[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim Tirani?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre LaRue?
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: And then I believe Jamie Thompson is absent. And Mary Lee is absent. Mike Caldera present. So we do have a quorum. We have four members. All four members have either attended all sessions of this hearing or missed one and signed the mullet affidavit. So we have four. That's a quorum. Dennis, could you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 2920 23 governor Healy said in the law supplemental budget bill which among other things extends to temporary versions came to the open meeting like March 31st 2025. Typically this further extension last of the bodies can you hold the means remotely but a quorum of the public body physically present location and read adequate alternative access to remote weeks when it's not like any substance of changes that mean well that's in the expiration date of the temporary provisions are going to go into March 31st 2023 to March 31st 2025. We have 9.7 the following person in place. It's not going to go to a case in the 40 be that's 2023 that show one. If you need to make that the resumption of the duration of the issue. The idea feels we'll see the Davis companies for a comprehensive permit pursuant to that just show us chapter 40 be from a family 6 story apartment building located approximately 3.4 acres went into the fells way. This proposal will be developed in approximately 289 units to 278 units of multifamily housing and 11 townhomes with 73, 25% of the total units will be designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households. This hearing will discuss the draft decision and conditions.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, folks. So this is a long running hearing. It's been going since last November. The board has conducted a number of sessions. We've reviewed everything ranging from the architecture, the site plan to the civil engineering considerations, the traffic considerations that we've even reviewed the requested waivers, some proposed draft conditions. And so today is the planned closure of the hearing. We'll make an evaluation at some point if that needs to change, but the intention going into this meeting is to close the hearing today. And as Dennis mentioned, the focus will be review of the draft conditions. and the waivers. And at this point, I do not necessarily intend to take public comment. We did take public comment on the conditions and waivers in our last session of the hearing. If the discussion veers into territory where there is something met new or unexpected, that would be the circumstance in which we would reopen public comment. So yeah, that's the intention. see some some back and forth prior to the meeting. So there have been a couple of iteration cycles on the draft decision that we reviewed in our last meeting on Thursday. Thank you for the quick turnaround on those. So we'll be talking a little bit about that. I also the board also received some details regarding the open question on linkage. And so I do intend to have a discussion on that. We can discuss at that time if any of the open items merit additional time or things we can bottom out today. So yeah, that's my intention. I see we have multiple representatives for the applicant. So I'll just check in with Pat Noon to start. I think one of the first things we'll do is have Attorney Haverty go through the latest iteration of the decision and kind of talk through the changes that have been made and any open issues that aren't yet resolved by the lawyers involved. But before we do that, I'll check in with Pat just to see if there's anything else we should be discussing today or anything you want to lead off with.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you again for having us this evening. I do not have anything to add to the program that you just laid out for this evening, so. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Well, in that case, I will turn it over to Attorney Haberdee.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Mr. Chair, as discussed, the applicant has provided a number of additional comments and information to the draft decision that was discussed last week. Those comments and additional information were very helpful. I would say that the vast majority of the changes that were proposed are really very ministerial, correcting either omissions or mislabeling of things. A lot of consolidation, you know, this draft decision, you know, was born out of numerous prior decisions that are prepared. And at some point, things start getting repeated in multiple different areas. So there was some helpful consolidation. There are still a few areas in which I think the board asked you to propose changes. And what I would propose to do is just go through the draft decision and cover those changes. And as promised at the last meeting, I have also operated the waiver decisions at the end. So, we can go through those and I know linkage question is addressed in the waivers. So, I think, you know, if you want to, we can wait until we get to that point in the waivers to discuss that. So, I have nothing on the screen. Dennis, it may be helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: Sorry, I think my connection is a little unstable. Would you like someone to share?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Yes. If Dennis could put up the version that I sent just a little while ago, the mostly clean version. So I've got no outstanding issues on page one. On number 7 on page 2, we're just going to need to verify the dates, you know, when the hearing is closed, because we haven't really quite reached that point yet. Again, at number eight, there's a blank there for when the board deliberated. There may not actually be a formal deliberation process. If the board finishes its review of this decision while the public hearing is still open and then just closes the hearing and issues a decision, that is an appropriate way to proceed, and you would never actually go into a formal deliberation, and that's fine. On page 3, number 13, the applicant is just looking for confirmation with regards to the attendance of all the board members and who the eligible voters are. Page 5, number 21, I am still waiting for information from the applicant relating to what percentage of the site will be covered by impervious surface, and that should not say imperious. So if the applicant could provide that information, that would be helpful. On page, nothing on page 6. On page 7, we are waiting for the applicant to provide the revision dates for the cube 3 plans. On. Page 8, A5, we are waiting for the applicant to provide information regarding the heights of the proposed buildings. On A6, the applicant proposed a change to the draft condition that said that there'll be approximately 324 vehicle parking spaces. And I'm just questioning why the word approximately is in there. We should have an exact figure for that. On A7, the applicant has proposed additional language that states any increased or new waivers required on account of revisions to the approved plan to accommodate the conditions of this decision would essentially be accepted as insubstantial changes. I just want the board to be aware that that would mean that you're not really getting an opportunity to take a vote on those changes. But ultimately, if they are required on account of conditions of the board's decision, then that really shouldn't require a new approval process. So that should be fine.
[Mike Caldera]: On 8.8, the applicant has proposed- Attorney Haverty, it looks like the building commissioner had a-
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, I did have one comment about the EV stations. It's ultimately going to be the stretch energy code that's going to decide the number of them, unless you guys pick more than the stretch energy code required. I hate to lock it into a number and have the building code say it's a slightly different number.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So, Scott, what number is that?
[Scott Vandewalle]: It's 20, I believe the number is going to be 20% of the number of parking spaces. No, what number condition? Oh, you were just at it, just above this for the EV stations. Yeah, right there. A6. A6. It'll be subject ultimately to the stretch energy code and the building code review.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: All right, so this is not, providing a number of, I think there is somewhere else in the decision. I think it was like 66 electrical vehicle charging stations, but it's not in this condition.
[Scott Vandewalle]: So- Well, you could ask for an exact number of EV stations.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: No, no, I was asking for an exact number of parking spaces, total parking spaces. Okay, all right. Because they're saying approximately 324. Okay. And I don't know why it's approximately, there should be an exact number there.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Okay, that's fine. I just heard you say EV station. I thought, oh, maybe we're pinning that down. So, okay, thanks.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: A8, and Scott, you may want to review this one, because so my original draft gave the city 45 days to review the final plans and sign off on them. The applicant is proposing that that time period be shortened to 30 days. You know, it's usually a give and take on that question. I've seen some decisions where they've, you know, had it as 90 days. I know that developers generally, you know, want that time period to be shorter because time is money. So, it's really just a question of whether or not, you know, the city staff thinks that they can turn the review over in that time period.
[Scott Vandewalle]: The building codes is 30 days we shall respond. It doesn't say you shall have an approved permit within 30 days, just that we shall respond. If we respond within 30 days that we want to go out for review for a peer review or something like that, that'll certainly take more than 30 days to get through all of that process.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: There is a provision in here that if you send out for a peer review, then the time clock doesn't stop ticking until the consultant's fee has been fully funded.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Right. But I can't guarantee that an outside reviewer is going to crank it out in 30 days. We haven't reached out to anybody at this point to see what it'll take. So.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So that's, you know, that's a determination for the board to make as to, you know, what's the appropriate amount of time. Yep. So leaving that condition. B1, there was a suggestion from one of the board members for additional language, which I've added the applicant shall maintain records as required by the subsidizing agency relating to the location and occupancy of the affordable units for the project. I also had another question. This says that 73 of the units shall be affordable, but if the total number of units is 283, then my calculation is that it only requires 71 units to be affordable, rounded up from 70.75. So I just want to confirm that.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Yes, Senator Gallagher. Thank you Mister chair, just wanted to quickly clarify and I'll avoid jumping in because I know there are a lot of comments, but just to avoid any confusion, the number of units has not changed. It's still 289, 283 are in the multifamily building and six are in the townhome building.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, maybe I was misreading a change that you made because I thought elsewhere in here, this is 230. Okay, so we're going to have to revise 8-4 to make it clear that it's 289 total units consisting of 283 in the multifamily building and 6 townhouse rental units. So, I will make that note. Sorry, I misunderstood your suggested change there. In B2, there's a suggested revision from a board member as an affordable rental development. 100% of the units in the project shall meet the criteria for inclusion in the subsidized housing inventory maintained by EOHLC. B5, another suggested condition, the applicant shall provide a copy of the draft affordable fair housing marketing plan to the building commissioner and the office of planning and development and sustainability for review and comment two weeks prior to submittal to the subsidizing agency. The board acknowledges that the approval of the AFHMP is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidizing agency and that its review will be limited to providing comments on the draft plan. That takes us to C1. So here the applicant has requested a revision that would prohibit the commencement of vertical construction prior to compliance with all of the provisions of this section. Generally speaking, I know that boards liked to prevent commencement of any site work in construction until all of this other post-approval submittals have been complied with. I know that this site is a little different in that it's an already developed site. So we're not talking about opening up a previously undisturbed site. So there's less concern there, but I just wanted the board to be aware of that change. And then also in C1A, The applicant has proposed language that states any separate fee due at building permit issuance shall be reduced by any amounts paid by the applicant for technical reviews and inspections by outside experts hired by the building commissioner or the board here under. So, this provision is looking for an offset from their building permit fees for any peer review fees that are paid. And I presume that's for peer review fees for reviewing the final plans, not for any peer reviews that have occurred to date. Subsection C, again, is that 45 day period proposed to be reduced to 30 days. Subsection D, just note that the applicant has noted that their agreements to this condition is subject to its review by their landscape architect. I don't know that that's occurred yet. Subsection E, again, has the language regarding vertical construction and the reduction from 45 days to 30 days. on page 15 C2 subsection H. I guess I just wasn't really clear on why this was being changed. It's stated originally the applicant will be responsible for all applicable water and sewer system fees. And this just states the proposal is to change it to accept responsibility for all applicable water and sewer system fees. I'm not really sure how that changes the condition. Moving on. We're going to go a ways before the next one. E13 on page 21. The applicant has proposed a revision to this condition to state to the extent recommended by the applicant's LSP. I'm not really sure that that's appropriate here. The purpose of this testing condition was really just to confirm that the soil types in the areas of the stormwater management system are consistent with what has been presumed to be in place. I don't know that the applicant's LSP would even look at that as a question. So, I'm not sure that this proposed change is appropriate. On E14. There's a lot of language in here relating to the construction activities. The first proposed change is they're adding the word exterior construction activities. So I wanted the board to be aware of that. As currently drafted with that change, there would be no restriction on interior construction activities. So if the board wants to place some sort of restriction on that, then they would need to revise this. E16 is a proposal to add the phrase without appropriate temporary stabilization. I don't think that's necessary. It's the original condition. No building area shall be left in an open, unstabilized condition longer than 60 days. So if there's appropriate temporary stabilization, then it hasn't been left in an open, unstabilized condition. So there is an E21, the proposed deletion of neither snow nor sand may be placed in or adjacent to resource areas. And I presume the purpose of this deletion is that there are no resource areas within the project site. I'm not sure that that means we need to delete this or not. If there are no resource areas, then it's not applicable. So, it doesn't hurt to have it in there, but that's really for the board to decide. There are a number of proposed additional conditions that the applicant has provided beginning at E28. All rooftop equipment associated with the project shall be installed as shown on the approved plans. E29, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the City with respect to sidewalks, walkways, and publicly accessible parking spaces along Amaranth Avenue and Myrtle Street to be constructed on portions of the project site in accordance with this decision, which will provide a license to the public to utilize such areas. The use by members of the public of any such walkways internal to the project site shall be subject to the applicant's rules and regulations from time to time. F30, the applicant shall explore opportunities for incorporating public art into the project, e.g. murals, outdoor sculptures. The applicant shall review its proposals with the Medford Arts Council and document such review with the board prior to the implementation of any such elements within the project. In E31, upon the completion of the proposed Wellington Connector multi-use pathway contemplated along the former rail line immediately south of the project site, The applicant will permit future public access to the Wellington Connector in the southeast corner of the project site as shown on the approved plans. On page 24, F2, the applicant has proposed deleting signs and markings shall conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices, latest edition, and other applicable state or local requirements. I'm not clear on why this language is proposed to be stricken. It is a pretty standard condition. F3.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yes. You know, the engineering department does have a traffic engineer. Would that be left to his determination?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: It certainly could be. I just know that the MUTCD is sort of the standard for traffic signage, and that's, you know, a condition that every decision I issue, you know, that condition is in there.
[Scott Vandewalle]: be expected.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I've never seen an objection to it before.
[Scott Vandewalle]: Okay, just as long as you understand, you'll have to work through those details with the traffic engineer that the city has. If there's any questions.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: F3, the applicant has requested the board's approval include authorization for such shared parking pursuant to section 6.1.9 of the zoning ordinance and for such reduced number of parking spaces pursuant to section 6.1.10 of the zoning ordinance. I just want to bring that addition to the board's attention. The applicant has proposed deleting condition F7, which states the applicant shall maintain site distance at the entrance to the site consistent with AASHTO criteria. This is a safety question. I'm not sure why this provision is being deleted. So I would ask the applicant to address that. F11, the applicant has proposed deleting. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Medford to assess the feasibility of upgrading traffic signal equipment and providing new pedestrian signals at the intersection of Central Avenue and Spring Street. So this was a condition that was proposed by the board's peer review engineer. So the board should discuss this proposed deletion as well. F12, the applicant has proposed deleting language to install a new shelter equipped with appropriate amenities just south of the proposed Fellsway driveway. Again, this came from the peer review consultant. F13, the applicant shall, in coordination with the City of Medford, the applicant is proposed deleting to assess the feasibility of implementing traffic calming improvement and devices, such as curb extensions and slash or a raised intersection. They want to change that to simply state that the applicant shall, in coordination with the City of Medford, implement curb extensions and deleted and or raised intersections. Finally, F15, the applicant is proposed deleting. The applicant shall provide the City of Medford with a wayfinding signage plan, which shall be implemented by the applicant upon approval by the City of Medford. Again, this came from your peer review consultant, so wanted the board to be aware of this proposed deletion. Page 28, G6 through G10. The applicant is proposing to delete all of these conditions. And I believe that in a number of instances, it's because they are redundant with earlier provisions. Although I'm not sure that everything that's in here is covered in the earlier conditions. So I would want the opportunity to review that a little more closely to make sure that we are not deleting any information that is necessary to remain. H2, the applicant has proposed deleting the language with calculations to ensure the distribution system for the area has the necessary capacity to meet system demand required. So eliminating this doesn't really address the purpose of this condition, which is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity. H3, again, they're proposing to delete as redundant, and I would just want to make sure that it's actually contained elsewhere. This condition is technically a beneficial condition to the applicant in that it provides that if the fire department requires hydrant locations different than what's on the approved plans, the applicant can simply update the plans, show the new locations, and those modifications will be accepted as an insubstantial change. H5, the applicant is proposing to delete water utilities servicing the buildings in the project shall be installed and tested in accordance with applicable city requirements and protocols, except as may be waived herein. The applicant's proposing to delete that language, and I wanted an explanation as to why. H7, I just wanted information as to what size diameter water main is proposed. In section I, I-2 through I-5, again, it deals with wetland resource areas, which I'm presuming the applicant is deleting because there are no wetland resource areas. But again, it doesn't hurt to have them, you know, have this language still in the decision just as a safety measure. So, in what was originally I-7, as revised by the applicant, it would be I-3. The applicant is noting that their agreement to this condition is subject to further review by the applicant. I don't know whether that further review has occurred. Uh, and I, what was I 11 is now shown as I 7 again deals with the commencement of vertical construction rather than just the commencement of construction. So, the board needs to review that question. I did have a question because there's a bit of an inconsistency between this condition and the waivers. Regarding who exactly the applicant is requesting approve. The plan at the end of the process, whether they want the board to approve it as part of the comprehensive permit process, or whether they're going to get a plan approved by the community development board. Outside of the 40 B process, either approach. Is acceptable I just want a clarification on that. I don't believe that an A&R plan has yet been submitted for the board to review. So until the board sees that plan, they can't endorse it. G3, the applicant proposed adding language at the board's request. The applicant shall provide boards with copies of correspondence between the applicant and any federal, state or city official. My problem with that language is that the board is not going to be aware of when the applicant is engaging in correspondence with any federal state officials. So the board wouldn't be able to request to be copied on those other than through the imposition of this condition. J4, I had a question as to whether or not overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is allowed in the City of Medford. I see the applicant has stricken this language. I presume that means that overnight parking is allowed. But I would wait for the board to address that. So that's the end of the changes to the decision. So then I have also prepared the decision, the suggested decision on waivers. And again, as I had discussed at the last meeting, these are suggested waiver decisions. They are not an obligation for the board to agree with them. This is just what I saw as necessary for the project to move forward as proposed. I don't know if you wanna go through these One by one, it's gonna be a little bit redundant from the waivers that were reviewed last time, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Good question. So, okay, I'm just thinking through what we need to accomplish in this meeting. So I am gonna want a discussion with the applicant about some of your open questions, Attorney Haverty, in terms of the, changes to the proposed conditions because we're going to need to decide one way or the other on each of those. And then similarly, the board's ultimately going to have to be comfortable with any, especially any waivers that were kind of non-technical and not just implied by the plans that were approving or denying. So I think at some point we'll have to go through the highlights of the waivers at least, but maybe we should first focus on the conditions and just see if we can bottom out the, you know, the open items there. Does that sound reasonable to you, Attorney Haverty?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, that sounds fine.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. All right, great. Well, I know there was a lot that we just went through there. And I think it probably makes sense to just go through them one by one, unless the attorneys for the applicant have a better idea or a proposal. Okay, actually, I'm going to check in quickly with Member LaRue, and then I'll go to Attorney Tam next.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just a question about how we'll address the linkage issue.
[Mike Caldera]: We're going to need a discussion on linkage specifically that's currently only living in the waivers portion, and so I intend for us to have a focal discussion on that topic. But let's see if we can bottom out some of the simpler items first, and then we'll make that a focal topic. Sounds good. Thank you. OK, great. Attorney Tam, please go ahead.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that a lot of progress has been made. We feel very good about working with Attorney Haverty and with the board on your ultimate approval of a decision that the applicant and Davis Companies is very satisfied with and feels that can be constructed and successfully operated. And I appreciate Paul Haverty's very quick responsiveness to our, I guess, thorough comments. I would characterize, I'm not sure if it's that productive to spend the board's time on each of these items, which there are a number of them. Most of them are fairly technical and we think through a further discussion with Paul Haverty, we can probably resolve at least to his satisfaction and we can report back. Just stepping back, because we've also been working with staff and with Attorney Haverty on the question of linkage, we do think, and this is my effort to sort of short circuit, I guess, the question that's been raised. We do think that a continuance may be appropriate to resolve this and just make productive use of of the board's time this evening. We could certainly focus on the substantive issues that attorney have already raised, particularly with respect to, um, transportation and, uh, and and the transportation related questions, which are about a half dozen that he raises. And we can explain why we either modified or removed. But the other items I don't know if it's unless there's a specific question from a board member or anyone else. Um, we think we can address these in short order by a discussion with Attorney Haverty after this meeting. But this is all contingent on I guess this is unusual for an applicant, but we acknowledge that in discussions with Attorney Haverty and Director Hunt and Danielle and others, Dennis this morning, that there is a little bit more work to do to finalize this decision. And we don't want to be hasty. So we're prepared to consent to an appropriate continuation if the board deems that necessary. But if you want to put your head down, we're prepared to do that as well. I just offer this as a way to save time this evening.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you, Attorney Tam. I think that's really the question of the evening. I agree in a world where it's necessary and appropriate to continue some of these, especially these technical, the language on some of these technical waivers would be pretty easy to iron out offline. But in a world where the board's closing the hearing today, we need to vote on something. So, you know, If so one possibility would be maybe let's let's pull forward the linkage discussion and just see how far we get and then that might inform whether indeed a continuance is necessary and how we spend our time for the rest of the evening. Does that sound good to you?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Mr. Chairman, that makes sense to us. And we did, Pat Noon in particular did his homework at your request at the session last Thursday to prepare sort of an overall list of sort of the package of mitigation that on the Davis companies is prepared to entertain as part of this project. We've also had a discussion, and I think the question on linkage is not resolved to our satisfaction, to Director Hunt's satisfaction, and I won't speak for Paul Haverty. He can certainly, but I think that a lot of work has gone into that. We'd like to continue that discussion because I know Director Hunt has involved DPW and engineering And we think it's important to have a further conversation. We haven't had that opportunity yet. I know Pat Noon was trying to set that up for this week. So my conclusion, and this is Again, both Pat Noon and Mike Cantalupa and myself would love for the board to be satisfied and close this, but we don't want to be hasty. We want to have an opportunity to provide clarifications in the course of an open hearing to the extent necessary and not have that be a question of whether or not it amounts to substantive testimony. So because I think the DPW and Engineering's comments we just received this morning haven't had an opportunity to to engage with them that in and of itself led us to conclude that that a reasonable extension is appropriate understood thank you so there's a few things i just want to
[Mike Caldera]: of clarify to set the stage for this discussion. So there's, so first of all, the board did receive some of the back and forth correspondence regarding linkage for members of the public that didn't see the last hearing. Essentially, there is a question of whether this project is even subject to the the linkage portion of Medford's ordinance. And so the board, so I know the applicant discussed with the city the topic of whether the project is or isn't subject to a linkage payment obligation. And then, as Attorney Tam mentioned, we did also receive some details with estimates of some of the voluntary improvements that might qualify for linkage credits for the board's consideration. So there's a few. things I want to get out of the way and clarify. So first of all, whether or not this project is subject to linkage, whatever the board finds, that does not change the board's ability to then fully waive linkage or partially waive linkage. That's within the board's discretion. The board is passed with balancing the regional need for affordable housing with local concerns. And one of those local concerns is, in fact, infrastructure. And so there is a balance, and it's important that the board not take any action that would render the project uneconomic. And so the board is not required in the grant of a grant partial waiver for something that is subject to the linkage ordinance to ground the number of that waiver in a bottoms-up analysis of linkage credits that would otherwise be granted through the standard process for linkage so that the board can review the information at hand and try to get to a reasonable number considering these details of course it should be grounded in something meaningful but it the board doesn't need to get to a specific number derived from bottoms-up analysis. Keeping this all in mind, my thought as to how we should proceed and make the best use of everybody's time is first, I will attempt to summarize and then the applicant can certainly add to this the positions on whether this project is subject to linkage at all. then the board will, if a member chooses, will make a motion to find, one way or the other, the project is or isn't subject to linkage. That should, for the purposes of this hearing at least, settle the issue of whether it applies. And then, in the event that it does apply, we can have a discussion about whether the board has enough information to you know, propose a order to determine whether to grant a full or partial waiver of the linkage or if it really would benefit from these follow-up discussions. So that's how I'm currently thinking about it and planning to proceed. But I'll check back in with Attorney Tim in case there's anything you'd like to discuss before we go down that path.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to follow. If I understood your plan, you'd like the board to consider whether or not to apply the linkage fee by vote of the board this evening?
[Mike Caldera]: I see no reason to continue with there still being uncertainty in the air about whether the board believes under the Medford ordinance this project is or isn't subject to linkage. So I'm attempting to short circuit a potentially protracted discussion about that aspect simply by stating the positions and then having the board formally find one way or the other. Then everything else kind of can follow from there. And so the board's finding tonight doesn't preclude continuing it merely hones the focus to, is this a discussion we even need to be having, A, and then B, if it is, you know, what are the pertinent details? So I think that will kind of, whether we continue or not, help to get us closer to where we need to go. And I certainly am of the opinion that the very detailed written clarification from Goulston as to the applicant's position as well as my own reading of the ordinance should be sufficient to get the positions out there and for the board to find one way or the other. That's what we did in the other hearing where this was an issue under dispute.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Well, Mike, I can appreciate you wanting to resolve this. We do too. I do think that this is an issue that the board might consider getting input from council on.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so as chair, I've discussed this with council. The exact issue came up in a hearing mid last year and I had about an hour long conversation with them on this exact issue. So I'll just sort of state my my understanding, and then members of the board are welcome to form their own interpretations and opinions. I see member LaRue has his hand raised. Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. So I would You know, much as I would like to close everything out here tonight. I mean, I, I would love to kind of have a clean document and be able to see what, um, You know, the, the city and the applicant can come to agreement on in terms of at least how much, uh, You know, what's being invested in the project and, and so that we can consider, uh, in a very clean way, what it is we're voting on. And I think that given the fact that Attorney Tam just indicated he thought that there could be some agreement between the city and the applicant, I'd love to see what that looks like before voting on anything. I think last session we, Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): reiterated at least what I heard from board other board members and certainly where I stand is that I, you know, I would like to adopt the same approach that we took with the the prior Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : 40 be project that we we reviewed and it seemed like other board members were also in agreement with that so I don't know if you're concerned about the process, but I feel like we could handle that all together with a clean document and sort of do, do everything all at once, the conditions, the linkage, and, uh, you know, as a series of, of items.
[Mike Caldera]: So Andrew, just to clarify, are, are you of the opinion that the detailed breakdown that we already received is what would benefit from that discussion? Are you missing info that you need?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, my understanding is that there's still, I mean, discussion happening between the applicant and the city.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding, and I don't want to speak on anyone's behalf, but is that the discussion is really surrounding, so there is a list that the board now also received, the city received it earlier of 10 items with estimated costs that are potentially items for the board's consideration of granting any partial waiver of linkage. So to be more specific, The applicant's position is that this project is not subject to linkage. But if it were, that there are a collection of improvements that in totality more than qualify for a full waiver of linkage. And so I believe the intention if we were to grant a continuation would be mostly to see if the city and the applicant can align on which of those 10 items would or would not outside of the 40B process be considered as eligible for linkage waivers. and maybe also to have further discussion about whether the project is subject to linkage at all. But my expectation, which could be wrong, is that if we continue here, there's a chance we hear back that there's agreement amongst lawyers about whether the project is or isn't subject at all, and then there's agreement amongst the applicant and city staff about which items, if applicable at all, are subject or would be eligible for credits and whether the magnitudes are reasonable. So that's like the best case scenario. I'm a little worried that we're not really gonna advance most of that a whole lot between now and the next meeting. In particular, the legal theory is kind of, it's an interpretation thing. Either it does or it doesn't apply. And I think the argument for why it doesn't apply is, already well laid out. It's about as well laid out as it's going to be laid out. So either city legal agrees or they don't. And then in the case of the, I would anticipate hopefully that the continuation might drive a little bit of convergence in terms of the items that would otherwise be eligible for linkage credits. But I do think, you know, a number of these are pretty obvious, like the board has
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, can I just interrupt for a moment? I have not seen this list. And I don't know if all the other board members have. But as far as I know, all I've seen is there was a back and forth with the emails that was earlier today with some feedback. But I cannot find that document that's referenced in those emails.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, do you know if that attachment was sent to the board or maybe that's the problem.
[Andre Leroux]: I would like the opportunity to kind of let them kind of go at it, see if they can agree on the numbers and then be able to look at the list and make decisions as to what to give credits for or not after the city's kind of had their say.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other thoughts from the board?
[Mary Lee]: I tend to agree with Andre because I have not seen the list and I think it would be beneficial for my analysis to at least to see if the two parties can arrive at some type of a consensus and that would serve to the efficiency of our analysis and our decision-making.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Okay, Jim, I echo the same thoughts. It is the room I would feel more comfortable. Hearing what the city has to say. And then looking at the list and going from there.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, yeah, I don't know that if you have thoughts, but it seems like to go that route.
[Yvette Velez]: Um, that's fine. And, um, you know, I, cause I know the MBTA stuff was on their list and things of that nature and, um, you know, whether that's the city or the state conversations. And so, yes, more clarity on, on what that means, um, and how each party views these, these items. So I would agree with everybody.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Well, I'm not gonna. contradict other members of the board on that one. It sounds like we will need to give this more time. I still do not see a reason to continue this meeting without at least settling the board's position on whether linkage applies at all. I don't I don't really want to have a protracted discussion about this next time. It's laid out there. I think the board can just clarify for everyone's benefit whether it does or doesn't apply, and that will hone the discussion. So I'm just going to put out there the a summary of the applicant's position on this, and I will share my understanding, having already consulted with City Legal. And then if a member of the board would like to make a motion on this matter and find one way or the other, they can certainly do so. Yeah.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so Mike, are you saying just for us to make a decision as to whether or not a linkage applies in general, not any specific? Okay, I know.
[Mike Caldera]: Because the whole analysis is moot if the answer is no. And the reason, at least this portion of the reason for the requested continuous is moot if the answer is no.
[Mary Lee]: Okay, so then I agree with you if the broader question is to whether a general linkage applies or not. And I do agree with you. Not anything specific.
[Mike Caldera]: That's right. That's the issue I would like to put to rest tonight. Okay. There is a specific section of the Medford ordinance with respect to linkage fees. And so I'm just going to pull it back up. So the language at issue is from Chapter 94, section 10.1.4, exemptions. The following are not development impact projects and will not be subject to development impact project requirements. Item 3 states, any building, structure, substantial rehabilitation or addition that is proposed for subsidized or affordable homeowner or rental housing, which falls within the criteria established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Department of Housing and Urban Development and confirmed by vote of the Community Development Board. So outside of the 40B process, a project that has a building structure, involves a building structure, substantial rehabilitation or addition that is proposed for subsidized or affordable homeowner rental housing as defined by Massachusetts, is exempt from linkage and the Community Development Board in that circumstance would be the ones who confirm that. And so if I understand the applicant's position correctly, there's emphasis added on the word building. So because this is a building and it includes subsidized units, the building is exempt. And specifically, the explanation is, since all units, both market and affordable, in the building are being permitted in accordance with 40B, the exemption applies such that the project is not subject to the linkage fee. Linkage ordinance does not distinguish between affordable and market units. Instead, it specifies buildings and structures as proposed for affordable rental housing. Furthermore, unlike projects in which only the subsidized slash affordable units count towards the subsidized housing inventory maintained by the OHLC, by virtue of being a 25% affordable rental project permitted under 40B, all 289 of the project units will count towards the city's SHI eligible housing. So, That's my best understanding of the applicant's position. I have consulted with city lawyers on the matter. So first of all, as far as the Medford ordinance is concerned, the SHI isn't relevant. So Medford has its own definition of affordable, which is housing units set aside exclusively, affordable housing is housing units set aside exclusively for low or moderate income renters or buyers that remain affordable through long-term restrictions. So it's not at all, Medford's definition is not at all tethered to the Massachusetts definition. It is units set aside for low or moderate income renters or buyers that remain affordable. And so, I do not believe that this project in its totality is, and I'll just pull back up the language. This project is not in its totality proposed for subsidized or affordable homeowner rental housing. It's proposed for a combination of things. So I do not believe the Medford ordinance exempts the entire building or structure. This exemption only applies to buildings or structures which are proposed for that express purpose, not for multiple purposes. So that's my reading of the ordinance. And I did, like I mentioned, consult with city legal on this. So my recommendation, I think it is well with the spirit and intention of the ordinance to exclude the affordable units from the linkage calculation as we would for any other project. But I have not bought into the legal theory that the building itself, because it contains some units that are subsidized, is thus exempt under 10.1.4 item three. So just wanted to get that all out there. I'll check in with Attorney Tim. Um, I don't know if I misrepresented anything or if there's anything you'd like to add.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Oh, no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we frankly disagree, but we don't have to. I don't think we're going to resolve this issue. Certainly the board, uh, at your prerogative can make Any determination you want at this point, but I think you outlined our position view that the language of this exemption is clear. It doesn't make that distinction. It talks about buildings and structures. It talks about affordable housing. under the criteria established by the commonwealth. And that would be a 40 B affordable housing project. So I would just know for the benefit of the board, we're not interested in fighting about this. Didn't wanna have to litigate this this evening. I think we're having good discussions with staff to get essentially to the same result. And we pointed out that The mitigation associated with this project is pretty extensive in terms of cost. And we think that our costs will be confirmed. When the board has the opportunity to review after presumably the engineering and DPW make their own assessment, we think even if linkage applied, that the costs associated with the voluntary improvements and commitments that the Davis company is making far exceed any potential linkage payment. And so we'd like to allow that to, because I think to your point, the issue will be moved. And if that's confirmed by city staff and they make a recommendation on it, we're amenable to a condition or acknowledgement as to the application of linkage. But until then, we do have to, as you would understand, reserve our rights, because this is quite a significant number to apply. And I would just point out that in the home rule petition, when linkage was originally adopted by the city, and I'm sure you know this, it's been pointed out by staff as well, there is reference to one of the purposes being the creation of affordable housing. So I guess that's, you asked for my comment, that's my comment. I'll defer to the board in terms of how you want to proceed. We do remain hopeful that in further discussion with city staff, we can get to a comfort level where all of the mitigation that we've offered We can keep on the table in light of sort of a netting out with the potential for linkage, if that makes sense. But if linkage were to apply and no credit was given, we cannot maintain all of the mitigation. It would become an uneconomic situation. We defer to the board in terms of how you want to proceed, but we remain optimistic that in further consultation we will have an answer as to how staff views the commitments that we are prepared to make in terms of giving credit for potential linkage. And I understand your own view, and it's news to me that you know, that this has been reviewed, I understood that it would be under review.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, thank you. So, like I mentioned, I do think it would be helpful for those discussions for the board to just weigh in on this topic tonight. It does not, this is not the board asserting anything in terms of the amount of the payment, perhaps the payment, if it applies at all, should in fact be zero. The board can and will consider the improvements being made in that determination. I just don't want to head into the next meeting with that big open item looming over us. It sounds like the conversation is really more about the the improvements and mitigations themselves. So my recommendation to the board would be for a member to make a motion to find either that, well, to find one way or the other, either that Linkage does not apply to this project at all, as the applicant has suggested, or that linkage does apply to the 75% of units that are market rate. Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to make a determination that the market rate units of this project be subject to Medford's linkage ordinance, reserving the right to credit the applicant with the public improvements against that linkage fee.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second?
[Mary Lee]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: So, so Mary, I think for reasons of, uh, quorum, I can't count your second. Cause I think you may have missed two. Oh, okay.
[Mary Lee]: Sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Uh, do I have a, do I have a second?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I'll second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Uh, we're going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so that's the board's determination, but message heard on the desire to have additional discussions about the mitigations and the appropriate amount. I do see the value in continuing those discussions. And I also want to make sure members of the board receive the pertinent information for our own determination. As it stands today, the requested waiver is that entire section of the ordinance be waived. So perhaps the board will decide to do that. But I think that info will be helpful to us. All right, so now that we have that out of the way, Attorney Haverty, you think it makes sense for us to go through any of these items you called out tonight? Or would you rather just work offline with lawyers for the applicant and see how close we can get on the next iteration?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I think it may be better to help to work offline. I also know that the building commissioner has sent out a couple of emails during the hearing asking for his ability to provide some feedback on the conditions that impact the building department. So I think it would be helpful to take it offline and get those corrected and come back to the board with, you know, a new draft that, you know, has everything in order.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Sounds good to me. I just want to check in with members of the board if there's other items they wanted to talk about before we move on to some logistical consideration. All right. So as I understand it, the applicant is willing to grant a modest extension to continue this hearing in an effort to resolve some of these open items. And Dennis, that means we need to identify a date that's far enough into the future where those discussions can happen and progress and hopefully converge, where we don't lose additional members due to issues of quorum. So what do you recommend, Dennis? We currently have a regular meeting on the calendar on May 30. It sounds like we have a bunch to discuss there, so it might not make sense to have meetings there.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry. Alicia just came in, and I was expecting someone to come through the door, so I got a little startled. But sorry, apologies for that. We do have the 28th as a set continuation that we put in the original schedule. Do we? Yeah. Really? Yeah. When we did the original one, we had, well, let me double check, but hold on. I thought that was the date put in.
[Mike Caldera]: Give me, I wrote the letter. I'm pretty sure the last date in there was the 21st, but I could be wrong.
[Denis MacDougall]: I could have sworn. We talked about having the 28th as a continued date for just in case, like, Hmm. I don't know why that just, it seemed like, I could have sworn I saw it in a letter or an email. Maybe I just, I don't know. So that was, but if nobody else remembers that, then that is not.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the risk with the 28th is that it's right after a holiday weekend. I know, The city has reduced hours on Fridays. So it kind of reduces the turnaround time for this all to converge. So. Dennis?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Jim.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I did put that in my notes. And that's what I was alluding to with you, Dennis, that I'll be on duty. Maybe that was it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Jim was saying that he was gonna be called up. He wasn't gonna be available.
[Mike Caldera]: Maybe that was the 20 Maybe that was where the 28th came from was from those emails with Jim Yeah So Maybe we can continue this I Think this the safest option is to continue this to the 30th. I don't know if we have a
[Denis MacDougall]: how many cases we have and what that means for that meeting but it sounds like we have a few I mean that's the only issue is that we have a few that were continued from last month we have a few new ones and then we also have The other 40 be continued to that when it's sort of a placeholder.
[Mike Caldera]: That one's not going to hear testimony. That's going to be right. So staff provides an update and then we choose a new continuation date. Jim. Yeah.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I will be out and won't be back. I thought today that we talked about the 3rd of June.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm unavailable.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I think it was later than that because I know I'll be away. And I'll be back on the.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can do that. Yeah, otherwise for me. It would be the following week.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Dennis, my recommendation, we know we have a bunch of members of the board who are already planning to be here on the 30th. I think we should continue this matter to the 30th. We should come back. We lose Jim. We'll still have four. And then, yeah, we'll be a little suboptimal for the meeting in its totality, but we'll just try to be very efficient in how we use the time. I was starting to say, I think in terms of the recommended changes to the decision itself and the conditions and so on, I think we're really close. So I don't think we'll end up spending a lot of time on that in the meeting. So it's just really going to be any any waivers or any conditions that require the boards express input one way or the other, and then this subject of linkage. And I think we were pretty much settled. So my recommendation.
[Denis MacDougall]: The only thing I would say is just for the applicant, because I think I had told him the 28th when I was speaking to him earlier today. So that's why if I don't know their vision, I don't want to speak for them.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Mr. Chairman. Dennis's request. I think the 30th, to your suggestion, makes some sense. And we can have as many parties to the project team available. And I agree with you. My hope would be that this is a formality at that point, that you've had an opportunity to review a clean draft. And perhaps there's an issues list of questions for the board's consideration.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, wonderful. Yeah, I think we can do that. I'll certainly commit to having pre-read the clean draft. And yeah, we'll just try to be very efficient with our time. I think we're very close. This has been a cooperative hearing in general, so I'm not anticipating things dragging out or unexpected issues popping up.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: And Mr. Chairman, We did, I don't want to prolong this discussion this evening, but Pat Noon did prepare a quick summary. You had asked at the last session what the sort of totality of mitigation might look like. So we can, if you're interested in hearing that in summary in five minutes or less, we can show you that. If you're not, we can defer that and just share it with the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for bringing that up. So that's the unfortunate thing. I got that before the hearing, but I guess the rest of the board did not. So I've had a chance.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, that's on me. So when Alicia emailed it out to you, Mike, I thought it got emailed to everybody in that email. I sent it to you now.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: This is actually a variation of that. This is essentially a public benefits summary.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Yeah, right. So basically, I didn't want to put you on the spot and insist that we discuss that tonight. But if you think it would be worthwhile to at least summarize the mitigations here tonight, by all means, I think that would be helpful for the board, helpful for the public.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_13]: Well, the reason why I'd like to get on the record once more is just to remind the board and the public of the key public benefits, many of which have a direct or indirect cost. And I think it's important to highlight these before we depart this evening because of the position you've taken on the application of linkage. Because if linkage were to apply, as I pointed out, we cannot both provide for effectively a link in addition to the costs associated with it. So it has to be a compromise. So with your direction, we can provide just that quick summary? These aren't controversial views. It's just a summary of all the different commitments that have been made. And I would say that this is a fairly conservative estimate. Pat Noon has not included, I think, a lot of the soft costs that might be associated with these. But this is just a list of the commitments that we're prepared to undertake absent some surprisingly costly linkage payment.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, yes, sounds like a plan. So Dennis will make host and then we can go through that.
[Denis MacDougall]: You're all set.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Can everybody see my screen?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, great.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. So, yes, just to expand on Peter summary here. This was just a quick. Short 2 slide presentation prepared for tonight to summarize the benefits. This is actually as Peter referenced a variation of the document. that you received, Mayor, and that I believe is being referenced as being distributed, having been distributed during the hearing with a cost summary. Before getting into this, to just summarize where we sit with that, having met with Alicia and Danielle and Dennis, members of staff this morning, One of the outcomes of that meeting was for me to schedule a specific conversation with DPW staff, which I have done. I do have a conversation with them tomorrow at 2 p.m. I know that they had some comments on the cost summary, which we will discuss tomorrow. So I'll be able to get their feedback, take that under consideration. So that specific cost summary could be a document pending their feedback and information that I get from them. and the productive discussion that we are hopefully able to have. Diving into this slide, which is more of just an overall summary of project benefits as we see them, as we have gone through the hearing process with the board and with the public, starting with the existing site conditions and just reorienting everybody to what the site looks like now, 100 percent impervious. lot coverage and building coverage for the majority of the site. getting into what the site plan looks like with these list of project benefits. I will list them off quickly just to reiterate and review items that have been discussed previously or presented on previously throughout the process of the hearing or items that just generally may may be considered obvious but restating them for the fact that they are project benefits in our mind. So starting at the top, creating 73 new units of affordable housing is something that we are Um, you know, pleased to be able to do as a part of this project and bringing more affordable housing to the city with this site. And again, in referencing the previous slide with what the existing conditions of the site are. now proposing to construct new green and landscape areas on this impervious lot. We think will be an obvious added benefit not only to the site, but to the site conditions relative to stormwater management, Um, and, uh, overall, um, um, aesthetics of the site. Um, we are widening Myrtle Street and Emirates Avenue by pulling the curb line inwards, constructing new on street parking and new sidewalks. And, uh, as was referenced during the, um. uh, review of the draft conditions proposing to grant public parking and sidewalk easements on private property. A general point as the next bullet is the construction of the off-site I&I requirements, which we coordinated directly with DPW. and then getting into some of the proposed conditions that we are proposing to take on. The installation of the rectangular rapid flashing beacon at Myrtle Street and Fellsway is something that we will design and pursue with DCR. as well as the study and the optimization of signal timing at several Fellsway intersections as has been recommended by BETA. Within city streets under Medford jurisdiction, enhancing pedestrian safety through the curb extensions and closing off of the curb cut curb cuts at the intersection of Amaranth, Myrtle and Lawrence, a scope that has been discussed and was discussed at the previous hearing as a project benefit that members of the board and the public would like to see, something that we agree with as well. The complete mill and repaving of Amaranth Avenue as a part of the project scope, Constructing the publicly accessible landscape walkway, fitness area and playground on the site, which has been discussed and presented on, is a public benefit for the area. The creation of the future rail trail connection, which was described as a part of the review of the draft conditions how that would be handled in that document, but in general, as is depicted on the site plan here, something that we would coordinate with the city on how to make that accessible when the rail trail itself is completed. The replacing of the existing MBTA bus shelter in coordination with the MBTA to install a new shelter that has been, as has been previously discussed, is more amenitized than the existing shelter and can accommodate more passengers or potential passengers. The next item in coordination with Lyft and the city, the installation of a new blue bike station. We have shown in previous plans and presentations where we have proposed this to go. I have personally previewed the proposed locations with members of Lyft staff. that I have coordinated previous Blue Bike installations with and have gotten conceptual buy-in from them. certainly proposing to to design and pursue that as a part of the project. And then lastly, to the creation of new opportunities for public artwork on the site, which is something that, as was mentioned in the draft conditions that we would coordinate with the city with the Arts Council and preview with the board before installing, but certainly something that we can be strong in our effort to pursue and bring those public art elements into the site as a part of the construction of the project. So, as Peter mentioned, just to close this out, I just wanted to reiterate and remind everyone As a summary, as we've come to the end of the hearing process, that these are the project benefits that we believe we are bringing as a part of the creation and construction of this development. These are the two slides, as Attorney Tam mentioned, keeping it very brief, but just trying to leave everybody with this graphic and this understanding of our view of the project benefits.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and I just want to say there are a lot of benefits included in this project. As a member of the board, I appreciate this. And so I look forward to hearing updates from the discussions with the city. I think, as a member of the board, what I'm going to want to know is kind of wherever you land. And then also, you know, the board, its analysis is going to involve which of these benefits are mitigations that are on-site versus off-site, you know, necessary to accommodate the project versus kind of more goodwill opt-in. So there's a number of things here that are completely off the project site improvements that are going to clearly benefit the city. And so I certainly think there are items here that will, you know, the city will be amenable to include in that list.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, yeah, I look forward to hearing updates from those discussions.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I'll check in with the board. Does any member of the board have questions or comments on the presentation we just received? All right. Let's move on to logistics then. So I think we settled it. The intention is to continue this to the 30th, right? Okay. Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to May 30th at 6.30 p.m. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We'll take a roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. This matter is now continued. So thank you, folks. We will see you on the 30th.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: And Mike, we need to stay on, right? We need to stay on. Yeah, there's a couple of administrative items on the agenda.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What's next, Dennis? You're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. So yeah. And then send out a message that we're meeting tomorrow with DPW and engineering. So hopefully that'll sort out a lot of what your concerns were. And when I get the results from that, I'll let you all know. And I think that's really probably it in terms of administrative stuff. The only other thing is I do get meeting minutes from Rachel, but I realized I didn't send them out. So I got them like yesterday or earlier today. So. Apologies to Rachel for that, but she did work hard and turning around and but we're meeting next week. So we can have them for that meeting and I'll, but I'll get them to. Jamie as well as a recording of the meeting, so you can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Review. Okay, sound next week. Thank you. Yeah, and thank you Rachel.
[Mike Caldera]: I've really enjoyed the meeting minutes. They've been good. Um, so, okay. Uh, I think that's the last item on the agenda. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: The motion to adjourn for the second second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. We'll take a roll call. Andre. Hi, Gary. Jim.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Hi.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It will go back to Mary I. That I like I. All right, we are adjourned. Thanks.
[Yvette Velez]: Have a good night.