Welcome everybody.

I'll call this meeting of the land use committee to order.

It is Thursday, April 2nd at 6.02.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

This is roll call, Counselor Davis.

Here.

Counselor Clangan.

Present.

Counselor Sae.

Here.

Councilor McLaughlin is absent.

Counselor Young Campbell.

Here.

Before counselor's president, we have quorum.

Excellent.

Pursuant to chapter two of the Acts of 2025.

This meeting is being conducted via remote participation, and we will post an audio video recording and comprehensive record of the proceeding as soon as possible on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels.

We have one item on our agenda tonight, which is discussion of item 26024 requesting ordainment of an amendment to section 8.1 of the zoning ordinance to provide for larger buildings, additional dimensional flexibility, and fewer use restrictions for affordable housing projects.

And now it is time for the committee to start discussing it, ask questions, et cetera.

I believe that we're joined by a member of the planning preservation and zoning staff.

Is that correct?

Yes, hello.

I'm here from DiMartino, new deputy director for PPC.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you and welcome aboard.

Thank you.

Exciting.

So we uh received a document that should be attached to the agenda, which is a more detailed comparison of the existing affordable housing overlay and what's proposed.

Um is it possible to get that on our screen?

Is this the document you're referring to?

This is the handout.

I do not have any other documents.

Let me make sure that you have the document I'm thinking of, and so it can be attached.

I believe this was sent by email a few days ago.

Bear with us.

Public.

Um yeah, Director Bartman, who uh drafted this along with staff, explained that for kind of drafting reasons, it was hard to display clearly every single thing that's changed.

So he created a number of um kind of easier to understand documents for the committee.

I'm just making sure that the clerk has these so we can share them.

I'm sorry, my computer seems to be grinding to a halt.

Uh Director Nageem Williams, can you please forward these to um the clerk?

Here, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, I can do that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Counselor Davis.

I believe that the both of the documents that were sent are also attached to the agenda.

There's a link at least.

Not attached, but there's a link that I was able to find them at least.

That might be Sierra.

There should be two.

Is it is it the presentation?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Then that's that's right here.

Sorry about that.

No worries.

Thank you.

All right, deputy director, you want to take it away.

Sure, actually, I do believe that Director Bartman is just having a tech issue, but he should be um signing on in just a moment.

So I may um, if you don't mind, give him just a second.

Um just see and if we if he doesn't hop on in the next couple of minutes, then I'm happy to do the um take over.

Okay.

Understood.

Well, I'll just take this opportunity to share with the he's saying he's in the waiting room.

Oh.

There is no waiting room.

If he's an attendee, there is no attendee in there.

So once he pops in as attendee, I can make view.

He's here.

Oh, there he is.

Director Bartman, welcome.

All right, can you see me also?

Okay, thank you.

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

No worries at all.

Please take it away.

We've got the presentation up.

Sure.

Uh thank you.

So members of the land use committee, thanks for having us again tonight.

Uh this is actually a reprisal of our previous presentation that I gave last time.

I've added some slides to provide some additional clarity, hopefully, uh compared to the version we we gave last time.

Um so go ahead to slide the you can actually get to like slide four uh before the presentation changes with new content.

So here, that slide right there with the red line.

This is what the red line actually looks like uh of that entire table.

And one of the reasons we presented the way we did last time uh is because this hides things that are actually staying the same because it's a red line of the table in the code in that specific page, not a difference on what uh the overlay district does compared to the base zoning districts.

So it actually hides things that are staying the same if you just look at a red line.

Um this is one of the challenges of editing overlay districts, uh, and why why the information kind of got confusing.

Uh so on the following pages, uh, we provided a breakout of each section of this same table.

Uh yeah, so one page or yeah, one page at a time.

Um this shows you uh all of the existing standards for the MR3, four, five, and six zoning districts, which the affordable housing overlay is laid on top of um along with the existing affordable housing overlay standards.

Uh if you remember the former table uh both uh had some sections that were superseding, some sections that were supplementing, and some dimensions you actually kept from your base zoning district.

So anybody that was developing an affordable housing building actually kind of like assembled their dimensions from across the zoning ordinance.

Uh that's one of the reasons that we found ourselves um facing a request to make the table simpler uh and just have one overriding table.

Um so this page has some of the um the most changes related to it.

Uh so you can see uh the comparison of the revised affordable housing overlay, which is what's proposed um all the way in the right hand column uh shows you the difference between uh some of the standards of the MR345 and six districts.

So you can see we pulled forward the 100% lot coverage from the MR6 zoning district uh and decreased the um open space requirement.

It maximizes the amount of building footprint.

Uh and in doing that, we actually kept the green score score or requirement uh from the MR3 and four districts, which is higher than an MR6.

We were decreasing the space available, but trying to up the quality requirement uh because we knew we were impacting the green score.

Um but those that's a review of the changes for that specific section related to law at standards.

Just on this page, director, how do you go above 100%?

There's an asterisk.

Oh, I I was just calling attention that it's only related to one uh three of the districts that MR6 is keeping that the same.

Got it.

You'll see some color coding come up on the next pages where we're trying to indicate where things stayed the same, and that's the green blocks.

Sorry, uh just on that page, I see counselor Davis.

Yeah, thank you as chair.

And I'm I'm happy to wait for the full presentation, or I can if you want to go.

You you asked a question on the page, so I would like to proceed to okay.

Um so can you just for everyone's understanding explain how um if we have a hundred percent lot coverage, how someone has 10% open space, like how do those two actually work in practice together?

Uh they're just permitted to have up to 100% law coverage, but open space is allowed to also be on upper floor, the roof of the building.

So that could be the that's where it could be, but it doesn't mean that that's where it's located.

They just they have the option.

Uh go ahead on to the next page.

So this slide uh correlates with the first column of all the building type tables throughout the code.

This second page uh correlates with the second column, which is building placement, and it covers where the setbacks are uh in the ordinance.

And uh you can see the real thing that's that's changing is we allow three more feet of maximum front setback um in uh the uh revised affordable housing overlay compared to what it was previously, because it was drawing from the base districts.

Uh so that's different from MR3.

Um and then we uh that the bottom one is actually uh an error in my green coloring.

Um those 10 feet is all the same, and so we kept that at 10 feet.

So sorry about that one.

Uh that should be a green block.

So the only change actually on this one is that we add three more feet uh if you're in the MR3 district and you were to use the affordable housing overlay.

Everything else is kept similar.

And just to be clear here, this means a building could have a zero foot front setback, be right up on the sidewalk, or previously it could be 15 feet, a maximum of 15 feet from the sidewalk.

Now it can be now it can be 15, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Obviously, it could be 12 in an MR3.

Yep.

And our two feet or two-foot setback that um is really uh an effort to try and allow buildings to have uh features that project forward um, but but don't necessarily cross into the right-of-way, because then you have to get an insurance policy to cover the whatever's projecting in there.

So we give people a little bit of space to deal with.

Um people also put sandwich board signs and stuff like that in that two-foot area.

It also tends to be an expanded sidewalk.

Uh if the side sidewalk's not required to be um uh any more than 12 feet, that's that's still something that is uh achievable compared to some of our high rise or our uh uh master plan development overlay districts, which require that sidewalk to be 18 feet.

Um so we felt that that was still achievable even with those front setbacks uh providing some adjustment.

Okay.

On to the next slide.

This one correlates with the building massing, or I'm sorry, this is the parking setbacks at the bottom of the second column, uh, really just drawing attention that the uh these are primarily the same, 30 feet uh for uh surface parking and structured parking in all of the districts for the primary setback.

We do allow a little bit more uh flexibility in MR3 and four uh on the secondary side.

Um uh, but we these buildings uh are tend to be in our the middle of our squares higher higher density uh districts.

So we just went with the 30 foot feet uh and maintained that um from the two MR5 and MR6 examples.

Director, can you explain what this measure actually means?

What is a parking setback?

Uh any parking spaces uh that are designed for a car um have to be behind an imaginary line uh from the from either front lot line.

So the primary front lot line is the lot line that the building is oriented to, the front door faces that way that it's addressed on that side of the property.

Secondary front setback would be a corner lot that would have a another front lot line.

Um so parking has to be set back 30 feet uh from the front lot line, whether or not it's inside a building, uh surface parking in a in a garage.

Um so that that makes sure that there's habitable space in our buildings and not uh a parking first floor, like you might see kind of like at the beach.

Um so it's really it's really making sure that uh parking doesn't encroach forward in our buildings or on our lots.

Okay, I I have an additional question uh around this that we can take up later.

Counselor Davis.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I guess to throw you to Director Bartman.

Can you explain the the kind of the logic of in MR3 and MR4?

If this is a you know uh market rate building where you were looking at a 10 foot 10 foot uh for surface and two feet for separate.

Why with an affordable housing should there be a bigger setback in those spaces?

We're affordable housing.

Well, right.

So you're saying that that with if it's an affordable building using the the this overlay, this those setbacks need to be 30 feet, right?

Is that is that yeah, sure.

I mean what's the what's the rationale for the parking setback tends to be one that is uh needed more for speculative development, more market rate development because they tend to sometimes they uh favor where the cars are on the lot more than usable interior space, uh more than an affordable housing building.

So this is one of the ones that we could have considered just uh zeroing out and letting uh uh the developer of an affordable housing building decide where they wanted to put the parking and if we wanted to provide them like maximum flexibility along the lines towards where you would uh provide in the MR3 and MR4 uh area.

There aren't many MR3 sites uh that an affordable housing uh project is gonna manifest on.

They're most likely gonna acquire a couple side by side.

Um there aren't large groupings of MR3 either.

So if somebody was to build a market rate building, that's why that flexibility is in there.

But affordable housing building is gonna uh naturally produce a larger unit uh count that will likely consume the neighboring lot of most of our uh MR3 parcels.

That's because the financing programs are tailored to specific outcomes, and so they tend to produce a range of units in at certain thresholds.

Um so really a way that I could summarize where we landed on our dimensions is that uh we were instigated to pursue um uh an eight, eight-story building.

Uh and then we asked, okay, if we were going to allow eight-story buildings using this overlay, what dimensions would we want to provide as the maximum that somebody could build using the affordable housing overlay?

And we landed primarily on the MR6 district.

That's because most sites that are in MR3 and MR4 are little little lots and and small groupings of those that aren't the size of uh affordable housing building.

Um so it would likely either aggregate um into a larger amount of land that would want a floor plate like an MR5 or MR6.

Uh or it would look for an MR5 or MR6 lot that exists out there in the world today.

Uh and that's because of those unit counts and size of building that really um is efficient for the uh financial investment uh in in all these affordable housing programs.

They're looking for a return on investment that is maximizing value.

Uh and so they they tend they would tend to not build on a on a very small, inefficiently uh shaped MR3 parcel, right?

That's why that parking flexibility was in those lots and not the larger ones, which is where you find MR5 and MR6 traditionally on our zoning map.

Follow-up, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, please.

Thank you.

Um so thank you, Dr.

Barman.

I mean, I I understand that in terms of you know what what's more likely to be built and all that, but I guess I'm still not clear as to why you know, if if if this is a market rate MR3 and MR4, and you know, that so this table contemplates that that might happen.

Maybe it won't, but we have a table here that says if it does.

This says what happens if it if there is an MR3 or an MR4, right?

So we're not talking about an MR5 or MR6, we're talking about MR3 or MR4.

And we have more it on its face, it appears to have to allow more flexibility for for including parking in a market rate building than it does in an affordable building.

And that might be the right answer.

Or it might be that we're effectively making it impossible to build parking on an affordable in an affordable building on MR3 and MR4, because we've decided from a policy standpoint, that's the correct answer.

I I don't know, but but I'm just asking, I want to understand why if you have a market rate building, can you put structured parking two feet from the lot line?

But if it's an affordable building, you have to you need a lot where you can have 30-foot setback or you can't include parking.

I I just I want to understand the the thing.

Because uh through the chair, we kept the standards of our MR6 model building.

And we can uh certainly change the dimension for parking setbacks uh on the proposal to whatever the city the land use committee sees appropriate.

Uh we're happy to uh adjust that dimension.

That's why I brought up the first point was that if we wanted to provide maximum flexibility, we could add, you know, change the 30-foot to what is in MR3 or MR4 or even zero that one out.

It depends what we want to do and what we think is a risk.

Um we tend we're not uh focusing on hypothetical MR3 parcels and MR4 parcels.

Um we're looking at where these actually might manifest and how they might use an MR3 or MR4 parcel.

Um if they're gonna build an MR, find an MR3 site uh and put up an affordable housing building, they're gonna look for something that is large enough uh to produce a floor plate uh that is larger than uh or that it is more like an MR5 or MR6 building.

I'm talking about you know, increments of 5,000 square feet, right?

For the floor plate, um, which means more to them in uh acquiring enough space to put up a building that efficiently provides units for the cost that they're building.

So I while certainly the standards apply to a single MR3 parcel and hypothetically somebody could use that.

There, these buildings are not gonna actually be produced on an undersized parcel when they cannot get a return on investment that's worth their money.

Okay.

Okay, uh, we'll we'll sit on that for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Davis.

Counselor Klingon.

No, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, yeah, I just want to apply this to a scenario, say, for instance, how this would affect the uh 297 Medford Street project, which is I believe four stories, but with the seeking relief for seven stories.

Um this is the just to start 100% affordable housing.

It's on a corner lot, but it also abuts the community path.

Where would this leave them in terms of any parking at all if they um wanted to build parking or what what constraints would they be under uh as far as with these numbers here?

Uh there would be a parking setback of 30 feet from both sides.

Um I'd have to go, I'd have to go see how that would impact their floor plan.

Um, I'm not sure how their parking lays out on the first floor of that building.

Okay, so we need 30%.

It also is also a hypothetical example.

This would not impact the actual building going up there because it has a building permit already.

Um if that's what you were asking.

But um, but if it was a like what if that building was presenting itself now, we would have we would have to consider a 30-foot setback um for parking from both lot lines.

Uh both director, just to clarify, this is this is one that's not permitted or built.

And I get part of the question I heard from Counselor Klingon is the community path.

Does that count as a frontage for a building?

Oh, I I misunderstood the address.

Um the community path is not uh uh we've been debating whether or not we should compute include the community path as a formal right-of-way for identifying a front lot line.

Um we are certainly encouraging buildings to front on the community path because that would add eyes on the path uh and increase inherent safety.

Um and you know, further beautify some of the back of uh the parcels that are fronting onto the community path.

Um, but that's not uh something that's required by ordinance at the moment.

Thank you for that follow-up, counselor.

Um that's all for um I I do want to get through the rest of this, but I'll just I want to thank Counselor Davis and Councillor Klingon for flagging that.

This is the one part that sticks out to me is this is the only thing that I see that is like everything else is a makes it easier to build affordable housing.

This is like an additional standard, so it goes in the opposite direction.

Um so I think that's certainly worthy of additional discussion.

Um let's proceed, please.

So the next slide correlates with the third column of our building type tables in the ordinance, which is about massing and height.

Um and so we do the same exercise here, uh, except that I do identify that a um we do not regulate certain dimensions any longer um in uh the overlay in the proposed overlay.

Um those are things like building width and facade build-out, um, floor plate total size, ground story elevation height for an apartment building.

We've heard many complaints about that um from an accessibility standpoint, um, individual story height.

Um then the first one that we uh started um adjusting is the number of stories.

So I don't know if there's any questions about uh the dimensions that we're not regulating anymore, but the original affordable housing overlay was calling on the base district for all of these dimensions.

Um what we found is that most of these about are in the ordinance about controlling size when things are too big.

Um and I bought up brought up those inflection points that exist related to the funding uh that is available.

Um we we have never seen uh essentially an affordable housing building that's built um outside of a 40B that we've considered too big for Somerville's uh sites.

They tend to actually come in undersized from um what some of the market rate buildings are and more uh uh appropriately scaled floor plates for some of the existing buildings in our uh existing urban fabric.

Um so where we fell uh was that we were um uh not as concerned about these regulating these dimensions when it isn't a 100% affordable housing building.

Um we consider it less of a risk um compared to how market rate buildings uh try to produce efficiency uh by going longer bigger.

Those aren't the same motivations for uh an affordable housing building.

Uh they have other limitations they're facing.

Um of course the uh amendment began with an additional proposed one story for um the height of buildings, which was originally at seven, so that changes to eight.

Um, although the minimum expectation is that you would build a four-story building that's kept the same.

Uh the building height in feet uh was uh superseding dimension for the original affordable housing overlay.

That's kept the same for the um minimum height, uh, but the uh all other lots got a little bit of a bump uh because they can go up to eight stories now.

Um we also no longer uh propose to have an upper story step back.

Um, from our interviews with affordable housing developers, really what that was costing the city was additional units or additional bedrooms.

Uh, if you can think about what many of the goals are of our affordable housing program, is to maximize units and isn't to maximize units that are available for families.

Uh and so that real standard was kind of uh infringing on both of those desired goals.

Um and uh through discussions in inside OSPCD, we felt that um those units or bedrooms are more valuable uh to the city and to these projects and the people that will live there uh then the upper story stepback was achieving.

So we we propose no upper story stepback for these buildings.

And the next slide.

Oh yeah, counselor Davis.

And that slide, thank you.

Um so I it just so I'm clear though, because I think are there do I not recall that there are still effectively step back requirements depending on what the abiding parcel is zoned as elsewhere in the document?

Is that correct?

Through you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair, you were remembering you are correctly remembering setbacks that still adjust from MR3.

So we are from uh from an NR uh parcel.

So we do have a setback that it's still uh moves the building uh because it will be eight and eight story building or potentially an eight story building.

We kept that setback in there.

Um it's not an upper story uh setback or step back, it's uh a setback of the building in total.

Uh okay.

Um thank you through you, Mr.

Chair.

I I guess that setback does change at different heights.

If you do you want to flip back to that page.

I think it's on page three.

Is it the table?

Yeah, a step a stepback is different than a setback, and that's one of the term differences.

A stepback is from the the wall of the building.

A setback is from the side lot line.

Uh so if you sit look at the setbacks, they are uh pushing the first couple of floors of the building uh away from that lot, and then the upper story is further away.

It it visually creates that same situation.

Same impact.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that's thank you.

Three of them is sure that that's what I was asking.

I mean, it's effectively the same thing.

If you're about an NR, there's the upper stories are going to be blank back, whatever you want to call it.

They'll be further back for what I guess in our based on how this is just so uh, you know, I just don't want folks to get the wrong impression based on you know uh on the other explanation.

And then my um back to the slide that you were on if I may chair one one additional question.

Um wait, sorry, before we proceed, just so everybody following this is on the same page.

The the entire building will be moved back when it's abutting NR, but the the top of the building is can be at the same distance as the bottom of the building, correct?

Director?

No, the uh um if you could go to the setbacks uh slide.

Go ahead forward one.

It's easier to read.

Uh one more.

You see the upper story uh side setback, first through third floor, fourth through XX.

Uh it's a 10 feet away from uh the first three floors because MR uh sorry, the NR zoning district only has three story buildings in it.

So it has a 10-foot side lot setback, so that it maintains kind of a third three-story projection towards the NR district, and then it has a 30-foot setback from that same lot line, uh, depending on the lot's width or depth.

Uh and it depends how that which lot line is oriented towards uh the other um and whether or not it's determined as width and depth, but it has the same effect um where it has an adjustment related to that.

I'm glad that everyone else understands this clearly.

I'm still working my way through it.

Uh can you describe it one more time?

Yeah, the changing.

So the uh the change is that there's a 20-foot setback.

The ex let me explain the existing and the change.

So the existing is the 10 feet for stories one through three, and then above that is 30 feet.

Yeah.

What we changed to is 20 feet and 30 feet, depending on what the lot depth is, which is just a distance away from the lot line for all floors.

I was describing, I thought you were asking about what the existing condition and how that functioned.

That's what I was I was just describing.

Um, I think the the part that I am not quite understanding is I I thought the feedback we heard from affordable housing developers is that the upper story set stepbacks take away bedrooms.

So we're getting rid of those.

Yep.

And if you look the the lot width um.

These are meant to be just a step back, or sorry, a setback based on lot width.

So that the building is uh projecting sideways.

So it's meant to apply the to the entire side setback.

Okay.

Okay, I think I'm following.

Counselor Davis, you had another point.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so I just wanted to ask, you know, what and back to the massing um slide.

Look at that.

What's more forward?

What is the two more?

Yeah, what is these what is the potential impact of effectively you know removing all these massive crimes?

You you you talked about um you know these are in place to sort of address buildings you know that being potentially too big.

Um but I you know, like are we it am I correct that by removing all of these, um including the the minimum story height that uh an affordable housing developer?

So is there any other is there some other regulation keeping them from building you know six and a half foot high ceilings?

Yes, high building yes, through the chair.

The building code has minimum standards related to health and safety.

Um what in the past, for example, we've watched um market rate developers provide inclusionary zoning units that are required by the zoning ordinance um with a lower ceiling height than they did their market rate units within the same building.

That's the type of thing uh, for example, that we watch happen for through speculative market rate development.

Um that's not the type of uh behavior that we see happening uh with our uh affordable housing developers.

Um they don't build at the minimums uh in the building code either, uh, but they tend to not um differentiate market rate units from affordable dwelling or for uh from inclusionary dwelling units uh in that manner, right?

So that's why the minimum uh story height requirement is even in the zoning ordinance.

Uh not because um uh uh it's an actual life safety thing, like the building code would regulate.

It's actually a uh equal protection type of thing uh in the housing produced uh by market rate developers.

Um so a lot of our zoning ordinance and a lot of the cumulative impact of all of the dimensions we have is because of uh lessons learned from what market rate development will do um in trying to uh maximize its return on investment uh rather than its uh return on unit value, uh which is really what people that are building affordable housing are doing.

Um so there's different motivations uh that go in uh to producing either one of these buildings, and that's why uh we're responding differently with regulations.

Uh is because of we don't uh we don't see the same risk, uh frankly.

Okay.

Uh through through the chair, I I guess I I that all sounds good, but you know what's the value of removing the minimum story height?

Like if you know somebody might come along and decide that they are gonna build the the absolute, you know, whatever the minimum of the building height, you know, uh the building code allows.

So I we're either okay with that, or if we're not, why not just you know maintain you know if if we don't want uh the uh all these affordable units to be a lower ceiling than they might otherwise be, why not keep the the minimum uh story height?

Through the chair.

In this situation, we're fine deferring to the producers of affordable dwelling units, affordable buildings and the financing programs that demand quality of the units that are produced through their funding mechanisms.

Um that's the truth.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Chair.

I guess I'll I'll I'm gonna stick that one in the same parking lot with the earlier question that I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we have one more slide, right?

Did I hear a hand?

Is there a hand?

No.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yep.

Uh so this slide um is the uses and features column of our building type tables.

Um the the main aspect of this is that we're trying to um just efficiently provide one standard for fenestration on all floors, which we put at 15 and 50 percent.

Um uh, although the other maximum is higher in some of the other zoning districts.

Um I'm sorry, that's for the ground floor requirement when you see that 50% and 70%.

Um providing a little bit of flexibility and a lower percentage is both uh helpful for uh the fact that there's less uh commercial space requirements on these buildings uh if they happen to have uh ground floor commercial.

Um, but also it tends to be more energy efficient.

Um actually the uh specialized stretch energy code is driving uh windows both to be more efficient, but less of them in the glazing of our buildings.

Um so some of these numbers reflect our understanding of that.

Um there's no blank wall requirement.

Um that makes sure that there is uh an architectural feature uh within a 20-foot square foot area, um, or that there's not more than a blank flat 20-foot square foot area on other buildings.

Again, this is because we watch market rate development uh value engineered building design out.

Um we have not experienced that with any of our affordable housing buildings.

Um so that's why that flexibility is provided there.

Um there is without the uh expectation that a ground floor might be lined by multiple commercial spaces.

Uh, if this happens to be a general building, um there wasn't a need for a ground story entrance spacing requirement.

Uh we are counselor Davis actually took us into regulating uh ground floor commercial spaces.

Previously, we tried to induce ground floor commercial spaces to come into existence through our uh ground story entrance spacing requirement.

Um we actually believe that um the what we did with the small business overlay and actually regulating commercial spaces is uh producing better results.

We've had some bad outcomes from the entrance spacing requirement on a couple buildings that needed variances as an outcome outcome.

Uh so that's why we actually said that that shouldn't be required any longer.

Um in a similar manner, uh, we said that uh them uh I'm sorry, an affordable housing developer making up their own mind about the size of the commercial space is very important for them.

Um I believe the testimony to last hearing identified that they have specific limitations on how much space they can have and through certain funding programs.

Um but that they can provide some amount of commercial space.

So that's why we settled on requiring one of any size.

Um then the uh that does not have a requirement.

I want to call this out that does not have a requirement to be to provide any amount of that commercial space um as arts and creative enterprise floor space.

We talked about that last time.

Um and of course, there's no density factor uh in the affordable housing overlay.

That's actually a limitation on the amount of dwelling units that could be produced on the site.

So the affordable housing overlays always uh let a developer, affordable housing developer propose however many units they can.

Um and that would be the end of the table.

Uh and again, it's designed to be a superseding table.

Happy to discuss any dimensions.

If the council would like to change any, we would uh certainly entertain that.

Um and we can produce another version, or your clerk's office can actually make amendments uh on your behalf as well.

Thank you very much, Director.

Counselor Davis.

Um thank you, Ms.

Chair, and I I apologize for sort of you know uh monopolizing the conversation here.

If I'm happy to defer to my colleagues if there's other questions, but um I'll I'll keep plowing ahead until I'm told to shut up.

Um so I have I had three questions um when I reviewed this page.

Um I I think you addressed one of them, but I'll go through in order.

So the first, I'm not sure I I understand the rationale of the fenestration change, the change of the fenestration requirements.

You know, if if and I listened to your explanation with interest, that you know, windows tend to be by nature less you know efficient.

Um, so that that makes sense, but then why it if I'm looking at this right, we give um market rate developments more flexibility on you know on the top end, 50 to 70 percent versus uh a max of 50 in affordable housing develops.

I'm not sure I understand why should affordable developers have less flexibility to make their own decisions.

And if the answer is because of efficiency, well then why why don't we make the market buildings you know require uh you know have lesser if you're uh a lower percentage, so they can be more efficient too.

So that's question one.

I'll I'll stop and and um interested in your answer.

Uh through the chair, ground story commercial requires the 50 or 70 percent minimum.

Uh so we're actually allowing them a 20% break from the 70% requirement on the primary frontage.

50% is the expectation on a uh secondary frontage.

So what you see there is a 15% um, which is uh for the apartment building, right?

Um sometimes we have two buildings uh in the consideration here.

So that first numbers for the apartment building, it's 15% slash no maximum.

And then there's a I'm sorry, I see it.

So the two the two numbers there aren't minimum max, it's the apartment versus the general building that you that you had in the table has okay.

I'm sorry, I misread the tape.

So okay.

No, it's the internal minimums.

Those are the 50 to or 70 are the minimums for each of those.

And so we're effectively going with the lower minimum for okay.

Thank you.

That's my my misread of that one.

Um so okay, thank you.

The second question was the the the grounds of our commercial spaces.

So that just to be clear, this is this is a minimum of one, but they could put four if they wanted to, if if it made sense from a development standpoint.

Okay.

That's correct.

I'm good with that.

I was worried that we were limiting them to one.

Um and as you know, I like more smaller spaces if that's you know, if that's what works.

Um, and then my last question is that this is more just sort of something I wanted to flag for my colleagues, is that um at the very bottom there, there's you know, there's no uh we you know did away with all of the um the parameters, and it appears at least if I'm reading it right, the parameters for um you know the the roof mounted uh mechanical screening, um the heights, the the you know, it et cetera.

And you know, I totally understand that from uh giving affordable developers more flexibility and not more flexibility, but you know, less expense um to have to do that stuff.

I just I just worry if that's a good place to continue with that theme, because that could be a real impact on quality of life for for neighbors and and and given that we're we're you know being I think fairly aggressive, and rightfully so in you know, in the dimensional requirements in you know, allowing these bigger buildings, you know, in in areas of the city with you know um smaller setbacks, slightly a fewer stepbacks, etc.

I you know, I just I just want I I want to kind of throw it out there to see if you know how others feel because you know you're you're you're by nature putting these buildings you know closer to other folks, where whether it's a commercial building or a residential building, and and with good reason, but um you know, loud systems on the roof might you know might really be um uh yeah, like I said, it might impact folks' quality of life.

And I and I I'm curious as to you know how much of a financial impact or benefit that really has by not you know by not still requiring something.

Um let me start by hopefully I'm reading that right.

If not, then um you know, but that that was just my thought on that one.

One uh through the chair, if I may have one one thing I want to call attention to is that the requirement in base districts uh to screen the uh mechanicals is still there.

This is a limitation on how tall those mechanicals and their screening and the penthouse can be.

Um so if an affordable housing building needs to put in an 11 an 11 foot tall penthouse or equipment or screening, uh, we give them the flexibility to do that, but they are still rescreening uh those mechanicals.

Okay, through the chair.

So so the word height and the very low that applies to all three of those equipment screening and penthouse height.

So it's the height of the equipment, the height of the screening, the height of the penthouse only.

Okay, thank you.

So that that's different than it it appears that you know, for us is there's um it's it's just the height of the okay.

So this so that then so my concern is still being addressed in terms of you know all the things that we that we'd still require in terms of um you know uh things that might affect neighboring properties.

Okay, thank you then.

I'm no no worries with a 12 foot still screened uh mechano equipment that works for me.

Thank you.

I think it's frankly stunning that you weren't able to deduce that from this eminently self-explanatory table.

Um hey, no shade on this table.

This is an awesome breakdown.

This is really a really helpful, awesome breakdown of of the differences.

I'm very, very grateful to Mr.

Batron and whoever else uh put the time into it.

I I did have some help, uh, and it's still an imperfect table in my opinion.

But it's hard to communicate actually the the differences between the existing and the and the proposed.

Okay, so colleagues, please raise your hand if you have questions.

I'll I'll jump in um while waiting.

Um so okay, the a bunch of the feedback that we got in the public hearing.

So there was one strand of comments which was kind of the details of this table are I don't know how to describe hard to follow or deceptive or you know, not intentionally.

Um in my opinion, the presentation tonight kind of addresses that.

Um I think a lot of this stuff it you do kind of have to be an expert to be able to unpack from the amendment itself.

Um I certainly was not able to, um, but this I think hope for members of the public um addresses that.

Another we we heard from a bunch of people who were kind of motivated to come by the fact that we're no longer um proposing to require arts and creative space set aside as part of the commercial space.

Um, I I think big picture, I totally support and understand this because I think that the financing for these projects is really strict and difficult.

And um it's a kind of odd, I don't think a state program is necessarily going to support five percent of a commercial space going to artistic uses.

They might, but they might not, and we don't want that to be a hook hang up.

But I will say that um members of the public who spoke said we can kind of swallow this, but what's going on with our other priorities?

One of which has always been this in loo payment.

So we had a quick discussion via email, but I wonder if you can just kind of publicly give an explanation of where where the internal efforts are to so the idea here is for large larger developments that do have a arts and creative requirement.

Um there's a lot of advocacy to say that that we should allow in loop payments to build up a public fund that could then be used for you know whatever is needed as opposed to some small amount of square footage that you know may or may not wind up really being useful.

Certainly.

Um an in loop payment.

An in loop payment is one of the most complex things to build into the zoning ordinance.

It has to have um, although it's not the same as, for instance, uh uh a linkage payment, uh it almost has to pass just as much scrutiny.

Um you have to make sure that your uh requirement is for something that is uh within the world of zoning and land use in the first place, and then also the payment that you're asking for, one uh induces the outcome you're looking for.

Um mispriced uh mechanisms don't do anything.

Um they might actually produce the opposite outcome you're looking for.

Um and uh all of that needs balance uh from a legal perspective.

Um so we just completed a uh like a financial analysis of what the dollar amount maybe could be.

Um and so now we're moving into the legal world to make sure that uh all of the language that we write, the situations where it's made available um uh don't violate any any law.

Uh in Massachusetts is very uh strict about that.

Um we can't uh induce or create local taxes, uh we can't put fees related to the zoning, impact fees, um all of that is heavily regulated in our state.

So um we're walking a fine line, just making sure that we're doing it correctly.

You can do these things.

It's more obvious for things like affordable housing or open space.

Those are um natural uh land use uh things that zoning has been trying to produce for a long time.

Uh one commercial use over another uh is a whole different uh kind of legal world.

Um and there are constitutional protections about interstate commerce that we have to pay attention to.

So it's a little bit more complicated than just putting a number in the code and getting somebody to hope we hoping that somebody will pay for it.

Um I will say one other policy question we've um been exploring is if we introduce this, uh does the a space requirement apply to all should the a space requirement apply to all districts, all districts that can produce commercial space.

Um that would mean that the small, small developments, smaller districts are likely always buying that out because their demand their dimensions are probably producing a hundred square feet, 200 square feet.

Um whether we not whether or not we want a teeny tiny uh single studio in that in that amount of space is uh open question, or whether or not we'd want like the A-space requirement to produce, you know, a minimum threshold and then uh uh um which under is where the payment would be allowed.

Another place we've explored the payment being allowed is for our uh um our overlay districts master plan development.

Um they tend to be allowed to move it around in the first place.

So we try to not totally let them buy it out.

Um, but we um uh did uh encode in the uh arts and uh uh innovation overlay district um uh the ability to move it off site or buy it out.

Um so we do intend to produce that number and put it into the ordinance.

Uh we're just making sure that it stands uh once we put it there and people might use it.

Okay, so just to summarize, it's um it's a complicated legal and practical question that is being worked on internally.

It's not that there is like a explicit and inherent permission that we need to get.

You know, we don't need a home rule petition, we don't think we don't need some legally mandated Nexus study.

It's more that we're kind of trying to do something that we want to make sure we're on the strongest legal footing when we do it.

Is that accurate?

That's correct.

We're actually attempting to avoid putting ourselves in a situation where we end up in the home rule world.

Right.

Yep.

Um and we feel optimistic that we're going to get there.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

Counselor Klingon.

Yeah, thank you.

Through you, Mr.

Chair, Chief Director Bartman.

Um, and maybe I I you know miss part of the conversation and previous iterations, but I'm just I'm just curious.

Could you just speak a little bit about the ground story commercial space?

Why would that exist?

Where there's one there.

Um so the affordable housing overlay district uh augments a number of different base zoning districts uh in its functions.

Um a group of those are our mid-rise districts.

We have four of those mid-rise three, four, five, and six.

Those districts permit three different building types.

They are an apartment building, a general building, and a commercial building.

Affordable housing developers don't build commercial buildings, so all we're left with in what we're discussing here is the apartment building and the general building.

Um those same mid-rise districts are frequently mapped along our main streets.

And so we also have a designation that's called pedestrian streets along many of those same main streets.

The pedestrian streets designation prohibits the apartment building from fronting that street.

And so they would an affordable housing developer would still be required to produce a general building, uh, which is only required to have ground floor commercial.

The amount of ground floor commercial is a dimension that we have in the code and can control.

But by definition, the general building has ground floor commercial.

Um, so because the pedestrian street designation would still require any one of these buildings to have ground floor commercial, we asked ourselves how much.

Um, and the ordinance is fairly um uh aggressive um at wanting to produce and make sure that the frontage of the building is commercial space um and not storage space and things like that that sometimes um uh gets put at the front of a building.

Um and but in this situation, uh where they face limitations in the amount of commercial space they could provide, um, reducing this down to just make sure there is one would make sure that it meets the definition still, but but remove all of the standards about how much, where it's located, it would still front the building, uh, but it wouldn't be the full width of the building, for example.

Um otherwise uh marker rate development is required to provide that at the front.

Okay, but agree, Mr.

Chair, but so we don't have any specifications on how large of a space would be.

It just indicates that there will be one.

Correct.

And then will that be like a case-by-case basis or um yeah, when uh through the chair, we we've when we've been speaking with our uh prospective uh affordable housing developers, they've actually you know, um shared uh certain uses uh like financial education uh uses that would uh be along their uh in their opinions, um, a good tenant fit for buildings like they're producing.

Um it's not like it's gonna be an undersized ATM lobby in these situations.

They're really looking for something that would benefit the tenants uh in the neighborhood.

Um so we don't we don't expect undersized things that won't rent either, is that is like they're gonna be adamant about trying to have making sure that they have a tenant that wants to be there a long time also.

So we don't expect um, even though it's only one and it has no dimensional requirements, we don't expect uh low quality to be produced.

Okay, that's all Mr.

Tristan.

Thank you, Counselor.

Um I'll just say overall I'm thrilled about this.

I'm I'm very excited that we're moving on this.

Um the one part of this that I am opposed to is the the parking stuff.

Um the the setbacks, and I I think it's just worth saying because I'm not a fan of building a lot of parking.

That's not something that I really prioritize.

I do think it's a little bit different with affordable housing buildings, specifically because the people who wind up living there, by and large, if not exclusively, come out of a lottery.

Right.

So we often talk about, you know, when we have what might be called strict parking policies, there's this built-in assumption of like, well, if you don't like the parking available at this location, go live somewhere with somewhere else.

There might be an apartment that's right for you with your needs.

It's just a different case, right?

When we have 100 people applying to be in one unit and they might be moving from somewhere, they might just have you know, not a ton of choice about where they're gonna live in a lot of these projects wind up building a certain amount of parking.

I don't think they're overbuilding it.

Um I just I I don't want us to accidentally get in a situation, having heard the specific feedback from a few affordable housing developers where, you know, through good intention, we're accidentally doing the opposite of what we meant to do.

So that that's my reason for um, you know, I think I'm gonna ask that we prepare an amendment to um consider at our next meeting when we discuss this specifically around that.

Um obviously I know a few other issues have been brought up tonight that I'm happy to discuss further too.

Uh see Counselor Klingon?

Yeah, Minister Chair through you.

And on that point about the parking, I'm just curious.

Um, you know, I know we have a number of zero parking buildings, the whole city is there's no requirement and so on.

But when we do have situations where a building is this smaller size, and um in the situation of perhaps 297 Broadway, where does it intersect with um uh like ADA uh requirements or at least the the fact that we may you know have a fully accessible unit.

Um you know, how would we accommodate a situation like that if if if this was strict requirement.

Uh are you speaking uh to the on street parking uh when we have uh transit-oriented building, or are you talking about just in general um if they have if if yeah, if they weren't allowed to put any parking in a in a place without having it be then be have to be the setbacks be such that it you know cuts into the building size altogether, I I mean in that circumstance, certainly if there was uh some reason um in design that they could only put parking in the 30-foot zone of the of the building or the law, that would that could certainly present a problem.

Um we haven't we haven't found that, um, but I that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'd have to go look at some some scenarios to see if that might be the situation.

But if you didn't want that to um potentially uh impact affordable housing developers, then you could certainly adjust that that dimension um so that that situation didn't happen.

Uh and that would provide them more flexibility on the ground floor for where they may or may not uh locate parking.

Thank you, Mr.

Tree.

I just I share some of your concerns on that issue.

Um and uh yeah, I'd like to hear if we could drill down a little more on the um the art space issue as well.

Um, just in terms of you know what the what that would look like for an affordable housing developer.

Um how could we still make you know get something back for the artist community, but obviously not overburdened the the affordable housing developer.

Uh that's all right.

Thank you.

Are there other questions, comments that people want to discuss tonight?

I'm certain that we will be taking this up at a upcoming meeting.

Um I would encourage um counselors now that we've kind of been through this in in detail to think about if there are amendments that people want to prepare.

Um Director.

Uh yeah, I just uh Mr.

Chair, I'd like to call your attention to another um uh item that we submitted for tonight's meeting.

It's actually a replacement of the previous file.

Uh we provided the let red line version of the table that you asked for.

Um and also I edited that text that you just had there.

Um section A2 uh to be way more specific about what standards are being superseded uh in the base zoning districts, because that was kind of the fundamental confusion of that first meeting.

So we wanted to be uh way more specific.

And these these are the same for every building type in every district, the same A, B, C, and D are always the same.

So I was able to reference those uh by their section names.

Um so just wanted to call this to your attention and um any changes uh that you'd like to make uh to any of the dimensions I I would uh suggest using this table.

Okay, so the the document that you submitted for tonight is in substance identical to what was there before, but is kind of clearer for the public to understand there's the red line table that has all of the red line changes and some additional language in a Romanette 2.

Yes.

Clearer.

Okay.

Well, we can, you know, we we're not in a hurry to take this up.

Um tonight.

So you know, we can review this before we um consider whether we want to replace what's before us, as we normally would.

Additional questions, comments.

I found this extremely helpful.

A couple of things that I was confused about.

I think I understand now.

All right, excellent.

So, colleagues, our next meeting is a public hearing.

It's going to be held um hybrid uh in person at City Hall and with a virtual option as well.

There'll be a number of interesting items then.

And if we have time, we'll we'll take this up at the end of that meeting.

Um if we don't, we'll do it at the next meeting.

With that, we don't have any minutes to approve because this is our first discussion meeting of the year.

We do have minutes.

We do have the minutes I misspoke.

Okay.

Uh let's take up the minutes and adjournment in one vote, please.

Okay, and on approval of the minutes of the land use committee meeting of December 4th, 2025, and adjournment, Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor Say.

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin is absent, and Counselor Young Campen.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Excellent.

Thank you all.

Appreciate it.