By Jordan Pagkalinawan

On September 4, the Somerville Land Use Committee heard from Land Use Analyst Samantha Carr on an upzoning proposal from the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council.

Gilman Square zoning proposal

The proposed changes include incrementally upzoning parcels along Medford and Pearl Street from Mid-Rise 4 to Mid-Rise 6, converting the Homan’s site designation from civic space to Mid-Rise 6, and expanding the pedestrian street designation beyond the current Medford and Pearl Street corridor.

Carr also explained how the proposal aligns with the SomerVision 2040 initiative, noting how it would celebrate the neighborhood’s unique character, grow a transit-oriented economic base, and build a sustainable future through affordable housing options, the latter of which would be unlocked with Mid-Rise 6 upzoning.

The proposal would also fit with the Gilman Square Station Area Plan by encouraging redevelopment of underutilized sites and promoting the construction of new buildings “with a percentage of affordable units.”

Carr recommended building on the initial proposal and enhancing certain aspects to meet the committee’s goals, as well as considering incremental upzoning from Mid-Rise 4 to Mid-Rise 6 within a quarter-mile of the transit walkshed buffer. She also advised members to take a judicious approach to expanding the pedestrian street designation, which would offer “some great opportunities to enhance active transportation infrastructure.”

Councilor Matthew McLaughlin explained that the timing of the Gilman Square proposal aligns with the city’s zoning work on the Broadway corridor.

“If we get the two of those done, that will cover a lot of the [Green Line] train stations, so we’ll have a lot of density by transit, and then we can start focusing on other areas as well,” he added.

Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen noted that the Homan’s site should remain designated as “civic space,” citing that it is a city-controlled process and not a zoning issue.

Reaction to proposal

Councilors were generally supportive of the proposal, citing how similar discussions have occurred for years “in the abstract,” according to Councilor Jake Wilson.

Wilson also favored zoning certain parcels as Urban Residential around MR-6 complexes, adding, “I’m generally a big fan of UR. It seems like the data we got in that presentation before the recess showed UR to be a really underrated workhorse of new housing creation around the city. I think we can do a lot with UR.”

“Everyone I hear from in the Gilman Square area, what they want to see is a really vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood,” Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen said before citing two other rounds of upzoning that did not lead to “actual groundbreaking.”

“We have the time to get this right and come up with a proposal that the neighborhood supports, that the council supports, and that is gonna ultimately lead to a vibrant, mixed-use square,” he added. “It’s important that we do it. I very much support the citywide and Gilman Square-specific goals. And also, I think we need to be realistic and cognizant of the fact that it’s not just zoning that’s keeping Gilman Square in the spaces that it’s been for a while.”

Concern over potential tax increases

One key concern some committee members shared was the potential for tax increases that would accompany upzoning. Both Ewen-Campmen and Wilson requested future comments from the chief assessor on the tax implications of the proposal

“There are people who live there [next to Gilman Square Station], maybe one or two-unit houses right now, and if they have no intentions to redevelop any time soon, that, in theory, could be a massive tax increase on them,” Ewen-Campen said.

Ewen-Campen also wanted to update the proposal to include School Street for zoning changes from Neighborhood Residential to Urban Residential.

Next steps

Following the presentation, Carr plans to hold discussions with the planning department to move the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council’s proposal forward between sessions. The committee hopes to have a representative from the Assessor’s Office present at their September 18 meeting to resolve concerns over tax implications.