The Somerville City land use committee on the evening of the meeting opened a multiweek discussion of a proposed amendment to the city’s zoning ordinances to create transit‑oriented height and density bonuses for additional affordable housing and other enumerated community benefits. The proposal—sponsored in the agenda text by Councilor McLaughlin, Councilor Davis and Councilor Wilson—remains in the research and discussion stage; staff were asked to return with data and case‑study follow ups before any formal vote.

The discussion centered on a presentation by Samantha Carr, the city’s new land use analyst, who reviewed case studies (Leander, Texas; Petaluma, California; Mount Vernon, New York; and recent Cambridge zoning changes) and a parcel‑by‑parcel comparison between a 02/2017 draft Somerville zoning proposal and current conditions. Carr identified several sections of the city as “areas of opportunity” for transit‑oriented upzoning—including parts of Davis Square, Porter Square, Gilman Square, East Somerville, Ward 2 south and Union Square—and noted parcel counts and examples of up‑ and down‑zonings in those areas.

Committee chair Jared said the item had been in committee for years and framed the meeting as a nonbinding, exploratory conversation: “I’d like to avoid anything that would come to a vote because then we’d have to open up a public process,” he said, asking members to treat the discussion as hypothetical and to give staff feedback to shape next drafts.

Carr summarized the research findings and highlighted specific map changes since the 2017 draft, noting both gains and losses of mid‑rise parcels in different sections. She flagged roughly one‑third of the map sections as possible “areas of opportunity” and noted parcel‑level changes such as a net gain of mid‑rise parcels in Ball Square and a net loss in some transit‑rich sections where parcels changed to commercial uses. She also said staff can provide more granular data on how permits have been issued since the zoning update to test whether existing zoning is producing the intended housing outcomes.

Councilors raised a range of practical concerns and information requests. Councilor Ewing Kampen said he preferred not to take any vote at this time and asked for updates on neighborhood outreach and unresolved abutter concerns. Councilor Wilson and others named green space and open‑space impacts as active issues in negotiations and raised the idea of using density bonuses to secure community benefits beyond affordability—such as civic or open space, or affordable commercial space for small businesses. Councilor Davis asked for data on units permitted since the zoning update and for more detail on bedroom mixes in new development; Davis said he wants evidence about whether zoning is meeting the city’s stated planning goals.

Planning staff committed to returning with several pieces of information. Samantha Carr and Dan Bartman (Planning Department) said staff would compile a permitting tally of housing units permitted since adoption of the zoning code update (with a requested breakdown by the city’s conserve/enhance/transform framework), provide a map of requested zoning changes since the code update (approved and rejected requests), and report back on the Mount Vernon case study to show what types and heights developers actually built where density bonuses were used. Carr agreed to aim to provide responses in advance of the committee’s next meeting when feasible.

Councilors and staff also discussed other tools and considerations raised during the presentation: using density bonuses to secure permanently affordable housing, incentives tied to increased bedroom counts, inclusionary approaches for affordable commercial space, and whether recent changes to building code (mass timber/type 4 construction) create new feasible height ranges for mid‑ to high‑rise development. Bartman noted staff capacity and said the Central Broadway corridor study and several neighborhood planning efforts are recent staff priorities; he and Carr agreed to meet to define a “middle ground” approach that could allow targeted upzoning without a full neighborhood plan in every instance.

The committee did not take any formal vote on the zoning amendment; members agreed to continue the discussion and to meet again in two weeks (subject to scheduling and public hearing calendars). Staff were assigned follow‑up tasks and will report back with the requested data submissions and clarifying materials.

For reference, the committee also reviewed the history of prior Somerville drafting and zoning proposals (including the 02/2017 draft zoning), and discussed Cambridge’s recent upzoning as background for policy options.

Looking ahead, staff and councilors indicated the committee will use subsequent meetings to narrow areas for potential upzoning, consider incentive structures (including density bonuses tied to affordability and community benefits), and refine map proposals before initiating any public process that would be required for formal ordinance changes.