In a split vote, the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals rejected appeals from neighbors challenging the construction of a six-unit apartment building in Ward 2. The decision took place on Wednesday, responding to a letter of appeal by residents Dmitry Vasilyev and Patrycja Missiuro.
The city’s Inspectional Services Department approved an illegitimate permit for building on the property, which is owned by an affiliate of developer DiBiase, Vasilyev and Missiuro said April 23. They cite setback – the space between a property’s lines and the building itself – and parking violations as well as what they saw to be a miscalculation of the lot’s dimensions.
“They picked the largest building type that is conceivable and they fit it on this tiny lot,” Vasilyev said.
Two board members, Anne Brockelman and Sisia Daglian, voted in favor of the neighbors’ appeal because they agreed Inspectional Services was wrong in labeling the property lines. Orsola Susan Fontano and Brian Cook, the board members who denied the appeal, did not provide reasoning for their votes. Since the board requires four votes to accept an appeal, the appeal was ultimately rejected.
The technicality that split the board’s vote came from the irregular geometry of the lot. The Somerville Zoning Ordinance has dimensional requirements for lots by building type; for the apartments at 10 Bedford St., the lot must be at least 55 feet by 90 feet. But the nonrectangular shape of the lot, Vasilyev and Missiuro argued, meant that the lot itself is much smaller than its dimensions reflect. They also pointed out specific definitions of property lines that they said were misinterpreted by the developer to build a larger building.
“We had looked at this on multiple occasions because it was such a a tricky lot,” said Nick Antanavica, who was at the meeting to represent Inspectional Services.
Vasilyev and Missiuro, who own the property next to 10 Bedford St. but live elsewhere in Somerville, said they looked closely into the zoning ordinance to hold developers to the same standards as everyone else.
“We feel like it’s a precedent,” Missiuro said, “because then every big developer is going to get all these quiet breaks without others being informed in the process.”
“Somerville made their zoning ordinance really well,” Vasilyev said. “It strikes a very good balance between desire for space and design and the need for a new housing.”
In an email to Cambridge Day, a representative of DiBiase wrote, “It is important to note that the property owners have complied with all appropriate zoning and regulatory processes for the building.”
Complaints and responses
Bedford Street neighbors expressed other frustrations with the developer.
“I’m actually moving kind of because of it,” said Adam D., a tenant in Vasilyev and Missiuro’s building. “They started the destruction of that building with zero notice. Our windows were open. Our entire house was filled with dust and grime. It took me at least five hours to clean. It didn’t have to happen like that.” (DiBiase said all abutting property owners were notified of work by the company; the representative did not address the issue of dust and grime.)
Amelia Sorensen, who lives on Bedford Street, said, “Me personally, I don’t mind that there are buildings. We need housing – the way you bring down cost is by increasing supply.
“But it feels like they just kind of nickel-and-dimed all the things that you’ve already discussed with them and in neighborhood meetings,” Sorensen said. She pointed to being dissatisfied withe a planned switch of the one-way direction of South Street, which, with the building design of 10 Bedford St., could leave little visibility for turning cars and cyclists.
Need for housing
Valerie Moore, who attended the board meeting as a legal representative of DiBiase, also brought up the housing crisis. Under the Somerville Zoning Ordinance, a percent of units in a new building are required to be affordable – in this case, one of the six.
“The board should not allow the petitioners to derail the construction of badly needed housing, and particularly affordable ownership opportunities in the midst of the housing crisis that we find ourselves in,” Moore said.
Multiple neighbors expressed annoyance at this messaging from the developer.
“It needs to actually be affordable,” Sorensen said. “I feel like 20 percent should be a minimum. One-sixth is not 20 percent. So you should do two.”
“I want my neighborhood to grow and have more businesses and more people and more life,” Adam said. “But this isn’t about building affordable housing at all. This is a question of how you treat people who live in a neighborhood when you’re trying to develop it.”
Warren Atkinson, a retired physics teacher who lives in the same building as Sorensen, sums up what seems to be the general sentiment of the neighbors: “Progress is very important. But it’s the lack of consideration.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Funny how people in Somerville are covered by CD as “rubbed the wrong way” but in Cambridge if someone expresses concern they are “NIMBY”.
I would classify this as NIMBY for sure. A six-unit building is “the largest building type that is conceivable”?
Looking at the lot size just from the photo it does look awful small for six units, even if it was a 6 story building.
Requiring a change in the flow of traffic on the street is a big ask by a developer for a single building of this sort of size as well.
And if the property lines had been misrepresented as well as the square footage I can understand that the original permits were a problem.
These people are definitely NIMBYs. We face a housing crisis, and more housing is the only solution. NIMBYs oppose housing because they don’t want to live near a six-story building, as if that is such a horrible thing.
I agree—this is about how you treat people. Denying housing for selfish reasons is reprehensible.
It’s a 3000 sq ft lot, 6 units is more than doable in under 6 stories. 231-235 Third St (if it ever gets built) will be 19 units on just ~5800 sq ft. This lot could have 10 units and would be at a similar density, and that’s not a particularly intense project.