Land Use Committee

and talk to the public. Welcome everybody and apologies. We were having technical issues behind the scenes. Thank you for your patience and sorry for the glitches. We're just waiting for a few more counselors to reappear so we can establish quorum and get the meeting started. I think we're just awaiting one more counselor who should be here in a moment.

Excellent. I'll call this meeting to order. And again, members of the public, thank you for your patience as we dealt with our technical glitches. This is a meeting of the City Council's Land Use Committee. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the City Council is being conducted via remote participation. We will post an audio-video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website. and local cable access government channels. Will the clerk please call the roll?

This is roll call. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Clingan?

Sorry, present. I had a mute second place.

Councilor Sait? Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Here.

With five councillors present, we have quorum.

Excellent. And Councilor Sait is attending. We have two City Council Committee meetings happening simultaneously, and she is a critical member of the School Buildings Committee meeting required to make quorum, and they're dealing with important issues tonight, and that's why she is in that meeting. So colleagues, item number one on our agenda is approval of the minutes of our May 7th meeting Seeing no discussion on that, let's lay those on the table for approval and get to the meat of the issues tonight so on our agenda tonight are four Bill White, and a number of members of the public who submitted these proposed amendments. We had a public hearing on these several weeks ago and we heard from a number of members of the public. And my goal for tonight, so these amendments are now before the committee.

And my goal for tonight is for us, I want to welcome any kind of big picture comments that colleagues may have. A number of issues were raised at the public hearing, issues that all of us care about. So if colleagues want to share kind of big picture, Feedback, thoughts, etc. I'll welcome that. And then what I wanted to do is go through these in order, make sure that we understand what each proposal is, and use tonight really to ask questions. So we have staff here. and I want to spend tonight I know that I certainly have a number of questions to make sure that I'm understanding things some of these questions we might be able to have answered tonight others I'm anticipating you know we will ask the questions tonight voice opinions and we'll get information at an upcoming meeting. So I'm not anticipating votes tonight. Obviously, members of the committee can call votes whenever they wish, but I'm not anticipating that tonight. I think tonight is for us to begin discussing these asking questions. So with that...

Why don't we, before we call up the agenda items and start going through them one at a time, if no one wants to speak, that's fine. But if folks want to share kind of big picture reflections on what we heard at this public hearing, now would be a fine time to do that. Davis.

Never pass up an opportunity to blow hard as it were and show my Opinion of my own opinion, I guess. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. and I agree with this great approach I think just to sort of get some sort of initial thoughts on the table and and then you know I look forward to hearing I'm hearing those thoughts from my colleagues and from others as we sort of advance the discussion. I guess, you know, that my initial sort of thoughts in receiving this group of amendments was, you know, I met them with some skepticism um And, you know, but also, you know, curiosity and interest in sort of what's, you know, what's really behind the issues here and how they sort of all fit together. And as always, I came to the public hearing with an open mind and open ears.

and I thought that for the most part, a very compelling case was made that the way that the zoning is currently sort of working, for lack of a better word, It isn't consistent with how I thought it would work as one member of the council that put it in place as chair of the committee at the time. So the short version is, I think there's a point here. and specifically as it relates to what is being built and called a backyard cottage. Some of the examples that were provided and others that I've seen are not consistent with what was in my mind, in my imagination, when I was thinking. Standing up there and we were going through this process and having these conversations. I envisioned something modest.

I envisioned something that was... observably smaller than the primary structure and would feel like a backyard cottage, not a second freestanding home on the lot. so you know there's another debate as to whether that's you know which is the right answer but I you know I can definitively say that that What has been described is absolutely not consistent with what I thought we were giving folks permission to build. And certainly the specter of a nearly 1,500 square foot house, which by the way... Thank you for watching! that's sort of my initial take you know I'll

I won't speak to the lot split question because I think that's a more nuanced question and I look forward to getting into that conversation but sort of the high level is you know What is happening does not reflect what I thought we were saying would be okay to happen. But I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor. Any other colleagues want to speak before we take these up one at a time? Clingan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. As I stated in the last meeting, when we Our intentions were in 2019 when we rezoned with the neighborhood residential. We were sort of trying to upzone in the corridors because, you know, We desperately need to add housing and there's certainly major corridors that have room for it in squares. But with the neighborhood residential, we were trying to Blunt a little bit of gentrification and hopefully leave the average person in the running to be able to purchase a property where they could live in it with their family and maybe rent the other unit. And then we thought better of it and we added the ability to put a third unit that wasn't affordable. But now what we've done is we've made it so that

Situations we're seeing where lots are being split and we're now we have eight units which is skirting the affordable housing rules. and you know I'm at the point where I'm almost thinking like I almost rather see four units stacked than to see people putting an entirely sellable unit in a backyard where we don't have a lot of open space in the city we don't have a lot of green space and we're essentially giving that away to developers so they can put a fourth unit that they sell as a condo unit so now you know you're talking A property they buy for whatever, a million and something, is now worth, you know, a million dollars apiece, four million dollars. And then they're selling them for God knows what. It's like, what kind of impact are these units even having? On the stock.

So I also have concerns with the direction and the way things have gone. I, you know, I think there are ways to address this. But as far as the, as far as the back end, I also Again, I had thought that it would be like an AD or rental or situations where somebody's kids couldn't afford to buy a home. They could put them... We've had cases where people couldn't put a home health aid where they had a severely disabled family member and they wanted to be able to put an ADU in the back for home health aid. And instead we have developers just literally cashing in basically dropping these things on our backyards. And I don't know if that's the right direction we should be going in. I look forward to hearing from staff in getting into these issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I'll just share kind of some big picture thoughts I have as well before we dive in. Councilor McLaughlin, I see you on camera. Did you want to speak on this? I will be frank that I've been struggling with this issue a lot. So, you know, at the public hearing, our former colleague Bill White made, I thought, a lot of really good points. and in particular I think you know the narrative that he was describing is basically one of really really intense gentrification in Somerville you know Really expensive new units being created from what used to be more affordable. I don't think there's any debate that that is happening. We all have eyes. We can see that. I do struggle with the prescription that the idea that there is like an amendment before us that will stop gentrification from happening in the neighborhoods.

This did not start with backyard cottages, with triple deckers. It will not stop if we were to change them. This is a tsunami level economic force. I don't think that we have an option before us to turn off gentrification. I think all of us Wish we did. Speaking for myself, I certainly do. But it's a force much larger than I think what exact building types we allow. But that said, that doesn't mean, okay, we throw in the towel, there's nothing we can do to make sure that the development we do see in neighborhoods conforms to what we wanna see, what our constituents wanna see. I very much think that is the case. and I will say also some of the very first backyard cottages that were permitted in Ward 3 were built by homeowners who I know and were great.

you know we're just frankly wonderful and you know one of them is a musical practice space for a family see kids playing music in there one of them has a living space with like a workout area down below and then I've started seeing more and more you know a lot is bought split two triple deckers in the front two large backyard cottages in the back and it seems to me that you know some Local architects, developers have figured out basically what's the formula to make these things as big as humanly possible under our current rules. And I share what Councilor Davis said. It's certainly not what I had in mind. I don't think I could have told you exactly what. Hite and Square Footage I had in mind. But I do think if we had meant kind of large single family house, we would have said that. And we didn't. I think in the public's mind, certainly in mine, it was more...

The types of structures you see now, old carriage houses, old garages with an apartment above them. So I think that there is work to do here. And the issue around backyards, I also think is real. I mean, I think It's a nuanced issue. You know, I don't think again, I like backyard cottages. I think it's an interesting building type. I think there's a lot of support for them. And by definition, they're going to make the open space behind the house smaller. but it's something that I think is worth talking about. and I will say I have a bunch of questions about the particular amendments before us but big picture I am totally open to revisiting the size and scope of what backyard cottages look like and I think that's I've heard a lot of support from that from colleagues, from the public, from the mayor's office. So I anticipate that we will be taking a hard look at that. So with that, let's get into these amendments, folks. So just let me give a brief overview.

There are four of them, and I'm going to just briefly describe them, not necessarily in order of what they're in the agenda, and then we'll take them up in the actual order. So one of the amendments limits the size of these buildings to 900 square feet. or half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, which other is less. This was described to us as basically conforming with the state law. Another one of the amendments makes these buildings An accessory to a principal dwelling. An ancillary use, meaning it can't be sold off as a separate condo. So that's two of them. A third one... adds a level of regulation to splitting a lot. so currently this is an administrative if you have a lot that is more than twice as big as a conforming lot it's an administrative process if you're if you're creating two conforming legal lots that's an administrative process one of the amendments is to um

as I understand it require a neighborhood meeting, require a special permit. And the last one says, basically, if you're doing a lot split and you're creating, say, five or more new units, then our 20% inclusionary would kick in based on the total number of units created, you know, the lot split being... A decision of a single property owner right it's not it's not really two economic developments it's one it's splitting a lot so those are the four so i'd like to just take these up in the order they're on the agenda and just open them up for questions i certainly have a number So I'll read the first one. This is 260330. 29 registered voters requesting an amendment to 3.1.12 backyard cottages. So let's bring that up if we can, Maddie. Make sure we're talking about the same one.

Thank you very much. And if you go to page 12 of this. so it says there's new language here backyard cottage shall be no larger in gross floor area than one half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet whichever is smaller So this is an amendment that would regulate the size of the buildings. And I just want to confirm with planning staff, this is basically consistent with the statewide law. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Chair, that's correct.

And under our current zoning, can you describe what are the size limitations now?

Can you just introduce yourself and name for the record, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, so I'm Fiona DiMartino. I'm the Deputy Director of Planning, Preservation, and Zoning for the City of Somerville. So thank you for having me this evening and giving me the opportunity to address you all and provide some... Additional insight. So currently the standards allow for roughly up to 1,500 square feet. We recognize as a division and share the opinion that the backyard cottages are manifesting larger than anticipated. We are currently working with other staff internally to basically reconcile those discrepancies between the state law and what Somerville currently allows. So in addition to working with staff, we are anticipating to bring an amendment, you know, put forward an amendment to bring this into compliance with the state ADU standards to

to essentially get to the crux of this issue. The drafting time will need some lead time to be able to do that, to continue to coordinate with staff. But yeah, so currently the proposed language is aligned with the size standards but is not written following the drafting standards of the Somerville zoning ordinance currently. The building type descriptions do not contain any regulatory standards across the whole ordinance and dimensions could be added to massing and height standards for backyard cottages to add some additional clarification. So beyond kind of what is existing in terms of floor plate lot coverage. Height, and what's already in the ordinance. We could be elaborating further on that. The principal dwelling is not defined in the ordinance and should be referenced principal building type. So, you know, these are some of the concerns that we have flagged.

But yes, we do understand that these are concerns. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for joining us.

Okay, so for members of the public that are following this, there's a number of kind of Strange conflicts between the way that our zoning ordinance works and the way that the state regulations around accessory dwelling units work. And the administration is working, first of all, on a Thank you for watching! Davis.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. On that point, I mean, I guess, you know, Based on experience, we've seen when these types of discussions start happening, Well, let me cover it this way. One of the nice things about zoning, as I understand it, is that when a zoning change is noticed... There's effectively a stay put in place, right? If that zoning change is ultimately adopted, then the look back, the applicability is As of the date it was noticed or something like that. Put another way, no one can cram things through quickly before we pass something, right? Before a zoning change is passed. That's my understanding of intent. And so my concern here would be, you know, I don't know the nuances and I don't know what sort of tactically speaking, but however, whatever we do.

I don't want to create a loophole where you know because we're going to go with a different amendment instead of this amendment everybody can you know get all their the folks who have the resource to do so and so on. I want to raise that concern that we don't inadvertently create a scenario where more things are cramped through that don't align with our intent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor. So I guess... I personally, I find it hard to, in the abstract, talk about what's the right size for these. I'm just someone who, if you look at our zoning ordinance, they say these buildings can be one and a half stories. to me in my head, I think small little cottage, right? A story with a slanted roof on it. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, what started to happen is that people are putting in finished basements, which under building code in our zoning can come up to something like five stories above the ground. And What you're effectively getting is a two-and-a-half-story building. The first story is five feet, but if you're standing next to one of these things, it can feel like a two-and-a-half-story building in terms of living space is, right? Has... Two and a half stories. So I'm just speaking as one counselor. I don't know what the right number is. Maybe it is 900 square feet. I'm open to being convinced that there's a different number that's right.

But it does strike me that... What we're doing now is bigger than any of us anticipated. And I'm glad to hear that the mayor's office is working on something. I'm sure the councilors are thinking about this as well. And to Councilor Davis's point. you know now with this being a big public conversation I'm sure there are folks out there watching closely and listening to what we're saying so we do not want this conversation to drag forever that this you know this is a priority for the community and I think that this is kind of at the crux of it in a lot of ways um all right are there further questions requests for information that counselors want to make at this point counselor McLaughlin

Thank you, Joe. Just a few thoughts. I like uniformity and consistency, and I think we should... Abide by the state regulations so that everyone knows exactly what to expect I think that makes sense to me I agree with my colleagues that and many more. So I definitely agree with that. I do want to give an alternate view about this, however, as someone who's been knocking a lot of doors lately in this community. I see a lot of... residential neighborhood areas that have a triple decker in the front and then a triple decker squeezed in the back. And these were not done because of the triple decker ordinance or the ADUs. It was done decades ago.

and the interesting thing about all these units is there's people living in them and there's people living in this community who live in these units there's families there's people who have jobs there's people contributing to the community So I just don't want to lose sight of that when we talk about, you know, oh, we got a 1% vacancy rate in this city. So there's no shortage of people who want to live here. I think about a development on Craigie Street that I knocked on recently, which used to be a huge open lot area. There's nothing there. and I could tell you all the sordid history about this property and how the person who built it evaded zoning laws and figured out all sorts of ways to squeeze in these units. and I knock on the door and there's a really nice French woman there with her kid who took the time to talk to me and is a part of this community. So I am interested in the consistency of things.

I want to make sure that what we intend to do actually happens. And I think that of the four amendments, this one... Makes the most sense to me, but I do have some concerns about other amendments because as you said, Mr. Chairs, we're not putting this gentrification genie back in the bottle. and a lot of the concerns people have in the community around the development has been happening for quite some time. We're just getting more units out of it now.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Clingan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I'm just curious if there's any thoughts from staff around how these amendments would tie into each other in the sense that, and you know, not that I I'm not in the real estate market, but I'm curious what the state's thoughts are. 900 square feet, if we were to restrict it to that, would... Would the real estate market just say, no one's going to buy or whatever? Does it make sense to tie it to the resale factor? Yeah, it's just, I can see this really getting complicated around even with somebody puts three units on a property and then was one of the units come with an ADU or like, you know, how does that all work? I, I,

I look forward to seeing how we're going to sort of rectify and untangle some of these things and just wonder if staff had any thoughts on any of that.

Through you, Mr. Chair. So, yes, we have been thinking about the economics of this and how that's going to play out in terms of reconciling what the state has required versus what Somerville allows now. um we have and like understanding that you know there's backyard cottages that are currently in process there is also um you know an amendment um in favor of the Strezo amendment that is going to be going through the process as well. So we're trying to factor in a lot of these different considerations, all of the public comments that we've heard. We do have some concerns that the 950 Thank you for joining us. and other kind of dimensional issues that could arise.

And we're kind of currently working, workshopping that. Thank you. Thank you. you know if the city does decide to move toward the path of 900 square feet and one thing that I will add to is that you know the limit to the 900 square feet doesn't always necessarily stop these things from being Taller, it can, but we're also looking at some of the implications if that does not happen. So there is a few things that we are kind of... coordinating with ISD and other folks in the city to be able to kind of get some more answers to that. So thank you for the question.

That's all for now.

Thank you, Councilor. And you know, just speaking for myself, so currently we have a maximum floor plate of 576 square feet. If you're imagining these are one and a half stories, it's that number times two, whatever that is, 1100 or something. What's happening is that you're getting this built-out basement, right? And maybe this is apocryphal, but what I've heard from people that work in this field is that we didn't really anticipate that people would be doing that. I think the housing market has been so insane here that it's worthwhile to dig out these basements and put an extra floor in and sell it as a million-dollar-plus single-family house, right? So if the concern, and I think for a lot of us it is, is purely about...

Thank you for watching! Someone's Yard, and being as tall as a single family house. You know, it seems to me basically just... The maximum square footage is two times the maximum floor plate. Currently it's three, right? They can dig out the basement and have three floors. So that's my kind of thought off the bat. It's a little bit more than 900 and I'm open to a conversation around this, of course. But, you know, that's to me makes sense. All right. So let's leave this in committee. and you know colleagues as obviously we're moving between these amendments but you know if something comes to mind on one of them we can we can return to them So let's move to the next item on the agenda. This one has to do with defining these as accessory and ancillary building.

This is number 260329. 14 registered voters and we'll bring that up on the screen in just a moment the operative text is on page 12 of this one And for members of the public following this, Councilor White and these signatories, they submitted a single memo that explains kind of in more plain language what the four amendments are. And then at the bottom of each one is the actual, the red line amendment. This one defines a backyard cottage as a structure defined in section 10.2.1b-f, which is explained elsewhere in this explanation to be basically... Ancillary, an accessory building structure And basically, as Ed has explained here, it means that they could not be a condo They'd have to be rented by the other principal building type So this is one, I'm interested to hear kind of basic feedback from planning department, from colleagues. I'm kind of struggling around this.

I know many, many, many people, the only way that they can possibly afford to buy anything in Somerville is a condo, right? I don't have the same kind of, you know... Opposition to the concept of these being sold as condos in theory, but I'd like to hear feedback from planning from colleagues.

McLaughlin. Thank you, Chair. This is the one I struggle with the most as well, as someone who lives in a condo. I live on the second floor of a three-family house. We own the second floor. First and third are owned by other people. It's the only way I could have ever afforded a home in this city. In the era of... Three generations living in a triple-decker, you know, the grandparents on the first floor, parents, that is gone. And I wish that wasn't the case. It's the era that I grew up in, but it really just doesn't exist anymore. and I think a lot of people when they I know this I know it because I felt this way before when you hear the word condo you assume rich people and so this is just any apartment complex people refer to as a condo A condo is a unit that an individual or family can own on their own. I don't see the correlation between an ADU being a condo or being a rental unit.

I don't think we need to make that decision. I think individuals or the market can make that decision about whether it's going to be ownership or rental I do think if you're asking for my two cents on it I think if you own a two-family house In Somerville right now, you're probably on the more affluent end. And to... Say that that third unit that you're adding, you also have to own that. I'm not sure whose problem we're solving by making that the case. And if you look at the reason a lot of these units are going as condos is because the building cost is so high that you can't even rent it. Thank you for watching.

that we can discuss but final whether it's a condo or rental doesn't mean anything to me and just a final thought too is I had one of my first developments as a city councilor was 75 units right next to the shopping shop that people were passionately opposed to. And at the time, people said that they didn't want it to be rental. They wanted ownership so that families would stay in this community and we struggled to make it condos. The developer accepted this, but that created its own set of problems as well. Not a problem that I think the council needs to handle. I think that people will figure this out for themselves.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Clingan?

Yeah, Mr. President, through you. I guess this... I guess if we don't at least examine the question, I think if you allow it to be a sellable unit, then that's what it will be 100% of the time. Whereas if you have some folks living in a two family and costs start going up and like maybe we should build or convert this garage. So now we're adding a unit to the market, which is what everybody wants. but we're adding a rental unit so versus like just creating exorbitant value to land that's gonna pretty much assure that we're gonna see new building

on backyards uh but you're gonna have concerns about green score and just like kind of like how we're gonna deal with you know the the effects of eating up whatever backyards are left in the city but I'm just thinking about it. I understand. I think it does complicate things. I kind of agree with Councilor McLaughlin that this may not be the place. We may not be the body to decide. What people do with their property. But I understand the thinking behind it in terms of like, it still adds a unit and yet doesn't necessarily ensure that, you know, It's going to be a sellable unit. So in other words, existing properties that could add something versus somebody's going to buy a property, knock that down, put the three units and put the thing in the back every time. So I don't know.

I'm curious, anybody else has thought much about this, or like you said, staff, or anybody on the city side?

Yeah, before we turn it over to the city, I just want to share my understanding of the thinking here, right? I think if you talk to a lot of folks in Somerville... I don't want to paint with too broad a brush but I hear from a lot of people they really have no problem if there's like a homeowner wants to build one of these things you know it's it's completely inoffensive to people what really does bug people is when A really active developer who doesn't have great relations with the neighbors and has a lot of active construction sites is just buying up property left, right, and center. Demolishing stuff and building what are considered these cookie-cutter developments. That's what people don't want and what they want us to regulate. And so I think that's the incentive that's contemplated here is you can't write a law that says, yeah, sympathetic homeowners in Somerville can kind of have a lot of leeway, whereas these

developers that bother everybody can't you know law doesn't allow us to do that so I as I understand that this is kind of trying to get at that issue and I understand that you know I will just not to spout off but I follow some of these developers on Instagram the super active ones in Somerville because you get a sense of where what they're doing and how they and Yesterday or the day before, there's a development on Albion Street across from the playground. They just took down a garage and they posted a video today that was like an AI graphic of a missile hitting it. exploding it and then like demo completed and then you know little time lapse of their project going on And it was just revulsive, repulsive, you know, just really, really gross. If that's the way that they're thinking about their relationship with the neighbors, I can understand why people can't stand them.

And I, you know, I kind of viscerally share that like, yeah, we have a cool conversation about housing supply, but the way that these folks interact with Somerville residents is often despicable. That all said, I really share the feeling of what Councilor McLaughlin just said. I think there are going to be a lot of situations where it is the right thing to do for this to be sold as a condo. and I think my concern here is that this would mean you know basically this doesn't happen you know this happens maybe once or twice every couple of years when someone gets the money together to build one of these things but I think This would effectively mean, you know, these really, really, really rarely happen. And I'm not sure that I'm ready to make that decision. So with that, Deputy Director, do you want to add in?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So thank you for the feedback. And just, yeah, hearing, you know, what you're seeing and that behavior is definitely something that is a concern of the division and certainly something that we would would not be in any way trying to condone in any manner. However, the zoning ordinance does not regulate condominiums as was stated in the proposal. So these new Dwelling units may be for sale condos or rental apartments. And actually going to the ADU law that was passed by the state, it's pretty explicit that, you know, you do not regulate ownership and, you know, our McLaughlin's

Points of not getting into the details of regulating to that extent and allowing housing to be able to be produced. and based on the market and also like just the flow and the ability to be able to produce these types of structures. So with that being said, again, I know that this is going to be kind of a We're currently working on a maintenance amendment. So again, reconciling. Some of the issues that are brought to light by the amendment and we're working to fix definitions in the ordinance including confusion around some terminology. particularly related to you know accessory buildings versus structures and are anticipated to bring that forward following recess but we I just do want to reiterate that the zoning currently does not you know does not regulate condominiums as was stated so thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of weigh in or respond to the discussion about the ownership and I I appreciate the input. I'll continue to listen as my view kind of is formed. But I do want to just sort of put I completely agree that it's clear, it's inarguable that more housing is needed regionally. Much like I'm not compelled, as my colleagues have said, that anything we do here or don't hear is going to in any way impact gentrification, I also don't think there's...

Any way that anything we do with these amendments is going to impact the housing market in any material, substantive way, even a sub-material way, frankly. And I think that... The sort of cost-benefit is something that, for me at least, is important to think about. When you say accessory dwelling unit, I was going back to sort of what I thought we were talking about when we passed zoning. I thought we were talking about an accessory to the primary unit and that therefore there would be common ownership. Never occurred to me that people would be selling office condos. And so I, you know, I'm not really moved by an argument that, you know, however, so I guess, let me try to get this to a finer point here. and directly in response to Mr. Chair, your point that there might only be a very, very few of these. That might be the case. And I would hope it's not.

I was sort of hoping there would be you know a reasonable number but I'm not sure there only being a very very few of these is better than the alternative of you know something that Allows developers to continue with the practices that you've described. I think there's a real argument that, you know, What we gain in terms of extra housing is not going to be meaningful either way and therefore we should very much keep in mind sort of the other factors, the impacts on neighbors and all of that. and in the meantime build a lot more housing in the corridors and in the squares which we where we absolutely can do it and and make at least Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McLaughlin.

Thanks, Chair. Just some closing thoughts on this. A.D.U. and I do question you know it doesn't solve the problem that people are bringing up So, say a developer buys... Which they've done well before any sort of zoning changes we've made. Developer buys a unit... decides to gut it, make it into three units with an ADU in the back and makes them all rental. That developer still owns all the units and it is not owned by the tenants who live there. so it doesn't mean just even if you make it rental doesn't mean that it's you know your grandparents living in the garage or your kids living in the garage. There's no way to really control that.

I just don't see the rationale behind the condo versus rental discussion.

Thank you, Councillor Clingan.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. Just on that point, Councillor Guadalupe just said, yeah. I think that's the point, though, is that they wouldn't get built most likely but you would have maybe a garage that would but you could still add units if somebody wanted to add it if somebody wanted to build something and there would still be a unit added to the market that just wouldn't Be this juicy, you know, wouldn't make the land just like skyrocket in value. So, you know, that I just want to say that because I mean, I hear what you're saying. And I know they're either going to be built or not built. And I think this would probably, you know, obviously damper building, which again, that's why, you know, if that's doesn't sound like that's the direction anybody wants to go in. And also, I think it's just a moot point like we discussed. I don't know that this is something that we should be making a column. But I imagine a lot of scenarios where

There's a garage and someone wants to convert it and they would be by law able to do that still where they wouldn't have before the state's legislation and so on. and even back in the day though that was something that you know not us but people balked at the idea of even having more people on a plot of land we've really you know kind of done a 360 on a lot of that

Thank you. Councilor McLaughlin on that? Yeah, I'll try to make a final thought. But if the intention is to not allow it to get built, then I'm absolutely opposed to it. One is it would probably violate the state law, which allows ADUs across the state. And it would also go against our own intentions, the very well stated intentions of ADUs to allow this to happen. under the right circumstances with the right dimensions. So if we want to have a conversation about what the building looks like, how big it should be, I'm okay with that. But if we're talking about let's make sure that this just doesn't happen, then I don't support it.

Thank you, Councilor. All right. Let's leave this one in committee as well, and we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is 260328. 14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend 12.2.2 regarding affordable dwelling units. Give the clerk a moment to pull up the text here. So my understanding of this proposed amendment is that it would say if you split a lot, and you are making five or more units then our 20% inclusionary kicks in on the total number of units after the lot has been split.

currently after a lot is split they're two independent projects neither one of them triggers inclusionary our neighborhood residence zoning district does not have inclusionary requirements this would change that So I guess, you know, my fundamental question on this that I just want to ask off the top, this to me is kind of an empirical question. If it is possible for us to make this change and actually get affordable units built successfully... Wonderful, you know, like how could anybody oppose that? The concern that I would have, I know that the city just commissioned this study of our inclusionary policies and the challenges in the market because we're honestly, you know, have not seen any housing starts citywide basically. We have developers across the city saying they can't make 20% work even on huge projects. So my question is really what is that report or other data show us on this proposal?

Because I think the concern for me would be that this would, in effect, say, you know, this never happens. Like... These no housing projects like this ever happen in the city. Some might support that. I'm not ready to support that. And if that is what we want to say, I think we should say that instead of bringing an affordable requirement in. So I guess for me, it's kind of an empirical question. If this is a way to legitimately get new affordable units, amazing. If it is going to make the projects not at all pencil and we can see that ahead of time, I'd like to know that. Councilor Clingan.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I see another scenario where they just find another loophole where, and I would like to ask staff this, if they're able to, so say there's a lot. They split the lot and they create another LLC. Can they sell it to that LLC? Do they become two separate entities, two separate projects? How would we regulate that?

Mr. Chair, yes, that's my understanding is they've become two separate entities and regulated separately. But I can also follow up and get more information about those particular types of scenarios.

I don't think I'm giving any developers any ideas here on film because I'm pretty sure they'll figure that out on their own pretty quickly. I know I have one right now actually where it wasn't to avoid this, but just maybe because they wanted to. 16 Edgar Ave. was split and then a developer One popular developer sold it to another popular developer to build on the other piece of land. I guess they just didn't want to build more. I don't know why they did that for whatever their reasons, but... So it just dawned on me that I think that, you know, they'd probably just find another workaround.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor McLaughlin?

Thank you, Chair. Through you to Ms. DiMartino. My first question is, can we do this if we wanted to?

So thank you to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Councilor. So we are... So I'll highlight some concerns that we have off the bat that may bring to light. And obviously, we do need to continue to dissect the findings from the studies that were done by the housing division, the inclusionary study, as well as the housing needs assessment. Thank you so much for joining us. We also have some concerns regarding affordable housing requirements in the NR district that were discussed. They were repealed in 2023 as part of the MBTA community compliance, but this amendment would create a new affordable housing requirement for some lots in that district.

And those lots would be disqualified from... MBTA Communities Compliance and reduce the number of Somerville's qualifying lots. So we're obviously not trying to work against the progress that we made at that time. And that is a top concern of ours. Plus, the city is really experiencing the lowest level of housing development it's seen in decades. The little development that is happening is primarily construction of new houses, triple deckers, backyard cottages on existing lots. that had a smaller home originally or a double wide lots that are being divided into two normal sized lots. and affordable housing requirement on a two to four unit development would likely cause that type of development to cease entirely so the question is really like and what we're trying to hear from you all really is If we can versus if we should.

So we do have some concerns. And again, we're going to be diving into and providing kind of a more formalized response. But we... To kind of, we are, we do have concerns about the feasibility of this long-winded answer.

Well, thank you for the long-winded answer because you answered my second question, which was, will this violate our MBTA communities compliance? But when I ask if we can do this or not, and I think this is what you might have meant through the chair, if you could explain the uniformity part, is... The split lot is determined by the size of the project, correct? The amount of land and the amount of building you're going to make.

Through the Chair, yes.

So I'm wondering if we can say, okay, well, you can't build a triple-decker here. You can only build four units, and one of them has to be affordable. Could we even tell someone to do that in and in our district if they're allowed to split the lots? Does that make sense?

Yes. Through the chair, we could. Yes. Okay. Yes. But just the kind of the issues that we're talking about is like could and should is like the... What we're, you know, gathering more feedback on now.

Okay, thank you. Can you explain the uniformity clause, please?

Sure. So I am not a complete expert in this, I will admit, but this was flagged by our director. So the uniformity clause, it Does, well, you know, I think that there's a lot of different ways to apply it. And I actually, if, give me one second here, let me pull up my...

No problem.

so it's yeah it's it's a kind of wonky because it does a uniformity like applies in like different types of contexts uh concerning like mainly taxes and making sure that the taxes are uniformly applied. I can... And I apologize for not having the full kind of understanding for this meeting, but I am definitely happy to gather that information and prepare a more professional response to that question.

Okay, I see that our liaison Samantha Carr has her hand up. Do you want to share your thoughts as well? Welcome. And just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Absolutely, Chair. Samantha Carr, Land Use Analyst with City Clerk's Office. Apologies, my voice is a little in and out today. But if it would be helpful for folks, I'm happy to provide a bit of context. This was something I'd... I encountered as well thinking about the uniformity clause for this particular amendment so my understanding and I'm happy to defer to staff to this as well but that there must be uniformity within a district for each class or kind of structure or use permitted And so I think where this scenario would be triggered is if we were to allow a triple-decker buy-right with an accessory dwelling unit or backyard cottage in an existing lot and that would not trigger an affordability requirement versus if a lot split was happening and those two lots are discreet now allowing up to a triple decker and a backyard cottage

slash accessory dwelling unit in the back to introduce that affordability requirement particular in that scenario would Technically not be a uniform treatment of what would be considered like to like properties on an individual lot basis. So that's kind of my understanding of how that would come into effect. And then I guess building on Councillor Clingan's point from earlier. If this was a phased approach to development, say if a developer were to hold a lot and not build immediately, how would that type of piece be governed outside a compliance perspective, which is more speaking to the uniformity piece of things? Just wanted to add those thoughts there.

Thank you very much. That's helpful to understand what the concern could be. Absolutely. Colleagues, are there additional thoughts, questions on this one? Okay, so I think we have a couple questions outstanding for planning. And when we next have this an agenda, we can dig more into the details. Okay, so this brings us to the last of the four, 260327, 29 registered voters requesting an amendment to 15.7.2.D. Zoning Board of Appeals Board Rules So this has to do with lot splits. So... Deputy Director, do you want to explain what the proposed amendment seeks to do?

Sure, absolutely. So the proposed amendment basically is requiring that the ZBA amend Section 15.7.2. to allow the DB to have jurisdiction over lot splits. So currently that is an administrative approach Approval, Review and Approval rather by staff. So that does, what that does is basically avoids having to have a hearing process over kind of what should be a relatively like straight straightforward Process, more or less.

you know neighbors do want to be aware of development that's going on um you know in their neighborhood and next to them but identifying that what development activity does not require site plan approval in the ordinance would likely be a comparison that we would need to I think, you know, we need we do as staff need to ensure that we're maybe elaborating a little bit about how we can improve this process without having to insist. Install a discretionary approval. There are ways and we are looking at examples from other areas across the nation for how to basically inform of Residents about more construction management and those types of concerns that we're hearing over and over again. People will approach and say, oh, I didn't realize this was being built. It's very loud. It's very noisy.

It's intruding on my life, which is very understandable. But we as a division do feel that there are ways to address this. The concern that's rooted in this amendment through other mechanisms outside of zoning and trying not to inhibit the ability to pursue an administrative review and approval of a lot split and giving that Thank you, Deputy Director.

So I have a question that I've been trying to understand and don't feel like I totally get it. So what we're talking about here is the zoning ordinance defines the minimum lot size and dimensions. and currently if you have a lot that is more than twice as large as that it's an administrative process because you're because you are splitting into two lots that are compliant under the current zoning Can you speak to us or if not, you know, off the cuff, come back with an answer? How is this dealt with statewide? Do you happen to know that?

So, Mr. Chair, there is a lot of communities in similar size to Somerville that do address this in the manner that Somerville does. There are some smaller communities that do have a more formal approach. and discretionary process. In the community that I was previously working in, this was treated as an approval not required, which was more or less Treated exactly as it is now, just through a different regulatory mechanism. But if there was frontage, and you met the minimum standards of the zoning, you were able to divide your lot in this manner. So it's very similar to what is going on in Somerville and we do see that this type of review, a ZBA review for a lot split is uncommon.

Okay, but in Somerville, it used to be, right? We had a home rule allowance to do this until soon after the zoning overhaul. Is that about right? yes okay um colleagues i have i have some thoughts on this i'm interested to hear what colleagues think Well, let me just throw one thought out there. So I think this, I very much understand the frustration, right? Because if you've lived in a neighborhood for a long time where there has been A lot with a bunch of nice open space. Say there's mature trees there. There's housing on it, but there's also open space. And then with no warning, all of a sudden, 60% of the lot is covered by buildings.

and you didn't get a chance to have any say in that I completely understand the frustration around that I think where I'm struggling is when we undertook the zoning overhaul In a lot of ways, the main thing that I was hearing from people was that all development requires special permits, variances, and because of that, It was felt like a pay to play system, right? It felt like you had to have the right lawyer and you had to have the right relationship with the zoning board and the only people who could do anything. You had to feel connected. and I know that I certainly resented that system I think a lot of people in the public did and the goal was to have a uniform set of rules and say this is what's legal This is a minimum lot size. This is what size buildings we allow. Don't come and ask us for special permissions. Obviously, there are still cases where people might need variances. There are special permits.

But as a general matter, we're going to tell you what is legal and what is not legal. Go with God. I'm not saying that's the perfect system, but that certainly was kind of the intention for me, at least in the overlay, in the overhaul. And the challenge here is it almost, it feels as if we're saying, The minimum lot size that we have decided, now we're going back on that. Actually, we're not comfortable with that and we're going to make it quite hard to achieve that. I'm going to speak on personal experience. There's a large lot right across the street from my house that for many years, many, many years, over 100 years, it was almost like a farm site. It had one farm building on it and this large, beautiful lot. It's been redeveloped now with three buildings on it. It was really stressful for my neighbors, you know, because it was a little oasis.

I think the outcome is okay and people are fine with it now, but it was a very painful experience. Also, I really do struggle with the idea that we should make the minimum lot size a lot larger in Somerville. I mean, I just think every piece of reading that I've done on urban zoning is... Minimum lot sizes that are very large have been used as an exclusionary tool and has made housing more expensive statewide. As Councilor Davis said, we're not going to solve that problem here in Somerville single-handedly. but I do think you know first best principles still best practices still apply so my view on this is if we think we got the minimum lot size wrong we should approach that for sure But I don't really like the idea of saying the minimum lot size is X, but then actually it's not in practice. It's really, really hard to achieve that. That's where I'm struggling with this. Colleagues, anyone want to jump in on this one?

Staff, Councilor McLaughlin.

You continue to show us why you're the class of the council. I just want to agree with your sentiments there. And again, I think this just comes circling back to what do we want an ADU to look like? What do we want? To allow to be built in the community. I think there's room to work within state law. to address the main concerns but when we started this venture into triple deckers and ADUs and It was to stop the nonstop zoning board meetings about someone's backyard and the constant neighborhood fights over what someone's going to do with their property. So I do believe that there's a more scientific approach. No wonder that a scientist would feel this way to address neighborhood concerns.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Clingan.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, you know, thank you. You know, as somebody who served on the council when we did have a lot of those meetings, I do understand the folks' anxiety around, you know, just what feels like we're kind of just given a you know free reign but again I think what those meetings ultimately did a lot of the time I think at the end folks felt like the fix was in because ultimately Somebody can do with their property, with their land, you know, what's allowed under the law. So even after all those meetings, typically we're in the same place. So I think just putting a meeting, a public hearing. Up is really just going to delay anything unless, like you said, once we're thinking about the lot size itself not being correct. So, yeah, I don't think going back to, you know, again, understanding the anxiety people feel when, like you said,

Thank you for joining us. The reality that we all live in, the house next door to me is on the market. I fully expect my life to be living a nightmare for the next couple of years. And I'm losing a great neighbor. But yeah, I agree with everything you said.

Thank you, Counselor. Additional comments? Questions? I guess it would be helpful for me to the extent that this is accessible information. I would love to know kind of Thank you for joining us. So that's a piece of homework that I'd be interested in getting to the extent as possible. Councilor Clingan.

Mr. President, thank you through you to Mr. Martino. So just so I'm clear in terms of the record, really with all of these items tonight, it sounds like some that the city is actually working on. This particular one, did I hear an official opinion from the city, or is there going to be an opinion in writing at some point to these items? That's all.

Through you, Mr. Chair. So we can most certainly provide a formalized opinion in writing. We do share a concern with this. because conducting a full site plan approval process for outlaw splits or this type of land planning, it doesn't always involve new construction. And the lots must be 100% compliant with regulation. So we are obviously trying to make sure that we're not going against our overarching goals of Summer Vision 2040 and all the other studies that have been done. to make sure that we're not creating any onerous process for folks that are trying to do this. um this would require site plan approval for all lot splits including those in the affordable housing overlay um so we need to evaluate um

like what you know the development that would need an exception to that so we you know again like we are continuing to analyze um but our you know our opinion really is that we do acknowledge that There is public interest in knowing about by-right development that does not need to have an additional level of approval beyond administrative staff review. Again, we're researching methods from other communities and areas across the nation that address concerns of neighbors, particularly communities. Regarding construction management and the impact that that has to everyone's daily life, we would like to share that raising awareness doesn't always... Wait to making everything require a permit. So, you know, that's, you know, that that is really something that we are considering.

want to uphold and obviously we are willing to work with the council and the public and hear concerns and you know we'll again provide additional information and analysis to support to kind of provide, I guess, more additional information and support the council in making their decision, including getting some of that analysis done for the chair. But that would be, you know, that is our position and you know and again can provide a written that in writing as well for the council excellent thank you deputy director thank you councillor

So, colleagues, big picture, what I've heard tonight is that there is interest from the council and from the administration on proposing amendments to the Backyard Cottage Act. Dimensions, Size, Layout And there is also interest in looking at further some of the legal issues raised around the affordable housing requirements and whether that would produce actual affordable housing. and that there's follow-up questions on several of these and we've also heard that we can expect the administration is going to kind of put in a relevant amendment of their own probably after the summer recess So that's where things stand now. And I want to thank everyone, very much the proponents who put this in and everyone who showed up at the public hearing. I think this has kickstarted an important conversation.

and thank you to staff and colleagues for your thoughts on this tonight. It sounds like we have a bunch of work ahead of us. Are there any further questions comments that people want to make before we adjourn tonight? Excellent. Well, thank you all for your time. We're going to leave all these items in committee except for the approval of the minutes. And I'd like to move for approval of those minutes and to adjourn in a single vote.

And on approval of the minutes of the land use committee meeting of May 7th, 2026 and on adjournment, Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Clingan?

Yes.

Councilor Seay is absent. Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Excellent. Thank you all. See you this weekend.