Land Use Committee

Land Use Committee Meeting Minutes

Governing Body: Land Use Committee, Somerville City Council, and Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Meeting Type: Joint Meeting Meeting Date: November 6, 2025 Attendees:

Councilors: Jake Wilson, Lance Davis, Jesse Clingan, Ben Ewen-Campen, Matt McLaughlin
Somerville Redevelopment Authority: Phil Ercolini (Chair), Ben Ewen-Campen, Christine Stone
City Staff: Ben Demers (Senior Planner, Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development), Samantha Carr (Land Use Analyst), Yasmin Radassi (Legislative Liaison, Intergovernmental Affairs)
Public: Adam Dash (Attorney), Peter Coyne (Architect), Peter Kim Santos (Treasurer, Davis Square Neighborhood Council), Scott Nowakowski

Executive Summary: The Land Use Committee and Somerville Redevelopment Authority held a joint meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan, primarily to remove the public safety building component and add an objective to recoup funds. The committee also reviewed proposed zoning ordinance amendments to make pre-submittal meetings optional for most permits and to permit home-based child daycare accessory uses. A public hearing was held for a zoning map amendment request for 363 Highland Avenue and 110 Willow Avenue to increase density. Finally, the committee received a presentation on potential upzoning scenarios for Gilman Square, including a fiscal impact analysis.

2. Items Related to 90 Washington Street

2.4 Mayor's Request ID Number 25-1594, Requesting Approval of the Amended 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan. 2.5 Mayor's Request ID Number 25-1595, Requesting Approval of an Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City Council and Redevelopment Authority Regarding the Redevelopment of 90 Washington Street. 2.6 Mayor's Request ID Number 25-1596, Requesting Approval of the Development Objectives for the Redevelopment of 90 Washington Street. 2.7 Executive Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development Conveying a Summary of the 90 Washington Process Review and Development Objectives.

Presentation by Ben Demers, Senior Planner, Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development:
- Project Background:
  - The 90 Washington Street site is approximately four acres, located east of the East Somerville MBTA station, at the intersection of Washington and New Washington Streets.
  - The Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA) acquired the property via eminent domain in 2019 for just under $9 million, intending it for a new public safety building and transformative private development.
  - The SRA was subsequently sued by the former owner and required to pay an additional $30 million, bringing the total cost to $39 million.
  - Due to this unexpected expense, the city announced in January of this year that the public safety building component would be removed, and the focus would shift to selling the entire parcel for private redevelopment to recoup funds.
- Proposed Amendments to the 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA):
  - Objectives:
    - Remove the objective of creating a new public safety complex (combined fire headquarters, police headquarters, and 911 dispatcher center).
    - Add an explicit objective to recoup funds paid towards the $39 million judgment for the taking of 90 Washington Street.
    - The objectives of eliminating blight and transformative development remain.
  - Process (Phases 4 & 5):
    - Replace the "Technical Advisory Committee" with the "90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee" (CAC) for developer selection. The CAC has been meeting since 2023 and aligns with current SRA and City Council standards for engagement.
    - Change the requirement for a selected developer to "break ground within three years from the date of transfer" to "apply for permits within that timeframe." This change aims to provide the SRA with more flexibility in negotiations to secure a higher land value or other benefits.
- Development Priorities for RFP Process:
  - Recouping Funds: Prioritize proposals that recoup a significant portion of the $39 million paid for the taking.
  - Land Uses: Encourage new housing (diverse incomes/sizes), new commercial space (especially ground-floor retail), new civic space (for non-profits/community groups), and new green space (important for Cobble Hill residents).
  - Development Principles:
    - Mixed-use building formats (ground-floor retail with housing above).
    - Dense development, matching density of mid-rise and high-rise zoning districts.
    - Orient density towards the western portion of the site, closer to the MBTA station, respecting adjacent Cobble Hill Apartments.
    - Flexibility in form/massing to encourage unique designs that respect neighbors and the parcel's shape.
    - Leadership in sustainability and compliance with the city's stretch energy code.
    - No surface parking, given proximity to the Green Line Station.
    - Robust urban canopy and natural landscape, including an appropriate buffer to Cobble Hill Apartments and preservation of viable existing trees.
    - Incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all stages, including involvement of women and minority-owned business enterprises.
- Next Steps: The amendments require approval from both the City Council and the SRA. The goal is to bring these back for a vote in November/December, with an RFP for development to be released early next year.
Public Hearing:
- Outcome: No public comments were received during the public hearing.
Council Discussion:
- Councilor Ewen-Campen: Inquired about the anticipated timeline for approval and RFP release.
  - Response (Ben Demers): The intention is to bring these back to the City Council for a vote as soon as possible, potentially in November/December, after at least one more Land Use Committee discussion. The RFP would be released early next year.
- Councilor Wilson: Emphasized the desire from Cobble Hill residents for green space to be concentrated around Cobble Hill and for massing to be on the western side of the site.
Vote: No votes were taken on these items.
Disposition: Items 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 remain in committee.

2.1 ID Number 25-1554, Requesting Ordainment of an Amendment to Sections 10.10.3, 15.1.2, 15.1.6, 15.1.8, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.3, 15.2.4, 15.3.1, 15.3.2 and 15.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to Make Pre-Submittal Meetings Optional for Most Permits and to Improve Clarity and Consistency.

Presentation by Mr. Bartman:
- Purpose: To make pre-submittal meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency in the zoning ordinance.
- Key Changes:
  - Pre-submittal meetings would become optional for special permits, site plan approvals, variances, land platting, and wireless communications.
  - Pre-submittal meetings would remain required for subdivision plan approvals and master plan special permits due to their complexity.
- Rationale:
  - Data from 2024 and 2025 shows that a significant percentage of pre-submittal meetings involve individuals already familiar with the zoning ordinance (e.g., engineering firms, architects, lawyers), making the mandatory meetings redundant for them.
  - 42% of 2024 meetings and 64% of 2025 meetings involved experienced professionals.
  - 17% of all pre-submittal meetings involved Adam Dash and Associates.
  - Mandatory meetings require significant coordination from city staff across multiple departments, which is inefficient when applicants are already knowledgeable.
- Cleanup Items:
  - Clarify language in Section 15.1.6 (Application Review and Staff Report and Public Hearing).
  - Remove language inferring manual submittal of permit extension requests to the City Clerk, as this is now handled via CitizenServe.
  - Standardize language for permit duration and extension across Sections 15.2.3, 15.3.1, and 15.3.2.
  - Correct administrative appeals language to reflect a 30-day period, consistent with state law (previously 20 days).
Public Hearing:
- Attorney Adam Dash (48 Grove Street, Somerville):
  - Supported the proposed change, noting that while he often bills for pre-submittal meetings, they can add significant time and expense to projects, and are often unnecessary for experienced professionals who understand the code.
- Outcome: No other public comments were received.
Vote: No votes were taken on this item.
Disposition: Public comment period remains open until November 21st. Item remains in committee.

2.2 ID Number 25-1555, Requesting Ordainment of an Amendment to Tables 4.1.13, 4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.4.13, 5.1.14, 7.2.7, 7.4.8, 8.4.16c, and 9.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Home-Based Child Daycare Accessory Uses and Make Corrections.

Presentation by Mr. Bartman:
- Purpose: To amend the zoning ordinance to permit home-based child daycare accessory uses and make necessary corrections.
- Rationale:
  - The state of Massachusetts amended MGL 40A Section 3 to require all communities to permit family childcare homes and large family childcare homes.
  - In Somerville, these are defined under "home-based child daycare accessory use."
- Key Changes:
  - The amendment changes "home-based child daycare accessory use" to be permitted in every district that allows residential housing as a permitted use.
  - This impacts various MR (Mid-Rise) districts.
- Cleanup Items:
  - While editing the Summary Use Table in Article 9, discrepancies caused by previous amendments to individual districts (without corresponding changes to the main use table) were identified and corrected.
Public Hearing:
- Outcome: No public comments were received.
Vote: No votes were taken on this item.
Disposition: Public comment period remains open until November 21st. Item remains in committee.

2.3 ID Number 25-1539, 12 Registered Voters Requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Zoning District of 363 Highland Avenue from Mid-Rise 4 (MR4) to Mid-Rise 5 (MR5) and from MR4 to Mid-Rise 6 (MR6), and 110 Willow Avenue from MR4 to MR6.

Recusal: Councilor Davis recused himself from this item due to living across the street from the property.
Presentation by Attorney Adam Dash (representing Altitude Properties LLC, owner of 363 Highland Avenue) and Peter Coyne (Architect):
- Properties:
  - 363 Highland Avenue (currently leased to Recorded Future)
  - 110 Willow Avenue (NSTAR facility, adjacent to 363 Highland Ave)
- Proposed Zoning Changes:
  - 363 Highland Avenue: MR4 to MR5 (for a smaller building at Highland Ave) and MR4 to MR6 (for a larger building towards the community path).
  - 110 Willow Avenue: Civic to MR6.
- Rationale:
  - The project is not financially viable under the current MR4 zoning.
  - The proposed changes would allow for more housing in Davis Square, which is greatly needed.
  - The NSTAR site (110 Willow Ave) is currently underutilized and blighted; upzoning it to MR6 could incentivize its redevelopment, especially if Whipple Street becomes a connection point to the bike path.
  - The owners of 363 Highland Avenue also own a small triangular parcel connecting Whipple Street to the community path, offering an opportunity for direct access.
- Massing Models and Impact Studies (Peter Coyne):
  - The proposal envisions two buildings: an MR5 building with commercial ground floor and amenity space, and an MR6 building primarily residential.
  - A direct link to the community path is planned.
  - Despite different story counts (5 and 6), the buildings would be approximately the same height due to the descending grade of Whipple Street.
  - Shadow studies indicate a minor increase in shadowing compared to what is allowed under current MR4 zoning.
  - The project could produce over 250 units, including almost 50 affordable units (based on 20% inclusionary zoning and net-zero density bonuses).
  - The current MR4 zoning would allow for approximately 119 units; the proposed changes could increase this to 160-250 units.
- Process Note: Even if the zoning map change is approved, the project would still require site plan approval and a special permit from the Planning Board, involving a full public process. The current presentation shows a "maxed out" white box scenario, not the final design.
- Community Engagement: The Davis Square Neighborhood Council (DSNC) voted overwhelmingly to support the application.
Council Discussion:
- Councilor Ewen-Campen:
  - Asked why 110 Willow Avenue (NSTAR site) was included, as it's not part of the applicant's property.
    - Response (Adam Dash): It was seen as an opportunity to incentivize redevelopment of a blighted site, especially given its proximity to the proposed development and potential bike path connection.
  - Confirmed that the proposed changes could double the number of units compared to current zoning.
- Councilor Wilson:
  - Asked if discussions had occurred with the city regarding potential subsidization to increase the affordable housing percentage beyond 20%.
    - Response (Adam Dash): Discussions have occurred with the city, and while no specific commitments were made, they are open to further discussions.
  - Confirmed that the presented massing models represent a "worst-case scenario" and the final design would include setbacks and more nuanced architecture.
Public Hearing:
- Peter Kim Santos (64 Andycott Ave, Treasurer, Davis Square Neighborhood Council):
  - Stated that the DSNC membership voted to support the zoning change for both 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow Ave.
  - Emphasized the need for more transit-accessible housing and welcomed the proposal's 40-50 inclusionary units.
  - Commended the property owner and architect for engaging in good faith with the DSNC regarding the community path interface.
  - Supported the upzoning of the "blighted" 110 Willow property.
- Scott Nowakowski (49 Morrison Ave):
  - Spoke in support of both aspects of the zoning change, citing the need for density near Davis Square Station.
  - Especially liked the idea of incentivizing Eversource to redevelop the "eyesore" property at 110 Willow Avenue.
- Outcome: No other public comments were received.
Vote: No votes were taken on this item.
Disposition: Public comment period remains open until November 21st. Item remains in committee.

4. ID Number 24-0328, 10 Individuals, Including Five Residents, Submitting Comments Regarding Item 24-0059, a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Zoning District of 321 Washington Street from Fabrication (FAB) to Commercial Industry (CI).

Disposition: This item was placed on file and work was completed.

3. ID Number 25-0085, by Councilor McLaughlin, Councilor Davis, and Councilor Wilson, That the Director of Planning, Preservation, and Zoning Draft an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinances for Transit-Oriented Height and Density Bonuses for Additional Affordable Housing and Other Enumerated Community Benefits.

Presentation by Samantha Carr, Land Use Analyst:
- Purpose: To present four conceptual upzoning scenarios for Gilman Square to spur conversation and act as a catalyst for dialogue. These are not formal proposals.
- Existing Conditions: A reference map of current zoning was provided.
- Scenario 1: Mid-Rise Upzoning in the Neighborhood Core
  - Rationale: Aligns with Gilman Square Neighborhood Council feedback, Summer Vision, and Gilman Square Station Area Plan goals.
  - Proposal: Concentrated MR6 mixed-use development along core streets (Medford and Pearl Street) in direct proximity to the T-stop. Expands pedestrian street designation. Preserves existing Small Business District (SBD) overlay on the west side of Medford Street.
- Scenario 2: Mid-Rise Plus Urban Residential Corridor Expansion
  - Rationale: Responds to Council feedback to explore additional housing production via incremental upzoning within the quarter-mile transit walk shed.
  - Proposal: Builds on Scenario 1. Adds Urban Residential (UR) upzoning along Medford Street (west side), School Street, and Marshall Street corridors within the quarter-mile walk shed. UR upzoning (permitting three stories by right with commercial ground floor via SBD overlay) offers more flexibility for small businesses than MR4.
- Scenario 3: Mid-Rise 6 Expansion and Urban Residential Extended Scenario
  - Rationale: Higher impact version, responsive to Council feedback for increased housing production.
  - Proposal: Builds on Scenario 2. Extends UR upzoning along School and Marshall Street corridors up to the Broadway Corridor, slightly beyond the quarter-mile walk shed. Expands SBD overlay to new parcels on Medford and Pearl Street to protect existing small businesses.
- Scenario 4: Mid-Rise Extended
  - Rationale: Highest impact proposal for increased housing production.
  - Proposal: Builds on Scenario 3. Increases mid-rise expansion, with MR6 along Medford Street and Stickney Avenue (to unlock lot consolidation). MR4 upzoning proposed on the west side of Medford Street. UR upzoning along School and Marshall Street corridors up to Broadway. SBD overlay expanded.
- Fiscal Impact Analysis (Snapshot):
  - Scenario 1 (NR to UR): Compared three existing neighborhood residential lots (two single-family, one duplex, total 5 units) to a consolidated 30-unit UR apartment building.
    - Net Municipal Revenue Gain: $28,000 annually.
    - School Impact: Marginal increase of one student.
  - Scenario 2 (NR to UR): Compared three existing neighborhood residential lots (two triple-deckers, one single-family, total 5 units) to a consolidated 30-unit UR apartment building.
    - Net Municipal Revenue Gain: $25,000 annually.
    - School Impact: Anticipated additional two students.
Council Discussion:
- Councilor Wilson:
  - Asked about the strategy of having a "ring" of Urban Residential (UR) next to Mid-Rise (MR) districts for better transition and flexibility.
    - Response (Samantha Carr): Transitioning from MR to UR to Neighborhood Residential (NR) is considered best practice. The scenarios explore UR within the quarter-mile walk shed and along existing corridors with higher foot traffic. Extending beyond the quarter-mile walk shed (as in Scenarios 3 & 4) is a key contextual question, though data supports walking within a half-mile buffer.
- Councilor Ewen-Campen:
  - Referenced a memo from the Mayor's office raising concerns about displacement and public engagement related to upzoning in Gilman Square.
  - Yasmin Radassi (Legislative Liaison, Intergovernmental Affairs): Confirmed that the Office of Housing Stability's concerns are general to upzoning, not specific to Gilman Square. Emphasized the need for comprehensive public engagement beyond neighborhood councils, especially with renters, to minimize displacement.
  - Councilor Ewen-Campen: Acknowledged the displacement concerns but argued that upzoning near transit is crucial. Noted that without appropriate zoning, displacement can still occur, leading to less desirable outcomes (e.g., large mansions instead of apartment buildings). Stressed the need for ongoing conversation.
- Councilor Davis:
  - Agreed with the need for public engagement.
  - Stated that "upzoning leads to increased development pressure" is the intent, as more development is desired in these areas.
  - Highlighted the lack of upzoning progress despite long discussions, leading to smaller developments in Davis Square that could have been denser.
  - Advocated for expanding the Small Business District (SBD) overlay to all squares to protect small, independent businesses and create varied commercial spaces, preventing large, single-tenant commercial developments.
- Councilor Wilson:
  - Thanked the administration for the memo.
  - Argued that upzoning around transit areas has a lower risk of displacing naturally occurring affordable housing due to existing high rents.
  - Emphasized the potential for genuinely affordable units through inclusionary zoning and density bonuses, making it "worth the squeeze."
- Councilor Ewen-Campen:
  - Requested future analysis on the impact of upzoning on tax bills for current residents, even without immediate redevelopment, to understand potential increases due to higher valuations.
- Councilor Wilson:
  - Supported the request for assessor input, noting the Prop 2 1/2 limit and the need to understand how valuations would be handled to avoid disproportionate impacts on a few properties.
  - Response (Yasmin Radassi): The Assessor's Office is currently undergoing tax reassessment and is awaiting final confirmation from the Department of Revenue before they can comfortably address these questions.
Vote: No votes were taken on this item.
Disposition: Item remains in committee.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned.

Podcast Summary