AI-generated transcript of City Council Planning and Permitting Committee 05-08-24

[Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, May 8th, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabase at edfordma.gov. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[SPEAKER_02]: President Bears. Present. Councilor Callahan.

[SPEAKER_09]: Present.

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Lemme. Present. Councilor Scarpello.

[Collins]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_02]: Uh, I suppose I called present.

[Collins]: Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. The action and discussion item for this meeting is paper 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. Um, so I will just quickly summarize our agenda for this meeting, and then I'll turn it over to our zoning consultant. Per the plan that we agreed upon at the last time we met with our zoning consultant in the planning and permitting committee, which I believe was just two weeks ago, we decided that we would use this next meeting to review the updated zoning memo. I understand that we have some draft text for updating the definitions in our zoning ordinance, and I want to just take that opportunity to restate at this point I don't think that we're talking about making any substantial changes to the definitions or the use table, but rather taking this opportunity to modernize, incorporate suggestions for city staff for making these definitions more legible, more useful. So we can review that, as well as the updated table of uses, which again, no substantive changes, just changing the formatting to be more useful, more readable. We're then going to switch over into discussing some zoning strategies that are recommended in the climate action and adaptation plan and seeing how those fit into our kind of work plan for the zoning overhaul overall. And go into what we are planning to do in our next meeting two weeks from now to move all of these projects forward. So with that, Barring any introductory comments from Councilors, I would love to hand it over to Paula. Thank you for being here.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Hello. Hi. Good afternoon. So I'm Paula Ramos-Martinez. I'm representing Emily Innes from Innes Associates. And I also have in my team Jimmy Rosha, he's our GIS specialist, and he's with us today. I'm going to share my screen. Let me see if you see everything.

[Collins]: If you could just, sorry, if you could put the microphone a little bit closer to your face.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Oh, yeah, sure.

[Collins]: There you go. Yes.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Um, so we are, uh, in this May 8th today, what we are mainly what we're going to do is to review a draft, um, text for the definitions. Um, we have some, uh, we have. Progress that the status of the zoning memorandum. We have a little of updates that were from last meeting. Um we have the table of uses only to, uh, agree that it's okay and that we can send out to the city council to be approved. We will discuss the definitions to be also sent to the city And we will also, as chair calling said, we are going to talk about some zoning strategies from the climate action and adaption plan. For next round, for the next meeting, we will introduce that we are working on inclusionary zoning, site plan review, accessory dwelling units, and we are working on how to do those mapping analysis that we need to do for further Yeah, for further discussions. On the zoning memorandum, the things that we have changed are these four points. As President Sackberg suggested, we have proposed to have two tables in which the first table is only preparing all the strategies for phase one, all the things that we need to address in phase one, and the second table, all the proposed changes that will take place in phase two and three. We also added a new table and that is still, at the moment it's empty, we need to fill it in with all the further studies that we think are needed for the zoning. And we also added a column for financing in case that we can register how many financing is needed for each of those studies. and if new grants are needed or new funding is needed. We also added for recommendation B-49, the word wall to window and roof gardens. We also added a new proposal that came from Councilor Leming, which is the proposal number B-34, which is to replace vacant and foreclosing properties ordinance with an ordinance in Chapter 10, zoning strategies, and that is something different. with an audience in Chapter 10. So these are the changes that we have adapted in the memorandum. And as well as if you have any new comments, we will adapt it to the next meeting and to change it into a new zoning memorandum number three that we will see because of the climate change, climate adaptation action plan. It will bring us with some of those changes. So those are the updates of the memorandum. This is the table of uses we presented last time it was presented by Emily. Nothing has changed with that. What we did, it was just to add the parking numbers and the logistics into the table of uses and parking regulations that you can see in the columns yellow on the right. And we also have in these tables on the uses that you see on the reddish background, those are the definitions that we are working on. So just to be aware that those words might change in the near future. But this is the only thing that we have done to the table of uses. Could I interrupt you for a moment, Paula? Yes.

[Collins]: Thank you. On the use table, just while we're looking at it, if you want, I'm going back to that slide. Thank you for flagging that the multiple dwelling class A and multiple dwelling class B. So it's my understanding that definition might change, and that's why it's highlighted. On the right-hand side, highlighted in yellow, we have the column PC and the column LC. Would you mind just quickly defining the column headers, what PC and LC stand for? It's parking code and then

[Ramos-Martinez]: I, um, if I remember correctly, it's logistic loading. Oh yeah. Sorry. Uh, loading codes. Uh, so at the moment, as I understand, these are in different tables. And so you have to go, uh, that are described by some letters and you have to go into another late letter to into another table to check the letter and see how many of them you can have. And so, um, we have, uh, placed them together instead of having this double-checking in other tables. That's why they are there.

[Collins]: So it's just putting it all in the same table so you don't have to be flipping through and trying to match. Exactly. Great. Thank you.

[Ramos-Martinez]: So then we have the definitions. What we want to make very clear is that what we want to get is a discussion in here. So not all the things that we have written or given, it's set in stone. Those can change. And if you have any comments, that's why we are here. We would love to have that dialogue happen today. What I wanted to do with this page is to show what are the things that we are going to find in the document. And so what we have always is we start with a term to be defined or a term to be clarified. And this is the new definition that we are going to bring. And that will be the term to define is the new definition. And a term to be clarified is a definition that you already have, but that needs to be, or something needs to be changed or added or adjusted. Then we have our suggested definition, and that is our proposal, and it always contains the source from which that definition has been taken. This suggested definition is what we want today to have a dialogue and check that if it's okay with all of you. We really want your feedback on it. Sometimes we will have, this is always if it's a term to be clarified, we will have the current definition and this is the existing that you already have in your zoning document. Um, sometimes we have standards for use, and this means that in your definition zoning, um, there should only be a definition and not be standards. So we want to remove those standards from the definition, and those standards should appear somewhere more, uh, in a better place in your zoning, but not on the definition. Definition is only what it is, and that's it. And then some of the definitions we have find that are a bit more complex, and that we want to bring, either we want to bring more options so we can really define it, or that we need to have more conversation in order to know exactly what we want from, what we want to get from those definitions. And what I'm going to do now is go one by one of these definitions and see, so I'm going to read them and I want to ask if there are any comments, adjustments or anything that you would like to add to each of them. So I'm going to start with replacing dwelling multiple class A and dwelling multiple class B with a single definition. Our suggested definition is dwelling multifamily, a building with three or more residential dwelling units or two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one residential dwelling unit in each building. This comes from the Mass General Law, Chapter 48, Section 1A. That it comes from the mass general law does not mean that we cannot adapt it to what we would like. What the mass general law is gives us a baseline, on which obviously we cannot defer too much from it. But it's a baseline. So if we want to define something, add something or take something out, that is possible. So are there any comments on this definition?

[Collins]: Thank you, Paul. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming, and then I think I saw a hand from Councilor Callahan.

[Leming]: Sorry, this is just a general question, and this could be addressed by either Danielle or Alicia. I just have a general question about the importance of really getting the definitions right, because it has been mentioned a few times. So what is some of the complications and the consequence of having unclear definitions that you all have seen in the past that mean that we need to really focusing on this right now and I'm asking that mainly just to get a just to get a better understanding myself of the process.

[Hunt]: So if I might, there are a number of different definitions here that we're bringing up for different reasons. Some have been, if something's vague, it then becomes a matter of interpretation by the building commissioner, and over time, different people define things differently, and that's a problem because we're not being consistent over the years, right? It's the whim of whoever is interpreting the zoning. Some of the definitions that are before you this evening are not currently uses in our use table and we think that it would make sense to be able to say where these things could be. So some of the things that you'll see on the list tonight, the one that keeps sticking in my head is doggie daycare. Is that a service? Is that a business? Is that a retail? It's not retail. It's like not what people typically consider a service. We have had building commissioners who consider a kennel, like an overnight storage of animals, to be a doggy daycare, to be that, even if they don't store overnight. And so where is that allowed in our zoning? If we want to be able to say where it's allowed in our zoning, then we need a definition. And another one, a good one, is coffee shops. Right now, a coffee shop only falls under the definition of restaurant. you may very well have places where you want to, in your community, allow coffee shops, but not full-blown restaurants. This is particularly happening where we have a building that's in a neighborhood that doesn't actually allow any commercial on the first floor, but we say it would be lovely to have a coffee shop there, but we actually don't want the bustle of a restaurant at that location. So right now, this is actually going on on Salem Street, there's a building, and they are technically requesting a variance to have a restaurant on the first floor. And we have all discussed the fact that what we really want there is a coffee shop. But that's not a definition that we have. So we literally can't give them that variance. So that's an example of why we're doing these. This one, the multiple dwelling, This is an example of where the wrong things have gotten combined into definitions. The difference between a class A and a class B multiple dwelling in Medford is whether it's three stories or four to six stories. Right, but actually your height belongs in your dimensional table and should be about your dimensional table should say how many heights or how many stories are allowed at this location or that location, not your definition. So the idea would be there would be one definition for multiple dwelling units. or multiple dwelling buildings. And then in our dimensional table, we'll say in this zone, they can go up to three stories, in this zone up to five, in this zone up to seven, right, whatever it is. Does that help sort of understand why we're going through this process?

[Leming]: Oh, absolutely. Just, you know, I was, I mean, having consistency across all of our zoning in terms of definitions is definitely something I understand, but I was just curious about what the real world consequences of having unclear definitions have been in the past. So thank you.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, if I may also, sometimes you want to define also things that you don't want to see, and that also has to be first defined in order that you can say this we don't want, or this is prohibited, or this is, you need to also define that as well. So sometimes they're just too broad in order to, and you want to have more definition so that you can say yes or no as well.

[Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, did I see a hand up from you? Nope. Great. Any other comments on councilors on? Sorry, did we even let you get into really the meat of the discussion on dwelling multifamily or cut you off at the beginning there?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Okay. Then I continue with the next one. The next one is the doggy daycare. And then the suggested definition will be a facility providing care for dogs on a daily basis without overnight accommodation. The facility may include indoor and outdoor areas for the dogs where they will be under supervision. For clarity, this definition does not include animal boarding facilities. Any comments or suggestions?

[Callahan]: Did we feel that it was discussed? Because I had questions about the first one. Sorry. Sorry, sorry.

[Ramos-Martinez]: We go back.

[Callahan]: For the multifamily dwelling, I visited a property in Medford that was two buildings, a single family and a two family on the same property. The owners lived in the single family, and they rented out both those two families. And according to this, that would not count as a multifamily dwelling because it says two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one residential dwelling unit in each building. Because one of those was a single family, that whole lot would not count as dwelling multifamily. Is that accurate?

[Hunt]: I made that's how I read it, that would be considered to. So, so two primary uses on one lot, a single family and a two family. And so there is an allowance in our zoning to allow two buildings on one lot. And I think that's actually also something that we need to clarify. We've gone back and forth on, should it be allowed at all? Should it be by special permit? Is it two or more buildings need a special permit? Because the housing authority buildings are all multiple buildings, one lot, and nobody actually thinks that's a bad idea there. So that what you're describing under this definition would not fall under it. And it actually raises the question if it should be three or more units or for should be four or more in Somerville, for example, a triple a three family building a triple decker is a separate definition from a two family or a multifamily. So they have places where one to three family houses are allowed, but multiple family dwellings are not allowed. So this is one of the things where we actually should be thinking about it. And we could be adding in a definition for triple-decker or three-family house, because that's actually different. We literally have houses that, if you drive by, look like a house, a very large house. And if you dig, there are four or six units. There's one up here that I'm actually, there are 15 meters on the side of it. And so I'm actually curious. I keep meaning to look it up. and see how many units are actually inside. So does that help? I mean, yeah. I'm wondering

[Evans]: with the Somerville definitions if they ended up changing it or not, because if we're relying on the state definition, which I was curious why they used multifamily. I thought we were trying to get away from family, and then they went ahead and wrote it into law family, instead of multiple dwelling. So here we are with family. So that's a good question, because if we're gonna use the state's definition, then we have to think of how we wanna treat that.

[Callahan]: So I guess if I could just finish up my question, I'm just curious, like, how much do we need to hash these out here in this meeting? Or is, like, before we officially agree on these definitions, like, at what point are we, like, sitting down and saying, okay, do we think that, you know, this is the definition that we want? Or do we want it to be more like some rules? Or do we, like, when is that appropriate time for us?

[Hunt]: Right. So there are a couple of stages here. This is a perfectly good stage to do that. There's also so things that are like I've been saying today I've been explaining this process to people, things that get the thumbs up today and that sounds pretty good will then be on the city council agenda next week, and then refer to the Community Development Board for review. And then it'll come back to the city council for a final public hearing. My recommendation is that we don't want to make major changes at that final city council meeting, because if it's a very significant change then technically it has to be re advertised and go back to the CD board right. Um, so at this meeting next week's meeting is fine The other thing that you should consider as a tool is in some cases and i'm not necessarily saying this one You might want to flag something and say we would like the planning boards the community development board's opinion on this one Um, and we would like to hear what they have to say on it. Um Because they will have to have a public hearing on it um This is one of these sort of subjective. I think I actually agree. I didn't pick up on that earlier for the word family, that we're trying to strike the word family. But dwelling like, I mean, unless in some case you wanted to put in parentheses something like formally known as multifamily, so that somebody who's confused would say, oh, OK, they're actively not using that word.

[Collins]: I would say, if I may, just to reinforce, I think that we have a lot of definitions to update. I know that some of these are still under review. I know that on some, there was a recommendation to run them by the building department for further input. I also know that we're trying to move things along efficiently. We're also trying to bundle things so that it's not a constant stream of zoning updates through the city council to the CDB. But that being said, we have a lot to work through. Any thoughts that can be at least preliminarily aired at this meeting, the sooner we can get out all of our discussion topics and work through them towards a resolution, the better. And I think I'm really glad that you flagged that, Planner Evans. I think that if we're, I'd like for us to be contemplating something like dwelling multi-household, even if there is an asterisk somewhere in the definition, because towards the goal of consistency, if we're trying to eradicate that elsewhere in our zoning language, I think we should be doing that from the top. President Bears?

[Bears]: Thank you. I just think, I don't think we should use the word dwelling or family. We should just say unit. And we should, I think we should just define it as one unit on a lot, two units on a lot, three units on a lot, four units on a lot, four plus maybe. I don't know. And just leave it at that. And then we avoid, yeah, like, you know, it's one unit, two units, three units, four units. There's three units on that lot. They'd fall under the three unit. I mean, they're probably going to end up in some, I don't think, I think they're still going to be outside of the zone and they're going to be a nonconforming Situation but that's how I would just do it because I think multi-unit solves the problem. I just the word dwelling Kind of a weird word. Um, maybe avoid dw words It just sounds funky. There's only like five or six of them in the English language. But I just think that solves that problem. And it also solves the problem that we have of like, I don't know what this means right now. Detached single family, attached single family. I mean, I kind of know what it means after having looked into it and worked on it for several years. Detached two family versus attached multiple dwelling class A, class B. I mean, the class A, class B, I think it might be worth maintaining a separate definition in the short term, because one of them is more, I think, targeted towards like what Alicia was talking about, the four to 10 and maybe occasionally 15 units, smaller buildings where you have a lot of units inside, like what looks to be a more standard residential structure. And then the class B is the less than six stories or 75 feet, which is kind of more the bigger Lumiere type thing. So, I mean, right now, I don't think it's particularly clear that that's what's happening, but we kind of have two single family definitions with the two family attack, and then like a two family and a three family, and then like a small multifamily and a big multifamily, but I think we could just change that in the, and maybe we don't do that right now to all of them, but we could at least do the multiple dwelling to say, x number of units on a lot. Maybe class A is 4 to 10, even though it doesn't really align with the definition, because the definition right now is, where is it? A building or structure containing three or more not over three stories in height is technically what class A is. And then the second one is three or more not containing not over six stories in height, which I think also but not including group of three or more attached single family dwellings. So that excludes the three family triple decker. Um, so I think it might be worth at least saying four or more units on a lot for, uh, but not over three stories in height and then four or more units in a lot, not over six stories in height, something like that in the short term. I think in the longterm we should just move away from everything that we have right now and kind of try to redefine it more in a, in a clearer way just to talk about how many units are present on a lot. And then I think at the larger levels, we'll end up in situations where that's not actually the best way to describe the structure as well, like I think we might want to talk about. I actually, in some sense, for large multi-unit buildings, I think we may be in a better place to talk about them in terms of stories versus in terms of units. Um, so I think that might be something maybe we look at down the road, but that might be a way to at least get us towards some more, uh, household type neutral and also clear, like plain English definition.

[Hunt]: Thank you. Um, what we are, proposing here is to take all the dimensional pieces out of the definition and put the dimensional pieces only in a dimensional table so that this would be multi-unit buildings with three or more residential units. And then if we wanted to control, is it a big building or a little building, we would say in this zone, you're allowed to have big buildings. And in that zone, you're allowed to have small buildings by having those things in the dimensional table, which we're not proposing to change today, but we definitely want to be changing.

[Bears]: Right. And if we did that though,

[Hunt]: would it break our current zoning? Right, so that's actually an interesting question, and we should just check before we forward it that it's not going to, because right now there are, that's why we brought our big books with us.

[Bears]: There's a use that's not defined.

[Hunt]: Right, and it's actually.

[Bears]: Three or more dwelling structure has a separate residential use and it's under, I'll leave it to you, but it's attached single family dwelling.

[Hunt]: Great. So when we look at the use table, which says which zones they're in, we have detached single family, attached single, this is what you were reading from, three or more dwelling structure, attached single families and three or more dwelling. That I think is supposed to be row houses.

[Bears]: I take it as just attached units, whether it's up and down or side to side.

[Hunt]: I don't think that's supposed to mean a triple-decker. Okay. Because their attached single-family dwelling is the header, and then there are two types, two dwellings or three or more.

[SPEAKER_13]: Right.

[Hunt]: So it's supposed to be row houses, and then detached two-family dwelling could only possibly mean two single-family houses on one property.

[Bears]: Right. That's really an interesting- That's why that definition under attached single family dwelling has me think that the two dwelling structure is also a two family stacked as well as a row house.

[Hunt]: I see what you're saying.

[Bears]: Otherwise there's no definition.

[Hunt]: So those definitions also really need to be fixed. And are you looking to see if we have those definitions in the book?

[SPEAKER_09]: Things aren't always what you think they are.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, exactly.

[SPEAKER_09]: I spent a long time looking for lot coverage, and it wasn't with all the other lot stuff. It was coverage of lots off by itself.

[Hunt]: Okay, so right, so the definitions are, I must use them a lot. Dwelling single-family attached, an attached residential building intended and designed to contain multiple, or to contain or containing one dwelling unit. The heck does that mean? An attached residential building intended and designed to contain one dwelling unit.

[Bears]: To me, that's a row house.

[Hunt]: Dwelling single family detached, a detached residential building intended and designed to contain one dwelling unit. So that's a single family house. Right. dwelling two family, a detached residential building intended and designed to contain two dwelling units. So that implies that that is, so I'm gonna just point out that that definition does not match what's in our use table, which is one of our problems.

[Bears]: And neither does the three family in the use table, which to me is only existing as an exception to the dwelling multiple definition in the clause after the work, but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings. I don't know. Like that's where that.

[Hunt]: So what it really seems to me is that the answer here is that we actually need to ask NSAssociates to take these definitions, this section of definitions from our current definition section and the words in the use table, and to come back with proposed language for each of them. And honestly, so that we don't mess things up, while we weren't really getting into what zones they're allowed in, match them to zones so that we update the use table with these names and the definitions at the same time. Otherwise, we'll break stuff in the meantime.

[Bears]: Exactly.

[Hunt]: Okay.

[Bears]: And the only question I have there is I think it's actually all pretty easy, which is that the single family, If you look at the use table, the single family detached is allowed basically everywhere except apartment 3A commercial and office. The two families are allowed in general residence plus apartments. Three families are allowed in apartments only. Detached two-family building, which I don't really understand what that is. That's one that confuses me. And then it looks like if it's under three stories but more than three units, but not a triple-decker, that's allowed in apartment one, apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one. And if it's more than three units, but between three and six stories, that's allowed in apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one.

[Callahan]: I found the detached two-unit is Philadelphia-style, because it doesn't share the walls.

[Bears]: Is it not actually? Like top?

[Hunt]: Top-bottom.

[Bears]: Is that detached?

[Hunt]: Sorry, I don't know what Philadelphia style means.

[Callahan]: Sorry, above and below. Philadelphia style just means there's one room of the first floor on the second. Anyway, that doesn't matter. But like above and below, I thought was detached. And duplex is attached.

[Ramos-Martinez]: So duplex doesn't necessarily have to be semi-detached. And that is that you share only one wall. So you can have, and for example, in Somerville, they have the semi-detached single And so you have this kind of duplex where it's one next to the other. And the other one is the duplex and the duplex can be one on top or one next to each other. But because it's one lot, duplex is meant to be detached because you are not sharing with any other. And so you can be duplex and be detached being one next to the other or one on top. Because you're in one lot. You're only one lot. On the same lot. Yeah, exactly. Otherwise, if you're in two, semi-detached.

[Bears]: Right. And this is where I think it just gets.

[Hunt]: I think what we want to propose in Medford, and I'm just spitballing, I can be argued with, is that we need a definition for single unit building, which would be the traditional single family house. We need a definition for a two unit building, do we, two unit dwelling, do we actually care whether they're side by side or on top of each other in this? And then a definition for three unit, and then a definition for multi unit, which would be four or more units.

[SPEAKER_03]: Right.

[Hunt]: And then we let the, we might have other design standards in some other piece of this or some other document that might talk about slanted roofs versus flat or whatever, but that would be, if you were saying in this zone, we wanna allow one unit, two unit, three unit buildings, in this zone, we wanna allow multi-unit buildings. I mean, would that be sufficient for our purposes?

[Bears]: I think in the interim, I think like to pass something that clarifies this issue without breaking the zoning, yes. And I think the only thing that comes in there is that there is on the four plus, and I guess arguably on the three plus right now, and that's where I think we should have a three. It's not clear to me exactly what the intent of the existing table of uses is when it comes to a three-unit building. Other than that, if for some reason there was a three-unit building that was over three stories or under six stories, that it wouldn't be allowed in an apartment one district. So that's the only thing I think where there's a potential conflict that comes in is if we do a four-plus definition, it looks like it would need to be split between something that's four-plus and under three stories and four-plus and over three stories so that between three and six stories, so that that second grouping wasn't in the apartment one district. Just if we're not actually trying to change that right now, if we're trying to correct an issue, but not trying to change the policy of what's allowed where.

[Hunt]: I was trying to think. We don't have any apartment three districts currently in the city of Medford. I think there's one apartment two district. I'd like to actually check that, because that might simplify this whole thing. And the other is that we could then just confirm that the dimensional table actually, it's in here for reference, I think. It is in here for reference, but there were no changes proposed to it. But the, I was looking at it today. Please don't get me started on the dimensional table.

[Collins]: While we're looking, I just want to recognize Attorney Silverstein who might be able to chime in on this topic.

[Silverstein]: Oh, thank you, Councilor Collins. I just wanted to make the point back to the discussion about detached versus attached. that there is a definition in the current ordinance for building detached, which is a principal building, which is substantially separated by yards or courts from any other principal structure. So I think just to clarify the question about what a two-unit dwelling detached would be, I think it would be two-unit building, whether it's one over one or one next to one, where there's some other principal structure on the site, whether it's another two-unit or single-unit or commercial structure on the site.

[Callahan]: might I suggest that we go through all these other terms that are maybe a little bit, require a little bit less discussion and see if we can get through some, and then we can come back to this, you know, multi-unit definition, which may require more discussion.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, also to say that if we have a lot of questions about one of these definitions, we can come back next time. It doesn't have to be passed today. and so that we can present with a lot more information. I think that all these discussions are very, very interesting. And yeah, our goal would be not to break everything in the process. So if we have a lot of comments, then this is taken out from it, from this stack at the moment, and we will come back next time with it so that we don't have to pass anything today.

[Collins]: Yeah, I also just want to note, you know, I know that there's many other definitions on this document today that have research outstanding that your team is still looking into that we're waiting for feedback on. Before we move on to the next one, I just want to pause, I know that we might have been like hot on the trail of a couple thoughts to follow up on, I'm happy to give this a couple more minutes. I do feel fairly confident this is one of the more complicated ones on our document today. I think that this discussion will take up the bulk of our time, regardless of if it's at the beginning or the end, but I'm happy to defer to the enthusiasm of this body. If we come back to it, go for it.

[Bears]: I just think on this one, we're pulling a thread, and it's like a thread in a definition that's now a thread in the use table that's going to end up being a thread in the dimensional table. And I almost wonder if it makes more sense for us to not fix the definition and just as part of this process. Basically, I think we're just going to end up creating two work buckets, which is like we're going to figure out a better way to say what we're already doing. And that's going to take a bunch of working time. And then we're going to change it again. to what we want it to be. And I just wonder if it might be better to just do the second part.

[Hunt]: I'm actually was thinking similarly, but not exactly. What if we add in a bunch of definitions, maybe this coming week, or maybe in a few weeks, and then later remove the old definitions? Does that make sense? So the idea being we're putting a bunch of definitions, as you'll see, into our definition section that will not be in the use table. In this later effort, we will add them into our use table in appropriate places. We might realign maps and stuff like that. So the idea would be to like create some definitions before we start using them. So. And I'm not sure, we still need, I think we're right though, we need them to come back with several definitions and it's not just the multi-dwelling, multi-unit that needs it.

[Bears]: I'm not opposed to it, I just would not want to also create a situation where they're not sure which, you know, which definition applies to which use of dimensional requirement. Right. But I don't, you know. But in any case, I just wanted to quickly also ask a process question. I'm fine. We can kind of circle back to this. Maybe we'll just rest on and go through some of the easier definitions and our brains will work better, at least mine. is the idea tonight to, so I remember we were talking about basically a few things. We wanted to do definite, basically the first bucket of work was definitions, a site plan review, update to level site plan review language, and then some updates to the use table. In terms of what we're talking about tonight is the intention to report out from here to the regular council for next week's meeting some of those definitions and some of the use table changes so that that can start going to CD board. Is that kind of where we're, Is that where we're at?

[Collins]: I am coming into the meeting with kind of framing a similar question in my mind, because it's my impression that we have parts of this first bucket that are easily reportable and then others that are still not pending, but there's like one or two small steps that still need to be made. Like it's my understanding, for example, that the table of uses is updated, things have been swapped in, that's good to go. The definitions, I think some of these are easy, some of them are not, some of them are just waiting for feedback on, so that's kind of half and half. The GIS zoning map is something that I think could possibly also be part of that first packet, and I'm not sure the status on that, so I think it's a question of do we want to, do we wanna pass something through the council, CD back to the council, that then kind of has a second half that's a couple weeks behind it, or should we? have this discussion and wait until we can package all of the definitions together with the table of uses, maybe with site plan review, if that's ready in a couple of weeks, and the GIS zoning map. I think one of our earlier conversations was around CDB capacity for not trying to load the schedule with multiple meetings. And that is kind of, to me, that's part of the decision on my mind.

[Bears]: And just to clarify as well, maybe it's the clerk or Alicia or Danielle or all of you really. So let's say we went with the second option and we said, we're not going to report anything out tonight. We're going to have a meeting on the 22nd. Hopefully, we'll have the actual draft ordinance language for everything relatively in a place. And maybe Scott will have had a chance to take a look at some of it. If we were to port that out of here, then it'd be in council on the 28th, then we'd refer out to community development board. It's 14 days that it has to be advertised for CD board and then another 14 days for the council, right?

[Hunt]: They can be advertised in parallel. And that's what we were doing to simplify things before. So we would produce one ad that lists both dates.

[Bears]: And so could we have an ad that goes out that the Community Development Board would consider it at some point in June, and then we could consider it at our June 25th meeting? Is that enough time if we were to refer it to Community Development Board on May 28th?

[Hunt]: When we knew things were coming, we actually placed the ad before you literally referred it because we knew that so when it's going to the city council, you don't have it at that point, right? When it's put on that agenda, it's a required referral. So we know, oh, it's been submitted to the city council for their agenda. They have no choice. They must legally refer it. So we've gone ahead and placed the advertisement in advance in order to move things through more quickly. So if we together agreed on the dates that worked, we certainly could get the ads out before the actual referral. And I think Daniel's looking at our schedule for CD board meetings. Yeah. Do you know when are our meetings?

[Evans]: 5th and the 26th in June.

[Hunt]: Right, so it would have to go on the CD board meeting of the 5th to come back here. So if you referred it out, if we knew you were going to refer it out the 28th, we would just do the math and we would just advertise it. Okay. Um. because the other option is the 14th, so you meet the 14th and the 28th.

[Bears]: Sorry, of May?

[Hunt]: Of May.

[Bears]: Yes. So the other option would be try to get some stuff out the door tonight, but I think that we might be better off personally. Going through these definitions, saying which ones we're comfortable with just as a checkbox, coming back in two weeks with some edits to the definitions, hopefully having the site plan review framework draft also in two weeks, maybe even the GIS zoning map. And then if we have the definitions, we probably also have the use table changes. So then we could do that all at once.

[SPEAKER_03]: Too small.

[Hunt]: Yeah, the one thing we were just sort of thinking about is we have been sending these memos and stuff to the CD board so that nothing should be a surprise. But it is easier to think about a smaller group and then get another smaller group rather than getting like three hours worth, you know, three hours meetings worth of materials all in one night. The board is meeting both nights anyhow. So right.

[Bears]: The both nights being the 5th and the 26th of June.

[Hunt]: And right. If you referred it out the 15th, could we even get it on there any earlier? You know, if they were referred it at the 14th, the first. Oh, actually the first CD board meeting after your 14th meeting is the 15th of May. So no, we wouldn't get it. We can't because we don't have a legal amount. So our next CD board meeting is the June 5th meeting anyhow, right? So it doesn't matter. So it doesn't matter. Both packets would show up at the same meeting anyhow on June 5th.

[Bears]: And if they were to want to the 26th, we could. either open or re-advertise for our July meeting.

[Hunt]: Right, you can always open the hearing and then continue it.

[Bears]: All right, yeah. Okay, I think that's the way to go, personally.

[Collins]: Packager? Yeah. I agree. I mean, I certainly am very sympathetic to not wanting to deliver a gigantic packet for review all in one meeting. At the same time, I think, also thinking about keeping this coherent for residents that are following along in this process, I like the idea of getting through the definitions, even if it takes a couple of meetings, and then updating the definitions. I think it'd be an overreach to say in one fell swoop, but doing that in one meeting as opposed to two, along with the use, the GIS, the site plan review. And that keeps us with our goal of getting those pieces dispensed with prior to the end of the fiscal year. And I think it would be a great start to hit that, to do that as one package. Councilor Callahan, I think I saw your hand go up. In that case, I would recommend that maybe we rest on the, for now, dwelling multifamily definition, since we're going to, I think, it'd be advantageous to get some proposals back from Innes Associates in two weeks based on this discussion. I think we should come back to this at the end of the meeting, but for now, I would recommend that we put a pin in this, work our way through some of these other definitions, enjoy the ones that are a little bit simpler and then maybe come back at the end of the meeting to this and any other definitions that are a little bit stickier and figure out exactly what we want to request of the consultant in terms of our next steps for reviewing this in two weeks. How's that sound? Great. Let's go to doggie daycare. Yes. I'm sorry before. I'm sorry to cut you off. Attorney Silverstein, is your hand up for before or do you have a comment?

[Silverstein]: Oh, I'm sorry, that was just from before. I'll take it then. Please go ahead.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes.

[Silverstein]: Sorry, that was just from before. Great, thank you.

[Ramos-Martinez]: The dog care will be a facility providing care for dogs on a daily basis without overnight accommodation. The facility may include indoor and outdoor areas for the dogs where they will be under supervision. For clarity, this definition does not include animal boarding facilities.

[Collins]: Any questions? Thank you. Any additional context before we go to comments from councillors? Councilor Callahan.

[Callahan]: Just an amusing anecdote. As I was canvassing, I passed by a van, and inside that van, they were washing dogs. It's like mobile doggie daycare. It's so weird.

[Collins]: It's not the definition. Never mind. But we could change that tonight. President Bears, go ahead.

[Bears]: We have an interesting choice as to be fun or serious with this definition. Doggy or dog. I don't really have a position.

[Collins]: I certainly don't have a position.

[Leming]: Canine daycare perhaps.

[Hunt]: Zoning is boring. I like it if we can laugh sometimes.

[Callahan]: I will say, I believe that the colloquial is doggie daycare and not dog daycare. I think people say doggie daycare, so I would leave it as doggie because that's what people say.

[Leming]: Canine care facility.

[SPEAKER_13]: Absolutely not, Zito. We can go with the doggie then.

[Collins]: And I understand that this is one of those terms that did not have a definition, so we're imposing one for the first time. Yes. Great, thank you. I don't have any questions on this one. Any further questions from fellow councilors? Great, and this will remain dog daycare unless there is a motion to change it to doggy daycare, because dog daycare is what is in the suggestion. So I leave it to you, my colleagues. Moving on, quickly.

[Leming]: Motion to change it to doggy daycare.

[Ramos-Martinez]: We changed to doggie. That's perfectly fine.

[Collins]: Or I guess I'm sorry, that doesn't need to be a motion. I don't believe that has to be a motion. Okay, great.

[SPEAKER_13]: I rescind my motion.

[Collins]: Great. Let's move along to number three. Thank you.

[Ramos-Martinez]: So this is one of the next definitions that are still under review because it's too broad and we really want to find a more specific for all of this. So this we will come back with the eating establishment, cafe, coffee shop, drive-in, eating places becomes eating place drive-through. This we will come back with more information.

[Bears]: The second... If I could just jump in on that really quickly. In the definitions, it is eating place drive-thru already, so that may have just been... Is it still drive-in eating place in the use table?

[Hunt]: So in site plan review, it's listed as, right, no, but which term is used? So I think the term is inconsistent in that in the table of uses.

[Bears]: I just found it. It's a eating place without drive-thru, eating place with drive-thru in the use table. It is eating place and then eating place drive-thru in the definitions.

[Hunt]: We'll also need to change it in site plan review. One of the ones that are required for site plan review besides this, like if it's too big, it needs to have a site plan review. If this says drive in eating places, and I think that may have in fact referred to when we had drive in theaters here. So, but if we want drive through eating places to have site plan review, we'll need to change that section as well. Because that's how we've been applying it.

[Bears]: Got it. Yeah, and it definitely makes sense to add a cafe, coffee shop definition.

[SPEAKER_13]: 11.7.2, if you need it.

[Bears]: If you haven't done the research on it yet, totally understand. Is there a terminology that is consistent, like eating place, eating establishment?

[Hunt]: Do you mean among other community, other zoning, not ours?

[Bears]: Or in the state law.

[Hunt]: We'll look into it.

[Bears]: I mean, it does. They all seem a little convoluted.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, we will search it and come back with that.

[SPEAKER_04]: Cool. Thank you.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Another one that is, and this is a bit complex, is household. And then another thing is replace family with household, but the definition of household itself. And in this one, for example, we want to bring different definitions because each of them have add different color to the definition and we want you to tell us also and comment what is exactly that you want by this definition because it can be that has the housekeeping unit, it can be multi-tenant, so we want to bring forward different definitions so you can tell us better what is exactly that you're looking in this definition. because it's a bit too complex.

[Bears]: I think that's worth discussing. Now, we had a lot of discussions about this when we did the recodification, and I believe where we landed on that, most of those discussions, I think Councilor Scarpelli and I were the only ones here for. The final vote was that the consanguinity blood relation stuff is totally out the window. We can't do that. That's illegal. And we wanted to define household, which I think the definition in here does meet the intent, which is everybody who lives in a single housing unit. That's a household. And I guess what I'm hearing you say is, A, if we want to rehash that whole argument, we had like three meetings on that argument. I think it might be worth looking at the meeting reports from those meetings to see why we landed where we landed and what we voted on for specific motions. But is what you're saying that we need a definition of both because there's elements of state law? Is there something outside of our zoning that would require us to have a separate definition for each of those terms?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Uh, not as specifically. So if you want, it's, it's a bit of depending, for example, in Toronto, they are going to pass, and I'm not saying that this is Toronto, but it's, they are trying to do something with affordability housing. And that is to put in a definition of multi-tenant that is different from household because that are multi incomes and each one of them, uh, it's like a, student housing or something like that, if it's something that is interesting for our zoning or if it's not and we are only looking for household, for example.

[Hunt]: And I think that one of the things that we have been hearing is, well, Medford got rid of the rule of how many people are allowed to live together in a unit. So now we can rent all these bedrooms out to separate people. And it doesn't matter because we could put seven unrelated adults in this building. And I think what we were trying to get at is we are not trying to define what a household is like if you want to um and there are some places that define it as um a housekeeping unit meaning do you cook together do you share food bills do you like share bills and do you consider yourselves together a household versus you are unrelated strangers who do not even know each other because your landlord has rented out each of the bedrooms separately to each of you and how that sort of interplays in the community. It's something that there are people who have been building houses particularly designed to do that. And I think that that's an interesting question. It's more like a boarding house. We have a definition of a boarding house. If somebody wants to build a house with six bedrooms, each with their own bathroom, with a central kitchen, In 10, 30 years ago, that was a boarding house, and it was allowed under certain conditions and had different regulations on it. So I think that's sort of what we want to be, as opposed to, we're a group of six people who have decided that we want to live together communally. Like that, I feel like the city council's like, well, why should we say no to that? That's their right to do that. That's perfectly fine. They also would never consider that a boarding house, right? That's people setting up housekeeping together. And do we care? Because it is, we are. And I think it might actually be an interesting question to raise to the public. Some of the houses have been built. People are living there. Other than you don't like how many cars they have, please don't tell me that that's your objection. I don't care. Any other objections, right? Is it actually a problem in the community because there are eight people living there rather than a family with a couple of kids? You know, how is that, why does, how does that impact the neighbors? You know?

[Bears]: And I guess, let's just guess, I guess, you know, what's the question we're trying to solve for? And do we do that by defining the people or the structure? Right. What's the better way to to go after that? I just think when we start, I think it's just really hard to enforce housekeeping unit. I don't know how. What if the landlord says, hey, everybody, tell them all you want to live together, which they will do. If I'm a landlord who built a structure and now we've regulated that structure to say you can't do what it was designed for, then there's going to be an incentive for them to lie.

[Collins]: I mean, it also strikes me, and I apologize for cutting you off, but on the same thread, I think one way to look into this is like, when is the question coming up? And I know what I often hear is people having a legitimate concern about, safety when it comes to number of people in a house. You know, there were those very high profile tragedies like maybe a decade ago at this point about overcrowded housing in student areas. Obviously, we don't want to, I don't think that these rules are widely abused, but we don't want to create loopholes where people feel there is an invitation to as many people as want can live in this house and people are sleeping in attics. Obviously, that's not the intent. But I think like maybe one way of asking this question, it's like, where is this coming up in City Hall? Like, when is this question coming to us? And from there, is it the number of occupants that we ought to try to define and then regulate because that regulation is being negotiated or is it the size of the building?

[Bears]: or even the, I mean, I don't know, if we can, by zoning, regulate what you were talking about, like the separate bathrooms per bedroom. I don't know. I have more questions, but I just, if Councilor Cohen's had any.

[Callahan]: I was just gonna say, for what you're talking about, which is housekeeping, in the non-housekeeping example, do they each pay the landlord individually rent? Because that's another way to sort of define it, is to say, Are these people all paying rent as a unit, or is the landlord requiring, like, are these people who don't cooperate, and therefore they each pay separate rent to the landlord? That's a little bit more easy to define than housekeeping.

[Hunt]: Right, and that one's easy to prove. My it's coming up that people are expressing concerns before it happens Um, and I will actually so the overcrowdedness when we had those meetings back Um a couple years ago and talked about remote changing this definition One of the things we said very definitively is those are health department issues, right? If a place is overcrowded And and it's not safe. That's a health department issue. That's not a matter of zoning And the health department would handle it right now. It's more likely happening because it's actually, you know, we have a a family that lives here and then a family that they know or maybe they're related to comes from another country and has nowhere to live, the immigrant families, and they stay together. And now that building is really overcrowded with people. That's not actually, like that's a health department issue. That is something that the health department is seeing in Medford. And it's a very difficult issue because if you evict them, they have nowhere to go. Is it safer for them to be living there? And in those cases, they are families, right? It's it's very rare that they're like strangers. It's completely not the landlord doing it. I think from a zoning perspective, we were more concerned with. The landlord is doing it to the tenants. And that's like, in my mind, a place for the city should be protecting is the is the landlord doing this to the tenants. And is there is there somebody who's getting rich off of the fact that we changed our zoning to be accommodating and to be under, like, I guess, accommodating two different living styles, which we're very open to. And now instead of that, the unintended consequence is that a landlord is making a whole heck of a lot of money. And the people who are living there are actually not happy with the situation. There is a different So I will say that there was a concern about a particular building in Medford, a single family, and the thought was that it was being rented like Airbnb, the different bedrooms. And so one of the things the building inspector went, he asked, he talked to the person who lived there who said that they were the owner, their parents owned the property, which was sufficient. but asked if he could look around. And when he looked around, he said to me, what I looked for, was it obvious that there were individual locks on the bedroom doors? That's a big sign that the people in that those units don't trust each other. He's like, and there were no signs of like locked bedroom doors. The bedroom doors were open. There were no locks on the doors that could have been locked. He's like, that's why I didn't. He's like, when the guy said to me, these are my roommates. He's like, that's that's legit. We allow that. Did you have something you wanted to add? to it, Danielle?

[Collins]: I think that's a really helpful illustration of some of what we're talking around here. What's on my mind after that kind of example, and I'm trying to think of how to phrase this, because I think it's It's widely known, I care a lot about tenant protections. But I'm wondering if there's some parallel between overcrowding not being what we're solving for in zoning and that type, obviously we're trying not to create zoning definitions that invite in bad behavior or things to take advantage of. But in the same way, I don't want to overcorrect for problems that are also shouldn't be adjudicated through zoning, but should be adjudicated through a supportive service that City Hall offers, whether it's Board of Health or the Housing Planner or the multilingual support line. Do you know what I mean?

[Hunt]: Because there is a website called Split Spot that facilitates landlords renting just rooms in a single family house, for example. So we know there's a market out there. Danielle just told me that she looked up that there are a couple of Medford single family houses listed on there. So they are trying to separately rent out the bedrooms on that. And I think the question is, how do we, how much do we care? And what is the, you know, if somebody is chosen to use this website and chooses to live there, should we tell them that they can't? On the other hand, how does that impact our community?

[Callahan]: Councilor Callahan. I will say this issue is very important to me as someone who has lived in intentional communities for almost my entire life and had difficulty being able to live with other people, being afraid that the landlord will discover that in a four bedroom house, the four of us are unrelated and therefore we're going to be kicked out. I think there's a lot of fear among tenants. And yet I also think that the idea of being forced to live with other people that I don't know is horrible. So to me, what you're surfacing here is exactly has been a lot of my life experience. And so to me, this is an extremely important issue. And I really like the way that you're thinking about the things that matter are not the number of people, which is a health department issue, but the things that matter are, do the tenants want to live this way? Or is the landlord forcing them to live this way? So I very much appreciate this difference. But whether we define it using housekeeping or define it using separate rents or define it, you know, the way that we determine it, I think can be massaged. But to me, those are the two important. That is the important difference between the two is like, is this something that tenants are choosing? And yes, they are fine having, you know, one extra person, or if somebody there has a young child, they're fine with it? Or are these people who are really being forced to live together by the landlord? So I would want to be able to zone. It doesn't mean that we're saying it can't happen. It just means we can zone them and have an awareness of what's happening.

[Hunt]: So I think we had to actually put this forward as one that's under review. I think, Paula, this is useful.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah, it's very useful. It's one of the things that I also wanted to have more clarified. So this is a great discussion. So we can continue to work on it. Thank you.

[Hunt]: And I will just add that if there's anybody of the Council or listening who has seen definitions that they like and would like us to consider, feel free to send them along. You know, the Innes Associates will do research on this and come up with language, but if you have seen something that you like, please don't hesitate to tell us that.

[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.

[Leming]: Don't wanna have you all repeat what you just said, but just kind of a basic question about this. I think it was one of you might've told me about that landlord in Somerville who just kind of kept on renting, like stuffing tenants into the same place and then charging them a thousand a month for it. And that just kept adding up. So the two questions are, how often do you see things like that happening? just in your positions and what can this definition do practically to help you prevent that from happening in the future?

[Hunt]: We've gotten a couple of people who've reached out to us. The ones that I've heard from were concerned because they knew what was being built in their neighborhood. And they were not calling to say, here are the problems we've seen. I've heard it a few times. I think Danielle was just telling me that she's heard from a few people. I think there's more that there's a fear. then and i'm not clear that our office is necessarily the one people would be coming to right would they go to the building department health department like would they say i don't have a place i can even go to come i don't know um just i think i think we should take this question outside of the process of even two weeks from now i think this is another one where it may behoove us to say

[Bears]: We need to look at short-term rental. lodging house definition, all of the, dormitory definition, all of the definitions and uses where we're talking about how different groups of people are in using different housing units and try to align that to a new structure. Because again, we didn't do that in the recodification, right? The lodging house definition and the lodger definition is still, I think you could apply those to these situations, right? You could, I mean, if the building department wanted to, I could see them, saying if there's seven locked bedrooms and, you know, I can see them applying that definition to it. And I don't know that that's fair either. I think we should take this whole, I think right now, the definition of household fits what we're saying, right? Like it fits the intent of the council's vote on the recodification, which was that a household is the people who live in a unit. Now, if we need to redefine what a unit is to say that if there's a single family structure with seven locked bedrooms, that's seven units and not one unit, or it's seven micro units or a multi-tenant arrangement or something like that, I think that makes sense. But I think, again, it's like you pull that thread and then there's like four other things that we would need to adjust and address to fix that too. So that to me seems like it's almost a bucket of questions and something that we should look at like holistically together. as we update the whole ordinance. And I just also want to throw in, it could be worth saying that if you're doing this sort of arrangement, you can't have parking permits or something, right? I don't know. That's something that we're considering and I know Somerville has considered it when that has been a concern for on-street parking.

[Collins]: I think that approach could make sense. I was thinking along similar lines that it strikes me that some of the concerns that were talking about here. And I think just to lay the foundation first, I think it's, I feel pretty comfortable with the current definition as is for the moment while we're contemplating this bigger question, because I think that does still reflect the intent of the council and city staff in allowing people to define for themselves what their household is. And I do have some, I will admit I have some skepticism about our ability to frame zoning language in a way that helps us get at the enforcement piece of when that is taken advantage of. I do think it gets into that, It gets into that issue that we have been talking about mainly with the short-term rentals, where this is more an enforcement issue and building up our capacity to run down those complaints when property owners are doing things with their property that they're not allowed to do, and making sure that tenants or boarders are okay and get the support that they need in those cases where that is happening. And so I think that in terms of the definition, it makes sense to consider this alongside other more similar definitions like the boarding house, the dormitory, and I think the rest of it might get into a conversation that's slightly outside of the scope of zoning, or at least blurs outside of the scope of zoning, such as with, of course, the complaints about, the fears about overcrowding of parking on residential streets, and when homes are becoming busier. I think it's familiar to all of us, and for example, one way the city has been thinking about addressing that is through mechanisms like zoned parking. So I think there's some latitude that we have in zoning and there's others that we have through other mechanisms that kind of go alongside it.

[Bears]: If I may, Vice President Collins, I think what we may have identified here, like the nexus for why this came on, is that by changing the definition, we've unearthed a new use. rather than that, that we need to adjust the definition of household. I think that might be like how I would think about it. Like there's a use that doesn't quite fit dormitory lodging house, but also that our definition of household being anyone who wants to live together as long as it's safe and appropriate for the health code can live in a unit together. That is, I don't think that principle is something we want to change. I just think by changing it, we may have allowed an undefined use that we had never seen before, or a variant of the lodging house use that is kind of unexpected and different.

[Collins]: Right. Also worth noting that occasionally individual rooms are rented out, and that's wanted and desired and unproblematic. older brother was a Medford resident for a long time in a situation like that, so just to state that for the record as well. I think it makes sense to consider, you know, what's the language that captured, I think that this language captures our current intent comfortably. And maybe there's a new definition to add to the roster to capture this one. Any additional comments on household. This has been a fruitful conversation, I think. No? I'll suggest we move on unless there's any additional comments from Councilors on household.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Go ahead. Thank you. So, yes, thank you for all the feedback. It's super useful. And this is why it's an underview because it can touch so many things. It's such a transversal topic that we need to do a lot more research than just define and go with it. So thank you for all your comments. The next one to be defined was institutional use. The suggested definition on institutional use is the use of land or structures for the non-profit, charitable, benevolent, spiritual, instructional, or custodial activities of government, education, religious, healthcare, social service, fraternal, sorority, or similar organizations.

[Collins]: I think this is to ask an obvious question. So this is specifically for incorporated nonprofits use of land and lots. Any comments or questions by Councilors? And again, this was an existing use that simply did not have a definition previously. Great. All right, not seeing any comments from fellow councillors, we can move on.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Another definition, mixed use. Mixed use development, development containing a mix of residential uses and non-residential uses, including without limitation, commercial, institutional, industrial or other uses.

[Collins]: for me, this one looks good. I think that this follows with our principle of letting definitions be definitions and not imposing additional standards that might get us into the weeds where it's not helpful.

[SPEAKER_11]: Any additional comments?

[Bears]: I just think you can't do better than Chapter 48.

[SPEAKER_04]: We're good. Great.

[SPEAKER_11]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_04]: Maybe they can do better, but we can't.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Now, these are also going to have some discussion. This is a term to be clarified, manufacturer home, mobile home and tiny home. And your current definition, there's only the definition for mobile home. And it's a dwelling unit built on a chassis and containing complete electrical, plumbing and sanitary facilities and designed to be installed on a temporary or permanent foundation for living quarters. um we are suggesting a definition, and it's not a new one, it's not to chain mobile home, but to add manufactured home. And that is a structure portable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities. Now I have some, a part of it that is underlined which it is to something that we could bring to this as an addition, or if you see that it's not interesting, we can take it out. But as in oak bluffs, they have these for floodplain management purposes, the term manufacturer home. also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days. And then for insurance purposes, the term manufacture home does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. So this would be for us to discuss if that last part makes sense in Medford, if it is interesting or is just an addition that does nothing to the, add nothing to the definition.

[Collins]: Initial questions from councillors. And so just to clarify, I noticed suggested definitions for sort of differentiating manufactured homes versus tiny houses and keeping the current definition for mobile home.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes. So we will add as also from we have manufacturer And then we will have two definitions for a tiny house. One is tiny house movable and the other one is stationary. And these are, it has standards for use in the tiny house. And that is all this part of the standard for use. will be deleted and only the suggested definition is tiny house movable, a transportable dwelling unit built on a frame or chassis with no more than 400 square feet, excluding lots, projections from bay windows, open decks, porches or exterior utility and storage compartments, intended for residential use in an individual house lot where single family dwellings are allowed or as an accessory dwelling unit. All the second part is standard for use, meaning that our standards that we are going to take out from the definition. Then there is the tiny house stationary, which is a dwelling that is 400 square feet or less in floor area excluding lofts. Those will be the three different. Well, we have four because tiny house is movable and stationary.

[Collins]: Okay, thank you. So there's a new definition for manufactured, a new definition for tiny and movable, new definition for tiny and stationary, and then the existing definition for mobile home.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.

[Collins]: Thank you. What was, I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch it. You mentioned suggesting a deletion in tiny homes that are movable. Was that just removing the standards for use out of the definition? Yes. Thank you. And is that reflected in the suggested definition? All of the standards for use already encapsulates what was taken out of the suggested definition? Or are there more details that you suggest to remove from the suggested definition for a movable tiny house?

[Ramos-Martinez]: As I understand, and sorry for this, I can come back with that because I'm not perfectly sure about that. We also have some comments from Jonathan on this definition. uh, if it's relevant in Medford, uh, these kind of language for the previous one. So I think that these seven, we will come back to you, uh, as well, if you need more information, we also wanted to check a bit more of this underlying for the manufacturer home, if it makes sense in Medford or not this, um, manage floodplain management purpose term or insurance purpose, if it makes sense or not. So we just wanted to throw it in to see if it's interesting, but we can study it a bit more and come back with this.

[SPEAKER_11]: Could you go back to that slide for a second, please?

[SPEAKER_04]: What is a park trailer? Did you say a park trailer?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, and here it includes park trailers.

[Bears]: That's the insurance for... I think I know what a travel trailer is.

[Hunt]: I think that it means, if you've seen a mobile home park, where it's not designed for you to come and go, it's not a vacation, but they're just built there. And there's, so we would never, I hate to say, I don't like the word never, but we don't have a place in Medford where you would ever say, let's put a mobile home park. One use, and I'm wondering if this has to do with floodplain management, has to do with this, Because one could imagine, though, if a neighborhood in Medford was horribly flooded and homes were destroyed, and we said, but we could put a bunch of trailers at this place. In Pennsylvania, my great-aunt's house, her neighborhood was flooded out. So there was a place nearby where they put a whole lot of these trailers for like a year or two where people lived while their houses were being renovated and fixed. Even if that happened here, I'm not clear where we would even do that, right? Like, could you put one? So there might, and this might be a question for the building commissioner, I have seen a use where house has fire. person puts a temporary manufactured home in the driveway where they live while their house is being rebuilt, rather than living in a hotel or a rental home or something. I remember that happened on Park Street, I think, in Medford, because I used to drive by it on my way to the Roberts School. So one could imagine that that could occur. So part of the purpose would be to have something so that you could put something in zoning. So like you might not say they're allowed in these zones, but you could say in the text, they're allowed under these conditions, right? For example, you may put a manufactured home on your property for no more than one year while you are renovating your house. it could be cheaper than living in a hotel or something. I feel like we did that on the road behind me as well. There was one there for like about a year while the house was being renovated. So by having the definition, it allows us to then add these things, these kinds of rules in, as opposed to just saying, oh, well, what zone would we allow these to happen in? It wouldn't be a zone, it would be under what conditions would we allow these? So, and I will say that I have had, there is a use case for a tiny home right now, we're not really sure what to do, but there is a three-family house where, according to the neighbors, more than 30 years ago, they finished the garage, they put a bathroom in there. And now we're being asked, can we make that a fourth unit on this property? It exists. It's so far out of zoning that it's in a single family district. And so it would be a fourth unit on the property in a single family and it's separate, it's detached from the existing structure. So how do you consider that? It literally is a tiny home. It could be if they put a kitchen in there. It just- would be kind of like a permanent ADU. And the reason this, so our ADUs are only, let's not go too far down the rat hole, but require owner occupied. At this time, that owner, the owner does not live in that property. Right, and an ADU under our current definition is an accessory used to a single family house, not a three family. So I just raise it because we discussed with the property owner today the fact that it literally could be a tiny house. And we've had people advocate for it. There was somebody who's had a table several years at the Energy Festival advocating for tiny houses in Medford. They're adorable. If I was single, I would consider it.

[Bears]: That's interesting. I didn't realize we did it that way. I mean, I knew about the under occupancy, but I didn't think about single family only instead of just

[SPEAKER_04]: a structure, a separate detached structure.

[Callahan]: I will say I'm particularly fond of tiny homes, given especially how much demand we have for one bedrooms and two bedrooms that we don't have. So I think having a definition would be great.

[Hunt]: So I guess I would recommend that we include these definitions, and then later we decide what to do with them.

[Bears]: Not really, I was just thinking of the tiny homes would become more useful if we were starting to look at dimensional, small, non-conforming lots, 2,000 square feet, 2,500 square feet. Maybe you could put a tiny home by right, something like that, where it's really like a tiny little lot that we can't do anything with right now, but maybe that use would make sense.

[Hunt]: One of the ideas in the housing production plan is that for lots that are undersized, we allow affordable housing by right. So you can do a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, but not a regular house.

[Leming]: That's infill zoning, right? Yep. That's gonna be part of this?

[Hunt]: It could be later. I mean, it's one of the things we need to look at. And one of the discussions of, sorry, I forget the terms that were used, but the analysis, the mapping analysis is to look at how many, so our minimum square footage for a lot is 5,000 square feet. I believe off the top of my head, 70 to 80% of our lots are smaller than that. So like, is that really actually the right lot size? And so that's a bigger conversation. And that's one of the ones that we need a bunch of data in order to have that conversation.

[Collins]: Certainly. And before we cap off the discussion of this definition, I would say I think it dovetails nicely because I think one of our many motivations for getting through, maybe we're stretching the definition of all this being low-hanging fruit. But one of the motivations for getting through the low-hanging fruit by the end of this fiscal year so that we can get into those themes of great substance outlined in the climate action adaptation plan, the housing production plan, after we dispense with this kind of update round. So it would be great to, in this process, pass some definitions that we can then consider in the context of implementing the HPP, infill, zoning, and many other mechanisms when we're getting into those kind of topic areas later in the year. So I think this is very proactive. Any additional comments on manufactured, mobile, and teeny tiny homes before we move on? Councilor Loewen?

[Leming]: just a technical thing. So I think at the end of this is going to say that we're going to start talking about ADUs pretty like pretty soon after this. So I so will it and I'm not I'm not sure if the will the definition of tiny home necessarily be settled by the time we actually get to the ADU discussion because tiny homes are as it says here a part of they can be an ADU.

[Collins]: I think that we can talk about this at the end of the meeting. I believe that on the draft agenda was to propose to have an initial discussion about the proposed ADU ordinance in two weeks. So certainly none of these definitions will be codified by then, but I certainly don't see why we can't be having these discussions in parallel since, of course, the ADU ordinance is not something that we're going to report out in one meeting anyway.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, and just to clarify before your question, this is standard for use. are not on your current. This is from the House Bill 1359. And what we have done is just the suggested definition is that side, that part, and the rest of the definition, those are the standards for use that we wouldn't use in the definition, just to clarify that part. So the only definition that we haven't met for at the moment is the mobile home. And then the suggested definitions are manufactured and tiny home, one movable and the other stationary.

[Collins]: Great. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that clarity. Great. Yeah, let's see what's next.

[Ramos-Martinez]: The next definition, motor vehicles class three. Yes, we also added junkyards as a possible use to be prohibited and to clarify these two uses. So the first definition is class three motor vehicle sales. Principal business is one buying used vehicles for purpose of remodeling, taking apart or rebuilding and selling the same or two buying or selling parts from used vehicles or tires. or the assembling of used vehicle parts. This is definition one. And then the junkyards that we also propose as something that maybe you want to define to prohibit is the junkyards or automobile graveyard. So we can go back to first the class three motor vehicle sales. If there are any questions or comments, appreciate it. Thank you.

[Hunt]: I think it's helpful for you to know that the building commissioner noted that this class three motor vehicle sales is not defined in our zoning. And apparently he's run into this as being a problem because it's unclear whether or not it's allowed because it's undefined.

[SPEAKER_11]: Any initial questions or comments from councilors?

[Collins]: Seeing none, appreciate the collaboration with the building commissioner on this. Of course, as we've stated before, part of the goal of this is to just clear up areas of known confusion and roadblocks in how the zoning ordinance is currently used. So it's great to be able to incorporate his feedback that this is causing problems. The definition would help smooth things out. Shall we move on?

[Ramos-Martinez]: And the next definition, then, is junkyards or automobile graveyard, the use of any area or any lot, whether inside or outside of a building, for the storage, keeping, or abandonment of junk, scrap, or discarded materials, or the dismantling, demolition, or abandonment of automobiles and other vehicles, machinery, or parts thereof.

[Collins]: Thank you. And I think you mentioned on the previous slide that one defining this was mainly to be able to prohibit them. Could you speak more to that?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes. So that we have a definition and then therefore we can prohibit this kind of uses.

[Collins]: Great, thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Is that... These tables are so long.

[Hunt]: So we do allow, and we have by special permit, various kinds of, for example, one says motor vehicle sales or rental of new vehicles only. One says outdoor meeting motor vehicle sales and storage. So there's motor vehicle sales and storage outdoor in class two used motor vehicle. And so I think there might be an argument that, well, you don't have class three so does that mean you know it it falls under the class two i i just it it seemed confusing and perhaps we have been getting phone calls from people who would like to move these uses to medford and if it was clear that it's listed as not allowed then it's it's not a discretion and it's not an opinion But I will note at this time, we're only recommending to add the definitions, and we can argue about whether or not we should prohibit them in another meeting. But if anybody is watching and has a strong opinion on that, they should let us know.

[Collins]: Thank you. I think that's helpful context for this change here. Any additional comments at this time on junkyards or automobile graveyards? Seeing none, let's move on.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, then it was to clarify accessory structure and accessory use. The current definition that Medfair has for accessory structure, we do not change, it's the same. And we propose a new one that is accessory use. And that is a use customarily incidental to and on the same lot or group of lots as a conforming principle use.

[Collins]: And so the suggestion here, just to paraphrase what you just said, is to keep our current definition but pull out those dimensional standards.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes.

[Collins]: Any comments or questions? President Bears?

[Bears]: Just with the, do we think this is a typo where it just says accessory, and it should say accessory use? Or would the definition of accessory stay? Or would we just get rid of the, and as referred to in this chapter, also means a use which does not alter or impair the character of the premises on which it's located or of the neighborhood? I'm just wondering. If we're just adding the word use and taking out that second clause, or if we're adding a whole other definition that mirrors the.

[Hunt]: to have a definition for accessory structure and a definition for accessory use. I was confused by that.

[Bears]: There's just a definition for accessory, which seems... Yes.

[Hunt]: So that, okay. I think that what the recommendation is here is two definitions. One definition for accessory structure and a separate definition for accessory use.

[Bears]: There is already an accessory structure definition.

[Hunt]: Is there? Okay.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah. So we keep the current definition of accessory structure that is kept the same. And then on accessory use, we add the definition of accessory use, which is Do we have this one?

[SPEAKER_13]: There's this, but it's just the word accessory.

[Callahan]: It says accessory, but it's very clearly a use. It's like a use. So it's pretty clear, the exact same word. So it sounds like you're saying that the not changing the character of the premises of a neighborhood is a standard, and you want to remove that?

[SPEAKER_04]: Certainly, vague.

[Ramos-Martinez]: It is a very vague standard.

[SPEAKER_13]: I will have to check this one.

[Bears]: I'm fine with it. I just don't think we want to end up with something that says accessory that then says exactly the same thing as accessory use, except for one phrase. Yeah.

[SPEAKER_11]: Just make sure that we're.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah. So what I'm, what I understand is that you have two, one is accessory and that we changed the name to accessory use. And then we just take from that one, the standards are removed from that one. And then you also have accessory structure. And with that one, we keep as it is.

[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah. Great.

[Collins]: Wait, I am so sorry. I'm going to need you to repeat that one more time.

[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.

[Collins]: We have accessory structure, accessory use, and accessory, which are being kept and which are moving.

[Bears]: We don't have accessory use right now. Okay.

[Collins]: That is new.

[Hunt]: could have been a typo.

[Collins]: The existing definition of accessory is becoming the definition for accessory use.

[Hunt]: Yes. Thank you. Can you actually clarify, Paula, when you say remove the standards, do you mean remove the words that say do not alter the or impair the character of premises? Is that what you mean?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah, I think that is just until principal use. So I use customarily incidental to and on the same lot or group of lots as conforming principal use. And then the part of And as referred to in this chapter, also means a use which does not alter or impair the character of the premises on which it is located or of the neighborhood that part is removed. We will write everything in so it's more clear. Yes, sorry.

[Collins]: Great, thank you. That will help clarify. Any additional comments on accessory structure and accessory use? Director Hunt, did you have something?

[Hunt]: If you don't mind, I'm going to also ask Paula for the team for another thing that we just noticed. There are a couple of places where it would help to have cross-references. And the example is that in the under use, we have use, principle, but no use, accessory. It would make sense to perhaps have their use, accessory, see accessory use, so that people realize that it's defined, but don't actually define it twice. Um, and then if there's a place that says principal use, see use, you know, so basically there are a couple of places where I think when we bring this list, we will also bring some cross references because the format, um, I think I realize not all of you have gone through the zoning thing before. We'll have to bring the exact language that we want the zoning to show and we'll say in section definitions. add this language, strike this language. So we may bring a couple, for example, I'm going to ask right now that we add use comma accessory, see accessory use.

[Bears]: It also might be worth doing structure comma accessory because there's structure.

[Hunt]: Yes.

[Bears]: Although it just says structure, it doesn't say structure comma principle, so.

[Hunt]: Right, and so I'm thinking that we might ask if one of their consultants can take some look for places where we may need these cross-references to help clear things up.

[Bears]: I actually, if I may, it might be worth striking and replacing the whole section. like just writing up the new section as we want it, rather than doing the whole definitions. Because I think we still also have this issue where we have the zoning changes that we made last fall, which we're still waiting to get back from KP Law to add to Muni Code. So once Muni Code doesn't reflect those changes, it might be worth, yeah.

[Hunt]: Right. I just want to make sure that it's clear to the development board and the public, which are the things that are different and which are the things that are untouched. So it's like just a full document with everything that is red is new or something like that.

[Bears]: Right. Maybe we could do a red line version, but also a start could replace like as the formal, like the red line version could be a supporting document, but that the formal thing that we're doing is striking and replacing the full section just to make sure that we have everything that we want. But I agree we should have a red line. It might even need to be a red line and a green line. We might want to also have, make sure people can see what was changed last fall when we passed that.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know.

[Callahan]: Thank you. I apologize, but I will have to leave due to family Not quite emergency. And I just want to ask a pre-question before we start discussing the coverage of lot and ask whether we need any kind of a definition of permeable surfaces. If we're going to be adding something in about percentage of lots or amount of permeable surface, something like that. I just wanted to toss that in there to see if that can be discussed in this last.

[SPEAKER_11]: Sorry, was that to put a pin in that discussion or to... We'll put it on the list.

[Hunt]: Great. Thank you. Permeable surfaces.

[SPEAKER_11]: Great.

[Collins]: I think that takes us from our discussion of various accessories to actually move on to the replacement of coverage of lot with lot coverage and adding accessory buildings.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes. So lot coverage, what we have is maintain the met for one with just one change. That is the one you see here. So lot coverage, the percentage of the total lot area occupied by all the structures on a lot, exclusive of unenclosed porches and bay windows. When we were talking about this one, we would also like to see what is the current of your definition for footprint, if you have, and why it is exclusive of this unenclosed porches and bay windows. That is the question that we would like to make to you.

[Collins]: The question is whether to have it exclude unenclosed porches and bay windows or to have those be included? Yeah.

[Bears]: There is no definition of footprint. There is gross floor area, which mentions the same things.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_04]: But it doesn't mention bay windows, but it mentions unenclosed porches. I have a question about this.

[Bears]: I actually don't... Only for the reason that if we change this now before we change other things later, it's going to mean we can build fewer things in the interim. Is the intent to change it just because it doesn't make sense that lock coverage wouldn't include a non-principal structure? because I think logically that's true, but also I think if we go down this road, then between now and whenever, if ever, there's an adjustment, it just means it's less likely to build an ADU based on lot coverage, detached ADU, or we have these situations where we have detached structures, and I'm guessing if they're not the principal structure, they're currently not counting towards lot coverage, which means that you can actually build a little bit more on the lot. So it's just from the pure perspective of, of I think we all agree that the dimensional requirements are kind of nuts. And this is going to add further burden on the dimensional requirements to make this change, even though I agree that logically it doesn't make any sense that a non-principle structure is not included in the law coverage measurement. I just think it could create a negative impact in the interim between fixing this definition and then fixing the dimensional requirements and the law coverage requirements.

[Ramos-Martinez]: so that this will be fixed after that?

[Bears]: I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, since we're coming back in a couple of weeks, just to put that one out there. Let's assume that we don't address dimensional requirements. I think we all agree we're going to do that as part of this project, but let's just assume we don't. And then suddenly this stays there. I just think it means less stuff gets built. Fewer ADEs are going to be able to be permanent because of a lot coverage dimensional requirement. But I don't know how building is currently interpreting this anyway, so I guess that's my one caveat. If they're saying it obviously doesn't make sense that block coverage wouldn't include all the structures on the lot, then my point is proved. I don't know. Right.

[Hunt]: And we absolutely have to look at our lot coverages because it says things like 30% of the lot coverage is allowed with a multi-dwelling. And do we really want these small, these buildings sitting in the middle of a big open space? Like that's... It's nuts.

[SPEAKER_04]: My words, not yours.

[Bears]: But that's just what I'm concerned about is like right now, great. If you want to have an ADU, if it's a 30% lot coverage and you put the ADU, it doesn't count towards that. The lot's a little more covered. I mean, I'm not also advocating that we get rid of all permeable services or anything with anyone. You know, I don't know. It just seems to me to be a point where the illogical structure of our zoning ordinance and the illogical wording of this definition, which is more illogical, is kind of where I'm at. To me, it's the dimension.

[Hunt]: So do we say put a pin in it and that we add, we make this change when we change the dimensions?

[Bears]: That's my suggestion. That's just my, but I'm also open to an argument in the other direction. You know, I don't, I'm not strongly, I just think that's the only, only negative consequence I could see in the short term of making this change before we adjust the lot coverage requirements themselves.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, to me, it also makes sense. So what we can do is see if that will affect a lot what you already have. And if it does, in fact, affect a lot, then we just keep it as it is. And we will do it later on.

[Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. And I think my general principle on a lot of this is that we don't want to do something early on. I don't think we ever want to make a change that's going to reduce the buildability of the lots, even if eventually we'll make a change that will rectify that.

[Collins]: So it seems like the question is we could refer this up and correct me if I've misheard, perhaps refer out to building for their assessment on if this change would reduce buildability or if it wouldn't make a difference in the interim based on how they're currently interpreting. I'm open to other approaches.

[Bears]: That would be fine with me. I also just like the idea of putting a pin in it and coming back, maybe making it part of the dimensional requirements discussion to update this definition and any other definitions.

[Collins]: It would make sense to lump by scene if we revisit this with dimensionals. Would it be possible to make a note of that somewhere in our work plan so that we don't

[SPEAKER_11]: lose track of this.

[Collins]: I will make a note of that as well for updating our work plan and memo.

[SPEAKER_11]: I think that takes us to, unless there's further comment on this one, I think that takes us to our second to last, trying to be clarified.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes, these are still under review and so we have the yards versus setbacks. What I've seen in zoning is that sometimes are a bit mixed these two and it's a bit unclear. So I think that to be more consistent, it would be interesting to just go for or yards or setbacks throughout the whole document. And there are sometimes that these definitions might be also might be useful to use some diagrams also to explain them that are a lot more visual. And some communities have been adding some diagrams with the definitions. Maybe these are the ones that we would like to, like yards and setbacks to explain it. But again, these are still under review. And then the definition of medical uses is as well under review. If there are any comments that you want to give us, they are welcome.

[Bears]: Just to throw out there that I don't see setback in the definition or the use table, or sorry, the dimensional table. And now looking through it, but it is spread everywhere else. But my favorite thing is in the plain development district, we have something called the yard setback. We want to get really, I don't even know.

[Collins]: Great, well that takes us to the end of our review of the definitions. I know I was trying to flag as we went through the ones that were clarified at the outset that this is still under review, there's still research being done. I flagged a few items where we want to add a piece of homework for NS Associates. For example, we want to try to capture our conversation about the multifamily dwellings to come back with kind of a more comprehensive proposal. Ditto, I think, for our discussion of household, though I don't I don't know if we arrived at a resolution in our conversation about household, if we are trying to advance something in two weeks, or if that's a conversation that we're going to put aside, I think, when we're developing new uses and are kind of more... I think that I liked a lot what President Zuckerberg said, to have a bunch of all these definitions together and all the...

[Ramos-Martinez]: if it's a short-stay lodging, all the ways that people can live together in different ways and have all those definitions and bring it to the table to see if we have any questions, if there are need some additional definitions if there needs any changes. I like that a lot. So we will try to prepare for it the next two weeks. So in two weeks, all this bunch of different definitions from different areas and how that will fit into MedFER zoning. Sure.

[Bears]: And if that's a project that is bigger than two weeks, I don't think there's an issue. like if I was going through this I would say that one and Lock coverage being lumped in with dimensional part requirements could be like two things that maybe are worth saying are happening after but like the medical uses Medical uses the The actual dwelling stuff like around the one two three multi and the eating establishments, like those are things I think, if I was picking and choosing what to do in two weeks and what maybe needs a bigger conversation, I would say that the household, different ways that people live and the lot coverage dimensional requirements would be things we'd maybe punt. And I'd like to leave this idea of like, let's put in these different things now on the one unit, two unit, three unit, multi-unit thing, and then we can work all that out later. But I think, yeah, that's just my suggestion again. But if you guys think it's doable to talk about dormitory lodging, multi-tenant.

[Collins]: I think our organizing principle here, which I think is a really good one, is to be bundling things by category. And in this case, sometimes that category is what's just an easy definition that we know how it should be improved and let's improve it. And I think that we have some kind of outstanding items from this list where it just needs a little more feedback. It just needs a little more research. Let's bundle those. Let's get all of the ones that we kind of flagged this week is still under review, or there's like a little bit more that we need to think about here, but it's mostly bite-sized. Let's plan to come back on the 22nd, review that language, have it ready to go, and be able to refer it out to the council so we can begin that process. household conversation, the thing where it's more of an interrogation of what do we really want here, and a lot of coverage. I am very happy to support, you know, making that its own mini package for later in the process and not coming up the works on the easier definitions with those more substantive conversations.

[Bears]: Yeah, and I would just throw into, I think like maybe by the end of June, Some of us, maybe, I don't know, some combination of all of us, I think we'll come up with kind of like taking everything that's in the long A and B lists and maybe we can start kind of putting them into like project-based groupings. I know some of them are already, some of them I think are still a little bit split out, but like I think we've identified two tonight. But maybe I'd have to go back and look to see if we've already identified them. But we've added the law coverage definition to the dimensional question, which is definitely a question we want to answer. And then I think we've kind of come up with this question of how do people live in different formations of people living in different styles of housing, which I don't know that we really had before. So that might be another kind of grouping. But that's how I was trying to think about it when we came up I'm just trying to think about like the topics, you know, under each topic maybe there's like a project type.

[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah.

[Collins]: So any last comments on that? Great. So we have our next steps on the definitions. We know that when we vote out the definitions, we will also vote out the table of uses, because that is essentially ready to go. And just to kind of tie up on the things that we're expecting for next time, also site plan review. I would love a status update on inclusionary zoning. kind of a first look at ADUs, possibly the mapping analysis work plan. Does that, just before we move on to kind of a first review of the policies from the Climate Action Plan, does that encapsulate what we're expecting for the 22nd definitions, table review, site plan review? Do we feel that the GIS zoning map is possible to have two weeks?

[Ramos-Martinez]: So to have the studies that we would like to do on GIS, is that?

[Hunt]: No, the existing map as an electronic version, yes. We've asked, the last space piece of it was that the colors needed to be updated because there are semi-standard colors to be used. So the colors that were used in the draft version, we've asked to be updated. And so since that's the only thing that's left, I think I feel confident in saying that we will ask our GIS coordinator to have a final version of it available. So the current, we could provide you a version with it this week that just saying that the colors are going to change, but nothing else. And then when it comes to the council to be referred to the CD board, it would be with the final version of colors.

[Bears]: Yeah. Great. So that makes sense. That sounds right. So just I just want to make sure that kind of package, and this is the stuff we want to pass before we want to report out from the 22nd to the 28th meeting so that an ad will do all the advertising so that CD board can hear it and then we can start a hearing on the 25th of June is all these definitions minus the questions around household and the question around lot coverage, site plan review, draft. the table of use and the map with the updated colors. Well, thank you.

[Hunt]: Were there additional things? I think there were some additional things you were planning to bring in two weeks to this meeting.

[Bears]: And I think Councilor Collins was talking about, so I wanted to separate that out.

[Collins]: I think it's like, that's the package that we're... That's the package that we're hoping to have in hand on the 22nd. full comprehensive draft language or visuals, as the case may be, so that we can vote it out on the 22nd. And then I think there's some additional topics that we're going to be talking about for perhaps the first time, but not voting out.

[Hunt]: So the first bucket of things that we're hoping to be able to- Because there were a few things that I was hoping that we would take care of this summer. that we haven't brought forward yet.

[Bears]: Right. I think that's package one. And then you just mentioned some ADU-related, climate-related, inclusionary-related. Starting with that on the 22nd, we then have two June meetings to workshop that. Maybe we, at the second or third one, are talking about a second package that we could consider over the summer.

[Hunt]: Right. The stuff around the Dover uses? We needed the final language on that and government zoning.

[Bears]: Is that part of the site plan review, the Dover piece?

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yes. The Dover was under the site plan review. Okay. And the government use. That is the exception.

[Silverstein]: That's site plan as well.

[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah.

[Collins]: Thank you. Sorry, I didn't catch that.

[Silverstein]: That was site plan as well.

[Collins]: Okay, great. Is it feeling... Is it still realistic to expect proposable language for site plan review in Dover on the 22nd?

[Hunt]: Is that a Jonathan question or an Ines question?

[Silverstein]: So I think site plan review, at least for municipal uses, is something that I was going to be looking at. And I could have something. on that, a proposal on that, certainly. More largely on Dover issues, I think, as I recall, the main issue was clarifying that smaller Dover projects didn't need to go through the whole site plan review process, so I could have that prepared as well.

[Hunt]: actually, maybe I should clarify this. Do we need a definition of government use for municipal property so that we can put it in the use table and say that the problem is that we want to allow exempt government or municipal, not state or federal, but municipal buildings of all sizes from the zoning rules? that we required to go to site plan review, but not required like they would like to be very blunt. So the fire station would never go to the zoning board of appeals for variances, but it would go to the community development board for site plan review.

[Silverstein]: Right, yeah, that is consistent with with what I was anticipating drafting, whether you think it needs to be a separate use in the table of uses. Maybe let's put a pin in that one until you see the language I draft, because I have some rough sketches out of what I'm thinking, and I'm not sure that's necessary, but obviously we can have that conversation when you've seen what I'm going to propose.

[Bears]: We do have a use, right? We have an other municipal uses, use eight under community uses on the use table and it is a yes by right in all districts.

[Silverstein]: Right, so I guess- Right, but the problem with that is it doesn't give the city flexibility from dimensional relief. It's only a use allowance. So if I understand Alicia's concern is she doesn't want the city having to go in and apply for variances. She wants the city to not have to worry about compliance with dimensional or use provisions but still have sort of some oversight in terms of how a project is accomplished.

[Bears]: And I agree with that. I was just just pointing that out and honestly it might be worth consolidating the public fire station public library and other municipal uses into or if Maybe with what you're writing, we can exempt them. I don't know. But I'm just saying those are in there. I don't know that they're useful. I don't know that the parking code and the loading code are really meaningful. And I'm certain that it narrows the flexibility of the city, so.

[Hunt]: It really does. Yeah, I'm just very interested in getting that moved forward as quickly as reasonable, because we have projects coming up quickly.

[Silverstein]: Yeah, I can definitely get something before I'm done for the next meeting.

[Collins]: Great. Certainly. Thank you. And I think, in general, there's clearly a compelling reason for moving that forward quickly. And I feel that my role in this process is to be trying to, everything that we know what our intent is, we know what our goals are, we have a reasonable expectation of what our stumbling blocks are, I would like to see move through as quickly as possible because we have such an ambitious work plan. So for things like site plan review, the use table, the definitions where we kind of know what we're after. You know, it's great to be able to see that, you know, kind of complete proposed language in two weeks' time so that we can get the ball rolling on that and then proceed on towards our many large and more complicated projects under this ordinance. So just to recap for next meeting, that's the use table, all definitions except for the two that we decided to separate out. existing map digitized site plan review, including Dover, adding the definition or, you know, including the definition of government use. I know for this meeting we also intended to review strategies from the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I also know that it's 8.15 and Councilor Callahan has had to depart and I know that this is an area of interest for her. What was that? So maybe there is a... I wonder if there's a middle path here. I know that thinking about what we're hoping to report out at our next meeting and the topics that we were hoping to raise for the first time between this meeting and next meeting, that being the climate action policies and inclusionary zoning, ADUs, the mapping analysis work plan. That's kind of like four new buckets that we were hoping to propose between tonight next time. I love an ambitious timeline, but I'm not sure what we would get out of it. Having looked through the packet, there are a lot of climate-related policies suggested in the Climate Action Adaptation Plan. Obviously that's what it is, and I think maybe it's worth rethinking when to have that conversation so that we can report out some actionable items given that we've been meeting for a couple of hours already. I think that a priority for me, I want to make sure that we do start having that conversation of what from the cap are we prioritizing and what's going where certainly in May so that that can be informing our discussion of like what big topics are we diving into after our kind of June 30th deadline for our first bucket. So if we're actually, Paola, I took you off of screen sharing because we were just discussing, but if you wouldn't mind pulling up that, I think it was just one of the very first slides again that lays out our timeline for the rest of May and June. Is that possible?

[Hunt]: If I might, the other thing is that It could be for lack of a better term homework. One of the attachments on the agenda was this one page cap review and it sort of lays out the what are the actions the climate plan and what are the sections of zoning that already address that. I think that's actually the slide you might be talking about, and that people might want to just review that and see like, oh, we already are talking about these things. Are there pieces of this that you feel are not being covered by the things that are already in the conversation list? And should we be bumping those out as well?

[Collins]: What in zoning is already in our memo? And then comparing that to the large list of policies suggested in the cap,

[Ramos-Martinez]: So in this, what we present here is that we took all of the strategies from the Climate Action Adaptation Plan that are related with zoning somehow. And so what we did is where those changes should be addressed, in which sections of the zoning these strategies would take place. As of now, not all of these are in zoning. So these are the sections where they would go. And our ideas, some of them are, when I say transversal topic, is that it's something that will be affecting the whole document, and through the whole document we have to see where this strategy is going to be addressed. And there are a lot of things that, for example, that are one of it in transportation is bike parking regulations. It's something that we are going to add to the table of use. a new bike parking, and not only for cars. And so what we did is to put all these things, all these strategies that have something to do with zoning, where in which sections we will see them, and where have to be addressed, and which subsections. And that's what you see in those tables. What we want to do now is to see exactly what you said, Chair Collins, is to address which of these are our priority, which ones are easy changes, fast changes, which ones do need further studies, and that is for the next meeting that will be addressed. We also would adjust and make a new memorandum to address all these strategies into our proposed changes.

[Collins]: Certainly. Thank you. Appreciate that overview. Given that, I'm looking at an even earlier slide, the timeline for our upcoming collaborations in this committee with you and the team, and just thinking about where it makes sense to have that discussion. it makes sense. I think we'll have a more productive conversation coming and having sifted what's already in the work plan, what's already in the works, and what's left out that should be added to the list of priorities. So would you mind pulling up the timeline so we're... I think it's like slide number two. Just in terms of where to have this discussion most effectively. So We're at May 8 right now. May 22, we're going to look at and report out definitions, use table, digital map, site plan review, including Dover language. And we have, I think, three new topics to surface at that meeting as well, between mapping analysis, inclusionary zoning, and ADUs. I wonder if it makes sense to give all these topics a little bit of breathing room, maybe Our June 12th committee meeting can be revisiting those three topics brought up for the first time, May 22nd, after we report out everything that we've already spoken about tonight. And June 12th can be kind of a first attempt, our first conversation about surfacing priorities from the climate policies and making sure that those are added to the work plan. Just in terms of sort of revising our next steps in the flow of these meetings.

[Bears]: I think that makes sense. And I think also, I think it would be useful for us to take everything that's in the climate plan sheet and basically say, OK, these ones are CR, climate resiliency. These ones are HP, housing production. These ones are, and put them into the topics that may also be worth it. And I keep asking you to reformat this. So I'm actually happy to help. But maybe if I have a second. can put a framework in. But again, I think that these topics should be considered areas where any specific change or idea goes to a specific topic, and then we can consider the topics discreetly, rather than having different pieces of different topics being discussed at different meetings, because I think we're just going to start getting really confused. about that. So like, I think it's useful. I think what we're doing now, it's saying, let's sort all of the zoning related plan recommendations into topics is a valuable thing to do. I think once we've done that, we should not be having like a climate plan related meeting, but then going to say, okay, let's look at everything from the climate plan, the comp plan and any other plan that went to the climate resiliency bucket. And we're having a meeting on that bucket. And like, I think tonight we have Um, you know, the block coverage definition is definitely going to this UDR bucket. So it might even be worth like now that we have the phase one phase two, it might even be worth being like, we have a, you know, labeling them as like a CR one, a CR two, or some, that might not be the best number for each item, but also sorting, sorting each like idea by phase and then by topic bucket. Um, cause then probably, maybe even later in June or certainly after June, we can start having conversations about each specific topic bucket area. And maybe we could spend some time in June also taking the comp plan and sorting that out into the buckets. And I also just want to flag that I think there are probably one or two maybe new new buckets or buckets that we didn't consider and I'm just seeing it going through how much of this is like definitions process and format like maybe there should just be like a general a topic that's just like general or legal definitions format and then maybe there should be a topic that's very explicitly about like permitting and process. Cause those just seem to be two things that are missing. And then I don't know exactly where our discussion about this type of the housing, how people, different people like with the different ways that people live. I don't know what bucket I'd put that, put that in. Maybe it could be housing production. Maybe it could be housing affordability. I don't think it's worth, it's all an entire topic area. Cause I do think it's pretty, you know, specific, but, but that would just be a way for me. Cause I think like we keep kind of getting, And it's growing pains of learning. And we're figuring out how to do a very, very ambitious thing and talk about 25 million things. How do we do that in an orderly way? It just seems like we're going down different paths and threads. And I think just having even clearer, taking what we've already developed and making it slightly clearer. If we have an idea, it goes into a topic-based bucket. When we get to that, that's when we'll talk about it. It will help us to make sure that everything we want to get done gets done.

[Collins]: Absolutely. And I think in these meetings, we've been kind of trending there organically. And I think, you know, to the extent that we can absolutely, I think to see the extent that we can plan for that, we'll just, we're already picking up momentum as we go along. And I think planning for that will help. I think ideally, you know, we obviously from the outset, we've been aligned in the goal of passing like things at the same time. And so I think Right now, that's kind of procedural. We're talking about definitions, we're talking about tables. And then as we get past June, that'll be around goals. And so aligning things by goal. And we can have a couple meetings in June, I think, to go through the climate plan and the comp plan to build on the work that you've already been doing with the memos to make sure that those are aligned by outcome and goal. And then we can just meet by topic over the summer and into the fall.

[Bears]: Right. And I do want to point out kind of what you said about what you said, you said ADUs,

[Collins]: Inclusionary, ADUs, and I think the mapping analysis is the other piece.

[Bears]: Right. I think, like, to be honest, I think we should take the mapping and put it in the mapping district's bucket, take the ADUs, put it in the housing production bucket, take inclusionary, put it in the housing affordability bucket, and then do that rather than necessarily front-loading. Sure. But I also think, like, right now we're kind of still in almost I think through June 30th we're in the phase of what are the quick things that we can do and then how are we still structuring the format of this process so that all the other things and ideas that we come up with happen between July 1 and whenever we finish up in 2025, that that happens in an orderly way. And I don't necessarily think we have to go entirely sequentially, like we can't do X until we've done Y, but I do think the more that a meeting could be like, we could say we're having two meetings on all the housing production ideas and then get that out of the way versus having like one housing affordability topic and one housing production topic and one climate resiliency topic in a single meeting. I just think that's going to end up getting, we're going to get less done.

[Collins]: Yeah, no, I completely agree. And I think maybe between, uh, we know what we're doing in terms of the things we're going to report out at our next meeting and maybe between now and then, um, we and staff and NS can be talking about for the second half of that meeting. What makes sense? Should we keep inclusionary ADUs, mapping analysis? Are we teed up for that? Is that easy? Or should we shift to going over one of the, like having the climate plan conversation that we didn't have tonight, the second half of that meeting instead, or the comp plan. And then so that we are moving things into those sequences, into those folders. But that's not, I'm not putting, you don't have to answer the question right now. I think that's just maybe something for us to consider as we're developing the agenda for two weeks from now. We already have a great sled of work though. We are going to be reporting out of that meeting and that's a great start. And then we can just be thinking about as we're sort of closing a door and opening a door in every meeting, what's the door that we want to open at that meeting?

[Bears]: And just for me, if by June 30th, all that we had done was this package that we just agreed to, and we had reviewed the major plans and put all of the different zoning related items into their specific buckets. And we had said, these are the buckets, it's the final list. And maybe we'd started to calendar out when we're going to take up specific things. I would be fine with that. If there are PDS priorities of things we want to get done over the summer or discrete things that we don't want to refer into those buckets and take sequentially, I'm fine with that too. But I do think we should try to limit that, not have that be our process, but have it be kind of exceptions to the process because of things that we want to fast track, but have most things fall into just because I'm starting to get brainwashed on what we're doing.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I'm thinking about it a lot, obviously.

[Collins]: Yeah, no, I think that that, um, I think that will work well. Thank you so much for truly co-creating this process with us as you are helping us with our zoning process and the outcomes. I think that leaves us with a great plan for next time, certainly a decent amount of work. So thank you in advance. Excited to get the ball rolling on our first zoning votes to come in this process. I think that's pretty exciting. I think we're pretty well set on our next steps and pieces that we're looking to Innis for, for our next meeting. Are there any final comments or motions from Councilors other than what we've already discussed? Seeing none, just want to thank you again. Thank you so much, Paola. Thank you, Director Hunt, for being here and to the Innis team. I know there's a lot of work being done behind the scenes. on the city side and the inner side all the time. Very much appreciated. Is there a motion to adjourn?

[Leming]: Motion to adjourn.

[Collins]: Second.

[Bears]: Keep the paper in committee and adjourn.

[Collins]: Yeah. Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by President Barras. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.

Collins total time: 31.74 minutes total words: 5217	Leming total time: 2.13 minutes total words: 345	Callahan total time: 5.07 minutes total words: 899	Bears total time: 30.74 minutes total words: 5632