Backyard cottage expansion to 1,750 sq ft draws heavy pushback

Items Discussed

This was a joint public hearing with the Planning Board on five zoning amendments submitted by the administration. Chair Ewen-Campen said at the outset there would be no deliberation or votes; the purpose was to hear presentations and public comment. All five items were kept in committee, and written public comment stays open until Friday, October 30 at noon (publiccomments@somervillema.gov).

Planning Director Dan Bartman opened with context for why a "season of zoning amendments" is coming: the city's five-year zoning review, the FY27 permit-streamlining budget priority (including a Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative project on permitting), and major state changes to MGL 40A. He said the state budget replaced the "substantial hardship" variance test with a "practical difficulty" balancing test, now requires all municipalities to offer residential use variances (which he said directly affects Somerville's commercial zoning), and that a pending economic development bond bill would codify site plan review with a 90-day decision timeline (down from 155), require objective standards in the ordinance for any permit conditions, and prohibit regulation of aesthetic appearance—putting design review at risk. Five ZBA applications are currently being evaluated under the new variance test.

Protected-use accessory dwelling unit compliance amendment (26-1336) – Kept in committee

Taken first because most attendees came for it. Senior Planner Kortney Cena said the state's protected-use ADU law (760 CMR 71) requires Somerville to allow one ADU by right in the Neighborhood Residence and Urban Residence districts, with dimensional and design standards no more restrictive than those for the principal building; the city may regulate overall size. Staff research found the typical backyard cottage built since 2022 is a 24x24-foot, 576-square-foot floor plate with a basement, first floor and half story, up to about 30 feet tall. The amendment would replace width, depth and story limits with "per principal building" standards, cap gross floor area at 1,750 square feet (the state default is 900, but municipalities may go higher), reduce the primary front setback from 60 to 10 feet, strike the building separation requirement (covered by building code), allow adaptive reuse of existing garages and outbuildings, remove interior orientation restrictions, and limit each lot to one principal building and one ADU. Cena flagged further edits since submission: recent state (EOHLC) changes void the lot-dimension section and the buried-utilities requirement; staff want to strike the word "total" from "total gross floor area"; and the 3.1.10 duplex redline was missing from the packet.

Ewen-Campen confirmed with staff that state law requires allowing an ADU the same height as the principal building, and that the square-footage cap is the main knob the city controls, which could be set as low as 900. Planning Board Vice Chair Amelia Aboff asked that staff attend a future board meeting for detailed technical questions.

Public comment ran strongly against the size provisions:

• Michelle Hansen, Meredith Porter and Jane Bestor objected to nearly doubling the state's 900-square-foot default; Porter also urged raising the 3-foot rear setback to at least 10 feet and the side setback to 5 feet.
• Edward Wall argued the state law gives no authority to exceed 900 square feet or half the principal dwelling, and asked for all-electric and tree-protection requirements.
• Denise Provost, a former city attorney, said the governing law is in the 40A statute, not the CMR, and urged the council to "take this very slow," using 3D modeling and public focus groups.
• Michael Grunco, Tori Antonino and Fanny Harrison raised green space loss, luxury condo incentives, and fire safety after removing building separation.
• Becca Wilson said she was displaced from her rental of eight and a half years when a landlord created an ADU, and asked for a requirement that landlords notify tenants when applying for an ADU permit.
• Frank Miles Vanden quoted councilors from a prior meeting saying the cottages were "absolutely not consistent with what I thought we were giving folks permission to build," and said he did not expect loopholes "fixed by making them official."
• Former councilor Bill White called it "the worst thing that I have seen" since 1975 and asked the committee to obtain an independent legal analysis of what state law actually requires.
• Evan Stellman suggested separating state compliance from the cottage-size issue and possibly creating a distinct building type.
• Anne Vigorito, Joshua Mitchell and Julian Lewis supported the proposal, citing multigenerational living and the difficulty of designing within a 576-square-foot floor plate; Lewis said height concerns are legitimate.

After one speaker criticized staff personally, Ewen-Campen said it is not appropriate to attack city staff, noting "This is a proposal from mayor Wilson."

Parking maximum corrections (26-1258) – Kept in committee

Senior Transportation Planner Justin Schreiber said the 2024 parking amendment contained more than 1,200 redlines, and a few dozen typos meant the adopted redline text did not match the clean copy presented to the council. The fix would pass the maximums as originally intended and also add the UR district to the transit-area residential maximum. Unintended results of the errors include MR5 commercial parking entitlements 2.5 times those in MR3/4/6, MR6 entitlements double neighboring districts, and lab/R&D maximums raised about 10% instead of lowered. Ewen-Campen asked whether this was "literally fixing typos"; Schreiber confirmed.

Joshua Mitchell supported the effort but noted the UR change appears to go from no maximum to 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet and suggested keeping it at no new parking. Aboff read a statement from absent Planning Board Chair Mike Capuano opposing the amendment: he argued parking should be addressed district-wide, that developers almost never ask to build more parking than allowed, that 78% of households own cars with about 33,000 stickers issued annually while 300+ street spots have been removed, and that the city should instead restrict parking stickers, writing "If you want to reduce cars, do it. Don't simply hope that it'll happen." The clerk asked that the statement be submitted in writing.

Removal of ground story elevation requirements (26-1259) – Kept in committee

The amendment would eliminate minimum ground-floor elevation requirements for all building types in all districts, making ADA-compliant entries easier and removing ramp/lift requirements that staff said serve no strong public purpose. Ewen-Campen noted Councilor Link submitted a similar item and said differences can be reconciled during amendment. Joshua Mitchell and Crystal Huff supported it; both asked that elements of Link's version be incorporated (full-size ground-floor windows in the design guidelines, and striking elevation language from text accompanying the tables). Huff described a home where an ADA ramp "would reach the opposite side of the street."

Principal entrance clarifications (26-1337) – Kept in committee

Three changes: allow a building's principal entrance on the side if at least one entrance is on the front facade (Ewen-Campen noted this is primarily a triple-decker issue); allow an external ADU's entrance on the side or rear; and remove the 30-foot maximum entrance spacing on commercial ground floors, which Cena said is satisfied with nonfunctional doors (citing welded-shut doors at the Domino's at Cutter and Elm). Street numbers could be placed on the facade wall. Jane Bestor worried rear ADU entrances would create neighbor conflicts on small lots and asked for public modeling; Joshua Mitchell supported the flexibility; Denise Provost said much new construction fails ADA accessibility requirements and seeks state access board variances.

Terminology updates (26-1338) – Kept in committee

Would rename "affordable dwelling unit" to "price restricted dwelling unit" (PRDU) to end confusion with accessory dwelling units, and replace "commercial space" with "commercial unit." Staff stressed no affordability or commercial standards change. Councilor Clingan asked whether "cost restricted" was considered; Bartman said the housing division felt "cost" encompasses more than rent or mortgage, and five to ten terms were weighed. No public comment.

What's Next

• All five amendments remain in the Land Use Committee; no votes were taken and no full council date was set.
• Written public comment on all items is open until Friday, October 30 at noon via publiccomments@somervillema.gov; the Planning Board is using the same deadline.
• Planning staff agreed to attend a Planning Board meeting to field technical questions on the ADU amendment.
• Staff will bring a corrected ADU redline adding the missing 3.1.10 duplex section, striking "total," and removing the lot-dimension and utilities provisions; a separate accessory structures amendment is forthcoming.
• Planning Board Chair Capuano's parking statement is to be submitted to the clerk for the record.
• Ewen-Campen committed to answering a resident's question on whether the ADU amendment eliminates a fourth unit on three-unit lots.