The two views were
aired at a Dec. 3 a joint Planning Board and Board of Aldermen Land Use
Committee hearing held at the VNA Assisted Living Facility on Lowell
Street, with the Office of Strategic Planning and Development
presenting the case that Somerville is facing a steady decline in its
senior population.

"What does this represent for us?" Executive
Director Monica Lamboy asked. "The loss of Somerville's living history.
With each person who leaves, they take a little bit of Somerville with
them."

The solution, Lamboy said, is changing senior housing
zoning regulations outside of RA and RB districts to allow more units
within buildings and easing restrictions on the number of stories while
keeping the maximum height at 70 feet. Senior housing projects are only
allowed variances in local zoning regulations if they are non-profit –
which Lamboy said is stifling potential development.

Both
Planning Board members and aldermen asked about changes to the
allowable unit size, which would permit 475 sq. ft. studios, 550 sq.
ft. one-bedrooms and 700 sq. ft. two-bedrooms.

"I don't want to vote on something that's cramming them in," Alderman-at-Large Bill White said.

A
group of residents opposed to a dormant plan for a low-income senior
housing project at 44 Park St. lambasted the amendments as a way for
the developers to get around the hurdles it faced before withdrawing
the plans in September 2008.

No word has come on whether the project will be brought back, but the neighbors said they assume it's only a matter of time.

"These
hideous buildings where tiny units are built, they'll be around for
sixty years," resident Kate Wheeler said at the hearing. "This looks a
lot like the proposal that was made in our neighborhood — many of the
requirements are exactly the same of 44 Park."

The development
proposed for that site called for a four-story building with 89 units,
which neighbors said would overshadow the neighborhood and create a
parking nightmare.

Ward 2 Alderman Maryann Heuston, who serves
on the Land Use Committee, surprised her constituents by supporting the
project in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals in September 2008,
despite having once served on that board with the project's lawyer.

Four
board members had at one point served alongside developer Sal Querusio,
which Assistant City Solicitor David Shapiro said should have been
disclosed to the city clerk. The project's application was withdrawn
soon after.

Under the new zoning changes, the 44 Park St.
project would clear many of the hurdles that initially brought it
before the ZBA. Many of the amendments correlate directly to an aspect
of the development that needed its approval, including the request for
four stories.

The changes would also reduce the parking spaces
required per unit to .25, from .75, if the units are slated to be
affordable in perpetuity. The 44 Park St. development, an
all-affordable project, saw one of its biggest battles with neighbors
over parking issues.

"It's like the developers wrote the new
zoning revision," 44 Park St. neighbor Teri Swartzel said after the
meeting. "It's shameful."

Officials sidestepped the issue,
instead focusing on other concerns. Ward 5 Alderman Sean O'Donovan
questioning why the new zoning rules aren't being placed in RA and RB
neighborhoods, near the Green Line, and White contesting Lamboy's
assertion that seniors are moving away for lack of available housing.

The
Planning Board will accept written comments until Dec. 11, with a vote
set for Dec. 17. The amendments will then go to the Land Use Committee
of the Board of Aldermen.