[Peter Calves]: Good evening, everyone. Just giving everyone a second trickle in here before we get started. Looks like we're good to go. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Medford Community Development Board. In Chair Hedman's absence, I will be chairing the meeting tonight. First off, let's 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. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings. Anyone who would like to listen or to view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included in the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. A recording of this meeting will be posted on Medford Community Media 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 note that tonight, All project materials before the board can be viewed on the city's website medfordma.org at medfordma.org slash boards and commissions slash community development board by clicking on current CD board filings. You can also find the link in the chat. You will be able to shortly. Next, we're going to do roll call attendance. Ari Fishman? Present. Adam Behrens, I do not see. Any Strang?
[Ayni Strang]: Present.
[Peter Calves]: Ben Levallee? Present. Thank you, Ben, and myself Vice Chair Peter Calvis, I'm present. Before we get started tonight, Danielle, could you introduce any city staff on the call.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, thank you. I'm Danielle Evans, senior planner in the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability and also with me is Director Alicia hunt, who is the director of planning development and sustainability. I think that is everyone from city staff with us tonight.
[Peter Calves]: Right. Thank you Danielle and thank you Alicia for being here and Alicia for putting the link in the chat to the current meeting materials. So the first thing up on the agenda is the continued public hearing for the neighborhood residential and urban residential zoning amendments. A reminder to all present that this is the third meeting for the continued public hearing that was opened on April 2nd regarding the proposed zoning amendment for the creation of neighborhood and urban residential zoning districts. I would like to ask city staff if they have any Introductory remarks before we pass it off to Innes Associates to discuss the new information.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to state that we know that some of the application materials or the zoning materials were late coming. So we are not going to have the community development board vote tonight, but rather continue this to vote till 21st to make a recommendation to city council who will then be able to open the hearing on May 27th. So that'll give time for the public, staff, the board to really absorb all the information. It's an incredible amount of analysis and information to go through as the residential zoning districts encompass the majority of the land area of the city, and different parts of the city have different characteristics. So we really need to take into account some of those unique qualities of certain neighborhoods to make sure that we are zoning in an appropriate way for those areas. I will see if Alicia has anything to say, otherwise we could turn it over to NS Associates to give a presentation of the changes and then the exciting new interactive mapping tool.
[Peter Calves]: Go ahead, Emily. All right, thank you. Then I'll hand it over to Emily Ennis with Innes Associates.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Delighted, as always, to be here tonight. I am actually going to turn it over to Paolo Ramos-Martinez for the presentation and also Jimmy Rocha for the explanation of the mapping tools. And we look forward to answering any questions the board may have after the presentations.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Good afternoon, everyone, Vice President, if I may. So I'm going to share my screen. I'm going to talk about the presentation that we have for you today. It is a lot of information, so I'm going to do my best. We always have an instructor or presentation to show what we are doing in case anybody new to the process is viewing this. So we are going to start with just a tiny introduction of what we are doing, our timeline in the very different comedies that we are looking and seeing to go through this. zoning process until it is approved. I want to let everyone know that this is not, right now we are not going to vote on it, but, or the members are not going to vote on it, but also there is going to be a continuous process that have other opportunities for you to comment and give us your opinion. So I'm going to start the presentation Sorry one second I wanted to share the PDF which is easier the person we sent is hiding the pdf now it's here okay Is everybody seeing my screen? Yeah, perfect. So, as I said, we are going to see that introduction. What are we doing? Why are we here? A little bit of that process timeline, different opportunities for the public to comment, and then we are going into the residential districts. We're going to see the map proposal, the dimension standards, table of uses, and any definition that we want to add. So why are we here? Sorry for the people that are usually seeing this, they are seeing this every time, but just for the new, if there is anyone new to the process, we are taking the different principles that were identified in the different plans that were done in the last years by the city. There is the comprehensive plan that was released in January 2023, We are also looking into the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. The first part, it's been already more than a year that we are working on this process, and the first part was to address what were all these principles, and some of them are the ones that you see there, and how we could include these new principles into your existing, into your zoning. So we are looking into the existing situation in your city, into the existing zoning, what are the problems or what can we do to address the problems, and then introducing all those principles that were identified in these plans. In the comprehensive plan, there was this vision plan. We're using this to go through all the different areas and all the different zones in your city to look at the different districts. So we're looking at the corridors, we're looking at the squares, at the institutional districts. And right now we are looking in the city board, we're looking into the residential districts. So all the existing in your current zoning residential districts, We studied them and we are changing into the proposal that you're going to see. So, this is the timeline now. The different ways that we propose a topic, it goes first to the planning and permitting committee meeting. So, every planning and permitting committee meeting, you're going to see us and we're going to talk about different topics. These are all the meetings that we have done from March. We have done other previous meetings, but from March, we started the commercial districts. So in the planning and permitting committee meeting, we're looking at the commercial. We already did the residential. After presenting a topic in the planning and permitting committee meeting, we go, it gets referred to the city board. And that's what we are doing today. The residential districts were referred to the city board by the city council. And we are also looking for public opinions. And then it will also add those public Q&As where you can also come and share your opinions. So today, the City Board, we are here, May 7th, we are going to do the residential districts. We are not voting today, so we will be talking again on May 21st about the residential districts and hopefully we can have a vote then to be sent back and referred to the City Council to finally be approved. Tomorrow we're going to have a public Q&A. It's going to be about squares and ADUs. So anyone that is interested in those topics in Medford Square and West Medford Square, please, very welcome to join. So these are all the different non-residential districts that we are still looking at. We did two of the corridors, which is the Salem Street and the Mystic Avenue, those were already approved. We are looking at the squares and next time we will look into the institutional Medford hubs and the other corridors. In order to do the residential proposal, we have done extensive analysis on your existing conditions. So, this, for example, is the map for the existing residential building types, lot dimensions, frontages. This will help us to understand and have a proposal for the dimensional standards that goes with each of the districts, heights, historic inventories, your transit and transportation map. This is very interesting and very important. We didn't We didn't know that there were so many private ways in Medford, especially where you're going to see it is very much in the north of the river. This will have an impact for the density and how much density we can have in these areas. So, what are the considerations that we have in order to make our proposal? Well, it's mainly the proximity to highly frequent and efficient public transit. This is important. Where do we want to have more density? Proximity to services, to commercial areas where we have grocery stores, cafes, then proximity to higher job density areas. That's the map that you see on the right. We prefer to have density in public ways than in private ways. That's the map that you just saw. How many street connections that you will see in the interactive tool that my colleague Jimmy will show later on. But the more street connections your lot has, the easier it is to get to that lot. That means, for example, a dead end way, it's not so good to have a lot of density, while another one that has many connections will be more interesting to add that density. Lot sizes and topography are also important, but it's a little bit more secondary. existing residential types, what we already have there, and then how can we make transitions between low, medium, and high density areas. So I'm going to right now give, I'm going to stop sharing, I'm going to ask Jimmy to present the map, and this is what you will see once you get into the interactive map. You will see the map. You can have here an area to find to type your address. Once you click on your lot, you're going to see this area here where you have the information. I will let Jimmy explain that better. And then on the upper part, on the right corner, you have different buttons with the layers and legend and other explanations. So I'm going to stop share. I'm just going to give time to... I will place the link in the chat so that everybody can access. This is the QR. From this QR code, you can access to the interactive map. Now it's easier if you access with your computer instead of your phone because it's a lot of information, but also it's possible. So I'm going to stop sharing and I'm going to pass it on to Jimmy.
[Jimmy Rocha]: Thank you, Paola.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: The link is already on the chat.
[Jimmy Rocha]: Thank you, Paola. I'll go ahead and share my screen. and show you what the map looks like when it's functioning, and once you scan that QR code. So as Paola said, you can scan the QR code and it'll populate on your phone, or you can access it via the desktop. Either work just fine. The phone just is a little bit smaller, so things would be in different places, but the map still functions either way. So as you scan that QR code or click on the link, you're opened by this greeting page. And this just gives you a little more information about the project, when the data was last updated. So that's just a splash screen. So I'll go ahead and enter this map application here. So once we load this map application, you see Medford is populated and I'll walk you through all the different components of this map. So I'm going to start in the very top left, right hand side of the screen. First, you have your map layers. So there's quite a lot of data here, but you can toggle these on and off to view the layers that are related to the project so far. So we have the approved zoning districts for Misty Gap Corridor District and Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor. We have proposed zoning districts as Paola will go over later in the presentation. We have Medford's existing zoning districts. We have those lot dimensions Paola touched upon earlier for frontage, building setback, and lot size. And these are measurements of the existing parcel's conditions. Next we have the use description by lot. So there's a lot going on here, but there's a legend right here showing you what each color means. And moving forward for the map layers, the next we have building age by decades built. And then we have average slope by lot. This was an interesting analysis. We did this to show where there is steeper slopes throughout Medford. And this is accompanied by the slope tile service by MassGIS, where you can actually look and see the slope. And then the slope average by lot is just the average slope on each lot. Next, we have the number of street connections by lot. And again, Paola touched on this a little bit. So if you zoom out and look at it as a city as a whole, you see these main corridors have quite a lot of, have a darker color, which means they have more street connections. Whereas if you go to a dead end, for example, this one doesn't have as many street connections. It's only has one street connection. And finally, for the map, we have road types. So the blue for road types represent public rights of way, where the green represents private rights of way. And again, just to go over the layers, if you toggle these layers on, you can click on the legend and see exactly what they mean in the legend. And that's the same if you have multiple layers toggled on in the map. The next is just the base map, so you can change the base map to see what's underneath these layers, and you can change it to whatever your preference is, but I'll stick with human geography for now. This little information button just gives you some more information on how to use the map, the project link for Medford City website, and where the credits are, how we collected this data, and how we did the analysis. And then the last one is just to share. You can share this a variety of different ways, but here's the link for that. And that's the share button. So to use this map, I'll walk you through an example. So as an example, on the left-hand side of my screen, you see find address or place. I'm just gonna type in my address for an example. So I live on 16 Fells Avenue. the map will load to your address that you type. And once you click on that, you're going to get a lot of information in the pop-up on the left-hand screen. So starting from top to bottom, we have the lot characteristics, when it was built, what the existing use is, what the existing zoning is, and what the proposed zoning, or if the lot has already been approved, such as Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District or Mississauga, that it will say approved zoning district. And here are the existing lot dimensions I was talking about, such as frontage, setback, lot size. We also have building height and building coverage. And this is what's existing for Medford's table of dimensions. And this is what we propose. So these will constantly being, these aren't constantly being changes, but they're being updated every time we get updates from Paola with the city. Next is the slope. This is just the average, the median, and the minimum per the lot. And then down here, it just describes how many connections this street has to other streets. You can see Fells Ave has 12 connections. It's listed as a public road in Medford's website. And there's just some more information there. You can click that link and it'll bring you to that page. And then the last thing is, the more information about the project, you can click there and it'll bring you to Medford's page about this zoning project. A little bit more about the map. To work it, you can click the home screen. That'll bring you to the original layout of the map. You can pan to your most recent extent. Or you can pan back to the other recent extent. You can find your location. This didn't do a great job, but you can find your location there. And then to get a little more interactive with the map, I just wanted to show you that that's how the map, the basic map works. You can also do some filters with this map. And these filters, they run off of each other. So every filter you include or you toggle on and off, they filter the data down to that specific thing you're searching for. So I'll do a filter for an example. I will populate the proposed zoning districts. And I'm gonna go down to the proposed zoning district filter. And I want to filter for West Medford. And then I want to filter for mixed use 2A for what's proposed. So this just shows you the layers or the parcels that are proposed for West Medford in Mixed Use 2A. I can also toggle on other layers and it still keeps the filter, but it allows you to view different sets of data. So if you want to see building age or use descriptions for these parcels, you can do it that way as well. So that's the filter. That's a little bit more advanced. You don't have to do it that way. But I recommend, you know, finding your address or finding a location that you're familiar with and just clicking on a parcel and playing around with it and seeing what you can see. So thank you. If there are any questions, I can answer them now as well.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Thank you, Jimmy. Yeah. Sorry, Peter.
[Peter Calves]: No, I was just gonna... I was just gonna... Brad, you're done. Paula, do you guys have anything else to add?
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Yes, we will go through the different districts and explaining the new proposal and the recommendations, if that is okay.
[Peter Calves]: Yes, that would be great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Perfect. Move on if you were done or not cut you off if you aren't.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Thank you. Then I'm going to, with your permission, share again the presentation and continue where we left it. So we're going to talk about now the residential districts. That tool, it's public, it's for everyone to use whenever you want it. It's going to be being updated as soon as we go through the process. And then whatever is going to be approved, then it will pop up in the approved section. So take your time. It can have some complexity, but just to get the information that you want, it's a lot easier than trying to zoom in. in a map, so hopefully this makes it easy for everyone to look at what they have, where are they, their current zoning, what is being proposed, etc. So this is the plan that was recommended from the City Council to the City Board for the residential districts, and this was presented in April 2nd, if I remember correctly, to the City Board. We heard a lot of comments about different ways of densifying and trying to reach that higher densification. So we've listening, we've gone through the comments and we have a new proposal. So this is the new plan. This is the new proposal. And I'm going to go area by area. So one of the biggest comments that we had and that was very repeated was higher density. And it was in certain areas where we had the T stations and the commuter rail. It was asked to have a higher area, so to extend it instead of the one fourth, the quarter of a mile. to extend that density up to half a mile so it wasn't too much pressure on those areas as we've seen before. So this was the before map. We had UR1 in this more quarter of a mile from the T stations and was asked if that could be expanded up to the half a mile. and that's what we have in here. There was also near the commuter rail, it was asked to be a little bit higher density. We had NR3 all the area and right now we are doing UR1 for that quarter of a mile and then NR3 in the biggest half a mile. We are taking in consideration all the private lots, all the private ways that we've seen. That's why you will see these kind of down zone areas, as for example in here. All these dead-end private ways are in UR2, the same as in here. And then when we are out of that half a mile, we see that going down to NR1 and having everywhere where we have some bus areas or those high street connectivities, we try to densify a little bit higher. Maybe I should have said the districts first, so I'm going to name them first. Neighbourhood Residential 1, Neighbourhood Residential 2, Neighbourhood Residential 3, Urban Residential 1 and Urban Residential 2. Those are the different residential districts. We're going from the lowest NR1 to the highest density Urban Residential 2. You will see it later on what is on each of these districts, so that's why I don't want to do it now. I just wanted to know exactly or to tell exactly what are those changes from the previous to now. It was asked if we could convert all the NR1s in NR2s. Not everyone, but some people ask for this. Because we have so many private ways in the northern area, we do not have commercial services as we have in other areas like south of Medford or near the corridors or near the squares. we don't have jobs in these areas. So we try to densify the areas that have all these characteristics. So we have left NR1 still in here. It is true that with the ADUs that we will see later on how that affects we can go to a higher density in also NR1 and NR2. So I'm going to go through each of these areas. Also good to remember, we were asked several times about the mixed use districts last time that we presented this. As you see in here, we have a lot of white areas. Those are because our let's say, not residential districts, right, where we have the corridors, where we have the squares. So we wanted to bring one map with all of them so that we also understand that these areas, the corridors and the squares, are going to be the ones that are the highest densities, where we have those commercial, those services. And here's where we have the higher buildings and the higher densities. So what we are going to talk about now, it's not about mixed areas, not about commercial, not about the high-density residential, but about all those residential districts that are outside these mixed commercial, institutional and special districts. We can start with NR1. As we can see, those areas that are mainly private waste, as we can see in here, also in the south to the fells and that north Medford. These are really a lot of private waste. We are outside the areas of commercial, we don't have those services. and we have very little public transit in this area. We mainly don't have a lot of public transit. So in this way, that is why we keep it as NR1. What can happen in NR1? We could have one unit dwelling, and that's your single family. We allow historic conversion. I will explain that in just a second. And we have the protected ADUs, the accessory dwelling unit. these are by right, then by special permit you could add an extra ADU. Also the ADU, we will have it just a little conversation after we go through the residential neighborhoods, but just so you know that here we have the protected ADU. So what is the historic conversion? Historic conversion is any large house that is at least 75 years old. It doesn't have to be registered, it doesn't have to be any official name of the historic. It just has to be older than 75 years old. In that case, you can do historic conversion and that means that a large house that has only single family at this moment, it can be converted and be done as multifamily. At this point, this is something that we changed. It's not about We don't give a maximum of units in here. It's more about what the lot, the conditions of the lot and the house allows. And the minimum and how to understand how many you could have is taking the cross floor area, so the square footage of your house. and then dividing that by 900 square foot. Whatever the number is going to be the maximum units that you can have. No unit can be less than 900 square foot. Now you have other requirements that you need to fulfill, that the lot needs to fulfill with the building coverage, the open space, parking requirements, etc. So it's not that with the house, that's it. You need to be conforming with the other situations of the lot. We will see that a little bit more in depth later on. And then, yes, the protected use. So as you can see, we could have up to three units or the historic conversion could be even more depending. NR2, it's in the Let's say the areas that could also have some private ways but are closer to service, commercial and public transit. And that's why those are what you're seeing in here all along the bus lines, some areas that are already because we already have existing two units or because are near a park or something that it's interesting to have a little bit of higher density in very specific locations. So what can we do there is one unit, two unit history conversion, again, same situation. and then the protected ADU. These are the by right. A special permit ADU could also be allowed. So in this case, we would have a minimum of, without taking into account the historic conversion, we would have two units plus one ADU by right or two accessory dwelling units by permit, by special permit. Neighbourhood residential three, we are mainly having the eastern part of near Salem Street, all these neighbourhoods, we are not touching those. Those were the ones that were proposed as they were before. Those are kept the same. So mainly all the eastern part of Medford didn't change. The changes were more on the south. and the west. So the NR3 were reduced and they were up zoning. We will see these areas in the urban residential one. What we have done is on those areas where we have the public transit or alum public transit or in those higher interconnectivity roads, that's where we have a higher density. What can we do here? One, two, three dwelling units, townhouse, if they are three, can be done. And then we have the historic conversion again, same situation, and protected ADU. These are all done by right, can also be by special permit, another ADU. And then we go to urban residential one. So as we can see, it has increased the area for the urban one, especially in the south Medford and the one quarter of a mile. of that commuter rail. Why a quarter is not as efficient, the commuter rail is not as efficient as a T-stop. It doesn't stop in so many areas, it's not as frequent during weekends. I think it is every two hours. So it's really not an efficient or high frequency as it is the T-stops. So that's why for now is reduced to a quarter of a mile, the moment that the T station gets extended or there is a higher frequency, then we could look into extending that. But for now, this is the area of extension. And what are we allowing in here? We have the two, three dwelling units, the townhouse, historic conversion, multiplex, that is a building typology where it's allowed from four to six unit maximum. And then here it does not apply the protected ADUs because we are not allowing in your 1D one unit, so you're a single family, it's not allowed in the UR1. So the local ADU instead of protected ADU, but the local could be added to the existing one that are already there, the two unit and the three unit and the historic conversion. So here we have up to six units, from two to six units. And then the urban residential 2, I'm so sorry, why in here I don't have it? There was a mistake in this map, so sorry. But mainly that is the area that we added, so I'm going to look for, sorry, sorry, sorry. So as you can see in this area, this is where we proposed an urban residential 2. Because we are looking at the other corridors, and that is all the main streets, and other corridors that are shared with Somerville. These might change for more urban residential. So as we said, this is quite a complex study that we are doing, this process, and there is going to be always a little bit of back and forth so that UR2 right now is just very close to that T station, but it could be extended if we see with the study of the corridors that we need that extension. But for now, this is where we are adding that urban residential to. So whenever we look at Harvard, at the Main Street, et cetera, we will come back for these urban residential to areas. And what is allowed in that UR2 is from three units, so three-unit dwelling, townhouse, historic conversion, multiplex, and then we are adding also that multifamily building, and this is more than six units. And then we have the local ADU for one and two and three units. This is the same as UR1. So, this is a table to understand what is allowed in every of these districts. We have NR1, 2, 3, UR1 and 2. What are the permitted building types? That's what we just saw. And then we have these two things and the ADUs will come in the later package with the commercial, with the squares that are already referred to the City Board, but we will look at once we have done this. But we have two different AD accessory dwelling units, and one is the protected ADU, and this is protected by Massachusetts law. and then the local ADUs. These are not protected. The Medford has wanted to add it. For NR1, 2, and 3, we have a protected ADUs because we have a single unit dwelling. Then for the UR1 and 2, because we don't have that single dwelling unit, we allow the local ADU. Any second ADU has to be by special permit and we allow that in all of these districts, but you need to have the first one so you can add the second one. So the maximum units in NR1 will be the one unit, the protected ADU, and then the local ADU by special permit, so up to three units. And this is excluding the historic conversion because it's case by case. The NR2 will be two units, one protected ADU and the one local ADU by special permit. So these are four units, two of them being accessory. And then the NR3, same three plus two, these are five units. Your one, three units plus another two because we only allow up to the three units. We don't allow it in the other principal buildings. and your two the same so five maximum with the ADUs then you have maximum units without the ADUs in your one will be six and your two there is no limit for the units. What are the CITIC recommendations for the draft that was presented on the draft on the 2nd of April? There are some modifications for the table of use regulations. These are all the different ones. So the A7, that's dormitory fraternity or sorority house, there is not permitted now in, we are recommending not permitted in UR1 and UR2. C1, private open recreational uses available to the public will be as a special permit city board in UR1 and UR2. D2, public entertainment or recreation facility not permitted in all districts. I1, parking area or garage not accessory to permitted principal use. not permitted in NR2. I3 parking area garage accessory to a principal use which is within 500 feet of a conforming principal use but not necessarily in the same district will be permitted in NR3, UR1 and UR2. I4 parking area garage accessory to a principal use which is on the same lot as non-conforming principal use not permitted in NR1 and NR2. K1, home occupation, see section 94-3.4 by special permit. It was SP in all districts, we just changed that to the city board in all districts, so CDB in all districts. NK8, the changing is deleting the two subcategories, the less than 4,500 square foot and more than 4,500 square foot. The uses does not change. Are the same, believe? Yes, in all of them. The updated section for the table of dimensional requirements, table B, section 94-4.1, We want to reflect the following modifications, residential districts, the NR1, NR2, NR3, UR1 and UR2. What we are changing is lot area square footage. minimum it's going to be 4000 for all of them frontage minimum nr1 and nr2 was 50 we are changing that to 40 facade build out nr1 and nr2 we are not it's not applicable this we won't apply any Facade build-out minimum. Residential density, this is units per lot, and we have from minimum to maximum, NR1 is 1. Here we don't have the accessory dwelling units, so ADUs do not account for this. So nr1 is 1, nr2 from 1 to 2 units, nr3 1 to 3, ur1 2 to 6, ur1 3, and then it's not applicable because there is no maximum established. There was a 2, we changed it into 3. And historical conversion, we had a maximum for the different neighborhoods. We had the comment during the public, when we presented this the 2nd of April, where it was suggested if we wouldn't put a limit for the historical conversion. And the truth is that we were already studying that possibility and what we want is to give an incentive for those large historic buildings to be preserved and in that case If they are too big, for example, to have a limit in NR1 to a 2 unit, then it wouldn't be enough economical feasibility, so it wouldn't make it feasible economically, and that's why we changed it. In any case, we will see later that we have some standards for that use, so that not everything can be done. And then we change the explanation of historic conversion, so we have here a 1, so footnote, and so the maximum permissible number of units is determined by dividing the gross floor area of the existing principal structure by 900 square foot. Each unit within the existing building must have a minimum area of 900 square feet. Additions and expansion to the existing building shall not increase the number of units allowed. Those were the changes. Then for the Table of Dimensional Requirements, Table B, we modified the setbacks. It came from that study, those analysis that we've seen and that are available on your interactive map. front setbacks, less to ask, 15 as a minimum, was very difficult. Then we would have a lot of non-conforming lots, so we decreased that to 10 in all of the districts and then in UR2, which is more urban, that we reduced to five. The side is going to be all the same, so right now it's all for them five, and the rear is all of them 10. This was also changed so that ADUs are more possible. If these are too big, the setbacks will be counted for... These dimensions are taken into account for the ADUs position, so we wanted to make it as balanced as possible. And then we only have in the stormwater landscaping just a note, another footnote for the green score telling where it does apply the green score. And in this case, any parcel that is located within the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layers and any development that requires site plan review. In those cases, the previous surface requirement then does not apply. So as you can see here, we have green score and then previous surface. If we have green score, then the previous surface does not apply. And if we don't have green score, then the previous surface requirement would apply. We had two definitions, we had some comments and there was some confusion about the private open recreational uses and the public open recreational uses. So, we gave definitions and we are adding it to the section 94.12.0 definitions and this is an outdoor First one, private open recreational uses, an outdoor land area privately owned, designed or designated to be used for community recreation, leagues, exercise, sports, education or similar activities, or an area intended to enhance the enjoyment of natural features or natural beauty. These use may include outdoor play fields, athletic fields or courts, other recreation facilities and water features, picnic areas, natural areas, boating facilities, fishing facilities, arboretum and botanic gardens. The public open recreational uses an outdoor land area, publicly owned and operated parks, playgrounds, playing fields, and other facilities for active and passive recreation. So we wanted to add this one so there were no confusion of what this actually meant. And this is the last I promise. I know that it's a lot of information but this you will have to go through it as much as possible until we come back. So historic conversion definition is the conversion of an existing structure a minimum of 75 years old. In the previous draft, we have 70 so we change that to be aligned with the building. Building code. Originally designated for one unit, used to a two-unit or multi-unit dwelling with no change to the exterior of the structure. Each unit has an independent entrance directly from the outside the building or through a common vestibule. And we are adding, so this part is all new in the draft, historic conversion use standards. And so we have several. No new dwelling unit created by the conversion of an existing dwelling into a greater number of units or by addition or enlargement of an existing dwelling shall be permitted unless the requirements of minimum lot area maximum building coverage and minimum pervious surface requirements of the district in which the structure is located are satisfied after the conversion or enlargement. So, basically, all this wording to say if this existing structure, when you convert it, you're increasing that non-conformity for any of this or you're entering in non-conformity for the minimum area, the minimum building coverage, the previous surface, etc. Then you cannot do that conversion. It has to continue to be conformed with all the requirements, the dimensional requirements that we see just earlier. So, depending on where that house is, dependent on where the building is located, in which district, it needs to follow those dimensional standards. specific, the required yards shall be those of the structure existing at the time of the conversion. However, any construction occurring outside the limits of the existing structure shall be subject to the yard requirements of the district in which the structure is located. So for the yards, those setbacks that we've seen before, If the existing structure is non-conforming, that is okay. Now, you can build it. The only thing is that anything addition that you're doing, so the emergency exits, etc., anything that you need to do so that is building code approved, if any of those extra have to follow the YARD requirements, the setback requirements. The maximum height shall be the height permitted in the district in which the structure is located or the existing building height, whichever is greater. Open space requirement shall be the required in the district in which the structure is located and office street parking shall be provided as required in section 94-3.2 table of use regulation. If you're changing this historic building into four units, you need to look how many parking requirements do you have. You need to see that it fits in the area that you have and that you're not going under the requirement of, for example, previous surface. So, all these things need to be taken care of. And I think that is all. Yes. So now, anything that you need me to repeat, I'm very happy to do. Any questions that you have, happy to answer. Any comments that you have, we will absolutely take into consideration. Thank you very much.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you very much, Paula going to open it up to board discussion, but 1st, I want to recognize Danielle the other hand up.
[Danielle Evans]: Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note that I did get an inquiry through the chat asking for clarification of what is facade build out. We have had a couple of questions from that. So I'm wondering if you could explain that as I'm sure other people are also wanting to understand what that is. And I think that first appeared as defined term for the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. So it is a defined term But if you could explain it, that would be great.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Yeah, so the facade build-out... I wanted to look... I know that we have different diagrams, so I would like to search for one, but I don't have it right now. So the facade build-out is the facade that is on the front lot line. So you have your frontage, your main facade, that is... Yeah, that is abutting the frontage, so that the main street. What we are asking is that from your frontage, there is a percentage that needs to be built. And because, yes, I will go back to that. First, let's take the comments, because it is very easy to see in a diagram than for me explaining all these different lot lines and frontage, etc. So I will come back to that answer. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: All right, thank you so much, Paola. Now I'm going to open it up to comments from the board before we go into public comments. And I'm just going to start off, I think, by thanking the team from Innes Associates. This is a great improvement over, I think, what we saw back in April. And while I am someone who, by nature, is skeptical of the effectively single-use zoning that is in a lot of Fulton Heights and North Medford. When you explain it in terms of, oh, these are where there are a lot of private ways or streets that you really can't control, what goes on along those streets, it makes sense that you would not be necessarily comfortable putting a higher density there, at least right now. And I think that was much better explained than previously of not so much the, oh, we'll just put this here, but the why it's there and the why you didn't feel comfortable putting more there. So yeah, with that, I'd like to open it up to any members of the board who might want to comment on information that we've received, which isn't admittedly a lot. Ben, you can go ahead.
[Ben Lavallee]: Sorry, I switched devices and couldn't unmute myself. Um, I'll be very brief. I just want to echo what Peter said. I think it's, uh, it's encouraging to see how much of the public feedback was incorporated into these updates and, um, certainly a lot to digest. I have to digest it over the next couple of weeks, but the map tooling and, uh, in particular, kind of the. the balancing of density and increasing the density in certain areas in West Medford and near Tufts and near the public transit systems, I think were necessary updates and really sort of topics that the public was passionate about. So overall, my feedback is positive on these changes. So thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Thanks, Ben. And also, can we make sure Ben is a co-host so he can unmute himself? I just fixed that.
[Unidentified]: OK, great. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Any other comments from board members? Ari, Annie?
[Ari Fishman]: Echoing the same, I'm gonna need some time to get into the details, but overall first impressions are that this made a lot of excellent updates, and I'm looking forward to both fully understanding them and seeing if there's additional work to be done, which I'm sure we'll find. But I think we're moving in a good direction. Thank you for all your hard work.
[Peter Calves]: All right, thank you. And Paola, just before I open up to public comment, do you have anything else to add?
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: Yeah, thank you. Yes, I can share the diagram that I was talking about just a second ago. I'm going to share my screen.
[Peter Calves]: Yes, that'd be great. So you can have that explanation before we go into public comment.
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: I just need to move it. Do you see it? Yes. Do you see the image? Okay. So what we have here is a lot, a parcel with, for example, in this case, is this like a single family house. The minimum that facade build-out would be this percentage. So we have a lot width. and this is our 100% of the width of the lot and whatever is built in that setback area, that is the minimum percentage of build-out that we require. And so for the single, the NR1 and NR2, usually the lots are a little bit bigger and the minimum that we were requiring. And this is still a city, so it's not like a rural area where this percentage will be very, very minimum. But it is within this more suburban area. We were asking at least 60% of that width of the building to be built. So that this usually what it makes it is more accessible, more walkable, more friendly, more eyes on the street, more active, etc. That's why some of these more, let's say, right now we live it only for the most urban residential districts. You have that minimum, which usually in Medford, almost all of the lots are within this minimums that we require. If there is a garage that is attached, we'll also count towards this minimum percentage or it has to be in this setback area, in this initial area, but that's where we... That is what this facade build out is. Sorry, it's very easy, but at the same time to explain it, I don't know why it's taking me a little bit of time. But anyway, I hope that with this diagram, it's easier to understand. It's just the percentage of that width that we require to be built.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Paola. With that, if we're ready, I'd like to open a public comment. Now open the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature. You can also send an email to OCD at Medford-MA.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members as it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, you may message Alicia or Danielle in the chat for assistance. Each participant will have two minutes to speak. Alicia will be managing the public comment queue, and as we have been doing the last few meetings, she will have a timer that will indicate to people how long they have to speak remaining. Are you sure, Danielle, anything else you need to add? Or can we just get started?
[Alicia Hunt]: If you want me to call in the names, we'll get started.
[Peter Calves]: Oh, I can do that. I just wasn't sure. I wasn't sure what's happening. I haven't done this before.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're good.
[Peter Calves]: I watch that movie a lot.
[Alicia Hunt]: We've gone back and forth on whether I call the names or you call the names when you're ready for the next one. And sorry, did you say two minutes per?
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, two minutes per, as usual. All right. You can go ahead and call since you're the one timing them out.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK, great. So the first, sorry, just asked me what my speaking language was. The first speaker is Cheryl R. You have two minutes.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I'm disappointed that this past month was taken to build a defense of the NR and NR2 districts not having additional density, that they're near private ways or dead ends so they can't have more density because there's no jobs, they're not near a corridor. These seem like NIMBY excuses. The city literally chose what would be corridors. There is no special sauce that makes Salem Street area able to handle this much density. We have one bus. Fountain Street is a dead end with limited connections in our neighborhood and it is singled out as you are too. Why does this matter? It seems like it's a blanket get-out-of-density card. The example given of Fels Ave showed they are being zoned down from needing 35 feet of frontage to needing 40 feet of frontage. If a developer doesn't choose to build on that lot, then they won't. But why are we zoning for NIMBY protectionism, a literal tool created to justify not adding density to chosen neighborhoods? It is remarkable the confidence in saying you don't want to bother certain neighborhoods, whole neighborhoods exempt from density because there are some private ways and some dead ends. But miraculously, none of them are in environmental justice neighborhoods. Somehow already dense areas with small lots are not reason to not increase density there, but large lots with less density is an excuse to keep density down. It does not make sense. It is just an excuse. There is no density balance. There are those who will preserve neighborhood character and those who will be made more dense at the cost of their quality of life. It's funny that more density can't be near some areas of the commuter rail because it runs less frequently on weekends, just like buses. but none of the NR1 or NR2 are near the Salem Street area. I wish more work and study was focused on equitable density and not just protecting some areas from any. If the lot project isn't feasible on a certain lot, the developer won't build, but to exclude something as simple as a two family home and entire swaths of the city is outrageous. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Hey, Cheryl. OK. I'll leave that to you, Alicia, since you've been calling.
[Alicia Hunt]: I do wonder if it's easier for you to decide when to acknowledge the next person versus comment on something. But whichever is easier for you.
[Peter Calves]: OK, cool. Thanks. Then I'll just call the next person. Next person up is Navar.
[William Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. Basically, I think this is a big step in the right direction. The broad increase in allowed density in South Medford and Hillside allows for much needed housing without concentrating it in too small an area. The increases in West Medford should indeed help achieve the city's goal of revitalizing the commercial square to the extent that it can. I would tend to agree, if we could do a little more to eliminate some of the NR1, that would be good. I also saw earlier brought up about the north side of Fowl's Way, a little more density than just duplexes seems appropriate. Could easily go NR3 at least. That's for my own neighborhood. Uh, Magoon Square. I live in an urban neighborhood. I still think that we can go above three stories. All right? Uh, Abbottick Ball Square, Magoon Square, Winter Hill. Those are city kind of places. We can go above three stories. It's gonna be okay. 100 Winchester Street. The city council passed a planned development district. 100 Winchester Street. It allows six stories. Uh, the developer is proposing four. Those are the kind of range we should be thinking. Four, five, or six. I don't think we should set the precedent that every part of Medford needs to... If it's residential, it can't be above three. I think we can handle a little bit more height. I wrote an email to you guys earlier. I said, if my neighborhood is going to play the who has more parking game with other neighborhoods, we're going to lose. Who has the biggest backyards? We're going to lose that game. Let's play the game of let's be a really good urban neighborhood and welcome more people. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, William. Next up I see is Judith Weinstock.
[Judith Weinstock]: Hi, good evening. Thanks again to everybody who's been working on this from the city and the consultant group. I really appreciate it. But I actually, I have. some really discreet questions that are related to UR1 neighborhoods that would become UR1 neighborhoods, but that have probably at least 50% of their homes as single family. And I've asked the question before, but I'd like to have the answers reiterated at this meeting. So this is probably tailored more to either Danielle Evans or Alicia Hunt. And I did ask this a couple of months ago at one of the meetings. So I'm going to give an example. So my house is over 100 years old. It's a single family. It's on what will now become conforming, but was otherwise non-conforming. It's about 4,000 square foot lot. Two questions. One is, if If I went ahead and decided I needed to renovate my house extensively, and I got several quotes from construction companies that basically said it's going to run you around $600,000 to make the changes you want to make because your foundation also needs to be replaced. and i got a price from a different construction company that said you know what we can replace your house for six hundred thousand the question of the day is what happens in single family neighborhoods who are now you are one when the single family home is actually more expensive to renovate than it would be to replace I understand that renovation is possible, but the question comes up as what would happen if, in fact, it were indeed either the same price or less expensive to just replace the house. That's one question. The second question is, if I sell my house, which is clearly a single-family house, and someone else buys it, are those same rights extended to that family, assuming it's a family who buys it? So it's really a very specific set of questions.
[Peter Calves]: All right, thank you, Judith. I'm going to ask Danielle and Alicia if they have any comments on that, because I'll admit I don't know the ins and outs of that.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so Chapter 48, Section 6 of Mass General Law is all about the protections for pre-existing nonconforming uses and structures and single family uses in particular. have a lot of protections, singles and twos, to be able to make changes, expand, rebuild. Most of that is by right with a simple building permit. So you would not have to go to a zoning board. And if you were to increase, say, a non-conforming say non-conforming with setbacks, but hopefully with these changes, you actually would be conforming if they're down to five, but say you needed to expand the house and got closer to the side yard setback, then you could possibly need to go to the zoning board to get a special permit, to expand the non-conforming use or non-conforming structure. And the finding that they have to make is, is this substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use? So it's a very low bar and any uses actually would have to do that if they were encroaching on one of the conventional standards like setbacks or lot area. And in our ordinance, I'm looking for the section where we talk about it specifically that really goes into detail what you can do that would be by right.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I believe you can tear down and build the house. Emily put the section in the chat for us. It's section 94.5.5. Nonconforming single and two family residential structures. While you look at it, I can put that in the chat so that I can put a link to that exact in the chat for other people to then look at later. You can click on the link and save it for later for your review.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. just to go, yeah, so 94, 5.5, nonconforming single and two family residential structures may be reconstructed, extended, altered, or structurally changed upon a determination by the building commissioner that such proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change does not increase the nonconforming nature of said structure and adds not more than 100% to its gross floor area. So you could double it. You could tear it down and rebuild it, double the size, and that'd be by right.
[Judith Weinstock]: So the fact that the new district would say no new single family homes, I was under the impression and maybe miss hunt can just confirm or tell me I'm wrong that. that would only then apply for abandoned properties that were more than two years abandoned that you could not rebuild if you already had it. So if I sold my house, or if I wanted to knock it down and rebuild it because it was cheaper to do that than just renovate it, you're saying I could do that as long as I met the requirements. Okay, and then someone who purchases my house could also do that, correct?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, because the uses don't care about ownership. It could be a rental property owned by someone who lives in a different country and could decide to tear it down, rebuild it.
[Judith Weinstock]: So new zoning doesn't prevent me from doing the things that I could do yesterday?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. Yeah. So pre-existing single and two family homes have a lot of protections under mass general law that the city, we can't depart from that.
[Judith Weinstock]: I mean, I think that's really helpful for people to know, you know, so people don't freak out over the loss of quote, single family homes in their districts.
[Peter Calves]: All right, thank you, Judith, and thank you, Danielle and Alicia, for that clarification. The next person I see with their hand up is Christopher Dedich. Sorry if I mispronounced that.
[Christopher Dedic]: No, you're good. How's it going? My name's Christopher Dedich. I'm 131 Yale Street. I just wanted to reiterate I support this new zoning, and I really like what the Couple commenters ago the gentleman about increasing the height. I think that would be good in between four and six would be great And I just have a question about parking is it still the 1.5 even in you are one and you are to 1.5 spaces per unit and and then down to like 1.8 near the T and then Yeah, I think that was my only question. Thank you, Chris.
[Alicia Hunt]: Did you want me to just- In the current zoning, it stays as 1.5. Looking at the zone, the parking ratios is something that we'll do in a later step. And just, I think that the speaker misspoke, it's 0.8 near the- Yeah.
[Peter Calves]: Oh, sorry. I could tell that that's what he meant because he said go down. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. So this does not touch any of the parking ratios at all.
[Peter Calves]: Okay. So yeah, that's, it doesn't touch it. And for, for people who might want to see the touch, it does not touch any of the parking ratios yet, but thank you. That will be something. Um, the next person I have up is just one seven, eight, one six. So you've been asking me what you're sorry.
[Jim Doherty]: Yep, am I on? Yep. My name's Jim Daugherty. I'm at 36 Ellington Street, West Mentioned. I would also like to compliment the work. I wasn't familiar with the Mystic Ave and other things, but I've caught up to it. And I think it's been well thought out. And I commend you guys for being so comprehensive. One little tweak that I would suggest and you touched on it earlier, is in relationship to the T-State, the commuter rail station in West Medford. The UR district came down, I guess it would probably be south of Boston Ave to approximately Sharon Street, going from High Street parallel with Boston Ave. And I agree that the train It would be great if it ran more often on the weekends, but certainly during the week, it gets tremendous amount of use as it's 12 minutes to downtown Boston, probably the quickest way of getting there. In addition, we do have surface bus. service over there, just to finish that thought on the community rail. You know, it's like the chicken and the egg, what comes first, you know, more housing, or quickest, you know, more frequent stops so I would like to suggest potentially. You know, the chicken does in the chicken in this case would be the density that could drive that. But we do have surface bus service on high street as well. And we also probably are the closest to the bike path that brings you to our life as well. Which, as you guys know, is going to be more of a direct route that leads over to where you can pick it up right on the Arlington line. Lastly, I would say that it's in walking distance to Arlington Center as well. So we have surface bus area on Mass Ave. So I would just ask that you consider expanding that, I believe you called it an urban residential one district all the way down to the river. essentially from High Street going along Arlington Street, where it comes back out to Boston Ave. And it's very similar, actually, if you look going down towards Tuff along Boston Ave, it's pretty similar to a lot of that area as well, is a little higher density than the N3, I guess, the new one. So that's all I have. Thank you. Wish you luck. Thank you very much.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you very much for your comments. Next up that I can see is Gaston Fiore.
[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Gaston Fiore, 61 Stickney Road. I had a few comments. So first, I really like the proposed changes compared to last time. Obviously, we want to increase density, but I think the most important factor is to have a breadth of housing options that go from very small units in the dense areas next to transit to much larger units in the areas that are away from transit. So I strongly support keeping NR1 as it is with the modified changes. um The first one is that I'm still not sure about the value of the local ADUs on UR1 and UR2. That's the detached and attached ADUs. So would it be wiser to restrict local ADUs on UR1 and UR2 just to internal ADUs and then allowing an extra floor? I know that some of the residents mentioned that as well, to have four rather than three. I'm just concerned about the inefficiency of adding more building area horizontally versus vertically. I brought this question before and I don't know whether this was examined. I know there was a comment at the City Council meeting last week that they were evaluating this in its associates. So it would be interesting to know what the conclusion of that was. And then the last points that I had was related to the historic conversion. So, on the last slide, it talks about addition or enlargement of existing dwellings, but then the definition of historic conversion, apparently the original, so it says here, minimum 75 years old, original design for one unit with no changes to the exterior of the structure. I see this as a contradiction, so if one of the planners could please explain the last slide versus the historic conversion definition, that would be very useful. Thank you so much.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you so much, Gaston. Right on time. Would Emily or Paolo like to comment on any of those with regard to the historic conversion?
[Paula Ramos Martinez]: So, thank you, Gaston. The local ADU question, I'm going to leave it for the next time, because right now we're not talking about local ADUs in this precise topic. So, it will come in the later one, so we can look at that in the next one, but we will look at it. And for the historic conversion, so there are going to be some requirements from the building code to abide by the building code to have different egress for the other units. So you usually need two exits, emergency exits. In any case, it's true that we say that there should not be any change to the external structure. So, we are going to look at that and come back in the next meeting if we need to. We will ask our legal counsel, we will look at the language and see if there are any things that should be done better. So, there are any conflicts, but thank you for bringing that up.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Paula.
[Alicia Hunt]: If I might, Peter?
[Peter Calves]: Go for it.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that what I've been thinking about is that the difference is we don't want somebody to, the idea is to preserve these older houses, how they look and feel. And we don't want them to add an extension and put three more units as a loophole. And so that's what we're trying to balance. we think there might need to be some exception for like no, no significant external changes, other than entry and exit doors or other than those needed to make it legally, you know, other than those required by building code, I think there might be some language there that that we're going to be looking for. Right, so that you you may need to add another door. But you shouldn't add a wing is what we're sort of getting at. And you shouldn't take your house looking structure and make it look like an apartment building and say it was a historic conversion.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you for that clarification, Alicia. Next up that I see is Jeremy Martin.
[Jeremy Martin]: Hey, good evening, everyone. Thanks for the updates this evening. I unfortunately missed the first part of the meeting, but I think I've gotten the flavor of the changes. And I very much appreciate the progress that's been made through these meetings. Just a few comments. I'm a little disappointed to see that NR1 still does not allow anything more than single family or historic conversion duplex. There are other reasons, other priorities besides public transit, why we should be allowing density. Living next to some of the most substantial green space in the city should be a draw. The city website, when I read about zoning, it says one of the primary goals for neighborhood and urban residential is to allow incremental neighborhood appropriate growth and densification in each area of the city. And as I understand it, the current proposal for NR1 maintains the status quo of single family and ADU and does not actually increase density in those areas. Everyone should be participating in this improvement to our city. And please correct me if that's wrong, but that's how I understand what's being proposed. The other comment here is that I see that the area of UR1, I believe, around the Hillside neighborhood and several other neighborhoods were expanded, and I appreciate that. I think it reflects the actual conditions. But it seems like we're still using a walking radius circle to make some decisions about where that change happens. And I can tell you that I see, I live near the T, I see people with Whole Foods bags walking by all the time to go to the T. Those neighborhoods, these neighborhoods south of the river that are a part of these hillside neighborhoods, are just as accessible to the T as others. And let's just make this simple and make all of it UR1 or UR2, whatever it needs to be, to make it reasonable and fair for everyone in these communities. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you very much, Jeremy, for your contributions. The only other person with a hand up right now I see is Caitlin, so you can go ahead.
[Kaitlin Robinson]: Hi, I'm Caitlin Robinson, 31 Everett Street. Thank you for all of the work that has taken place on this. I do feel like it is a step in the right direction. Um, like previous speakers, I continue to have some concerns. Um, for example, the, um, neighborhood residential one, I'm concerned that that still exists. I do feel like we should at minimum have neighborhood residential too. And I think that the example that we saw from Fells Ave earlier today, where what is currently a two family will now be zoned for like single family. I think that's problematic. I don't think we should be zoning anything for like only single family allowed, but plus ADUs. I also agree with the previous speaker about like the radius around West Medford Square and other transit stops in general. I do think that 0.5 is too small. And I think we need to take into consideration as well, like we have an expanding blue bikes network. And yeah, I I don't think that it should be limited to like a quarter of a mile around West Medford Square. Another concern that I have is the parking, which I know will be addressed at a later time. But for example, with the historic conversions right now needing to retain those minimum parking standards per unit, that's going to probably result in like large surface parking lots. And if the idea of a historic conversion is that we're trying to like maintain the character or the aesthetic of it. The large surface parking lots don't contribute to that. But I am just overall worried about how parking minimums are going to kind of work against a lot of what's planned here. So I do look forward to when those are addressed later in this process. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you very much, Caitlin. And now we have next up, it seems we have Sharon W. You can go ahead.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Hi, Sharon Wentworth, 694 Winthrop Street. I just have a question on the special permits. Will that work the same way that zoning does now where you go before the board and the neighbors get notified of what you're planning on doing, the same process?
[Peter Calves]: Yes, in my understanding. the special permit process will be the same as it is now.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Anything? Will there be a lot of exceptions to that now going forward?
[Peter Calves]: Danielle, if you'd like to clarify.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Can she repeat the question about what gets notified? because we in the area so like now if you want to put up a, excuse me a higher fence, all the residents in the area get notified it's put in the paper, and they get to respond. And there's a meeting set.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so through the chair. Anything that requires a special permit or variance or a site plan review that would go before the Community Development Board or the Zoning Board, you would still get the required notifications, which is actually state law. So we can't change that. We can't decide that we're just not going to notify for fence variances anymore. That's the law, we'd have to do it. And the radius is also dictated by Mass General Law. So some things that are getting changed by right, you wouldn't get a notification. Prior to the ADU law that was passed, A detached ADU would need a special permit, and therefore, there was notification for that. Now, that would be by right, so there would be no notification. So, there are certain things that if they're by right now, you wouldn't get the notification, but things that are not by right, you still would if you're in a butter or the butter to a butter within a certain radius.
[Sharon Wentworth]: So, that falls under special permit?
[Danielle Evans]: special permit variances, site plan review, anything that has a public hearing has to be, has to have notification two weeks in advance to public hearing notices run in the paper. And there's mailings to the abutters and abutters to abutters.
[Sharon Wentworth]: Okay. Thank you.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Sharon. Next up would be Elizabeth.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Hello, can you hear me?
[Peter Calves]: You are echoing, but yes.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: OK, how about now?
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, now you're good.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: OK, thank you. Elizabeth Bale, 34 Emory Street. I appreciate the immense amount of work that's going into this, and I think having the interactive tool is going to be helpful. The first thing I wanted to just say is there seems to be a discrepancy between the maps and the table about where a townhouse is allowed. was previously, it seemed like it wasn't allowed in NR3 and it is allowed in UR1, but in some of the slides, it says it's allowed in both of them. So maybe that discrepancy could be tracked down and corrected whichever way it's supposed to be. I also wanted to know on the road type, is there any attention paid to whether streets are one-way or two-way? Because I think that makes a difference in how it should be zoned too. Our street is a short one-way street and I don't know. Everyone seems to want more density. There's a couple of dozen people on this call, and I don't know that that's representative of what people are thinking. I'm personally horrified about my area being zoned as UR1 instead of NR3, as it was previously proposed. So I just have to speak up and say I hate it and I'm horrified. It's going to be, there's just a contradiction between what Alicia just said about historic conversions preserving the character of at least the outside of the house versus letting it look like an apartment building. Well, I have a historic house built in 1895 and if there's going to be a you know, four to six story unit next to me and, and all down my street, it's not gonna, you know, look very good later. It's just gonna destroy the character of my particular neighborhood, which I'm very, has a lot of good characteristics in it right now.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Elizabeth, for your input. I don't see any other participants with their hands up. Alicia, Danielle, do we have any emails or chat messages or anything?
[Alicia Hunt]: I haven't gotten anything in chat from anybody else who wanted to speak, but, for example, couldn't raise their hand. There have been some emails that have actually come in during the meeting. I was just taking a quick look. This one says they watched the presentation tonight and they support the proposal, the updated zoning proposal and that we need more housing in Medford and repeats the please add any additional height between urban areas around the T stops and the major squares. I support the broad density proposed south of this river. And then there was another one. This is, oh, this actually arrived shortly before the meeting. Again, like the upzoning that they're seeing here, it's too long for me to read all of it on the fly. And there were several messages that public comments that were put in the board's folders. Danielle, we got a summary of those from Amanda or Peter, do you want me to just sort of quickly hit that summary of the ones that were in your folders. Sure, if you have the summary available, that would be helpful. Yeah, so Amanda sent us a quick one that said six comments came in for this discussion tonight. They're in the packet. favor request so I don't actually have names in this summary so I don't know if any of these are the same people who spoke tonight but in favor of the current proposal request additional heightened density by right in the you are areas around the T stops major quarters and squares requesting expanding opportunity for density for housing and business development so this that so this that is the squares that we're getting to. Supports reducing parking minimums. This latest map is the next comment is this is a great step forward. Again, suggests eliminating or significantly reducing the NR1 zoning. Wants every neighborhood to participate. Zone the Ball Square, Magoon Square, and Winter Hill. Requests more density and height. Favor of the latest zoning map. Yeah, basically, these are all in favor of the zoning with comments. Any comments are about more density. And this one suggests upgrading zoning closest to the new Malden Hospital. The hospital has a bus stop. Yeah, and I just have to say that several of the letters said they were grateful for the outreach process around this effort.
[Peter Calves]: Great, thank you for that, Alicia. Looks like while we were talking, George raised their hand, so I'm going to let them go ahead.
[Laurie Krieger]: Hi there, can you hear me? Good. Hi, so I'm actually Lori Krieger and I'm on an iPad because I had my hip replaced a week ago, so I'm doing my best. The things that my biggest question is, do we have an overarching goal, probably yes, of how many units we want to increase in Medford? Because it seems like, to me, Wellington Circle, I was driving, or Wellington, the T stop, right? I was driving by there and it seems like really low buildings with no density at all and lots of opportunity for adding thousands, if not hundreds of units as compared to my neighborhood, which is Hillside, which would allow for hundreds of people additional, not thousands. So can we add to the mix, like just what is our overarching goal and how can we accomplish that goal? In in that sort of manner in terms of um, I was also reading about how costco is adding apartment buildings above their buildings in california Which is new and interesting. I hadn't heard things like that previously Um, I want to support what jeremy said like there's a lot of places where density can be increased next to the rivers or in like keep the environmental Sound and whole but let more people appreciate it and use their bikes and stuff like that and um those private ways, can we make them public ways? Like, why do they get to have this kind of proprietary ownership? That's all I got. I think more is more, and I really appreciate y'all. Take care.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you very much, Lori. And I, just to hit on the Wellington piece, as someone who lives in the Wellington neighborhood, that is coming down, that is coming down as a different phase, the Wellington Special District, so. We will be working on that. With that, I don't see anyone else. So I think... If it makes sense, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment and move on to board comment and deliberations for this meeting. So I'll start with that. I just want to Go through the notes I took from the public comments. It looked like a general, generally desire for more density, particularly places that were noted were on the center of the line in Ball Square, Magoon Square area, thinking of going more than three stories. particularly the north side of Fellsway in that kind of Bolton Heights, North Medford area, and the areas around the river in West Medford and Hillside, as well as a further radius around T-stations kind of similar to what we heard last time that initially took the EUR1 from a quarter mile to half a mile. And a concern, generally a concern about parking, particularly in regard with historical conversions, although I know that's a later phase in the process. I don't have anything else they'd like to add on.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can I ask, I think it would be helpful for the staff and the consultants if the board, so the goal would be, the hope would be that at the next meeting, the board might be ready to vote. So if the board is looking for changes to the existing map, They should articulate that so we can provide that for the next meeting. And if they want to think about it, that's fine. But if you're thinking you want to see something different, this is a good time to tell us. And if it turns out that you need to think about it, and then to say that at the next meeting, that's your prerogative. But I just feel like it's helpful. that if you guys want something different, the consultants won't change it just because the public said they wanted different, they need to know what the board wants. Because it's the board's recommendation and the council.
[Ari Fishman]: In that case, I would like to see the increased density in the single family and our zoning per public comment and the summary. And I know there were a lot of other things agreed, but I did not take as good notes as Peter. But if anyone else wants to jump in, yes, I think we have some concrete changes I would like to see.
[Ayni Strang]: I simply agree with what Ari stated. I think we have to really clarify where we can add density and how we're going to do that, which has simply to do with what the board is thinking.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah. I would have to agree with that. I think we should look at where there is NR1 abutting major road corridors, stuff like that, where people could walk to a corridor or walk to a square and see Maybe we can't get rid of all of the NR1, but if we could make, if we could decrease that area, even if NR2, I mean, that's only, you can add one more unit. And then I mean, I think the best places to look to see where we can increase density are those places where you're up against a denser zone. I do think probably in West Medford and Medford Hillside where you have some little pockets of the less dense zoning up against the denser areas around these stations, I'd like to see those. get zoned a little more. And I know it's kind of late in the process for this, but I do think I do tend to agree with the sentiment, particularly for areas along the Somerville line in Ball Square and that area, that we could do more than three stories. I know when you're trying to kind of zone the whole city with a few categories, you don't want to make too many lists. But I do think, I mean, that's a pretty urban area. I don't think going up to a fourth or fifth story is really going to be that much different from what's there right now.
[Ayni Strang]: I think going into just what you said, Peter, where around the West Medford train station, there are natural places where you can go up a flight or two, and it would look totally natural to the environment, and it would not change the flavor of the area, but it would give people more opportunity of places to live.
[Ari Fishman]: Agreed. I think that that's an area that we should definitely be upzoning much more aggressively.
[Ayni Strang]: And there are changes along High Street leading there that are happening right now. And it just looks so natural to the environment as it's on High Street, on Boston, just in and around the train station. It's people need... Somebody mentioned from the public that you get on that and you're in Boston in 12 minutes. I mean, you can't drive from Medford Square to West Medford in 12 minutes. Never mind going to Boston. And people don't need to spend commuting like it's a part-time job. We need to really consider quality of life. And you can have neighborhoods that have historic buildings I'm in a house that's 124 years old. You can also have houses near me that have the ability to convert to a couple of apartments, and it wouldn't change the historical nature of the buildings.
[Peter Calves]: I do think that, and I mean, I do think some of that is going to be covered in the corridors and squares zoning that goes through. But I do think that is coming through later. But I do think looking at the, and I mean, I do think there were a couple of public comments that talked about the river and talked about those kind of natural areas and that those would be attractive places for people to want to live. So we should give them more opportunities to do that. And I think there is, to some extent, from the river to West Medford Square on the north side, and from the river down the Boston Ave corridor towards Tufts on the other, a contiguous neighborhood feel that I think is something we could look at as having a higher density within reason.
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, although with the caveat that we'll want to be careful around climate change effects on the river and future flooding. Oh, for sure.
[Ayni Strang]: Which is a real, if you think of, sadly, a seaport. I mean, they designed the seaport and forgot originally to put in a fire station and a police station and the fact that that area floods and all kinds of things like that. That's why I think what we're doing in Medford is so amazing. We're really taking time to really look at all the different aspects of planning an environment. City planning, that's the heart and soul of city planning.
[Peter Calves]: Well said. Anybody have anything else to add?
[Ari Fishman]: I do have a logistics question. Sorry. And Ben, if you have, feel free to. I am going to need a few days at least to kind of really digest this and have time to play around with the tool. What is the best way to communicate those with the consultants? I know I can't communicate it with the whole board because of open meeting laws, but Alicia, can you kind of maybe give the entire board guidance as we dig into the details and go back over the public comment, which I'm looking forward to doing.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I think that would be good as well, so people can, if we do want to facilitate having something in place on the 21st that we can vote on, I think if the board is able to kind of digest and communicate things onto the team as we find that out.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So, pardon me if I'm going to think out loud a little bit here. We do want to be careful about open meeting law and the board can't deliberate in private. However, if at any point, you know, if the board, if there were members of the board who had said, you know, if you had questions in between and you wanted me to clarify something, we can always do that. We've always said that if you wanted to provide your thoughts to us individually, you can email me and Danielle. If there were things that you realized after the fact you didn't understand, or you're like, wait, I thought it said this, but now I'm second-guessing myself. Can you clarify that for me? You certainly can send that to us and we can get you clarifications. Um, I think that in the end, if you sent us stuff that you wanted to see changed, and then the, the. so that it could be reflected in the consultant's presentation next time, and then it was presented to the public at the next meeting, I think that would be fine. And I will say that our goal is to have anything with any changes available to everybody, the board and the public, at least the Friday before the meeting. And part of why we really did not feel that the board could vote tonight was because you only got all of you got this stuff today. There might have been some of it came out yesterday. I know Danielle sent it, so I wasn't not positive on the timing. And that I mean, that really is it's not was not sufficient time for anybody to adjust stuff. We have been slammed with trying to do so many topics at once, which is why it's been taking so long. Well, I do think you could email me and Danielle individually with your thoughts and concerns. And then anything that results in a change could get reflected out in the next meeting.
[Ayni Strang]: Sounds reasonable. Yeah, totally reasonable. And if we run into any difficulty using the tool, we can send you a question. I tried this. You know, I can't make that work. And whether we got it today or yesterday, it's so much information, even if you need a week at least to really properly digest it, as Ari had said. So I think we have a good direction now. If we have any of those kinds of questions, we will certainly send them to you.
[Peter Calves]: Okay, that sounds good. Does anyone on the board have anything else? Otherwise, I would be looking for a motion to continue public hearing to date certain being May 21.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can I just say something before members of the public start logging off, because they might do that after you vote. I just want everybody to know that there's a public meeting tomorrow night about the West Medford Square and Medford Square in the ADUs. And so that's at the Andrews School and online tomorrow evening at 6.30 for the board. But I just really want people who are engaged in this to realize that that other meeting is tomorrow. Thank you.
[Ayni Strang]: Good to know. Very good to know. Aye.
[Peter Calves]: Okay. Looking for a motion. I so move. Thank you, Ari. Second?
[Ayni Strang]: I second.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Annie. Roll call vote. Ari Fishman? Aye. Annie String?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Aye.
[Peter Calves]: on the valley. Aye. And myself, Peter Calvis, I have an aye. So thank you to the team from Innes Associates. Thank you for all this work you put into the tool. And we will see you on the 21st.
[Ayni Strang]: Do we have any minutes to approve or?
[Peter Calves]: believe that is the case let me pull up doc yes the next item on the agenda is minutes for april 16th 2025 so anyone have any issues or corrections with the minutes from april 16th
[Ayni Strang]: I would make a motion to approve.
[Peter Calves]: Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Thank you, Ari. Roll call vote. Ari Fishman? Aye. Annie String? Aye. Ben LaValle? Aye. Myself, Peter Calvis. I'm an aye. That is taken care of. And the next thing on the agenda is standing zoning updates. I assume we have... I presume we have been sufficiently zoning updated unless there's anything else Alicia or Danielle want to share with us.
[Alicia Hunt]: Mostly, so technically the City Council's Planning and Zoning Committee voted those three topics, West Medford, Medford Square, and ADUs out of committee. I had been asked by somebody for the exact language they voted out. That's not actually what they voted out. They voted those topics out of committee. And so Paola and Emily are preparing the map based on those conversations and the zoning language. I think the goal is to get it on the city council agenda on Tuesday to refer it to you. So they'll vote to refer it Tuesday. Danielle, we did not advertise that, right? So we're expecting it, correct?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, apologies, my camera is not functioning all of a sudden. I can't get it to turn on. No idea why. Yes, we have not advertised it yet. My intention is to advertise it for June 7th. Or is it June 7th, which is the next available?
[Alicia Hunt]: Or June 4th? I thought it was the first 4th. That sounds right to me, June 4th.
[Ayni Strang]: I'd say June 4th. According to the calendar.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, yes, yes. Okay, so right. So that is the update is that that's when the public hearing for that will start.
[Peter Calves]: That's for the Medford Square, West Medford Square and ADUs?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Peter Calves]: Okay. And that's the local ADUs as opposed to the protected ADUs?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's both. So it is an update to the Medford zoning regarding ADUs and it will have language in there that puts us in compliance with the state law and language that allows the local ADUs. Because we have had language allowing ADUs, and it needed updating to be in compliance with the state law.
[Danielle Evans]: Right, because some of it was that ADUs were only for single families. Whereas the new state law, the way that it was written was single family zones. So anything in a single family zone can have an ADU, which doesn't always make sense. So that's why we're trying to be more permissive and allowing these local ADUs in the non-single family zoning districts so that singles, twos and threes can also have an opportunity to have an ADU.
[Peter Calves]: Okay, sounds good. Anything else on zoning or is that all for now?
[Alicia Hunt]: We have also scheduled a public meeting for the end of the month. Sorry, my brain is shot. I will actually just point you all to the fact that the zoning webpage, we are very actively updating it. I'm gonna give props to Councilor Kit Collins, who has been taking responsibility for that with our communications team. So if at any point you feel you want an update on where things stand, with regards to public meetings, what's been passed, what the timeline is, go there because she is updating it at least once a week. Whenever there's a real change, she's updating it. So May 29th, we're going to discuss the other corridors. It's going to be in person and hopefully hybrid at Reed Hall at Tufts and Boston Ave, Main Street and the other corridors. And then June 9th, we're going to have a public meeting at the Medford Public Library about parking and transportation demand management and zoning. You guys should be aware of that, but go there for updates and links and information, especially if your friends and neighbors think you're an expert. Send them there.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you for that. I look forward to, I will not be at our next meeting because I'll be taking my PE exam. But hopefully, I will pass at this go around, and then I will have bandwidth to think about this. Sounds good.
[Ayni Strang]: Yep.
[Peter Calves]: All right, so I think that brings us to a motion to adjourn. Thank you all for bearing with me, chairing for the first time.
[Ayni Strang]: You did a great job. You did an absolutely fantastic job. Bravo.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you.
[Ayni Strang]: I make a motion to adjourn the meeting for this session.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Annie. Second. Thank you, Ari. Roll call vote. Ari Fishman. Aye. Annie String.
[Ari Fishman]: Aye.
[Peter Calves]: Ben Levallee. Aye. And myself, Peter Calvis. I have an aye. Thank you, everyone, and have a good evening. We will meet again on the 21st, but I will not see you guys until the next one.
[Ari Fishman]: Good luck on the exam.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you. Absolutely.
[Ari Fishman]: Good luck.