[Mike Caldera]: Welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. So tonight we have another session of our hearing for 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway. We're gonna take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jim Tarani. Aye. Yvette Velez. Aye. Jamie Thompson. Present. Andre LaRue. Present. Mike Caldera. Present. All right. So we have five members present. Um, Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things extends temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding the remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you. First item. 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continuing from May 8th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of a petition of MVP Mystic LLC and affiliated Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Law's Chapter 40B for multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed in approximately 350 unit rental apartment building, which is to mix containing a mix of studio one, two and three bedroom apartments and 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. All right. So for tonight's meeting, I believe we will predominantly be discussing the updated plan packet that the board received on Friday. There's a couple of housekeeping items I just want to quickly get out of the way so we can move on to that. So first of all, there was a question of purview raised at a prior meeting about a couple of conditions that were under consideration by the board. We did go ahead and request a legal opinion on each of those. One of them was time sensitive and relevant to the plans themselves. And so we sent a letter to the applicant about it. But I just wanted to briefly update the public on each of these items. So firstly there was a question as to whether the Zoning Board of Appeals could impose conditions in the interest of public safety that were in excess of the of the building code. And So we did seek clarification into that issue and were advised that we should not impose any such conditions. So we were informed that the board may impose conditions in the interest of public safety within the parameters of the state building code. And additionally, there is some safety concerns that the board may want to discuss that was raised by the the building commissioner and the fire chief related to how the related to the phase construction of these two buildings. So the clarification is there is room for conditions within the parameters of the state building code. And so that's something as a board we can consider, but I'm gonna rule that we will not be considering the imposition of conditions in excess of the state building code in this hearing. And then the second clarification was in terms of local preference conditions. And so the clarification we received there is that it is within the board's purview to uh, impose local preference conditions if they, um, see it fit, uh, within a certain narrow band. So there's some commonly accepted language, um, that's understood to be within the board's purview. Um, we did as a board received some documentation from the city pertaining to the justification of need for local preference. That's something we will potentially discuss at the end of this meeting, but I just wanted to clarify those two issues up front for the public. And then lastly, When we get started, there will be a discussion about the logical end date for these hearings. We received a letter and a request last week as a board to basically extend the timeline because these plans that we'll be reviewing today weren't Um, and so we discussed, uh, at our last week's hearing, um, a small extension in timeline, but didn't make a decision as to the exact length. And so, um, I'm expecting at some point today, we'll, we'll talk through that. Um, so that's all I had in the way of upfront logistical items. Um, I see we have Mr. Alexander from the applicant. Um, would you like the floor?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I assume, Mr. Chair, in handing the baton to me, that it's an appropriate time for me to just quickly run through some of the highlights on the plan changes on the submission from last Friday. Is that fair?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, please go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Great. Yes, so we appreciate the board's willingness to sort of wait a week, if you will, on the submission of plans that gave us the opportunity to coordinate a little bit further with the peer reviewers, and then really make sure that the plans were fully coordinated from civil to landscape to architecture. And so what we submitted on Friday, and hope we've all maybe had a chance to briefly review, is an updated architecture plan set uh, with the floor plans and representative unit plans, uh, renderings, of course. Um, civil engineering plans and landscape plans as well. And the additional information I think probably wasn't part of the March resubmission was really the updated. a list of requested waivers, also the tabular zoning analysis, and a lot of the detail that really tries to marry the plans as revised to the local Medford zoning ordinance, and then, of course, the requested waivers from that ordinance. A lot are fairly cut and dried or tied to something that's just like a geometric item, like a setback or a building height, and then some others are a little bit more nuanced. But in terms of plans and share my screen, I just can give a couple. There we go. Just give a couple of highlights on the plans and I think. None of these should be new as a concept, but I think there are items that maybe you saw on a bullet point list at our hearing a couple hearings ago, but haven't seen them yet on the plans. And so just wanted to point out five or six of them among the various plans. And I've clouded a few. One was the The concern over some head in parking here at the lowest half level of the parking garage, making sure that we didn't have a condition where cars had pulled in head first, and then needed to back out a series of feet in order to get to sort of move out of the garage. So. This was cleaned up and at the loss of four spaces total, I think we've created now what is a more clean condition in that lowest level of the garage. I think we, the peer reviewers and you had all agreed that that was the right thing to do. Moving up a level, there are a couple of things to highlight and a few other things that are really just more in the details. Um, we, the big one, uh, was to further expand the short-term loading and unloading area. Um, this is now approximately 120 or 125 feet long. Um, so it does it, um, I think per ordinance, uh, 30 feet is sort of a loading zone. This accomplishes, you know, roughly three or four of those loading zone. Um, knowing that, pardon me, there'll be short-term. whether it be our shuttle bus for commuters, other things we've talked about, rideshare, Uber Eats, and certainly if moving vehicles aren't able to fit within the parking garage, and this is an area where they could stage and move in and move out, obviously managed, of course, by our onsite community management staff. Another sort of relief valve, if you will, for that kind of short-term parking, Noting two spaces, one in each garage for short term parking, whether it be a maintenance vehicle, or, you know, third party, or hopefully a move in if somebody's in a ban or a, or a appropriate size truck that can fit in with the graph into the garage. 1 of the thing I thought I'd note on this plan that I'm not sure we talked about. in a hearing, but our design team picked up on the fact that if we are, if there are folks who have to move in and use this area for van parking or truck parking, then their route to get to the elevators and up to their apartment home is through this entrance right here. And so this was not, unfortunately it couldn't be enlarged because of the size of the elevators, but at least we added a second swing door there to give a five foot open opening in that in that entrance from just as again, this is sort of operational practical day by day to get folks in and out as they're moving or when they're moving when they're moving moving and move out. So. There were just a couple others. I'll flip over to the landscape plan as revised. And I think this plan created by Rob Adams and his team is the best to show improvements and coordination among both courtyards. This was a great pickup by Mr. Bowmer that if and when we have our flexible play equipment and other items in the North courtyard, They need to be not only managed during the season that they're out, but they need to be stored during the season that they are not used. And so we have noted on the architectural plans, a storage room here, and it's obviously coordinated with this area. So we can appropriately store that material. And similarly, we'll do that with other patio furniture and things. And the second thing on these courtyards is just to make sure that the hard gate which is kind of the gray zone here, matches up with the amenity space that's part of the interior of that courtyard level. And we've done that on both the third, I'm sorry, on the North courtyard and the South. And I'm going to just flip to that real quick. Sorry to be bouncing around. Here they are right here. This shows the storage room and this shows the coordination with our community amenities space in each building, making sure that the courtyard is obviously appropriately designed so the indoor-outdoor relationship works seamlessly. I won't get into too much detail or if any on the civil engineering plan, but I just want to say that you know, feel really, we feel, you know, we feel good about the coordination and the level of detail, certainly in the comments that we received from Mr. Reardon and his team, and then Tony Donato, our civil engineer at Hancock, was able to pick up really a lot more detail on these civil engineering plan sheets, you know, that comes in the form of of details on the knee wall on the the eastern boundary which we know is an important boundary for us right it's our it's really our only neighbor our only active neighbor um aside from the roadways and so we need to make sure that everything as designed there can be constructed without any kind of um without any kind of you know interruption on the on the east side of that property line um one other thing that was picked up uh just last week and added to the plans was the was the really good concept that That this line right here, this internal drive switches from 2 way traffic over here to 1 way traffic here. And so we need to make sure that the 1 way traffic that's coming up from mystic Valley Parkway and around through the site. is aligned with the call it westbound traffic. And so we don't have people driving on this side and then having to move over into the appropriate lane. So that's why you see this new area that's striped basically just to get people to merge into the appropriate lane on their way out of the site. I think Mr. Chair, I'll leave it there for now. I'm sure, obviously, if there are specific questions from the board or the peer reviewers on the plans as revised, either I'm happy to field those or our design team is on as well and can field any of those. So thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: That sounds great. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Why don't we quickly check in with each of the peer reviewers just for their high-level thoughts, and then we'll go ahead with board questions after that. So Mr. Reardon, would you please just kind of share overall takeaway having interviewed some of these plans, especially I know that you had some concerns in your earlier comment letter that were planned to be addressed as part of this updated plan packet and so just wanted to get a sense of from you of how close you think we are with this updated plan set.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, I haven't. I mean, it's been a very busy weekend, and I haven't really even had a chance to even download the drawings yet. So I hope to do that, if not tomorrow, then by Wednesday. But I can tell you that we had a very productive meeting. I think all of my issues were communicated. I see they've got some of them addressed. So now it's just a matter of making sure that I can go through them and comment on what's been provided. One thing I did notice, that striping that's been added to push the vehicles to align that with the traffic coming in, we'd have to stripe that as no parking fire lane so that it doesn't get confused for a loading area. But those are all minor things that I'll address in a comment letter when I issue it.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I might, one thing I forgot to mention that hopefully helps Mr. Reardon's review as well. Part of the revised submission, we included a matrix sort of comment and response matrix for both the second peer review of the civil and the architecture. That's all in one big matrix, but hopefully that helps in terms of being able to match the comments, the response, and then where it's where it is on the plan.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thanks. Thank you. All right. Sounds good, Mr. Reardon. So just one clarifying question for you. So we're going to have a discussion later this evening about schedule for the rest of the hearing. But our next hearing is on Monday, I think the 22nd. Um, do you anticipate having an updated comment letter, um, for that hearing a week from today?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: I would expect to it. The only thing I would caution is unless I'm, um, um, unpleasantly surprised by the submittal. It's sort of my ability to issue a letter is depends on how many issues are outstanding. So the more issues that are outstanding, the longer the letter takes, but I would expect that I should have a letter by the close by the end of the week. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Um, and then why don't we move on to Mr. Bowmer? Um, same core questions for you, Mr. Bowmer, just, um, overall. Updated site plans. I know they were updated plans in general. I know we got them on Friday. Have you had a chance to review? Do you think we're getting close and any things you'd like to draw to our attention?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Um, just a couple, I think I'll, I'll echo what Sean said. Or maybe first, there are no surprises in what we're seeing and I support the changes. They are things that we've discussed. I haven't had the time to really go through a lot of our issues really were coordination issues. So I haven't had the time since Friday to go through and really check that out. I certainly can submit a letter this week or in time for the 22nd. I think maybe one question I've got is, or maybe it's a clarification on the opinion that you got about exceeding building code. I don't want to speak for the commissioner, but I will say that some of safety issues that are related or embodied in the, you know, in the fire safety code, uh, puts a lot of discretion in the, in the authority having jurisdiction. So, uh, I just want to put that out there. I'm not going to speak for the commissioner, but I know he had issues. They're unusual. I think it's an unusual, uh, circumstance or, and I'm sure that, The details about how the whole development might be occupied in a phase fashion will come under the authority of the commissioner. So I just want to put that out there again. I'm not speaking for the commissioner. I can't speak for the commissioner, but to me, it's an open question. Just given the discretion that the commissioner does have to enforce the various codes that make up the mass building code.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Bomer. To that specific point, perhaps in summarizing, I spoke a bit too freely. So essentially, the opinion pertain specifically to the question of purview with the phased installation and activation of the sprinkler system. So the core question was, I believe even in the building commissioner and fire chief's letter, they mentioned that that particular condition wasn't enforceable as part of the state building code or fire code. And so then the question was, it's clearly within the board's purview to impose conditions in the interest of public safety. So for this particular condition, is it or is it not? And so I'm not going to rehash all the details, but I received a convincing opinion that the answer on this particular issue is no. But the thing that I would like to emphasize is that as part of that same opinion, it
[Unidentified]: Um.
[Mike Caldera]: Reiterated many of the points you touched on. So the building commissioner does still have a high degree of discretion. You mentioned the face construction. Certainly there's some, um, you know, some of the fire danger being. Called out here is, um, you know, specific to elements of this project. And so, yeah, I merely about this specific construction measure and whether that was within the board's purview. I hope that helps to clarify.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I appreciate that. I think it also goes into the territory of phased occupancy. They're just points that are of interest that may or may not be within the jurisdiction of the board. I'm not an attorney.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the phase documency one was specifically called out as within the purview. Commissioner 40 as you have your hand raised.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, yeah, so so, um, you know, in looking at the, you know, the function of a zoning board of Appeals 40 B order, You know, of course, you know, the requirement for sprinklers is a reach. And I just want to thank the board and the applicant for the consideration of what, you know, what could be in order. And of course, as I mentioned before, the fact that it could be challenged, and obviously, you know, we don't want to get into that. And that wasn't my intention in the beginning. I do want to say that, yes, I still, think that, um, well, it's, it's quite obvious that of course, I'll be, you know, monitoring this job closely. We'll, we'll be working with the, with the applicant and the builder, um, to ensure the, you know, to the best measure of public safety. And, and I think that, um, you know, that, that that's not going to be an issue. Um, And there is a possibility that, you know, even if this isn't in the order, um, it might be in the applicants best interest to maybe try to phase up sprinkler systems while the building's under construction for purposes of what Mr. Bomer actually reflected on, the phased occupancy portion of this project, which I know that we'll probably frame out in some fashion. And certainly, it's not a complete impossibility that this might actually occur. I just want to say that my goal here has always been public safety. If I didn't live through the largest construction fire in the United States in 2017, this wouldn't have even come in front of you because I wouldn't have had that experience. But unfortunately, I live the experience. And again, you know, I only speak on the side of public safety interest. I don't have any other purpose here. You know, like I say, I don't really have any issues with the zoning, the density, the parking, any of that stuff. My biggest concern here is fire safety. And I think that we're able to express that. And I hope the board might consider some language in the order that basically frames out, you know, you know, our request for it, uh, reasons why it might've been denied in brief. And then perhaps, um, just, uh, just a blurb saying that, you know, nothing shall limit the authority of the building commissioner, which again, I don't think it's necessary, um, you know, to, to the degree that, um, you know, because I don't get my way that I'm somehow going to be not cooperative. Um, that's not it at all. I, I just want everyone to know that, you know, that, that, um, uh, my, my suggestions right from the beginning were based on my experience. And again, I've helped get almost four of these projects through that are considerably large, and I kind of know how they operate. And so I do appreciate the board being able to allow me to weigh in on the capacity that I have, and I'm gonna continue working with the applicant to make this a safer project as possible. And I just want you to know, I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner 40. Yeah, I just also want to say, you know, it's certainly my intention for us as a board to discuss all of the public safety issues raised and to, you know, have appropriate language and conditions in the order to reflect that. Mr. Alexander, I see you have your hand raised.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you chair, I just a question I guess it would be helpful. So, first of all, appreciate the update from the board side on this. I know it's obviously a topic that's been that's that's. considerable thought has gone into it on all sides, right? We've had site visits, we've had meetings. My team, especially my construction team, has spent a lot of time to better understand both the design and the cost associated with the early fire suppression installation. So I have a question, and I think it would be helpful to know when we talk about phased occupancy or that's referenced, The level of sort of detail within that phasing, and here's I guess an example. When we have one building that makes up an entire community, oftentimes that is phased within the single building. And here we have a bit of a unique circumstance where we have two buildings as well. So, and this is maybe early, it may be an offline conversation to have with Commissioner Forty and others, but be interested to know when the term phased occupancy is brought up, is that meant to say phasing one building and then the other building, or the potential even for phasing within a building given appropriate fire separation and other design? Does that something that I don't know if Mr. Chair or the commissioner can shed a little bit more detail on?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, I'm wondering if that's a topic that would be best just discussed offline to start. Because I think my answer would certainly be, It's complicated. I don't know if commissioner 40s, uh, would be any different, but, um, broadly speaking, uh, I, I think reference to phased occupancy, um, is all still in the context of, of fire hazard. So essentially, um, you know, if a portion of a building is occupied while other things are under construction, the safety analysis is fundamentally different than when both buildings are vacant. So I think that's probably not exactly the answer you were hoping for, but my gut tells me, if you just talk with Commissioner Forti offline, probably have a back and forth and kind of go through all the scenarios, but Commissioner Forti, if there's anything else you'd like to say on the matter, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mister chair. Thank you. Um, I think I can probably pinpoint a little bit better on the answer that Mr. Alexander is looking for. Um, I think under the ZBA order. Okay. Um, when it comes to occupancy phasing, normally what happens with the special permit granting authority or the permit granting authority in this case, uh, is that, um, that, that the ZBA might write into the order different conditions under which the building commissioner can make the determination for temporary occupancy so let's just say that let's let's just say for example right we cut the we cut the job in half and it's one building and it's completely It's completely fitted up, the fire safety is 100%, the landscaping is done, the parking's in place, the safety features, everything is good to go. That specific authority would come from the ZBA in the form of an order that would not restrict or stop me from issuing a phased occupancy permit. When it comes to the building code and the fire code, obviously those things will be within my discretion and I certainly will make those determinations depending on what is being proposed. The likelihood that a building might be divided in half and occupied half and half is not likely because this particular project is not built into fire areas. So if a building were divided straight up and down into a fire area, and there was a two hour fire rated assembly in between that might be an example as to how a building might be phased and occupancy depending on what it is but I'm here. I think that you're committed to the hundred and 75 unit building before you can occupy any portion of it at least. That's what I see preliminarily. So I don't know if that helps you, Mr. Alexander. And again, through you, Mr. Chair. But that's that's kind of what we're thinking. But I think myself and Mr. Alexander, and his construction team can have a more substantive conversation, you know, off public meeting and get into the details a little bit.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, Mr. Alexander, that answer your question.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, Mr. Chair, so yeah, thank you, Commissioner Forde. It does shed a little bit more light on your preliminary thinking, and I think it's important for us to have that offline conversation. I'll bring in my construction team, who started to think about how phased occupancy can be handled. And I think just for the benefit of the board and others, when I reference that we've phased occupancy within a single building, it's a fairly common practice, and it does include the sort of full fire, two hour fire rating that Mr. Forty just alluded to. So one example, well, there are numerous examples, but one we did in the city of Framingham just a couple of years ago was a 270 apartment homes in a single building. And imagine that it was sort of cut in half vertically and the left side of the building was delivered while the right side of the building was still being finished up. And that doesn't mean that there weren't fire and life safety on both sides of the building. But it did mean that, obviously, before a building was fully complete with construction, that one half was occupied. And so I just bring that up as to say, I think, an offline coordination conversation to really understand where that line is and knowing Mr. Forty's experience would be helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Sounds great, sounds like we have a plan. And just one clarifying question, Mr. Alexander, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is whatever that phased occupancy plan would be, that it would be reflected in the construction management plan, the final version of that, is that right? Or is that separate? Basically, I'm trying to understand, will we as a board have an understanding of how phased occupancy will be achieved by the end of this hearing, or is that kind of a separate?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, my um, mr. Chair, it's a great question. I normally this gets handled within the construction documents and the building permit Um set that's reviewed by the city and and you know before a building permit is issued that type of phasing is or potential phasing is reflected in the construction documents meaning You know appropriate egress in whatever the phase portion of the building would be appropriate fire separation at what have you so my sense or my take, and maybe Chris Rainier or Commissioner Forte can chime in, is that it wouldn't happen before, that kind of clarity wouldn't occur before the public hearing or the ZBA process is closed, but it does remain in the purview of the building commissioner.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Mr. Rainier, was there anything you wanted to add to that?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I think Tim's a pro. Mr. Chair, he's got it right. I mean, What's interesting in a 40 B process is, is, you know, these plans seem like there's a lot of detail in them, but there'll be a lot more detail as they get developed to the construction drawings, uh, for the commissioner's review. Um, so I don't think there'd be within the 40 B process, you know, some sort of fire phasing plan. Um, maybe there's some language about a condition in your decision. Uh, but the, the actual drawings will come at a later time as things get quite refined.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have any questions? Oh, sorry. I forgot to ask Mr. Bowmer. Oh, no, you said, Mr. Bowmer, that you would have an updated letter for next week. I will. So any questions from members of the board about the update from Mr. Alexander or the updated plan packet?
[Yvette Velez]: I have a general question on the table that was given to us with your applicant response. And it was just clarity on the like, common acknowledged for each one, like, because there was quite a number of just common acknowledged. So. I wasn't sure if that meant like affirmative yes or like common acknowledged we're thinking about it and whether or not those would be further explained or if that's the end and we're not gonna hear more about those specific requests or comments.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks Yvette, just to be clear so this is the document with the heading response to updated peer review comment letters dated May 12th?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes, that's all that Tim spoke about in reference earlier.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Alexander, go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, yeah, thanks for the question. Our intention in answering in that fashion in a few areas was generally if It was a comment that acknowledged the change already and didn't necessarily require further action, or if there wasn't a specific request for revision. So I can double check, maybe even during the hearing here, to see if there are any areas where that comment or that response was used, but didn't necessarily close out a full response. But our intent was not to sort of leave things open-ended with this matrix. You know, we've either acknowledged the comment and made the change, or we've responded in some other way that shows why either our vision wasn't appropriate or wasn't able to be incorporated. Does that help? I'm sorry, I'm not able to be more specific than that, but if there's a specific example on that, we're happy to look at that too.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Go ahead, Mr. Renier. And thank you for the comment. It is, you know, I think a good observation. And really, I think what we meant in many, if not all instances, was agreed when we said common acknowledged. And what we're trying to do is not leave any comments from the peer reviewers dangling, but not all of the needed responses. So for example, Mr. Ballmer had a comment in his April 11th letter, and I won't go through all of them, but just as sometimes an example is helpful, where the comment was the elevation on the south face of building one has been modified to include a shared outdoor deck space on the top floor. This creates more visual interest on that side of the building, but as importantly, creates a valuable amenity for building residents. So we wrote comment acknowledged. just to acknowledge that that was a comment on the revised plans, no further action was needed, but we just wanted to sort of tick and tie it together and carry forward the comment into our response letter. Did that answer your question, Yvette? Maybe a better one is, if I could, Mr. Chair, Another one of Mr. Bowman's comments was applicant has represented that each building will have one elevator cab with increased ceiling height to assist with move in, move out. And there we also said comment acknowledged. That is an example of an agreed comment. We will include an elevator with increased height.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. What other questions do we have from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I have one question and comment. The driveway between the two buildings, I was happy to see the addition of that fire lane, the painted lines along the one-way side. I think that's a great catch. And I guess my suggestion would be, because I've been thinking about this, the sidewalk along the east side of the building, ends and you have to cross that driveway to the other side where the loading the temporary new temporary like loading space is in order to continue along the sidewalk and I suspect a lot of people will just continue to walk along the street with where on the side where there's no sidewalk if they're continuing you know if they're going on that uh that part of the building. So I'm wondering whether you could actually, instead of just striping it fire lane, whether you might be able to do some other kind of a treatment that acknowledges the fact that there may be some pedestrians walking along that curb. And I know I think you have to maintain the width of the, you know, curb to curb width for the fire department requirements, but perhaps even, you know, I've seen things like pavement murals and there could be something that would indicate, you know, discourage parking, but at the same time, acknowledge the fact that people may be walking on it and may even visually extend that very small, the small green buffer along the, the building face.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: If I could, Mr. Chair, Mr. Leroux, appreciate the comments, a great thought. I want to stick with Jeffrey Dirk, our transportation engineer, on how that can be handled. I think your point of yes, some alternative striping there could work. I want to make sure there's not a sort of adverse effects to that. pedestrian safety or otherwise, but appreciate the comment and we'll take a look at it.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have Jeffrey Dirk on right now?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I apologize. He was triple booked tonight and not able to make this hearing, but I will follow up with him and his team on that. I see Rob Adams on from our landscape team as well. He may have seen this condition and may be able to speak to it.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I mean, I think we can definitely look at it, Andre. Always nervous about mixing pedestrians and vehicles without any sort of raised barrier, which we wouldn't be able to have here from the fire lane width. And I think, frankly, we were trying to put a little less paving on the planet. But yeah, I think that's something we will continue to look at is that pedestrian circulation. And if there is a way to double dip, as Tim implied, we can talk with the traffic folks.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just suspect people will be walking along that street anyways in the street. So whatever we can do to minimize, you know, those interactions, I agree. Yeah.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Andre, just an important consideration on that. One of the things I was thinking about having the sidewalk switch to the other side is that people coming from the roadway, the main road are going to have an alternate entry point on the building. So they're less likely to go around the building to access the building from that middle area as opposed to accessing it from the front. So I thought it minimized the chances that someone coming around the building to the middle of the two would be looking to gain entry to that front building. Sorry if that was confusing, but.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you. What other questions do we have from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, okay, I can go. So, um, I like the addition on the plans of the storage room for the equipment. If I was interpreting them correctly right now, um, there's a single door. directly to the courtyard. And so logistically that makes sense to me because then it's easy to get the stuff in and out. I noticed though that there wasn't a door to that same room from the inner section. I just wanted to check if that was something you had considered and if there's any kind of reason for the particular access pattern that you have there. I imagine it probably wouldn't be residents interacting with it, so maybe it doesn't matter as much, but yeah.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can just chime in. It's a good point, Mr. Chair. Honestly, I think it's probably, we saw this as the priority, but there is definitely a good argument for having a secondary door on the corridor side, whether it's for storage That's something, and I think it gets back to the point we were making a little bit earlier, is there will definitely be more detail added to these plans as they get through. We really have three more phases of design, if you will, schematic, and then design development, and then construction drawings that will happen. Those are the kind of things that we can definitely pick up during that time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. Um, I have some other questions, but they're not related to what you presented. So, um, Mr. Alexander, what were you thinking? It sounds like the, um, peer reviewers need a week to really fully flesh out their comment letters. Um, the waiver list, I fully intend to run that by, um, our 40 B consultant and the city legal, um, you know, just to get their take on it in general. Uh, there were some things in the waiver list that, um, you know, stood out to me as a little, um, I guess, surprising, for lack of a better term, but is the intention to kind of give us a high-level overview of that today, or do you think that's best suited for after we already have the feedback from City of Eagle on the list?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure, Mr. Chair. I can jump in with just a couple quick thoughts on that, and then maybe we'll have it here at the boards as well. So I think overall, given what we're hearing about final peer review letters this week, given the fact that you've had the full submission now here for, what, 48, 72 hours, understanding that the level of detail in that waiver list is pretty dense, but do we need to try to tie it back to the zoning ordinance? So I think it may be more appropriate to go through it in detail after the board has had a chance to review and obviously, like you said, confer with Ms. Barrett and others as needed. There was one item on there that I specifically wanted to just mention and add a little color to, and that was the requested waiver from the STOLR assessment. And I think even our team has had some initial discussion with Director Hunt about this because That was meant really as a placeholder given that we had some questions for city staff or whoever can help us understand a little bit of change from the prior zoning ordinance to the current ordinance as revised and what that meant and how we should really be interpreting the requirements for solar assessment, et cetera. So, um, I wanted you in the board to know, and certainly director hunt as well, that that was not a blanket. No, we're not going to consider solar, but more, we want to make sure we're going to appropriately interpret the ordinance. Um, as we prepare an assessment and understand, you know, how that should be submitted and when and all that. So, um, maybe that was one that caught your eye and I wanted to just shed a little bit more light on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thanks for that for clarification and calling out that one in particular. That was one I noticed. But I guess the pattern I noticed, again, I want a city legal opinion on. So I don't think I've had enough time to fully process. And I want to make sure I'm not overthinking waivers that are customarily requested, but there are some waivers in there that at least, you know, my read seemed like blanket waivers. So I think there was even like a waiver from basically everything that's not listed here that's necessary to construct the building. And there's kind of similar ones for certain downstream things. So I think like waiver, there might have even been a waiver requested from building permit process and some other things. So anyway, All I want to say at this point is it's my hope that we can be specific enough with the waiver list in this hearing that there's not a lot of gray area about what is and isn't being waived. So I'm not at a point of full information as to whether those types of waivers are customary, and maybe there's a good reason for them, but I did just wanna call that out to kind of explain the general theme of some of my questions about the waiver list right now. And that includes the requested solar waiver. Yeah, Commissioner Forde, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. So I'd like a copy, a paper copy of the latest submission if we think that that's going to be the plans that are actually going to be approved. I just want to make sure that the details on the plan don't present any difficulties when issuing the permit. I know that the order most likely is going to call out pages, you know, C1 through C2. 30, whatever it might be. And I just want to make sure that those plans, the controlling plans for the project, don't have any problems that I can, you know, that I can foresee when it comes to issuing the permit. So I'm going to pretty much do a review on, you know, the types of waivers, you know, just make sure the landscape plans on there and all the things that I normally do to make sure that the order is, It doesn't have any question I know that there is a portion and 760 cmr that allows me to make a de minimis decision, and as to whether or not it would have to go back to the Board of Appeals if they were a substantial change outside of a certain percentage of. difference. So there is a de minimis line there that I can approve outside of it, but I try to head that off as much as possible before the final plans have been approved. So Mr. Alexander, Mr. Chair, through you, if Mr. Alexander could provide me with a print copy of the latest and greatest site plans, that would be great.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Alexander, is that something you could do?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, absolutely. I assume architecture and civil and landscape.
[Bill Forte]: Yes. Again, Mr. Chair, through you, any of the controlling plans that are going to be issued the permit based on? So I just want to make sure I have all the information.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes. We can have those printed and couriered over to City Hall.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Mr. Forty, is there a size that you would like?
[Bill Forte]: I'd like them to be big enough so I don't have to put these on for every little detail, but certainly, you know, I think that perhaps a 24, a 2430 or, you know, somewhere in the midsize, they don't have to be the full set, but certainly the midsize plans enough so that they're legible and, you know, that the stamps are clear and all that stuff, so. Thank you. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and actually, What Commissioner Forty was speaking to is kind of in the theme of what I was referring to. So I just looked it up. So in the waiver list, for example, it says waiver of the building permit process. I think what I'm hearing from Commissioner 40 is that well, you know, if the plans that we have now are basically up to the standard that we have in the building permit process, he can review them. And as part of the comprehensive permit process, we can just do that. But yeah, that, you know, again, I don't know what's customary, but that those are the types of Um, I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill planning to. Get a on the review of these as well. There was actually one other question, just a clarifying question. So on page seven of the waiver list, signs is the row. It says waiver requested from signage requirements, and then a semicolon, signage to be developed and submitted separately, and specific waivers to be requested at that time. So is that, would you be submitting that back to us? Or would that be, is this essentially saying, A, we're fine going through the standard process for signage? I was a little unclear on that one. Uh, please go ahead, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Our thought was to not go through the standard process. We'll work with you. We're not going to have a ton of signs on this project. This is a residential project. Um, and, um, you know, we have maybe an outside chance of developing the residentially oriented signs by the end of the hearing. But, um, at the city's request, we have incorporated some ground floor retail in the project. And while we may know where the sign bands will be, we won't know who our tenants are when we get our approval. So perhaps what I could do is work offline with your 40B consultant, Ms. Barrett, because the thought was to keep the sign process with this board in some format, knowing that we have a shot at the residential signs. Maybe there's a monument sign and some building signs. other than maybe knowing where the retail signage would be on the building. We don't know where tenants sign letters, things like that yet.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Okay. It sounds like a plan. I think that the logical next step is to discuss with Ms. Barrett. And then if I understood correctly, essentially, perhaps we choose some special language in the order, but it sounds like the intention would be to kind of coordinate in advance what that kind of additional step looks like. And then we would close this hearing, vote on it. And then at the appropriate time, you would just come back before us and we would, I don't know if it would be amending the order or some other procedural step, but we would essentially just consider the signage request at that time. Is that accurate? Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh, all right. Uh, on the waiver list, those were my questions. Uh, are there other questions from the board on the waiver list? I know we just got it and it's pretty, pretty technical. Okay. Um, oh, uh, commissioner 40, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, if the applicant could just, through you, if the applicant could just explain a little bit what kind of billing permit process they're looking for a waiver from. I mean, it sounds to me like it would be the engineering review and maybe the site plan review and some of the other things, but I'm not exactly sure, you know, because it's a one sentence request. If you could just maybe just, here in public meeting, just kind of outline what you're thinking about a waiver from. I mean, I know that I have 30 days under the state building code and certainly I'm not going to hold the permit up, but I'm just kind of curious as to what, you know, what type of relief you're seeking under that particular request. If I could, Mr. Chair.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Forty. Yeah, we're not, we're not intending that the ZBA issue a building permit. What I had been or have been familiar with historically in Medford is a bit of a refusal letter process where a permit comes in and it's refused. And then we have to maybe come back to this board for confirmation of something. And so we were really looking at the language in the revised ordinance that talked about the building commissioner shall not issue such permit that being a building permit, unless the plans for the building and intended use thereof in all respects fulfill the provisions of the ordinance. So what we're trying to get to is the concept of we have our comprehensive permit that provides necessary waivers from zoning, other local bylaws, but then we move to you for the building permit. And just to try and clarify that step, if there's a better way to set that forth, I'm happy to do that.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chair, if I may. So my understanding on the 40 B processes that the zoning Board of Appeals acts as the permit granting authority and anything beyond what is discussed here and in the special order is is the is the actual order. There is no other process that can supersede that under 760 CMR 56 or or. the chapter 40 b language i'm pretty sure that that uh but that's fine if that's all it is then then certainly i think maybe a recognition of the fact that there'll be no further you know that there's no need for appeal i don't know that that waiver is even necessary but um but that's something that i'll look at i was just curious about it and thank you for making that question thank you yeah yeah uh so i i think ultimately um
[Mike Caldera]: We're all speaking to the same thing. I think we kind of, we're working towards the same end here. I just, I think the next step is to get additional sets of legalize on it and just, you know, try to refine it as needed, you know, just to be crisp in the language and, you know, not seeking unnecessary waivers. Yeah, I don't want to be too. Basically, I like my my conception is the waiver list should be the minimal list of waivers required to do the project, you know, plain and simple and understand the high level. need to make sure we do it in a way that doesn't, uh, you know, end up hamstringing you and, and, you know, forcing you to come back to the board over, over little things. So I'm sure, um, as we iterate on this, we can, we can get to what that looks like. Um, okay. Other well, so, uh, any other topics the board would like to discuss related to the updated plan packets in general? Um, one thing I think might be helpful is if a member of the board has an item that they're currently uncertain about, like they're, they're kind of, they see something in the plans that they're not sure, um, whether they're supportive of it as it currently sits. I think it would be helpful to call those out now just so the applicant has time to consider. So yeah, is there anything that rises to that level that a member of the board would like to call out now just so we have kind of advanced notice and visibility into it? Again, these would be things that you know, we may, um, requests to change in the plans, or we may, um, you know, consider imposing a condition because of, uh, intention is not to get to the exhaustive list here, but if there's stuff that you already know now, um, I think it's good to just air it out, um, for, for visibility. So does anyone have something in that category?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, this is something I've brought up in the past and I haven't had a chance to try to find it and the updated plan, but, uh, whether there's an emergency call box cited, uh, on. And the landscaping plan somewhere.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I didn't have a chance to review it on that level of detail. Um, do we, do we know, is there an emergency call box on there?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Pera, I can handle that. We did discuss it briefly as a team offline. And I think the consensus was, well, certainly wasn't that we wouldn't do it or entertain it, especially in the back, I think in the North end, which is where Mr. LaRue was pointing out there was a question. There was some discussion on our team that, you know, maybe a call box was more in vogue prior to everybody having a phone on their hip. But we are happy to look at that again and see if, you know, I don't, I could use some, I could use some counsel probably from, I'm not even sure who the sort of subject matter expert would be on that, but we can look into that some more unless anybody on my team has other comments on that or thoughts.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'd be open up to, I mean, I'm open to other sort of approaches on the security, you know, how to handle the security on that end. But, you know, because it is a wooded area and sort of industrial and parking areas around it, it's, you know, feels a little isolated. It's certainly not an area I would, you know, feel totally comfortable about having, you know, young kids or, you know, hanging around or, or walking around there, you know, and I know that there are, there are a lot of, uh, you know, truckers who use that, that road to, they pull off and they, they park there overnight, I think at some, even during the days at some point. So I just think that it's, uh, I just want to maximize security on that end as much as possible.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Leroux. And one thing I would add to that, and I, we haven't really talked about this probably at all, but you know, in recent, in, in, As the technology has improved, our use of cameras within and around our communities has really grown. So within the parking garages within our shared sort of communal spaces, but then on the on site as well. So that's something that. Let me double-check with what we call our low-voltage team, and maybe even Mr. Stebbins can speak to that. But the idea of cameras and signage about those cameras being installed on the exterior of the site, especially in the back, is definitely something we can look at and probably something that is the right thing to do out there. Andrew, thoughts on that? I know you've designed a couple other recent communities with us and where we've spent a lot of time looking at location of cameras within the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead. We can't hear you, though. I don't know. It looks like maybe your audio.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, he's trying to get audio there. That's OK. We can come back to it, Andrew.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Can you guys hear me now or now? Yeah, a little green. Working on my mute button here. Yeah, so every projects. No, no 2 projects are the same. So, it's an example of an area that we'd expect that through, you know, development and. as Tim has mentioned many times, ops on their side review, um, you know, security conditions, uh, site by site. And so it does seem like a good area that would be, um, you know, a good, a good candidate for, um, you know, not only for cameras, but for the signage regarding the cameras, because that's, that's, um, you know, half the battle is letting people know that there are eyes, um, there are eyes on them. So, Whether that's for safety or other activities that may tend to happen on the north side there, which mainly it has less visibility than the rest of the site.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So it sounds like that's something we'll hear back on in greater detail in a later hearing. Andre did that. address your question?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, I, I understand if that's, you know, there's different approach to it nowadays to doing it. You know, the only thing about cameras is that I don't want it just to be recorded and as a deterrence, but if there's actually something happening, you know, who's monitoring that and going to respond to it. So
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. What other bigger call outs do we have from the board at this time?
[Unidentified]: Okay, I can go.
[Mike Caldera]: So, On the bike parking, I'm just, I'm honestly just not convinced it's the right quantity. And so I understand a lot of due diligence went into figuring out, you know, what the likely demand would be, but it's just a hard thing to analyze, right? You can't have more bikes. You can't observe more bikes than you have space for them, right? The, you know, the other bikes are hidden. So, you know, keeping in mind a few things. So first of all, the current bike parking is quite dense. So it's like double double racks. And so we're getting a pretty large quantity of spaces per room. And then there's the four rooms, which I think is the what is it 132 in total. And then Yeah. But so, so, so there's a question like, well, if you have too much, okay, you're wasting space, but it's coming at the cost of what, like a parking space or two. And, you know, even if the, it turns out that, um, we, we have too much bike parking, we didn't need all the space. Well, you know, putting myself in the resident's shoes, I imagine it's easier to engage with a slightly more spacious bike room. So yeah, I'm just, I think 132 spaces for a 300 some odd building development is pretty small. We're gonna have a bunch of residents who may want bikes, and if there's not enough space, then that's a problem. And yes, we've talked about, you know, allowing, as part of the conditions of the order, a range of parking spaces. And I like that solution. But I certainly think it would be advisable to have enough space from the outset for the bikes. And then if it turns out you didn't need it all, walk it back or maybe go with a slightly denser, slightly less compact form of bike parking. You know, if we're talking about a couple of parking spaces, I really don't see why we're, you know, why we can't err on the side of conservatism and actually have more space for bikes. I don't know if that's something you want to speak to. I had a few others that are unrelated to that, but that was one of mine.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, I can give an initial response, and I recall your sentiment in a prior hearing. And I think, to totally understand, I do want to reiterate the sort of research on this was from the Windsor-Mystic River project, which is the same exact amount of apartment homes. Um, so we, we studied their capacity and utilization. Uh, I was actually there again last week and, and in the bike rooms, um, to note that, you know, they're well used, but they're not, they're not above capacity. Um, I think a way to handle this could be something that we chatted about before, which is to allow for, so the challenge we have is. at least for what we feel is the appropriate location for bike parking and bike storage near building entrances, near the building cores and the elevators. That's where we put the storage to date. Further expanding those existing rooms means pushing out ADA accessible parking, which is something that I think we're a little cautious about. But if there are, I know I was just looking at the plans as you were, as you were describing your concern. There are a couple other areas within the parking garages that maybe could be converted, but they're not as close to building entrances, so we'd have to think about how that works. I do think an idea that was brought up at a prior hearing about potentially discussing a flexibility in the parking count, within the order of conditions to allow for basically for future expansion of bike parking should the allotted storage amount be at capacity. I know that's a little tougher one because it's in the future, it's not right away. But I do think it feels to me, and this is again just my initial reaction, feels to me like something that we need to We could also do a little bit more research on other communities. We just chose Hanover and Mystic or Windsor because it was the most recent and had the exact same unit count. But there are probably others that we could look at as well that either give more comfort or add more credence to your concern. So I'm happy to do that, you know, over the course of this week. And then, um, you know, we can think about either current present day or maybe future sort of expansion, um, options that might be able to be written into the order.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just making it known, you know, it's something I'm going to be wanting to discuss, um, as we close out this, this hearing, um, point taken on the, um, accessible parking. My response to that is the growth solution that we've identified has the same problem, right? So if the story is, well, We have 132 spaces for bikes with this dense racking. And we're reluctant to expand the size of those parking locations because it would push out the accessible parking by a car width or maybe two. Then you know that that that critique would apply whether it the building starts with the Bike space there or plan in the future like so essentially if the position as well you know just Be an accessibility concern in general and therefore we can't do it whether we give you the range of parking or not if there isn't a viable spot for you to expand, you're kind of stuck with whatever you built. So I appreciate the creativity of the parking space range, and I certainly don't want to go way over the top. But if the strategy doesn't involve more bike parking, which, again, I feel like quite a few additional bikes could fit, within the space of a car width or two, I'd at least want to understand where that hypothetical expansion would occur, because it sounds like maybe it wouldn't be in the direction of the accessible parking spaces. Mr. Boehmer, go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I just wanted to point out, I think one thing we talked about was potentially the board conditioning a minimum number of parking spaces that would give the applicant the space, the real estate available for expansion. As far as the access code, my take on the access code is that the accessible spaces should be the closest spaces to the core, the elevator and circulation pieces. My own opinion is I think you're kind of nailing it down perfectly is potentially those expansion spaces set by a minimum number of car parking spaces. And I think the code could accommodate that.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right. And then the see what else? Oh, so I believe in the it may have even been our opening hearing that Mr. Alexander said this. It was one of the one of the first ones there was a mentioned that the applicant was amenable to a local preference condition. And we haven't really discussed it as a board because one of the steps as part of that process is the city is basically responsible for demonstrating the need for local preference. And so I mentioned it earlier this meeting, and I don't intend to read it in full. It's part of the public record, but essentially the board received an example of a type of local preference case that Medford has submitted in the past for to DHCD, which included a housing needs assessment and market analysis and described some of the challenges with affordability of housing in Medford and how that impacts current Medford residents. And so, yeah, just wanted to call out that that's certainly something I intend for the board to discuss at the appropriate time and just wanted to, so as I understand it, the language on any such local preference condition is fairly specific. So it has to be like reference that it's subject to DCHD approval and some other things. But I just wanted to check in with the applicant, in case you'd like to, weigh in on that or sort of mention something beyond just your general statement at the beginning of the hearing that you were amenable to a local preference condition.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I may pass this off to Mr. Rienier, but I just wanted to note what we received, I think, at the beginning of the hearing, the language or the 10-pager document about local preference. I haven't had a chance to review in detail. But yeah, I don't have any sort of new or different thought on that. But again, I haven't read the details yet.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Rainier?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Just a couple of things I'm going to share. We'll take a look. I've typically seen this in a LIP local action. project where a municipality tries to get approval for a local preference of up to 70% of the affordable units. Is that what you're thinking about here for the affordable units in the 40B project?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the example we received from the city I believe that did, uh, that wasn't for 70% was requested. Um, my understanding is that if the board were to impose a condition, it would be much less specific than that. Um, but it would essentially, um, say something to the effect of, you know, based on our own consideration as a board of local needs, including what the city submitted, you know, documenting the need for local preference that the comprehensive permit would be subject to the inclusion of a local preference option, provided that it's approved by the DHCD or something to that effect. So the specific language Ms. Barrett has an example of, which I think she's planning to draft up and share, and I certainly would intend for us to discuss it as a group before we vote on anything like that. I just wanted to be upfront that that's a discussion I intend for us to have as a board. Did that answer your question? It does. Thank you. Mr. Reardon, I saw your hand was raised.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, sorry, it was an unrelated question. That's why I took my hand down, but I did have a chance to download the documents. And I don't know if anybody else had the same problem, whether it's just a settings problem for me, but the civil plans and the construction management plan have like comment clouds all over them. I don't know if anybody else had that same problem, but if I could get somebody to send me those two drawings, two sets of drawings independently, so I could get cleaner versions, that'd be great.
[Mike Caldera]: Sounds like a plan. Let me just double check the copy I have.
[Unidentified]: I used plans. So the civil engineering plans. Loading.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not seeing comment clouds on my version, but anyway, is that something we can do? Can we get a clean copy to Mr. Reardon?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: And then maybe to all of us, because I have the same thing on mind. It's lots of comment clouds referring to changes that we're contemplating. I can't quite tell why they're there.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, we'll look at that. Mr. Donato is on. I think this is probably mostly related to the civil plans. I don't see that on my version either, but it's probably something to do with the program that is being opened up in. So we'll make sure there's a clean version that gets distributed. Tony, can you handle that?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I can handle that. I don't see why there'd be. Well, I'll talk to you tomorrow about it. Is it just the civil plans or something else, too?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: It's a CMP, too.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, same here.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I saw Jamie raises his hand. Jamie, go ahead. Yeah, if you click on the Adobe links, you'll see all the comments. If you click on the Google Drive link and then download the independent files, they shouldn't have the comments.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Well, it sounds like we have a solution. So we'll get a clean copy sent over to all parties.
[Unidentified]: Let's see. I'm just trying to think if there were other call outs I had. We already talked about the stroller. We talked about the waiver list, the bikes.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think that was it. from me. I do just want to say, I know we kind of focus in these hearings on, hey, change this, change that. Really great to see the progress that's being made here. So yeah, generally appreciate how every time we do meet, comments that have been made and call outs that have been made are getting reflected in the plans for the most part. So yeah, I'm hoping, We'll have better clarity at our next meeting when we have the updated comment letters from our peer reviewers. And when we have the legal opinion, I will request on the waiver list that we'll basically be able to bottom out any last items to talk about and then start progressively moving towards talking through the specific conditions and so on. Other call outs from the board, things we should bring up at this point? All right. Mr. Alexander, was there anything else you intended to present today or is that the core presentation, what you already gave?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think that's it from our end, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So then the only other item on my radar for us to discuss, so actually one thing I just wanted to close the loop on, I did make a list early in the hearing of various requests of analyses or reports that have been made. And I believe they have in fact all been Um, and then, um. Yeah, so in terms of scheduling, so at our last hearing, we received a letter from you requesting to continue to this hearing, so there was additional time to put together the plans. In that request, you had mentioned or acknowledged that, you know, this might necessitate extending the hearing beyond the statutory timeline and mentioned a one-week extension as something that you were certainly amenable to. We deferred talking about that until this hearing, just because I think we all wanted a little bit more information to make an informed decision. In the meantime, I did check in with the board on general availability, and I think after accounting for the Memorial Day holiday, it's gonna end up being more than a week, but I don't think it's gonna be too, too much longer than we need. So it's May 15th today. We have a scheduled hearing on the 22nd, which we know we're gonna have the updated peer review letters then. I'm just gonna pull up, I had a list of milestones. I want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Okay, continuance. Yeah, so the intention would be on the 22nd, we would review the updated peer review letters. we would review the waiver list with the added knowledge of the legal review. I could confirm that we'll have that ready, but I'm gonna send the request today and I'm expecting we'll have it on the 22nd. And then the intention was to have an additional date for the actual vote and closure of the hearing. So at this date, we would have basically a draft order and some draft conditions based on the discussion. And then we would kind of talk about that. And then one last date in case of emergency. So in the original timeline, because it was cramped, because there was this need to finish it, I think just before Memorial Day, We had a hearing scheduled for the 22nd and the 24th. So I'm planning for us to cancel the 24th, because that was entirely driven by the schedule crunch. The week of the 31st, sorry, the week of the 29th, so Memorial Day week, I checked with the board. We won't have quorum. uh, because of the holiday. So, um, the dates that do seem to work for the board, um, are Monday, June 5th, uh, Wednesday, June 7th and, uh, Monday, June 12th. And, um, so what I would like to do, um, or at least discuss in case there's any. Scheduling issues. I I'm proposing we cancel the meeting on the 24th. So we'll meet the 22nd and then, uh, we will extend the hearing past the statutory timeline to include a meeting on Monday, June 5th, which would be our planned date of closure. Um, and then we would keep Monday, June 12th on the calendar, you know, just in case something pushes out and we need the extra time. Um, so that I'm comfortable with, with that being, um, the schedule. And I just wanted to check in with the applicant, um, to see if that works for you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think looking at those dates and understanding that Memorial Day throws a little wrench in the works. I think that feels appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. So my understanding is we are going to need something in writing with the clerk. So there was a question actually, I think from Dennis. So Dennis, we will extend past the statutory timeline in doing this, but in the continuance request, the applicant stated they'd be willing to do that. So my understanding is we need a letter on file with you from the applicant, essentially agreeing to waive the statutory timeline and extend the hearing through June 12th if needed. And it sounds like they're amenable to doing so. So we'd need that on file certainly before the statutory deadline. So is that, I'm assuming that's something we can get to Dennis within the week? Yes, Mr. Chair, we can. Okay, wonderful. Dennis, did that answer your question? Cool, all right. Great. Um, so, um, I don't see any members of the public on, but I did state we'd be taking public comments. So I'm just going to quickly check. Is there a member of the public on that? I didn't notice who would like to make any, um, any comments on the updated plan packet we received. Dennis, have you gotten any emails over the course of this meeting from members of the public about this project?
[Denis MacDougall]: I have not, and I can speak now. Sorry, there were fire engines going behind me that were pretty loud for a while, so that's why I had to not speak for a bit. So yeah, nothing's coming to me during the course of the hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. So looks like we are We are all set then. Um, so, so in terms of procedural next steps, so we'll motion to continue this hearing, uh, to Monday the 22nd. And then we'll adjourn before we do that. I just want to check if anyone else has something they'd like to say. Mr. Bomer, please go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Small comment, but I, I cannot attend a week from today. I will get my letter in, uh, but I can't, uh, can't be at that hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, understood these conflicts come up. I know it's been a lot of hearings recently.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Mike, I'm in New York that evening too.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. The only scenario I'm a little worried about is if there's something described in your letter that isn't described sufficiently well for us to just read it and sort of understand it on its face. So we're getting to a point in the hearing where I don't really think we can push this out any further. So yeah, I guess my preference, if you can't make it, you have a representative present and in lieu of that, just please make sure the letters themselves are clear enough that the board can just understand. Yeah, Mr. Raniere.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know looking at your scheduling letter that I think the board was carrying Wednesday the 24th. So if that works for the, for its peer reviewers to be available. Maybe we slide the 22nd to the 24th. If they're not available either date, then maybe we could do it with surrogates. But hopefully the letters say everything looks peachy and we're good to go. But I want to protect against that eventuality.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so we currently still have a hold on the 24th. Does the 24th work any better for either of you? It does for me.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: It does for me as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, just wanna double check. The board was discussing scheduling offline. Nobody's made plans for the 24th. We can still do the 24th. Okay, so updated plan then will be, we're gonna cancel the 22nd. We'll continue to the 24th. I'm sure as a member of the board and speaking for the board, we would still appreciate the letters as soon as we can get them. We do try to read them in advance. But yeah, okay. So it sounds like we have a plan. So we would meet on the 24th, cancel on the 22nd, and then we'll do the 5th and the 12th if needed. All right, any other logistical items before we vote to continue?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Just one last thing, I was able to download using the links that Jamie recommended, so I'm all set with those. I got files that don't have the comment cards on them now.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, okay. All right, chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to Wednesday, May 24th.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to continue the hearing till May 24th. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're gonna take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, this matter is continued to the 24th. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Andre Leroux]: I adjourn the meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: All in favor. Right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night. Everybody.