Re: [DSNC] Digest for davissquarenc@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 2 topics

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Sara Oaklander

unread,
Oct 31, 2025, 6:10:41 PM (9 days ago) Oct 31
to daviss...@googlegroups.com
I haven't been around since the election and wasn't in on any of the conversations about this (regular conflicts with the meeting day/time. but that's on me)....but I am very glad to know this is the sort of action the council might take to further establish a presence with the city and local developers, and to share input with them based on ideas gathered at the meetings. This case in particular is a great example and I am of the mind that expressing the various perspectives captured is a really positive development in the life of the DSNC. Many thanks to those of you crafting the message so carefully and clearly.




On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 1:40 PM <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 07:27PM -0400

Hi All,
 
At our last meeting, we voted to give a supportive statement regarding the
363 Highland project. As with any organization we've had a number of
different conversations and opinions floating around, but I'd like the
statement to at least capture the gist of what we've been discussing. We
did not have an explicit vote on it, but we've been having a lot of
conversations about the need for the city to put together a neighborhood
plan for Davis, and I thought this might be a good opportunity to nudge the
city. If folks think I'm overstepping, happy to take that out! Here's my
initial draft, please feel free to provide constructive feedback:
 
 
Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos
and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square
Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting we voted to provide a
statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110
Willow.
 
Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland
property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their
plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common
discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this
proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its
40-50 inclusionary units.
 
The property owner and architect have also been diligent about considering
the impact this development could have on the community path. Some
neighbors are concerned with this project casting a shadow over the path.
Potentially, the DSNC would support the architect in allowing for a 7th
floor in some areas of the building in order to allow for more aggressive
step backs in areas that could overshadow the path. Beyond shadows, the
DSNC thinks it would be mutually beneficial for the developer to add a
publically accessible entrance to the path, and potentially even consider
incorporating some ground-floor retail that is directly accessible from the
path.
 
The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the 110 Willow property.
There are a number of similarly blighted properties in the vicinity, such
as 371 Highland Ave which we also discussed at our most recent meeting. We
would like to use this as an opportunity to politely nudge the city to put
forward a neighborhood plan for Davis. Our square is suffering from a
shortage of housing, a proliferation of vacant storefronts, and an overall
lack of investment. We think a comprehensive update of the Square's zoning
would help address these issues.
 
 
Again, just a first draft - please let me know if I'm going too far with
the nudge at the city for a Davis Square plan, if there's a more elegant
way to phrase something, or if I'm not accurately representing everyone's
views! If I can get my act together on 11/6, I'll try to go in-person to
this meeting to read the statement.
 
Best,
PJ Kim-Santos
Carol <crego...@aol.com>: Oct 31 12:54AM

If you ask for seven floors, that maybe too much.
Carol Rego
 
 
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
 
 
On Thursday, October 30, 2025, 7:27 PM, PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Hi All, 
At our last meeting, we voted to give a supportive statement regarding the 363 Highland project. As with any organization we've had a number of different conversations and opinions floating around, but I'd like the statement to at least capture the gist of what we've been discussing. We did not have an explicit vote on it, but we've been having a lot of conversations about the need for the city to put together a neighborhood plan for Davis, and I thought this might be a good opportunity to nudge the city. If folks think I'm overstepping, happy to take that out! Here's my initial draft, please feel free to provide constructive feedback: 
 
Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting we voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow. 
Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40-50 inclusionary units. 
The property owner and architect have also been diligent about considering the impact this development could have on the community path. Some neighbors are concerned with this project casting a shadow over the path. Potentially, the DSNC would support the architect in allowing for a 7th floor in some areas of the building in order to allow for more aggressive step backs in areas that could overshadow the path. Beyond shadows, the DSNC thinks it would be mutually beneficial for the developer to add a publically accessible entrance to the path, and potentially even consider incorporating some ground-floor retail that is directly accessible from the path.
The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the 110 Willow property. There are a number of similarly blighted properties in the vicinity, such as 371 Highland Ave which we also discussed at our most recent meeting. We would like to use this as an opportunity to politely nudge the city to put forward a neighborhood plan for Davis. Our square is suffering from a shortage of housing, a proliferation of vacant storefronts, and an overall lack of investment. We think a comprehensive update of the Square's zoning would help address these issues. 
 
Again, just a first draft - please let me know if I'm going too far with the nudge at the city for a Davis Square plan, if there's a more elegant way to phrase something, or if I'm not accurately representing everyone's views! If I can get my act together on 11/6, I'll try to go in-person to this meeting to read the statement. 
Best, PJ Kim-Santos
 
 
 
 
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSy%2Bfqi87eVu3R6EZ%3D5s-m41zca1re0J2d3G6LqHfx-9Xg%40mail.gmail.com.
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 09:02PM -0400

Yes apologies, I think I should re-write that a bit! During our discussion
on shadows on the community path, someone mentioned that they'd rather see
a partial 7th floor in one area in order to have a chunk near the path be 5
stories so as to avoid casting too many shadows. The zoning doesn't allow
for that kind of detailed control, but I thought that discussion was a good
thing to mention, since the building itself is still early in its design
and it seemed like a lot of people (very justifiably!) want to protect the
path.
 
I'll rewrite the sentence to say: "The DSNC looks forward to working with
the architect to come up with creative solutions to minimize negative
impacts on the community path, and we're glad they have taken our concerns
into consideration"?
 
Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>: Oct 30 09:09PM -0400

Thanks for taking the initiative on this! The motion we voted on was just whether or not to support the zoning change as proposed. We did not vote on shadows on the Community Path, nor the connection to the path (which I would be excited to have), nor ground-level retail. It's unclear whether a majority of people in the room supported any of those comments, so I would just characterize them as suggestions from neighbors, not of the DSNC.
 
The idea of moving some bulk away from the Community Path and toward the center of the block by having a 7th floor seems like a good idea to me, but that's not what the City Council is being asked to approve, and it's not what the developer expressed interest in doing. As far as I understand, it's also not currently allowed by the zoning code unless a new MR7 zone or something were created, with special setbacks for green space. The developer said they might not build to the full zoning envelope; it's unclear if that satisfied this concern or if the person who raised it was one of the two votes against the zoning change or if they still have this concern but support the zoning change anyway.
There is currently no specific building proposed for this site, but the developers do need to apply for a special permit to put housing in an MR building, and at that point there would be a specific building envelope and concerns about shadows could be raised again before the Planning Board (or not, if people prefer a speedy approval or the developer's plan is satisfactory).
 
If the concern about shadows on the path is raised at all, I would point out that the DSNC voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal with no changes or conditions. I would want to avoid giving the impression to the Planning Board or City Council that they should hold off on approving this zoning change because the DSNC only supports it if it's changed to avoid shadows on the path. I understood the vote as supporting moving full speed ahead. (Some people have also expressed concern that approvals take too long and are resulting in vacant properties.)
 
As for the neighborhood plan, I think if the DSNC wants a comprehensive update to the local zoning map ASAP, we should propose one. I'm hoping one will come out of our development discussions. Not everyone in the DSNC agrees with that; I've heard from at least two people who think the city staff should be leading the process. We've recently heard that the city intends to resume its own neighborhood planning process in 2026 and we have an invite out to Tom Galligani to speak to us in November about that.
 
The City Council already knows people are frustrated with the lack of a final neighborhood plans, and I think all the councilors on the Land Use Committee have themselves complained about this, including Ward 6's Lance Davis, who comes to our meetings.
 
Given the lack of consensus, lack of vote taken, and other venues for advancement, for this petition I'd prefer to say nothing about the neighborhood plan. I think it's fair to say, as you did in your draft, that more housing, more affordable housing, and unblighting 110 Willow would be welcome benefits of any projects that take advantage of this change.
 
-B.
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 09:42PM -0400

That's a fair point, and why I'm sending this out ahead of time to get some
feedback!
 
We had a fairly in-depth discussion in the meeting about impacts on the
path and other nearby blighted properties, and I wanted to find a way to
distill that conversation into something that could be shared with the
board. However, that discussion was a bit free-form and it's tough to pick
out where points of consensus were.
 
Since this is a joint session of the land use committee and the planning
board, this could be a good time to push them for action on a neighborhood
plan. Additionally, I know some folks were concerned about "spot zoning",
and even if this doesn't fall under the legal definition I do agree it
would be preferable to have a less ad-hoc plan for the square. I'm agnostic
as to whether the planning process should be lead by the DSNC or city
staff, but I do think there's consensus in DSNC that "something" should be
done and there's some value in bringing attention to that fact.
 
Here's a very slimmed down update, I'll mull over appropriate language
regarding the neighborhood plan and see if I can come up with something
broadly acceptable:
 
Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos
and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square
Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting the membership of the
DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363
Highland Ave and 110 Willow.
 
Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland
property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their
plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common
discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this
proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its
40-50 inclusionary units. Moreover, the property owner and architect have
engaged us in good-faith dialogue regarding how the building could
interface with the community path, and we look forward to continuing that
conversation.
 
The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow
property, which will hopefully incentivize some more desirable
development.
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:09 PM Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
 
Kathy Partridge <nois...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 09:56PM -0400

Hi PJ,
 
I like your revised version much better! The only additional edit I'd make would be to the first sentence of the second paragraph. Delete the first clause, and simply begin with: “The 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings, etc. . . . “
 
Kathy
 
Kathy Partridge
 
nois...@gmail.com
 
On Oct 30, 2025, at 9:42 PM, PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 
That's a fair point, and why I'm sending this out ahead of time to get some feedback!
 
We had a fairly in-depth discussion in the meeting about impacts on the path and other nearby blighted properties, and I wanted to find a way to distill that conversation into something that could be shared with the board. However, that discussion was a bit free-form and it's tough to pick out where points of consensus were.
 
Since this is a joint session of the land use committee and the planning board, this could be a good time to push them for action on a neighborhood plan. Additionally, I know some folks were concerned about "spot zoning", and even if this doesn't fall under the legal definition I do agree it would be preferable to have a less ad-hoc plan for the square. I'm agnostic as to whether the planning process should be lead by the DSNC or city staff, but I do think there's consensus in DSNC that "something" should be done and there's some value in bringing attention to that fact.
 
Here's a very slimmed down update, I'll mull over appropriate language regarding the neighborhood plan and see if I can come up with something broadly acceptable:
 
Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow.
 
Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40-50 inclusionary units. Moreover, the property owner and architect have engaged us in good-faith dialogue regarding how the building could interface with the community path, and we look forward to continuing that conversation.
 
The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow property, which will hopefully incentivize some more desirable development.
 
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:09 PM Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
 
Thanks for taking the initiative on this! The motion we voted on was just whether or not to support the zoning change as proposed. We did not vote on shadows on the Community Path, nor the connection to the path (which I would be excited to have), nor ground-level retail. It's unclear whether a majority of people in the room supported any of those comments, so I would just characterize them as suggestions from neighbors, not of the DSNC.
 
The idea of moving some bulk away from the Community Path and toward the center of the block by having a 7th floor seems like a good idea to me, but that's not what the City Council is being asked to approve, and it's not what the developer expressed interest in doing. As far as I understand, it's also not currently allowed by the zoning code unless a new MR7 zone or something were created, with special setbacks for green space. The developer said they might not build to the full zoning envelope; it's unclear if that satisfied this concern or if the person who raised it was one of the two votes against the zoning change or if they still have this concern but support the zoning change anyway.
 
There is currently no specific building proposed for this site, but the developers do need to apply for a special permit to put housing in an MR building, and at that point there would be a specific building envelope and concerns about shadows could be raised again before the Planning Board (or not, if people prefer a speedy approval or the developer's plan is satisfactory).
 
If the concern about shadows on the path is raised at all, I would point out that the DSNC voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal with no changes or conditions. I would want to avoid giving the impression to the Planning Board or City Council that they should hold off on approving this zoning change because the DSNC only supports it if it's changed to avoid shadows on the path. I understood the vote as supporting moving full speed ahead. (Some people have also expressed concern that approvals take too long and are resulting in vacant properties.)
 
As for the neighborhood plan, I think if the DSNC wants a comprehensive update to the local zoning map ASAP, we should propose one. I'm hoping one will come out of our development discussions. Not everyone in the DSNC agrees with that; I've heard from at least two people who think the city staff should be leading the process. We've recently heard that the city intends to resume its own neighborhood planning process in 2026 and we have an invite out to Tom Galligani to speak to us in November about that.
 
The City Council already knows people are frustrated with the lack of a final neighborhood plans, and I think all the councilors on the Land Use Committee have themselves complained about this, including Ward 6's Lance Davis, who comes to our meetings.
 
Given the lack of consensus, lack of vote taken, and other venues for advancement, for this petition I'd prefer to say nothing about the neighborhood plan. I think it's fair to say, as you did in your draft, that more housing, more affordable housing, and unblighting 110 Willow would be welcome benefits of any projects that take advantage of this change.
 
-B.
 
--
 
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
 
---
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
 
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzgU%3Dar_AKZFgs0z-zvvy_gmnsKnW-nBaYB79Y3J71Ncg%40mail.gmail.com.
Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 02:06PM -0400

Thank you for that. Seeing some numbers like that is very helpful.
--Mieke
 
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 21:53 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square
Zev Pogrebin <zpogre...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 02:24PM -0400

Hello Chris, all,
 
It's also very interesting to see these numbers. I'd point out that we
should probably compare them to the demographics of Somerville, e.g. age,
marital status, etc, to determine whether there is a shortage of housing
stock. Qualitatively, I looked at some census data and found the following
age demographics (ACS 2023):
0-9 6%
10-19 4%
20-29 33%
30-39 25%
40-49 10%
50-59 8%
60-69 8%
70-79 4%
80+ 2%
Total 100.00%
 
I highlighted the 20-29 demographic, which is very large, and of which it
can be assumed that a large portion may desire to live alone or with one
partner. Those people are providing demand for the relatively small
quantity of studio/1 bedroom apartments (according to Chris's email, that
is around 17% of available listings). Combine that with the people in other
age demographics who are seeking small apartments for a myriad of other
reasons e.g. downsizing, living alone, aging in place, etc, and it leads me
in the direction that small apartments are undersupplied in Somerville.
However, this is a very qualitative and non-rigorous.
 
Best,
Zev
 
Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 02:44PM -0400

Wanted to add, I know of many people in this 20-29 demographic who have
roommates in order to split the rent of a 3+ bedroom unit.
 
While yes, this does "take the unit away" from a possible family, it also
makes the area still able to be lived in by those with lower incomes, in
school, or who are just starting their careers.
 
So I'm not sure of the size <-> age correlation.
 
 
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.


--
Sara Oaklander
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages