[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16th, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law a supplement of COVID-19 fiscal appropriations and an extension through March 31st, 2023 of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the governor's March 12th, 2020 executive order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In accordance with the 2020 executive order, this meeting of the city of Medford zoning board of appeals is being conducted totally via remote participation using Zoom, including committee members and the public. The use of Zoom complies with the law's requirements to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to the deliberations of the public body, instead of holding meetings in a public place that is open and physically accessible to the public. Persons who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by using the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the city of Medford website. If, despite our best efforts, we're unable to provide for real-time access, we will post a record of this meeting on the city's website in the near future at the link provided in the meeting agenda.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, folks, before we get started, first order of business, a little bit of housekeeping. We have a bigger board now, so we're gonna try and run things a little bit more structured. So I'm gonna give everyone an overview of where we're going tonight. Before we get started, though, Jim Tarani is not present this evening, so in his stead, per section 9435A of the Medford Ordinance, I'm gonna designate Jamie Thompson to vote in his stead this evening. And then we're gonna go through a few cases. We're gonna give an update on 5 Russell Street, then we'll call 0 Bailey Street and 595 Broadway. Then we're gonna have a short overview, a very high level overview training regarding the new marijuana ordinance. And then we will hear 165 Mystic Avenue followed by some administrative updates and approval of the meeting minutes. Okay, so, Dennis, could you get us started just by reading, please, the description for 5 Russell Street, and then we can give the update.
[Denis MacDougall]: 5 Russell Street, case number A-2022-10, continued from July 28th. Applicant and owner Daniel and Elena Pierkowski are petitioning for a variance from the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to renovate a detached garage accessory to an existing non-conforming single-family dwelling at 5 Russell Street and a single-family to SF2 zoning district allowed use and convert the structure to a workshop. This project will require the relocation of off-street parking space to be located in the front yard setback not allowed, section 6.14, number three.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Thank you. So we put this item on the agenda this evening just in case there was anyone who had been with us last month and wanted to know what happened or had come to speak about this issue. Last month, we went through an analysis with the assistance of the building department and made a determination that it seemed that the relief that was requested may actually have been available by right. The applicants and the building department double checked some of that information, found that it was available by right. So that permit has already been issued. So this case is no longer before us. They don't need any relief from us, but we just wanted to give everyone an update on that. Okay, Dennis, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just a question. So my understanding is that the applicant either has to formally withdraw or we have to deny the petition without prejudice to dispose of it. Is that consistent with your understanding? And did they formally withdraw? I know they don't need it, but I think technically we need to rule on it, don't we?
[Unidentified]: I thought, my understanding, you know what, Dennis, actually, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I understood that they had withdrawn. Is that not correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: I believe so, yeah. And they also, they did actually receive the building permit. So I think that might supersede this as well.
[Unidentified]: OK. But Mike, it's a great point. But my understanding is that they did actually withdraw. We got something submitted in writing, correct, Dennis?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. OK. OK, wonderful.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, no, perfect. Always good to button that stuff up. Okay, so the first case that we're going to call is Zero Bailey Street. Dennis, could you read that to get us going, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Zero Bailey Street, case number A-2022-11. Applicant and owner Cheryl Calvi is petitioning for a variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford to erect a structure at Zero Bailey Street, such as map D-12-39 in a single family two zoning district allowed use with insufficient lot area and lot depth.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Um, do we have anyone here from the applicant or my understanding is they're requesting a continuance, correct?
[Mike Caldera]: It looks like Attorney Desmond's trying to get unmuted.
[Unidentified]: Yep, there we go. Good evening Attorney Desi.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening board members. I'm here requesting the continuance on behalf of Cheryl Calvi. Unfortunately, after we posted the sign and the notices, my client realized that they had miss diary, their vacation and they're away this week. Um, we thought about trying to hold the meeting, but they're on the sea and the internet would be unreliable. So I'm not sure if they would be able to be here and communicate. As a result, we're looking to continue the meeting to the September meeting.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, I don't have any problems with that. Um, I think Dennis, all the board members have been made co hosts. Yeah, okay. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that? Or does anyone want to make a motion to continue?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to continue the hearing for Zero Bailey Street to the next regular meeting of the Medford zoning board of appeals. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and I'll do a roll call. Mike? Yes. And Jamie? Yes. And Andre? Yes. And Yvette? Yes. And Jacqueline, I am a yes.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay. I'll get the notice to continue over to the agreement over to Dennis in the morning. So he has that with regard to the time limits.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Send that in the morning. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. And the next matter in front of us is 595 Broadway. Dennis, could you read that to kick us off, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: I can, but I just noticed there's a hand up, so I'm wondering if this is related to the previous matter, if someone, if we wanna just see if there might be some question we can answer.
[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah, go right ahead.
[Vasudevan]: Hello, my name's Mary, how are you? I'm okay, could you just state your address for the record, please? Yes, sorry, I'm in the middle of driving, picking up my daughter from color guard today. So she gets out at eight o'clock. But I just wanted to quickly state that I am the owner of 29 Bailey Street. It's the property that directly faces zero Bailey Street. Oh, I have many concerns. I emailed to Dennis today. So I don't know, Dennis, if you did receive that email yet, or had a chance to take a look at it.
[Unidentified]: So ma'am, we appreciate you showing up today. We're not doing public comment today because the matter has been continued. So the board's actually not hearing the case at this time. It'll be put back on the agenda for next month to be heard at the September meeting. So if there are any comments, you can make them at the public hearing next month.
[Vasudevan]: Thank you. You're welcome.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just to alleviate your concerns, I did get your email and the board has it for next month so that they can comment on it.
[Vasudevan]: Okay, thank you so much. I'll be there. Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay. All right, Dennis, could you please get us started with 595 Broadway?
[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I just wanna answer, this is Alicia Hunt, the director. I just wanna answer two questions that are in the chat. One is residents will not receive another notice. This is the notification that it's gonna be next, the last Thursday of the month, next month. And somebody asked if they could record this session. This session is live on Medford Cable and is being recorded by the city.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you, Alicia. And the date of that hearing would be September 29th. And it would be the exact same link used to log on to the meeting tonight and the same time it would start at 730.
[Unidentified]: Or shortly thereafter. All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think now 595 Broadway, please.
[Unidentified]: 595 Broadway, case number A-2022-12, applicant and owner, Fidelis Bridgeland Venture, REO LLC,
[Denis MacDougall]: is petitioning for variance in the Chapter 94 City of Medford zoning to construct a multiple dwelling building consisting of seven residential dwelling units and a commercial one zoning district allowed use, with insufficient lot area, lot width, landscape area, usable area, front and side yard setbacks, off-street parking, parking space size, width of access aisles, width of entrance and access drives. This project also exceeds the maximum allowed height in the number of stories. This project is also subject to site plan review and linkage fees.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Dennis. And my understanding is that the applicant is going to be requesting a continuance related to some recommendations from Community Development Board. Is that correct? I think we have Attorney Brownstein.
[Adam Barnosky]: Hi, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. on behalf of the applicant. And yes, that is correct. We went before Community Development Board last week and received their support of this application. They did request certain changes be made regarding a reduction in parking, as well as a secondary means of egress on the west side of the property. Our design team led by Peter Quinn is in the process of making those changes. We also, in Somerville, right down the middle of the lot. The project did receive approvals from Somerville, and we believe this will be compliant, but we do want to confirm administratively that the changes that we're seeking won't have any adverse effect on the approvals we've received from that municipality. So we are seeking a continuance till the next CDA hearing.
[Unidentified]: Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have an issue with that. Any other board members care to comment before I ask for motion. No. Okay. So could I get someone to make a motion, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to continue the petition for 5 95 Broadway to the next regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay and for And Jacqueline, I am yes. Okay, thank you, Attorney Bronski. Can you get the the paperwork over to Dennis for that? Yes, thank you. Perfect. Thank you so much. All right. So folks, before we call our next case, the next matter relates to marijuana facilities in the city. And this is the first marijuana matter that we've had in front of us. So we have attorney Jonathan Silverstein with us, and he's going to do a little bit of an overview of what we're looking at, a bit about the ordinance, some very high-level training before we begin.
[Silverstein]: Good evening. Can everyone hear me?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Silverstein]: Great. As you said, Madam Chair, this is Jonathan Silberstein. I am outside counsel for the city on cannabis related matters. And primarily, I just wanted to make sure that members of the board had all the information they needed to hear the first special permit application, which obviously is coming up next. I'll give you, as you said, a very high level sort of summary of the zoning that was adopted by the city to permit marijuana businesses. And then obviously, if members of the board have any questions, I'm happy to answer those either now or during the course of the public hearing on the next application to come up. So a year or so ago, the council passed specific zoning to deal with marijuana businesses. which is allowed under the state statute chapter 94G, which deals with cannabis related businesses. And that is found in section 14-523 is the special permit provisions. And In addition to the traditional special permit criteria, which still apply to a special permit application for a marijuana business, there are a number of different findings that the board is called upon to make with respect to a marijuana business, and then a number of conditions that the applicant has to demonstrate compliance with. Most of those are operational conditions and track pretty closely with what the state statute says and with what the state agency's regulations, the state agency that deals with this is the Cannabis Control Commission. So the city didn't look to reinvent the wheel here. By and large, it, as I said, tracks closely to what the state requirements are. There are some specific provisions that relate to hours of operation, prohibiting drive-through services, outside signage, and the requirement for a host community agreement. And I will say that the upcoming applicant does have an executed host community agreement with the mayor. So there are specific filings that the applicants required to submit with its application including a security plan that has been submitted to the police chief, an operation and management plan, an emergency response plan, and an odor control plan. I will say that odor control is not frequently an issue with retail establishments. It's more often a concern with cultivation and manufacturing establishments. The special permit findings that the board is supposed to make, in addition to the general special permit filing findings in section 9481 are listed in section 14-526. And I won't list them all. There are a number of them, but again, most of them track pretty closely to the statute and the state regulations. And they essentially are intended to ensure that specific impacts that are sometimes concerns with marijuana establishments are addressed in the application. So things like odor control, security, minimizing risks of improper disposal of marijuana product. And those, again, are all listed in the ordinance. The applicant has entered into a very detailed host community agreement with the mayor, as I mentioned. I think the members of the board should have that. I'm happy to answer any questions that may arise with respect to that HCA. And then there are a few specific provisions that relate to particular types of marijuana establishments, in this case, retailers. So in 527E, there are six specific provisions that are intended to control marijuana retail operations. One is a limitation on the number to 20%, no more than 20% of the licenses for on-premises liquor licenses. This is obviously the first retail license that you have or retail special permit application you have in front of you. So there's no issue with respect to that provision. A requirement to comply with the regulations of the Cannabis Control Commission. Of course, the applicant will be required to do that.
[Unidentified]: I just have a question on what you just said about the 20%. I saw that in ordinance as a city council passed it, they limited it to three total. Is there any, I'm just curious, I didn't see when I was reviewing all of the paperwork, anything that said that essentially how we would make a determination as to those, is it just, first come first serve. And then if there are three establishments or that 20% and someone else applies, that we just say that the limit has been reached. I'm just curious how exactly we get to that.
[Silverstein]: Right. So that limitation of three represents the 20% of the number of liquor licenses that have been issued in the city as of the effective date of the ordinance. So to your question, yes. If you issued three special permits and a fourth application came in under the ordinance, you would not be, the board would not have the ability to grant that fourth special permit until and unless one of the original three was abandoned or expired for some reason.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and it's just a first come first serve?
[Alicia Hunt]: No, Jonathan. I think she, it seems to me that she had already may not be aware of the process that the CAC commission's gone through.
[Silverstein]: Yeah, I was going to.
[Unidentified]: No, I, I, that's a great point. I do. I'm just curious is, is it something by the time it gets to us, I understand that there's a process of ranking and such, I guess I'm just curious in terms of. If there's anything else we need to be thinking about in terms of. the number of applications that may be coming, or if by the time it gets to us, that's not really the consideration. It's just whether or not there are any openings. Does that make sense? Right.
[Silverstein]: I think it's unlikely that the ZBA would be put in that position because I think it's very unlikely that the mayor would enter into a fourth HCA. And since an HCA is a requirement of special permit approval, It's unlikely that anyone would apply to you without having an executed HCA. Conceivably, they could in the hopes that somehow they could get an HCA if they thought that maybe one of the original three had abandoned theirs or wasn't going to proceed or what have you. So it is conceivable that an application could come in, but you could not approve it.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so it sounds like. Yeah, it sounds like the question that I'm asking doesn't really apply at least at the moment anyway. And I think given what Alicia's referring to in terms of the ranking system and all of that, it won't be an issue. But anyway, thank you. That was just a question I had at that point.
[Silverstein]: Sure. And then just quickly finishing up the remaining criteria specific to retailers is ensuring that there's going to be a minimum legal sales age, again that's going to be a requirement of state licensure anyway, that there's age verification at the time of sale, that all sales are going to be face-to-face at the permitted location, so they're not going to happen at satellite locations, and limiting marijuana retail sales to either the C2 or industrial zoning district. So that's sort of a very broad overview of what's before you in terms of application of the ordinance. It's a multi-page ordinance, so I don't want to go through it in great detail, and I'm sure board members have had a chance to take a look at it. But I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[Unidentified]: All right. Thank you so much. OK. Board members, anyone have any questions for Attorney Silverstein now before we proceed into the matter? OK, perfect. Dennis, could you please call 162 Mystic Avenue? 162 Mystic Avenue.
[Denis MacDougall]: Case number SP-2022-01. Applicant and donor, Brendan Pollack, is seeking to operate a retail marijuana dispensary in existing structure at 162 Mystic Avenue in a commercial two zoning district, thereby requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, and just for everyone listening, the way that we're going to move through this is the applicant is going to be given an opportunity to make a presentation or to let the board and the public know anything they think of particular importance. The board may ask questions in that time period. We will then open up for public comment. At that point in time, everyone is automatically muted. At that point in time, if you want to comment, you need to raise your hand on the screen or you can comment, I think you can probably comment in the chat function, but you'll need to be called on one at a time to comment. And we do have to limit it to just a few moments per person. When you do comment, you need to state your name and your address in the city for the record. You'll get a couple of minutes after that, the board will start, we'll deliberate and then we'll move on from there. Okay, so Dennis, we have the applicant ready to go. or a representative of the applicant, I suppose.
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, hi, good evening. Yeah, Brandon Pollack here, CEO of Theory Wellness. I'll pass it along to our civil engineer, Matt, real quick for a quick introduction to the project. And then I'll give an introduction about our company and operations and certainly wanna make this as interactive as possible. It's a pretty comprehensive ordinance and there's definitely a lot of pieces to it and wanna make sure we can provide some color where it's helpful. So I'll turn it over to Matthew for a minute.
[Unidentified]: Great, thanks so much.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Dennis, is there any chance I could share my screen?
[Unidentified]: Yep, of course.
[Denis MacDougall]: You're good to go.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Excellent. Can everybody see that?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Oh, excellent. Good evening for the record my name is map on BC I'm with polar engineering where the civil engineers for theory wellness. We've been working with Brandon on this project for a couple years now he had to go through the host community agreement so we put together original kind of site plan layouts I think back in 2020 and now having gone through the host. the host agreement where we've met with the Community Development Board and now with the ZBA. The project site is 162 Mystic Avenue. I'm sure the board members are familiar with this, the old Colonial Volkswagen site. I believe they've moved down the road. We're here for a special permit for the most marijuana retailer and also for site plan review through the ZBA. And we met with the Community Development Board last Thursday and got their recommendations on that application. I'll talk about the general site plan considerations first. When laying out the site, the primary thing we were looking at is A, sufficient parking and pedestrian access and safety. So if you can picture the existing parking lot, it's set up very much for the automotive use, so a lot of extra pavement, some cars, I believe, were parked and double stacked in locations. So we wanted to maximize parking, but also take the opportunity where we can, where we didn't need pavement. to provide green space so providing this single single aisle and the double row parking allowed us to maximize parking but then also provide a substantial increase in landscaping along. the size of the site and some interior locations as well. Also access to the site has its main driveway curb cut but it also has kind of a loop road along the front of the building which I suspect displayed vehicles and things when it was an auto dealer. We didn't have a purpose for that so we saw that as an opportunity to remove that extra driveway on Mystic Avenue and provide some additional green space in the front. The use itself is actually contained primarily to the rear of the building. The retail use is generally in this rear portion. The middle portion here is for theory wellness, but I think the primary use of that area is more storage and things like that. There's one loading bay here at the center of the site. The deliveries will be just small vans, things like that, no big tractor trailers. or large delivery trucks. And then the front of the building is actually a space that I believe Three Miles is going to be outfitting for an art center. And I know they have the Medford Arts Collaborative that they're working with to rehab that space at their expense, I believe. As far as lighting and things like that, the existing site has flood lighting, a lot of the flooding at the top of the roof and also some light poles with flood lighting around the perimeter of the site. We propose removing all of that lighting, providing dark sky compliant lighting, shielding it away from abutting properties where possible. Again, trying to provide sufficient landscaping or substantial landscaping with trees along the perimeter and within the interior of the site. a fully screened trash enclosure, and a stormwater management system per coordination with the city engineering. The site itself is inherently going to represent an improvement because we're reducing the amount of impervious on the site, but they also asked us to provide some attenuation of the water quality volume. So we're doing that through some planted water quality swales along the landscape buffer, and then also a subsurface infiltration basin. The building itself is going to be completely, completely rehabbed and gutted I believe for the for both the theory wellness use here at the rear and also for the art center at the front. I believe as part of the host community agreement and as part of the applications we did provide these exterior renderings of the building, they got to kind of redo the whole outside of the building at canopy features. At entrances, redo a lot of the storefronts and provide some additional branding and things on the buildings. This would be the rear of the building, Mystic Ave in the front. This is the two-story art center here at the front, and then the Theory Wellness entrance here at the back. And again, this is from the very rear of the site, Mystic Ave, all the way in the front, and then the Theory Wellness entrance right here. I guess before I'll touch on the community development comments in a second, I guess before I go any further, I guess we did prepare a comprehensive traffic study through our subconsulted financing associates. We've spoken with Todd Blake. He had a couple of recommendations, which we agreed to, but I think Derek Roach is on the call and maybe you could just give a real quick synopsis of the traffic findings.
[Unidentified]: We just have a little delay. Each time someone's going to speak, Dennis is just going to unmute them. That's what we're doing.
[SPEAKER_13]: No problem.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Dennis.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, no problem. Derek Roche here, Van Asselt Associates, professional engineer, senior transportation engineer with Van Asselt. We looked at the chip generation here. I'm going to pull up a PowerPoint, if I can share my screen.
[Denis MacDougall]: We should be all set.
[SPEAKER_13]: Perfect, thank you. All right, so as you can see here, the previous site had an auto dealership. So we took credit for the trips that were previously existing. And the delta there, as you can see on the right of the columns, were 36 weekday morning peak hour trips, 57 weekday evening peak hour trips, and 137 Saturday midday peak hour trips. We also looked at the site distances at the driveway with respect to that there was no safety decisions to use or issues with sight lines. As I said, the projected trips were 36 to 57 during the peak hours during community hours and 137 midday trips in comparison to the peak hour for the existing use of the site. In terms of parking, the number of parking spaces are sufficient in comparison to zoning and as well as the expected demand of the site. Um, in terms of recommendations. So, it actually should be designed with the coordinates of the design criteria with the driveway placed under stop sign control. Any landscaping or signage should be located. And maintain to ensure that site lines are provided. And the applicant, based on what Matthew said, seems to have already happened, but should work with the Medford Police Department on developing initial traffic and parking management plans. Is that correct, Mike, Matt? That's already been coordinated or no?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: A lot of the security measures have been coordinated with the police department. I think the original traffic and parking management plan will coordinate at opening.
[SPEAKER_13]: Okay. Just wanted to make sure I got that right. Thanks, Mike, Matt. Um, and, uh, in terms of Matt also said there were a number of suggestions from the, um, city engineer, um, that we have all agreed to in terms of, uh, one installing, uh, installing, uh, solar powered, uh, radar feedback signage on mystic Avenue, uh, repairing the sidewalk, um, along the frontage of the project site. Um, closing the existing curb cut, which Matt spoke to on the front of the project site there. Um, Installing painted bump outs or delineated posts on all side streets between Hancock and Golden Avenue. Developing a conceptual improvement plan, including bus and pedestrian accommodations for Mystic Avenue between Crescent Street and Harvard Street. And as I said, as I believe we've agreed to all of these. With that, I turn it back to Matt.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Excellent. Thanks, Derek. We did meet with the Community Development Board last Thursday. They made a recommendation that it meets the site plan requirements. They did have a few recommendations relative to the project that we discussed that evening. And I think we generally agreed to accommodate all of them just to quickly run through them. And one was to comply with all the recommendations of the various department letters. We received letters from the Board of Health, Engineering, the Historical, and fire, and we've reviewed them all and we've agreed to them all. I'm happy to go through those in detail if the board would like. Some other recommendations they had is they had some thoughts about the streetscape along Mystic Avenue, if we could put street trees along the frontage, and we agreed that we could. They asked about these striped islands here at the rear, kind of near the near the exit of the theory wellness if we could put some landscape islands in there and trees and we double checked the fire truck simulation just to make sure we could and we had to leave a little bit of this area as striped but we could put an island in there big enough for a couple of trees so we agreed to that. that request as well. One condition was the traffic mitigation measures recommended by Mr. Blake, which we agreed to. Did we investigate permeable surfaces? I believe that discussion was also largely revolved around here because we had mentioned that we might not be able to put landscape islands in there if we needed it for the fire trucks, but they also asked if we could investigate it elsewhere, which we were happy to do. public mural. One comment from the board members was that the building architecture, while not onerous or anything like that, is a little subtle and maybe not quite as vibrant as they might expect an art center to be, so they asked if perhaps Brandon with theory could work with the art center and have a public mural placed on the, on the facade of the building just to kind of liven it up and make it more in the spirit of the of the art center and Brandon agreed, and I'm sure work with the art center on that. And then to comply with the solar and some linkage fees. I'll turn it over to Brandon, just so you can run a little bit through his operational stuff. We submitted a pretty comprehensive application package. There's quite a few items in the ordinance that are to be addressed. Security, emergency response, waste disposal. And Brandon, I want to give a quick rundown of that stuff. Dennis, can you unmute Brandon?
[Brandon Pollock]: All right. Yeah, thanks, Dennis. And thank you, Matt, for that presentation. So as I mentioned, my name is Brandon Pollack. I'm the CEO of Theory Wellness. Our corporate address is 38 Montville Ave, suite number 210 in Stoneham, Massachusetts. And we've been in the Massachusetts cannabis industry since 2017. We were one of the first medical cannabis companies. We started out in Bridgewater where we have a cultivation facility and a medical dispensary. From there, we expanded into the town of Great Barrington out in the Berkshires where we have a medical and recreational dispensary. We also have a medical and recreational dispensary in the city of chickpea so this proposal here for the city Medford would be our third recreational dispensary in the Commonwealth, which is the maximum that the state allows. We've been working closely with the city for, as Matt mentioned, you know, at least probably 18 months or more on just making sure we had a comprehensive proposal that would provide safe access for customers in Medford and contribute meaningfully to the community. So I think we're really proud to be here in front of this board, especially with the ability for us to renovate this this older building and provide a community arts center which is going to be a 10,000 square foot space that will be fully outfitted and donated to that nonprofit. In respect to this particular application as Attorney Silverstein mentioned, it's there's a lot of detailed questions in the or I should say detailed criteria in the ordinance, mainly surrounding operational plans. So I'm happy to run through line by line, but I guess I would defer the board if that would be helpful or if it would be more helpful to kind of go through more precise questions that board members may have. We have submitted a variety of plans to different department heads, including our safety plan, environmental plan, waste disposal plan, And what was the last one that we sent? That was the emergency response plan. So we didn't get any direct feedback from the department heads on those plans, but I think some of the feedback was incorporated to the recommendations that Matt mentioned that were provided via the community development board. We're accepting all of those and we'll incorporate those into our plans here in the city. Perhaps I'll defer to the chair just to be most helpful at this point to, I guess, you know, answer any questions or again I'm happy to run through all the criteria as well.
[Unidentified]: Sure, thank you. So I would like to make sure that we run through The board received the documentation. It was also available to the public, so everyone's read that who was either on the board or who wanted to. So I would like to make sure that we do go through each of the criteria, but I think it may make sense if we see if any of the board members have specific questions right now. And then just trying to think, when I went through between 94, 81 in the ordinance and 14, 526, I counted 24, actually, this is probably a question for Attorney Silverstein. I counted 24 subsections that we needed to talk through, which are, I think, Brandon, all of the individual line items you're talking about. So I'm just thinking it might make sense if we do specific questions now, and then public comment, and then maybe we go line by line, just so that we're not doing line by line twice. I don't know. Anyone else on the board have a sense of what you think makes sense? We have seven things to go through for site plan review. We have seven recommendations from the Community Development Board, and then we have 24 individual line items that we need to go through from the city ordinance for this. So I'm just curious if anyone else has any ideas. Otherwise, I think we'll take specific questions and then open for public comment. And then go through the line items when we deliberate is my thought.
[Mike Caldera]: So I would personally be in favor of, um, at least hearing high level descriptions of the different plans, maybe not the detailed go through the requirements, but, um, members of the public, as you pointed out. Have these documents available to them. They didn't necessarily know to consult them. And so some of the public comment might pertain to those plans. So maybe just, uh, like a high level overview of the, the plans themselves, and then we can Do the questions from the board and then public comment and then go through the criteria.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. And then one thing I did just want to mention, because I'm starting to see a couple things pop up, folks. Please don't ask your comments for the public comment in the chat. If you want to use the chat, that will be when we open to public comment. you can let us know you have a question in the chat, and then you can ask your question during that section, but please don't put your questions related to the project specifically in the chat, okay? Yeah, Mike, I think that's a good idea. So Brandon, if you wanted to just go through the categories high level, that'd be great. And then maybe we can just go through them line by line when we go through deliberations. Oh, do you need to unmute again?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, sorry.
[Unidentified]: No, no, no.
[Brandon Pollock]: I'm muting just in case my dog decides to make noise.
[Unidentified]: That's okay. My dog and the dog that I'm watching right now have both been growling at a ghost. I'm not sure if you can all hear it.
[Brandon Pollock]: I don't want to set off a chain reaction. So, sure. And in respect to the plans, would that be sort of the operations plan, security plan, environmental plan is, I guess, essentially the exhibits that were part of the application?
[Unidentified]: I believe so, yes. Yeah, perfect.
[Brandon Pollock]: So I guess, starting with I mean, operations plan, we have a lot of regulations here in Massachusetts to follow to operate a retail marijuana dispensary at the state level.
[Unidentified]: Brandon, sorry, once again, you know what I might do? Why don't I pull up those exhibits? Okay, just I have this in front of me. Give me just a second. Sure. page they start out in the PDF. Let's see. All right, if I pull up exhibit, let me start with exhibit one. Is this right? Where are we? Emergency action plan. Yeah, do we know what page that's on, anybody? Oh, the big PDF. Oh, I guess I could pull them up separately, couldn't I? Yeah, it's page 18. 18, awesome, thank you. Okay, so just one second. Okay, so we should be all set there.
[Brandon Pollock]: Okay, so. That sounds good. Yes. So the emergency action plan for this location mimics emergency action plans that we have in place for other facilities throughout the Commonwealth. And this plan has been shared with the chief of police and the fire chief as well. So essentially, this plan provides a variety of both information for our team members in case of what to do in an emergency, as well as protocols that we train them on for different scenarios. So we'll start going through emergency contacts and phone numbers, which are both within our business, as well as for local first responders. We do as a company have a safety team that's run by our compliance department. So every location has a safety coordinator, if you will, who is in charge of safety at that site. And they hold regular meetings with all the safety coordinators just to go over best responses in any incidents that might have occurred at other locations to learn. from them. We'll have evacuation routes posted throughout the building both in the public and non public spaces to ensure safe egress. We have extensive protocols for different emergency situations, such as fire, attempted robbery, intoxicated persons, loitering. There's a variety of procedures that are in this plan, as well as they're approved by the state. So that's sort of what this plan encompasses. We didn't get any specific feedback from either police or fire on it, but we're always open to feedback and improving these plans.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I just wanted to scroll through so everyone can see them on the screen.
[Andre Leroux]: You have a couple questions.
[Vasudevan]: Yeah, go right ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Brandon, is there going to be security personnel on site?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yes, we always have safety and security. They're in-house employees and they are unarmed, but they're essentially there to ensure. They always have eyes and are always within the parking lot to make sure there's no one loitering or consuming cannabis on site. They're also responsible as the first identification checkpoint to make sure that no one who is under the age of 21 enters the premise. So they check IDs at the door prior to a customer going into the reception area where the ID is scanned through a machine.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. My second question is, you know, in the renderings, I noticed that there's, it almost looks like a separate storefront. I guess it's not a separate entrance, but it says beverage dispensary and it's on the sign as well. Can you just explain that?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, absolutely. So one of our product lines that we've somewhat pioneered here in Massachusetts are infused beverages. So these are low dose cannabis edible products that are an alternative to alcoholic beverages. So we have a canning line down in Bridgewater that produces these. And the concept there is a sort of separate customer area where only beverages will be. And folks can get educated on it because it's a fairly new type of product here in Massachusetts. And we find there's a lot of questions that customers ask about that route of administration. So it's sort of its own little area for just beverages. we thought it was an interesting idea. We're right next to a liquor store, so we were kind of inspired by, all right, we have cannabis beverages, and there's other brands in the state we can carry as well, and it can be a way to kind of showcase a new product type.
[Andre Leroux]: And since there's no consumption on site, there's no consumption of the beverages, correct?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, correct. Yeah, we're prohibited from any consumption. We can't give out samples. You can't have like a wine sampling-esque event. All that's prohibited by state regulation.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And do you want to walk us through exhibit B then?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yep, yeah, so this is just essentially waste storage protocols. Being a retail dispensary, it's pretty minimal what waste we would have. Waste would constitute if there's a product that gets inadvertently opened or breaks during receiving or returns from customers. Waste is essentially stored within our vault room and then transported securely back to our Bridgewater facility for disposal. So there's no cannabis waste that would ever enter solid waste disposal in Medford. We will have solid waste disposal for normal business trash and then a separate recycling bin as well that we will keep locked at all times.
[Unidentified]: Okay and exhibit C is the environmental impact statement.
[Brandon Pollock]: So we, as a company, we really try to embody a culture of building the most sustainable cannabis company possible. Of note, we were the first licensed outdoor cultivation company in Massachusetts. So we have a five acre farm out in Sheffield in the Berkshires where we cultivate a significant amount of our cannabis inventory. And we're certainly going to be including that ethos throughout the construction. Well, we've already incorporated the design, but then throughout the construction and operation of our site. So this plan just covers a variety of the different considerations we've already taken to account to reduce our environmental impact, both through the design of the site, as Matt mentioned, decreasing the impervious, nature. We're looking to get solar on the roof. We certainly try to encourage a variety of protocols to reduce our paper waste and things like that. So we have a pretty extensive environmental plan. We're always trying to improve things. I think one of our company focuses right now is on the packaging of cannabis. There's a lot of plastic waste right now. We do have limitations. child resistant, but we are continuing to look into more sustainable packaging. So a lot of points on this plan. Happy to answer any questions or certainly would appreciate any input or suggestions on how we can improve it as well.
[Unidentified]: Any board member questions or thoughts on this right now?
[Andre Leroux]: quick one. The Blue Bike Station, thank you for hosting one. That's great. Where is that going to be located exactly?
[Brandon Pollock]: I'll turn that to, I don't know if Matt you can share your screen to show that. I think it's sort of in the bottom right if I remember correctly. Is that right Matt?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, let me share my screen.
[Brandon Pollock]: And we're also adding a just conventional bike rack as well for the request of the development board.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: The proposed blue bike station will be down here right along Mystic Avenue off the public sidewalk. We actually just recently got the plans from Mr. Blake as to the specific dimensions of the blue bike station. So it's just slightly bigger than this, but it'll be right down here on a public pad. And then one engineer's comments, as Brandon mentioned, was a traditional bike rack, which quite honestly, I can't believe we forgot, but we're proposing a public bike rack or just for regular bicycles up in this area here.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so related question, the electric vehicle charging, um, where, where is that?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: That's over, over here. We put it in this first space here coming into the site.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then one other question came to mind. So I see that, um, you'll have some lights that basically check if spaces are occupied and turn off when they're not occupied. Perhaps you'll talk to this a little bit when you get to the security plan, but I'm just trying to understand, will there be sufficient lighting to ensure the security of the property with these lights that toggle off when vacant?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yes, I mean, part of our actual state requirements is ensuring a well-lit premise. So I don't believe any of the lights in the building that extend into the parking lot would ever turn off. I'm not sure exactly what the motion ones are. Maybe, Matt, you can provide a little more color. Are there some of the parking lot lights are motion activated or something like that?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: No, we hadn't proposed that.
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, that might be a miscommunication that I guess, I don't think any lights will turn off. I know we're replacing some lights in the building to switch them over to, I guess, better cutoffs, but.
[Mike Caldera]: Maybe I misread the bullet. So I was referring to the bullet that says, install motion sensors for lights to turn off automatically when it's- Oh, sure. That's an indoor space.
[Brandon Pollock]: Interior, yeah. So if no one's in a hallway, that sort of thing, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, of course. Yep.
[Unidentified]: Okay, let me pull, let me pull this back up. Okay, so next we have,
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, so I'll note the last exhibit, the security plan was hand delivered to the chief of police and was received, I think, about two months ago, but that due to the more sensitive nature of that, that wasn't something that we included in this public application, if you will, but I'm happy to narrate. I mean, essentially, We have a security vendor that covers all of our other sites as well, and we'll be installing an extensive video surveillance system that allows for clear identification of vehicle license plates, faces, things like that, that covers all the interior and exterior of the property. We have numerous features of our alarm system as well, including panic buttons, silent alarms, door contacts, motion sensors, and essentially in order to begin operations, the state of Massachusetts walks through and they literally go through every single camera angle with us and make sure there's no dead spots that they can find. And they historically will, if they see something they don't like, they're not shy to say, all right, we want another camera here. And we always accommodate that. So it's very extensive. We haven't had any issues with any of our other stores. In fact, every six months or so, we're actually usually at some location, local police will ask us to check out our footage because we have fairly new high-definition technology and they'll use it to help identify either a car that they wanted to see what drove by or something happens on an abutting property and we're of course happy to accommodate that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Did you receive any feedback from the chief of police on that plan?
[Brandon Pollock]: No, we haven't. He essentially said it was well received and I think reach out with any additional questions or comments. I think as we go through the construction process, if we're fortunate enough to kind of keep proceeding on this path, we always will sit down again with the chief and make sure that there's no further comments before we install items. And then we always invite him or anyone who he'd like to come to tour the facility prior to it opening.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So just to clarify, so the chief of police received the security plan and said, thanks, I received it and provided no comments or said, hey, this looks good. I'll let you know if I have any comments.
[Brandon Pollock]: Let me see if I can pull up his exact email. It was pretty brief. It was more towards the former of like well-received thank you. And we haven't heard back any feedback.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, the reason why I asked is because one of the criteria and we're going to have to comment on is that the security plan provides sufficient assurance that adequate safety controls have been implemented to ensure the protection of the public health and safety during hours of operation, and that any marijuana or marijuana related products are adequately secured on site or via delivery. Everything you said verbally sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I'm not a security expert to my knowledge. Nobody else on the board is a security expert. So typically we would look to the police department for some of that guidance. And so, yeah, just if you have any details surrounding like what they have or haven't vetted. and whether like how this relates to security plans you might use at some of your other facilities that would be helpful.
[Brandon Pollock]: Sure yeah and and to be honest that is something that we could have followed up on we we didn't hear anything back so it was sort of a perhaps presumption that was an acceptable form. I will note that we have to this is all right and on purpose the state hasn't For a lot of our requirements the state handles first and foremost the the rulemaking process and how we have to outfit the facility and then inspection so. The requirements that the state level, we will be adhering to which are extensive it's multiple pages of regulations and it's consistent with our. other facilities, you know, it even goes down into the amount of days of storage you have to have on hand of your security footage and things like that. So I can and will attest that we will be meeting all state and local requirements and that we will continue to work with the Chief of Police to the extent that he wishes to provide additional input on on the plan. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, were there any other topics you wanted to go over, Brandon, before we open for comment, or before we see if any of the board members have any other questions?
[Brandon Pollock]: I can't think of any. We've been working with the city for several months now on this, and certainly have been quite engaged, and I'm sure I could talk for a long time about it, but I will defer to specific questions from the board.
[Unidentified]: You know what I can do? I will, why don't I, the additional conditions that are specific for marijuana facilities on the special permit. Before we go through them line by line, I can just look and see. So the first one, it regards permitting requirements. Let's just see if there are any others. We just talked about security measures, intent. This is more permitting. The proposed establishment is designed to minimize any adverse impacts on human beings, the environment, and abutting properties. We talked about the environmental impact on that. Let's see.
[Brandon Pollock]: In respect to abutters, I mean, our direct abutter is Atlas Liquors, and I've met with the owners a couple times there, and they actually included a letter of support for our business in the initial application to the advisory committee.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and just while you're talking about abutters, I know that one of the regular special permits is you have to screen related to any residential properties. Are there any residential properties in the area or abutting the property?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: There are not.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie, that was actually a question that I had wanted to ask before, which is just in terms of the like fencing or screening, what is that gonna look like?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Sure, so we don't have any specific I guess if you're like a like a vinyl fence or a wood fence screen along the property boundaries, I think they want the building to more or less be visible. I think the way we've addressed the site lines is to provide shade trees along the entire boundary along the side of the property in the parking area within the interior of the parking area and then also some street trees along the frontage just to kind of break up that facade that's coming through and then for lighting. completely backlit, protected, and downcast lighting directed away from the buyer. It's not that the commercial uses are overly sensitive to lighting, but we wanted to keep that on site as much as we could.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Okay. And then I'm just looking at these additional ones to see if there are any we haven't covered. Something to do with the, sorry, one sec, Mike, just the operational and management plan. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-
[Mike Caldera]: is non-conforming. So it looked like at least one of the setbacks was less than expected. So I just wanted to double check, is there gonna be any, are you just operating within the existing building footprint or are there gonna be any extensions to the structure required?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, you're correct that the left side of the building, when you're looking at the plan, which is the, I believe the west side of the building is within the setback, but there's no extensions or anything like that proposed. On that side, we have a couple of canopies on the storefront side, which is not within the setbacks.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. This one's just a sanity check for Jacqueline. So this is an allowed use. The prior use was an allowed use. do we still need a finding that this use is not substantially more detrimental because it's a substantial change in use?
[Unidentified]: I don't believe so because it is, you mean related to the fact that the building is non-conforming?
[Mike Caldera]: Building's non-conforming.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I see what you mean.
[Mike Caldera]: And it's a substantial change in use.
[Unidentified]: Huh.
[Silverstein]: You want me to touch on that, Jacqueline?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, actually, that's great, Jonathan. I forgot you were there for a second. Do you have any thoughts on that?
[Silverstein]: Yes, I do. And I did note that the building commissioner did not list that as an issue in his permit refusal. And my view on that is that a section 6 finding is required when a change in use is going to intensify the existing nonconformity. And it's possible that that could happen, you know, theoretically, even without a change in building footprint. But I'm assuming that inspectional services didn't make that determination, so didn't refer to you for a finding because, you know, basically based on a determination that going from one allowed use to another allowed use, and this specific allowed use isn't going to intensify the non-conforming nature of the existing structure.
[Unidentified]: You mean in the sense that it's not as though it's like a prior non-conforming use in a residential district or something, going from a car dealership to marijuana, you mean because this isn't allowed use in the district as well?
[Silverstein]: Right, so a section six fine is required when a non-conformity, the non-conforming nature of the structure is being um, intensified. So that could be going further into the nonconforming setback, or theoretically, it could be making use of the existing nonconforming structure in a way that's going to exacerbate that existing nonconformity. Um, but here, going from a car dealership to a retail facility, you know, essentially one retail facility to another, uh, and clearly the building department didn't view that as intensifying the non-conforming nature of the existing structure.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
[Silverstein]: And I think that's reasonable.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that in the sense that they're both allowed uses in the district as well. Mike, what do you think?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm comfortable too. Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
[Unidentified]: Okay, cool. All right, anyone else have any questions for the applicant before we open this up? I think we covered all of the exhibits and we covered Um, all of the or rather I took a look to make sure we'd covered all the categories that are available for the additional conditions for marijuana.
[Yvette Velez]: Um, I just had a question in regards to the community partnership that's happening in Medford Art Center. Um, if we could talk just briefly about what that relationship looks like and then, um, I noticed that it occupies the front of the building. So does the parking plan include the art center, um, and things of that nature and then I guess hours of, you know, you talk of all of the plans that deal with obviously the dispensary, but how does that impact the community center that will be used by the larger community?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, sure. So we've been really fortunate to be introduced a year ago to the community arts in Medford who have sort of coalesced together to form the arts collaborative which is a sort of combination of a couple different organizations and. We learned that there had been efforts for the last several years to create a community art center in Medford that for one reason or another hadn't quite come together. And we did have extra space in the front of our building that we were contemplating just leasing out to another commercial tenant but We thought as a part of our positive community impact it would be meaningful and a really interesting project to to create and provide to this local nonprofit so we're essentially renovating full renovation of that 10,000 square feet. The first floor is. where the showroom was of the car dealer. So that's sort of more where the arts will be able to have community gathering space and performance space. And the upstairs will be more studio space. So that's something we're renovating as part of our general construction project. And then the arts collaborative, the nonprofit will occupy the space as a subtenant with no, you know, free of charge. We're not charging them rent for that. With respect to parking, it is shared parking. So, we will, you know, if there are larger events that will occur at the Art Center will want to coordinate with the group and of course maintain a good relationships on what are good times to do that. Fortunately, you know, the busy times at a dispensary are usually not, you know, an evening when you'd want to have a community event. It's usually, you know, around lunch hour or right after work and so forth. So I think with the stalls we have on site, it should be sufficient. And we'll just continue to, you know, maintain a collaborative relationship again, if there if there are some some more sizable events that the center wants to hold over the course of a year that we just plan together to make sure they're at times that wouldn't cause you know any traffic or access issues for either one of our uses. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: I was just going to ask the applicant if in the operations and maintenance plan all of the if you could just update that I mean a lot of the obviously it was geared towards an opening date of April, 2022. So I think just a lot of the dates and timelines need to be updated.
[Brandon Pollock]: Sure, absolutely. I appreciate that. I think the cadence would be consistent with sequencing and times between events, but understood and appreciated. We can certainly keep that up to date.
[Unidentified]: Okay, um, I think we are. Oh, Jamie go right ahead. Yeah. So I just had one question with regards to the ordinances 7 615 and seven indicates marijuana retailer shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in retail floor space, based on the plot, the Dispensary is about 14,000 square feet, but it appears that the retail floor space within that space is only about six to seven, but it's not marked out from a measurement perspective. My question would be for Attorney Silverstein on where that scope of 10,000 square feet applies.
[Silverstein]: Yes, so that limitation, it's not a gross square footage limitation, it's the retail floor space, which I would take to mean the actual area open to the public that's for dispensing and would not include back of house.
[Unidentified]: I think that was the only thing I'd add that hadn't been addressed. Okay, thanks, Jamie. Okay, so we, before I take a motion to open for public comment, I just want to remind anyone who's still on, that if you want to make a public comment, you need to either indicate that you raise your hand or state so in the chat, and then Dennis will call on you one by one and state your name, your address in the city, and then we're gonna give everyone two to three minutes just to make whatever comments they wanted to make. Could I get a motion, please, to open up the public portion, public comment?
[Mike Caldera]: I motion to open public comment for 162 Mystic Ave.
[Unidentified]: Seconded. All in favor?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Andre, did you say aye? Yes. OK, and I said aye. OK, so Dennis, who do we have?
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't need myself. First, we have Brenda here. We all set.
[eytfxLwMk5s_SPEAKER_04]: Sorry, let me start my media here. Sorry, I just had a couple of questions. What are the retail hours?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, can we get your name and address for the record?
[eytfxLwMk5s_SPEAKER_04]: Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Not a problem at all. Brenda Breed, I'm at 19 Crescent Street in Medford.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and Brandon, what are the retail hours?
[Brandon Pollock]: So I believe we're gonna be starting with a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week, similar to what we run at our other operations.
[eytfxLwMk5s_SPEAKER_04]: Okay, thank you. Okay, and my other question, if I can ask it quickly, I guess this is a question for the zoning board. Is there a restriction on how close together the marijuana dispensaries can be within the city, the three licenses? Because I see that there's also one been given to where the VFW is just down the street.
[Unidentified]: So this is the first marijuana establishment that's come before us and no other permits have been issued as of yet.
[eytfxLwMk5s_SPEAKER_04]: So when the other one comes up, then that would be But is there a limit that the state has on how close together they can be?
[Unidentified]: I don't believe so, unless Attorney Silverstein knows something else. I don't believe so, although there is a limitation in terms of what districts they are allowed to be in.
[Silverstein]: Yeah, there is no setback or offset between marijuana facilities required either under state law or under the city's zoning ordinance. That was something that was briefly discussed by the council, but it was not included in the ordinance. There is a 500 foot setback from educational uses required.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Thanks so much. Okay, Dennis, who is next?
[Denis MacDougall]: Next, we have Maria who most of them in the chat should like to go. So yeah, you can unmute yourself.
[SPEAKER_11]: Okay, thank you. My name is Maria and I'm representing my mom who's an elderly resident and I've been a long time Method resident as well.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry, ma'am, I just didn't catch your name or the address.
[SPEAKER_11]: Sure, my name is Maria and I'm representing my mom who's an elderly citizen of Medford and I grew up in Medford and my address is 57 Bowen Ave in Medford, which is walking distance within this wellness.
[Unidentified]: Okay, and what was your last name?
[SPEAKER_11]: Mafayo.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_11]: So we're in walking distance to Atlas Liquor, which is right beside this wellness center. And to me, the whole concept of this wellness center just is contradicting of what it might mean because you have an art center, which as the other resident indicated, the auditor's operations were 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., which if you have an art center that's going to be there, ours are operation for someone in the community to go there would be in that time frame. So that's of concern. And so this whole concept of it, and you mentioned that there's other two that you have, and this will be a third, and you have Chicopee, and you have Berkshires, and this Medford one would be the third. And my question to you is why Medford? Medford has always been, to me, a place of different things, especially a welcome art center which is great for across the community, including all ages, but this whole thing with the marijuana dispensary is of concern to me, and I did reach out today to the town, which I spoke to Teresa in the Community Development Center as well as to the mayor and left a message. I'm not aware of the chief police, which is concerned because I think that they would indicate that if they were receptive to this whole thing. And the other thing too with this whole setback that brings me to this is that huge signage. I see nothing of the art center there. You can put a mural, you can do landscaping, you can do all the things you can, but this whole long term of this Um, is of concern, because it's in the city, and I understand the whole concept of it being legal and the values of it but I, as I said, I am method time resident as well as my family, and we grew up in methods in the 70s, and we've been there ever since. So I, the community has changed a little bit with the neighborhoods turnover neighborhoods but there's a lot of elderly people there, and there were some that were on but they had to leave but there's a lot of elderly people in the community that are not tech savvy that are able to participate, and I did voice that along the way with them and they were. They were not aware of that this went through, and they said it was on the that they were of concern to that, and they weren't also in favor of it. So I think it needs to be revisited again and brought back to the public of the community of the members of Medford, because there's a lot of concern of how mystic app is being developed. And I am so pleased that will be an art center but what those hours of operation 19am to 9pm, there's no way that you can have all members of the community there and not conflict with anything going on with that dispensary on the side or behind. So I am like I said, and I just, it's a concerning of why you have to be within the Berkshire is a way out there, and then you have to come to Medford to open this up, where we can have other things going on, like the art center and other things that will benefit the community. And reciprocated with other things that the revenue would bring towards the library and all that that's understandable but I also think I also spoke with Atlas liquor. One of the managers today on her name is Ann and she had no knowledge and she said to me that she believed that that 162 Volkswagen. place was it was shut down to bring this wellness and she said on the right of it when you exit the driveway was going to be a beer garden that was a better projective for bringing atlas liquor right next door with liquor and then bringing this um whole dispensary of winning child hands with the packaging and also with being maybe even dispensed to minors which it can be easily dispensed someone goes there purchases some how is it not going to get in the hands of others it's really concerning ma'am
[Unidentified]: Ma'am, thank you so much. We really appreciate your comments, but we do need to limit community comments just given the amount of time that we have on the meeting, but thank you so much for your comments. Okay, Dennis, do we have anyone else?
[Denis MacDougall]: No one else with a hand raised and no one else in the chat.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Could I please get a motion to open deliberation?
[Mike Caldera]: motion to close the public hearing for 162 Mystic Avenue and open deliberation. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Andrew, sorry, I didn't hear you. Aye. And aye for me as well. Okay, great. All right, folks, how do you want to go through it? So if anyone has any comments right now, we can chat about it and then I have, I put together basically just, I did a chart of all of the pieces of the ordinance that come into play so that we can just stay really organized and make sure we hit each one of them. So I'm happy to either start going through the chart or if people have any other thoughts they want to chat about. OK, all right, so let's do this. OK, so we have. One second. All right, so we have in front of us special permit, so there are a number of criteria we need to meet for the special permit, then there are a number of special conditions for the special permit for the marijuana retailer. And then we also have the conditions that come from the Community Development Board and the site plan review. So I'm gonna start with just the regular conditions. So ordinance 94, this is the Medford ordinance for anyone who's listening. So 94-81E3, this subsection and the subsection I'm gonna talk about in a second, They require, if you're using certain uses, marijuana uses are not listed under this subsection. However, a retail use is, so this applies as a retail use. So the issue is whether we believe that, actually, let me read the description. I'll read you the piece that explains that part. Okay, so 9481E says, applications for special permits for various uses shall not be approved unless the applicable specific rules are complied with. The first one is all areas, all exterior areas to be in active use will be hidden by planting, fencing or other screening from any nearby residential structure. So our job would be then to vote on whether or not we find that this plan is in compliance with that. My understanding from the applicant is that there are not any nearby residential structures. Brandon, that's correct. I think I asked you if there were any abutting, but are there any nearby residential structures? Oh.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: I can answer that. There's not any directly adjacent to the site or across the street. The nearest neighborhood would be down the side roads off of Issac F. Okay, perfect.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so- Are there any outdoor uses?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: No, I don't believe there'd be any outdoor use in there.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Although I say that I should, I don't know if the art collaborative might at some point put out a piece of art or something, but not for the theory wellness use.
[Unidentified]: Okay. The art collaborative, that would still fall under it since it's a special permit, I suppose, but it doesn't apply given the fact that there aren't any nearby residential structures. So we need to find that, just want to get the specific language, that the application complies with this specific role. Do we think that it does? Everyone agree?
[Mike Caldera]: Just procedurally, Jacqueline, I don't, I'd prefer if we didn't have to do a motion on each of these. So could we just sort of like discuss and when we all agree, just sort of make a note and then we'll motion at the end.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Okay. Yeah, so is everyone in agreement on this, that the proposal is in compliance with this rule? Yes. Yeah? Okay, cool. I'm just taking notes as we go. Okay, so subsection six says we need to find that the proposals in compliance with this rule. Direct access to a street or streets of sufficient traffic capacity to serve the use is available. It's on a main road and I feel confident with the traffic information that we've been provided. Does everyone agree? Yes. Okay, cool. Yes. All right, so then we have section 9481, F, and this says, applications for special permits should only be approved if the Board of Appeals finds that in its judgment, all of the following general rules are complied with. So we need to find that they comply with this rule, and this is 9481F1. The particular site is an appropriate location for such a use structure or condition. I believe that it is, it's an allowed use and the facility and the neighborhood both appear to be probably the optimal location for this within the city, in my opinion. What do people, does everyone agree or any thoughts on that?
[Andre Leroux]: I think since the city council went through a public process designating the areas that it is.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, good point. Yeah, and I agree. And I think that the building looks appropriate for that. Okay, everyone agree on that? Yes. Okay, great. All right, so the next rule that we need to find that they're complying with is the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood. I think for all of the reasons that we've just said, I think this isn't the appropriate neighborhood. I don't think it will adversely affect it. Any thoughts or is everyone in agreement on that?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. I also think the art center is a humanity to the neighborhood. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a great point too. That's good. Um, okay. Uh, 94 81 F three, there will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Um, I would say that the proposals in compliance with this, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that there would be. And the traffic study, I think, um, indicated the same. Any thoughts or, sorry, Jamie, what was that? Based on the traffic study and the changes to the curbs and sidewalks, I would agree. Okay. Everyone in agreement on that? Right. Okay, great. Yes. All right, 9481F4, does it have adequate and appropriate facilities, or adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use? I think, yes, I think the facilities appear to be more than adequate to be really nice. I think it'll be an improvement in the area. And it looks to me when I look through the management and operations that it's been quite well thought out and the business plan and the location of everything appears to be in order. Um, any comments or is everyone in agreement?
[Andre Leroux]: I think it's great that the proponent has already has pretty extensive experience, uh, running similar facilities and other communities.
[Unidentified]: So yeah, good point. Anybody else? Okay. Are we all in agreement on this point? Yes. Great. Okay. 94 81 G. And each of these sections is different. So I'm just going to read the beginning of G. And this is in granting a special permit, additional specific conditions and safeguards are deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the intent of this chapter to protect the neighborhood. And they may be attached, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing. So these are now requirements that in granting the special permit, if we think that they're necessary, we can add them on. Okay. So. All right. 81 G1 is any requirements of front side or rear yards greater than the minimum required by the chapter? I don't think that we need to add that on. They're not doing any alterations to the building. Is everyone in agreement? Yes. Yes. Okay. That's not needed. Okay. 81 G2. we could add on in a requirement of screening or parking areas or other parts of the premises from adjoining premises or from the street by walls, fences, planting or other devices. I don't think given the neighborhood that that's necessary beyond what's been proposed. I like the fact that there are the shade trees along the property and there's a couple of additional trees. I don't think that we need to add anything, but does anyone else wanna add any thoughts on that?
[Silverstein]: So sorry to cut in, but I did want to just remind the board that CDB did provide a memo that had certain recommendations. Obviously, they're just recommendations, but I wanted to make sure to the extent it's helpful that I reminded the board about that. And there are some issues in terms of landscaping in there.
[Unidentified]: That's a great point. Yeah, so we have, I believe it's seven recommendations in the Community Development Board. So we can go through those before we vote as well. Okay, does anyone have any thoughts on that that we wanna add?
[Mike Caldera]: Jacqueline, I think one of the reasons this was brought up is that some of these recommendations map directly to the particular items we're going through right now. It's sort of, there's the risk that we might.
[Unidentified]: Oh, you know what? Okay. I see what you're saying. Um, then why don't we, why don't we do this? Um, I just want to make sure that everything that statutorily we're required to go through, I'm going through, but we can. Pause on these four. Uh, wait, let me see. There are six and come back to them after we've gone through the community development board recommendations to see if there's anything additional that we want to add.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, that works for me.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay, good idea. Okay. For everyone watching, you just have to bear with us because this is our first time going through a marijuana one and it's a little bit complicated. Okay, so now these are the specific, the next few are specific to marijuana facilities. So I'm gonna read this, so section 14-526A, special permit findings. In addition to the findings for a special permit in section 9481, what we've just gone through and we'll go through in a little bit, of the zoning ordinance, the special permit granting authority must also make the following findings. Okay, so we need to find that, and this is subsection one of that. The applicant demonstrates that the marijuana establishment will meet all of the permitting requirements of all applicable agencies within the Commonwealth and will be in compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, including but not limited to Mass General on Chapter 94G, Section 12, General Marijuana Establishment Operation. So after reviewing the brief and all of the exhibits and the laws and regulations on this, I feel confident that they have met all of the permitting requirements. Anyone else have any comments on that? Is everyone in agreement? Okay, great. Yes. Okay, subsection two. The applicant has satisfied all of the conditions and requirements of this section and other applicable sections of the zoning ordinance and any applicable city ordinances. So I would say yes, again, for similar reasons. I haven't seen anything that's come up to me that's been a problem on that front. Does everyone agree? Great, everyone's in agreement. So section three, the facility provides adequate security measures to ensure that there are not direct threats to the health or safety of employees, staff or members of the public, and the storage and location of cultivation is adequately secured. I think from the brief that was provided and then also the overview that we got regarding security, I feel comfortable on that front. And also the fact that there was no feedback or requests for changes from the chief of police. Anyone have thoughts on that?
[Mike Caldera]: So for me, and this perhaps relates to seven, which we'll get to, if this content is supposed to be contained in that same plan, I would like to know if the applicants amenable to us imposing a condition that their security plan be formally signed off on by the chief of police. I think I saw Mr. Pollack nodding, so thumbs up.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, he did, he said thumbs up, so they are. All right, so I just wanna write that down. So the security plan be formally signed off on by the chief of police?
[Mike Caldera]: Or designee, we could allow it be the designee. Ideally the chief of police or someone in the police department.
[Unidentified]: Yep, got it.
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, I was on mute, but that is acceptable. No problem.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So I just want to make a note that we're going to add that we can add that condition. All right. So two things. One, does everyone agree to adding that? Does everyone agree with that condition? Yes. Yes. Okay. Great. All right. So with that condition in mind, then for subsection three, Does everyone agree that the facility is providing adequate security measures? Yes, yes. Okay, great. Yes, with a condition, great. All right, so section four, the marijuana establishment does not derogate from the purposes intent of this section of the zoning ordinance. I don't think that it doesn't think it's exactly what has been intended by the city council and the state in this regard. Does everyone agree?
[Vasudevan]: Yes. Okay, great.
[Unidentified]: subsection five, the application information submitted is adequate for the special permit granting authority to consider approving the special permit request. I think the application is very comprehensive. I appreciate the way that they've been working with the city. And I think that what they provided is exactly what I would hope to be seeing from an establishment that's looking to come in under this ordinance. Anyone else thoughts or are we all in agreement?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, in agreement.
[Unidentified]: I've got nods from everybody. I guess I can always just say that everyone's nodding and then everyone doesn't have to unmute. Okay, so yes on five. All right, subsection six. The proposed establishment is designed to minimize any adverse impacts on human beings, the environment and abutting properties. So I think, yes, we talked about that a little bit earlier with the environmental impact. I think that that has been taken into account. And then just to Mike's point earlier regarding impacts on human beings, I really think it's wonderful that we're gonna have the art space that's gonna be dedicated. Is everyone in agreement on that? Okay, I've had nods from everybody. Okay, subsection seven. The security plan provides sufficient assurance that adequate security controls have been implemented to ensure the protection of the public health and safety during hours of operation, and that any marijuana or marijuana related products are adequately secured on site or via delivery. I think it's a comprehensive security plan. I feel comfortable, particularly given the lack of changes requested by the chief of police and with Mike's condition added. Anyone else have any comments or are we all in agreement? I've got nods from everybody. Okay, so that's a yes. Subsection eight, the operation and management plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section. Again, yes, very comprehensive plan, and it meets all the criteria that are required by the state and by the ordinance. And by, Well, we'll go through the committee on the ones in a moment. Okay, everyone in agreement? Yes. All right, I have nods from everybody. Subsection nine, the emergency response plan includes all required components. Oh, yep, and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section. Same thought, it's very comprehensive. To Andre's earlier point, I really appreciate that the applicant has experience in this area, and they seem like they really know what they're doing. And I like how comprehensive the plan that was put forth was. Everybody in agreement?
[Mike Caldera]: So Jacqueline, back to the operations management plan, it just occurred to me. So Andre had that call out about the dates in the plan.
[Unidentified]: Oh, yep. Should we have that as a condition?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, updating the dates. And so it's essentially, I can't think of the best way to word it. So the operations and management plan will be updated to reflect the latest intended dates for the opening. And these dates will follow a similar pattern to what was laid out in the earlier plan submitted.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, great point. Good catch. Okay. So operational and management plan will be updated to similar cadence with new dates or opening, et cetera. Okay, perfect. Does everyone agree to that condition? Okay, I've got nods from everyone, so I'm just going to make a note, yes, with condition. Okay, subsection 10, the disposal and odor control plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section. Again, yes, I feel that this is comprehensive from what's been submitted and what has been explained. Everyone in agreement? Yes, I have nods from everyone. Okay. So section 11, the special permit granting authority may require a marijuana establishment to post a bond or other resources held in an escrow account in an amount sufficient to adequately support the dismantling and winding down of the marijuana establishment. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? And maybe John, Attorney Silverstein, if you had any thoughts on this, that might be helpful.
[Silverstein]: Sure. So the CCC actually requires such a bond already, um, with respect to disposal of marijuana products specifically. Um, sometimes I've seen boards want to impose an additional charity requirements. If there's some sort of structure, I've seen it more frankly, in cultivation situations where large cultivation, uh, greenhouses or structures are being constructed for this purpose. And there's a concern that if the business goes away, that these structures are just going to be left to languish on the property. I frankly haven't seen it in retail situations as much, again, because concerns regarding actually disposing of marijuana products themselves are covered by the CCC regulations.
[Unidentified]: OK. All right. Well, with that said, I feel comfortable not requesting a bond given the fact that it is a retail space that could easily be converted to another space. Any other thoughts on that?
[Mike Caldera]: Reed. So I'm not opposed to that, but to be frank, I don't have the slightest clue what an amount sufficient to adequately support the dismantling and winding down of the establishment would even be.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I don't, I don't either.
[Mike Caldera]: Probably more than zero dollars.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: I don't either. Although I guess because from what attorney Silverstein was saying in terms of it being a retail space, um, maybe for me, I'm feeling, I don't get to the point where I need to figure out what the number is, but I wouldn't know what it would be either. But I think that that would be something if we ended up with, um, a growing facility, something to that effect, perhaps.
[Mike Caldera]: Also, if I understood Attorney Silverstein correctly, there's some amount that has to be put up as a bond anyway. Is that, do I understand that correctly? So this would just be about whether- For disposal, yeah. Amount is required?
[Unidentified]: What was that last bit?
[Mike Caldera]: So this, we're deciding whether to impose an additional amount. There's already some amount required. Is that, did I understand that correctly?
[Unidentified]: That was my understanding. Attorney Silverstein, is that correct?
[Silverstein]: Yes, that's correct. The CCC already requires a bond. Frankly, don't recall whether they state a specific amount. I want $50,000 jumps to mine, but I could be off on that. I can take a look at the regs while we're talking. Or Brendan might know.
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, I recall it being a $50,000 bond as well. OK.
[Unidentified]: All right. So with that said, I'm comfortable not requiring an additional bond. Is everyone comfortable with that? Okay, all right, I have nods from everybody. And then subsection 12, we're more than halfway through folks. So subsection 12, no special permit shall be issued by the special permit granting authority until an applicant has submitted proof of an executed host community agreement with the city. And I am just going to share my screen quickly. I'll just put that up for everyone to see. Okay, so I have up on the screen, this is the host community agreement certification form and the applicant and it is signed by the applicant and also by the mayor. So, excuse me. So, all right, is everyone in agreement that we have the executed host community agreement with the city? Yes, okay, I have nods from everybody, perfect. Okay, so the... All right, so the community development recommendations... So Jacqueline, don't we have to go through the requirements?
[Mike Caldera]: Is that what we already did? The requirements specific to marijuana retailers? That's a little bit below the additional findings in the ordinance.
[Unidentified]: Um, I may have missed a section. I'm not sure. So what I have left are we have the four requirements that relate where we can impose the additional conditions that I'm going to go through after, um, the community development ones, but those have to do with the site plan review. So I was going to hold that until after site plan review. So what section are you looking at?
[Mike Caldera]: I'm looking at different copy. So the numberings off, um, but actually, um,
[Unidentified]: Are you looking at the one that starts with like 7.71, et cetera?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. It might not actually be something we need in the special permit. It might just be that the retailer needs to do it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. So my understanding when I checked the actual ordinance numbers, I think that's correct is that Those are requirements, things that are required of the retailer, but not are part of the special permit application or criteria, but let's double check. Attorney Silverstein, is that correct? Those are not additional requirements that we use in our analysis, right?
[Silverstein]: Right, so these, 1526 is special permit findings and specific requirements for various facilities. So the findings are in A, and then there are specific requirements that apply to each of the other facilities, you know, it's certainly the board could go through those. So for retailers, it's in subsection E of that same section, but it's not, they're not required findings necessarily.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So part of the, yeah, so that's my understanding. One of the things that we've said here is that we think that everything that's been sent to us is in accordance with all of those findings. But those would be the requirements that sounds like for the actual retailer. Mike, did you have something you wanted to add?
[Mike Caldera]: No, no, sounds good.
[Unidentified]: Okay, cool. So I'm thinking what we'll do next is let's go through the seven criteria for the site plan review, because the community development I think it makes sense if we do the community development boards conditions after that. So for site plan review, we're going to go and for everyone listening. Part of this special permit, there's a special permit application related to being a marijuana retailer. And then there's also the request for site plan review. So to go through site plan review, we as the board go through each of these specific seven criteria. we decide whether or not we do or do not find the condition that is listed. If we do not find the condition that is listed, then it can be approved. And it sounds a little bit backwards, but basically one of the conditions will be if we find that the proposed structure will create hazards. If we find that, then that would be a reason not to grant it. If it's not found, then it clears the path for approval. Okay, so let's look at these. These are 94-335 of the Medford ordinance and subsection one. The criteria is, would be if we were to find that the provisions for vehicular loading and unloading and parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site into adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities, which could be avoided by modifications in the plan. So I do not find that those provisions would create those hazards or impose a significant burden. Does everyone agree?
[Andre Leroux]: It's an improvement over current conditions.
[Unidentified]: That very much so, great point. Okay, and I have head nods from everybody on that. So the board, this is not found by the board. Okay, and subsection two, the bulk location or height of proposed buildings and structures and paved areas and the proposed uses thereof will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water distribution system or similar public facilities, which could be avoided by modifications in the plan. I think that this is not found. I think that in the fact that the building isn't changing and then we're getting more green spaces and less paved space. And I, so I would say this is not found. Any comments or agreements.
[Adam Barnosky]: Agreed.
[Unidentified]: Agreed. Okay, I've got the head nods from everybody so not found. So section three, the provision for onsite landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development that could be avoided by adequate landscaping. Not found in my opinion. I think it's improvement. We're getting more green space and more landscaping than what's already there. Everyone in agreement? Okay, great. So this is not found. Subsection four. The site plan fails to provide for adequate protection of natural resources or soil and drainage problems that development will give rise to and is feasible to prepare a site plan. And it is feasible to prepare a site plan that will provide adequate protection of natural resources and will avoid drainage and soil problems. So for similar reasons, I would say that this is not found. They're also not building something new. The existing structure is staying the same and they are adding more green space. So I would say not found, is everyone in agreement? I have had nods from everybody, so that's not found. Okay, subsection five, the provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions will damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. I would say that this is not found particularly given the applicant's explanation of some of the lighting that's required by the state. And then also they said backlighting and maybe downlighting. I forget the exact term of that, but I felt comfortable with the lighting that they were proposing to say that this is not found. Is everyone in agreement? Okay, everyone is nodding their heads. So this is not found. Subsection six, the proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site or to the buildings on the site for emergency vehicles. I would say that this is not found given the detailed fire safety plan and the fact that there hasn't been feedback or requests for changes from the fire department on that. Is everyone in agreement? Okay, I'm hearing nods from everyone, so this is not found. And subsection seven, The provisions for the handling of refuse do not provide for adequate protection to neighboring properties that could be avoided by adequate handling of refuse. So again, I would say this is not found regarding the two modes of waste disposal that have been detailed related specifically to marijuana products than to regular refuse. Is everyone in agreement? I have had nods from everybody, so that is not found. Okay, so then the next thing we can do is these are the, proposed conditions from the Community Development Board. So, one, that the proponent comply with the mitigation efforts proposed in the traffic and transportation portion of the engineering memo from Director of Transportation, Todd Blake, dated August 11th, 2022, provided the Mass Department of Transportation is amenable to the recommendations. Quick question. to the applicant, Brandon, I believe you said this, but are you folks are in agreement with all seven of these conditions?
[Brandon Pollock]: We are, yes. There was one subsection of the traffic recommendations that we will need approval from the state on. So it's a condition we accept to work towards, but the bollards and the striping on the side streets is, I guess, due to it being a state road, we can't just unilaterally guarantee that, but we'll certainly support the city's process there. Did I say that right, Matt?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, that sounds good. And one other point I guess we would hope to request is a lot of the requests, particularly the ones in the right-of-way, are going to require mass DOT approval. I know Brandon's pretty anxious if he's lucky enough to get approval tonight to get moving. So I guess we'd ask those be conditions prior to certificate of occupancy, just so while the wheels of justice turn at mass DOT, he's not held up.
[Unidentified]: I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. So you're asking, What exactly is the ask to us related to that?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: That the condition be satisfied prior to certificate of occupancy, either that the improvements are done or we provide evidence that MassDOT wouldn't allow them.
[Unidentified]: OK. Are you speaking specifically to just Condition 1 or to all of them?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Specifically Condition 1, because those are the ones we need MassDOT approval for.
[Unidentified]: OK. All right. So I'm just going to make a note. done prior to certificate of occupancy. Okay, so I'm just down now by the board. Mike, Mike, what was that?
[Mike Caldera]: It looks like Director Hunt has something to say.
[Unidentified]: Oh, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to comment that usually I'm actually the person who holds them accountable for these both engineering and I do I sign new building permits and I signed certificate of occupancies for new construction but things that have gone through site plan review. So we usually look at whether It's a condition that we feel is required to occur before a building permit. Sometimes there are things that say, well, you can't have your building permit if you haven't done these basic things. Most conditions typically, particularly these road ones, we just look for it certificate of occupancy because they do take a long time to do and they're part of construction frequently. So we expect that they would occur as the construction at the at the location occurs. This is a little different just because it's not new construction, so they won't have as much building construction, so they'll be a little time constrained, which is why from the Community Development Board, too, we usually just sort of say that you work with the DOT and make a good effort on it. Our staff have very good contacts there, so we can either help move that stuff along or To be polite, we have an awareness of whether or not they're making a good faith effort to work that through.
[Unidentified]: Okay, would you be comfortable with language where we say it may be done prior to the certificate of occupancy?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I think that the request is that they should make a good faith effort to do it before the certificate of occupancy. And there is an understanding that if it's a requirement by MassDOT and they can never complete it, we would just want something from MassDOT that says no, right, that they've been denied.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So I'm going to say applicant will make a good faith effort to work with DOT to complete and that if in that case that this may be done prior to the certificate of occupancy given working with the city. Okay, so that's condition one. Is everyone in agreement with adding that condition?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay, good. Mike, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: I have one clarifying question for the applicant that I think will just aid in going through these seven. So I know that a new plan was submitted after the Community Development Board hearing. And so have any of these conditions already been addressed in what you presented to us?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I think most if not all that could be reflected in other plans have I know that plan came in yesterday so I didn't expect the board to have the chance to review it but I just want to have it available in case you wanted to see it on a plan to clarify what they were.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. But so I guess my, just to motivate an example of why I'm asking, so we're gonna get to a condition for that the proponent provide one to two additional trees near the front sidewalk. Are those already on the plans that we just looked at? Or do we need to have that condition in there still?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: They're on the plans dated yesterday and I can pull those up when the condition comes in and show you that we added those.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Yeah, so why don't we do that? You can pull it up when we get there. Okay, so condition two, that the proponent investigate the feasibility and use of permeable surfacing for the parking lot and use such surfaces to the extent commercially reasonable. So to the applicant, to Mike's question, is that something that's already been addressed?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, to a certain extent that discussion with the community development board, largely revolved around that peninsula and then our discussion that we might not be able to provide a landscape in there because of the fire egress and then we discussed the use of promo pavers. So it's been addressed that we addressed it with the landscape island. We'll also work with the applicant to investigate other permissible surfaces on site but that hasn't been looked at yet and that's going to require a little bit of due diligence to see if we can feasibly put it in there.
[Mike Caldera]: So just wanted to double check because that sounds more like the third one. The proponent will provide additional green space in the parking lot peninsula blah blah blah blah blah. So were those two related or were they separate?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: It was part of the same discussion, but they're slightly separate. I guess I would say three is reflected on the plans, two is not. That's something I guess we agree to investigate, but it's going to require a little due diligence if that can be put into the construction plans.
[Brandon Pollock]: I think two, we will certainly abide by the condition insofar as investigating it, but we haven't investigated it yet. That will be, I think, a conversation with our general contractor about the optionality there.
[Unidentified]: I think we can just leave it in as written then. Although let me just check with everybody. Is everyone in agreement with condition two? Okay, I have nods from everybody, so that is a yes. Okay, condition three, that the proponent provide additional green space in the parking lot peninsula and cross hatched island areas in the rear portion of the lot as demarcated in the site plan landscape plan to the extent that it can still accommodate fire department equipment access and meet security requirements. Okay, so to the applicant, Um, what portion of this I suppose has already been addressed and or should we just leave the condition in as written?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Um, so I believe that's that's been generally entirely addressed. So the area they were talking about was back here. The plan I showed earlier showed this all with parking lot striping or just paint. And they asked if we could provide these interior landscape islands with trees. At the time, I said I wasn't sure that we could because I was worried about fire truck movements and circulation around this one way. But we were able to fit it in and just needed to keep these kind of areas along the outside as striping.
[Unidentified]: OK. All right, that sounds good. So I think if it's already been addressed, that's great. I'm happy to leave the condition in if everyone else is in agreement on that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Could I make a suggestion just so it's very clear? I think there may be a way to word it to say to the additional street trees, as shown in the plan dated and the date on yesterday's plan. Because if one was to just say additional street trees and somebody was coming back. I always like to future proof this like what if I wasn't there to look at it when they're opening right. and somebody says, well, I see the plan they gave to ZBA and it says additional trees, there should be more trees, right? So the trees as displayed something or else date the old plan. I just wanted to be clear that this plan reflects those things.
[Unidentified]: Okay, no, that's a great idea. So what I've been doing is underneath each one of the conditions, I've been putting my own bullet point underneath. And so I'll just make it so that there's a note on there explaining what that is. So I'll leave the condition from the community development board as written and then add our additional note, making that clear. And I'll say dated as of yesterday.
[Alicia Hunt]: That, that would be great. Yeah. I just get concerned that somebody who was not at these meetings and not aware of this, we'll have to then look at it. I mean, I have every intention of being here, but you never know. Right.
[Unidentified]: So you never know. Um, no, I think that's a great, that's a great note. Okay. So. I think I didn't write down that we all agreed on this. So is everyone in agreement? Um, on, uh, the third condition. Yes. Okay, perfect. I've got head nods and yeses from everybody. Condition four, that the proponent, oh, this is the trees, that the proponent provide one to two additional trees near the front sidewalk to the extent that the security requirements can still be met. So that, just to the applicant, that has already been done and added to the plan, correct? Correct. Okay, so I'm going to make a similar note as I did for condition three related to that the trees have already been incorporated. Okay. Is everyone good with that condition with that note? Yes. Okay, I have had nods from everybody. Condition five, that the proponent fund a public mural for the building facade and work through the Medford Arts Collaborative, which will select an artist and finalize the design for the mural. That's quite cool. I think that's a great condition. Is everybody on board with that condition? Yes. I have head nods from everybody. Thank you, Community Development Board for that one. Okay. Condition six, that there be compliance with recommendations by the following department heads and letters addressed to Jacqueline Dardy, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, John Friedman, Fire Chief, Mary Ann O'Connor, Director of Public Health, and Owen Wartella, City Engineer. We've already seen that. I just want to double check with the applicant that I'm correct in understanding that that has been done. Yes?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: You're asking if the recommendations have been added to the plans?
[Unidentified]: No. I guess partly it hasn't. We haven't, you haven't gotten any recommendations back, correct? For changes?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: We have gotten those letters we have.
[Unidentified]: I'm fine, okay, you know what? I think I asked the question in a poor manner. I'm fine, I'm happy with this condition staying in. Is everyone in agreement with that?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: That was a better way to frame it. Okay, I've got head nods from everybody. All right, and condition seven, that this project is subject to the city's solar ordinance and linkage fees. And yes, I'm happy with that condition. Is everyone in agreement? Okay, I'm heading on to everybody. Okay, so the last little thing we're gonna do is go back up to section 9481G, and this is where we could add additional requirements. So what I'll do is I'll read the requirement. If anyone wants to propose an additional one, you can let me know. So we have the ability under subsection one to add front side or rear yard setbacks. We already discussed that we didn't want to add that, correct? Correct. Okay, no. Any requirements of screening of parking areas or other parts of the premises from adjoining premises or from the street by walls, fences, planting, or other devices? I'm comfortable with not adding any additional recommendations other than what we've seen on the plan or what the Community Development Board has recommended. Everyone in agreement? Yes. Yes, I have had nods from everybody, perfect. Okay, subsection three, modification of exterior features or appearances of the structures. I don't have any additional conditions. I think it looks nice. I think it's going to be an improvement and I'm excited to see what the mural is.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I actually have a question about this. So getting back to Maria's point about the sign, is there a separate permit for the sign or?
[Unidentified]: Alicia's shaking her head, yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: The city has a whole zoning section on sign permits, and then the building department either signs off, like approves them, or they have to come back up for sign denials. And then they have to go to city council if they don't. And I believe the applicant can speak to this. I believe city board asked, and we were told that that sign is in compliance with our zoning. So they're not expecting a sign denial because that would bump it to city council.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, that's correct. I think our understanding is that signage is in compliance with zoning or no variances are anticipated to be requested for signage.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I would, you know, to the extent that you could, uh, ensure that the art center, uh, part of the sign is, is like as visible as the other pieces that would be great, or potentially even incorporate that into the exterior mural. you know, of the building.
[Unidentified]: As an applicant, do you have any thoughts on that?
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: I think we can definitely stand out with the art mural thing. I guess my question would be whether they would consider that science if it was part of the mural. Probably not, but we'd probably have to confirm that. And then I guess I defer to Brandon on the monument sign, but I'm sure he's willing to take a look at it.
[Unidentified]: He's saying yes. Andre, what would you want the language of the condition to be?
[Andre Leroux]: That to the extent to the extent feasible that the art center signage be as visible as the, what's it called? The drink dispensary, you know, one that was above it. I'm not remembering the exact language.
[Unidentified]: As the, we can take theory, So the original signage, the theory wellness dispensary is about twice the size of the other signs. The beverage dispensary sign is the same size as the art center sign. Okay. So we can, what are other people's thoughts on this?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, Jamie's saying that it's already the same size as the beverage dispensary one. So it may not be as much of an issue, but in the rendering, it does look smaller. So.
[Brandon Pollock]: Yeah, and I'll add the rendering really was focused more on our presentation of our signage. We certainly want to defer to the art center and exactly how they want their signage to look. So that was, it's pretty plain right now in that rendering.
[Andre Leroux]: I was just going to say, I'm trying to remember if on the facade there's also over the entrance to the art center, whether there's any additional signage over that that might be helpful so that people going to events can know which entrance to go into.
[Unidentified]: You mean on the front?
[Andre Leroux]: that's where the entrance is, right? I don't know, is there a separate art center entrance on the side? I'm not remembering at the moment.
[4i_C-C_jjiM_SPEAKER_22]: There is, yeah, there's an entrance on the, I believe the main entrance is on the side, Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think anything's shown there, but I suspect that might be something that's visited once more discussions with the art center relative to how they want to sign it occur.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, yeah, because that would be, so maybe we could just condition that that conversation with the art center happens
[Brandon Pollock]: And their lease or sublease agreement, they certainly have the ability to, you know, add their own signage, go through their own permitting if necessary and so forth to do so.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Andre, would you be comfortable with language that says to the extent feasible that the applicant work with the Arts Center to work with the Arts Center regarding their preferences for signage?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, or maybe we could just say something like that the proponent will work with the art center to delineate clear signage for the entrance to the art center, or the entrances to the art center.
[Unidentified]: I'm fine with that. What other people think? Is everyone okay with that? Yeah. And to the applicant, are you amenable to that condition?
[Brandon Pollock]: Yes, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, sounds good. All right, so I've got yeses on that. Okay, subsection four can add limitations of size, number of occupants, method, or time of operation, duration of use, or extent of facilities. I'm fine proceeding under state and municipal regulations on that one. Does everyone have an agreement on that? Okay, so I'm not going to add any conditions. Conditions related to the regulation of the number design and location of access drives or other traffic features. I would suggest we do not add anything apart from what the experts have already weighed in on. Everyone in agreement with that? Okay, yes, so we're not adding any conditions under that. And then lastly, subsection six, any requirements for off street parking or other special features beyond the minimum required by this or other applicable ordinances? And again, I would, same answer, suggest we not make any changes apart from what the experts have stated. Is everyone in agreement on that? Okay, so we have gone through all 24 of the Um. Statutory or municipal ordinance requirements. We have also gone through all of the conditions and made notes on them. And then we've added some additional conditions related to the municipal ordinance. So with everything we've just gone through related to all of to approve, let's do it separately. We'll do one for the special permit, one vote for special permit, and we'll do one vote for site plan review.
[Mike Caldera]: So maybe we do site plan first and then the special permit?
[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah. Okay. Can I get someone to make a motion, please?
[Mike Caldera]: Andrea, do you want to do the honor?
[Andre Leroux]: So I would motion to approve the special permit.
[Unidentified]: Oh wait, I think you're going to do site plan review first.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. Motion to approve the site plan with conditions. I don't know how you want to state it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think it's fair to say with all of the conditions we've just discussed. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: All the conditions we've just discussed.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. And I am going to do reverse alphabetical order because I always forget to. Hold on. Oh, sorry. Got a second. Thank you. Yvette, how do you vote? Yes. Yes. Okay. Jamie, how do you vote? Aye. And Andre? Yes. And Michael? Yes. And Jacqueline is a yes. Okay, and then could I please get a motion to approve the special permit for the marijuana retailer with all of the conditions that we've discussed?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll motion to approve the special permit for the marijuana retail license subject to the, does it have to be subject to the site plan review conditions again? Subject to all of the conditions that we discussed.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, subject to the ones that are specific to the, cause there are some that were specific to site plan review and then there were.
[Mike Caldera]: Subject to the conditions specific to the special permit that the board identified.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Thank you. And do I have a second? Seconded. Okay. And Yvette, how do you vote? Yes. Jamie. Aye. Andre. Yes. Michael. Yes. And Jacqueline is yes. Okay, folks, you've got a special permit.
[Brandon Pollock]: Thank you. We appreciate it. I know it was the first time for this board, but appreciate the time and attention and we look forward to continuing on and becoming a good member of the community here. So we appreciate the support.
[Unidentified]: You're welcome. Yeah. Good luck with everything. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So, oh, and we'll have that, we'll have that decision out to you shortly so that, and Dennis can explain everything that happens with that next, if you're not already familiar.
[Brandon Pollock]: Okay. We appreciate that. And we'll follow up there.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Perfect. Okay. So next order of business. is administrative updates. Dennis or Alicia, do we have any administrative updates apart from what we've already discussed?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that I would just use the moment to remind everybody that so the comprehensive plan is out with a draft version. And there are some boards and commissions and staff who have been asked specifically to read specific sections and to provide comments and feedback via PDF. I don't believe the zoning board was asked specifically to comment on it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry, I have a graduate student who sent out like tons of emails. I'm happy to provide you all with the PDF version that's set up for commenting if you want to. If not, I just encourage people to take a look. There is a section that hasn't been posted yet, and I will make sure you are copied on it. At the end is going to be an implementation plan that includes what we're calling a zoning pullout. So it's sort of all the zoning recommendations that are scattered throughout, sort of compiled in one area so that it would be easier for the city council, for boards like yourself to pick that out. In order to see them in context, you'd want to go back and look at the other parts of the plan, but that's to sort of help you say like, well, what is in here? So I believe that should be out in the next week or two.
[Unidentified]: Okay, that's great. Yeah, I think that'd be great if you could forward it. That's appreciated. I like this zoning pullout a lot.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I have a graduate student, Catherine, who's been sending those out and I will actually, I think Dennis, it might be easiest if I send you what Wren has been sending out and you could send it to them with the link for the version where you can put your comments on the PDF. Obviously, this is open to the public. Anybody can send us any comments they want. There's a web form that people can fill out that kind of says, have you had it? Have you read it? Do you have any general thoughts? What kinds of questions, you know, comments do you have? The public's welcome to that. You're all welcome to do that. People are welcome to send us email. This was sort of a way for people who we think have specific, like you want to comment on the text very specifically to, you know, give us those sticky notes. So I'll work with Dennis to get that to you guys.
[Unidentified]: Thanks so much. Okay, Dennis, anything else that we have for administrative updates? Are we good?
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing on my end. So we will have the meeting in the next month, and I'll send out anything that we get in addition to the two filings we got, and also when 590 Broadway updates their package and information, the figures, I'll send them out.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. And our next meeting is September 29th? Is that correct? Yes. Okay, great. All right. And then last order of business, folks, did everyone get a chance to review the meeting minutes that Dennis sent out and the edits that Michael sent out? Mike sent out? Okay. Does anyone have any further edits? I would otherwise approve them with Michael's edits that he sent on the 23rd.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to approve those meeting minutes with the edits. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: Okay, Yvette? Yes. Jamie? Aye. Andre?
[Adam Barnosky]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: And Michael? Yes. And Jacqueline? Yes. Okay, perfect. Let's start meeting folks. Well done, that was a long one.
[Mike Caldera]: Motion to adjourn?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Seconded.
[Unidentified]: All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, well, good job team.