion was we needed something more concrete no pun intended that that some of those statements were very conceptual. And in order to function as actual guidelines, I think they need to be recrafted to be something a bit more specific as you noted. So I think that's something that we can certainly take a look at.

Thank you again to you and planning staff for all of your efforts to make this document responsive to the feedback that you've received from so many people over so many iterations already. Thank you. Thank you.

I appreciate the comment of authority without taste, Amelia. I shop at Brooks Brothers, L.L. Bean, Patagonia, and Bonobos That is my taste.

Speaking only for myself.

There we are. That is my taste. Occasionally vineyard vines if I feel like going, you know, kind of outside of school. So, no taste, all of you. Oh boy, oh boy. Carly, I do see your hand. Hopefully you're more serious than I am.

Yeah, this is somewhat related to what Lynn asked, I think. So I have a question about when in the process is the right time to introduce people. Potential, you know, suggestions about things. And so I'll use the example again. I'll come back to the example of trying to separate truck traffic from pedestrian and cyclists. And that seemed like a really important goal in the plan, but it does leave it up to the developer to some extent. I mean, there are recommendations in a number of sections that this is... Desirable to keep keep them separate but like I just want to throw something out as a Say we wanted to ask the developers specifically to explore extending the access along the rail tracks to not only that first building area, which I think is three, but then to one as well, I think.

something like that which you know they might not be able to do but if we had ideas like that when would the right time be to bring those up do you wait until the developer comes back and then you have that discussion or is this something that should go into the plan

Through the chair, I think there is a vague reference to access along the railroad tracks. I know there are some topographical differences. But we can strengthen that. We can certainly strengthen that language in the document now. It is not something that we can sort of require, and it will take a lot of review and coordination with engineering. with the city's engineering division because of Park and Dane being public streets. But that is something that we can certainly add language around recommending that that be part of the study, sort of beef up, make that stronger as a recommendation.

Okay, maybe we can give it some more thought too and provide some other ideas around that.

Yeah, it was just for a bit of background. It was a big topic of discussion at the UDC as well. So it is something that we probably do need to strengthen language around.

Thank you. Michael with a beautiful background. Is that an actual background? Let's start.

it's real it's not one of those like stock ones yeah yeah um it's it's the new house so uh thank you um so I wanted to ask a little bit about what the future process might look like here. Given that we collectively seem to have some hesitation about The maturity of this with respect to making sure we've got everything kind of nailed down and the reason I'm asking that is I very much value and want to encourage inter-board communication and I haven't had the opportunity to read this letter yet from the UDC but I agree with Amelia that that is a voice I want to reflect on and give feedback to or at least note some of their thoughts that I resonate with um and so either I would ask just this group to

postpone at least till our next meeting to have a deeper discussion on the UDC or if we feel like there's going to be a whole nother round based on what we've just kind of talked about over the last few minutes Then, you know, I kind of will keep my peace and just think about that feedback when we get to the next process. So if you could just maybe explain where we could go if the board is, you know, expressing what we've been expressing so far.

I think it is completely up to the board. So the UDC is advisory. to the planning board. We could do something as much as a future meeting where representatives from the UDC, you know, sort of just like we have joint hearings perhaps, Perhaps there is a meeting between both the UDC and the Planning Board to talk about these changes and recommendations. I think when that happens, if you are comfortable with the general direction of the UDC comments,

We can make a new version and have that be the topic of discussion for a joint meeting or a future meeting if you want to you know sort of go go down that path so I think I think we have lots of options as to as to how we move forward the the the ultimate you know sort of as I mentioned at the beginning the ultimate thing is the the You know, the planning board has to be comfortable with this document to be able to vote and adopt it.

Okay. Yeah, that's helpful. Again, we just received that letter yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to really dig in yet. And again, I want to take their comments seriously.

Michael, I don't know if you're done yet. I don't want to interrupt. As a point of historical context, The Planning Board has asked the input and has welcomed and invited members of the UDC, members of the ZBA, members of the Historic Commission, members of the licensing board to our meetings to be able to ask some questions to clarify some of the you know concerns and issues that we have related to some of the things that are before us so I don't see any issue I would find it well within the kind of the historic purview of the planning board to bring in representatives from other boards to have a

Open into discussion on some of the considerations that they might have on things that we vote on. All right, John, showing a Bart Simpson hand.

Sure, I'm going to strive to change the toleration of the Bart Simpson hand. Thank you so much. I just wanted to concur with all of my fellow board members. with respect to the discomfort around moving forward without having the necessary time for us to not only review but also the possibility that Dr. Lewis has mentioned regarding a joint type meeting or Somebody from the UDC presenting or being available to answer questions. I think that's going to be an important step because I do have some thoughts and comments in the future around the historic aspect of it which I raised in our previous meeting and I would love to have the opportunity to have that discussion and so I just wanted to put all this on the record thank you Mr. Chair

Absolutely. Does anybody else want to speak on this particular issue before we excuse Sarah on this one? Only once, going twice, seeing none. It doesn't formally need to be continued, but the chair intends to continue this agenda item. The Last Item on Our Agenda is one of the items that we addressed at the joint hearing a few weeks ago relating to the affordable housing overlay. The written comment to that period expired on Friday.

To my understanding we have not received any written comment on that particular agenda item. The other agenda item that had to do with backyard cottages and AADUs was extended for a longer period of time, so that's not before us tonight. That comment period hasn't expired yet. So, what is before us tonight is the affordable housing overlay and discussion and presumably a recommendation... This board to the land use committee on that proposed amendment. So what I would love to do is be able to open it up to discussions by and between members of the board. Think about what a recommendation could look like if we elect to make one tonight.

Does anybody have any thoughts on that item besides me? Sarah, not a member but staff.

No, not a member of the board, I apologize.

But staff are probably more valuable.

Dan is at the land use committee talking about this tonight. One of the comments that had come up was some confusion over some of the charts. So what the difference was between the old overlay and the new one. So if you have specific questions around the superseding dimensions and the charts, I do have a copy of that presentation that I can share.

Shot, Sarah, you mean that, I'm not going to remember exactly, it was like figure 8.16 with the red line changes that show what the old... Regulation shows what the new ordinance shows, right? Yeah. I'm going to be that guy my entire job is looking at regulations and red lines. I know what I'm looking at, so I'm not going to hold. What I do for a living to my fellow members. Does anybody have any questions, comments? Do you want to see what those look like again? Would you like to hold off on further? explanation of what the proposed changes were? I knew what I was looking at, but that doesn't certainly translate to anybody who's not me.

Maybe I would ask, I personally don't know that I need to see it again, but I do wonder if Sarah has a thought on... There are not so many buildings coming through the pipeline to which these apply. Personally, if I were going to have any concerns about any of the details here, I think I would only Be inclined to chase those fully to ground if we were expecting to see a major influx in the percentage, if we were defining the criteria that even put us in this category. Given the limited situations in which these apply and also knowing the small amount I know about the additional complications and

Finance and design pressure that are always put on affordable housing projects given the incredibly highly regulated way in which they need to move through their funding processes. I feel supportive of this amendment and don't have any particular concerns about it.

Um, yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna completely follow your comments, Amelia. From what I have seen based on what the proposed amendments were, based on the presentation that was given in my historic knowledge of the development of the city. It is a pretty narrowly tailored amendment that is not going to impact all that many properties as I read the amendment. There are things that I would perhaps consider modifying. I don't love the lack of removal of the setback requirements

But I also think that the number of properties that we're talking about is small enough that that might not make a huge difference. And my consideration if we were to make a recommendation tonight which I expect we will is maybe we invite The council do reconsider the lack of setbacks. If that is not something the board is comfortable with making a recommendation on, that is not something that I'm certainly wedded to or strongly against. But it is something that was a consideration of mine when I looked at the proposal. So other than that, I think it's pretty narrowly tailored. I think it kind of directs exactly what we want to do and where we want to do it.

Michael.

Thank you. I just want to say I got very similar feelings about the setbacks and there was public comments to that effect as well. So otherwise supportive.

Just to be the dissenting opinion on the setbacks, when I first read it and saw that the setbacks had been reduced, I let out a small cheer. Because it's my understanding at the state level... A good cheer. Again, dissenting opinion from you all. I sometimes, in an area like Somerville, when I go around walking, I think about How more development can be integrated in and not lose the beautiful feel of the architectural Context of Somerville. Oh my god, I love this city so much. So I do feel by reducing the setbacks to zero, it might enable... more of the kind of development that we're looking for without really ruining the broader architectural context so

since you and Michael kind of came down with you're upset about the contact the setbacks I wanted to come in and say I was kind of excited that they were reduced so sure

Anybody else? Yes, Amelia.

I have a distraction question. I'm sorry. What I think about the dimensional challenges of affordable housing, something that I don't think is addressed in here, and I'm just looking at the table again to see if I'm missing it, is the Is there any opportunity in this discussion, and Sarah, maybe this has already been addressed and I'm just blanking on it, to address the guidance that Sorry, most apartment buildings right now have a stoop entrance that is not accessible. And I know that there's been some discussion about improvements to that to allow more buildings to have that higher degree of accessibility by default. Is that something that we could be recommending be addressed here? I'm sorry, this is not like a well thought out, this is not a premeditated question, but I wonder if that, I know affordable,

Accessible units are something that is at a particular premium in the city, and I wonder if that's something that we could be also improving on with this pen stroke.

That is a very good question. Given the method of doing the superseding dimensions, I don't see why not. It is one of those things that I think we can add in in your recommendation letter to the council. would definitely um I think that's a good thing to include there are a lot of as we're doing we being PPZ doing the the Five-Year Zoning Review. At the moment, there are lots of those issues, but my hunch says, and maybe, you know, Dan, I'll

Cringe um but my hunch is that it could be added to the superseding dimension table that we have right now um So I would say include that in the letter to the council as a recommendation. I will talk to Dan about it tomorrow as an aside just to see if there is any pushback on that. on that, but I can't imagine that there will be.

I could ask you or Alvaro to give me like a sentence that more professionally articulates What we've just discussed, is it referred to formally as a stoop? I'll go back to it and find it. I just want to make sure I'm articulating it in a way that will be sufficiently clear. But you'll be presenting this to, someone will be presenting this to the council anyway.

Yeah, and I would recommend using term zero step entry.

Yeah. I'm sorry.

I was going to say, Amelia, you and I will have an opportunity to review the proposed recommended Both of this board will take. So what I would hope is that presuming that your consideration Makes its way into the recommendation, which I expect it will, because I certainly want it to as one member. that you and I will have an opportunity to review it and make sure that it reflects what it is that we want to accomplish with your suggestion.

Thank you everyone for allowing me the time for this diversity.

No, no, that's important. Embarrassing. Okay, so here's where I'm at as one member and as the chair, right? So we heard Amelia's consideration, we heard mine and Michael's, but we also heard Lynn's. And I'm on board with Amelia's consideration about accessible entrance into buildings. And I know that Lynn... is on a different plane than me and Michael, at least with the consideration that we raised. What I would like to propose is this.

A broadly positive recommendation to the Land Use Committee with the consideration that we include Amelia's, raise concern that I share. and then hopefully you may as well. But also one that says the board is split on the setback issue and the land use committee and the board of aldermen Make the appropriate considerations regarding a broad... I don't know what I'm saying. Difference of opinion on whether setbacks should be included. Because I think we on the board have differing opinions. I think members of the public also have differing opinions.

and the Land Use Committee and the Board of Order will do what they do. But I also think it makes sense to reflect the fact that on that particular issue, you know, there is not a uniform view. and that they as elected officials should take that into consideration both as you know as a recommendation from the planning board and also from members of the public. Is that something the board is willing to Vote on as a recommendation to reflect the fact that there is Kind of consensus on one aspect and also a dispute on or a discussion on a different aspect of part of that recommendation and that zoning amendment. Okay.

Lynn, as the person who was kind of opposite to where Michael and I were on that one aspect, is that something that you're comfortable with?

Yeah, I liked how you framed it that there was kind of a split opinion that some members of the board thought that the zero setback was too severe, yet another member thought that it was fine. you know some language to that um as long as and that's why I voiced it on the record is that it could be a dissenting opinion no of course um and what I'd love to be able to do is make a you know

A unanimous recommendation that the recommendation of the board is maybe not do the setback, don't do the setback, but consider the setback issue in light of the fact that the planning board was somewhat divided on this particular issue. I think that I hope that that reflects your concern on that issue without taking a particular position on it.

Yeah, I think that's a fair way to go forward.

Does anybody else have any comments or suggestions on this particular agenda item? Yeah. Hey, Alvaro, you're there, right? Yeah. Okay. And you're able to draft up a recommendation that you will send to me and Amelia. that will encapsulate the position of the board on this particular recommendation as yeah not to say tonight but as soon as you can Such that we can get it to the land use committee for their next meeting.

Yeah, I'll re-look at the tape and then it's easier just to kind of like put together all the conversation and thoughts. Yeah, absolutely.

Okay. Well, with that in mind, does anybody else have anything else to add for this? nothing else the chair moves to recommend with the discussion points raised tonight for adoption to the land use committee The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone of Ordinance Amendment that was presented to us a few weeks ago and up for the vote tonight. With that, it's seconded by Amelia. Will you please have a roll call louder?

Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff, Michael Capuano. All right.

We have a recommendation. Thank you all very much. The next meeting of the board will be on the... By the way, that was, I believe, the last agenda item that we have, right? The next meeting we will have is on the 16th. I will not be present unfortunately for that meeting so it will be Amelia who will be The Chair, she is also available. It is also, I believe, a joint hearing with the Land Use Committee on one or two items. So I apologize for my absence, but I will certainly review those records and be ready and able to join you all soon. There's nothing else before the board. At 7.08 p.m. Alvaro, I'm really glad I didn't... I bet you that we'll be up by seven, which is sometimes what I do.

I will move to adjourn seconded by Amelia. One more roll call, please.

Lynn Richards, Perley Cooper, Michael McNeely, Amelia Aboff, Michael Capuano.

Thank you all very much. I'll see you soon.

Thank you.