Somerville Infill and Small Developments

IMG_7072.jpeg

…and they’re gone.
 
He says in the comments this was by right zoning and only took 45 days through permitting to approval. Actual progress finally? The law changed in somerville in 2019 as per mbta communities.. allowing 3 unit buildings by right within a half mile of transit, maybe were now seeing the front end of those changes?

 
stick n move said:
He says in the comments this was by right zoning and only took 45 days through permitting to approval. Actual progress finally? The law changed in somerville in 2019 as per mbta communities.. allowing 3 unit buildings by right within a half mile of transit, maybe were now seeing the front end of those changes?

Click to expand...

There are a bunch of houses in West Somerville that are getting a third story added, or at least expanded into full stories. I'll snap some pics.
 
RandomWalk said:
32 Webster is up for ZBA approval with a variant on the Bold and Sharp design.
Click to expand...
Err...are the developers aware that the pointy corner of their parcel will be taken for the Newton St realignment that is being done as part of MassDOT's Webster St bridge replacement project?

Below is a screenshot from the MassDOT 75% presentation in March 2025, alongside the site plans for 32 Webster that were posted for the upcoming Planning Board meeting. Existing curb line highlighted in red for reference.

1778620343285.png
 
RandomWalk said:
32 Webster is up for ZBA approval with a variant on the Bold and Sharp design.
Click to expand...

cooper said:
Around 18 minutes in MassDOT states they're working with developers on 32 Webster, and the proposed development to the south of the bridge.
Click to expand...

Tuned into the Planning Board meeting earlier tonight about 32 Webster to see if the MassDOT plans were mentioned at all. Luckily one of the board members brought it up directly, asking if the developer had drawn up any backup plans in case MassDOT does end up taking a chunk of their property. The developer's response was that they were aware of the potential for that to happen but are currently just proceeding under the assumption that current street layout remains; they do not have backup plans but also said they didn't think it would require major changes (something about the sidewalks just getting narrower?).

As for the rest of the discussion: most member comments were slightly on the critical side but minor, e.g. should add more bike racks, concerns about odors due to the trash room not being climate-controlled for sustainability reasons, pressing on why not going above the minimum requirements for affordable units/green score, etc. However, the chair (son of the former Rep. Capuano as it turns out) spoke last and he was emphatically negative. He requested more 3 bedroom apartments in the unit mix (currently 5 studio/18 1BR/6 2BR) to accommodate families, but mainly he seemed to really dislike the design, calling it too generic. The developers seemed frustrated at this as the presented design was the result of 2 meetings with the UDC, and asked for guidance on whether there was a more streamlined way to navigate this conflicting design feedback.

The chair's response was basically that the UDC was an advisory body, but the Planning Board was the one with actual decision-making authority. He did acknowledge the fragmentation, and said one thing he's suggested in the past in cases where the Planning Board does not align with the UDC's recommendations is for the developers to present some of the previous alternative design options they had drawn up for the UDC (but not right now as it was getting late). For reference, the alternatives (which were posted by stick n move in this thread a few pages back):
Don't think any of these will satisfy him though. In the end, no decision was made tonight and the developers will come back at the next Planning Board meeting in 2 weeks after addressing what member comments they can. But the ending emphasis on aesthetics seemed out of scope given the project was before the Planning board for 3 things: Site Plan Approval, Special Permit for Residential Housing, Mechanical Penthouse (very slightly) Exceeding Maximum Height. The formal considerations for these laid out in the staff memo were more about potential impacts on neighbors and consistency with city policy/plans and zoning district intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top