By Joe Creason

The City Council’s Land Use Committee held a meeting on September 1 for the purpose discussing issues around proposed legislation and city planning.

The first item addressed was with regards to zoning ordinance amendment for small business overlay districts. Committee members took time to unpack some of the revisions which had been added to the proposed legislation.

“In the same way that our zoning ordinance has a dimensional standard call a density factor that tells you how many dwelling units you can have in a building, the new version purposes a commercial space factor, which would tell you the minimum number of space for commercial use” said Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Daniel Bartman.

The revised amendment had specified the density of commercial units to be the width of the building divided by 30, meaning that 240-foot-wide building would be designated as space for eight commercial units. This is different from what the amendment originally proposed, which was six commercial units for every 100 feet of store front.

“From a high level, it seems like this undercuts the purpose of the original amendment, we wanted to keep the smaller commercial space for a built environment where the footprint is smaller. The smaller the footprint, the smaller the rents,” said Ward 6 City Councilor Lance Davis.

Committee Chair Ben Ewen-Campen noted that no final deliberation would be given on the proposed amendment that night and the issue was left on the table for further discussion at a future date.

Another amendment concerning the preservation of historic structures was also discussed during the meeting.

“In a nutshell, the idea is to allow for more units and more density on historic properties so that these properties are not demolished,” said Ward 5 City Councilor Mark Niedergang.

Niedergang and Ward 4 City Councilor Jesse Clingan collaborated on a zoning solution that would allow for greater density while maintaining the historic integrity of the homes, either by allowing them to be divided up into smaller apartments, or to allow for structural additions which are permissible under certain circumstances for historic homes.

“Right now, there’s no incentive for redevelopment of the historic homes, except to knock them down and build the maximum number of units, so we lose historic properties,” Niedergang said.

According to Councilor Clingan, the amendment would create a zoning environment suitable for the preservation of these historic buildings, while also balancing the need for new housing units in Somerville. However, the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development is less concerned about density than about possible administrative and procedural issues with the designation of historical status.

“There is a process where the state reviews the characteristics of the property and whether or not it meets the criteria for being designated historical asset and those criteria aren’t based on the need for additional housing. The process of the historic designation is intended to create historic districts and not necessarily promote the existence of individual historical lots,” said Deputy Director Bartman.

According to Bartman, the proposed amendment may not create its intended outcomes if the state’s historical designation criteria do not align with the interests of individual property owners.

The Land Use Committee meeting adjourned with the approval of an amendment to zoning ordinance for building components like porches and forward-facing elements, making it easier to assess permit applications from an administrative perspective.

The Land Use Committee will meet again on September 28 at 6:30 p.m.