Audio Version

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes

Meeting Date: July 16, 2025 Governing Body: Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting (Remote Participation)

Attendees: * Ursula Susan Fontano (Chair) * Anne Brockleman (Vice Chair) * Ann Fullerton (Acting Clerk) * Zach Zaremba * Brian Cook (Alternate Member) * Sisia Daglian (Alternate Member)

Staff Present: * Kit Luster * Steve Carey * Madison Anthony * Alvaro (new staff member)

Executive Summary

The Zoning Board of Appeals addressed several cases, including the continuation of three variance cases for 379 Somerville Avenue and two special permit cases for 14 McGrath Highway, which require re-advertisement. The Board approved the minutes from June 4th and June 18th, 2025. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a 40B change request for the Clarendon Hill project, which was deemed insubstantial and approved with modifications to findings and conditions. The Board also approved an extension and modifications to conditions for a special permit at 56 Webster Avenue. Two hardship variance requests were heard: one for 103 Gilman Street, which was approved with specific conditions related to architectural drawings, and another for 8-8A Melvin Street, which was continued to August 20th, 2025, to allow the applicant to propose modifications for better zoning compliance. Finally, a hardship variance for 181 Pearl Street was approved, acknowledging an existing driveway encroachment and the applicant's good-faith efforts with the neighbor.

Agenda Items

I. Call to Order & Remote Participation Notice

• The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chair Ursula Susan Fontano.
• Notice was given that the meeting is conducted via remote participation pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025. A video recording will be available on the city website or by emailing zoningboard@somerville.gov.

II. Continuances

• 379 Somerville Avenue (ZP25-000058, ZP25-000059, ZP25-000060)

  • Applicant: Brickstone Builders Corp.
  • Relief Sought:
    • ZP25-000058: Relief from SCO 4.3.11.E for facade build-out requirements in the Mid-Rise 5 (MR5) district (hardship variance).
    • ZP25-000059: Relief from SEO 4.3.8.b for the maximum front yard setback in the MR5 district (hardship variance).
    • ZP25-000060: Relief from SEO 4.3.8.b Point D for brown story fenestration requirements for primary facade composition in the MR5 district (hardship variance).
  • Discussion: The Acting Clerk, Ann Fullerton, moved to open and continue all three cases.
  • Motion: To continue all three cases (ZP25-000058, ZP25-000059, ZP25-000060) to the next Zoning Board meeting on August 6, 2025.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Zach Zaremba
  • Vote:
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Brian Cook: Aye
    • Sisia Daglian: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (6-0).

• 14 McGrath Highway (ZP25-000044, ZP25-000063)

  • Applicant: Liquor Junction
  • Relief Sought:
    • ZP25-000044: Special permit under SCO 4.3.13 to expand alcohol sales business in a commercial business district.
    • ZP25-000063: Special permit to increase the leaseable floor area of their business's use to more than 10,000 square feet in the CV district.
  • Discussion: These cases need to be re-advertised for corrected language. No vote was necessary as the cases were not formally opened. A new hearing date will be posted after re-advertisement.

III. General Business

• Approval of Minutes
  • Discussion: Two sets of minutes were presented for approval.
  • Motion: To approve the minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings dated June 4, 2025, and June 18, 2025.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Brian Cook: Aye
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Sisia Daglian: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (6-0).

IV. Other Business

• Clarendon Hill Project (40B-2020-001-R3) - 40B Change Request

  • Applicant: Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH), represented by John Springfield (Senior Project Manager) and Tim Sinan (Icon Architecture).
  • Project Summary: Redevelopment replacing existing obsolete state public housing with newly constructed permanently affordable housing, adding new affordable and unrestricted apartments. Phase 1 is nearing completion.
  • Proposed Modifications:
    1. Phasing: Original plan included a market-rate building (Red Gate Residential) in Phase 1. Due to market conditions, the two POAH-led phases will advance first, and the market-rate building will be part of a third phase.
    2. Thoroughfare Design (Stevenson Amon Way): Modifications based on city staff feedback.
       • Modification of the "Woonerf" (enhanced wide crosswalk) prioritizing pedestrian access to Central Park, shifted slightly, with completion in Phase 2.
       • Shift in pedestrian crossings and reduction in crossing length at several points.
       • Adjustment of street tree locations and some bicycle facilities due to other shifts.
  • Discussion:
    • John Springfield (POAH) presented the modifications, emphasizing the goal of expediting housing for residents.
    • Donna Bainbridge inquired about the return order for temporarily relocated residents; Mr. Springfield explained it's based on a lottery with priority for school-aged children and medical conditions.
    • Tim Sinan (Icon Architecture) clarified that shifts in elements like the woonerf were within approximately 5 feet. Street tree locations were adjusted in coordination with city staff and utilities, with the new development significantly increasing the caliper size of trees compared to what was originally on site.
    • Brian Cook asked Steve Carey (Staff) about the definition of "substantial" vs. "insubstantial" changes for 40B permits. Mr. Carey confirmed that changes in building height, massing, unit count, or housing tenure are typically substantial, while landscape design and mobility access changes are generally insubstantial unless they amount to something significant at the board's discretion.
    • Chair Fontano acknowledged the staff's thorough reports and the collaborative effort.
  • Public Comment: No members of the public raised their hand to speak.
  • Board Deliberation: The Board discussed the nature of the changes and whether they constituted "substantial" or "insubstantial" modifications. Steve Carey clarified that the Board needed to find the changes insubstantial and approve modifications to findings, conditions of approval, and one waiver from the original approval as outlined in the staff memo.
  • Motion: To find the changes for Case 40B-2020-001-R3 (Clarendon Hill) as insubstantial and to approve them based on the changes to the findings and conditions and waivers in the July 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals staff memo.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Sisia Daglian: Aye
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• 56 Webster Avenue - Special Permit Extension

  • Applicant: Jennifer (representing the applicant) and Catherine (representing the applicant).
  • Discussion: This case was previously opened and continued from May 14, 2025. The applicant seeks to extend the special permit.
  • Key Points:
    • The updated staff report (July 9, 2025) recommends extending the special permit, recognizing two years from the State Permit Extension Act, plus the exercise of the first extension, and providing for two additional one-year extensions under specified conditions.
    • The applicant and staff are in agreement on the updated recommendation.
    • Conditions include reporting requirements, tied to an updated timeline for moving the laundry, at six-month intervals, with the first report due by the end of March 2026.
    • Enforcement of reporting requirements falls under Inspectional Services (ISD).
    • Brian Cook inquired about the six-month reporting interval, and Jennifer confirmed comfort with it, acknowledging that initial reports might not show significant progress but are important for tracking.
    • Zach Zaremba emphasized the need for substantive reports, not just "nothing's changed."
  • Public Comment: No members of the public raised their hand to speak.
  • Motion: To approve the extension of the special permit timeline and modifications to the conditions noted in the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals staff memo dated July 9, 2025, including a timeline that has been submitted with those conditions, and to make the findings recommended in the staff memo related to tolling dates.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Brian Cook: Aye
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• 103 Gilman Street (ZP25-000043) - Hardship Variance

  • Applicant: Robert Therrien (Architect) for the owner, Vec Demasian.
  • Relief Sought: Relief from SEO 14.1.5.c.11.B to expand an existing non-conforming structure further into a rear setback (hardship variance).
  • Discussion:
    • Mr. Therrien explained that existing egress stairs and porches were in unsafe condition. To meet current code requirements for reconstructed stairs, the porch width needed to increase, encroaching approximately 8 inches closer to the rear property setback. This is a public safety issue.
    • The property is already non-conforming, with a rear setback of approximately 3 feet, where 20 feet is required. The proposed change would further encroach by a small amount (e.g., 5.5 inches at some levels, up to 8 inches requested for tolerance).
    • Ann Fullerton questioned the discrepancy between 8 inches and 14 inches mentioned in the report. Kit Luster clarified that proposed rear setback would range from 3.1 to 2.9 feet.
    • Ann Brockleman raised concerns about fire rating if the structure is within 3 feet of the property line. Mr. Therrien committed to including fire-rated materials if required by the State Building Code.
    • Brian Cook suggested granting relief with a margin of error to avoid future amendments, acknowledging the existing non-conformity.
    • Ann Fullerton proposed tying the relief to Mr. Therrien's construction framing plans (dated February 21, 2025, specifically plan A-1), which show a maximum porch width of 6 feet 3 inches, to ensure specificity and prevent further unauthorized expansion.
    • Madison Anthony (Staff) agreed with tying the relief to specific architectural drawings and did not support granting a general "tolerance or wiggle room."
    • The Board discussed the need to ensure life safety while maintaining zoning integrity.
  • Public Comment: Dinesh, owner of 4 Dana Street, spoke in support of the applicant, highlighting the long-standing use of the driveway and the financial burden its removal would cause. He also noted legal counsel advised they are within their rights to contest removal.
  • Board Deliberation on Hardship Criteria:
    1. Special Circumstances: Existing non-conforming structure, already violating setback, and the issue is conforming to current life safety building code.
    2. Literal Enforcement: Would create a hardship by violating life safety.
    3. Desirable Relief: Minor change in rebuilding an egress condition, does not affect public good, and meets the intent of the zoning ordinance.
  • Motion: To approve the hardship variance for 103 Gilman Street, Case Number ZP25-000043, based on the previously discussed findings and special circumstances, with the special condition that the hardship permit is granted associated with the architectural drawings dated February 21, 2025, prepared by Robert Therrien Architect, specifically plan A-1 where the porch depth is noted, and adopting the criteria discussed in detail.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Sisia Daglian: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• 8-8A Melvin Street (ZP25-000047, ZP25-000048, ZP25-000049) - Hardship Variances

  • Applicant: Sandy Thilkumar (Owner), represented by Robert Pacchione (Architect).
  • Relief Sought:
    • ZP25-000047: Relief from SEO Section 3.1.13.2-2.c regarding total dormer width standards (hardship variance).
    • ZP25-000048: Relief from SEO Section 3.1.13.L.1.a regarding dormer face width standards (hardship variance).
    • ZP25-000049: Relief from SEO Section 3.1.13.L.1.c regarding dormer separation standards (hardship variance).
  • Discussion:
    • Mr. Kumar explained that he purchased the property in 2019 to convert a two-family to a three-family. During construction, a contractor, without Mr. Kumar's knowledge, moved the third-floor kitchen to the opposite side of the building for more space, which resulted in dormers being built out of compliance with zoning. This was discovered during final inspections for Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Unit 1 was sold with a CO, but COs for Units 2 and 3 are on hold.
    • Mr. Kumar, a software engineer, stated he is not a builder and was not overseeing the project directly, especially during COVID-19. He expressed frustration with the contractor who is no longer involved.
    • Chair Fontano expressed concern about contractors disregarding zoning and owners not performing due diligence.
    • Zach Zaremba questioned how the significant dormer non-compliance (e.g., 2 feet separation where 8 feet is required) could have gone unnoticed by the owner.
    • Brian Cook questioned who was responsible for the non-compliant dormer drawings, noting that a professional should have adhered to zoning. Robert Pacchione, the current architect, clarified that an uncertified designer created the initial plans, and the contractor made changes without submitting new architectural plans to the city.
    • Ann Fullerton expressed skepticism about the owner's lack of awareness, given the multi-month construction process and the need for plumbing plans early on. She found the financial problem to be the only clear hardship.
    • Anne Brockleman asked Mr. Pacchione if he had explored minimum changes to bring the dormers into compliance without a full demolition. She suggested that by adjusting the left-hand dormer, compliance with separation standards might be achievable with less financial burden, potentially by losing a window or requesting a small variance for it.
    • The Board suggested the applicant and architect work together to find a compromise that brings the project closer to compliance.
  • Public Comment: No members of the public raised their hand to speak.
  • Board Deliberation: The Board agreed that the current proposal was unlikely to be approved and that the applicant needed to present a revised plan demonstrating a greater effort to comply with zoning.
  • Motion: To continue the case of 8-8A Melvin Street (ZP25-000047, ZP25-000048, ZP25-000049) to August 20, 2025. The applicant is requested to submit any revised plans a minimum of two weeks before the hearing (by August 6, 2025) for ISD review.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Brian Cook: Aye
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (5-0).

• 181 Pearl Street (ZP25-000057) - Hardship Variance

  • Applicant: 181 Pearl Street LLC, represented by Pablo Picker (Owner/Developer) and Paul Miller (Architect).
  • Relief Sought: Relief from SEO Section 10.3.6.A.I regarding landscape buffer requirements (hardship variance).
  • Discussion:
    • Mr. Picker explained that the project involves building three units on a challenging, small corner MR3 parcel. This is the fourth hardship variance sought for the project.
    • The issue stems from an existing driveway encroachment by the neighbor at 4 Dana Street onto the 181 Pearl Street parcel (3 feet 6 inches wide along the northern lot line).
    • The applicant chose to design around the existing driveway, maintaining a good relationship with the neighbor, rather than pursuing legal action.
    • However, SCO Section 10.3.6.B.8 prohibits surface parking within a landscape buffer. Allowing the neighbor's driveway to remain violates this.
    • Paul Miller presented the site plan, highlighting the permeable pavers and plantings designed by Ground Inc. (landscape architect) to create an attractive and functional buffer, meeting Green Score requirements.
    • Hardship Criteria Responses:
      1. Special Circumstances: Neighboring driveway encroachment, small corner MR3 parcel (2,024 sq ft, less than 1/3 average MR3 size), abutted by NR parcels, proportionally large 10-foot side setbacks (abutting NR) and 12-foot curb setbacks on all four sides, leaving a very small developable area.
      2. Literal Enforcement: Would require taking back the neighboring driveway, likely leading to a financial hardship (legal battle) and a contentious relationship with the neighbor.
      3. Desirable Relief: Granting relief does not cause detriment to the public good. The proposed landscape design (plantings, perimeter brick wall) provides screening, visual amenity, meets Green Score, and buffers the site from neighbors, meeting the intent of the zoning ordinance and MR3 district goals.
  • Public Comment: Dinesh, owner of 4 Dana Street, spoke in strong support of the applicant, commending Pablo Picker's generosity in allowing continued use of the driveway, which has been in use since the 1990s. He emphasized the financial burden and legal contestation if the driveway were removed and urged the Board to grant the hardship.
  • Board Deliberation:
    • Chair Fontano appreciated the collaboration between the applicant and neighbor.
    • Brian Cook noted that the Dana Street view rendering showed a "relatively pleasant divider" and, given the neighbor's satisfaction and the satisfactory findings, saw no reason to oppose.
  • Motion: To approve the hardship variance for 181 Pearl Street, Case Number ZP25-000057, considering the findings discussed in the meeting, shared in the applicant report, and the staff memo dated July 10, 2025.
  • Mover: Ann Fullerton
  • Seconder: Anne Brockleman
  • Vote:
    • Zach Zaremba: Aye
    • Anne Brockleman: Aye
    • Ann Fullerton: Aye
    • Sisia Daglian: Aye
    • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (5-0).

V. Adjournment

• Motion: To adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
• Mover: Ann Fullerton
• Seconder: Sisia Daglian
• Vote:
  • Anne Brockleman: Aye
  • Brian Cook: Aye
  • Zach Zaremba: Aye
  • Ann Fullerton: Aye
  • Sisia Daglian: Aye
  • Ursula Susan Fontano: Aye
• Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (6-0).
• The meeting was adjourned.