[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome everybody. This is a special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We had a couple of cases that were planned to be heard at our regular meeting a week ago, but didn't have quorum to act on all of them. So we scheduled this meeting to hear two cases. And so we're going to give, it looks like everybody's in at this point. So we're going to do a quick roll call and then we will get started.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so Jim Tirani. Yeah. Yvette Velez.
[Unidentified]: Here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie Thompson. Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue, I believe is not on yet, but is hoping to join. He's currently stuck in traffic. If we don't hear from him, we'll assume he's currently absent. And then Mike Caldera, present. So we do have quorum. We have four. voting members, even if Andre does not join. And so Teresa, yeah, please go ahead and read the open meeting.
[Theresa Dupont]: Of course, on March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Back to you, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. Thanks, Teresa. So like I was saying, we have two cases tonight. These were continued from our last hearing. And so, yeah, why don't we get started with the first case. Teresa, could you please read that one?
[Theresa Dupont]: Absolutely. The first case on today's agenda is 93 Governors Ave, which is case number A-2022-21. This was continued from March 30th. Applicant and owner Leonardo Blanco is petitioning for a variance from the chapter 94 city of Medford zoning to construct an attached garage with the room above at 93 Governors Ave in a single family, one zoning district with insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Teresa. And so I do see a hand raised, although I'm not clear whether that is the applicant themselves or their representation. So, oh, I see you, Leo, sorry. So yeah, Mr. Blanco, just a couple of logistical items I just want to say up front. So when you came before us, after the first continuation, Jacqueline Doherty was a member of the board. She's resigned since then. We do have four voting members of the board present. So your application is a variant, requires a variance, which requires four votes from the board. So if Andre LaRue joins us, then it's a four out of five criterion. Otherwise, it would need to be unanimous. So I just wanted to be upfront about that. If that's a problem for you, you're certainly welcome to request a continuance. Otherwise, we can get started. We have enough people to vote. We have quorum. So if you're willing and interested in proceeding, we can as well. Yeah. I think that's it in terms of logistical items. So just to fill other members in of the public in. So when we last heard this case, there was a presentation, we got some details on the project. There were some questions surrounding the the home occupation use and some of the details for that. And then I think there were also some details in the site plan that the board wanted some clarification about. We did not open the public portion of the hearing in that meeting. And so, yeah, that's where we are now. So Mr. Blanco, we got your letter, so thank you. You have some time if you'd like to make a presentation or just sort of summarize or whatever you'd like to share.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, thank you. Thanks for being here and for putting this meeting together. No, I really have everything to say between the last meeting and the letter emphasizing in terms of the use of this space, which would be for a two-car parking with electric charges inside and all that, and upstairs, my music place where I will have something like this, a grand piano where I Practice and composed and and everything I'm making sure I'm hiring a consultant if approved the variance and hiring a console acoustic construction consultant to make sure, primarily that I don't get any noise from outside the airplanes going above and all that. And therefore, of course, they will be completely isolated for sound coming outside of the studio as well. And I emphasize that this is not commercial use. This is my personal use. I am a professor at Berklee College of Music, composer also, and I will be using for that. And my architect is around. And we also send some updates, the plans, because I think part of that last meeting, I think some of you wanted to see I can't remember, to be honest, exactly what it is, but I think you got those plans yesterday or two days ago. And if not, I have them handy. So let me know. I can share my computer if you need them.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think it would be great, especially just to benefit the members of the public, if you could share the... Sure, give me a second. By the way, I did receive a message that Andre Larue, our fifth board member, who is stuck in traffic, is dialed in. So there's a phone number, but he's here. And so, you know, assuming phone doesn't die or anything like that, we have five voting members.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, awesome. Let me share my computer screen here. Most disabled participants can share. And I think some, whoever is the host have to allow me to share, I believe.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. You've just been made co-host, so you should be all set.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay. Okay, let me pull it out here. Do you see the plans? Not yet. No. Okay, let me try. Okay, I think I'm missing. How about now? Yes, yes. OK. So John Andrews, who's the architect, he's here in the meeting. John, jump in if necessary. So but if. Yeah. So here you have the front. Well, John, I'll let you I'll let you present what we're seeing here.
[SPEAKER_21]: It's pretty much labeled how the how the building is. So the front elevation. is over where his cursor is now pointing to. And as you can see, it wants to be sort of this carriage house type of look. So it blends in with the original, with the original house. There's two carriage house doors at the bottom here. If you could go back to that same front elevation, Leo, that'd be great, thanks. And this is made to house two cars up on top. on the second level, that's where the studio will be. And that's where all the soundproofing will happen, right? So it's kind of a structure within a structure. And again, that's what we'll be working with the consultant, you know, as a project gets approved, and then we'll work with that. And then we'll also, we understand talking with the building, the building commissioner that he wanted the, which would be the left side because it was closer to the property line. In that side there, we had removed all the windows and that will be a fire rated wall. I believe he's looking for an hour rating there. Prior to that, we had windows on this side, but in order to get that hour rating, we removed all the windows. The only thing we have is a door at the lower level and this is on the left side. If you could scroll over to the other side, This is the side facing Leo's yard. And as you can see, there's a staircase going up from the exterior. You see the outline of the door going from the mudroom into that space. And then he also wanted some French doors at the lower level for entrance back and forth into the garage. And then Leo, can you go scroll to the top so we can see the rear? And this is what it looks like at the rear of the building. The stair tower is on the immediate right, and then you can see there's a pair of French doors and some windows going into the studio through the back with a small deck back there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the board about these new plans? So with the are we going to go into the site plan as well. If you could pull up the site plan that would be great. Okay, let me see what I have here. Thank you. I was talking about the plot plan.
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, the plot plan?
[SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, the actual plot plan.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. I couldn't hear.
[SPEAKER_21]: I'm going to go back to the flow plans show.
[SPEAKER_02]: Just give me a second. It's going to take me a little while.
[Unidentified]: Just a second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Unidentified]: This one, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: You can see where the proposed garage here, you can see where it's situated. There was an existing structure there prior. It was a metal building. in order for us to get the space to fit two vehicles in there, and then also get storage in there. And then the breezeway connection, you can see it off to the right, towards the back of the two-story existing house. That was the size that we thought would be at the minimum. We thought anything smaller than that, we wouldn't be able to get. The vehicles and then we wouldn't have enough space above with the studio. You can see it's as it's all connected. So the height requirement there was going to the building inspector because it was a connected structure to the existing was up about 30 feet we're down about 20 feet so we have plenty. height that way. I guess the biggest thing is how close we are to the property line. In the last meeting, the building inspector commissioned us to make that a fire rated wall because it was that close to the property line, and that being on the left side.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So one clarifying question, I just want to make sure we have most up-to-date information. So I think the plot plan itself changed slightly. I know there was a question about some of the previously listed measurements, which I believe have been addressed now. And so the, just want to double check when this first came before, the board, the relief being sought, um, was for insufficient side yard and rear yard setback. And, um, the specific amount of relief was, um, uh, hold on on this sheet. Doesn't seem accurate. So just, I just want to make sure. So it's essentially, um, Three, is it three feet four? What's the closest distance on the side yard? I just wanna make sure I'm understanding. If you could zoom that in a little, Leo.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I'm trying to do that. Okay.
[SPEAKER_21]: Right there. Two, four on the corner towards the back, and three, four towards the front left corner.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so then on the side yard, the, required setback is seven and a half feet. So this is essentially seeking about five, a little over five feet worth of relief. And then it looks like on the rear yard, it's four and a half feet versus the 15 required. So a little bit more than 10 feet of relief. And as you mentioned, and as we discussed last time, there was previously a garage at this location. And then also, One of the things we talked about was the criteria for a variance. And so one of the things that the applicant needs to speak to and that the board needs to evaluate in its deliberations is whether circumstances related to the soil conditions, topology, and a few other factors of the lot, the size of the lot, lead to the need for relief would cause a hardship if there was a literal enforcement of the zoning law. And so we did talk about how the position of the current house does limit the possible locations for a garage. And so I just wanted to bring the public up to speed about that portion, which we've already discussed in a prior hearing. So are there other questions from the board about what we're seeing now on these plans? So,
[Adam Hurtubise]: From the board members.
[Mike Caldera]: Double checking first with the board and then yeah, if you want to present. No, that's fine. I'm sorry. Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Yep. Could I just have you guys go back to the architectural plan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, sure. Hold on. This one?
[Unidentified]: What I want to see is the width of the front of the building.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, that should be this one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, but on the floor plan, we can go to the floor plan. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Right. So what I continue to question is here you've got a 24 foot width for the building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And if you could go back to the plot plan.
[Unidentified]: You've got a 22.2 with to the proposed garage.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that should be 22 on the on the architectural plan.
[Mike Caldera]: So if it should be 22, then does the entire plan just proportionately scale down? Like it's a little hard for me to understand. Yeah, it would go down to the two feet and a half. So the storage and closet would shrink or is it, it would chip off? It would be the closet and storage.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, Jamie, did you have other questions? Would you jump back to the architectural plan again? I'm sorry, the other one, no. The one was open? The plot plan. The plot plan.
[Unidentified]: And then you've got a depth of 30 feet and you've got a depth of 30 and a half on the plot plan. So is the building growing a half a foot or is this plot plan inaccurate?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it would be 30 feet.
[Unidentified]: So the variance changes. So is there five feet at the back?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That would be five feet at the back.
[Unidentified]: So I guess my question is, we've got inaccuracies in the data being provided across the multiple plans.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, and to, to that point, um, you know, generally the, these plans are the controlling documents for any relief that we grant. So, um, you know, logistically, I think it will be challenging to, um, verbalize, um, a decision, um, when the plans themselves aren't, don't seem to be, um, So, so the, so the, uh,
[SPEAKER_21]: So are we asking what's going to take precedence?
[Mike Caldera]: Please correct me if I'm wrong, Jamie, but I think your call out is it's not so much precedence, it's that currently there aren't two, there isn't a plot plan combined with an architectural plan that together are consistent with one another. So essentially if we treat the plot plan as the the ground truth, then the architectural plan is wrong. If we treat the architectural plan as the ground truth, then the plot plan is wrong. You know, these do seem like minor defects. So maybe there's some ability to talk through it, but it also sounds like the, in one case, the plot plan should shrink. And then the other case, the architectural plan should shrink. So it's just that I, I think that's the call out. So, you know, if there is a, um, a way we can be really explicit about exactly what will be, I think that would help. Is there anything, did I put that well, Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Yep. Yeah, my concern is that I'm challenged based on the documents that have been provided to, although minor, well, I mean, we're at half a foot in some places to understand the scale of the building. I still have some questions to the, Well, no, those are really my questions, the representation. I know the zoning evaluation, I believe, is inaccurate because it was based on the house, not the garage. We've identified the true variances that are requested based on the side and the rear setback, but there's still a discrepancy between these two plans.
[Mike Caldera]: So my suggestion is the following. I'd like the board's thoughts. We've continued this really twice already. But in one case, it was just for a quorum issue pushed back a week. I think we should just clarify our understanding from the architect and the applicant as to what the dimensions we should be considering are. And then let's get as far as we can in terms of hearing the details and let's take public comment. And then if we reach a point in deliberations where we need more details, we can broach that when we get there. Does that sound reasonable?
[SPEAKER_02]: I agree. Yeah, so if I understand well, I mean, like, yeah, I understand the discrepancy here between the plot plan and the architectural plans. And so what it makes sense to me is like to adapt the architectural plans to go relative to what we were asking and, yeah, sacrifice in the interior with the storage and do the proper measurements that reflect, that goes according to the plot plan, right?
[SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, so what I guess I guess by saying that is that the size of the building will be the what's on the plot plan and the architecture plan will will follow that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I wanna double check with the board if there's other questions either on the plot plan or the architectural plans. And then once we're through those, I wanna go back into a bit greater detail about the letter we received from Mr. Blanco just describing the use. So yeah, before we move to the letter, are there other questions from the board about these plans that we're looking at?
[Unidentified]: Not yet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, seeing some no's.
[Mike Caldera]: I don't hear anybody. Okay. So, um, also just as a reminder of what happened in the first hearing. So, uh, there was a, um, a request from the board to provide some additional details about, um, the use of the structure, uh, in particular, um, use of the structure as a sound studio, as a home occupation. There are some home occupations that are allowed by right in the city of Medford. There's others that require a special permit. And so Mr. Blanco, you sent us a letter describing the intended use. And so we've had a chance to look at it. I've had a chance to kind of compare it to the the ordinance and so we'll eventually walk through the the key elements that delineate by use or by right use versus a special permit use but why don't you kind of just make a brief presentation describing the contents of the letter.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, basically, as I think I described briefly at the beginning of this meeting, I need the place to compose, sometimes to rehearse with the chamber groups, like mostly classical musicians, so it's not going to be like a heavy metal band going on there. However, I am doing this construction with acoustic consultants to be proof sound, to not get any sounds from the exterior. And that also implies that there won't be any sound from the interior going anywhere, not to my neighbors, not to my own house, my family. It's basically personal use. Even though my profession is musician, I don't even need to be teaching there because I am right now actually where my job is at Berkeley. So it will be, for me, it will be allowed me to practice at any time of the night, day, without disturbing anyone and not being disturbed by any noise from the exterior. Yeah, other than that, I don't know if you guys have any questions. I'll be happy to answer.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, so before we get into the board questions, let's walk through together the bullets from the ordinance just so that we can be clear about it. So a home occupation as of right, is allowed on a lot provided that one, it's conducted solely within a dwelling and solely by the persons occupying the dwelling as a primary residence. So it seems to be the case here, right? You were doing it. Do you occupy the dwelling as a primary residence?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: So there's that. Then the second criterion is, and by the way, just to be clear, I'm just giving my current interpretation for the sake of clarity. The board, other board members will let me know if they disagree with. how I'm characterizing anything here. So the second criterion is that the use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for residential purposes. Based on what you've described in the letter and in this presentation, I think that one is clearly satisfied as well. The premises are primarily residential and then this is a secondary use for you. The third is one that whether it's allowed by special permit or as a right needs to be satisfied. which is that it does not produce offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, lighting, electrical interference, radioactive emission, or environmental pollution. Now, I think a lot of these, it's fair to say, would not be at issue here. I think the ones that are most relevant, which you speak to a little bit in your letter, are the noise and vibration. So could you just kind of share with the board and the public the plans to ensure that this does not create noise or vibration.
[SPEAKER_02]: Right so as I explained before I mean it's not going to be like heavy metal band or something that produced like extreme noise within the music spectrum. It's going to be mostly what I work is composed for orchestras, but the orchestra won't be coming into this space. I use my computer for sounds. Sometimes I rehearse with two, three, four, five maximum musicians, violinists. So Really, I mean, even without any acoustic treatment, I doubt that there will be any noise coming out of the building. However, I'm spending a little bit more on this to not get any sound from the outside, which it will block both way from out in and inside out. And yeah, that's basically the use of this upstairs room.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so what I'm hearing is that perhaps even without the acoustic treatment, the noise would be relatively low, but with the acoustic treatment, which, from what you've mentioned previously, is intended to also block out external noises to avoid disrupting your recordings, it should be sufficient to block out any noise and vibration that would be generated. Is that accurate?
[SPEAKER_02]: That's accurate. That's correct. That's exactly, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so then the fourth criterion, which also needs to be satisfied, whether it's as of right or by special permit, is no regular sales of wares of goods shall be conducted on the premises. You haven't said anything about selling physical goods. I just want to double check. Is that something you would be planning to do here?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, no, I don't. I don't, yeah. There's no way of commercial or selling anything here.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and then the fifth one, which again would have to be satisfied, whether it's as of right or by special permit, is that it does not utilize exterior storage of material or equipment, including the parking of commercial vehicles. So just want to double check with you. Are there any material equipment or commercial vehicles that would need to be externally stored as part of this use?
[SPEAKER_02]: Not at all.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay and then there's two more and These ones do not need to be satisfied if a special permit is required, but I want to just go through them because this may very well be an as of right use. So six is does not exhibit any exterior indication of its presence or any variation from residential appearance except a pole sign or wall sign. no larger than two square feet. And so my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the appearance is that of a carriage house. Do you plan to have any signage to advertise this?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, no, I don't need to put any signs to advertise this. And yes, you're correct. I mean, the appearance actually wanted to, intently wanted to appear as close as my existing house, which I love the appearance to end of the area.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then the last one is does not produce any customer or client trips to the location and has no non resident employees. So, will you have any non resident employees.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, no.
[Mike Caldera]: And then. Will you have any customer or client trips, which would essentially, as I understand it, be people paying you for services provided via this home occupation?
[SPEAKER_02]: Not at all, mostly of my clients we meet like this Zoom and there are people from Europe. So yeah, I don't have any clients or any type of commercial activity traffic going into this space, into this new space.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So those are the seven criteria for an as of right use. I'm not gonna... comment on it beyond what I did just to sort of walk through it with you. But I will double check with the board whether they have any questions and also whether they feel like they have an understanding of those seven points. So yeah, are there any questions from the board?
[Unidentified]: No questions. No questions. I just have a quick question. Leo, I'm sorry, through the chair, the applicant mentioned additional people coming to practice. I just wonder if there's any calculations on the number of people that would be arriving at the property and what that usage looks like.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, this is rather sporadic that I meet with other musicians. And if I do meet, it's like more, I don't know if you're familiar with the term chamber ensembles, usually there are not more than four or five, including myself. And so and they're not, I mean, like basically myself are the one who occupies most of the space because of the grand piano. And that's why I need the that space. But the people I meet with mostly are like violinist, cellist, and they don't really take much space in any room.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Are there other questions from the board? Okay, and so then the
[Mike Caldera]: So is there anything else you'd like to present before we open the hearing to the public?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, not really. I mean, I understand that John, my architect, has to do the adjustments. And I think I'm in compliance and answer the questions. But I'd be happy to answer any other question arising from the use of this space. But nothing else to add.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, sounds good. So I'll do one last call. Yeah, OK, we have director Hunt, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just wanted to jump in before I see Andre just unmuted, too, in case he has something I I was just perplexed because I wasn't at the first hearing. I saw that this was a variance request for setbacks on the agenda. But we're digging into the use like if somebody has a you know, has a hobby and has people come and meet with him for his hobby or, you know, his own pleasure. I'm confused why that's being explored by the board or what that has to do with setback variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, great, great question, Director Hunt. Thanks for asking. So at the last hearing, one of the discussion points had to do with whether a sound studio itself was in allowed use. And there was a question about whether it might be a home occupation or require a special permit. This is the applicant's profession. And so we were just walking through the by right criteria, which the building commissioner and the permit refusal did not state any relief was required. required for that so so perhaps the building commissioner felt it was a by right use didn't apply but the board just wanted this info and it was part of the discussion last time i hope that okay i honestly something like that should go back to the you we should ask the building commissioner between the meetings because um that's his determination to make if the use is by right or needs a permit and if he was he was present so and he was part of that discussion
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, because I would have expected him to make that determination, one way or another.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Did you want to say something.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, thank you. I think my question last time was around the neighbors the butters, and whether this structure was going to kind of tower over their yards. I was wondering, and I think I did ask at that time if there was any conversations that happened with the abutters and whether they were supportive or not of this, and whether there were windows that were going to be, you know, at a second story level, two and a half feet above, you know, their yard, essentially.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Andre. Mr. Blanco, did you want to speak to that at all? Have you spoken to the abutters? I don't recall from the plans. Are there second story windows?
[SPEAKER_02]: Right. I think we have in the first meeting some windows and and one of the board members mentioned that they have to be one hour fire rated and we could we actually couldn't find unless there is customized any window with that specification. So we decided I decided to get rid of the window at that site to be in compliance and compliance with the fire code.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, that's the side that Leo speaking about that's closest to the property line.
[SPEAKER_02]: And so that's that's updated in the plans we saw then you have that there's no windows in that side.
[SPEAKER_08]: And then to the okay, is that I'm sorry, is that the is that the side or is that the back and I apologize because I'm in the car coming back from a funeral service from the cave and I just haven't don't have it in front of me.
[SPEAKER_21]: No, that's, that's not a problem. So On the side, if you're facing the front of the house and the front of the carriage house, it would be on the left side. That is the part of the building that's closest to the property line. So there was four windows there, three windows, I'm sorry. Those were removed. And one of the reasons, of course, was the fire rating, but the other one too was from the prior meeting, the view there and how close it was to the property line. So that wall now is blank. And then on the other side, which Leo has his yard, which is maybe 15 to 20 feet away from the next person, there is windows on that side. And there's some view windows towards the back. The structure before there was about 12 or 14 feet. This is about seven to eight feet taller, is just my estimation. There is a tree line in the back. that can hide the back part of the building where the windows are. Like I said, on the other side, where the majority of the windows are, it's the yard, that's Leo's yard there.
[SPEAKER_08]: Right. Okay. I guess my concern is mostly that those back windows to see what impact they might have on the neighbor. But if there's a tree line, that certainly gives me additional comfort.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Any other questions from the board before we open the public portion of the hearing? All right. Um, the chair awaits a motion to open the public portion of the hearing for 93 governor's Avenue. So moved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have a second.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Um, we're going to do a roll call. Jamie. Jim that Andre may have just dropped, but I'll Andre. I know he mentioned his battery was running low in an email to the board.
[Mike Caldera]: So Andre will say not present. And then Mike, aye. So the public portion of the hearing is now open. We have a participant with their hand raised. So basically if you'd like to, comment, you can use the raise hand feature in Zoom. You can raise your hand on your camera. You can type something in the chat. And everyone will have an opportunity to speak once as part of this. And so I see that Kiril Jacobs has their hand raised. And so I will be calling on Kiril first.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, members of the board. Can you hear me?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we can hear you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Good evening. My name is Kirill Jacobson. I live at 105 Governors Avenue, so just one house next to the little house. My major concern is the setbacks because what is proposed is on the side, on the left side, is two and a half feet from the sort of property line, and we are talking about now without windows, a structure towering 20 feet high, sort of just 30 feet long, and setting almost at the property line. And I think that we have sort of setbacks in the Massachusetts law and town laws And these are sort of, they are for purpose, but sort of we are not sitting on someone else's property, especially when the neighbor's house is sort of in a reasonable distance. So that's my major concern, and I don't think that we should allow to sort of to do that. Sort of second thing is that the setback at the back. Sort of on the plot plan, sort of it was mentioned that there is about five feet, I don't have it in front of me, at the back, but the staircase, so it was not mentioned on this. So if we sort of take three feet wide staircase, so the setback shrinks again to two feet that are left. And I think that that's just very narrow and should not be the case. So we were told that on the plan for the house, not the floor plan, the house plan, so it's 24, it will shrink by two and a half feet because of the just in the bathroom is gonna be reduced. If you look at the floor plan, so you can't reduce the bathroom by two and a half feet because sort of the door is not gonna open. So I was told that at the last meeting, sort of all these plans were supposed to be updated up just to this meeting, for this meeting, for today's meeting, and they were not. So they are in disconnect and it's sort of not clear why the updated plans that were not sort of sent to us. I would also like to ask, so what is the, sort of the house, the noise reduction coefficient. So have the sort of been a sort of a consultant and numbers given by an acoustic professional, how and sort of the plan, how these walls are going to be soundproofed? What is the exact house proofing cost coefficient? So is it going to be 0.85 or lower than that? So unfortunately, right now, we only see it as the, just hear it as the words, nothing was put on paper. And I think that I will suggest to you, Joe, about not to allow this kind of variance to be, because we are opening a can of worms, right? others sort of in the town of Medford to do similar things and don't have any backyard and have houses next to each other. So thank you for listening. Okay, in regards to Carol.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Carol. One thing I just want to double check. I don't believe I asked you to state your address. So I know you stated your name for the record, but did you state your address or not?
[SPEAKER_12]: 105 Governors Avenue. I'm sort of one over, one next to the left from this house.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Kiro. I did. Oh, and so actually before we move on to the next public comment, so I want to be upfront. We're not going to have a dialogue here, but if there are questions that the applicant can clarify, I'm certainly happy to have them speak to it. So in terms of the question about the, I'm going to mute you. I don't know why someone unmuted. In terms of the noise reduction, the specific metrics of the materials you're planning to use, Mr. Blanco, is that something you could speak to? Yeah, so do you want to take that, Leo? Or would you like me to?
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, I mean, I think, Leif, and if you want to add anything, please. But basically, the use I currently have been having for many years, it produced barely any sound. I mean, like, somebody would have to get right in front of the window to be able to maybe hear maybe the piano, if at very late at night. In other words, I mean, like, basically with regular, no isolation at all, you can barely, you will barely be able to hear anything. There's a lot of acoustic treatments and different variations and materials that we didn't want to get too specific before even getting the permit. But basically, the person who's more interested in not having noise is me, because I'll be The biggest problem now is the airplane noise. Whenever I'm recording something for myself, I want to get something recorded. So basically, the best investment that I would have to do is to not be able to get any noise in. And this, by default, will block any type of sound out at all.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Mr. Blanco, and I appreciate that. I do want to get to if there are specific metrics on the soundproofing that either you or your architect has.
[SPEAKER_21]: One of the reasons why we didn't get into that point yet with the consultant was basically the cost. We were waiting for feedback from the board because what's going to have to happen is he'll have to do it he will have to do an evaluation. Then he's going to have to put some details together. So if, uh, you know, we want to go to that extent and that, that, uh, so the board can see like, uh, the decibels and noise and stuff like this, then yeah, we'll definitely supply it for the next meeting. And as far as we were talking about the other, the other gentleman had spoke about, uh, the real, um, uh, the thing, but the design of the, of the building, as far as what the interior goes, uh, the bathroom and everything, moving that over two feet is fine for that. And then decreasing the storage on the lower end, uh, on the, on the first floor. Uh, so we can fit that vehicle in there is easy enough to do. And, um, so we can supply that, uh, for the next meeting, what we'll have is We'll have the acoustic consultant draft up maybe some paperwork on top of a detail on the walls or how it's gonna be structured in the inside. So basically what they do is they have the outside structure and then they form an inside structure inside of that. And that's where it saves with the vibration. But yeah, we can supply that for the next meeting as I understand this will be carried on.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I'm gonna move on to the next public comment, and I see Colm Lynch has their hand raised. Please state your name and address for the record. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_04]: Colm Lynch, 97, Governor's Ave. I have a very spotty connection here, so I'm hoping that you can still hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, well, I just have a few points to make. First of all, I believe there's a procedure where the public have to be notified and notice has to be placed on the property 14 days prior to the meeting. That sign went up two days ago after four months.
[Mike Caldera]: So just to clarify, sorry to interject, just give me a moment because that's. Yeah, just hold on. Nobody can see. So just want to clarify since this is a procedural question. So the notice requirements pertain to the first hearing, the first hearing of this, I believe we held back in, In February. So if you did not receive any notice, 14 days before that hearing. I think that's useful for us to know. But for when a when a hearings continued, there's The, so each meeting where a continuation happens, we state the next meeting it's being continued to, and then there's a posting notice for any public meeting, which is the 48 hours. So I just wanted to clarify that. So, yeah, if you didn't receive a notice as an abutter for the original hearing, that's, you know, definitely worth calling out, but I just wanted to clarify that before you continue. But I didn't mean to cut you off, so please go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me try.
[Mike Caldera]: Unmute yourself if you can. If you're not able to, we can get you unmuted. Mr. Blanco, we're going to wait. for Colm Lynch to finish their comment. And then if there's any questions they raise, I may come back to you for clarification. But again, this won't be a dialogue. Colm, are you able to unmute? I don't know if that was the end of your comment, or it sounded like you had more to say. Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Have we gone back on? You're back on, yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_04]: But I was referring to supposing it's never been done. We've had people about or stopping by asking us, that had inquiries about this project. And they said they didn't see the sign. They thought there would be a sign. They were asking me questions. And the only sign appeared two days ago. There was no sign in January, February, March. I just want to start now. approach. And I believe that all the discrepancy again, all the where it was said in the application that
[Yvette Velez]: I think we should offer Colm the ability to type his response, maybe.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So Colm, the connection is causing you to cut in and out. So certainly, if you'd like to write out a thought, you're welcome to do so. We did hear bits and pieces. The one thing I just want to emphasize is that, So as part of the notice requirements for a hearing, one of the required documents is a certified abutters list. Um, and so that is in the board's possession. Um, and, um, I do, uh, see a number of. Addresses listed, uh, including your own. So, um, on a butter's list, at least you're listed. Um, you should have received a notice in the mail before the first hearing. Um, so just wanted to, to, to put that out there. Um,
[Alicia Hunt]: Can I make a procedural comment? I just want it to be very clear that comments, there have been a lot of opinion comments in the chat. Those cannot be considered by the board or considered part of the public record. In this case, the commenter is being invited to put his comment into the chat and then a member of the board or perhaps Teresa could read his comment into the record officially. And I just want it to be clear that there should not actually be a dialogue and back and forth between opinions in the chat. I just didn't want that. I wanted that to be extremely clear in his comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate it. Thank you, Director Hunt, for that point of order. So this is a an offer we're making to Colm, and like mentioned, we'll read anything written into the record. I also, yeah, so Colm, I'm gonna do last call on an attempt to unmute yourself or make a written comment, and then otherwise we're gonna move on to the next person who would like to make a comment.
[Theresa Dupont]: And Mike, I believe the next person we have is Catherine Gaffney, who is iPhone on the participant.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Teresa. Yeah, so we'll call on iPhone next. Catherine, could you please state your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, thank you very much for your time. I'm Catherine Daphne I home property addresses at 30 woodland Avenue. We are in a butter to to Leo, and just to underscore columns comments we had received absolutely no information. about the proposed structure. We're hearing this secondhand and then certainly by accessing the agenda on the zoning board. So that's been a bit concerning in terms of the lack of transparency or information related to this project. It seems as though we've been spending an inordinate amount of time talking about addressing the noise and vibration concerns. When again, the major concern of the neighbors is the setback. This structure is essentially right up against the property lines. And as questioned earlier, this structure will in fact tower over the neighbors. The house already, we can see through the tree line, which there is no substantial full tree line. So I'd like to correct that perception. But again, it will be a towering structure right against the property lines, which is just so disruptive to the entire neighborhood. And I just don't understand how this could be considered. Moving forward, considering the zoning regulations require a significant setback, and this is far less than the zoning requirement.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Do we have any other comments from members of the public?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, Colm, since you got cut off, we'll try to let you resume your comment where you had it previously. Let's see if this works out. As you've already mentioned, if you'd like to type something or call in, by a different number, we could make sure it gets into the record, but please, please go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It seems like you're calm, but not hearing you say a full sentence yet.
[SPEAKER_04]: yeah just a number of concerns i have just that's a lot of people but unusual with will end up being brought in by by any functional but three yeah calm unfortunately
[Mike Caldera]: Your connection is cutting out to the point where we can't really hear what you're saying so in the chat is an alternate number you could dial. Teresa if you could maybe share your email, that would be another way. Tom Epstein's phone could get in touch with us, but I think we're going to move on to the next public comment.
[Andre Leroux]: Maybe could Teresa give the call in number like the planning department phone number and maybe she could relay, you know, have a conversation with him and relay his concerns.
[Mike Caldera]: Good idea. Thanks, Andre. Thanks, Teresa. All right. While we're waiting for that, I see another resident, Tanya Zucconi. Please go ahead, state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, good evening. Thank you, everyone. Tanya Zucconi, 80 Cedar Road, down around the cut through off of Governor's Ave from the folks on the call tonight. Thank you all for participating. And Leo, welcome to the neighborhood. A lot of people here who care deeply about our community. My comments are to reiterate what Catherine mentioned regarding the point of this hearing being about the setback. My concern is that I've not heard it addressed, I've not heard the answer. The question to the answer about, excuse me, the answer to the question about how the structure would be in any way. disadvantaged if it were in fact required to adhere to the seven foot and 15 foot setbacks? And perhaps that was addressed at the February meeting. I'm not sure, but that would be my question. What would happen, Leo, if your building, in fact, were not 2.4 and 3.4 feet away from the abutters property, but were the seven to seven and a half and 15 feet away, how would that disadvantage your use of the property? Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah. And to that point, this was discussed at the earlier hearing. There was a discussion about the position of the primary building and the possible locations for a garage and studio that conforms with the setbacks. But since it seems we have some residents who weren't able to join that one, Mr. Blanco, if you wanted to just kind of summarize what you already shared at the first hearing just around that element, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_02]: Sure, there's a connection from my house that I for me is important to use during the winter time to go back and forth between my home and the studio and enable and. To be able to fit the two cars and to fit appropriately, I'm not doing like a concert hall there. I'm just doing a practice studio. But still, I have to have some space, consideration to be effective. This was the size that determined to be optimal. And that's why I'm going for a variance on this. And yeah, if I may address the previous comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so just want to double check. So again, we're not doing a dialogue here. So yeah, if there was, can you just, what's the topic that you don't feel you've adequately addressed that you were hoping to speak to?
[SPEAKER_02]: No, I just wanted to understand more to address something to understand, because Mr. Combs said that he was not aware of this, but he was in the last meeting.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. Yeah, yeah, right. So OK, thanks for clarifying. I think in this case, we just won't pursue that avenue. Mr. Combs made his statement. And then, like I mentioned, he appears to be in the certified abutters list.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, any other comments from members of the public?
[Mike Caldera]: I do just want to mention the board did receive some letters prior to the first hearing. I believe some also spoke at this meeting, and so I won't recap those. It does appear there was at least one letter from a resident who didn't speak tonight, who, just to summarize what they shared, they also expressed some concerns based on the setback violations and the height of the structure. So the board has that. That'll be part of the public record as well. I just wanted to mention that. All right, I see Colm has their hand raised again. We're gonna give this one last try, Colm. And again, we're not doing a dialogue here, but if you'd like to continue your earlier comment that cut out, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_04]: Are you seeing this process here?
[Mike Caldera]: Could you ask that question again, Colm? I'm not sure we heard you.
[SPEAKER_04]: So Colm, I'm sorry, unfortunately, your connection
[Mike Caldera]: seems to be cutting out to the point where we can't really hear anything coherent from you. We have offered an email address, an office line, and I think you also may have written us a letter. I'm just double checking that. So, yeah, I think that we're just going to have to move on. It's not my intention to cut you off here. It's just we literally can't hear you this way. So, yeah, so I'll give you 30 seconds if you want to try one of those other methods. Otherwise, we're going to move on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, cool. Yeah, that sounded better. Oh, I don't know. We have one more try. Go ahead. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Yeah, I just wanted to comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm very sorry Colm, this just isn't working. We're going to move on. So to summarize things, we've heard you today over the multiple attempts. So we've heard that you had concerns about the notice, looking at the plans, that's about as far, we've heard that you're opposed, that's about as far as I was able to make out. So I think we're gonna move on. Thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public who haven't spoken yet who would like to make a comment? Okay, I don't see anything. The Chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations. So moved. Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, and then we're going to do a roll call. Jim T?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Jamie? Aye. Okay, Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike. Aye. All right. So the public portion of the meeting is now closed. And so, so we're being asked to consider. variances for the side and rear yard setback. The specific criteria as a board that we'll be discussing is going to the circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the lander structures, and especially affecting such lander structures, but not generally affecting the zoning district in which it's located. The, the reason for the relief sought is consistent with that, whether a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. and then whether desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw. So that's what we're gonna be discussing. Yeah, anyone from the board would like to start with your thoughts?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see Jamie unmuted himself.
[Unidentified]: Please go ahead, Jamie. I know that there was some concern about us digging into the use. I know that Mr. Foley had raised that in the previous meetings. That was one of the reasons why we did dig deeper into that. Um, but as has been raised a number of times on the call, the core of this is the setbacks. Uh, we're looking at, uh, give or take a 10 foot setback variance on the backside on the rear side and a five foot setback variance on the side yard. Uh, the building that's being proposed is, um, obviously there's not currently a building there. Uh, there previously was a building there, but this building is larger than that building and we've heard significant feedback from the about is that there's a concern for the development of this building. I understand that's a hardship for the applicant for what their intentions are for the property. The original building was a garage for vehicles. There's an intent to build additional space for additional use. regarding that hardship. But from a concern for the public good with regards to the neighboring, the abutters immediately abutting that property, based on the feedback we've heard, I believe there's a concern there. And due to the volume of the variance as well as the height of the building, I believe there's a significant, gap between the intent of the purpose of the ordinance and what their intention of the building is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Jamie. Any other member of the board like to speak? Go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: So I guess, you know, the concern that I raised last time was about the setback and how the you know, the height of the structure would relate to the neighbors. And I suggested at that time that there'd be some engagement with the neighbors. And I wanted to hear what they had to say. Unfortunately, I don't think that happened, but we did hear what the neighbors have to say, and they're generally opposed to this. So I guess my concern would be to, you know, you know, how do we resolve this and why wasn't that taken into account? I think, you know, the big question on the variance for me is, is it going to, you know, detrimentally affect the neighborhood? And again, the neighborhood in this case is really, we're just talking about the abutters. So I just feel that the, I want, want the applicant to be successful and to be able to do this. I understand the reason for it. I don't understand why due diligence hasn't been done with the abutters.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Andre. Would anyone else on the board like to speak? Okay, I'ma bet.
[Yvette Velez]: I have nothing new to add than what has been said. Generally speaking, I thought the design was nice and I know the setbacks were the issue, but I feel like things were explained properly and the neighbor feedback was taken into account, but nothing additional to add.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, thanks for that, Jim. Anything you'd like to add? I'll take it this time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well, so from my perspective, I do think that the location of the primary structure does limit the location for any accessory building. As Jamie mentioned, this one is larger than the prior building, but I think even if the ask was to reconstruct a garage with the exact same dimensions as the prior one, there would be some amount of setback violation simply because there's limited places to actually put a garage there. So I do think that that is a circumstance related to the shape of the property and structures. Now, In terms of the other criteria, I'm not going to speak as much to the literal enforcement one, because I don't think it's at issue here. I mean, I think if we were talking about inability to reconstruct the garage, that would be a more salient factor. For me, where I have concerns, just in addition to the general concerns raised by the neighbors, is that so the We need desirable relief to be granted. without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw. And so my take is that the intent of the Medford ordinance or bylaw is that accessory structures are 15 feet tall or less and that primary structures can form when possible with the setbacks. And so here, it seems like the only reason why this structure, if the relief was granted, is allowed to be this height is because it has been attached to the primary structure. So whether we're talking about this as a proper accessory structure or an extension of the house, There's a dimensional violation that would be occurring that simply isn't consistent with the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw. I think the intent or purpose here is quite clear. This is a neighborhood single family residential primarily. The intention is that people can have garages or studios, but there's nothing in the ordinance that would suggest you could have both and especially one on top of the other. in this area. So that is my concern. I do believe the description of the home occupation use was to my satisfaction, so no concerns there. I do think the plans should have made explicit some of the soundproofing elements, but yeah, my concern is this just simply doesn't seem consistent with the intent or the purpose of the ordinance, whereas perhaps reconstructing the garage or perhaps a single story structure that's a sound studio would be. And to be clear, we're not precedent setting, so I can't comment on hypotheticals, but this just doesn't seem consistent with the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So that's my take.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anything else the board would like to discuss? The chair awaits a motion.
[Mike Caldera]: And we do have to act one way or the other as a board. So it could be any motion, just something to either something else we need to discuss or a motion with respect to this petition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: A motion to deny the setback variance.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? I'll second. All right. Um, so since this was a motion to deny, um, a yes, essentially means no. So if you're in favor of the motion to deny, that would be, um, to deny the requested variance. Um, I know that's confusing, but, but just if you're against say yes, because it's a motion to deny, um, All right, and so we're gonna do a roll call.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So Jamie? Aye. Okay, so that's the aye, deny. Yvette? No.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so that's a no. Jim?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: So that's a yes, deny. Andre? Aye. So that's a yes, deny. And then Mike? Aye. So that's four in favor, one against. Denying the application for a variance. So the variance is denied. Sorry we don't have better news, Mr. Blanco. But yeah, that is the end of this hearing. And so we're gonna move on to the next one. Teresa, please go ahead.
[Theresa Dupont]: Yes, on the second and final motion on the agenda is 114 Mystic Ave, which is case number SP 2023-01, which was continued from March 30th. Applicant and owner New England Organics LLC is petitioning to operate a retail marijuana dispensary and in an existing structure in a commercial two, which is the C2 zoning district, thereby requiring a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Back to you, Mike.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I see we have multiple folks on for the applicant. So, yeah, we continued this from a prior hearing. There were some. You had already made a presentation about the the application and including walking us through some of your plans, the required plans under the ordinance. There was an ask from the board to meet with the department heads and get some feedback there. And then there was also an ask about the site plan and some of the traffic considerations. And so I know you sent us a traffic impact report. So yeah, who would like to present?
[Adam Hurtubise]: on behalf of the applicant. Jason, Tito.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, Jason, you wanna go ahead and start us off?
[SPEAKER_20]: Sure, so there were a couple of things that we were gonna expand upon from our last meeting. I could start, Daniel from Vinace was the one who conducted the study he's on. And I think you might be able to at least answer any questions you have with regard to the traffic. And we also included a overview of exactly which parking spots were allocated to the business versus the additional ones throughout the property. So we included that and I would direct all questions with regards to Daniel.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Um, well, in that case, either Daniel or Jason, like, could somebody just sort of walk us through at a high level. The report itself. Yes, that's something I can do.
[SPEAKER_18]: Can everybody hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much for the record. My name is Daniel. I'm a traffic transportation engineer with the NASA associates. As Jason has said, we had performed a kind of preliminary traffic impact assessment that you guys have seen. And I'll just take you through a kind of high level overview of it. As you've heard and as you know, the project is going to entail the renovation of approximately 3400 square feet of the existing VFW into an adult use marijuana dispensary. To kind of assess traffic volumes in the area, we looked at a historic count we had along Mystic Ave that was conducted in March of 2021. And to just kind of bring those historic 2021 numbers up to present day numbers, we compared March 2021 and March 2023 volumes. It was about a 2%, 1.7% difference. So we adjusted the numbers from March 2021 up by 1.7% just to kind of give us a baseline of traffic that kind of passes the project site on Mystic Ave. And with that, we found that accommodates approximately 10,000 vehicles on an average weekday and about 8,500 on a Saturday. So those are just kind of the statistics of the roadway as we kind of move forward here. Part of that counts was also looking at speeds. And we found that the 85th percentile speed, which is oftentimes used in the transportation planning professions to set speed limits, and specifically site distances safe site distances was found to be 35. miles an hour. So that's just kind of another thing to keep in the back of mind as we move forward. We look at existing public transportation in the area, the MBTA bus route 95 runs along Mystic Ave. We looked at pedestrian accommodations, sidewalks, crosswalks, things like that in the area. But kind of getting into the big thing what the whole court was about was twofold. One was the traffic characteristics of the project, how many vehicles are going to be coming in and out of there over the course of the whole day and during the peak hours. We have existing counts from a dispensary, a similarly operating dispensary in Millbury. And based on those counts, got a trip rate per 1,000 square feet, which was then applied to this project. In this case, it was 3,400. The Millberry dispensary was 3,700. So they ended up being roughly similar, a little less. So the project itself generates 718 trips over the course of an average weekday with a little more on a Saturday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, Daniel, it looks like you, your connection might've flaked out. We were hearing you just fine up until ago. We can give Daniel a moment.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, tried to join on a different device. So I just admitted Daniel again. Daniel.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The audio is connecting.
[Mike Caldera]: Welcome back, Daniel. Yeah, so you were starting to talk about the Millberry versus, or using Millberry and computing the trips generated per thousand square feet, and then you cut out.
[SPEAKER_18]: apologies on that. I do not know what happened. I might have hit something on my laptop keyboard or something like that. So sorry about that. But getting back into it, the project is going to generate 720 trips on an average weekday, 880 on a Saturday. And then looking at specifically the peak hours, the weekday midday peak hour, which is going to be between sometime between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., it's going to generate 72 trips. The weekday evening peak hour, which is sometime between 4 and 6, it's going to generate 95 trips. And the Saturday midday peak hour, which is, once again, between that 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., but on a Saturday, it's going to generate 98 trips. And if we look at those trips and compare them to the existing traffic volumes on Mystic Avenue, we see it's about a 7% increase over the course of the whole day on a weekday and about a 10% on a Saturday. So something that an impact that would be measurable, but minor. And then the other part was the parking analysis. There is currently 102 spaces available on site and 25 spaces situated in the front of the building facing Mystic Avenue will be just for the dispensaries. And in addition to the, ends and outs collected at that Millberry dispensary. A parking demand study was also done. So, similarly to the trip generation where it was a trip rate per thousand square feet. We also looked at a parking demand per thousand square feet. And you can kind of get into the nitty gritty things here. But what it came down to was a maximum rate, a maximum peak parking demand of the project is expected to be around 20 vehicles, which fits into the 25 spaces allotted and leaves room for employees, as well. And then to make sure that there is substantial parking to accommodate both the dispensary and the VFW, we looked at parking.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry to interject, but you're at a perfect point in the presentation for me to ask this clarification. So table three, I just I'm not convinced I'm understanding it. It almost looks like maybe there's a typo because I'm looking at the weekday versus Saturday and then the average rate, 85th percentile and maximum. And so on the weekday, the average rate is lower than a Saturday. but then the 85th percentile and maximum rate are much higher and vice versa. And then the narrative seems to indicate that, in fact, the demand is greater on a weekday than on a Saturday. So I just wanted to sanity check whether I'm just not correctly interpreting it or if there is, Basically, I just want to make sure these numbers are correct or that we're interpreting them correctly.
[SPEAKER_18]: So essentially kind of what that says is when you're looking at the average rate and why that's lower on a weekday, that essentially comes down to there's more dead time during the weekday. There's more time during the weekday where there's fewer vehicles parked at the dispensary, which pulls the average down. And then when you get into the 85th percentile and the maximum, there is more time during the weekdays where there's more vehicles parked on site. on a weekday versus a Saturday. And I know that was a tongue twister. I know that was confusing.
[Mike Caldera]: No, I think that makes sense. So just to restate it to make sure I'm understanding correctly. So essentially, the 50% of cases that are going to be below the average, some of those are such low usage on a weekday that the average goes way down, even though the 85th percentile is higher. Is that accurate? Correct. That is exactly it. I thought I saw a hand, I couldn't tell if it was a board member. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, did you have a clarification on this?
[Unidentified]: Can you just explain, when you say when it beats 98 vehicle trips on a Saturday, what does that exactly mean? That there'll be 98 vehicles going into the parking lot?
[SPEAKER_18]: So that 98 trips that's a great question is something that I probably should have gone over is those trips are a one way trip. So, it is 48 vehicles that enter the project site over the course of an hour and 50 vehicles that leave, it's relatively close to to 5050 kind of across the board, there just might be some vehicles that are already on site. that are leaving more so than are coming in. But those are one way trips. So you can kind of think of it as 98 vehicles. Sorry, 98 trips is 49 vehicles over the course of the hour. And that's the same across the board. That's the same for the weekday for the Saturday.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for clarifying. It looks like Jamie has a question to go ahead, Jamie.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I just wanted to raise this now as we're going through the data. I had done some analysis after the report came out on the traffic. So from a population perspective, Millbury is about 13,000 people. Medford's about 62,000. But you guys are right outside of, Millbury's right outside of Worcester. Medford's a little bit further outside of Boston. And from a competition perspective, Millbury has about, it has two to three other dispensaries nearby. Medford has six to seven dispensaries nearby.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, and, and Jamie, I think you, you hit it right on the head relative to the actual traffic relative to the reality that 2018. Is very far behind us in terms of the number of and I really wish it was 2018 right now just want to let you know that and we were one of the first two to to open and also another reality is that we actually have a dispensary that is right next to us. And so we do need to, there's a component around the realistic numbers there. And I think that the point here is that we, from a traffic perspective, are not gonna have a huge impact. And I think the one other piece that we commit to you is that the parking lot We'll get to this is going to look a little bit better than it than it currently does now.
[Unidentified]: Yep, and I do agree that the, you know, the, there is an additional dispensary on the same street, and there is additional competition of the dispensaries in the area, with regards to those numbers.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yep. Although none of them are better than Victory Gardens. I just don't want to go on record for that.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Noted on the record. So, Daniel, did you want to say anything to that as well? Like, is there Is there an adjustment factor that you consider or is there some reason why you think that this is a good, this is still a good comparison given some of the differences between the city and town?
[SPEAKER_18]: So one thing that I will say and this goes for kind of everything in this report and should be for everything that you see traffic-wise, parking-wise, we as traffic engineers try to be conservative with everything that we do. If we plan for the worst, then anything better than that should work, right? If we build a signal that it works at the worst of times, it'll work at the best of times. And kind of getting into that with the population density, whether there's other dispensaries around the counts in Millbury were done as as Jamie had noted, they were done relatively soon after the opening of the dispensary a while ago. So it was a legal cannabis and dispensaries were relatively new at the time and the dispensary itself had just opened. So that's why we've kind of have used this set of data for years as, okay, this is, it's a new idea, new thing, it's a new dispensary. So if we run with this uh data this trip generation these traffic characteristics are essentially going to be uh the the worst of the worst and should theoretically get better over time as things kind of die down um getting to do I think that realistically this project will generate less traffic than this most likely due to one it being in a city uh it's highly uh it's There's a lot of pedestrian accommodations as well. So this is just vehicle trips that we looked at. And if you look at the Millbury dispensary where these counts were done, there's no real pedestrian accommodations there. It's kind of off of a highway. If you're going there, you're pretty much just going to drive, which once again gives credence to why we continue to use this for the vehicle trips. trip generation of dispensaries. But Medford's a little different. There's sidewalks everywhere, crosswalks. So that's just kind of my two cents on why we used it and why this is a conservative estimate of the trip generation and parking generation as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so we cut you off in the middle of your presentation. So were there other things you want to walk us through? I'm trying to remember.
[SPEAKER_18]: I don't think there was much else. Oh, there was the parking for the VFW. So we looked at parking demand data that was compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or the ITE. We go to them. They're a nationally published source. They have studies from all across the country over the past three decades or so. So we look to their data for a recreational community center. There's no exact land use code for a VFW, but recreational community centers is the closest we could find and not having any empirical data. That's kind of what we went with. Same thing as for the trip rate. We did a parking rate for that and the maximum peak parking demand we found for the VFW was 30 vehicles and with the 25 spaces reserved for the dispensary that leaves 77 left for the VFW and with a max of 30 there appears to be ample space to accommodate both the VFW and the dispensary as well. And then one last thing, just something that we always look at because safety is the most important thing, right? I always like to say, yes, it sucks if you got to sit in traffic to get home, but as long as you do get home, that is the important part. And in this look at safety, we looked at the sight distances. exiting the project site driveway. There is the existing VFW sign that sits relatively close to the traveled way. It might even be in the sidewalk, if I'm remembering the pictures in the Google Street View correctly. But there was a recommendation within this assessment to remove or move that sign to provide site distances. And you can find that in the recommendation section, which is kind of the last bit. For brevity's sake, I won't go through all those unless asked, as they're all kind of standard. But with that, I think I'd like to turn it over to you. If there's any other questions, I'd be more than happy to answer.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That was great. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Are there other questions from the board pertaining to the traffic impact assessment? Andrew, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: This might be a question more for the city and Alicia, if she could help answer this, but is the, has the traffic engineer weighed in on this? And particularly what I'm concerned about are pedestrian crossings along Mystic Ave since we are, there's a lot of development happening there. And I just want to make sure that we're making sure pedestrians are safe as they're crossing the street.
[Mike Caldera]: So Andre, it is my intention, we had requested that the applicant run some of their plans by city departments. So it's my intention to go through those, but since you asked and since it's timely, yeah, director, if you have any details to share, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll have to actually I would have to defer to Dennis because as the staff to this committee. He was at the last meeting and I don't know which department heads he reached out to about this he didn't copy me on those communications but he would not necessarily copy me on those communications, right well actually to that point, I had, I had asked Dennis about this and I think he.
[Mike Caldera]: told the board this previously, so let me just look that up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just want to make sure I don't put words in Dennis's mouth. So, shoot. I'm gonna, oh no, this should be it, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: So Dennis mentioned that he, his understanding was that the applicants had spoken to the department heads and he stated he requested for the applicant to document those meetings and and to report back. So I don't believe the board has received anything in writing about that. It is something that I do want to discuss in this meeting. So since we kind of opened this topic right now, has there been a discussion with the transportation department that you could share with us?
[SPEAKER_20]: No, there hasn't. Basically, our presentation was based on four main things. We have our security plan, we're reaching out to the fire department, the police department, the health department with regards to our odor control, and I know parking was, you know, discussion and which specific spots were ours located on the property. Um, with regards to, you know, the traffic and stuff, uh, regarding that is why we hired Vinny's. Um, but we were never told to talk to anybody directly in the city or, or asked to, uh, up until now, uh, please go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Are you going to say something else?
[SPEAKER_04]: No, no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Jackson, were you going to say something else?
[SPEAKER_17]: No, so I guess what I would say, we actually operate a facility in the city of Boston right now. And in terms of what we've seen post the end of 2018 to now is we're not seeing huge lines from day one. What you are typically seeing is really folks kind of trying multiple facilities, but what I would note on typical weekdays, and if we look at some of our peers in other population centers, at least in the city of Boston, we're seeing probably an average of about 300 people a day in the early days of a dispensary. And so if you were to look at that over the course of a 10-hour day, you're looking at 30 folks over the course of an hour. Obviously, it doesn't work that easily, but the components around kind of a normative approach to folks kind of making crossings, you're not seeing droves of people kind of move in the same ways that we had seen earlier in the inception of the cannabis industry. So I just wanted to just kind of This is, from a business perspective, obviously, you know, we want the maximum number of folks, but from a realistic perspective in terms of what is actually happening, that is what, you know, what we're seeing. And so I think there is an opportunity to really phase this in in a way that you're not, placing the public, and in particular, in our regards, customers in harm's way relative to large numbers of people crossing a multi-lane traffic going either way.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, and I'd just like to briefly speak to something Mr. Zup said. In terms of the Medford ordinance, the specific plans and who needs to get them. There's the security plan which goes to the chief of police and us, there's the operation and management plan which goes to the building commissioner of the board of health and us, there's the emergency response plan which goes to the chief of police and fire chief and us, and then there's the disposal and odor control plan which goes to the board of health. So My recollection is that we did ask for discussions with the relevant department heads at the last meeting. We also asked for a site plan, which we can go to once we're done with the traffic impact assessment. I don't recall us specifically asking for a conversation with the transportation department. So I just wanted to call that out. And then also this This petition is not subject to site plan review or anything like that. So, so yeah, I don't, I don't know what the board specifically requested that before now. But hopefully that answers your question, Andre. It sounds like that discussion hasn't happened.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, well, I just, you know, and maybe Alicia can help clarify this, but I know with most special permit projects, the department heads often weigh in in writing and are given that opportunity. So I'm just curious, and that sort of happens as a matter of course, and I don't know whether you know, because of the zoning change, there's any difference in the way procedures around special permits are happening now?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so when something goes to the CD board for site plan review, the staff to the planning board sends it to all the department heads for comment, and then they follow up with those department heads, usually two or three times to get the comment letters back. and that's provided as part of it, because this doesn't go to the CD board. It didn't go to the CD board staff to circulate it. So I don't know that Dennis was asked to then circulate it to department heads as if it was a site plan review, because it's not a site plan review, it's a special permit. So it doesn't follow the same process as something that's going for site plan review.
[Andre Leroux]: And so, just to understand your position, Alicia is, is it your position that special permits, such as this one do not need to go to the department heads or ask them to weigh in on them. And I guess in my specific question that I'm concerned about, because I appreciate all the information that's been shared by the proponent and don't have any issues with that. It's really more at a higher level in terms of managing the development in Medford, because it's not just this project, it's other projects. And so what I want, I mean, when you have this accumulation projects.
[Alicia Hunt]: Actually, let me just it's here's the difference. This is not by Medford's definition, a major project. This needs a special permit because it's a marijuana dispensary. However, it's not more than 10,000 square foot new building. It doesn't meet any of our other criteria of a major project. So major projects, the previous marijuana dispensary was a larger building. It was more than 10,000 square feet. And there's an interesting thing here because the marijuana portion of it is not allowed to be more than 10,000 square feet, but that building was because they were also accommodating an art center. So that made that project a major project and therefore triggered site plan review. because this is not physically a large building. And in fact, this project doesn't touch the exterior of the building. This is completely an interior project. So it doesn't trigger what Medford considers to be a major project. all the other projects that you're thinking of, big buildings, if it was more than six residential units, it would trigger that. If it was more than 10,000 square feet, if it was a gas station, it would trigger that. There are a lot of things that trigger site plan review, but they never wrote site plan review in for marijuana buildings if they didn't hit the other requirements. That's why it's not triggering it.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you that's a helpful clarification, Alicia and, but I would just ask you as a city, you know, director, whether. you know if the traffic department is looking at Mystic Ave and pedestrian safety and crossings?
[Alicia Hunt]: As a general rule they absolutely are. I do not know whether or not they were asked to look at this project, but they're looking at other projects like the Great American Beer Hall that's about a half block down. They're looking at it for that one. I'm I'm feeling like there's another one slightly down the road off the top. Oh, then there's the other marijuana facility they looked at. That's like two or three doors down from that, a little bit further down that way. They looked at it for that one as well. And overall, it's something that we're looking at. But this is a small project, and this is one of the equity applicants. So we were attempting to also not stress their finances, as this is not a large company coming in and doing this.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Lisa. Thank you. Yeah, and what Director Hunt shared is consistent with my understanding. So I had some questions as well, but which were discussed offline. And so, yeah, this is just in general, under the new Medford ordinance, there's actually a lot of things that were special permits, the remedy, but it's not the same type of special permit in many cases. as there was under the old ordinance. So the standard varies wildly. Special permit for findings even under the new ordinance is at least the suggested method. So, okay, cool. So I do wanna see site plan. I do wanna make sure before we go there, other members of the board, if they had any other questions about the traffic impact assessment that they could ask those. So one that I have just, so my takeaway from the VFW parking analysis coupled with the site parking analysis is that, you know, based on the assumptions in this report, there is plenty of parking, but I don't recall, and I don't know if we even saw or heard what the exact arrangement is with the VFW surrounding usage of spaces that aren't specifically dedicated to the marijuana retail dispensary. So could anyone speak to that? What happens if the 26th car shows up from a contractual standpoint?
[SPEAKER_20]: Well, if I could answer that. So the 25 spots are specifically for customers only, and the employees will have their additional parking spots, whatever is available. Those 25 spots right in the front closest to the building are allocated just for customers coming in and out only, um, you know, with regards to the membership of the VFW, you know, the members of the club will normally park out back, um, which is where the, the majority of the members there will park. And with regards to the other additional parking that's over there, as we get closer to completion, we will see a phase out of all those vehicles that are using it as parking currently. So we're not limited to 25 spots. Those are specifically for our customers, more are available to us. That is our arrangement with the VFW.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So just to confirm my understanding what you just shared. So it's 25 reserved, the arrangements for staff are separate spots. And in this arrangement with the BFW, If for some reason all of your dedicated spots were full, it's permitted for your customers to use the other spots. Is that right?
[SPEAKER_20]: Correct. Yeah. So there will not be any members or anybody else parking in those customer spots. And then there's over 70 spots throughout the property that are used for either members or employees. Um, et cetera. Thank you. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any other questions from the board on the traffic impact assessment?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, can we see the, uh, the site plan with the location of the parking spaces and so on? Is that, I don't know if I have that.
[SPEAKER_20]: Mike, I, um, I had forwarded an email yesterday to Dennis and Teresa that had an overview of what the total property and what was specifically ours. I don't have that in front of me to upload. I'm not very fluent in Zoom. I know I had passed that along.
[SPEAKER_17]: Jason, is this the 114 Mystic Ave parking visual aid? Is that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_17]: OK, if I could become a co-host, I think I could probably share.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sounds great.
[Theresa Dupont]: Come on in.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, thank you. You should be all set now. Can everyone see my screen? Yes.
[SPEAKER_17]: And so the spaces that we are so first off, 1 of the 1 of the biggest differences is that the parking lot will be a dedicated parking lot. not the current configuration that we currently have relative to the number of vehicles, trucks and the like that are in the parking lot. And the dedicated spaces in the front here, we would have the handicap accessible spaces right up close to the building. And as Jason noted, these spaces in the front would be dedicated for customers only, and we would actually have our staff park in the back of the building. Jason, did you want to note anything else?
[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, just what you're seeing there, our use is highlighted in red. The parking spots on the property are marked off in yellow and with the ability to put electric vehicle charging station way up in the front in the green spaces.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board about this?
[Andre Leroux]: TAB, Alex Weinheimerer): yeah i'm just wondering, I mean is this the actual proposed layout so the yellow spaces are also going to be striped because it just looks like the red and the yellow and the left lower left corner look awfully close together, I mean is there actually a. TAB, Alex Weinheimerer): driveway in there between them.
[SPEAKER_20]: There is yes and you know those lines are a lot thicker jet we did that a little bit bolder just to give a clear view of where they were, you can count them. Also, I'd like to note that we did have Captain Steve blue visit the premises, and we described to him our plan, where our deliveries will be coming in and he did do so that there was enough space around the building to get his fire trucks or any emergency vehicles through. with the current parking situation. And if a delivery was to be made, there's still enough room for safety equipment to get in and out. Uh, he also, uh, when he was at the building, you know, uh, that specific section is zoned. It has its own system. Um, and everything, uh, from the fire panels to the smoke alarms, everything that's existing still works. Um, we are working with fire equipment incorporated out of Medford. They, uh, had the current contract with the building. They also came through and noted that, you know, any, uh, additional modifications inside may require additional, um, fire equipment, but that could be added to what is already existing. The captain said, any further questions? When I explained to him about trying to get something in writing, he said normally the fire department would come in after this point. and just check and make sure everything was in working order. But he said that, you know, with the use and the amount of egresses and where things were currently, that he saw no problem with what we were planning on doing.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I think Jim had a question. Go ahead, Jim.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I have a question just for some clarification. Those are electric car spots. So are you planning on having a customer come in and judge their car while they're shopping?
[SPEAKER_17]: So the electric car component was a component that was asked for by the city. to continue to offset the carbon emissions and the like. And so we were very excited to go ahead and accept that on condition. Jim, the one thing I would say though, is that I hope our transaction times are much faster than the time it takes to charge a car or else we are definitely in trouble. in terms of our business plan. And so, you know, that is an amenity not only for our customers, but really for the community and the neighborhood, and not merely for the individuals who are gonna be visiting the store.
[Unidentified]: Will the community be able to utilize those spots as well?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I was not aware of that. Yeah. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't have a question. I just want to make sure. were listed on there, and I don't know if folks had checked their email to see that. Thank you, Yvette.
[Mike Caldera]: Agreement, fair game, it's like to talk about in the hearing, or is it just for city and board eyes?
[Alicia Hunt]: So we did, so there's two pieces to that question. One is it is a public document. We confirm that with our attorney, Attorney Silverstein, but the rest of that, and as to what you should and shouldn't consider as part of the hearing, Attorney Silverstein is on the call, and I think that he'd be better off to address that.
[Mike Caldera]: Very well. Attorney Silverstein, do you want to speak to what the board should or shouldn't consider as part of this hearing as it pertains to the host community agreement?
[Silverstein]: Certainly. So the board certainly has the right to inquire about any of the provisions of the host community agreement, which itself is a precondition in the zoning ordinance of granting a special permit. So I don't think anything is off limits. Obviously, were the board to impose any conditions that were inconsistent with the host community agreement that would obviously raise issues with respect to how the applicant could comply with those conditions as well as the contract executed with the city. But if you have questions, for instance, the recent question about the electric vehicle charger, that was something that the city had asked for in the host community agreement. So there's certainly no reason that the board can't ask questions to get a better sense of what some of the requirements in the HCA are, why they're there, how they impact various factors that you're gonna be considering when you decide whether to grant a special permit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Silverstein. Are there other questions from the board either about like this visual aid or anything that popped out of the host community agreement on a quick read through.
[Andre Leroux]: So one question, are there additional landscaping improvements that are going to be implemented? I don't know if there's like trees or other plantings that are envisioned here.
[SPEAKER_20]: Yes, and that is also part of our host community agreement as to working with the city to come up with a proposal that, you know, they would be happy with and would improve the site. So we have that money set aside, that budget, and it's part of our host community agreement. We've gotten some estimates as to what, you know, I've worked with some landscape designers. And we are ready to do all of that. So with regards to the landscaping and the electric vehicles, we tried to include all of that in our presentation to reflect that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And just to be specific, so I see there's in the host community agreement itself, point 14 facility design that talks about some of the improvements. Is that an example of what you're referring to? Or is there like a specific?
[SPEAKER_20]: Well, the landscaping is one component of that, and it is our intention to overhaul the entire VFW structure. So yes, not only would the landscaping improve, but we'll be redoing the parking lot. redoing the clubhouse, you know, doing these things in phases as, you know, we're allowed to pull our permits, we will start to work as soon as possible.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for confirming. Yeah, so it seems... As part of this point 14, this includes a commitment to install solar panels and to spend a certain dollar figure on landscaping and site beautification improvements of open space areas of the property, including resurfacing and restriping the parking lot. And the landscaping plan needs city approval as part of this. Awesome, thank you. Other questions from the board? Okay.
[SPEAKER_17]: Mr. Chair, can I stop sharing my screen? Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah, please go ahead. You can stop sharing. So yeah, at this point, I'll turn it back over to either of you if there's anything else you'd like to present. The board is hoping to get some details on your discussions with some of the city departments that are getting these plans as part of the The ordinance. So have you have you had discussions, I heard you spoke to someone in the fire department about access. But what about police department Board of Health, like any any general feedback on the on the plans you have here for this facility.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I did speak with Chief Buckley for 20 minutes, a half an hour about our security plan. He was obviously very knowledgeable and just really wanted to make sure that our security plan was at the same level that would be needed to pass the State Cannabis Control Commission requirements. and was not asking for anything over and above that component. And that's what we've submitted. And so I think we're in a good place relative to the security component.
[SPEAKER_20]: And I also had the ability to talk with Mary Ann Houston from the health department. She wasn't in our office, but I was able to talk to her through email. I found out after the fact that since we aren't manufacturing or growing that the odor control plan was not necessarily needed. However, we did speak with presidential services. Like I said, along with the fire system, this section of the building has its own HVAC system. This company is gonna be able to install a cold air system, which will circulate the air in our product vault, where all of our products will be stored, which should take care of any odor that may occur. Since everything will be completely sealed, we're not anticipating that, but it's just over and above. our existing systems. It was also the system that we currently have is actually was built for a smoker, smoking lounge. So it's already kind of retrofitted for cleaning the air out already.
[SPEAKER_17]: And I just wanna just drive home the point that just as the story that we have in Boston, we actually have a model where we buy 100% pre-packaged products, right? So we're not at this point at a place where we're bringing in open product and having what, In our business, what we refer to as deli style, which is in glass containers, and you let people smell it, and that's not how we do our business. So everything is prepackaged at the manufacturer. and then is brought in already pre-packaged. Just as Jason noted, the additional component is even over and above the operational components that we have. It is our objective to be a good neighbor and to not emit additional sense into the air. But again, the packaging, and I do want to note, it is a plant. And so it is very important for our packaging to be sealed in a way that actually preserves the freshness of the plant. So I just want to be very transparent and clear on that. So that is another component that is really one of the things that we look at operationally, as well as in terms of our ability to compete. that we are bringing forward to the community, a fresh product, which means that it is sealed and not emitting odors.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, and just to the specific question about requirements, what Mary Ann shared is consistent with my understanding. So there's in the ordinance, there's this plan that's called the quote unquote disposal and odor control plan. But then in terms of the definitions for what that plan must contain, the odor control portion is per cultivation or product manufacturing. So yeah, it sounds like according to the health department, if anything, your plan is not only meeting the requirements, but exceeding if I understood you correctly.
[SPEAKER_20]: It was my understanding. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, and then the, so there were a couple other plans. Um, so we talked about the security plan. Um, and then the, we talked about the, this, uh, disposal and order order control plan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, and then the other ones were, sorry, I'm just pulling it back up. Um,
[Mike Caldera]: the emergency response plan. So you spoke with the chief of police, but I just want to double check. Did you, did you talk about that, the emergency response portion at all? And then the other one's the operation and management plan, which would go through the commissioner, I believe was here at the last hearing. And then the board of health.
[SPEAKER_17]: Mr. Chair, it was a part of the conversation and the objective, again, from Chief Buckley was to make sure that we met the high bar that the CCC requires. That was our conversation. There was no additional or necessarily Medford specific component to that. The objective was to make sure that we are at or above the requirements of the Cannabis Control Commission.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. So are there questions from the board surrounding this update?
[Andre Leroux]: I would just, no questions, I would just comment that I think as part of the special permit, we should write in as a condition written approval from the relevant departments that are cited.
[Mike Caldera]: So my understanding is that we can't have our approval conditional on other departments approval, but I do believe that as part of the process, there's some degree of sign-off that's automatically required? Attorney Silverstein, is that something you could speak to?
[Silverstein]: Sure. Yes, Mr. Chair, you're right. That as a general rule, there's something called the anti-delegation doctrine, which stands for the proposition that a board can't impose conditions on an applicant that require other third-party approvals because those third party approvals or permissions aren't appealable the way that this board's decision is. So that being said, if there are other regulations or requirements, whether contractual or regulatory that necessitate those other approvals, they're going to be required no matter what. And it's certainly permissible for the board to include maybe in the findings and a notation.
[Andre Leroux]: Hey, by the way, you're also going to need to do X, Y, and Z. So the way my experience that this has worked with, with city departments, at least with the CD board, you know, that I used to chair, um, is. That there would be a review letter in writing, uh, from in writing, uh, from the department head, and it would have a list of its feedback and any requirements or conditions for the proponent to incorporate into the project. And then the board would go through that letter and requirements with the proponent and say, are these okay with you? and says yes, and then we include those as conditions as part of the special permit. Since we don't have that in writing, I'm just raising the question of how do we move forward promptly, you know, without that? Or, I mean, can we, I don't know if you have any suggestions, Attorney Silverstein.
[Silverstein]: Sure. Well, a condition could certainly be something to the effect of The applicant shall, prior to commencement of construction or operation, whatever the case may be, the applicant shall work in good faith with X department to agree upon measures relating to whatever the subject matter is. shall comply with the reasonable requirements and specifications of that department. So different from requiring an approval, you can require that something be done to another, to the specifications or requirements of another board. So for instance, you could say, the applicant shall pay for a police detail as may be required by the chief of police for the opening day. That's not giving the chief of police a veto, which is what the anti-delegation doctrine is intended to prevent, but it's, allowing the police chief to impose reasonable requirements. And usually when I include that sort of condition, I include language that says, and if the applicant disputes the reasonableness of whatever that condition of that department might be, they can come back to the board and the board will evaluate the issue and resolve it. So that ultimately there is an opportunity to come back to the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Attorney Silverstein. Did that answer your question, Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I guess, well, I would just ask the proponent, would they feel comfortable with that kind of language?
[SPEAKER_17]: I guess my only question is relative to, we have a requirement at the local level, but I'll be very transparent that the highest level and requirement that we have is at the Cannabis Control Commission level who is able to grant revotes or license on a regular basis. And I guess the requirements that we have gone through thus far, through the ordinance, I guess my question is, are there places that we did not hit or I'm just trying to get an understanding after the conversations that we've had with the folks that we were told to go and speak to, the plans that we've put forward, the consultants that we have brought on board. I just want to understand where or whence there is additional need for this component.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so to that point, so as I understand it, and then I'll go back to Andre for clarification, the high level concern is not so much the specifics of anything you've shared, it's more the, as a board, some of the requirements, the ordinance that we'll have to go through as part of deliberation on the special permit essentially asked us to weigh in on the suitability of certain plans. And so I think it's just in the effort of due diligence to try to make sure that any language in there kind of facilitates the spirit of the ordinance, which is that, you know, even if these plans aren't, you know, pre-approved, which is not the requirement, that these discussions are happening and that, you know, the relevant departments that are getting these plans are actually, you know, generally aligned with the specifics, which it sounds like from your conversations, they are, but it just was a question about the language that we would potentially put in a, in a decision to sort of reinforce that. Is that anything you'd like to add on, Greg?
[Andre Leroux]: No, I think that's basically it. You know, I think we have a role and responsibility as a board to document our decisions and to make sure that we're, you know, closing the loop on these things. So I'm happy that you've had the conversations we've asked you to have. I think It's just good practice to have it in writing so that we don't get into a situation down the road where, you know, one of the department's head says well I never said that, and your understanding was different so I think it protects the proponent as well as the city and the board, so that we're just all on the same page.
[SPEAKER_20]: Sure. If I could just add my experience, at least with the fire department, was that they are aware that like they were to come in afterwards and they would, we would need to fulfill everything that was required from the fire department for us to then get their signature and then, you know, move to that next level to open up. So, you know, with regards to having things signed off and doing what was asked of us, there won't be a problem at all. Everything we share with everyone, there was never any conflict. Everything was, We were in total agreement they never asked us to do anything additionally, so I don't see a problem with, you know, putting something down that says what we're going to do what we're going to say that that's not a problem. Whatever that is or however that looks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So yeah, that's something we can come back to and we can check back in with the applicant. If there's a proposed. language. I think if there is, it would probably start from what Attorney Silberstein shared. But yeah, like in terms of the ordinance itself, my understanding is that the chief of police on the, where is it? So on the security plan that, um, sign off or the demonstration of a limited undue burden on public safety officials is actually required prior to certificate of occupancy. Some of these other ones don't rise to that level, but, um, I do think we at least got details on, um, the informal discussion. So yeah, maybe, maybe we can come back to that, um, as a board at the appropriate time. Um, Other questions? We haven't opened public comment yet, so I just want to see if there's any other questions before we open for public comment. Okay, the chair awaits a motion to open public comment for 114 Mystic Ave.
[Andre Leroux]: To open public comment for 114 Mystic Ave. Seconded.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, we're gonna do a roll call. Jim? Aye. Sveta?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, public comment is now open. So if there's a member of the public on the Zoom who would like to speak, you can use the raise hand feature. You can let us know in the chat. You can
[Adam Hurtubise]: Email Teresa, who shared her contact details previously.
[Theresa Dupont]: And Mike, just so you're aware, we didn't receive any comments either for or against previously any written public comments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Teresa.
[Alicia Hunt]: And there are no members of the public on the call right now.
[Mike Caldera]: I yeah, director, I just don't want to be make presumptions and especially since we might have folks watching on cable and there's other ways to get your comments just trying to be thorough.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But yeah, I'm not seeing any raised hands.
[Mike Caldera]: So chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of the hearing and open deliberations.
[Andre Leroux]: public hearing and open deliberations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we have a second? Seconded. All right, we'll do another roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Lizette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim? Aye. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. All right, folks. So there's a bunch of steps we need to go through for this. And I think just when we're at the appropriate point, we should just go through them step-by-step to make sure we're touching on all the elements. But before we do, I just want to double check. Does anyone have any high-level thoughts or comments they want to discuss before we go into the low-level requirements?
[Andre Leroux]: But I just wanted to say that this was, I appreciate the proponent coming back with the information that we asked for. And, you know, I don't see any issue with this proposal going forward.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you, Andre.
[Unidentified]: Jamie, go ahead. Again, there's been a lot of due diligence here. I appreciate the applicants doing the due diligence, meeting with the department heads, to meet the requirements that we've asked them to. With the host agreement, again, appreciate the vehicle charging stations, the intent for the landscaping improvements. We all know Misty Gap needs it, and we appreciate that. I do agree with Andre with regards to pedestrian safety concerns, and I do understand that the city is looking at that with other projects that are on Misty Gap. The one concern that I do have specific to this project, and I believe we've raised it a couple of times, from the traffic plan was the VFW sign positioning for the exit for that property. The traffic plan did provide a lot of data. I do appreciate that they compared it to existing performance for this facility in Millbury. And based on my personal assessment, looking at population and other competition in the area, specifically competition on the same street, I think the traffic assessment was adequate. I also appreciate the traffic representation. I hadn't realized the incidence of traffic accidents at South Street, Main Street. Now I appreciate the change in traffic pattern there. But that's my specific comments. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Jim, any high-level comments?
[Unidentified]: Nothing additional.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Same, nothing additional. All right, sounds good.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll echo Andre and Jamie's sentiments. I think the applicants have been quite responsive and put a lot of thought into this. And it was great to see as part of the host community agreement process that the parties were able to come to terms on some improvements that will not only help to make this business successful, but also help to improve the property and provide some amenities to residents. Let's go through the low level criteria. I wanna make sure we're hitting on everything. There's a lot of them. So I think the format that makes sense to me is I'll just read it out and then I'll pause for a few seconds to see if anyone wants to chime in and raise their hand. And then if not, if it's something we've already discussed, I'll just state as such and we can move on. Otherwise, maybe we'll make a brief statement and then we'll just sort of go through those. The actual requirements are in two different sections of the ordinance. So there is section 7.6.11, which is titled Special Permit Additional Findings. And so these are findings that are specific to special permits granted under the marijuana ordinance. And there are also some some spin-off requirements, some of which are specific to marijuana retailers. So these are all in addition to the normal special permit findings, but you know frankly we haven't done enough of these for me to know whether it's better to do the specific stuff first or the general stuff first. My intuition is let's go through the marijuana specific stuff first and then because we've been talking a lot about it and then we'll come back to the general special permit criteria at the end. All right so One, the applicant demonstrates the marijuana establishment will meet all the permitting requirements of all applicable agencies within the Commonwealth and will be in compliance with all state laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Massachusetts law on general marijuana establishment operation. My understanding is that they've done that. So they've consulted with the city departments. What they're proposing to do here is either consistent with what's required by law, if not exceeding. So I think they've successfully demonstrated that. pause in case there's any thoughts there. Not seeing any. So the next, the applicant has satisfied all the conditions and requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this ordinance and any applicable city ordinances. So they're not requesting relief here in terms of dimensional stuff. This is an existing building, so you can avoid a lot of those. The specific requirements here, I'm not going to read out loud because that would be very long unless someone wants me to, but there are some requirements that are then baked into other conditions we will talk about pertaining to the types of plans that are required and going through the whole process in front of the Cannabis Advisory Committee. and having the Coast Community Agreement and so on. So my understanding is that the applicant has done this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so I will just pause in case there are any clarifying questions or if those facts are in dispute. Okay, seeing nothing. The next one,
[Mike Caldera]: is that the facility provides adequate security measures to ensure that there are not direct threats to the health or safety of employees, staff, or members of the public, and that the storage and location of cultivation is adequately secured. Now we walked through the security plan in detail in the last hearing and there are a number of measures in place to deal with this. So to ensure security of doors and a product and so on, and there's requirements in terms of monitoring. So we talked about this in great detail at the last hearing, don't intend to go through it again unless someone has specific questions, but this is all documented in the security plan. So, but as a board, we need to, think about the security plan, what we heard, as well as the discussions that were shared with the chief of police. And we have to find that, in fact, the facility does provide adequate security measures. So what are folks' thoughts? Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other on this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Are the security measures adequate? I see some thumbs up. Thumbs up.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I certainly find them, well, especially Mr. Zuv, your thumbs up is not what we're gonna consider here, but I appreciate the enthusiasm. Yeah, so I think they're adequate and this has been vetted by the chief of police who seems to agree. Number four is the marijuana establishment does not derogate from the purposes and intent of this section an ordinance or the section and this ordinance, the portion of the ordinance I'm reading is in fact the, it is titled the, it's long, Adult Use Marijuana Establishments. This is clearly an adult use marijuana establishment. So I think we're good there. I'll pause in case there's any disagreement on that point. All right, next, the application information submitted is adequate for the Special Permit Granting Authority, which in this case is us, to consider approving the special permit request. So I did hear some questions about the traffic and landscaping. I did hear some questions about the specific improvements. there is a commitment as part of the host community agreement as we discussed surrounding those elements that does require city approval already. So yeah, I just want to get a check in with the board. Any concerns in terms of the adequacy of the information submitted?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead, Andre. My questions have been answered.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Great. All right. Yeah, and I find them to be adequate as well. So next, the proposed establishment is designed to minimize any adverse impacts on human beings, the environment, and abutting properties. So this is something we did not talk about in great detail. So yeah, I mean, do folks have thoughts on adverse impacts to human beings? There are some requirements for these establishments already, you know, to avoid some of the usual resident concerns, but yeah, anything that stands out to the board one way or the other on adverse impacts given this design.
[Andre Leroux]: I think this is going to be an improvement to the current situation. And I think the landscaping plan needs to be approved by the mayor. So that's great. That was one of the questions I had. I still have a question about the pedestrian crossings, because I have a concern with that with all the new development happening. But that's not necessarily. I think Alicia's clarification was helpful in terms of this particular project. But in general, I hope the city
[Adam Hurtubise]: you know, has a plan for addressing that. Okay, thanks, Andre. Any other thoughts on adverse impacts and the plan to minimize those? Yeah, I share your sentiments, Andre. I think
[Mike Caldera]: Considering the location and the plan, I think this is a perfectly reasonable location and operation plan for the facility. There aren't really adverse impacts to human beings that are standing out to me as a concern here. It seems the applicants have done a good job trying to reduce that. All right, next, the security plan provides sufficient assurance that adequate security controls have been implemented to ensure the protection of the public health and safety during hours of operation, and that any marijuana or marijuana-related products are adequately secured on site or via delivery. Any thoughts from the board on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: A lot of this content, again, is in the security plan, which we reviewed in detail at the last hearing. I'm not seeing any concerns. I certainly found it to be adequate.
[Mike Caldera]: And it seems the chief of police did as well. The operation and management plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any thoughts from the board on that?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, as the applicants mentioned, a lot of this is coming from state law and they did review it with the city and we've had a chance to review it. I certainly think, I don't have any concerns about meeting the requirements of this section or implementation. Next, the emergency response plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any thoughts from the board on that one? Not seeing any. Yeah, and I will echo my prior comments.
[Mike Caldera]: I think, again, the applicant is meeting. these requirements and appreciate them speaking with the relevant city departments. The disposal and odor control plan includes all required components and can be implemented to meet the requirements of this section. Any comments from the board on that one? Not seeing any yet. And again, as we talked about, if anything, it's exceeding the requirements and from an odor standpoint, the packaging strategy and not doing anything on site. I don't, I don't have any concerns there. Sound like there's a good strategy in terms of filtration as well. Then 11, the SPGA may require a marijuana establishment to post a bond or other resources held in an escrow account in the amount sufficient to adequately support the dismantling and winding down of the marijuana establishment. Now, this is something that we did not discuss. It's a power that we have. If we were to choose to use it, we would want to discuss with the applicant to understand what they are and aren't amenable to. This did come up in the other hearing. And in general, one of my learnings from the first hearing on a marijuana establishment in Medford is that dismantling a marijuana retail establishment is generally not a costly operation relative to other types of facilities. So yeah, I want to check with the board if this is an avenue that anyone would like to explore. I do think if that's something the board wants to talk about, we should check back in with the applicant on this topic.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Somebody raised their hand. Is it Jamie?
[Unidentified]: Yep, so I just wanted to reinforce the, you know, I agree that the dismantling of a retail operation is much less significant than a cultivation or growing operation, and I don't think it's something that's necessary in this scenario.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Agreed. Okay, yeah, I agree as well. I'm not seeing any
[Mike Caldera]: Disagreement or concern, so I think we will elect not to do that, unless someone requests it later on in this process. 12, and then we're ready to move to the second of three sections, but so 12 is no special permit shall be issued by the Special Permit Granting Authority, which again is us, until an applicant has submitted proof of an executed post-community agreement with the City of Medford. The applicant has submitted this, they have the agreement, I think we're good there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie, yeah, did you have a question or a comment?
[Unidentified]: I do have a question on the host agreement because we have signatures from the applicant. We do not have a signature from the mayor.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, fair call out. Is that something the city would like to speak to? I guess I'll check with Director Hunt first. Do we know, is this an executed host community agreement?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, it was executed like a year ago. Sorry, this is the copy. Let me see if this, I assume that you have the copy open that I have open. I didn't even bother to look because the mayor sent it to me. Sorry, I can ask her where the executed copy is, but yes, she's the one who actually sent that to me.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you for confirming. Any other questions on this point? That was to my satisfaction. So I think we're going to proceed with the knowledge that it was executed.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so then moving on to the second section. So this is requirements specific to marijuana retailers. So There's, as defined in the Massachusetts general law, the number of marijuana retailers shall be limited to no more than 20% of the number of licenses issued within the city. The retail sale of alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises were sold under another part of Massachusetts law. And furthermore, there'll be no more than three marijuana retailers in the city. So it's my understanding, which I would still like to just double check with the city that we currently have one approved but yet not yet operating retailer and this would be the second. So I think we meet the three requirement. It's also my understanding there's plenty of liquor licenses well in excess of of 10 so just wanted to double check director hunt is are we in compliance with this requirement.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry somebody else was speaking to me which which requirement yeah so this one's a bit.
[Mike Caldera]: technical but essentially it's I think the requirement is there's no more than three retail licenses so that box we check right and then the second one is that there's no more than The number of retailers is no more than 20% of the number of essentially retail.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, that all was handled by the CAC when they were handling out. That's how we knew how many they could hand out. Yeah, that's my understanding. Like one minute ago, sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so that's my understanding as well. Just dot and I's crossing T's. It's one of the requirements that we as a board have to check. Or maybe is your reading, Director Hunt, that as a board, the requirements specific to marijuana retailers, are there already, all those are checked by the CAC?
[Alicia Hunt]: They were the ones who approved them to issue the licenses in the first place. And so they knew how many there were.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, right.
[Alicia Hunt]: They went through a very extensive process vetting all of these first. So they've gone through so much already that that this seemed to be just the little little bits at the end.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. Yeah, sounds good. So in that case, it may very well be the case. All of this was already reviewed by the Cannabis Control Commission. And so I'm just going to briefly summarize all of them for the record and just give an opportunity. If anyone wants to say, Hey, this, these aren't satisfied, we can talk about it. But so there's that one, which is satisfied, uh, comply with regulations promulgated by this, uh, cannabis control commission. I think we're good there not sell marijuana, um, to people under the minimum legal sales age. I think we're good there. Um, need to verify the age of the purchaser, we saw that. Face-to-face sales, that's part of the operating plan. Only permitted in C2 and industrial zoning districts. This is a C2 district, is that right? Yeah. not exceeding 10,000 square feet in retail floor space. And so that's satisfied as well. So I think we're good on the second set of requirements. And so then lastly, we just need to go through the normal requirements for any special permit, which I'm just gonna pull back up. Give me a moment. So that's in section 11.6.2.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, just referenced a few times, but we're pulling it up.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So the criteria here are, um, we need to consider, um, the social economic or community needs, which are served by the proposal. Um, and so, um, you know, this is a source of revenue, a tax revenue for the city. Um, There's a community space for some electric charging. So we talked a little bit about that. We can come back to this if anyone has questions or concerns as part of their deliberation. So we need to consider those. We need to consider traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. We talked a little bit about that, but didn't necessarily get to a resolution. We need to consider adequacy of utilities and other public services. Given where this is and the utility footprint of an operation like this, I don't have any concerns personally. We can talk about that. Compatibility with size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood. This is a renovation of an existing structure that's already compatible. So I think we're good there. Impacts on the natural environment. You know, this is a largely paved area and as I understood from the disposal plan, there won't be any or they'll be taking great care not to dispose of anything that would sort of make its way into the natural environment, including some best practices to avoid animals accidentally consuming marijuana. So I think we're good there, but we can talk about it. And then the last one is that the proposal is compatible with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. So those are the six criteria, social economic community needs, the traffic flow and safety, adequacy of utilities and other public services, compatibility with the neighborhood, impact on the environment and compatibility with the comp plan. So what are folks thoughts? Do we think that this kind of meets those criteria that in fact, we're not finding any issues along these six prongs or are there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Are there concerns about any of them from the board. Jamie go ahead.
[Unidentified]: I just want to go back to the concern about the positioning of the signage at the exit to Mister gap. And, you know, Adrian did raise the question about pedestrian safety on Mystic Ave. We do understand based on all the conversations and Director Hunt's raising about other projects that are in progress on Mystic Ave that are considering pedestrian safety. I think the signage is the only requirement that I have for this property.
[Mike Caldera]: And Jamie, just to clarify, do you have a specific request about the signage?
[Unidentified]: Yep. So site view for exiting the property is a concern. From exiting the property, right site view based on positioning of the VFW site.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. Um, and so there is a condition as a board that we could impose, um, which allows us to regulate the, um, location design and location of traffic features, uh, you know, which may pertain to that. There's also to put requirements on, on various things like, um, it's not short of saying science, but the one thing I want to, um, just acknowledge is that the applicant doesn't. necessarily have full latitude here because this is a shared space with the VFW. So yeah, would anyone for the applicant like to speak to what is or isn't possible in terms of the signage as part of the improvements you're already planning?
[SPEAKER_20]: I can just say that we would have no problem moving the sign to another part. It's got a humongous front space and, uh, you know, it's an old sign. So we want to renovate or, or redo that sign along with, uh, putting our business out there as well. So there was a plan for the sign. We don't have the specific location. We figured that would kind of fall into the overall landscape design and then figure it out where that, uh, where that signage and size of that signage would go on the property. I know there was some concerns about, I don't wanna say concerns, but integrating some landscape to have a little bit more of a discreet parking lot. Past that, I'd say there's no problem. If we want to move the sign over to another part of the property, I don't think that'll be an issue at all. I, of course, would have to talk to the members of the VFW, they are on board with improving the entire property.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I see director Hunt has her hand raised.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just gonna suggest that, so the board understanding that any signage they do has to be within our zoning, but the concern is sight lines. You could condition it that they confer with director of traffic on the location, the sighting of it in order to comply, you know, for safety reasons.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, noted. Yeah, and I think we might come back to this because there was some suggested way to word those sorts of conditions, but thank you for that suggestion. And it sounds like the applicants are amenable to something of that sort. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, any other
[Mike Caldera]: call outs from the board on the general special permit criteria. So we talked a little bit. I think the main concerns we had heard, which we can just focus in on are the traffic flow and safety. So we have a candidate condition there. Yeah, any other, and then there was the earlier proposal just to generally to have some language involving the good faith discussions with, the chief of police, the fire chief, the board of health, and the building commissioner surrounding the four required plans and sort of adjusting to their feedback as part of this whole process. So those are two proposed conditions. Are there any other concerns or conditions folks think we might need as part of this permit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead, Jimmy.
[Unidentified]: I hate to be a stickler Alicia do we have any verification on the execution of the host agreement. or the what of the host agreement. execution. Like in the mayor signature document.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, sorry i'm attorney silverstein do you mind speaking to that. Oh i'm sorry we're just um I was just so attorney silverstein was the attorney that worked with the mayor on. the host agreements.
[Silverstein]: So I can confirm that the mayor did sign it. And I know that the certification of host community agreement was submitted to the CCC. I don't know if Mr. I don't seem to have a copy with the mayor's signature. But I suspect that Mr. Jackson probably does. And maybe he can, if the board wants to vote, it can just make its vote contingent on a submission, you know, receipt prior to commencement of operations of the execute fully executed HCA. I know it exists. I just don't seem to have a copy.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. given that the mayor put out some really nice press releases that she signed it and about it, I was taking that as proof, so.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm just double checking the ordinance itself. I think it's just a requirement as part of the whole procedure anyway, so I don't even think- So, if I can share my screen again.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please do, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_17]: This is my screensaver, by the way. This is what both Jason and I have on our background at all times. But yeah, so this is the executed signature. It is very beautiful.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Thank you for confirming. Is that to your satisfaction, Jamie? Yes, thank you. And I appreciate the sticklers, by the way. So thank you for your service. Okay, so, all right, just to summarize what I'm hearing. So we went through all of the specific requirements as part of the special permit for a marijuana retail operation. And we identified a couple of conditions that are of interest to the board. Specifically, I'm going to try to phrase this and then I'm going to check in with first with Attorney Silverstein if it's to consistent with the language he has in mind, and then we'll check in with the board if I correctly captured their desires. So the first condition, we'll call it condition one, is that the proponent discuss in good faith with the traffic department, the location of the signage and to make reasonable adjustments to ensure the adequacy of the pedestrian and vehicular safety entering and exiting the premises. So that's condition one as I phrased it is that
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, could I make a friendly amendment to that, which would be to solicit feedback from the traffic engineer and to include the location of the sign as part of the landscaping plan?
[Mike Caldera]: So amended. Yeah, sounds good. So Attorney Silverstein, is that consistent with the form you had in mind for purpose? Yes. Okay, wonderful. So that's condition one. We're going to call that condition one, because I don't want to say that again. And then condition two is that the proponents engage in good faith discussions with the chief of police, the fire chief, the board of health, and the building commissioner regarding There are four required plans, the security plan, the operation and management plan, the emergency response plan, and the disposal and odor control plan, and make reasonable adjustments to account for any feedback they receive as part of those discussions to promote the public health and safety and other required elements of a marijuana retail operation. So again, I'll check in with Attorney Silverstein if that condition is consistent with what you recommended.
[Silverstein]: Yes, that sounds good. And we can always tweak the language when it gets written down in the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: And is that to the board's liking as I phrase it, any requested amendments there? Okay, cool. So those are the two conditions that I've heard. And so in terms of next steps, if, so the ultimately the board needs to, find that all of the very large number of criteria that we went through on the order of 25 are met subject to these two conditions, conditions one and condition two. So I didn't hear any call outs about the other ones, but I just wanna check in with the board. Is there any last concerns or proposed conditions? Otherwise the chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Happy to motion for approval of a special permit for the marijuana facility at 114 Mystic Avenue with the two conditions so cited.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do I have a second? Seconded. All right, and we're going to do a roll call. So Jim? Yes. Yvette? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, congratulations folks. You have your special permit.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Like we said earlier, thank you for your responsiveness. Um, and yeah, best of luck with your endeavor.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Have a good night. Thanks.
[SPEAKER_17]: You too. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: And speaking of sticklers, we are done with our cases, but we're not done with our agenda. So let's just pull that back up. Um, so, uh, next we have an administrative update, so I just want to check in with the city. Are there any administrative updates?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The answer can be no.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just say no. I did, while we were at the beginning of this meeting, send a note to Lisa asking what was up with the appointment letters, because I did confirm the language on them on the 29th of March. So I had just assumed you had all received them already. But I now realize that maybe that's not as long ago as I think it is.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I mean, we're still, Still on that. Less than a week. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that administrative update. Next on the agenda is approval of meeting minutes and discussion of rules. This is a special meeting of the board and I don't believe there were any meeting minutes circulated or any proposals to change the rules. So I think we're good there. I'll just double check. not seeing or hearing anything. And now we are at the end of the agenda. So yeah, thanks everybody. And so we just need to make a motion to adjourn at this point.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?