USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Somerville > Report of the city of Somerville 1954 > Part 21
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21
Another common secondary use for such properties is as rooming houses, nurseries and nursing homes. Such changes are allowed with little further restriction under the zoning ordinance. Again, while these activities may not be seriously objectionable, they do represent a substantial change in character when managed as a non-resident business and the building volume is expanded. It might be considered desirable that this type of operation conducted by families not resident on the premises be allowed in residence districts only after hearing and approval by the Board of Appeal.
Funeral Homes in residence districts should be allowed under similar restrictions.
V.
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
The most striking characteristic of the Business District regulations is that they tell all the things that should not be done, but fail to indicate what is meant by business. This can be corrected by new definitions based on what now exists in the city.
The whole Business provision should be replaced by two new sections - Business A and Business B. The Business A districts would be restricted in concept to retail and office uses, while the Business B district would allow wholesale operations as well.
333
BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The separation of these two types of business activity is desirable because many business areas abut entirely reasonable residence areas. If such areas are not needed for normal retail and service activities, they tend to be invaded by business activities which generate substantial traffic and noise. As applied to the map, business districts which are surrounded in general by residence might be designated "Business A", while those adjacent to industrial areas might be "Business B." Modification of these patterns would be necessary where spe- cial study indicated such to be desirable.
The third major revision in the Business District regula- tions would be to require off-street parking and loading fa- cilities in both types of business area. While it is late in many respects, the City must do all it can to avoid future congestion in the streets.
Another matter for adjustment is the actual areas devoted to business on the map. Substantial reductions should be made because study has indicated that many areas now zoned for business are used for residence and will remain in such use during the foreseeable future. For the city as a whole, it ap- pears that there is in excess of 110,000 feet of frontage zoned for business use generally to a depth of about 100 feet. Of this, less than 45,000 feet of frontage is in fact used, and this oftentimes to a depth much less than 100 feet. One should add, of course, an additional 8000 feet used for business in residence areas. Even with these non-conforming uses elimi- nated, there would be twice as much space as the economy of the city currently is able to support. The position which Somerville occupies as a part of a metropolitan area makes the. precise definition of the proper amount of store frontage rather difficult. Broad national standards indicate fifty feet of busi- ness frontage per 100 persons may be proper when the central: shopping area is included. This would mean about 50,000 feet in Somerville. But Somerville is highly dependent on other parts of the Metropolitan Boston area for many services, so the frontage here might be less. Another indicator of the surplus; of business buildings and business district is to be found in the- rather substantial degree of vacancy. There were nearly 90' vacant stores in business districts in late 1953, predominantly on the ribbons of business or on the periphery of the more- active areas such as Union and Davis Squares. In addition, numerous store buildings in residence areas are vacant. A further consideration is the estimate by a state agency that the- population will reduce in the years ahead.
It should also be pointed out that modern retail trends call : for concentrations of business rather than ribbons of business ..
334
ANNUAL REPORTS
The existing map is of the ribbon type and thus tends to cut up residential areas with business districts. With a large portion of shopping done by car, the easiest method is to go to a "center" where ample parking space is available.
With these considerations in mind, a reduction in some of the ribbons of business is recommended. Extreme care will have to be exercised as the existing map is studied street by street, and block by block.
VI.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
The Industrial District uses, like the Business uses, should be re-described in an inclusive, rather than exclusive, manner. A brief listing of the uses indicated as allowed by the present ordinance would be the simplest technique. Much latitude can be left to the Building Inspector who could operate under a "similar to the foregoing" clause. With current trends in industrial activity in the Greater Boston area, the future seems to hold far less, rather than more, annoying industrial activity.
In industrial districts, it is as logical from the point of view of the investor as it is essential from the point of view of the City, to have ample off-street loading and parking. In the absence of extensive modern industrial building in Somerville to serve as a basis, we must necessarily rely on the experience in other communities.
VII
YARD REGULATIONS
Yard regulations for the city can be adopted without re- vision except to project them to allow for heights in excess of five stories in residence districts, and to eliminate the court provisions which are reasonably covered by the building code.
VIII.
BULK AND DENSITY REGULATIONS
Somerville should feel pleased that in its early zoning ordi- nance of 1925, there was a provision which has become one of the basic principles incorporated in modern zoning ordinances. This is the so-called "floor area ratio." In a C residence Dis- trict in Somerville, the floor area of the building is limited to 21/2 times the lot area or in modern terms, a floor area ratio of 2.5. The bulk of zoning ordinances of the 20's, and most of the Somerville ordinance, limited size of structure solely by restricting the height and yard areas, and designated the type
335,
BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
of building as being two, three, or multi-family. The short- coming of the Somerville ordinance was its failure to carry this floor area ratio principle into the other Residence, Business and Industrial districts. This has a tendency to define the: population density to a limited degree.
In Business or Industrial A districts in Somerville, for in- stance, it is possible to build a five-story building covering 100% of the lot. Similarly, in Somerville, in a Residence C district on a lot 50 x 110 or 5500 square feet, a building five stories high, with a gross floor area of 11,680 square feet can be built. In the current terminology, these represent floor area ratios of 5 to 2.1 respectively. The expectable attainable ratios in Residence A and B districts are .93 and 1.20.
Building permit studies in the Metropolitan area, con- ducted as part of the Boston Rezoning Study indicate the areas which are essentially competitive with Somerville have floor area ratios varying from .75 to 2.09 in modern construction. Presumably these low ratios result from the growing demand for greater light, air, view, and parking and loading, depending on the needs of particular buildings. We recommend ratios of .75, 1.00 and 2.00 in the Residence A, B, and C districts.
In the light of these studies, it seems unlikely that there will be any demand for buildings of greater bulk than are now authorized in the three residence districts and that nowhere in business districts will the demand call for floor area ratios in excess of 2. For industrial use, a floor area ratio of 1 would be competitive. With off-street loading and parking in all categories also required, the City would thus be well protected against excessive crowding. We are recommending 2.00 as a ratio to avoid ruling out any potential developments.
We propose also to supplement these regulations with some specific dwelling unit density to prevent overcrowding of structures.
336
ANNUAL REPORTS
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL
-
To the Honorable, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Somerville.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Appeal of the City of Somerville respectfully submits the following report of its activities during the year ending December 31, 1954.
APPEALS WERE ACTED UPON, AS FOLLOWS:
1094 Peter Nicoli, 69 Victoria St. Granted Jan. 11/54
1097 John Cournoyer, 42 Dana St. Granted Jan. 25/54
1098 Frederick J. Breen, 226 Powder House Blvd. Granted Jan. 11/54
1099 City of Cambridge, 122 Line St. Granted Feb. 23/54
1100 Olive Kelley Balboni, 37 Dartmouth St. Granted Mar. 8/54
1101
Salvatore Spinosa, 72 Thurston St. Granted Feb. 8/54
1102
David Rosenberg, 160 Highland Ave.
Refused Mar. 1/54
1103 Mrs. Patrick O'Brien, 68 Bay State Ave. Granted Mar. 22/54
1104 Anthony Fortini, 283 Highland Ave.
Refused Mar. 22/54
1105 Percy R. Fuller, 42 Preston Rd.
Granted Mar. 22/54
11051/2 Charles Moriarty, 42 Bartlett St. Refused Sept. 27/54
1106 Malfisa Battaglioli, 30 Trull St.
1107 Mary L. Swansey, 64 Powder House Blvd.
1108 Emerson-Sack-Warner Corp. 85 Washington St.
1109
Peter J. Muscatel, 52 Cedar St.
1110 Eugene Belliveau, 64 Grove St.
1111 1112
D. A. V. Chapter 27, 616 Broadway
1113
Mary and Hector Gosselin, 15 Central St.
1114
Albert W. Ashton, 449-453 Mystic Ave.
1115
James Davidian, 75 Elm St.
1116 James Tolan, 98 Bromfield Rd. Granted July 6/54
1117 Flcra J. Collier, 17 Westwood Rd.
Granted Aug. 23/54
1118 Robert G. Pittman, 60 Rogers Ave. .
Refused Sept. 27/54
1119 Saivatore P. Cavicchio, 35 Rossmore St. Granted Sept. 13/54
1120 Gregory Mazmanian, 109 Orchard St. Refused Nov. 29/54
1121
Benjamin Stanford, Sr., 15 Sanborn Ave. Granted Aug. 30/54
1122 Nancy and Vincent Caputo, 40 Simpson Ave. Refused Sept. 20/54
1123 John Joseph Healy, 9 Kidder Ave. Refused Sept. 20/54
1124 Phyllis E. Cervone, 39 Adams St. Granted Oct. 25/54
1125 Leonard D. Mercer, Jr., 24 Grand View Ave. Granted Nov. 15/54
Granted Apr. 20/54 Granted Apr. 5/54 Granted May 3/54 Refused Sept. 20/54 Granted Apr. 20/54 Granted May 10/54
George P. Tuff, 16 Sunset Rd.
Refused Aug. 23/54 Refused June 7/54 Granted June 21/54 Granted Aug. 23/54
January 31, 1955.
337
APPEAL BOARD
Domenic J. Bramante, 17 Paulina St. L. to W. Nov. 15/54
1126 1127 National Indus. Laundries, 16r Laurel St. Refused Dec. 20/54
21 Granted 11 Refused
1 Leave to withdraw at own request
27 Total Number of Appeals
The powers of the Board of Appeal are regulated by statute and favorable decisions may only be made by a unanimous vote of the board when in its judgment there is practical dif- ficulty and unnecessary hardship. It is therefore encumbent on the individual members to become thoroughly familiar with the facts in every case. This we have endeavored to do before forming our opinions and rendering decisions. After favor- able decisions have been given it is then the duty of the Build- ing Division to enforce the conditions as stated, and fullest cooperation has been received.
The Board also wishes to express its appreciation for reports received and advice given by Mr. McClennen, Planning Di- rector for the Somerville Planning Board, and to thank his honor the Mayor for his cooperation with our Board.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN D. McLEOD, Chairman CHARLES T. SAURO, Secretary GEORGE FULGINITI THOMAS C. WALSH ANTHONY P. PICCOSI
338
ANNUAL REPORTS
INDEX
Address, Mayor William J. Donovan 5
Appeal, Board of, Report of
336
Assessors, Board of, Report of
231
Estimated Receipts and Available Funds 232
City Auditor, Report of
15
Appropriations
23
Balance Sheet
16
Borrowing Capacity, Dec. 31, 1954
46
Cash Statement
20-22
Classified Debt Jan. 1, 1954
41
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
38
County of Middlesex
39
Detail of Estimated Receipts in 1954
35
Excess and Deficiency Account
48
Federal Grants in 1954
38
Funded Debt
41, Insert 44
Interest Requirements on Funded Debt 1955
Insert 44
Interest Requirements on Funded Debt (Six Years)
45
Interest Requirements on Present City Debt to Maturity
Insert 44
Maturities on Funded Debt 1955
43
Maturities on Funded Debt (Six Years)
44
Net Funded or Fixed Debt
18
Overlay Accounts
47
Receipts and Expenditures, Classification
50
Refunds
96
Schedule of Public Property and Miscl. Land
98-101
Statement of Appropriations (Revenue) 1954
23-33
Statement of Revenue and Expenses 1954
39
Statement of Appropriations (Non-Revenue)
34
Tailings
49
Taxes
42
Tax Possessions
49
Tax Titles
48
Temporary Loans 1954
40
Trust and Invested Funds
19
City Clerk, Report of
226
Births
228
339
INDEX
Deaths
229
Licenses and Permits
228
Marriages 229
Payments
228
Receipts
226
City Solicitor, Report of
108
City Treasurer and Collector of Taxes, Report of 102
Bonds Due in 1955
107
Bond Interest-Due 1955 Insert 106
Bond Maturities with Interest, Yearly
106
Cash Statement
103
Commitment by Assessors
104
Funded Debt as of December 31, 1954
105
Motor Vehicle Excise
104
Loans, All Other
105-106
Temporary Loans
104
Dental Hygiene, Report of
217, 218
Election Commissioners, Board of, Report of
172
Expenses
174
Jurors
173
List Registered Voters
176
Listing Board, Report of
175
Nomination Papers
173
Registration
172
State Primary, September 14, 1954
177-181
State Election, November 1, 1954
182-184
Recounts
173
Fire Department, Chief of, Report of
243
Alarms and Losses
243
Classification of Alarms
243
Manual Force
244
Memoriam
244
Recommendations
245
Health, Board of, Report of
204
Dental Hygiene, Report of
217, 218
Diseases, Schools, list of
210
Funeral Directors
210
Health Nurses, Report of
213
Infant Hygiene, Clinics
211-213
Inspection of Animals and Provisions, Report of
215
Inspection of Animals and Veterinarian, Report of
216
Inspection of Milk and Vinegar, Report of
219
Medical Inspection of Schools
208
Medical Inspection, Report of
212
Mortality Statistics
206
Permits and Licenses
205
Specimens and Supplies
208
340
ANNUAL REPORTS
Housing Authority, Report of 222
Inspector of Milk and Vinegar, Report of 219
Law Department, Report of 108
Licensing Commission, Report of 240
Medical Inspection, Report of 212
Diphtheria Immunization 212
Tuberculosis
212
Planning Board, including proposed amendments 250, 327
Police, Chief of, Report of
198
Arrests
198
Roster of Department 200
Public Library
186
Board of Trustees and Officers
186
Report of Librarian
190
Report of Trustees
189
Organization of Library and Staff Personnel
186
Statistics
195
Public Welfare, Department of
126
Aid to Dependent Children 139, 148, 151
City Home, Reports of Superintendent
154
City Physician, Report of
153
Disability Assistance
141-148
General Relief
141
Medical Costs
144
Members of Board, Committee, Officers, etc.
126
Old Age Assistance
138, 148, 156
Population and Gross Expenditures
155
Report of General Agent
127-147
Reimbursements
154
In Memoriam-Charles J. Willwerth
157
Public Works, Report of Department
158
Recreation Commission, Report of
109
Retirement System
236
Sanitary Department, Report of
261-262
261
Collection of Ashes and Paper
INDEX 341
"School Department
253
Appendix Contents of (Summary of Statistics)
253
Graduates-High School
299
Evening High Schools Vocational School
312
School Committees and Office Force 254, 255
Somerville Teachers' Club
297
Somerville High School Athletic Association
295
Teachers in Service
313
Sealer of Weights and Measures
247
Veterans' Services, Report of 204, Insert 204
Veterans' Grave Registration Department, Report of
234
Junior High Schools
305
312
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.