Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 11-05-2025

Governing Body: City of Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Meeting Date: November 5, 2025 Attendees:

• Susan Fontano (Chair)
• Ann Brockelman (Vice Chair)
• Zach Zaremba
• Brian Cook
• Sisia Daglian (Acting Clerk)
• Olivia Mobey (New Member)

Staff Present:

• Kit Lester
• Alvaro Esparza
• Christian Contenard
• Josh Mannion (Inspectional Services)

• Motion: Sisia Daglian moved to approve the meeting minutes for October 15, 2025.

• Second: Ann Brockelman

• Vote:

  • Brian Cook: Aye
  • Ann Brockelman: Aye
  • Zach Zaremba: Aye
  • Olivia Mobey: Aye
  • Sisia Daglian: Aye
  • Susan Fontano: Aye

• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

• Motion: Sisia Daglian moved to approve the meeting minutes for October 1, 2025.

• Second: Ann Brockelman

• Vote:

  • Brian Cook: Aye
  • Ann Brockelman: Aye
  • Zach Zaremba: Aye
  • Olivia Mobey: Abstain
  • Sisia Daglian: Aye
  • Susan Fontano: Aye

• Outcome: The motion passed (5-0-1, with Olivia Mobey abstaining).

• Case Description: Continued from October 15, 2025. Applicant David Cameron seeks two hardship variances for a proposed rear stair addition at 36 Beacon Street.

  • ZP25-000075: Hardship variance for relief from further reducing non-conforming landscape and permeable area (Somerville Zoning Ordinance 14.1.7).
  • ZP25-000084: Hardship variance for relief from the 20-foot rear setback requirement (Somerville Zoning Ordinance 3.2.11.B).

• Applicant Presentation (David Cameron):

  • Provided a brief overview of the project for new Board members, noting the property is at 36 Beacon Street, with a proposed rear stair addition.
  • Addressed the permeable/impermeable discussion from the previous meeting, referencing ISD reviewer Matt's clarification on lot coverage calculations (Somerville Zoning Ordinance 2.4.2.C.1).
  • Stated that lot coverage includes the footprint of the structure, ground story building components, accessory structures, and paved surfaces, with permeable pavers counting towards lot coverage at a 0.33 coefficient if no manufacturer data is available.
  • Acknowledged the existing non-conforming lot coverage of 70.4% (maximum 65% per 3.2.11.B) and the need for a hardship variance for further reducing non-conforming landscape and permeable area.
  • Clarified that the proposed addition (green area on plans) is 167 square feet, and while the land beneath the stairs will remain permeable (gravel/dirt), the footprint of the structure (posts, skirt) is considered lot coverage.
  • Discussed the rear setback issue (ZP25-000075), noting that the proposed stair encroaches by 7 inches into the 20-foot rear setback, a reduction from the previously estimated 1.5-2 feet.
  • Expressed willingness to comply with Board requests but highlighted the time (2 weeks) and cost ($500-$1,000) associated with redrawing and re-stamping architectural and structural plans for a 7-inch reduction.
  • Mentioned that the property has been owned since 2020, and a similar stair proposal was approved by the Historic Commission previously but not executed due to COVID-19 and financial constraints. The Historic Commission recently re-approved the design, allowing for vinyl material for the skirt due to its limited visibility.

• Board Discussion:

  • Lot Coverage (ZP25-000084):
    • Ann Brockelman noted the difficulty in distinguishing the applicant's new narrative in the email packet.
    • Sisia Daglian confirmed the ISD determination that lot coverage includes non-permeable elements beyond the building footprint.
    • Applicant stated existing permeable pavers (317 sq ft) are calculated at a 0.33 coefficient and drain into dry wells. The only new addition is the 167 sq ft for the rear stairs.
    • Brian Cook requested the applicant provide the exact percentage of additional non-conformance for the lot coverage variance to be specific in the motion. The applicant confirmed the additional non-conformance is 6.8%.
  • Rear Setback (ZP25-000075):
    • Sisia Daglian reiterated the previous meeting's request that the living area not extend into the 20-foot rear setback.
    • Brian Cook stated the 7-inch encroachment did not concern him personally but acknowledged Ann Fullerton's previous position against any further encroachment.
    • Sisia Daglian and Susan Fontano preferred the design to conform to the 20-foot setback, even for 7 inches, suggesting the builder could adjust without requiring new drawings.
    • Olivia Mobey requested clarification on the existing stairs' classification as impervious surface, which the applicant clarified as "existing ground footprint" within lot coverage.
  • Hardship Criteria Discussion:
    • Sisia Daglian outlined the criteria for the variance:
      • Criterion 1 (Special Circumstances): Narrow lot, past extensions towards the rear, leaving little room for external stairs. Adjacent lots do not share this characteristic.
      • Criterion 2 (Substantial Hardship): Financial hardship (cost of internal stairs) and safety hardship (non-conforming building code, hazard).
      • Criterion 3 (No Substantial Detriment to Public Good): Limited visibility from the public way, no significant pushback from neighbors (previous concerns were about flooding, not exacerbated by this structure).
    • Brian Cook agreed that the findings for the criteria apply to both variances due to the lot's shape, unusual building character, and limited public impact.
    • The Board agreed to include the 20-foot setback requirement as a condition, with staff to follow up, rather than requiring revised drawings.

• Public Testimony:

  • Opened: 6:42 PM
  • No public comments were received.
  • Closed: 6:47 PM

• Motions:

  • Motion (ZP25-000075 - Rear Setback): Sisia Daglian moved to approve the hardship variance for ZP25-000075, finding that all criteria required by the Somerville Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied, and that the relief would not substantially derogate from the intent of the ordinance or detract from neighboring properties.

    • Conditions:
      1. The decision must be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds.
      2. A digital copy of the recorded decision, stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, must be submitted to the Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Division for the public record.
      3. A modification be made from the filed plans to ensure the rear stair addition conforms to the 20-foot rear setback requirement.
    • Second: Ann Brockelman
    • Vote:
      • Ann Brockelman: Aye
      • Zach Zaremba: Aye
      • Olivia Mobey: Aye
      • Sisia Daglian: Aye
      • Susan Fontano: Aye
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

  • Motion (ZP25-000084 - Lot Coverage): Sisia Daglian moved to approve the hardship variance for ZP25-000084, finding that all criteria required by the Somerville Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied (similar to ZP25-000075).

    • Conditions:
      1. The decision must be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds.
      2. A digital copy of the recorded decision, stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, must be submitted to the Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Division for the public record.
      3. The approval is for an additional 6.8% non-conformance to the existing lot coverage.
    • Second: Ann Brockelman
    • Vote:
      • Ann Brockelman: Yes
      • Zach Zaremba: Yes
      • Olivia Mobey: Yes
      • Sisia Daglian: Yes
      • Susan Fontano: Yes
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• Case Description: Applicant Kevin Foley, representing Somerset LLC, seeks a hardship variance for the installation of an electrical transformer in the frontage area at 156-158 Summer Street, as per Somerville Zoning Ordinance 2.4.3.D.B.

• Applicant Presentation (Kevin Foley):

  • The building, constructed in 1924, has been family-owned since then.
  • Received notice from the insurance company requiring an electrical upgrade by January 1, 2026, to avoid loss of insurance, mortgage, and potential bankruptcy.
  • The building is a four-story structure with limited space on the left side due to a grade issue and retaining wall, preventing Eversource from placing a transformer there.
  • The only feasible location for the transformer is in the front of the building, despite the ordinance's intent to avoid transformers in frontage areas.
  • The proposed location is on the right side of the building, near the new electrical room in the basement, to the left of the water utility line.
  • The transformer pad will be approximately 6x6 feet, with the transformer slightly smaller (less than 6 feet high).
  • Commitment to landscaping the area with shrubs to blend the green transformer box with the surroundings, acknowledging it may take 1-2 years for full integration.
  • Emphasized the urgency of the project due to insurance deadlines and the approaching winter season.
  • Eversource has approved the proposed location.

• Board Discussion:

  • Zach Zaremba:
    • Asked if underground transformer placement was considered; applicant stated it would not meet insurance/bank requirements and would be too time-consuming and dangerous.
    • Noted the property's location in a densely populated area of Summer Street, with a transformer already existing across the street, suggesting the proposal is not controversial.
  • Olivia Mobey:
    • Asked for approximate dimensions of the transformer, which Mr. Foley stated would be similar to the one across the street (6x6 ft pad, slightly smaller transformer).
  • Brian Cook:
    • Agreed with Zach Zaremba regarding the neighborhood context and the well-maintained nature of the buildings.
    • Stated that the hardship criteria are easily met:
      • Criterion 1 (Special Circumstances): Shape of the lot, unusual character of the building, restrictions around the building lot, requirements of the regulated utility (Eversource), and demands for electrical upgrade.
      • Criterion 2 (Substantial Hardship): Clear financial hardship if the variance is not granted.
      • Criterion 3 (No Substantial Detriment to Public Good): Applicant is making efforts to minimize public impact through landscaping.
  • Ann Brockelman:
    • Inquired about the concrete pad dimensions and the feasibility of landscaping directly in front of the transformer due to utility clearance requirements.
    • Applicant confirmed shrubs would be placed to the left and right, not directly in front, and would grow to blend over time.
  • Susan Fontano:
    • Asked about the distance between the building and the walkway (10-12 feet).
    • Expressed concern about potential issues if Eversource changes the approved location after Board approval, referencing past cases where utility companies altered plans.
    • Josh Mannion (ISD) clarified that if Eversource resites the transformer within the frontage area, the relief point (variance for frontage placement) would remain the same. A revised site plan demonstrating the new location and compliance with screening requirements (Somerville Zoning Ordinance 10.7.4) would be needed.
  • Sisia Daglian:
    • Sought clarification on whether the Board was generally approving a transformer in the frontage area, or if the specific site plan was binding, given its "napkin sketch" appearance.
    • Applicant clarified that the plan is exact for the proposed location, with the shrub placement being schematic. He confirmed Eversource's approval of the specific location.
    • Alvaro Esparza confirmed a cleaner print showing the exact transformer location without utility lines could be provided.

• Public Testimony:

  • Opened: 7:06 PM
  • No public comments were received.
  • Closed: 7:21 PM

• Motion: Sisia Daglian moved to approve the hardship variance for ZP25-000098, finding that all criteria required by the Somerville Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied.

  • Criteria Findings:
    • Criterion 1 (Special Circumstances): Relates to the shape and unusual character of the existing structure, occupying most of the lot with little setback, and the inability to place the transformer elsewhere due to site constraints and Eversource requirements.
    • Criterion 2 (Substantial Hardship): Enforcement would involve substantial financial hardship (loss of insurance, mortgage, potential bankruptcy) and the inability to upgrade the electrical system to meet current standards.
    • Criterion 3 (No Substantial Detriment to Public Good): The transformer will be shielded with shrubbery from the public way to the best of the owner's ability, minimizing visual impact.
  • Conditions:
    1. This decision must be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds.
    2. A digital copy of the recorded decision, stamped by the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, must be submitted to the Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Division for the public record.
  • Second: Zach Zaremba
  • Vote:
    • Ann Brockelman: Aye
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Olivia Mobey: Aye
    • Brian Cook: Aye
    • Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• Motion: Ann Brockelman moved to adjourn the meeting.
• Second: Olivia Mobey
• Vote:
  • Olivia Mobey: Aye
  • Zach Zaremba: Yes
  • Ann Brockelman: Aye
  • Brian Cook: Aye
  • Sisia Daglian: Aye
  • Susan Fontano: Aye
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for December 3, 2025.