Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 08-05-2026

It is now 6 p.m. Welcome to the August 5th, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight I will serve as your acting chair and Brockelman. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals will be conducted via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the City's website There are four voting members on the board tonight. They Olivia Mobayed, Brian Cook who will also be your acting clerk tonight and myself and Brockelman. The City of Somerville staff joining us this evening are Kit Luster

Alvaro Esparza, Lexi Payne and Kelly McLaughlin. We have general business which is approval of the meeting minutes. The clerk, Mr. Cook? You're muted.

I move to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2026 Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

Do we have a second?

Seconded.

Any discussion? I see nos. We'll do a roll call vote. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed? Nay. Zach Zaremba? Yes. Myself and Brockelman, motion passes. We're going to take a few things out of order. There are two cases requesting continuance, so that's 22 Park Avenue The applicant has requested a continuance to the August 19th, 2026 ZBA meeting. Kit is this voting or it's just a notification to the public?

Just a notification since they've signed the form.

Okay, the next case is 17 Monmouth Street, ZP 2600043 also requesting a continuance to the August 19th, 2026 ZBA meeting. Now still under general business it's not a vote well We have Clarendon Hill 34 North Street Comprehensive Permit Revision. So there is no legal notice, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. This is just a... this is a Revision to a comprehensive permit or a 40B application. And so the board must determine if these changes are substantial or insubstantial based on the criteria that was provided in the staff memo But we'll still have the applicant team who I have begun to promote give a presentation of the changes. and I would just ask if there's anyone else here to speak for this application. If they could just raise their hand from the applicant team, then I'll promote you to panelist.

Is everyone here from the Applicant Team? I see icon Architecture. Just a reminder, please still state your name and address each time you speak for the audio. So whenever you're ready.

Okay, let's see. Do I share my screen here?

You can. Kit?

Sure.

You should be able to share your screen now.

Is everyone able to see the photo, the image?

Not yet.

Hmm.

Hey folks, is this for Clarendon Hill?

This is for 88 Winslow or is it not?

No, we are doing Clarendon Hill.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not up yet then. I jumped the gun.

Next one will be 88 Wenslow and two Carver and then 74 Moreland. Okay. Great.

So let's see, my name is Kendra Halliwell I'm from ICON Architecture I'm here with Vita Sklovski who is from POA, The Proponent and my colleague Tim Sinan is here as well. Vita can you turn on your camera? Not sure if you can. But I will share screen to get us going. All right, you can see my screen?

Yes, I can.

Okay. Vida, can we hear you? Let's see. She was here just a second ago. All right. Well, we might just dig in and get started anyway. We can always back up if we need to but I'm not sure what's happened there. Is she coming back? All right, we might just backup for Vita's slides if we need to. So we are here to discuss Clarendon Hill for some minor modifications, and the project is currently starting its second phase.

We've built the first phase, which was building E. 168 units in a brand new building which is depicted here. It opened to great fanfare last fall and residents moved in, and everybody is comfortable and happy. So there are additional phases to follow. We have been through a number of iterations here. As often happens with the large-scale master plan, some overtime revisions come up So we're showing here the overall process. Our initial 40B approval came through on September 30th in 2020, six years ago. And we returned to the zoning board in 2022, 23 and 25 for some minor modifications for that first phase.

We're here today to talk through some minor revisions to the phasing, the site layout for the townhouse and building D parcels. Zoning setback revisions that are relatively minor will speak about the tree approach, tree planting approach and then building material refinement. Okay. So I want to start by saying a big thanks to the team at The City who've been incredibly helpful at shepherding this process along. Everything we're talking about today has been reviewed with The City's staff. We'll touch on the phasing updates, but first off we are requesting a couple of new waivers. We'll discuss each of these in more depth with the graphics. Everything's better with pictures.

So first off, the 40B approval is prescriptive. So we are here to modify the zoning simply because the phasing changed. Specifically, the parcel for buildings A and B has shifted from being in the first phase to being in last as Phase 3. And there is some minor overlap at the Woonerf and Construction access that will be included as part of Phase 2. We'll review each of these layout modifications in more depth. This is just an overall summary. Phase 2 consists of three blocks, including Building D with 58 new apartments. The townhomes with 34 new homes. There are new streets and the Central Park. At Building D Head Start programming has been added.

We'd like to locate this play area proximate to the indoor space, shifting the community gardens to the corner by the North Street Park. The Woonove Plaza would shift up the hill a little closer to the front door of Building E. Eversource requirements have called for greater access to the transformer with a new location off North Street. We request a waiver for this location being in the frontage zone. So now we'll speak about the townhouse sites. We propose combining two buildings into a single building that will have 11 houses in a row. As the maximum allowed in a room is only 10, we request a waiver for this eleventh.

We worked with the City to best configure the trash and recycling enclosure, and to include ADA parking spaces resulting in a parking reduction by two spaces. Nothing changed with the transformer location on the townhouse parcel. We just missed the frontage zone waiver earlier in the process, so we're requesting that now The bike storage was located in the middle where that orange circle is. We would shift the bike storage to the perimeter of the block In the frontage zone, creating an internal plaza for residents to use and enjoy in the center of the block. Now we'll speak to some zoning setbacks We propose a few adjustments around Building D. All of these dimensions comply with the underlying zoning and are less than about an eight inch change.

At the townhouse buildings, the buildings have shifted to accommodate ADA access at the front doors and to provide a pathway through the site behind the buildings and through that plaza I just spoke of. These revisions range from less than two inches to just under four feet in building shift between the buildings. The project's Chapter 40B approval is based on maintaining the site's overall tree caliper, a commitment that we will uphold. When this project began, there were no streets, no street trees on the site. The proposed development adds both new streets and new street trees with locations that are being carefully reviewed by the cities Public Space, Urban Forestry and Mobility Divisions.

Lastly, exterior building material color selections for Building D will align with the colors we selected for Phase 1 with warm tones at the building base and accents on the bays. At the townhouses, we propose a simple palette arrayed by building rather than by random arrangement. So thank you, thank you all and I'm going to stop sharing. We're very happy to come back and review anything that you like but we are requesting approval of these minor modifications to our zoning for phase two.

Thank you for a clear presentation I'm going to ask staff again Do we open for public comment for 40B?

No, there's no public comment.

Just making sure I get the protocols right as acting chair. Thank you. So board discussion. As we are here, to determine whether the modifications are substantial or insubstantial. If the board feels that they are minor and it's substantial, then we would vote approve There were four, is that right? Did we vote on them together, staff or one by one?

In your motion, should you move to approve the- You determine that they're insubstantial and then to modify the waivers from the original

Approval. I think we could show the slide and then go one by one that might, you know, we could see if there was any discussion or questions

That you'd like me to share again? Okay. Let me get back to the beginning of the presentation. I'm not quite sure. There we go. End of slideshow. All right. Oh, first of all the two waivers. Can you see my screen yet? There we go now you can. Let me pull my notes out of the way. Can

Yes.

Great okay so Kit would you like me to talk through these or do you want to talk

I think if you have anything else to add and then you can pass it over back to the board to discuss.

Sure, sure. I think I'd love to note on this one that So there are these two specific waivers. I think what is important to note is that, and I did mention it in the presentation, but just to touch on it here, for Building D, the transformer moved Moved, and is in the frontage zone. Whereas for the townhomes it has always been shown in that location where just Following up with the waiver to fit what was approved.

Yes, and again for the public the waiver is because transformers are not allowed on property frontage zone you know For instance, of keeping the pedestrian frontage view of the project nice. Are you mitigating that with planting?

Yeah, I have a blow up of that a little later on. We would love to put plantings around these where we are allowed within compliance with the utility company.

Because they require clear... Clearance, right, right. And these are on a concrete pad?

Yes, it'll be on a concrete pad. If you bear with me I'm just going to scroll through to find that location. So for the townhouses it is here we do have a couple of big bushes buffering it from the nearby building But it is right at the back of the sidewalk.

And, of course, that is what Eversource wants.

Yes, yes. If I go back a couple of slides similarly, the proposed location There's a little more buffer space around this one because it's in the park or in that corner landscaped area.

Any concerns from the board? No, okay so let's go to the next one Okay, what's the next waiver?

Sorry I'm just going to come back here. Thanks for bearing with me right so this is for 11 row houses in sequence and I think this was interesting because it actually falls within another waiver. It's just another line item there There we are. So initially there were two separate buildings. I'm actually going to scroll up. Right, so two separate buildings. These three townhouses faced Mary Louise Daly Street and then this other block the larger block face the park and what we propose It'd be a single row of homes that face the park. I believe there's a bay on this end of the building, and this does allow easier access along the front.

So it was three facing Page North and then it was eight, three plus eight. Correct. And now 11 in a row facing the park to the right of it. which you have improved by removing the bicycle parking is that right?

Right, the bike parking was back it was right here yes and here yeah um Could I ask, could you see if Vida might be allowed to be a panelist again so that she can join?

I see her name. So she is a panel and she's not muted. Try to speak up again.

Be great for her to join us.

It does look like there's also a Vita that is just an attendee, might be calling in from two devices.

Okay, she says she's on as an attendee. Would it be possible to re-invite her maybe?

Yes, she is in.

Awesome. Wonderful. You're right, I do see two. Vida, are you there?

I think it's okay then. Okay. Was there something we were hoping she would be adding?

She is our client. She's the proponent here as speaking for the developer, so it would be great if she could join.

Is it due to grade change? Could you explain that a little bit more?

Yes. Due to the grade, yes. It's a very steep slope. A steeply sloping site and so we've worked to provide Accessible front entries at each of the front doors for each of these townhomes. And so this helps us do that

I'm not sure I completely understand which, where is the grade pitching from plan north to south? Yeah.

Right, so it's a very steep site. The top of the hill is along North Street and Powder House. So essentially this point here is the top of A pretty significant grade change that we're mitigating through the park in the middle. So, the low point is to the left-hand side. The high point is

So again, going back to the spirit of the ordinance, the reason there is some kind of limit to units in a row is to break down the scale so we don't have... A huge block of 20 units continuously. It broke into two and now it's connected. Any concerns from the board? Do we feel like this is still insubstantial Enough? Okay. Let's move on then.

I'm going to scroll up just to make sure we're hitting each of these. So, these are the different locations and I do have a slide for each one So those were the waivers that we just discussed, the transformer and the 11 units in a row. There was the community gardens were behind the building and we've pulled that forward in order to accommodate space for the Head Start playground.

I don't have any concerns what about board members okay Sorry to have to do this twice, but first we've digested it and now we're... Making the decisions as we go.

No, I appreciate it. I think this is a good approach. This works. So here, the WUNRF is essentially a plaza area that connects Building E to Clarendon Common, to the park in the middle. And again because of grading and coordination. We have shifted the Woonerf uphill just a little bit in order, and we're also coordinating with PSUF regularly to work through The process of building part of it in phase one and part of It in phase two.

Okay, and the objective that we want is to slow down traffic for safety and you feel like Nothing's changed with regard to that function.

Nothing substantively, if anything we've really refined and sort of sharpened the pencils on the real details around it for example we've included textured paving around the edges so that people are aware that they're coming to something different there are ramps that are right slopes in the roadway For the car to go up before they go across it. So really just refining the design with, uh, with the city's input and that's in process. Okay, great next one Next one is, we did speak about this earlier the transformer location.

Okay let's keep moving then.

Great whoops okay combining the two townhouses into one I think we touched on that already The parking reduction through this reconfiguration to create the trash and recycling enclosure and the ADA parking near townhouses in the park.

So are you adding ADA parking or just the same number reconfigured? You're losing two standard spaces.

right in order to so i highlighted in red here where we lost a couple of spaces because we're making this crosswalk This is the previously approved here, and then the proposed on the right-hand side. So there's a little crossing here that can happen from the block to the park in and the parking is straddling around the trash enclosure. So as a result, we lost a couple of spaces both for getting right... We lost one space for this space between the ADA parking spaces and then we lost another one in making space enough for the trash enclosure you know we push and pull as the design process it process goes there are little adjustments everywhere we do our best to keep the parking count But this is, you know trash and ADA parking are just as important.

Any concerns from the board? Okay looks like refinement yes Thank you for joining us.

Recommend we'd like to shift the bike racks to the perimeter of the site and create the seating area internal that's off the connecting pathway.

Any questions, comments from the board? Okay, I think that's an improvement in the center.

Thank you, we agree. We're getting there, the zoning setbacks here. These building D has pretty large setbacks and minor revisions here.

I think eight inches we don't need to discuss.

On this slide I added a little more information. There is a property line between the two blocks, between E2 and E1 so some of the dimensional Some of the dimensional revisions are sort of imaginary, right in the back. So that's where this is almost three feet and almost four feet. Where I think it's more meaningful is right out along the sidewalk to the property line. Out here, and I believe on note that so from this building up here to the sidewalk. The property line is closer to the building The sidewalk is further away, so we've tried to maintain approximately 5 feet from the building to the sidewalk. Up here along Powderhouse Boulevard, we lost about six inches so it's four and a half feet from the back of the sidewalk. So that still feels comfortable

Down here at the bottom of the page, 0.1 feet it's less than two inches I think that's minimal then here towards the park this building you know these buildings are We're putting a lot on the site. We're being sensitive to how close things are to each other. We have shifted this Townhouse 1 building 2.9 feet towards the park. So that's probably that closest area and biggest change that we see on the site.

Thank you. Board members, almost three feet still de minimis within this scale of this huge project. Agreed? Thank you, next.

Great. So the tree planting and we reviewed the approved 40B language The commitment is to maintain the caliper size across the site. And so that is what we are committing to. There's a little give and take here, I'll say. There may be variation in tree count but we are committing to maintaining the caliper across the site which is what the commitment is for the 40B. We're still in process. The third phase is still coming. We are still going to look for adding street trees and internal site trees wherever possible. but want to make sure that we are clear that we're maintaining the caliper size.

So, the requirement is all phases combined? The final? Yes. phase check in right uh so we appreciate that and the the caliper is a total so instead of six inch you can do two three inch

Right, right. Or conversely you could do instead of a four inch we could do a six inch in several cases so the commitment is there and that's what we want to reiterate.

Okay, and again the caliper total is also aggregate?

Yes. A sum number total? Correct for when the project is complete so you're right this is sort of a check-in

So you are tracking, but no concerns that you would not be able to meet the goals at this point?

No. I think we're committed and comfortable with that promise.

Thank you. Okay.

All right, lastly the two last two topics or one topic that exterior building material colors.

Board members? Thank you for both the larger building and the row houses. Yes.

Wonderful. We greatly appreciate everybody's attention. I know this is a lot of material to cover and to review, and we appreciate it very much.

Presenting the information into bite-sized bits before and after very clearly. So it sounds like we could be, it could be one vote. Brian Cook or clerk please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I move to approve as insubstantial the 40B comprehensive permit waiver modifications and new waivers for 34 North Street, Clarendon Hill. Based upon the conditions, findings and recommendations as discussed and found in the July 30th, 2026 staff memo.

Do we have a second?

Seconded.

Seconded by Zach Zaremba, roll call vote. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed?

Aye

Myself and Brockelman, I motion passes four votes. That's unanimous for today. Thank you and good luck.

Thank You all.

We'll have to visit the completed phase

We'll have a party in the park.

Okay, thank you. I neglected to state that for hardship variances tonight Because there are only four votes, hardship variances need all four votes. That's for the applicants to understand and I'll ask again at the beginning of each case if they did want to proceed or continue. So our next, our case to open is 88 Winslow. Mr. Cook will you open the case?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'm opening 88 Winslow Avenue ZP 26-000044 Adam Dash Esquire on behalf of Theodore W. Landman and Elizabeth Ann Keller proposed to expand a nonconformity for the roof line to add livable space of a two-family dwelling in the neighborhood residence NR Zoning District, which requires a Section 6 finding.

Good evening. Mr. Dash, your team, everybody here?

We still need Liz Keller promoted.

And I see a hand raised. Is that part of your team?

Yes, Liz Keller and Alex LeBlanc are both for us.

I see Isamu Kanda with... Yeah, he's on the panelist.

I'm talking about the attendees. Osama's already been promoted. But we need to still promote Liz. Oh, no, it looks like you did. All right. Thank you. Yeah, Adam Dash 48 Grove Street representing Theo Landman and Liz Keller who are the part owners in the applicants and residents of the top four unit at ADA Winslow with us are Theo and Liz. and Isamu Kanda and Alex LeBlanc of Ikonda Architects. And he logged on because you said Icon Architects, and he thought you said Ikonda architects, and that's why he- I see. Thought you were calling our case. That's quite the coincidence. I could share screen here if i may let me just grab that and then i'll show you what we're talking about here real quick. Let me just get that going

All right, so you should be able to see that. It's the building here of the more modern building on the right in this picture So this is an existing three and a half story, two unit detached triple decker structure at 88 Winslow which is at the corner of Winslowe Avenue and Clifton Street by Davis Square. As you can see the structure was constructed in 2004. So let me go to the next, here's another view of it from the other angle so you can that there So the structure, this is on the top. The structure currently has a very large roof deck as you can see accessible through the upper floor unit by means of a ladder. The roof deck has no shade as you It is not terribly inviting and it does not get much use. You can see that here, This is the assessor's map, this number 12 here at the corner of Winslow and Morrison.

This is 88 Winslowe that we're talking about So the proposal is to expand the existing top floor living space by about 104 square feet so very small and to change the roof line from pitch to flat, and we'll show you this in a moment. and while the building is not getting any taller changing this technically from the pitched to flat makes the building go from three-and-a-half stories to four stories which requires a special permit under Mass General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6. This change reduces the roof deck by that 104 square feet but as you saw from the picture it's still going to leave a very large roof deck. To make that roof deck More usable. Theo and Liz are proposing trellises, a pergola up there, and an exterior staircase. The exterior staircase is in blue on here. All of that is by right.

Pergola, the trellises in this exterior staircase they're not before you tonight I'm just trying to give you the flavor of what's going on here um this special permit tonight is just to expand the existing non-conforming roof line and to expand the living space and change the roof line from pitch-to-flat as I described. So, I'm going to hand this over Ikonda, Isamo to walk you through the details and then I will come back and sum up. or Alex whichever of you is going to take this one yeah my video is disabled that's fine you can just talk okay tell me when you want me to change screen that's

Okay, so we have the existing massing on the left and the proposed on the right. So as Adam mentioned it's a very large Roof deck on the flat roof, but it's difficult to use. It's sort of exposed. There's no shade and additionally it's accessed from the top floor which if you zoom in a little bit it's four or five feet below the level of the deck.

Well, I guess I don't want to do that because I'm just going to go ahead.

So still talking about the image on the left but so to get out to the deck from the top floor you kind of have to go up what's essentially a sort of a ladder and then come out through a very short sort of hobbit door. So our proposal is to essentially move that end wall with the door and move that out four feet so we're actually reducing the size of the roof deck by four feet um and creating giving that 104 square feet to the top floor And then we take that resulting slot in the floor and that allows us to put like a more serviceable staircase sideways. So we can get better access from the top floor to the deck and also from the main living level on the third floor up to the top So it's sort of an overall improvement via circulation in the middle of the space.

And then we are also, in doing this addition on the top floor, we're going to change to a flat roof and so we're matching exactly the height of the existing ridge But this allows us to create a very deep overhang over the south facing entryway, entry doors and just provide a little bit more protection and cover. And so we're hoping with this trellis and, you know, string some wires across and get some vines going. So we're Here's another view. And then this is existing floor plans on the left proposed on the right,

and the top floor and roof deck is shown on the top so it's hard to see the difference because it's only four feet of expansion but we are Stealing four feet from the roof deck to give to the top floor. And then you can see that staircase, it's the new staircase put in laterally to improve overall circulation and then the floor below that, the third floor we just put for reference but that's where you can see the new staircase coming down which connects the two levels of that upper unit. This is existing elevations. And this is a proposed elevation, so we're kind of completing the box in the blue.

Yeah.

again in the blue building sections and then this is a shadow studies So the pink area essentially shows the additional shadow that this addition and trellis would cast different seasons, different times of day.

As you can see, it's minimal. The gray is the existing shadows and actually some of the shadows that you're looking at are from the trellis which is by right But we put them in there just to be honest, to show the all-in. Thanks Asamo. Sure. So we're just talking about the special permit. The proposal meets the criteria for a special permit because it conforms with the purpose of summer vision in the NR zoning district by better configuring the unit to make the top floor roof deck usable, more usable. The 104 square foot increase has little impact on the large roof deck which remains Allows for a real staircase to the roof deck and allows for a home office there as you saw in the floor plan on that top floor. The structure is already non-conforming regarding height and by having a pitched roof. So changing from a pitch roof to flat roof actually brings the roof type into compliance for a detached triple-decker building type

So the creation of the fourth story here that we're talking about, which requires a special permit is really a technical change because the building as Asana stated it's not getting any taller. It facilitates transit-oriented infill development and ensures Properties can change to meet the needs of the residents, such as Liz and Theo who live in that top unit. The number of units in the building is staying at two The proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because this change will not be readily discernible from the street. It's way up on the top The roof type will be brought into conformity with the zoning ordinance by being flat and there was no appreciable change to the shadows as we showed. And they increase in the size of the top floor is very small but the benefit to Theo and Liz is very large because then they can use the roof deck and have a well laid out top floor through this change. Therefore, the applicant's request that you approve this special permit. Thank you.

Let's move to the public comment. So I'll open the public comments portion of this hearing. To the public, if you'd like to speak on this specific application please raise your hand. Staff will unmute you. So we usually give them a minute.

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

Okay, any discussions with the neighbors? Mr.

Dash and team yes we held a neighborhood meeting um i believe you have the report in the papers that we filed that was um uh god when was that april 8th yeah i believe it was something like that um so We had the neighborhood meeting and there were comments and I filed the report in the summary of all that. And the staff report actually, I believe accurately describes the comments. There was a lot of support and they were just a lot questions it didn't really seem like it was generating a whole lot of uh that looks like you have a member of the public with their hand up now but

Do we have someone who wishes to speak?

Yes, Madam Chair. We have Claire Gerner. I will just wait until the timer gets shared. You'll have two minutes to speak and if you could just state your name and address for the record. You should be all set to unmute now.

Hi, I'm so sorry. I just had a quick clarifying question. Thank you. My name is Claire Gurner. The 17 Mamas Street will be on tonight's discussion since you didn't mention it in the beginning. I just wanted to confirm if that is on tonight before I stay on, sorry.

Yes, apologies to you Claire Gurnard for that. We did announce it, I think.

Oh, I must have missed it. I'm sorry. Okay.

August 19th?

yes August 19th so August 19 okay I'm sorry I saw it in the minutes for tonight or something um I apologize yeah okay August 19 that's when we'll be on Okay, thank you. I'm so sorry. Thank you.

No problem. So again, 22 Park Avenue and 17 Monmouth Street will not be heard. Okay.

Thank You August 19th?

Yes.

Okay, Thank you have a good night

Good night. Anyone else in the public? I think we'll leave it open. We can always close after board discussion.

I don't see anyone with their hand raised currently.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant team board members? Brian Cook says no, Olivia Mobayed, Zach Zaremba.

We have no questions.

And are you in favor of approving this special permit?

I see no issue with the special permit. I'm happy to approve it.

Okay, well I have a few thoughts. I agree dimensionally Thank you for joining us. What felt like to live there? I think it's a question of scale, right? So the pitch roof does give you a different feeling of relationship to the neighbors. So I think that's really what's missing here. Now you did do the shadow study, so that's also the impact of height, so it doesn't seem like there's a big shadow impact, but I don't I think changing from pitch to straight is insubstantial.

Now knowing this building, it already does stick out quite a bit so I don't think it becomes even more egregious to what it is before. So I think if the board has no objection, then that's fine. I will go with majority but I don't think it's as negligible as presented from the street, from the pedestrian. It is tall it's quite tall and it already sticks out quite a bit.

Brian Cook Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that at least according to what we have to address with respect to Section 6... I don't see that the alterations are more substantially detrimental than the existing nonconforming use in the neighborhood. It's just not that much of a... Change in the existing nonconformity to make me concerned.

That's a good point. A bold statement made slightly more bold so that it's in comparison to itself, right? So I can agree with everybody. Should we move then to vote? Okay. would you like to close the public portion oh thank you I will now close the

Yes, Madam Chair. With respect to 88 Winslow Avenue, ZP 26-00-0044, I move to approve a special permit to expand a roof line Nonconformity to add livable and usable space of a two-family dwelling in the Neighborhood Residence Zoning District. based on the findings for the required Section 6 criteria, as we've discussed and incorporating the findings in permit conditions as detailed in the staff memo dated July 30, 2026.

Thank you. Can I have a second please? Seconded by Zach Zaremba roll call vote Brian Cook aye Olivia Mobayed, Zach Zaremba, myself and Brockelman. Aye. Special permit is approved. Congratulations. Good luck.

Much appreciated. Thank you very much.

Next case is 2 Carver.

You're waiting on me?

Kit, will you let... Hi.

Good evening. I'm just... Let me set my video here.

Just want to make sure the two Carver team is here before we open the case. Is it just you?

So I'm Madam Chair. I'm joined by Michael Chaucer of Avon Architecture, but I'll be presenting the case.

Okay, I see Michael Chaucer. Okay, Mr. Cook, please open the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Opening Case 2 Carver Street ZP26-000071 Athanasios Doucis seeks relief from SZO 244 regarding the roof rafter intersection height. for a half-story in the neighborhood residence NR zoning district which requires a hardship variance.

And to Carver Street Team, you've heard are announced in the beginning for a hardship variance you do require all four votes and there are only four today not five board members and um you would like to proceed yes madam chair okay then please go ahead State your name for the case.

Good evening, so my name is Athanasios Doucis I'm the homeowner at 2 Carver Street in Ward 5. And so again, thank you Madam Chair and board members and planning staff for your time and consideration today. So let me pull up a presentation that we prepared Interesting moment. Okay, is my screen visible?

Yes.

Excellent. All right. As I said, this is for Two Carver Street hardship variance. So the hardship variance is from the SZO section 2.4.4 massing and height. And what we're proposing here is to A request for relief to permit roof rafters on one side of the existing rear addition roof to intersect the plate, the top of the wall frame at greater than two feet above the finished floor. And so I just want to point out this is the rear elevation. This is the part of the wall that's in question and the planning staff has reviewed this and approved it with conditions. So this is in the NR Ward 5. These are some of the details as far as it's in the affordable housing overlay, but it's not in a transit area, etc.,

So this is near Porter Square. This is an aerial view from the Google Street View. This to Carver Street on the corner of Porter Street and Carver street, and this is the front of the house taking Picture taken a few years ago. So it is a two-family, two and a half story home in the NR district. So these are some of the existing conditions. So I have a plot plan here on the left and really the, you know Yes, criteria one is around sort of the unusual conditions in the house and this is the airing question. So you can see how the kind of floor plate of houses is uneven at this section which which we'll kind of go into the details of that in a minute and this is also kind of a rear view of the house there's a rear extension there um that's again kind of off centered

And this is the existing floor plan of the house. Again, showing here kind of the rear addition. More elevations now of the existing conditions. So we have the rear... The rear or the south facing portion of the house. We have this side that faces Porter Street, and then we have the front of the House. And so we have this this side gable roof and a dormer on the side And now what we're proposing to do is to, so the part of the proposal for this house is to actually extend the dormers. And so this is now I guess with the new The new regulations that's permitted by right, but the part that's problematic is how that connects to kind of the rear extension house. We'd like to raise that to add more livable space

at that kind of that half story and here's again sort of that side elevation showing how the sort of the off-centered rear extension means that you do not have essentially the roof extending to kind of the edge of what would have otherwise been the dormer, the side dormer. Are there any questions from the board so far?

Any questions? No. Okay, keep going.

Thank you. Okay very well thank you and again highlighting those the area where we're seeking relief And so comparing this to the existing conditions versus the proposal, again kind of highlighting the fact that we're trying to raise the roof here on this end. And then Pointing out the differences on the south end or the rear of the house. So highlighting here again, these are the regions of this is from a top view of the roof. This is the part that we want to raise the roof and this again being kind of the region where we're seeking relief. So just to kind of go through, so the next three slides are just going over kind of the criteria, the hardship variance criteria one by one.

So of course, the first is around special circumstances relating to the unusual character of the existing structure. So presenting again, the plot plan highlighting the fact that we have a centered Gable Ridge that goes through the house but then The existing rear addition is partial width and offset. And so as a result, the bearing walls are not equidistant from the principal ridge and and as a result you can't get the geometry, I'm sorry that geometry is a pre-existing structural condition. It's not a condition affecting the zoning district generally And with that principal ridge held in its existing location elevation, the rear roof with the equal roof pitches can't meet both offset extension walls at the same wall plate elevations. So that's criteria one. Criteria two is that literal enforcement of this provision would involve substantial hardship

and so in order to meet the zoning ordinance you'd either have to and unequal pitches. You'd have to have, you know, so you could potentially try to maybe line this up so that this part of the roof then matches the wall at two feet above the floor but that would require an asymmetrical roof, which is more complex to frame and to kind of add flashing and drainage. Lowering that ridge would reduce or eliminate the habitable headroom in that area part of the house and then um the alternative of course would be to try to move that exterior bearing wall um to kind of be more in line with the the floor plate uh the kind Main floor plate of the house, but that would require a lot of extensive demo and reconstruction.

And so then moving on to criteria three this relief could be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of a specific district. We believe that limiting the, you know, raising the roof of the existing reedition it's intended to kind of match the gabled roof line of the principal structure. Matching that existing roof ridge and pitch, it creates a more orderly and contextually pleasing architectural result. and it would nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the district or zoning ordinance. And for what it's worth, if you were to examine two of the other homes in that on Carver Street they also have extensions to the rear They've raised the roof to the rear extension.

And in one case, it's also actually this is sort of where we drew inspiration you know that there's sort of a similar shape of the building in that area so that's essentially the That's essentially the slides just to summarize. So again, we're seeking relief from section 2.4.4 on the half story where the The rafters would intersect the wall plate at a height greater than two feet above the finished floor and the planning staff recommended this with conditions, approving with conditions. The conditions being that the permit must or the decision must be recorded with a registry of deeds and a digital copy of the decision must be stamped and submitted to the planning division for public record.

So that's it, I appreciate your time and consideration

Thank you. I'll now open the public comment portion of this hearing so Anybody in the public, if you'd like to speak on this application please raise your hand and staff will unmute you.

Madam Chair, it looks like we have one attendee with their hand raised. So I just ask if the timer could be shared?

You'll be given two minutes to provide your comments. Please state your name and address for the record.

Okay, I'm going to allow Betsy Helfair to speak. You should be all set to unmute now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being our wonderful neighbor for Carver Street. We're next door. The only question we have is just how high up it's going to go on our side of the building.

Is that your only question, Betsy Helper? Okay.

Shadows of plants and things, whatever.

Go ahead, you can answer.

Hi Betsy. So I believe it would match essentially the, I mean, it wouldn't raise the roof height at all in, you know, compared to the kind of the roof out of the overall structure if that's, if that helps to Thank you very much, Betsy.

Thank you. Any other hands in the

Yes, there is a Walter Zahn. So we'll just wait for the timer to be reset. Perfect. I'm going to allow Walter Zahan to speak. You should be all set to unmute now.

State your name and address, please. And we're not hearing anything right now

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, my name is Walter Zahn I'm on 8 Carver Street so one house over from the previous speaker two houses over from And my house was approved with a very similar change in 2006, 2005. and I find this very pleasing so I'm all in favor of Naso's proposal.

Thank you, thank you for calling into this meeting.

And shading-wise, it doesn't actually change the shading to the neighbors from my opinion. So the garden on the other side of my house would be the same like... Carver Street 4 situation is thriving. So shading wise, I think I wouldn't expect an issue there.

Great, thank you. Anyone else in the public? Madam Chair I do not see any other hand raised Okay so we've heard from two very close neighbors so i will close the public portion of this hearing and move to board discussion. Any questions for the applicant, board members? Zach Zaremba

Thank you. I just had one question. Did you review or look into what you could do to make it compliant with the zoning and what that would cost you? Or was it just feel like it was not possible? and its current configuration.

Yes, thank you for that question. So we did not do a thorough analysis, at least in terms of what the cost. But it did seem that it would be very challenging to find an alternative. We did brainstorm quite a bit I think with the planning team

Thank you, Zach. Anyone else? Olivia or Brian? Brian Cook?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is really to my fellow board members as to whether we need to specify our own interpretation of the facts in terms of the findings for the criteria or whether we're satisfied with the details provided by both the applicant and the staff memo with respect to the three criteria. Speaking only for myself, I find the material before us sufficient that we need to expand on. These findings for the three criteria, I think we can just incorporate the information from the staff memo which essentially recreates what's in the applicant's materials.

What does everyone think?

I agree with Brian.

Okay, great. I do have a few questions. I like to flesh cases out. It looks like... Everyone is in favor and when it's a well-articulate narrative with the criteria addressed, it makes everybody's job easier. If I may... The purpose of the rule, you know that it's a two and half story principal building. The roof rafters have to intersect No greater than two feet, right? So that's the edge of the roof. Well it can extend but where the intersection happens and I think the reason that dimension is pegged is because

if not you know it does determine the pitch of the roof but once you start expanding up it becomes three stories not two and a half right it's it's the low So it's two and a half, and then you need to put dormers in. So that's how traditionally we've made more livable space out of two and the roof comes, you hit your head, so you add a dormer. So then we regulate the dormer Now does this look like a three-story? Now it's pitched but it's very shallow right and I'm just interested. I'm always more interested in kind of the spirit of the The ordinance and the kind of the urban fabric or shape that it's trying to guide a bit. Doesn't this almost become three stories?

Madam Chair, may I try to answer that? So we've been working on this project since 2019. We've been designing, trying to figure out a way to make that half story habitable for seven years. And Nasus is one of the most, he is the most patient client I've ever had You know, we've both gone through major life changes over the course of this project. I've had a kid since we started working together. It's been a long process and The short version is The only way we can figure out how to make that half-story habitable is with this change, without going to a completely different type of building altogether.

you know the dormer it helps but because of that funky geometry of the footprint the space it creates is essentially a closet and so in order to make that half story really habitable This is the only solution we've been able to come up with.

You had a very clear presentation, more so than the packet we got. Can you show the before and after? Again, the impact on the front. I mean it's really the back or the side Maybe go through your flip through your slides again if that's okay That's okay.

Sorry, I'm muted. Okay, so you wanted me to go back to which? This was not the slideshow. Oh, are you not seeing the slideshow? Hold on a second. Let me see if I can make sure that this is actually being shared. Okay. Can you see my screen now?

Yes, yes, yes. Okay, so... I know Porter Street very well. It's a corner, but this is assigned to be the side, right?

Yes. So you'd like to see that.

Yeah. And can I see the front which is Carver?

Yes. So this is the... Well, let me see. I think I might have a... Did I have it? I apologize. I don't have a side-by-side view of the front but this would be the This is the front elevation of the existing structure.

It's really the pop-out, so I agree there's negligible. The porters go to the deporter again, so that's before. This is before?

Yes.

Okay, so The main massing is the gable on Porter Street. You still see that and then I think where it has most impact is over the garage And that neighbor isn't here, right? Your Carver neighbors are here in support.

Yes, I did not get... Yeah, my neighbors down Porter Street are not in attendance today.

So where is the two feet rafter meeting the wall? Is that that dormer?

Yeah, so I think... Oh sorry. I think part of the consideration was that I guess with the new zoning changes that would have allowed for a full-length side dormer, if the building structure were different, Aboff, Layout as we look at it from the rear. I don't know if you can see my pointer or my cursor here.

The fact that it's asymmetrical doesn't bother me actually, but I'm trying to understand Two feet versus what do you have now that's above two feet that's mentioned, that you're seeking relief?

I believe the two feet above the sill plate is right around where the sill of the proposed windows are.

Yeah, so that's pretty low. So that rafter is supposed to meet it there. Like you said, there'd be no

It wouldn't be habitable, yeah.

But that's of the dormer or this is the rear?

That would be for the principal roof structure. And when I'm standing inside, NASA is actually taller than me, but I'm 6'3". When I'm sitting inside, I can stand up in the center of the roof and that's it. There's maybe three feet, so it's basically a hallway that I could stand up in currently.

Okay any other questions from the board? No, okay. We can move to vote. Brian Cook, however you see best to make the motion. Please go ahead.

Okay, can we have the share screen taken down first please? Thank you. In the matter of two, Carver Street ZP 26 000071 I move to approve a hardship variance in the Neighborhood Residence NR Zoning District For relief from SZO 2.4.4 regarding the roof rafter intersection height of a half story, based on the findings regarding the required criteria as discussed and incorporating the conditions as detailed in the staff memo dated July 27, 2026.

Thank you. Before I request a second, Staff Kelly, you had your hand up?

Yeah. I wanted to provide clarification for what exactly the two-foot rafter intersection is. So if you saw back on the drawing at the front of the dormers, that is where that is compliant. and it's because of that like outset side roofline that they can't continue on to that so what the relief that they're seeking is specifically just that I think it's about nine feet. So the ordinance says that the roof rafters have to intersect at no greater than two feet so since they're asking for greater than 2 feet, that's where the variance is coming from. So I just wanted to make sure that That was understood from what you were saying earlier, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Motion having been made, do I have a second?

Second.

The roll call vote. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed? Aye Zach Zaremba? Aye Myself and Brockelman, aye. The variance hardship variances granted Thank you. Have a nice night.

Thank you very much. Thank You.

74 Moreland Street. Should we open or wait? Or wait and then open? Brian Cook

Madam Chair, you can open it as I promote people.

Why don't you go ahead, Mr. Cook?

Okay. Opening 74 Moreland Street, ZP26-000049 Brandon Ronsley seeks a hardship variance to locate mechanical equipment within three feet of the lot line in the neighborhood residence and our zoning district.

Good evening, Brandon Ronsley. Is it just you? Are we expecting anyone else? Just me. Okay. Why don't you tell us about your application?

Madam Chair, I just wanted to make sure that we know about the four members and just note that at the end of this hearing.

You heard that? We only have four tonight and you are choosing to... present and this case not continue, correct?

You'd like to go ahead. Yes, it's fairly straightforward so yeah absolutely happy to do so. Okay I'll share my screen that seems to be the easiest way to go about this. Okay, great. So you have the narrative I provided. It's probably the easiest way to go through this. So Brandon Ronji, 74 Moreland Street. There's an outstanding special permit for the original 2018 construction that we're trying to finalize, and we require at least one hardship variance to finalise the approvals on that special permit. The question today has to do, and it's most easiest to see this in the map. So this is the property 74 Moreland Street, this one here, then 72 Moreland street is here there's a shared driveway and there's only two units as this is a garage for 74 Moreland Street here.

The question has to do with the setbacks for the AC condensers. Already existing AC condensers are located here on the building. And you can see these in the map, one two three. The issue is that the condensors need to be three feet set back from the property line and since neither myself nor 72 Moreland Street own the driveway, it's a right-of-way driveway. The AC condensers are only one and a half feet back So what we would like to do is to leave them there because it wouldn't go through the criteria for the hardship variance. But in our opinion, it would be substantially Financial investment to have to move these AC condensers.

There's not necessarily a place that we can find that would be three feet setback and would fit the existing condensors, and it meets the spirit of the criteria as there is no Impact on aesthetics or audio or quality of life by the AC condensers being in this area. I've even attached letters from both the owner and occupant of 72 Moreland Street in support of the variance request today. The sort of more detail here, but I hope that kind of lays out the framework for the team.

Yes why don't you present as thoroughly as you'd like and then we'll go to public comment and then discussion.

Okay, great. The only other issues I would sort of lay out there just to take into effect Okay, so the three criteria one has to do with the special circumstances of the property. As we don't own the driveway, the property line abuts the driveway and it's a shared right-of-way for either occupant. There's never going to be no construction on this driveway or in no time would it ever be impeded So it wouldn't ever be the case that property would be closer to the AC units than they are today. There would always be more than three feet from the adjacent property. There's not necessarily somewhere we could put these AC units at this time that would be three feet away without causing a very substantial price increase running the AC lines and keeping them cool with that sort of run if we were to move them

and displace the garage in some way would be a very, very substantial investment. And I'm not even sure plausible in terms of like moving them three feet from the property line The other criteria has to do with, what are the three criteria again? Should I get them all covered here? The financial hardship, the special circumstances and then the fact that it doesn't cause any public detriment. And there I can go to the letters that I've attached from both the owner who was the prior resident and the occupant of 72 Moreland Street that I share the driveway with in support of their variants. And I think that's all I have.

Thank you. I will now open the public comment portion of this hearing. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. Staff will unmute you.

Madam Chair, I see one attendee with their hand raised. If we could have the timer brought up again? Thank you. I am going to allow Azalene Edwarzen to speak. You should be all set to unmute.

Hi, this is Az Leonard-Warzen owner of 64 Moreland Street. So I received the pamphlet and I was just hoping to learn how this will impact Where my home was, so that's why I'm here. I have nothing to add except to be here to learn what was being asked.

Thank you. Do you feel like you understand what the impact is on your property? What is the address again?

64, so it would not impact my property.

So you don't have any further questions then? No, I don't believe it will. Thank you. Mr. Rosley, do you know where this property is?

Yeah, I could show you on the map. And thanks so much for joining. That would be... Oops, sorry. 64 is up at the corner. The notifications went out to like Fremont Street, they went up to Ash Street. So I got quite a few questions from my neighbors about if there was some sort of large mechanical units being installed somewhere but it's just the AC units.

Okay, so quite a few properties over.

Yeah, they're near the corner.

Any other hands in the public? Staff? Kids?

Madam Chair, I do not see anyone else with their hand raised currently.

Okay so i'll close the public portion of this hearing and move to board discussion I have one question. When were these installed? Are you retroactively requesting the hardship variants?

Okay so the development on this property took place in 2019 through 2020. We then purchased the property in 2023 and we actually closed on the unit with a fake CO. The developer actually forged one, so we're going through issues with that litigation But we had waived inspection to try to get through with such a competitive era during the COVID period. And so that's why we didn't catch it at the time. Since that time, myself and the third floor bought at that same time. The second floor unit, the developer still owned it. He was eventually foreclosed on and now we're working diligently with the bank who owns the second floor to sort of catch up on what we found out were these outstanding issues with the existing special permits Hence why we're trying to cover our bases here and make sure we get this approved in front of the board here today.

I see, so they were part of the property when you bought it? Yes. Going down the list of what's complying or not and trying to get all your paperwork. Okay, thank you more discussion or questions?

I'll just note that you know given the easement that abuts your property and the support that you've received from your neighbors at 72, I don't see any issue with this.

I agree anybody else? Mr. Cook?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again I think the presentation from the applicant as well as a staff memo at least In my mind, sufficiently addresses the three criteria. I don't see that there's anything I could add in terms of details for meeting the three criteria, and I'm satisfied that they have been met based on what's been presented and provided in the staff memo.

Thank you. I agree as well. Should we move to vote then? Okay, everyone seems to be in agreement. Please make a motion.

Very good. In the case of 74 Moreland Street, ZP 26-000049 I move to approve a hardship variance to locate mechanical equipment within three feet of a lot line in the neighborhood residence zoning district. based on the findings regarding the required criteria and incorporating the conditions as detailed in the staff memo dated July 31st, 2026.

Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Seconded by Zach Zaremba, roll call vote. Grind Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed? Aye Zach Zaremba?

Aye

Myself and Brockelman, I unanimous. That's four votes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Excellent. Thanks so much.

Okay. Have a nice night. That's no other business, so should we adjourn? They're here. Mr Cook please make a motion to adjourn.

Yes, Madam Chair. I move to adjourn the August 5th, 2026 meeting of the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals

Seconded.

Sorry, Olivia.

I think we just assigned someone to do this. That was a buzzer. Seconded by Zach Zaremba. Roll call vote. Brian Cook?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed, Zach Zaremba, myself and Brockelman. Thank you everybody thank you staff and thank you Brian Cook for our acting clerk

My pleasure. Thank you to everyone.

Okay, good night.