Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 10-15-2025

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the City of Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals for October 15, 2025. Joining us tonight is our board. Pull this up. I'm sorry. I messed up on my, I can't see what I put it, so I'm going to read it from here. Sorry, I apologize.

Here we go.

Okay. So tonight, October 15, 2025, it is 6.03 p.m. Joining us tonight is our board. It is Anne Brockleman. She's wearing two hats this evening. She's our vice chair. She'll be acting clerk. We have Ann Fullerton. We have Brian Cook, Sisia Daglian, and I am Susan Fontana, your chair. Also tonight from our staff, it's the planning, preservation, and zoning is Kit Luster. So without further ado, could I ask the clerk tonight, the acting clerk, Ann, I guess the first thing on our agenda is the approval of minutes.

Yes, I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of September 17, 2025, as submitted.

May I have a second, please? Second. Seconded by CeCe Adanglian. All in favor, please say aye. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Ann Fullerton? Aye. Anne Brockleman?

Aye.

CeCe Adanglian? Aye. And Susan Fontano, aye. Let the record show that the minutes of September 17, 2025 were approved unanimously. Next on the agenda is our case tonight, 36 Beacon Street, brand new. Ms. Brockleman, could you take care of that, please?

Yes. For 36 Beacon Street, there are two hardship variances being sought. Case ZP25-000075, 36 Beacon LLC seeks relief from SZO 3.2.11.B to construct rear egress stairs within the rear setback in the urban residence district, which requires a hardship variance. The second one is ZP-25-000084. Again, also 36 Beacon Street. 36 Beacon Street LLC seeks relief from SZO 14.1.7.B.2 to further reduce nonconforming landscape and permeable area in the urban residence district, which requires a hardship variance.

Thank you. So on this first case, who's here tonight to speak to us?

This is Kit. I've promoted David Cameron to panelist, and he should be able to unmute.

Hi, everyone. My name is Dave. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

And I'm assuming you can see me too. It's a safe bet. All right. Well, thank you very much. Would you like me to do a small presentation or?

Yes, please tell us what you're doing.

And you OK if I share my screen as well?

Absolutely.

Wonderful, just sent a request over.

This is Kit. If you try and share your screen again, you should be all set.

Perfect. Alright. You can see that. So it's nice to meet you all. Thank you for taking the time to review the proposed project. My name is Dave. I am the owner and sole owner of 36 Beacon. I'm a small-time landlord in Cambridge and also lived in Cambridge, sorry, in Somerville. I have a few spots in Somerville, and I myself lived in Inman Square on the Cambridge side for about 10 years. So this is a property, as you can see. It's near Inman Square. It's near the Cambridge, the CHA property. It is one of the very beautiful historic row houses that sits right across from the Whole Foods. We are 36 feet in here. It is unique from the abutting row houses that has an extension out the back that was built, I believe, somewhat with the original, if not slightly thereafter. I think 1885 is the original date here. The red is the kind of property bounds. You also have the Cambridge Health Alliance parking lot here. some neighbors on the right, and some neighbors on the left. The proposed project is to build a rear stair, and I'll do some verbal descriptions about it, and then I'll show you some pictures and the location, and we have structurals and all the drawings you would need. Before we purchased the property in 2020, one of the ISD inspectors did a property inspection and brought up several code violations. All of them have since been corrected except for this one. An interior ladder currently being used for egress which obviously is not code compliant and requires an exterior stair to be constructed for egress. We did we require both historical and zoning approval to do this, we did in 2020 go to the historical preservation committee. Who did approve the staircase as designed, then we have now done some minor changes to it just changing wood for vinyl which requires us to go back. Um, but otherwise it is in the same form that they had reviewed it several years ago. Right now, coming back, uh, to try to get this approved and get it constructed. As you can see, it'll take place in the rear here. There's lots of old kind of forested area, which we intend to keep as is, and we'll be very careful of any excavations, uh, and root conditions therein. This is the existing backyard as it sits. Uh, when we bought it, there was a door up here. I have no idea why it is there. We intend to reuse it and build the, the, uh, existing stair off of that. This is it in the summertime from line street, which is in Cambridge across the parking lot. That's about 160 feet. Also in summertime. This is it in winter. So you do, you can see through some of the foliage, uh, but still kind of a decent separation from any nearby abutters on that side of the municipal line. In terms of drawings, we'll draw your attention to... Actually, we'll go with this survey first to give you a quick sense of it. So this is the survey. This is the entry. Here is our building. In the rear, the rear lot stops right about here. But the actual fence for the parking lot is back here. And this land here is owned by the city, but effectively functions somewhat as no man's land today. It is four feet below an elevation, the city parking lot, and in line with elevation with the rear yard here. So while our staircase will definitely go within the 20 foot rear setback required from this line, it should not be directly against any fence lines of any neighbors who have existing views or whose activities may be disrupted by its construction. You can see here it placed on the survey. proposing a switchback stair built to the code minimums with a small platform beside for a table or something like that, since we're going to the effort to get it constructed. The main setback issues are right here. We require 20 feet, but we are only 12 feet to the lot line. And we are about 23 feet to the rear fence as it sits here. We did many studies with this stair and different arrangements and whichever one we came up with, with the landing platforms that were required and the turning radiuses, we continually ended up with requiring, you know, to enter into that setback. The other kind of hardship variance up for is impermeable area. I believe we are currently at about 70% usage. Existing is 70.4. Required is 65. So we are indeed over. And we need relief from an additional 6.8% in order to be able to construct this stair. um i've already seen that this is an axonometric of the stair so you can get a sense it was pretty standard construction uh will be largely trex decking vinyl handrails uh wooden dimensional lumber and supporting timber where needed the siding will be to match the existing siding nothing too creative and of course we have any structural drawings needed to get it built in general just going through my notes here By constructing this, it again allows us to alleviate the code violations that are in place and allow for safe egress of our tenants that are in the building. It should not detract from many neighbors' enjoyments and use of their space, as it is kind of a notable distance from our abutters here on the south side and abutters on the north side, as well as those across the Cambridge parcel. The actual construction should be fairly quick. and nothing undue towards noise or issues like that. And we do need to go back to historical for one more review of the switch from wood to vinyl, but otherwise it should be very much aligned with the initial intent. I think those are the main points. I'm happy to answer questions or dig in further to any details, but otherwise we thank the committee for their time reviewing and I just look forward to the discussion.

Thank you very much. Miss Kitt, is there anyone here from the public that has some questions?

This is Kitt. We have a couple attendees. Just raise your hand using the function on Zoom if you'd like to speak, and you'd be given two minutes to do so. We have one call-in listener, and to raise your hand, just press star 9. And we've got Sonia Daly and I'm doing a solo tonight. So I'm going to unmute and then I'll share my screen with the two minute timer.

Thank you.

Just give me one moment to share the timer screen. Can you all see the timer?

No.

Yes. I can see it. Sonia Daly- Okay i'm going to start it and it's two minutes and i'll. Sonia Daly- i'll speak up when it's when it's finished.

Sonia Daly- Thank you. Sonia Daly- With stally could you split your name and address, for the record, please.

Sonia Daly- Yes, um my name is Sonia dally I live at four for our street in Cambridge. Sonia Daly- My family has own. 34, 32, 30 Beacon Street for maybe 60 years. We now just own 34 and 32 Beacon Street. And so we're extremely concerned. You know, I have a lot of relatives, tenants who are extremely concerned about this. I want to read you my statement because I wasn't able to, there was nothing about a timeline in the postcard. So I'm going to read my statement if possible. I'll try to get it in under a minute 25. Go ahead. If that's okay. Marguerite McLaughlin, As okay as longtime owners of 34 beacon adjacent 32 beacon street, we are alarmed at the possibility of an additional structure being built behind 36 beacon it's important to know that the roof of the entire row of apartments. Marguerite McLaughlin, is designed to drain stormwater to the back of all the buildings. Years ago, an addition was built behind 36 that created an L-shaped section of the roof that creates a huge waterfall of stormwater runoff onto our property. This creates considerable more flooding in the basement of 34 Beacon Street in comparison to 32 or 30 Beacon Street. A big deck type stairway would aggravate the situation by not allowing the water to go into the ground. I'm also concerned that 36 Beacon backyard will be paved like he did his front yard, creating even more additional runoff onto our property. Building a porch behind the porch addition that formerly had egress within. I guess I didn't know it was just a wooden ladder, but I've been back there and it's an egress. How about a fire escape or restoring the internal egress? The entire community of tenants at 34, 32, 30 and 28 Beacon benefit and appreciate the privacy of the backyard and gardens. Constructing a three story deck overlooking a private area is highly disturbing and aesthetically objectionable. I guess I'm out of time. No, finish up, please. OK, I just wanted to add his previous construction projects have created vibration and cracks and His construction crew. I don't know. I'm just going to lower my hand. I don't want to, you know. Anyway, I understand you have your agenda here. Okay. Well, thank you so much for joining us and sharing. Yes. And I hope you can help us mitigate this and not have so much water coming on from his property. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm so nervous.

That's okay. Who's next, Kit?

I don't see anyone else with their hand raised. Again, if you'd like to speak, just raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes. And on the phone, just do star nine to raise your hand.

Oh, they haven't done it yet. Okay. While we're waiting for that, I'd like to ask Mr. Cameron, were you aware of these issues that Ms. Dolly had?

Yeah, no worries. The water issue, we are aware that water is leaking into both basements. We're not certain the cause of it. And it's something we've been looking into, including re-roofing the back half of the structure here last year at a significant cost to us and some further work planned. I don't believe that is tied to the issue here. And again, we're not certain that the way this roof is built is causing that. We've had a few discussions back and forth on the matter, but are investing considerable time and resources to regardless improve the scope of the roof. Would not necessarily think that a stair back here would affect potential issues for water over here, but it's something we're happy to look at. The stair will be built with gaps between all of the trex decking, so water should permeate down into the ground. and shouldn't cause any material issues. I'm happy to speak more to it, but I again believe the two issues would be unrelated. And of the water leaking in, I think this has been an issue for many, many decades as I discovered upon purchasing the property and again working through that as we go forward.

I just want to make you aware of something. You might not think they're related, but this is the time when people come up to have to zoning or historic preservation or any of the committees or commissions to get approval that sometimes you're not aware of something or you thought you were and you thought it was corrected and it's not. So the neighbors have an opportunity to refresh your memory about it and see that you are going forward. It seems like there's gonna be a lot, a lot of work being done and I'm looking at one thing in particular on one of the papers I have here, and I'm trying to see which one it is. We think, and it says in your, it's the plot plan. And on the plot plan, I read down to that all squared off with the blue. It says three story brick plus basement, roof, blah, blah, blah. Then it goes down and it says three elevation.

covered porch what does that mean covered porch you see what i mean down the middle section there that would be this white structure i think the surveyor wasn't kind of clear on what it was when they initially went through but that is this white structure which has been in place i would assume for many decades i i don't know personally i don't see a structure in that picture i see you're building with a tree and a porch

Where is there show the roof?

Oh, the roof in question you mean?

Well, I'm reading what the plot plan says. And it says here third level covered porch.

The three level covered porch. I believe judging by the dimensions and location that's referring to in the picture here, this white structure with this small kind of stair that comes out the back being this small stair here. It may have been a nomenclature that the surveyor used. It's fully finished inside and has ladders that go up from each stair, this first floor up to the second floor, which we don't know the origin of.

Is this building occupied?

Yes.

How can you have people occupying it with ladders? How long has it been like that?

so currently the the store the building has a main uh single staircase for egress which is what is uh uh there's a nuance in the code you can for a building i think it's four stories or below you can't have one like three stories and below you can't have one staircase for egress additionally though you're not allowed to reduce any existing egress to make the building less safe and so when the inspector reviewed it they specifically required the egress here to be constructed properly in the rear So the current tenants, um, obviously would improve, have improved safety conditions from having that second egress properly built out for the inspector's request. But, uh, I don't think, uh, should an event happen, you know, the, the, the current egress hopefully would be sufficient to, to meet that. So I don't think they're in any current or immediate danger. And the whole property is also it's hardwired smokes and is all up to code for the fire alarm or fire department.

When you took over the property in 2020, was the vinyl siding on the building?

Yeah, we have not touched the exterior of the property. We are currently looking to upgrade the, not upgrade, redo the wood frame porch in the front, basically as is. So it's historic. And so we want to maintain that as the existing structure. We have a certificate of appropriateness from the historic department to do that. We are also planning to build the rear stair here. And that's the only exterior work apart from as Sony did mention, we did some upgrades to the front to try to clean it up a little bit as there were about four plus years ago. As it had been basically nobody had been maintaining the property for many decades. It was very clear. And hence with a lot of the inspection codes and violations that were cited.

And it's taken you quite a while to get on this stuff. Five years.

Yeah, we, we actually got approval just as COVID hit and we leased typically to grad postdocs, PhDs, people in their young thirties. So there was obviously some vacancies throughout the university shutting down for two years, which obviously constrains cashflow and creates some other issues. And then interest rates, not to, not to be woe betide the listener, but interest rates also nearly doubled, which also. Paul Fain, required some cash flow to be adjusted and work through, but we are now in a good spot and trying to invest the necessary capital to get this up to code and make sure it is a comfortable and happy and safe living place for the folks who live there.

Susan Nemitzki, Now one other final question i'm sorry i'm fogging all this time, but I want to understand this i'm going to go to the second floor of the porch. and reopened that door that apparently got closed up over the years. What's above that? You've got four apartments, correct?

There's three above the ground level and then one in the basement, which is currently vacant. I see. Yes.

So at that second floor level, what's over that second floor? Nothing.

No, there's a third unit above there. I wonder if I have a better picture of it. There's a third unit above there. but there is an interior staircase, an actual staircase, which while it wouldn't meet today's codes, it's too vertical. It doesn't have the seven and 11 inch, you know, treads and risers, uh, the building inspector, uh, who I met with said, that's it's considered a grandfathered in safely done enough. We updated the handrails, put in some caution tape. Uh, but from the second down to the first floor, there's just a vertical wooden ladder, which definitely needed to be rebuilt. And we considered going an interior diagonal down. But there's just not enough width in it to actually get stairs. It's like 10-foot ceilings. And I think the width here is only 14 feet, so you can't fit it inside to today's codes. Right. Yeah, I would have loved to have built this inside. No zoning, no historical, straightforward, and gone on to other projects. So as much as I enjoy all these community hearings, trust me, I wouldn't be here if there was another opportunity to do so to code on the inside.

I, in the past few years, have noticed more and more of the houses I know in my neighborhood, they all had interior staircases going up to the third floor. and all of a sudden when they sold the houses and they started upgrading them and making them condos all of a sudden all the porches just like yours that you're designed here are outside now and i thought that they did it because they wanted more room inside I thought they purposely did it to have more square footage for the condos. They made the kitchens bigger and stuff like that. But I understand the challenge of doing this here. The only thing I want to say before anybody else says anything is that I really wish you'd be a good neighbor and try to speak to your neighbors and let them tell you what they're living with Maybe you think things have been rectified or you don't know how bad it is. And maybe it's something you can address and be a good neighbor as you go forward. Thank you.

Yeah, of course. Yeah, no problem. Um, Sonny and I do speak frequently and, and we do have a meeting of minds on some issues, not on all issues. Uh, and we do our best there. Uh, we have spent $12,000 in the past six months renovating this roof to put proper foam tapering in and try to redirect the water. So we have spent real money to try to... And again, we have not yet confirmed it actually does come from this roof. I have a hunch most basements here do leak as all the roofs just taper back and the water sheets off the entire set of row houses. But regardless, have spent money to try to reroof.

What year is this building?

Where is it?

What year?

The original, I think, is 1855. Kit Cischke it's it's it's quite a beautiful and I also I have one in Cambridge, which is also historic and we renovated the exterior and got a preservation award on that one. So I don't think we'll get one here, but it would be nice in the front porch to try to return that to its original state.

Carolyn Gallagher, All right, thank you. I apologize to the board, please. So can't no one else has raised their hand. No, not currently. All right. So I'll open it up to the board then and we'll leave the public open in case the telephone person rings in. Anybody on the board have a comment for Mr. Cameron? A question?

I do, Madam Chair.

Okay. Go ahead, please. Ann Fullerton.

Thank you. Mr. Cameron, can you go to sheet A1002, please? There you go. And go to the porch plan for plan one. So the one with just the blue outline that shows your setbacks. So what is the setback distance from the livable living area of the porch to your lot line?

this is 28 foot no nope from the railing side of it from here yes um yeah this would be the exterior porch i don't have that exact dimension i can try to get it for you but i would assume that's about four feet each treads 11 inches call it a foot so four five six feet so you would be uh 12 foot seven so you'd be including this would be eight eighteen seven probably 18 foot seven inches from this exterior post and kind of little porch area thing.

I'm not inclined to approve your request without having that dimension and for that dimension to be 20 feet to conform to the setback.

Would you repeat that, Ian?

I'm not inclined to approve this request without that dimension equaling 20 feet which is the required setback from a rear lot line that shouldn't be part of the hardship having a little living area on the back of the the port yeah you want to omit that i i don't have a problem with there being a living area it just should comport should not be part of the hardship

We can look into reducing that by about a foot if that helps.

Whatever would make it 20 feet from the lot line is, in my opinion, that at this point is a reasonable plan to meet life safety, to get your life safety stare, and you're using whatever space you have left to have a little living area, which is fine. The other thing I would suggest is you're going to be putting in footings in this area so installing a dry well underneath the porch that you're draining into. may help the happiness of your neighbors.

yep we did that in the front to the front has a big dry well and 100% of the water in the front. infiltrates on site, which is good and right now, though the. The site here is all, I guess, maybe mud is the best term for it. But we can put in a gravel-based drywall underground. And I'm not sure how much topography we can adjust to make drainage go into the drywall unless we were to bring in real equipment. But we can definitely, perhaps anything that comes under here, drain that into the drywall.

You could leader directly into it. So I imagine you have at least one roof leader in the back of this property. And you can directly leader into a dry well.

We can definitely move. I think there's one leader here, which we're happy to move into a dry well. I would note that the water issues are about here. And I think they're all across multiple structures. So it would be about 30 feet away from where the source is. And this actually pitches downwards towards the rear of the property. This is a concrete path that pitches away from the the row house, but we can definitely do a dry well for the spigot that comes down across this little horizontal piece.

Great. That's the extent of my questions, Chair.

Okay, thank you. So how do we move forward, Kit, as we go to the different members that Ian wants this stuff done? We have to continue have him print this up, write it up so we can see it and then vote on it? Or any other comments that we might have?

Yeah, I would say, Anne, if you want that dimension before anything was voted on, then you would most likely continue. But if you just want to ensure that the porch portion only does not go into the setback, I think that that could probably be a condition of approval that says the stairs would project, but the porch would not go into the 20 foot setback. But if you wanted to see that dimension, I would think you should continue.

I'm amenable to the condition.

Okay. Thank you, Ann. All righty. Is that all you have, Ann? Thank you. Who else on the board? Madam Chair. Yes, Anne Brockleman.

Yes, I do agree with Member Fullerton's request. I would support that. I think both the staff report and the applicant have described, I don't think it's quite accurate the way this case has been described. Yes, this is a unique historic row house and it's very narrow. So that's unique, but the narrowness of the lot is really not the reason why the hardship variance is being sought. It's the depth, right? And if we really, can you zoom out, Mr. Cameron? If we really take the historic aspect of all these row houses, can you draw where your neighbors are, the brick facade? Yes, they're very, very narrow lots, but they also have a lot of, what, yeah, 40 feet, 40, 50 feet of rear yard. So that's not really what's informing the need for relief, right? So I don't think it's a historic aspect of it because that extra porch that became covered is new, but you did inherit that. That's an existing condition. Do you see what I'm saying, Madam Chair? If you could highlight the covered porch or the white vinyl, the white siding part. You know, someone built that, I don't know if you know when, and then you inherited the situation. You inherited a very short, a barely complying rear setback. So I wouldn't, when we documented this case, I wouldn't say it's because of the historic nature of the row houses, because all of your neighbors could easily build a stair in the back with living area and would still be in compliance. I think you just inherited a property which has gradually eaten into your rear setback. So I would reword that when the time came to it. I guess there's there's another, the other hardship that I'd like to discuss as well, the other variants, or should we go around, you know, to hear every member of the board talk about this setback first, because there's a lot coverage as well. Madam Chair, what do you think?

I think we should do, continue this discussion. Okay. Then, um, So make sure clear how we're going to go forward.

Thank you. Then that's it for me for now. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Because I'll say why, and I could not be right, but if in order to, for the criteria, you know, that we give to approve or not approve, if we don't like the way it's written up, you know, then it's not going to fall into place. So let's just stick with this for right now. So you are saying that you would, how would you have written it? What would you have said that you don't think it's the hardship?

Well, um, let me go back to the staff memo. Um, you know, narrow historic lot that is smaller than the majority of residential lots in Somerville. Um, Again, the lack of rear setback is not due to the historic nature because the historic part of the building gives you plenty of rear lot length. I just think it's existing. I don't know, maybe Brian Cook can help me. I think it's just the existing massing of the property, existing massing of the building.

um that made it difficult to build an exterior stair and still stay within the 20 foot lot line right it's not because it's historic it's the unusual character of the existing structure it's obviously unusual because it's not the same as all the other row houses in that combination of row houses because of that addition in the back thank you

Yeah, you have that on.

Yep. We can we can make that a finding when the time comes for sure.

Yeah.

Okay. Anybody else?

CCA?

Yes, I do. I do have a question. Mr. Cameron, can you just go over again why you can't put the stair inside the existing structure? Like what is in that white you know, porch addition that would prevent you from putting the stair in there?

Sure. No problem at all. It's a dimensional issue. So we're 14 feet wide here, just from left to right. And a stair needs at least, I think, a minimum 36 inch landing on each side. So that's three feet and three feet. So now you're down to about six feet. Um, and then that leaves you only eight feet to, uh, to cover the vertical distance. And the vertical distance is about 10 feet and the max tread riser you can have is seven inches. Um, I think Massachusetts state law allows you to go to eight, but don't quote me on that. And so if you need to cover a vertical distance of 10 feet and you're, which is like 120 inches and you're about maximum called seven to eight. uh, you're going to need more space than, than the residual eight foot in horizontal to do so.

Did you try doing like a U shaped, um, stairwell? That's not just a regular switchback. So you get some, cause you have almost 10 feet in depth to play with.

Yeah, we, we did look at that as well. Um, putting a landing here, having, I think we only, cause it's again, six feet, right? So you have to have a three foot landing here. If I can do this. three foot landing here. So that just gave us 336 minus nine and a half. So it gave us three and a half feet, which is only three steps down here. And then that still left us so that three steps is seven inches per step that only got us 21 inches closer. So we still had about 99 inches of vertical coverage to do. Gareth J. Within the six eight feet, we had here, which would require more than a foot riser each parent, I think, is the math I can get you the exact math if you'd like sorry you're catching me on the fly and i'm. Gareth J. Just.

Gareth J. Every every story is 10 feet four to four.

Gareth J. yeah if not a little more, but will be conservative and say 10 right now. Gareth J. When we looked at a spiral staircase to. but the code doesn't allow that. And you have to go to the building code at the state level to get special approval, which is not guaranteed to happen and takes years to go through. And their response would be like, we have no need to approve a less safe stair when you can build one outside, which is safer.

But the function of the covered porch area in there is what is just an extra room. It's an extra room at each story.

Yeah, it's actually used mostly for storage. So like this is a brick wall on the inside and this is the kitchen in here. So this is kind of the kitchen with the bathroom right here. So most of our tenants use this just for storage. At this point, it's not heated. It's not a conditioned space. There's no lights. It's not heated. It's not like it's, to your point, Ursula, a condo trying to expand their space in order to get more living space out of it. It's not heated or lit, and it's mostly storage at this point. It is finished. It has drywall and flooring, but it's not really usable for a chunk of the year.

Have you considered trying... Did you look at trying to put the stairwell in there and then just... coming out the back wall, a minimal amount, a lesser amount to get some of it. So some of the stairwell spilled out, but most of it was contained in the covered porch area since it's not it's not heated space. It's sort of like sort of like dead space there.

We haven't looked at that. By the way, this is an existing stair to give you a sense of each tread and riser so you can visualize that in this space. To do that, like we do have to have a clear cut between inside and outside just for for rain and winter and snow. I'm trying to give a here. So in order to like like we Trying to think through it. You'd have to cut the whole building open here, which you'd need to put new structural members on all sides. And probably run them down to foundations and update the foundations if you because no structural engineers going to stamp this unless they get new foundations in place. And yeah, you'd have to basically cut the building back and have a new exit door somewhere like here so that you could then have a straight run of this there all the way down there. Which at that point it's pretty major structural adjustments. Which would I just to be frank would be out of the budget from the

of work we've done on the roof and what we've set up to do here at the rear stair thank you thank you cecil um okay so on this um i think we have a lot of stuff here to uh go through again and we're talking about conditioning what ann said and uh kit's making her notes there of how we'd rewrite certain things all right so let's just for now i don't have anything else to say right now um So we'll move to the second discussion, the second hardship. And I believe, Ian?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if maybe staff can clarify. The ad says it's to further reduce nonconforming landscape and permeable area, right? Yeah. But the plan set talks about lot coverage, required is 65% maximum lot coverage. You are going to 76.8% lot coverage. So are these two issues being conflated or they're the same, Kit and staff?

Yeah, this is Kit. Let me just pull up ISD's direct comment. And then I can go into the code to read the specific section.

Give me one moment. Because the, and to the applicant, then I would expect to see, and maybe you did this, the plans highlighted, you know, hardscape, permeable hardscape, landscape, percent permeable versus not permeable. J. Within the non built part right the open area.

Right. I'm happy to talk a little to that if it's appropriate or. If.

J. yeah so we plan on doing with the back.

yeah sure I don't have any plans, right now it's gravel earth 100% of it infiltrates in place the concrete path here, the water does drain, you know in this direction. um underneath this would also just be gravel um or earth uh the tenants don't use this and i have no intention of of not to sound you know capitalist but spending significant dollars to upgrade the backyard uh at this point um so 100 is infiltrated and even after the construction of these stairs 100 would would still infiltrate um And even if we were to build something, which again is not the intention for the next five plus years, we'd make sure all the water infiltrates onsite into dry wells. Largely, we actually do it for any vegetation that we end up, you know, we usually try to plant several trees and bushes and hedges. And I don't like to have to go water them on a regular basis. So it makes a lot of sense to use the rainwater to drain into those vegetation bushes and, you know.

What's your front yard consist of?

Front yard about four years ago, we did put in some hardscape. We left all the historic components untouched. We did put in some hardscape, largely because the existing vegetation had not been pruned or maintained, and it must have been 30, 40 years. All that water does infiltrate on site to, as I think I mentioned before, to water some of the existing vegetation, the new vegetation we did put on. But yeah, we did that largely to have walking areas for the garbage cans because it would turn into mud and tenants would drag mud everywhere. So we did some of that for walking areas for the garbage cans and we put in a bike pad so the tenants could be more sustainable and bike. It was a big request of theirs and so we did that too. And we planted, I think, 15, 16 hedges, which are now about six, seven feet in height to do that. And everything is less than four feet in height, I think is required. So we did have a discussion with ISD about what constitutes lot coverage. And in the preliminary discussions, if it infiltrates 100% onsite, it was excluded. And then in subsequent conversations, it was now included. So we did remeasure it all and include everything that is not only kind of permeable or not impermeable, like pavers. We also included the wooden structure in the calculation. So absolutely everything that is kind of built, regardless of permeable or impermeability, is included in the lot coverage calculation. And then here's the exact code here on the plans that we pasted in.

Thank you. So now back to the back of the yard, back of the house. We're going to see what you have.

This is Kit. Susia and Anne both have their hand raised.

Oh, I'm sorry. Ladies, City Council Chambers, Whoever wants to go for a CC a go ahead.

City Council Chambers, i'm Mr Cameron I I do have another question um. City Council Chambers, When I and maybe you mentioned this, but I didn't pick up on it when when the occupants egress here to the backyard, how did they get out of the backyard. City Council Chambers, To the public way as is required by the building code.

City Council Chambers, Great question. Um, in no man's land here, I, sorry, I call it no man's land. Technically it's city land right here. And I'll pull up the survey to show you this, this fence actually doesn't, uh, exist. Um, right now it's just an open area. And so you can actually traverse back here. It is a bit forested, but you can traverse back here across all the lots to a parking lot and, uh, find your way out to the public way.

Um, is that city of Cambridge or city of Somerville?

City of Cambridge. Let me. try to get you some better graphics. And I have it on the survey as well. Sorry, my Zoom thing is over there.

So you don't have an easement on that. They could at any time take that away.

Correct. I don't have an easement. They do have legal rights for it here. Yep, here's the land. So no guarantee. At least this does get them outside of the structure if it's on fire and at hopefully a safe distance.

CoB, Cindy Spence, yeah that's what I sort of getting at you might inadvertently by sort of building more into the backyard be creating a. CoB, Cindy Spence, Code. CoB, Cindy Spence, An additional building code issue, because I think you're required to have something quite significant like 30 square foot per occupant if I remember correctly. CoB, Cindy Spence, i'm in a situation like this, where you're you don't have an egress through your property to the plug public way from the front of your property. ACM Conference 29th, um and I suspect that you probably don't have that amount of space with the amount of room, the stair footprint is taking up um I just wanted to raise that and then have you are you going to cut away any of that concrete walkway to make your. ACM Conference 29th, impervious area more conforming.

ACM Conference 29th, yep great question and on the first point um. I will go check the codes, too, to make sure we do want to be code compliant, of course, in everything we do. I know the primary egress, which is a staircase in the building, does egress out. And for a three-story structure, one egress is required. But you also can't reduce safety by eliminating existing egresses should they exist. You need a special building code.

Well, you can have one egress if you're sprinklered or you're sprinklered building.

No, unfortunately not.

Yeah, then you need two egresses, really.

Um, yep. Fair point. And so, uh, uh, correct. So we'll all check the code to make sure that, um, that we have a certain, I guess I'll see if there is a minimum safe distance to the, uh, to the public that is required. And then on your second question, no, the concrete walk here, uh, will stay as is. I don't know if a picture here can, this is it here. The concrete walk is to the left of these stairs. ACM Conference 29th, yeah that should stay as is, I believe.

ACM Conference 29th, If you got rid of that would would you then not require another variance.

ACM Conference 29th, I don't currently plan to do any additional work in the backyard once we've kind of made this safe.

ACM Conference 29th, I know, but if it would solve the problem, I mean cutting away. you know, concrete slab is not huge work, if that would... Oh, okay, in that light.

Yeah, I have no aversion to... The only issue is going to be maybe water, right? Because this right now, it drains the water to the back and it infiltrates here. If I cut that back, there's a good chance it'll drain next to the building, which could... You know, there's something happening with water across all our buildings here. So I could be amenable to cutting it back probably to here. Christopher McConkey- that's easy to do to your point i'm happy to do so, I would just for the water i'd be. Christopher McConkey- had it back here.

yeah understand do you know, like do you have a sense of how much you'd have to cut it back to me conforming with that second zoning variance you're asking for.

Christopher McConkey- It would be the. Christopher McConkey- The square footage of the green here so 160 square feet. I don't know the width, call it five feet. So 25, oh, five feet looks about right since this stair is about three and a half feet. So if that's five feet, divide that by five, you're at like 25 feet or something? A little more, let me try this, sorry.

So maybe back to that little notch in the building.

It will be 33 feet, we'd have to pull it, so. 33 feet would be larger than, it'd be this plus 10, just probably. So it'd be about this length of this blue line. So, which it would be probably close to the stairs, my guess is like here. So you'd be close to the stair here.

Well, something to consider.

Yeah, again, I'm more than happy. I'm not sure it would kind of nullify the requested hardship, but I have no problem cutting it out here and putting in some gravel or something like that to do that.

Thank you. Thank you. Ian Brockleman?

Yes, the discussion is part of my question, but I think it's still unclear what the second hardship variance is being asked for. This right here, 2.4.2, that's a lot coverage. That's different from permeability of the landscape, right? It's mass building to non-building lot coverage. That's one zoning requirement. So you did have calculations on that. That's not what's in the ADD or in the staff report. And then we have been talking, Cynthia Dalen and you have been talking about permeable versus non-permeable. So what are those requirements and what is the relief you're seeking? And it's usually in square footage required, you know, versus what I have. If that's in the drawings, again, it's not lot coverage. It's permeable versus non-permeable.

So that's what's unclear. Yeah, if we ask for. I hear you definitely. If we just do permeable, surfaces, then we actually are compliant to the 65, like, like less than 65% of the site, uh, is, um, um, impermeable. And that was kind of how ISD initially, uh, read it with, with me. And then, uh, they, they then reread this to, to state that it includes, uh, that, that yeah. I think if there is a zoning code for permeability that is set at 65%, then we conform with that. But for the lot coverage, which may or may not include permeability, we are currently at, and you've read it, so I won't repeat it, but I don't know if that, I doubt that answers your question, but that's all I know.

This is, I just think it has to be clear. Yeah, go ahead, Kit. Yeah, this is Kit. So the ISD zoning reviewer who reviews for zoning compliance has left the following review comment that I'll read. Lot has an existing non-conforming lot coverage of 70.4 when the maximum is 65% per Somerville Zoning Ordinance 3.2.11.A, a hardship variance for relief from SCO 14.1.7.b.ii for further reducing non-conforming landscape and permeable area. So that's the review comment that ISD left. But if we need more clarification on the permeability versus the lot coverage, we can definitely get that from ISD. But I'm not sure that I have the answer currently tonight.

Right. And I may be Through the chair, I may be mixing up old versus new code, so please check. I know we used to dictate hardscape non-permeable versus permeable, right, after of open space, open lot space left. So, and then if we were talking about that, then I think the applicant should show clearly, you know, in your color coding the plans, what percent is permeable versus not. within your non-building footprint, which is the 100 minus 76.8 of the lot. Does that make sense? So maybe you should talk to staff again.

Yeah, I think we've got a lot of questions here tonight. And I think we should continue this. But I think also in continuing this as we walk away, we make sure Kit and the applicant understand what we want readdressed. I think that would be, could you clear the board, please, Mr. Cameron, so I can see the whole board? Great. I think Anne has questions. Anne, Cece, everybody has a question. And if he's willing to hash this out tonight, I'd rather us go forward and come back next week with all the adjustments that we can vote on as the hardship variance dictates to us with the rationale and the criteria. What do you think of that?

Well, not next week. It would be.

I mean, the next meeting, the 15th. No, actually, right. Whatever the for the next ones.

I think it's the first we've got November 1st and November 19th for meetings in November.

Okay, so I guess i'm asking in in in in CC or especially with the questions you JoAnne Hanrahan, Members have brought up tonight, would you like to see staff work this out check with inspectional services and with the the applicant and come back with a finished product for us to look at and vote on. JoAnne Hanrahan, Why do you think you can work on this right now. JoAnne Hanrahan, i'm a little confused myself but i'm not an actor so am I, I think we really need clarification. JoAnne Hanrahan, And i'm glad because I mean I know. Ann and Ann are architects and I know Cecilia has her title which she does for me so maybe they get all this but I think it's a little confusing and I rather have it written up properly with the suggestions that have been made if appropriate kit you know if they're off the deep end you know check within special services okay what do you think you want to do that could I um JoAnne Hanrahan, And i'm speaking to the blood right now, Mr Cameron. JoAnne Hanrahan, it's the pleasure of the board. JoAnne Hanrahan, just want to come back in a couple of weeks, or when he can be ready with it all written up nice with all the questions we gave tonight. JoAnne Hanrahan, I do. JoAnne Hanrahan, Yes, right. JoAnne Hanrahan, And does.

and does the yeah okay kit um i'd like to invite the yes brian i just want to add i it would really be good to have somebody from inspectional services especially the person who wrote the um the note to explain the second um the second case the zero zero zero zero eight four requirement because even the applicant's a little confused about the switch that they made about what to count and what to not count in lock coverage or permeable versus impermeable uh and the way the the case is written is still confusing it's unclear what the relief is being sought from great

That's what Ann was, I think, saying. This is Kit.

I just want to make sure that I have it all written down and I can definitely request that this ISD reviewer, but at the very least someone from ISD, come to the hearing in case we have questions. But just for my own record, so we're going to add the condition for the porch section of the structure to not extend into the 20 foot setback. I'll amend the findings regarding the first hardship variance for the unusual character of the existing structure in an updated memo, and I'll ask ISD to come, but also just clarify the second hardship variance lock coverage versus the permeability Karen Grove- section for an updated memo was that everything. Karen Grove- I just want to double check.

Karen Grove- I think so, and especially when you shared with us tonight you're hearing what we're saying to you hear what was the camera and saying so. You can tweak it a little bit with the special services or whoever's required Mr. Cameron. What do you want to say right now? Because we have to invite you if you want the continuance and we vote on it. So I know you have historic preservation on the twenty first, but we should iron this all out now because even if you go forward with anything else in the future i know what uh i think cca brought up about the back entrance exit houses behind me are the next street over our row houses and they're all each shot is 20 feet wide like yours but they're like 40 to 50 deep it's a good 50 deep and but they were required by the fire department JoAnne Hanrahan- If they wanted to put fencing up because they didn't always have fences back there when they started putting fences up, they have to have a gate. JoAnne Hanrahan- To get them even out of that yard, and there is an alleyway that call is all around the whole thing, so you come right out of the as they don't have to go in and they come right out and then they could take off So if you want to you know look into that yourself we're CCA brought it up and. JoAnne Hanrahan- Go ahead now you've got the floor i'm sorry go ahead, please.

No, it's a great point. And we'll definitely look into that. I'm happy to work with the committee in everything that they need. I agree in the adjustment of the wording. So that was probably me not thinking through the wording as closely as I could have. I think you're right. It is the unique character of the existing structure, which causes the hardship. So I definitely agree. Easy to do that. And I'm happy to pull a foot. I think it'll be a foot and a half or so off of the The non-stair part of the porch, that's easy to do as well. And I can come back to you. I do have the 61.7% with just constructed lot coverage, excluding kind of permeable area. But I get that we need to document that correctly and do so. So I'm happy to work with the committee on a continuance to get that all documented and shaped up.

I mean, I think this is doable to encourage you. I can't speak exactly, but I think with them all adding positive input to how to fix everything and, you know, get it to go. I think it's, uh, it's a good thing and probably go forward. Yes.

And yes, just to make sure we help the applicant. So I'm looking at, um, the code 14.1.7 B two. all that it says is nonconforming landscape and permeable area cannot be further reduced. So the code that's cited has no metrics, but we're asking reduced from what? What was the original requirements? You have to it's I don't think it's the right citation for the hardship. It just says you can't further reduce something that's really nonconforming. And it's just a yes, no question. But you go back to The zoning code for your lot in your for your property, what is the original. requirement of landscape impermeable area. Okay it's kind of like we didn't we didn't have the 24 dimension we just got oh you can't further reduce that and do we allow it or not, so there has to be some metrics and. i'm going to look it up further after this and maybe staff and can also help Mr Cameron.

on that thank you thank you ann so is uh anybody else have any comments before we continue and fullerton you look like you have something brian go ahead your hands up i just wanted to say that mr cameron has to formally request a continuous so that we can vote sorry i was a little new at this i was getting to that one second i wanted to see if ann fullerton had any comment No okay, so now back to okay so second anything else from the public i'd like to close the public portion of nobody else's. raise their hand. This is kit no one else has their hand raised. To close the public portion at this time. get that done. JoAnne Hanrahan, Okay, with a 613 so that's 710 okay now on our side, Mr Cameron, you have the pleasure of requesting a continuous of this board and we put it to them for a vote to approve it so that's something you'd like to do go forward.

James Meeker, Yes, i'd like to request a continuance.

JoAnne Hanrahan, Thank you. may I have the acting clerk tonight make a motion on Mr. Cameron's behalf did we have a date well I don't know how soon what do you think the second meeting in November or do you think you'd be ready for the first What do you think it to get in touch with the departments to get this all going?

We would need if the 1st meeting in November is November 5th, we would need everything by. The 29th, I felt absolute latest. So that would be. 2 weeks, I think that that is probably. Doable we have an extra week here in October, so that helps a little bit.

And does Mr Cameron, do you think you can meet these? That deadline? Yes. Okay. All right. So to answer your question, Ian Brockleman, the fifth.

Okay. I make a motion to grant the request for the applicant to continue this case, ZP25000075 and ZP25000084. 36 Beacon Street will grant the request to continue to November 5th.

Thank you. May I please have a second? Second. I see it. Ann Fullerton, second. As we go around, please vote. C.C. Agdaglian? Aye. Anne Brockleman?

Aye.

Brian Cook? Brian Cook?

I think he's frozen.

Okay. Ann Fullerton?

Aye.

Susan Fontano? Aye. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Thank you. Let the record show all members voted in the affirmative. So we'll see you on November 5th, Mr. Cameron. Good luck. Thank you. it and she'll take care of you with the other people in the departments needed thank you have a good night thank you okay now let's see you can sign off now sir beautiful um there's no other business does anybody have something under business out of the business they'd like to offer?

I actually have one thing really quickly, is that at the Council meeting last Thursday, the Council confirmed a new member for the Zoning Board. So she hasn't been sworn in or anything. Her name is Olivia. And as soon as I'm able, I don't know how much information I'm really supposed to share it this phase, but the council has confirmed her appointment and so now she'll go through everything with the clerk's office and all of that. She's a transportation planner and she's lived in Somerville for about four years and I hope that she'll be ready for the November 5th meeting if she can get through all the clerk stuff.

Huzzah!

Yes, yes. anything else you saved the best for last huh thank you kit thank you anybody else have any comments any news anything the board no okay so uh may i have a motion to adjourn our meeting yes madam chair i make a motion to adjourn zba meeting of october 15 2025 second JoAnne Hanrahan, I can invite Ryan all in favor, please say I CCI daglian. JoAnne Hanrahan, I and fullerton. JoAnne Hanrahan, I am brockleman. JoAnne Hanrahan, I Ryan cook. JoAnne Hanrahan, I and Susan fontana I let the record show all five voting Members of the affirmative at 714 to adjourn Thank you everyone enjoy. JoAnne Hanrahan, night night.