[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which, among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 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 other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15, 2022 to March 31, 2023.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Dennis. Okay, so we have two items on the agenda. Dennis, could you read off the first one?
[Denis MacDougall]: 4000 Mississippi Parkway, case number 40 B dash 2022-01. This is the resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC, an affiliate of Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC, for a comprehensive program 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, 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building, containing a mix of studio, one and two, two and three bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as portable housing to lower moderate income households.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you so much. So folks, we are going to just go through a couple things on this meeting, we're going to get some updates on the status of peer review from City Hall staff. And we're going to talk through some of the department headliners we've received. Then we'll have some discussion with the applicant about additional information. And then we'll have a space at the time in case there's anything we need to go through. So Alicia, do you want to maybe walk us through some of those updates or is there someone else you'd like to help do that?
[Alicia Hunt]: I believe that I'm planning to do that. I didn't ask somebody else to do it. So, at the last meeting, the zoning board asked us to for City Hall to engage peer review consultants. So we've been working through that process. We got some recommendations from our consultant Judy Barrett. And we reached out to the consultants that she recommended, discussed scope with them, and asked them for price quotes. We submitted those price quotes to Mill Creek, and they agreed and said they would send us checks. And our last conversation with Mill Creek, we expect those checks to actually be in our hands tomorrow, at which point we will be able to sign the contracts with the peer review consultants and they can start. So that's the very high level. To be more specific, we met with Heterotech to do actually a lot of the work that we had asked about. So they would do site, civil, stormwater, they'll do traffic. All of those would be grouped together as Through they have different people on their staff who would do it but it would all be managed by one main consult consultant at Tetra tech, we met with Sean Reardon, who has done a number of 40 B projects and he's done a number of them. with Judy Barrett, so he's familiar with the whole process. And when we spoke to him, some of what Judy and Sean explained to us is that the consultants can very much help us understand what is and is not jurisdictional here. They can recommend what should be
[Unidentified]: You mean what is within our jurisdiction?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, within the jurisdiction. What should be changed in the project like what should just be changes, and what should be in conditions, and then what's outside of the jurisdiction of the zoning board completely, and that that's something that he's actually very familiar with state law and what's allowed and not allowed. So it's one of the benefits of going with a consultant who's familiar with the 40B process is that he is aware of that. And I will tell you that she also, I'm gonna say these two in parallel, she also recommended Davis Square Architects to do the, sorry, the design, architectural design review. And Davis Square Architects is also, sorry, Clifford. I have Clifford's last name here. that they are also very familiar with it, and that Sean and Cliff Bowmer have worked together on these projects a lot, because some of the work is iterative. Some of the things, you know, well, the outside is going to change if the site plan changes, that sort of thing. So they're familiar with that and have worked together on these sorts of projects a number of times. So they'll be able to do that. The very beginning, they're gonna review what are all the documents that we have in hand? And then they will submit a letter to the ZBA saying what they have reviewed and what additional information they may need. They both indicated that in their experience, there's frequently missing documents that they would like to see in order to be able to fully execute their review. so that that would be the very first thing they would submit back to the ZBA, is what do they need to see. And then they'll go through that, and then they'll work on submitting to the ZBA. Then the ZBA, so everything must go through Dennis, and that makes it public record for the ZBA. They will send back to you saying, here's what official documents we need. And then you all will send that to Mill Creek, and Mill Creek will say, okay, yeah, we can provide these and send them back to you. That makes them public documents. And then you send them over to the consultants.
[Unidentified]: They review them, they make- Sorry, could you just say that one more time? I just wanna make sure I understand those exact steps. So the consultants will send them to Dennis, who sends them to the board.
[Alicia Hunt]: At the point that they send them, so this was something I actually clarified with Judy today with regards to department comments as well. Anything that is sent to Dennis, oh, Judy's on, great. Anything that is sent to Dennis by the applicant is considered public record. And so then he should send them to Judy, he should send them to the board, and then he could send them to our consultants and he should post them in the online repository so that the public could see them.
[Unidentified]: And then for the, so what we received from the consultants, and I think you were, this is where you were heading is for example, the, the letters we've received from the department heads, when those are sent to Dennis, those are similar that then becomes public record.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. It is the fact that they sent them to Dennis addressed to the board, which makes them official.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Great. So then we can, so one of the things that what you were just describing, I think is going to be really helpful. Um, for the folks listening, we've received, um, I think four, if that's correct, letters from department heads with various recommendation or department and, um, boards and such heads with various recommendations. And. We're going to get into discussing them in a minute, but some of these things I look at them and I'm like, that sounds great. That sounds reasonable, but I think it'll be helpful for us, for the board to have a consultant say, okay. you know, numbers one through 18, you have the jurisdiction and these are all reasonable things. Number 19 is difficult. That type of a thing is what I need to, I think I'm gonna speak for the rest of the board and say that's something that will be very helpful for us to parse out what actually is reasonable and what can be done and all of that.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: That's the beauty of peer review. That's what your peer review consultants will do for you.
[Unidentified]: OK. But I'm glad, because I just wanted to make sure we're going to be able to share these. I thought that we could. I just want to make sure I knew the mechanism, because I want to be able to share these with the applicants so they know exactly what we're looking at.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Sure, absolutely.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. Sorry, I interrupted you go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: No, and actually I think this is actually the right time for Judy to clarify because there's also the public meetings, and the public meetings are this discussion place in a public forum of these items. do we need to have a public meeting in that flow of documents? Like, can we not send, if we get it from the applicant, we can send it immediately to the peer review consultants, right? We don't have to wait for the committee. And vice versa, right? If the peer review consultants has comments, we can send it to the board, post it on the website and send it to the applicants. Absolutely. If there's discussion about them, the discussion occurs in the public meeting, but the documents could happen offline, one might say, as long as it a public repository is part of that.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Right. That's the key is if it's in public repository, it's fine. And, you know, where there is sort of this limit as to the duration of the public hearing, you don't want to delay the communication needlessly. So if something comes to the board that it needs to get to the peer review consultants, send it to them. When the peer review consultants comment back, best to send it to the applicant so that when the board meets again, the communication that probably needs to happen hopefully will have happened.
[Unidentified]: OK. So yeah, maybe so what we just do is to formalize that is whenever either the applicant or the consultant sends something to us via Dennis. It's then put in that repository as step one. And step two is it's automatically sent either then to the applicant or to the consultant on the other side. Yeah. As well as email to the board, but I know Dennis.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Facilitate communication. I think the only thing to bear in mind is that if the consultants ask for some changes to the plans, the applicant probably isn't going to want to go and rush out and make a whole bunch of changes before they've met with the board, because the board may want to direct the applicant in some way and how to respond. So I don't want to set off a runaway train here, but I think the issue is communication.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. My instinct on that is it's going to give the applicant a sense of then at the next meeting, they'll be able to speak about, yes, we're on board with these and this is harder and those types of things.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Exactly.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Great. Okay. Alicia, was there anything else?
[Alicia Hunt]: I believe that's it. I just want to make it clear. So the proposals from the consultants, Judy, is that part of the public record as well? Those quotes? Directed to the board, yep. So I know I sent those to, I know Dennis was copied on them because we just included him in all of those, but I don't know if those proposals were sent to the board and if that's part of what you thought to put into the public repository. So we'll just make a statement now that those exist and we'll add those in. We actually have to get our communication staff to upload them to the Google Drive. So that's the proposals. The applicant has seen that. And as soon as we have the check, we have the contracts ready to be executed, but the city was waiting for the check.
[Unidentified]: I don't think that we've seen those yet, but we can, we'll get our eyes on them soon, it sounds like. Okay, perfect. So before we go into, I was going to move next into the board discussing some of the department head letters, but maybe to the other board members, do you folks, I don't necessarily feel like I'm really ready to discuss the board letters. in detail because I'm more curious, I guess, to get a sense of what we were just talking about from the consultants in terms of some of the jurisdictional stuff and the feasibility stuff. Because when I read the letters from the department heads, everything they're saying sounds very reasonable to me. What do you folks think? This is to the board members.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not sure I understood the question.
[Unidentified]: Oh, so I was speaking with Alicia earlier or emailing she had a good suggestion that we just try to have an agenda for each of these meetings. So the next agenda point was going to be board members discussion of the letters from the department heads. But, and I'm happy to talk about them and we can definitely do them but I don't know that I'm necessary and necessarily in a place yet where I'm ready to have a substantive discussion about those letters. in part because one of them came in recently and I haven't had a chance to really go through that one yet in the last hour or two that it came in. But also because I really am more curious to know what the consultants have to say about these recommendations before we do that in a meeting. But I just wanted to check in with you other board members. And if you did wanna discuss them tonight, I'm happy to give you the time to do that. My instinct is to wait until we have the consultants on board and get a sense from them what they think about these letters from the department heads.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for clarifying. So I'm supportive of waiting for the peer review letters if we have reason to believe that we'll actually get them soon. So I remember in the first meeting, there was some comments made about uncertainty, you know, surrounding when we'd even get the peer review that might vary by area. And so it sounds like we've made headway, we have peer review consultants in mind, sounds like we haven't yet paid them officially or even gotten estimates from them when they have their, their letters in by so you know that's an open question I have that perhaps we could talk about before making that the official decision, and then separately, I think that. While certainly the outstanding peer review and some of the jurisdictional questions might push us towards deferring some of the discussion, there's some items that were requested that require the applicant to be responsive in those letters, as well as even in the original, subsidizing agency approval, that I think it would be great if we could just request those all today. If we already know we'll need them.
[Unidentified]: I didn't mean to interrupt that last part.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm done.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, so I think I think that's right that was that's the next agenda item is go through everything that we we now have from them that we would want from the applicant. And maybe what we can say is I think our next meeting is the 25th if I'm correct. So that gives us a little bit of time that might not be enough time to get the. to get the letters back from the consultants, but perhaps it might be or perhaps it might give us just a little bit more time to digest them. I know the one that just came in like two hours ago, I haven't had time to really look at that with the application myself, but I think that that's a good point. Alicia, did you want to add something?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, so I realized that I thought I had the answer to what Mike was just asking about and it wasn't in the notes I was reviewing a minute ago, but I do. So I had asked Sean about timing and he said that the first letter to the board usually takes about three to four weeks to go through all the documents and review everything and the triage stuff. He said that if there's a fatal flaw, like if there's a big issue he sees, he would let us know that as soon as he sees that. Assuming that there isn't, it would take three to four weeks to give us the first letter. And then after that, as part of that, he may say, and I also need this additional information. And that's the general rule. It's two weeks after he gets any additional information, he'll be able to provide information back to the board. So that gives you that timeline. It is my expectation. We actually gave him access. We gave him the link to where our public documents are. We met with him, but I didn't expect him to look at it until we gave him a contract. So if he has a signed contract by this tomorrow's Tuesday by Friday, which in this case I think is reasonable, then like fully executed, then I would say three to four weeks from that is when you can expect a letter from him with like actual real material.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So our next meetings are January 25th, February 6th, and February 27th. So it sounds like we might have that information by the February, that letter by the February 6th meeting. Okay. I still think it makes a little bit more sense for us to take some time to see if we can hear anything back and if possible, we get anything before the 25th meeting. But I also just want to give the applicant a chance to, if there's anything else, before we go through some of the stuff we've received from them, apart from the department heads and what other documentation has been requested, I just wanted to the applicant, if there's anything that you folks wanted to let us know, if there are any updates or anything you wanted to add.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, thank you for sharing and leaving to the board. I appreciate the dialogue here and we're pretty much up to speed on what you've mentioned. And I've been coordinating with Alicia and team. So not a lot to add. The one thing I can add is I do recall going to my memory, seeing the board last week that the board requested a conceptual or a rendered landscape plan. um, be sent in. And so we do have that and I can, we can submit that to Dennis. So it gets to the board and the different, uh, reviewers as well. Okay. That's the, that's the only item is like you, I've taken a preliminary look at the department head, uh, letters. I mean, that was the only thing that bothered me.
[Unidentified]: Okay, why don't we then just maybe go through them together. And then Mike's always really good at helping me when I miss things. So if there's anything we missed, we go through. So if I'm looking at the building department letter from Commissioner 40, let's see. All right, so there's sprinklers to page two. I definitely saw something that Commissioner 40 had requested.
[Bill Forte]: I don't think it was the same amount of chairs so I'm the full set of prints I did get them this week I was actually out sick with coven last week so. I apologize today was the first day I actually had to look at. No worries.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, are you feeling okay.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I'm okay now. Oh, there's the night kind of sick and I held in there the whole night so.
[Unidentified]: Oh gosh, I was sick and didn't make it.
[Bill Forte]: So if I could just give just a general overview of my letter. That would be wonderful. Yeah, OK, great. So probably the biggest thing here to talk about would be the temporary sprinkler system during construction. You did see here, I referenced a couple of things, one of them being the significant fire risk that this type of design will impose. So I have firsthand experience with this. A project of very similar magnitude was being constructed in Waltham, and we had one of the largest construction fires in the United States in 2017. I was the building commissioner at the time, and the conflagration of the fire was so extreme that not only was it a total loss, but the building basically disintegrated while it was under construction. The City Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals then looked into what actions they could actually take as part of, you know, trying to make these things safer while under construction. The best thing that they came up with at the time was a temporary construction sprinkler system in which a dry action system is basically built as the building is being constructed. It's not extremely technical. It does require a couple of extra steps, but I have, basically, I have pulled all three of the projects that we require temporary sprinkles on. A couple of them actually volunteered because it was such a significant fire risk that they were actually able to keep their insurance rates down a little bit by having this system somewhat active during construction. And basically what it is, it's a pre-action system that is basically livened up with air in the lines at nighttime. It is set off by a, just very simply put, it has to be set off by both a fire popping a sprinkler head and a heat detection system also going off. And then it has to be manually triggered by somebody remotely on site to get water into the system. Now, ideally, it's not rated. It's not a system that is basically outlined in reference standards. So in other words, they don't have a reference standard for a temporary sprinkler system. However, it does afford some protection during construction that otherwise would not be afforded if the building was completely dry. Cooper Street, and the only reason I say this is because Cooper Street was a pretty, you know, a pretty massive fire. It just, it's an exception to the rule. It's not something that you would see happen, but actually they determined that it was a suspicious fire and it was started by an arsonist. And so that triggered off the need for not only for these temporary sprinkler systems to be built on wood frame construction only, but also a pretty sophisticated security system that would allow for deterrence at night. And so these things have been written into not only 40B comprehensive permits, but also into special permits for FAR in the city that I formerly worked in. and this basically would afford some additional fire safety during construction. My concern about this, okay, my concern about this design, okay, it maximizes the amount of wood frame construction that's allowed under the IBC. This particular design I actually denied when I was the building commissioner in Waltham and I was overturned by the building code appeals board. They found that technically on the merits that the design was sound and that it did comply with the state building code. Although there were conflicts, the building code appeals board in short determined that the design was proper and that it was allowed to be constructed in that manner. That building is currently under construction at 305 Winter Street in Waltham. So it has been my experience as the building safety official to ask for this requirement be written into the order specifically for the purposes of fire safety during construction, which is the fight upon the jurisdiction as well as the building inspectors authority under not only chapter 33 of the State Building Code, but also NFPA 241, which is the safeguards during construction reference standard in the State Building Code, which again is enforceable by the building commissioner and the fire hall.
[Unidentified]: Bill, you just froze. Bill? All right, well, we can give him a second while maybe his internet will come back in. While we're waiting for that, so I think, and we can double check with him, I think the only thing that he had requested in his letter was the full-size prints, which it seems like he's received now. And then, let's see, I don't think there were any requests for additional, excuse me, additional information from the fire chief or from the Board of Health for documentation, but there were a number of requests for plans from the Community Development Board. Looks like Bill is still frozen. So my thought on that would be, I'm wondering if the applicant, so there's a list of them, like number one says landscape plan, then information on rear pavers, clarity on the parking request, some of that information to the applicant. I'm curious, would it be possible for you folks to take a look at the additional information requested from the Community Development Board Um, and just go through each of those items and just let us know if that's something that either can be provided right now or, um, something that could be easily provided or where you folks stand on that and then send it back to Dennis. That might be the easiest way to do that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, Jim, are you unmuting to speak? Yeah, but I think we're going to say the same thing, Chris, we, we got the, um, so I can take that and Chris jump into, we. like you, I think got the letter this afternoon. And so that's why I saw the question about the request for landscaping plan was number one. So that's, I got a little bit further than that. So we would be, we can, in short order, probably in the next day or so, go through that and let Dennis know what's, you know, either send it right away or provide a quick response.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I think that sounds good. Yeah, so because especially if you folks haven't had a chance to go through some of this stuff. That might be the best way to do it. Mike, did you go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I did get a chance to read through the. letter from the community development board in full. And so some of these are just items where it's just kind of question response. So are the windows and balconies operable, for example. But then there's other items which are explicitly asking for certain types of plans, which I think are in a special category that might need a different type of response and planning time. And then there's other items that are recommendations that could materially impact plans we're already looking at. So for example, like there was a recommendation to reduce the size of the building by one or more floors. Recommendation to increase the amount of usable open space and provide some amenities at the front of the property and some other things. So I think for the questions, those likely the applicant can just read through and respond. For the plans, we can just formally request them. But for some of these other recommendations, I don't know what the right reasonable process is to handle those. Because I think that, you know, in this scenario where it's like, oh, sure, we could do that. It's very different from the no way, like there's absolutely no way we could do that. And resurfacing those somehow early would be helpful.
[Unidentified]: Sure. So you mean getting a response from the applicant earliest to, I guess, sort of high level feasibility? Is that what you mean?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, perhaps, Andri. can can add to what I'm trying to say here, but like the peer review consultants, their work is going to depend on the number of floors, their work is going to depend on like some of these big design elements. I think some mechanism to actually ensure we're converging and that there's awareness about what is and isn't feasible and what might be changing would be helpful. Go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Just one second before we get to that. What I was thinking that the applicant could do between now and when we actually have the consultants in, hopefully by the 25th, if not by the 6th, would be anywhere that the community development board has requested plans that exist, they could send them over right away. where there's a question that could be answered, they could do that. That was more my main thought of, if there's anything could be done right now, let's do it. And then the other stuff we could address, I don't think that we should be addressing any of the recommendations until after we've had that opportunity to work with the consultants. But I'm, Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I was just going to suggest that maybe the agenda for the meeting on the 25th could be to go through the Community Development Board's letter in more detail and to discuss some of the issues that they raised. Obviously tonight, I don't think anybody's really ready to do that, but the applicant can take, you know, the next couple of weeks to maybe present some some more information or to respond to some of those concerns. And we can also think about how we feel as a board about them, you know, individually, and then have that discussion on the 25th. So even if the peer review folks haven't gotten back with their information yet, we'd have something substantive to talk about.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's a good idea. I was kind of when Alicia was talking about the timeframe, I was starting to think maybe the 25th would be a good time to open for public comment, and those two things might work well together if we do the discussion of the Community Development Board requests and maybe the public comment together. I want to check in with Judy to make sure we're putting the public comment at the right place, but I think, Andre, that's probably a good idea.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Judy. I think it's fine. I mean, I think that the most helpful thing to the board, the public is for them to know when the board is going to take public comment. So, you know, if you're still taking in information and you're planning to have public comment on the 25th, I think just letting people know that is fine.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And that gives people a couple of weeks. Mike, did you want to add something?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, procedurally if it's possible and permissible under the law, I'm in favor. If we're going to do this later in the hearing this topical set of meetings where you know this is the meeting we're going to discuss this thing that we have public comment at multiple points so there's a meeting where we do public comment on just general but then we would also allow it for the topical meetings absolutely yeah yeah i think that's i think that's a great idea um and this way um last meeting was really just kind of getting our head into kind of what the application is and what we're going to be doing over the next six months
[Unidentified]: I feel like this one is still very procedural, I guess. But it'd be nice, I think, at the next one, because if there's some overwhelming community feedback, it's good for the applicant to hear that probably sooner rather than later. But I think you're right. We want to make sure that as we dig into more specific things and we're starting to sort things out with the consultants, that the community has more time for feedback. OK, so I think that sounds like a good plan. I like these suggestions. So let's plan on at the next meeting, we will work through the Community Development Board's recommendations. That gives the applicant some time to get prepped on all those, but I would still ask the applicant, excuse me, if you could, in the next couple of days, get back to Dennis with any of the documentation that's requested that you can provide and any of those places where there's a simple yes or no answer or clarification, if you could send that back to Dennis, that'd be super helpful, because as soon as we get that back from you, then we're able to pass it on to the consultant so that they have it sooner rather than later. And then after we work through that, we can open for public comments so that we can make sure that people know that we're doing that. Bill, you're back. Did you want to add something?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, hi, Madam Chair. Sorry about that. No worries. I'm on the phone now. I just wanted to, I don't have to talk anymore about the sprinkler system, whatever I said there. I'm not sure how much of it you caught. Yeah, we'll discuss a little bit more in detail. Those are my recommendations. But in addition to that, after looking at the plans today, I do have some additional comments on the plans, some information that I think is missing. So I will submit that to Dennis as well.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Yeah. And he'll make sure that gets to the applicant. That's perfect. Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: Okay. And I will also provide copies of some of the past orders that I've had experience with. So you can see that they've, you know, they've been quoted and you know, some of the more technical aspects of what I'm going to recommend. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Okay. That's great. Thanks so much.
[Bill Forte]: All right. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So Jack, reviewing all the documents, including some of the documents in the initial filing, there's a, number of places where plans of some sort were requested. And so I attempted, I made best efforts to make a list across all documents, all things that we need, that we don't have today. I just, I'd like to, at some point.
[Unidentified]: Do you want to run through that? That would be wonderful.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, okay. Is now a good time?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's great. No, I don't think we have anything else specific on the agenda, so this is perfect.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, cool. Um, so we mentioned this last meeting, but but I'll reiterate it. So before you before the end of the hearing, we're going to need an update to the waiver list and the zoning analysis to reflect the new zoning. So I believe the waiver list and zoning analysis we have currently is based on the prior zoning. And so for us to understand what waivers are being requested, we're gonna need, and then the reason why we're gonna need those. I can just keep going down the list, but I don't know if it makes sense to pause periodically.
[Unidentified]: Um, I think if the applicant has a question, maybe they could ask it of you, but I'm happy if you want to go down the list and then maybe, um, if you don't mind, if you want to provide the list to Dennis.
[Unidentified]: Provide it to them. And that way we know that nothing gets missed. Yeah. And then it becomes part of the record as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Cool. So, so yeah. So I'll just go, go through what I have in writing that. So updated waiver list to reflect the new zoning updated zoning analysis to reflect the new zoning. Um, It's possible the city has this but I didn't see it in the folder. So the latest traffic impact assessment makes heavy reference to a 2019 traffic impact assessment that I haven't seen yet. So I'd want to see that if it hasn't already been provided. This was also something that it was a plan, an update to a plan that was specifically requested by the Community Development Board. So they called out that some changes have happened to public transit since that impact assessment was generated and it needs to be updated to reflect that. CDB also requested, and I think also one of the original comment letters from department heads, requested a transportation demand management plan, which includes increased pedestrian and bicycle improvements and amenities, including regular transit to Wellington Station. Then the subsidizing agency recommended, and I share this sentiment, shadow studies for the interior courtyard facing units and proposed common areas. So I didn't see that. I believe Commissioner Forty was the one who had made the good suggestion, perhaps you're doing this already, but to please include page, date, and revision number on all drawings. just so that it's easier for us to reference later in the hearing. And then lastly, as we've already talked about, the landscaping plan. So that's my list of plans or responsive documents that I saw that were requested. There were a bunch of questions asked as well, but those were the big ones requested from the applicants.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Mike, so much. Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, thanks Mike for for documenting that that's terrific. I'm really glad you went through those because that's what we talked about last time. I have a question that's more for the city. So maybe Alicia can jump in on this one. I'm wondering if there's anything, any planning documents that the city would like us to take into consideration specifically when evaluating this project. I know that at one point, you know, with the, between the rise project and other things that were happening in this area, there was a desire to do some kind of kind of district planning or, and I don't know if any of that has happened at all.
[Alicia Hunt]: Chair, the comprehensive plan, as you all know, exists in final draft. The draft that's out there, there's going to be a little reorganizing, but it's pretty much finished. It does talk about this area some, and if you would like, some of our staff could review it and see if there are a few pertinent pages that would be relevant, rather than referring you to a 200-page document. I believe there is some section that speaks specifically to Mystic Valley Parkway. What you're referring to is that we do in fact have a grant from the Gaming Commission to hire some planning consultants to do an economic development study. of the Wellington area that includes this, that has not begun. So there is nothing there to review. And in fact, we haven't actually hired the consultants to do that yet. So as much as I would love to tell you, yes, thank you. Please look at that study we just did. We haven't done it yet. But it's on our radar.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thanks, Alicia. I appreciate that. If you can send those pages along, that'd be excellent. I guess you know that this was raised for me, because of the CD board letter you know that I was just reading and I think they raised the question of making sure that there's kind of a consistent treatment along development projects along the parkway so I think that's something we should try to take into account. Thanks.
[Alicia Hunt]: And if I might, they might be referring to the rise project, which had started to sort of lay things out. So that's two parcels down from this project and they'd started to do like a layout of what that would look like. it'll come up in your peer reviews, but there is a certain required setback for Mystic Valley Parkway, it being a state road. I saw a number in the letter that I wanted to check myself, but I'm sure the applicants are well aware of the state's required setback for Mystic Valley Parkway, like a no-build zone. Okay, great.
[Unidentified]: All right, so We've gone through all the things I wanted to address on the agenda. Is there anything I'm just going to open it. Is there anything from any of the board members, um, or from the applicant that we just want to go over before we make a determination, um, for what we'll do for next meeting and adjourn Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Um, so this one's actually for the city administration, I guess, for Alicia. So, um, there was a mention by the applicant in the last meeting. about a willingness when they come to the before the subsidizing agency for final approval to possibly institute some sort of local preference option, which is not in our purview. But I was just reading through the 40 B manual and it mentioned their that the onus is on Medford to justify the need for that. So I've heard a lot of residents claim that Medford needs local preference and you know I have my own partially informed belief on the matter but I'm wondering if sometime midway through this hearing, if the planning department would be able to investigate and document any need for local preference, propose a reasonable percentage of local preference units, and evaluate whether any proposed local preference plan will have a disparate impact on people and classes protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act. I believe if we do that, that the board will have the information it needs to decide whether to impose that as a condition, which may ultimately be overturned by the subsidizing agency. But if we don't do the work up front, it's unlikely, as I understand it, that that would be approved.
[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle's prepared to respond to that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, Danielle, go ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: Hi, apologies, my camera's off. I am home, sick with COVID, so.
[Unidentified]: No worries, thank you for joining us.
[Danielle Evans]: Um, so we regularly get, um, 70% local preference, which is the maximum that DHCD allows. Um, we have, um, you know, met their requirements for our local demographics to get that maximum. So for all our local initiative projects, which is, um, our inclusionary units, we do 70%, and we have never had any pushback on that. So I expect that's what we would do for this. But just to keep in mind that local preference is for folks that live here, work here, have children to go to school here, and you can live here for a day. And that gives you local preference. If someone's grown children have, you know, they're from here and they've left, they don't have local preference. So sometimes local preference isn't what people think it is. So just to keep that in mind, that there can be unintended consequences with the local preference as well.
[Unidentified]: Interesting.
[Mike Caldera]: Through the chair. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Danielle. That's good information. The main thing for me is if at any point in this hearing, we're gonna be discussing whether or not to impose a local preference condition on this project, I would need some documented case in writing. So, like, I wouldn't feel comfortable imposing such a condition if it was just based on a hunch. So my request is just that the planning department document whether there is or isn't a need and and some of these other factors, and maybe the answer is really quick and it's along the lines of what you just shared, but I would just like a responsive document at some point in the hearing so that when we're having that discussion, we can make an informed decision as a board.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I can forward you the most recent local preference justification, which is what is required by DHCD whenever we require that.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. Andre, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Just related to that is I'm wondering whether, you know, there's a, we should be looking.
[Unidentified]: Oh, Andre, I just accidentally muted you. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, I've spoken too much.
[Unidentified]: No, no, I was just trying to put your hand down. Go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm wondering whether we should, you know, should we review a fair housing marketing plan? So I don't know, Danielle, if this is something you can speak to as well.
[Danielle Evans]: Well, usually the onus is on, well, we haven't done a 40B in Medford, so I'm not sure if the process is different than the regular process, which is through the local initiative program. where the developer usually hiring a consultant would create a Fair Housing Marketing Plan, Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan, which has to be approved by DHCD and as part of the application. Judy, correct me if I'm wrong. I know the process is slightly different for a comprehensive permit. I'm not sure the order of operations here.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so typically the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan is prepared by the applicant and submitted to the subsidizing agency as part of the whole final approval process, which is post-comprehensive permit. Now, the city or town will typically get a copy of that to look at, but it doesn't happen now, it happens later.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, and it's not something that generally the ZBA has comments or suggestions about?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: So I can just tell you what I've written into permits that that I've drafted. That the applicant needs to provide the city with a copy of the plan two weeks before or some period before it's submitted into the subsidizing agency so that city staff and officials can at least look at it. And I typically don't write local preference into, I'm just speaking from my practice, you know, you can take this up with town council if you need to, but I typically don't write local preference into a permit because the board really doesn't have any jurisdiction over tenant selection. So what I suggest is that, you know, you have it referred to the city for review before the applicant files with the subsidizing agency and let the policy people, the mayor's office, the planning department or whomever, determine whether local preference should be required for the particular project. It sort of gets the CBA out of the middle.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks, Judy. Bill?
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this issue has come up, and I know I made comments about it last time, and I still stand by my original opinion that the affordable units should be incorporated into the approved plans. And the reason being is that that it's otherwise not equitable. If the developer gets to choose which units they're saying could be affordable, you know, technically you could end up with all of the affordable units having something simple like four micro countertops and carpet, and maybe in locations next to a gym or a pool or a place that another person may not necessarily want. So in my experience in 40B, there's always been a floor plan matrix. showing the designated affordable units, that becomes part of the order and gets written into the order and then that way there it's enforceable. Otherwise, that takes the enforcement out of my hands once the building permit has been issued and a certificate of occupancy has been requested. Um, so I, I, I completely disagree, um, with the fact that we leave this up to the developer. This, this should not be up to the developer. This is a function of the zoning board of appeals and the enforcement of the, of the fair housing, the, the, uh, the equitable housing. So, uh, I'm prepared to provide you with a little bit more, uh, background written to it, um, in my next, um, um, set of comments, but, um, I just wanted to kind of throw that out there. All right, that I'm still in disagreement. And it's been my experience that that is decided by the ZBA and enforced by the building inspector.
[Unidentified]: OK, Bill, thank you. I know that I remember that last time I think we had some differing opinions. with Judy and Daniela get you in one second. But I think that would be great if you could put that in the written comments and then that's something the board can take up with the consultants and we can see where we land. Thank you so much.
[Bill Forte]: And then one more thing while I have the floor. Yeah, sorry. So I wanted to know if it was appropriate for me to be able to reach out to the developer and have just a preliminary code discussion on the design of the buildings and so forth. I don't know that that's something that developers prepared to maybe agree to tonight. I just wanted to get a handle on the design of the building. Again, this is kind of a big magnitude. I know that these are coming up more and more throughout the state. And again, I just wanna get a handle on it to make sure that I'm not holding up a building permit Uh, when the time comes, I'm assuming that this is going to get approved with the conditions and I want to be ready and I don't want to hold up the developer. So I think it would be, um, it would be advantageous to have early discussions about the basic code design. And I'm just wondering if that's appropriate for me to be able to reach out to the design architect of record and just, um, shoot a few questions by them.
[Unidentified]: Um, you know, I don't actually know the answer to that question, uh, Judy or Alicia.
[Bill Forte]: I thought you might know.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Um, you know, certainly if the building inspector wants to have a conversation with the applicant, I don't see a problem with that. Um, but you know, the applicants not going to be the applicants plans at this point are not going to be what they will be when they're ready to file for a building permit. I just think that needs to be clear.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, agreed. Yep. And again, I'm just speaking about preliminary discussions on on design of this building. That's all.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Well, bear in mind to if I were in the applicant shoes, which I'm not, The board's going to be hiring an architect peer review consultant. So I'm not sure anybody wants to, you know, make too many changes or any decisions right now until the board has that input.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Agreed. And I'm just seeking information at this point.
[Unidentified]: Okay. All right. Thank you. Danielle, did we lose the thread you were going to comment on?
[Danielle Evans]: No, I just wanted to speak to the location of the units. Recording stopped. Sorry, I tried to lower my hand.
[Unidentified]: All right, that's okay. I just want to make sure the recording goes back on.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, sorry. I don't even know how.
[Unidentified]: Don't worry about it. Okay, no, we're back on. I just want to make sure we don't miss anything. Go right ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: Sorry about that. So, we would want these to be floating units, because when applicants are when when tenants go over income, they don't get kicked out. They usually go up to I think 140% of airy mean income before. the units would change or convert to a market rate unit. So if an income eligible tenant was in the initial lease up and then they go over income, then it would revert to a market rate. And if they weren't floating units, then we wouldn't have, we'd be short an affordable unit. So what it would generally is in these regulatory agreements is that the next available or comparable unit would then become an affordable unit. So I always insist that they're floating. I've had developers want them to be fixed because that's advantageous to them. And floating is generally better for the city and to keep the units. And at the time, and again, I don't know about the comprehensive permit steps at this stage, but for local initiative program units, when we submit for those to be approved, that's when I would review the floor plans. And usually, you know, I make suggestions and ask that they be moved so that they're you know, proportionately distributed throughout the development, that, you know, it's the same, it's a percentage of the three, two, one, or studios for the bedrooms, and that they're not in the least desirable locations so that they're, you know, distributed. So there is staff input, and developers often change their floor plans at our requests.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: I would have to endorse that, Danielle that that is exactly the way it works, that the units need to be able to float so you don't end up with someone or household whose income exceeds 140% of AMI and now they have to leave. That's just not in anybody's interest. So the floating unit is really what I see in almost all the rental developments I've seen. If someone wants to do a fixed floor plan, that's between them and the subsidizing agency. But I think the other thing I want to just point out is it's never the developer who gets to make the final decision. It's the subsidizing agency. So during final approval, you know, when things are being nailed down before, you know, as part of the whole regulatory agreement and so forth, the developer's gonna have to show the subsidizing agency, here's where I wanna put my affordable units. And the subsidizing agencies are gonna approve it or they're gonna push back. And I've had experience of subsidizing agency pushing back. So I think people should just understand the interest in fair housing is not just at the local level, it's certainly at the state level as well.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Judy. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this is more of a technical comment. I think that really we'll clearly come back to this at some point later in the hearing, but I'm just pointing it out for visibility. So Medford zoning ordinance does have in the now section 8.1.9 provisions applicable to affordable housing units, which includes restrictions on the siting of affordable units, minimum design and construction standards for affordable units, and so on, that basically try to enact a lot of the general concepts Commissioner Forty was was referring to. So I understand floating units also address that, but I just wanted to call out that is part of zoning. I also wanna call out all of section 8.1 is one of the requested waivers. So we'll have to come back to this, but there is an element of this that's in our purview as a board, but because there's this waiver requested for section 8.1 and section 8.1.9 has some requirements surrounding some of these concerns.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Is that some of what would get superseded though? Anyway, we can, we can get it. This is all. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: I don't want to get too deep into it.
[Unidentified]: No, I think that's helpful. This is all stuff. This is all really helpful stuff that everyone keep in mind and we'll get definitely get into it in more depth as we start to get into these meetings. So I think we're probably at a good point where we could, um, close out the 40 B portion of tonight's meeting, unless there's anything that anyone else wanted to add. And then I'll just, I just want to reiterate that what we're thinking, we're planning to do at the meeting on the 25th will be to review the recommendations from the community development board. The applicant is going to go through those, provide any documentation that they have or answer any of the questions. And they're not going to touch those recommendations yet. we're going to go through that substantively at the next meeting. And then we're going to open for our first session of public comment the next meeting. So apart from that, before we close this out, and move into executive session, is there anything else that anyone wanted to, to add at this meeting?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, hi, sorry, just wanted to jump back to the commissioners request. just discussing and getting more information about the product type and code. So we obviously we're happy to do that. Our design, we can make our design team available nearby. So we're happy to do that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I'll let you folks sort all of that out, but we appreciate that very much. Okay. So could I get, How did we do this last time? We need a motion to, I think all I needed to do is state on the record that we intend to hold public comment and it's gonna be held on the 25th. So we've covered that. Then we just need a motion to adjourn until the 25th.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Continue, to continue to the 25th.
[Unidentified]: Okay, perfect.
[Mike Caldera]: So I'll motion to continue the hearing for 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway to January 25th, 2013.
[Unidentified]: That's 2023.
[Mike Caldera]: Wow. Usually people are off by one year, but you manage 2023, uh, 7 30 PM.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Perfect. Do I have a second? Okay. All in favor.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have to do roll call though. Don't we?
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay. Sure. Yeah. Um, okay. Mike.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jamie.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yvette. Aye. Jim. Andre.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Unidentified]: Oh, sorry, Jamie. I was supposed to call Jamie and Jacqueline. Yes. Well, we've got five and six. Okay. So folks, we will see you on the 25th. And then could I get someone to make a motion to go into executive session?
[Mike Caldera]: I think we need to read the agenda item first.
[Unidentified]: Oh, okay. Sorry. Did you have a question, Chris?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Will that also be by Zoom on the 25th?
[Unidentified]: I believe until we hear differently, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Is that correct? Yeah, we'll still be on Zoom. Thanks so much. Okay, great point. Jonathan, welcome. Good to see you again. We need to read the agenda item before we vote. Okay, Dennis, could you please read the next agenda item?
[Denis MacDougall]: Executive says session pursuant to general law chapter 38 section 21 a three to discuss strategy with respect to litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating process position of the public body in the chair so declares and the chair so declares that having discussion open session would have a detrimental effect on the city's litigating position. Discuss litigation strategy with respect to Sidney Wolk, trustee of the CC Industries Realty Trust versus City of Medford Zoning Board of Appeals et al, Massachusetts Land Court docket number 22, MISC 000485JSDR. Relative to the appeal, the board's grant of variances and site plan approval for the construction of a laboratory facility at 4B60, Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford. The board will vote to go into executive session and will not return to open session.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Dennis. I do determine that discussing this litigation in open session would have a detrimental effect. So I'm gonna ask if I could get a board member to please motion for us to go into executive session.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Unidentified]: Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And then all in favor, Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike. Aye. And Jacqueline is aye. Okay, so we're now in executive session. Let's just make sure we have everybody else.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's what I was gonna just say. We want to confirm who Donato and Abrahamson are. They're not with you, Jonathan. Okay, and for the board knows I've stayed on with the exec sessions before and I asked attorney Murray if it was all right if I stayed on if the board doesn't object to that.
[Unidentified]: No, not at all. I find it's helpful when you're here.
[Alicia Hunt]: Great.