Comments on: Petition to Oppose the Senior Housing Zoning Amendment

By: eila

eila — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:23:57 +0000

Though it’s not at issue here, a point of information: when referring to MA building codes (residential and commercial), compliance with 521 CMR, Architectural Access Code, is also required.

By: teri swartzel

teri swartzel — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:25:00 +0000

The Spring Hill resident quite right to point out that there are codes and standards that must be adhered to. But compliance with the CMR 780, the Massachusetts Building Code is not the issue. Compliance with the Somerville Zoning Ordinance SZO, however is. And the project at 44 Park Street did not comply with the SZO. They were seeking three variances, about which the Planning Staff report issued in August of 2008 declared “Planning Staff is unable to recommend approval of the requested variances.” Clearly, the proposed project was far to dense, and to large for the site, and insensitive to the neighborhood. That is reflected in the SZO, and not just my opinion.
So what does one do when your project is unable to meet the SZO as it now stands, well, how about getting the law changed. Its not a coincidence that the so called “Senior Housing Amendment” has now been proposed. If this ordinance had actually addressed the senior housing issues, that would have been noble. Instead it mostly sets about eliminating the variances the developers at Park Street stumbled over. Under the proposed amendment the Park St project would no longer need any of the variances they were unable to previously obtain. Bill Shelton’s articles in the Somerville News, mentioned above, will give you a much better history of this ongoing battle.

All this does not even begin to mention the conflicts of interest that are involved, nor the fact that the developers are old buddies with officials at the city, including the ward alderman Maryanne Heuston, who by the way, supported the project without reservation.

As for the walking to Star Market, you should see the above comment citing that seniors in affordable housing may not find that such a market will fit within their budget. I also travel that route to the market every day on my way to work, and I can attest that after a small snow like we had this week, it is still icy and unfriendly to some one fit traveling on a bicycle. I would not want to be someone even slightly,unsteady on my feet having to travel that route to the market. There are points at which I have to dismount my bike.

Read the articles, and see if you still have the same questions.

By: Spring Hill resident

Spring Hill resident — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:49:03 +0000

I’m a bit unclear as to what the objections to this project are. Any project must meet building codes and construction standards. A developer typically builds based on what people in the housing market are looking for. If there is a demand for smaller-sized units, many without parking, and the developer fills this niche, I don’t see what the problem is. We live in a dense city where having a car is not necessary (and many elderly folks do not want one or are not able to drive one anyway). As Ron has mentioned, there is a grocery store within walking distance.

By: Alain Jehlen

Alain Jehlen — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:05:11 +0000

Ron, you’re right, but anyone poor enough to settle for one of those tiny apartments will not be able to afford the Star Market, which is very pricey.

By: Barry Rafkind

Barry Rafkind — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:13:47 +0000

Alex Pirie wrote a great protest letter to the editor of the Somerville Journal.

By: Ron Newman

Ron Newman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:00:40 +0000

Bill Shelton’s article contains a factual error. The nearest grocery store to this location is the Beacon Street Star Market, which is on the same side of the railroad tracks as this proposed development. You can walk to this market from 44 Park Street entirely along side streets (Ivaloo, Harrison, Kent Court).

Also, not that many trains use this railroad crossing, and it is well-protected by gates, bells, and flashing lights.

By: Knut Dorker

Knut Dorker — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:47:03 +0000

Barry,
You’re right about the buildings. Although what I meant is the senior, low income, etc building projects.

Although the city does not officially fund all these housing projects and the money comes from state or fed govt, the city definitely pushes for public project and we as taxpayers are still on the hook for that.

Finally, I do think that the zoning code is a too strict. We live in a congested city, therefore we need to make sacrifieces, such as smaller but NEWER and updated housing units. And just because the units are smaller or of higher density does not mean that they are low quality.

By: Barry Rafkind

Barry Rafkind — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:50:43 +0000

Knut, you have some misunderstandings about this issue.

First of all, taxes will still be funding schools and municipal buildings. Secondly, the City hasn’t and won’t be in the business of building housing projects.

Thirdly, private developers can and do already build housing projects within the current zoning laws. The question here is whether the City ought to be relaxing the zoning code to allow for low-quality senior housing that just happens to accommodate the developers at 44 Park St.

By: Knut Dorker

Knut Dorker — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:39:45 +0000

I like the fact that the city is planning to unburden the taxpayers from the funding all their building projects and allow private developers to do it. I fully support the zoning board in approving the changes to the code to make it happen.

By: eila

eila — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:56:45 +0000

In a recent article in the Somerville News, “Grass roots zoning rebellion, Part 1,” journalist William Shelton says, “Developers operating as Park Street Housing Associates, LLC (PSHA) intend to build 89 senior-citizen housing units on less than one acre of land. Doing so would require twice the density, half the parking spaces, and more stories than the zoning code allows.

The developers and some of their city-government allies portray Some Sense[one local group opposed to the Ordinance] members as elitists who are indifferent to elders’ housing needs. The neighbors reply that they very much support decent housing for our city’s seniors, and that putting elders into rabbit warrens situated less than twenty feet from an active railroad grade crossing that separates them from the nearest grocery store and drug store does not qualify as decent housing.”

To read the rest of Mr. Shelton’s outstanding article, please go to: http://tinyurl.com/ybb9jmw