Land Use Committee

Welcome, everyone. I'll call this meeting of the Land Use Committee to order. It's Thursday, October 15th. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation. We will post an audio-video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels. Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Brokaw, Councillor Davis, Councillor Clingan? Present. Councillor Sait? Here. Councillor McLaughlin? Yeah. And Councillor Ewen-Campen? Here With four members present we have quorum

Excellent. And Councilor Davis will be joining us later. He has the Ward 6 Neighborhood Connect meeting, whatever Resistat is called now. For that reason, we're going to take the ADU item last to make sure that he's there for that. I anticipate the most discussion on that. So colleagues, just a little bit of table setting. Everything that's on tonight's agenda we had a public hearing for and the public comment period is open on these until October 30th We cannot formally take action, the final action, until after public comment period closes and we get a recommendation from the planning board. but my thought in the opinion of the chair and I'm interested to hear what the committee thinks several of these are really straightforward non-controversial So I'd like to just discuss them.

If the committee decides, we can move them out of committee and lay them on the table until we get a final recommendation just to help keep things moving. And then I think some of these are going to be the subject of deliberation I obviously continue to be interested in the public comment that we hear, but I think it's also worthwhile for us to get started discussing these. So, with that said, let's take up item number one, which is the approval of the minutes. Seeing no discussion on that, we'll lay that on the table for... Approval vote at the end of Just as a little bit of background, these are extremely closely related. One of them comes from the mayor's office. One We've had the public hearing for item two on the agenda, so that's really the item that I think we'll be working on. But I just put them here.

There is very slight discrepancies behind how they're actually worded But Director Bartman from planning is here. Would you mind just quickly reminding the committee that the content of this one?

Through the chair to the rest of the committee, this amendment removes what's called a ground story elevation requirement for the residential buildings in the zoning ordinance of two feet. If you were to wander around our neighborhoods and look at houses and triple-deckers in apartment buildings, most of them are lifted off the ground. certain distance, not always two feet but that does not necessarily need to be a zoning requirement. And we have run into situations where the other mechanisms we have to deal with accessible ramps and things like that that coincide with this requirement weren't always meeting everybody's needs. So in the long run, it's better if we were to take this out.

Excellent. Thank you. I'm interested to hear from colleagues on this. Councilor Clingan?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to Director Bartman. Director, so in your estimation, me not being a designer or whatnot What would be the reason to have it two feet off the ground? I mean, the only thing that comes to mind is like flooding and so on. But I think about brownstones in Boston where there's Down, you know, there's departments down below. I have to imagine rain like like there's ways to deal with that with drainage and so on. Right. So, I mean, is that the only reason why someone would have it two feet off the ground? Is there any other reason?

Through the chair, there's some valuable reasons. Most of the time that it's a crawl space underground and keeping the pipes up off the ground actually insulates them with air. It can keep those from freezing. It's a storage space sometimes. One thing is that you do have to engineer the foundation of a home differently. If you're going to sit it right on the ground, it most often means that you need a concrete slab and concrete does... It's not completely waterproof So it would need to have additional waterproofing. We know we do have high groundwater in many locations across Somerville, so really this would turn into a decision to make based on the site. And if it's appropriate to lift the building off the ground because of site conditions, then somebody could do it. But it makes it a choice of the property owner instead of zoning mandate for every house. But there were some reasons for doing that.

Right. That's what I was just, I was trying to think of any other regulatory reasons because if we were trying to protect people from their own faulty building or something by building on the ground and not doing it the right way and having problems with pipes or so For regulatory reasons, were there any reasons why this should stay on the books? Other than stylistically or engineering-wise, that would be up to the builder.

Through the chair, the zoning overhaul project over the years was very focused on replicating the character, the built form of the neighborhoods. And so we literally went and measured all of the dimensions and codified those right into the ordinance. And although it does accurately recreate old buildings, we don't necessarily need to build them like that or have force that on it. It's probably more... recognition in a pitched roof house regardless of if it's lifted off the ground two feet or not right like visually we would still see that as a house so it was very much a Fine tuning of trying to replicate the exact nature of the existing houses across the city, that the reason that was included mainly stylistically like you identified.

Stylistic. Okay. All right. That's all Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Through the Chair to Director Barman, Councilor Clingan mentioned this about flooding. I understand that with this amendment it's an option Right, to not have that. But folks can still have two feet if necessary depending on the lot. And just I'm curious about When designs are being reviewed by the planning department for, let's say, big developments. So would this just be then if this were to pass just to recommend it? Let's say now this is happening in an area where there is flooding. Would you just make a recommendation to have a ground elevation or would they be a requirement? Especially again for areas in the city where we know for sure there's flooding. So how... Yeah, how does planning handle that?

But again I'm thinking about like big you know developments and I'm only mentioning this because in my ward we had you know the bottom of the hill big development like that. where inclusionary units were in the basement and then flooding happened shortly after people moved in so yeah if you could cover that

Through the chair, that two foot requirement was not related to flooding in the ordinance. But certainly raising a building off of ground level impacts whether or not a house floods when we do have localized flooding. Our sustainability division and the engineering division are currently looking into Blood-prone areas having a zoning requirement that requires their entrances and mechanicals to be elevated above the flood range. We don't have that in the ordinance yet. The way that the engineering department tackles that is through what they call a site construction permit, it's separate from any kind of zoning permit, but it primarily focuses on stormwater and flood management. And how the site might be graded, how its storm water management Features on the site function, where it directs runoff. All that stuff's handled by the engineering division through that permit so they handle it on a case-by-case basis at the moment

So neighborhoods that would be prone to flooding. If it were a large building like you're suggesting, that would still require site plan approval so the planning board will look at impacts that way, but also the engineering division would always do that site construction permit and handle flooding and runoff a second time kind of.

Okay, great. We're really glad to hear that we are taking this seriously and engineering is on it. Thank you.

All right. Well, I'll add I'm in support of this for the reason that this was advocated for by the community and I think embraced by the administration was Link's version of this. includes amending what are called the architectural guidelines. This is, as I understand it, basically the only real discrepancy. So within each district neighborhood residents, urban residents, mid-rise districts There's a section called the architectural design guidelines, which are non-binding as I understand it. But for example, neighborhood residents that says ground story dwelling units should be elevated above the grade of any adjacent sidewalk so that the windowsills of the dwelling are at or above eye level passing pedestrians. This elevation change maintains privacy for occupants, encouraging open blinds or curtains to allow natural light

So it makes sense to me if we're saying you don't have to do this. This is a non-binding part of the zoning. Can you just speak to why it's not in the mayor's version? Is that intentional? Is there just kind of an oversight? How does this strike you?

Yeah, those are like you say non-binding. They're effectively a suggestion made by city council when it's just legislative text to anybody building in the neighborhood residence district that is a desirable design outcome. But no one enforces that as a mandate on anybody that doesn't do it because it is only a guideline. However, it probably is suggestive to the reader that might not know the difference legally between a guideline and a standard. Standards must be followed and guidelines are suggestions or recommendations. Sometimes guidelines become operative if they're incorporated into a design review, but this is the NR zoning district where things are by right. So there isn't an entity reviewing the proposed design from a design standpoint or in relation to the design guidelines from a quality standpoint.

So at that point, they're just effectively suggestions to any homeowner or builder or developer. But we don't mind if it was to be included or not. But we didn't include it because... We know that it's not actually a standard that's enforced if somebody were to not elevate their building off the ground.

Preference, I'm interested to hear what colleagues think. You know this is not going to legally affect the outcome but it does strike me that we're saying we want to encourage you know where possible accessible units to be building and then we have this sort of But from a stylistic perspective, the city council likes when they're raised up. Just seems off to me. My proposal here would be that we amend the mayor's version to include striking those portions of the architectural guidelines and move forward on that. Anyone on the committee have an opinion on this? All right. Works for me then. So I guess... In terms of what I would recommend we do just to get this out of the box, if we're done talking about it and we're in support, would be to move that we recommend this for approval.

It'll come out to the city council but then we are not going to act on it And obviously once it's before the city council, if we get public comment or learn something that changes our opinion based on the public comment period, obviously we can go back and amend. But this way it'll kind of get out of the box and won't get caught up in any procedural slowdowns later on. So I would move that the administration prepare amendments to item two, to remove the architectural guidelines. And then we recommend approval of that amended. Director?

Hi, if you could please move to have your staff edit the amendment once we submit. Your staff on hand edits them after the fact with any changes that you make. Fine by me. Thank you. It's simpler procedurally just for everyone's awareness. There's added steps if my staff has to do it because I have to externally submit it back to you and they just write your amendments

Okay, so Clerk Henderson do you want me to cite the specific sections?

Yes that would be helpful.

Okay, so then I move to amend section 3. I'll send this in writing as well. 3.1.15a1 3.2.14.a 4.1.7.f 4.4.7.f so those are all the sections as i understand it that are the architectural guidelines referring to ground floor Architecture, architectural design guidelines. And so I would move to strike that language and I can send that in writing as well. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, can we call the roll please?

Yes. Councillor Davis? Councillor Clinkin?

Yes

Sait, Councilor McLaughlin, Council Ewen-Campen. With four members in the affirmative that passes.

Excellent and then I move to recommend approval as amended. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, call the roll please.

Councilor Davis? Councilor Clingan?

Yes.

Councilors Sait? Yes Councilor McLaughlin? Yes Ewen-Campen with four members in the affirmative, that motion passes.

Excellent! So... We are going to skip item 4 Oh and we'll leave item 3 in committee I'll reach out to Councilor Link on how he wants that to be disposed of. It has not had a public hearing yet just to simplify things, but I think we can probably have it withdrawn. Item number four has to do with accessory dwelling units. We're going to not take that up at the moment. and let's go to item number five, 261337. This is amendments to clarify requirements for principal entrances. Director Bartman can you remind us about this one please?

Through the chair to the committee, this one primarily allows for a principal entrance on a... The principal entrance is the main door that leads into a residential dwelling unit or a Multi-unit building with like a residential lobby or the entryway into a commercial unit. that door is required to be on the facade of every residential building which is the front wall By definition, and this amendment would allow those to be on the sidewall provided that there is a door for the ground story unit on the front on the facade. Effectively new triple deckers Well, let me start with the old way triple duckers were built was with a staircase at the front and most of the time at the back of the building. That staircase effectively pushes back the living space of each unit because there's a stairwell in the way.

and that means that it's typically taken out of the living room or entryway front, living areas of the building. and newer designs for triple deckers now that we've allowed those in our neighborhood residential district by right new designs are trying to move that stairwell onto the side of the building but that is the principal entrance to all three of those units so that's one of the things that we want to allow to happen, but we didn't want to not have a front door on that unit at the ground level like the front of the building So we did require that unit to have a door there, but its principal entrance leading to the upper units could be around the side. The building code already requires a... ADA accessible pathway to be provided to that entryway so we don't have to worry about that.

And then secondarily, this would also allow principal entrances to exist on all of the different sides of an accessory dwelling unit when it is an external unit. and in our case those we call those backyard cottages because those can now under the state's laws for or rules for how setbacks would work They have to be allowed in ordinance. So they might be oriented a number of ways, and it might actually be better for that door to not always face forward. So that's really the primary targets of this amendment, is allowing the door to move around on those two structures.

Okay, so two questions I have. Looking through the amendment there, the first page has to do with what you just talked about and then basically the entire rest of the amendment is striking the Ground story entrance spacing from larger buildings and mid-rise and stuff. Can you describe the logic behind that?

Sorry, I neglected that part of it too. That is related to principal entrances leading into commercial spaces or the... One that leads into a residential lobby for most of our MR and higher density zoning districts. It was originally a form-based code measure made probably decades ago to try and encourage multiple small businesses in a building that had... was kind of longer through requiring doors but not spaces behind that we have and zoning since then has moved into the world of requiring commercial units and commercial spaces which we have done actually A couple years ago when we adapted the Small Business Overlay District and then applied it in Davis Square. If we want to try and get a certain number of commercial spaces, we should absolutely use that version

which was developed in partnership with Councilor Davis instead of this doorway thing we've actually experienced Construction errors leading to necessary variances and doorways where we don't actually want them because this 30-foot measure is producing weird results. But it is an artifact of probably earlier versions of form-based codes trying to accomplish that. And if you remember, we did start writing our ordinance in 2015. It just took a very long time to get it adopted. And in the 15 years since then, foreign-based codes have kind of moved on related to commercial spaces and the doorways and things like that. So this thing is actually, this regulation is actually causing more problems than good at the moment.

Okay, yeah. And this was I remember in the public hearing you showed a picture of the dominoes and Davis Square that has like doors that don't connect anything right they're not operational just to meet the zoning okay and then the other question I have so i think i believe the only public comment that we received about this at our public hearing was someone said Put a door on the back of an accessory dwelling unit. That could be right on someone's lot line, which I kind of agree with. Makes sense. What's the thinking of having a door on the back of an accessory dwelling unit?

That accessory dwelling unit might also be at the front of the property. And there might be other stuff at the back of the social interaction between that rear door and the neighbor at the back, right? Or the neighbors at the side even. Because that backyard cottage is no longer a forced into the backyard because you have to follow the setbacks of the principal structure and that would allow that accessory... Dwelling Unit So that's where the thought process comes from. Sometimes we might want that door on the back rather than on the side, depending on how close it is towards the neighbor at the side. versus at the back.

And it's actually, we didn't come up with a way to adapt to that. Like if it's at the front of the property then it can be on the side or the front. If it's in the side of the that type of thing we didn't go there um you maybe could figure out something like that but that's where this is coming from okay um just not having really

Seeing this in real life and kind of knowing what issues could arise, are there structures residential structures in Somerville where the doors on the back that we're aware of?

I'm not personally aware of any. We could go back and look at the ADUs that were produced over the years and see where all of them are at. Some of those were prior code. We used to also permit, which is the irony of the ADU law, houses behind other houses. under the old ordinance and some of those had weird orientations towards this side but we'd have to check on the rear.

Okay, I mean, it makes sense to me to have the flexibility. You know, I don't imagine that this will be Any questions from colleagues? Councilor Sait?

Yeah, through the chair. Just to the point you raised, Councilor Ewen-Campen about the rail of the building. Would there be like an issue if it's a fire? Would it take longer for people to... Leave the building. Just like with the code, is it? Is there something about this? I'm just thinking out loud here.

Yeah, director. Not to my knowledge and none of the building codes requirements for accessing a dwelling unit would change just because of how it's oriented. For the sake of your mind's eye, maybe picture the rear wall of your own home and then ADU sitting off beside your house where its rear wall is also similarly aligned with where the rear wall of your house is. If you have a back door, this ADU would have a similarly positioned backdoor just be the back door of your and maybe far away from the rear property line. I know our instinct is to immediately imagine the backyard cottage up against the rear lot line, but the new rules actually are gonna allow that thing to move around the property a lot

Director, isn't this the principal entrance?

Yes. It could be the principal entrace to the ADU but it could be in alignment with the same location in the depth of your parcel right where you're the rear door to your own house might be right and that same distance to the rear property line might also come into existence with a new ADU in the side yard even though that is the main entrance into the building. But that's where it... That's where the difference comes in. And like, you have to start imagining these moving around a parcel when there's appropriate space but they no longer have to be right at the back of the property and they might be a lot closer to the main structure and your own main structure would have a rear addition, right? That is actually closer to the rear lot line than where the ADU ends up. So we're trying to code for possibility, but I am just as sensitive to when that door could get very close to the rear property line.

But if we allow it on the side, it could also get closer to the side property line also. Okay, Councilor Sait?

Yeah, no follow-up. But I just think in general it would be helpful to have some visuals and different lots so we can... Yeah, like I trust what you're saying. It's just easier with a visual. Thank you.

Thank You, Councilor Clingan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to you again, I know we're just discussing here and again it's up to the builders if they want to build something some people might consider silly or whatnot but just a practical question on When we are talking about an ADU, whether it's towards the back How does that work in terms of like, if they don't have a mailbox out on the street for both units? Like, aren't you kind of like... Doesn't it skew the sort of line of like what do you call it? Trust Passing. People are able to go to the primary door of the ADU which essentially feels like you're in somebody's backyard. I'm just curious what weird situations could arise that, but again...

At the end of the day, I think having the option, having the flexibility and I think it can actually make for somewhat of a cool situation sometimes too. But has that ever come up with like People traipsing through somebody's property to trick-or-treat in the back. Now it feels like people are in somebody's backyard of

Through the chair, I believe we have that situation happening today. The post office kind of handles where people are allowed to put their mailboxes. We do have a sentence in here that does allow, you know, we ask for the address of the unit to be on a prominent location. And so we did address that through some text. But we don't regulate mailbox location because there's others that do that. Backyard cottages that are in the back, certainly today if their mailbox is there, that postal worker delivery Amazon person's probably walking down that driveway to get to the rear of the property today. If So accessory dwelling units, exterior ones end up closer to the front property line. It'd be less intrusive of visitors walking back there just to deliver things. So that might actually be a material improvement for people.

Yeah. Yeah, that's almost true. Like I said, I'm not going to try to troubleshoot any possible scenario. That's up to the builders and people who decide they want to buy it. I guess the flexibility, I think is the important piece here so

Yeah, Councilor, I'm coming around to that view also. If you have an ADU that's near a lot line... Aboff, That would make sense, but if it's at the back of the lot close to a fence, makes no sense at all. Seems unlikely. The more I think about it, it's about flexibility for situations we're not foreseeing currently. Director?

Something you just said reminded me that the building code actually regulates openings in a wall, including doors and windows when you get closer to another structure. So if you were to build on the side, the building could might actually force you to put it on the other wall because it doesn't want it that close to the other structure. You're only allowed to have like 15% of your wall openings, the closer you get to the side lot line You have to actually keep reducing that as you get closer and closer. So that's reinforcing what you were just saying, actually, I think from the building code.

All right, I'm comfortable moving to recommend this. Colleagues? Discussion on that? Okay. So I move to recommend This item for approval Seeing no discussion, can we call the roll please?

Yes. Councilor Davis? Councilor Clingan? Yes Councilor Sait? Yes Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes!

Councilor Ewen-Campen? Yes That motion passes with four in affirmative

Excellent, here we go. Okay the next item on the agenda is fixing typos having to do with parking maximums. This is number six on the agenda, 26-1258. So Director, this was explained to us by Justin Schreiber from the Mobility Department as literally fixing typos. There were like several thousand parking maximums that had to be changed and we missed a dozen of them or something.

Can you confirm that? That is true. This amendment reflects the intent that they originally had for that larger one and is correcting some mistakes in the drafting and codification process

Any questions? And are we pretty sure that there are no typos in this one?

I'm pretty sure maybe there's some typos like we always are fallible human beings right but we've looked over this multiple times at least from the maximum standpoint to make sure the numbers were what they wanted them for mobility

Excellent. I move to recommend approval. Is there any discussion on these? All right, let's call the roll on this one.

Clingan?

Yes.

Councilor Sait? Yes, Councilor McLaughlin? Yes Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes

Excellent! So we have one more item on the agenda before you return to ADUs. This is item number 7, 26, 13, 38 having to do with updating terminology for affordable dwelling units and commercial spaces Director, would you refresh our memories?

This one is literally a name change for a bunch of terms that were in the code. We were previously using ADU for Affordable Dwelling Unit The state has reclaimed ADU for accessory dwelling units, so we needed to come up with a different name. We consulted with the housing division and researched what other codes out there in the country have done Thank you for joining us. In recent years, codes have switched to regulating commercial spaces similarly and so they call those commercial units. So anytime we're talking about density numbers or dwelling units and commercial spaces, everything is now called a unit under this amendment. There's commercial units, there's dwelling units. You could append PR onto the front of dwelling units and that's how you get price-restricted dwelling unit.

And in the future if we get there, there could be a PRCU for a price-restricted commercial unit. So this is just us mainly triggered by the state ADU law But kind of streamlining some terminology across the ordinance so that everything is a unit as a base.

Okay, so what we call an ADU up till now has been for us an affordable dwelling unit. That's obviously very different from the rest of the state. So it will become a PRDU price restricted dwelling unit and Councilor Clingan I asked a good question during the public hearing of why is it not something like cost and there was a you know many options have been considered and costs kind of as more broad right includes all the costs of a unit not just the price of it so that's compelling to me Questions on this? All right, well then I will move to recommend approval of this item. Seeing no discussion, we can vote.

with four in the affirmative that motion passes.

All right, excellent so that brings us to I anticipate what will be the main item for discussion the only other thing on the agenda which has get the number correct This is item number four on the agenda, 261336. So Councilor Davis was hoping to be able to join. trying to get in touch with him to let him know this is coming up I'm just going to ask that we go into recess until 7 15 um to give Councilor Davis a chance thank you for your patience everybody and uh we will resume at 7 15.

All right, welcome back colleagues.

All right. Clerk, can you call the roll please?

Yes. Councilor Davis? Here. Council Clingan?

Present.

Council Sait? Council McLaughlin? Here! and Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Here.

With four members present, we have quorum.

Excellent. So let's please bring up item number four on the agenda and clerk, if you wouldn't mind bringing up the amendment on the screen just so we can move through it as we're discussing this. Director, do you want to set the table for this? So this is a series of amendments around what we used to call backyard cottages but we're going to start calling accessory dwelling units.

and backyard cottages still that name still lives in the code but Essentially, this amendment brings us in line with the state's standards for accessory dwelling units, which is codified in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. And I want to highlight despite some testimony we had to the Opposite at the joint hearing, we are required by MGL 30A which is the Administrative Procedures Act to follow the Code of Massachusetts Regulations when one is created for legislation where The Office of Housing and Livable Communities is empowered to write a regulation. And that's where the ADU specifics... Live are in the Code of Regulations, not in MGL 40A. And I share the pain of those that testified that they didn't believe these standards were in MGA

Zoning Act because they're not. And to the degree that we delayed our own implementation of the ADU law, because we also believe that it did not... We were not subject to it because of how 40A is written. However, EOHLC was empowered by that same law to write the implementation regulations in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations and they made it applicable to Somerville And that's why we're here many, many months after that law was passed still talking about how to comply with it. It is rather complex, but you must permit at least one protected accessory dwelling unit. And I say protected because the text that mandates that this be permitted is in the same section that we sometimes call the Dover Act.

It has other protected uses that we are not allowed to prohibit in zoning, is in this section. So you should start thinking of accessory dwelling units in the same category as churches and schools with how we're not allowed to prohibit those in any zoning district. The proposal we put together would allow an accessory dwelling unit either inside the principal structure or external in what we call a backyard cottage. there are some companion amendments obviously that are coming along with this the one related to principal entrances and there's a forthcoming one that will actually clean up accessory structures um separately because the state law actually also also makes the accessory dwelling units subject to whatever standards you have for accessory structures. So,

Dimensions are confusing that must be allowed for accessory dwelling units. And the main takeaway that I want to highlight is Whatever the existing principal structure is on the lot, the same dimensions are permitted for the accessory dwelling unit. So if that building is a cottage, then that accessory dwelling unit has similar height and width and depth dimensions as the cottage building type. If that building is a triple decker, then the accessory dwelling unit has the same dimensions in height and stuff as the triple deacker that is the principal building. What limits it is a maximum amount of square footage that that accessory dwelling unit could have. And we want to highlight that that is the primary number that will control the size of these things moving forward

The number that was in the ordinance is based off of, well let me actually back up real quick. Our existing ordinance permits backyard cottages in a 24 by 24 foot structure that is intended to be one and a half stories in height but due to what our legal means of adding a partially exposed basement and components to roofs including cross gables and dormers The backyard cottages that were built under the overhaul from at least from 2022 to today were coming in much bigger than we had anticipated originally when we adopted the original standards. and the number that you see in the proposal is reflecting of capturing all of the backyard cottages that were produced not necessarily that that's the number we will land on together

But we did want to highlight that any reduction will have a material impact on the production of backyard cottages, and they happen to be some of the most housing we've had over the last couple years. So we just want everybody to understand what the impacts will be. So that's why that number was put in is that it captured all of the backyard cottages that had been produced to date. And they were of different sizes and different numbers of stories. So that might be a satisfactory summary. I'm happy to explain anything specific that you have questions about related to the amendment. If there's anything I glossed over, I'm

Thank you very much, Director. So I have a bunch of thoughts about this that I'll hold until we hear from colleagues but I just have one question kind of a...I guess it's a legal question and I want to emphasize this is not what I'm proposing I'm just curious If hypothetically Somerville were to strike all of our backyard cottage allowance, we don't allow them anymore. We would be out of compliance with the state. The effect of that, would it be that we get in some kind of trouble? Or is the effect of developers can just ignore our zoning and use the state guidelines?

I'd want to double check, but off the top of my head, I believe if we just struck our backyard cottage, they would still be able to utilize the external ADU standards of what was in the state law. If we don't have anything on the books that is more permissive One thing to take to heart is that whatever is in the state standards, we have in effect today effectively and we can permit something more. and that number reflects you know is higher than the 900 in their proposal but if we didn't have anything for backyard cottages today I do believe that they would be able to propose a 900 square foot external ADU Right, right.

Okay. So and I'm just again like this is not what I'm proposing but hypothetically say we say you know we're going to keep basically what we have now but we're gonna strictly limit it to one and a half stories Technically, that's in violation. So in theory, a developer could come and say, you know, you can't do that. So we're going to just do what the state allows us. Am I correct though that... our existing ordinance has a lot of things that are more permissive in terms of setbacks for example So, you know we allow backyard cottages to be quite close to the lot lines. The state doesn't force that part of it right like it says the principal building is that correct?

The principal structure and all accessory structures permitted on the lot, whatever the setbacks for both of those are, are applicable to the accessory dwelling in it.

OK, I'll open it up. I'm sure that colleagues have you know, I know that this has been a subject of a lot of public debate. I have one thought on how we can proceed here, but I'm very interested to hear where colleagues are at. Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for taking a brief recess there so I could excuse myself from the Neighborhood Connect Meeting. I think I got it right finally. Not calling it Resistat anymore. And my regrets, I wish I didn't have to leave that really important meeting for this really important but thank you for queuing us up so that I could jump on for this. Your questions already have sort of gone along the same lines as what I was thinking. At a high level, just to say it again, what I've said before, what was quoted in the public hearing by one of the folks who spoke... As one member of the City Council slash Board of Aldermen, at the time when we were having the conversations about this zoning overhaul as the chair of this committee that oversaw that entire process...

What is being built now? And in fact, what we're being told is required by the state is objectively not what we thought we were talking about. and so you know the additional wrinkle of this state statute is problematic I think that it's Pick your adjective. The one member of the Senate who represents the only communities where Thank you for joining us. There's more discussion that needs to be had on Beacon Hill about this because as it's applied, you know, as we see all the time, you

In the clear legislative intent in the conversation and discussions intended to push communities outside the urban core Thank you for joining us. So they write these laws, and yet they don't apply to Boston because Boston's special. But yet they still apply to Cambridge and Somerville, which I'm sorry, are Boston. We are part of the Boston urban core. It shouldn't apply The regulations need to be fixed. I know that we have folks on their way to Beacon Hill from this city that will take up the mantle of the person who... represents these communities who was part of this process and who is saying, this is not what we meant. And this is how this was intended to work.

So I am not inclined at all to move forward with anything that sort of says well We're going to just align this as fully and possibly as they're telling us we have to. I would much prefer to revise this amendment and dial it back. First, any dials that we have... Fully in support of ADUs. I think ADUs are great, right? They're a fantastic idea. I supported them when we built this into the zoning overall seven years ago. Backyard cottages that are bigger than my house shouldn't be allowed. That's comically ridiculous so I will support certainly dialing the, you know, the dial that goes down to 900 square feet. Let's do that for like off the top 500 Table stakes. I think we should set the building height at one and a half stories. I

versions of my house plopped into every little tiny spot that we have around the city. I think that the way this is being implemented now and the way that it will be implemented if the state regulation is... if these are built to what the regulations are trying to suggest they meant then we will have lots of other questions in terms of flooding The idea that rainfall will percolate at the same rate it does now with a regular backyard, with sidewalks and pervious patios and everything that we all know. become very quickly not pervious in a year or whatever, whatever period of time if they're not maintained in a way that no one's going to maintain them. You can't with a straight face tell me that we're not going to create more runoff issues with what's happening right now or what these proposed buildings would look like under the misguided regulations.

Thank you for watching! I talked to the mayor just now at the Ward 6 community meeting because after the public hearing two weeks ago, folks would come up to me and say, what is the administration thinking? And I said... without knowing is that I suspect that the 1,500 square feet is in there effectively as a starting point for the discussion. That's a placeholder not because the administration thinks that's absolutely the right number and we should do this but Aboff, I'm not advocating for 1500 square feet. I completely agree that we should use whatever levers we can to make these appropriate.

within the past hour he confirmed to me directly that you know The administration has no magic to that 1,500 number. And he at least, I'll put only his words in his mouth and not for anyone else in the administration, but the mayor is fine It would have no objection if we make modifications that that was the intent, that we would get this in the committee, have this conversation, hear from the public and make those changes. I see Director Bartman nodding his head. As I said... I was telling people that was probably the likely case even before that because I know y'all and I figured that had to be the case. I'm glad I was right, I'm-I'm glad that that was indeed the intent and that it wasn't I'm on board for whatever we can do to try and get these really great ADUs back down to the kind of thing that we were talking about in 2019.

And even if that means pushing the envelope a little bit and then let's have that conversation if we have to and wherever we have it, I'm open for that. There are times when it is the right thing to do to push on an issue and then go and defend it if you have to. And for me, this is one of them because I just... We have members of the legislature saying that this regulation does not align with your legislative intent So I'll stop there for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Give an alternate view and then circle back to agreeing with Councilor Davis on a few points. I just want to say, from the public testimony what frustrated me is the constant reference to tenants, to renters being forced out of this community that somehow zoning changes for both ADUs and triple-deckers have led to this big surge in displacement, which is an accusation I take very seriously. I talked to members of CAS and their housing group that advocates for tenants I talked to the condo conversion board chair. I talked members of our housing stability office and none of them have seen this surge in displacement that has been described So I just want to put that out there first, because that's the biggest accusation I heard that I take the most seriously that I have not seen any evidence for.

And I'm going to, when I conclude this, I'm gonna have a request for a lot of information to make sure that this anecdotal evidence is accurate. But I want to just put that out there because I heard from a lot of homeowners talking about how condos are forcing people out of the community as someone who lives in a condo, as someone could only afford a condo to live here, who fulfilled my dream of owning a home in the city I grew up in. That was the only path for me and I'm not really trying to take this condo vs no condo, condo versus rental argument I've seen that play out numerous times over the years sometimes people want condos in neighborhoods other times they want rental i'm not trying to arbitrate that fight through zoning So I want to put that out there is if there's a real concern about tenant displacement, we should be addressing that.

I felt like what we did both for ADUs as well as for the triple-decker was very balanced compared to the zoning proposal in Cambridge that many people want us to do, to allow six stories by right. I thought three stories with an ADU seemed very reasonable in a city full of three-story buildings and ADUs. Thought it was the middle ground, it got us into compliance with the MBTA Community Act I'm just kind of, I guess, just vocalizing my frustration that you're getting it on both ends. Some people don't think we went far enough and then other people are saying that we've just gone overboard with this. I think also just back on the conversation about condos, whether it's a condo versus not a condom. We have a Condo Conversion Ordinance in this city And it's actually the strongest in the state. We've really made it pretty rigid and people still want to build condos here, so I don't see how...

making it harder to build is going to solve that problem considering it's already pretty hard people still want to do it offers tremendous tenant protections that we should be ensuring are being enforced. And we can give tenant protections for condo conversions as opposed to a gut rehab for a rental that we cannot provide. So, that's just something to consider. That said as Councilor Davis said you know I always pictured an ADU to be a cottage unit to be A time on Mount Vernon Street I had a resident who had a literal carriage house, a house that used to hold a horse and buggy in his backyard. and he wanted to convert that into an apartment, and he had to go to the zoning board for that. And it got rejected or he decided not to seek it out because the neighbors voiced opposition and that was enough to kill it even though it would have been perfectly Suitable use for an ADU.

I've always pictured an AD being that, I haven't pictured it being an entire new house So I think that once again, three units with an ADU is acceptable to me. Two completely different units, that's a different thing. That's not what our intent was. Doesn't sound like it was the intent of the state legislation. So I do think we should examine that, examine the size that makes sense for an ADU in Somerville. Thank you for watching. Whatever ADU or carriage house or cottage house gets built is what we actually intended to do. So I would like to do that in the future. I do have a number of requests for information. I can read them out loud or I can email them.

I don't see a chat option in the Zoom. Clark, would it be easier for me to just read this out loud or you'd like me to email it to you or both?

Councilor McLaughlin if you could do both that would be great.

Okay, so I got three requests for information. One is speaking to a resident who was very invested in this, was curious that we got the planning department's information We could also use our own solicitor's opinion on the accessory dwelling unit law at the state level. So I would just like to request for the city solicitor to provide an opinion on the Massachusetts Accessory Dwelling Unit Law and what some of them must do to be compliant with that law. this isn't to contradict the planning department but it is to supplement it so that we just know completely what our legal standing is on it I guess I'll stop there and I have two more Do you prefer me to read all three or?

Yeah, yeah. Read them so we can all hear and then so the clerk could have copies as well. You can send them.

So my next request is requesting data on the number of residential homes 3 units and under that have been demolished and the implementation of three family housing ordinance and the ADU ordinance separately as well as the three years prior by year. So what I'm asking for is is I'd like to know how many homes have been demolished in Somerville since the new zoning code took over which allows three units by right I'd like to know how many units have been demolished by year since then, as well as the three years prior to that. And the reason why I'm asking for this is because I was basically informed, which I don't know if it's true or not. I'd like to investigate this more, is if a home is demolished, it does not apply to a condo conversion. So I would like to make sure that if a home is demolished and built into three separate condos, that the Condo Conversion Ordinance applies to this. To make sure that tenants get protections that they're guaranteed in Somerville.

And this is also to serve just to see how many homes have actually, how many of this actually applied to? How many people have actually been displaced? and how many people are receiving benefits or not. So then my third request is requesting data on the number of condo conversions applied for since implementation of three family housing ordinance and the ADU ordinance separately, as well as the three years prior by year. And to also provide detail on the number of people receiving compensation due to the condo conversion ordinance As well as the number of people who are not compensated. So sometimes we have this ordinance which guarantees financial restitution for anybody displaced due to a condo conversion It also requires that the house remain vacant for two years. So this is a very strict condo conversion ordinance. and not everyone takes advantage of it even when notified.

So I'd like to know how many condo conversions have been applied for since the new zoning code to see how many actual condos are being built How many people have been notified and have taken advantage of the condo conversion ordinance? And how many people may have not done it at all? So these are all things that will weigh in on my final decision because it is about tenant protections to me. I do believe in building more housing and I believe that in a city full of three family housing with ADUs, that is the path we chose a few years ago. It's the path I'm willing to stick on. I just want to make sure that what we're doing is actually what we intended to do to begin with so thank you for your time

Thank you, Councilor. And I got a request when you send that in writing to the clerk, can you also include intergovernmental affairs as well just so they can reach out to relevant staff? Director Bartman, do you want to respond?

Through the chair, if I could just for the sake of the clerk. The second question about demolitions is data that the Inspectional Services Division would have and the question about condo conversion is data That's all.

Thank you very much, Director. Councillor Clingan?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So just I just have a question about you know the how long so to Mr. Director Bartman like how long like so it sounds like there are you know whether it's people who are on their way to the statehouse whatever that recognize um and this is during this actually Senate race one of the reasons why I thought it was created but Have somebody who has council and municipal knowledge because you can then see how these things will affect your constituency. And what I mean by that is it sounded like what Councilor Davis was alluding to, This whole tying it to the main structure situation, Is that like one of those sort of reverse, like unintended consequences where they're trying to make sure that people in the suburbs aren't just relegating some sort of really small...

you know tiny house situations and that we are just sort of getting caught up in this decision as far as now having to allow for three-story cottage house ADUs.

Director, let me just take a quick stab at this because I'm allowed to editorialize unprofessionally. So my take when I first heard these was exactly what you thought that clearly they're trying to pass regulations so that Some of the more less dense suburbs can't kind of pretend to allow ADUs, but then actually have these really strict regulations. The reason I think that's not totally right though, because if that were the case... Then this example we have at Somerville where we allow triple deckers in our most restrictive zoning, that would be kind of a surprising outcome that they hadn't considered. But in fact on the state's website where they're explaining these regulations they have a FAQ, a frequently asked questions and they specifically give the example what if it's a triple decker? And they say that's right. If it's a triple decker, then the ADU can't be regulated more strictly.

So that cuts against my initial interpretation that Somerville was kind of like the unicorn oversight that they weren't thinking about. That's why I continue to think this is really strange. Why would they have that specific example, that from what I can tell literally only applies to Somerville? When, you know, as Councilor Davis said that the legislator representing Somerville certainly doesn't seem to believe that that was the intent when she voted for it. So now director, you can go

I think the thing that I was going to add is that we felt originally that the discrepancy, the primal discrepanzee maybe, was that the legislation talks about single family zoning. A municipality that permits single-family zoning, and we don't have a single- family zoning district. So that's why we reading only the law and not Thank you for watching! and we permit up to three with a backyard cottage. So, we looked at that as we don't have single family housing in Somerville for months and maybe The legislator that you're referring to felt that was the nature of the legislation they wrote. I wouldn't be able to speak for them, but that's how we interpret

interpreted just the legislation itself so when the regulations came out and said no it's for any municipality who has a zoning district that even allows somebody to build one unit has to allow for this that's that was the first time when we were like oh hey that does apply to us because we don't prohibit somebody from building a one a single on even in the NR zoning district um okay then I'll go ahead sorry I think that probably wraps up how kind of taken aback we were at its applicability. So, we felt the same way at the very beginning but it is fairly clear to us now that they are targeting everybody similarly. I do think that sometimes these laws are originally conceptualized to target specific types of places I think MBTA Communities was not originally concerned with Somerville and more of the further out transit stations.

And I think just one... One comment is that the city could decide it wants to act the same way that, for instance, Milton and Marblehead did related to the MBTA Communities Act and decides it intends to challenge. That is certainly within the possibility, but our amendment has not taken that position and is working to follow what we've been told are the criteria that we have to follow.

Okay, well thank you very much Mr. Chair so I'm not looking necessarily to do that again in the spirit of wanting to add more housing In Somerville, but just trying to do what makes most sense for our community. And I'm pretty open-minded. I mean, I don't see L3 stories in a backyard where you know would work in this um in this dense city so i guess what our options are to what like if we tweak the knob to like 900 or something like then The developer would have to decide if they want to build three really, really small apartments. How do we... If we're waiting for the legislature to somebody to fix this on the state level how do we Proceed in the meantime.

That's the discussion.

But I'm wondering if anybody has any insight, like if there even is that type of thing in the works or are we just...

Well, I have a thought that I'll get to. It's very closely related to what you just said and that's what we're here to discuss. There are a range of options like we can amend what's before us. Right. Okay.

Again, just thought I'm going to repeat what I was saying. I didn't know if there are people actively working on what we see as something that needs to be corrected. Sounds like not at the moment.

We got two out there. Sorry, counselors, I didn't fully... Are there people trying to reach out to this executive agency to see if they'll change the regulations? Just for the record, I've been in touch with the delegation that they're trying to have that conversation. There actually was an open comment period on these ADU regs that ended earlier this week. Myself and our colleague Councilor Wheeler both submitted comments on this issue. I literally have no idea, you know, how likely that is to affect the outcome. But we're raising the issue with relevant people. But, you

Okay, so it's definitely on us for now. We can't kick the can. I know Councilor Davis expressed a desire to not do anything for an hour. I don't want to speak for him, but all right, I'm listening.

I would just add as context, I do not think that any of us should feel there's like a burning fire under us to solve this tonight by any means. I would and so on. In my opinion. And our path to doing that has been complicated by this weird curveball from the state. Councilor Sait?

Yeah, through the chair. First I have a question to actually something that you just mentioned, Councilor Ewen-Campen, to direct your apartment. So Councilor wincampin just mentioned how there was A public comment and that some councilors reached out with a comment. And I'm just curious if the administration has, yeah, sent a statement or... Yeah, just explain where we're at here in Somerville.

Through the chair, we did not file a comment. The most recent changes were to the regulations but had some specific things that were changed This criteria to our knowledge hasn't changed for a long time since the original version of the regulations came out. Not that it was out of bounds to provide a comment about something that's been there for awhile, but we didn't address things that weren't changing in this most recent update. which Courtney had included a slide for a couple additions that we need to make once the comment period is done based on those regulation updates. So she attended a webinar that EOHLC put on during the comment period and for us it was very tiny things that we needed to slightly adjust but no big changes so we didn't provide a comment because of the nature of that.

The change that they were making to the regulations was more limited.

Thank you. So McLaughlin, is it on that or different comment? I can wait. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so I just want to say yeah, I agree with what my colleagues shared. I am supportive of the ATUs but This version, this day version is... Yeah, just is very problematic, especially with the merits proposal. I think it's more than 1,500 square footage, like 17-something. And I think hearing from our state senator that this was not the legislative intent is like another layer, you know, adds another layer to this.

I think the idea just like that imagined is there would be a triple-decker behind a triple decker and that's just going to create a bunch of boxes in our city. So, that's really troubling. I would love to work here with my colleagues to find a way around this. I think the fact that there's the 900 square footage is, I think, a good place to start. And then I have some questions about the height. But when we hear amendments, I will ask them because the answer you gave Director Bartman is that even if we were to strike everything you know regarding backyard cartridges in our zoning the developers or homeowners can go with the state regulations right um so

Yeah, for me that's what I'm trying to keep in mind. So like then what can we do right now in the zoning to have something that will hopefully make sense for our city?

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McLaughlin

Thank you, Chair. To answer Councilor Clingan's question about what to do in my opinion I do think the path forward is to pick a square footage that we find suitable for an ADU and I don't know the magic number for that. I think we should examine it. I just looked up quickly and saw that like a garage typical garage in Somerville for our home is Thank you for watching! but we can examine that. But I did also have another follow-up question related to it because I did speak to a constituent of mine who's very well known to everybody here who said that the state law for ADUs had a maximum setback of 25 feet.

which in another neighborhood would be a close distance but around here basically would stop all ADUs from being built completely if we had a 25-foot setback. So I guess through the chair to Director Bartman, are you familiar with this? Is this true or how does setback requirements work in terms of state law when it comes to the ADUs?

Through the chair, I'd have to go look to confirm that specific reference. I don't believe I've seen that before. Setbacks are related to what's permitted for the principal building or the accessory structures. Maybe there's something in there if those don't exist. But what zoning ordinance wouldn't at least have standards for the principal structure? So I'd have to go check where that 25-foot number is going.

Director, I believe the proposition is the principal building in our district has a 20-foot rear setback. Those are currently a three. And that is not just backyard cottages, that's just accessory structures. Right, yes. Okay, so in order for what this constituent to be saying is true, that would mean... I guess we could prohibit accessory structures in that rear setback. We could get rid of sheds, etc., and then the principal building would apply. But unless we want to get rid of sheds, that is not the case. Is that correct?

That is correct. We do have a future amendment that is meant to streamline accessory structures related to this problem but it has not finalized yet but we do anticipate that one shortly Okay.

Are you all set, Councilor McLaughlin?

I guess I would still be curious how the setback law does exist, how it would impact any future development here. and then depending on that, determine what our setback should be ourselves moving forward. Okay.

Councilor Davis?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was one of the primary points that I wanted to ask so let me just Just to be clear, as we're interpreting the state law or as you know based on what it says the state is saying that um the setback for a six by ten foot shed um is the same as a backyard cottage that has the same dimensional requirements as the main building. So effectively, doing away with any separate setbacks for the primary structure.

That is correct

The folks on Beacon Hill or those who are headed to Beacon hill might look at that as another inherent flaw in the way that this statute has been interpreted by the regulators and another reason that it is objectively counter to the legislative intent and any rational interpretation of how or when ADUs should be able to be built as freestanding structures in a backyard. and so Am I correct through you, Mr. Chair, to Director Bartman? Hypothetically speaking, let's say that we said fine, sheds also have a 20-foot setback. So no one's going to be able to have a shed anymore in Somerville and have it actually be compliant with the zoning unless they have more than 20 foot backyard.

If there was already a garage there, would that structure be grandfathered such that they could turn it into a... The 500 square foot average that Councilor McLaughlin noted to turn that existing structure into an ADU or do these, would the setback requirements and all the other requirements change? Be triggered such that we can't convert garages anymore either. You're on mute, Mr. Bartman.

Sorry, through the chair. Are you suggesting that there'd be like a 20 foot setback for all structures effectively?

No sort of separate question I'm just in just so that we're all Working with the same understanding, all of this conversation we're talking about is these projects that we're seeing or any hypothetical project where you're building a new building. If there's already a building there and it's a garage, and it... It's one foot from the property line or three feet for the property. And let's say the shed setback is five feet hypothetically speaking right? It's nonconforming but it's already there Could they still convert that into without going out? So, they don't want to add height. They don't wanna increase the nonconformity. They just wanna put an in-laws apartment in what used to be the garage. Anything stopping them from doing that?

No, it's the intent of the ADU law and state regulations that existing accessory structures can be converted to an accessory dwelling unit.

Even if that accessory structure is otherwise non-conforming, hypothetically a two story wooden barn that's a foot from the property line sitting in a backyard.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, y'all covered the rest of it. So I'll stop there.

Excellent. I get the sense that we're all sort of thinking along the same lines, so I'm going to just tell you what I think we should do, what I I feel that when we passed backyard cottages in Somerville as part of the zoning overhaul, we described them as one and a half story buildings. which is you know there's a ground floor and then the top floor has a roof like this that's the half story we describe them as small we put these kind of pictures in there which are not legally binding but they look like small one-and-a-half story charming little cottages that's I think what all of us thought we were permitting and then what has happened that's I think caused a certain amount of backlash is you know building out these basements that adds basically a third floor And also these roof adjustments that make the top floor instead of like this, you know, they're quite large.

I think it's called a cross gable, the kind of cross-shaped ones. So had the state law... Curveball not come at us it would have been I think pretty straightforward to just say we want to really cap them at one and a half stories and you do that with square footage so the way it is now right we say each foot each 24 by 24 that's 576 square feet Per floor. And we don't currently have a square footage limit. So what they're doing is three of those, right? So that's like close to 1700 The problem, so I think if we were to try to cap the height that runs into the state law. But given everything that's weird about this state law um it strikes me that as everyone had said we should just lower the square footage to two floors so we one floor is 576 square feet we can just say two times that you can build two of those

and then sure like under the state I guess you could build this three-story skinny little weird matchstick thing but why would you do that? You build a backyard cottage right? The one and a half story thing that we've all talked about. So to me, it seems really straightforward that that's what we can do. In terms of whether we try to stick to our guns and also say, no, it's one and a half stories. And then I guess hypothetically you could... Ignore us and build your three-story thing that's 900 square feet, you know, under just the state law ignoring all ours. But I think what we're proposing is a better outcome. You know, I think it's what people would want to live in. And I think So, you know I think despite how really complicated this is Seems to me like a kind of straightforward solution is just have the square footage be two floors instead of three. The mayor's proposal, which as we said is just a starting place, is three, right? If you add up the...

576 times three plus a little just have it be two and then bing bang boom. And this is coming from a place of like, I like ADUs. I think they're great. I was happy to vote for them. You know, Councilor Wheeler sorry Mayor Wilson when he was the councilor We work together on an amendment to make it easier to build ADUs. I think these are things that I like. I like the existing ones, but I just think it's straightforwardly true that some of the ones being built by... Some of the very active developers in Somerville, they just look nothing like what we told the public we were permitting. And that's caused a big backlash and I don't think we need to. I mean, I take the point that maybe they'll be built more slowly or fewer of them will be built. I think that's, you know, OK. I don't think that any the conversation that we're having now has any effect on, you

I think it's about being honest with our constituents about what we're permitting instead of you know putting in our zoning ordinance these charming little things and then actually what gets built is significantly bigger so i'm sort of agnostic about whether we explicitly say we want to keep them at one and a half stories. And kind of, you know, I'm happy to do that. And then if someone wants to go through the state regs, go to town, I guess. I don't really think they will. But I do think just, you know, capping the square footage at two stories instead of three will solve a lot of these problems. And what I do like about this is that the proposal that's before us is that it's explicit that ADUs can be within the building, which I think is a major improvement and it's existing structures as Councilor Davis just said being converted it's much more encouraging of that both of which I think are major improvements of kind of bringing us closer to what we promised the public. Councilor Sait and then Councilor

Yeah, just to make sure I understand the square for your new proposal, Councilor Green-Campen. So when you say two stories or one story and a half... and then think about like if each story is like 500 something you know then that's one way we can calculate this so would the basement be included in this square footage or would that be separate

Clerk, can you please go to page 8? I think it's 8. Yeah. Keep going, please. Yes, this one. So if you look in red here under main massing, if you what is crossed out C is floor plate maximum 576 feet so currently we say that's how big each floor can be and then we say it can be one and a half stories But if you add a basement to that, it's actually three of those floor plates right? So the basement is 576. The first floor is 577 and the one on top of that that has a roof is also 576 so that's how you get close to 1700 if we say the total square footage overall is whatever it is 1100 something then no you can't also have a basement that would be additional square footage i guess you could have a

Basement and a first floor with a flat roof, I guess. Right? But above ground you wouldn't get that extra. So just to say the basement counts towards the square footage if that's the question. Definitely.

Yes, that's the question. Thank you. Well on that point Mr.

Chair maybe it's a dumb question but so as a dwelling unit accounts or if you were to just have it with your you know Utilities down there, no matter what it counts. The basement.

Director Bartman, you want to handle this? Not a dumb question.

There are some through the chair, there are some exemptions for closets, utility closets and stairwells that are deducted from that total. So the more Ewan-Campen Square footage could move up and down, but it would all count towards the total.

So very simply, even if it's not finished basement, it's still part of the total floor. Okay, that's all I need to say. I just wasn't sure if it had to do with a dwelling area versus like a utility area. Councilor Davis?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So again, the question said that was the exact question I was going to ask. And I guess maybe I'm getting to be a cynical old man here. You know, I'm the oldest fart on this august body. and some, I don't know if my DNA is changing or what but you're telling me You're telling me that there's not going to be a basement that's built and has, you know... It's one centimeter short of some measurement or it's got, you You're telling me they're not going to find ways to exempt the basement from the square footage. They're going to put it six feet above the ground or whatever the maximum partial above ground height is going to be. and they're going to say that oh no no no that's that doesn't count towards our 900 or 1100.

And we're gonna say you're right, you checked all the boxes and walk away and no one's gonna then build out that basement and have it be a dwelling unit? And that's a rhetorical question because we know that's what's going to happen. Now, you know, If they do or they don't, does that change the building size? If that's what we're actually talking about then do we care? I don't know. That's another question but like... I'm not walking out of this meeting thinking hey we solved the problem The basement has to be counted. No one's going to figure out a way for the basement to not count I just don't buy it. When I was fortunate enough to move into the city 26 years or whatever, a long time ago for me anyways.

It was the number of illegal basement apartments. It was a Somerville mainstay, right? And it was a good thing. It actually added a lot of housing. It's one of... It was something that we talked about a lot in those zoning meetings about when we were First, putting this concept of accessible accessory dwelling units into the zoning to legalize that. The idea was hey these aren't a bad idea Right. The way it's been being implemented now, though, for all the reasons we've already talked about, it's not consistent with what we told constituents that we were providing. I guess I'd like to, in addition, at the end of Councilor McLaughlin's list, Mr. Chair, through you to Director Bartman, I'd As definitive a confirmation as possible that, or maybe I'll ask it the other way around. What are the possible, and maybe we don't want to put that in there because they're not going to find it anyways.

How confident are you that a basement can't be excluded from the minimum living space requirement? There's no real good way to ask that question other than you know exactly what I'm trying Setting that aside, and this is probably a completely separate amendment. I think it clearly is because we don't have it before us now but it's related to this and so I want to raise the question because it's directly related Aboff, I'd like to request that we take another look at the green score and how that's calculated. Because I think even without all this, even without the state law, what we're seeing is

at least to me doesn't feel like what I thought we were putting in the zoning to require for you know um What's the word I'm looking for? Permeable surfaces, you know, surfaces that will allow rainwater to seep down into the ground rather than flowing into our combined systems. We're spending millions and millions of dollars trying to fix the combined sewer problem. We won't be able to un-combine all of it, we know that, we've been told that many times but I don't think, I can't with a straight face look at this and think that we're not in all likelihood adding to that with the type of construction that we are now allowing that were now seen in backyards where there used to be Vegetation, and now there's a building with a sidewalk that's supposedly permeable. I just don't buy it. So I think whatever we do, I'd really like to take a look at that as well because that's important for

all of his own reasons. And it's directly related to these issues, but it's not at all related to the problems we're trying to solve by allowing ADUs it's a completely separate problem but I think we have to be very conscious of that as well so I'd like to make that request that the administration if you haven't already and I know that we've talked about this a bit you wouldn't surprise me if you told me you're already working on that but I think we need to come back around to that as well Director do you have any response to this

Are there kind of obvious loopholes to being able to build a basement that's not counted towards dwelling? Towards square foot.

Through the chair, my institutional memory is the only thing I'm relying on at the moment from when we regulated FAR in the prior version of the ordinance. I do believe... I believe what Councilor Davis is talking about is really an enforcement issue, but I do remember some situations in the past where people would propose to build unfinished basements that wouldn't count towards FAR. and then later on when no one's looking you finish your basement illegally. And that was some of the illegal basement units that we were that he referred to earlier. I'd have to double-check the standards to see if something like that could unfold, but it really is an enforcement issue in first allowing somebody to build... The unfinished basement and then not following up afterward if they happen to finish it somehow without a building permit. Multi-unit buildings do go through a three year cycle of getting reviewed after the fact.

So those ones are easier to catch than if you did this with like a one or two unit property. which don't get that review every so often. But that's the only kind of scenario I could think of and it's related to FAR and maybe how FAR was regulated in the prior ordinance and not how the state law handles We could double check the exemptions to answer your question with more detail as a follow-up.

On that, Mr. Chair, thank you, Director Reitman. Thank you. Let me throw out another idea and I'm already sort of thinking about how this maybe isn't the best approach but Perhaps there's a way to just say that explicitly here, right? Like basements can't count or not leave it. There will be no unfinished business. If there's any possibility of a loophole when you look into that question you know let's let there be no doubt by saying it explicitly if if you build a basement that's counting towards your 900 1100 whatever it is if we can do that just another thought thank you

I will just say, Councilor Clingan before I recognize you. So the state one thing they did as part of kind of promoting the statewide bill is that the governor um held a it's called like a design showcase where they you know asked architects around the state proposed an ADU and we will like highlight the you know especially like the prefab one so that people can kind of just like use these these cool designs that have already been made and you know, you can Google this. You can see the mass.gov website that has all these and you what they look like? Tiny little cottages. None of them have basements. This is when you're talking about ADUs, this is what everyone is talking about. It's just so clear and it seems so... just dishonest to then say, yeah but you can build a three-story one too. I mean this is like how we advertise them but then we let you kind of slip in single family home that's larger than a lot of houses in Somerville as a backyard cottage. So I just think

I personally think like if there are a couple red lines that we have, I'm in favor of kind of like pushing for, we like ADUs and we want them to look like ADU's. And you know then okay fine if someone wants to Build the state version. I just don't think they will. You know, I think that what we're going to come up with is going to be better than that. Yeah. In terms of like... whether we think it's worthwhile to have some requirements as Councilor Davis is saying you know about maybe prohibiting basements or saying explicitly basements count towards the total gross floor area etc. Councilor Clingan?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to Director Bartman and just pointing out what Councilor Davis pointed out as far as Boston not being subject to this but like Areas like ours being seriously urban city areas. You could probably even include Malden and Everton in this. With that in mind, does this fall into... So with regards to the discussion about permeable services, are we able to require the installation of a tank or would that fall into the sort of utilities like I know that they said we can't even Require people to put the wires underground versus having everyone pulls. Has there been any discussion? I didn't see any literature around retention tanks. Is that something we could require?

Through the chair, you're correct. The prohibition on requiring undergrounded utilities is one of the things they just recently added when that comment period was open that just recently closed that I was referring to earlier. Really the way to understand this is that you have to require something for the principal structure if you're going to require it for the accessory dwelling unit because those standards apply the same way so if you permit basements for the principle structure you got a permit basement for the If you were going to require an underground tank for the principal structure, then you could require an Underground Tank for the Accessory Dwelling Unit to deal with stormwater. but it's the standards that apply to the principal dwelling unit also apply to we use that term interchangeably but

So we would need to do it to the principal structure on the property also. But there's an opening to do things to both, I think is the easiest way for me to say that.

Yeah, well that's what I was thinking. When I think about the new scoring system that the water department is doing and the imagery that they're using who would... If there's two properties on sort of one lot, would they be splitting the water bill? I know I'm getting way complicated but it's really just more about Catching of the water and if we could require something. And I understand the complication of either having to acquire it on the main property or how do you make it work between two different owners? But I share, you know, some of the concerns around water retention and just was wondering if there was some sort of solution in there. And then I guess it also just like, you

you know that water score whose property is it working for I mean essentially the ADU is probably on the entire envelope is covered for them so that's just something they'll have to deal with Okay, no real question. Just what Director Barber answered that we have to do it for the main structure and then that would be a whole other thing. Okay.

Okay, thank you. Well, I for one, I'm going to work with our staff to come up with some language reflecting the proposal that I mentioned tonight of setting the square footage at... 576 times 2 instead of times 3. I'm also going to prepare language to have the story height be 1.5. and see what we can do about the point that Councilor Davis made around ensuring that the basement is counted towards it or potentially prohibiting basements. I haven't really thought that. Thank you for watching! Again, I want to emphasize that there is no ticking clock aside from...

I personally will be on the council until the end of December and I'd like to get this done but that's not a legal reason. So, you know, I would ask that we move with urgency on this but not make any rash decisions by any means. Councilor Clingan?

Yeah, I just asked if A couple of different questions, but I didn't actually get to make a statement regarding what you're proposing and sort of where my mind was at as far as limiting the square footage. Hopefully to achieve something that makes a lot more sense. So yeah, I look forward to that language and potentially moving forward on that and discussing it. Thank you.

Other questions, comments on this? Well I appreciate all of these questions because I have just been... I'm completely confused trying to work through this. And I think I understand it now, but it has taken me quite a while. So if that's where I'm at, I can only imagine members of the public who are interested in It is not straightforward to reconcile what's in the state law, the state regulations which have the force of law. and trying to figure out how those all piece together is not trivial but I hope the conversation tonight has helped us all kind of get a little closer so thank you director and thank you colleagues not seeing any hands up Okay, so we'll leave this item in committee. And I believe that brings us to the end of the agenda where we have the approval of the minutes and we can take that up with adjournment?

That's Mr. Chair, that is correct.

Excellent. So I move to approve those minutes and adjourn.

This is on approval of the minutes in adjournment, Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Clingan? Yes Councilor Sait? Yes Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

That is approved.

Excellent thank you all happy Friday have a good weekend.