Talk to the public.

Welcome everybody and apologies.

We were having technical issues behind the scenes.

Thank you for your patience.

Um and sorry for the glitches.

We're just waiting for a few more counselors to reappear so we can establish quorum and get the meeting started.

I think we're just awaiting one more counselor who should be here in a moment.

Excellent.

I'll call this meeting to order.

And again, members of the public, thank you for your patience as we dealt with our technical glitches.

Um this is a meeting of the city council's land use committee, pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025.

This meeting of the city council is being conducted via remote participation.

We will post an audio video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels.

Will the clerk please call the role?

This is roll call.

Counselor Davis.

Counselor Klingon.

Sorry, present.

I had a mute second place.

Counselor Saint.

Councilor McLaughlin.

Councillor Ewan Campen.

Here.

With five counselors present, we have quorum.

Excellent.

And Councillor Saeed is attending.

We have two city council committee meetings happening simultaneously, and she is a critical member of the school buildings committee meeting required to make quor quorum, and they're dealing with important issues tonight, and that's why she is in that meeting.

So colleagues, item number one on our agenda is approval of the minutes of our May 7th meeting.

Seeing no discussion on that, let's lay those on the table for approval and get to the meat of the issues tonight.

So on our agenda tonight are four proposed amendments that are conceptually related but are distinct from one another.

These are four amendments that were proposed um by our former colleague Bill White and a number of members of the public who submitted these um proposed amendments.

We had a public hearing on these several weeks ago, and we heard from a number of members of the public.

And my goal for tonight, so these amendments are now before the committee.

Um and my goal for tonight is for us, I want to welcome any kind of big picture comments the colleagues may have.

Um a number of issues were raised at the public hearing, issues that all of us care about.

So if colleagues want to share kind of big picture um feedback, thoughts, etc., um, I'll welcome that.

And then what I wanted to do is go through these in order, make sure that we understand what each proposal is, and use tonight really to ask questions.

So we have staff here, and I want to spend tonight.

Um I know that I certainly have a number of questions to make sure that I'm understanding things.

Um some of these questions we might be able to have answered tonight, others I'm anticipating, you know.

We we will ask the questions tonight, voice opinions, um, and and we'll get information um at a upcoming meeting.

So I'm not anticipating votes tonight.

Um obviously members of the committee can call votes whenever they wish, but I'm not anticipating that tonight.

Um I think tonight is for us to begin discussing these asking questions.

Um so with that.

Why don't we um before we call up the agenda items um and start going through them one at a time?

If if no one wants to speak, that's fine.

But if folks want to share kind of big picture reflections on you know what we heard at this public hearing, now would be a fine time to do that.

Counselor Davis.

Never pass up an opportunity to blow hard as it were, and show my opinion of my own opinion, I guess.

Um thank you for the opportunity, Mr.

Chair.

Um, you know, and I I agree with it.

And it's and then, you know, I look forward to hearing hearing those thoughts from my colleagues and from others as we sort of advance the discussion.

I guess, you know, that my initial sort of thoughts in receiving these this group of amendments was I met them with some skepticism.

And you know, but but also you know, curiosity and and and interest in and sort of what's you know what what's really behind the the issues here and and how would they sort of all fit together.

Um and as always, I you know, I came to the public hearing with uh open mind and open ears.

Um and I I thought that I thought that for the most part there a very compelling case was made that the way that the zoning is currently sort of working uh for lack of a better word, uh isn't consistent with how I thought it would work as one member of the council that that put it in place as the chair of the committee at the time.

Um so the sort of the the short version is um I I think there's a point here.

Um and and specifically as it relates to you know what what what is being built and called a backyard cottage.

Um the you know, some of the examples that were provided and and others that I've seen uh are not consistent with what what was in my mind in my imagination when I was uh standing up there and we were going through this process and having these conversations.

Um I I envisioned something uh modest.

I may envision something that um you know was uh observably smaller than the primary structure um and would feel like a backyard cottage, not a second freestanding home uh on the lot.

Um so you know, there's another debate as to whether that's you know, which is the right answer.

Um, but I I you know I I can definitively say that that you know what has been described is absolutely not consistent with sort of what I thought we were giving folks permission to build.

Um, you know, and certainly the spectrum of a nearly 1500 square foot house, which by the way, it's bigger than my whole house.

And I'm lucky enough to have a simple family here, um, such as it is quite cozy, smallish, but it works.

But you know, I didn't I didn't ever imagine a backyard cottage would be bigger than that.

Um, so that's sort of my initial take.

Um you know, I I'll I won't speak to the the lot split question because I think that's a more nuanced question, and I think that you know, I look forward to getting into that conversation.

But um, sort of the high level is you know what what is what is happening does not reflect what I thought we were uh saying would be okay to happen.

Um and I'll leave it at that, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Counselor.

Any other colleagues want to speak at the before we take this up one at a time.

Counselor Klingon.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, through you.

As I stated in the last meeting, you know, when we our intentions were in 2019 when we rezoned uh with the neighborhood residential.

Um we were sort of trying to up zone in the corridors because you know uh we desperately need to add housing and and there's certainly major corridors that have room for it and squares, but with the neighborhood residential, we were trying to blunt a little bit of uh gentrification and you know, hopefully leave the average person in the running to be able to purchase a property um where they could live in it with their family and maybe rent the other unit.

Um and then we thought better of it and we added we you know, we added the ability to put a third unit um that wasn't affordable.

But now what we've done um is we've made it so that uh situations we're seeing where lots are being split, and we're now we have eight units, which is skirting the affordable housing rules.

Um and you know, I'm uh you know, I'm at them at the point where I'm almost thinking like I almost rather see four units stacked than to see people putting an entirely sellable unit in a backyard where we don't have a lot of open space in the city.

We don't have a lot of green space, and we're essentially giving that away uh to developers so they can put a fourth unit uh that they sell as a condo unit.

So now, you know, you're talking a property they buy for whatever, a million and something is now worth you know, million dollars a piece at four million dollars.

Uh, and then they're selling them for for God knows what.

It's like, well, what are the what kind of impact of these units even having um on the stock?

So I I also have concerns with the direction and the way things have gone.

I you know, uh I think there are ways to address this.

Um but as far as as far as the the back air cards, I also, you know, again, I had thought that it would be like an ADU or rental or you know, situations where somebody's kids couldn't afford to buy a home.

You know, they could they could put them in there.

We've had cases where people couldn't couldn't put a like a home health aid where they had a severely disabled family member and they wanted to be able to put an ADU in the backyard for home health aid.

And instead we have developers just literally cashing in, basically dropping these things on our backyards.

And I don't know if that's the right direction to be going in that I like yeah, I look forward to hearing from staff um getting into these issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um well, I'll just share kind of some some big picture thoughts I have uh as well before we dive in.

Uh Counselor McLaughlin, I see you on camera.

Did you want to speak on this?

No.

Um I I will be frank that I've been struggling with this issue a lot.

Um so, you know, at the public hearing, um, our former colleague uh Bill White made, I thought, a lot of really good points.

Um, and in particular, I think you know, the the narrative that he was describing is basically one of really really intense gentrification in Somerville, you know.

Um really expensive new units being created from what used to be more affordable.

I I don't think there's any debate that that is happening.

Um we we all have eyes, we can see that.

I do struggle with the prescription that the the idea that there is like an amendment before us that will stop gentrification from happening in the neighborhoods.

This did not start with backyard cottages with triple deckers.

It will not stop if we were to change them, you know.

That this is a tsunami level economic force.

And I, you know, I don't think that we have an option before us to turn off gentrification.

Um, I think all of us wish we did.

Um, speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Um, but it's a it's a force much larger than I think, you know, what exact building types we allow.

But that said, that doesn't mean okay, we throw in the towel, there's nothing we can do to make sure that the development we do see in neighborhoods uh conforms to what we want to see, what what our constituents want to see.

I very much think that is the case.

And I will say also some of the very first backyard cottages that were permitted in Ward 3 were built by you know homeowners who I know.

Um, and we're great.

You know, we're just frankly wonderful.

And you know, one of them is a musical practice space for a family, see kids playing music in there, one of them has a a living space with like a workout area down below.

Um, and then I've started seeing more and more.

Um, you know, uh a lot is bought, split, two triple deckers in the front, two large backyard cottages in the back.

And it it seems to me that you know, some local architects developers have figured out basically what's the formula to make these things as big as humanly possible under our current rules.

And um I I share, you know, what counselor Davis said.

It's certainly not what I had in mind.

I don't think I could have told you exactly what height and square footage I had in mind, but I I do think if we had meant kind of large single family house, we would have said that.

Um, and I we didn't, you know, I think I think in the public's mind, certainly in mine, it was more the types of structures you see now, old carriage houses, old garages, an apartment above them.

So I I think that there is work to do here.

And the issue around backyards, I also think is real.

I mean, I think it it's a nuanced issue, you know.

I don't think again, I I like backyard cottages.

I think it's an interesting building type.

I think there's a lot of support for them.

Um, and by definition, they're gonna make the the open space behind the house smaller.

But it's something that I think is worth talking about.

Um and I will say I have a bunch of questions about the the particular amendments before us, but big picture.

I I am totally open to revisiting um the the size and scope of what backyard cottages look like.

And I think that's you know, I I've heard a lot of support from that from uh colleagues from the public from the mayor's office.

So I I anticipate that we will be taking a hard look at that.

So with that, let's get into these amendments, folks.

So just let me give a a brief overview.

There are four of them, and I'm gonna just briefly describe them, not necessarily in order of what they're in in the agenda, and then we'll take them up in the actual order.

So one of the amendments limits the size of these buildings to 900 square feet, or uh half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, which other is less.

This was described to us as basically conforming with the the state law.

Another one of the amendments uh makes these buildings uh an accessory to a principal dwelling, uh, an ancillary use, meaning it can't be sold off as a separate condo.

So that's two of them.

A third one adds a level of regulation to splitting a lot.

So currently, this is an administrative, if you have a lot that is more than twice as big as a conforming lot, it's an administrative process.

If you're if you're creating two conforming legal lots, that's an administrative process.

One of the amendments is to um, as I understand it, require a neighborhood meeting, require a special permit.

And the last one says basically if you're doing a lot split and you're creating uh uh say five or more new units, then our 20% inclusion area would kick in based on the total number of units created, you know, the lot split being a decision of a single property owner, right?

It's not it's not really two economic developments, it's one, it's splitting a lot.

So those are the four.

So I'd like to just take these up in the order they're on the agenda and just open them up for questions.

I certainly have a number.

So I'll read the first one.

This is 26030.

Um 29 registered voters requesting an amendment to 3.1.12 backyard cottages.

So let's bring that up if we can, Maddie.

Make sure we're talking about the same one.

Thank you very much.

And if you go to page 12 of this.

So it says there's new language here.

Backyard cottage shall be no larger in gross floor area than one half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller.

So this is an amendment that would regulate the size of the buildings.

Um, and I just want to confirm with planning staff, this is basically consistent with the statewide law.

Is that correct?

Yes, Mr.

Chair, that's correct.

And under our current zoning, can you describe um what are the size limitations now?

Can you just introduce yourself and name for the doctor, please in case.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

So then uh Fiona Di Martino, I'm the deputy director of planning preservation and zoning for the city of Somerville.

So thank you for having me this evening and giving me the opportunity uh to address you all and provide some additional insight.

Um, so currently um the standards allow for roughly up to 1,500 square feet in a backyard cottage.

Um so we recognize um as a division that um and share you know the opinion that the backyard cottages are manifesting larger than anticipated.

Um we are currently working with uh other staff internally to basically reconcile those discrepancies between the state law and what uh Somerville currently allows.

Um in addition to working with staff, um, we are anticipating to bring an amendment, uh, you know, put forward an amendment to bring this into compliance with the state ADU standards uh to uh to essentially like uh get to the uh crux of this issue.

Um the uh drafting time will need some lead time to be able to do that to continue to coordinate with staff.

But um, yeah, so currently um, you know, the proposed language is aligned uh with the size standards, but is not written following kind of the drafting standards of the uh Somerville zoning ordinance currently.

Um the building type descriptions uh do not contain uh any regulatory standards across the whole ordinance and dimensions could be added uh to the massing and height standards for backyard cottages to add some additional clarification.

So beyond kind of what is existing in terms of forepate lot coverage um height and what's already in the ordinance, we could be elaborating further on that.

Um the principal dwelling uh is not defined in the ordinance um and should be referenced principal building type.

Um so you know, we these are some of the concerns that uh we have flagged.

Um, but yes, we do understand that there these are evolving in a way that uh was not previously anticipated, particularly you know, when the zoning was adopted in 2019.

Um we're hoping to, you know, continue, you know, gather feedback from uh you folks tonight and be able to basically amend our concurrent standards to make sure that we are aligning as closely with the state law as we can, but also making sure that we're acknowledging the needs of the public and you all.

So, you know, for members of the public that are following this, there's a number of kind of strange conflicts, right, between the way that our zoning ordinance works and the way that the state regulations around accessory dwelling units work and the administration is working, first of all, on a kind of basic amendment to get our terminology and all of the kind of legal tough points in order, just kind of content neutral, right?

And then in addition to that, you're saying the administration is preparing to uh revisit the size restrictions on backyard cottages and plans to have something.

Did I hear you say after the summer recess?

Yes, Mr.

Chair, that's correct.

Okay.

So thank you for that.

Counselor Davis.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, on that point, I mean, I guess um, you know, based on experience, right?

We've we've we've seen where these when these types of discussions start happening, um you know, well, let me come to it this way.

One of the nice things about zoning, as I understand it, um, is that when a when a zoning change is is noticed, there's effectively a stay put in place, right?

If that zoning change um is ultimately adopted, then you know, uh the look back the applicability is is you know, as of the date it was noticed or something like that.

Put another way, no one can cramp things through quickly before uh you know we pass something, right?

Or before a zoning change is passed.

Um that's that's you know, my understanding of intent.

And so my concern here would be, you know, I don't know the nuances and I don't know what sort of tactically speaking, but what I you know, however, whatever we do, I don't want to create a loophole where you know, because we're gonna go with a different amendment instead of this amendment, everybody can, you know, get all their uh the folks who have the resources to do so can cramp through you know a whole bunch of projects that don't align with what we're talking about here, because you know, we're we're using one version of the other.

So um I'll leave that to the lawyers to sort out um the best way to approach that, uh, you know, whether it's um making amendments to this or uh uh re-re-noticing the you know, whatever.

But I want to raise that concern that we don't inadvertently create a scenario where um you know more things are cramped through that uh that don't align with uh you know with sort of our content here.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, counselor.

Um so I guess I I personally I I find it hard to in the abstract talk about what's the right size for these, you know.

I'm just I'm just someone who when I if you look at our zoning ordinance, they say these buildings can be one and a half stories.

To me, in my head, I think small little cottage, right?

A story with a slanted roof on it.

Um as a matter of fact, as I understand it, what started to happen is that people are have putting in finished basements, which under building code and our zoning can come up to something like five stories above the ground.

And what you're effectively getting is a two and a half story building.

The first story is five feet, but if you're standing one of these next to one of these things, it you know can feel like a two and a half story building and in terms of living space is right, has has two and a half stories.

Um I I'm just speaking as one counselor.

I I don't know what the right number is.

You know, maybe it is 900 square feet.

I'm open to being convinced that there's a different number that's right, but it does strike me that what we're doing now uh is bigger than any of us anticipated.

And uh I'm glad to hear that the mayor's office is working on something.

I'm sure the counselors are thinking about this as well.

And to counselor Davis's point, um, you know, now with this being a big public conversation, I'm sure there are folks out there watching closely and listening to what we're saying.

So we do not want this conversation to drag forever.

Um that that this, you know, this is a priority for the community.

And um, I think that this is kind of at the crux of it in a lot of ways.

Um there further questions, requests for information that counselors want to make at this point.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Uh, thank you, Chair.

Just a few thoughts.

Uh um I like uniformity and consistency, and I think we should uh abide by the state regulations so that everyone knows exactly what to expect.

I think that makes sense to me.

I agree with my colleagues that you know, when I picture bat ADU or um cottage unit, I picture like my grandmother's garage that could be made into a nice apartment, uh small unit.

So I definitely agree with that.

I do want to give an alternate view about this, however, as someone who's been knocking a lot of doors lately in this community.

Uh I see a lot of residential neighborhood areas that have a triple decker in the front and then a triple decker squeezed in the back.

And these were not done because of the triple decker ordinance or the ADUs.

It was done decades ago.

Uh, and the interesting thing about all these units is there's people living in them.

And there's people living in this community who live in these units, there's families, there's people who have jobs, there's people contributing to the community.

Uh, so I just don't I don't want to lose sight of that when we talk about, you know, oh the the we got a 1% vacancy rate in the city.

So there's no shortage of people who want to live here.

I think about a development on Craiggy Street that I knocked on recently, uh, which used to be a huge open lot area.

There's nothing there.

And I could tell you all the sordid history about this property and how uh the person who built it evaded zoning laws and figured out all sorts of ways to squeeze in these units.

And I knock on the door, and there's a really nice French woman there with her kid uh who took the time to talk to me and is a part of this community.

So I am interested in the consistency of things.

I want to make sure that uh what we intend to do actually happens.

Um, and I think that of the four amendments, this one uh makes the most sense to me.

But I do have some concerns about other amendments because as you said, Mr.

Chairs, we're not putting this gentrification uh genie back in the bottle.

And a lot of the concerns people have in the community around this, uh around the development has been happening for quite some time.

We're just getting more units out of it now.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor Klingon.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair through I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I'm just curious if there's any thoughts from staff around how these amendments would tie into each other in the sense that, and you know, not that I uh I don't, you know, I'm not in the real estate market, but I'm curious what the state's thoughts are like if it if you know 900 square feet, if we would have if we were to restrict it to that, um would you know like would somebody with the real estate market just say, well, now you got like this, no one's gonna buy or whatever.

Like, like would it would it does it make sense to sort of tie it to the resale factor?

Um yeah, it's just it's I can see this really getting complicated around even with somebody puts three units on a property, and then was one of the units come with an ADU, or like you know, how does that all work?

I I look forward to seeing how we're gonna sort of rectify and untangle some of these things.

Um, and just wonder if staff have any thoughts on any of that.

Mr.

Chair.

So, yes, we have been thinking about the economics of this and how that's going to play out and in terms of reconciling what the state has required versus what Somerville allows now.

Um, we have and like understanding that you know, there's backyard cottages that are currently in process.

There is also um you know an amendment um in favor of uh the stress of amendment that is going to be uh going through the process as well.

So we're trying to factor in a lot of these different considerations, all of the public comments that we've heard.

Um we do have some concerns that um the 900 square foot limit would render these uneconomic, uh considering the current um dimensional standards that are uh in the zoning ordinance.

So we would need to take um pretty deep look uh into like me massing uh standards and other um in other kind of dimensional issues that could arise, and we're kind of currently working workshopping that.

Um, so we definitely will have um a more concrete uh response to come.

But as we're kind of still gathering um information and valuating best best practices, um, but I will say that uh, you know, we will be having to kind of just revail reevaluate all of our standards um significantly if we do, you know, if the city does decide to move toward the path of 900 square feet.

And one thing that I will add to is that you know, the limit to the 900 square feet doesn't always necessarily stop these things from being taller.

Um it it can, but we're also looking at some of the implications like if if that doesn't, if that does not happen.

Um, so there is a few things that we are, you know, kind of coordinating with ISD and the and other folks in in the city to be able to kind of get some more answers to that.

So thank you for the question.

That's all for now, Ms.

Patrick.

Thank you, counselor.

And you know, just speaking for myself.

So currently we have a maximum floor plate of 576 square feet.

If you're imagining these are one and a half stories, it's that number times two, whatever that is, 1100 something.

What's happening is that you're getting this built-out basement, right?

And I, you know, maybe this is apocryphal, but what I've heard from people um that work in this field is that we didn't really anticipate that people would be doing that.

Like I think that the housing market has been so insane here that people have it's it's worthwhile to dig out these basements and put an extra floor in and sell it as a million dollar plus single family house, right?

So if the concern, and I think for a lot of us it is, is purely about just the physical size of this thing.

We don't want to stop them from happening.

We don't want to make them economically impossible.

We want to make sure that they're not you know butting directly up against the back of someone's house.

Um someone's yard and being as tall as a single family house.

Um, you know, it seems to me basically just the maximum square footage is two times the maximum uh floor plate.

Currently it's it's three, right?

They could they can dig out the basement and have three floors.

So that that's my kind of thought off the bat.

It's a little bit more than 900, and I'm open to a conversation around this, of course.

But you know, that's to me makes sense.

All right.

So let's leave this in committee.

And you know, colleagues, as obviously we're moving between these amendments, but you know, if if something comes to mind on one of them, we can we can return to them.

So let's move to the next item on the agenda.

This one has to do with defining these as uh accessory and ancillary building.

This is number 260329.

14 registered voters, and we'll bring that up on the screen in just a moment.

The operative text is on page 12 of this.

And for members of the public following this, counselor white and these um signatories, they submitted a single memo that explains kind of in more plain language what the four amendments are, and then at the bottom of each one is the actual their red line amendment.

This one defines a backyard cottage as a structure defined in section 10.2.1b through F, which is explained elsewhere in this explanation to be basically umcillary, an accessory building structure.

Um, and basically, as Ed is explained here, it means that they could not be a condo.

They'd have to be rented by you know the other principal building type.

So this is one I'm interested to hear kind of basic feedback from planning department from colleagues.

I'm kind of struggling around this.

I know many, many, many people.

The only way that they can possibly afford to buy anything in Zummerville is a condo, right?

Um, I I don't have the same kind of um, you know, uh opposition to the to the concept of these being uh sold as consos, condos in theory, but I'd like to hear um feedback from from planning from from colleagues.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Thank you, Chair.

This this is the one I struggle with the most as well.

Um, as someone who lives in a condo, I I have I live on the second floor of a three-family house, we own the second floor, first and third are owned by other people.

Uh, it's the only way I could have ever afforded a home in this city.

And the the era of three generations living in the triple decker, you know, the grandparents on the first floor, parents that that is gone.

And I wish that wasn't the case.

It's the era that I grew up in, but it really just doesn't exist anymore.

Uh and I think a lot of people when they I know this, I know it because I felt this way before.

When you hear the word condo, you assume rich people.

Uh and it's uh this is just uh the uh any apartment complex, people refer to as a condo.

But a condo is a unit that an individual or family can own on their own.

Uh and I don't see the correlation between an ADU being a condo or being a rental unit.

I don't think we need to make that decision.

I think individuals or the market can make that decision about whether it's going to be ownership or rental.

I do think if you're asking for my two cents on it, I think if you own a two-family house in some of all right now, you're probably on the more affluent end.

Uh, and to say that that third unit that you're at and you also have to own that.

I'm not sure whose problem we're solving by making that the case.

And I do if you look at uh the reason a lot of these units are going as condos is because the building cost is so high that you can't even rent it because the rental price would be so exorbitant that you can really only sell it as a condo.

So I I view this as a decision we don't have to make.

I think there's concerns from the community about the size of ADUs and cottage units that we can discuss.

But final thought whether it's a condo or rental doesn't mean anything to me.

And just a final thought too is I had one of my first developments as a city counselor was 75 units uh right next to the shopping shop that people were passionately opposed to.

They wanted ownership so that families would stay in this community.

And we struggled to make it uh uh condos, the the developer accepted this, but that created its own set of problems as well.

So not a problem that I think the council needs to handle.

I think that people will figure this out for themselves.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor Klingon Yeah, Ms.

President, through you.

Um I guess this.

I guess if if you know, if we don't at least examine the question, I think like if you allow it to be a sellable unit, then that's what it will be 100% of the time.

Um whereas if you have some folks living in a two-family and costs start going up, and like maybe we should build or convert this garage, you know.

So now we're adding a unit to the market, which is what everybody wants.

Um, but we're adding a rental unit.

So versus like just creating exorbitant value to land, um, that's gonna pretty much assure that we're gonna see new building on backyards.

Uh but you're gonna have concerns about green score and just like kind of like how we're gonna deal with you know the the effects of eating up whatever backyards are left in the city.

But I just think it I'm just thinking about it.

I'm not, I mean, I do I understand, I think it I think it does complicate things.

I kind of agree with Council McLaughlin that you know that this may not be the place, we may not be the body to decide, you know, what people do with their property.

Um but I I it's an interesting, I I understand the thinking behind it in terms of like it still adds a unit and yet doesn't necessarily ensure that you know it's gonna be a sellable unit.

Um so in other words, existing properties that could add something versus somebody's gonna buy a property, knock that down, put the three units and put the thing in the back uh every time.

So I don't know.

I'm curious, like what anybody's uh anybody else has thought much about this or like you said, staff um or anybody on the city side.

Yeah, before we turn it over to the city, I guess I just want to share my understanding of the thinking here, right?

I think if you you talk to a lot of folks in Somerville, I don't want to pay with too broad a brush, but I hear from a lot of people, they really have no problem if there's like a homeowner wants to build one of these things.

You know, that it's it's completely inoffensive to people.

What really does bug people is when you know a really active developer who doesn't have great relations with the neighbors and has a lot of active construction sites is just buying up property left, right, and center, demolishing stuff and you know, kind of building what are considered these cookie cutter, you know, developments.

Uh that's what people don't want and they what they want us to regulate.

And so I I think that's the incentive that that's contemplated here is you can't write a law that says, yeah, sympathetic homeowners in Somerville can kind of have a lot of leeway, whereas these developers that bother everybody can't.

You know, law doesn't allow us to do that.

So I as I understand it, this is kind of trying to get at that issue.

And I I understand that, you know, I I will just not to spout off, but I follow some of these developers on Instagram, the superactive ones in Somerville, because you get a sense of where what they're doing and how they and yesterday or the day before, there's a development on Albion Street across from the playground.

They just took down a garage and they posted a video today that was like an AI graphic of a missile hitting it, exploding it, and then like demo completed, and then you know, little time lapse of their project going on.

And it was just revulsive, repulsive, you know, just really, really gross.

If that's the way that they're thinking about their relationship with the neighbors, I can understand why people can't stand them.

Um, and I, you know, I kind of viscerally share that, like, yeah, we have have a cool conversation about housing supply, but the way that these folks interact with Summerville residents is uh often despicable.

That all said, I really share, you know, the feeling of what Councilor McLaughlin just said that I think there are going to be a lot of situations where it is uh the right thing to do for this to be sold as a condo.

Um, and I think uh my concern here is that this would mean, you know, basically this doesn't happen.

You know, this happens maybe once or twice every couple of years when someone gets the money together to build one of these things.

Um, but I think that this would effectively mean, you know, these really, really, really rarely happen.

Um I'm not sure that I'm ready to to make that decision.

Um, so with that deputy director, do you want to add in?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So thank you for the feedback.

Um, and just yeah, hearing um, you know what what you're seeing and and and that behavior is definitely something that uh is a concern of the division, and certainly something that we uh would not uh be uh in any way trying to to condone in any manner.

Um, however, uh, you know, the zoning ordinance does not regulate uh condominiums as was stated in the proposal.

So these new dwelling units may be for sale condos or rental apartments.

And actually going to the um the ADU law that was passed by the state, it's pretty explicit that you know you do not regulate ownership.

And you know, our our thought process as a division would be that we would align with kind of counselor McLaughlin's um points of you know, not um getting into uh the details of regulating to that to that extent, um, and you know, allowing housing to be able to be produced um in in uh based on on the market and also like just the the flow and the uh ability to be able to produce these types of structures.

So with that being said, uh again, I know that this is going to be kind of a uh standing response that I have for a lot of these, but you know, we are uh you know, we're currently working on a maintenance amendment.

So again, reconciling um some of the uh issues that are brought to light by the amendment, um, and fix and we're working to fix definitions in the ordinance, including confusion around some terminology, um particularly related to you know accessory buildings versus structures, and are anticipated to bring that forward following recess.

Um, but we I just do want to reiterate that the zoning currently does not, you know, does not regulate condominiums as is stated.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Counselor Davis.

Um thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Um Yeah, I just wanted to kind of weigh in or respond to the the discussion about the ownership.

And I um yeah, I I appreciate the feat the the input.

I I'll continue to listen um as my my view kind of is is formed.

But I I do want to just sort of you know, put put uh put out there that like while I I can completely agree that it's clear it's on inarguable that that more housing is needed regionally.

Um, much like I'm not compelled as my colleagues have said that you know, anything we do here or don't hear is going to in any way impact gentrification.

I also don't think there's any way that anything we do with these amendments is going to impact the housing market in any material substantive way, even a even a you know, submaterial way, frankly.

Um and I think that you know the the sort of cost benefit is is something that um for me at least it's important to think about uh when you say accessory dwell dwelling unit, I I always going back to sort of what I thought we were talking about when we passed the zoning.

I thought we were talking about um an accessory to the primary unit and that therefore there would be common ownership.

Never occurred to me that people would be selling zappas condos.

Um so I you know I I'm not really moved by an argument that you know however many, yeah.

So I guess let me try and get this to a finer point here.

Um directly to sponsor to to uh Mr.

Chair, your your point uh that there might only be a very, very few of these.

Um might be the case, and and I I I would hope it's not.

I was sort of hoping there would be you know a reasonable number, but I'm not sure there only being a very, very few of these is better than the alternative of you know something that you know allows developers to continue with this the practices that you've described.

Um I think there's a real argument that we're we're you know what we gain in the in terms of extra housing and it is is not going to be meaningful either way, and therefore we should be very much keep in mind sort of the other factors, um, the impacts on neighbors and all of that.

Um and in the meantime, build a lot more housing in the corridors and in the squares, which we were where we absolutely can do it and and and make at least a little bit more, but yeah, it's um just to make sure that that that my view on that larger argument is clear.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Thanks, Chair.

Just some closing thoughts on this.

Um again, I think there's a valid argument discussion.

There's a valid discussion about how we want these ADUs to be built.

Um, whether it's condo or rental, I don't see how that impacts a neighbor.

Uh and I do question, you know, it doesn't solve the problem that people are bringing up.

Uh so a developer buys, which they've done well before any sort of zoning changes we've made.

Developer buys a unit, decides to gut it, make it into three units with an ADU in the back and makes them all rental.

That developer still owns all the units, and it is not owned by the tenants who live there.

So it doesn't mean just even if you make it rental, doesn't mean that it's you know, your grandparents living in the garage or your kids living in the garage.

Like you, there's no way to really control that.

So I just don't see the rationale behind the Condorus rental discussion.

Thank you, Counselor Klingon.

Yeah.

Three, Mr.

Chair.

Just on that point, Councilor Globin just said, yeah.

I think that's the point, though, is that they wouldn't get built, most likely, but you would have maybe a garage that would be like you could still add units if somebody wanted to add it, if somebody wanted to build something, um, and there would still be a unit added to the market.

It just wouldn't be this juicy, you know, wouldn't make the wouldn't make the land just like skyrocket in value.

Um so, you know, that I just want to say that because I I mean I I hear what you're saying, and I know that they're either going to be built or not built.

Uh and I think this would probably, you know, obviously damper building, which again, that's why I yeah, if that's doesn't sound like that's the direction anybody wants to go in.

And also I think it's just a move point like we were discussed.

I don't know that this is something that you know we should be making a call on.

Um but I mean, I'm you know I I imagine a lot of scenarios where there's a garage and someone wants to convert it and they can they would be by law able to do that still where they wouldn't have, you know, before the state's uh legislation and so on.

And even back in the day, though that was something that you know, not us, but people balked at the idea of even having more people on a plot of land.

Uh, we've really, you know, kind of done a 360 on a lot of that.

Thank you.

Counselor McLaughlin on that.

So yeah, I'll try to make a final thought.

But if the intention is to not allow it to get built, then I'm absolutely opposed to it.

Uh one is it would probably violate the state law, which allows ADUs across the state.

And it would also go against our own intentions, the very well-stated intentions of ADUs to allow this to happen under the right circumstances with the right dimensions.

Uh, so if we want to have a conversation about what the building looks like, how big it should be, uh, I'm okay with that.

But if we're talking about let's make sure that this just doesn't happen, then I don't support it.

Thank you, counselor.

All right, let's leave this one in committee as well, and we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is 260328.

14 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend 12.2.2 regarding affordable dwelling units.

Give the clerk a moment to pull up the text here.

If you split a lot and you are making five or more units, then our 20% inclusionary kicks in on the total number of units after the lot has been split.

Currently, after a lot is split, they're two independent projects, neither one of them triggers inclusionary.

Our neighborhood residence zoning district does not have inclusionary requirements.

This would change that.

Um, so I guess you know, my fundamental question on this that I just want to ask off the top.

This to me is kind of an empirical question.

If it is possible for us to make this change and actually get affordable units built successfully, wonderful.

You know, like how could anybody oppose that?

Um, the the concern that I would have, I know that the city just commissioned this study of our inclusionary policies and the challenges in the market, because we're honestly, you know, have not seen any housing starts citywide, basically.

And um we have developers across the city saying they can't make 20% work even on huge projects.

So my question is really what is that report or other data show us on this proposal?

Because I think the concern for me would be that this would, in effect, say, you know, this never happens.

Like these no, no, none, no housing projects like this ever happen in the city.

Some might support that.

Um, I I'm not ready to support that.

Um, and if that is what we want to say, I think we should say that instead of you know, bringing an affordable requirement in.

Um so I guess for me, it's kind of an empirical question.

If this is a way to legitimately get new affordable units, amazing.

Um if it is going to make the projects not at all pencil, and we can see that ahead of time.

I'd like to know that.

Uh counselor Clinton.

Yeah, through you, Mr.

Chair.

I mean, I see another scenario where they just find another loophole where and I would like to ask staff this if they're able to so say there's a lot.

They split the lot and they sell they they have the you know, friend or whatever, they create another LLC, can they sell it to that LLC?

Do they become two separate entities, two separate projects?

How would we regulate that?

Through you, Mr.

Chair, yes, that's my understanding is they've become two separate entities and regulated separately.

Um, but I can also follow up and get more information about those particular types of scenarios.

Yeah, and I don't think I'm giving any developers any ideas here on film because I'm pretty sure that they'll they'd figure that out on their own pretty quickly.

I know I have one right now, actually, where it wasn't to avoid this, but just maybe because they wanted to.

Um 16 Edgar was split, and then a developer one popular developer sold to another popular developer to build on the other piece of land.

I guess they just didn't want to build more unit, you know.

I don't I don't know why they did that for whatever the reasons, but so it just dawned on me that I think that you know they'd probably just find another workaround.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, through you to Ms.

DiMartino.

Uh I my first question is can we do this if we wanted to?

So uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for the question, uh, counselor.

So we are uh so I'll highlight some concerns that we have off the bat that may um bring to light.

And obviously, we do need to um continue to dissect the findings from the uh the studies that were done um by the housing division, the inclusionary study as well as the housing needs assessment to be able to um really get at the uh the full understanding of like what is feasible, but we do have concerns about the proposal violating the uniformity requirements and state uh in state law.

Um we also have um some uh concerns regarding um affordable housing requirements in in the NR district uh that were uh you know repeal.

They were repealed in 2023 as part of the MBTA community um compliance, but this amendment would create a new affordable housing requirement for some lots in that district, and those lots would be disqualified from MBTA community's compliance and reduce the number of Somerville's qualifying lots.

So we're obviously not trying to work against the progress that we made at that time.

Um and that is a key top concern of ours.

Uh, plus the you know, the city is really experiencing the lowest level of housing uh development that's seen in decades.

The little development that is happening is primarily construction of new houses, triple deckers, backyard cottages on existing lots that had a smaller home originally, um, or a double wide lots that are being divided into two normal size lots.

So an affordable housing requirement on a two to four unit development would likely cause that type of development to cease entirely.

So the question is really like and what we're trying to hear from you all really is if we can versus if we should.

So we do have some concerns, and again, we're going to be diving into um and providing kind of a more like formalized response, but um, we to kind of we are we do have concerns about the feasibility of this yet long-winded answer.

Uh well, thank you for the long-winded answer because you answered my second question, which was will this violate our MBTA communities compliance?

Uh well, when I ask if we can do this or not, uh, and I think this is what you might have meant through the chair, uh, if you could explain the uniformity at part is the the split lot is determined by the size of the project, correct?

The the the amount of land and the amount of building you're going to make.

Through the chair, yes.

Yes.

So it I'm wondering if we can like say, okay, well, you can't build a triple decker here.

You can only build four units, and one of them has to be affordable.

Could we even tell someone to do that if we uh in and in our district if they're allowed to split the lots?

Through the chair.

Yes.

Through the chair, we could, yes.

Um, yes.

Um just the kind of the issues that we're talking about is like could and and should is like the what we're you know, well, gathering more feedback on now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Can you explain the uniformity clause?

Please.

Sure.

So I am not a uh complete expert in this, um, I will admit, um, but this uh was flagged by our director.

Um so we the the uniformity clause, um, it does uh well, you know what?

I I think that that's there's a lot of different uh ways to apply it.

And I actually, if um, give me one second here.

Let me pull up my apologies.

No problem.

So it's yeah, it's it's a kind of wonky because it does uh a uniformity like applies in like different types of contexts uh con uh concerning like mainly taxes and making sure that the taxes are uh you uniformly applied.

I can um and I apologize for not having the full kind of um understanding for this this meeting, but I am definitely happy to gather that information and prepare a more um uh professional response to that question.

Okay, I see that our liaison Samantha Carr has her hand up.

Do you want to share your thoughts as well?

Welcome and then just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Absolutely, Chair Samantha Carr, land use analyst with City Clerk's office.

Apologies, my voice is a little in and out today.

Um, but but if it would be helpful for folks, um I'm happy to provide a bit of context.

Um this was something I'd uh encountered as well thinking about the uniformity clause for this particular amendment.

Um so my understanding, and I'm happy to defer to staff to this as well.

Um, but that there must be uniformity within a district for each class or kind of structure or use permitted.

Um and so I think where this scenario would be triggered is um if we were to allow a triple decker by right with an accessory dwelling unit or backyard cottage on an existing lot, and that would not trigger an affordability requirement versus if a lot split was happening and those two lots are discrete now, allowing up to a triple decker and a backyard cottage slash accessory dwelling unit in the back to introduce that affordability requirement, particular in that scenario would technically not be a uniform treatment of what would be considered like to like properties on an individual lot basis.

So that's kind of my understanding of how that would come into effect.

Um and then I guess building on counselor Klingon's point from earlier.

If this was a phased approach to development, say if a developer were to hold a lot and not build immediately, how would that type of um piece be governed outside of compliance perspective, which is more speaking to the uniformity piece of things?

Just wanted to add those thoughts there.

Thank you very much.

That that's helpful to understand what the concern could be.

Absolutely.

Colleagues, are there additional thoughts, questions on this one?

Okay.

Um so I think we have a couple questions outstanding for for planning.

Um, and when we next have this on agenda, we can dig more into the details.

Okay, so this brings us to the last of the four two six oh three two seven, twenty nine registered voters requesting an amendment to 15.7.2.d zoning board of appeals board rules.

So this has to do with lot splits.

So deputy director, do you want to explain what the proposed amendment seeks to do?

Uh sure, absolutely.

So the proposed amendment uh basically is uh requiring that the ZBA um amend uh section 15 uh 7.7.2 um to allow the TBD to have uh jurisdiction over lot splits.

So currently um that is an administrative uh approval uh review and approval rather by uh staff.

Uh so that does uh what that does is basically avoid um having to have a um hearing process over kind of uh what should be a relatively um like straight straightforward um process uh more or less.

So what you know, this is ultimately um trying to put the power back uh with the ZBA to be able to have a hearing on lot splits and also understanding that that um that you know neighbors do want to be uh aware of development that's going on um you know in their neighborhood and next to them.

Um, but identifying that what development activity does not require site plan approval in the ordinance um would likely be uh a comparison uh that we would need to pursue more.

I think you know, we need we do as staff need to um ensure that we're uh maybe elaborating a little bit about how we can um improve this process uh without having to install a discretionary approval.

Um there are ways, and we are looking at examples from other um areas across uh the nation for how to basically inform uh residents about you know more construction management and those types of concerns that we're hearing over and over again.

Um so you know, like people, you know, will we approach and say, oh, I didn't realize this was being built, it's very loud, it's very noisy, it's intruding on my life, which is very um understandable.

But we as a division do feel um that there are ways to address the concern uh that's rooted in this amendment through other mechanisms out outside of zoning and not uh trying not to inhibit the um ability to pursue an administrative review and approval of a lot split and giving that you know authority to the ZBA.

Thank you, Deputy Director.

So I have a question that I've been trying to understand and don't feel like I totally get it.

So what we're talking about here is um the zoning ordinance defines the minimum lot size um and dimensions.

And currently, if you have a lot that is more than twice as large as that, it's an administrative process because you're because you are splitting into two lots that are compliant under the current zoning.

Um can you speak to us, or if not, you know, off the cuff, come back with an answer.

How is this dealt with statewide?

Do you happen to know that?

Uh so yeah, Mr.

Chair, there is a lot of communities in similar size to Somerville that do address this in this uh in the manner that Somerville does.

Um, there are some kind of smaller uh communities that um do have a more um formal um just discretionary process.

Um in the community that I uh was previously working in, this was treated as an approval not required, which was more or less uh treated exactly as as it is now, um, just through a different um regulatory mechanism.

But it was if if there was frontage uh and you met the minimum standards of the zoning, you were able to divide your lot in this manner.

So uh it's it's it's very similar to um what is going on in Somerville, and we do see that um this this type of review, um, a ZBA review for a lots but is uncommon.

Okay, but in Somerville, it used to be, right?

We had a home rule allowance to to do this until the soon after the zoning overhaul, is that about right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um colleagues, I have I have some thoughts on this.

I'm interested to hear what colleagues think.

Well, let me just throw one thought out there.

So I I think this, I'm very much understand the the frustration, right?

Because if you've lived in a neighborhood for a long time where there's been a lot with a bunch of nice open space, um, say there's mature trees there, there's housing on it, but there's also open space.

And then with no warning, all of a sudden, you know, 60% of the lot is covered by buildings.

Um you didn't get a chance to have any say in that.

I completely understand the frustration around that.

I think where I'm struggling is when we undertook the zoning overhaul, in a lot of ways, the the main thing that I was hearing from people was that development, all development requires special permits, variances.

And because of that, it was felt like a pay-to-play system, right?

It felt like you had to have the right lawyer and you had to have the right relationship with the zoning board and the only people who could do anything.

You had to feel connected.

And I know that I certainly resented that system.

I think a lot of people in the public did.

And the goal was to have a uniform set of rules and say, this is what's legal.

This is this is a minimum lot size.

This is what size buildings we allow.

Don't come and ask us for special permissions.

Obviously, there's still cases where people might need variances, there are special permits, but as a general matter, we're gonna tell you what is legal and what is not legal, go with God.

Go with God.

I'm not saying that's the perfect system, but that certainly was kind of the intention for me, at least in the overlay.

And we're gonna make it quite hard to achieve that.

Um, I I I just I'm gonna speak in personal experience.

There's a large lot right across the street from my house that for many years, many, many years, you know, over a hundred years had one little, it was kind of like a almost like a farm site.

It had like one farm building on it, and then this large, beautiful lot.

It's been redeveloped now with three buildings on it.

It was really stressful for for my neighbors, you know, because it was a little oasis.

Um it's I think the outcome is okay and people are fine with it now, but it was it was a very painful experience.

Um also I I really do struggle with the idea that we should make the minimum lot size a lot larger in Somerville.

I mean, I just think you know, every piece of reading that I've done on urban zoning is minimum lot sizes that are very large, have been used as an exclusionary tool.

And I, you know, I I has made housing more expensive statewide, you know.

As Counselor Davis said, we're not going to solve that problem here in Somerville single-handedly.

But I do think, you know, first best principles still best practices still apply.

So my view on this is if we think we got the minimum lot size wrong, we should approach that for sure.

Um but I don't really like the idea of saying the minimum lot size is X, but then actually it's not in practice.

Like it's it's really, really hard to achieve that.

That that's where I'm struggling with this.

Um colleagues, anyone want to jump in on this one?

Or staff.

Counselor McLaughlin.

You can continue to show us why you're the class of the council.

I agree.

I just want to uh I agree with your sentiments there.

Um and again, I think this just comes circling back to what do we want an ADU to look like?

What do we want to allow to be built in the community?

Um, I think there's room to work within state law to address the main concerns.

But when we started this venture into triple deckers and ADUs, it was to stop the nonstop zoning board meetings about someone's backyard and the uh the constant neighborhood fights over what someone's gonna do with their property.

Uh so I do believe that there's a more scientific approach.

No wonder that a scientist would feel this way uh to address neighborhood concerns.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor Klingon.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, you know, thank you.

You know, as somebody who served on the council when we did have a lot of those meetings, I do understand the folks' anxiety around, you know, just what feels like we're kind of just given a uh you know, free reign.

But again, I think what those meetings ultimately did a lot of the time, I think at the end, folks felt like the fix was in because ultimately somebody can do it with their property, with their land, you know, what's what's allowed under the law.

So even after all those meetings, typically we're in the same same place.

So I think just putting a meeting uh public hearing up is really just gonna delay anything, unless, like you said, once we're thinking about the lot size itself not being correct.

So yeah, I don't I don't think going back to you know, again, I understand the anxiety people feel when like you said, they just feel like they don't have any control over what's happening around their environment.

Um, which are fortunately, unfortunately, in an urban environment where there's a lot of home sales because of the real estate market, you know, that's kind of the reality that we all live in.

The house next door to me is on the market.

I fully uh expect you know my life to be living in a nightmare for the next couple of years.

Um and I'm losing a great neighbor.

But uh, but yeah, I I I agree with everything you you said.

Thank you, counselor.

Um additional comments, questions.

Um, I guess it would be helpful for me to the extent that this is accessible information.

I would love to know kind of how much of an outlier would it make us in the state to have this be a ZBA process.

Is it you know 5050 and you know, states, cities, municipalities pick and choose, or is it you know 98% too?

Um so I that's a piece of homework that I'd be interested in in getting to the extent it's possible.

Counselor Klingon.

Ms.

President, thank you through you to um Ms.

D Martino.

Um so just so I'm clear in terms of the record, uh, really with all of these items tonight.

It sounds like some that the city is actually working on uh this particular one.

Did I hear like a sort of an official opinion from the city?

Or is there gonna be something, an opinion in in writing at some point to to these items?

Um that's all through you, Mr.

Chair.

So we can most certainly provide a formalized opinion in in writing.

Um we uh do share uh a concern with this um because you know conducting a full site plan approval process for uh lot splits or this type of land planning, it you know, it doesn't always involve new construction.

Um, and the lots must be 100% compliant with regulation.

So we are obviously trying to make sure that we're not uh going against uh you know our overarching goals of summer vision 2040 um and all the other studies that have been done uh to make sure that we're not creating any um onerous process uh for you know folks that are trying to trying to do this.

Um this would require site plan approval for all lot splits, including those in the affordable housing overlay.

Um so we need to evaluate um like what you know the development that would need an exception to that.

So we you know again like we are continuing to analyze, um, but our you know our opinion really is that we do acknowledge that uh you know there is public interest in knowing about buy right development that does not need to have um an additional level of approval beyond uh you know administrative staff review.

Um again, we're researching methods um from other communities and areas across the nation that address concerns of neighbors, um, particularly uh regarding construction management and their and and that the impact that that has everyone's daily life.

Um we you know we would like to share that you know raising awareness doesn't always equate to making everything require a permit.

Um so you know that's you know that that is really something that we uh are can want to uphold and obviously we are uh willing to work with with the council and the public and hear concerns and um you know we'll again provide additional uh information and analysis to support um to kind of provide I guess more additional information and and support the council in making their decision, um, including um getting some of that analysis done for um the chair.

Um but that would be you know that that is our our position and uh uh you know, and again, can provide uh a written uh uh that in writing as well um for the council.

Excellent.

Thank you, Deputy Director.

Thank you, counselor.

So colleagues, big picture.

What I've heard tonight is that um there is interest from the council and from the administration on proposing amendments to the backyard cottage dimensions, size, layout.

Um there is also interest in looking at um further some of the legal issues raised around um the affordable housing requirement and whether that would produce actual affordable housing.

Um, and that there's follow-up questions on several of these.

And we've also heard that we can expect the administration is gonna kind of put in a relevant uh uh amendment of their own uh probably after the summer recess.

So that's where things stand now.

Um and I want to thank everyone uh very much the proponents who put this in and everyone who showed up at the public hearing.

I think this has been um has kickstarted an important conversation.

Um and thank you to to staff and colleagues for your thoughts on this tonight.

Um it sounds like we have a bunch of work ahead of us.

Are there any further questions, comments that people want to make before we adjourn tonight?

Excellent.

Well, thank you all for your time.

Uh we're gonna leave all these items in committee except for the approval of the minutes, and I'd like to move for approval of those minutes and to adjourn in a single vote.

And on approval of the municipaline's committee meeting of May 7th, 2026, and on adjournment, Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor C is absent.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Counselor you and Kim.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Excellent.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

See you this weekend.