Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals 02-04-2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the City of Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals for February the 4th, 2026. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of the 2025, this meeting of the Planning Board will be conducted via remote control, via remote participation. The recording of these proceedings can be found here. The agendas in minutes and more. Tonight, joining us will be board members. Anne Brockelman, she's our vice chair. And also tonight, she'll be the acting clerk. Anne Fullerton, Olivia, Here we go. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. Mobay, Zach Zaremba,

Sisia Daglian, and I'm Susan Fontano, your chair. Joining us tonight from the city will be the planning, preservation, and zoning Director Dan Bartman, and our liaison to the zoning board is Kit Lester, also from the legal department. Attorney David Shapiro and from our inspectional services we have Matt Saccioni. So uh without further ado I think we've covered everything there. I'd like the uh Clerk to first thing under the agenda tonight is under general business minutes.

Yes Madam Chair can I take them all? Yes. One at a time. You can take them all with the one notation you made. Okay. I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 3, 2025, December 17, 2025, and January 14. 2026. Any discussion?

I believe there's one on you brought to my attention the minutes of the 14th 2026 under the last how we worded Denial for Union Square.

This is for suggested revision for greater clarity for staff. Yep. And my screen is not pulling out the minutes. Okay. Stage two of January 14th.

Yeah. Wait a minute. I'm trying to pull it up. to help you out. On the minutes of the meeting, you have it for January the 14th, 20th. Ann saw something and was kind of, would like to change it so it sounds right.

Go ahead, Ann. In the gray bar, it says very clearly, result denied. But when you read the sentence above that, it's a little confusing. It says following a motion by... Chair Brockelman said executive by Member Fullerton the board voted unanimously 05 to approve The requested hardship variance to insult a non-compliant sign for 666 Union Square Plaza. I think that's just confusing even though it says 05. I'd like to recommend you say... A motion was made to grant the requested hardship variance and it was voted to deny unanimously 0 to 5.

Does everybody understand?

Yeah. I know this is kind of standard language, but I find it confusing.

Right. Well, it's even sometimes we're taking the votes. The vote no is yes and yes is no. So I like that idea. And we'll talk to Dina about that. You know, maybe she can help us out with that. Okay. So, does everybody understand what that is? Can we have a second then on the motion of approval of the minutes, the three minutes?

Seconded.

Seconded by Zach. All in favor accepting the minutes of December 3rd, 2025, December 17th, 2025. In January 4, 2026, as printed, please say aye. Sisia Daglian?

Aye.

Olivia Mobayed? Aye. Ann Fullerton? Aye. Zach Zaremba, and Susan Fontano. I let the record show the minutes were approved 100%. The next on the agenda, we're going to jump down to Linden Street. Acting Clerk, could you take care of that motion?

Yes. So there's been a request for a continuance, but I think we need to open the case and then vote to grant the request for continuance.

Okay.

So... The case is 12 Linden Street, ZP25-000112. Yang Ji seeks relief from SZO 3.2.18.A.2 to add a second curb cut on a front lot line in the urban residence UR zoning district which requires a hardship variance. The applicant has filled out a request for continuance form so I'll make a motion to grant the request for continuance for 12 Linden Street to February 18th.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Seconded.

Seconded by Zach Zaremba. All in favor as we go around? Ann Brockelman? Aye. Ann Fullerton? Aye. Zach Zaremba? Cicia Daglian and Olivia Mobay. Thank you. Let the record show all voting members voted in the affirmative. Next on the agenda is 17 Hudson Street. This has been continued and we're going to hear it tonight. Are the parties for 17 Hudson Street here?

Chair Fontano, this is Kit. I'm just working through promoting everyone.

I am here, Madam Chair.

Who is I? William White. Thank you, Mr. White. William White. Okay.

My understanding Denise was going to be present as well.

Okay. Can you speak up or make your, a little louder?

Sure. Is this any better?

Yeah, I think so. Can everybody hear him now? Can everybody hear Mr. White? Okay, good. So tell us what you're going to do. What's going on, sir? Welcome. Nice to hear your voice.

And it's a pleasure for me to be here. I have to be very honest. I had retired from litigation. I never thought I was going to be before your honorable board, not because the members upset me, but just, you know, I've hit that age. But this... Let me explain sort of why I'm here. Since certain changes were made to the zoning...

Excuse me, Mr. White, just a... What is it? We didn't open it up in... No? In November? Should we open the case?

or was it opened? I'm sorry.

Well, for the record, let's open it again tonight just in case we messed up. There's been a few continuances, so let's keep the record straight.

Thank you. We just wanted to make sure everyone was in the room. Every team is here. Okay. 17 Hudson Street. Yeah. Case ZP 25-000094. Denise Provost seeks an administrative appeal of the building officials issuance of building permits B25-000078 B25-000079 and B25-000081

Thank you very much, Ann. Mr. White, I'm sorry, please continue.

So, Madam Chair, basically what I've noticed in the city in the last two years is essentially developers are purchasing Two family homes, single family homes, and then by right, our building, usually it's the three unit condos, and then a backyard cottage. and for the life of me, based on the zoning that I had voted for and also that I had seen as a result of the city passing, I could not understand how a backyard cottage condominium is allowed under the zoning ordinance. And when Denise came to me with the situation she was presented with, I took a hard look at it in part because of Denise and the service that she's done to our community. and the fact that it was really a concrete issue for me to look at.

So basically my arguments, although there are a number of permits, it happened because the Foundation permits were issued before the building permits and to protect the niece's rights at the land court, I had to appeal everything separately. But my arguments basically... One of my arguments will apply to all of the structures, both the structures and the foundation permits. And then the second argument will apply to the foundation permit and the building permit for the backyard cottage. So I was wondering if I have the ability to show my screen because I'm sort of a novice at this. And I see there's a green checkmark. Do I hit that? Oh, share screen. I see that. Let me just... With the chair's permission, can I try this? Yes.

Kit, are you helping out Mr. White there? Hi, yeah, this is Kit. You might need to hit share and I might need to turn it on, but try and hit share.

Yeah, and it says voice disabled.

Let's see.

Alright, go ahead and try now. Alrighty.

Alrighty, can folks see this? Yes. Alrighty. So basically, Denise's lot has the three buildings, but not the one in the backyard quarter. And the reason for that is because there's a... A tree that required preservation so that was removed. But essentially what you're looking at now is what can be built by right based on the planning staff and the building inspector on a roughly 6,300 square foot lot. That to me is mind boggling, but be that as it may, if the city council had voted on zoning to allow that, I would have no objection, but the zoning doesn't allow it. And what's important, I think, to make it easy is I will go to the backyard cottage first.

And then I would raise my argument as far as the whole problem with the law split procedure that's been implemented. So can I, let me see if I can get rid of this screen here. Whoops. Did I just log out?

Yes, it's just a grid of all numbers and stuff we are.

How about, can you see the screen now?

Yep. Daywood Residence 3-1.

Yes. Alrighty, so what I'm going to start is with the backyard cottage, and we can all agree that this is the language for a backyard cottage. And this is a small floor plate, detached, accessory building type. typically providing space for one small dwelling unit, a home occupation, a playhouse for children, a vehicular parking on the same lot as a principal building type. And then I didn't bother putting on the The building type photographs that they had. So we look at it and we see it says an accessory building type. Now that is not defined anywhere in the zoning ordinance, those three words. What we do have defined is an accessory structure. And it says, unless, and that's a 10.2.1. Okay, so I think it's, you know, to have this right in front, and I'll just read from it. And it says, unless otherwise specified, accessory structures are permitted by right.

And it says accessory structures may not be constructed prior to the following of the principal building. Then it also says that the building official should determine A structure is accessible to the principal building of a law. Now you go to D and it says it's customarily found in association with a permitted principal or accessory used is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal building in terms of area, size, function, and location and is operated and maintained under the same ownership as the principal building. So when I look at a condominium, a backyard cottage that is a condominium is separately owned by the owner of that condominium, and then in the main three-unit condominium building. There are three separate unit owners there.

So in no way, shape, or form can I look at this and say a backyard cottage in a four-unit condominium development is an accessory structure. Now the planning staff responded and they said, wait a minute, wait a minute. We have what's called an accessory structure and an accessory building. And the two of those are different. So again you have accessory building here which is not defined and you do have accessory structure. So then we go to 2.3 which indicates what the differences are between A principal building, an accessory building, or accessory structure. As you go through them, nowhere does it state that an accessory building is different from an accessory structure. with regard to these three categories that have to be met. In other words, it has to be maintained under the same ownership of the principal building

and it has to be incidental and subordinate to the principal building. So this is purely a matter of law. I bet you it's the first time it's come before your honorable board because let's face it, most average people living in the city They're probably not going to hire a lawyer to challenge this because they're probably going to assume it was done legally. And as a result of the circumstances, I've been able to bring this on behalf of Denise. So the first argument I raise is that this clearly is not incidental and that not only for this, But going forward, unless the city council changes the zoning ordinance, backyard cottages that consist of a fourth unit or a third unit as part of a condominium development is not lawfully permitted by zoning.

The second issue that I raise with regard to the backyard cottage is it's very broad. It says a one small dwelling unit with a small floor plate. Okay. It doesn't give an overall dimension limit on the building. Now, there are small floor plates for this. It meets the zoning requirements of the size of the floor plate, but it doesn't say how many. This has a finished basement. I've never thought of a cottage, and I've got to be honest, when I voted for a backyard cottage, I never thought it would consist of a finished basement with three bedrooms in the building. I think most people thought it would be one or two buildings. So now when you get the finished basement, you have almost a 1,500 square foot building. I would not think by definition a backyard cottage

would have 1,500 square feet and a finished basement and three total bedrooms. But there is now also a problem raised by this because see before your board When there was an accessory building, Backyard Cottage would have abilities to look at it. It would be reviewed. But once they passed the as of right, your review abilities were taken away. But now... It creates a problem where it technically violates Chapter 40A because it is not precise in its definition. Small is an ambiguous term. I might think one thing is small. The building inspector might think it's not small. But you can't have that in a zoning ordinance where it's as of right. You cannot have discretion. It has to be spelled out. Now in the state zoning ordinance for the accessory dwelling units,

They put right in, it has to at least be 900 square feet. A city can go larger, but it at least has to be 900 square feet. We don't have any square footage here. So I gotta be honest, I believe the board of all and the city council has to revise this definition to take that into account. But in the meantime, if I lose on behalf of Denise, then you know we'll definitely go to the land court and I'm not saying that as a challenge or anything it's just the position that that we're put in and that basically you folks have put in as well because certain zoning changes were made and I you know people may not have thought of all of the consequences that would come as a result of it but one of them is in my mind and I think it's pretty clear that this backyard cottage definition is deficient now and that no building permits

can be issued based on this definition because it violates the provisions of Chapter 40A and is ambiguous. So that basically is the argument that I have for any of the backyard cottages, both the permits for the foundation and also the permits for the one backyard cottage structure. So I don't know if you'd like me to go to the next point or if people have questions, you know, however the chair would like the course.

I don't know. What is the pleasure of the book, Joe? Mr. White, continue with his presentation, everybody. Just following along nicely. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Continue, please. So now my argument is that essentially the regulations that you folks have enacted is invalid. Pure and simple, the procedure that was set forth in the adoption of those rules violates the provisions of Chapter 48, but also the grant itself from the city council. Because what has been put in its place, essentially somebody who wants to do the lot split files online with the city. It does not show up in your agenda that it's on your agenda. and then it's then going to the planning staff for review. Nobody knows when the planning staff approves it and there's something that's recorded at the registry of deeds. So a lot split. And the zoning ordinance is a decision of your body.

You may designate someone to act for you, but not in the fashion where it is totally shielded from the public view and totally made private. Now I'm going back in my memory, Madam Chair, and I remember, and I'm thinking it was like 15 years ago, there was a procedure by which an item would be submitted by the applicant, I think, for a like, a simpler review that would appear on the agenda and then if two members of the ZBA objected to a taking like the simple and I even forget what it was but a simplified approach then it had to go through the full-blown process. Now, if you folks had enacted something like that, I'd probably not have a problem with it because the public knows it's on the agenda

Abutters have the ability to appear before your body and say, members of the ZBA, no, you're putting in this many units. I have, I don't know, solar panels in my house. It's going to be blocked. I would like to have this further reviewed so we can come in and maybe you folks can look at it and revise it or whatever. That's totally taken away now. and I don't think it's taken in a way in a fashion that meets the requirements of Massachusetts general laws. The other problem is essentially You've given discretion to the planning staff person who handles it to also exercise discretion to see if it like matches summer vision or something like that. But it doesn't include any of the proposed developments. What you have is a blank lot with a line drawn through it.

The planning staff member looks at it, I assume for frontage, to make sure it has enough frontage, and then it's approved. The actual language of the zoning ordinance that delegates it to you folks still says you're supposed to file rules and procedures of a minor site plan approval process for development activities. So the process has to cover development activities, and development activities include what's going to go on the land, okay? A blank lot doesn't help anybody. You're not protecting anybody, right? And it says here it's still deserving of plan reviews. There is no plan review. This does nothing. for the residents of the city of Somerville for the abutters.

It is not a process that is thought of by Massachusetts General Law's 48 because they don't set up somebody to do this. I mean, you know, you can have a zoning administrator, for instance, but You've set up something with basically, I believe, all of the criteria used was adopted, you know, was implemented by the planning staff. And again, I'm not bad mouthing them or anything. I think, you know, maybe their goal was to get the development moving forward, but you have to do it in a way that comports with Massachusetts general laws. And when it comes time, For zoning, zoning can only be amended by the city council with the approval of the mayor after there are public hearings. What's being done in our process is basically

You're wiping out any requirements that any development activities be reviewed, which you can't do under the special permit provision even with what's been given to you by the city council. Well, you still have to do plan review. It accomplishes nothing, okay? Technically what you do, and it's not even you folks doing it. You don't even know about it, I assume. because there's nothing in your agenda. Somebody's filed online and the planning staff person looks at it, sees that it has the frontage, and that's it. The public has no idea. Like Denise, somebody could be living there, and all of a sudden next door, backhoes show up for four foundations to be put in without anything going before the public. There are ways to accomplish this.

If I were on the city council, one way would be you could say, all right, for any lot splits with a lot more than 10,000, you know, approve it as right. Because then it's... Cut it down to two 5,000 square foot lots, which most people have in the city. But when it gets to something like a 6,300 square foot lot that's chopped into two 3,600 square foot lots, which could have four units on each so eight units in a 6,600 square foot lot that should have in my mind that should have the full site plan review so there are ways it can be addressed to deal with the concern but Unfortunately, in my mind as an attorney, what you've put in doesn't accomplish it. So again, we have no, I would prefer not to, but You know, this is the other type of thing that has to go to the lane court.

And I also just want to put on the record that even though the developer was informed that, you know, I was appealing the building permit, that person has gone forward. and all of the foundations have already been built. He has the building permit. That person may go forward again. And if I went at the land court, then I'm going to have to look for demolition order. But I want it clear on the record that that person is proceeded at risk. Because I don't want anybody to come before this board if it gets to that point to say, wait a minute, you're making me demolish the structures or whatever. The person proceeded at risk with knowledge because they even sent out an email saying, you're proceeding at risk. If we win, I'm going to ask that these things be demolished. So in summary, that's it. That is the argument that I have for Denise.

And again, I believe she does want to speak, but I'm all set if people have any questions.

Thank you. I want to write a couple of things here. All right. Could you go back? How does Mr. White go back on his board? Clear our screen, please.

I think I say stop share.

Yep, there you go, perfect.

I'm learning this thing at 7 a.m.

I know, boy, you still keep it busy. I'm trying. All right. So, second, I'd like to say good evening to Denise Provost. Yes, please, Chair Fontano.

Honorable board members. Yeah, I just, I'm Denise Provo. I've lived in Somerville for 45 years, 38 of them in my one and only house at 20 Albion Street. which will be 126 years old this year. I'm a direct abutter to 17 Hudson. My lot is actually double size, unlike the 17 Hudson lot, which is just large. It's 6,000 square feet, roughly. Mine's 500 and some, but I've combined them in ownership. Now, when North America Development first purchased 17 Hudson,

Of course, everybody in the neighborhood looked at their website, which said that the project at 17 Hudson was four units of condominiums. And we thought, okay. Yeah, that makes sense. It's a big lot. And I mention that because somebody might say, well, the developer had an expectation A development-based expectation. But from the beginning, it was for four units. And in fact, that's what the website says today. I check it every few weeks, and it was there today. Imagine our surprise when our counselor found out we weren't notified that there were going to be eight units on the lot because it had been split, which nobody knew about.

you know the only notice we got about anything on that lot was the statutory requirement of notice for a demolition and there was a house and garage there and in this 150 year old silver maple It's massive. You can see it on, you know, probably from space, certainly on the internet. And it was, it's right against the lot line on my side, but A big chunk of its root system was under this old garage. So... My concern about the demolition, of course, was the safety of the root system. And I think I've given testimony before. I don't want to go into detail about how the city put three tree protection conditions On the demolition permit, the developer ignored all three, went in with a backhoe right next to the tree. In the process, smashed my fence, beheaded my Madonna statue.

Anyway, it was not good. But to move forward from there, I have to say that I'm still curious about the doubling of the developers stated expectation of four units. And I don't believe that the city council really intended this outcome. I'm interested in these accessory dwelling units, so I've been doing some research. California was the leader in requiring every locality to have some allowance for accessory dwelling unit. and they explicitly say you can split the lot or you can have what they call an ADU but not both and there's this whole cottage industry of advisors as to you know do you want to

have one you can sell in which case it requires a lot split but they're intended to be rentals and if you're going to have one on your lot you can't sell it But it has to be one or the other. And I think, you know, that makes sense. And I think is, you know, why the Somerville ordinance says that the accessory unit has to be. Accessory to and in the same ownership as the front lot. That's that same requirement phrased another way. And also If I may share, I found the Massachusetts 2024 law that Attorney White referred to. Is that okay if I share it? Yes, I will. Okay. Where is it?

Is that the one? No. Which one is it? Maybe it's that one. So this was a law that the legislature adopted in 2024. I bet our whole delegation voted for it. That makes more granular requirements for accessory dwelling units than we see in the Somerville zoning ordinance. but which I think you know probably will get closer to what the intention of the city council was anyway should I stop sharing now everybody is Okay.

And the Massachusetts law, additionally, is called the Affordable Homes Act, which I think points to the intention that these accessory units should be small enough to be affordable and that's that's the whole purpose of of adopting this kind of legislation to make sure that there were small rental units that were, if they fit, able to A company and and be owned by whoever the owner of the the principal structure was so um and I'm just going to mention one irony before I go on to talk about the personal and environmental impacts of this overdevelopment behind me. And the irony is I had to pay $750

In fees to inform the public of my appeal of a project which did not have to be publicized. The developer didn't have to notify anybody about the development. But I've had to pay almost a thousand dollars to notify the public of my appeal. And I'm just saying that because it strikes me as ironic. But as far as the personal and environmental impacts, I want to point out a couple things. One is that besides this enormous ancient silver maple, which is a native species, I have 12 other trees on my lot. Most of them native species. Anybody can come and look. Some people call this the Albion Arboretum. There are so many trees. And this

The back structure behind these big three unit front buildings have a three feet three foot side and rear setback and I happen to know because I used to sew that this is three feet from my thumb to my nose I used to measure yard goods that way Think of how close that is to my fence and my house. So it will basically be a wall that's, you know, 20, 29 feet tall. in height for what is a, as Attorney White said, basically three-story, three-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath freestanding house, which I

cannot believe was intended by Somerville's backyard cottage provision in the zoning ordinance and And it will be very, very close to the back of my house, which is the southwestern exposure, the back of my house. where I will have this wall and the south-southwestern exposure that's where all the sunlight is so so the 30 feet right behind me three feet um is going to block All of the sunlight from all three stories of my house. So naturally, I'm concerned about that because when trees don't get sunlight,

or Good Air Circulation, they do eventually sicken and die some more quickly than others. And I'm not being melodramatic here, it's biology. They get viruses and fungus and stuff and the rain brings those down. And when they're deprived of light, They're struggling, they get unhealthy, they're more susceptible to that and to drought stress which we get more in the summer. Anyway, the prospect of losing all these trees breaks my heart. I also have directly in front of where this three-story structure is going to be a pollinator garden. That's all native plants and that's what feeds the bees and butterflies and both of these things are You know, why the administration has called us Sustainaville, the Sustainaville, and promotes pollinator gardens and trees. And

The other thing about the sunlight is I've had my house rated for solar panels. That's gone now. I will never have solar panels because I won't have sunlight. And I actually know other folks in the city who have solar panels already that are now blocked by these big buildings that are filling up almost every square foot of lots. I don't really think that was intended. The last thing I'm going to say for environmental effects is that my property is downhill of 17 Hudson. There's a slope. Land comes down from Highland Avenue. Runoff has always been a problem here. I've had to install French drains in my basement, two sump pumps, and I have a rain garden on my land

into which water from the basement gets pumped out into what's essentially a holding pond. It's all very sustainable, but once the runoff from 17 Hudson increases as it will because practically the whole lot is covered. It will overwhelm my capacity for handling the runoff. It's almost comical, though sad, seeing these poor North America development workers out there every day moving snow around so that they can keep working. There's no place to put snow. When they don't have the open foundations to shovel it into, I don't know where it's going to go. There's only eight feet between the back of the front house and the front of the back house. Eight feet! Where is anybody going to put snow?

There's also a driveway with six parking spaces, three on each side, I believe. And you know people are going to want to shovel their snows out snow oh out their cars out of the snow and I'm thinking you know a sensible um body reviewing these things like Zoning Board of Appeals, you would be the ones who would say, wait a minute, where's the snow going to go? Wait a minute, where are people going to park bicycles? Where are they going to have their shovels or snowblower? There's no room for this stuff. And I think that's unfortunate. And people who live there, especially in these, the basement is where the master suite is and the cottage. They'll be living underground. They've got windows the size of basement windows that are there as fire escapes.

Who's going to stay in a place like that? And they're going to get water in there the way my basement used to. but they're not going to want French drains in their bedroom. Anyway, I thank you for your attention. The only other thing is that I would encourage you to take a look at my property. Take a look at 17 and also take a look if you want to see What the finished version is at 156 Albion Street, which is built from the same... This shows both halves of the split lot. But when Jason Santana gave this to me himself, but when it was...

When it was put together, somebody forgot to change the lot location in Plan A01A, which says that it's 156 Albion Street. you know it's basically the reuse of a design um and you can tell looking at this drawing and at the the structure the massive structure at 156 Albion that that it's the same and although the back house is smaller and only has one bedroom and has a peaked roof, so it doesn't cut out as much light. Anyway, it's interesting to see, I think, but it's hard for me to imagine that this is the City Council's vision of what What the city wants, what's good for the city. You know, the more trees we lose, the more we're an urban heat island.

We got more runoff into the Mystic River and into our storm drains all the time. But I don't need to go on and on. You've heard what I have to say and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Could I ask you an indulgence? I forgot one thing to say. Oh, this is William White. Yes, go ahead, please, Mr. White. Okay, because Denise brought it up. See, one of the things the Board of Aldermen and then the City Council, because it was before two of them, starting with the backyard cottages, was it was clearly intended to be rental by the person who owned the main structure. and now because they're allowing these huge condominiums what used to happen in Somerville was let's say someone had an older house right the bathroom was kind of old or it needed a new kitchen or the new roof you have people who were, let's say, a little bit less in income, okay, who had handy abilities. Maybe it was an immigrant or somebody, right, who would buy it, say, all right, it's going to take us 10 years. Maybe they move relatives in or they could make a backyard cottage, rent that out.

Now what's happening is because of the huge profit that developers can make, they're outbidding everybody. I don't know how many estates I've represented the sellers, an old time sum of billions that are selling it. It all goes to these developers. So what's going to happen is the few lots that we have left with two family houses, Where you could put a nice rental unit or even a three-family where you could put a nice rental unit for income purposes. If this continues in violation of what I believe is the zoning rules, we're not going to have anything left. All you're going to have are four-unit... Luxury condominiums throughout the city. There won't be any rental properties available in two and three family houses. And so if you want to rent the city, you'll have to rent one of the large buildings that's going to be built. This has really, you know, caused me a concern.

And again, so much because I'm convinced that this was not the intent of the City Council and Board of Aldermen for this to happen to homeownership abilities. and the city of Somerville. I think it's just something people looked at it. All right, they call it a backyard cottage. They fit this huge thing within the three foot setbacks. Let it go forward without really Thank you.

So now we're going to go to, I think before we go to the public, I'd like the, I guess there's a, A lawyer, Ann Vigorito, here tonight representing the property owner.

Yes, I am, Madam Clerk. Good evening, Attorney Ann Vigorito. I represent Northeast Development. Jason Santana is a principal. He's here this evening. He's a little under the weather, so I think he has his camera off. by Evan Stellman. He is the architect on this project. But I do believe the city may want to speak before me. I don't know procedurally what you prefer, Madam Clerk. I was offering you the floor now. Okay, I'll take it. I think Evan is going to share, needs to have, be able to share a screen.

And again, who is Mr. Stellman? He is the architect from Calls to Design.

Hi, how are you?

He's the architect. Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Okay. All righty. So Evan is going to share his screen. I may have him explain a little bit. This is as it has been presented, an as-of-right project in the city of Somerville. you know we all know what you know the new zoning came in back in 2019 I believe it was it was December that you know and we you know there have been modifications but a lot you know the backyard cottage has allotted for additional housing in the inventory and I don't want to overstep but you know I know The three major issues of this evening, you know, the lot split was wrongfully approved. The planning director has that right. They don't just review it for frontage. They review it

In its entirety, and I believe Director Bartman is here this evening, so I'm sure he will speak to that. The approval process, the city... There were no affordable units here. There was a... A few years back, the MBTA compliance came into effect and that fourth unit no longer became an affordable unit. And I'm not really sure if that's the argument that... Ms. Jalen and her attorney are trying to present but you know that component was done away with and I believe Director Bartman may speak to that as well because I know I've had meetings with him about that. And lastly, and I may have Evan speak to this a little more, is that the proposed structure does not meet the definition of a backyard cottage.

We argue and we attest that it does. you know Madam Chair and Distinguished members of the board, you hear projects all the time. All of you live in Somerville. There's about 35 roughly of these types of cottage projects going on right now in the city. and you know they all you know uh Mr. Stellman you know is the architect on many of those projects but now to just I'm going to hand off to Evan very quickly to talk about that last component but you know as an attorney were taught to work with clients or work with opposing parties. I did reach out to Attorney White. Relative to Ms. Jalen, my client is a developer in the city. He's been before your board many times, the planning board.

He's done quite a few, many, many developments in the city. They're all very... Well-received, praised. you know so at his direction I did reach out to see if you know you know you try to make peace with your neighbor let's just say and you know I've never heard anything back it is my understanding that There may have been some sort of damage to Ms. Jalen's property. I know my client had told me.

Denise Provost is the neighbor. All right. You said it was a slip of the tongue.

It was. I know. You know, I haven't had enough coffee today.

Haha, you gotta get some more. Me too. So it's Denise. All right. I'm sorry, Ms. Provost. I didn't mean to correct you, but I thought you'd want to.

I'm glad you did. No, no. All right. If I say anything dumb, let me know. In any event, you know, as an attorney, this is what we do. We try to, you know, have... I see you, Mr. White. I'll see you in one moment. So, you know, my client did indicate that he had given the insurance, or I believe maybe his... I want to say Foreman for the job gave the insurance information to Ms. Provost to put a you know Some sort of claim in if there was damages. I mean, that's, you know, what most of my developer clients do. You know, if there's an issue, if there's damage, that's why, you know, they carry insurance. They can't get a building permit without that. So, you know, and I'm not here tonight to debate Attorney White. I mean, this is relative to the upholding of the permit. So, you know, if there's, you know...

I just wanted to point out that we're always open after tonight's proceedings to have meetings or discussions. with Ms. Provost and her attorney, you know, by all means. But I would say that Evan Stallman has allowed just to go very briefly, go through the plan.

All right.

Mr. Stellman, just one second, please. Mr. White, is there something that you need to say before Mr. Stellman? A brief comment? I see your hands up.

This is Kit. I'm sorry, Mr. White, I believe you've muted.

And his hands up.

Yes, yes, I've unmuted myself. Madam Chair, I'm not here to debate Ms. Vigorito, but when someone talks about a discussion with an attorney, they should tell the truth to a public body, all right? She contacted me and I said, yes, we're willing. Talk to your client and let us know. What happened was two days later, the bulldozers came into the lot, knowing I had filed an appeal, having spoken to her so she knew I filed an appeal, and they stopped construction at risk. Okay, that's not the way. And then we also spoke, and I will, because this is not litigation, my recollection, it was something like three Aberweidens. I'm going to sue them and there's going to be a count of trespass. Maybe their insurance will cover it. And there's also going to be a count for wrongful intention, Infliction of emotional distress on a 74-year-old woman Madonna had is decapitated

That's going to go before the land court as well. So this is what we're going to do. If you want to be a reasonable settlement, we'll certainly take it. But don't treat us with contempt. Don't offer somebody triabavaiti. and then have the construction people come out after you're trying to talk settlement. It's not going to work that way, Mr. Bigarito. I'm not going to debate you further, but I tell the truth. And when someone goes before a public body and does not give an accurate presentation, I'm going to respond. You shouldn't have said anything, okay? You shouldn't have put in my name. And when you do, you should tell the truth. And I'm apologizing to the chair because this is the last thing she wants to hear, right? All righty, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so Mr. Stellman, where are you?

Yeah, I'll just, I'll quickly walk over the zoning parameters of the proposed backyard cottage. I know the term backyard cottage sounds like a cute, quaint structure, but this structure that we're proposing here as we propose on all sites that we do a backyard cottage is compliant with all of the zoning parameters. So just to start, the lot width is a minimum of 34 feet. We have 36 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60%. We're below that. Setbacks, you have to be 60 feet from the front, 3 feet from the sides. We're 63 feet from the front, 3 foot 4 on one side, 8 foot 8 on the other, and about 3 and a half feet from the rear. The backyard cottage, the size of it is limited by the zoning code. So it can be 24 feet wide and 32 feet deep with a maximum footprint of 576 square feet.

are just 24 feet wide by 19 and a half feet deep with a footprint of 468 square feet. Story height is limited to 12 feet. We comply with that. A number of stories is limited to one and a half stories with a flat or gable roof, which we're compliant with. One stipulation of the zoning code is that a half roof has to intersect the sidewalls at a height of four feet for Backyard Cottages, and we're compliant with that as well. So what we're proposing here isn't out of line with the zoning code. It fits on the site and it is compliant with Okay, thank you very much.

Sure. Bill White, is your hand still up? Did you take it down? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me lower that. No? Okay. Is it low? No, but still up. Okay, now it is.

And Anne Vigorito, did you want to say something before we move on? Yes, I just wanted to let the board know my client is well within his rights to proceed at risk. When he was given his permit... and after the appeal was filed he was told you know by the building department he could proceed at risk it was his decision so you know that you know that is what he's doing okay thank you so much um now

So I've got a little hot checklist here for you folks tonight. Whoops. What happened to me? Oh, yeah. All righty. So I've got... The lawyers, the neighbors next door, and I usually... Is there anybody tonight from the city, be it inspectional services, law department, planning, preservation, zoning? I want to speak right now before we go to the public, general public. No, I see, what's the zoning hand but no name? Who is that? So Zoning Boy with a hand up.

Yeah, I wanted to ask if I could say something before I go to the public portion.

Sure, go ahead. That's Zach Zaremba.

I just want to point out that A number of times today we have heard about the trees and the damage to the fence and the statue, but I just want to make sure we're not going out of the bounds of what we really should be discussing today because I don't really feel that's in the purview of the ZBA community. or what the case is about tonight so before public speaks about it i just want to establish that that really shouldn't be relevant to what we have to decide tonight as a board

Great. Thank you so much, Mrs. Zaremba. I appreciate that. And I was trying to be a little courteous to these folks. But as we go forward, I'm glad you put that statement out there for everybody to hear. Thank you. So I don't see anybody else's hands from the city or this whatever. So let's move to the public portion. I would like to open it up. Kit, anybody from the public weighing in?

Yes, this is Kit. I'm going to share my screen with the timer and Director Bartman will unmute the attendees. If you could just... when you're given permission to talk you'll be given two minutes and if you could just state your name and your address for the record so let me go ahead and share my screen I would like to say also to everybody wanting to weigh in um

We do have a lot of emails that you folks were sending in. So if you sent one in, you don't need to speak unless... You'd like to offer us another angle to what you were already saying and I'll pull yours out, okay? So who do we have first?

First up is Susan Fendell.

Okay. Ms. Vandell, welcome.

Hi, I live at 39 Simpson Avenue. I'm not seeing where I can... Show video but I wanted to say that I I think that the zoning board, it's well within their purview to consider the procedural methods that were used by the developer. And I think it is also well within their purview to consider What Attorney White talked about in terms of the intention of the council in passing the zoning laws giving this What used to be called an in-law's house. The ability to build one as of right.

I think there are environmental factors that do need to be considered. and that the city has put forth as a priority in its policies and I think before any further construction is done There should be a halt and a consideration of what is the intent of the council and an opportunity for the council to weigh in on the issue.

Okay, thank you very much. Next please.

Next is Jane Bester.

Let's see. How do I unmute?

We can hear you now. Fine.

We can speak. Thank you. My name is Jane Bestor and I live at 45 Ibbotson Street, apartment 3 in Somerville and I've lived in Somerville since 1986 and I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Susan Fendell's point that nothing should be allowed going forward on any lot splits before the city council decides. has a chance to review the situation. I think it's unconscionable that the planning staff has been delegated what can hardly be considered a minor plan change to a site. Deeply ironic that a previous single-family dwelling proposed for the undivided lot after the prior structure was torn down at 1700

Hudson Street was subject to review by the Somerville Historic Preservation Commission and was rejected by a three to two vote, notwithstanding the support of the neighbors. The accumulation of lot splits decided by the planning staff stands to change the character of neighborhoods without allowing for due process. and to undermine the distribution of land use as established in the summer vision deliberations. And as Fendel has indicated, There are many dimensions of environmental review that need to be considered with every lot split. I'm a member of the Mystic River Watershed Association The treatment of storm runoff is a constant preoccupation. The fire department has concerns about access to dwellings on lots that are

Overly, overly developed, so-called developed. There are issues of tree cover. I mean, the issue of the trees on her property that Provo has, has stressed are not simply a matter of private enjoyment. Tree cover, as she has pointed out, is a vital concern to the city. So there are all kinds of reasons. to think that this is an illicit practice that needs to stop at once soil conditions of course in conjunction with water issues also need to be evaluated furthermore the the lawyer in in speaking for the proponent didn't didn't it's time my time is up okay thank you Okay, thank you.

Next, please.

I have those same two hands, but no others.

No others, okay. So we're going to keep, I think for right now, we should...

They're coming in now.

Okay.

Merry Cossesso.

Okay.

Mary. Hi, good evening. Thank you so much to the chairperson for the work that all of the community members step up to do. I am a member of the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It's a volunteer board, so a little different. The New York Board, but still committed to all contributing to quality of life in the city and to inclusivity in the city. So I'll focus my remarks on the loss of affordable housing in the city of Somerville. and a project like this that doesn't contribute in any way but adds so many very high-end units

I think this is a challenge and I agree with so many folks who mentioned that the council may want another opportunity to revisit We have lost ground on the percentage of affordable housing. This is density without affordable housing. And I also wanted to underscore the remarks that were mentioned with accessory dwelling units because in most communities, and I won't repeat everything that was said, but it was intended to provide affordability. on existing lots, not luxury housing. So I'm concerned and just wanted to raise all of those issues related to us losing the opportunity. And I think

Bill White said this. It's a lifelong resident. I didn't mention I live at 2 Bigelow Street now, but I grew up in East Somerville. Three family units where people helped one another. get ready to procure housing in Somerville and this kind of development does exactly the opposite and is very concerning. Thanks for this time to speak.

Thank you. Nice to hear from you.

Thank you.

Next up is Meredith Porter.

Mr. Porter, welcome.

Thanks. Meredith Porter, 104 Josephine Ave. I see two major problems here. One is with The word accessory, my understanding has been that backyard cottages were truly an accessory type of unit thought of by some as I don't know sort of granny flad or You know that they would be used for a member of the family in that context when the council adopted that idea through the new zoning code. The zoning ordinance clearly says that a backyard cottage is an accessory building type.

and it says that a couple times and there is no definition of accessory building type per se in the ordinance but there is this definition of accessory structure and it seems entirely logical that that interpretation should follow. So That's point number one. Point number two, on lot splits, this is something that has been troubling me for a long time. These lot splits are being granted. with no notice to anyone, not even to abutters. And that is, I will admit, the way the zoning ordinance is currently written. These lot split decisions are not even often being recorded in the planning and zoning database to the extent where there was one and I actually

paid money to the city clerk's office in order to obtain a notice of a lot split. And these have been happening all over the city, developers taking lots and splitting them into pretty narrow lots so that they can pack buildings in there. So I think the process along the approval of lot splits is definitely flawed and shouldn't be taken into account here. And I think that's it. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Joe Lynch. The Lynch.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the Zoning Board. My name is Joe Lynch. I live at 10 Henderson Street, and I am a longtime friend of the appellant Denise Provo. I'm not going to comment on a lot of the things that the attorney for the appellate and Ms. Provost stated. One thing that worries me about our new zoning code is if indeed it is in contra to state zoning code 40A, this city faces a plethora of lawsuits. I do not want to see the city get into fighting its own residents. I have nothing against the developers who are coming in trying to make a buck in this city, but clearly our new zoning and the way it's being interpreted by the planning staff needs attention. I don't want to do that. There are smarter people than me in the room, but I would ask you for two things tonight.

I followed the saga of the Albion Street and the Hudson Street property reviews. I've noticed a lot of flaws in the way that the city does do its review process. Not going to mention some of the things that I've seen these developers do. They've done them in my own neighborhood. I'll call your attention to 35 Richardson Street. that was another thing that got a lot of people very upset it's happening again on Lowell Street the attorney for the developer called attention to the fact that there are probably about three dozen of these already happening in the city On behalf of the appellant, I would ask you to do a couple of things tonight. Do not let the developer go any further. Either you have the right to put a stop work order on everything or revoke the building permits and get this settled before we go any further with other neighbors that get upset

have an attorney and we all wind up in land court thank you madam chair thank you Mr. Lynch next please would anyone else like to speak

Anyone else to speak?

We'll let the public portion stay open a little bit. This is usually what happens when somebody signs on, they came in from work or whatever. Can we leave that portion open and just move on with our meeting? Thank you. Now this is going to go to the board next, I believe.

Madam Chair, I did get one hand just raised as you were just about to transition.

Okay, go ahead. One more.

Bill Shelton.

Okay.

Okay, I'll be brief. 65 Boston Street, thank you for taking this testimony. I don't see how the CBA can make a decision on this without revisiting the legislative intent of this ordinance. My recollection is that the entire purpose of this ordinance, well I shouldn't say entire, but a central thrust of this was to support affordable housing. and man, that is not what we're getting on this lot. So again, I think that I don't see how the zoning appeals board can make a decision without actually going back and looking at the record. And I believe that these deliberations are on video. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shelton. That was the rest of it?

Yes, no other hands.

Good, okay. So, as I said before, if there's anybody here from the city or the law department, inspectional services or what have you, want to say something? Raise your hand now. If not, we're going to go right to the board. Let them start asking some questions out there for the attorneys or the inspectional services or what may you. So... Here we go on the board. You folks out there have questions tonight that you want to ask either the applicant or the The property owner next door, the attorneys or inspectional services. How clear is everything to you? Raise your hand if you have any questions.

Madam Chair, I believe Mr. Bartman has his hand up.

Okay. Can you see me also?

I can't see myself so I don't know.

Yeah, I can see you.

Thanks for having me. There's a lot of testimony that's been provided tonight. I want to highlight that I would defer all legal questions to a city attorney. David Shapiro who's here and any compliance questions to ISD Matt Sarcyoni is here I'm happy to talk about any policy but I do think As was mentioned earlier, there's a highly technical question in front of the board tonight that is not specifically about policy. I do think that it would be most efficient to raise legal and compliance questions before we get into policy, so I would defer to myself as being third in order of importance, but that's my own opinions.

Okay, thank you.

So, I was going to have the board just throw out their questions as they went along and who would pertain to it and answer it. All right, so does anybody have any questions for the law department on fictional services? No. Oh, okay, there we go. I see Olivia. has a question and followed up by Ian Brockel, Ian Fullerton, and Sisia.

Go ahead, madam. I am hoping that city staff can explain their interpretation of Chapter 40A in this matter so we understand how they're interpreting it.

Mr. Bartman, I think you said you'd go third, but that's, you know, that's a pretty...

I have a question. Can you provide some clarity in the question? 48 covers a lot of topics. So it covers procedure or... Special permits for site plan approval. For instance, site plan approval is not a part of Chapter 40A.

So this is in coordination with Mr. White's concern that I believe his concern was that the affordable housing requirements in Chapter 40A are not Aligned in this, but I will allow him a chance to correct me if that was incorrect.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, no, no, the 40A argument that I raised had to do with the fact that your honorable board with the regulations that were provided to you by the planning staff effectively amended Zoning Ordinance, you went well beyond what you were authorized to do. And what was done could only be done by the City Council through the procedure of Chapter 48 that provides for zoning amendments.

Thank you for your correction. In that case, I don't need clarification as requested.

Okay, that's right. No, it's a lot of information at once, so we've got to figure out how we're interpreting what we hear. Anne Fullerton, you're next.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have two questions. I actually had a question about 40A as well. Mr. White had qualified section four in his presentation tonight, which seems really primarily about districts. And I think that probably was the incorrect Section of Fortier to be noting. I think that his original narrative actually had Section 7, so I wanted to find out What section he was actually raising an issue on?

Mr. White? I would go by whatever was in my written I may have misspoke. I don't recall saying section, but if I did, and I have section seven in the memo, I would rely on whatever was in the legal memorandum that I provided.

Okay, because Section 4 was written tonight on your presentation, but Section 7 is in your narrative.

I'm sorry, I didn't refer to Mass General Laws in my presentation to you folks. It was just the Somerville Zoning Code.

I there it was MGL I actually wrote it down when you're presenting MGL 40a section 4 was noted in your presentation right in the word document so all right just just to put a pin in that sounds like we will then proceed with what was in the narrative which was section section seven which makes more sense to me My second question, I'm wondering if Mr. Stellman can put up a building section of the cottage for us, and I have a question for staff about this.

Give me one second.

So here's the section here.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stellman. So... Mr. Bartman, Kit, anybody on staff that can help me with this. The requirements for a backyard cottage are one and a half stories. How is that interpreted? Because this is clearly three levels of living. and we have an elevated foundation level to allow the three levels of living I'm having a hard time reconciling one and a half stories with three levels of living Looks like Mr. Bartman has his hand up.

Yes, Mr. Bartman.

Go ahead, please. Through the chair, by state law, ISD is the only entity authorized to interpret and enforce the zoning ordinance. I'd have to defer to them.

Okay, thank you. Inspectional Services?

Sorry, this is Matt.

Can you hear me? Yeah, yeah.

So the zoning ordinance pretty clearly lays out what counts as a story and what does not. So written in the staff report is... The ground story obviously counts as a story. The ground story is the level of living of the structure that has the finished floor above the grade. So that would be what's labeled as first floor on this cross section. And then it also says that habitable space located under a pitched roof. is considered to be a half story so long as it meets certain requirements. One of them being that the roof rafters have to intersect the exterior walls at a height of not more than four feet above the finished floor of the top story?

Mm-hmm.

So that would be the second floor, which again counts as a half story per that definition. Oh, sorry. And then it also includes the ceiling height cannot be more than 12 feet is the second. and then for basements there's a part of section two that talks about when a basement counts as a story or it does not and it says that if it the finished floor of the first floor is 5 feet or more above the average ground level of the lot then the basement counts as a story. So if it's less than 5 feet above the average ground level then it does not count as a story so that's how you end up with the 1.5 story okay and just for for viewers what I'm seeing here is that that

That amount is four feet and some change. Yeah, I believe so.

Yeah, that's what we're talking about.

All right, thank you for the explanation. I appreciate that. Chair Fontano, I don't have any additional questions at this moment. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Who else has a hand up? Zach, do you know? Cecilia has her hand raised. Okay, Cecilia. Bill White, take your hand down, please. And then Ian Brockelman is going to be after Cecilia.

Go ahead, Cecilia. Madam Chair, just I want to respond better. I have the document that I'd like to put on later on. That's the reason my hand is up to respond to Member Fullerton's question. So it's fully answered for her.

You feel it's not fully answered?

No.

I feel it's all answered. What is it? You're all set with it, Dan? I am. All right. She's all set. Thank you. Cecea. Your volume erupts. Muted.

There we go. I jotted down four things. One was the last point that Anne brought up about how having a basement doesn't constitute a story and I'm seeing it here and 2.44.4 so I will look at that a little more closely the second question is um the state uh I guess that the backyard cottages are not technically called accessory dwelling units. I mean, if it's not correct, no. These questions are for ISD. If that's not correct, please correct me because the state limits ADUs to 900 square feet and they have to be on the same ownership as the principal building. So I'm wondering how

um uh that works with the these backyard cottage the backyard cottage ordinance and how ISD you know enforces that um My third question was really related. If this backyard cottage is going to become a condo and is sold as a separate property, How does that become work within the definition of a backyard cottage? And then the fourth one was about... Just from my own curiosity, I know in the Massachusetts regulations, if two adjoining lots are owned in common ownership, they become automatically merged. I'm

sort of paraphrasing so when when these lot splits are done in North American development is developing both of them how how is it considered a split lot Matt

first of all she wants to know about the um um all right well you got them down what she was asking you

Yeah, I'll try as best I can. So the state law is specific to allowing for one protected... It's called a protected use... Accessory Dwelling Unit that has certain requirements in terms of size which is the 900 square feet or half the area of the Principal dwelling, because of the size of structures in Somerville, it pretty much always ends up being the 900 square feet, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. so backyard cottages aren't you know the backyard cottage was created in 2019 this law is from 2024 they're not necessarily in They're just not the same thing, I guess is maybe the best way to put it.

A backyard cottage could potentially be built as a state-protected ADU, which would grant them some We have to put up or we're kind of still to be completely honest we're still reviewing those state regs because there isn't a lot of case law on them but Yeah, I mean, they're just kind of two separate things, essentially.

I understand. That's what I was... But under the backyard cottage... Portion of the Ordinance is also no requirement that it be under the ownership of the principal dwelling in it.

Yeah, there's no... Ownership requirement as part of the ordinance for the backyard cottage.

So you can sell it separately. I'm sorry, CCI. No, it's okay. Is that what you're questioning? Is that what you're saying too?

It kind of is. It does leave question about whether... you know it's being interpreted correctly because there is language in there saying that these are accessory I think I think there is um there's language on um

1.12, I think. Thanks, Anne. Oh, it's 3.1.12. There's sort of... Yeah, it's like an accessory building type, so, you know.

It does really make me question whether this allowing one to condo and sell an accessory unit is the right application of... These rules. I guess my final question, Matt, was about the lot merger.

So I believe that's lot merger doctrine, and it's more that they're considered combined for zoning purposes if they're needed to meet some sort of minimum zoning standard. So just owning two lots next to each other doesn't automatically merge them. We can get you a better answer. I'm definitely not an expert on that, but that's my understanding of how operatory works.

Okay.

I don't know if Dan wants to talk on that or something else.

Dan, did you want to speak to that or come back later?

Through the chair, I wouldn't mind addressing all four of those questions. The conversation has gone on a little bit. I wouldn't mind being reminded of all four of them. I can actually, for those that don't know, I was the primary author of the zoning ordinance on behalf of the Somerville community. So I have some knowledge of why terms are what they are in the code. We did not call a backyard cottage an accessory dwelling unit specifically because we did not want to tie it to ownership or family relations of any tenant or unit in the primary building, the principal building. Any one of those triple deckers or houses with two units that you typically see in the front of the property. So we did not, on very specific reasons, call this an accessory dwelling unit. because it was just another dwelling unit.

that it has now led to terminology confusion in our ordinance with state law uh we intend to correct that but that's part of the five-year zoning review project that our office is currently In the middle of, but like the passage of the state's new ADU law codified that term in state law and then immediately caused confusion for what the heck we had going on. We were always more permissive than what most other communities permitted. When they allowed backyard cottages, they would maintain either that it had to be owned in similar ownership as one of the units on the front of the property or it had to be a family member in the back of some type. And we said as a community that we didn't want to require that association. So that was never included in the zoning ordinance at that time.

So that's the background information on where that term, the confusion related to that term comes from, but also explains why there isn't an occupancy or ownership requirement associated with that additional unit I'd be happy to answer the other questions but if you wanted to go through them together I'd be happy to add what I know

Cecilia, did you have other questions that weren't answered? No, I think my questions are answered. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Dan. And Brockelman.

Yes. I think it's helpful to group all our questions by question type, so let's stick to the backyard cottage. Can the architect tell me what the total max square footage is then of what's being proposed? I think I missed that in your, you told me the footprint.

Yeah, the maximum footprint is 576, and you can do that on first floor, basement, and second floor, so that would get you 1728. There's no, I mean, that's how the maximum's derived.

Sorry, state it more clearly. Yes, the zoning ordinance says that the maximum...

The maximum footprint of 576. You do that on the first floor of the basement and then the second floor would get you a maximum... Yes, yes, I understand what... That's what I'm not getting.

I understand what footprint means. It's whatever touches the ground is the footprint. So that's maximum width 24 by 32... right equals five seven six floor plate which in which you comply because you're under 24 and you're under 32 um but then what's the total You said 15, that's where you lost me. Can you speak more clearly?

So the zoning code doesn't stipulate a maximum total square footage from the backyard cottage, but if you exceed the 576 footprint, then... you'd be over that total so the way the maximum total square footage for a backyard cottage building is derived by the footprint times the number of stories I'm asking what you're proposed Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking the zoning regulations.

You can slow down when you speak and slow down a little bit as well.

The proposed square footage of the backyard cottage is 1,398 square feet.

1398 and that's the livable basement the first main floor and then the upper um that's correct that's that's interesting because when I look at I mean, this has to do with the basement, which ISD explained. Because when I look at the ordinance, right, I'm seeing 576. Max footprint 1.5 stories allowed is 864 square feet. I mean, that's assuming I'm just reading. So that's not huge. But then now we're adding your basement footprint, which is giving you 1398. So did we agree that the basement doesn't count or livable?

Square livable floor area as member Fullerton said is not part of this calculation. It's the cleverness of the architect which has eked out more living space while still complying to what's written.

I'm sorry, what was the code section you referenced?

I'm at the dimensional table, right? 3.1.12 Backyard Cottage I'm just saying when I look at this, my interpretation would be 576 times 1.5 stories. Oh, a backyard cottage max is 864. I guess I'm asking either staff or ISD if that's interpretation is a stretch or gray area and somehow it's also allowed One, someone to design an almost 1400 square foot livable backyard cottage. Did we agree that the basement doesn't count?

Matt? Matt? You have your hand up. Do you have an answer for Ian? Sure. Talk to Evan.

Yeah. So the... The requirement is actually, or I guess the maximum I should say, is a 576-foot floor plate, which is a specifically defined term. which is the total gross floor area of a single story of a building so you can in principle have 576 square feet on one floor And then you can also have one and a half stories so that footprint could go up and it could go down if your basement does not count as a story.

And you were saying in this case the basement doesn't count as a story?

That's correct. Because of the ground level thing that we discussed earlier.

Okay, so... So the architect has managed to design within the parameters of the dimensional, you know, requires a zoning code, but getting maximum Living Space Utility out of this backyard cottage. Okay.

I think just to clarify, I think I understand where you're coming from, Anne. So the The glossary portion of the Zemen Code does not have any reference to the maximum square footage of a half story, so there's not a regulation that the half story has to be half of the first story.

Yeah, I think I realized that as I was saying, it has to do with how the roof intersects, right? We're complying with all the dimensional... Okay, that's my... I think that's it for now on the backyard cottage for me. Thank you.

Ann Fullerton, are you following Ann Brockelman on this? I see you're nodding your head.

Yes, I understand. I think it is.

I don't know if you had a question, you know.

It's a very similar question to what I had She was approaching it from square footage rather than counting stories. But I think that what she and I are both struggling with is that the while the the backyard cottage submitted does meet the regulations it doesn't feel like it's in keeping with the intentions of the scale of What we've seen backfired cottages to be in the past. So I think that, you know, it's more of an ephemeral issue.

Okay. Ian?

Brockelman, you're all set? Go ahead. I have further questions, but if we want to flush out Backyard Cottage, I think we should

Does anybody have a question about the backyard cottage?

Okay, so go ahead, Ann. What's your next issue? I'd just like to understand the project. as a whole better I understand the purview of what we're deciding is narrow legally but I think I've seen some conflicting even images flashed here. So, you know, what is permitted? When? Where is it now? I think understanding the context Thank you so much for joining us. Images from the applicant. Ms. Provost had four square-ish foundations, but then when I saw the architect's drawings, I saw only one Backyard Cottage.

So I'm just confused as what was permitted, what is as built right now, and what do the permit drawings show? Can somebody go step by step?

That would be Ewen, right?

Ewen, would that be? Are we talking about one or two backyard cottages now?

I'll share my screen again. So we had initially gone in with a backyard cottage on both lot A on the left and lot B on the right. There were some issues that the city brought up with a tree on an adjacent property, so we removed the backyard cottage on the right-hand lot on Lot B. So now we're doing a primary structure and a backyard cottage on lot A and a primary structure on lot B.

Through you, Madam Chair, so when we saw Four rectangular foundations. One of them is for the existing garage. In the photo, I think. Yeah.

Yeah. If... If you can share the photo again, well, maybe it flashed quickly. I didn't take notes, so I'm not sure what that fourth square was.

And do they have the same depth of footing? You're not putting a basement under the garage, are you? They look the same, just again, flashing of a photo. Can someone pull that up? It's part of the application package.

I have a photo in the packet. Right. Image 0201.

Chair Fontano, this is Kit. Mr. White has his hand raised and he's on mute currently. I don't know if he wants to share the photo.

Yes, I can do that. Yes, I could do that, but the photo that I showed and I explained was what could be done as of right. I then explained that the backyard cottage in the lower left, okay, Let me see if this is the one. The backyard cars in the lower left was removed. The application for that was removed because of the tree issue. So that was not designed to show what is currently before the ZBA, but what can be allowed as a matter of right in general based on how the ordinance is being enforced by planning through the building inspector. Now let me see if I can find.

There was one of four port foundations.

That's what I saw, yeah.

What's that? Yes, please. was not represented as being for this site. I represented, it was represented what could be done as of right throughout the city. And then I clarified with regard to Denise that the fourth The fourth building, which was the backyard cottage, was removed. The request for the developer to build that one was removed so that all that applied to this site are the two front buildings in the backyard cottage on the right, but not the left.

May I continue, Madam Chair? Yes, please do, ma'am. Permit right now and what is under construction? Is it what Mr. Stellman, is that the amended permit drawings?

Yes.

and not not page one of the application materials um your AO 20 yes that that is no longer that is correct yes okay that's So you're just building the one on the left? Left, because the photo was flipped from the abutter side. Okay, thank you.

Oh, I have a quick question if I can chime in for a second. So then that O2O, you're saying, and I'm looking at a color picture. It's got just two foundations. It's saying that it's going to be the two on the left, right? Lot A, Lot A. Mr. Stellman, is that what you're saying?

Yes, so this is Hudson Street here. This is... You're not sure.

Wait a minute. Yeah, Ms. Hudson?

Can you see this?

Yep.

So this is Hudson Street here. Yeah. This is lot A, the primary structure. This is lot B, the backyard cottage. And then there's going to be another primary structure here, or lot A, backyard cottage, and another primary structure on lot B here.

So there are going to be four structures?

Three.

Oh.

One primary, one backyard on lot A, and then one primary on lot B. Yeah. Primary, backyard, primary.

But no existing garages?

That's demolished.

Okay. So it does show that demolished in your plan. Yes.

Good. All right. Okay. Annie, you through with these pictures? Anybody else want to refer to them? No? Okay. So anyone else want to speak to this? What we're on right now? No. Who else has another question? Our question of staff? Question of law? The legal department's here? No? You're all done with your questions tonight. Anne Brockelman. I guess you're our spokeswoman tonight, Anne.

I can move on to maybe go through my notes on the lot splits. I guess maybe it's for staff more Mr. Bartman these are my notes as I read the staff report um What are the guidelines that determine if a site plan approval is minor or not?

the criteria sorry can you see me now yes the criteria for minor site plan approval um is enabled by the Somerville zoning ordinance underneath the sections for your board and the planning board. So both boards are empowered to establish rules for minor site plan approval. And then how that functions is slightly different for each board. but almost almost the same for the same types of things that both your board and the planning board have allowed to be handled as minor site plan approval What the exact process of minor site plan approval is, is up to the board. You could decide that one of the steps isn't required or that the public hearing isn't required, but you still got to do your neighborhood meetings. It depends on the nature of the thing that is considered minor in nature, right?

So the board would have to find that that is the case and then it can establish the process. So the process doesn't have to be the same. For all of them, but currently is done the same for everything that's considered minor site plan approval. This came about in the current zoning ordinance actually because it was already in existence in the prior zoning ordinance. But the zoning board was not at all asked to review land platting. And that's because a long time ago, the city of Somerville filed a home rule petition to the state legislature to ask for exemption from the Subdivision Control Act and that was granted in a one sentence law that says the city of Somerville is not subject to the Subdivision Control Act. So there's no language in 40A about how land is split because state law has that in a different place and the city of Somerville was exempt since it filed that home rule petition.

When we adopted the Somerville Zoning Ordinance, the version of the Somerville Zoning Ordinance in 2019, we decided to reestablish rules for land platting, which includes lot splits. lot mergers and lot line adjustments, just moving around a lot line and slightly different and additional procedural steps if you are subdividing lands to create a thoroughfare. So if you have a large parcel and you've got to put a street in, then that is handled slightly different. But they're both in the zoning ordinance as requiring site plan approval. And then both boards decided that lot splits Lot mergers and lot line adjustments would be handled through minor site plan approval. If my memory is correct, that was done in early 2020. with both boards and one of the reasons that your board found that as a new thing in your rules is what I mentioned previously that you were not asked to address land division

previously in the prior zoning ordinance but you are the permit granting authority for the NR and UR zoning district and so we needed to establish that new power similar to the planning board When you were granted authority over those two zoning districts. So if you recall how things were handled in the prior zoning ordinance to this one, that's why you gained that authority and had never done that in previous practice. So that's brand new to the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2019 and how that delegation came forward. There's a sentence in the very beginning of Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance that says that any lot platted in the city has to be compliant to one or more of the building types of the zoning ordinance so when somebody submits to subdivide their land or I'm sorry divide their land then what we do is look at the zoning district and the building types permitted in it and make sure that it the land

dimensions are compliant with at least this is actually the task that ISD does and actually tells us that the platting is actually compliant with the dimensions of the of a lot for one of the building types permitted in that zoning district We routinely on Thursdays meet all together to review compliance questions about things like this. We even discuss by-right development. um but because this is site plan approval there is no discretion for approving it if it is compliant with the zoning ordinance it gets an approval and i want to highlight that that would be the case regardless of whether or not i was doing it or if you were doing it and that applicants have the right to pursue development activity to the extent that they wish. And that can include splitting their lot and never building any buildings. that can include adjusting the lot line between their parcel and the neighbor and never building any buildings.

So our zoning ordinance actually has to allow for land platting and even subdivision that does not include development that is subsequent to that land planning. That is an entitled right handled by the Subdivision Control Act in state law for every single town and city in Massachusetts. and we thought it was prudent to also have similar rules for the city of Somerville effectively giving us local control of how land is subdivided rather than being subject to the subdivision control act and we finally filled a gap that the state legislature let open for us when they exempted us from the Subdivision Control Act but did not instruct us otherwise what to do instead. So for years, many people just subdivided property and went straight to the registry to record it because there were no rules in Somerville.

So we wanted to make sure that there were rules in Somerville and adopted essentially similar procedures because the State Subdivision Control Act actually has a process called approval not required. And in every town and city in Massachusetts, if the lot meets the frontage requirements of 50 feet, which could be smaller by a local zoning ordinance and any area requirement then it must be approved and can go straight to the registry to do that approval not required A&R exists in every single other community aside from Somerville, and that is effectively what we recreated through the site plan approval process. Site plan approval itself is not authorized by the state's zoning act 40A. It is a creation of the municipalities of Massachusetts and was defended as a legal way of

conducting permitting by the state Supreme Court. And so 48 does not regulate subdivision, or I'm sorry, it does not regulate site plan approval, otherwise known as site plan review in other communities. Those are the same thing. So there aren't the same type of standards for how things work and we should not take the special permit Practices that are in 40A and just transpose them onto site plan approval, it's not the same thing. It is not discretionary. And I want to just revisit that if this plat was in front of you, you would be required to approve it. and it does not mean that somebody has to tell you what they intend to build there now because they might not intend to build something there for years. and that is entirely within somebody's rights as a property owner. Every single property owner in Somerville has the same right and that is why our permitting system reflects those rights

you can split land separate from building a building and you can build a building separate from occupying a building and that's why there's permits for land division, permits for building permits, and certificates of occupancy. There are different development activities that all have permits related to them. And so that's why they end up getting handled separately. because sometimes we have to, and that's entirely within somebody's right to pursue within that legal system. So I wanted to provide that background related to site plan approval and a little bit of how it came into existence. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Ian Brockelman?

Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. It's very helpful to hear your weekly process. who you talk to when these come I mean that's all context and I think um it's clear if I I might repeat what you were saying but I think for the purposes of Public hearing. I'm going to repeat that my understanding. Unlike what we just talked about in terms of the dimensional requirements, of a three-dimensional space like a backyard cottage where you can comply but then arrive at a different endpoint you know a small large there is some Wiggle Room, depending on how the dimensions come together, the lot split is pretty black and white. It either complies or it doesn't.

You're allowed to split it a certain minimum. You just have to not violate the minimum lot size and make a teeny tiny lot. Because I was going to ask if there are If there are some discretions as some lot splits are complex, major, or some lot splits are minor, but I'm hearing that it's black and white. Again, which is different from When planning staff review whether as-built are de minimis or not, vary from some dimensional variation. from the permits that are drawings you know it's by six inches three feet five feet if it's five feet you're like oh we better go to the ZBA to see if they feel like this is A major departure or not. So there is a gray area and discretion.

What I'm hearing is lot splits, lot mergers. They're so black and white that we don't even need to know about it because you are compelled to approve. Is that accurate layperson's summary of what you said more eloquently?

Through the chair, I agree with nearly everything you said, except that we take a little bit of issue with the awareness of lot splits. I do think more information could be posted online that these are happening. I think the original practice soon after the zoning ordinance was adopted was to just process those behind the scenes according and you know totally according with the ordinance but because they're was no ability to appeal or condition a lot split because there was no impact because these are lines on paper when they're just a lot split. and again I understand that lot splits lead to development but we have to understand what's being presented to us that there isn't as much I mean, there is no discretion in determining that the dimensions are correct. We once had a lot depth dimension. If you remember, we repealed that dimension.

I believe it might have been 2022. But we would check every dimension that was regulated in the zoning ordinance to ensure that one of the lot sizes was permitted in what they were showing us from a plant set. And if that's true, I'm required by law to actually issue that. That's part of how the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts determined that site plan approval was an allowed practice that municipalities have. They consider it the regulation of development. Not the discretionary approval of development. The only thing that can ever be done is you have to approve it. You can add conditions to it. and the only way you can deny it is if there is an intractable harm upon the public that it over that like it's overturning the purpose of the zoning ordinance and that's not what's happening here in the NR zoning district the purpose of the NR zoning district is to produce

additional houses and triple deckers and backyard cottages exactly like what is happening here and I'll comment about any other any other questions well I mean hypothetically I mean you

It seems like it would be good to have public awareness of what's going on, right? If people to know in their neighborhood, look, everything's getting merged into one giant, the whole thing, you know, my whole block is one lot or Everything's getting subdivided. Just a matter of transparency for the public. But could they appeal? I thought you talked about the word appeal.

Sorry, through the chair. Those do get filed with the city clerk's office. So there is technically an ability to appeal. So I misspoke there. But there's not... There's not a detrimental impact that would be caused by the paperwork, right? Like this is, this is stops at paperwork.

You could, the appeal would, I guess the detrimental impact again is the future.

No, like I have to consider what is in front of us on the plan set, not what may or may not come from it, because what may or may not come from it is required to also be compliant with the zoning ordinance and the NR zoning district. It's like you can't build non-compliant development without appearing before your board for a variance. So that's why we treated the... We do treat these differently now. A constituent mentioned earlier that our minor site plan approvals are finally being posted to the website. So that change has happened. We have very low permit volume right now. So you're not seeing a lot of new things. But the practice before did leave a hole related to transparency and posting these on the reports and decisions page. Otherwise, they were being processed entirely the same way.

I never experienced the process that... Attorney White mentioned earlier that may have existed prior to my time in Somerville where minor site plan approvals were kind of debated by the ZBA or authorized to be minor, but that's not on the books today. Yeah, so our intent in the future is to make sure that people are aware of all of these, that all of these get posted on the website the same way that everything else should. kind of related issue also identified by Councilor Scott down in parts of his ward towards the Cambridge Border, he upzoned much of that area of the city between Prospect and Webster Street and they're kind of experiencing the opposite issue in that people can merge land by right and

and they don't know what's coming and so some houses are there are going through the other transformation turning into apartment buildings and he also reached out to us and asked to make sure that that's daylit So we're working right now to make sure that the public there's like a public information campaign is also launched related to this and that these are also always posted on the city website.

Thank you. Anybody else have questions for Mr. Bartman? No? Okay. So what other... Anybody else want a question on another topic, another item within this? Are you all set for tonight?

And Brockelman? I'm kind of going through page by page of the staff report.

Yeah, that's fine.

We understand it's flushed out. Attorney White has had his hand up, though. Would you?

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. White. I thought that was... Go ahead. Ian, could you give him the floor?

Thank you. Mr. Bell, go ahead. Yeah, I have tremendous respect for Dan and we worked well, but he is absolutely wrong on what he just told you. Although that land-plat exemption was granted, the old Board of Aldermen and the City Council passed an ordinance for site plan and review. They did not revoke that ordinance. They did not repeal it. The reason that was enacted was, and if you read it, you'll see why. If somebody just bought a piece of land, right? and they wanted to split it in half and they had no intention to develop it, then he's absolutely right. As long as it had adequate frontage and then what they were going to build on it. But if you intended to develop it at the time, The city wanted to know what you were putting in because you're getting extra development. You're getting the ability to put in more buildings than you otherwise would have if you kept a 10,000 square foot lot.

And that was done all the time. They would have to say what they were going to do. And Mr. Bartman is correct. You had to be very careful for the reasons if you would ever deny the whole thing. But it gave the board the ability to massage things. and listen to people's concerns. That was not in any way, shape or removed by the granting that we got. It was for a very limited purpose. That ordinance is still in place What the city council said was that you could act your rules and regulations to deal with it. But the ordinance itself requires the development plan to be presented. It's not like for somebody, let's say I did it and I had no plans for development, okay? But it's different. And it says you can't do it piecemeal. The city council knew when they passed it, developers couldn't do it piecemeal.

So if you're going to go in, I don't know, in six months or a year from the point in time when you split it with the development to put in eight buildings, okay, then they would say no, because this was contemporaneous. Basically, when you did the split, And you had to go through the process. What he's done, okay, is take away the public notice and stuff, which my argument is you can't. Chapter 48 applies once the city council enacts zoning. They enacted the zoning for the lot split and they put in a number of requirements that was never appealed. The concern the city council had was the development that would take place because of the split of the lot and more buildings going on than it could be in its pristine spot. Now, there are a lot of things you could do, and nobody ever challenged that. I don't know how many times. Maybe this was before Mr. Bartman's time in the city, but yeah, I think it might have been the planning board.

But anyway, that was clearly reviewed by the granting authority, and they had the ability to tweak it. and they could also influence the development and tweak it. He's right that you couldn't deny it in the whole, you know, you couldn't deny it in its entirety unless there was some problem that could not be solved by changing it or whatever, which would be very real. So I just want to get that out. You may want to consult with your attorney on this one. Okay, because for me, the law is crystal clear. Once the city council enacted that zoning ordinance with regard to Lot splits and the need for a special permit and they wanted to know the development that was going to take place. That's far in. Those requirements can only be amended by the city council, not by Mr. Bartman giving you rules and regulations. with all due respect.

Okay, put your hand down, Mr. White. Dan, did you ever want to say something about that? You're muted. Dania muted. Thank you.

My intent is not to get in a back and forth tonight because this is a different portion. No, I understand that. However, the rules that were on the books prior to 2019 were completely repealed and entirely new zoning was adopted on December 12th, 2019. and I'll leave it at that.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Anne Brockelman.

Moving on to Page four, the issue of affordable dwelling units has been brought up. Hold on, I'm looking at my highlights. Can staff or Mr. Barton please clarify the affordable housing requirements for NR versus UR? I think that is what's being discussed on top of page four.

Through the chair I do want to call attention to the fact that the zoning ordinance has been changed since the version that was adopted in 2019. The 2019 version required site plan approval for backyard cottages and if there were four units on a lot More than three units on a lot, then you had to have an affordable unit in the NR zoning district. We repealed that. both separately backyard cottages were made by right by an ordinance passed by the city council and when we adopted our MBTA community strategy we also allowed up to four units by right on NR properties with no affordable housing requirement. The old affordable housing requirement of the NR zoning district was repealed by the city council. and so was the site plan approval requirement. Backyard cottages are permitted by right. There is no required accessory relationship to the principal building. or the tenants of the principal building.

Its relationship is defined in Article 2 as accessory to the primary use of the lot, which is residential housing. and up to four units are permitted. The state passed their ADU law, which is likely on top of what the city council has allowed in Somerville. In certain circumstances, people might be able to have a fifth unit. and I think that we need to understand how the zoning ordinance evolved from 2019 and what was on the books then versus what's on the books now because city council that adopted the first version is not the same city council that is in existence today And as City Council has changed, they have changed the Somerville Zoning Ordinance to what is currently permitting this development on this lot. And so there's no affordable housing requirement. Thank you. Can I just ask a follow-up to that?

I'm sorry, Zach. So reading the staff memo then, because the affordable requirement was repealed over in the NR district, the lot split is irrelevant because it's in the NR district.

All development in the NRZ district does not have an affordable housing requirement. These lots were already here and they were vacant. The whole way down the street, you could build houses all day long. No affordable housing requirement. Doesn't matter if North American development builds all of them. It did before. and that's why that sentence reads the way it did but there is no longer an affordable housing requirement and in our zoning district the city council repealed that and so it does not apply the same way that used to in 2019. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, may I check my understanding? Yeah. First you said up to four, but then now you're saying none, no affordable housing.

Yeah, now is none. Yeah, so you can build four units by right in the NR zoning district. I'm sorry, you also referenced the UR zoning district. and the difference between NR and UR. I skipped over that. The UR zoning district still has an affordable housing requirement if you can build a building with four or more units. So there's a threshold in there for some of the building types and others would not achieve that threshold. So you'll see an affordable housing requirement for certain building types, but not others in the UR zoning district.

Okay. So again, we're in NR. No affordable requirement period. Not relevant to where we are now. I'd just like to point out In the staff report, you used ADU as affordable, but then we're also saying ADU as accessory, so it's confusing. I wouldn't use the same ADU twice differently. Thank you.

Thank you Ann. Anybody else?

Let's take a quick staff person. I'm sorry. Kit, do we have any more people? Dan's handling that. Is there anybody that's coming from the public before we kind of...

Yeah, this is Kit. If you would like to speak for this application, please raise your hand and you'll be given two minutes to speak. I believe you get one two minute increment, so if you've spoken already, that was your chance.

Okay, is there anyone from the, well, Matt in Inspectional Services, was there anything that you want to reiterate for tonight? Are you all set?

I'm all set.

Okay, thank you. Thanks for your input. Our next meeting is March 4th, so get ready.

Chair Fontana, this is Kit. Again, I'm sorry. Through you, I don't know if you wanted to talk about the procedural. I don't know if we've discussed the idea of March 4th already with the rest of the board.

Not really, no. To elaborate, we had these here, these cases in front of us tonight. Attorney White has filed two more cases. filed two more cases that we're going to hear on... on the 4th. I knew it'd be running late tonight, and I wanted to just buff out anybody before we say goodnight tonight, see if you had something else to add. But we thought we'd absorb all this, get all your questions, even make your notes. We come back on the 4th. We're going to break right into the cases that are in front of us tonight. Look them over. Any final questions we'll have. Everybody's going to be back that was here tonight. Come back. They could finish up and then hopefully we would have a vote on these items.

Then the next part of the meeting is going to be for the two new cases that Mr. White is presenting us with. I felt that that was enough for you tonight what we're doing to go back and a lot of it's a little similar as you'll see when you get the paperwork and stuff. but I didn't want to confuse the issue and I wanted just to start you know really asking like asking questions I know some of you are thinking about and that's awesome you know and uh so is that okay with everybody else on the board? Yes? Yeah? You had enough tonight? I think so. All right. Thumbs up. Thank you. Now, without further ado... I'm going to close the public portion now for the evening. In this case, these cases, I want to give Mr. White and Anne Vigorito

If they need to give us like just two or five minute comments you'd like to leave us with. Would you like that, Mr. White?

I would. I appreciate your indulgence throughout, Madam Chair. You run a very good meeting and you give me the opportunity to speak. I just want to deal with two things. The appeals are basically I'm going to be on the same issues and I'm not going to be repeating myself at the next meeting. It's clear the members are understanding what's going on and everything. I do want to address though the affordable housing issue. I understand that the requirement was changed. However, the special permit requirement with regard to a land split that's in the zoning code says that you look at the total number of units that are being created before the split. So as of right, clearly, they could put four units on each. But the affordable housing requirement is you look at it before the split. So technically you have an NR district for, let me see, seven units being created, which would require...

which could require an affordable housing component. The problem is when they made it as of right, I think the zoning code was ambiguous as far as what happens in an NR district where you're doing a lot split and you're going to have more units put in than before? And should the affordability be based on seven units before the split? Now, I've thrown it out. I mean, if this thing is appealed, we won't have standing to appeal that. But I just want to make sure the folks in the community, the ZBA, and whoever is in city government, if they really don't believe that they're entitled to an affordable unit with this, I can't challenge it because Denise and I were not involved in affordable housing. So again, that's just thrown out for the members edification, but I did want everybody to know that I fully understood that there was an amendment This was a peculiarity which I don't know if anybody thought about when you get seven units on one lot before the split. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Thank you. Anne Vigorito, do you have something you'd like to leave us with tonight?

Madam Clerk, I'll be very brief. I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. Madam Chairwoman, it's been a long day. I apologize. I was in court all day, so I think I've got all my names screwed up. But I will state this. Just to recap, you know, Matt Sessione, I think you did a great job explaining the review process. And, you know, Dan Bartman, he really, you know, I do a fair amount of zoning here in Somerville. Oftentimes, I meet with Director Bartman to get the direction, and I think he explained it well. as to you know matters that have been repealed it can get very confusing um but you know That's why, you know, the repeal of in an NR zoning district that, you know, no longer a requirement that that fourth unit be affordable. That's why, you know, there's no affordable component here. And I know it's, you know, come up before the board this evening.

You know, and I think, you know, my architect, Evan Stallman from Collison Design did a great job, I know, you know, explaining about the 576 square foot building. Footprint of the building, you know, the one and a half stories and, you know, basement doesn't count. I mean, I think Matt Sessioni echoed that, you know, that it's allowed in this zoning district. So, you know, my contention is my client has done nothing wrong and he Thank you.

I want to thank the attorneys for coming, Ms. Provost. and everybody from the department heads that came out or in the departments. I think the only person Mr. Shapiro Was there anybody in particular that had something on the board here for Mr. Shapiro tonight? You've understood everything? Yes, beautiful. Well, I guess that's... I'm glad he's here to have listened to us and digest everything. Theo, I couldn't see you for a minute. Yeah, so I hope you took in everything and... We'll see you on the 4th, I take it? Great. Did you have anything you wanted to say to us? No.

No, I've been listening, taking notes, and I can always answer any questions if needed.

Great. They're saying no. They're all set. Good. Thank you for your time, everybody. I really appreciate it. and the board. So that's the end of this case. Do we have a motion to continue for March the 4th? Is that correct? Am I getting the high sides?

Yes, March 4th is correct.

So we have to vote on the continuance, yes? Yes. Okay. Madam Clerk, would you like to make a motion for us?

Yes. In the matter of 17 Hudson Street, I make a motion to continue this case to March 4th.

Thank you. May I have a second? Yes. Seconded by Olivia. All those in favor. Ann Fullerton. Aye. Zach Zaremba.

Yes.

Sisia Daglian. Aye. Olivia Mobayi? Aye. Susan Fontano? Aye. Did I get everybody? Yes, I did. Thank you. It was unanimous. So be well, everybody. On the case tonight, you can all sign off. We've got to check you if you have some other business to attend to. We look forward to seeing you all on the 4th. Thank you. Bill, Denise, take care. The board, okay, look forward to it. Everybody looks well. I haven't seen you in a long time. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. So the board, do we have other business to attend to? I don't see anything on the agenda. Does anybody have anything they wanted to add? No. Oh, okay. I thank you tonight. Thank you, Kit, for helping out tonight and to Dan, especially doing double duty here and to the board. I thought everybody was very articulate. I like Ian, you know, you took the reins and let us listen to all your questions and get us all fired up and Ann Fullerton and CCR and Olivia, Zach, thank you all for participating and I'll see you on the floor.

No, on the 18th.

No, wait a minute. Next meeting is the 18th? February 18th. Yes, that's correct. February 18th in between these cases. And may I have... A motion to adjourn, please.

I make a motion to adjourn today's meeting February 4th, 2026.

Thank you. Seconded by Thank you. All in favor? Ann Fullerton? Yes. Olivia? Yes. Susan? Yes. Zach?

Yes.

Ann Brockelman? yes let the record show six members voting on the affirmative for the 18th good night thank you good night