Somerville board carries 281 East Main conversion after drainage, coverage and safety questions

Somerville — The Zoning Board on Sept. 3 carried an application to convert a 2,142‑square‑foot office at 281 East Main Street into two residential apartments and asked the applicant to return with civil‑engineering and landscaping plans.

The applicant, represented by attorney Michael Grodnik, said the proposal would convert the existing building into two three‑bedroom units and finish the basement and attic for recreational space. "This application proposes in this application to convert the existing building into 2 residential apartments," Grodnik told the board.

The plan requires three variances: a floor‑area‑ratio variance (the applicant said FAR would increase from about 16.8% to 30.19 after the basement and attic are counted), a maximum‑improvement (lot‑coverage) variance (existing coverage reported at 62.53% where the POR zone allows 50%), and a variance tied to counting the finished attic as an additional story under the ordinance.

Why it matters: The variances affect neighborhood density, parking and stormwater runoff in an area neighbors say already has persistent drainage problems. Residents and several board members pressed the applicant for technical detail before any approval.

Architect Khaled Zeitoun testified that the attic and basement will be finished for recreational uses and that no additional building height is proposed. When asked about FAR calculations, the architect said the basement and attic were included at the board's request even though portions of the attic fall below the ordinance's 7‑foot inclusion threshold.

Neighborhood concerns centered on stormwater and site treatment. Neighbor Gina Stravick told the board the parking area is "very wet" and said trees in a buffer were removed; she also alleged landscapers "sprayed it with poison, which is affecting our yard." The property owner and business owner Ashok Wahi disputed broad claims of spraying beyond commercially available weed killers and described maintenance measures including two basement sump pumps and plans to reduce pavement area.

To address lot coverage and drainage, the applicant offered a specific option: removing roughly 1,871 square feet of the parking area. "If the parking lot is removed by approximately 1,871 square feet, it brings down the impervious coverage to the 50 required," the architect told the board.

Board members said a civil‑engineering site plan, a landscaping plan showing plantings and lighting and clearer parking/ADA details are needed to evaluate impacts on neighbors and whether stormwater will be routed off‑site or to existing catch basins. Staff and board members asked the applicant to work with borough planner/engineer staff for review and to provide documentation that the proposed changes will not worsen nearby flooding.

Action and next steps: The board voted unanimously to carry the matter to Oct. 1 to allow the applicant time to retain a civil engineer, prepare detailed plans, and provide an extension letter for the board's calendar.

The board also asked the applicant to provide copies of the proposed paving reduction sketch and to coordinate final designs with borough staff; the hearing will resume when those materials are submitted.