Somerville board approves subdivision at 79 Third Street amid drainage and basement concerns

The Somerville Board of Adjustment approved a minor subdivision and associated bulk variances for 79 Third Street, allowing the oversized lot to be divided into two single-family parcels and for construction of a new three-bedroom house, after testimony from the applicant's team and public commenters and a unanimous roll-call vote.

The applicant (represented by counsel Mike O'Rnik) said the proposal comes from Ark Development Group LLC and would keep the renovated existing dwelling on one lot and build a new single-family home of about 2,200 square feet on the second lot that would be sold as a for-sale home, not a rental. Engineer David Styers testified the project will route utilities from the street, provide a one-car garage and driveway, and take steps so post-construction stormwater runoff to the adjoining eastern property will not increase; the team proposed routing roof leaders and piping runoff to Third Street rather than relying on dry wells because local soils have poor percolation.

Why it matters: the applicant requested multiple variances to make the subdivision feasible. Counsel and witnesses said the proposed floor-area ratios (lot one ~46.7%; lot two ~52.2%) exceed the R2-zone maximum of 30 percent, and the proposed lot areas (about 4,251 and 4,437 square feet) fall short of the 6,000-square-foot minimum. The application also requested relief for reduced frontage (about 41.75 feet proposed vs. 50 feet required), slightly reduced lot depth, side-yard deviations and a street-tree waiver. Planner Paul Ricky told the board the block contains many undersized lots and that, on balance, the proposed homes and setbacks are consistent with the block's existing character.

Neighbors raised two primary concerns. Tatisha Towns, who lives opposite the property, asked whether new construction would worsen flooding on Third Street; Styers and the project team said they will design roof leaders and piping to carry runoff to the street and that they do not intend to increase runoff onto the adjacent property. Multiple board members pressed for a documented stormwater plan and confirmed the board would include conditions requiring compliance with the engineer's testimony and with any stormwater report.

Second, several board members and residents questioned the finished basement shown in the plans, which includes a full bathroom. The board noted the proposed basement ceiling height for the new house would be higher than the existing renovated home's low basement, but members worried a full bathroom and finished recreation space could be converted to sleeping quarters in the future. Planner Ricky and applicant Saj Patel testified the basement is intended as recreation, laundry and mechanical space, not a bedroom; Patel said his intent is to sell the units, not rent them. Board members discussed options including requiring appropriate egress/windows, waterproofing details and the possibility of a deed restriction to limit basement use; the board did not insist on a deed restriction but said conditions addressing egress, waterproofing and compliance with building codes and the stormwater plan would be included in the resolution.

During deliberations board members repeatedly balanced neighborhood concerns about parking and density with the benefit of reinvestment on a long-vacant lot. Several members said the proposed detached single-family home is likely to attract owner-occupants and that the design and scale fit the street; others warned that subdividing lots can increase street parking demand. The board asked the applicant to add more windows to break up large side elevations and required the project to meet the planner's and engineer's recommendations.

The motion to approve passed on a roll-call vote, with the chair and each voting member recorded as "yes." The chair directed municipal staff to prepare the formal resolution of approval and noted remaining compliance items: filing and recordation of the minor subdivision/deed as appropriate, submission of final plat/plan details and compliance with the stormwater and construction conditions outlined at the hearing. The board also discussed scheduling and follow-up: staff will prepare the resolution and the matter will be subject to the standard compliance review once the required plans and filings are complete.

The board moved on to other docket and scheduling matters at the close of the meeting.