Somerville board carries application to redesign plan for six-unit conversion at 69 West End Avenue

The Somerville Board of Adjustment on Feb. 4 heard testimony on application 2025009Z, filed for the property listed in the file as Princeton Canal L LLC at 69 West End Avenue (Block 129, Lot 6.01), seeking permission to convert an existing professional office building into six residential units and to obtain multiple variances.

Applicant counsel Michael Grotnik told the board the project would remove two basement apartments that had been proposed at an earlier hearing and instead provide six tenant storage rooms, a common recreation room and mechanical spaces. “We’re here tonight for, the second night for a use variance for area ratio and bulk variance major site plan approval to convert an existing professional office building into a 6 unit multifamily dwelling,” Grotnik said.

Why it mattered: the proposal seeks a d1 use variance to add multifamily housing in a professional office (POR) zone, a d4 FAR variance (the transcript shows 25% allowed, existing FAR about 29.45% and proposed 35.6%), side-yard relief (existing and proposed setbacks below the required dimensions) and an increase in maximum improvement coverage (existing ~59.5% to proposed ~66.43%). The applicant also proposes to convert a two-car garage into a two-bedroom unit and to reconfigure the rear parking so the total number of on-site spaces remains 14.

Technical testimony: civil engineer Ted Baer described site-plan revisions — shifting the parking toward Cayman Place, adding a van-accessible stall, adding two ADA ramps and spot elevations to route stormwater into an existing trench drain, and changing the dumpster location and landscaping. “We provided that” to capture runoff and added ADA-compliant ramps to access the building, Baer testified.

Architect Ashraf Raghav explained the basement changes and unit layouts: two basement residential units were replaced by six storage rooms (two at about 103 sq ft and four at about 73 sq ft) plus an amenity/party room with a half bath; the garage would become a two‑bedroom unit; long ramps (about 60 feet) provide grade-level access to the first-floor dwellings. He told the board the condensers and backup generator were relocated so the developer’s calculations showed less than 50 decibels at neighboring property lines, meeting the borough’s sound ordinance.

Planner’s case: professional planner Beth McManus (Kyle McManus Associates) asked the board to find the site particularly suited to multifamily use, noting the lot is substantially larger than the district minimum (16,250 sq ft vs a 10,000‑sq‑ft requirement), proximity to downtown (about 1,000 feet) and to the train station (about 0.9 miles), and a parking layout that uses mostly existing rear parking. McManus cited a traffic memo the applicant submitted that projects a net reduction in peak trips compared with the site’s current office use (four fewer AM trips, five fewer PM trips, one fewer Saturday trip). She framed the project as consistent with the borough’s 2019 master plan and the 2025 housing plan.

Board concerns and exchanges: board members pressed the team on several practical impacts — headlight glare toward Cannon/Cayman Place residences, whether vegetative screening or a fence could be added, winter snow-dumping and loss of covered parking if the garage becomes a unit. Members also questioned whether a reduction from six units to four would materially reduce stormwater or traffic impacts, and asked whether the borough’s development-fee or inclusionary-affordable-housing ordinances would apply; the planner said the development-fee ordinance predates the application and might require payment, while timing and enforcement for inclusionary rules would need follow-up.

On accessibility, the board heard that the first floor’s kitchens and bathrooms would be adaptable and accessible per UCC/type-A requirements but the second floors would not be fully accessible without elevators; the applicant said adding building-wide elevators would be infeasible due to space and budget constraints.

Procedural outcome: after deliberation, a board member moved to deny the application and the motion was seconded; the board briefly recessed for further discussion. The mover then withdrew the denial and the applicant requested an adjournment to revise plans — options discussed included removing or repurposing the garage, reducing unit count and decreasing impervious surface to address stormwater and density concerns. The applicant agreed to grant a time-extension/waiver so the board will not default on the application while revisions are prepared. The board agreed to carry the application for an undetermined period (applicant estimated at least six months) and no final votes on the requested variances were taken.

Votes at a glance (recorded actions during the meeting): - Approval of minutes (01/21/2026): motion moved and seconded; roll call recorded one abstention and remaining yes votes, approving the minutes. - Resolution 2025008Z (earlier on the agenda): carried to the next meeting due to late-raised concerns by the applicant’s attorney. - Application 2025009Z (69 West End Avenue): motion to deny introduced then withdrawn; application carried/adjourned for redesign with applicant-granted time-extension; no variance approvals or denials recorded.

What’s next: the applicant will revise plans to respond to board concerns (screening/fence options, parking/impervious reconfiguration, and unit count/design alternatives) and resubmit; the board will set a return date and the borough and applicant will file the agreed time-extension. The meeting record shows the application was continued, with no final decision made.

Attributions: Quotes and factual attributions in this report come from the meeting record: applicant counsel Michael Grotnik (applicant introduction), civil engineer Ted Baer (site and stormwater details), architect Ashraf Raghav (basement/unit and noise compliance statements) and planner Beth McManus (variance proofs and policy context). Board comments are attributed generically to 'a board member' where a named speaker could not be securely matched to a self-identified voice in the transcript.

Note on applicant name: the meeting transcript lists the application header as "Princeton Canal L LLC"; the applicant’s attorney identified the applicant in oral argument with a slightly different rendering. The transcript record contains both versions; this story reflects the application as listed on the agenda (Princeton Canal L LLC) while noting counsel’s oral reference.