[Mike Caldera]: Good evening, and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to start off by taking a quick roll call, and then we'll get started. Jim Tirani?
[Alicia Hunt]: Here.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez?
[Alicia Hunt]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Amy Thompson? Present. Andre LaRue? Present. Mike Caldera, present. All right, we have a quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29, 2023, Governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions in the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding their meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at the meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting laws and extending the expiration date for temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And can you read the first item on the agenda, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continued from May 15th, 2023. Presumption of consideration of petition of MVP Mystic LLC, an affiliate of Milwaukee Presidential Trust LLC, for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Law's Chapter 40B for multi-family eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4000 Mr. Kelly Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. Proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building containing a mix of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low and moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Dennis. All right, folks. So this is a long running hearing. We've been reviewing this case over the course of many months. And so at our last hearing, the board first saw an updated plan packet from the applicant. At that time, there was limited opportunity for the peer reviewers and the board to review that packet in detail. And so we requested that our engineering and architectural peer reviewers take some additional time, update their comment letters to reflect the latest changes in the plan packet. And so one of the primary items we'll be going over today are the two updated peer review letters. We'll lead off, I'll check in with the applicant, see if there's other updates they'd like to share. Then we'll go through each of the letters. This is also the hearing where we intend. to go through the requested waiver list and have the board make any call outs they have for changes they'd like to see before in a future hearing, we start converging to a list of conditions and a vote. So that's the plan for today. We will take public comment. Yeah, and so with that, I see we have Mr. Alexander for the applicant. So just wanna check in with you first, Mr. Alexander. Any updates or comments you'd like to share before we start going into the peer review letters?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I think as the agenda, as you laid it out, I think works certainly for us. In terms of comments, I think, or sort of updates, it might be best if we hear from the peer reviewers first and then following that but before the waiver discussion we can provide a few updates. Does that work?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah that works for me. All right so why don't we start then with Mr. Reardon from Tetra Tech on the engineering comment letter.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Good evening everybody. Just wanted to let everybody know what we tried to do with our final letter is in consideration of where we are with the schedule and hoping to close the hearing soon we wanted to sort of. make sure we tied everything, any loose ends up. So what we did is any issues that weren't closed out and addressed statically by the applicant, we put a condition in there, because most of the issues were relatively minor. What we did is we suggested recommended condition language that could defer that to a later point in the design sequence, understanding that this is a preliminary plan, there's still some evolution to the plan that might happen. when they come around to issuing construction documents for a building permit, they'll have a bit better understanding of their site improvements and some of the other logistical needs of the project. So what we identified is an opportunity to sort of have a final set of plans that gets, final set of site plans that gets submitted along with the building permit application. And then as part of that final site plan package, they address any of the outstanding comments. So in our letter, there's basically three parts. One is all the old comments, we either indicated that it was addressed or we recommended a condition that could address it in a final set of site plans. We provided some new comments on what we had seen in the revised submittals. Most of those are relatively minor. All of those could be captured on final edits in the final site plans. And then the last part was just some of our comments relative to their waiver requests. And I think most of those comments generated were of the type of sort of wanting specificity to the waiver requests. Just as a case in point, for example, if you waive, for example, the II requirement, that might have repercussions on the city's MS4 permit requirements. So the city is required to have an II program and they're required to have new connections do certain things. So if you inadvertently waive something that wasn't intended to be waived, it could put the city in non-compliance with an existing permit. So it's kind of important for the applicant to rather than waive a whole requirement or a whole regulation section to just specifically identify where that relief is needed so that you're not inadvertently either waiving a permit requirement that the town has to comply with, the city has to comply with, or perhaps a critical piece of process that say that the DPW needs or the water department needs. So just most of those comments related to the waivers were mostly about specificity. I think we pretty much had seven areas where sort of some outstanding issues remained. One was still a little bit murky as to how construction is gonna be managed, the specifics, where a contractor is gonna park, where are they gonna handle material? How are they gonna handle material storage? There's not a whole lot of place left on the site to offload trucks or to store material. So we would expect to have a more developed construction management plan to be submitted as part of the building permit application. And we're suggesting the board condition as such. The other thing too is keep in mind there's a notice of intent that's got to go through with the Conservation Commission. So during that process, the applicant will have to demonstrate a bit better command over how they're going to manage sediment and all that other stuff during construction. So you've got three things that are going to help you manage it before they actually build the project. One is the final site plans will have some more detail. the conservation commission would have chimed in and made sure that they've done enough to control sediment and erosion. And then hopefully the applicant will have a construction management plan filed with the building permit that'll help you understand how they plan and manage construction. There's some minor details that are missing that typically we'd see as part of a preliminary plan. But again, none of those things were huge, but we'd like to see them as part of the final site plans to make sure that they're done correctly. One of the other issues was a couple of thoughts came to our mind about commercial street. Right now there's soft cuts proposed around a couple sections where they're planning on extending curb out into the street to create parking islands. and there's several driveway entrances and probably several feet of damaged curb that's going to have to get fixed so what we're suggesting rather than just sort of have this zigzaggy saw cut around the curb to just simply run a saw cut line right down the edge of parking where they're planning on putting their construction fence so that you have a nice neat paved edge on commercial street and any miscellaneous damage that might have happened during construction in the area that they were occupying gets fixed as well. I'm also curious about whether we didn't see on the plans any proposal for lighting on the project side of Commercial Street. So right now I think there's just three or four lights on the other side. A little unsure as to how well that's going to do providing light on the project side given how much more activity and engagement there's gonna be along that edge, that maybe it warrants some additional consideration for lighting along the project side of Commercial Street. Some final comments on loading. We suggested that the board put a condition that the applicant define their loading spaces a little bit more clearly in terms of which ones are dedicated for short-term parking, like 15 minutes or less, and which ones are intended for loading where people might be there for a couple hours. Reason being is you want to make sure that there's always sort of the closer spaces to where the entries are dedicated for the shorter term parking so that delivery drivers and folks like that always have a place to go and they know where they're supposed to go. Also, just some other minor comments about eliminating a bump out to just provide a little bit more length for the loading area. And then also to make sure that when they do figure out where the fire panel is going to go, traditionally what happens is the fire department will respond with a large fire truck usually. It's pretty important to have a place for them to park that's convenient to the fire panel. Again, all of these things can be handled in the final site plans that we're suggesting get submitted along with the building permit application. One of the last items was that front drive is still pretty tight. 12 foot aisle with a parallel parking space. And what's got us a little bit concerned is that there's a very narrow section of sidewalk, which is pinched between the travel lane and the building. So if you can imagine, if for some reason somebody jumps a curb along that travel lane, the travel lane is already pretty small at 12 feet. And the curb, there's a curb there, but if someone jumps the curb, someone on the sidewalk has nowhere to go because the building blocks their escape. So what we're suggesting they do as part of their final site plans, consider whether or not, A, whether they're gonna keep that circulation, and if they are, to consider some sort of protective measure like a bollard or something like that to protect the pedestrians on the sidewalk. One of the last items was just I.I. there was a little murky as to what the commitment was. It sounds like there's just an agreement to do a scope of investigation. I didn't see anything that indicated exactly what the I.I. mitigation commitment was. So what I'd suggest there is that the board be real careful in waiving any part of the I.I. mitigation requirements because again, those inflow and infiltration removal requirements are a subject of the town's MS, the city's MS4 permit. So we don't wanna make sure, we wanna make sure that you're not doing anything that would violate the terms of the town's permit, the city's permit. And then just the last item was just our waivers. Again, just make sure that they're real specific in how they request relief. All of these things are identified explicitly in our letter. So what we have is we have anywhere where you recommend a condition, it's underlined and italicized. So if you guys agree with it, you can just cut and paste it, write a new decision. And there are no, as of this last letter, there are no outstanding items. So all of the issues have either been addressed by the revised plans or by the condition that we recommend.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Reardon. What questions do we have from the board for Mr. Reardon?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: No, that's not exciting.
[Mike Caldera]: Nothing? I see. Well, I was holding mine, but I see Mr. Alexander raised his hand. Please go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had one question and probably one hopefully clarifying comment. So the first clarifying comment is, I believe, and we'll double check, but we're not seeking a waiver from the I&I requirement. I believe in any way. Um, and so our team, our civil engineering team with, uh, has been in close contact with the city engineer and assistant city and city engineer on scope for INI. So, um, just want to make, make that comment. Um, and then, uh, I guess a clarifying question on, on Mr. Reardon, um, sort of where those final comments and edits would get picked up. You're mentioning the final site plan, and I just wanted to confirm that that final site plan, I think I heard you say this, but I just wanted to make sure, it's that final set of civil engineering and site plans that's part of the building permit application, is that right?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Correct. Okay. So sometimes, Tim, sometimes on a building permit application, you'll have just a real bare bone site plan. What we'd like to see is sort of a more refined version of what you currently have addressing the comments that we've got. We understand completely that this is in the beginning stages of design. We wanna give you the full opportunity to sort of bet through everything and then get the detail on a set of construction plans. And then we'll take a look at that when it's issued and then make sure everything is addressed.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, that's great, that makes sense, thanks.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so back to the board. Questions for Mr. Reardon? Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Just one item from the comment. Can you speak to the item with regards to the transition from the one-way to the two-way? I know we talked about it last week slightly, but I believe there was a concern about the flow of that one lane into the two lane and the alignment of the lanes.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Right, so they did, they did line them up a little bit better, but there's still a little about a two or three foot offset where the lanes overlap, what we're suggesting is on the final set of site plans, you can address that by doing a, you know, a dashed striped line sometimes you see them at intersections where you have a dashed line that helps you sort of guide you through your lane and an intersection when there's say two left turns or something like that. In this situation, what we're suggesting is that they address it with striping because right now that one way lane, if it continued straight, it would occupy about two or three feet of the approaching lane at it. So it's just, it's slightly off center that they need to address in the final set of site plans.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I'll go next. So Mr. Reardon, if I understood you correctly, putting aside the waiver list, it sounds like either your comments were resolved or the conditions you've suggested are sufficient to resolve your primary concerns on the engineering and traffic side. Is that right? Okay, so then I don't, I certainly we've discussed this at length in other meetings, I don't, I don't want to rehash everything that we've already discussed. But I guess one clarifying question I have for you. Of the areas where you're proposing conditions, are there any areas that you feel could have and perhaps should have been just addressed in the design itself, where the condition is essentially there for the sake of bringing this to a close, but really there was a viable solution that could have been pursued that just wasn't?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: No, I think it more falls in the line of, has the project elevated to a point where it can be detailed enough So I don't think there's anything that I think is wrong. I think it's just a lot of stuff is still a little bit uncertain or a little bit murky. The challenge we have in this format is, it's a preliminary plan approval race intended to be sort of a. constructability exercise. I think they've definitely addressed the constructability concerns. They've definitely addressed our gross concerns and our sort of public safety concerns. Now it's just a matter of just sort of just dotting the Ts and crossing the Is and addressing some, maybe some items that are sort of up to the board's discretion on whether it's important to them. It's just something that we mentioned as something that might be worth considering. For example, the lighting along Commercial Street. And that's certainly not a make or break item, but it's something that we hadn't discussed. And that I mean, even I hadn't noticed until the very last set of plans. So I thought it was important to sort of put it on there and you'll give you the opportunity to consider a condition to require it or to not require it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Reed and I just have a question. We've talked a couple of times at points about the safety with storing e-bikes, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts or recommendations about that.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: I think the most appropriate thing is that, and this might fall a little bit into Cliff's purview, but I definitely prefer to see them not stored in the rooms. And then that sort of heightens our concern about lack of bicycle storage space. So if you have a prohibition to storing a particular type of bike in your apartment, and there's not enough bike storage space somewhere else. And I would think that, storing an electric bike in a room in the garage is relatively safe. So my concern is that if there's not enough space in the bike storage in the garage, people are less likely to comply with the condition that requires them to keep their e-bike in the bike storage, which means it goes up in their room or in their apartment, and then that's not where you want it. But aside from that, I don't have any particular concerns about e-bikes in general.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. My second question was whether you had any particular thoughts about the intersection with Commercial Street and Mystic Valley Parkway, particularly, I'm talking about what the, really the plaza area that's going to be landscaped. If there's any recommendations about materials or
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I'll be frank here, whatever. I think it's a great location, certainly an important location. I'm a civil engineer, so I'm probably not the most aesthetically skilled person, so I tend to stay in my lane on that one. I'll leave that up to Cliff and the folks at the landscape architect for the applicant. He certainly seems like he knows what he's doing and everything I've seen has been great. But again, that's not a very learned eye. I'm a dirt and utility guy and traffic guy. So when it comes to plants and pavers, I defer to smarter people.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure since the your letter didn't address that whether just wanted to touch on it since it was something that we've, we've talked about and then I guess my final question in that vein is, you know, I've raised a couple of times to issues of having adequate public safety in the rear. of the complex, the north side of the complex that faces onto the kind of the woodland area on the industrial side, and whether you had any thoughts about that.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: I don't see anything there as being particularly problematic. It's pretty narrow and well lit, so there's bollards, and it's a straight walking path, so there's no sort of awkward areas where you can't be seen or that aren't in view of other destinations. There was nothing I thought that was sort of uncharacteristic, but I actually thought it was kind of a nice element to have to be able to sort of circumnavigate the entire site. And, you know, there is there is some sort of trash and less desirable stuff off, off locus that maybe gets cleaned up as a, as a function of that activity but I didn't see anything that caused me concern relative to safety along that package.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm trying to remember there's no. We talked about the grade difference and the fencing at one point. I'm not sure if we got to total resolution on that, but I wasn't sure if you had any outstanding issues or thoughts about that.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: No, the only thing that I have in a minor little detail is just the design of the drainage trench that's at the face of wall. So if you can imagine water sheets away from the building towards the wetland, but it hits the top of a wall. So rather than sort of just accumulate at the face of that, at the backside of that wall, the applicant put in a drainage ditch, like a little French drain. And the detail was just a little bit different than what the, the invert information showed, but nothing, it's a pretty simple treatment back there, pretty narrow space with just a simple walk. It doesn't have any big changes in grade along the walk. There is a small change in grade where the wall is, but even that's not terribly, I think it's three to four feet at the most.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so then in that case, so Mr. Alexander, there are a number of conditions suggested in this comment letter. I think the board will plan to consider possibly imposing any one of them, if not all of them. And so I just wanted to check in with you. Have you had a chance to, to review those, and are there any conditions listed that you'd like to let us know in advance that there are concerns about?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Fair. There wasn't, no, I think, as Mr. Reardon pointed out, a lot of them are not to be Not to minimize them, but I think they're sort of cleanup final items that will come with more detail after we've fully designed the building. So all the items in that vein, I think, didn't cause us major concern. The second one, or the bucket about construction management plan, we're comfortable with as well. I mean, that's a normal. construction management plan with more detail. So I think we're comfortable with that as well. All right. I just wanted to look through one more time as we're talking. And I don't believe, because I chatted about this with the team today as well, I don't believe if Tony or Chris, if you see any, or we talked about any that you thought either needed clarification or cause concern, you can please jump in.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Hi, Tim, members of the board. I didn't see anything of concern. I just think the one regarding the hydrant connection to the fire or water service, I just, I would defer to whatever the fire department would like to see. Agreed, in that regard.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So that may just be a tweak to the language there to make sure that the fire department is the authority having jurisdiction there.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: If I could, Mr. Chair. Please. Thank you. Mr. Reardon and Tim, just one other question. I'm looking in, I guess it's item 12. It's the condition about the short-term parking spaces in the front of the building along Mystic Valley Parkway. I've seen that, Mr. Reardon, you've suggested a limitation that they be available only for retail use. I'm thinking there may be perspective tenants. that visit the property that want to park in that surface parking area. If they're not familiar with the property, they're coming to do a tour. Our leasing office is in that building, I believe. So that might be a little bit of a restrictive use of those short-term spaces. So I might ask if that could be just a retail and residential temporary parking in that front area.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, my concern with that is, I'm still struggling with how tight the spaces. There's in zoning there's requirements to offset spaces from property line right now you're, you're, I think there's three parking spaces there. that are literally right on the property. And there's the 12 foot aisle is smaller than the minimum mile size that's recommended in your traffic study. There's very narrow sidewalks there. So what I'm worried about is the more people using that location as a destination, the more confusion there is the more traffic there is. I don't even know if three spaces is is enough for the retail space that you've got anticipated there. For me it would be. it seems appropriate to me to direct any residential traffic to the other entrances and then have that front entrance be specifically dedicated to the retail use because it's undersized, because it's so tight, because it's so constrained. But again, yeah, I mean, that's just my opinion. I'll certainly defer to the board's judgment on that.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you for that. Always a little interesting in Zoom hearings is maybe to you, Tim, if I could, Mr. Chair, I think we can probably deal with that with signage and address that operational issue if you agree with that.
[Mike Caldera]: Just to make sure I'm understanding, Mr. Regnier, the signage would indicate what? That this space is for the retail use and for prospective tenants?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: No, I'm conceding Mr. Reardon's point to his point and suggesting that we could use signage to direct renters to other short-term spaces in the garage. Okay, noted.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I think that's right. And we had talked about this a few hearings ago where, and we, you know, obviously at this stage of the game, we don't know who the retail and commercial tenants will be, but it did feel like given everything that Mr. Reardon said, I'm comfortable with limiting that area to short-term retail parking and then any residential use, whether it be a future resident or otherwise, are directed into the central plaza area between the two buildings and then, if needed, into the garages.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: With some simple signage and some simple even pavement markings for whatever the vendor is in that space, you put their logo on the parking spaces.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So, Mr. Alexander, if I understood you correctly at the beginning, you want to wait until after we do the architectural letter as well before making the general comments, is that right?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, Mr. chair that's fine actually that is good. That is right. I had 1 item that I think. I wanted to pick up just before we move on. So just so while we're talking about the central drive area and that striping question, I wanted to point out too, I believe it was Mr. LaRue who had a question or a comment last hearing about pedestrian traffic along that central drive. When we lengthened, when we added that stripe sort of fire lane area to direct the traffic there was a question about whether that should be either additional sidewalk or sort of enhanced striping. So we checked with Van Ness, who's our transportation engineer, and asked their professional opinion about it. They had two responses. One was that signage along that fire lane, and obviously the striping itself, should be enough to make sure that there aren't vehicles in that zone. emergency used only. So that was one aspect of their answer. The second was, given the sort of other sidewalks in and around the building, their sense was that that sort of walk up the east side and then through the central plaza might not be heavily trafficked. Folks might more likely stay any more enhanced either sidewalk or stripage or signage was necessary, but I just wanted to make sure that the board knew that that was something we looked into. It obviously didn't make it into a letter or anything at this point, but I wanted to point that out.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Andre, did you want to say something in response to that?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, no, just thank you. I mean, I was thinking more to be honest, as an amenity for that central area, whether there was some more interesting thing to do than just the bright yellow fire lane striping that could make it a little bit more, maybe feel like a little bit more of an interior, you know, civic space.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, interesting. That's something we can look at and certainly work on with I guess the appropriate folks at the city, whether it be city engineer, or I'm not sure who would, Director Hunt may have ideas, but yeah, that's something we can look at for sure. I see your point. I see now I better see the background behind your question.
[Mike Caldera]: Director Hunt, who would be the appropriate contact if they wanna explore that?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, for striping for,
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, so the concept was instead, so we have a short, a straight short term loading area on one side of that central drive. And then on the south side, it's, it's going to be straight for fire lane only to direct the traffic appropriately. And I think Mr. LaRue's idea is a good one. Instead of just having a bunch of yellow striping on there, could it be, we could, I think we probably need to work with, you know, the city's transportation department to see what kind of flexibility they have.
[Alicia Hunt]: The director of traffic and transportation would want to, Todd Blake would want to weigh in on any of those. Anything that's traffic related like that, he would be the right person. And I'll say that he leans very heavily to federal standards. It's just preference.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay. So there may not be a lot of flexibility there, but we can ask the question.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Well, Tim, remember that it's not a public road, it's a site driveway. And the only thing we need to maintain is the clear space for the fire truck. So you've got a designated 12 foot lane going through there. What we're really doing is making sure that the other area is not parked on because it's needed for fire access. So I think the fire chief would be an integral part in that discussion. I don't see any reason why like some sort of stamped concrete treatment or something of that ilk wouldn't be acceptable as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks for that. Jamie, I think I saw your hand.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead. Just to add to that perspective, if it were an option, I think what Andrea was going was maybe something like a traffic calming mural or something that would be aesthetically pleasing for the area and would prompt cars to not drive over it.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: That would be cool too.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I mean, down like, you know, I worked on a project in New Bedford with some, uh, with artists in the community that, uh, did some traffic calming by doing intersection murals near a park on a busy street.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: So literally painted on the, on the pavement.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: That's cool.
[Andre Leroux]: And it was, uh, you know, like with like a blue and white Portuguese tile pattern.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, there's nothing else on this topic. Let's move on to the architectural peer review letter. Mr. Boehmer, please go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Hi, everyone. I've heard too many segues, so maybe I'll start with a procedural question. Is the board expecting to finalize language of conditions tonight? or intent of conditions?
[Mike Caldera]: Intent of conditions. So this is the night where we're hearing you and Mr. Reardon describe your comment letters. We're discussing with the applicant, getting feedback on that. The board will also highlight any comments any remaining areas of concern they have where they might want to impose conditions or other things, but the intention would then be that the actual language of the conditions would be drafted up by the City's 40B consultants and we would be talking about those in our next hearing.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Terrific. I'm glad you've relieved me of that responsibility because I'm not an attorney, so I'm comfortable with the intention. So the other segue, maybe I'll connect back with some of Sean's and specifically Mr. LaRue's comments because they weren't in my letter. I think the e-bike thing is really an interesting question. I think the board does have some say about safety, you know, safety of residents and community in general. And this is not for me, it's for the 40B consultants and attorneys. But I do think it's worth thinking about a condition that would, in any of the rental agreements, that the storage of e-bikes in units is not uh, isn't allowed. And there's a pretty growing history of fires created by e-bikes and apartments, uh, that, um, don't have very good results at the end. So I would encourage the board to look at that. And I think given that the applicant. is showing bicycle storage and perhaps even showing flexibility about the size of the capacity of the storage. Getting e-bikes out of units I think is an important fire safety element that could be conditioned, but that's just my thought. I also think Andre's comments about that rear safety and Right. I think the lighting plan is actually really nice back there. They're bollard lights. I think it could be a really pleasant walkway with a lot of, right now, I hope transitional space to the north, and then a lot of wetlands and spaces that are rather pleasant. but having a large population of people in this precise location hasn't happened before. So how that would show up in a condition, I think the lights go a long ways to making a place feel safe, but actually I think that idea of some kind of pull stations or some other type of notification that could just be short run until the neighborhood gets more thoroughly developed and there are more people on the streets. I think it's worth thinking about how that would ever turn into a condition. I'm not sure, but I do think the lighting is good. I think it's the kind of lighting that's appropriate, whether that could be enhanced through some type of notification system I think it's worth discussion. But what I'm going to do is go through really the highlights of my letter. And I know all of you just got it yesterday. So I'm going to really stick to the six or seven points that I think are remaining. And Sean can jump in if I'm misrepresenting this. But I think the two of us are of the same mind that we're the that where we're at with this project is that, uh, drawing modifications are probably not required where within conditional, uh, material, you know, conditional territory where the, the, um, deficiencies can be addressed through conditions. Is that accurate, Sean? I don't want to misrepresent where your thinking is.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, absolutely. Yep.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Okay, good. So I'll jump right into it then. I suggested a condition that the North Courtyard be nailed down a little more clearly about that being dedicated for active play space for young children. And the reason that that one is, I think, important to consider is that you may remember earlier on in our reviews of this project that has been evolving. I had a concern about the lack of at grade outdoor open space, and it's not because there isn't a lot of access to open space. There's a ton of access, but not a lot of it is really dedicated for young children. So to me, it was important to have a space on site for small children. And I was convinced by the landscape architects' history and images of successful play spaces within courtyards. So for me, I would want to nail that down, that that's actually what that courtyard is for and it really, obviates the need for accurate and actually could be an improvement for accurate usable outdoor space for children. So that was one suggestion. I'll expand a little bit, I think, on what Sean was talking about and has talked about for a while is about the kind of restrictive space on the On the Mystic side, the entry area over there, and I appreciate the willingness to restrict that to the retail use. I think I went a step further, and it's based on some conditions I've seen imposed in other communities on what that retail activity can actually be. It's one thing if it's a Judo studio, another if it's a Dunkin' Donuts. It's a big difference as far as the amount of traffic that is generated by it. I don't have the language. I didn't include any suggestion. I've seen restrictions on commercial kitchens that often attract a lot more people. And if the space to service that retail use isn't adequate, I think it's within the board's power to restrict those uses in that space that indirectly restricts the number of parking spaces and basically trip generation by that use. Other suggestions I made in this last letter, I think the conditions that were proposed in Sean's letter about adding a little more specificity to the CMP, the construction management plan, I thought were spot on. I support those totally. The street lighting on commercial, actually, we have discussed that. I apologize, I can't remember if it was in a hearing setting or in a working session setting, but we did specifically talk with the applicant about street lighting along commercial. And I thought we got a very positive response that they would coordinate new street lighting with Medford on that. So to me, that is an important element that can really help make that street work. Suggestions I made was I appreciate the response about the use of cementitious materials. And I've used the same materials that they're proposing that have 15 year warranty on finishes. I did make a suggestion and this is for the attorneys and the consultants to talk about what's, appropriate to include in any kind of ongoing management budget, but they really do start losing paint usually before 15 years and it is a prominent building and my suggestion was consider some type of condition that would ensure that either maintenance-free materials are used or that there is adequate money carried in a budget to really maintain those issues or they maintain those facade materials. I mentioned that we hadn't had access to a shadow study. I don't think that's really a huge issue. I only brought that up actually with respect to the wetlands to the north. I did have a suggestion about how to handle the bike. uh, storage, cause I know it's, it's been an issue and we all know it's a, it's a moving goalpost as far as what bike storage is going to mean in the future. And what I suggested, uh, I think largely for the benefit of the applicant is that the board approve. Actually a fewer number of parking spaces, maybe as low as one to one parking spaces that would give the applicant the ability to expand the bike parking spaces without having to go back for modifications to the 40B. Just kind of build some flexibility into the decision that seems simple. Another issue I had was that remaining issue is that in the parking garage plans, each building only had one short-term parking space designated. That seems insufficient to me. I think a plumbing emergency in anybody's unit on any random day could require two plumbers showing up. You don't want them using up what I would call the live parking spaces in the intermediate driveway. I would suggest expanding those, short-term parking spaces to account for trades people who will be in the buildings, I think with a predictable frequency. Small change, but I think we don't want that expanded live parking area to get used up by just regular predictable maintenance issues. I also brought up the request for the waiver. from the local solar requirements. And I haven't, in my mind, been able to reconcile why there were such small areas designated on the roof plans for potential solar installations. I think that the board could consider some deviation from the requirement, I just had no way from looking at those plans of understanding how much space actually might be available and how the board would ever come to a number without it seeming kind of random. It may be somewhat hesitant about accepting that as a waiver without some more information. Other points that I made and is looking ahead a little bit. I said, consider a condition for an all electric building. It really is the way the world is going. Other communities have done it. It's totally within current technology possible to do it. It's again, up to the board, but it's my suggestion just based on what I've seen going on in a lot of other communities. I noted that some of the elevations are still missing things that I think might show up in real life. Basically, I suggested that the board consider screening requirements for any mechanical equipment that could be visible from the public realm Also making a commitment on whether there will be a stairway that goes up to the roof that would be visible. The stairs aren't a pretty visible location, but they don't show up on building elevations. That was one thought. Yeah, there was mechanical equipment cleaning. There were two other requests for waivers that I just think need more language for me to really understand the intent of it. There was a kind of vague request for a waiver from the building permit process. You know, the building permit process is for the most part a state mandated process. So I don't think the board can really waive, typically doesn't waive building permit. It happens in Boston once in a while, but that's the only time I've ever seen it happen is waivers from the, or actually variances from the building permit being granted. But I didn't really understand the intent of that. And it went on to say that the board would, I guess, have control of the occupancy permits. There were two adjacent waiver requests I didn't understand. Then finally, there was, I think, a request for a waiver from permit fees. I could be misreading it. It's outside of my lane, but those were the issues that I landed on. And I'll just repeat that I think they're all within conditionable territory. I don't think you need new drawings. I think conditions can take care of my remaining concern.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Bowmer. What questions do we have from the, oh, Mr. Alexander, were you gonna say something?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thanks, Mister chair. Yeah, and thanks Mister bomber. I thought it might be helpful and could probably answer a few questions that the board may have. I responded to just a subset of those items. Is that okay?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, great. Thank you. So, a couple of things right off the top that I think hopefully should answer some questions and maybe we'll go in a little bit reverse order the building permit waiver as drafted is not intended to. not intended to skirt the normal process, and certainly not intended to waive a building permit fee. And I believe, and the Goulston team can clarify if needed, but I think our reading of the ordinance, as the Medford ordinance is written, contemplates a building permit process that has already seen a special permit or a site plan the DBA or variants, but not necessarily a pure 40B process. So I think the waiver is just to acknowledge that this is a 40B and that it will be, you know, as we get to building permit, the 40B comprehensive permit is what governs and there's not any additional sort of review before a building permit review can happen. I see Chris nodding his head.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: That's correct, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. We did talk about this a little bit at the last hearing and try to make clear at the hearing that we're not trying to take the building commissioner's authority away from him. Building permits, certificates of occupancy will be issued through him and his office. This was more intended to capture the fact that those sections of the zoning ordinance were referencing zoning relief, and we're not mentioning the 40B process that Tim talks about. So if helpful, we could provide a more specifically crafted waiver request for those two items.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Great, thanks, Chris. Another item that we were working on in the background or over the course of the past week or two was the solar, the question of rooftop solar and a potential waiver. We had drafted, I think, probably a fairly broad waiver. But since then, we're able to have a meeting with Director Hunt, who is not only planning director, but director of energy and environment. And well versed if not the author of the zoning of the solar ordinance. So we what we discussed with her was the idea of can still complying with the solar ordinance, but it's just a question of timing. It again, it like other parts of the zoning ordinance contemplates a site plan review, which normally would come later than where we are in 40B, but closer to a building permit submission. And so I think what we arrived on is that we, as the project team, would comply with the solar ordinance, but our submission for that assessment would come at or before the building permit submission. And so that was a helpful discussion we had where we're redrafting That will answer some questions there. A couple other ones, if I might, Mr. Chair, and just sort of responding to a couple of Mr. Bomer's ideas. One is the shadow study. I think we just had an oversight. We had gone through it in a working session with Mr. Reardon and Mr. Bomer and then failed to submit it as part of the big package on May 12th. Um, but we supplemented that and hopefully everybody's seen that now, or I know at least, um, I think Mr. McDougal put it on the on the project, um, in the project files. A couple of things on parking. We'll start with so so we'd certainly recall from last hearing the question about adequacy of bike parking. And to us, that's certainly an important question, but as important is the question of adequacy of vehicle parking. And I know I appreciate the board's position that bike parking, and I actually tend to agree, right? Bike parking should be increasing over time and vehicular parking likely will be decreasing over time. But I want to make sure we understand, you know, in our, our sort of cognizant of where we are today. And my concern and what we have knowledge, obviously, of the parking utilization, not just capacity, but the actual utilization of parking spaces that are existing Medford community. And our proposed vehicle space count is really kind of right on top, very commensurate to that existing utilization about a half mile away. And so I'm a little, I'm very cautious actually of further reducing vehicle parking spaces. You know, we've, we're down six total right now between the four we removed at the end of the parking space or the parking garages, and then the two that we've turned in a short term. And that may not seem like adequate parking for our residents. So the way that sort of where that gets applied is twofold. Mr. Bowmer's idea on maybe additional short-term parking spaces within the garage, we had denoted one in each garage. I think his suggestion was to raise that to five. I think maybe meeting in the middle somewhere makes sense. If there are two to three per garage, that's probably something that works. I hear his point 100% on whether it's maintenance or what we hope will be move-in vehicles too in a van type use that they could be in the garage as well. So I think there's probably some middle ground there we can find. And then on bike storage, first on e-bikes, we I think we've talked about this prior. I think great. I, you know, I don't know if we have it in our existing leases, but we can certainly add it that can't be stored in a residential in an apartment home right in the unit and need to be stored in the bike rooms and that should work. That should work very well from a sort of safety and fire concern because not only are the bike rooms within the type one or the concrete portion of the building, but they are also not just a cage, but an actual room with fire rated walls as well. So I think that should allay that concern. And then if, well, I'll leave that one there or two others if I might. Mr. Chair, um, the question about, um, maintenance of building facade. Um, that's something obviously that's. You know, I understand why it's important to Mr. Bowmer. Um, I want to point out that it would be equally as important to the owner of the community and the operator of the community. Um, and in our existing, um, operating budgets, we certainly have capital improvements, uh, capital improvement, um, line item. where we are obviously allocating dollars each year for just that type of maintenance. So my feeling is that may be a little above and beyond to impose such a condition. But again, I know where Mr. Bowmer's intention is, and I think probably the key is to work that out between whether it's Ms. Barrett and Mr. Rainier and figure out if there's a proper way to draft that or if that is, Something that's already, you know, if you will, assumed within the operating of a, you know, classic community. Sorry, just checking my list. Oh, two more. One is the idea of the play space in the North Courtyard. I hope everybody knows now that that's something we're committed to providing. And I think this may just be wordsmithing, but I want to be careful that the North Courtyard doesn't become fully dedicated to that space. I mean, certainly a portion, I believe, or we are showing and can confirm will be. But what I want to be cognizant of is we don't know We don't know how many school-aged or if you call it playground-aged children that will be in the community. And what I want to be careful about is precluding the use of that space for the remainder of the residents if it was fully dedicated to just play space. And in a similar vein, I think Mr. Bowmer's concept of of either restricting or clarifying the types of uses in the retail space, I think there are, we need to, you know, in order to the trapped tenant, especially a tenant who will be, you know, using its 2,000 feet total, so it's not a big number. I think we want to be careful about restricting that further. We need to be able to market that space. I know we all want to see that space occupied and used with the right user, given its size and actually given the orientation within the building. We already know that it's not going to be big enough for a big restaurant. We don't have otherwise infrastructure for a commercial kitchen envisioned or designed within the building. I think given the size and the design of it already, it probably is narrowing the type of users. I'd be really hesitant to narrow it further or restrict that further. I just wanted to point that out.
[Andre Leroux]: I think that's it for now. Mr. Alexander, one question I had is, could you address the issue or the concept of an all electric building? And your team has talked about that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mr. LaRue.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: You know, it's quite frankly, the way the new building code and new energy code are going, I think it's, more than likely, or it could be even stronger than that, it's highly likely that the building will be, and we're talking about the heat and hot water basically for the apartment homes, will be powered by electric, just due to building code alone. So my feeling is that a condition or a restriction likely isn't even necessary here. We're seeing that's the way the world, the road and already actually included in the updated building and energy code.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you, Mr. Alexander. So board questions for Mr. Bowmer or maybe let's start with questions for Mr. Bowmer and if there's a, question you wanna pile on for Mr. Alexander.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, no, I appreciate all of that. And I think the only thing I'd push back a little bit on, I understand the need to lease the commercial space, but I think kind of the lowest bar I would set is a condition that doesn't allow a commercial kitchen. It's, you know, commercial kitchens, Generally, you would design it into the building and there'd be a huge duct that would go all the way up to the rooftop. But retrofit commercial kitchens sometimes aren't all that pretty and they can really attract many more people than somebody who just reheats croissant in a small oven. So that to me would be a kind of minimal restriction that I think would have probably restrict a lot of the uses that would change the parking drop-off access at the front of the building. So I wouldn't throw it all out. And I put it out there just because I've seen it in a lot of communities who are concerned about a future for the building that they haven't really been able to imagine. And the second point, Tim's totally right. The world is moving to all electric buildings. I would commit to that. To me, it's not a big commitment because it really is the way it's going. There's some decisions that need to be made pretty early on about service size, if you do go all electric. So it actually isn't that far out when you would need to make that decision, maybe even in advance of when Medford might opt in to the, you know, to the most rigor or the most you know, the most extreme code that's out there, which you guys haven't signed on to yet, but I bet you probably will in the future. So I agree it's coming and I guess I would still take the position and just commit to it and follow through.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so I see Mr. Reardon has his hand raised, but it looked like Mr. Alexander was gonna make a brief. comments?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, just two acknowledgements, if I might, Mr. Chair. One is that I agree with Mr. Boehmer on the all electric, and I would point out, too, that the project will be going through a state MEPA review as well, which is probably another. And that kind of analysis on greenhouse gas emissions, there are all sorts of requirements that come with that MEPA review, which will likely into an all electric building. And then just quickly on the commercial kitchen, I agree with that. I mean, I think given the size of the space, we don't have the infrastructure, right? Venting up through the roof, grease trap. I think there are probably ways to restrict that by saying that, you know, because there could be a small food user, which I think we would all benefit from and the community would benefit from. But it shouldn't be a user that requires an underground grease trap or any other kind of major venting through the building. And that's probably the type of language maybe we can include without getting too far into the weeds. Do you agree?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I agree. No, I agree. That's what I've seen the most commonly adopted language is the commercial kitchen. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: We're going to go to Mr. Reardon and then Mr. Rainier.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Just one quick question, Tim. Is it going to be assigned parking in the garage? In other words, a unit is going to have a dedicated space or is it going to be more of an open setup?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thanks for the question. We often do an assigned space, especially when we're dealing with parking spaces that are either split up by floor, or in this case, by building. So I think that's gonna be the most efficient and practical way to accomplish this, is to have numbered spaces, and then an actual resident is gonna be assigned that space.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Okay, Mr. Raniere. Thank you, not on parking, but just generally on some of the technicality of these conditions. I think an earlier comment was made that we may all benefit as well from the city's 40B consultant looking at some of those. I'm not sure we'll be able to fully craft those tonight, but I was just gonna suggest that some of those maybe we get taken offline and worked out a bit with Ms. Barrett that we can come back with some crafted language on.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks for that suggestion. That's a topic I'd actually like to come back to at some point today. So before we get to that topic of the waiver list, what questions from the board do we have for Mr. Bowmer?
[Andre Leroux]: Andre, go ahead. One question I had Mr. Bowmer and I believe I asked about this last week and I sorry I can't even remember what the outcome was but that north side of. the building two, I still don't remember actually looking at that. I know for a while it wasn't in the, you know, in the submission. So I'm just wondering, Mr. Bomer, if you have, if you're satisfied with that.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I am, and it is in the package. I did look at it and I think it works. I'm happy with that. I think overall I've been very happy with the way the materials have been deployed and breaking up the facade into smaller pieces and articulating it. I think it works. I'm at a good place with it.
[Andre Leroux]: And actually, this is a question for Dennis, because Dennis, I don't know if this is a technology glitch on my side, but when I go into the Google Drive for this project, I'm only seeing, you know, a limited number of files and not more most recent ones. I'm just seeing the November of 2022. So I'm not sure if you can help me out with that.
[Denis MacDougall]: Dennis from you literally just eating something and had to swallow it. Everything should be there because we put the link up in the thing and maybe it's coming out.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: There were some Andre, there were some recent changes. If you haven't seen it, there were some changes because there's kind of a odd situation in the north. Andrew could explain it better than I can, but there were some changes in the northeast corner of that facade where the garage is kind of visible, but I think they did the right thing. They added some of the more typical siding in that area. I think there were a couple of issues that I was concerned about and they got resolved. in the latest elevation that I reviewed.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And, uh, thanks Dennis for that link that took me to a different folder. So that's helpful.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, we should notice something that's, that's, that's sort of on me, the initial meeting agenda, which is kind of what you probably put the link on. that was before the city transferred over some of the website. So I think that went to like a dead link. So apologies for that.
[Andre Leroux]: But yeah, if we could update that for the public to that'd be great.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thanks.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. Other questions from the board for Mr. Bomer? Jamie, go ahead. Not specific to Mr. Bomer, but I know there have been a couple of comments about shadow studies. I know we did recently get that, not at this moment, but are we going to be revealing that?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I guess that's a question for Mr. Alexander. So the board did, I can confirm the board did receive it maybe about a week ago. And you mentioned that it was discussed in a work session, but the board wasn't present. So is that something maybe we could spend a few minutes going through sometime tonight?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, we're happy to do that. I think, as Mr. Bowmer said, well, yeah, we're happy to do that.
[Mike Caldera]: Does that work for you, Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Great. Other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I can go. I'm just going to be blunt, Mr. Bowmer. What's the right number of parking spaces, do you think? Is it this 132 or is it a higher number?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, you know, I can't argue against the, you know, on the ground data that Tim may have about his current developments, but for me, You know, Medford is not hugely serviced by public transportation. So my suggestion was that the board should approve a minimum of one-to-one.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, I think I may have been too ambiguous in my wording. What's the right number of bike parking spaces? So you said in your letter that you suggest a minimum of one-to-one, for vehicular parking for vehicular for bikes right now it's 132. I'm asking you what's the right number.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Okay well I think what I was suggesting is that I acknowledge that there's good information available that's been offered up about existing demand for bicycle parking in very nearby developments. And that's, to me, kind of the best evidence we have. The problem is that it's only the way it is today. So my argument was more to build into the decision flexibility. And for me, it was establishing a minimum number of vehicular spaces that would allow expansion of bike spaces as the demand increases. And I think we all hope at least that demand will increase. If you went by other communities' standards, and they're different, they have, you know, Cambridge is one-to-one, and Boston is one-to-one. They're somewhat different standards for senior housing, Generally, it's one-to-one, so it's more than double, or yeah, it's more than double than what's proposed, but it may not be there at this point. So that's all I'm saying is my argument was give some room for expansion without the applicant having to come back for modifications to the decision. Because I don't know what it is. I know Cambridge is so far beyond what this development is providing that Cambridge would not pack bicycles in bike rooms as tightly as this proposal is. It doesn't mean it's an unreasonable proposal. It may really reflect current demand in Medford. You know, the way this gets handled with various things, whether it's how the trash management is working, there are provisions, and I'm not an attorney, I don't write decisions, but there are provisions for checking in in six months or six months after full rent up to see if what was designed is actually working. I'm not dodging the question. I really don't have an answer. If I were to say that standard that we're seeing emerging in towns that have very good access to public transportation, you can look at Cambridge and Boston. They have really, really intense bike parking standards. Medford, I don't think has it at this point. But I think if you don't build into a decision a way that people can expand without worrying of going outside of what was approved, I would encourage building in expandability.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I see Mr. Alexander's hand is raised. I just wanna finish up this thought. So Mr. Bomer, so basically, if I'm understanding you correctly, at the start of this hearing with the lesser number of bike spaces that was proposed, back then your position was, this is clearly not enough. So now what I'm hearing is, When we consider the expansion of the bike spaces and the type of analysis that was conducted to attempt to right-size it, your position has shifted to this is potentially enough and the analysis is plausible that this is enough, but we should consider building flexibility into the decision, um, so that, uh, essentially there's the opportunity to expand without coming back.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. Thank you for that. That's exactly right. Initially, I think it was very clear it was inadequate. Uh, now we, uh, I think the, uh, applicant offered up some numbers based on current experience and that's, that may be as good as we're going to get at this point, but I think it's a mistake to not believe that the demand will increase in the future and it needs to be built into the project. I agree that containing the bikes in the parking garage area is the right idea, whether they're electric bikes or just regular bikes. And there's space to do it. The way that the expansion occurred after the first iteration was by taking advantage of kind of dead corners in the parking garage. Those exist at the upper levels as well. So that space could easily be utilized without even diminishing vehicular parking spaces. It means people would take their bikes up the elevator in all likelihood But there is space, there's space now, even without taking away parking. So I think I just really strongly encourage that, that there be a built-in space for expanding the bike parking space and the decision to build in.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Thank you. Mr. Alexander, go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thanks, Mr. chair. And actually, Mr. Bomer, uh, just now said exactly what I was going to say that we looked at this again over the past week or so. And I think we noted that the same area of the garage that we're using on the first and second floor for bike storage, um, is likely the best, um, future expansion area. And I think a good solution could be to make sure that that space is held and not used for something else. And that we call it, you know, future, you know, potential future bike storage on the plans. And so it's clearly noted and it doesn't get, you know, used for other storage or other utility space. So we have that relief valve, if you will, in the future. But we, you know, I think not to not to get too far down the road on this, but the. You know, I think we continue to believe that the Windsor mystic river community, which is. You know, delivered, uh, probably just about 2 years ago or just about that. Um, and the same unit count has. As this, you know, roughly 130, um, like storage spaces in that variety of. of racks and, you know, on the ground. Sometimes they're tandem, sometimes they're vertical. And so I think that continues to give to us. In our experience, bike parking is very location-specific. I think it's right to point out that we're not Cambridge, we're not Boston. There is great proximity to transit here. We hope that we have all sorts of bike users, but we do feel like we have the right number as we sit here today, but are on board with that future expansion idea.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: You know what I would say, Tim, I think the precedent for what you're suggesting is that reserving those spaces, I think there is precedent, but it's on the vehicular side. I've worked on projects where areas are reserved for expansion of car parking, and there's no reason at all to not adopt the same idea for bike parking. Just make sure that that space doesn't get used for something else, and then it's reserved for future expansion.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. What other questions do we have from the board about the architectural peer review letter?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I'm not seeing any. And so, shortly. So we can kind of get the update on the shadow study and then transition to the waiver list. But I think this is the the right moment to check in if there's any public comment. These were the two And the items that we said in advance are on the agenda for today, the review letters and the final plans. We will be talking more about waiver lists again at our next meeting. And so, yeah, I'm inclined to open to public comment shortly, but Mr. Alexander, go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thanks, Mr. Chair. didn't want to preempt that, the public comment, but I did want to point out that, um, that I believe building commissioner 40 probably has an update. And as I do, because we met, um, last week regarding phased occupancy and the question about how that would work. And so I didn't know if you want to do that now or after public comment, but I want to make sure that we were able to update the board on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks for calling that out. Why don't yeah, why don't we do updates for the board and then we'll then we'll go to public comment.
[Bill Forte]: Okay, so I'll take the lead on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we had a very substantive discussion about how the phased occupancy of this structure is going to look. Myself and the fire chief met with Tim and his team and we believe that we came up with a resolution that's going to satisfy both public safety and give the applicant the ability to be able to start generating income on these units as, as it occurs, and so we basically the one at the locus you're starting from basically from Mr. Valley Parkway and working backward on what will happen is after the first building is constructed, and the other is underway. There will be there will be full activation of both the fire alarm and sprinkler system. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit in one section or one half of the building on the plan and just in basic. is a 2L fire rated assembly between both the occupied and unoccupied area. With the caveat that the entire building has a full passive fire protection, meaning that all of the building elements are protected with the required fire separation and fire materials, there can be a phased occupancy in this. And what will happen is, The portion of the building that will be occupied will be separated by one other portion of the building that is fully activated with the sprinkler and alarm system and again fully covered with passive fire resistant materials. While the next building behind it is going to be constructed. In essence, it goes up here and up here, and then this gets occupied with this one empty but fully protected. And then as it moves down, it steps up and then back down. So we haven't worked out that we really think that this is going to work. The applicant did kind of walk us through what they're thinking about for on-site security during construction. We're very pleased with that. Obviously, the 241 plan will reflect any of the requirements of that chapter and probably some additional requirements. I don't have any concerns at this point. Again, as I said at the last meeting, I wanted to reiterate my thanks and gratitude for the board listening to what I had to say about fire protection, you know, given that we did have one of the largest construction fires in the United States. I think that the applicant fully understands and is aware of, you know, the inherent fire risk here. And I think that as a team, we will work toward getting, you know, getting the applicant, you know, to the goal line, which is basically occupancy of the building. In that, as soon as the draft language is available amongst us to add edits and comments, I'd like to have a copy of it so that I can write in two things. First, the authority of the building inspector to issue the certificate of occupancy should should really not be so much authorized in writing as much as it will be left to me in more of a independent judgment along with the fire chief. So the comment that I'll add or the caveat that I'll add there is that in cooperation with the fire chief, a temporary certificate of authority can be issued when all of the fire safety, fire life safety requirements have been met. In addition to that, the building itself would have to be finished to a certain degree. So there are some complexities in with the garage because the garage is kind of surrounded by units. And so those technical matters can be worked out by right with myself, the fire chief, and the applicant. I don't feel that we need to get into too much detail about the authorization of the certificate of occupancy or the temporary certificate of occupancy, because I believe that we have something worked out. And I believe that the applicant is going to submit a proposed phased occupancy plan, which will become part of the approved building permit as it's being submitted. And then in addition to that, The, the only other thing that I would say about some of the waivers that are in there, I think that the one sentence that will probably clarify anything will be that, you know, nothing shall limit the authority of the building commissioner to enforce, you know, the provisions of the order and of the state building code and the like. So I don't, I don't see that any of that will be an issue. So was everyone able to hear me there? I feel like I got a bad connection here.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, yeah, thank you. Commissioner 40. Um, I certainly was able to hear you. Uh, you know, it wasn't even breaking up. It was just slowing down.
[Bill Forte]: That's all I have at this time. Okay. Yep. Sorry about that. Okay. So I have no other comments at this point. And, uh, you know, if there's any questions I can answer for the, for the board, please feel free.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Thanks for the update. Um, I'll just check in with Mr. Alexander, if there's anything he'd like to add on this topic and then we can go to the board.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, I think Mr. Forty covered it. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, questions from the board for Commissioner Forty? So, Commissioner Forty, just a clarifying question. If I understood you correctly, so we can certainly get you the draft language so you can kind of work on the portion you just spoke about. Would this ultimately be somehow codified in a condition or do you think that, you know, based on these discussions that that's no longer necessary, it would more just be a point of clarification and then the order itself?
[Bill Forte]: Well, I think the only authority that the order needs to give me is that is that I make the judgment call as to the completeness of the project. So let's just say there are conditions stemming outside of the construction of the building. Let's just say that there's sewer improvements on the gap. In that case, then you would want to be specific sidewalk crossings to be installed or pedestrian safety lights or something like that. You would just want to make sure that any of that is conditioned into my ability and the chief's ability to be able to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy or a phased occupancy. Again, I think the whole authority does lie within the building commissioners jurisdiction. And again, in conjunction with the fire chief, if you wanted to perhaps put the planning director in there as, you know, one of the, you know, one of the approving, you know, or, or one of the, one of the persons that, you know, would review it just to make sure that let's just say the landscaping or the driveway or something like that from the planning aspect that needs to be reviewed, then certainly that would be okay as well. But, but again, Um, I don't think that the order needs to be too specific. I think probably the less language in there, the better. So I'm planning on maybe two small paragraphs, um, to, to outline and memorialize, um, all of the safety concerns that I have, at least as the building.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you, commissioner 40 other, other questions from the board for commissioner 40. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Mr. Alexander, were there other topics you wanted to touch on before we open for public comment?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, not at this time. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Chair awaits a motion to open public comment on the updated plan packet and the updated engineering and architectural peer review letters. So moved.
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Seconded. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Alicia Hunt]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, we're open for public comment. If you're a member of the public, you're on the call. Please feel free to use the raise hand function on Zoom. You can turn on your camera, raise your hand manually. You can type in the chat. You can shoot Dennis an email. Do we have any members of the public who would like to comment? I see we have at least some members of the public on, I believe.
[Unidentified]: So I just wanted to double check. I'm going to give it a few seconds just to make sure.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, I'm not seeing any. So chair awaits a motion to close public comment on the updated plan packet and the engineering and architectural updated review letters. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we'll take another roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Rhett?
[Alicia Hunt]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So public comment is now closed. So Mr. Alexander, can you maybe just give us a brief summary of the shadow study, just for the board's understanding?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I've got them here. Let me share my screen. And I think Mr. Bomer and Mr. Stebbins, our project architect, could probably do as good, if not better, a better job. Basically what a shadow study does is look at, you know, four moments during a day, four days per year, right? The sort of different, is it the equinox? Apologies for my lack of proper nomenclature there. So here you can see at the bottom, March 21st, and it looks at, the different times of day. I think this should say 3 p.m. actually. Is that right, Andrew? Yes. Yeah. So morning, noon, afternoon, and evening. And it obviously looks in March and then looks into the next slide here. There we go. June does the same time frames. September the same time frames and then December and I think without going, you know through in in to greater detail I think the important thing to note here is one obviously, you know One of the benefits of this location at this site is that there aren't You know, there aren't residential neighbors nearby proximate who would be the impact that are affected by Shadows from a building. We've obviously got You know to to two sites down to the west is the 12-story existing condominium community, and then I think we've talked about what's approved on the Pertucci compared to our 85 feet. So data studies are really looked at to try to understand is there going to be some major impact on either, you know, residential use, or I know Mr. Bomer was stating that in the past he'd seen a board look at impacts on a nearby wetlands. But I don't believe that to be a concern here either. And I don't want to put words in Mr. Bowmer's mouth, but when we looked at these during the working session, these were not a cause of great concern, a fairly standard view of how shadow studies are put together. Andrew Stebbins or Cliff, I'll open it to you if you have any other comments on the shadow study.
[Andre Leroux]: I have nothing else to add unless somebody has a question. Okay, thanks.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: No, and I don't either. We did review these. I think initially there were some thoughts about shadows in the courtyard. This confirmed what I think we assumed the conditions in the courtyard were, but I think their usefulness I think is demonstrated through other rendering. So I was, and Tim expressed that accurately. I was wondering what the impact might be on the wetlands to the north. And actually there really isn't even that much shadow impact there. And most of it occurs in the middle of winter when most things aren't even leafed out. So yeah, I mean, This is what we were looking for. They seem accurate to me. I have no issues with the shadow studies.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great, thank you. Jamie, was that information what you were looking for when you requested this earlier?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we went over it. One of the questions that I had was with the courtyard lighting. Mr. Bromo had raised concern about those shadows. I just wanted to make sure that we discussed those. All right, great.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, thank you, Mr. Alexander. So I'd like to move on to the waiver list. So at our last hearing, we talked a little bit about it, but it was very broad brush because frankly, most folks on the call hadn't had enough time to review it in depth. And so I have at this point had a chance to review it with the city's legal representation. Also, there were some comments in both of the peer review letters relating to the waiver list. We've already received some clarifications about the intent behind some of the requested waivers, which I appreciate. But yeah, Mr. Alexander, at our last hearing, you had mentioned that you might want to actually go through the list and describe to us the rationale behind some of these elements? Is that something you still want to do? Or do you feel like what we discussed at a high level at the last hearing, it was the type of information you wanted to share with us?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, thanks Mr. Chair. So specific to the waiver list? Waiver list, yeah. I think a couple things. I don't think probably going item by item is probably what's needed tonight, but I did want to point out and maybe reiterate a couple things and point out a couple other things. One is, We have already started to further revise the waiver list. I noted the Stoller waiver as one, you know, one example of that. There are a couple others specific to the permits, you know, building permit, occupancy permit. We're going to further clarify those so there aren't, you know, so they don't sort of bring about that same question or concern about whether we're seeking waiver from either fee or a standard process. And then the one other thing that I think, you know, again, probably with some more detailed discussion with the 40B consultant, Judy Barrett, on the city side, but we heard and understand some of the initial questions or concerns about those sort of more blanket waivers that showed up towards the end of the waiver list. It's not our intent to, you know, ask for specific waivers and then seek, you know, some blanket waiver that would provide all sorts of other coverage, if you will. So that's something we're looking at as well. And I think we'll probably be removing or pulling off or at least clarifying a number of those more general waivers that were included in the submission on, when was that, on the 12th. Chris or Louise, do you have anything else you want to add to that while we're?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Tim. I think that that's a good place setter. I'll just offer to the chair and to the board, for example, we've been able to look at it a little bit more specificity. For example, we had a requested waiver related to accessory uses and structures. And now we've just, we could make that a little bit more specific to reference retaining walls and fences. So it's just providing a little bit more specificity. There's a waiver request that was related to driveways in the zoning ordinance that I don't think is needed. We noticed that that's actually applicable only that requirement in residential districts. So we could provide a little bit of an update, Mr. Chair, to the board, or if Ms. Barrett and the city solicitor had reactions, that might be more productive for the board for us to receive those and review those offline and work. As Tim has said, I was not at it, but there's a very productive, as I understand it, working session with Ms. Hunt that we can really, I think, refined the solar waiver. Some of that was, you know, looking at the new ordinance and how that was providing for the solar bylaw and then the general ordinance and reconciling those so we could be clearer there. And then, you know, we did include the linkage waiver, which is different than a building permit fee waiver. We're not seeking a building permit fee waiver, but as to linkage, The zoning ordinance does authorize the waiver of linkage for projects that include subsidized or affordable rental housing. And I know in Medford historically, in projects that are non-40B projects that have 10 or 15%, affordable housing, linkage is not charged as to those income-restricted units, but there is no multiplier effect for those projects. Only those units count on the subsidized housing inventory. One of the benefits to Medford for a 40B rental project is 100% of the project's units will count on a subsidized housing inventory. We have requested because all of the units in the building count on the inventory for a waiver for linkage for those residential units. And then the amount of commercial square footage in the project at 2,000 square feet is below the 10,000 square foot commercial limit for linkage. So that's one I just wanted to speak to just a little bit and provide a little bit more detail of how we were ticking and tying the zoning ordinance together, as well as what we've experienced in other projects.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks for that update, Mr. Rainier. So a few things that came out of my discussion with the city legal representation. So first of all, there seems to be alignment at this point with what you just shared. The waivers that are too general, those need to be made specific. So like the blanket waiver at the end, that's a non-starter, that one's just gone. But then even for some of the other areas that, as worded, I think with your verbal descriptions, we understand the intent, but they're just too broad. And so the expectation is that the final waiver list will be requesting specific relief, and that to the extent possible, we're going to be just requesting the relief actually required for the project, not other things to just cover all bases. they offered, you know, if you'd like to talk with them. in crafting the updated waiver list, they're certainly happy to do so. Their position was from a responsibility standpoint, it is the applicant's responsibility to come up with the waiver list. So I think the current intention is not to just redline it and send it back to you. The expectation would be for you to first take some of the feedback from the peer review letters, some of the things we've already acknowledged, some of the things that know, you're planning to update anyway, try to reflect that in a in a list of specific waivers, you know, that that's kind of the minimal set needed, you know, for this project, and then, and then you're certainly welcome to, you know, to work with the city, you know, to get some feedback before we come back. So my, my hope And my intention is that when we reconvene on June 5th, that the waiver list has basically converged. So not only has there been this effort to make the relief requested more specific and to remove some of the blanket language, but that you've also had an opportunity to chat with the city and just make sure everyone's aligned on the language for the waivers being requested. So does that sound reasonable to you?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: It does, it makes a lot of sense and appreciate their offer and we will update the list and avail ourselves of it. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So there are a few things in the waiver list I do just want to touch on because I know it may come up in future hearings.
[Unidentified]: Hold on, I got too many things open. Shoot, I had it open and now it's not.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, there it is. I'm just scanning through. So we talked about... Solar as we discussed in our last meeting a lot of these waivers are just sort of implied by the You know the current site plans like if we accept the site plans, you know, these would need to be made So on the topic of, I think we talked about a lot of these, on the topic of the actual linkage fees themselves. So one thing that I think will just be helpful for us as a board in understanding the actual relief needed and being sought is, so in the ordinance itself, section 10.1.3. 0.1.1 development linkage fees. It describes the purpose of linkage fees and some of the procedures involved. And so this is a comprehensive permit process. The ZBA is basically acting in the stead of some other local boards for some of these things. And so in particular, there is this exemption for affordable housing, which I believe Mr. Raniere was referencing. So section 10.1.4 item three states that any building structure, substantial rehabilitation or addition that is proposed for subsidized or affordable homeowner or rental housing, which falls within the criteria developed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Department of Housing and Urban Development and confirmed by a vote of the Community Development Board. So essentially, if we waive the section as requested, then vote by the Community Development Board isn't required anyway. Um, but typically, in a case like this, it would be the Community Development Board that would weigh in on linkage fees. And so, as Mr. Regnier mentioned, all of the units here count towards the subsidized housing inventory. But only 25% of them are actually affordable units. And so I think just to make sure we're all on the same page and we understand the relief being requested here, I think it's important for the board to assert, essentially in the absence of a waiver, the percentage of units that would be exempted from linkage. And so my understanding from having talk to the city is that it would not be a hundred percent. It would be the 25% that are actually affordable. Um, and I have some numbers here, which, uh, maybe I can just share. Um, assuming I can screen share. Uh, all right. Uh, Can folks see this spreadsheet right here? Okay, so if this was all market rate housing, wasn't through the 40B process, that's what we're looking at right now. Under the city ordinance, so no exemptions, none of the exemption cases are met. Under the ordinance, 350 unit development, The linkage fees would equate to about 1.366 million. And here's the breakdown. So about 700K would go into a fund for water, about 200K sewer, 20K roads, 15K park, eight and a half police, call it 35 fire. Because this does have some subsidized units, the percent affordable is 25% here. So I'm just going to plug in that new value. Oops.
[Alicia Hunt]: Mike, you may want to zoom in a little. It's real hard to see.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm sorry. Thank you for pointing that out. Let me try to do that.
[Unidentified]: How do I zoom on Google Sheets? Zoom. There we go. I think that'll do it.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. That's getting bigger, right? So I'm just going to plug in 262 instead, which is essentially the units that would not be subsidized, the market rate units. So, assuming that the 25% affordable are exempted as per the ordinance, these are the linkage fees that would be typically expected in the absence of a waiver and the amounts that they would they would contribute to various funds. So 521K water, 145K sewer, 14K roads, 311K park, six and a half K police, 26K fire. So, because there is this, I guess, proposition about the, You know how, how are the this this point being made about how all of these units are you count towards the subsidized housing inventory but then. 25% of them are actually subsidized. My suggestion based on talking with the city and their legal representation is that as a board, we should make a finding as to the number of units that would be subject to linkage in the absence of a waiver. And so I will ultimately like to get thoughts from members of the board on this and answer any questions they may have. But I just want to double check. Mr. Regnier, Mr. Alexander, was there anything you wanted to speak to on this topic? Or does what I'm describing here make sense to you?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. Yes, what you're describing has been my experience in 48 projects in Medford, where The income-restricted units have not counted towards linkage payments. I think the distinction here is the subsidized nature of a 40B as you're laying out and how 100% of the units count on the inventory. So your initial methodology of backing out the 25% income-restricted units, if this was a 40A project, is consistent with my experience. I think the other thing just to point out is there's another section of the zoning ordinance that talks about how it's the initial applicability section or linkage that talks about projects that have over 10,000 square feet of commercial uses, or if this project has more than six units, I believe. And so we're talking here about the residential units, our project at the request of the city, when we came back to this board, does include about 2,000 square feet of commercial uses, which would be below that 10,000 square foot threshold, so that the commercial space would also be exempt from the linkage payments.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, fair call out. So yes, that's consistent with my understanding. I don't think we need a finding on that one, but I just want to disambiguate since this is a 40B, as you mentioned, 40B, there's this notion of the subsidized housing inventory. I just want to make sure as a board we clarify the relief being sought here. I'll turn it over to other members of the board. I know some of you are seeing this for the first time. They're like these specific numbers for the first time. So does anyone have clarifying questions or thoughts or comments on this general topic before we talk about the finding
[Unidentified]: And I'm screen sharing, so I can't see all of you. So if you want to say something, you can either unmute yourself and just start talking, or you can raise your hand on Zoom.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Jamie is giving a thumbs up, which is not the same as a raised hand. So I guess that means he's good. All right. OK. If there are no questions, so again, to restate the intention here, as a board, my position after talking to the city is that as a board, we should essentially find that some percentage of the units are exempt from linkage. And the question is whether that is 25% plus the commercial space, or if it's 100% plus the commercial space. So chair awaits a motion on this topic to find that X percent of the units are exempt from the linkage means in the absence of a waiver.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I would motion to find that 25% of the units plus the commercial space would be exempt from the Medford linkage ordinance or the fee, I should say.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. We're going to take a roll call.
[Unidentified]: Yvette?
[Alicia Hunt]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie? Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So the board finds that in the absence of a waiver, 25% plus the commercial space of, so 25% of the units plus the commercial space would be exempt from linkage fees. So what we're looking at right now is the linkage fees that would be expected in the absence of a waiver. Yeah. And so, I'm just going to make a suggestion on this topic. So ultimately, the board is going to consider the waiver request. There are a few elements here that I think are worth pointing out. So my understanding of the intent of the exemption is that it's an incentive to create subsidized housing. And through the 40B process, the subsidy is coming from the state. So there already is this incentive to create the affordable housing. I understand there's this issue of whether linkage fees would render the project itself But I think as a board, it's fair to assume that. we will have a discussion and we'll want to consider that because these are funds that do go towards various infrastructure improvements that we would expect the residents of this community to need. And so by waiving this, it does create, there's also a kind of a local, element of the waiver, you know, the implications for some of the infrastructure that would otherwise be supported through through linkage fees. So a suggestion I'm going to make not looking for any strong commitment here, but I'm wondering if perhaps the applicant would consider just talking with the city administration, perhaps the office of community development and just by our next meeting be prepared just to provide an update. Is the request still to entirely wave linkage or is there some middle ground that would ensure that this project is economical, you know, that wouldn't, you know, completely waive this linkage fee, because, you know, I do think there are some legitimate local concerns and reasons why we might be concerned waiving that. And so I think that's perhaps a constructive avenue to just have a conversation between this meeting and next one with the city. And if you come back and there's a alignment on what the right path forward is, then great. And if not, that's okay too. We'll ultimately consider whatever waivers are being requested as a board. So I'm gonna stop screen sharing now, and I just wanna check in with, I don't know if it would be Mr. Alexander or Mr. Raniere, but there's general, does that plan seem reasonable to you?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I, again, hampered a little bit by the Zoom, so Tim kicked me under the figurative desk, but it does, I think, to have a dialogue. You were breaking up, Mr. Chair, a little bit when you said speak with Oh, I'm sorry, I got was blankety blank at the city so I'm not sure who. Why don't you start with director hunt. Okay, that makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, she can route you to the appropriate folks at the city side but yeah I just in case this broke up high level suggestion is just let's have a conversation between this meeting and the next one, and then whatever the outcome of that discussion, whether it's alignment or whether it's a continuation of the waiver being requested here, you can just report back next meeting and it will be reflected in whatever that updated waiver list is. Does that sound good?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: It does to me. Does that sound okay to you, Tim? Yeah, that sounds right.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Great. Happy to do that.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. So glancing through the waiver list, I'm not seeing anything else that's standing out to me. as a topic we should discuss now. I think there's the general call-outs from the peer review letters. It sounds like there's a path forward to update those. Members of the board, are there specific items in the waiver list that you would like to Discuss tonight, um, because it may because you may have some concerns. About them heading into our next meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Can you just kind of put the link again to the waiver list? Because. Yeah, I'm not seeing that in the.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, why don't I'll just screen share it Andre that way. And so it's not my intention to to go through it fully. But we can just like I'll just sort of give a quick summary and then folks can can chime in if they feel like I missed anything. So just gonna zoom in a little bit.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, can you just clarify, is this in the Google Drive?
[Mike Caldera]: Because I... Yeah, there's multiple folders in the Google Drive, and I don't recall which folder it was in, but it's in there. It's in the... whichever folder contains all the updated plan packets. So yeah, so the title is Modera Mystic requested waiverless, something like that, May. Thank you. 2023 updates. Yeah, and so broadly, there are some waivers. that I would just characterize as pertaining to specific elements of the project that are already reflected in the site plans. So these would involve general provisions, table of use regulations, dimensional requirements. And so we can speak about any of them, but I'm going to I skimmed through them because I think a lot of them were sort of indirectly discussing just by talking about the plans themselves. And then there were some other, so general parking and loading, kind of same deal. So there was the signage where the, Uh, request was essentially. For a waiver from some of the signage requirements, which again, you know, I'm expecting in the updated list, this will be a little bit more specific. Uh, but we were, we were informed the intention is to come back before the board, um, as with, with this, like for a separate, uh, discussion on signage much closer to when the building is constructed. Um, and then. Aaron Sussman, PB – He, Him, His.: : Solar energy, it sounds like there's a solution there that's going to be removed from the updated list. Aaron Sussman, PB – He, Him, His.: : inclusionary housing. This one I'm going to have to double check exactly the implications here, but essentially the call out is that this is already affordable housing. So some of the provisions of that section wouldn't apply. There's the linkage fees that we just talked about. And then there's under the permits, there's the requested waivers of building permit and occupancy permit processes, which those are some of the items that in the peer review letters and in my review with the city legal and even in our discussions were called out is perhaps a bit too broad. But we've been told that the intention here is not to literally circumvent the building permit or occupancy permit process. It's more that there's elements of the actual Um. Procedure that that perhaps would be, um. Unnecessary in light of the comprehensive permit. Um. Site plan review. Uh, so that one's kind of. And then there's the blanket waiver request, which we've talked about. I think we'll just want that removed. It's too broad. There are also some waivers outside of zoning, which we haven't really talked about. But yeah, at a glance, I think it's largely asking to waive some additional permissions that would be required, which again, with the comprehensive permit process, are really encompassed in this process itself. Yeah, so I'll stop there. But if there are specific items in this table that members of the board wanted to talk about, or especially if you if you have concerns and you're not certain that the waiver is something you would support, now would be a good time to let the applicant know. Okay, I'm not seeing any such comments. So I'll just check in with Mr. Alexander. Were there other topics you were hoping to go through today, Mr. Alexander?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, Mr. Chair, I think we've covered the list.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So I'm just gonna, briefly pull up my notes and set expectations. So our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 5th.
[Unidentified]: And the updated timeline, I'm just pulling up the expectation that we set. Okay, here we go. Nope, not that one. Okay, here we go. So we have on Monday,
[Mike Caldera]: June 5, so we're going to get the updated waiver list. And I have requested Ms. Barrett draft the conditions based on what the board has discussed thus far. She will consult as needed with the city legal representation. So we should have updated waiver list from the applicant, which they, like I mentioned, the city has offered to review and iterate on that with them once their specific waivers are being requested. We'll have some draft conditions based on what the board has already you know, ask for some common conditions that are typically included in 40 B's. Um, and we'll also have some, um, you know, some vetted language for some of the, um, specific conditions proposed in the engineering, um, peer review letter and, um, themes, uh, proposed in the, for conditions proposed in the architectural letter, um, as, as well as the, you know, if there's any conditions, um, related to the, the, the building commissioners, um, phase occupancy safety concerned. Um, it sounds like those will be pretty simple. Um, so yeah, so we'll have updated, uh, waiver requests. We'll have a draft list of conditions and then Um, as a board, we're just gonna we're gonna go through all those and, uh, the. It's an open question. It's going to depend a little bit on how productive we are the next meeting. We may we may vote next meeting. We have one additional date. Scheduled for the for the 12th, and so that would be the latest we would intend to vote as a board. Eso that that's the plan. Um, just want to check in with the group. Are there any, am I missing anything? Are there any call outs or concerns with us proceeding with that plan?
[Andre Leroux]: So like we'll, There are some recommended conditions in the peer review documents, and will city staff make an effort to compile all those in a document and circulate that with us beforehand?
[Mike Caldera]: So my understanding, and Director Hunt can check me on this if I'm misunderstanding anything, our 40B consultant, Ms. Judy Barrett, is going to It is actually already in the process of drafting the comprehensive list of conditions related to topics that we've discussed over the course of this hearing. So my expectation, which I'll reiterate with Ms. Barrett, since she wasn't able to join today's call, is that in advance of the June 5th hearing, there will be a list that contains all of the customary and sort of recommended conditions, a version of all of the conditions that are being suggested in the updated peer review letters, conditions, you know, proposed by building commissioner, fire chief, the conditions we as a board have spoken to. So like the local preference condition, all of these we will have in a vetted draft form. So the language will be vetted. It will be a comprehensive list of everything discussed over the course of this hearing. And then as a board, we'll be going through them. We'll be talking about them. We may propose tweaking them, and then we'll ultimately decide which conditions we are thinking about imposing in our decision. Does that answer your question, Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thank you. So I guess, do you know when we would expect that document?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll have to confirm with Ms. Barrett, and I can I can update the group, but like I said, we need it in advance of the hearing. So if it's Monday, June 5th, then we have to get it sometime next week. Yeah, Director Hunt, is there anything I'm missing or is that consistent with your understanding?
[Alicia Hunt]: That's my general understanding too, and that she's pulling it together. and preparing the list in conjunction with our legal accounts. But I think she's doing it.
[Unidentified]: Okay, other logistical questions and or concerns?
[Bill Forte]: Mister chair, um, just, uh, for the record, I'll, I'll draft up the language that I think should go in there, um, regarding the sections that I'm working on and I'll make sure that miss Barrett has them, um, early next week. So she can put them into the draft or whatever.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Commissioner 40. It sounds like a plan. Other comments, questions, concerns.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, seeing none, chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to Monday, June 5th at 7.30 PM. So moved. Do I have a second?
[Unidentified]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Matt. Aye. Jamie. Aye. Andre. Aye. Mike. Aye. All right, this matter is continued to June 5th. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Second. All right, all in favor? Aye. All right, thank you everyone. Have a great night. See you soon. See you on June 5th.