[Mike Caldera]: Hello, and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick recall and then we'll get started. Jim Tirani? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Present. Jamie Thompson? Present. Mike Caldera? Present. All right, we have a quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a Supplemental Budget Bill, which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 2025. Typically, this further extension allows public bodies to hold meetings without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the Open Meeting Law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis, and can you read the first matter, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continued from June 5th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC, an affiliate of Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC, for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, for multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4000 parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building containing a mixed studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low- or moderate-income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you, Dennis. Alright folks, so this is a long running hearing. We have had a number of sessions before this where we've had a chance to talk through several versions of the plan packet, to consider peer review feedback, and to provide comments. And then iteratively, the board and the applicant have made progress to today's date. And so at our last hearing, There was a draft of some conditions circulated that no one really had enough time to read in advance. The primary topic for today's meeting is to now that the. applicant has had some additional time to review those draft conditions, to talk through any elements they'd like to discuss and any call outs they'd like to make. Additionally, there were some ongoing discussions between the applicant and the city regarding linkage credits. And so we can check in to see if there's any updates on that. The intention, as stated last meeting, was to close the hearing tonight. I've heard that the applicant may to change that plan, so we can also talk through that at the appropriate time. Yeah, so that's the plan for tonight. I see you've got several representatives for the applicant. We'll start with Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander, is that the agenda you had in mind for tonight? Is there anything else you'd like to discuss or change?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Tim Alexander from Mill Creek. That is the agenda, so I think a review of the conditions as drafted, and maybe even as proposed revision, and then an update on the linkage waiver as well. I think it might be helpful, and Chris Rainier, if you don't mind, I think it might be helpful for the board to hear what the applicant through Goulston as council submitted to the city and hopefully that the board received last Thursday, late afternoon, evening. We could provide just an overview of those two emails and assorted related documents if that would be helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds great. The board did receive those documents so we can discuss. And then the matter in terms of whether or not to close the hearing, should we just do that at the end? Or is that something we should discuss up front?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Mr. Chair, thank you for the record, Chris Rainier. I think, yes, I did. I did have a conversation with Councilor Questl earlier today. I think in respect to the decision or the hearing continuance, Maybe we start working our way, and the board works its ways through the conditions and the other materials. We see where we are at the end of this evening, because I understand that there may be some scheduling difficulties that would push the next opportunity to meet pretty far out into the future. So we're hopeful that we can make a large degree of progress tonight, and then we'll see if we need an extension. We may not. So maybe we just contact you down the road.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful, sounds like a plan. So we will make as much progress as we can tonight and discuss that at the end. Great. All right, so Mr. Alexander, which topic did you want to lead off with?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think the waivers and the linkage waiver in specific, which was the topic of discussion obviously just one piece of the larger draft set of conditions. So if you agree, I think the right place to start is with the proposed conditions. Our team did, you know, was able to go through in great detail last week and provide our proposed, I want to say in most cases, hopefully just a into those, and I don't know if the board or members of the city have had a chance to review that in detail, but would it be helpful if we, it sounds like what I heard is it would be helpful if we walked through, at least in broad brush strokes, some of those proposed revisions tonight?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, yeah, so the the board received the red line version on Thursday, I believe, or maybe early Friday, I've had a chance to review it. I would like us to discuss it at a level of detail so that we have an understanding of the why as a board for some of the proposed changes. So, you know, in cases where it's maybe just a like a language update or sort of drafting something we already talked about in sketch form. We don't necessarily need to go into as great of detail for that. But if there's particular elements, you know, that you would like to bring to our attention where as previously drafted, it would present a problem. I would like the board to leave tonight's hearing with an understanding of the whys and so that we basically have the information we need heading into deliberation.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, excellent. Yeah, I think a combination, I mean, might be best if Mr. Rainier walks through. We worked on it actually with Louise Gianakis as well, but I think, Chris, you might be the best person to walk the board through the proposed revisions, you know, where they're substantive, where they're simplifications, or where they're maybe just, you know, sort of language
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Sure, thank you, Tim, and thank you, Mr. Chair. So there does appear to be a bit of red lining, but I did want to sort of set the stage for that. I think the decision, the draft conditions that have been provided maybe contemplated a project that hasn't benefited by the iterative peer review that we've worked on with Mr. Reardon and Mr. Bomer. And so many of the comments that we had in here, and I'm not going to go through every comment. We're happy to answer questions about specifics, but I think a better use of time is an overview. But what we did was picking up on a comment that we talked about, and it might've been two hearings ago with Mr. Reardon, that given the iterative plan design and where we are with the current May 12th set of plans, the appropriate next step would be to advance to the building permit plan set and not do another iteration of ZBA plans. And the types of remaining comments that are out there in any comment letters or the normal types of refinements can be dealt with in a building permit plan set. So that's many of the changes are to deal with and account for that. Other changes in this decision, and again, I won't call all of them out, are to pick up some of the good work that we did through the peer review. So, for example, the decision had a lot in there about a snow storage plan, a snow management plan, maybe contemplating a suburban type project site that would have a lot of roadways and snow storage areas. We've committed. previously that snow that falls will be removed in 24 hours. So we've just simplified that condition and clarified that. We've clarified as well that, you know, just some things that will happen on a timing basis. For example, we will be able to provide with the building permit plan set a signage plan for the residential signage on the building. We haven't spent a lot of time talking about residential signage, and this is not going to be a heavily signed project. Mill Creek tends towards modest signage, but we will know enough about our signage to be able to present that at the time of the building permit plan set, and if necessary, request waivers for that. But related to signage, we won't know, likely, who our tenants are going to be in that ground floor retail space until in the future. So what we try to do is split that signage into two buckets. There's the residential signage, which we'll know about a building permit and the retail signage that may not be until later. And then to the extent that doesn't, or would require a waiver, we would come back to the board for that. Some other changes in here were, I'm trying to just kind of refine a little bit some of the language about the phased occupancy and the phased certificates of occupancy that I know that Mill Creek had a great meeting with the building commissioner. So some of those changes, we're just trying to be a little bit more specific.
[Andre Leroux]: Hey, Mr. Chair and through you to the applicant, I'm wondering if we could just, maybe you could share the screen as you're going through hitting like the different points. In the document? Oh, sure.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I'm old-fashioned, and I'm looking down at a hard copy printout, which literally is not helpful to anyone else on the screen. So let me just open my email, get that up on the screen.
[Mike Caldera]: I can actually share it if you'd like. I was trying to follow along on my own copy, and then it didn't really occur to me that I should have just.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, yeah. You know, if I pull it up, then as I scroll, I'll be able to talk and scroll at the same time. Please give me five seconds. We'll be ready to go.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I just want to try and make this a little bit bigger.
[Mike Caldera]: Is that work for everyone? Yeah, it's a little off center, though.
[Nicole Morell]: Maybe you can... Could you make it full screen, Chris? There you go.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Is that better for everyone? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, some of the automatic box is recovering my window. So as we go through here, and thank you, Mr. Lurie, it's a much better idea. So we included a little bit more detail here about the project, including residential units plus some residential amenities and the ground floor commercial. Here we've read in the May 12th set of plans. Those are the current set of plans, which we define as, or are defined as the approved plans. We included a provision here. that if we need to revise any of the approved plans as we address conditions in the decision, those updates will be treated as insubstantial changes under the permit regulations and can be approved through that mechanism.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Let's see, Chris, if I might just just provide an example, because I think it's probably helpful for the board to hear what type of thing that might be. So an example is one of the comments from the peer reviewers was that a bike rack is blocking the path of a sidewalk. southeast part of the project should probably be extended to have a continuous path. And we think that's a good idea. And we think that's a change we'll make. But that will, you know, mildly or minorly change the calculations, for instance, on the landscape area. And so making a change like that, then a change to the landscape area, as insignificant as it is, we just want to make sure that doesn't then require some other sort of a de minimis change that is only being made because of compliance with the conditions set forth here.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thanks, Sam. Great example. Here, just in the scale that I've got, you can't see my marginal comments, which I try to include just to illustrate is we simplified this text a little bit in that in a later condition, we will file copies of all permits with the building commissioner. And we kept this language, which my recollection in blue had been provided by Mr. Forty, and so that's been kept unaltered in the decision. Again, I don't want to go through all of these, but here, this is what I was talking about for snow storage. where we just rather than talk about a snow storage management plan, we've just included the express conditions. Snow shall not be stored anywhere on the interior access ways or wetland resource areas. Snow accumulated must be removed from the site within 24 hours. I think that's consistent with our conversations with the board and our peer review. And some of these are just cleanup changes. Here, I know that the board has talked a little bit about local preference, and it wants a local preference for the initial lease up of the affordable units. I included some language, and I think I saw Ms. Barrett join, although I've lost my windows. I included some language that we've seen in other decisions about it's the city's obligation to provide evidence satisfactory to the subsidizing agency of the need for local preference. So I think this is a statement that is just really caring for what the obligation is for Medford to demonstrate that need for local preference. And I believe I understand from another hearing that the city has done that before.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, sad that we, um, we file for local preference always on these and we've been regularly being approved. I think off the top of my head, 70%, but we have a write up that we will just update and send that we use for that.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: It's very well done. So I'm sure you will be approved. No, it is. It's really good. You did a good job.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Great. Um, so this was, um, that one of those original thematic comments that I had about how we've had multiple rounds of iterative plan revisions and some great peer review comments. And so where instead of another stop with the board, as we discussed at a prior hearing, the next step would be to refine the plans. So right now the plans in front of the board, we call it the fine term approved plans. Those are the May 12 plans. And we move into a set of building permit plans which are defined in here as final plans. And together with the final, with the building permit plan set, we'll provide these final plans, which will be architectural plans, landscaping and lighting, signage plans, I'll come back to that, engineering plans that will allow the building commissioner to confirm consistency with this decision. And why I said I'd come back to signage, I mentioned that earlier, is this is the first time that signage comes up in the decision where we will, together with the building permit set of plans, provide a signage plan for the residential signage, which will conform to the ordinance unless approved by the board. Later, we talk about how retail signage, we just won't know at the time. We won't be able to lease that space up most likely at the time of building permit for future retail tenants, so we'll come back with our retail signage.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I would like to make a motion to approve the plan. and lost a floor, and there were some major changes that happened at the last hearing. That was a perfect example of a project that did require a second review as the plans were further developed. but prior to building permit. So the town's peer reviewer got an updated set of plans months after the hearing was closed, but months before the building permit submission was made. And here, as Chris alluded to, the combination of the three rounds of peer reviews, From tetra tech and from Davis where as well as the list of minor changes that are to be incorporated in the final plan that mostly I think are sprinkled throughout this, this set of conditions, but also listed pretty clearly in. I think it's section J. That's really the basis for why we felt it was appropriate. And I think, and I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but I think as a discussion with Mr. Reardon a couple of hearings ago, we were generally on the same page about that, about the plans being developed enough to not need a sort of interim step before building permit.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thanks Tim. The other thing is I scroll right here is, There was this sentence that we deleted at minimum, the plan shall be in accordance with the comments from the engineering and traffic purity consultants dated May 19, 2023. Later in the decision, there are listed conditions at section J8 about refinements to the plans that should be made. We think that's a better practice. So there's no confusion between us and the city moving forward, or as Mr. Forty is reviewing the building permit plan set in these materials, what changes were supposed to be incorporated or not. So we think that the better practice is to list out, like had started to be done, the changes to be made in the plans in J8. So that was that explanation in the margin. We referenced the Conservation Commission's review of the stormwater report as part of going to them for an order of conditions. Again, here, these are just more comments about going to the Building Commissioner for that consistency determination with the plans. Here, I'll highlight this. This was language, Mr. Chair, that you would put in the decision at the last hearing where there was mentioned to, I think it's actually NFPA, not TA. And my comment in the margin was, you know, if it's a fire safety plan required by another permitting requirement, and here I might look to Mr. Forty, but if there's a requirement to file an NFPA plan as part of a building permit plan set, I'm not sure we need that in the decision, because this is not modifying the building code. So I think, um, I wasn't quite sure what to do with this. Uh, so this is why I highlighted it, but I'm happy to pause here and see if there's any feedback about this particular clause.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I see commissioner 40 has his hand raised.
[Bill Forte]: Uh, would you like to. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Thank you. Um, so I, you know, I certainly see why you would have added this in. I know that I was jamming NFPA 2 41. down everybody's throat. That is the standard in which all construction is required to be protected. I don't believe that it's necessary to have any language in there because it is covered by the building code and it will be submitted not only as part of the construction guidelines, but also there is a potential But I think there's a there's a section in here that refers to a construction plan, which is great, because that construction plan would also include the fire safety plan. I think it would be redundant and therefore I feel so it can be removed because here again the the one hand the the one comment that I made there kind of. covers the whole thing in one big holy swoop is, you know, that nothing shall limit the authority of the building commission, but you got.
[Mike Caldera]: So I think that it's not necessary to have an FPA language. It sounds like you're aligned while we have you speaking, um, the. So there are a number of changes that basically assert that you would be the proposed changes that assert that you would be the checkpoint for various elements along the way. Do you have a position on whether the items that are coming to you for your review are reasonable, and then also specifically on this language surrounding changes to the waivers. Do you have a position on that?
[Bill Forte]: So I don't have any opinion about the waivers. That's specifically a planning board function. I would say this is that The way that that might yours truly here is mentioned in this order is actually appropriate. What will happen is when the plan does come in for a building permit, it will be circulated to the other departments and each one of those departments should be should basically just comment on, you know, what they approve during the hearing and that they refer to and follow the approved plans of the ZBA and any conditions that are there within, you know, similar to like, you know, signs and and so forth. And obviously, you know, whatever is decided with the linkage fees, those fees will probably be paid up front. you know, any of those specific things that are in the order I am required to enforce. So basically, you know, as the ZBA acts as the permit granting authority for the entire city, pretty much whatever in this order is going to be enforced. And so if there's a waiver on, you know, sewer lines, or if there's a waiver on, you know, you know, the linkage fees, or if there's a requirement for, you know, signage for traffic or whatever it might be, those things should be enumerated in the order. So I'm okay with being the enforcement authority on everything because ultimately the responsibility falls square on my shoulders. And again, with assistance from all of the various department heads that are involved, including the order itself. So the order is the order and I'm the enforcement agent for the order. So I don't know if that helps or contributes.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah, that was helpful for me. So thank you, Commissioner Fordy. Mr. Rene, do you want to continue?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Happy to, and thank you. Here, there's a comment here or on the side. There is no certificate of appeal process for an order of conditions like there is for a decision under 40A. So we're just trying to be a little bit more specific by striking that language that there is no kind of plate or repository to check that. In F, this is a pretty flat site. We will be, and Tim or Andrew can help me out here, we are excavating about half a floor of a garage, I believe, in each building. I'm guessing this is gonna be a net export site in that we won't be bringing large quantities of fill on site, maybe there'll be some topsoil that has to be brought on for planting beds. So we tried to just simplify this fill provision. But Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but this condition seemed like one that maybe for a suburban site or where there's a lot of grade change that there hadn't been a lot of pre-work already. I mean, this site already has a building on it. Yeah, that's correct, Chris.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Thank you. I see commissioner 40 has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Mr. Chair, just briefly, um, this will be a remove and replace, um, you know, the soil conditions have to be compactable grade Phil. And so there won't be any, there's really no chance of anything, uh, any kind of foreign Phil being deposited into this. It's mostly building, uh, and, and whatever's not building as roadway. And so, um, I would say that this, this statement is probably redundant, but, um, but there's no chance of anything other than clean fill being delivered to the site. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Scrolling down here is, this was a condition that was suggested about some curb modifications along the commercial street frontage. And let me see what the marginal comment. Oh, I really would, I move this. from another section. So this was language that already existed, but it seemed like it fit better in the section of the decision where we are now, which are things that have to be provided to the building commissioner together with the building permit plan set. And so this was talking about submit revised plan showing proposed curve modification. So sort of temporally in the decision, it seemed to work better here, even though there's a couple of things that would extend during the construction period about saw cutting and repairs. Those will still continue, but it seemed to work better. Here, we deleted this in I. We will have an order of conditions related to work near to the buffer area on site. And also, there's not a lot of grade here in respect of any site clearing or anything of that nature. So we thought that appropriate to delete. Here in D, we deleted this. I'll scroll over so people can see my comment. This was addressed in section C1, little A, little 2. Residential signage can be submitted at the time of the building permit. Retail signage will be submitted when tenants are identified, and we'll see that with some language later. And here again, we're just sort of clarifying this provision about how we'll work with Mr. Forty to submit the final plans with the building permit plans for review and comment as to consistency with the approved plans and the decision. Here in this language that was deleted, We have obtained a confirmation of necessary pressures and flows as we went through the process. Mr. Ford, you have your hand up, so I'll just pause. if you're looking to interject.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Rainier. Appreciate that. Mr. Chair, through you, I just wanted to be, the only thing that I would suggest for clarity here is that any of the commercial uses should be the allowed uses in the zoning district where the property lies. I didn't see that in here. And so obviously, you don't want to allow a helicopter pad where it's not allowed. And so You know, I know that it's all commercial uses. It is an industrial zoning district, correct?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: we are an industrial design.
[Bill Forte]: Okay. Yeah. So I would just say that the, the only thing, unless the board wants to give the, you know, the petitioner some latitude with what's allowed in, you know, um, because I, I, I do think that if there's anything in the industrial district that requires a special permit, such as a drive through fast food, you know, any, any one of those things that might possibly be, I think it needs to be added to the language, um, that the commercial spaces be occupied with anything that's allowed by right in the underlying district.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Rainier, I don't remember, are you requesting a waiver from the commercial use? I know it's a little complicated because it's mixed retail and commercial.
[Nicole Morell]: If I can just jump in here for the record, Louise Gianakis with Colston & Storrs. I'm just very close to the waiver, so my ears perked up upon Mr. Fordy's suggestion. In the industrial district, actually, retail is not technically allowed by right, so we have included a waiver to allow the 2,000 square feet of commercial use. So I would just be sensitive to any language in the condition to that effect.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think that we'll need some language in here for exactly that reason. But I think the macro level point of if there are certain uses that aren't really contemplated at all in Medford zoning ordinance or that are more intensive than what would be allowed in the district, that perhaps there should be language asserting that those are still not allowed. So yeah, I get the impression there's no objection to asserting that kind of more extreme uses aren't allowed. It's just there's a need to ensure that all of the likely uses that would be an appropriate use of this retail space are allowed. Is that correct?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yes, and I think we tried to have a pretty focused waiver just speaking as to retail uses. We certainly do not want to be having a helicopter pad on our property. So if necessary, we could take a look at, you know, make sure that you know, retail is inclusive of restaurant, for example, but we've already talked about how we're not gonna have a black iron pipe in a commercial kitchen, right? So, you know, maybe, in my mind, just to say it out loud, in my mind, something like a Starbucks coffee shop is more like a retail use than a restaurant use, right? And I think we've heard from Mr. Bowmer and others that we don't wanna put a commercial grade kitchen in this ground floor retail. and that would be a restaurant use. So we thought that retail was appropriately broad, but that was the way I see Ms. Hunt is shaking her head no. So maybe we haven't been broad enough. So happy to be educated.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Director Hunt, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sure, we've actually run into this very, very recently, that a residential building with a ground floor approved for retail would like to now put a coffee shop in, which does feel like an appropriate use of one of these spaces, but retail does not include coffee shops in Medford. And so they were back in front of, I thought it was the ZBA, could have been the planning board, my apologies, getting an updated, allowance to do it because we classify, we do not have a separate coffee shop. I was just calling it up to see what it is, because I do want, coffee shop feels appropriate in this space, unless the board or anybody feels differently. But for eating places, we only have eating place without drive-through and eating place with drive-through are the only things into our zoning, in our zoning table of uses. So one could imagine that you could allow an eating place per our zoning, but put language in the condition that says this is limited to a coffee shop or small something. Maybe Bill, who actually enforces this, would say what that is and is not to include a commercial kitchen. But retail has definitely not been interpreted as a coffee shop in Medford.
[Mike Caldera]: We did talk through some proposed language with the applicant last meeting on this. And yeah, so I think there may be a way to use that language, which already was clear about the commercial kitchen, and then just make sure that the waivers being requested include, I guess it would be the eatery without drive-through.
[Unidentified]: So that way, that that use is also
[Bill Forte]: Jeff, so in addition to that, we also have some of the items that might be excuse me, allowed in a commercial one zoning district or, you know, the typical commercial and retail uses that you might see require a special permit. And I don't think that the special permit requirement can be waived. with a 40 B because it's too broad. Um, I think if the applicant put together a list of, you know, a wish list of all the things that they could possibly want in their building and possibly not want, um, you know, I think it would be, I think it would, it would be beneficial, um, not only to the city's interest, but for the perpetuity of the, of the order, because here again, you know, these projects sometimes get sold. I'm not saying it's happening here. But these projects can be sold and new owners have new ideas. And we want to make sure that it's memorialized in stone, that there are limits to whatever commercial space is below on the ground level. I just think it's prudent to at least have some parameters where these are the uses that are allowed. No uses by special permit will be allowed without going through the permit granting authority that's appropriate. And, you know, I think even with the signage, you know, there can be a certain amount of square foot signage that's allowed, you know, by right with the project, you know, provided that it meets all the requirements. And so that's kind of what I'd like to see with this commercial tenant space, you know, that somehow is, you know, has some parameters. Go ahead, please.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry, you go.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I was just gonna say to that point, I'm wondering, so as I understand it, so say we were to either not address it at all in the decision or put in language asserting that use is permitted by requiring a special permit or not allowed and would basically require going back before the special permit. My understanding is the applicant would then, if that was the decision, would then have two avenues at their disposal. They could, once the commercial use is identified, go through that process outside of the comprehensive permit process, or they could come back for that specific element. So I just wanted to check in with the applicant if, you would have concerns with language, just asserting that essentially, like based on what we know right now, this commercial use is expected to either be a by right use within a district or one of, explicitly listed set of uses that are not allowed within the district that we know might be good candidates. And everything else would just be, there would be language asserting that, hey, this does require you to go before the SPGA and then at the relevant time when you have a tenant in mind, you would then make a call, okay, do I go before the SPGA or do I go back before the Zoning Board of Appeals with an update of the comprehensive permit? So I just wanted to check in with you for your thoughts on that.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, thank you. And I took this time just to pull out my now dog-eared copy of the zoning ordinance. I think just to step back in the Wayback Machine a little bit, This commercial square footage was requested that Mill Creek put this in. This was not part of the original filing. There was a desire by the community to have some activated retail frontage. So we agreed to include that in the project. So I think that's an important piece of context here. Two, in a 40B, there can be some incidental retail, but that doesn't send us to a community development board or other permit granting authority. Everything is done in the comp permit. What we had done in our original waiver list, and it's on page two of the waiver list, where we intentionally stayed a bit broad. We had been asked by the city to put some ground floor retail on the project. So we included a broad waiver allowing retail uses And we called it commercial slash retail. We don't know what that use will be. But we were not asking for a marijuana use. We were not asking for a paranormal service and sales use. We were not asking for a body art establishment. We were asking for those traditional types of retail uses. And so we If the city wants us to put ground floor retail in the ground floor there, we do need some flexibility to be able to go and talk to tenants. It's a difficult leasing market, as I'm sure everyone knows. And in order to be flexible, in order to be nimble in talking to tenants for the small space, we need to have some buckets of uses that we can have allowed. So what we could do, I think, is we could talk about a waiver to allow Retail sales, that's in use. Convenience retail, neighborhood retail. I don't know, Alicia, what a commercial service establishment is, if that's like a yoga store, not store, yoga studio. And then we could talk about an eating place without a drive-thru, because our project isn't set up for a drive-thru, so we don't need a drive-thru. But if a coffee shop is an eating place without a drive-thru, then yes, So I think with a relatively light pen, we could add four similar uses to retail to our waiver list. Right now we've got retail, which is the retail sales are here. We could do convenience retail, neighborhood retail. I could look at the definitions to what a consumer service establishment is. And then I think we should do meeting place without drive-through. I think that's the way to deal with this, to give the applicant the ability to lease up, but also keep a relatively restricted use. In that case, for example, we haven't listed a motor vehicle light service station as something that's being waived. So that can't be a use, right? So it's only the stuff that we've listed and we're not trying to do a drive-through, we're not trying to do a marijuana establishment, we're not trying to do a body art establishment. I think that's probably a good way of moving forward.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, Chris, if I, if I might, I think that this is a great discussion to have. I appreciate the building commissioner bringing it up. But the good news is. I think it sounds like the board and the applicant are on the same page, right? We know we want a complimentary use that serves both the community we're going to build plus the broader neighborhood. We don't want nuisance type uses. And I think to Chris's point, there are specific use types within the ordinance we can add to the waiver list. There's language proposed, as we already referenced, within the conditions here commercial kitchen, that type of infrastructure. And I think just on the third thing on top of that is the fact that we're talking about 2000 square feet, which, you know, is enough to have one to two good sized users, but not enough to, you know, really open up the user pool to a lot of the other types that we might not want. I think a combination of the waiver language, the conditions as drafted, and just the size and design, or lack thereof design, within the approved plans, capital A, capital P, should get us to the right spot.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. Yeah, this is a Good discussion. Okay, Bill, do you wanna say something else?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so the caveat here is that they're gonna have to apply for a building permit for the fit out of that space no matter what. And so we can have a substantive discussion. I just wanted to make sure that we covered our bases there. And obviously, this tenant or this proposed developer is probably not going to want a tattoo, establishment or a paranormal establishment or some of the other things that require a secondhand dealer's license, probably not likely in a building like this. But again, I just wanted to make sure that the language was clear enough that I don't want them to have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals because we left something out. So that's my whole drive here.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And we're very appreciative, because I think it's, in addition to strengthening the decision, it's ferreted out that a coffee shop is called an eating place without drive-through. And I think we were hopeful that we could locate a coffee shop in there. So that was a great catch, and we appreciate that. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this has been a good discussion. What I'm hearing is that the applicants agreeable to review the use table and just list off everything that you consider that you want to be able to market this for. And then I think the board also wants you to have that flexibility to find it find a renter for that space. So yeah, the only thing I'll call out, I guess there is a slight downside to this. I mean, I think it's the right way to go. So the downside would be if the use table changes, if new uses are introduced, then suddenly there's a restriction that maybe doesn't need to be there. But then on the flip side, if uses are added and we use language in the negative rather than the positive, creates a bunch of loopholes. So I think the best strategy is just go with a broad but credible list of uses that you want to market this commercial space for, and then the board will review that list at the appropriate time. And if for some reason we take issue with particular uses, we can discuss that. But yeah, I think we have a plan. So thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: That's great. Thank you. Would you like me to go back to going through the decision? Yes, please. Okay, great. So we talked about how we have confirmed the pressure flows. Let's see what this marginal comment about. Yeah, so section, so this was saying here in the building permit section, comply with all applicable conditions in section H below. That might've just been a typo, Section eight has construction and completion requirements, and we're in the sort of the building permit issuance section. So we deleted that just for consistency. And then this next comment, which sets off C3, I'll scroll up here. Now we're in the prior to issuance of a CO part of a project. We just got done with prior to issuance of a building permit. Now we're prior to issuance of a CO in this. Most of our changes is to address the anticipated phased occupancy that's been discussed with Mr. Forty. So, you know, we go through here, there's some cleanup changes, you know, for example, Medford's got sewer, not septic. And we've got those documents. And then as we get into, as we are getting ready for our CO, submitting as-built plans of materials, And one of the changes that we have here is, you know, the CONCOM will approve the stormwater management as well through the Wetlands Protection Act review. But to give us a little bit of time around when we're getting the COs to be able to prepare the as-built plans within 120 day window, to submit those to the board for the records going forward. So that is changed to include when the as-built plans will be provided has been made in a few locations. This deleted language I talked about earlier, this was just moved up. It was not deleted, it was just moved, but it shows as a deletion. And then here we've got the phased certificates of occupancy we just talked about in C3. We're now in C4, which is part issuance of the final CO for the project for the last building to be constructed. Here's our comments about as-built plan timing. The lighter blue language, I believe was Mr. Forty's, so we did not change that. Here again, just talking a little bit more about how our civil engineer will be working on the stormwater management plan that will be reviewed by the Medford Conservation Commission, so simplifying some of that process. And again, given the peer reviews we've provided for the project civil engineer to provide some of these confirmations and sign-offs in the future around the CO. Now we get down to project design and construction. And this was mentioned earlier by Mr. Forti about the NFPA plan. Here's where we come up with our construction management plan. And these are the materials that will be developed and prepared and submitted to the building commissioner. Here we're talking about construction, and where we've provided here is that we will load on the site and we won't park off the site unless approved by applicable authorities. And so that would be a future-oriented approval that we would have to seek, not done right now. Just a clarification of noise, because this section is talking about noise, otherwise that was not touched. Here for site utilities, site utilities, including all of these various lines, shall be located underground on the project site, which we agreed to. But to the extent that someone thought that a transformer, for example, was a site utility, we did add that language, except it showed on the approved plans, because we do have some of that utility type infrastructure located at grade, as oftentimes the utility companies want. Here we've added some language. This is the, when and what days can we do our construction? And we added that the building inspector, or I'm sorry, I should have said building commissioner, but building commissioner may give us some flexibility as to days of construction. And I see that the building commissioner has got his hand up, so I'll pause.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. So I don't know that this is within my authority. I mean, it can be by order. I don't know if I want that responsibility. You know, I'm not, you know, I'm certainly not afraid to assert my authority in a lot of different ways. But here, this is a city ordinance that requires a waiver by the police chief. I think that the police chief enforces the noise ordinance. So if somebody is getting too loud and obnoxious, I'm pretty sure that it's within his authority. I don't mind being the one who requested for the applicant, but there should be another mechanism besides myself, even if that person is the mayor. So it's a big decision. I wouldn't wanna insult anyone by working on a holiday that otherwise might mean something to someone. I think it requires more than just my hand here. So I'm gonna suggest that we add the police chief to this at minimum.
[Mike Caldera]: And Bill, just to be clear, so this would be replacing you with the police chief?
[Bill Forte]: You can add you can add me at the building inspector and the police chief. So first, the request has to be justified by me like, hey, we got a concrete floor, we got to start at four in the morning, right? That's something that's acceptable. I mean, you guys might be porn. literally might be pouring 600 yards in a day. I mean, the trucks are backed up out on the street at 2am, right? So something like that would be conceivable. That would be something that I would say to the police chief, hey, you know, these guys can't possibly get this much concrete down in a single eight hour day. And obviously, they have to work 16 hours, you know, those are the kinds of exceptions when you get a project this large, and I would like to have the assistance and the authority of the police chief who was responsible for keeping the peace in the city. So I think that both of us should make this determination together. Thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Gosh, I can't time tonight. So I think, Mr. Fortes, you're talking, actually, you had a great comment about, I realized that this sentence was just talking about days. but earlier this section talks about hours. So what I did, I think, and you're the great example about maybe there's a long course of concrete where we need to maybe start a little bit earlier or go a little bit later. So I added no work shall be conducted outside the foregoing hours, which picks up this or on these various days, except as may be permitted by the building inspector and police chief. So capture what you're,
[Bill Forte]: That looks great to me. Yep. And I'm in agreement with that. Thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Here, we deleted this. I mean, because this language about the security fencing and security narrative is in D1, which is where the construction management plan is. So we're just putting all that in one place. Here we do. talk about retaining and need walls in our waiver list. And so we've just specified what those walls are here. Here, this was language that in the light blue again was I believe Mr. Forty's original language. And so we added was for the portion to be occupied. Again, just talking about that phased occupancy.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. chair, just real quick. Um, I think that that's a good addition to this. Um, yeah, the portion of the occupied, that's just a cleanup Senate. So it doesn't, it doesn't broaden anything that I put here or reduce anything. So thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Um, here, I think Mr. Alexander's talked about, you know, we're going to take a real hard look at building utilities. Uh, and Um, you know, maybe going through processes that or code changes that result in the building being all electric, but that hasn't been decided yet. Um, and so we changed this from a requirement to an encourage to design all buildings to utilize electric utilities or recognizing that, uh, fossil fuel power is necessary for the project's emergency generators. I don't know off the top of my head whether It's going to be natural gas or diesel for emergency generators, but that is common that there's a backup source of power for a building of this type. Next, we jump up to rooftop mechanicals, and we just try to tighten this up a little bit, that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be installed to not be visible from the ground approximate to the project, or shall be screened from view of the public if necessary to not be visible. We're not a lab project, and you guys may be familiar with lab projects that have very, very tall rooftop mechanicals. We'll have relatively modest rooftop mechanicals, and they are typically located, and Andrew, feel free to jump in as I pretend I'm an architect, but they're typically located along the hallways, and so we can run our vertical chases for the heating and cooling lines for those units so that the rooftop mechanicals tend to be inset from the edge and kind of tracking where the hallways are. And so we do have a roof plan in our approved plans that we've submitted to you. And that is what it's shown as the short rooftop mechanicals sort of centrally located. But I'll let our architect see how well I did pretending to be an architect. How'd I do, Andrew?
[SPEAKER_02]: Pretty good, you could be in a mechanical engineer as well. I did take a look at the other, you know, nearby five story projects and it'll be very similar to that setup with the, you know, similar type of mechanical systems on the roof and we're not able to see those mechanical systems or the mechanical units on those. project. So I don't we don't expect or anticipate an issue here. I do like the language of proximate I did have a 40 B project where about a quarter mile away you could you could see the equipment but obviously you'd really have to strain and really try to really try to make it out. So I thought that was a sort of an unfair condition where we had to wind up putting it on later. I think it's reasonable language here. I think it's good language. And like I said, we're not expecting to have any issues based on this being an eight story building.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. This language that is new is this is racketed comment that was from the last hearing is a request to submit the final TDM plan. So we just flesh that out a little bit more. Here's just some cleanup that the internal roadways to each building shall be designed and constructed as depicted on the approved plans. We weren't sure exactly what the city construction standards were in respective of this, but we know we've been peer reviewed pretty extensively in terms of with some materials and whatnot, so we thought it'd be good to link the construction to what is shown on the approved plans. Same thing here with maintaining site distance at the entrances by limiting and trimming vegetation. In E6, this is our central access drive, which we spent some time talking about, both about how the one-way approach as you're coming from, I guess, westbound line up better. And Tim, jump in here if I'm getting my directions of travel wrong. We did talk about clarifying some language there consistent with the approved plans. And then there was some talk at the last hearing about uh, exploring some ground mounted or painted traffic, common murals, artistic elements to delineate the travel way transition. Um, and, and, uh, we just wanted to make sure that we had some flexibility. If that type of surface treatment was recommended and approved by the project's traffic engineer, Vanessa and associates and the city's transportation department. So We were trying to carry forward that intent, but just, you know, make sure that we had the traffic professional sign off on the appropriateness. Here was clarifying that the surface parking area adjacent to Mystic Valley Parkway is to be the one that's signed for short-term retail parking only, and that we will also delineate short-term parking spaces will be clearly indicated by signage as depicted on the final plans. This was a bracketed comment from the last hearing that was just carried forward into some fleshed out expanded language. This is actually the E9 is the condition that Tim mentioned earlier about the need that there might be to modify some waivers to address some conditions. So the sidewalk to be, the sidewalk today does not extend along the building frontage on Mystic Valley Parkway, on the backside of a parking lot of Mystic Valley Parkway. That sidewalk is to be installed per a later condition. And that would then be obstructed by a proposed bike rack, which will probably have to be moved inboard or outside of that sidewalk area so there's no conflict. So that is, carrying forward the interrelation of Condition E9 with Condition J8A. Here we also carried forward and to specify that these bollards will be installed along the surface parking area fronting on Mystic Valley Parkway. Again, this is the bollards that are protected to be installed sidewalk that will be in the back of that parking area. Here in E11 is where we talk about what we talked last hearing about how should the needs or should the use of the bike parking warrant, we will expand the bicycle storage rooms. And we discussed that there are locations on the third level of each garage directly above the room that's being programmed and built out with the project that can be secondary or additional bike storage rooms. This was carried forward the conversation from last evening. Um, let's see F1, right? This is the, um, fire truck turning radius, uh, radii plans. Those have already been provided. So we deleted that. Um, in F4, this is the area that we've had some conversations with board members about providing appropriate lighting and security measures along the internal sidewalk located north of building two, which security measures may include surveillance cameras and or signage. Unfortunately, our landscape architect couldn't attend tonight, but he has talked about how there will be tasteful lighting here to make this area feel safe. There will be units that will have windows looking out on the space, but we've also talked with, and Tim has committed that there'll be security measures. And as that's designed and built out, those could include surveillance cameras or signage. We've talked about how storm water management will be as required by the order of conditions. And that will really stand as its own permit, which was this deletion here. And then we get into completion of infrastructure. Here we say if the applicant desires to obtain a certificate of occupancy before completion of the final infrastructure. And final infrastructure is defined below. I'll just scroll down. The final infrastructure includes intermediate and final course of pavement, remaining landscaping, and any punch list items. So this is typically in a project, you know, you're trying to go for your certificate of occupancy and you're going for your certificate of occupancy and it's December and you haven't put a tree in the ground and you can't put a tree in the ground in December. And so you would post security in order to allow you to get your certificate of occupancy, but there's necessary security to secure the installation of that tree later. So these are those changes are to provide for that type of eventuality. We'll talk about linkage after I get done running through this. I promise I'm almost done. Here, we had a placeholder in the prior decision that was circulated about providing a description of the offsite improvements. So we carried this forward from our traffic engineer's traffic consultant. So the prior issuance of the final CO will install the following offsite improvements at the commercial and Mystic Valley Parkway intersection. subject to the approval of MassDOT because it's intersections under their jurisdiction. We anticipate this will include wheelchair ramp reconstruction, providing separate ramps for each crossing with detectable warning panels. Pedestrian signal indications will be replaced with countdown type displays. Pedestrian push buttons and accompanying signs will be replaced. Crosswalk pavement markings will be replaced. and the pedestrian crossing intervals will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. And what intervals means is our people today provided five seconds to get across Mystic Valley Park, where they provided five minutes. And let's make sure that's an appropriate interval so people can cross safely. Here, we tried to tighten up a little bit the condition about the play space in the North Courtyard. And so, as written it now says, the North Courtyard shall designate active play space areas for younger children. The applicant shall maintain flexible play equipment or materials for use within the proposed North Courtyard. I think that's consistent with how we discussed, there'll be materials that can be brought in and out, there'll be areas set aside. Here, we know there's a lot of discussion about charging of personal transportation vehicles, and that there was a comment Let's not just think about e-bikes, but other scooters or other electronic equipment, transportation equipment. So what we said was that you cannot charge that type of equipment in apartments. And that charging for those types of equipment will be provided in the type one rated portion of the parking garage. And Mill Creek will carry forward this prohibition in each rental agreement. What we did do is carve out is for mobility equipment required by disabled individuals, such as motorized wheelchairs or scooters. We want them to be able to charge those in their units. And I'm sure the board does as well.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Chris, I'm just looking at that just now and realizing it prohibits charging, but it also prohibits storage of those electric, you know, e-bikes or whatnot in an apartment unit as well, right? I mean, that's the whole idea, whether it's charged there or whether it's stored there, we don't want to risk anything in the residential levels.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Do you think I should add in storage here, right, where my cursor is? Yeah, charging or storage. That's my thought. Does that work for the board, Mr. Forty?
[Bill Forte]: Okay, yeah, that looks that looks that actually would be 1 thing obviously we would give, you know, exception to under 521. CMR, the architectural access board regulations, you couldn't create a, you couldn't create a regulation that wouldn't allow someone to charge a, you know, a vehicle or a device used for disability.
[Mike Caldera]: So, thank you. But yeah, just to the question, I do think the addition of the ore storage is important because, you know, based on the safety concerns raised, it's not just charging. Charging might make it more likely to happen, but it goes beyond that. So I'm supportive of the change.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. Here we're just clarifying we are going to do I&I removal. So that's the requirements in effect as the day of the application. And then this is JD. This is earlier where I was talking about if there are specific revisions to the approved plans as they advance into the final plans. And the final plans, just to remind folks, the final plans are those that will be presented with the building permit plan set. So these were carry forwards. The gap in the sidewalk between the accessible ramp at the southeast corner of building one and the section of sidewalk serving the entrances shall be eliminated by connecting the walkways. We talked about that above. That's that new sidewalk. And today there's a, you know, a bike rack there that's gonna have to be moved. So there's that new sidewalk that will be installed or some landscaping right now. This is the parking spaces in front of building one adjacent to the parkway. we'll have a different angled curb. CB5, I believe CB5 is an acronym for catch basin, but I'll stand corrected, but we just added catch basin CB5.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: And Chris, if I might, this list, A through G, are the specific comments in the last or comments for plan changes. So that's why let's list them here. We'll get them incorporated in the final plans. And obviously the permit will sort of condition it on that. Yeah.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. That's where these came from, that's all. And one of the other things that was there is the desire to see streetlights be located along the project side of Commercial Street. We've spoken with our engineer and we think that, you know, that frontage could maybe accommodate up to six. So we just wanted to be more specific. Down at J9, this is the condition we discussed in the last hearing, that the interior amenity areas not include a commercial kitchen, grease trap, or black iron vent for cooking. And then the next, In J10, and we may want to discuss this a little bit.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sorry to interrupt. I just caught another thing here in real time. But it's not just the proposed interior amenity area, but I think also the proposed commercial space. That was really Mr. Bowmer's intent, is to make sure that the retail slash commercial space doesn't have a commercial kitchen.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: So I think both would be appropriate. OK. I just made that change. So we may want to discuss this, because this is some new language that people hadn't seen. There was some talk of this at the last hearing. So we've committed to a public parklet at the corner of Commercial and Mystic Valley Parkway that will really provide a nice moment of respite for people coming back and forth on Mystic Valley Parkway and back and forth across Mystic Valley Parkway. And we also have a spot for a mural on the building. And we've talked about some public art perhaps with some historical materials being installed in those areas. And there is some thought about developing that content and consultation with various groups that are listed here. And that, you know, we'll review that content that those narratives potentially with those above organizations. I just wanted to ask the question, make sure that we're striking the right balance here. We're not being too prescriptive in terms of content. Sometimes that can be in the eye of the beholder. So I just wanted to make sure that I captured the discussion from the last hearing correctly.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so to that point, Chris, so to the latter element, I think you did capture the discussion correctly, the specific language, you know, as a board, we haven't really been engaging in a lot of back and forth debate on some of these things. And so I haven't as chair weighed in on this. I think that there's probably better language to use, but frankly, I don't know as of today what that language would be. And so I did reach out recently, hasn't really been enough time for a response, but to the city's director of diversity, equity and inclusion to describe the high level idea and to get some recommended language for this. So I think the intention is clear and I think that There are certainly members of the board who are amenable to this. sort of idea. I think that when we get to the level of language, it's going to be included in a legal decision rendered. There's not only the sort of legal review, there's also just the review for very, you know, precisely worded statements. And so, so yeah, I'm not convinced that what we see here is our end language. I do have an open inquiry into the city's Department of Diversity to see if they have any suggestions for how to revise this language. And so, yeah, I intend to, at the time the board is discussing the language, I expect we will have that clarity from city staff and then we can, you know, do with it as we will. But just wanted to let you know in advance that that is an item that's still outstanding. And as a board, we haven't discussed this exact language. And so there's a possibility it would change in deliberations.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that Director Hunt got a chat with us.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm sorry. Andre wanted to say something.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah I just wanted to say I mean, you know, I know that I suggested some of this language, so I'm fine with what I see here. I think it's not too prescriptive and sort of indicates a couple of key players and says as appropriate. I think what what Chris was about to say is that director hunt also included some language in their referencing the Medford Arts Council, which again is fine by me. And if there are other revisions, that's fine. don't think it's helpful to have like a laundry list of organizations. I think that, you know, the intent is pretty clear here. But thank you. Thank you.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Mr. So here in J 11, we did check with our landscape architect and this language about Installing landscaping outside of the area is subject to CONCOM jurisdiction, because we fully expect that they'll have thoughts about what we plant in areas of their jurisdiction. This was his suggested language. We'll include a biodiverse palette of adapted and or native species. And that's a mouthful, but as I understand it, what that means is there are some adaptive species that do well, perhaps along a busy roadway where they're subject to salt spray. vehicular exhausts and things of that nature. So we want our landscaping to be as healthy and thrive as best possible. And so this is language that Rob Adams suggested that we insert to give him that optionality. The next is, we talked a little bit at the last hearing about a blue bike station. And so J-12 is that the applicant will pursue the installation of a blue bike station in the area of the project site Or alternatively, if a blue bike station can be incorporated on the project site, the applicant will incorporate such station, and the board will grant such necessary waivers or modify waivers, such as for landscape area, as an insubstantial change is provided in the 40B regulations. And the reason for that is if we, that may want to, that blue bike station may want to be on a landscaped area that's, inboard of our sidewalk that's going to be along the front of building one along Mystic Valley Parkway. There's a small landscaped area. It may make sense if that's where the Blue Bikes people, if they want us to put a station on our site, it would probably go there and that would affect our landscaped area calculation. Moving on to J13. Earlier I talked about how retail- Sorry, Chris. I just want to say thank you for including this language.
[Andre Leroux]: Appreciate it.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. J13, so we just talked about how signage plan for retail signage will be provided when retail tenants are identified. What we'll have to do, I won't do it right now because I'll do it poorly, but I will probably expand that could not just be retail, because we talked earlier about how we'll expand that list of uses. But so maybe I'll talk about ground floor commercial tenants are identified, will provide plans, signage plans conforming to applicable ordinances, unless specifically waived herein or as approved by the board in a future waiver request or future change request. So, and then, These are just two notes that the black iron fan was covered earlier, and that the solar condition is addressed in the waivers list. So with apologies for, hope I didn't put anyone to sleep. Those are the waivers, I'm not sorry waivers, those are the conditions. And hopefully that's helpful for us to talk that through. It's certainly been helpful for us. I know we noticed, for example, the hours of construction. We need to add the police chief to that. The need to be more specific with our ground floor commercial uses. So I appreciate the board's attention and input tonight. Because again, we made these conditions better through this work tonight. But that's what I've got on the conditions. Happy to answer any questions. I'm sure Tim is as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. Thank you. What questions do we have from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I just want to say I think this looks good and is kind of a represents a culmination of what we've been working on for all these weeks. So thank you for everybody for all the effort you put in.
[Unidentified]: Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so I want to echo Andre sentiments. I appreciate all the work that went into this. Um, I do see every meeting. So this one, we're talking about the conditions, but every meeting, you know, we have been making headway, uh, in partnership together. And so certainly appreciate the partnership there. Um, the couple, so I had one. for two clarifying questions on this list that we haven't talked through yet. So on the Davis Square Architect suggested condition that the heat and hot water outside of the emergency generator, not the fossil fuel based systems. You mentioned that you're proposing to change that to language, essentially to explore that or to try to do that. Is there, I'm just looking for additional details on kind of what the high-level concern is with wholesale adoption of the condition? Is it that it's beyond building code, that it's unknown cost? Is it something else?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I see Director Hunt has her hand raised, but I can go first or second. Go ahead, Mr. Alexander. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think it's probably not – it may be – I don't want to say the opposite, but it's slightly different. And what I think is actually that D13, as was originally written, in today's reality is likely sort of duplicative or unnecessary. team. So the new code that was adopted in the beginning of this year and will be implemented at the beginning of next year, I want to say for all intents and purposes already requires this, already requires electric utilities for residential heat and hot water. So the combination of that plus the fact that the project will be going through a MEPA environmental review, which has, in my experience and our experience, a very detailed review from the Department of Energy resources, it will also be You know, again, I don't want to say it's 100%, but it's probably pretty close to 100% certainty that this project will already be electric, heat, and hot water. So I don't know if Cliff or Andrew have other thoughts on that, but that, you know, I don't think we need to go around, you know, too detailed in terms of how this language is written or if it's included at all, quite frankly, given the other facts, both in building code and in the state environmental review that we're going to undertake.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I just want to check in with Director Hunt first and then we can go to Mr. Brommer and Mr. Stephan.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to add that it's fairly standard to include fossil fuels for emergency generators simply because they're used when electricity is out. And so the idea being that you have some other way of providing power. So usually it would be onsite diesel, natural gas. It's funny, natural gas is actually more reliable in an extreme emergency, but usually diesel or oil is what one would expect for an emergency generator. I just thought I'd share that, that it's not a cop-out, it's actually you need that. The alternative is solar with battery storage, which is, I've been trying to get that done for six years in Medford, it's really hard.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, yeah, so the question wasn't so much about the exception for emergency generation, it was the switching from shall language to something a little bit more flexible.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Mr. Boehmer, do you have anything you'd like to say on this matter?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, and I'd appreciate Andrew weighing in as well, but I think even if Medford did do the opt-in code, which is some more of the really juiced up version of the new code, I don't think that would actually necessarily require going all electric. My understanding of that code is that the thrust of it is really more on efficiency, air sealing, which is why the opt-in requires at least a passive house pre-certification process. I think you actually can, even under the new code, still use at least natural gas. So the reason that I was suggesting and others do is it's really just the way the world is going now and many communities in Massachusetts are already requiring the all electric with the exception of backup power.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Mr. Stebbins, anything you'd like to add?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, I agree with Mr. Bowmer. The way the code is to be set up is that there's actually a penalty if you use fossil fuels, your HRS rating, which is a rating of, it's sort of a calculated rating of your performance per unit. If you utilize gas in a project, you need to provide a more efficient building than if you're providing all electric and that's, set up to sort of encourage conversion to all electric. So that's my understanding of the current low-rise residential code and the upcoming, shortly here, the multi-rise code. So not a complete exclusion, so.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And I saw Commissioner Forty raised his hand.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I was just going to echo the both of the previous two gentlemen that, yes, they incentivize a higher rating, which is a worse energy code rating for using fossil fuels. So so I mean, for using electric, they allow a higher rating for electric appliances because you're actually you're actually going more green, the more green direction. when you use fossil fuels, your HRS rating requirement goes way down, which is more energy efficient and more tighter air sealing and all of the other R factor requirements tend to increase. So that's kind of the way it is. So the code will kind of dictate what this building is gonna look like. And I got a feeling that it's going all electric. I think by the time this permit rolls around, I think we're gonna be well into the new energy code and possibly into our specialized stretch energy code. So that's it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Mr. Alexander, anything you wanted to add?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, no, I appreciate all those, you know, the folks who are closer to it than I am and have better detail, but I think we're in agreement that it's, like you said, a very high percentage that all electric utilities will be required both by code and a couple other reasons. The only reason I think, you know, I'm just not sure about the appropriateness of this language in this condition, and I only say that because the The I know and through, you know, and Andrew and Cliff and others have had probably many more discussions, but the discussions I've had about the new code a what's been adopted and what's already been implemented. is that the mechanical electrical plumbing world is working hard to adjust and really clarify what this means. And I think because of that, there are going to be some changes to the technology that are coming forth that we just may not know about yet. And so I just think that, you know, Having the flexibility to be code compliant is probably important to us, as the code is changing pretty fast. And I know that the real practical world, the design world and the construction world, is working hard to keep up.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Thank you. So then I'm going to move on to my other question. It's about two areas referenced in the text. And as Mr. Rainier was going through them, sounded like the intention on both of these was to clean up the language, but not having really done all of the mapping in my head and sort of cross referencing and so on. I just want to clarify. So on the snow removal, so as I understood the intent of the updated condition A11, it's to essentially acknowledge that snow is really not gonna be stored on property for more than 24 hours. So in the case of a snow event, the accumulated snow is gonna be removed. My clarifying question I guess is more related to short term storage is the reason why the shall be stored within areas of the site designated on the final plans. Why that's completely struck through is because there are no areas designated. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what would happen in the first few hours after a snow event. Where would we expect that snow to be staged?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can take this, Chris, if that's OK. I think, Mr. Chair, your suggestion or your question is a good one. I think that the final plans can show. So I think what we were worried about is that the approved plans did not show anything or did not show a specific snow storage area because we knew that snow was going to be removed within 24 hours. We can show an area on the final plans if needed. I know Mr. Reardon had identified that the expanded sort of short term loading unloading is probably the most appropriate area. But, you know, taking one step back and the reason that we, we, in our initial revision here struck that is because It felt like us or feels to us like a type of provision that shows up on a 10 plus acre site with big surface parking lots where snow storage does become a real sort of operations and management issue. Not that it's not important here, but I think there are certain applicable to. But I think we can modify this to say that a final plan will show us the temporary snow storage area with the knowledge that it will be taken off site within 24 hours if it hasn't melted.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, my opinion on the matter, that would be helpful. I'm going through the list of things and I'm thinking to myself, okay, great, these are all things where we wouldn't want to stage snow, but It's hard for me to wrap my head around what's omitted. So where is it going to go? I think just having on the plans clarity as to where the snow would be temporarily staged would be helpful. Cool. And then, so I guess still part of this question, but different section, I was just a little unclear on D9. So that condition was completely strike struck and the explanation was that, well, this will be in the construction management plan. So the part I'm unclear on is, is there a commitment or just a general expectation in the construction management plan that, in fact, the security fencing would be maintained in accordance with the state building code? I'm assuming you have to comply no matter what. So I guess in that sense, it's just a unnecessary sentence. Is that the reason why it's removed?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: That was our thinking, yes. And I can put it up on the screen. Would you like me to put the decision back up, Mr. Chair, just so we could look at it?
[Mike Caldera]: It's a small enough question. I'm okay not putting it up. So just for the benefit of everyone watching though. So D nine as originally written and the proposal is to remove it completely is construction security fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the state building code. The petitioner will submit a security narrative to the building commissioner for approval in consultation with the fire chief and the police chief. Yeah, and so my question specifically about that first sentence that the removal of this requirement that it shall be maintained in accordance with the state building code. And if I understood you correctly, Mr. Rainier, the thought is, well, you have to comply with that anyway, so we don't need a sentence for that in the conditions, is that right?
[Bill Forte]: Correct. Right. So NFPA 241 requires a barrier around the entire job site. So that wouldn't be that really wouldn't be the crux of what I added here. I actually added that language in with consultation with the fire police chief, the police chief. said to me, he says, why are you involving me? I'm not a security expert, but criminal trespass is criminal trespass. And so, it would be basically just a review by both the fire chief and the police chief to say, hey, this is fine. There's no, I don't see any issues here, but it would all fall under an FPA 241. That is a requirement in there. And so, especially large wood frame projects over 40 feet would definitely be the classification as well.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And I think our thinking there was D1, the construction management plan does require and provide specifically for site security. And so we just talked about how the NFPA plan will be provided under the building code. And then when Mr. Forty reviews the site security plan, of course he can consult with the fire chief and the police chief. I don't, I mean, that can just happen. I'm not sure it needs to be said. are thought that the CMP plan in D1 includes details about site security, and that would capture those elements there.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, and I only added those things in because if I get run over by a bus tomorrow and I never issue a permit for this, I want to make sure the next guy does. I know it sounds funny, but it's just the way it is.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. And then, so I have one more question, but it's for Mr. Reardon. So Mr. Reardon, there's a couple of spots, the edited conditions where the applicant is proposing that the project engineer rather than the peer review engineer, you weigh in on certain things. So did you have a position on that modification based on the level of peer review done so far?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I saw those changes and I think those are fine. I'd just maybe add that provide an affidavit certifying it's compliance.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. What other questions do we have coming forward?
[Bill Forte]: Commissioner Fordy. Mister chair just a comment on what I didn't see on the order and miss Barrett can probably speak to this better than I can but usually there's an order either a consent or a an approval of the housing inventory plan that's provided by the DCHD and that agreement should be signed by the DCHD before any certificates of occupancy or are issued even in part And I didn't see any language in there but it should be a requirement in the order that the order or the approval from the DCHD be recorded at the registry of deeds prior to any issuance of certificates of occupancy. And if you look at the way that 760 CMR is divided up, it says that even in part when there's a partial issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the number of affordable units have to be equivalent to the 25%. I know in there it says 10%, but here I believe it's 25% that are affordable. And so I just didn't see any language in there and I just wanted to bring it up to see what either Ms. Barrett thought or what the board thinks. Thank you.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So Bill, usually what I see is the requirement to make sure that the regulatory agreement is recorded with the registry before the building permit is issued. So I'm not aware of anything else that ties from DHCD or from mass housing to anything else after that, because that really is the sort of document that locks in the applicant's obligations to provide the affordable units, et cetera. So I'm not sure.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. And I think here, because we have a planning department that's going to continually enforce it in perpetuity, there's probably not a need for it. I know in Waltham, I had three of them and they all had to have the order, the approval from the DCHD on the final floor plan showing the affordable units as recorded as approved. And so I just wasn't sure if that was appropriate here. So.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So are the, are the rental units going to float the affordable units? Are you going to float them?
[Bill Forte]: I think that was the intention. Yes.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I mean, that's really what I see usually.
[Bill Forte]: Right. So there's no permanent floor plan.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, exactly.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Okay. All right.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And we do have in see to little see an obligation prior to issuance of any building permits the applicant shall and E2, little C, submit to the city a certified copy of the regulatory agreement and monitoring services agreement for the project. It goes on to say we have to execute and record that.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I see Director Hunt has her hand raised.
[Alicia Hunt]: They've probably sort of covered it, but I just thought it would be helpful for the board to know that my office so typically and I don't know if this would be an individual for large projects some I sign off I'm one of the signatories on an occupancy permit to make sure that all the conditions have been met that were issued during the various boards meetings. And we do monitor all our affordable housing units regularly. I like it that it occurs annually. It did not occur annually before I took over our office, but we do monitor them. So even if things slip, we get them back caught up within the year. So in the big picture, I don't know if it's necessary, but I guess it's perhaps useful, Judy, for us to understand that the way our process usually goes for who signs occupancy permits, I would assume that we would still have all the same usual signatories to an occupancy permit, just like we do for a building permit. I don't know why you wouldn't. Right. City engineer signs, health department fire, I sign. So that is part of our standard process.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Any other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Not seeing any. So I think we may end up coming back to this as we discuss kind of next steps. One thing I do just want to mention is that the board has not yet received an opinion from City Legal on some of the proposed changes. And also, as we noticed going through this today, there are opportunities for small modifications to the language that don't substantively affect the condition. It's the board's intention and again, we will kind of discuss what to do about closure, but it's the board's intention to when we're deliberating to do so with a draft. hearing, sorry, draft order that we've already reviewed and had a chance to wrap our heads around, and this would include conditions. And so we're working with City Legal and our 40B consultant, Judy, to to draft that order. And so I just want to call out that it's possible there will be some, in the draft order that we consider as a board, there will be some changes to the language here. I'm not seeing anything on here that stands out to me as, from a non-legal perspective, as way off base or that we're we're far off on alignment, but I do fully expect when this is reviewed through a legal lens, there may be some opinion that the board receives that's basically built into the draft language. So what we're looking at today is not necessarily what we'll be considering as a board when we when we're actually voting on findings and waivers and conditions. So I just wanted to call that out now. We can totally discuss it when we're deciding what to do about that. I think it perhaps makes sense to have that discussion at the end, but I'll check in with the applicant if they have any piece of that they wanna discuss now.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, not here. That makes sense to me, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. So in that case, I think the one substantive item we haven't talked about yet is linkage. And so I believe Mr. Rainier, you were gonna share some details with us.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So after our last hearing, I had a conversation with the city's lawyer to suggest that we think about, one, we owed the board more detail on a couple of the items that we hadn't received our costing information back yet. And we are also encouraged to think about characterizing the linkage request as not a full linkage request, but as a partial waiver request for linkage as to the market rate units. And so we did send an email later on Thursday last week to city staff that hopefully has been distributed, that outlined in some more detail the four or five buckets of work that we are doing. And in that work includes some offsite work some voluntary improvements that will benefit area residents, tenants, and employees in the Medford community, improvements to address deficient conditions not caused by the project, or improvements that benefit the Medford community. In some instances, our work meets more than one of these categories. And for example, we think that visitors to Cambridge Courthouse will benefit from the better or the future rise lab project will benefit by the enhanced connectivity over to McDonald Park. If people in the area will benefit from the blue bikes station, there'll be general improvements to the municipal sewer system through our I&I camera ring and relining. And there will also be improvements to commercial street in terms of adding lighting, commercial lighting along commercial street, and adding a great public parklet at the corner of commercial street and Mystic Valley Parkway, including some public garden murals. And so, you know, we did do all this in the context of a 40B project is much different than a 40A. as we've talked about historically. And, you know, this as a rental project, we will have an affordability, we have higher affordability requirements than a 48 project would in the city. But also a benefit to the city is that all of the units in this project, all 350 units will qualify in the city's subsidized housing inventory. So we did provide That email, I don't know if the board members have had a chance to review it or the backup. The work that we summarize in that email totals about $750,000. And so we respectfully submitted that as an updated request for a partial linkage waiver in respect of those market rate units.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Mr. Rainier.
[Mike Caldera]: So a couple of other pieces I wanna share with the board. So I've been trying to gather information in one place just so the board can make an informed decision. So there's a few things I wanna draw attention to. So first of all, in a previous hearing, the board did find that under the city's ordinance, that 25% of the units would be exempt from linkage requirements as well as the commercial space and that the remaining 262 units in the absence of a waiver would be subject to linkage. And so there's been quite a bit of back and forth between the applicant and the city to basically to describe the improvements that are being done and to discuss things that may constitute credits towards linkage. And one thing I want to, I think I said this in our last meeting, but I'll say it again just for the board's consideration. So first of all, the linkage amounts in the ordinance are a starting point for us. So as a board, we do have the ability to waive all or part of that. The applicant is requesting to waive all of it. So that's one thing I want to draw to the board's attention. The other thing, Mr. Raniere spoke to it, is that under 40B, there are some differences in what sorts of improvements are typically Um, I think it's important to make sure that, um, that the city is. Construed as appropriate and sort of within the scope of the, of the process. And, um, my lay interpretation of what I've been told by a city legal is that in general, um, it's the offsite improvements that are a little bit. Um, where, where under 40 a, uh, there would be more grounds to, um, And then the last thing I'd like to mention is that the city staff has reviewed the credits that are being requested here. And the last opinion I've received is that the city staff did have concerns with a number of these items being included as credits to linkage. So in general, the themes that I picked up are that work that's required by state law would generally not receive a credit under linkage for a 48 project. Additionally, work done on property would generally not receive a credit under a 48 project. But again, the board doesn't have to follow that. If the board was going to follow that, the board could just deny the waiver and then it's simple and it's for the city and the applicant to decide. As a board, we can contemplate you know, what's expected under the ordinance and anything in between. So I just wanted to get that information out there. Mr. Renier, I don't know if there's anything you'd like to add or clarify based on what I just shared, or do you feel like that's an accurate representation of where we are today?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do. I think just one maybe detail I'll provide is it's not clear to me as staff has looked at the email and the backup of whether they're thinking of it wearing a 40A hat, Mass General Laws Chapter 40A hat, and thinking about these as credits under a special permit process, or whether as you let in, you know, we're thinking of this as a 40B project, which is dissimilar. So I'm not sure that some of that feedback might have been uh, influenced by, you know, kind of what had you're wearing at the time that you're reviewing the materials.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. Um, so I have had a chance to review, um, the, the documentation submitted in great detail. Um, uh, I don't know if others on the board have had a chance to look as well. Um, do folks have, what specific questions do we have about the, so we received basically a breakdown of the different elements that are potential linkage credits. And actually let me pull it up just so I'm being specific.
[Unidentified]: So,
[Mike Caldera]: There is, there are some improvements, intersection improvements and park access points that are offsite. for Mystic Valley Parkway and Commercial Street, that in their totality, the estimated cost is $130,000. Then there's some INI scoping and lining of offsite municipal SOAR line for which the cost estimate is $409,000. Now I did check before this meeting with the city engineer and he told me that the full scope of this is required under state law. Then there is the lighting on commercial street. That's also an offsite enhancement. Um, and the cost estimate for that is 30,000. Um, then there is the, um, pocket park and, uh, some of the historical elements in the public art mural. Um, and so there in the pocket park, which is on property, the board did request, uh, certain features, uh, to make that pocket park, um, nicer like nicer for the general public which which did have an impact on on the cost of the pocket park and then also the board has proposed a public art mural which would also be on property, but that was at the board's request. And so the cost estimate for those combined, the pocket park, plus the suggested improvements by the board, plus the public art mural is $140,000. And then lastly, there are blue bike improvements. So there is, There are two options being explored, the introduction of a 15 dock station. nearby the project site or alternatively a contribution of the same amount to the city so the bikes could be installed somewhere else. And so just the cost of installation, that's 49,000. My understanding from a comment Director Hunt made, I believe it was Director Hunt at a prior meeting is that it's the, I think it's the city's obligation once installed to pay the annual costs. And so those are being requested here, the annual cost to operate the Blue Lake station. So yeah, those are the different areas, just to reiterate. The intersection improvements, the I&I scoping of the sewer, the commercial street lighting, the pocket park and the mural, and the blue bikes. The board did receive some detailed backup on some of the line items. that fed into the estimates for these various items. And the city has indicated they're amenable to the blue bike improvements being a linkage credit. So that's the info we have. I just wanted to say that out loud for the record. Yeah, so are there specific questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I think the information that we received was very helpful and I appreciate it. That's what we requested at the last meeting. So I think this makes it possible to have a good discussion about it. I do have an opinion about it, but I'll wait to see if anybody has any questions before launching into that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And Andre, just to be clear, it's not my intention for us to to issue a finding on this one today. We'll just tackle that with the other findings. But I want to make sure we get all the information out there for the board to consider. The applicant shares their take. If the city has additional information to share, they share their take and so on. Jamie, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Um, of the for the one question I had was with regard to the park apart, I believe, and conversation. The park park was originally scoped as part of the project, our request for the enhancements for the community aspects was additional. Is that correct.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I can handle that Mr. Thompson. So, yes, the original submission did actually include a smaller area for that corner park. So, I think I can't remember whether it was peer review or board comment that led the park to increase in size and then also have the, the cultural and historical aspects included.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and actually to that point, so the board did get a very detailed estimate item by item for that park, which I think will be very helpful for us as we deliberate. What's a little, What I'm worried about is that the board will make some wrong assumptions about the items in this list. So I'm specifically referring to a document titled MCRT Cost Estimate 6-6-2023. Let me just screen share. This is the one.
[Unidentified]: Hold on. I'm going to stop screen sharing. I want to pull it into a separate window. All right. Oh, gosh, that didn't work out too well. We'll just go back to what I was originally planning on doing. So I'm just going to start screen sharing again.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Yeah, on this list, there's some things that very clearly connect back to things the board asked for. So the simplest one that comes to mind is the last line item in the scope of the corner park is the decorative mosaic mural. There are other items here that, based on my recollection, I would attribute to board requests, like some of the uplights and bollards. and maybe the decorative paving, but as you mentioned, Mr. Alexander, that the actual size of the corner park changed as well. So could you maybe, I doubt there's a way to perfectly break this out, but could you maybe just speak to some of the elements here and draw our attention to the ones that are very clearly coming straight from board related requests?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can try, Mr. Chair. I think the original submission had a pocket park with a couple benches, maybe three or four, and it was right behind the public sidewalk without planting that guarded it or protected it. And so I think what happened in response to comments was to It changed the shape of the park, which, you know, I'm forgive me. I'm a little bit of guesswork here, but, you know, change the shape, which led to some greater landscaping to protect it and likely some greater hardscaping. I couldn't tell you exactly what the square footage change was as we sit here tonight. Um, but I would call it, it was probably a little less about growing the park and more about reconfiguring it. So it could be set back from the public right away a bit and all and protected and also include, you know, the, the elements that we already talked about. So, in terms of, you know, how much more hardscape or how many more benches. I could pull up a quick side-by-side, but ultimately I'm not sure if that results in a round dollar estimate of change anyway.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Okay. I see Andre has his hand raised. Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm like my perspective on this is that we don't need to get into pulling apart the different line items of each. So the sub line items of each one. I think that there's a measure of, you know, good faith on both sides where we are. I think making a judgment call about what constitutes a public benefit being provided by the project. I think that what we've received, you know, in my opinion, goes a long way towards answering that question. I do agree that, you know, we're talking about this project, including 88 new income restricted units for the city, which is in and of itself significant expense and major benefit. I know we voted to exclude that from the linkage calculations. But you know, I think that this is probably the, you know, the first time the city has, we've, you know, we've had to make a decision about something like this, but but I feel that know, this feels about right where, you know, what the applicant is requesting for credits to me. I do think that the city engineer, you know, the opinion about including, you know, the I&I work or not, you know, having that not being subject to a credit because it's already a state requirement, I still think it has larger public benefits and would not be averse to providing the proponent a credit against the linkage fee. I think the majority of the linkage fee calculation is water and sewer, so it would seem a little strange to me not to give them any credit for the work that they are doing there. So that's just sort of my perspective about things right now.
[Mike Caldera]: Noted, thank you. Yeah, so mainly I'm just trying to get all the info that needs discussion out there in today's hearing so the applicant has a chance to let us know their take. So it's not so much about picking apart the estimates or arriving at a number, like I said at the outset, the board has broad discretion and weighing holistically the benefits and deciding what that reason is. I just want the board to have the right information for when we're having that deliberation discussion. I see Mr. Rainier has his hand raised, please go ahead.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And actually, as people were talking, I forgot to clarify something that may be something the board already knows, but I thought I just wanted to say it is, we initially had requested the full linkage waiver for the 262 units, and we've moved off of that. This proposal totals about 750, which would leave about 250, 260,000 dollars worth of linkage payments still being made to the city. So I did want to make that point. The other point I wanted to make about I&I is the linkage payment obligations pre-exist the I&I removal obligation. And so I think another way that we were thinking about the I&I work is it's really double counting work. a project that if the I&I requirement did not exist and a project was making a substantial payment for sewer work, the city could have that money to go out on its own and do I&I mitigation work, inflow and infiltration mitigation work in the city. Here, we're going to do that. By both having the applicant do that I&I work and potentially not give a credit for that work. It's a bit of double counting. The third comment I would make is that we've been talking a little bit about these items of work as falling within different buckets. And I'm not sure we need to necessarily think of them that way. if we think of a 40B waiver as being distinct from the credit system that exists under the zoning ordinance for an existing 40A project. And I don't think, and Tim kicked me under the virtual table if I'm wrong, but a dollar paid to the city by Mill Creek is a dollar paid to the city. I don't think Mill Creek cares whether that goes to a sewer fund or a park fund or a street fund. So that may be helpful to the board if they're inclined to consider these requests to separate the items of work from the different prescriptive buckets that are in the zoning ordinance. And it could just be a credit against the total payment or as to portions of the payment to help maintain the allocation of the payments being made.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Renier. Just a clarifying question about the double counting element on the INI. So in the, all right, so let's suppose that the board waived linkage in its entirety or that linkage was never a part of the ordinance to begin with. So you presented, two scenarios, the scenario where you're doing the work and the scenario where the city's doing the work. Under the law, in the scenario where the city is doing the work, would you be paying the city to do that? Or would the city just do it of its own free will?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Well, I think that in that instance, a project would pay the sewer linkage fee, and then the city would have that money to do I&I work if it wanted to do that work or not, if it had areas that it knew was problematic. We're in a different regime where we're going out and doing the work on our own for the city's benefit.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well, so I'll just say my discussion with the city engineer before this meeting, I left with the impression that there was a discussion of, you know, paying the city to do that work, but that it was not in the context of linkage, that it was actually above and beyond the linkage. And so, I don't think it it's relevant. And so I don't think we need to air what I learned about the discussions and so on. But at a high level, my I left with the impression that this is not an issue of double counting the linkages separate from the for any large project that's, you know, contributing this amount to the store system obligation under state law for a variety of Director Hunt, was there something you wanted to say?
[Alicia Hunt]: It was sort of an aside on the earlier point where the applicant may not care in the end what buckets things are attributed to, but eventually my office will, because when we receive this money, these are actually separate trust funds that the city has and we'll need to know. So my office literally receives a check that we deposit before the building permit is issued in a typical situation. And we instruct the finance office which fund to place how much money into which of each of the funds. And so my office will need that information, whether it is whether the applicant cares which fund the money's going to. And I just wanted the board to know that. So it's something that needs to be decided. And I don't know, like, I'm not really gung-ho to say, oh, just leave it up to me, although that is an option. I just thought you should be aware of that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, do we have other... Oh, sorry, Mr. Renato, were you gonna say something else? We have other.
[Unidentified]: Questions or comments from the board. Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a couple additional thoughts. One is that. A couple of these items, for example, the elements that are on the parklet, the mural, and the blue bikes, at a minimum, have ongoing maintenance costs. And so I think we should consider including in the condition some language stating that the proponent will kind of maintain them going forward. So that would be something that I would propose. And I think, you know, also, I guess not to get specific about what kind of art and everything that there is, but, you know, having, How can we make sure that that process gets the best possible outcome, I guess, and the best possible artist, right? That would be something I'd be, and I think other board members might be interested in.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, so Andre, to that second point, that was in the scope of what I asked the diversity director. So I don't know what we'll hear back. I don't know how in depth it'll be about the process, but I agree that there, I think it's helpful to have clarity on the process. And yeah, I'd love to get the applicant's take on the maintenance of some of these elements, whether there are any objections to codifying that in a condition.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can handle that. I think, you know, I think that's a reality of some of these improvements. And some are quantifiable, like blue bikes, which is, you know, give or take $4,000 a year. Some are a little less quantifiable up front, but certainly in building and operating a first-class community. It's in everybody's best interest, ours and the city's, that the park is maintained, the public art is maintained. So I totally understand that concept. And I think to Mr. LaRue's other point, I would go back to what I thought was a good suggestion from Director Hunt about making sure the Medford Arts Council is looped in. As we talked about, maybe not overengineering how many different groups have input, but if there's a central body and it's the Medford Arts Council for coordination on design for artist selection, that kind of thing, that strikes me as a good solution.
[Andre Leroux]: Just one question that I had. was that it seemed pretty specific in the breakdown of costs that the mural would be a mosaic. And I'm just wondering kind of where that came from and if there's flexibility around that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sorry, that's probably just bad nomenclature on the estimator team's part. So no, there's definitely flexibility on the type of mural.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. In terms of the ongoing maintenance, though, I think that the intersection improvements will be going into the mass dot layout of that roadway and doing improvements. And those will be mass dot improvements from that point on. And the commercial streetlights are not commercial. the commercial street street lights that will be installed will, my understanding is that those will be Medford specced lights that will be part of the Medford Municipal Light System. So, you know, certainly some of these aspects that the public parklet, the mural, the blue bikes, you know, that those will be maintained by the applicant, but some of these other items, just wanted to clarify that, you know, likely will be maintained by others as they accept ownership of them post-completion.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, understood.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you. Other questions from the board? Okay, not, oh, Jamie, were you gonna say something?
[Mike Caldera]: No, okay. So not seeing any of those. So I think we've had our discussion about linkage. I certainly think As a member of the board, I have plenty of information to contemplate at the appropriate time there. So thank you for providing all of that info. So now we've gotten through the key items on the agenda for today. And so the original plan, and maybe this is still the plan, but I'll just say what my intention was before I got an update earlier today. The board was planning to vote on closure of the hearing. This is the last day in the slightly extended statutory timeline. So the applicant had requested some additional time at one point back in May. And so we, they have been writing a agreement to extend past 180 days to June 12th. So the intention is to, is or was to close the hearing today. At which point the board has 40 days to render a decision on file with the city clerk. My count is 40 days from today is Saturday, July 22nd. As I've mentioned previously, when the board reconvenes to vote on findings and waivers and conditions, we intend to do so with a draft order. And so in recognition that putting that together takes time and that the board is gonna want some time to review it before that meeting so that we can just focus on the findings and waivers and conditions themselves. It was our intention as a board to reconvene sometime in late July before that 40 day mark. There's a few days the board was considering. And so the July 20th date that I think was indirectly communicated to Mr. Regnier earlier today, stemming from that process. That's basically a date where we've already confirmed that the board has five members available, could do that, and that would buy time for the drafting of the of the order itself and ample time for the board to review it. So yeah, that was plan A coming into today. I heard that the applicant may want to keep the hearing open. And at the beginning of today's meeting, we decided to just wait and talk about it now. I think the board has the information it needs in general. So I'm certainly amenable to listening to the applicant. And if you have a particular preference to keep it open for a technical reason, I'd certainly love to hear that, but I don't yet understand kind of what would require us to have interim meetings After today, I think in general, the board. has diligently gathered information and you've been great partners throughout the process and we're ready to move on to findings and conditions and waivers. So yeah, just wanted to check in with you to get a little bit more context on your thought process and whether you still would like to keep things open beyond today and if so, what you're hoping to accomplish in the meantime.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, that's a great overview. And I want to second that we've appreciated the partnership with this board and the carefulness with which you've stewarded the chairmanship that I know wasn't yours when we started this process. I guess, so just to think out loud here, we talked this evening that At minimum, we owe you a slightly refined list of waivers to specify some additional uses so it's not just retail. It's the non-drive-through eating place and a couple others. So we have to give some additional information to the board to do that. I was also taking some notes on the draft conditions earlier tonight that I need to get to the board. And so maybe a question for Ms. Barrett is if the public hearing is closed tonight, can we get that updated and refined list of waivers to the board tomorrow? And the updated, I was making some notes on the decision, can we provide that as well tomorrow? And then, you know, Tim and I may need to shut our cameras and hit mute and take a five minute recess and just have a telephone conversation. But I just want to make sure, you know, Ms. Barrett, we don't have a foot fault and we do things properly.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Well, my only concern, Chris, is if people want to have a discussion about whatever you submit, or if there for some reason was any public comment that someone wanted to make, closing the hearing and then submitting content after the fact forecloses that opportunity. I mean, you can't have a discussion going on with the board or communication with the board that the rest of the public doesn't have access to. When the hearing is closed, that means the board has all the information that they need and they're not taking anymore. And so, I mean, that's my position always on these public hearings that it just is bad form. to have an exchange continuing with the board when the hearing is closed. Because other interested parties don't have that same access.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Ms. Barrett. And to that point, so one thing I just want to describe is One idea that I think allows for this opportunity to submit additional information without creating other complications of summer schedules and the hearing just kind of dragging on and and essentially taking away some of the momentum we built up, because I really do think the board is basically ready to issue a spot. So one idea would be, so we need this agreement in writing, but if the applicant requested to keep the hearing open, through our next intended meeting date, which I'm just gonna say for the purposes of this discussion is July 20th. The board would be prepared to meet on July 20th and would be primarily interested in and focused on the currently planned business for that day. findings, waivers, conditions. However, we would set the expectation here today that most of the updates submitted by the applicant would be done sooner than that and would be, so it would be updated waiver list and maybe continue to iterate with the city lawyer or with Ms. Barrett on language and see if you can find something agreeable. And then the the goal would be for that process to have basically converged before we even meet. So I'm of the opinion the board should really have about a week to review the draft order before we even have this July 20th meeting. And so not that it would be a literal requirement, but all of that discussion, all of the documentation would also be incorporated into whatever draft order the board is reviewing in advance of the July 20th date. And then on July 20th, we would have a very brief, like maybe even like five minutes, like we're not nowhere near as thorough as today. And I appreciate the thoroughness today, because it's information the board needed, but we'd have a very brief update either by me or by the applicant where we just described anything that changed materially between today and the 20th, we would open for public comment one last time so that any member of the public that wants to weigh in and make their voice heard about, you know, especially about what changed between now and then could do so. And then that would be it. So we would just, cut off those who would close public comment. We would, after that initial presentation, we would generally not be expecting to have a dialogue with the applicant. We would just move on, you know, at the 10, 15 minute mark in that meeting to the intended business, which is findings, waivers and conditions. And then while I don't, I can't think, I'm not entirely sure what the board could and couldn't kind of legally commit to in terms of timelines, I think we would all have the general understanding that since we're reviewing a draft order, the order's already drafted, and since we're voting on these various elements, that the board would not need 40 days on top of that to render a decision. So would the decision be The day after that Friday, you know, maybe just as a quality of life benefit to city staff, you know, maybe it's Monday, maybe it's Tuesday, not going to make any upfront. commitments, but I think that that's a scenario that as chair, I would certainly be amenable to if the applicant is interested, I agree with Ms. Barrett that we really shouldn't be closing this if we're gonna be accepting new information beyond today. So that's my key, but go ahead, Ms. Barrett.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So I know I've been away from this for a couple of weeks and I apologize, but is it necessary to wait till July 20th?
[Mike Caldera]: So we're already butting up against summer schedules. So quorum is a real concern. The earliest that we have a confirmed date where we can all meet is July 11th. So if you're confident we could have a draft order on or about, or just after the Independence Day holiday or before, Uh, and, uh, and folks want to meet on the 11th. That's, um, pre-confirmed board can make that date work as well. Um, before that we didn't check all dates, but, um, I'm almost positive that is the earliest date we will have all five members.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. So just speaking for myself, I have another meeting that night, but I can certainly commit to work with Amy to get this decision pulled together. with the staff and the applicant to get this done. I mean, it sounds like we're not far apart anyway. So, I mean, someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a big heavy lift to get from where we are now to where we need to be.
[Mike Caldera]: I tend to agree with the caveat that I haven't really seen any draft language beyond the conditions themselves. And so, I think a lot of that's customary, but I know the building commissioner, for example, wanted to review and make sure there was a blurb surrounding some of the fire concerns raised with the wood frame high rise and some other stuff. I don't really know where we are in the drafting process, but yes, I think it would be fair to characterize it as this process has converged. So I think we're largely aligned. The board hasn't really deliberated on all the different elements, but I'd be willing to stipulate that there's nothing good that's going to be like a wild change last minute.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So the pieces that are left to draft are the procedural history, the governing law, The jurisdictional findings and the factual findings and then of course packaging up whatever the exhibits are. The jurisdictional findings are not difficult to write. I don't really get the sense from what I've seen that the factual findings are particularly difficult to write. I think the procedural history in this case is probably a little different from some decisions I've written just because of the romance situation, but I don't see this as a, I don't know, you're all being very quiet. So somebody push back if you disagree, but I don't know why we can't get this decision done well in advance of a July 11th meeting.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I agree. I mean, I think we're very close. I heard the board say that, you know, they have what they need from us and others in respect of the linkage waiver. You know, I think we could, with a short recess, you know, likely send to the night, to tonight even, you know, a quickly updated list and the waivers to add those other uses. And then I could forward tonight while the hearings open, the decision that I was marking up as we went along here. And conceivably we could even have the board close tonight. And then when we come back on the 11th, it's the board, you know, really looking at the other aspects of the decision that you and Amy will work on. procedural findings, jurisdictional findings, things of that nature. But it seems to me, I'm interested in the board's reaction, but it seems to me that we've had a very fulsome discussion of conditions and people had an opportunity to ask questions. So I think we're very close and a large part of me, and I'm glad we had the opportunity of tonight because I came in at night not knowing how much we would have a chance to cover. I think we've covered a great breadth of ground. I need to talk to Tim. And again, if we were at a hearing table, he might be kicking me, but we might be able to close this tonight. And in which case, the 11th, if that's the next meeting that people get together, that could be a quick meeting where the board is reviewing your decision, Judy, and voting it.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. I mean, the last thing I want to do is drag this out. And I really am not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to preserve protocol here. And I don't think if the hearing were closed tonight, then I would have to advise the board not to take any additional information because the closing of the hearing means they have what they need. So if there's some way miraculously to cure this this evening, I think that's great. I mean, I can tell you, I'm not gonna stay on much longer, but I mean, if you think you can somehow do this, that's totally up to you. I'm not wanting to drag this out, believe me, for any of you. Really, I don't. I mean, everybody's been through so much on this case that... We're very close.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: We're very... I know. Tim, do you want to... If we could ask the board's indulgence, if Tim and I and Louise could shut our cameras and microphones off for maybe five minutes, and we take a five-minute recess, and then we reconvene. I know the hour is late, but we're so close that with a quick conversation with Tim and then potentially we could even get these materials back to you this evening.
[Mike Caldera]: Tim, what are your thoughts?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with what Ms. Barrett and Chris are talking about. I think we're close. I think we've covered the ground tonight that we wanted to cover. The board does have what they need. If we could get a couple of these administrative items cleaned up while the hearing's still open here for the next few minutes, I think that's, you know, I don't think it's gonna take us an hour, for instance, to update Um, the waiver lists and get the retail uses incorporated and then forward along the, the list of conditions as drafted and revised live tonight. So if you can give us a couple of minutes, I think that's where we're headed, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything.
[Mike Caldera]: So I guess I just have a procedural question for, for Judy. So, um, can we close the hearing and have them send the last drafts same day or does the hearing technically need to stay open until the last?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: You should not take information after the hearing is closed. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Now that doesn't mean, I mean, does the board need to see? The edits that are left, or are you, given where you are with this, why can't we just work on this decision between me, the staff, Amy, and the applicant's attorney?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm wondering, so why don't, I'm certainly amenable to the recess, and I think that might be helpful for the applicant or attorney. Why don't we, Why don't you discuss and figure out if you're comfortable just shipping, even if it's not quite finished, whatever you have before we close the hearing tonight, and then just trust that the folks working on it are gonna take what we've already discussed tonight and correctly codify that in the draft order, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to suggest that maybe if the applicant wanted five minutes to talk it wouldn't be a bad idea for Judy and Mike and Dennis or and I are to get on the phone just quick and make sure we all understand the process. I think we've been, when we write decisions, having, you know, Dennis writes it, the chair reviews it, at least on the CD board side, often we have the applicant review it and make sure we're all, there's no conflict. It's not a debate at that time. It's a making sure that we've all understood, like we're reading the words the same way. I understand.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, it's, the advice I'm giving you is don't, close the hearing and take documents after you've closed it. If there's a practice in place that there is some discussion with the applicant after the hearing is closed, that's up to you guys. I'm just giving you advice based on what I've seen.
[Yvette Velez]: So for clarity for me, does that mean, Judy, so when Mike had put out an ask for the DEI, folks in the city to give input on, you know, like the mural, right? So does that mean that's shut down now, right? Because we're using what we have in this space because we're closing it down. Like, how, where is it that, because I think to some extent, for example, that one small piece of it, I think is somewhat important for us because, you know, we don't just want a square box of a building. Like we really wanted to add that character, like that was important, right? How would you direct us for that, for example?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: If the board's already agreed in principle to something, and all you're doing is asking another city board for input on wording, but the content has already been agreed to, I don't think that's a problem. Do you see what I mean? It's like, very typically what happens with these cases is when the board has all the information they need, they often have not even seen a complete draft of the decision. The critical piece, Chris, tell me if you disagree, but the critical piece is the conditions, because that's what the applicant's really gonna have to live with. I mean, you can take their procedural history and curse them to death. It doesn't matter. Nobody appeals on that. They appeal on conditions. So if the conditions are agreed to, in principle, and what we're doing is managing the language, I don't think the board needs to keep the hearing open at all. I'm only concerned that if there's additional information that the board somehow needs, that the applicant's going to be coming forth with, then I wouldn't close the hearing. But if everybody's in agreement about what's going to happen, and it's a question of getting the language down and finishing the rest of the parts of the decision, I don't see why you need to keep the hearing open. I'm very accustomed to boards, once you've gotten to the point of a comfort level with the conditions, at least the content of them, saying, that's fine. Now, go draft the rest of the decision. The board has 40 days to deliberate once you close the hearing. You don't, the reason to keep the hearing open is if there's evidence you need that would affect your decision. If you have the information that you need to make your decision, there is no reason to keep the hearing open because you can deliberate, you can decide in deliberations to deny the application, but you have the information you need. That's the question.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thanks, Mr. Barrett. Chair awaits a motion for a, why don't we make it a 10 minute recess? To 1035.
[Andre Leroux]: A motion for a 10 minute recess to 1035 tonight. I'll second that.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're gonna take a quick roll call vote. Andre. Yes. Yes. Jim. Yes. Jamie. Hi, Mike. Yes. All right. We're in recess for, uh, we'll reconvene at 10 35, uh, Alicia, Judy, you have my number if you want to chat. Thank you. Be right back.
[Unidentified]: All right, it is now 1035, the end of our planned recess. We're just gonna quickly check to see. It looks like we haven't lost a board member or an applicant. All right, so we are back in session. All right, so what are we thinking folks? Mr. Alexander?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. That was very helpful. Hopefully it was on your side as well. I think, you know, without getting into too much detail, I think the applicant and our team is in agreement with Ms. Barrett, right? The board has gathered the information they need. It feels like there is generally a meeting of the minds. And our thought is that we can, as we talked about just before the recess, we can send now the minor changes to the draft conditions that we reviewed tonight. We can send now bracketed revisions to the waiver lists to make sure that gets cleaned up to include the appropriate commercial uses. you know, if we were talking about a week or a few days of extending the hearing to make sure that these changes were incorporated, I think that might make sense. But understanding the board's schedule and that would be, you know, four to five weeks, it doesn't feel like that's an appropriate sort of give and take. So I think, you know, where we're coming out, is that we're in agreement on getting these final items to the board now, close the hearing tonight, and the board's schedule will be what it will be on issuing the final permit and all the documentation.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well thank you for that update. So then here's what I propose. So why don't, if you have things you want to send off, feel free to send those at any point while I'm talking. And then, so I do just want to, since the intention is to close tonight, I don't see a member of the public on the call anymore, but I do just want to, open once more for public comment in case there's any last comments before we close. So we can do that in a moment. And then Judy procedurally, we would just vote on closure. So we would just vote to close the hearing and that's it. Or would it be to close an open delivery? Like we don't have to continue or anything. We just close the hearing, and then we separately will schedule for the 11th a special meeting to vote on findings and review the draft. You vote the decision. Yeah, the decision, right.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I mean, that's all you need to do. You vote to close the hearing, and then your next meeting is a meeting, not a hearing. Yeah, I see. And at that meeting, you would have the proposed final draft of the decision and the board can certainly look at it and ask for some changes if you want. There's nothing that says you can't. But I think what you wanna do by the end of that night is either bless the decision as written or agree on whatever tweaks you want. And then the board should authorize the chair to sign the decision and Amy or I will clean it up and get it to you.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, okay. Wonderful, so then in that case, so chair awaits a motion to open public comment. So moved. Is there a second?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll take a roll call of that. Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike I all right, if you are a member of the public, and you are watching. The hearing, if you're either on this zoom call. Or you're watching on. You can let us know you would like to speak by using the raise hand functionality if you're on Zoom, typing in chat. You can also turn on your camera and raise your hand. You can also email Dennis McDougall, dmcdougall, at medford-ma.gov. So, like I said, I don't see anyone on the call who's a member of the public, but I just want to make sure that we are giving this opportunity in the event that I've missed someone. And Dennis, during the hearing, did you get any emails from members of the public during this session of the hearing rather?
[Denis MacDougall]: We did not, I got emails, but not from the public. So I had to actually go through each of them just to make sure that it wasn't somewhere hidden message.
[Mike Caldera]: Sounds great. Well, I'm not seeing any members of the public, uh, who would like to speak. I know we've given ample opportunities in prior, uh, sessions as well. Um, so, uh, chair awaits a motion to, uh, close, uh, the public portion of the hearing.
[Andre Leroux]: Is Mr. Rainier? Yeah, Mr. Rainier, please go ahead.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did, while you were talking, send the conditions that I had on the screen tonight with those tweaks that we made, you know, ground floor retail, the temp stores, no storage plan. If you give my colleague Louise maybe two more minutes, she will have that updated waiver with the three or four additional uses on there. And then I think Ms. Barrett was suggesting that you not accept any information after that. So I don't know, Louisa, if you're close or not, probably- I'm on track for that two minute estimate.
[Nicole Morell]: Dennis, I will be sending you the updated waiver list here in just one moment.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, sounds good. In light of that information, we'll just leave public comment open for that period.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Alexander. While we had a moment here, and assuming we're on track as we suspect we are to close the hearing, I want to just echo When Mr. Rear stated earlier, the board's attention, thoroughness, peer reviewers, it's been obviously long and very detailed, but the time that you've invested and the manner with which you've conducted the hearings, I just wanted to make sure that we noted our appreciation for that. I think the collaboration and coordination, all those things, we don't take for granted, especially in a process like this. So thank you all. folks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. And, um, just, uh, like I was alluding to before, uh, as chair, I really appreciated how, uh, especially once we kind of aligned on the schedule for the end of the hearing, each step along the way we've been communicative, we've made progress, we've been converging. So it's been, it's been a lot of work. Um, but I, I certainly, uh, as a member of the board, feel like we have all the information we need and a lot of that's credit to your team and the diligence you've put into putting together these plans, answering the questions.
[Unidentified]: So yeah, thank you very much for your partnership throughout the process. Great, thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: And Dennis, I've just emailed to you the updated waiver list. All right. I also copied Alicia and Judy as well.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Did you ever feel like all eyes were on you? Just for 60 long seconds. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So my understanding is that's it in terms of submissions from the applicants. So now chair awaits a motion to close public comment.
[Unidentified]: I make a motion to close public comment. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're gonna take a roll call. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so anything else we should discuss before there is a motion to close this hearing? Okay, Chair awaits a motion to close the hearing for 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway.
[Unidentified]: I make a motion to close the hearing for 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Do I have a second? Second. All right, I'm going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Andre?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, the hearing is now closed. So like we discussed, we will schedule a meeting for July 11th. That is a Tuesday, I believe. So Tuesday, July 11th, we will reconvene. to vote on, review the draft order and vote on findings, waiver list and conditions. Yeah, Jim, did you have a- Is that 6.30?
[Unidentified]: We can make it 6.30. I just wanted to know if we were planning on 7.30 or the 6.30. Either one is good with me. Jamie, do you have a preference? Always 630. Two votes for 630. Are folks good with 630?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think 630. I don't know if it'll be long or it'll be short, but I know the order itself will be on the longer side. So I think 630 is advisable. So yeah, we'll reconvene special meeting Tuesday, July 11th, 630 PM. Yeah, Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Good night. Thanks, everyone.
[Unidentified]: Good night, everyone. Thank you.
|
total time: 0.74 minutes total words: 70 |
|||