[Mike Caldera]: Good evening, everybody. So this is a special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to start off by taking a roll call for attendance, and then we will. And so, Jacqueline Doherty, the ZBA chair is absent. I Mike Caldera and the acting chair for this meeting. Also, by our rules, we nominate the chair first meeting in March. And so that's on the agenda before we take up the first matter. So Jacqueline is absent. Andre LaRue?
[Unidentified]: Present. Jim Tirani? You're on mute, Jim, but I see you. Present. Jamie Thompson? Present. Yvette Villes?
[Mike Caldera]: Present. Mike Caldera, present. I'm also gonna nominate, or I'm also gonna appoint Jamie as a voting member, both for this meeting and for the rest of the hearing on 4000 Mystique Valley Parkway. Okay, so we have a quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16th, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which among other things, extends the expiration provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2023. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15th, 2022 to March 31st, 2023.
[Unidentified]: We'll then read.
[Denis MacDougall]: I notice 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40D-2022-01.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, Dennis, before we do that, there's one item of that.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, right. Sorry. Yes, the nomination election. Sorry, pardon. So nomination election president and clerk of the zoning board.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so as I stated earlier, this is something by our board rules we do annually and March. And so the way this process works is first, any member of the board can nominate the chair for the next calendar year. That nomination would have to be seconded. The person nominated would have to accept once all nominations have been made. then we would vote on the member, basically vote for whomever we would like the chair to be. Dennis is our clerk and is on staff, and so we won't be voting on a clerk. All right, so the chair awaits a nomination, or the acting chair awaits a nomination.
[Unidentified]: I'd like to nominate Mike Caldera to serve as Zoning Board of Appeals Chair. I'd like to second that. OK. Are there any other nominees for chair? OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I certainly appreciate my colleagues nominating me to serve as chair. I'd be happy to accept that nomination. Um, and so why don't we go ahead and do a vote? Um, did that fill us?
[Unidentified]: Hi, Jamie Thompson. Hi, Jim Tarani. Hi, Andre LaRue. Hi.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike Caldera, I think I can vote present. So I'm gonna vote present. So four ayes, one present.
[Unidentified]: I will update my title. Thank you, everybody. All right, Dennis, next matter on the agenda.
[Denis MacDougall]: 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continued from February 27, 2023. The resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC, an affiliate of Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC, for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B for a multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID number 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building containing a mix of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments the 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis. All right. So at our last board meeting, we reviewed the peer review letter on traffic. I believe. And so at this point for the uninitiated, so with these 4DB processes, essentially there's a number of areas that are very focal to the project. There's civil engineering, there's design, there's traffic to name a few. And so as part of this process, peer review consultants were hired to basically review the preliminary plans submitted by the applicant and provide feedback. And so over the course of the last few meetings, we have been reviewing the peer review feedback. The applicant has had a chance to respond to it in those meetings. And then at the end of our last meeting, The applicant had committed to at this meeting, make a presentation with the response to the civil engineering peer review, and possibly the traffic peer review, it seems from what we've received so far that we don't have the traffic response yet. And so at our last meeting, we did decide we would be taking public comment today. So after the applicant has made their presentation, board members have had a chance to ask questions. We do intend to take public comment today. And this will be specific to the applicant's response to the civil engineering. I think I've gotten most of the housekeeping items out of the way. I see we have Mr. Alexander here from the applicant. I just wanted to check in. Tim, is there anything that I missed? Anything else you're planning to present today?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I think your summary was spot on. I think we can provide a couple of quick updates if you'd like on the peer reviews generally, and then we can probably provide more specific response to the civil peer review if that works for you.
[Mike Caldera]: Please, yes. Go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, great. So I guess I'll take them probably in reverse order of received, but first wanted to just quickly update on the architectural peer review, which I know was presented at the last hearing. Um, and our team is now had a chance to review and digest the comments from Davis square. And what we're doing and continue to plan to do is. Is put together a set of revised plans and renderings to be able to present at our next hearing. On, which I believe is March 27th, 2 weeks from tonight. The one other thing we hope to do between now and then is likely have another coordination call with Cliff from Davis Square, just to run our, our responses and ideas by him, make sure that we're continue to coordinate with him.
[Unidentified]: So that's an update on on architecture and design any questions there. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Andre Leroux]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Mike Caldera]: received. Well, I know we have a meeting, but I don't, I don't know if it's in the drive that looked recently.
[Unidentified]: Are you referring to that rendered landscape plan?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: The one pager, or is this a?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm not, I'm not certain. So in one of the responses, it says, Let's see, of the conceptual rendered landscape plan has been provided to the board subsequent to issuance of this comment letter. So I wasn't sure.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I think that so that is in reference to the one page, you know, so rendered, meaning, you know, in color landscape plan that we've reviewed on screen, I believe we sent that to, to, to the board. But we'll double check and we can refer that to Dennis if we need to.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. And then the second update.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: As you as you mentioned Mister chair. We had hoped to be able to provide the response to the traffic peer review letter by tonight. We're we're just about there but I wanted to we have Jeffrey Durk on our our traffic and transportation and I thought you could get that just a 30 second update on that as well.
[Unidentified]: There is. Oh, just on you, Jeff.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: So I was just asking permission from the chair to address the board, but if it's acceptable to the chair, I'll just give a very brief update on the transportation responses.
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: So we conducted the traffic counts actually the week after school vacation. Unfortunately, when the data collection sub-consultant removed the equipment and then they download the data and check it for any irregularities, they had found that one of the recorders had stopped recording data. So we had plans this week to recollect that data, which we're still hoping to do outside of the bad weather. Hopefully it won't be a rain event, but anyways, outside of the bad weather that we're going to have over the next couple of days. So assuming the sun comes out and it's 50 degrees on Thursday, which is kind of what we're hoping for, we may collect some data this week during that sunny day. If we're not able to do it this week, or for some reason the roads aren't in a condition where people can walk, bicycle, or drive as they normally would do. We'll collect the data next week. Aside from that piece of the responses, we've obtained the rest of the data that was requested by Tetra Tech to be able to respond to their comments, and in fact, have fully drafted the responses, just waiting on the traffic data to come in. Our expectation is that we will have a response in advance of the next ZBA meeting, so that we'll be able to fully respond to all of the transportation comments that were offered by tentative. So that's just a high level summary of where we are in transportation. Happy to answer any questions the board has now or later on this evening.
[Unidentified]: Mr. Dirk, any questions from the board on that update? Okay, very honest. Great. Thank you. Thanks Jeff for for for that update.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: And so that leaves us with the, with the response and the sort of detailed comment and response on the civil engineering peer review. Our, our intent tonight, if it works for you is to. So, 1st, wanted to make sure it sounds like you do have the, the, the response letter that I believe was sent in last Friday. Correct. I know there was a request for Mr. weird in to just. Sort of clarify or I think maybe put the letter on a different on our letterhead to make sure that it was very clear that it was our responses. I can see Judy Barrett nodding. So we will take care of that. And so it's very clear that it was a Tetra Tech comment and it's a applicant team response. We'll be able to send that to the board. Um, but given that we, we have the response and you have it in hand, we thought it would be helpful if we could go through some of the high points. I don't think we need to take it 1 by 1. But we, since we have. have our team on as well. I thought I could run through probably the first half of the scope of the comments relating to constructability, operations, sort of daily life at the community. And then Tony Donato is on from Hancock as well, our civil engineer, who can run through a couple of the responses on that pertain to grading and utilities and other site infrastructure.
[Mike Caldera]: Just a clarifying question. Is the presentation on this area, will it largely be talking about and clarifying and answering questions about the content in the letter that you sent over?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, that's exactly right. Just provide a little bit more color. And I can tie the responses probably to some images as well. I'll share my screen in a minute, and I'll be able to walk through.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, sounds like a plan. In that case, though, before we get into. the presentation on the response to the civil engineering peer review, I want to talk a little bit about timeline and logistics. So as it stands right now, we have a total of two meetings remaining that are scheduled. They're two weeks from now and then roughly two weeks after that. And When we extend to 180 days, I think we have maybe a week and a half, if that, beyond that, where I would like to, so at the end of this meeting, I think we can certainly talk about scheduling an additional session. But even if we assume we have the two meetings plus an additional session where we're basically voting on it, frankly, we're behind. And so so one thing I wanted to check on with you, Mr. Alexander, is so over the course of this hearing, which at this point, we're what, four, four and a half months in something like that. There have been a number of requests made, some early ones in our meeting, and I think it was November, and then some requests from the peer reviewers and so on. And the general position taken throughout has been, oh, well, we don't want to provide all these updates with the design in flux once we've converged on a design then it makes sense to address these. And as a board, we've been amenable to that approach. As it stands today, my honest take is unless you're prepared in our next meeting to essentially respond in full to all of the things that have been requested over the course of this, hearing, I just don't see us finishing in 180 days. So I just wanted to check in with you and I can go through, there's a list that we've been tracking with some of the requests running back about four months at this point. You know, if you're if you're able to respond to all of those, and there's not going to be any big surprises in terms of the responses to the elements of the peer review that the board has specifically requested, you change in terms of the design or that the peer review consultant has strongly recommended, then maybe if we have it all by the next meeting, we could still get this done on time. But I just wanted to check in with you to see whether you're prepared to do that. And if not, whether you are interested in making a request to the board to extend beyond the 180 days. Because as I understand it, essentially you would either have to we would either have to complete in a 180 days which I just explain my concerns with that actually happening or you would have to request and I can pull up the specific language if needed, but request.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but I think I may have a thought that could be helpful and I would I would probably need Judy and Dennis Chris maybe to help me confirm this, but I actually, so I think that the 180 days, it begins from the opening of the hearing. Is that correct? So that would be November, I think it was November 29th. So our math and not to, you know, I think this is helpful, but our math shows that the 180 days is not the end of April. I think it's the end of May.
[Unidentified]: Now I have to.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: What was the application? I mean, the opening of the hearing date.
[Unidentified]: November 29th, I believe. Dennis, do you have the legal notice, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: So, well, yeah, I'm just, I'm going back. So that was, I'm just going back to my notebook. So the first meeting, the opening meeting was November 29th. It was just, I think when we were, this is just probably because our, uh, newness on this, but my understanding was it was when it was submitted, not for the first meeting.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So I mean, no. Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, then. So I think Alicia, we've all been operating on when it was submitted, it was submitted October 31st.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: No, it's 180 days from the opening of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay. Yeah, I we saw a couple
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Again, sorry to interrupt, but I think a 1, our hope is that that's helpful in terms of the way we see the next couple of hearings playing out and then still having I think it's roughly 60 days before the 180 day limit. So. But I also wanted to answer the second part of your question or your concern, which is that we do, obviously, getting this civil review in and presented tonight is a big step. We do anticipate having a full presentation of the architectural and design and then traffic, as you heard, at the next hearing on the 27th. Our presumption and assumption then is we would have that full sort of plan resubmission and update, you know, either at that hearing or directly after, which I don't pretend that that would be every last item on the list of requests, but I think it should be the majority of them. So that's why we weren't panicking necessarily about getting completed by that 180 days. The combination of, you know, I think that the end of May date plus the progress we're making.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for pointing this out, Mr. Alexander, because I think we, the whole board has been operating under the assumption that, and mid end of April was the date, but I did check my records. We kicked off on the 29th of November as stated. And then the, Yeah, the 760 CMR 56 says 180 days from the date of the opening of the hearing. So, yeah, OK. With that new information, I will walk back my concerns. I do appreciate, Mr. Alexander, that you are kind of approaching the readiness point where we can really start to Crystallize the detailed plans, you know, because there is going to be a period where, as a board, we're going to be wanting to go through the specific responses and actually see it and potentially iterate a little bit more. And, you know, the peer reviewers have even stated, I know you've been in touch with them throughout, but you know, that their peer reviews are sort of preliminary. It's all sort of hinging on this new packet. So I did see in chat, Director Hunt has a request.
[Alicia Hunt]: That was just to you, Mike, that's not to the public.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. I don't think it was, it might've been, okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was suggesting we could do some housekeeping tomorrow. So for everybody, actually, I don't know the applicant knows this, the chair just stepped down from the board. So we are in the process of appointing Jamie, who's been our associate member as a full member. We don't have the appointment letter yet, but as an associate member, he can just be pointed to this The chair can appoint him to this session, but he'll have an appointment letter from the mayor by the end of the week. And I was messaging Mike in the background that we can take care of some of this housekeeping and meet with Judy offline over the next day or two to get him up to speed since we only found out a few days ago, like two business days ago that this was happening. So my apologies.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks director okay, I think we I think all is in order so why don't we proceed we'll still at the end of this meeting, you know just come back to the whole agenda for next meeting, but the sketch you presented Mr. Alexander sounds sounds good to me. So, with that in mind, please go ahead with your presentation.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great Thank you, Mr. chair, I think I have the ability to share i'll do that right now.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I just have a couple of items up to help with the presentation. I won't keep the letter up the whole time, but this is, again, this is the letter that was sent in that has the Tetra Tech comments and then our response. So I'll take the sort of roughly the first half and cover probably four or five points that we want to just dig into a little bit. First, I think I should start by thanking Mr. Reardon and their team for continued coordination. I know that Tony, Mr. Donato, our civil engineer, was able to coordinate back and forth with the Tetra Tech team at least once or twice, which was very helpful as we put together our responses. So thank you for that. This was split into a grouping by key comments first and then a couple of specific civil engineering buckets. So I'll take the key comments first and really the one that I know that was talked about probably two or three hearings ago was the question about constructability and how do we approach the site to make sure that we can build the community the way we need to but also not interrupt neighbors, traffic, et cetera. I think I mentioned in an earlier hearing that one of the benefits, as we see it, of Mill Creek is the fact that we're not just the developer, but we're also the general contractor and then the management team who operates the community as well. So that allows us to get input early and make sure that when we see a site and a location and we have a plan, we're able to think about how we're going to actually implement that plan. And so one of the things that our team, our construction team was able to put together for us was a draft construction management plan. And this is really more of a sort of phasing and logistics plan. But I thought it'd be helpful if I spent two minutes walking through how they see the site and what their needs would be in order to achieve a smooth construction phasing. So just A couple of things to point out that you can see their sort of perimeter, which would be a construction fence. And I think that the high level message here is that, yes, it's a yes, it's an urban site. Yes, we've got building that will the building footprint will take over the majority of the site once built. But it's not something that we feel is beyond the realm of achievable or even easily achievable. So the one thing that this Construct limits of construction and the fencing would definitely show is, you know, we are, we're going to have a construction fence, you know, usually it's 6 to 8 feet high with a scrim on it. That is going to be at the, you know, at our boundary line, not beyond on the on the North and on the East and certainly on the mystic Valley Parkway side. So. We will work with MassDOT as needed and the town or the city, excuse me, if we were to need a little bit of additional space on Commercial Street, for instance, you can see this draft plan shows potentially taking of the parallel spaces on Commercial Street for periods of construction to allow for construction activities. That's fairly standard practice. We're working through that right now on a city just to the east of you. but wanted to point that out. I think the biggest thing to notice is that we're able to handle the majority of construction laydown, meaning the storing of materials, the temporary movement of materials within the middle of the site. You can see how we're planning to move from south to north as we construct the buildings. So obviously, during the first couple of phases, then the northern section of the site may be more open than it's currently, than it shows on this plan for additional movement of earthwork, for instance, than other sort of utility infrastructure. So just to point out the lay down area here, a key that I want to point out is the use of what we call a mobile hydraulic crane. So our team is confident they can, given the size, the height, everything else, that we will not be using or needing what's called a tower crane, which is what you kind of see on a big high rise, which is a stationary crane that has an arm that moves. This would be a hydraulic crane that is, like I said, mobile and movable and can work its way around the buildings as they're being built. That helps with a lot of things, but it certainly helps with, you know, space management as well. And then a couple other things just noted on the plan would be, you know, our on-site dumpster and trash, which obviously be loaded off periodically. And then our intent is to have a construction management office, you know, whatever space will allow in the sort of northern section of the site. So wanted to, wanted to, you know, show this as it is, you know, in sort of call it schematic form at this point, there'll be a lot more detail put towards it as we get closer to a construction start. And a construction management plan is a combination of not just this sort of visual, but also a lot of different individual written steps and techniques. But wanted to make sure we could let you know that that's something that we've been thinking about and working on and have a plan for.
[Mike Caldera]: And so Mr. Alexander, one question that I think came up last meeting, and I don't remember, I think the response was right, but I don't remember what it was, is that, could you just walk us through like what process you need to go through to fence off the sidewalk and those parallel spaces? Like, do you need permission? Is it just from the city or is it from, other entities as well.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. So yeah, I think that for commercial street, I believe it would be a coordination with the city, you know, DPW, whoever else to allow for that on commercial, which is a city owned street, obviously, with the parkway being a mass dot right of way, we would go through a process for a basic construction access permit. with MassDOT that would allow for not only the fencing that may be in a portion of the right of way, but also for any construction vehicle entry and exit off of Mystic Valley Parkway. So that's a sort of fairly standard process that we go through with MassDOT as part of their broader review of the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board on the draft construction management plan? It looks like not so great. Thank you. Very helpful to see. Thank you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Oh, sure. Yeah, our pleasure. I'll keep rolling through with a couple highlights, and I think the next one I wanted to just make sure. Was clear was number 2, the question, and this gets back to the question on the landscape plan. So, really, what we've provided thus far is is that 1 page rendered plan. We thought that was most helpful up front to really understand how the landscaping, hardscaping may look and feel. But one of the requests from both, I believe both Tetra Tech and Davis Square was for a more complete or fulsome landscape plan, which usually takes the form of a three or four sheet plan set. that talks about, you know, um, specific plantings and locations and, um, species, and then has a lighting plan associated with it. So that's underway with Halverson, our landscape architect right now. Um, that's something that we, you know, are working towards having ready for the next hearing. Uh, but that is, that will be, uh, more detail, right? Not just a pretty picture, but a little bit more detail about how the, how we see the landscaping and hardscape. Um, as I look through the letter, the next sort of five or six are, are mostly geared around, you know, making sure that the plans are, you know, have the appropriate notations and other details, um, both a civil plan and a landscape plan. And as you can see from our response, we're more than happy to provide that next level of detail. Um, and I think then I gets us to, um, on page three here, the, Questions about, this is really more about operations, right? Once the community is built and operating, how are we making sure that daily life moves smoothly for both the residents and obviously the neighbors and the city as well? So I wanna talk, let me start by talking about loading and unloading and trash. So that's sort of back a house type work. I have the plan now that you saw in our, ago now where our architect ran through just generally how the site operates. So I'll take trash first, then we'll talk about loading and unloading, and then we can talk about snow removal. So just wanted to point out, so on the screen here you can see again we've got the two buildings. We understand that this central drive is really the main entry and exit for daily life. What we've done is outlined a trash room and trash compactors and trash chutes in the corners of our garage. This allows for, you know, there'll be a trash room on each residential level of the building. Our residents can bring their trash to that room. It goes down a chute and into this base room on the ground level. That has, you know, other compactors and recycling bins and, you know, large recycling bins and things like that. And generally how this operates, and this is fairly standard practice, our maintenance team, who are full-time employees, will, on the trash days, whether it be a couple times a week or more, pull the bins and the trash, which are on rollers, out to a central area for pickup. They're usually out for, you know, maybe out for a period of minutes before the, you know, knowing when the trash arrives and then they're rolled back in. So, again, fairly standard practice.
[Unidentified]: We're do it in our certainly our communities in in greater Boston and beyond.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think next I want to talk about something that's not on the screen just yet, but it's something that our team's been working on, both civil transportation and design. And that's the concept of, you know, move-ins, short-term loading and unloading, making sure that that's smooth, a smooth process. So what we've looked at is, you know, just to remind the board and others watching that we've got a, one-way drive in this area, coming in off of Mystic Valley Parkway, working up through the site in this way. The only two-way traffic is right here, where you're two-way in and out of these garages and back on a commercial street. This is still a 20-foot wide drive aisle as that was coordinated with the fire chief prior to our submission. You know, it's quite frankly, it's wide enough for two-way travel, but it's gonna be one-way travel, because that's the right way for the site to operate. But it allows us to create a cut-through, or I'm sorry, not a cut-through, a drop-off or a lay-by in this area. So our plan is to carve, and we'll show this obviously in the plan set, carve out a small inset in this area to allow for short-term loading and unloading. We know that there can be If it's a move-in that's a van size, it can certainly fit within the garage, then we can manage that process with the resident and their move-in, and that'd be best case scenario. But if we have a larger truck that is hard to maneuver and get in and out of the garage, we'll have a lay-by area here that can be obviously reserved on a time schedule with our management team to make sure that a moving truck can be in and out of there efficiently. And that's something we've done in Metro West in a couple of different communities and feel like it will work well here. And before we put pen to paper on it, it's something we talked about with our transportation engineer, Mr. Dirk, as well, to make sure that works from a site logistics and circulation standpoint.
[Andre Leroux]: On that issue, Mr. Alexander, is there a freight elevator or is it just people would be moving in the regular elevators?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So we generally can dictate. That's a great question. We have we'll do a couple of things. We have what we've gone to actually more recently is an increased ceiling height on on multiple elevators. We in the past, we dictated a freight elevator and then you always get different, you know, shapes and sizes of things that sometimes make their way to the freight elevator and sometimes don't. So we've used an increased height to our elevator cabs in multiple. So we'll probably have one in each building that has that increased height. And then we can, as you are used to seeing, we'll make sure that that elevator is protected and has the sort of hanging protection up for move-ins. So, and I say that because I don't believe it would be a best practice for us to take one of these elevators and just call it freight.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from the board on this part of the presentation?
[Mike Caldera]: So Mr. Alexander, one clarifying question. I have, and I don't really wanna veer into of design alterations here, but am I correct in my understanding that the current area you're considering for loading and unloading directly abuts that 860 square foot unit A and its balcony?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's a good question. So yes, it's obviously proximate to that one unit. Our thinking, and obviously it's not shown on this plan, is that we would need to really increase the landscape buffer. If not, maybe think about something even a little bit more fulsome in that area to make sure that that one unit isn't adversely impacted by too much in and out. Now, yeah, so that's the plan, and we'll show that when we have the plan update.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, but so just for intuitive understanding, so the logic behind that being the location is the proximity to the elevators, is that right?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: That's right. Part of it is proximity to elevators, proximity to lobbies. One thought is that that area could also be the loading and unloading, for instance, for our commuter shuttle. So, that would cleanly allow the shuttle to come back from Wellington. Up into the site, you know, pick up residents and then. You'll go right back out commercial street, take a left on Valley Parkway and work their way back to Wellington.
[Unidentified]: Okay, any other questions from the board.
[Andre Leroux]: But 1 more. Could you just explain up to the the the top of this rendering or the diagram what that in the indent is there for?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. This was this was actually a request from Fire Chief Friedman when we previewed and discussed the plans with him just to allow if emergency vehicle did need to get up and service The you know, the backside here, if you will, of the northern building, it gave them a little bit more movement into that. And also, I think could be seen as a turnaround for emergency vehicles. But we that wasn't the intent. It was really just to give them a little bit more access.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And also just noticing that so. down from there, and it's not South, it's actually West, but there's no, there doesn't seem to be indicated a sidewalk on that side. It looks like there's just sidewalk on one side.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: That's right. And that's the intent too. I think given that it's interior to the site, you know, the feeling was that one, you know, we could create, you know, keep more landscaping here if we didn't have a sidewalk, and then there was obviously opportunity
[Unidentified]: side, if you will. A question. Yeah, what what happens if you have more than one moving vehicle that comes in at one time?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, so that that's a great question. It really gets to the management of of, you know. Of of the community, really what we do is we don't unless there's a really extenuating circumstance, we won't allow multiple move-ins at the same time. It gets to be more of a strain than anybody wants on the building elevators, on, you know, to your point, on any kind of loading and unloading. So we, you know, in any given, on any given day, it's, you know, we, or week, we won't have, you know, too, too many move-ins. once the community is up and running. So we'll schedule them so they're really one at a time.
[Unidentified]: Have you done this in other buildings this way, where you've had only just one area for trucks to pull in? We have, yeah. And it's worked very well with management?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: It does. I mean, it's all part of that on-site management and, you know, being there and proactively managing it, but yes, as long as we do that, which we do, it does work well. Okay, thank you.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Mr. Chair, if I could ask a question before we move on. Please go ahead. So Tim, thank you, but quick question. So how do you envision like Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, that sort of steady stream of non-affiliated vehicles that are gonna be coming and going from the site to the various buildings?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure. Great question. Thanks for that. And I think, so a couple things. One is the, we're still working out the exact length of this lay-by and this sort of short-term unloading zone. But this, the intention is this could serve, you know, probably one larger moving vehicle, but a couple of cars or, you know, sort of regular-sized vehicles. So that's one help. The other, and I think it was a question later in the comment letter about this front area, right? Why is this important? What is it, what purpose does it serve? Could that be sort of combined in the middle of the site? And really, you know, so there's another, there are really multiple reasons why the front, the Mystic Valley Parkway pull-off, drop-off area is important. One is what you just mentioned, right? So short-term parking or drop-off or ride share. short-term parking for Uber Eats, that type of thing, but also short-term parking for the retail. We feel, you know, obviously it's not a huge amount of retail that's being planned, but whether, you know, in a perfect world, everybody would be a pedestrian walking up and grabbing whatever it is they can grab there and go, but we know that they'll be vehicular as well. So I think that, you know, to answer your question, combination of multiple vehicle lay-by here, plus the short-term parking and or pull-off area in the front of the site is really what we envision.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Just from my perspective, it seems like you're expecting that one spot to do an awful lot. Just make sure it's well-documented.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Thanks.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Thanks for that feedback.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I think just adding to that, I guess this gets back to my other question about the you know the sidewalk or lack thereof there. I mean if you're looking at that as being a space where there's going to be a lot of people kind of in and out of cars and pulling over. you need to maybe think a little bit more about the pedestrian safety there and how you treat that whole street. I mean, maybe there's a way, I know that you're under some certain constraints with the fire chief's input, but maybe there's innovative paving that you could do that would make it a little bit more friendly for both pedestrians and cars. if you want to do something a little non-traditional. I don't know what space that is.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's a good point. And certainly this area is going to be more than just that pull-off. We'll have to, we talked as a team offline about, you know, providing, you know, a bench or two there with then obviously the requisite sidewalk area. So we'll look at that as we're designing.
[Unidentified]: And I'm glad the team is on to hear that, those ideas and that feedback. Thanks. Any other questions from the board before we continue with the presentation? Great. I'll keep moving.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: The last thing I wanted to point out, actually, or get into, was the idea of snow removal. We all will be thinking about this, or may not be thinking about this, for the next 24, 48 hours. What I wanted to point out and I think we mentioned in the letter, right? We've got what we'll do and we always do is contract with a snow removal company, right? It's not Mill Creek will have a third party who is hired to handle snow removal. A lot of our communities, we have big parking areas that require a lot of thinking about where snow storage can occur. You know, one of the You know, benefits of having all the parking in a garage here in our in our covered enclosed garages is that we really don't have that much plowable area if you will. So, our, our thinking and our plan is that for, you know, sort of routine snow events. There is enough wiggle room area in either landscape areas or. or in our buffer area that we can handle a routine storm without having to take snow off site. However, part of our contract, and we do this elsewhere, is that in a larger storm event, it's our snow removal contractor's responsibility to get that snow off site. They can't pile it up in a way that it impedes pedestrian traffic or certainly vehicular traffic, emergency vehicle, et cetera. So that's really, again, more of an but above a certain amount of snow, that's got to go offsite.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Tim, I'd caution you, you don't have very much wiggle area.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Understood. Understood. And I think that probably dictates the contract as well, Mr. Reardon, I appreciate that.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Heated pavement's an option too.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Heated pavement's an option too.
[Mike Caldera]: So to that point, though, I guess, how do we kind of get to a confidence level around how much space is or isn't enough, right? This applies both to the space to clear snow as well as the space for Uber Eats and so on and move-in vehicles. So it sounds like the scheduling will address the issue with multiple move-in vehicles at one time. But yeah, is there a standard way to actually do the back of the envelope math to establish this is or isn't enough space to do what's being proposed?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Well, to answer that question, as far as snow goes, yeah, there's a pretty easy way to sort of do a calculation of how much snow you can store. But I can tell you, based on what they have and the layout of the sidewalks and the layout of the landscape, there is no storage area. So you literally couldn't plow a 20-foot wide roadway with the space that you have on either side. So I think to Tim's point, you're looking at a snow management that involves immediate removal from the site. That's not impossible, but what it needs to be done is documented as part of a baseline expectation that the board has so that we're not getting into a situation where they do try to plow it and you get into a problem with your the court to the sheet north or whether it's encumbering sidewalks continually or encumbering the area that's dedicated for fire access. So as part of this process, we see our role as being identifying where these sort of constraints on the site are likely to manifest themselves as problems going forward and get as much clarity as part of this process and as clear a condition as possible in any decision. So yeah, I think the next step is, as Tim said, is they've got to sort of elevate the plan a little bit, give a little bit of description on how they plan on using it. we've got to give them the benefit of at least proposing a solution, and then we'll comment accordingly. And if we think it's undersized, or if we think it encroaches on access needed for the emergency vehicles, then we'll comment as such.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Mr. Reardon. That explanation was helpful to me at least. Mr. Alexander, is there anything you wanted to say in response to that? Or do you think Mr. Reardon put it well?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think that sounds reasonable to our side. We understand that those are the kind of things that can show up as a sort of clarifying condition. So that makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Last check. Any other questions from the board before we move on with the presentation?
[Yvette Velez]: I just have a quick ask of, can you remind me again where these typical amenities would be placed? Can you point that out?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. The amenities for the building,
[Yvette Velez]: Yeah, and those are possibilities right that you you labeled at the top left.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Oh, yes. Sorry. So, right. So possibility. So the amenity spaces as we outlined proposed in the building are what sort of labeled in the call it dark beige. So this area here, which would be. really a combination of not only this color, but the lobby area that's shown. So it's a deeper than what is sort of colored in. And then obviously here on the Mystic Valley Parkway corner as well. And then if I move up to the courtyard level, that's where additional amenity that sort of, you know, can be a number of different things, club room, work from home spaces, spaces that kind of interact more with the courtyard as well.
[Unidentified]: That's where additional building amenities would be.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think that was the bulk of the sort of operational daily life questions, if you will, in our responses. The next couple of sections are more on utilities and grading and, you know, sort of called site infrastructure. And I want to ask two things. One is, so Tony Donato from Hancock can run through a couple of those responses just to make sure you've got the detail you need. But I thought we'd start with Chris Rainier from Goulston, just to give a quick overview on what would our, conservation commission process will be and soon to be, because I think that answers a lot of the questions that are in the sort of environmental wetlands and sort of sprinkled throughout some of these other comments. So, Chris, would you mind just giving a quick overview of what that process will entail and the type of detail we will be submitting for that?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Sure, Mr. Chair. If okay with you, I'll address the board. Please go ahead. Okay. actually, I will speak about Hong Kong in a second, but just one other observation, Tim, that I think might be helpful for board members, just back to snow removal and operational performance. Mill Creek builds its projects and then owns and holds its projects. And so, it still owns the Med for Modera project on Cabot Road. So it is not going anywhere when it builds these projects. It's not looking to build these projects and flip them and walk away. It's going to live with them. And it wants to operate an excellent project where it wants to attract tenants. So the point of that is that certainly expect that the board's decision will include conditions on various aspects. But there will also be very important market forces on Mill Creek, making it want to operate, maintain its project in an absolute first rate manner. So just wanted to make that observation as well. In terms of the ZBA process and the concom process, so plan left here, there is a wetland off the sheet, and there's some buffer zone on our property. Um, and, uh, when, when our consultant looked at the, um, Medford wetland ordinance, um, they were not seeing, um, local wetlands, uh, regulations that are, uh, materially different than the state wetlands regulations. Uh, no enhanced, uh, buffers or things of that nature. So, um, what our plan is in the near future is, um, the. ZBA can't grant an order of conditions under the State Wetlands Act. We need to apply to the Medford Conservation to do that. As we've been updating the plans and to respond to the civil engineering peer review, we know there's comments about stormwater. As we've been looking at the architectural peer review comments and figuring out how that might affect building footprint, walking path footprint, our plan is to also in the near future advance a notice of intent filing with the Conservation Commission. We'll be able to get into more detail with them about stormwater capture infiltration. And that will be a little bit of an overlapping process with this board. We'll be in front of them to go over those issues of work in the buffer zone, work on related to stormwater treatment standards as well. So it's a little bit of a preview of coming attractions, but now that we've got some of these great comments from the peer reviewers and we're working to update the plans. We're at the point where it makes sense to advance that filing under the State Wellness Protection Act.
[Unidentified]: Great, thank you Chris.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: We're happy to take any questions on that too. That's more just sort of a blanket overview that helps to address a number of the comments.
[Mike Caldera]: So one question I have. is procedurally so it sounds like the intention here is to shoot what's the term file a notice of intent and then to still provide the board with some notice of intent application. And then to provide some detailed information to the board at that time. Separately, there's this suggestion which I believe Miss Barrett also. or perhaps it was a legal counsel, I don't remember, at one of our prior meetings had mentioned customarily boards do provide waivers in circumstances like this. So procedurally, do we need to waive it in advance of you doing that? Or how does that typically work?
[Unidentified]: I guess this might be a question for Ms. Barrett.
[Mike Caldera]: I like what is what is the waiver you're concerned about this is the so the so essentially, as I understand it, the ZBA cannot. Grant waivers from the state wetland protection act. And so in prior meeting and now I actually don't remember who said it, whether it was you or whether it was somebody else. There was this mention, and I think it's also in the zoning guide, the state puts out that boards will sometimes elect to provide a waiver from their local wetland ordinance to avoid a conflict where they're essentially reviewing something that they then don't really have the power to impose any conditions on.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So Mike, if you have a local wetlands bylaw.
[Mike Caldera]: Which we do.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. In this case, under a 40B, you are sitting in the position of the Conservation Commission with respect to the local bylaw. So when the applicant puts together a list of requested waivers, they need to ask you, the ZBA, for waivers from the local wetlands bylaw. They still have to file with the Conservation Commission under Chapter 131, Section 40. So I know it may seem a little bit confusing, but you are the Conservation Commission for the local bylaw. The Conservation Commission is the Conservation Commission for the State Wetlands Act.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly. So, legally, the filing has to be made with the Conservation Commission anyway however. the board could in principle decide when it's ruling on all the other waivers and conditions whether or not to waive this. And so it's just a suggestion being made here from the applicant that since by the state law, the conservation commission will review it anyway, that we could as a board elect to waive it, but it sounds like it's the board's decision. Oh, it's entirely your decision. We can make that decision at the same time as we're deciding all the other waivers as well.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, certainly. I mean, it's true that certainly doesn't make any sense for the board to kind of go one way and conservation to go another, but you don't need to do the waivers piecemeal. You can take up the waivers collectively when all the final waivers are in hand. and there may still be changes to the waiver list. So you don't need to do that now.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, understood. It looks like Mr. Reardon wants to say something.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, Mike, and I think you described it pretty well, but in Medford too, you guys have a new stormwater regulation that has a stormwater permit that, so you've sort of got a lot of overlapping issues there that sort of all fall into your lap. And we'll help try to sort of keep order to those, but just keep in mind there's, There's the wetlands issues, there's the stormwater issues, and then there's the town's stormwater regulations that you have to comply with as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, thank you. Are there any other questions from the board on the plan for stormwater?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just wanted to be clear. I wasn't, so I want to make sure the board understands the applicant has to file with the conservation commission because they have to go in front of them because of the state wetlands. Yes. Application. And I don't believe that what I, what I thought I heard them say is we don't really have anything in our wetlands ordinance. That's really above and beyond that. So they're not asking for any wetlands waivers.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: They may not need them. I'm just saying if they needed them, they would go to the ZBA. Right. If they don't need them, they don't need to request a waiver. I mean, it's a question of whether or not there are local requirements that would impede the construction of the project.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And so I want to make sure Mike understood that they're not asking you for any waivers. They're giving you an FYI for your information. They're going in front of the conservation.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so thank you, Director Hunt. But specifically what I was referencing is in the response to 37, it states the applicant agrees with the recommendation for the board to provide a waiver for Medford's wetland ordinance.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I think Mr. Chair, what we were picking up on is a comment in the peer review that mentions given the commission, this is the conservation commission, maintains review responsibility under the state regulations. We recommend the applicant request and the board consider waiving any filing requirements under Medford's wetlands ordinance. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): avoid the board having to conduct a parallel review with the Commission. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): I see. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): I think really what we were thinking about was more like a procedural waiver. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): of having to. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): understand. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator): Those of intent with the conservation with the zba we're going to be doing it with the conservation Commission, so it was it was that procedural is clean up.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so I'll go back with my with my question then. I mean, so I guess I acknowledge that in principle, we could decide at the very last minute whether or not to waive the requirement that already lapsed. But given that this is more of a procedural waiver, I mean, do we need to waive the procedure?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So it's it's entirely up to you, Mike. Typically, boards take all the waiver requests up at once because the waiver list may change. So if you start doing them piecemeal, you know, you have to sort of keep track of, well, what have we already done? Typically, boards will take up all the waiver list, you know, the waiver requests kind of in one meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, noted. So in that case, I guess I would like to quickly check in with other board members, whether they have thoughts or preferences on how we handle this procedural waiver.
[Unidentified]: I like doing all the waivers at once, when we're ready. Yeah, I agree with that too. I like to do it all at once. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: I mean, for me, the thought of essentially letting a procedural requirements lapse and then voting later to waive it is a little odd. you know, I don't I'm not strongly opinionated about it. So if the if the applicants amenable to doing them all at once, I certainly am too.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: In my just to be clear, there's no there's, there's no non compliance occurring. So if I can just kind of describe briefly, usually when towns have a have a wetlands bylaw that it's usually created with the expectation that the Conservation Commission is going to be the the review authority for both in there, they're sort of like duplicative and overlapping. But when you pull them apart under 40 B, it becomes a little bit cumbersome because everything was intended to run through in parallel. So when you pull them apart in 40B, now all of a sudden something that was intended to be done by the Conservation Commission is presumably being done by somebody else. So all we're saying is that to the extent that your local bylaws require another permit under your zoning for wetlands, that you eventually, because they only need the permit in order to affect the construction. you know, as long as you waive it before they start construction, then there's no noncompliance there.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Thank you for clarifying. Mr. Rainer, were you going to say anything? It looked like you were about to say something.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I was just exactly more or less than what Sean said, which is just a point. You're not letting anything lapse right now. Waivers are granted when the comprehensive permit is granted. So I think procedure, we're on all fours. And, you know, we'll be working to pull together the notice and intent file it.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Okay, well, that's easy then. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions on this from the board? Okay, go ahead, Mr. Alexander. Mr. Chair, thank you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I wanted to just, we wanted to just close out the explanation or the review of our response with a two or three really more specific civil engineering responses. So Tony Donato from Hancock's here. I think Tony, do you want to just a couple, a grading and stormwater and a couple others, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair?
[Unidentified]: It is. Please go ahead.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Anthony Donato from Hancock Associates. And just to go over some of these preliminary grading comments and some subsequent conversation that Mr. Reardon and I have had, I'd just kind of like to go through a couple of items, particularly number 14, where it says, will the proposed wall along the boundary property created damming condition on either side. I went by the site and we took a look at it and along that, on the abutting property along the West End, the shared property line, there's a bituminous concrete berm that runs the length of that property line that kind of directs everything down into the, within their site, keeps all the drainage within their site and it flows into the wetland. I think the concern that we wouldn't be creating a damming condition or preventing any existing runoff from the abutting site onto our site. I think if, as we go through this, there was a comment regarding the excavation quantity to construct the garages. We ran some calculations and we've approximated about 5,000 cubic yards. The garage is only partially below grade at the lowest level, and it's about five feet below grade. We run some numbers and just an approximation that would only be 5000 cubic yards of soil export to construct the garages in it. Any exportation from the site will follow standard construction practices. If go through. I think the next one I'd like to go over was the mystery and I talked about this today, the water supply wastewater now, there is a in front of the site along Mr. garlic park where there's a. is an eight-inch water main and there's a 15-inch sewer that appears to only serve our site and the former GE building that's to the west. There's also a water main within Commercial Street. Now, for Mr. Redding's suggestion, I reached out to Peter Kerger at the Water Department, and I'm looking to schedule a hydrant flow test or see what data they have available. It's required as part of the plumbing code, but we can get some preliminary information and just kind of run through those numbers. We'll provide an update, Mr. Reardon and the board. Regarding the sewer, so we've estimated that about 65,000 gallons per day for sewage would be generated from this site. And just doing a capacity analysis of the 15 inch pipe that's located within Mystic Valley Parkway has a half percent slope. It's fairly large size pipe for a sewer. And using the peaking factor of six, we've estimated that about 14%, less than 15% capacity of the pipe will be taken from the proposed project development, the Mill Creek development on the site.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Tony, if I could just jump in, sorry. I think that's a little bit more information than is contained in the letter. We obviously gave the size of what the existing infrastructure, but then layering on top what the anticipated use and flows are from our community, from our project. I think the headline is, you know, we're confident that there's certainly capacity, you know, well within what is needed, but we'll make sure that, you know, Sean and Tetra Tech have those numbers as well, PB, David Ensign — He-Him, He-Him. He-Him.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: He-Him. He-Him. can with confidence conclude that there's adequate water supply and there's adequate sewer supply. So ideally, the exercise is very easy. And if it's not, well, then that means that there's something that needs to be looked at. But based on the size of 15 inch pipe is a massive sewer for something that's got limited service area. So I don't expect any problems there. Same thing with the soil excavation. 5,000 yards of excavation for a project this size is not very much, but the value is it's a number that the board can use to inform its decision going forward.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Great, thank you. And then the final comment I'd just like to touch upon was 33 regarding the inflow infiltration removal requirements. I've reached out to Owen Watala regarding any improvements and we've agreed to what we're working with the engineering department and DPW to see how we can meet the requirements of the city's inflow and infiltration requirements. So we can certainly address that comment. Now, if the board has any or Mr. Reardon has any other questions regarding the other responses,
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, Tony, Anthony, as far as the II is concerned, my goal is not to get the solutions or how you're going to do it, just what your commitment is and whether you're going to be asking for relief on it. Because your commitment to meeting the II, 4 to 1 II mitigation requirement is sort of informs the whole sewer discussion as well.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Any questions from the board? Thank you, Mr. Mr. Alexander is there anything else you wanted to present tonight.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So that was really it. Thank you for the time and letting us do that. I think the discussion was helpful, but I'm happy to answer any other questions, but that was that was what we had for tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So just in terms of next steps, so I know the board has been asking questions throughout. I'll still check with the board now if there's any general questions from the board pertaining to this response letter that we haven't already addressed. Then I'm going to open for public comment on this response letter to the civil engineering.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Mr. Chair, can I make just one, I just want to make sure that something's clear. So, Tim talked to this earlier. The way the responses were provided makes it look like it's a document created by me. So, what I've asked is that that document be removed from the record and one be provided in its place. So, I just want to make sure that everybody understands going forward, we will have a new response to comments on the applicant or their engineer's letterhead as opposed to a modified version of my letter that has my signature at the end.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Yes. Thank you for calling this out, Mr. Reardon. So for members of the public, if you're following along tonight and you've seen this letter, this was written by the applicant in response to the Tetra Tech letter sent almost a little over a month prior. So the only areas that are actually part of the response or the sections labeled response, the rest is just sort of it. So it's like an inline comment, I think, was the intention. And yeah, it sounds like a plan to remove this from the record, replace it with an analogous letter on the appropriate letterhead just to avoid confusion down the road. If you're a member of the public and you plan to speak to this, just please keep in mind what you're really responding to is the actual sections with the little arrows and the word response. The rest is the content of Mr. Reardon's peer review letter from a month prior. Okay, so again, I'm just gonna quickly check in with the board in case there's any last questions. Otherwise, I'll wait a motion to open public comment.
[Unidentified]: Mr. Chair, just a quick clarification. At our next meeting, will we have, is that when the traffic report is expected?
[Mike Caldera]: So Jim, I do plan to come back to that at the end. So my understanding from the earlier response is yes, but yeah, before we end the meeting, I'm gonna check back in with the applicant and just make sure we're all on the same page about what will be presented at the next meeting.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right, so the chair awaits a motion to open public comment on this response to the civil engineering peer review. I have a motion to open public comment on the civil engineering document. I'll second that. All right, we're going to do a roll call vote. Andre? Yay. Jim. Jamie. Hi.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, the motion passes. A public comment is now open. So folks, feel free to use the raise hand reaction if there's anything you'd like to say. You can also type it in chat. And Dennis, could you just share some details on email address for how to get in touch with you?
[Unidentified]: If you're here right now.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I'm just gonna put my email in the chat and it'll show up on the screen. Okay, wonderful.
[Mike Caldera]: And so we're gonna give it a couple of minutes just to make sure everyone has time to react. Yeah, so in the chat, it's dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Unidentified]: Okay, so I'm not seeing any hands raised or anything in the chat yet.
[Denis MacDougall]: But I'll also say if you're watching this either live or if you watch a repeat viewing of this on Metropolitan Access and you have any questions, comments, please contact our office and contact the email that I mentioned earlier. So it's DMacDougall, so it's DMacDougall, A-L-L.
[Unidentified]: at medford-ma.gov. Thank you, Dennis. Have you gotten any emails? Just hitting refresh a few more times. Nothing has cropped up. All right. Do I have a motion to close the public portion of this meeting? Moved. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right, we'll do another roll call. Yvette? Yes. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Yes. Andre? Aye. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. All right, so now I think we're largely done for the evening. So I just want to take the opportunity to do some quick coordination to make sure we're on the same page about next meeting. So as Jim Tirani had asked, so I'd like to just make sure there's a shared understanding in terms of what we should expect next meeting. So Mr. Alexander, my understanding of your earlier update was that we should expect the response to the architectural review, the response to the traffic, which is largely drafted and just awaiting a recollection of data, and the new plan packet next meeting, is that right?
[Unidentified]: That's correct. Yep.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: It's our goal and intent to be able to hit on all three of those items for the 27th.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then, so I know you allowed for the possibility that it wouldn't quite be the full list of all things we've requested at any meeting, but back when I thought it was, we were ending a month earlier. So in terms of like one of the things I asked about early, I just wanna check in with you about is the waiver list and the zoning analysis. So is that gonna be part of the updated plan packet or are you planning to wait until after this meeting in case there's additional feedback and then we'll get that in a subsequent meeting?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I'll give my answer and then Chris and Louise can correct me if they think I'm wrong. Yeah, I mean, I think the intent for the next hearing is we'll have the, barring again, another weather issue and collecting the traffic data. We'll have the actual written response submitted for the traffic peer review. So we can go through that in detail, but you would already have it in your hands. On the design and architecture, I think it's probably our best bet to coordinate with Davis Square between now and the next hearing. we will prepare but not yet submit an updated plans package or waiver list to do what you just said, which is be able to preview that with you, collect feedback from you and anyone else during that hearing. And then we can sort of finalize both the plans package plus the waivers list and submit it hopefully shortly after the next hearing.
[Unidentified]: Does that sound right to everyone? Is that consistent with? Nobody's screaming at me, so I think that's OK.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so I'm not going to scream, but Mr. Alexander, just a clarifying question. So I guess I don't understand what you gain by. Presenting it live, so I certainly I like to do my homework, I'd appreciate seeing a plan packet in advance, it doesn't have to be way in advance, but I just, I don't see the upside to literally doing it live. So like, cause you don't, it doesn't have to be the final plans, right. You can, you can submit that. And then, you know, if there's feedback, it could be an update. So I just wanted to check in with you. Is there some like operational reason why that would be the preference?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: That's a really good point. No, I think what I was trying to avoid was multiple, you know, submissions. But I think if we were to give you a progress set to review, and in the hopes that it would be close to final, it gives you the big, you know, the sort of the highlights, any major substantive changes that have been made, we can, we'll, we'll, we'll work towards getting that in advance of the next hearing. Okay, but so just just on submitted and it will be sort of might be it might be labeled progress set but we can we'll try to get that in your hands for review ahead of the next hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, but it would be a Set of plans labeled progress set or it would be like a presentation that Sort of describes what has changed Yeah, I it might make sense to do the latter.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I So similar to the presentation we gave about a month ago, we can put together a series of slides that sort of compare and highlight the changes.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So I'd love to get the take from others on the board. I think Mr. Alexander, that I'm just expressing my reservations now. Like I do, even with the extra month, we do want this to converge. And so I just, I'd like to avoid a situation where what we're actually reviewing in the next meeting is still too fuzzy, where essentially it takes an additional meeting for our peer reviewers and our, you know, department heads, um, to really see it at the granularity they need to get you the, um, Like the, I'll call them final, uh, comments, uh, for lack of a better term. So, um, So just, just like a signal, my intention, if in this next meeting, um, I'm not getting a sense of convergence and alignment. I'm going to bring up the topic of, you know, do we need to do a working group on the architecture, for example, to, you know, to just try to speed the process up. So I guess the extra month, you know, takes us out of the territory where it's like, I don't think we can possibly get this done into the territory where we can totally do this. But, um, just please be aware that, um, it's certainly my, uh, my hope and intention that at the next meeting, we're as tangible about this. as possible so that we're looking either at the plans or something really darn close to it, just so that I want to get you as much lead time as possible on any detailed feedback so that there is time to iterate. The intention here is not to Iterate endlessly on this, but I just, I want to make sure we sort of is like a fortuitous, I guess, that we just did the math wrong right from the outset and we have an extra month. I don't want to waste that opportunity. So, so yeah, it doesn't have to be an exact plan packet, but I really would appreciate if it's, you know, what we're reviewing day of is quite tangible, you know, approaching the level of detail that would be in an updated plans packet, if not updated plans packet itself. You know, if there's content you're planning to speak to in the meeting and it's ready in advance, you know, I would certainly appreciate having it in advance just so we can show up prepared.
[Unidentified]: Mike? Yeah. I go along with that too, because it gives me time to really look at it and then decide what questions I might have. If it's at the same time of the meeting, you know, I might not have enough time to, you know, raise some questions. So to your point, I would like that very much. So if I might, Mr. Chair, I appreciate those comments.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Generally, we're on the same page. We want to make progress. We want to get you what you and the peer reviewers need to be able to respond again if needed. So yeah, we'll work towards it. When I described a presentation, it was in hopes that it would actually help that process of getting you all the information. So a presentation can only be built and prepared if the plans are there in the first place. So we'll make sure we can get you really complete, as complete as possible, architecture, civil, landscape plans that could be reviewed before the hearing on the 27th.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Thank you for your understanding. I think that would really help us to have a successful next meeting.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Absolutely. And I just would add, you know, the team, it's already in process, so I feel pretty comfortable that we're going to be able to do that. There are no guarantees, but I think we'll be able to get there. It's interesting because, you know, this is sort of the, this is the, it's been a great process of being able to meet every two weeks and have a regular cadence But it also, you know, at times, these two weeks come up a little bit quickly when we're working on plans and renderings and other sort of substantive changes. So we'll do everything we can to get that because we share the same goal of making sure we can get, you know, a full review and then obviously your, the time you need to, you know, to, you know, to do your further review and response. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
[Unidentified]: of logistical questions from the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so Director Hunt, I'm going to take you up on the offer to sync offline in terms of like planning out what the rest of this hearing looks like for upcoming sessions. One thing that's sort of tricky that I just want to acknowledge up front that's happening in the background is my understanding is that as of the time of this meeting, Massachusetts has not yet completed all the steps required to extend the virtual meeting. The virtual meetings beyond March. Now our next meeting is in March. And so I can announce today that that will be held virtually. And then I did, because I was curious. Do some digging to see kind of where the the state is with it. And as I understand it There's a budget that passed the house, but hasn't yet passed the Senate that would extend this through 2025 so because of that uncertainty It would be my preference if the applicant and the peer reviewers are amenable to wait until our next meeting to schedule out the rest of the the sessions, because I acknowledge that if we have to meet in person, that might impose additional constraints. We do have two meetings on the books presently, the meeting on the 27th and then a meeting, I think, in mid-April. And so, yeah, is that, are there any concerns with that plan? Do we need to get additional meetings on the books today or can we wait until March 27th to schedule out the rest of the hearing? And just for coordination purposes, I think that maybe the board and some of the others involved can coordinate offline and try to get to some tentative dates with the understanding that those would be the dates if this virtual remote meeting allowance extends. But yeah, I'd prefer not to schedule them in this meeting unless there are objections.
[Alicia Hunt]: I will tell you, just if I might, that we have every expectation that they're going to extend the remote open meeting that's been strongly. was by our legislators. So we have every expectation it's going to happen. They are all aware of all our boards and commissions across the whole state that need to schedule things. So we do really expect that. But I will say that if for some reason there was a decision that we needed to do some that were hybrid, and I will just say that in-person is totally feasible for us. We know how to do in-person meetings. We have plenty of spaces. If we were as Medford to try to do hybrid in any really robust way. We at this time need to use our city council chamber, which means we have to coordinate that with the city council not because they have any say whatsoever over this process, but they control the room. for robust hybrid meetings. There are other spaces we might be able to use for such a thing, but it's harder. It's much, much harder because it would be legal, even under the old laws, to have the board in person and have people on the TV, consultants, other people, the public, remote. That's legal. It's just not easy, like the technical complicated.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, understood. Thank you, Director Hunt. Yeah, so I think in light of where we are today, let's, you, me, Judy discuss tomorrow, but then we will plan to formally schedule the rest of the hearing either in the next session, or I think we can schedule them offline, right? We don't have to do that in a public meeting. Yeah, okay. Cool, so we'll be in touch.
[Unidentified]: Any other topics before we wrap for the evening?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, I'll just say thank you to the applicant and to our peer reviewers and everybody who presented today, looking forward, you know, productive discussion today, looking forward to our next meeting. Yeah. And so I don't think we have anything else on the agenda. So the chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Seconded. All in favor? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Aye. Aye. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Have a great night. Go ahead, Chris.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Has the board also made a motion to continue until the 27th at 730?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking I was going to do. OK, I'm sorry. I think I messed up procedurally. So Yeah. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: So do we have to reopen and then no, I mean, just, just have somebody make a motion to continue to the date and time certain you can actually continue to the date and time certain and adjourn all in one motion.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So, um, we're going to rule the prior motion out of order. Um, and then, uh, so the chair awaits a motion to, uh, continue the meeting, uh, to March 27th at 7, after 7.30 p.m. and to adjourn the meeting.
[Unidentified]: So moved. Do I have a second? Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And then I'm going to do a roll call since the continuing is in there.
[Unidentified]: So Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right. Now we're continued and adjourned. Thank you, Chris. Have a good night, everybody.