Committee Report CR-5

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition filed by Patrick W. Barrett III, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance by amending Article 2.000 ("Definitions") and Article 4.000, Section 4.22 ("Accessory Apartment").

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Mayor David P. Maher,

Councillor Marc C. McGovern, Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Jeff Roberts, Zoning and Land Use Planner, Community Development Department (CDD) and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Patrick Barrett, 234 Broadway, Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, Doug Brown, 35 Standish Street, Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, Dave Lewis, 58 Regent Street, Tony Madan, Pebble Gifford, 15 Hilliard Street, Amy Munsat, 71 Standish Street, Jan Lewis, 58 Regent Street, Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue, James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, Wayne Bingham, Cedar Street and Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose and stated that the hearing is being audio and visually recorded.

.  He stated that the public process was limited and this petition came about after discussions with the community and his neighbors.  He explained that this petition began two years ago.  He stated that basement apartments are low hanging fruit.  He stated that families are faced with difficult decisions of being over or under-housed.  If the petition is adopted as written, housing units will be created.  He stated that the current zoning has accessory housing.  He stated that the City is constantly looking to increase housing.  This is done by density.  He stated that the Harvard Defense Fund submitted a similar petition previously.  He stated that there is a significant housing for large houses.  Opportunities across the City can be found to create accessory uses.  A variance is currently required to do this.  He stated that the Master Plan for the City and none of the studies will say less housing is needed.  The Master Plan wants to preserve the neighborhoods.  He had a list of amendments.  He stated that the Planning Board had difficulty distinguishing two family houses to allow this.  The two family caveat is eliminated.  This may be something for the Master Plan to decide.  The proposed changes are outlined in the maps

the red are additional units; 1007 additional units will be created without changing the contextual, construction of what is existing.  He stated that Part A and Part B effects both sides of the City.  This amendment should be used as a tool.  He discussed areas that were issues for the Planning Board.  He did not want to create an administrative burden and he suggested eliminating the affidavit provision.  The last portion refers to Part A.  He stated that there is no long term effect on neighborhoods and parking which were concerns for residents and the Planning Board.  The map shows where accessory units will be allowed.  He eliminated the requirement for parking for accessory units because a special permit is required for parking.  This purpose of this petition was to create homes and give flexibility to homeowners.   This petition gives something to homeowners.  He stated that a suggested amendment is that parking is added and could be eliminated by a special permit.  He stated that Part B eliminates GFA space above six feet for a single or two family homes by as of right or special permit.  He noted that many basements have illegal uses.  He stated that the Building, Sanitary and Municipal Ordinance do not line up.  He stated that under the Building Code currently in a single or two family home it allowed finishing off a basement at 6'8" or greater.  Depending on the FAR a variance or special permit may be required.  He is suggesting that for single and two family homes it is allowed.  He is trying to create parity.  He stated that in the Sanitary Code spaces that are 6'11" or lower are not livable or habitable.  The Municipal Ordinance lines up with 6"11" GFA.  He stated that eliminating height in basement units does not make sense.  He stated that there are many units that are unknown by ISD or the Fire Department that are not up to code and are potential hazards.  This creates underground units.  He asked for allowance for people to use these spaces and bring them up to code.  He stated that the biggest issue is flooding and there are areas in the City where this cannot be done, but this will still be an issue for a 6'11" basement.  He included that this should be allowed in large commercial spaces.  He stated that he owns the property where Toscanni's is located and has used basement space for 30 years and now it is a kitchen.  He noted that basement spaces are being used.  He stated that if the City is looking to find creative ways to use space to rezone a large are to allow additional structure there is already existing basement space that can be used.   He suggested in his amendment that the special permit provision be eliminated.  He stated that there are open space, set back and height requirements that prevent building throughout the City.  These will still control what is able to be used and Article 8 would still apply.  This is a way to create parity for a proposal that has not received support over the years.  He explained part B.  He stated let us use this space, know where these spaces are, what they are being used for and tax the property.  We are taking existing space and use it more effectively, preserve the neighborhood, and help families.

Jeff Roberts noted that the Planning Board heard this petition on October 27, 2015 and recommended that the petition needed further study.  An advance copy of the Planning Board recommendation which will be on the agenda for the November 23rd City Council was distributed

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board felt that there were some good points to the petition such as using the existing housing stock with more flexibility, but felt that there were aspect of the proposal that needed further study.  Accessory units operate in a full set of zoning requirements and development controls and that the challenge be looked at in a comprehensive way and be considered in the city-wide process and establish goals and objectives.

Councillor McGovern asked if the amendments submitted last night to the City Council address the Planning Board concerns.  Mr. Roberts stated that this is the first time he has seen proposed changes and cannot comment.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street stated that she was lost in the details.  Her impression is that the petition is a city-wide up zoning for properties that may or may not be appropriate.  The Planning Board stated that this is not ready for prime time and is not directed at affordable housing.  Mid-Cambridge is the most dense neighborhood but Mr. Barrett is talking about West Cambridge.  This is encouraging infill with some of these properties.  She stated that parking, entries to the unit, windows and window wells, density, noise and regulations and utilities are concerns.  She spoke about the requirement of the Historical Commission regarding foundations.  She did not want the historical character of the neighborhood lost.  This petition benefits the petitioner.

Doug Brown, 35 Standish Street, signed the petition and it is a valid way to get more housing.  He agreed with the amendments proposed and limits unintended consequences.  He stated people live in sub-standard spaces, have to follow the expensive variances or do the changes illegally.  He stated that not every accessory unit will benefit or vice versa some additional living space may be sought and may be in a basement or attic.  Regarding the historical significance these requirements and rules still apply; approval from Historical Commission is still required.  He stated most houses are already over on the FAR and when all the requirements are added in not much is left.  He supports this proposal and urged the City Council to pass it.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that a major amendment has been proposed and reached the City Council last night and did not get circulated ahead of time.  She stated that owner occupied amendment was amended from the original petition would be dropped.  She objected to the initial owner occupied accessory apartment because there was no mechanism to ensure owner occupancy would continue if the house was sold.  This should continue longer than the original owner occupancy provision.  This amendment was not filed and due to this amendment being major this process needs to start over again.  She submitted her comments

She spoke of the exclusion of the living space from the FAR for residential units that are not accessory units would apply to new and existing construction.  The special permit process is not the place to rezone basement space throughout the city. There should be a uniform way to decide this in zoning.  This amendment is right for the Master Planning process or the amendment should begin the process again.

Pebble Gifford 15 Hilliard Street, stated that she has an accessory apartment that was grandfathered. She stated that there are problems with this petition.  She suggested that each zoning district should be reviewed as to how this would work.  She stated that it is ill advised to rezone the entire City with a broad brush as this proposal does.   She was involved in drafting the original accessory apartment ordinance in 1970.  No changes could be made to the envelope of the building.  Parking was a requirement and had to be owner occupied house and provide some income to fix the house.  This has worked in a limited way.   She stated that you need a separate means of egress which is expensive.  She suggested looking at this in a district by district way and not city-wide.  Low income housing should be addressed in the Master Plan.  She stated that groups cannot be discriminated against such as a group of students living in these units.

Amy Munsat, 71 Standish Street, stated that she is an architectural designer.   She stated that for over 25 years she has seen situations where people are struggling to stay in their homes.  There is an existing housing stock and this is a way to allow flexibility to redesign their spaces that fits them at where they are in their lives.  This addresses numerous issues including aging in place, addresses sustainability and livable space and adds income to families.  She stated that so many people could take advantage of this.

Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue, signed the petition last summer and agreed with the flexibility intent to owners to the existing housing stock.  She stated that some of the amendments are acceptable.  She stated that the additional 623 units is a limited impact because of the burden to create the separate egress and having the capital to do this.  Only half of this number may actually benefit which is a small number of units.  She added that the current accessory housing ordinance does not require that it be owner occupied.

James Williamson 1000 Jackson Place, spoke about flooding which is a significant issue.  He suggested taking a look at where flooding would be a problem. Height may be an issue, unit size, livability and minimum square footage.  He likes the theory of low and moderate income people being able to do something to remain in their homes.  Protecting the affordability of the units is a conundrum.  Neighborhood density and parking are issues.  He stated that there are complexities with this.  He agreed with the Planning Board on this.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton, a homeowner of a three decker since 1972.  The discussion is for one or two family houses.  He stated that if he paints his house he can have low rents.  His primary concerns are flooding and basements.  He stated that no study has been done by the proponent about the flood levels and storms.  He agreed with the Planning Board recommendation.  He stated that in July 2010 there was 4 inches of rain in 70 minutes.  As a result the Public Works building and the Somerville Fire station were flooded.  This is a practical concern and it is not addressed in the petition.  He is more in opposition.  He spoke about destabilization of neighborhoods.  If this were passed it would result in high cost renovations and it would lead to high rents and Cambridge cannot lose low and moderate income housing.  He stated that the proposal needs further study.  He urged the City Council not to pass the proposal.  He submitted his comments

Wayne Bingham, Cedar Street, stated that there is construction on each side of his house and the children are being woken up at 7 AM.  He asked why there must be development taking place on every square inch of land in Cambridge.  He asked is the City pro-developer or pro-neighborhood.  He stated that the neighborhoods are gone.

Tony Madan stated that this is a way to get affordable housing.  He spoke about the rents charged for a basement apartment compared to a sunny upper floor apartment.  This will be an incentive for landlords being property up to code.

Councillor McGovern spoke about historical concerns and flooding issues will there be a process to approve what gets built.  Mr. Barrett stated that this is to align the Building, Sanitary and Municipal Codes.  All approvals will be needed in order to build.  He stated single and two family houses can be renovated at 6'11" without a special permit.  He stated that you want ISD inspectors to look at these units.  He stated that some properties are not allowed to do this.  He stated that basements could be renovated but not be accessory space.  Councillor McGovern stated that height and density are issues.  This is a way to create affordable units and a way to let family members, seniors and students stay in their homes.  People who want to live close to their work want to live in the City.  He wanted assurance that these units would be low income units.  Mr. Barrett states that there is no owner occupied required in the accessory apartment.  He stated that if you want to create accessory units for low income residents you can, but it is not his intention.  He wants to create flexibility and more housing for everyone, not just affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that the thrust of proposal makes sense.  He suggested above garages as added living space.  Scandinavian countries build in the attic and add elevators especially for the elderly.  He stated that this would make sense in some instances and not in others.  He spoke about using a French drain for moisture in basements.  He stated that renovations needed could be expensive and this is where the rents may be effected.  The premise makes sense.  The Planning Board recommendation that this be part of the Master Plan makes sense and getting it right makes sense.

Mayor Maher stated the petition shows the creativity for housing and access to housing.  He stated that basement overlay district was done last term along Mass. Avenue from the Cambridge Common to Porter Square.   We are seeing what can be done in these apartments.  Mr. Roberts outlined the projects that are ongoing.  Mayor Maher stated that there is a provision about the flood zone that the Public Works Commissioner has to sign off if the units are in a flood zone.  This has merit and he is grateful that this was brought forward.  There is an opportunity to continue to look at this and have adapted the recommendation.  Mr. Barrett stated that PART A and B are different.  The accessory apartment part could be brought into the Master Plan process but the Part B does not need study by the Master Plan.  He is talking about freedom and flexibility to use space in a safe, legal way.

Vice Mayor Benzan commended Mr. Barrett.  How do we prevent a sell-off of single and two family homes?  Mr. Barrett stated that the inclusion of two family structures complicates this proposal and he included two family units to create units.  Mr. Barrett stated that in his original proposal he included ownership affidavit.  The current ordinance does not require any chain of ownership.

Councillor Toomey moved that the matter be referred to the full City Council without recommendation.  The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Communication from Carole Perrault stated that the petition is not ready for prime time and its impact on historical and architectural character of neighborhoods needs to be thoroughly understood (