By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

A development group wants to build thirty-one housing units on a little over half an acre on the edge of Davis Square. Neighbors uniformly oppose the project, which would instantly double the number of housing units on the long block that runs between Cutter Avenue and Willow Street.

The city of Somerville proposes to accommodate the developer through a zoning sleight-of-hand. The project is the latest in a pattern that has become common over the seven years of the Curtatone administration.

Developers burden neighbors by cramming as many housing units as possible onto small lots. City government bends or sets aside zoning requirements. Some neighbors organize to resist the developments. Most give up. With a few exceptions, the developers prevail.

This, despite the fact that in New England’s densest city, only 3% of our land is open space. This includes cemeteries and paved schoolyards.

The current case involves two adjacent properties at the end of Summer Street. One belongs to Dakota Partners, a corporation cofounded by Marc Daigle and Roberto Arista. Strategic Capital Group, owned by Mr. Arista, is the project’s developer. In various role configurations, they have built five Somerville condo developments.

In 2002, the MBTA sold Dakota Partners the property at 343 Summer Street, site of the only Red Line emergency exit between Harvard Square and Alewife. Dakota proposed to build 14 housing units on this 0.39-acre parcel that has since been zoned for a maximum of 7 units. Neighbors raised a hue and cry.

The developer ran into permitting difficulties. The most infamous was that the size of the building left insufficient room for a fire lane, unless an historic tree was removed. They sued the city to compel the removal, but Land Court said they had not demonstrated sufficient hardship. Neighbors sued in response to a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) extension of a conditional permit. The Superior Court case is scheduled for this October.

Meanwhile, the developer now proposes to build 31 units. St. James Avenue resident Sue Hill remarks that, “The more neighbors object, the bigger the building gets.”

The new scheme requires what opponents call a sham land-ownership structure. And it requires a curious and questionable interpretation of the zoning code. Neighbor  Robert  Butt believes that planning staff “made clear where city hall stood on the project: very pro-development at all costs, no regard and no sensitivity for neighborhood concerns.”

The deal involves the Dilboy Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 529, which owns the rear portion of the Winter Hill Bank building and the parking lot behind it. They are zoned for Central Business District (CBD) use. This property is adjacent to the former T property now owned by Dakota Partners and zoned for residential use.

Dakota Partners would deed the residential property to the Dilboy Post.  In turn, the Post would lease a portion of the combined parcel to the developer for 100 years, with an option to renew for another 100 years, at a rent of $1.00 per century. By sharing a border with the parking lot, the former MBTA site would be transformed into CBD use.

With this “creative” ownership structure, the developer would build a new VFW Post with a function hall that would accommodate 375 attendees. Through the magic of a zoning loophole, the developers would then only need the ZBA to consecrate the deal by approving a special permit with site plan review, so that they can build 31 housing units and an 8,400 square-foot club and function hall on the resulting 0.93 acres. City staff has recommended conditional approval.

Staff’’s rationale is that combining the two uses would amount to mixed-use development. But in mixed-use projects, the different uses form a synergy in which each improves the effectiveness of the other.

Neighbors have asked city staff for examples of similar precedents. Staff has been unable to present a parallel in which (1) multi-family housing combined with a private club is considered to be mixed use; or (2) where separate parties used such ownership structure to merge lots with two different buildings and two different uses into one combined development, avoiding zoning requirements that would otherwise apply.

Summer Street resident Tom Bok says, “Perhaps I’m naive, but I expected a more rational process, where the city encourages development but sets appropriate boundaries.…Instead, boundaries appear to be fuzzy, and interpreted at the city’s convenience.”

Another troubling aspect is that after moving into the five Somerville projects previously built by these developers, condo owners have discovered such serious construction flaws as chronically leaking roofs, faulty insulation, an HVAC system that was never hooked up, exterior lighting that doesn’t work, nonfunctioning windows, and crossed gas lines.

Owners report that when they complain, the developer sends out the same repairers, who “tinker around.” They leave, and the problems remain.

Two of the condo associations have sued the developers. A third would like to, but can’t afford the legal costs. Dakota Partners, in turn, countersued one condo association’s trustees, alleging that they waited too long to investigate the construction defects.

Remarkably, Somerville Inspectional Services Division approved each of these projects for occupancy, despite such glaring defects as a roof drain that was set an inch above the surface. And the city’s planning staff says that developers’ past track record should not affect consideration of their current project.

Most neighbors agree that the veterans deserve their respect, gratitude, and a new post. I agree as well. But one has to wonder how good a deal they are getting.

According to the draft land-swap agreement filed with the Licensing Commission, when the deal is consummated, the developer will own the portion of the bank building that now belongs to the Dilboy Post. If they sell it within two years, the Post will only receive sale proceeds that are greater than $1.1 million. If they sell after two years, the vets will receive nothing.

One hundred and thirty neighbors have signed a petition opposing the project. Nancy Iappini and George O’Shea live behind the project on Hawthorne Street. They object to the noise and congestion that would be created by 375 nighttime revelers.

Neighbors also believe that the project’s design is outsized, ugly, and a misfit. Charles Robinson has lived on Hawthorne Street for 24 years. He says, “It is glaringly apparent that the design of the buildings is to resolve a development problem, not to fit into the neighborhood.”

Neighbor Brian Jalet says that “The community is open to sound, realistic plans, and this one is not that.” He believes that “It is the responsibility of the planning department to look after the interests of the town, not the investment interests of a proposed development.”

When neighbors strongly opposed a burdensome project during previous administrations, city staff would not approve variances or bend zoning requirements to approve it. During the current administration, the reverse appears to be true.

Zoning Board of Appeal members are appointed by the mayor. It is difficult to think of a case in which they have not obeyed him.

Office buildings create the highest amount of net tax income for the city.  The Harvard Vanguard and Citizens Bank buildings are the city’s greatest tax producers in Davis Square.

Some neighbors have pointed out that the same zoning change that is being proposed for the condo development could be used to entitle office development. Daytime office uses would support the Square’s retail and restaurant uses.

The case becomes curiouser and curiouser the more one looks into it. The ZBA will be looking into it at a June 8^th public hearing at city hall.