Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:30 PM

Agenda 7 items

1. 1.
   23-1515 Committee Minutes Accepted

   Approval of the Minutes of the Land Use Committee Meeting of October 5, 2023.

   Roll call: 5 aye

   • Matthew McLaughlinAye
   • Lance L. DavisAye
   • Ben Ewen-CampenAye
   • Beatriz Gomez Mouakad Aye
   • Jake WilsonAye

   • 📎 Minutes - Land Use - 10-5-23 Full
2. 2.
   23-1577 Committee Minutes Accepted

   Approval of the Minutes of the Land Use Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Board on October 19, 2023.

   Roll call: 5 aye

   • Matthew McLaughlinAye
   • Lance L. DavisAye
   • Ben Ewen-CampenAye
   • Beatriz Gomez Mouakad Aye
   • Jake WilsonAye

   • 📎 LAND USE - 10-19-23 Public Hearing Speakers
   • 📎 Minutes - Land Use - 10-19-23 Full
3. 3.
   23-1205 Mayor's Request Recommended to be approved

   Requesting ordainment of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to repeal Section 10.9 Steep Slopes.

   {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 Director Bartman explained that this amendment is actually a change in oversight, and will be removing the special permit currently required from the Zoning Commission and placing slope regulation into an existing permit called the Site Construction Permit, which will be administered by the Engineering Division.\par \par Councilor Ewen-Campen expressed support for this amendment, and noted that the Steep Slope Amendment was passed in the first place to address one narrow situation and that it makes more sense for slope consideration to be placed in an administrative part of the process rather than in zoning itself.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad expressed support for this amendment, and agreed that engineering and inspectional services is the most appropriate venue to consider slopes, not zoning.\par \par Councilor Davis expressed support for this amendment, and noted that removing the Steep Slope ordinance from zoning is also required by the MBTA Communities Act.\cf1\f1\par }

   Roll call: 5 aye

   • Matthew McLaughlinAye
   • Lance L. DavisAye
   • Ben Ewen-CampenAye
   • Beatriz Gomez Mouakad Aye
   • Jake WilsonAye

   • 📎 10.9 Steep Slopes - Repeal
   • 📎 11.21.23 CC Amend Zoning 10.9 Steep Slopes
4. 4.
   23-1489 Mayor's Request Recommended to be approved

   Requesting ordainment of an amendment to the Somerville Zoning Ordinances to replace the text of Section 9.1.11 Residential Use Categories and revise Table 9.1.1 Permitted Uses and the corresponding permitted use table of each zoning district, in accordance with changes to Table 9.1.1, to replace the two residential use categories.

   {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 Planner Graminski explained that this amendment replaces the current residential housing uses from \ldblquote Household Living\rdblquote and \ldblquote Group Living\rdblquote and converts them to \ldblquote Residential Housing\rdblquote and \ldblquote Institutional Housing,\rdblquote and, in turn, removes the rule regarding household members have a familial relationship. Planner Graminski continued that Residential Housing will consider any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and Institutional Housing is housing run by an organization. Planner Graminski also noted that Community and Group Residence classifications will remain because they are protected by federal law.\par \par Councilor Davis expressed support for this amendment, and emphasized that the government should not be defining what a \ldblquote family\rdblquote or \ldblquote relative\rdblquote means for individuals.\par \par Councilor Ewen-Campen expressed strong support for this amendment, and noted that the ordinance as it is currently written has the potential for abuse, and also that even if this change was not required under the MBTA Communities Act, it would still be something the Council would be changing at this time.\par \par Councilor Wilson expressed support for this amendment, and reiterated that even if the MBTA Communities Act did not require it, it is something the city should be doing.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad expressed support for this amendment, and noted that this will also benefit the city\rquote s immigrant community, who often migrate to the area and live together as a cost saving measure.\par \par Chair McLaughlin asked what safeguards are in place to prevent overcrowding if this amendment is passed, and Planner Graminski explained that state law governs the building and sanitation codes, which regulate square footage requirements. Planner Graminski added that enforcement can be difficult on existing homes, as opposed to new construction, but that situations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Chair McLaughlin asked if, in a hypothetical situation, a developer could place several bedrooms in a kitchen area, and Planner Graminski replied that things like that would be caught in the approval and inspection process, and that the building code itself would prevent that.\par \par Chair McLaughlin explained that he voted for the original language in the original ordinance prior to the present proposed amendment, and noted that he is glad to have an opportunity to correct it.\cf1\f1\par }

   Roll call: 5 aye

   • Matthew McLaughlinAye
   • Lance L. DavisAye
   • Ben Ewen-CampenAye
   • Beatriz Gomez Mouakad Aye
   • Jake WilsonAye

   • 📎 Article 9 - Use Provisions - 4 Unrelated Amendment
   • 📎 11.21.23 CC Amend Zoning 9.2.11 Residential Use Categories
5. 5.
   23-1198 Mayor's Request Recommended to be approved

   Requesting ordainment of an amendment to the Somerville Zoning Ordinances, Sections 3.1 Neighborhood Residence and 3.2 Urban Residence, to permit the house and triple decker building types without any conditions, and to repeal the lot depth, dwelling units per lot, and development benefits requirements.

   {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 Director Bartman explained that the Item description matches the primary substance of this amendment, and noted that the main points of feedback have been the repeal of the development benefit, removal of the location criteria for triple decker houses, and changing the depth standard for lots. Director Bartman continued that this amendment permits triple deckers as of right with no preconditions, and would only permit a fourth unit on these lots if said fourth unit is a backyard cottage that fits within the lot setback.\par \par Councilor Davis asked if these changes are required for the MBTA Communities Act, and if the main change is the removal of the development benefit, which Director Bartman confirmed.\par \par Councilor Davis asked about whether these changes would result in less open space in the form of backyards, and Director Bartman explained that it would not because the majority of the lots in Somerville already have residential building on them, and that, as a result, most backyards are already in place. Director Bartman continued that this amendment also would not repeal and open space or Green Score requirements. Councilor Davis clarified that this amendment will not allow building to the back wall of properties, and Director Bartman confirmed this to be correct. Councilor Davis commented that removing the development benefit will not likely result in the construction of fewer affordable housing units.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad asked if \ldblquote triple decker\rdblquote refers to the building typology or the number of units permitted in the structure, and Director Bartman replied that it would permit both the building typology and the number of units inside, but that if someone wanted to put two units in a triple decker building typology, that would also be permitted under this amendment. Councilor Gomez Mouakad commented that this amendment would not change the architectural character of the city, and may provide for additional green opportunities, such as new construction with flat roofs capable of supporting solar heat pumps.\par \par Councilor Ewen-Campen expressed strong support for this amendment and commented that, based on evidence from the past several years of development in the city, approving it would be unlikely to result in fewer affordable units or cause an increase in population density. Councilor Ewen-Campen also commented that it is a common misconception among the public that recent changes to Somerville zoning have and will result in less green and open space.\par \par Councilor Wilson stated that, although there is concern that removing the affordable unit requirement in buildings with three units, during the past four years in which this requirement has been in effect, zero of those units have been constructed. \par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad expressed support for this amendment and explained that it could result in more affordable housing being created organically, for example by using prefabricated units for triple deckers in the city, as opposed to new construction.\par \par Chair McLaughlin expressed support for the amendment, and noted the historical opposition to the third unit as of right. Chair McLaughlin noted that his own view regarding the amendment has evolved over time, that he supports the development of affordable housing units, and that if neighboring communities adopt similar changes under the MBTA Communities Act, more overall units will be developed, which could have a positive overall impact on pricing in the region. Chair McLaughlin also noted that some community concerns about adding a third unit to properties pertaining to population density and nuisance have not come to fruition and are generally not supported by evidence.\cf1\f1\par }

   Roll call: 5 aye

   • Matthew McLaughlinAye
   • Lance L. DavisAye
   • Ben Ewen-CampenAye
   • Beatriz Gomez Mouakad Aye
   • Jake WilsonAye

   • 📎 3.1 and 3.2 Residential Districts
   • 📎 11.21.23 CC Amend Zoning 3.1 and 3.2 Three Units by Right
6. 6.
   23-0791 Zoning Ordinance Kept in committee

   Amending the Zoning Ordinances Section 10.3, Development Standards, and Table 10.4.1. to include vegetated roofs.

   {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 Prior to this meeting, Councilor Ewen-Campen submitted a further amended version of this proposed amendment to the Clerk\rquote s Office, which reads as follows:\par \par \ldblquote 8. Vegetated Roofs\par a. Construction of a new principal building or the substantial renovation of an existing principal building with a flat roof in the Mid-Rise, High-Rise, Assembly Square Mixed-Use, or Commercial zoning districts must include a vegetated roof for eighty percent (80%) of the available roof area.\par i. Roof area for roof mounted cellular, radio, and internet transmission equipment; vents or exhausts; photovoltaic (PV) devices; and any equipment required to support the operation of the building is exempt.\par ii. Balconies and roof area for outdoor amenity space and required open space is exempt.\par iii. Non-habitable architectural features, required screening, and unobstructed areas required by the Massachusetts State Building Code are exempt.\par iv. Development subject to the Affordable Housing overlay district is exempt.\rdblquote\par \par \pard\tx2907 Councilor Ewen-Campen explained that this amendment will be located in the landscaping section of the development standards, and that it is designed in conjunction with the city\rquote s Green Score to incentivize the construction of vegetated roofs while at the same time not interfering with other critical elements of new rooftop construction, such as the addition of solar panels, electrical requirements, and cellular equipment, etc. Councilor Ewen-Campen continued that the specific Green Score multiplier was chosen to encourage the development of vegetated rooftop space, but that the number itself had not yet been thoroughly evaluated or analyzed by city staff.\par \pard\par Councilor Wilson further explained that this amendment would only impact new construction, that it is important to bring this into effect as soon as possible to provide for as much impact as possible. Councilor Wilson added that, to the extent changes need to be made in the future, it will be better to pass this amendment sooner, and then go back and amend as necessary.\par \par Councilor Davis expressed support for this amendment, and asked where the 80% coverage number came from. Councilor Ewen-Campen explained that the 80% figure was borrowed from Cambridge, and the 0.8 Green Score multiplier was Councilor Ewen-Campen\rquote s proposal but that it was open to feedback. Director Bartman explained that the 0.8 multiplier was selected based on the city\rquote s pattern with rewarding both vegetated rooftops and solar paneling.\par \par Councilor Davis asked about the text that provides an exception for \ldblquote any equipment required to support the operation of the building,\rdblquote and if that language would be susceptible to broad interpretation and potential abuse. Director Bartman replied that the building design proposal would make clear to the department what equipment could be deemed essential based on the building\rquote s proposed occupancy. Councilor Gomez Mouakad later expressed support for the language as written, and noted that developers would be unlikely to incur the cost of unnecessary fixtures simply to avoid adding green space.\par \par Councilor Davis asked what \ldblquote Non-habitable architectural features\rdblquote means and if that is a term of art or something that is ambiguous and could be open to interpretation and abuse. Director Bartman replied that another section of the code, Article 2, lists features that would fall into this category, which by way of example and not limitation includes clock towers, turrets without rooms, and gargoyles.\par \par Councilor Davis suggested that the 80% calculation could be more clearly explained by including language to the effect that the 80% figure is determined after subtracting the exceptions in subsections (i), (ii), and (iii).\par \par Councilor Davis asked for clarification regarding the definition of \ldblquote vegetated roof with solar facilities\rdblquote in the proposed amended Green Score, and Director Bartman replied that the definition is based on the plain language and usage of those terms. \par \par Councilor Davis noted that some confusion is created by the use of \ldblquote photovoltaic (PV) devices\rdblquote in the proposed amendment and \ldblquote vegetated roof with solar facilities\rdblquote in the proposed amended Green Score. Councilor Ewen-Campen responded that the same definition was intended between the terms, and Councilor Davis recommended that the same terms be used in both places to avoid confusion. Director Bartman recommended the use of \ldblquote photovoltaic (PV) devices\rdblquote to replace \ldblquote solar facilities\rdblquote in the proposed Green Score amendment. Councilor Gomez Mouakad stated that \ldblquote photovoltaic\rdblquote refers to the conversion of sunlight into energy, but if the amendment would like to include solar hot water heaters, the broader term \ldblquote solar systems\rdblquote should be used, not \ldblquote photovoltaic.\rdblquote\par \par Councilor Davis asked if \ldblquote vegetated roof with solar facilities\rdblquote means solar panels over a vegetated roof, and Councilor Ewen-Campen confirmed that to be correct.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad asked if the proposed changes to the Green Score would take away from green spaces in locations other than the roof of a building, and Councilor Ewen-Campen replied that the preliminary consensus among staff was that the proposed score modifier of 0.8 would not be sufficiently large to incentivize overdevelopment of green spaces on rooftops at the expense of other green spaces closer to locations in which people interact. Director Bartman suggested, in response, that perhaps the Green Score modifier could account for the physical height of the green space, with additional credit being offered for taller installations, to which Councilor Gomez Mouakad expressed support.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad proposed adding language for the required path of travel for maintenance access.\par \par Councilor Gomez Mouakad proposed renumbering subsection \ldblquote (iv)\rdblquote to subsection \ldblquote (b)\rdblquote to reflect the categorical shift between the first three subsections representing physical building features and subsection (iv) representing a type of zoning.\par \par Councilor Ewen-Campen asked that this amendment be kept in committee to allow for further development prior to the final meeting of this committee before the end of the calendar year.\cf1\f1\par }

   • 📎 05.11.23 CC Amend Zoning Vegetated Roofs
   • 📎 Land Use - 2023-11-16 Vegetated roofs amendment 10.31.23-2 (with 23-0791)
   • 📎 Land Use - 2023-12-07 Vegetated Roofs Changes (with 23-0791)
   • 📎 12.14.23 CC Amend Zoning 10.3 Vegetated Roofs
7. 7.
   23-1381 Public Communication Recommended to be marked work completed

   Four residents submitting comments re: item #23-0791, amending the Zoning Ordinances to include vegetated roofs.

   • 📎 4 Residents - Vegetated Roofs