Land Use Committee

Meeting Minutes: Land Use Committee

Governing Body: Land Use Committee of the City Council Meeting Type: Committee Meeting (Remote Participation) Meeting Date: June 5th, 2025 (Minutes Approval), Actual Meeting Date not explicitly stated but implied to be after June 5th, 2025.

Attendees:

Councilor Davis
Councilor Sait
Councilor Wilson
Councilor Ewen-Campen
Councilor McLaughlin (Chair)
Clerk (unnamed)
David Shapiro (Law Department)
Matt Zano (ISD)
Director Bartman (Planning Department)
Director Galigani (Planning Department)
Samantha Carr (Land Use Analyst)
Leah Radasi (Liaison)

Executive Summary

The Land Use Committee convened to address several zoning amendments. Key actions included the approval of previous meeting minutes and significant discussion and amendments to the "Yimby-Dormer" petition and an amendment regarding egress waivers. The primary focus was on the "Summon Over" amendment, which establishes a new Arts and Innovation sub-area. The committee voted to recommend approval of the "Summon Over" amendment to the full City Council, with an amendment requiring a minimum of 150 dwelling units. Discussions also covered the creation of a new Research and Development zoning district and revisions to arts and creative enterprise regulations, both of which were recommended for approval. The committee also received an update on dwelling unit construction data since the 2019 zoning update and opted to keep the related item in committee for further discussion.

Agenda Item 1: Approval of Minutes

1.1. 25-1111: Approval of the minutes of the Land Use Committee joint meeting of June 5th, 2025.

Discussion: No discussion.
Vote:
- Councilor Davis: Yes
- Councilor Sait: Yes
- Councilor Wilson: Yes
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
- Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
Outcome: Accepted.

Agenda Item 4: Yimby-Dormer Petition

4.1. 25-0200: 15 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance sections 318C, 319C, 310C, 3113K, 3113L, 3212L, and 3212M.

Discussion:
- Councilor McLaughlin spoke with Jeff Byrne from the Somerville YIMBY group. His personal opinion, shared with Mr. Byrne, was to allow Director Bartman time to work with the YIMBYs to develop a compromise plan, citing concerns about unintended consequences from Director Bartman and the Planning Board.
- Councilor Davis agreed with Councilor McLaughlin's approach, supporting the concepts but acknowledging the need for planning and zoning to work with the Somerville YIMBY group to address unintended consequences.
- Councilor Wilson concurred with previous statements.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen expressed support for the proposed route, emphasizing the importance of making progress on the issue and allowing staff to work with proponents.
- Councilor Sait thanked Councilor McLaughlin for facilitating communication with the YIMBY group and expressed support for efforts to create more living space.
- The Clerk clarified that placing the item on file would allow resubmission within the year, while discharging without recommendation would send it to the full council.
Outcome: Laid on the table for now, to be placed on file at the end of the meeting.

Agenda Item 9: Egress Amendment

9.1. 25-0590: Requesting ordainment of an amendment to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the building official to waive certain dimensional standards for means of egress.

Discussion:
- David Shapiro (Law Department) addressed two questions:
  - Lawfulness of language: Deemed lawful, with a recommendation to clarify that the section does not conflict with ADA requirements by adding language stating "nothing shall prohibit somebody from applying for an ADA accommodation."
  - Implementation of ADA requirements: Recommended staff and stakeholders discuss concerns and propose form changes.
  - Mr. Shapiro also suggested changing "possible" to "feasible without undue hardship" in the text.
- Councilor Wilson expressed interest in the "feasible without undue financial hardship" language, noting it addresses concerns raised during the public hearing about potential misinterpretations (e.g., requiring an elevator instead of a ramp).
- Councilor Ewen-Campen questioned the necessity of the phrase "provided that no other compliant design solution is possible." Matt Zano (ISD) explained it allows for suggesting reasonable alternatives if a fully compliant solution is easily achievable.
Motion 1 (Councilor Wilson): To amend the language in section 2.4.1B to replace "possible" with "feasible without undue financial hardship."
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Accepted.
Discussion (continued):
- Councilor Ewen-Campen noted that the word "possible" also appears in section 2.4.1C and asked if it should be similarly amended. Mr. Zano confirmed ISD would not be opposed to this change for consistency.
Motion 2 (Councilor Ewen-Campen): To amend the language in section 2.4.1C to replace "possible" with "feasible without undue financial hardship."
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Accepted.
Discussion (continued):
- Councilor Wilson expressed support for the amended item, believing it's a positive step forward, though acknowledging other concerns remain outside the scope of this amendment.
Motion 3 (Councilor McLaughlin): To approve the item as amended.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Recommended for approval.

Agenda Item 5: Summon Over Amendment (Arts and Innovation Sub-Area)

5.1. 25-0131: Requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 8 and 12 of the zoning ordinance to establish a new arts and innovation sub-area of the master plan development overlay district.

Discussion:
- Councilor Ewen-Campen clarified his approach to the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), stating his decision is based on the merits of the zoning, not solely on the CBA's outcome. He proposed an amendment to require housing.
Motion 1 (Councilor Ewen-Campen): To amend the language to include a new section (Roman numeral V) under "Master Plan Standards" stating: "Master plans must include at least 150 dwelling units. And A, no more than 15% of the total proposed gross floor area may be provided to residential uses."
- Discussion:
  - Councilor Wilson supported the amendment, noting it elegantly addresses concerns about both the lack of housing and the potential for a hotel, as the 15% cap would limit lodging use.
  - Councilor Sait supported the amendment, stating it addresses constituent concerns by making housing a requirement rather than an option.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Accepted.
Discussion (continued):
- Director Bartman presented a clarification requested by the Union Square Neighborhood Council regarding Table 8.4.19A (Superseding Building Standards). The request was to add "or 75 feet, whichever is less" after "fourth story" for Block 1, Block 2, and Block 4, to clarify upper story step-back requirements. This is for clarification and has no functional difference.
Motion 2 (Councilor Wilson): To amend Table 8.4.19A (Superseding Building Standards) to add "or 75 FT (feet) (whichever is less)" after "fourth story" in Block 1, Block 2, and Block 4.
- Discussion:
  - Councilor Davis sought confirmation from Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Bartman that there were no legal or zoning concerns with this change. Both confirmed it was appropriate for consistency and clarification.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Accepted.
Discussion (continued):
- Councilor Ewen-Campen asked clarifying questions:
  - Urban Design Commission (UDC) role: Director Bartman explained the UDC would weigh in on the Urban Design Framework (a Planning Board responsibility) and later on each site plan approval.
  - Hotel concerns: Director Bartman clarified that a hotel is a special permit-based use in the base zoning, but if a master plan is issued, it could become by-right. However, the master plan would detail the hotel proposal and is a discretionary permit, allowing community input.
  - Sidewalk widths: Councilor Ewen-Campen sought clarification on the proposed 12-foot sidewalk on Tyler Street with an additional 3-6 foot buffer, making it functionally 15-18 feet. Director Bartman confirmed this concept, noting the exact dimensions would depend on the final design.
- Councilor Davis expressed significant concerns:
  - Dislike of zoning based on developer proposals rather than a thoughtful public process.
  - The area is designated "preserve" in the Summer Vision Plan, not "transform."
  - Traffic: Believes the project will significantly increase traffic, especially with 750 parking spots in a non-transit-oriented area. He is not convinced by mitigation plans.
  - Commuter Rail: Dismissed the idea of a future commuter rail station as too far in the future to factor into current analysis.
  - Uncertainty of project: Noted that the project might not happen due to financing or other factors, emphasizing the need for the base zoning to be acceptable on its own merits.
- Councilor McLaughlin acknowledged Councilor Davis's points, agreeing on the traffic concerns but finding the mitigation plans satisfactory. He also noted the project's location in a former industrial area by a train line, suggesting it's an appropriate area for transformation despite Summer Vision's designation. He felt positive about the compromises made.
- Councilor Wilson acknowledged the validity of neighbors' concerns regarding construction, shadows, and traffic. He expressed discomfort with developer-written zoning but noted course corrections were made. He acknowledged the project goes against Summer Vision 2040's "conserved" designation for the area. He appreciated the traffic and mobility presentations, but still has concerns about congestion. He highlighted upsides: municipal tax revenues, union construction jobs, permanent innovation economy jobs, restoration of art space, and preservation of existing businesses like the bouldering project and Aeronaut.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen supported moving the item out of committee, acknowledging public concerns about building size, traffic, and the "soul of Somerville." He framed the decision as choosing the best possible outcome among alternatives, noting the benefits of new green tech jobs, a $35 million affordable housing linkage fee, and below-market art space. He believed construction impacts would be the most significant, but not disqualifying compared to alternatives.
- Councilor Sait inquired about the process after moving the item out of committee. Leah Radasi confirmed the deadline for action is June 29th, with the last City Council meeting before that being June 26th.
Motion 3 (Councilor Ewen-Campen): To recommend approval of the item as amended.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Recommended for approval.

Agenda Item 7 & 8: Research and Development Zoning District & Arts and Creative Enterprise Revisions

7.1. 25-0128: Requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 6, 9, and 10 of the zoning ordinance to establish a new research and development zoning district. 8.1. 25-0129: Requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 2, 3 through 6, and 9 of the zoning ordinance to revise the regulations for arts and creative enterprise office and residential uses.

Discussion:
- Director Galigani reported on a meeting with Councilor Scott (Ward 2) to address concerns about the proposed R&D base district. The proposed solution is to limit the maximum number of stories to two (currently four) to disincentivize development under the base district, while still allowing existing businesses (e.g., climate tech companies) to expand and providing the basis for the overlay.
- Councilor Davis questioned the effectiveness of the two-story limit as a disincentive, citing past experiences where developers built to base zoning. He also sought clarification on whether the R&D zone would permit uses not currently allowed under the Fabrication (FAB) district on the "Summon Over" parcels.
- Director Bartman clarified that the R&D district, incorporating the lab amendment and ACE definition changes, aims to accommodate existing businesses like Greentown Labs and The Engine, which would become non-conforming under the revised ACE definitions. He presented a slide comparing permitted uses, highlighting that some maintenance, personal services, business incubator, co-working, and scientific research uses would be permitted in R&D but not in FAB (due to ACE revisions).
- Director Galigani and Director Bartman expressed confidence that reducing the story limit to two, combined with the financial challenges of replacing existing structures for only one or two additional stories, would disincentivize large-scale development under the base R&D zoning. They also noted the ability of the City Council to further amend zoning in the future.
- Councilor Wilson supported the two-story limit as it disincentivizes "by-right" R&D development and flipping FAB to R&D elsewhere.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen acknowledged the tension between disincentivizing base zoning (favoring two stories) and allowing for potentially beneficial development if the overlay doesn't proceed (favoring four stories). He was comfortable with four stories but understood the disincentive argument.
Motion 1 (Councilor Davis): To amend section 6.5.7C (main mass table E) to strike the word "minimum" and the number "four" from the "Number of stories" column, effectively setting the maximum at two stories.
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: No
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: No
  - Councilor McLaughlin: No
- Outcome: Not adopted.
Motion 2 (Councilor Wilson): To recommend approval of agenda item 7 (25-0128).
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Recommended for approval.
Motion 3 (Councilor Wilson): To recommend approval of agenda item 8 (25-0129).
- Vote:
  - Councilor Davis: Yes
  - Councilor Sait: Yes
  - Councilor Wilson: Yes
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  - Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
- Outcome: Recommended for approval.

Agenda Item 6: Transit-Oriented Height and Density Bonuses

6.1. 25-0085: By Councilor McLaughlin, Councilor Davis, and Councilor Wilson that the Director of Planning, Preservation, and Zoning draft an amendment to the zoning ordinances for transit-oriented height and density bonuses for additional affordable housing and other enumerated community benefits.

Discussion:
- Samantha Carr (Land Use Analyst) presented an update on dwelling unit construction data since the 2019 zoning update, broken down by district.
  - Non-residential uses: Commercial Industry and Civic districts showed some units, with Fabrication showing 2 units in 2024.
  - Residential categories: "Other" category (due to missing or old zoning data) was predominant from 2020-2022. Urban Residential (UR) saw a substantive number of units in 2023-2024, closely followed by MR4 and MR5.
  - Notable projects: Several large projects contributed significantly to annual unit counts (e.g., 290 Revolution Drive in 2020, 20 Inner Belt Road, 346 Somerville Ave, 50 Prospect Street in 2021).
- Councilor Ewen-Campen inquired about the high productivity of the Urban Residential (UR) district compared to Mid-Rise (MR) districts. Director Bartman attributed this to UR's "by-right" permitting, which offers a faster pathway and better return on investment for four-story apartment buildings. He noted that MR5 also performs well due to its financial advantages.
- Councilor McLaughlin observed that data suggests "by-right" projects are built, while those requiring special permits (like some MR districts) are not, citing past delays for affordable housing projects. He suggested revisiting the special permit requirement for taller buildings.
- Councilor Davis asked Director Bartman to clarify the rationale for special permits in MR zones. Director Bartman explained that the legality of the 20% inclusionary affordable housing requirement is partially tied to the discretionary nature of special permits. He stated that removing the special permit requirement in MR districts could risk the enforceability of affordable housing requirements if challenged legally.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen asked about inclusionary zoning in the UR district. Director Bartman stated it's tied to unit count for apartment buildings, making it potentially riskier than in MR/high-rise districts.
- Councilor McLaughlin requested Samantha Carr to research the degree of risk associated with allowing "by-right" development without special permits, particularly concerning affordable housing requirements.
- Samantha Carr offered to meet with ward councilors for neighborhood walks to discuss zoning.
- Director Bartman mentioned plans for a virtual presentation on the Broadway corridor project zoning study, which recommended upzoning the corridor to MR6.
Outcome: Item kept in committee for further discussion.

Adjournment

Motion (Councilor Davis): To adjourn.
Vote:
- Councilor Davis: Yes
- Councilor Sait: Yes
- Councilor Wilson: Yes
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
- Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
Outcome: Adjourned.

Podcast Summary