[Emily Hedeman]: All right. Good evening, everyone. My name is Emily Hedeman. I am the chair of the Community Development Board. Let me update my name real quick. And welcome to this evening's meeting. I'm going to call the meeting to order, and we're going to begin with some obligatory procedural matters. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the city of Medford website. If despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting, tonight all votes from the board will be made by roll call. Please know that project materials for all projects before the board can be viewed on the city's website, medfordma.org. Clicking on current CD board filings and Danielle or Alicia or another member of the staff will drop the link in the chat. I'm going to start with roll call attendance. Peter Calves?
[Peter Calves]: Present.
[Emily Hedeman]: Hi, Peter. Ari Goffman-Fishman? Present. Hi, Ari. Sabrina Alpino? Adam Behrens? Annie Strang?
[Ayni Strang]: Present.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ben LaValle? And myself, Chair Emily Hedeman, is also present. Danielle, can you introduce any staff on the call, please?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, myself, Danielle Evans, Senior Planner in the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. I also have Director Alicia Hunt, the Director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. And I also have Sal DiStefano, our Director of Economic Development. And I believe that is everyone from the City this evening.
[Emily Hedeman]: Great, glad to have you all on the line. And then before we get into our first agenda item, I did want to do a quick plug because we have so many members of the public here. I recognize some names and faces. So I know that these are some very, very engaged members of the public. I wanted to make a plug for vacancies on various boards and commissions in the city of Medford. Selfishly, I think the Community Development Board is a great opportunity for people to kind of give back to their city. It is a paid position, you know, it's a nominal fee, but if you have any experience in law, real estate, transportation, housing, public service, economic development, really anything that kind of touches the built environment, the Community Development Board is a really great opportunity for you to serve and give back to your community and really kind of plug in to the larger Medford ecosystem. So I'm dropping two links in the chat. One is the recent publication or Medford News article mentioning the various vacancies. So you'll see it's not just the Community Development Board. And then the other one is a website where you can apply to be on one of those boards or commissions. And all the board members that you see on this call have gone through this process. I applied as soon as I moved to Medford, because I'm very passionate about public service. I got a call maybe a couple months later. I went through a quick interview process. And then within a couple weeks, you know, was on the board. So, you know, it's not a really intensive process. But I encourage everybody to do what they can, especially in these interesting times to give back to the community. And I'll get off that soapbox for now. So the first item we have on our agenda is the Bridal Path Subdivision Covenant Approval and Endorsement of Subdivision Plan. Danielle, would you mind introducing this agenda item? And then we'll pass it on to Attorney Desmond.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. As you recall, you approved a definitive subdivision for the Bridal Path subdivision off of Franklin Avenue. The certificate of approval was filed in the city clerk's office there are no appeals. So now, before you can endorse the plan to be recorded the registry of deeds, we need to have, you know, approve a form of surety that, you know, Guarantees that the the road will be done, you know in case it goes belly-up. So the the surety that they are proposing is a covenant and it's been reviewed by our legal counsel So I we don't have any issues with that so I would recommend that you vote to approve that authorize a director hunt to sign on your behalf and then endorse the plan and authorize Director Hunt to sign that as well. I believe that Attorney Desmond representing the applicant has some more to add regarding some stuff that is out of my wheelhouse with trustees and legalese and I'll let her go into that.
[Emily Hedeman]: Attorney Desmond, if you would.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. So the covenant before you essentially prohibits the applicant or the owner from building on any of the lots or having any of the lots released until such time as the roadway is in place or the or the board decides that they will allow for some lots to be released. In terms of the document itself, the only issue in council for the city has reviewed it, and we have no objection to the obligations within that. However, paragraph 13, which deals with the trustees, the owners of the trust, and their authority to act under the trust, the seller's attorney, and this is a situation where My client, who's the applicant, doesn't own the property as of yet, so what's going to occur is that the covenant and the subdivision plan are going to go on record and then the deed will go on record. and then the mortgage. The Seller's Council has requested that he be permitted to, in the place of paragraph 13, prepare a separate document which globally deals with the trustee's authority to both convey the property and also to sign the covenant. That hasn't been resolved as between council yet. but it doesn't impact the obligations with respect to the covenant of the parties. So what would occur is either this language would stay in in paragraph 13 or alternatively there would be a document drafted by Seller's Council, what's called the trustee, which outlines that trustees have authority under the document and have been directed by the beneficiaries and the remaining trustees to sign the covenant. And that would be in the document that also recites that the trust authority to convey the property to my client. I'd prefer to do one document than to have two separate documents. So that request has been put before counsel for KP Law to review. We haven't got a response on that. But with respect to everything else in the covenant, we're in agreement. And I think the board could approve it because they are going to have to, even to record the covenant or the deed, you're going to have to have what's called the trustee certificate, which sets forth the authority of the trust and the trustees.
[Emily Hedeman]: So what I'm hearing is we could approve the covenant as it's written now, and then you would come back for the modification.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, it would either be in the language in paragraph 13 would either be in this document or Sellers requested that he be permitted to do what's called the trustee certificate which would have the same language but it would be a second document that is just another rather than having it in paragraph 13 his clients would be signing what's called the trustee certificate and it would have the same language within that document. And it was subject to Attorney Stein's approval, KP law. I see your hand.
[Danielle Evans]: Do you have any insight here? Yes, Madam Chair. I would add what Attorney Desmond just said, that to approve it pending legal counsel's approval. So if they're okay with that, then we would, you could direct Alicia to sign it, but if they're not okay with it, then we'll come back. Okay.
[Emily Hedeman]: I know we weren't planning on having a board discussion on this item, but just curious, Peter, Ari, Annie, if there's any kind of initial reactions to this. It sounds fine to me if there's a motion with a condition. Oh, sorry.
[Peter Calves]: Go ahead. I was going to just say add on everything seems seems fine to me. And so in that case, I'll move to do we need to approve it or is it kind of an authorized?
[Emily Hedeman]: It's approved the covenant pending Casey law, KP law, excuse me, approval and authorizing Alicia to sign on behalf of the board.
[Peter Calves]: Then in that case, I'll make a motion approving the covenant pending the approval of City Legal Counsel and authorizing Director Hunt to sign the covenant on behalf of the board.
[Emily Hedeman]: Can I have a second? Second. Oh, sorry. We're going to do a roll call vote. Peter calls.
[Peter Calves]: Hi.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Goffman Fishman. Hi, Annie Strang. Hi. And I am Lee Hedeman am also an eye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Attorney Desmond.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Have a good night, folks.
[Emily Hedeman]: You as well.
[Danielle Evans]: I believe you also need to endorse the plan.
[Emily Hedeman]: Oh, Okay. Motion to endorse the plan. Okay. Attorney Desmond, are you still there? I don't think it matters. Yes, I am. Okay. Sorry. I only did 50%.
[Danielle Evans]: Attorney Desmond, they need to endorse the plan, right? Correct. Correct.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Okay. So we're also looking for a motion to endorse the plan and also authorize Alicia to sign on behalf of the board. I so move. Thanks, Ari. Can I have a second?
[Ayni Strang]: I'll second the motion.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks, Annie. We can do a roll call vote. Peter Calves?
[Peter Calves]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Goffman-Fishman? Aye. Annie Strang?
[Ayni Strang]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: And I, Emily Hedeman, am also an aye. Great. Thank you, Attorney Desmond. And thanks, Danielle, for making sure we completed that task. All right, so we may have had additional people join the meeting. So I'm just going to make another quick plug while we have engaged and excited members of the community. You too can serve on the Community Development Board. There are Current vacancies, there will be vacancies starting July 1st, I believe, on this board. There are also other boards and commissions that have vacancies in Medford. So for those of you that have the capacity, time, family, health, mental load or otherwise. I encourage you to look at the boards and commissions that have vacancies in the city of Medford to see how you too can contribute to making Medford more of the wonderful place that we all love to live in. All right, back off that soapbox. I promise I won't go back up there. And I just want to set the tone for this public hearing. We are not planning to vote on this agenda item this evening. We're planning to hear from our zoning consultant and his associates, and then we really want to hear from the public. It's going to take some time for us as a board to process the feedback from the public, and we want to give ourselves, as well as you all, some time for these important decisions. So I encourage everybody to share your comment, write in letters, we already have a good collection in our project folder. But I just want to flag that the focus of tonight is going to be hearing from Emily and Paola, and then hearing from the public. So just wanted to set the tone there. And now I need to do the fun official stuff. Because this is a new public hearing, I need to read the public hearing notice into the record. This is a long one. The Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on April 2nd, 2025 after 6.30 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to the following proposed abetments to the city of Medford zoning ordinance and zoning map. Amend Section 94-2.1, Division into Districts, to add the Neighborhood Residential 1, NR1, Neighborhood Residential 2, NR2, Neighborhood Residential 3, NR3, Urban Residential 1, UR1, and Urban Residential 2, UR2 zoning districts. Amend Section 94-3.2, Table of Use Regulations, Table A, by incorporating the NR1, NR2, NR3, UR1, and UR2 zoning districts into the existing table and to designate the uses permitted therein. Amend Section 94-4.1, Table of Dimensional Requirements, Table B, by incorporating NR1, NR2, NR3, UR1, and UR2 zoning districts into the existing table and to state the dimensional requirements therein. Amend section 94-12, definitions, to amend and add various definitions. Amending the zoning map to change the zoning district designations of various properties to the NR1, NR2, NR3, UR1 and UR2 zoning districts, as shown on a map entitled Proposed Residential Districts Prepared by Innes Associates. Danielle or Alicia, do you have any introductory comments before we pass it off to Emily and team?
[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I believe that Emily has built into her presentation, sufficient introductory comments about the process that we've been going through for anybody who might be new to it this evening.
[Emily Hedeman]: Great. Then I will hand it off to Emily and Paola. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe you have the correct permissions, but please flag it for us if you need anything.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. For the record, Emily Innes of Innes Associates, and I'm joined by my colleague Paola Ramos-Martinez. We are delighted to be back here in front of you again. Before I share my screen, I do want to recognize, I can recognize some of the names on here. It's good to see some familiar names. I want to let anybody know who came to the public meeting last week that they will see the same presentation. That's not because we're not listening, we absolutely are, but we wanted to hear the public input from this meeting as well. I think we already know in consultation with city planning staff that there will be some changes made to what you see tonight, but we didn't want to make some changes and then have people have to comment on those brand new changes with less than a week between the two meetings. So we've kept the presentation the same. We are very much looking at the input we received last week, and we are looking forward to hearing input this week that we will also take into consideration and see what changes that need to make. So thank you very much, and I will now share my screen and walk you through this presentation. So, as you know, we have been coming sort of step by step with the with the zoning changes tonight we are talking to you about the residential only neighborhoods, and I'm going to just because I know there's going to be some people who are on this, this meeting at this meeting who have not seen this before. I just want to walk through why we're doing this and where we are in the process a little bit and then after we talk about the neighborhood districts as we've done previously, we'll talk a little bit about how people can get their input into this process in addition to tonight's meeting. So this has been a multi-year process. The city started the recodification process in 2020. That lasted through 2022. The comprehensive plan development also started, it says 2020. It was a little bit later than that, but that process was happening simultaneously. So we went back and forth between what was going on in the recodification and what was happening in the comprehensive plan. in terms of future changes to the zoning. In early 2023, or late 2023, we started doing the urgent edits, unintended consequences, the city was working on that. And then we came in in 2024 to now to do the major sort of what was in the comprehensive plan, what was in the climate action and adaptation plan, and what implications does that have for zoning. So we've been working on that. This was the graphic for the different aspects of the comprehensive plan that we're looking at, the overarching goals, and this is the zoning map from when we first started. This is what your zoning looked like, and we are taking it, a combination of geographic areas and topic areas throughout this whole process. and were guided by the future land use map that was in the comprehensive plan, and that map had divided areas into neighborhoods, corridors, centers and squares, gateway nodes, civic and institutional anchors, and so we've been working our way through those as the geographic aspects. This is coming up to you. These are the corridors. We have already done the Mystic Avenue corridor. We've done the Salem Street neighborhood. We are now, we'll be discussing soon with you the squares. We've just talked about Medford Square with the City Council with the Planning and Permitting Committee. We're going to be talking about West Medford soon. And then we will be talking about these other areas ending up with Wellington at the end. But for today, we're talking about residential neighborhoods. And as part of that, back in July of 2024, we had done a workshop with the Planning and Permitting Committee and looked at a whole bunch of different data that we mapped. Some of it was from MassGIS, some of it was from your assessor's data. I'm going to show you a couple, just a few of the maps tonight that we used in our planning process and our evaluation process. Obviously, when you're mapping things, it's not the same as being on the ground and it's not the same as community input. So we are really pleased that so many people joined us last week and also to see so many people on this call this week to continue to hear the community input portion of this. So this map that you're looking at now is what exists on the ground now. This is the single family in the light lavender, two family in the light teal color, condo conversion, three family, four to eight units in the blue, nine plus units in that deep purple. And so one of the things we want to know is what's on the ground now and what that means for thinking about what should be happening. As we've discussed before, zoning doesn't always match what's on the ground. So many of our New England communities were actually fully developed or mostly developed before zoning came into place, which the earliest is around the 1920s, the latest is late 60s, for the first time that zoning has been developed, so so many of our communities are older than that. So first we want to know what do you have, and then the comp plan, the comprehensive plan, some of the other things, let us know maybe what do you want. We also looked at some dimensional standards, so zoning isn't just about controlling the uses, but it's also about controlling how those uses are placed on the lot, how big are the buildings, where are the buildings in relationship to the street, where are they in relationship to each other, what's the lot size. So this is a map of the lot size. The darker the color, the smaller the lot size. And again, these are existing lot sizes. So the darkest color is below 3,000 square feet. That red is 3,000 to 4,000. The orange is 4,000 to 5,000. And then sort of the paler colors as you go up, anything in that very pale yellow is over 10,000. Again, we're looking at the residential districts here, or primarily residential. We do have some of the commercial. You know, that lets us know what the development pattern is in the area. It lets us know if we're thinking of lots that might be conforming in that they meet the current zoning versus non-conforming in that they don't meet the current zoning. A lot of these smaller lot sizes are non-conforming and one of the considerations is how far do we go. to make as many buildings as possible conforming. Frontage also goes into that. So frontage is the distance, the length of the lot along the street, and it's expressed in feet. So you see there's a few actually where the frontage is under five, five to 20. Most of these are in the 36 to 100. There are some outliers, but again, this is a measure that we can use to understand how we should set the dimensional standards, if they should be changed at all. Height, this is a frequent topic of conversation in many communities, so we look at it. The assessors does not have data for the height for all parcels. There's a couple, probably ones that have been recently redeveloped, and there's some that are vacant, so those have no building on them. But in general, you can see from 1 to 1.75, The bright yellow all the way up to the dark dark almost black 7 to 14 So again, we're looking at that range and that plays into how we think about the height of the districts This is a historic inventory. So one of the things that we're adding to the zoning here is the ability to preserve or an incentive to keep and preserve historic residential buildings. I'll talk about that as we go zone by zone, but knowing where the historic inventory is, this is from MACRIS, which is the Massachusetts Historical Commission's online database. So we wanted to map those. And then also, what's the location of transit? Where are the walk radii? So the quarter mile radius and the half mile radius are the distances that most people will walk to significant transit. And so we have those circles on here on the commuter rail and the T to understand where those walk radii, where those time limits factor in to where we should put housing. So those are some of the mapping considerations. All of those maps are online and so on the city's website, I think the link was in here earlier, I encourage people to look at them, but we just wanted to share some of them with you. We did set up a list of considerations, a little list of factors and thinking about where housing should be located and how much. housing should be located where. So proximity to public transit is one of those. This map that you see on here, this diagram that you see on here is from the comprehensive plan, and it's a map of job density. So where are people working relative to where they live? Thinking about lot sizes and topography, obviously buildings need a certain, you know, certain types of buildings need a certain amount of lot in order to be built. They need it for parking, they need it for amenities, so thinking about lot sizes and what factors into that, and also topography and going into access. There's quite a range of topography in Medford. Private ways, I'm going to show you a draft map on the next slide. The city has updated it for us, which is great, but it didn't make it into this presentation, but understanding where there are public roads and where there are private ways. existing residential types we've already talked about, and then the transitions. So we, as you know, we've worked on two corridors already, we're working on the squares, but the idea of what's happening in those areas and then how the uses, the height, whatever it might be that we're looking at transitions downward into the residential areas. But understanding that there are some residential only areas that bump right up against what we've been calling corridors or the squares that you'll see. We want to think about how the relationships happen for those. This is the map of the public ways, just so you know, and it's a little blurry on this, but the public streets are in the blue and the private ways are in green, so you can see there's a lot of private ways actually throughout Medford. So with all of that, we are proposing several different residential districts for you. This is the overall map of the residential districts. I'm going to break them down district by district. I know some of the people who have been on the calls are professional planners. These are not your characteristic land use colors. Residential is generally yellow, but if you put this many shades of yellow on here, which we did try, you go cross-eyed, so we were asked to break up the colors a little bit. So Neighborhood Residential 1 is that light yellow. Neighborhood Residential 2 is green. The orange is Neighborhood Residential 3. The teal color down here is Urban Residential 1. And the red is urban residential too. And I'm going to break each of those down. They have slightly different building types and number of units per building. And this map and again, I encourage you we will give this to the city So it will be online, but this map shows the different districts overlaid on what currently exists So once we drew the district as we were working with the planning and permitting committee, we were going back and forth It's okay. What's in there now? What are we suggesting be there? Is there a match? Is there not a match and We heard, as I noted last week, that there were still some questions about, hey, we the members of the public who spoke here think there's a bit of a mismatch. Can you look at that more closely? We are absolutely doing that. So I do want to stress that we are still discussing this. We are absolutely open to new input, and we hope to hear that tonight. But this lets us sort of do that back and forth. And of course, we can also overlay this on the other maps. So let's talk about Neighborhood Residential 1. So that's this light yellow color. This would be a single-unit dwelling, a historic conversion, and of course ADUs because accessory dwelling units, which is the shorthand for that is ADU. That's a new state law. We are working on updating Medford's current accessory dwelling unit law. to be consistent with the state law. So you won't have seen that language yet, we're still tweaking some of it. But an accessory dwelling unit is a smaller dwelling unit that is accessory to a principal residential use. So in this case, your principal residential use in this district would be single unit dwelling. You could have an accessory dwelling unit with that. You'll see that, hopefully you can see, the historic conversion is at two units. And this is where we get into the preservation of historic buildings or historic residences, is the idea that by allowing one additional unit than the district allows, we would be more likely to have those buildings preserved. They're an important part of the historic development fabric of the city. And there's a value to keeping those. So in a single-dwelling neighborhood, a single-unit neighborhood, allowing for a historic conversion of two units would help to preserve those buildings. And these are, you're going to see throughout the building types that we're talking about. So one-unit dwelling, that's detached. Historic conversion, so the same thing, but allowing up to two units. And then the accessory dwelling unit, I should note that the state law and obviously Medford's allows for accessory dwelling units within the dwelling itself. So a single one-unit dwelling could have a smaller accessory dwelling unit in it. The diagram here is showing that it can also have a detached accessory dwelling unit, so another building on the lot that is that accessory dwelling unit, and there are standards and requirements around that. Neighborhood residential two is broadly familiar, so also the single unit dwelling, a two unit dwelling at this stage, so that's the NR2 portion, historic conversion up to three units, and accessory dwelling unit, and you can see it on this map in green, a couple of different places. So again, in this we're just adding the two-unit dwelling, and two-unit dwellings can either be side-by-side. We're showing the side-by-side, we're showing the stacked, so one on top of each other. You could also have a two-unit dwelling that's back-to-back or L-shaped, but the idea is that it is a single building with two full dwelling units in it, not a single unit with an accessory dwelling unit, which is smaller, but two that may be the same size. and greater than the ADU requirements. This is neighborhood residential three in the orange here, single unit dwelling, two unit dwelling, three unit dwelling, historic conversion up to four units, and of course accessory dwelling unit. And here you see the types. We've just added the three-unit dwelling, or you could have a townhouse with three townhouse units attached to each other, historic conversion up to four units, and then the ADU. Residential, so urban residential one rather, so this does not have the single unit dwelling and I should state that you already, although we've been trying to make as many parcels and buildings conforming as possible, you do have some protections in your existing ordinance which we would keep and possibly add to. You have protections for single unit and two unit dwellings already and they're quite good. So if you were to remove as a use, as we're proposing in the urban residential one, a single unit dwelling. You could continue to live in that single unit dwelling. You could continue to invest in that single unit dwelling. You have protections under the law for that single unit. What we're just simply saying is that No new, on a vacant piece of property, no new single-family dwelling could be built. So just keep that in mind. Historic conversion up to five units for this one, the townhouse, the three-unit dwelling, and what we're calling a multiplex, which is four to six units. And here are how these would look. So you can see the multiplex is that four to six. It's a smaller size, larger, obviously, than what we've been talking about, but not a full apartment building. It's just up to the six units. And then finally, Urban Residential 2, you'll see it scattered in some of these areas. Townhouse, three-unit dwelling, the multiplex of four to six units, and the multiple-unit dwelling of greater than six units, but three stories maximum. Now we did hear some, I mean, obviously we heard a lot of comments in the public meeting. We heard some people suggest maybe the multiplex could be a lower number of units in one district and the higher the other. We also heard concerns about heights, some too high, some saying, why aren't you going higher? So the why aren't we going higher is because these urban residential twos are primarily bumping up against the mixed use corridors and squares at this point. And those do allow that higher height. In many of the places that we looked, three is the current maximum for these areas. So that's why we've made it the maximum here. But obviously we're still looking for public input on that. Here's how you can see the buildings sort of matching up. So the three unit, the townhouse, the historic conversion up to five, the multiplex, and the residential building, which would be more than six units. So I'm going to stop there because this is the overview presentation. I do want to let people know before I stop the entire presentation when else they can be heard. I think many people on this call may have seen this before, but not everyone. We are working with the City Council's Planning and Permitting Committee to present a new topic. We are discussing it with that committee back and forth until it's ready to be referred to the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board is, as they are tonight, holds a public hearing on it that may take more than one, again, as we're doing tonight, more than one meeting before they vote on the topic. That gives us, through city staff or in conjunction with city staff, to provide some recommendations based on what we've heard during the public hearing for the Community Development Board to consider. They then send a recommendation back to City Council, who then has a final vote. All of these are public meetings, and you can see the schedule that we've had up through today. here, so this has been the timeline for the Planning and Permitting Committee for this particular topic. We've been working on the others, so you can see that on April 9th we're going to be talking about West Medford Square. We have been talking about Medford Square, and we're making some changes to that. April 30th, we're going to be introducing the other topics, and then in May, we're going to be talking about Wellington. Here we are for the CD board meetings. We talked about the green score in February, Salem Street in March, residential districts today. We'll be introducing the commercial and mixed districts to you sometime in May, depending on your other things on your agenda. And then finally, we've been having public meetings, so February 10th, was a public listening session for Salem Street, last week was a public listening session for the residential districts. We just want, we're looking in April to do the squares, but we just want to confirm that the Planning and Permitting Committee is ready for us to do that, so we haven't set that date yet. So with that, where anybody who's watching, where can you get more information? Planning Development and Sustainability Department has a brand new web page with zoning, and there's a QR code to get you there. So with that, I have finished with my presentation. I think our goal, Paola's and my goal, is to listen, take notes, and then work with city staff and the Planning and Permitting Committee to come back to you with some additional recommendations based on what we've heard. And thank you very much for your time.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Paola. That was really informative. And yeah, just a quick audio note, Emily, your audio got very quiet towards the end. I heard what you were saying, and I hope others did too, but I think it was just a wrap up. So I think we're okay. But just flagging that. So I'm going to do a quick break before we get into public comment, and then we will get started. If you anticipate participating in public comment, feel free to raise your hand now, and then we'll kind of get into things in about five minutes. So let's say 726. We shall return. All right, we're going to get started shortly once members of the board are confirmed to be back and have their cameras on. I see a good number of hands already raised. For those of you who are fortunate enough to not know how Zoom works very intimately and need some help finding the raise hand function, you should have a React option, which is a heart on the desktop version of Zoom. Just click the heart, and then you will have an option to raise your hand. If you're having any technical difficulties, please message Danielle or Alicia, and I'll reiterate that right before we start. Let's see, we have Annie, Ari, Peter, and Emily. Great. Um, so usually we'll do a, like a board discussion. Um, but if it's all right with the board, I'd like to go straight to the public hearing. Um, I think that will help us have a more well-rounded discussion. Um, once we get there, does that work for everyone? All right. Seeing some thumbs nods. Thank you. Okay. So I'm now going to open the, wait, is Emily and Paolo back? Just want to make sure. Yes, okay. Great, thank you. I'm now going to open the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature. You can also send an email to ocdmedford-ma.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. And a reminder to all meeting participants, please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members as it's not part of the public record. If you are having audio or other technical difficulties, you can message Alicia or Danielle about those technical difficulties. Each participant, like we've done in the past, each participant is going to have two minutes to speak and will be able to speak once. If your comment doesn't fit within the two minute limit, I truly and deeply encourage you to email OCD at medford-ma.gov. with your comments. We read all public comments, and they do get added to public record. We have some already in our folder from previous commenters, so thank you to everybody who's already provided their comment. And just because you've provided a written comment does not mean you can't speak tonight. So all the comments, please, please bring them on. And then one more note on written public comments. So we would appreciate that all public comments via letter or email just be shared with us 24 hours in advance of the meeting where we're planning to vote. We are not planning on voting this evening, so it'll likely be 24 hours in advance of the Community Development Board meeting. I think it's If we continue it to the 16th, you know, we would love to have comments in, you know, by 6pm on the 15th. That's just in recognition of, you know, most members of the board have families or jobs or other commitments, and we want to make sure to review all of the comments and insight that's shared with us in a timely manner. I think I can manage the public comment queue for now, as long as I don't get kicked out like I did last time. But if that happens, we do have our vice chair, Peter Calves, that will step in. So with that, I see the first hand and you'll get a request to unmute. Please, Erica, please state your name and address for the record, and then Alicia will manage the timer.
[Erika DeRoche]: Hi, thank you. Erica DeRoche, 260 Willis Avenue. I'm going to read a statement because I don't want to forget to say something. So thank you for indulging me. I wanted to say that I really appreciate that the planning consultant is presenting this more than once because I was not able to attend last week. Just overall about the proposed neighborhood residential and urban residential zoning, I understand that NS Associates have studied existing uses. and existing buildings extensively, and a primary goal is to permit, as of right, the successful existing uses, masses and heights. But I just wanted to note that existing properties are not necessarily going to be affected by the zoning. They might be, but not necessarily, and I would urge community development board to consider the needs in the future, which the decision is going to affect for increased mix of uses and increased density overall, far above what I see currently being presented in the neighborhood districts or in the residential districts. Regarding dimensions and use, as a South Medford resident, most of my comments are going to be directly from my 18 years of living in South Medford. So they'll be in reference to that neighborhood. The proposed zoning is NR3. And my opinion is that most of my neighborhood should probably be UR1 to allow for up to six units to be built. I'm less familiar with the NR1 and NR2 neighborhoods, but my opinion is there needs to be some more density in this neighborhood. Is that a sound? I'm done. Okay. Well, my neighborhood is walking and transit-oriented neighborhood, and I think you could go higher and more dense overall. I'll email the rest of my comments. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Erica. Look forward to reading those comments. The next commenter that I see is Carlene. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. I can't unmute. You're unmuted. We can hear you.
[Carlene Campbell-Hegarty]: Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. Hi. Hi. My name is Carly Campbell-Haggerty. I live at 49 Elmont Street. I have emailed comments, but I'm going to do an abridged version tonight. My family has lived on Elmont Street for 47 years. Our neighborhood is a very diverse housing stock of 1, 2, 3, and sometimes 6 family homes. Because of this, we have an amazing community. which is a lovely mix of young families, professionals, and strong senior population. Each group contributes to making living, working, and raising a family a strong attribute in Medford. Therefore, we are asking you to not move forward with Urban 1 or Urban 2 zoning. for the following reasons. One, builders will be more incentivized to purchase more than one property and build larger apartments, condo buildings that can't be supported. Two, the loss of being able to replace a single family home after two years is the most ridiculous thing we've ever heard of. People should be able to purchase a home, demolish it, do whatever they want to it and keep it one family. We are not Cambridge who recently adopted this type of zoning. Three, young families will not be able to move into our neighborhood due to lack of housing stock. The majority of individuals moving in will be transit individuals who are living in Medford for a few years and then will move to other communities with a one family homes and a yard. Three, the city has not followed its own capital plan that recommended completing traffic shadow parking and infrastructure studies. Four, the city has made it clear that they are going to change parking regulations. Where are these individuals going to park? Contrary to many people speaking at the last community meeting, not everyone has a driveway. And if you change the zoning for two, three family or six unit buildings, where will they park, especially during a snowstorm when all of the cars on the Felsway come down and park on the side streets? And then five, the concept of more density bring more housing that people can't can't can't afford isn't true under this type of zoning contractors will put condos and get top dollar for them and apartments will be if their apartments will be an exorbitant amount of money at this This will price out our seniors, stop young families from moving in and living on Salem Street and change our neighborhood character.
[Emily Hedeman]: Last week- Marlene, you're at 30 seconds over. Would you mind finishing your last thought?
[Carlene Campbell-Hegarty]: My last statement is this. Thank you. Since this process has begun, it's been clear that the officials in Medford are listening to the residents who will directly be affected by these changes. We're hoping that tonight, you will be our voice and not allow zoning proposals of urban one or two in the Salem Street neighborhoods. Thank you. And thank you for letting me go a little older.
[Emily Hedeman]: I appreciate it, Carlene. Thanks for your public comment. The next commenter that I see is Fiona. Fiona, you're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Fiona Imami]: Thank you. My name is Fiona. Mommy 24 Bower Street, Medford. Um as a resident of West Medford neighborhood, I support the zoning initiative and I think everyone who has been working on it. I think we need to urgently increase our housing potential in Medford, and I'm in support of I think this proposal is a step in the right direction, but I would encourage going even further to add additional height and density by right, especially in residential areas and around T stops. I think this will help keep Medford residents in Medford and welcome new neighbors. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Fiona. The next commenter that I see is Jeremy Martin. Jeremy, you're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. Good to see you again. Oh, I can't hear you.
[Jeremy Martin]: Can you hear me now?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, I can hear you now. Thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, it's nice to be in front of you all for hopefully a less contentious conversation. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Of course. thank Emily and Paola and the city staff who have been championing this. It's a really difficult and often thankless process, and it's very important for our city, so really appreciate it. I'm generally supportive of the increased density in the current proposal, but I think it does fall short in a couple of areas that I just want to touch on. It was mentioned tonight that single family use, single family by right would be removed in the UR1 and UR2 zones, but that many of the non-conforming homes in these neighborhoods would have a variance or a waiver. There's some kind of process to be able to replace your home. In the four meetings around this that I've been to, I've still not heard a clear, concise list of what those criteria are or how that process would work. And I think it'd be really beneficial for the community and this board to have more clarity on that. let's not get in a situation where down the line somebody who thought they were going to have some kind of capability is then limited. To that point, I think that this neighborhood is unique, at least to us, in that it's a lot of small lots, a lot of small houses, and it's really hard to see, for us now, a sixplex in the neighborhood. But I think there's a potential for it. I hope, though, at the same time we can acknowledge the scale and the existing character, which is one of the founding goals and principles of this process, to recognize that there are single-family homes and that those people should be allowed to have some clear process to do that. The last thing I'll say is that as the map is drawn now in the Hillside neighborhood, It uses George Street and Winthrop Street as a dividing line. My neighbor right on the other side of George Street being able to have more buy right options than me on this side is silly. People walk from far farther than the quarter mile radius to get to the T, and so that line really needs to be re-evaluated so that there's equity and really a balanced approach in these neighborhoods. Thank you all.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Jeremy. And then just quick for the record, your name and address.
[Jeremy Martin]: Oh, yeah, sorry. Jeremy Martin, 65 Burgadette.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: Thanks, Emily.
[Emily Hedeman]: The next commenter that I have is Navare. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[William Navarre]: Hi there, William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. Basically, I support this, I think it's reasonable and good, but please, I would suggest you do in fact increase some of the heights, perhaps up to six stories or something like that, and you are one and you are two. We talked about you are one. That's a GLX, Magoon Square, Ball Square type of situation. That's where I live. Why should our neighborhood be held back in terms of height? Because of something to do with the MX1, MX2, or MX1 that Emily mentioned. As of now, MX1, MX2, those are sort of Salem Street things. That's not near here. If the community wants height in GLX, Magoon Square, type areas like where I live, then maybe the heights in our corridors need to be a little taller than what was done on Salem Street. The existing MX2, etc, etc. All these numbers and letters. NR1 and NR2 areas, those are really low density as proposed. I think that especially in the northwestern part of Medford, we can get rid of those and upscale them. NR1, NR2, NR2 becomes NR3, whatever makes sense. But we don't need so much NR1 and NR2, I think, and I think it's good if we have more housing across the city. I would also suggest that you consider, you know, create some kind of middle ground between NR3 and UR1, some NR4. I think I heard that mentioned at the Q&A. I like that idea. Maybe move all of the NR3 that's south of the river into this new NR4, so it's not quite as big of a jump from 6 to 3. Maybe a few other areas like around West Bedford Square. I see I've run out of time. Thank you very much for indulging the- We still have 20 more seconds. Oh, it's still going down. Okay, thank you very much. So I was going to say the NR4, that I propose. I could go like south of the river at R3 and maybe a little bit around West Bedford Square or something like that. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks, William. Appreciate your comments. Yeah, just quick note, we do have the two minute limit, but we typically encourage or I typically encourage people to kind of finish their thought. So, you know, unless you hear the beep noise, just keep going. And if you start to go over, I'll do a polite little check in. And then it gets less polite, the longer it goes on, but we try to avoid that. And the two minute is to help kind of with equity for people's comments. But again, if you exceed the two minutes, you can always email comments because we do see those. The next commenter that I see is Zachary. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Zachary Chertok]: Zachary Chertok, 5 Almont Street. And Madam Chair, I apologize, my camera driver is not responding, otherwise I would be on camera.
[Emily Hedeman]: Oh, you're good.
[Zachary Chertok]: I also want to say that I appreciate the plug for the qualifications for the CD board and also, you know, stating what the typical qualifications are and encouraging people to give back that way. I have some continued engineering concerns around what's gone into this, but I will send those over in writing to the CD board. I think that's a better, more equitable way to discuss those. What I wanted to ask Emily, Innes, and Paola about is that with regard to the planned residential density changes, I still have some real reservations around the density imbalances that are continuing to pull density away from existing non-vehicular alternative transit modes, some of what some of the other speakers have noted tonight. And it's starting to pull density, particularly in those you are one and two zones away from the closest distance to be considered under past regulations, including the MBTA Communities Act. That's been brought up in previous proposals, even going back to Salem Street. And no, I am not looking to reopen that at this time. As a caveat, I want to restate that I've been consistent in my own participation that I'm not against increased density, but that the nature of the current proposal with some continued reservations about incomplete assessments continues to show up in things like that density being pulled away from the transit nodes and some of the density imbalances that are showing between some of the single unit residential zones and where the multi-unit is being sort of squeezed and wedged in. Again, any further light on that would be great. And that's all I wanted to discuss in this meeting. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Zachary. Appreciate your thoughtful comments, as always. The next commenter that we have is Cheryl R. You're going to get a request to unmute. And then just Cheryl, real quick before you start, Alicia or Danielle, are either of you managing the timer? Is that something you would like me to do? I'm doing it. OK. It's not showing up in your little.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's not showing up today.
[Emily Hedeman]: But it was in the past, but I did not see it for Zachary's comment.
[Alicia Hunt]: Does it make a difference if my camera is off? I'm not sure. Let me try it. I'm going to start it now, and then I'll restart it. OK. You're not seeing it. I don't see it. And if I turn my camera on, you are- I do see it. Yeah. Okay, that's the issue. All right.
[Peter Calves]: Alicia, I saw it. It comes up in the top corner of my screen, but not in your little square.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, when I turned my camera off.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, when your camera's off, it showed up in the top right corner, but just not in your square.
[Alicia Hunt]: On your screen, okay.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry for the troubleshooting.
[Peter Calves]: No problem.
[Alicia Hunt]: Putting a heat pack on, and I just thought it would be more appropriate to turn my camera off.
[Emily Hedeman]: OK, we're all humans, I think, at this point. We all still have human needs. All right, Cheryl, thank you so much for understanding as we work through that. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Can you hear me? Because I didn't get a request on mute. Okay, great.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. So I was distressed to see that the Glenwood Sand Street area again finds itself being zoned for the highest residential density despite our lack of transit and small lots. We were told all areas were being made more dense, but the reality is that many neighborhoods within the transit circles are being zoned less densely than we are. Our neighborhood is one of the only ones that doesn't have multiple zones. While the South side of Salem Street is currently SF2 and is less dense than the North side, both are set to be the highest neighborhood density. The South side would more appropriately be zoned as NR2. More distressing is that NR3 has the smallest minimum lot size with the largest allowance for housing. As the lot sizes increase in the zones, the amount of housing allowed actually decreases. The decrease is so sharp that NR1 in some cases has literally no change beyond the state required ADU. If density is a good, then why are the areas with the largest lot sizes going to add the least density? The changes to those areas would happen much more slowly, even if they were made more dense in the zoning. The Glenwood area will change more rapidly given the sharp increase in what is allowed here on very small lots. We already have a very active flipper. who is currently using the zoning to add two million plus each townhouses per lot, and the idea of him being allowed three plus a possible two ADUs will be far more enticing and profitable. Please consider changing at least some sections of our NR3 to NR2, especially as there are many single family homes on the south side of Salem Street. Please do not zone us at or greater density than our neighbors who live in transit rich areas and those with much larger lots. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Cheryl. Appreciate the thoughtful comments as always. The next commenter that I see is Charles Fenton. You're gonna get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Charles Fenton]: Looks like I'm already unmuted.
[Emily Hedeman]: You are, and I hear some music in the background.
[Charles Fenton]: That's channel 43, sorry. You're good. I sent an email, but I figured I'd back it up with some comments.
[Emily Hedeman]: Can you please state your name and address for the record?
[Charles Fenton]: Charles Benson, 26 Kearney Street, in the densest neighborhood in Medford. I just wanted to state, that I am against zoning West Medford and Lawrence Estates to only NR1. I feel that if other areas of Medford are being packed and denser zoning, then the other areas of Medford should use the packed zoning standards that are being pushed to the Salem Street corridor. I am for setting West Medford and Lawrence Estates at a minimum of NR2. And I sent an email with this information and I'm done.
[Emily Hedeman]: Awesome. Well, I appreciate you following up your written comments with the public hearing. I think it's helpful for other people to hear what comments come through if they haven't read the comments themselves. So thank you, Charles. Appreciate that.
[Charles Fenton]: Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: The next commenter that I see is Caitlin. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kaitlin Robinson]: Hi, my name is Caitlin Robinson. I'm at 31 Everett Street. First, I want to say thank you to the Community Development Board for your time and dedication, as well as to city staff and Enos Associates for all the work that's going into this plan. I'm generally in support of the plan. I feel like it's a step in the right direction. I do have some concerns about not going far enough with increases in density. Where I am in the Glenwood area is currently zoned for NR3. And I think that NR3 should be a minimum citywide. I feel like NR1 and NR2 are just too low for planning for future zoning. I also want to reiterate my concern about parking minimums, which I know are not being addressed at this time, but I am still deeply concerned about how those minimums, if they stay as they are, are going to prevent the intentions behind the zoning, how they might prevent that kind of development from happening. And another comment that I heard someone say earlier um, was in regard to like the circles around transit and the distance from transit and how we should be thinking about that. And I do think that we do need to be think when we think about major transit centers, um, a quarter mile or half mile, I think is just not enough. Um, I live in Glenwood, but I regularly walk to both the Malden center orange line and Medford tough screen line. There are also many options for micro micro mobility. And it is so expensive to live next to a major transit center. So I think that it makes sense to, you know, a lot of people are just are not able to live very close to a major transit center. And I think it would still be helpful to have density in our neighborhoods and not need parking minimums too.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Thanks, Caitlin. Really appreciate the comments. The next commenter that I see is Michael von Korff. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Von Korff]: Hi, I'm Michael von Korff. I live at 44 Pitcher Ave in West Medford. And I'm really glad to see how the current rezoning is going to make it easier to build more homes in Medford. But like a lot of other folks tonight, I wish it went further. I really want Medford to be a place where my kids can afford to live. when they grow up. I want my kid's teacher to be able to afford a home here. If that means a fourplex in my neighborhood, of course I want that. If that means four stories in homes in my neighborhood, which is currently neighborhood residential three, of course I want that. And more density is a change, and we should change thoughtfully, but I don't think we can afford to change slowly. I do agree there was an earlier speaker who suggested that maybe a single family could continue to be allowed by right in some of the places in Medford where this new zoning would disallow that. I'm all for allowing people to build what they want to build, as long as we can get more places where there's permission to build more. So thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Michael. Appreciate your comments. The next commenter that we have is Gaston Fiore. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Gaston Fiore, 61 Signet Road. I just wanted to comment that So when people say that for NR1, then we're not going beyond the state law of an ADU, that's incorrect. So the way that the zoning is being discussed right now, we will have, in addition to the protected ADU, which is by the way, 900 square feet, which is a two bedroom apartment allowed, we also have a local ADU, which requires special permit, but it's still allowed, which is 1,200 square feet, which is a three bedroom apartment, which means that combining two of them we could have a 2,100 square foot additional structure per lot in NR1. That, to me, if you go to areas of West Medford versus States and North Medford, that's gonna, if everyone did that, or most people did that, would completely change the character of the neighborhood. So it is not true that we're not going beyond the state law. And second, I think that we should differentiate between West Medford and let's say like North Metro Lawrence State. So where I live, I'm two miles from every transit, either from Malden T Station, the orange line, from the Medford, Tufts Green Line Station, or the commuter rail, actually. Same car park I actually just mapped it. So if you were to walk to Malden T Station, it's 1.6 miles, 1.6 miles shortest path by walking. you know, we, the only means of efficient means of transportation we have is either biking or driving a car. And some people cannot bike or they don't want to bike, particularly in the winter. So, you know, if we increase density too much around these areas that we're too much from public transportation, how we're going to get to work, how we're going to go to places, there's going to be a lot of cars. We have private waste as well. So how are we going to handle that, too, compared to public waste, right? So how much can we actually change that? So, you know, I can't even get the city to repave my private way. So that's most of my input, and I will send more comments through email. Thank you so much for letting us speak up. Thanks so much.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Gaston. I appreciate the comments. The next speaker that I have is Kate. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kate Ryan]: Kate Ryan. Hi. 34 Warren Street. And I'm going to be outright here and say what people haven't. I'm speaking purely from self-interest here. As a wheelchair user, I can't visit any of my friends' homes. But if you zone to four stories or higher, they will build things that are have elevators, which they do not do if it's three stories or lower, and I will be able to visit more places. And all of those who are arguing that it is too much change, so was the internet, so was penicillin, so was an awful lot of stuff like indoor plumbing. So, you know, if you want to not do the zoning changes, that's fine. And if you want to all go back to like the single-family houses, that's fine. But maybe consider just giving up your indoor plumbing at the same time. I don't know. But really, the accessibility, people are getting older. If you are very lucky, you will live long enough to be disabled. And I cannot emphasize enough how very few places I can access in Medford in my wheelchair, including the vast majority of houses. So I urge you to go bigger, to go denser, to go taller. And I want more elevators.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Kate. That's really helpful perspective and maybe something that people don't consider on a day-to-day basis. So really appreciate you sharing those public comments. The next public commenter that I see, it's all one word. So I'm gonna assume where the first name and last name breaks is Kyle Eaton. You're gonna get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kyle Eaton]: It is Kyle Eaton, and I live at 168 Sheridan Avenue. I'm really, really happy that this is happening. This is really great. I really appreciate all the work that you guys are doing on this. I've lived in an apartment in Medford for eight years. Our neighborhood definitely needs more housing stock, for sure. I strongly support increasing the density here in my neighborhood and everywhere in the city. I echo the previous commenters that higher high limits are a great idea. Limiting it now for the foreseeable future seems not very future oriented. I also think that keeping large swaths of the city as single family housing only is is not the right idea as well. We, like I said, we definitely need more density and limiting it artificially there, I think is a bad idea. Also echo the concerns about parking minimums continuing to block development, although that's as the previous commenter said not something handling now. On the short distance from major transit hubs, I regularly walk to Malden Center. We also have buses in many areas of the city that I used to get around without me and my wife only have one car. So I don't think it's a requirement that we have assumed that every person that moves here needs a car, even if they aren't within a half mile of the major hubs. So thank you. I appreciate it.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks, Kyle. Appreciate your comments. The next commenter that I see is Eunice Brown. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Eunice Browne]: Hi, thanks. Eunice Brown, Greenleaf Ave. I am going to be speaking mainly on my area, which is kind of known as the lower hillside. And I have three points. First of all, regarding narrow roads and access, at the Q&A last week, I think the consultant mentioned that one of the reasons that the NR1 areas are remaining as such is due to the narrow roads and access. That included areas like the Heights, the Lawrence Estates, West Medford, utterly all the more affluent areas where there's the highest voter turnout. Anyway, the Lower Hellside is proposed for the increased density of UR1. We also have extremely narrow roads with access issues too. I've been told by members of the Medford Fire Department that Greenleaf Avenue and the surrounding area is one of the worst streets and areas for the MFD to travel. I've seen that myself, having had the fire department here at my home on a few occasions, and it was definitely borne out during a massive house fire on Greenleaf in December of 2023. Listening to the scanner that morning, Dispatch was faced with access issues from the firefighters trying to get to the scene. Has anyone bothered to consult with the MFD to see how the increased density and more cars might impact their ability to get through the area? Four to six unit multiplexes. Again, there's been a mention of protecting the culture of the neighborhoods. Adding four to six unit multiplexes do not fit in this area, either with the character of the neighborhood or the current density. It also poses parking problems because there's more cars than driveways currently. And the third thing is tufts. We know Tufts is not a good neighbor. We just went through that a couple of months ago with the dorm proposal. Community development could have been better, and they certainly did not do a good job of that. Matter of fact, Ms. Hederman, you said yourself that after the dorm vote was taken, I hope to never see a proposal like that before this board ever again. Any zoning proposal made for the hillside area has got to be Tufts proof. It has to be bulletproof to protect the neighborhood and not have a single loophole that Tufts can exploit to build as they wish. We don't have the Dover amendment hanging over us this time. Medford has that control. Exercise it and protect the Medford, the hillside neighborhood. Do I still have time?
[Emily Hedeman]: You're about 45 seconds over.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, I'll email the rest. Thanks very much. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: I like your sentiment about being Tufts-proof. My hope is that they will be a better neighbor in the future, but, you know, we, yeah, I see you, Lori. You know, you can't plan on a hope. The next speaker that I see is Laurel Ruma. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Laurel Ruma]: My name is Laurel Ruma. I live at 149 Burgett Avenue in the same neighborhood as both Lori and Eunice. So thank you very much for taking our notes today. Mike and I wrote a letter that gets into more of the detail of the things that we want to address. So please have a read at that. And before We know you for most recent things. I actually spent 12 years working on the Green Line extension as a representative of the city to bring the Green Line to Medford, and it's great. It's here, it's literally in my backyard. They took part of my backyard to do it like I'm all for it. So now I know it's here, all the chickens have come home to roost and everybody wants more dense housing around the Green Line station at Tufts and Ball Square. That's fine. We're totally for it, but we would also like the flexibility of keeping the option of single family homes here in the neighborhood just because then it gives us the opportunity to go from six floors to one floor to whatever needs to be in the in between. The other thing that I would like to say is that the MBTA does declare the accessibility of train stations to be half a mile. So when you look at the current zoning maps, I call it the lower hillside bullseye because it is a quarter mile circle that's been drawn. And it's, as Jeremy said, from George Street to Winthrop Street, all the interior neighborhoods, streets. And the issue with that is this is the densest part of the lower hillside. Our streets are very narrow. We call it the Warren for a reason. because fire trucks can't make it down. If two cars are parked on the same side, like forget it. So this is another issue of this neighborhood. So if we expand the you are one designation past that the half mile designation that the MBTA gives it broadens the opportunities for everyone to take, you know, have a part of this density story. Yeah, as does getting rid of NR1s. So this is an opportunity for everyone. So NR1 should be struck from the record and everyone should have an opportunity to participate in making Medford more dense with more housing opportunities for everyone. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Laurel. And thanks for your work on the Green Line Extension. I worked for the city of Somerville when we were trying to get some of that off the out of contracts and into execution. So I really appreciate your work on that and very insightful comments. Thank you. The next commenter that I see is Tara. You're gonna get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Tara Shankar]: Hi, thank you, Madam Chairman. Address is 397 High Street in West Bedford. I am within the half a mile of the commuter rail. like to speak to specifically the historic conversion aspect. I live in a historic house. And I do not believe, well, first of all, let me characterize in West Medford alone, historic houses can be quite small. And they can also be bigger than many houses I've ever seen. So there is an enormous, diversity of housing stock in the historic conversion. In order to incentivize owners to preserve those historic houses, I think it needs to be more aggressive in terms of the units. And also, specifically, because some of the houses have large properties, whether they are large residences or small residences, they have large properties, as many speakers have already represented. Having a multiplex or an ADU by right within the historic conversion would help incentivize the maintenance of the historic building itself. The two to four units, I don't believe at this point, is financially viable. and the three-unit townhouse would compete. Like knocking the historic building down and just building townhouses is probably lucrative. So think about that because our historic neighborhoods are gorgeous and all of the houses, small and large, are important for maintaining the character of our neighborhood. And thinking creatively, actually should be one of the things that is done within this zoning. Thank you. Thank you, Tara.
[Emily Hedeman]: The next commenter that I see is Ken. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Ken Gareau]: Ken Garrow. Sorry, I'm doing this on my phone. Great, brilliant. Kim Garrow, 52 Lambert Street. In general, I'm supportive of our thing here. I think I'm going to echo quite a few number of people. NR1, I actually think, is hot garbage, frankly. I don't think it should exist. I think the previous commenter was correct. It doesn't go far enough for the density we need in the city. truly think if we're going to try to expand along these ways, that is, we should really get rid of that. While I live over on Lambert Street now, when I first moved to Medford, I was over on Playstead, over in West Medford. I used the commuter rail to get to my teaching position that I had in the middle of the city. And I was a little disappointed in the proposal that Basically, everything within that circle of the West Medford Station was not NR3. I really think we have an opportunity to go forth and do that, and I would really push us to do that. Even the sections that are labeled NR2 currently on the proposal, I think those should also be NR3. Another commenter made the statement that And R3 should kind of be the basis for basically almost anything above north of the river. And I kind of agree with that, but can kind of understand some density things, especially coming to things with much smaller lanes. And even then, eh. But I really would like the... Density to increase. I walk from the Haines Square all the time to Malden Center. I walked this morning to the library. I would like some of the things I normally participate in. Medford Square to be closer, denser, have some more friends. And I think it's also worth noting it's a little apples to oranges. Prices for single family houses right now, you have Mary Heine Way where you're looking at $2 million single family homes. And the new condos that were developed in West Medford Square, yes, they're smaller, but they're also what people probably in my generation look at as a reasonable house given the market that we've had over the last several years.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ken, would you mind wrapping up your last thought? Nope.
[Ken Gareau]: That was about it. Thank you for the time. Good work, everyone.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Ken. Appreciate your candid feedback. And we encourage that from everybody on what's being presented. So thank you. The next commenter that I have is Marion. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. Marion, I'm sending through a request to unmute. I'm going to try again. All right, we're gonna come back to Marion. We wanna make sure everybody's heard. Marion, if you're having technical difficulties, please reach out to Danielle or Alicia, but we'll come back to you and continue to come back to you until we figure it out. The next commenter that I see is J.R. Elliott. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your, oh, you keep muting yourself. Or I, I don't know what's happening. JR Elliott, are you there?
[John Elliott]: I'm here.
[Emily Hedeman]: Great. Please state your name and address for the record.
[John Elliott]: John Elliott, 34 Emery Street in the hillside. I have spent way too much time staring at maps and aerial photographs trying to make some sense of this in preparation for this meeting. There jumped out two or three things that I want to mention here. First of all, what Laurel Ruma calls the bullseye, I saw that and tried to make some sense of it because I don't think any of us has a personal transporter that will get us from our places of where we live to the track side. And then go away and come back. So that's what the bullseye shows is as the crows fly distance. I proceeded to measure from this point on the platform at the Medford Tufts station. across the platform, up one flight of stairs, turn left, up another flight of stairs, up to the sidewalk at Boston Ave, over the bridge, over the right-of-way, past the Cummings building, up the access road or service road that services
[Emily Hedeman]: John, just real quick, you have about 30 seconds left. Oh, really? Yeah.
[John Elliott]: Yeah, up to the end of Burgett Avenue. And that's a quarter of a mile. From there, you can start measuring a quarter of a mile or a half mile. The other thing that I saw on the maps was how much green space there was that is occupied by Tufts athletic fields. There's a 20-acre plot up there that has 19-acre plot with five athletic fields, two acres unused right by the tracks. That would be a great place to put some high-density residential. If you wanted it to be close to the station, that is a quarter of a mile, the farthest in that two-acre plot. OK, I'll quit.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, John. I appreciate the comment and appreciate the process that you went through to measure those distances. I think it provides some real kind of first-hand experience and helps to personify some of the data that we're seeing. I'm going to go back to Marion, see if I can do a request to unmute. Where did they go? The hand just dropped. Okay. Marian, if you raised, if you dropped your hand intentionally, no worries. If you didn't, please raise your hand again. We want to make sure to hear your comment. But for now, we're going to move on, excuse me, to our next member of the public. Jean, you're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Good evening, can you hear me now, Madam Chairperson?
[Emily Hedeman]: It's a little low, but I'm not sure if that's just me.
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right, let me get closer to my computer, is this better? Yes, thank you so much. I'll just hang close to my computer, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm at Parr Street in Medford. I do have a letter prepared, but I have a few comments that I'd like to make. I think it's important as we speak as a community to just be thoughtful. And I would like to share for people's consideration, it's great to kind of be wishful about what we want to do. But the sad fact here in Medford is that the city of Medford, whether we like it or not, does not attract transformative developers in any way. We simply attract flippers. And our most recent example of that was the four-acre, approximate four-acre RFP in Medford Square. We had a room full of developers that were promised friendly PDUs and autonomy in what they were going to build there. And at the end of the day, we had a response from two, and they weren't even really the true transformative developers you see respond in other cities. So we can talk about acres of land and what we'd like to do and what we'd like to see and what we think is going to happen. But I'm telling you as someone who is in the industry, and I have many a conversation with a variety of people in the industry, there is a very low interest in Medford for anybody but a flipper. And so what we are developing here in this programmatical exercise in rezoning is nothing but what is friendly to flippers and speculative developers who are going to harass the residents as they do their monetary build-outs for their speculative projects and force long-time residents out. I just would like to, if you'll give me the little bit of latitude, I have a handful of other thoughts. I want to displace people of this idea that if you build a four or a six-story building, that it's going to get an elevator and you're going to be able to travel where you are. ADA compliance isn't driven by height, it's driven by statutory requirements, and it is a percentage of build-outs. It is a percentage of what is done. So each project will net a different type of ADA compliance. You might not be able to visit your friends because there might not be an elevator or your friends might be on the ground floor in a back area. So this idea that every new building that's coming in is going to be 100% ADA is not accurate. Also new construction does not, and higher units does not necessarily equate to affordability. If you don't hit the 10 unit threshold, you get no affordability. We saw that on Winthrop Street in West Medford, where they blasted away the land and were creative about how they subdivided it. And the city got zero affordable units in an environment where the units are selling at almost $2 million each.
[Emily Hedeman]: Jean, you're about 50 seconds over. I'm going to ask you to finish your last thought.
[Jean Nuzzo]: One final thought. It is really troubling to me that we continue to talk about these things without studies and without using our best practices because we are going to be holding the bag for a lot of it. But the example I will leave you with is our plumbing. In most instances, the plumbing and the utilities that run in our street are over 100 years old. It is not an incremental proposition. It is an overarching proposition when we're looking at the zoning. I will submit the rest in writing, and I appreciate the latitude. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Jean. The next public commenter that we have is Jennifer. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jennifer O'Callaghan]: Hi, my name is Jennifer O'Callaghan, 19 Paris Street, and I wanted to express my opposition to what is currently proposed for the Salem Street Glenwood area in my neighborhood. I think it's important to point out that what we're talking about is what's going to be allowed by right. This ignores the fact that you are going to have greedy developer after greedy developer coming along In going for additional variances and potentially succeeding because medford wants to give it away The problem is not Your neighbor your longtime neighbor who wants to add an adu or needs to expand a little bit on their house It is the developers that we are seeing coming faster and stronger each time to our neighborhood to build things that are not high quality, nor attractive, nor what the neighbors would appreciate. And so, therefore, I don't want to see it. I also would like to, before I complete my statement, point out that anyone who believes that the bus transit around here is equivalent or as good as rapid transit is delusional. despite whatever proposals are coming related to the 101. As a person who takes the T from time to time, I can assure you it's not better. Thank you. Bye.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Jennifer. The next commenter that I see is Lori. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Laurie Krieger]: Hi, I'm Lori Krieger, 124 Brookings Street. I still have PTSD. I'm working through it. So my biggest concerns, I was at the meeting the other night. I haven't been in front of the board. My biggest concerns, we all, it's like the same thing with Tufts, right? We all want density and all of that, but we don't want to, I think the most important things that you can do are Mike and Laurel wrote a letter. And the letter talks about putting institutional zoning first or Tufts first before we do the rest of the stuff for the city. And I think that's super important because we need to know what's going on with them. And we need to make plans in regards to them or hopefully in conjunction with them. So I think that's super important. They own tons of property around here. If all of a sudden it could be six family or six units, right? They can buy a couple of lots and all of a sudden I'll be in the middle of Tufts property instead of on the edge. And that's a little bit, that's concerning. The other thing that I think that I want to reflect what Jean and Jennifer said is that we're very idealistic here in this neighborhood. We really are. We care about our community. We care about affordable housing, we care about all kinds of things. But these zoning laws are not laws that control what developers do, just the framework within which they can operate. And right now we live in a really the land of unregulated capitalism to the nth degree. And if our concerns as families, as neighborhoods aren't met, then it's going to be like what Jennifer said or Jean said that like we have to find a way whatever y'all do take as much effort as you can to look at it from different angles and different vantage points so that the undone unintended consequences don't destroy everything that we have that is good and the final thing about like with the whole Tufts thing We're looking at planting, and I mentioned this before, we're looking at planting trees and stuff to kind of obscure if we can live long enough to obscure the Tufts buildings. But then you get somebody that wants to develop a lot and they take out all the trees. Like let's not, let's create rules that avoid an urban desert because that could happen too. There's buildings in Somerville and Cambridge that are just been built, and they're empty. They're empty like 10 years later. I don't know what the laws were around that, but let's be as smart as we can. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Laurie. I appreciate that. Good to see you again.
[Laurie Krieger]: Yeah, thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: The next commenter that I see is Marion. Going to put a request to unmute. I know we had trouble last time, Marion. Danielle or Alicia, are you also requesting Marion unmute? Just want to make sure we're not conflicting. Okay. Marian, I don't seem to have any luck with getting you to unmute. So I'm going to move on to our next commenter, but we will come back to you. The next commenter that I see is Judith. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. Can you hear me?
[Judith Weinstock]: Yes. Thank you. Judith Weinstock, 144 Breguet. Hi, everybody. I feel like I've just seen y'all. I think I did. I just want to echo a couple of things, and I was pretty vocal at the last meeting, and so folks who were there or on the Zoom may have heard a little bit about sort of the unintended consequences of UR1 in what is already also potentially in Ball Square, but certainly here of a community that is very tight. And what other folks have said, I actually now have been hearing a number of times about the limited access on our streets. And first of all, they're in pretty bad condition, but that's a separate issue maybe. But they are incredibly narrow. The neighborhood is incredibly dense already. And so it is of concern to see a UR1 where what I think the only option will be is to have developers come in, scoop up a couple of the lots because I have a 4,000 square foot lot. I'm not sure that a six unit building can be built and still meet setbacks and frontage and all that jazz. So I'm really concerned about incentivizing developers who will purchase multiple connected lots raise the houses and put up multiplexes and so I've already gone on the record to say that I'm not a fan of five and six unit multiplexes at three stories high in this very tight small area already. And the other thing I sort of agree with Laurel around you know if one is going to do this then you have to expand beyond just the central location of Burgett, Sunset, Brookings, and go out the half a mile. But I just don't want the unintended consequence of actually driving up pricing because developers will be the only ones who can put up multiplexes. The normal person who wants to put up an ADU or convert their house to a two-family, that's not the person I'm concerned about. And with that, I will stop.
[Emily Hedeman]: Sorry, I had a poorly timed cracker.
[Judith Weinstock]: Sorry, Emily, didn't mean to put you on the spot there.
[Emily Hedeman]: No, you're good. You're good. I really appreciate your insight, Judith. And I think this is the first time that you and I have interacted, so I really appreciate you coming to this meeting.
[Judith Weinstock]: Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: The next commenter that I see is Sharon W. You're going to get a request to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Sharon Wentworth]: What was that?
[Emily Hedeman]: Hi, Sharon, we can hear you.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, can you please state your name and address for the record?
[Sharon Wentworth]: 694 Winthrop Street. So I just had a few questions. One is, I'm hearing a lot of changes to the NR1 and NR2. Would there be another meeting if there are changes that are going to happen?
[Emily Hedeman]: Do you want to keep asking or do you want us to pause your timer?
[Sharon Wentworth]: The other thing is, will there be setbacks? Have the setbacks changed and what are they? And will this affect taxes and benefit depending on the area?
[Emily Hedeman]: You still have over a minute if you have additional questions.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Those are my main questions. Okay.
[Emily Hedeman]: So, the questions I heard are, will this affect taxes around setbacks? What are they and are they changing? And then if changes are made to NR1 and NR2, will there be an additional meeting around those?
[Sharon Wentworth]: Correct.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Okay, I'm going to have the consultant respond to kind of questions in bulk. I know there's been a lot that have come before us already, and I'll make sure that those three are addressed. Okay. Thank you, Sharon.
[Tara Shankar]: You're welcome.
[Emily Hedeman]: So, Marion, I'm going to come back to you. I'm going to send through a request to unmute.
[Alicia Hunt]: Emily, she did message me between saying that her screen says she's unmuted, but we couldn't hear her. But I, you know, I told her she looked like she never unmuted. So she just messaged, sent me a direct message with her brief comment. Okay. Marion says, I just wanted to go on record that I'm against NR1 in West and Lawrence. I live in Glenwood. Okay. And she was going to send a second message if I understand the one slash two. Sorry, didn't see that at the beginning.
[Emily Hedeman]: Is there another? Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Alicia, is there another comment that came through from Marion? I know you said there might be two. No.
[Alicia Hunt]: If it does, I'll let you know. There are no other speakers, are there?
[Emily Hedeman]: I don't see any hands raised right now, no. OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: If you want, I have an answer from the assessor on the tax question, and I could read that and then share it if Marian says another message.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, that would be great, and we'd address one of Sharon's questions, which would be awesome.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, so I, let me see, I was just going to grade up my, have my notes there. Oh, Marian says, I live one and a half miles from the T. That was the end of her message.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Marion. I'm sorry we're having technical difficulties, but I appreciate your persistence and your comments this evening.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I actually spoke with the assessor about taxes today, and I apologize if I look like I'm not looking at everybody as I say this, but I'm referring to my notes that are on the side here. Sure. And so we discussed it a little bit, and what he said is that There are many things that go into the assessment, and what the zoning is is one of those things, but it's one of several things. And Medford, as other communities of our size, we wouldn't go through, we do our assessments based on comparables, and that is based on what is selling in your neighborhood. And that seems people generally understand that, but what I didn't understand is that that information lags quite a bit. So I said, so it's more based on the house that sold last month than on the zoning. And he said, actually it's the house that sells this month isn't going to be reflected in the assessments until fiscal year 27. So it's like a year and a half later that the sales start to affect assessments. And that the city will not go through and reassess everybody based on new zoning across the board. We don't have the bandwidth. That's not how we do things. And the changes are much more subtle than that. So that if new zoning means that the values in your neighborhood go up. then eventually, yes, the taxes would go up, but if the new zoning doesn't impact the zone, but we don't actually have a direct way to know. So we could never say it was the zoning versus just that the market went up in our neighborhood. So that's sort of the big picture. They are not gonna go through and they're not gonna reassess everybody and say, now you can build a two family, now your property is twice as valuable. That is not how they do assessments in the city of Medford.
[Emily Hedeman]: What I'm hearing is zoning is one of many factors that could influence the assessed value of property. We're not going to see the immediate impacts of a rezone potentially in your next annual tax bill, but there may be consequences, good and bad, in the longer term. Right. I think that's
[Alicia Hunt]: summarizes it pretty well. Because I think it was a question for people whether the assessor would go through and just raise everybody's taxes. Not happening. No.
[Emily Hedeman]: So I'm going to do one more call for public comments. I don't see any hands. I'm going to give it a second. So right now, I'm going to close the public comment period just for this meeting. We may reopen it at a future meeting, depending on kind of the changes and the scope. But for the purposes of this meeting, the public comment is closed. What I would like to do now is open up to the board, actually. No. Let's have Emily and Paola do any responses. And we got some specific questions from Sharon at the end. There were some comments about ADUs that need a little bit of clarity. Emily and Paola, if you want to kind of kick things off, and I'll go through with my notes and see if we missed any that we can get back to either tonight or at later dates.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also was taking notes so great to work my way backwards and if I forget anything, please let me know. I will say that, just to reiterate, we do plan to work with city staff to come back to the city board with changes. We don't know exactly what there will be but there were certainly some common elements to what we heard last week. And what we heard tonight, we are absolutely taking those into consideration. We also heard a few new things that we will discuss. So you should expect for whichever meeting, and one of Sharon's questions was, will there be a next meeting that will be your continued meeting at which we present the changes so that everybody can hear them through this public forum. We do have setback recommendations. I do not have in front of me what they are. are in the current zoning versus what they will be, but I can tell you what they will be. I just don't have the comparison in front of me right now. So the setbacks for NR1 and 2, the front setback is 15. And for NR3, UR1 and UR2, the front setback is 10. These are minimum setbacks. Side setback is 7.5 for NR1 and NR2 with the sum of both sides being 15, again minimum. For NR3, UR1 and UR2, they are 5 with the sum being 10, again minimum. And then for the rear, for all of the NRs, it's 15. And for both of the URs, it's 10. And I see Alicia, you've got your hand raised. Do you have the others in front of you? OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia? If you want me to provide the currents. Yeah, it'd be helpful to have that as kind of a basis. Sure. So currently, our dimensions are done by the use. And to be clear, we currently allow detached single-family dwellings and detached two-family dwellings. And all of those, what I'm going to tell you, it's the same for all of those. And we don't currently allow three-family units. That's not a recognized type. And anything larger than that is considered a multifamily, which has significantly different dimensional requirements. single and two families. The front is 15 foot setback everywhere. The side is seven and a half setback everywhere. And the rear is 15 everywhere. So those are largely the same. Yes, very similar. I think that in two in the NR three, the front setback went from 15 to 10. Yeah. And I Couldn't possibly tell you our, I will just tell you that the multi-family set is so confusing that it's one of the things we've asked to please change, but it is height plus length divided by six, but at least 15 for all of those dimensions, which basically says the taller the building is, the further from the boundaries of the property it should be. which is why we have tall buildings and seas of parking in the city of Medford, because that is what is required by our current zoning.
[Emily Innes]: And I will just add to that that part of what we've been doing is trying to rationalize the setbacks and the other dimensions. So rather than being by use or by district to for the most part, and that is so that you're when you're within a district, there is a consistency there to what you're seeing or what you will get. I also see Paola, you have your hand up. Do you want to add more? Paola?
[Paula Ramos]: Yeah, thank you. We are also reviewing now the ADUs, the accessory dwelling units. And for that, we also need to look into the requirements. So we'll be studying a little bit further as well the setbacks for principal dwelling units. So for all these districts to see if they need to be a little bit tweaked for the ADUs. So just so people know that.
[Emily Innes]: And with your permission, Madam Chair, Paola, while you're there, you've been working on the difference between the protected ADU under the state law and the local option ADU. Do you want to just touch on the fact that there are those two differences? I know we had one of the speakers asked about that.
[Paula Ramos]: Yes, if I may. So under the new law, there is two uses for the ADUs. One is the protected use, and the other one is the local. So the local would be anything that Medford would like to allow for an ADU that is outside the scope of the protected ADUs, that will be the local. For the protected ADUs, it has several things, but the main one is than in any single family residential district. That means any district that allows single family buildings by right or also by a special permit, then you have the protected ADUs. This means that if, for example, we take the UR1 and we include the ADU, the single family, that means that they will also have the protected ADUs, and that will mean that for any principal building, they could add another dwelling, accessory dwelling. So just so everybody has that information, right now, the UR1 does not have that. That means that we could allow, and as we are considering now, we allow that local ADUs, but we are not, we don't have to allow the protected use because we don't have that single family. And for the local ADUs, we only allow it in single two units and three units. If that is not the case and we have a UR1 with a single family, that means that multiplex of six units could by right as a protected ADUs allow another and then another by a special permit if we allow it. So it could potentially go up to eight units. if we allow that. I hope that explained. I'm sorry. It is a lot of, a little bit levering, so I'm so sorry.
[Emily Hedeman]: I think a table would help kind of explain the ADU breakdown. I remember commenter Gaston talked about combining multiple ADUs. And I think you start to touch on that, Paola. With one is allowed and the second would be special permit, so we're not going to have everybody kind of putting up, I think the number is 2200 square feet of two ADUs by right.
[Emily Innes]: And the reason we haven't yet presented you with that table is because it's not been solidified. So we agree that that needs to be further broken down. But we also need to know what the final proposal is. And we're still working that out with the planning and permitting committee. Because it is quite complex, taking what the state law allows, and then deciding how to modify that to allow for the local preference. We wanted to acknowledge in our presentation today that ADUs will be allowed under certain circumstances, but not to go through the details. Alicia, I see your hand up.
[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia. Madam Chair, as we've raised this up, I realized that the staff and the consultants and the city Councilors who have been at these meetings and considering this residential have also had the opportunity to hear about this ADU discussion. And I'm thinking that maybe we wanna consider having some more information on the ADUs for the CD board or the next meeting, because it is directly relevant. Because the example that is sort of the most glaring is that where we are saying that there should, and we may want to go into, and I think Danielle or I might be the best to explain why we still are recommending some single family one districts or the neighborhood one. Like I think we should explain what the rationale is behind that. But as we're doing that, because of this state law, ADUs are allowed in every building in an NR1 district. And that's not something we can change, which would mean that every single building, single family or not, or multifamily in that district could also have an ADU, which means you could have two units legally at every property, even though the district is a single family only district.
[Emily Hedeman]: Well, you could, and if it's a historic, that could be two units. And then we could combine that with an ADU. So it could be really up to 30. OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I think that's, we keep losing sight of that. But not to say in the SF2, or sorry, NR2, you could have one family, two family, every two family could have an ADU. And I'm not saying that everybody will. Yeah. But we do not have the ability to say no to those. Yeah.
[Emily Innes]: So I think the idea of a table for the next meeting that explains exactly what is allowed as a principal use and what is allowed as that accessory dwelling use, whether it's the state, the protected unit, or the local option unit, we would be happy to present that, and I think we'll be a lot closer on the details before that meeting, so that would make it a valuable addition to you, but because somebody brought it up, I wanted to make sure that we answered that. It is also something that falls under that historic conversion that we just mentioned, and I know we had Somebody speak about two to four units might not be enough and it might not be viable and also the variation in both the building size and the lot sizes for historic buildings. So we did consider, we did talk about the idea of maybe the number of units are dependent on the size of the house. or the size of the lot, that is something that we could certainly revisit. I think we wanted to indicate this idea that the historic house conversion had the ability to go above the existing density. There was some concern about how much above it could go and how the layout would happen interior, which is not something that zoning normally talks about. We thought, okay, let's just go one unit above, test that idea of the historic conversion, test that idea of creating an incentive to keep these buildings that are so important to the community. And, you know, we've heard somebody tonight saying, well, why don't you think about it differently? And I think we could definitely go back to those discussions. So I just wanted to touch on that. I'm just looking through the rest of my notes. We obviously heard the idea of sort of the back and forth of, do you continue to allow single family as a right in certain districts? Do you up zone in R1 or up zone in R1 or 2? We will continue to look at that and see what that would mean. We also looked at this idea of expanding out beyond or heard the idea of expanding out beyond the quarter mile, half mile. or beyond. And again, typography comes into play as we heard from a couple of the people. So just note that we're still thinking about those. Two other things I wanted to call out. One is one of the speakers asked about the list of criteria and the process for non-conforming single family. That's actually in your current zoning. So it's section 94-5.5, non-conforming single and two-family residential structures. So I encourage anybody who's wondering about non-conforming uses to have a look at what's already in the current zoning. We're reviewing it to see if there need to be any additional tweaks, but as I mentioned earlier, it's good as it stands. We just want to obviously keep as many possibilities in mind as we can. And then, just, I do want to reiterate that we didn't talk about every piece of land in our conversations, there are still the areas to be rezoned, the squares, some of the additional corridors. So when you look at that residential map, you will see that there are white spaces, where we are adding mixes of uses, we are adding commercial only, but the mixed-use districts that we've already talked about, Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix 3 in the Mystic Avenue corridor, in Mix 1 and Mix 2 in the Salem Street neighborhood area, or corridor, those mixed-use districts are being added to the squares, to West Medford Square, to Medford Square, and will be added to the other corridors. So, they like the difference between Mystic Avenue and the Salem Street neighborhood corridor. They will be modified for the other areas and the other corridors, but that mix of uses, those heights are being discussed and added for your review now. So I just wanted to let people know, you know, that there are other strategies for housing in these areas, including mixed use and including just multifamily. So that should be known. And I think those are the highest level things. And just once again, just that I took for discussion today or answering today, but just note that we took extensive notes on what we heard today, and we'll be taking that back to our internal team. And also to city planning staff and planning and well not the planning and permitting committee now because they've sent it to you but to you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Right, and a couple notes that I took. You know Tufts is right, it's a five letter word but it's you know kind of a four letter word within this board, hopefully, you know, that's. in the past, but there were some questions around Tufts, their land use, how this interacts with kind of their plans moving forward. Can you speak a little bit about how that's been considered as part of the process?
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, it gets to one of the difficult questions we have in zoning, which is zoning doesn't address ownership, right? Zoning does not control who owns what. So what we can do is we can control the uses, we can control the dimensional standards. We can add development and design standards to that, but we can't control through zoning who is going to own a property. As I'm sure almost everybody listening in on this call also knows about the Dover Amendment. We have been working with legal counsel on this as well. I think we have some questions as to when, for example, you could restrict a dormitory. In a residential neighborhood, but as a dormitory, the same thing as a 6 unit building that is rented to individual apartments. You know, that would be a question that we could talk with legal counsel out. I should also note that, you know, there is the, we have to be mindful of the housing act. Yes, whether or not you know any individual practice is seen as discriminatory So that's something else to keep in mind. So it's it's not an easy answer. I appreciate Because we were on earlier calls with you where we heard part of that process. I appreciate the frustration that community has had around this and we'll certainly look at what I what the zoning can legally do to address that frustration and address what can go forward, but just know that there are some things that zoning just cannot do by itself.
[Emily Hedeman]: And we wouldn't want it to do.
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. I also heard some negative connotations around kind of short term developers or flippers. How could zoning potentially attack this? Or is that something that has to be done kind of on a local policy level to incentivize developing and kind of living in the house that that you've renovated?
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, again, it gets to the ownership. You know, it's also what building code allows and doesn't allow. I think some of the development standards that we've talked about, the green score that Paola presented to you a couple of meetings, certainly on the larger developments that may have a possibility. Paola and I were talking internally about whether or not we should recommend applying the green score maybe at the UR1, UR2 level, possibly even NR3. We heard some discussion today and also last week about whether or not we add an NR4 or something like that. So I think we can take it back and look at the development standards and the design guidelines and see if there is a way that can help. But again, with ownership, with building code, with health codes, there are other things beyond zoning that control development. I'll yield to Alicia.
[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia. I just wanted to add in on that. I just wanted to state there are two things. People referred to a particular flipper. There is one who's very active in Medford. He's doing a lot of projects. There are two things that We know it is that they tend to be large, and we cannot zone with the largest size of a house is unfortunately right we can say no more than this much lot coverage, but we can't say you can't build a 4000 square foot house like that's not allowed. But one of the things that we haven't dug into too deeply is the. Often there's a look to the styles that are very modernistic. And Medford residents speak very loudly about their desire for the style of housing that we see throughout. We don't object to flat roofs if they're in a triple-decker style, right? And we like the look and feel of what we see around Medford. And I think that we really need to be considering design standards and whether those are in zoning, whether those come out of the CD board. I'm not clear that we're able to get those through in this piece of the zoning, but I am asking for some money to continue this process. And I think that's something that we need to do in phase three is to talk about design standards so that we continue to have Medford that looks like Medford and doesn't look like the shore, right? Big rectangles, wide windows that look out over the ocean. It's just, they're beautiful. I love staying in them, but they're not Medford. So anyhow, I just wanted to raise that as one of the concerns that people didn't, when they talk about the character, I think that's one of the things that they mean.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and I think we need to be careful in terms of regulating design because aesthetics are subjective. They're going to change over time. And, you know, there are ways that modern design can be thoughtfully incorporated into more historic neighborhoods. I also do think we need to be just careful with the word character, because sometimes that can be an exclusionary term. So we just want to be mindful that, you know, we respect what's here in Medford, but we're also aware that, you know, Medford is constantly changing. And thanks to all of you, it seems like we're changing for the better.
[Alicia Hunt]: So shout out when residents today we're using the word character. Yeah, that's the kind of thing they're talking about is design standards and I didn't want people to think that they meant something else.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, yeah, that's what I was kind of flagging there.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, we, just to add very quickly onto that, you know, we've been looking at development standards which are mandatory under zoning and are really tied to the site plan review process, so tied to those. We have certainly worked on ourselves and seen other firms who have worked on this idea of advisory design guidelines that give, in the site plan review process or in the special permit process, or in one case even for by right, that can be handed out to people that give more of an idea of exactly what Director Hunt was talking about, this idea of we prefer pitched roofs, we already have these historic styles, and even if you're doing a contemporary building, we'd like you to be sympathetic to these historic styles that can act as a conversational element during the permitting process. And that's certainly something where if the city goes forward with this, we can provide examples for consideration of how that is done in a way that, to your point, allows for flexibility over time, but does recognize historic patterns of development and historic building types and how those can be translated into more contemporary designs by the choice of the person doing the building.
[Emily Hedeman]: I also did want to bring up some comments about ADA compliance. So I live in a giant new building with, I think we have at least four elevators which feels insane, but we have you know, hundreds and hundreds of units. And, you know, I agree with the sentiment that, you know, larger development in the right place, I'm right by Wellington, you know, increases accessibility. It's also one of the places where, you know, three plus unit dwellings can be added very easily to the housing stock and provides more flexibility for people that may not have the means or even just the desire to own real estate. But whether it's this meeting or next meeting, I'd love just a little clarification on that.
[Emily Innes]: We can look further into that for you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, cool. What else did I have? I do love the idea of NR4. I don't know how far we want to push these NRs or even the URs, but it could be interesting to see kind of like what a next step would look like for those. And then there were some comments about, you know, the quarter mile radius potentially being extended to a half mile radius, also the treatment of the commuter rail. Is there any insight you could offer on that?
[Emily Innes]: The only thing to say is that we were we talked about that as well as just to see we are showing the quarter mile radius and the half mile radius on the map, but we plan to take another look at what's within each of them. And I think that knowing, by the way, that what's within the quarter mile radius in addition to the residential we showed for tonight for some of those. That is also some of our squares and corridors are within that and we didn't talk about those today. But we would like to have another look at it. We also heard some interesting testimony from people who are beyond that half mile radius and you know what their access is. So I think we're going to be doing a little zooming in to see what's going on there and does that make a difference to where we're drawing the districts.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and the last thing I wanted to call out was Jeremy in Hillside. He mentioned, and this kind of brings me back to Salem Street. He had mentioned a specific division. I think it was George and Hillside. I don't know if I got those streets correct. But if people have specific questions about specific lots or lines, what should their process be?
[Emily Innes]: goes straight to the city staff and I think they're collecting all of the comments. To my knowledge, everything they've collected, they've been sending straight to us and we would love to hear if people have questions about dividing lines or particular parcels. Why am I here? My next door neighbor is that. Yeah, please, please send those on.
[Emily Hedeman]: Cool. Okay. I think those are all the questions that I wanted to elevate from the public. I'm going to go through these. I have I think only eight pages this time. I'm going to go through these again and make sure that we're considering everything. I do want to open it up to the rest of the board for discussion. Peter, I see your hand. but also want to engage Adam, Annie. Adam, are you able to unmute yourself? Have we made you a host? Yeah, I can. Okay. Peter, I saw your hand first if you want to speak up.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I just wanted to elevate some of the things I was hearing in the comments. I heard the desire for this in the comments, but not the particular sentiment until you said it. Something along the lines of an NR4, a more dense neighborhood residential for areas where that could potentially sustain that density, particularly thinking of something that people brought up around West Medford Square, kind of further around from that, that there were people who, there were comments that said they thought that kind of that proximity to West Medford's where it could sustain more density. And then also, I think interestingly, an interesting concept that was brought up kind of in both directions with regards to the transit radiuses is the concept of distance versus access, and was brought up both by people in the neighborhoods that are coming to mind, both by people in the kind of Glenwood and West Medford areas who were saying that we'll I live further out from this radius, and I think it is easier than it would illustrate to get to transit around me. And also by people in Medford Hillside who said, well, on the map, this looks very close, but there are only so many places you can cross the tracks. So in terms of access, it's not as close as the distance on a map makes it seem. My biggest takeaway is to look into, as it comes to those transit radii and the concept of distance versus access, because I think they can play that both ways, where things are both closer and further away than they appear on the map.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, the topography, but also the issue of straight line versus numbers of turns. I think we can take a closer look at that and see what else we have been Looking quite a bit at the topography, but I think, you know, hearing some of the comments today, it's worth taking another look. So appreciate for you raising that again.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I think John had kind of a really detailed example in terms of, like, you know, even before I get to, like, leaving the station, you know, there's this long process of stairs and walkways. So yeah, good, good elevation of that, Peter. Adam, did you have your hand up or were you just waving at us earlier?
[Adam Behrens]: No, I had my hand up.
[Adam Behrens]: You want to drop some thoughts on us? Yeah, maybe thoughts and then a question. I feel like every time on the committee, I just want to make sure that we're holding our responsibility as the Community Development Board and what type of recommendations we should be doing. So I'll first start with my general thoughts. And then for context, I live in South Medford. And so I think that the surprising thing for me is just that the South Medford area more generally isn't higher zoned. from the neighborhood residential up to the urban residential. And so I kind of, I think I had similar reactions to folks about kind of the West Medford ability to support density. Similarly with like the South Medford, especially what is planned for the Mystic Avenue corridor. And then I think my other reaction is like to the, you know, to the extent that things that you build physically have such a lasting timeline and time horizon. Um, it would be really nice to not have to, uh, revisit this in 10 years, um, and have it be kind of like immediately out of date or very like quickly out of date. Um, and then it would be also nice that, you know, if people were making decisions now about what to build and where the direction should go, um, that they could, you know, you know, plan for sort of like the 20 and 30 year time horizon. And then I think maybe mentioned on the last calls with zoning, also recognizing that zoning is a is not a mandate that everything is gonna change overnight. And so things kind of get incrementally filled out. And then I was just, yeah, and then maybe that leads to my question, which is just, what type of sort of feedback and at what level should this board be kind of giving the feedback just to recalibrate too. And I think it might be helpful for the community to also hear just so that they feel like we're listening and responding and engaging at the level of their concerns.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, set some expectations. Yeah. Alicia or Danielle, do you have insight there? Or would this be a question for Emily and Paola?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that I might share that in this stage, if you think things are like off, this is a good time to say something, right? Like, oh, we really think you should be doing it in our FAR or the UR is too much or we should be allowing this. This is a good time to say it because- This meaning this meeting or this process? If you are thinking that and you're just not sure if you want to say it because the consultants will come back with another proposal or not a proposal, but like, written down clear recommendations for you to make that you can accept or not accept. And we may even wanna sort of lay them out in some clear manner, like we wanna accept one, two, three, and four, but not six, so to speak, and then make those recommendations to the city council. and that if at the next meeting, you're like, you know what, we'd really like to see some major changes, then you won't be able to vote it out at the next meeting. You would really need the consultants to go back, take a look at those, because some of what they do is they do analyze it and they do look at existing conditions and how does this affect surrounding stuff. And then they would bring it back again for like a third meeting on it. And I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just saying if people are thinking, I wanna, we would rather hear what your, even if it's an internal conflict, I'd like to see this, but I'm concerned about that. That's actually super helpful for us to hear. And then we can dwell on that and come back with a, we've thought of a way to address your concern and your conflict. Like that's the best of both worlds. And honestly, we would love to adopt zoning and it be done. But the reality is, that we're going to adopt zoning. Then we're going to adopt the square stuff. We're going to do different stages. And we are going to need to come back and do some cleanup. And we're going to need to come back and do some phase three stuff. And I'd love to put it all to bed. But it's really big and complex. And it really does take a long time and a lot of thought. And we were trying to put this in. I was just sort of thinking about the fact that we're trying to put this forward for the boards, the city council and public in digestible portions that you can process, but they interact with each other. So there is some chicken in the egg going on. And we absolutely understand and respect that. And which is why I'm suggesting actually that we should bring forward some of the ADU work, even if it's not a final proposal, so you see how they interact with each other. Because of this chicken and egg, we may then adopt stuff and then we may come back and go, oh, oh yeah, we need to fix this. And I just want people to understand that and recognize that because the alternative would be for us to work behind the scenes for a year, come forward with a massive proposal and everybody go, Oh my God, you've changed everything in the city all at once. And that would be so overwhelming. I couldn't even imagine doing it that way. But so I just wanted to acknowledge that this is kind of, it feels piecemeal, but we thought that the alternative was overwhelming.
[Adam Behrens]: Yeah, that's really helpful. Thanks, Alicia.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, so today's the meeting to kind of really beat it up. But that being said, like, we're not, we're not going to push this through on like a two meeting timeline, if that's not appropriate for, you know, the recommendations that come back and you know, how we feel as a board and you know, any additional public comments. So, but yeah, let's let's get everything out tonight, everything that we know of. And then go from there.
[Ari Fishman]: I want to echo what some other folks said. I think this is a great start. I also think that there are certainly some areas that can do with quite a bit more upzoning. It feels like some of the areas are pretty descriptive to where we are now and that doesn't allow for the growth that we've explicitly all said we want and need and creating that room. now and intentionally, I think, would serve us better. I've heard a lot of discussion about six-unit multiplexes specifically, and for what it's worth, I spent a couple of years in JP, and kind of the six-unit three-story triple-decker is a beloved fixture It's great housing for kind of units of all sizes from single people to small families and works really well in kind of built environments that are not dissimilar historically from some parts of Medford. And I think that there are many areas that we're looking at. including the NR1, 2, 3, where that can fit in pretty easily. And I think that's one of the examples of the upzoning.
[Emily Hedeman]: Peter, I see your hand.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, something Ari was saying that made me think of one of the other things when we were talking about We were talking about an NR4 kind of along a similar line of that, plus Ari's thought about kind of some places that could use more zoning. I was thinking along the lines of, and I feel like this, this may be remembering a number wrong, but I feel like when we were talking about Salem Street, we were talking about a UR3. And I don't remember if that ever existed, or I just made that up. But I would be interested to see, along similar veins to NR4, what a UR3 would look like. And obviously, not trying to create more work for people, but once again, along the lines of creating more density, which is something we've all stated we think we do need.
[Emily Hedeman]: I think, yeah, I think more density in the right areas is kind of the balance that I'm hearing. So yeah, UR3, yeah, I would love to kind of learn more about what an NR4 and UR3 could look like and where they might be. Let's see. Yeah, for specific feedback, Definitely looking into increasing the boundary of nodes for public transit, and I'm thinking specifically of the MBTA and the commuter rail. I recognize that bus is public transit, but I agree with previous commenters that it's probably not reasonable to think of buses the same way we think of commuter rail and the T. Also, thank you for everyone for putting up with my coughing and sniffling tonight. I got whatever was going around on the orange line and hopefully didn't pass it on to anybody. Trying to think of other specific things to really beat this up.
[Emily Innes]: Madam Chair, could I just yeah, I think that might be useful. Yeah, just the progression, and our one is of course the lowest density than in our two than in our three residential one is denser than in our three. And then Urban Residential 2, obviously denser than Urban Residential 1. I think last week we heard the idea of NR4. We were also considering that since there's NR123 and a mixed use 123, that we might consider UR123 with maybe the Urban Residential 1 dropping down to be closer, you know, that might replace NR4. going up so that the current urban residential 2 would become the urban residential 3. We have not formalized this because we wanted to hear what people said tonight, but just note that I think we can go, do we keep it always as like 3 districts for each category? That might just be a planner's desire to have things in nice, neat little orderly boxes, or do we in fact do the NR all the way up to 4 and the UR stays as just 1 and 2 districts. open for further discussion, but I think we are very much hearing that there's another district that type that needs to happen somewhere between the current NR3 and the current UR1. So we'll be exploring that. What we call it is a whole different matter, but we are, that middle piece seems to be missing.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I would also be interested in seeing, you know, I mentioned tables for the ADUs, but I think they're a great way to kind of compare across the different proposed categories. So I'd love to see kind of in a table, and I agree with you, you know, it could be a an AB7 or whatever. I don't care what the name is, but I think what we're all passionate about and what we're hearing from the public is, you know, we need more places for people to live in logical areas. Alicia, I see your hand.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. I wanted to clarify something because people have been tossing out NR4 and UR3, and I wanted to make sure that We meant what we think we all mean the same thing. And I think that what your people mean when they say that is that it would be a zone that allows single family, two, three, and four families, or does it mean single family, two, three, and four to six unit multi dwelling? Like I'm not actually clear, but I think the NR means single families are allowed in this district. And I think that people mean when they say you are, that single families are not allowed in this district, that we're talking denser than that and going up higher and taller. And just wanted to sort of say something that was implied in what Emily said, but is that there's also the mixed use districts and the reminder that these districts at this time don't have commercial in them. we're talking about adding in commercial nodes, little neighborhoods that allow, and we're talking about how do we add in corner stores and somewhere in my world today, I think it was email, there was a conversation about like accessory dwelling or accessory commercial units, meaning tiny little stores that you can allow into neighborhoods. And those are some things that we're starting, we need to make sure we're including, but maybe we don't mean you are three, maybe we mean mixed-use three, that at that point, at that density, we also need commercial there. And I don't know what to say to that.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, that's a helpful clarification.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, that is, that is a good clarification. And also, I will be the first to say that when I was thinking about an NR4, a UR3, I was not. being quite that specific, I was just thinking of the next step up from the existing NR3 and or UR2, and I was leaving that to kind of Emily and Paola to determine what and where that made the most sense, because I will admit I have not... I can say for sure I haven't spent as much time looking at the maps of Medford as they have.
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, and I'll chime in that I love the reminder of mixed use, and I think that many of these areas, there is a lot of interest in kind of reasonably scaled mixed use and kind of looking at the neighborhood where I live on this. We are residential, but very close to a square, and there is mixed use within a 30 second walk, and that's a great aspect. that we want to encourage.
[Emily Hedeman]: So one of the things we're talking about is unit count. I know another thing that has come up in the meeting and is present in a lot of the community comments is allowable height in the stories. Emily, could you remind us the allowable heights
[Emily Innes]: Yes, just one moment. So in R1 and R2, it's 2.5 stories. In R3, UR1 and UR2, it is three stories. And then remembering that the idea is that they're going to butt up against those mixed districts, which go higher. OK. And I just want to add, while I have the opportunity to speak, that we have not forgotten about what we had originally called neighborhood nodes. We have recommended those accessory commercial units for another community and have indicated we'd be delighted to talk about them for this one. When I very first started being in the planning world, I was told about the five minute to ice cream rule, which I'm not sure is a real rule, but I could get behind a five minute walk to ice cream. Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, I would love to be able to walk five minutes to ice cream. I don't think I could. But anyways, so what I read in a lot of comments is, are you kidding me? Three stories is nothing. And this is me kind of paraphrasing. We need more. And I'm looking through the map right now, and I can't say I disagree, especially with some of these NR3s, UR1s that are around transit. Like, why would we only do three stories, you know, up to six units, literally right on top of a T-station? Is that, is the lot size limited? I feel like that's where we should go up and up and up.
[Emily Innes]: With your permission, I think it's important to realize that the way the building looks is not just governed by height, it's also governed by the massing. So, you know, depending on You mentioned units, but let's put those to the side. If you had an unlimited number of units, you could have quite a large building at 3 stories, right? And so what we're trying to do is, again, have that discussion of what is appropriate for the neighborhood and what's the appropriate controls for it. height is one control, the number of units is another control. Getting more into design guidelines, we could be talking about roof lines and massing and how you break that up as well, which is another form of control. A three-story building with 20 units in it would look and feel very different from a three-story building with six units in it. I'm not saying to not go higher, I'm just giving an idea of how we were thinking of height as being one of several different controls on that. If you were going to go higher, we would then rethink some of the controls to ensure that the overall bulk of the building works well with the neighborhoods.
[Ari Fishman]: I would second. The chair's comment, though, especially within that very immediate distance around the T's. The bulk might be different than there is now, but I think bulking up in those areas is very much the intentional plan and that these design guidelines should allow for that better than they do now.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'm zooming in closer and I'm looking at What is this? Yeah, looks like we have a lot of existing single family is being three, which I think makes sense. And there's some white spaces around the T, which I think are mixed use. But looking at those are probably also smaller units. But on Boston Ave, our recent project. Yeah, so those are all I think existing single family or smaller. OK, so maybe that does make sense. So for example, around Wellington, which is where I am, my building is just gray and around white, or white around gray.
[Emily Innes]: So that Wellington is a separate district that will be later anything that's that gray and white.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. And then anything else beyond that is like mixed use or commercial. Okay. Yeah, so. Yeah. I'm trying to balance the need for more housing. which we know Medford desperately needs, the region desperately needs. Not that we're going to, you know, sacrifice Medford for the region, but we need to be aware of kind of our place in the larger housing ecosystem. If we were to go up to Or could there be, can we play with like affordability here? Can we say like, if more affordable units, then variants for more floors? I don't know.
[Emily Innes]: We have the incentive zoning, just as we have the green score, we could consider applying that to larger building sizes and you could create, for example, you could leave it, just to throw it out there, you could leave it at three stories with a fourth story as part of that incentive bonus in exchange for affordability or in exchange for something else.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I feel like I'd be more in favor of doing that than saying, you know, like, anybody can build four stories, because I do want to incentivize affordable development, especially close to the T. But yeah, curious if other board members have any thoughts on that. Or Danielle, I see your hand. If you want to bring us back down to reality.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of like reiterate that the boundaries of these neighborhood residential and urban residential is because we considered those like the neighborhoods apart from, you know, these mixed use like denser areas, which are, you know, closer to like the main roads and the transit, and that this is, you know, kind of, gradual, you know, going, you know, reducing in density in certain areas where there isn't the transit or the lot sizes are very small. We're not trying to do anything too drastic. It's the idea was to up zone, you know, A bit so that everyone can absorb a bit more units, but not change it so drastically, except for the areas where transit has been. Added like, more drastically, like the green line extension, like, we can't ignore that. The green line extension has come and then we need to change zoning to reflect that, but other places that you haven't seen. any real transformation in bus service or rail service. And also the fact that there are private ways that are very windy and steep and don't have sidewalks and blind corners and aren't maintained by the city are probably not the best places to put a lot of density. So kind of trying to balance all those factors.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and I appreciate kind of the the dance that you all have to do.
[Emily Innes]: And with your permission, Madam Chair and other members of the board, I think, you know, we've heard between the meeting last week, tonight's meeting from both the public and yourselves, we've heard loud and clear. I think that you'd like to like us to just take a look at the density levels, maybe at the borders of each of the districts, you know, take into additional consideration. Some of the things that we talked about around transit, about maybe adding somewhere in the middle, there's a fourth change. I think we've got quite a lot to work on from there and, you know, certainly happy to hear more thoughts tonight, anything else, but I think there's a lot that we can come back to you with in terms of both the organization, the materials, so you can see the side-by-side. I'm also thinking it might be helpful for us to overlay our mixed-use district map. on to the residential that you can see kind of what what's filling in those areas that are kind of Tara incognito at the moment. And that might help some of the conversation as well I could put them back up and flip back and forth, but it's not going to be gonna lose our minds. Yeah, you really will.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be helpful. Okay.
[Ari Fishman]: And for what it's worth, I will kind of express interest as well in the idea of kind of fourth story or additional kind of mass and type and unit sizes as incentive zoning for affordability. I think that that is an option we should consider, and I'd love to see what proposals you can bring us next time. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: I guess, what's the minimum unit count where affordability comes into factor? Is that six? Anything? It's 10.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. That's our current inclusionary zone income.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. That's great, but it would be really nice to have affordable units at a smaller scale embedded within a neighborhood. The financial viability of it, I'm not quite sure, but maybe it will You incentivize people to invest in their neighborhood, rather than, you know, short term renovations, but. You know, like I think Adam said at a previous meeting, we just have to think about, like, what bad ideas or what bad decisions are we going to make today that, you know, our future selves or our kids' kids are going to say, I can't believe they thought that. So we'd appreciate any insight, Emily, Paola, Danielle, Alicia, you have on unintended consequences, as well as the public. You know, we have some really great minds on this call. So, you know, we'd appreciate any gut checks there. And then in terms of other specific feedback, I am interested in this Mike and Laurel's comment about institutional zoning, you know, I know we can't, we obviously can't be discriminatory. And, you know, we want to look towards the future where Tufts University is a great neighbor. So we don't want to be too reactive, but just interested in seeing kind of the viability or if it's even realistic. to have kind of this institutional district and happy to kind of highlight their letter, where they speak more about it.
[Emily Innes]: We are we are with your permission, Madam Chair, we are looking into institutions, I think it's coming after the squares and remaining corridors, but we are looking at that. We've we've heard that desire. And I'll see to Director Hunt. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's something that actually makes complete sense. And the piece, and I actually, I did actually exchange a small email with Laurel today to sort of better understand her thought, because I feel like it's a chicken and an egg. Yeah. Because Tufts completely agrees there should be a zone that they operate in that is not an apartment two zone. It's not a neighborhood residential zone. It's not a commercial zone. It should be designed for a campus And it should say what they can do in the outer parts and what they can do in the inner parts. That's what they have in Somerville. And it actually, some people feel it constrains them more, but it makes things very clear for everybody. And there are certain things that they actually have to come to you for Dover stuff with that in Somerville they can just do because it's just fine. And there are other things that like they're regulated and there's more controls around it and it's more thoughtful. I think what's happened here is that somebody once upon a time decided to apply an apartment zone on a campus and it just doesn't make sense. So the thing that I want to caution people though is that we can create an institutional zone and we have every intention of proposing one And it's been recommended that we tell Tufts that we're going to look at the Somerville one and that we actually go look at the Somerville one. And that is part of the plan is to better understand that. Because I think neighbors feel it constrains them more and Tufts feels that it allows them to operate with more autonomy. So frankly, I see that as a win-win if everybody's happy. So we need to understand that better. But what it does not do is it does not prevent them from buying things in the commercial district, in the mixed-use district, in the residential district. It does not prevent them from building a six-unit building in a zone that allows a six-unit residential building. And it doesn't prevent them from buying a mixed-use or building something in the commercial zone. And so I just need to make sure that we're all on the same page with that. It helps everybody, but it doesn't change. I'm having a hard time seeing how it changes what they would do in our other zones. So that said, absolutely.
[Emily Hedeman]: If they're operating within the same rules as everybody else, just like you said, if they can build a six-unit apartment building and so can, I don't know, James Smith developer, whatever, then that's fine. Because, you know, they are following the exact same rules. I have no issue with that. And I think that's fine. I just I think we should, you know, kind of chase down this question a little bit. I was just flipping through the rest of the public comments, make sure that we captured anybody that wasn't here tonight. And I have a note from David McKenna that's kind of stimulated some thought in me about the setbacks. We're keeping the setbacks the same for NR, where was it? I'm going to step back to the same.
[Emily Innes]: NR1 and NR2.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. And then we are, I think, clarifying them for the multifamily. And that's not going to be a zone anyway.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, we're changing them from setbacks by use to setbacks by district, and in the process, some of them are remaining exactly the same, and some are modifying slightly, and I'll defer to Danielle.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'd love to learn a little bit more about that process. I mean, I think, you know, hearkening back to the Salem Street conversation about sidewalks, you know, 12 feet felt like a lot when we were looking at it in, or when I was thinking about it, you know, my dad's 6'4", so I was like, that's two of my dad laying down. But then when we looked at it in section, I think that provided a lot of clarity and scale there. So I'm thinking about the setbacks for NR1 and 2, 15 feet in the front, 15 feet in the back.
[Emily Innes]: And that is your current single and two-family setback. So that is not, in fact, changing.
[Emily Hedeman]: But was there any thought on changing it I get the 15-foot backyard, but I'm thinking about the 15-foot front. Is 15-foot best practice? Is it industry standard? Is it what most of the houses have here? Because I have a letter from Mr. McKenna. Sounds like he has a historic home and he has a seven foot front setback and a five foot rear setback, which may not be ideal for everybody, but it does recognize that there is some precedent for less setback. Yeah, kind of talk me through that, I guess.
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, there's no, there's no best practice around setback in that if you have this type of use you must have this setback typically in, you know, a suburb, you would have much deeper set front setbacks. more green lawn in the front, once you are in the combination of these smaller, tighter neighborhoods. I mean, I'm not surprised to hear a five-foot setback for historic house, that makes perfect sense. So in our one and our two where we're keeping that density lower, the number of units per lot lower, we've kept the 15-foot setback. In our three and above, we have the 10 foot setback. Obviously, when you get to the mixed use areas, it's even lower than that. So, so, you know, Danielle had mentioned that transition from the mixed use districts to the neighborhoods and it's not just the height that we're transitioning. Yeah. These proposals, it's also some of the other characteristics from the perspective of the experience of walking down a street or being in a neighborhood. Height and the front yard setback are really huge determinants of how that feels, right? It's from where you're standing on the sidewalk or on the street, how far back it is, how tall it is. So those are the sorts of things that we considered when looking at this.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, can you high five somebody in their living room? I don't think I would want to do that either way.
[Emily Innes]: But there's some charming places that have those zero setbacks, but, you know, to Director Hunt's point earlier about the great contemporary buildings, they still may not be Medford. And so that's kind of where we're trying to parse these details, is what makes sense, given what you have now, but also given where you're going. And it is a transition.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I have a friend who lives in Marblehead. That's the last that we have. Yeah, yeah. That I could high five, I think, both neighbors across the street in their living room at the same time.
[Emily Innes]: And it's a great experiment, who are walking in Marblehead, right? But it's not the same place. And so thinking of the characteristics of the places, what we're trying to do, but also make it workable.
[Emily Hedeman]: But curious if any other board members, you know, have any other feedback about the setback, you know, 15 feet feels really big, especially as a minimum, and I'm kind of thinking about, you know, how we've talked about parking minimums in the past. You know, sometimes we're I don't know, sometimes I think we don't realize that it's a minimum when we set it, that it has to be 15 feet, whereas maybe the developer or the homeowner or the renovator or whoever thinks, I'd be happy being a little bit closer to the street, but they have to be 15 feet back. Are there any thoughts about maybe making it 10 feet?
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, I'm in Texas. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but we have done this before. So, minimum and maximum from the street.
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I was going to say, I am strongly in favor of hearing a broader option and I live in what would be described in these terms as a historic conversion that was done over 50 years ago. And all the units are, I can't be more than 5 to 10 feet. And it's very in keeping with the character. It's lovely place to live and. I think that's certainly an option that we should leave on the table much more explicitly.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'm thinking of all the small-scale houses I've lived in. And I think all that separated us from the street was the staircase. And it was maybe, I don't know, five feet above street level, so rise over run, six-ish feet back. We could have had a little bit more room, but it also meant, you know, our front yard was a big bush and we didn't have to worry about mowing the lawn. And also trick-or-treating was a lot easier. And I know these are kind of like silly examples, but I think they go to kind of like the community that is built within a neighborhood too. Alicia, I see your hand, so I want to recognize that.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I just want to bring this up because I think one of the things people have talked about is the green space and the feel. And I feel like we heard that more last Thursday than we heard it today. And I'd like to understand, and I cannot stand here right now and tell you how big of a yard you need to have a decent tree in it. But I think that's something we should consider because a lot of our streets, particularly in denser neighborhoods, are too narrow to have street trees.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'm thinking about accessibility too. Like if the sidewalks are already very narrow, it's unlikely we can add street. Yeah, I didn't think about that.
[Alicia Hunt]: We do have a back of sidewalk program where if there's no room for a street tree and you want a tree in your front yard, the city will plant a public tree in your front yard. The city owns it for two years, and after that, it becomes your tree. I think I saw those ads on Facebook. But we want to leave room for those where we can.
[Ari Fishman]: Ari? As a person who spent a perhaps unreasonable amount of time figuring out how many fruit trees I could have in my, as just mentioned, rather small yard, you can very comfortably have a tree in a 10 by 10 space. Like, very comfortably choose the right species. It doesn't even have to be a dwarf. So we have plenty of room to play with.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I think it's a good thing that Alicia highlighted, but I appreciate the kind of professional or the personal anecdote that you can share. Adam?
[Adam Behrens]: Yeah, I'd also like, I think my general sort of like posture on zoning and sort of this kind of stuff is the more flexibility that we can offer to the people that are, you know, the property owners, I think the better. And then my only other anecdote that I'm just like, I always kind of find it funny, how like triple-deckers have like kind of become this like romantic housing structure in the Boston area. When like, you know, their original purpose was to solve an acute housing problem for working class people to be able to afford to live in the Boston area. And so a lot of like what I'm just trying to also think in the back of my head is I would love for us to have zoning that allows for new types of things and new types of standards or new types of solutions to evolve without having the hubris to think that I I, as a resident, know what that answer is ahead of time. So just wanted to reiterate that.
[Emily Hedeman]: I like that. And your first point was about flexibility. Do you have any specific ideas on where you think more flexibility could be embedded? Because we've talked about building heights, setbacks, unit counts.
[Adam Behrens]: Yeah. I need to digest it a little bit more. And I think, you know, it's just, and here in the community has been very helpful too of, you know, there's sort of the old footprint of Medford and how it developed. So West Medford being historically a single family and the rest of Medford not. And I think the thing I'm trying to think about is just, more broadly, should, should we actually be a bit more aggressive in allowing more stories and up zoning? That's just in my head. I don't have a concrete proposal on that, though.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I think for board members and members of the public, we can continue to share thoughts with Danielle, Alicia, Emily, and Paola. Our deliberations as a board do need to happen in these official meetings to abide by open meeting law. But by all means, continue to kind of think through these things.
[Adam Behrens]: Yeah, and then maybe just the other point. Sorry to if you keep going. Yeah. Just having lived, and I know, Annie's mentioned before that, you know, my person on New York City, but having lived in different areas across the country, three stories really isn't that tall. And you can have very community, cozy feeling neighborhoods. that you kind of take a step back, you know, I've lived in London at a certain point and like, you know, I went back and I realized like, oh, wow, that was six stories tall, you know, those white row houses in London. And so, that's the other thing kind of in my head around like the height is the three stories is maybe like an anchoring that we have right now that really, In other cities, I haven't really felt when I've been in them and they're taller up to six, like I just haven't felt that, you know, the quaintness, the vibrancy to be diminished.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I think it also has to do with street section, too. Because thinking about some of the really tight streets that the public has mentioned, where if two cars are parked, a fire truck can't get through. That's probably not the right place for a six story. But if there's a little bit more air in between both sides of the street, then that could lend itself to a higher to a higher building. It maybe would be interesting to see some visual examples of, it could be Medford, it could be Somerville or Cambridge. I prefer it as local as possible, just because I think we get into dangerous territory when we start pretending to be the city that we're not. But yeah, some examples of, you know, three stories, maybe within a neighborhood district or, you know, some increased density that maybe we didn't realize was as dense to kind of pick on what Adam's saying. Like, how can we, how could we, like, qualify our lived experience in comparison to these proposed zones? Annie, I want to maybe pull you into this conversation, just see if you have any feedback or any thoughts. No pressure, but I just want to make sure that it was a good discussion.
[Ayni Strang]: As I said last time, I have carefully listened to what everybody is saying, but I don't think my opinion on it has changed. In our previous discussions, I think we need to go taller. I think we need more mixed use with retail. We need little neighborhood grocery stores and fruit stores, which I think, sadly, we have very few of. It's great to be able to walk to an ice cream store within five minutes. I'd much prefer to go to a place that has fruit and vegetables that's five minutes. But again, I like wide streets. I like green space. I'd like to see 15, 20 feet of trees and not necessarily watering grass, but shrubbery and places where it's appropriate for restaurants to have tables and chairs outside and benches where people can sit, again, depending on the neighborhood, because we have some pretty darn narrow streets where people don't have driveways to park in or any place but the street to put cars on, so changing That is not going to help people at all by saying you can only park on one side of the street. I saw how that affected friends of mine who lived in Cambridge, and that doesn't really work well.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I think you're going to be really interested in the kind of mixed-use zoning conversations that are coming up and the overlay of that onto these residential districts. And Emily, I saw you had your hand up earlier, so I want to recognize that as well.
[Ayni Strang]: I just wanted to say the message is next use. I really think that we've got to wrap our arms around that.
[Emily Hedeman]: Well said.
[Emily Innes]: I just wanted to add that we'd be happy to add some more illustrations, both of street sections, which we have started to do for Medford Square, so we can look at whether or not or how they could be appropriate for this, but also some illustrations of. Buildings at different heights and massing because I agree with the other members of the board who brought this up that that can help a conversation. So, you know, we had, we had shown some of the diagrams already just so people would know what we're thinking about. But I think pictures of existing buildings can also be useful.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and like a larger neighborhood context, too.
[Emily Innes]: Exactly.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I'm also popping through some letters and seeing some specific feedback about specific addresses. Is that something you'd like us to call out now?
[Emily Innes]: I think that those are shared with the planning department that would be much easier for us to work with them on. And also the same course of action you mentioned that any deliberations obviously have to be in this meeting. But if there are emails that go through planning staff to us that are individual, that's just fine.
[Unidentified]: public comment.
[Peter Calves]: Does that feel like we have to say should we should we look for a motion to continue to date certain.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Right.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, unless there's other comments from the board or city staff. I think we can make a motion to continue to a date certain. Yeah. So hold on, I just want to I want to check the date because our next board meeting is, I think, believe scheduled for the 16th. But I want to check with Emily, Paola, Alicia, Danielle, if you think that's enough time to address what's been talked about here tonight. Understanding that, you know, Ari, did you have something to say? No, no.
[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair, well, we could continue it to that to the next meeting and if it's not ready, then we could just. You know, continue it again, but.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and I would just hold on. Danielle, I'm going to send you a quick message.
[Emily Innes]: While you're sending the message, I would say I think we can agree with that. And the idea would be we could at least give you a progress report, even if we're not fully complete. So some of these will take a lot of conversation. Some of this, I think, we can sort of behind the scenes work in terms of pulling images and doing diagrams. But I think we could certainly give you a progress report on that date if needed. And then as Danielle suggested, if we needed to, I'll ask you to move that to date. That would be fine. Okay, as well.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so we'll propose the 16th. Does somebody want to make a motion? Peter has already started.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, so moved.
[Emily Hedeman]: Can I get a second? Second.
[Ayni Strang]: Okay, you beat me to it.
[Emily Hedeman]: We're gonna do a roll call vote. Peter cows. Hi, Ari Goffman Fishman. Hi, Adam Barons. Hi, Annie string. Hi, I myself Emily had him in MMI. Thank you everybody so much, members of the public. Meeting is not over, so if you want to hear us approve minutes, please stay on. And I'm going to make one last plug for applying to board positions. I'm going to drop the links one last time in the chat for everybody. You too can you know, deliberate these items, you too can listen to your fellow residents. It's, it's honestly like a huge honor to do this work. So I'd encourage everybody that's interested to kind of submit, submit some interest to either this board or other boards or commissions. And we're going to move on to our next agenda item. Quick check with board members. Do we need a bio break or we want to keep going?
[Peter Calves]: You just have the minutes left, right?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, we just have the minutes.
[Peter Calves]: Let's just get through them.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, great.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so we have minutes for March 5th and March 19th. Do we have any corrections needed for the draft minutes? I know we don't have an active clerk, but relying on all members of the board for their thoughtful and thorough review. If we don't have any corrections, then I'd be looking for a motion to approve the minutes for March 5th and March 19th.
[Ayni Strang]: I would make a motion to approve the minutes for those two dates as you described.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks, Annie. Looking for a second.
[Unidentified]: I second.
[Emily Hedeman]: Adam can have it. We're going to do a roll call vote. Peter Calfs.
[Peter Calves]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Goffman-Fishman. Aye. Annie Strang. Aye. Adam Behrens.
[Adam Behrens]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: And I myself, Emily Hedeman, am an aye. The next item we have on the agenda is zoning updates. I think we got a good dose of zoning this evening. So unless there's anything urgent, I think we can move past this item. Is that okay, Alicia and Danielle? Great. So the next thing we're going to be looking to is a motion to adjourn. Don't all fight for it. I'll move to adjourn. I think Peter had that one.
[Peter Calves]: Adam can take it.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, Adam, who wants the second?
[Peter Calves]: I'll just second it then.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. We're gonna do a roll call vote. Peter cobs. I already gotten fishman. I any string. I Adam Barron's. I, Emily Hedeman, am also an I. So with that, our April 2nd meeting is concluded. Thank you so much to all members of the public who spoke up during the public comment period. We encourage you to stay engaged. Thank you to members of the board and members of city staff. We could not do this without you. Have a great evening, everyone. Good night.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you very much. Bye. And I think it's still April fools. My phone just told me heavy snow is expected in Medford. Oh no. I gotta go home.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, drive safe. Bye.