total time: 31.56 minutes
total words: 2613
[Zac Bears]: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Q and a with the planning department and City Council on the neighborhood residential zoning and the urban residential zoning. Thanks for bearing with us. I know there have been some good conversations happening outside. Um, We're going to tonight have a presentation and introduction from the director of planning, development and sustainability, Alicia Hunt and our zoning consultant, Emily Ennis. And then we're going to move to a Q&A. We also have a planner, Danielle Evans, and Paolo Ramos Martinez from Innes Associates. They are out in the rotunda with a number of large maps. And those are maps that folks can put post-it notes on with their comments and also have some discussions if they have kind of want to have a longer conversation with Paula and Danielle in the rotunda. So with that, thank you for being here and we're going to get started with Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Recording in progress. Good evening. Thank you. Yes, I'm Alicia Hunt. I'm the director of planning, development, and sustainability for the city. And so my office has been working jointly with the city council on this zoning effort. And our consultant, Emily, will actually speak a little bit more about the big picture and all. But we started with a comprehensive plan. We have been doing a lot of different zoning. This evening, we're here to talk about residential zoning, residential zones. Um, there are lots of different chunks happening Um, but I do just sort of wanna i'm gonna say it again Um because a few other people floated in is that we have a presentation And then we're gonna do some q a and this isn't like public comment where you get two minutes and you're done We actually want to answer your questions and have some level of conversation but if you really want to have a deep conversation or speak to that you can point to and find your house on. And they can get into more detail, and then we'll invite you to also leave, um, post it notes on those out there as well. Um so at any point you can choose that you prefer to be be talking to them. And then we'll also invite you to speak with Paula or Danielle out in the hallway. And you can do that at any time you choose to because they have maps that you can point to and find your house on, and they can get into more detail. And then we'll invite you to also And so Emily Ennis of Innes Associates is the planning consultant that we have hired along with her team. And we have a legal firm, Jonathan Silverstein, as well, who has been working with us on this zoning. And I'm going to turn it over to Emily because I'm going to say otherwise everything that she's planning to say.
[Emily Innes]: Fair enough. Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone in the room and good evening, everyone online. Very nice to see you all here. I'm going to just take a moment to share my screen. I'm going to walk you through the presentation that kind of gives you the big picture of what we've been doing and why we're here and then focuses you down onto the topic for tonight, which is the residential neighborhoods. So we've done the introductions. I'm going to talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan and show you some of the analysis work that we did. Actually, it's last year now, but that fed into our discussions about the residential districts and then take you on kind of a district by district exposition or explanation of what we're recommending as this draft. I do want to stress that this is very much a draft right now. The reason that we're having a public meeting sponsored by the city council is we really want your input. So, I think of this as we've been working with the planning and permitting committee we've come up with sort of what we think is the framework for this, we want to check in with the public and see what they think. And that's why your questions your comments your thoughts today are so important. But also, again, if you have anything specific make sure that you look at the maps and detail because even with the screen up here instead of back here it can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to see so feel free to go back and forth. So we've introduced ourselves. So this is a multi year process the city council started with a recodification project that started back in 2020. Recodification is really going through the existing zoning. Are there errors or typos? Are there best practices that haven't been incorporated? So the legal firm that was working with the city at the time went through that process, but it doesn't really talk about what should change in terms of new things. So the comprehensive plan was the next step in the comprehensive plan looks at the city wide from about a 50,000 level view is how we always talk about it. And it looks to say the next 10 to 15 years of what should happen in the city. What are the policy changes, what's the direction that the community wants to go through. Where do they want to be in 10 to 15 or even sometimes looking out beyond that. And one of the first steps after a comprehensive planning process is to realign the zoning with a comprehensive plan. So that's what we've been working on. We started last year, actually roughly this time, roughly in March, to look at that. The first thing was the city had already made some tweaks. So we did some urgent edits, we called it. There were some unintended consequences, where the recodifications changed something that wasn't meant to be changed. So we cleaned that up, and editing errors. And then starting after June of last year, starting in July, we really started focusing on those next steps. So we've done the Mystic Avenue. We, of course, had the conversations about Salem Street. We added the green score to address sustainability and concerns about climate change. Those have all been passed. And now we're in a process of looking tonight with you at the neighborhoods and then looking forward to the commercial district. So these are some of the things that came out of the comprehensive plan. the different, and I'm assuming, yes, I'm assuming that's all clear, the different goals that came out of the comprehensive plan so that we're keeping these in mind as we move forward. So, climate resilience, access for all, housing, and economic development. This is your current zoning map. This is what we're looking at at changing piece by piece. It is the kind of the broad brushstrokes that many communities use where large areas were zoned for one thing but it doesn't necessarily take into account the different characteristics of the neighborhoods of the commercial areas, the squares, Medford Square and West Medford Square. or what we've called quarters which are those longer streets that touch the neighborhoods but frequently have a lot more commercial or institutional along them. So, this was the future land use map that came out of the comprehensive plan. It talked about quarters centers and squares and neighborhoods and you can see that there were these sort of big blobs of color that identified them. And part of our strategy has been to look more and more closely at the different areas of Medford to try and figure out the zoning. So when we look at the residential districts today on the maps, you're going to see some areas in white and that's because there are these areas that are in color on this map. Now, these are the mixed use districts. So Mystic Avenue, Salem Street, Medford Square and West Medford, the institutional area, some of the other quarters in there, Wellington, these are all areas that have a mix of uses. They're both commercial and residential. We've talked about some of them already. We're continuing to talk about them right now. In fact, Paola met with the planning and permitting committee last night to talk about Medford Square. But for today, we're going to focus on residential. And we did a lot of analysis last summer. I'm going to show a few of the maps today on this presentation. They're all on the city's website. And some of them are printed out in large scale in the hall. So feel free to go and look at them. One of the things that we looked at were the types of residential dwellings that exist now. A lot of single family, that's that light lavender on there. Quite a bit of two families, condo conversions, quite a bit of three family. And then we broke it down into sort of different scales of housing. So we had four to eight units and nine plus units We also had a few in the bright pink where you had more than one house from or more than one residential building, uh per parcel So that started to give us an idea of what was what's what's here now So, how do we react to that? How do we think about? Um, maybe some of these are non-conforming, which means that the existing residential buildings aren't actually matching the current zoning. We find that's very common in New England, because in most places, zoning didn't come in until the 1920s, or, you know, one town I'm working with, their first zoning bylaw was 1967. And if you think of how long development has been happening in New England, The fact that zoning came in so late meant that you're going to have a lot of neighborhoods that don't match the zoning. So that's one of the first things we think of. And there are implications if your house or your lot doesn't match the zoning. What that means is that you may have to go, say you want to put a porch on the front of your house, and you're too close to the street. You're within what's called the front yard setback. Well, in order to do that, if you're non-conforming, you don't meet the requirements. You have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You have to request a variance. Makes it a lot more time-consuming and expensive to do that. So one of the first things we try to see is, are there areas where we can reduce the number of non-conformities? We can reduce the burden on households for doing that. Um, we also took a look at those those existing conditions so lot sizes is where a lot where a lot larger in Medford where are they smaller in Medford what might that mean. How does that relate to the current zoning we found of course that there are a lot of lots that are much smaller than than the zoning currently allows for. We looked at frontage that's the length of the lot along the street, and what does it mean. You know, when the frontage is shorter is smaller than what's required by zoning well you're non conforming but it also starts to let us know as a lot sizes do because your frontage is a component of that dimension. that there may be areas of Medford where the lot sizes, the frontages aren't matching up with the zoning. And we want to think about what that means. Height is another thing. Height is a frequent conversation in communities because when you're walking down a street, you generally notice what the front setback is. That's the distance between the building and the street. And you generally notice what the height is. Is it shading you? Is it allowing sun in? Do you feel that it's too tall? Is it too short? So we did an analysis of the existing heights, and all of these are based on the assessor's data. The board of assessors collects data for each parcel, and then we can put this into a geographic information system, or GIS, and do these calculations and show you what it looks like. And in fact, this height map is outside, so you can have a look at it. We also looked at the historical inventory. This is MACRIS, which is the Massachusetts Historical Commission, has an online database and an online what's called GIS layer of all of the assets, all the inventory properties throughout Massachusetts. And we took those layers and overlaid them on Medford to see where are the historic areas, what does it mean to think about those historic areas, what does it mean to preserve those historic buildings and is there a way that through zoning, zoning is certainly not the only tool, it's not even necessarily the best tool for historic preservation, but we can do some things within the zoning to create incentives for historic preservation, so we wanted to think about that. And then also the transit system, right? We want to think about where people live in relationship to their ability to move around. Are they near a bus line? Are they near a commuter rail? Are they near a T-stop? And what does that mean for locating people? When we think about housing, we think about where is it in relation to transit? Where is it in relation to jobs? Where is it in relation to goods and services? How easy is it for somebody to get from where they live to the things that they need or the things that they want? And of course, for a place like Medford, we also want to think about how close is it to recreation, right? You have so many recreational assets as well. So there are far more maps than that, and those are all online. But I wanted to introduce you to some of the bigger categories that we think about and why we're thinking about them. some of the considerations when we were starting to zoom down just into the residential districts. So I mentioned the proximity, the ability to access transit. This map came from the comprehensive plan and it's proximity to higher densities of job areas. So the stronger the pink on this, the more jobs are in that area. So we wanted to think about, again, co-locating housing near jobs is really important. You saw the lot size map already, what you can't see on the screen but you could see if you went outside or if you went to the maps online and looked at them. There's a lot of topographical changes in Medford and that's important to think about in terms of access. for pedestrians for bicyclists for vehicles as well. There's some parts of Medford where there are narrow streets. There's also a lot of Medford where there are private ways rather than public ways I'm going to show you a map of that or draft map of that next. And then we wanted to think about, as I mentioned already, the existing residential types. We also wanted to think about transitions. So we mentioned Medford Square, for example. We had the meeting last night. We're talking about different height levels. If you're in Medford Square, what is it like, what does it feel like to walk or drive from Medford Square to the residential neighborhoods? How do you transition in height? How do you transition in other characteristics? from there to the residential neighborhoods. So one of the things that we were thinking about is those transitions and what does that mean for zoning as well and for the dimensional standards and zoning. So I mentioned the private ways. This map is a map of the private ways, or at least it was a draft map of the private ways at the time that this was here. And those green lines on here are the private ways. So there's quite a few. So in thinking about access to land, where is it publicly owned access and where is it privately owned access just feeds into the many different characteristics that we're thinking about. So in these proposed residential districts, this is what it looks like if you put them all together. So we've got a new Neighborhood Residential 1 district, Neighborhood Residential 2, Neighborhood Residential 3, Urban Residential 1, and Urban Residential 2. And in all of the maps that you're going to see going forward, we're going to break them down so they pop out a little bit more. If you're a land use planner, you'd be questioning our use of color here. But when you have all of these as residential only, they should all be yellow. There's only a finite number of yellows that work together on a single map and are still readable. So we heard loud and clear that it was less readable to others than it could have been. So we've got these changes. So neighborhood residential one is the lightest yellow in here, it is a single unit dwelling historic conversion or accessory dwelling unit so many of you may have heard that there is a new state law about accessory dwelling units. we are working with the city to update their current zoning ordinance on accessory dwelling units. So I'm just going to mention that they are allowed in all of these districts, but we're still going back and forth on the tax. So we don't have the specifics for you available today. So looking at the numbers, as you go up in numbers, so neighborhood residential one, two, three, you are also going up in the types of housing that are allowed and the number of units per parcel that are allowed. So neighborhood residential two is single unit dwelling, two unit dwelling, historic conversion, and ADU. And this is a good time to talk about the differences in historic conversion. among the different districts here. So what we've tried to do in order to create an incentive to preserve historic houses is to allow one more unit for the historic conversion that is allowed in the underlying district. So neighborhood residential one, which allows single unit dwellings. If you want to convert a historic building, you can go up to two units in it. neighborhood residential two, which allows single and two unit dwellings, you can go have a historic conversion of two to three units. And what that does is it just gives a little bit more of an incentive in each district to preserve those historic buildings without say, allowing single unit only in neighborhood residential one, and six units in a historic conversion, you're always just one unit more. There are other ways to do that but that's what we're proposing for discussion today. Neighborhood residential three, you can have a single unit dwelling, two unit dwelling, three unit dwelling, townhouse, historic conversion of two to four units so that's that one unit more, and ADU. Urban residential one, we're starting to increase the density slightly by going everything that you can do in neighborhood residential three, except single unit dwellings. So it's two unit, townhouse, three unit, historic conversion, two to five units, and what we're calling multiplex, which is four to six units. We're allowing ADUs for one, two, and three unit dwellings. So this is a little bit more permissive than the state law. urban residential to townhouse three unit dwelling multiplex three to six units, multiple unit dwelling of greater than six units but limited to three stories, and then the ad use, and from there we've heard some questions already. about why aren't we going higher perhaps for urban residential too. At that point, you're starting to butt up against the corridors and the squares and those other districts. And so the idea is now you're going to have that transition upwards to what's allowed on, for example, Mystic Avenue, where you can have significantly more height, but some of these residential neighborhoods are butting up. So we're thinking of that transition. where urban residential 2 is really sort of the highest limit for the residential only neighborhoods, and at that point you're going into a mixed-use district after that, and the rules are slightly different. That is not true everywhere because of the complexity of the terrain and the development patterns in Medford, but that's the general concept. This map here shows you where each of the districts is. That's the black outline and the code on it. So NR2 is Neighborhood Residential 2, for example. And it shows you the underlying existing residential types. We also have that map out here, because I realize it's a little bit difficult to see on here. But what you can do is look and say, OK, this is the proposed boundary for this type of district. And these are the existing unit types that are underneath that proposed boundary. And again, we tried to think about what was existing in each area. and then the goals that I mentioned earlier for what else. So I'm gonna start and just break it down district by district to make it a little bit easier to see without all the other colors. So this is neighborhood residential one. For those of you online might be able to see the topography a little bit better, but there's a lot of hilliness up in this area. The roads are a little bit more narrow, the access isn't as easy. So these are really limited to the single unit dwellings and the ADUs, also the historic conversions. There's quite a lot of smaller parcels in this area as well. And these are the building types that we're talking about. So just so people can see kind of the form of the buildings, the one unit, the one to two unit, obviously with an accessory dwelling unit, you can have that within the building, but you can also have it as a detached unit. So you can see it in the back on the site, that's showing a detached ADU. This is NR2, so we've traversed out of the hillier area. These are a little bit smaller, or a little bit larger lots in some cases. So single unit dwelling, two unit dwelling, historic conversion, and ADU. And these are the building types that you see here, fairly similar except for allowing the two unit dwellings. We also see the two unit dwellings could either be side by side, or they could be stacked one on top of each other both of those exist in our areas. In our three, yes. Can you define ADU? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I'd said, I apologize for that. I am constantly getting yelled at in my office for using acronyms, so I've just done the same thing to you. Accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, that allows you to have a smaller unit, say you own a single unit, single family home, it allows you to have a smaller unit within that home. it is limited by size. Some communities used to have them, they used to call them in-law apartments, and you had to take down the in-law apartment when it was no longer needed, you had to take out down the division. Under state law, a protected accessory dwelling unit, which is the new state law, is limited to 900 square feet or half of the Um, half of the square footage of the building, whichever is smaller. So it is a much smaller unit. It doesn't rise to the level of, say, a two-unit dwelling where you would have two units that could be of equal size, for example. The idea of an accessory is that you need the principal dwelling unit, and then you're allowed, because you have the principal dwelling unit, to have the smaller unit with it. There's all sorts of rules about that under state law and as I said, we're in the process of updating that so you will hear from us again on it. But that is the full definition. So they are allowed to neighborhood residential three, which you see on the screen now you can see that this is a larger district again, fairly responsive to what's there now but we're very interested in hearing your thoughts on the boundaries. And then these are the buildings. So again, the one unit, the two unit dwelling, the three unit dwelling, same thing, a three unit could be side by side, like the townhouse that you see in the lower left corner there. It could be stacked like our traditional three deckers. There are also three unit buildings out there that look like single family homes, but they've got three units. There would be a different, arrangement of doorways and entries at that point, historic conversion and the accessory dwelling unit. In our urban one or you are one is the the green that are down here in these different areas and again when you go back to the main map and you kind of see how the transition points happen, you'll you'll see the the different districts around it but you can start to see that urban one you are one is closer to the transit stations. We've really started to move in. All of the transit stations have these walking radii around them, so they've moved in. Now, we have heard questions again about topography and existing conditions on the ground, and we're delighted to get more comments about those today. But really as you're moving into the the two urban residential districts a lot of that is about where they are located near transit. You can see these and you can see the introduction of the multiplex units again just those four to six units that that smaller scale because they're limited in unit, unit size. And then finally the you are to see these within the transit areas, but because don't forget there's also mixed use coming into the transit areas that's going to be talked about later. You also see them clustered closer to some of the more major roads. Again, this is quite responsive to what's going on the ground and in certain respects we look quite closely at that. And then you can see here they get the slightly from the multiplex they get slightly larger to that residential building, but again limited to three stories and height and we took a hard look at the existing heights in the area. So I would just want to wrap up this discussion by letting you know the continued places to be heard during this. We've been working with the Planning and Permitting Committee, and of course, those are public meetings. And people are welcome to come to those. So that is sponsored. The Planning and Permitting Committee is a subset of the City Council. So in that, we have been presenting new topics, talking with them about the new topics, going back and forth on that. and then they refer the topics to the Community Development Board, which eventually has a vote on the topic to refer it back to City Council. They can make modifications at that point, and then City Council has a final vote on the topic. So all of these are public meetings. You can see these are the dates that we've been talking up until now. And then really diving into our next meeting for example on a new topic is West Bedford Square on April 9, we have been adding the CDB meetings here so the April 2 should be the residential districts and obviously we are meeting in advance. of the community development board meeting and that is because we would love to take any input if there's any changes that you know we hear from you there's some recommendations from changes we can take those to the community development board and say you have this from city council We're recommending these changes and then there's another public discussion about that and that's why I want to stress Very much that what you're seeing today is a draft because we can take that input and change it We are looking at an april date for discussing the squares. We have not yet set that date. We're juggling calendars and the availability of space But that will be there and then we plan to have a may and a june date for some of the other topics which we will announce And then finally where can I get more information everything we do as being put up on the city's web page they have been completely revamped their zoning web page. We're hoping it's easier to find that information. If you can't to do please let let everyone know and we'll see what we can do to make that work. And then we're going to go to Q&A. But just again, the reminder on the maps, there's also some comment cards out there. If you have very detailed questions or comments that you want to give us, we invite you not just to say them in the room, but to write them down for us. We all read through those and take those very seriously. So thank you for being here tonight. I'm going to turn it back over for questions and comments.
[Alicia Hunt]: question that I wanted you to answer first. Okay. So actually, I'm going to take the privilege of actually asking the first question because I was asked this in my office and I realized that I was not confident of the answer. Okay. Historic conversions. Can you just talk to us, what makes a building eligible for that? Does it have to be designated as a historic building to be eligible? And this is of course a draft, so we can change the answer, but what is the answer right now?
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, I'm trying to remember, I think it's 75 years was the standard that we took, but that is modifiable by community by community. Generally, and in when you're thinking about historic preservation at 75 years or more, I've seen that as being for example, a state zoning standard for demolition delay, but certainly if there's a desire to have a different number we can we can look at that. I think some. Communities have also thought about it in terms of the types of houses. We work throughout New England and we'll get to some communities where they have these, especially some rural ones where they've got those long, big rambling farmhouses. And so, you know, you could also talk about it as a type of historic building that you want to preserve that's important to the community. I believe it's 75 years now.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, thank you. Um, so what we want to do is that we do have people online and we have people in the room And we need to use the mic so the people online can hear us and frankly because the sound in this room is not great So we appreciate it if people use the lot the mic, um, if people don't mind standing to use the mic in the room Um, and then kit you're gonna just facilitate this and go back and forth or if there are questions online as well people can raise their hands and For people online, you don't have the ability to chat to everybody, but if for some reason you're having specific trouble raising your hand or you can't unmute, you can send me your question and then I can read it out loud if that is a technical problem. But they can't chat to everybody. So we want. Is there anything else? Do we have other questions or comments from us first?
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say one one more thing, which is what I don't think I properly introduced Vice President Collins. So apologies for that. Um, and who is chair of the planning permitting committee and has really been doing so amazing work, especially on the outreach as of late. And one other thing that I think is important in grounding that we've had in a lot of these zoning conversations that I think is good to just add is changing the zoning doesn't mean that anyone who owns a piece of property has to change anything about their property. So if we change the zoning to something else and you have a single family home on a lot and suddenly you move from a SF2 district to an NR3 district, you don't have to change anything about your property. you want to keep your single family home, you can keep your single family home. Um and because of this quirk of most of the zoning having passed after most of the buildings in the city were built. Um what would happen is that your home would become a non conforming structure or a non conforming use. And what that means in our zoning is actually that that's that may also be a pre-existing non-conforming use, to maintain that use or maintain that structure, it doesn't mean that if you have a single family in a district that suddenly has allowed three families that you have to change anything about your home. So I think that's really important to understand too. This is not a mandate. on anyone to do anything to their property. It is simply changing what private property owners are allowed to do with their private property. And I just think that's something that sometimes isn't included in these conversations that I think is important to talk about. So I just wanted to say that before we get started. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Questions?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we can move to Q&A. We have this here and raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate.
[Laurel Ruma]: Hi, my name is Laurel Ruma I live at 149 Burgett Avenue, and I was probably most disturbed to see that our small neighborhood, which is what I'm going to call lower hillside so Boston Avenue to George Street, basically now has a bullseye on it as a urban, you are one now to be rezoned. And it's unfortunate because that word urban takes out the most important word that we all love, Medford, and live in this neighborhood for, which is neighborhood. And the fact that the lots in this neighborhood are very small, 3,000 square feet or less. There's maybe a handful that are more than that. means that when you live next to one of those lots, like we do, then your neighbor can put up a unit, six units. And I understand that this is a reason because of the Green Line going in. Do I ever understand that? And this is one of those things where we had said for years, which is when the Green Line comes to Medford, it's going to bring all of this great things, lots of opportunities for citizens and residents. But the toughest thing is that it's also going to put more demand on our very specific neighborhood. And this is now what we're seeing. This is the more demand part of it. and changing that small neighborhood, again, from the back of Boston Avenue, Suburban Ave, out to George Street-ish, in that kind of corridor, and then making everything else around it, NR1, puts a lot more pressure on this center bullseye. And the MBTA will tell you itself that folks walk a half a mile to get to the Green Line. the way I look at this in a more equitable fashion is what is this half mile radius around all of the T stations, including the commuter train in West Medford. To think that Wellington has the same zoning with her 15 story high rises and everything else as our neighborhood, which is small and has maybe 200 houses at most in the very narrow streets that fire trucks can't get down because there's parking on both sides, as well as Ball Square, which has what, maybe five, six, eight story buildings. That's where it's painful for us to see this kind of conversion and push to even UR2 to make it even more dense when we know the streets can't handle it, streets can't handle it now. As a neighborhood, largely for changing the zoning, we want more people to live in Medford. We want more people to live in our neighborhood. We also want to keep it a neighborhood. So how do we balance these two things and reduce that bullseye on our very dense, very small neighborhood. And I guess my main question is, what is the lot size rules? And what precludes developers from buying lots side by side and tearing down and building what they need to build?
[Unidentified]: You know you're not sharing your screen, right?
[Emily Innes]: I know I'm not sharing my screen. I was not meaning to share my screen. Thank you very much. I remember comments on the same neighborhood from when we first presented this. I'm really hoping that on your way out, you stop by the map and draw the delineation because I think when we're there- I've written letters. I feel like that's plenty. Okay, beautiful. I think when we were listening to it the first time, we weren't quite sure exactly where you wanted. We wanted to make sure we got it right. So thank you for bringing that up. I did the thing that I'm not currently sharing, because I'm just going to say it is the height limits for each of these districts, which I realized I did not tell you I showed you the buildings and the heights but let me tell you that the proposed height limit for NR1 and NR2 is two and a half stories, and for NR3, UR1 and UR2 is three stories, there's a maximum height of three stories on there. So I did want to make that clear. I also do want to make clear, again, the units per lot. Under state law, accessory dwelling units are not counted in density. So take that out. But non-ADU units, principal dwelling units, in R1, it's one unit. In R2, it's up to two units maximum. In R3, it would be three units maximum. you are one six units maximum. And then you are to again, there's no maximum on that one type, but it's still limited to three stories. So just so everybody knows that I apologize for not getting that earlier. In terms of parcel assembly, I mean, parcel assembly is available now to any developer who wants to buy parcels. We are looking at a smaller lot area square footage because for in most cases, the lot area we're trying to be responsive to what's there now based on our analysis. But again, that's why we're here today is to hear are we is there an unintended consequence of the analysis that we've done so appreciate you bringing those comments forward.
[Laurel Ruma]: Yeah, I think the most unintended consequence is that that neighborhood is surrounded by property that's owned by Tufts University, and that is not taken into account here, which neighborhood has been asking for for a very long time is to create an institutional boundary to keep the limit of where Tufts can expand out of the neighborhood, and as well as the Upper Hillside as well. So, you know, there's absolutely, in a future, What I see, and I'm not saying, I guess this is just what it would be, which is many stages of grief, but Tufts would be the primary institution that would buy up Burgett Avenue and then just turn it into the dwellings that they need it to be, whether it's housing or if it's, well, I guess it would be housing. Um, so I guess that's always the possibility, but I just find it really frustrating when the city's largest landholder is not being held accountable in any of these zoning discussions. And when our particular neighborhood has a 10 story building at the end of it, the two 10 story dorms going in on Boston Ave across from it, it really starts to limit the Houses that are in this neighborhood are one and two-story buildings, right? So our building, our house is a 1920s, small 1920. So we are technically historically protected, whatever that means, which is nothing. And then you would have a six-story house next to it, right? And then you have these larger houses built, buildings built by Tufts. surrounding everything. So unlike Wellington, where you have a diversity possibility of different buildings, different heights, different uses, just a different place to be. I mean, Wellington's exciting because anything is possible. There's very little that's possible in our bullseye. It's Tufts University or our tiny little what is now a neighborhood. So that's the unintended consequence for us, which is really just reiterating that Tufts has to be part of this conversation. and they have to be somehow bounded so the rest of the neighborhoods don't feel this pain. And I guess my other thought is, if you're going to make this tiny little bullseye, you are one or two. Expanding that out to the entire neighborhood that benefits from the Green Line extension, which is half a mile radius at the very least, is more fair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Emily, just on the map, is the light gray the half? Is that a quarter mile radius?
[Emily Innes]: I think it's a quarter and a half.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and then the half mile goes out further. Yeah, we are definitely talking about Tufts and institutional zoning. It is something that we're taking up in April, I believe. And we want to put in the Tufts institutional zone and whatever power is in our disposal to control Tufts, which is we probably there's more that we can do, but it is also limited. And I think we've had some honest discussions on the planning permitting committee around. Should this be an NR3 like the rest of everything? Should it be a UR1? We've definitely heard some comments around the NR3 instead of the UR1 because a lot of the existing condition is very similar to the neighborhood outside of it. And then we've heard the flip side, which is if you're within the quarter mile radius of like one of our only three rapid transit stations, what should you do around density there? So I think, you know, hearing more of those comments, maybe pulling back the you are one to a smaller piece of that area might make sense. Maybe going to NR3 would make sense. I'm interested to hear what the Community Development Board input through public input is on that as well. But in terms of comparison to Wellington, The area immediately around the Wellington station for transit is going to be part of a special district where it's going to be. It already is part of an overlay district that has high density and likely is going to have mixed use district with very high density. So we are intending that the Wellington T station, certainly the quarter mile radius and into the half mile radius. would look much denser than the UR1 district around the Medford-Tufts station. And that's because of what's there now. We have two hands on Zoom. Do you want to go to Andrew?
[Unidentified]: Let's go to Andrew in the back of the podium and then go to the next person on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Andrew in request to unmute.
[SPEAKER_15]: Hi there. Andrew Van Horn, Medford resident. Thanks for taking my question. Two quick questions. I'm not sure if you've addressed either of these, so if you have, I apologize. How many total units or have you considered how many total units this could add citywide? Additionally, are there any affordable housing requirements built into the plan?
[Emily Innes]: They've just assigned that to me, Andrew, thank you very much for the question. So, we have not done a build out analysis, and there's a couple of reasons. But one is when you're looking at something like this, whether or not a unit is built is up to the property owner right so if you're living in a single unit dwelling say and you've just been changed to neighborhood residential to and now you can have a two unit dwelling, maybe your existing zoning district and allow that to unit dwelling before but now it's an option. You as the property owner have the right to exercise that option and that's that's what President Council President Bears alluded to earlier is that nobody's forced to make a change and so to. have some sort of accurate assessment of how many units could change over time. It would be a snapshot picture with a lot of additional factors that don't go into a build-out analysis of that type. So for example, not only do you have to factor in whether or not somebody chooses to change their property, but you also have to think about, well, what are the economic conditions now? So what are the things that go into whether or not something is built? So it's, first of all, do I exercise that option? Can I get the financing? Can I get the materials? Certainly, for example, during the pandemic, we saw the shoot up in construction prices and the commodities prices and in many ways that inflationary environment has not changed much, interest rates are higher, labor is difficult to get. So it's not that development's not done, it's just it's hard to say we could maybe make this calculation, but it wouldn't necessarily have any meaning so I think that's part of it. Second part of the question, or affordable housing Yes, so on this, the city does have affordable housing or it's also called inclusionary zoning requirements. that apply citywide we haven't added additional ones on this for the, the mixed use areas there is there are some incentive, what we call incentive zoning, where there is additional height in exchange for public benefits and that includes some choices around affordable housing that has not currently been applied to, to these districts. So, but interested obviously any comments on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would just add on inclusionary zoning right now the city's inclusionary zoning kicks it into 10 units. Yeah, building. trying to get the funding to do the nexus study to update our affordable housing linkage fees and the inclusionary zoning ordinance. One barrier that we have now is that the Supreme Court has said that things like linkage fees and potentially inclusionary zoning can be defined as illegal takings by the government, essentially requiring financial taking from a private property owner. So in order for our linkage fees and our inclusionary zoning to be legally defensible and unchallengeable, we have to do market analysis to determine what the market can bear. And if we say you have to have 50% affordable in order to build this thing on your property, that's been added to the zoning ordinance. The landowner can challenge that call that a taking and then basically just what our inclusionary zoning ordinance would become invalid. They may not have to build any affordable housing at all, so it's another barrier that's we're not going to be able to do that. But um, we are hoping at least my hope is that we can do an analysis and maybe reduce the place at which the units start. Um so maybe take that down from a 10 unit to a six unit. Another thing that we can update with our inclusionary zoning, and this is part of the ongoing part of this larger project. Um is to include that. Essentially that if the number of required units ended up being 7.5 or let's say .5, for example, for a very like a six unit development instead of either just getting one or no affordable units, the developer would pay a cash payment into our affordable housing trust fund, and that could be used to support affordable housing at another private location. So those are some of the things we're looking at. But the inclusionary, uh, is a discussion we're having. I think in May.
[Emily Innes]: And so as it stands now, as your regulations stand now, it would only apply in the urban residential too, where you could have more than six units, but it would not apply in the others because they're below six or six or below units, so they don't meet the 10 unit threshold.
[Zac Bears]: Another option we could look at is we're starting to see that. In the mixed use quarters and squares. We developed this incentive zoning program. So if someone adds affordable units, they can build another story. I don't know if we want to do that. There may be in the you are too. We want to add an incentive zoning so you could go to a fourth story. But I think we're starting, you know, you're balancing a lot of concerns there, so we didn't
[Laurie Krieger]: I can't hardly stand this. Hi, y'all. I still have some PTSD from Tufts. I'm Laurie Krieger, 124 Brookings Street. And my first question, when you talk about affordable housing, is that defined as rentals or is that defined as for purchase?
[Alicia Hunt]: And then I'll tell the story. So why don't I am so affordable housing could be rental or purchase. To be clear, it's a restriction that goes on the deed, and it talks about the income that the person must have in order to get that. And then the so there's both an income level for the person who is getting the unit. The unit has to be lotteried off because we require it to be. There are a lot of state regulations around. We call these deed restricted affordable units. It doesn't mean that they're just cheap. It means there are restrictions on it. So you must be under a certain income. and then the rent or the sale price is set through formulas that are governed by the state and if you're in a deed restricted affordable unit and you are renting then in order for them to raise your rent they actually have to go through a process with the city every year where we Approve the rent increases and there are certain parameters like we have to approve a certain amount, but we Can't like we don't let them go over a certain right. So like there are parameters that we have to work within Um, so it could be either and if you purchase a deed restricted affordable unit Um, there are restrictions on the resale of that too. So those can be kind of controversial because it it limits how much you can make when you sell that. But if you live there for a long time, you're never paying rent to anybody. You own it.
[Laurie Krieger]: Okay. Now I have a story to tell you, and I'm hoping that... I haven't been following along because I got exhausted with the Tufts thing, and now here I am, I'm back. And so I'm from a household that had a single mom for family, and by the time I was 30, I lived in 20 different residences. So that was really important. I lived in, I finally landed rent control in Cambridge. and got to stay there a few years, and then they voted out rent control. And I couldn't afford Cambridge, I couldn't afford Somerville, and I could afford Brookings Street in Medford. What a blessing. It was affordable for us then, barely, right? So we could buy a house. We never even knew we could buy a house. So it's the first house I've ever lived in that was owned by someone in my family. My mom's come from another country. So what's really important to me is when we bought the house, this is what I want to really, really share with you, a couple things. We could just barely afford buying the house 27 years ago. But because we bought the house and eventually refinanced the house and stuff like that, it stabilized the income, which stabilized my life, which allowed me to get really better jobs again and again until, like I couldn't even afford to buy my own house now. But that stabilization was huge. And so when I look around me and I see all these developments that are happening, either for homes or for luxury apartments or whatever, it seems to be like a 28% to 30% vacancy rate, or just buildings that have been built that are just empty. For me, I developed my family wealth now because we had a stable, what I still call rent, right? Even though we own the house. So whatever you can do to allow people to get in at the rate they can afford, but allow them to develop and accrue wealth so that they can give it to their children. or whoever's next in the family line, because that's what creates community also. We just did a wonderful thing in our community because we were stable and we were a neighborhood. And if these buildings, new buildings are built, there are developers come in, Tufts comes in and builds six family places, and they're all rental, how do we create the community that still supports this city of Medford in a viable, bright, engaged way, like we're phenomenal neighborhood, so please love us good. The other thing that I wanted to think about, so really worry about vacancies and worry generational wealth. Let's help people build generational wealth however we can and create neighborhoods. The other thing that's really important, it's really strange. When I bought the house, the building department, it said it was built in 1927. And that sounds right, because everything on Charnwood is historic commuter bungalows. And they have historical information about them. When I pulled the permit, 12 years later, 15 years later, to reside the house, it said 1944 was when my house was built. So something was changed in the paperwork that I had nothing to do with, and I never argued with it because I never had a need to. Now, in terms of what's historical or what's not historical, that might be important. And one thing that's really strange, I don't know why it was changed, and it looks like more than just my home was changed to 1944. That was well into World War II. I don't think they were building a lot of houses well into World War II. And I don't know how to do anything with that. But please be mindful that these old documents may not be quite correct. And please be mindful that is a historic neighborhood. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Laurie, and we can definitely on the side work with the assessor just to try to figure out what changed on your paperwork. And I'm sure that the historical commission might have some documentation as well. And we could bring that to the assessor just to change it, change it back or get it right. either way you'd fall under the, I guess we wrote it as 70, but we, I think we meant 75. Right now, the historical ordinance for demolition delay is 75 years. I think we wanted the historical conversion to match that. So that might just be, so you're good either way, but, and quite frankly, most one, two, and three family housing in the city was built before 1950. So it would fall under the, it falls under demo delay. If there's a historical commission, if someone wanted to demolish a property that age, not saying that you would want to do that, but that's one of the reasons that we wanted to match those. I think A couple things that you said really brought out some of the points as to why we're trying to do what we're trying to do, and some of it is difficult, and I think that's just something we've been trying to acknowledge throughout the process. Change is never easy. The first thing is, I appreciate you saying it, you know, one of the things that I've heard that I've really liked, because I think it makes a really important point, is that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is rent control for homeowners. And that's why, you know, it provides you that stability where you don't have to worry about being priced out and constantly moving. And that's why I think it's important to note that zoning is one piece of a number of strategies that we're trying to either employ because we have the power to or get the state to give us the power to employ. Um, this is the one that's about we control zoning so we can control what legally can be built on property, essentially the supply question. Um, you know, another piece of the housing cost issue is that demand. There's a lot more people want to live in Medford than we have houses for. So that's why the prices are skyrocketing so quickly. Um, And one of the other things that we try to do to answer that is right subsidizing the price so section eight, or the raft assistance program at the state level so that's like trying to subsidize the price doesn't really solve the problem but it does help some people. The flip side of that is like a rent stabilization or rent control where you say you the price can only go up this far, but it also doesn't solve the long term problem, which is more people want to live here than we have houses for. So I think what we're trying to do here is say, 30 years ago, when you were moving from Cambridge and Somerville was not affordable, but Menford was, that radius has expanded, right? That radius, you could say goes out to 95, maybe 495 now. And the question is, how do we have more units that people can either rent or buy in Medford where we can try to keep the price reasonable and try to keep the prices stable for as long as we can? Yeah, and people like my parents, we couldn't buy the house. My parents couldn't buy the house that they live in today. They only bought it 30 years ago because it was the price that it was then. I can't buy a house in the city right now. And I think that's true of a lot of people. We are a 55% homeowner, 45% renter city, and a lot of people who rent want to stay. And just in the discussions, we're having folks around Salem Street. I got an email from someone who lives right off of Salem Street who says, I've lived here for five years. They're selling my house. I have to move to outside of Waltham. The back end of Waltham out by 95. But I'd love to stay in Medford. And really, what we're trying to do, and this is a piece of that strategy, is how can we get more units in the city so that people can afford to live here? If some of them are for sale, essentially, I think someone had a great analogy. If we do nothing, if we just status quo, we have the number of units we have and we don't do anything, the prices are just gonna keep going up. and if you own you're going to be okay because well maybe not but most people are going to be okay if they can afford to pay their mortgage and their taxes right um but new people aren't going to be able to move here and a lot of people are eventually going to have to end up selling for some reason um retirement or or something else. And the prices are just going to keep going up. So we're not going to have the generational wealth opportunities, we're not going to have the ability for the children of people who live here now to try to buy another unit in the city unless they somehow are, you know, making 200 or $300,000 a year, which most people don't. Um, and one of the other pieces of that question is also just household size. The average household size is declining. So if you have a lot of larger homes where you may have had a family of four, a family of six, that is now just one or two people, um, you, you know, you need you would essentially need to have three, like a triple-decker on that property to have just the same density that you had maybe 30 years ago or 40 years ago. So that's why we believe that the densification here is important. It helps create not just this deed-restricted affordable housing, which has legal limits and you can't force people to build more of it than the market can bear, But to try to build more housing so that existing housing stock maybe goes down in price, so that we can try to better match supply and demand with the conditions that we face today.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Ted. The two things, the generational wealth is so important, especially for Hispanic kids like us, right? And then the other thing is that developers don't end up for someone who's building a job. I've seen that in campus, it's a little bit more.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's another reason. Right now, what we're seeing is that the land is so valuable that someone can build a giant single family home and leave it empty for years and still make a profit.
[Unidentified]: Even if the bed was in six units.
[Zac Bears]: And I think the bet we're trying to say is if we can get them to build smaller units, more affordable units, not just these luxury units, by allowing more density in the same place than exists now, it could help reduce the vacancy. Part of the problem is we can't control what they do. But we're trying to change the, essentially adjust the market balance here to be more a priority of what actual people need. and less of these things that people can't afford. But there's a regional question, and even if we did all of this tomorrow, I don't think we're gonna solve the whole problem, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
[Emily Innes]: And I'll just add to that. It's a powerful story that you gave, and thank you for that. Zoning is an imperfect tool for some of these problems. So it can get you so far, it can require the subsidized affordable housing. Under certain circumstances, it can create that affordability or allow for the possibility of that affordable by design those smaller units on smaller lots or multiple units on smaller lots. Zoning doesn't speak to ownership. It's a comment I get quite a lot is, oh, can you zone for condominiums? Can you zone for rental? You can't do that through zoning. You can zone for different types of houses. I like to think of the, if you think of somebody in their entire lifespan, they grow up, they get into the working world, they have education. different stages of their life, they may have families of various size, they may downsize from that, however they do that, there's a need to have a diversity of housing types to address people at all stages of their life cycle. So one of the things that zoning can do is create the conditions by being permissive about allowing for that diversity of housing types. But it can't force them to be built. And I think that's something to remember. I've had people get very frustrated because, well, we changed the zoning two years ago. Why hasn't this been built? It's because zoning doesn't require it to be built. It just gives the options. It gives the permissions. It puts the limitations on things. And what we're trying to do is get those conditions right for going forward.
[Alicia Hunt]: I do want to note that we've been here an hour and 20 minutes and we've taken three questions. So we may need to keep our answers a little shorter. It's not about the questions, it's about the answers. So why don't we go to the CF online.
[Unidentified]: Hello, my name is Christian. I'm at 386 Bellsway West.
[SPEAKER_11]: Just a couple of questions. Do we know when this process is expected to go into like the final approval? And then assuming that it does go into effect, what would be the process for converting from one type to another type, like to add a unit or something like that?
[Zac Bears]: I can answer that, and I'll try to be brief. There's going to be a Community Development Board public hearing on April 2nd. They may conclude their hearing at that meeting, and they may extend it to their next meeting. Once that's reported out, it would come back to the City Council for a public hearing. The earliest we would consider that would be April 16th. It may be extended beyond that. and that city council public hearing would be the final approval. So at the earliest, it would be April 16th after the upcoming two public hearings. And in terms of if there is new zoning, how would you build something under it? You would go to the building department and you would request a building permit and they will tell you whether or not your permit meets the conditions of the zoning. And if not, then there might be another process that you might have to go through like a special permit or something else. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Back to the podium.
[SPEAKER_06]: Hi, I'm Cecilia Karlowitz, 41 Burbank Road. First, just want to say thanks for doing all this. Really appreciate all the work that's gone into this, the thoughtfulness. My husband and I moved to Medford less than a year ago. We specifically chose Medford for its diversity, its proximity to the city. And I was thrilled, first and foremost, for the ADU state law. I would love someday to turn my two-car garage that's just full of junk right now into an ADU and have my parents come live and ultimately have multi-generational living together in our single-family house. That's the dream. I know it can be realized here in Medford. Thank you. I mostly want to ask about, what was the term that you used? The percentage of the lot sizes that can be taken up. with these changes in zoning. And maybe that's not part of this. Maybe the setbacks and percentage of the lots that a building can occupy is already in stone and is not going to change. But something I really like about walking around my neighborhood is the amount of green space. And so I would hate, I don't mind if the house next to me is, you know, I would mind a little bit. In the interest of growth and sharing our land with those who also want to live here, I wouldn't mind if it was turned into a two-unit dwelling, but I would mind if it took up 90% of the lot. I currently live in a zone that would be up-zoned to NR2.
[Emily Innes]: I've pulled up my table of dimensional standards. So we're currently looking at building coverage maximums of 50% for all the neighborhood residential and 60% for the urban residential again it's draft. We also think green space is important. There is a pervious surface requirement of 30% for the neighborhood residential 25% for the urban residential, and there's an open space minimum requirement of 20% of the lot for neighborhood residential and 15% for urban residential. So, so, you know, open to hearing some more thoughts on that. We agree that having. having the units having more space between them having that green space and certainly with the city's priorities for addressing climate change and sustainability that's important. These would obviously change if these were the mixed use areas change a little bit more, depending on that for example. Mystic Avenue is much more coverage, but they also have to do other things in order to offset that.
[SPEAKER_06]: Is this online somewhere that I can dig into a little bit more? I apologize, I came up and asked the question.
[Alicia Hunt]: I can check. If it's not, Kit or I will request it to be. And I can tell you that the short URL is medfordma.org slash zoning.
[SPEAKER_06]: So I'm on that like every day.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I would like to, I think when you do your math, it's confusing to people who don't know what these words all mean. Can you explain how the building coverage max can be 50% but the open space minimum is 20%? Why isn't that 50%?
[Emily Innes]: Right, exactly. So then we've got the pervious surface. So pervious surface. Thank you. I love the fact that Alicia is calling me out on this because we rattle these terms off all the time and we don't think about it. Pervious means that water can soak through it. So generally when you get a paved area, so for say parking, it's asphalt, the water runs off, it creates flooding either in the street or sometimes on a neighbor's property. We don't want to allow that. So if you think of a lot and you've sat across the setbacks and you get a building envelope, that's the area in which a building can be built. So you take the total lot, 50% of it, no more than 50% of it can be the building, but you still have to have driveway, parking, and all of that. So the pervious surface, there's a restriction on how much can be impervious with water runoff. and how much can be pervious with the water soaking in. And then the open space is a minimum requirement, so you can't go below 20% rather than a maximum requirement. So we would love it if you have more open space, but you at least can't go below 20% on that.
[SPEAKER_06]: Got it. OK, yeah, I would love more transparency or just like easier access to that information. I think that that will, I don't know, alleviate some fears maybe a little bit. I tend to think that what it feels like when you walk around in, again, in residential areas where it's single family zoned currently, the green space matters more than how many people are actually living in that building. So thank you very much for the answer. Appreciate it. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: You will go to Louise on Zoom. You got it.
[Mark Davidson]: Hi, this is Mark Davidson. This is my wife's computer, 63 West Street. I know we had a discussion last night about ADUs, although I'm interested in hearing that Emily had brought up a number of ADU issues, and Council President Beyers also talked about the fact that there are so many single-family homes that have only two occupants. Historically, they'd been larger families, and the schematics that were shown earlier in this meeting showed detached ADUs or first floor ADUs, and there hasn't, as far as I know, been a lot of discussion yet on second and third floor ADUs. I understand that that There's egress issues associated with that. But I'd like to see if there are some changes in the works for accommodating ADUs that are within the building on the second or third floor of some of the older homes in Medford. I appreciate your comments on that. Thanks.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you very much for your comments, if we if the diagrams in any way, sought to risk, or look like they were restricting the position of at us within the existing building I apologize that was not the intent. We're just showing those sort of wire framed out to say that there was a principal building and you could have a detached. As far as I remember from what we've worked on, there's no restrictions on where the AD you would be within that existing dwelling. So, I hope that alleviates the concerns as I said we're looking forward to bringing the full draft in later but no there's no there's no restriction that I know of on those at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, one thing. So one thing that's changing and it's partly because of the state law right now from the recodification and attached at you can be done by right. but a detached 80 requires a special permit. This will move both to a buy right status, which is one change. One thing we do need to look at when you mentioned egress is I think we actually have talked about building code. It may require a second form of egress, but this is where it differs from a second principal unit on the same lot. I don't think it needs a second I don't think you have to have two separate doors outside of the building. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think that might be a building code thing, not a zoning thing. And we're going to, we could look at that. And that's the state building code that we function under.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Yeah. Okay, Cheryl. Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street, home of the Density Without the Transit. So, and much more is coming to us thanks to this zoning. The neighborhood residential one, based on what the city council and the consultants have said they are interested in, the neighborhood one zone shouldn't exist if you want to add more density, especially since these areas will change so much more slowly than the neighborhood three. zones. So there's really no need to preserve a zone that only allows single families for decades to come. If density is good for the community, then why are the densest areas allowing the most density on the smallest lots of only 3K? While those with lots 40% larger or more will have very low density and are being zoned to maintain the least density with 5,000 square foot minimum by allowing only single family homes with the state required ADU. Those areas should take more density to give those of us already dense some breathing room. We, too, have neighborhood character. We, too, would like to be considered. It is not logical to say that it's because you can't add housing or parking when you're saying you can put three family homes on 3K lots with parking. there should be a minimum two family allowed on every residential lot in the city, and the ADU, as you said, does not count towards that, especially since some of those lots limited to one or two units are within the transit circles, while Glenwood may one day get a bus that will take us to the areas with transit and remain less dense than us while also enjoying that transit. With the exception of the one ring of UR1 near Tufts, we find ourselves more or equally dense to those with easy transit access. In addition to the 140 lot Salem Street corridor that just passed, Glenwood has a very predatory flipper in our neighborhood who is making so much money in our neighborhood alone that he opened a storefront on Salem Street. so he doesn't have to travel far to go to work, along with owning four other Salem Street parcels where he can now build six floors on his slightly over 3,000 square foot lots. So we will see lots of change. It will not take decades for our area to be transformed. This is a guarantee. So we hope that perhaps the neighborhoods where this will happen much more slowly can at least take some of the weight. Please acknowledge that we are a neighborhood, that we do have character, that we do live here, that we like to breathe. We like oxygen. We like trees. So maybe you could have considered that. But I realize this is already passed the Community Development Board, and after the treatment that Salem Street Corridor got, with the suggestions being wiped away with a single motion by Matt Leming, my neighborhood is not holding out much hope. We are very disheartened that we are being dismissed in favor of pushing your density in our area and not others. Thank you.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you very much for your comments on the neighborhood one district. That's the first time I think in this group that we've heard the idea of adding more density to that so obviously we'll take that into consideration with the others. And then as you say the Salem has already passed but I will just note that as we are going through all of the districts so we're taking them geographically and also topically. One of the things that we've talked about at the city with the city is that as we finish up all of the districts. We do need to go back and see if there are any changes that need to be made we've learned we're learning as we touch each new geography, we're learning more and so there will be a kind of cleanup at the end. And so some of the things that we've looked at in the past may change. It's one of the reasons that I'm hoping those of you who are here in the room and maybe those of you who are online can email to the planning and planning department. If there's any specific neighborhoods or anything specific parcels, where you see for the neighborhood boundaries and then later we will get to the mixed use where we've shown it one way and it should be another please do let us know what's very important. Thank you again for your comments.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to add to, um, that when we talk about this citywide rezoning, we are talking about densification in all districts and all neighborhoods. I certainly could be amenable to the argument that the NR one district should be an NR two district. I'm not against that. I think where we came in with this proposal was looking at existing structures, what's already there, the number of private ways, topography, and, you know, the NR one lot size. I mean, so we're reducing lot size minimums. Excuse me, excuse me, thank you. we're reducing lot size minimums, we are reducing setbacks, we're increasing maximum coverage even in the NR1. There are lots up there, right now in the SF1, it's a 7,000 lot size minimum. So that's the most, that is the biggest lot size minimum in the whole city. So the NR1 does increase density in those NR1 districts. Yes, it does.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. They said this is a conversation. So I'm just gonna finish it.
[Zac Bears]: So if I interrupt you, so you can correct me and you're if you could just let me finish.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was community input.
[Zac Bears]: I think it is. Is it a conversation or community input? Or is it yell at me day?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I'm not yelling at you. I'm speaking into a microphone. Is it interrupt me time because I let you have your piece I'd like to have my piece increasing density in the nr one zone because it's still only allowing the same amount of housing. The lots are not going to be parsed, it will be the exact same amount of housing, because it's 5000 square foot minimum. So if they have a 7000 square foot lot they can still only put a single family home in the nr three and maybe this is confusing for you. in the nr3 you only need a 3 000 square foot lot to put three families currently you need more than that to put a single and even more than that to put a two so we're going down to three we have lots of 3 000 square foot lots there will be lots of density added to our area which you saw in the map that showed the current conditions because nelson has been buying lots and doubling the housing on them and selling them for a million plus each so please can I finish please be honest when you speak if you can be honest that would be great because I can go toe to toe with you on the zoning because I've read it. I've read it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've read it. So we're trying to have a discussion conversation. I don't think throwing around accusations of dishonesty and interrupting me is going to help us to do that.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: So you can't counter anything that I've said.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I already was, but you interrupted me, so.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: No, you just said there'll be single family homes on 5,000 square foot lots.
[Zac Bears]: All right. You know, if it's not worth it. He's not answering. If anyone else wants to discuss this issue with me, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If anyone wants to ask a reasonable question and have a dialogue with me, I'm happy to have it, but. I'm not sure what you're.
[Unidentified]: I'd like to start off by saying that she didn't know much. The four units in war,
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm not. My point being, if I could finish my point, was that this plan is about increasing density in every part of the city. Every district proposed generally does that. And if you look at the existing conditions map, that is one of the reasons that districts were drawn the way they were drawn. Thank you. It reduces lot size minimums, reduces setbacks.
[Alicia Hunt]: So one of the things that we need to look at and the kind of feedback that is very useful is what do people think of the ones that are proposed? We're looking at so part of the NR1 zone right now has 7,000 square feet minimums and some has 5,000. The current proposal on the table is 5,000. If you and others would like to respectfully propose suggestions, like you'd like to see it be a smaller, like 4,000 or 3,000, we're happy to hear that. It is extraordinarily hard to hear accusations when we're trying to, we'd love your suggestions and we'd like to know how it impacts you in your neighborhood. We'd love to hear that. That is very helpful. So I would like to move on to the next person. So we do have one more online.
[Christopher Dedic]: Hi, this is Chris. I got also on my wife's zoom. I just had a follow up question from a few questions back where. You guys mentioned that the earliest possible would be for approval was, I believe, April 16th. So does that mean that my neighbor or developer on April 17th can go and get a permit and then start building as soon as the permit's approved?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I'll actually offer some clarifications. Zoning is very interesting. And actually, sorry, I have a mild correction, but the city council public hearing is advertised for April 29th. So the earliest is April 29th, that it could be passed. It can't be passed before then. And it may or may not, like they could choose to table it. The way zoning works is that Usually, people are afraid that people will hear that we're discussing a zoning change, and usually the first time they'll hear about it is when it's publicly advertised. And so then they'll try and slip something in and get a building permit before the zoning is actually changed. So the law is actually designed to prevent that, which actually means that the zoning is retroactive to the date that it is first advertised to prevent this sort of like slipping things in. So what it actually means, so this hasn't been, so this has been advertised. So the date that this has been advertised, if it is passed the way it was advertised, is the date that they can apply for building permits. there's a weird limbo window between it's been advertised but not passed and the building department is going to do their best to not approve any building permits during that window because they don't actually know what will exactly be passed. But you could apply right now under this new zoning code, but what I'm saying is you wouldn't get your permit until the permit, the code is passed.
[Emily Innes]: And then presumably if what was advertised changes as a result of this meeting or the Community Development Board hearing, or indeed the city council's approval, a developer who has filed that permit runs the risk of the rules actually changing on them right because we could reduce the lot size minimum or increase it for that matter and their permit would therefore not be valid. Right. just checking.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, it's that's very technical in the weeds. Should we go to the sorry, I took your job. I can't help myself.
[Judith Weinstock]: Hi, I'm Judy Weinstock at 144 Burgett. Thank you for this meeting. It's really appreciated. So just a couple of things. And some of you have already heard from me on this. I'm in what would become a UR1, I think. And I stand with Laurel in terms of it hadn't actually occurred to me around the idea of expanding the UR1. in an effort to not drive so much potential developer activity to one very small area. Interesting idea. But I will say that I feel fairly certain that density, which I will tell you is a word I don't actually like because it's completely undefined, it is not a quantitative measure, it is a qualitative measure. One day, maybe you'll measure it, but you're not measuring it now, and you can't predict what it will be as a result of these changes. I will say that the UR1, I think the part of it that bothers me living in that, as opposed to an NR3, is the idea of developers coming in and buying multiple lots and then erecting buildings, which actually does drive up the cost because developers will pay more for lots than an average buyer will because they know there's good money in it if they can sell six lots on what had otherwise been a two-family home. And they will make a lot of money at it. So I would caution you are one at all In neighborhoods where my lot size is 4,000 square feet, most of my neighbors, it's 4,000 square feet or less. So I think that the multiplex idea is the one that actually disturbs me the most in the UR1 classification, because it's the one that invites developers in. And it's the one that will actually drive up cost in the neighborhood overall. I'm not talking about per unit pricing. I'm talking about overall land pricing. right, which drives housing prices. So that's number one. I would implore you to really consider you either, I guess you either expand UR1 and take out the option of four to six multiplex, which you could do. And maybe that just is then defined as an NR3. I don't know. Yeah, but I do think that will be the developer driven activity in any of the neighborhoods that are designated as URs, because developers will come in and they will, they'll do that work really efficiently. The other thing that I would like to do is ask if perhaps it's Alicia, I'm not sure, can define what can be done in a single family home like mine, that actually is considered historic, but may actually fall down someday, even though it's designated as historic. Even historic homes sometimes need to be destroyed. What will an individual homeowner still be able to do? I have asked this question at another meeting where I felt like maybe I totally misunderstood the exclusion of new family single family home builds. So I think that I heard, maybe I'm wrong, that if there's an empty lot or an empty home that gets bought an entirely empty lot, that you wouldn't permit single family homes on that lot under UR1, but that if I wanted to raise my house, which by the way, I don't, if I wanted to raise it because it's decrepit and falling apart, hasn't burned to the ground, no catastrophic flooding, would I be able to rebuild a single family home on my lot? since I currently own it. So I think those are my two clarifications that I need on what the single family home exclusion means under UR1 and also would argue that multiplexes are going to do exactly the opposite of what you hope.
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, thank you. We appreciate the thoughts on the multiplex. It's really helpful to hear the concerns with that. So the idea is that there are uses, and when you have a use, if that use is an existing use, you can continue that use. you could take and I have to tell you in our experience in the city of Medford, we've not dealt with this in residential before, but we see it very not infrequently for like, uh, storefronts and businesses like that, right? That it's a use. It's not allowed at that location, but it exists and somebody else comes in and wants to continue that use at that location, and that is allowed. So right so you can sell your single family house. You can renovate your single family house. And if you want to tear it down and put it back, you can. But if you tear it down and leave the property vacant for two or more years, then you have lost the right to do that. So it's this continuous use and having it not be that there was a lot of controversy over the word abandoned, but abandoned is literally in our zoning. And that is when you don't use it for multiple years. So if that house was vacant for many years, we might then actually have an argument over it. And the example we were using is a gas station that was vacant for 10 years. And they said, well, I still have the right because the gas station still exists. And we said, no, you've let that use lapse. So there would be an argument that if the single family house was allowed to stand vacant for two or more years, that it would lose the use and the protection.
[Judith Weinstock]: What if I sold it to Mike?
[Alicia Hunt]: He could do it, but as long as you didn't have this vacancy for more than two years, where the under construction doesn't count, right? So you have the house, the property. You move out. It takes him a year to pull his building permit and start construction in two years to finish. That's fine. It was the year before he pulled the building permit. And once he had it there are I will say though i'm not an expert on building permit rules There are limits to how long they're good for and I can't speak to that off the top of my head. Um, they do eventually Hit limits and you have to say like here's why it's taking so long and I need to I need extensions You know, we've literally seen people pull a building permit and then do nothing for years That's that's not okay. Those those expire there rules around that but
[Judith Weinstock]: I think that's a lot of good clarity about what single family homeowners will still be permitted to do under certain circumstances that aren't just catastrophic circumstances.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just to add to it, we also have something let's say we did a UR1, but you wanted to expand your single family, that's now a pre-existing non-conforming use and structure, then you can go up to 150% of the status that it was before. So you could still even add an addition to a single family, even under the UR1, but there would be some limitations. Thank you. Ren Bean on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, hi, uh, run being 37 Woodrow Avenue. Um, I just, uh, wanted to, uh, attempt to, uh,
[Ren Bean]: agree with some things I heard earlier, which I was a little surprised with, and add to the idea that I think the NR1 lot minimum should come down to 4,000. To me, it doesn't seem particularly logical that zoning would allow buildings with more units on a smaller parcel. I think if that's big enough for two, it should be big enough for one. I don't see any reason to pose that restriction. personally. And I think there even could be an argument for just kind of anything that's NR1, just make it NR2. I think the city may get more mileage out of allowing lots that are currently single families to become double family units, whether that's two-decker or split in a kind of a different configuration, non-historical conversion. It's just given the number of lots that fall under that category. I heard the thing about topography and narrow roads, but I'll tell you, I live in an area that is a lot of two family units, single family units, a couple mixed in. It's that little slice that's going to be an NR3 on the west side of 93 there near Medford Square. And the vibe of the neighborhood is not that different than the rest of Lawrence Estates, which is going to be left as NR1 on the northern part. I just don't see any real reason for that. Like some people may feel strongly that they want to preserve neighborhood character, but I would say come walk around the neighborhoods with two family units. They really don't feel that different. And that may add more to our housing stock over the broad swath of land that it covers. You know, I hear the piece about narrow streets, but like most of the units that are there have driveways and curb parking that could accommodate even the parking minimums that we have, which even if left in place. I think the city could probably absorb that personally, but at the very least, I think the very large lots on the north side of West Medford that are being left as NR1 should definitely be NR2. They have plenty of space. I happen to agree with that comment particularly. It may not be as near transit, but You know, we certainly want to encourage transit-oriented development. The reality is a lot of the pressures in the housing market are commuters to Boston, and that's just not really going to change anytime soon. So we may as well allow the build to occur where the market will drive it. And I agree with the general sentiment that that will help us closely match supply with demand. And one last question for the single-family owners that end up getting zoned into a unit. a zoning where a single family is now non-conforming use. I think I understood the answer where if you wanted to basically tear down and rebuild the same structure that you have, but if someone were to pull a permit for an addition, let's say they wanted to add another bedroom or something to make space for grandparents or something that want to live in the house, it's not an accessory dwelling unit. Would they have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals now and should the city consider maybe adding some kind of grandfather clause for those people, you know, to skip that part of the process, because that can be cumbersome. And I don't imagine the ZBA really, they'd probably stamp them all if I had to guess, you know, but that's going to clog up the works potentially. So that's just a thought. Thank you very much.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you very much for your comments on on the nr one and your thoughts around that really appreciate. Again, this is exactly the sort of input that we're looking for is these comments and questions. I am delighted to say that the city already has some language around non conforming single and two family residential structures and I thought it might come up so I've got it in front of me it's section 94-5.5 and it says that non-conforming, there's a lot of it, but the one I'm going to read to you now is non-conforming single and two-family residential structures may be reconstructed, extended, altered, or structurally changed upon a determination by the building commissioner, so not the Zoning Board of Appeals, that such proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure, and adds not more than 100% to its gross floor area. And then there's a definition of what those permissible changes are. And then language that basically says that the building commissioner says you don't meet those conditions, then it would have to go to the Board of Appeals. So there is already some language in there. We've talked about whether or not that gets expanded maybe to a three family unit as well. But for the moment, there is that provision in there now.
[Alicia Hunt]: for those online, I just dropped a link to that ordinance in there. And I did actually just want to comment that when people have a chance to see these maps again that have the existing conditions, what most people in Medford don't realize that if you walk up Forest Street from Medford Square away from Medford Square towards the rotary, most of those buildings on your right are at least two family houses, if not more dense than that. and the ones on your left are almost all single-family houses. But as you walk up that street, you don't realize that. And I just think that's really an interesting perspective for people to think about, and the map will really show you that. We go to the next question. There's a gentleman at the podium.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is Mike Korzynski. I'm at 149 Burgdorf in Medford, and I am What will is potentially to be the, you are one district by the green line stop. I guess my comment is tonight that I know, you know, this is probably a major zoning like this seems to maybe happen once or twice an hour, maybe three times in a lifetime. And this is maybe the first major rezoning in Medford in 30 years. And I think when I see that and this idea that zoning isn't perfect, where we're trying, I believe you're in good faith trying to get it right, but I know that's difficult to do. And when I look at the 2020 recalification and the errors that were introduced some minor errors introduced there that you didn't try to correct in 2023. And I think you know it's never going to be perfect and so it should always be more permissive rather than less permissive. And so I think like these are the idea of these districts like the you are one where you're not going to allow a single family home is by right is concerning to me, because frankly, from dealing with the OCD office through multiple projects with Tufts, you know, I lost a lot of faith in Tufts as a developer, but I also lost a lot of faith in the city. And I don't want to, I don't want to deal with having to come back and ask for a correction in the zoning later or anything like that. I just want to be able to live by right right. So I think more permissive permissive zoning more permissive building options and all our districts are better for, you know, future homeowners in Medford as well. And so I just I would urge you guys for at least, whether it be to, you know, quality and our three or allow single family and You are one. I'm not sure I care, but I think just taking away, having that by right is a detriment to an area I live in. And I just hope you do consider that. Thanks.
[Emily Innes]: Great, thank you. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you very much. Okay, so there's another on Zoom, Sharon.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon Diesso. Somebody knows her name. There you go.
[Unidentified]: Did you get it? Did I get it? We'll do it at the same time. It's when they unmute and you mute. That happened too many times.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're requesting that you unmute. Sharon Diesso. Sharon, we'll ask one more time and then we'll come back to you. We're pressing the ask unmute button. There should be a pop up on your screen that says unmute. And then when you click that, you will be able to hear you. We're going to come back to you, Sharon. So we'll go to Andrew McRobert on Zoom. Andrew, name and address. Oh, sorry. Wrong meeting.
[Alicia Hunt]: You don't actually have to give your names and address, but it is helpful for us to understand where in the city you live. And often we just know that when you say the address.
[Zac Bears]: It's amazing when you realize a new instinct.
[Andrew MacRobert]: Hi, I'm Andrew. I live on Kenmere Road in Glenwood. My question is two parts. First of all, what is the process of, for example, a convenience store opening up in a neighborhood residential district? And second, does it make sense to incorporate mx1 zones or some other zoning that makes can make those things by right and to certain corners that are are high traffic in those areas and to give a little context of where this question is coming from um so glenwood is an r3 under these uh this proposal uh yeah has a lot of tightly packed two and three family homes that would be well served in that that are well served by corner stores and cafes that aren't necessarily as far as Salem Street for some of us closer on the Wellington side of Glenwood. Some that come to mind are on the corner of Central and Spring, which is near Morrison Park. We have Classic Cafe on one corner and on the opposite corner there's another commercial building with a couple of businesses there. I think classic cafe is mixed use. If I look at it right, it looks like a house with a cafe connected to it. Another one that comes to mind is Magoon and Spring. There's Neighborhood Kitchen, Spring Street, Supret there, a great little neighborhood convenience store. would love to have more of those things accessible close to, you know, within walking distance without having to necessarily go north to Salem or south to Wellington. And yeah, that's it.
[Emily Innes]: So I'm practically grabbing the mic. Thank you for asking that question and Spring Street and McComb Street is actually one of the ones I looked at as an example of what I'm about to talk to you about in the comprehensive plan and so one of the things that we are discussing and bringing forward I think later in the commercial areas discussion is this idea of the neighborhood hubs exactly what you're talking about existing commercial that neighborhoods are relying on. We're trying to figure out exactly how to continue to those allow those. Is it just the areas that exist now is it a combination of different street types when they cross at intersections. What should the rules be around those we wanted to make sure that we talked about the neighborhood districts first, and also about the commercial areas or the mixed use areas next and then that comes in at the end of it so we absolutely have not forgotten about those smaller neighborhood level commercial. I'm really glad you brought it up during this process. So I would expect towards the end of April, maybe is about when we'd be talking about that. So thank you.
[Andrew MacRobert]: Okay, that's great to hear. That's going to be under consideration. Thank you.
[Carlene Campbell-Hegarty]: I currently Campbell Hagerty 49 Elmont Street. I'm here tonight because I just work completely against changing the current zoning to urban one or two, you are one you are two, which has already been started to be discussing to change our neighborhoods at the last commit Community Development Board meeting before we even had input. And this is a constant. thing that happens in the city is the boards and everyone are already making decisions before you listen to the community. So I'm here tonight to say, definitely not either one of those in the neighborhood, the Salem Street quarter is one of the densest sections of Medford, and we don't need or want any more density in my neighborhood, our neighborhood, and especially since the city hasn't done the work to show how that will affect us day to day. We don't know. especially in the capital plan, which recommended shuttle studies, parking studies, infrastructure studies. Everyone keeps talking density, density, density. That's going to fix the housing crisis. It's not. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're going to try you again on Zoom. We're asking that you unmute. Kit has requested that you unmute. We're going to try again. You should see a pop up, and there should be a blue button that says unmute. We can't make you unmute, sadly.
[Unidentified]: We can't.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it would solve this problem.
[Emily Innes]: Maybe if she doesn't, we go back to the podium and then come back to her.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right, Sharon, we're going to come back to you again. Go to the podium.
[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you. I just wanted to address the myths that neighborhood residential one does not increase density. That's actually a myth. And the reason is that by state law, one could actually build one accessory dwelling unit in those slots that goes up to 900 square feet. So 900 square feet is actually a two bedroom apartment. And the way the zoning is being proposed in NR1, one could actually build a second ADU by special permit that goes up to 1,200 square feet. So if we add those of them together, that's 2,100 square feet, which is considerably bigger than the house that I live in, which will be in NR1. And so we're effectively talking about potentially building a second dwelling, which would be two ADUs combined that is larger than a lot of the houses that are currently in NR1. So that, to me, sounds like a pretty substantial increase in density in NR1. What I wanted to also ask is whether the restrictions that one has in lots in terms of open space, permeability, et cetera, would apply to someone trying to build, for example, a 2,100 combined two ADUs. Is that correct? Because I know that we touched upon that subject yesterday evening, and I was discussing with Paula outside. She was very helpful, but it wasn't completely clear, in particular, on the second local ADU whether this would apply. So if we would like to discuss this later, that's totally fine. But I was just wondering whether that would be helpful to mention right now or not.
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, I'm smiling because this is a discussion we've been having internally of, we got to ask another question of well what happens if somebody says the current houses at you and then we build another house behind it. What happens if we make the at you bigger than the principal building and then is it really an accessory dwelling unit after all and obviously the state at you is limited in size, the special permit at you that local option could be limited in size. We are, Alicia mentioned at the beginning that we are working with a lawyer on this and we've asked him several legal questions about ADUs so we haven't gotten those back yet, but I think that goes to some of this idea of whether uh you know how you combine it again an accessory dwelling unit is supposed to be accessory to the principal dwelling unit right so if suddenly you're adding on too many then what is the actual accessory unit and then the other thing about the accessory dwelling unit it is supposed to be limited in size to be smaller than the principal dwelling unit so it's a good question i think we're still working out the details on those um and if you have a, does the city allow one ADU under the state law, the protected ADU, and a second by special permit or as a right or how they want to do that? So we'll take that question into consideration. I'm glad that you spoke to Paola as well.
[Gaston Fiore]: Yeah, she was very helpful, definitely. So to me, the fact that you can build like one up to 900 or half of the size of the house, which is smaller, and then the second one by special plan would be 1200. I see that as a loophole to sort of build again, as I mentioned, those two combined would be considered bigger than my current house. So I see as a loophole to basically add an extra unit to whichever larger, you know, maximum number of units are allowed in that district. And someone mentioned yesterday that, you know, back when they were younger, they actually had the job and then they were renting, I believe it was a 300 square foot, very minimal sort of a studio because they worked all the time and then they were there just to sleep. So they didn't need a lot of space. And then we're renting that for $200 a month, which obviously, after inflation, wouldn't apply anymore. But I think that's the kind of housing that would be very helpful to have, in addition to something much bigger, too. But I'm saying a broad array of sizes. And my concern is that, are we going to achieve that with the accessory dwelling units that now will turn into something that, as you mentioned, is not an accessory anymore? I think we should keep in mind that we should try to have the larger, the most breadth possible in terms of, you know, very small dwellings and also, you know, big dwellings. So we can sort of have possibilities for everyone.
[Emily Innes]: And we were working in a couple of different communities, as you can imagine, on similar issues. And one question that was raised at one point is, at what point does the accessory dwelling unit actually become a two-unit dwelling? And I think that's where the size restrictions and some of the other restrictions come in. So you're saying this really is an accessory, as opposed to you just have a two-unit dwelling. This is the one I'm thinking of as a rural community where they already have two-unit dwellings as of right. And so there's a difference there. I think the other thing that starts to get confusing is in the state law, they talk about the ADUs don't contribute to the density. And the definition of density that's used at that point is either dwelling units per acre, which is a common measure, or dwelling units per lot. And so if we're thinking NR1 is one principal dwelling unit per lot, but then you have an ADU, yes, there's two dwelling units on the lot, but in terms of official density, when you have density regulations, it would be one dwelling unit per lot. Again, getting into the weeds, I don't know if that's the right way to put it. But I hear what you're saying about how do we how do we establish the different size ranges for some of these units to give that that variety of housing that we were talking about earlier in this conversation?
[Gaston Fiore]: Okay. Thank you for clarification. Regardless of what the definition is, I think you know if a lot of people are the 900 square feet, which again is a two bedroom apartment or 1200 square feet, which is a three we can argue about the definition, but I would say that that does increase the density on the field that that one would fill. Anyways, thanks so much.
[Alicia Hunt]: That was very helpful.
[Gaston Fiore]: I just wanted to add, unless you want to go first.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to give a quick that we are also, I talk regularly with developers who are looking to build bigger buildings, and I have, and they say, what is the city looking for? And we are actively encouraging them that we want smaller units, more units that are smaller is what we're looking for because we know there are a lot of people who have three and four and five people living in a three and four family or three and four bedroom apartment in a two-family house and we'd love to see them move into their own apartments and allow that house that that apartment with four bedrooms to be freed up for an actual family that needs to rent and and to sort of make the balance that way we have a lot of larger units that exist in in the city so we do ask them every day for smaller units we ask around we've been pushing for more senior apartments things suited for seniors and for graduate students and postdocs and and people like that who might be looking for smaller units that's great. Right. And that's when we in the people who are flipping individual houses don't come in and meet with me. Even when I asked them to, they don't need to. People who are building larger buildings need to go through things like site plan review, and they do need to meet with the city and they have to work with us. So we have a lot of really productive conversations with them.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I for one am grateful for anyone who's living in the unit with more than two people in it. Because that's that we're going to have to make sure that we're helping the cause when we're we have such a unit shortage. Um. And you actually just raised an important point that I think maybe we need to factor into the multiplex discussion, which is if we're going to allow them. Do they end up qualifying under site plan review? And then there's a higher threshold of regulation. So you maybe wouldn't have them coming in and just going with through. So just all of these different thoughts that we've I would hope that that's subject to our open space and lot coverage requirements. I don't know if the state mandated one can't be less permissive than the single family, but that would mean that on the lot you still could have a maximum lot coverage of 50% and that would include the principal and accessory structure. So that I think is something important. And then for me, the second The question of the second ADU, how I envision it as a test case, and I think, you know, and I'm not necessarily saying that everyone else on the council or the community development board or in this process would agree with me, would be that you could have, say, like a 900 square foot attached ADU, and then say you had a pre-existing carriage house or structure, that maybe that would be something that would qualify under a special permit for some reason. that we're trying to do. I don't think that's the intent, but I tend to agree with you that it would be a loophole if you could build a two unit 2100 square foot livable area structure behind your 1200 square foot house and call it an accessory unit, and I don't think that's the. You know, intent of what we're trying to do so, making sure that we match the idea of a it's something I definitely and I hope we could ask to maybe Jonathan about just making sure around the dimensional requirements as well.
[Haggerty]: Thanks so much.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right now, site plan review is required for six or more units, including conversion of existing dwelling to contain six or more units. So but that's a number that the city established at some point. So any building that's gonna be six or more units They have to go through something that's called site plan review. I see some faces going like, what is that? So I'm just going to explain. It's where you have to come in front of. It's a publicly advertised meeting, but it's not a public hearing. It's a public meeting. And you have to submit all kinds of information about the outside of your building, what is your trees and your permeable stuff, and how are you treating lighting, and what kind of paths and sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure and all of that, and architectural features. And the CD board, this community development board, which tends to, it's a appointed board, we try to have planners, architects, engineers, transportation planners, you're not allowed to build the building. But they can say, Well, we'd really like to see you connect the sidewalk over here, and we'd really like to see that be grass, not turf. And this is what we'd like. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing. Most of the time, the developers work with us and come to some sort of agreement. So if they say, no, we absolutely refuse, then it becomes a little bit difficult. But most developers will sort of say, oh, OK, that makes sense. Or they might say, I can't do that, but what if I did this? And so it's sort of a negotiation with the board. And we typically find that developers walk away saying, well, that was helpful, because I didn't know those things were important in the city of Medford. and they thought of things that I didn't think about, and often we will have immediate neighbors come and speak about what they would like to see and how they would like things to connect. So that is a process that's already built in, and that board meets twice a month with these hearings, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just wanted to throw in, and I know we've said not long answers and this has been another long answer, but the I think one of the things we're trying to balance here too is what is the threshold where more process is beneficial and what is the threshold where more process is harmful. And I think like Judy and Mike raised. if you take the single family out of the UR1, you might not be creating more process for a small property owner versus when you have a six unit threshold versus a five unit or a four unit threshold for site plan review. At what point is that impacting what we would consider a small property owner versus a developer, right? And that's kind of another one of these, you know, spectrum where we're like hitting, nearing a threshold and like what What is the definition that best fits? And I think that's just some of the conversations and considerations that we're taking into account.
[William Navarre]: All right, hello, William LaVar, Bedford Street. I'll just echo quickly the NR1 in Northwest Bedford. I really think that could go up to NR2, because indeed the lots are kind of big, I guess. Another thing I want to say is just on this idea, if we want smaller units, I'm really very nervous about any per unit burden we have. If you want more smaller units, then if you do the same building and divide it into fewer, bigger units, you don't have to do site plan review. That's like an incentive to do more smaller, sorry. fewer, bigger units in the same kind of building. So that seems the opposite of what we want. Maybe it shouldn't be units at all. Maybe it should be like square feet, or floors, or whatever, something other than units. If you want lots of units, don't put extra process when they put lots of units. If you want small units, If you're worried about big projects by square footage, that's a different issue than big projects by number of units. And with that, mainly I want to ask about, could we consider in some of these districts, especially the UR1 and UR2, going above just three stories? I wonder, I suspect that most of the time that that's not going to work out for various reasons, not a pencil out. But the few rare circumstance where it does pencil out, won't that very often be an elevator building? And won't that help with accessibility, in addition to helping the housing shortage a little bit more? As Gaston mentioned, you got a variety of sizes desirable. It's like six units across four stories. If you do all six units in four stories, probably going to have some variation in unit size, which is pretty cool, I think. Basically, I'm interested to hear about how the zoning code interacts with the building code, both in good and bad ways when we talk about allowing four-story buildings, for example. And am I right, or do I have, am I on the right track, that three-story buildings might lead, sorry, greater than three-story buildings might lead to more elevator buildings and help with accessibility? I'm wondering, am I on the right track there? Thank you.
[Emily Innes]: I will address part of the height. So the height map should be outside of what the current heights are. We were really looking at keeping the UR1 and UR2 to keep it that transitional piece from the neighborhood to the mixed use, keeping it pretty much to the three-story height that's already there. You can get more units by more massing. Obviously the building envelope that I mentioned earlier, the setbacks, the percentages would keep that down somewhat. So it sets that balance of control. Our thought was that as you got into the mixed use districts, that's where you see the height transitioning up. And that means if you're going from a two and a half story in the neighborhood districts to a three story in the urban districts, the urban residential districts, to four or more in the mixed use districts, then you get to have that transitional height. There are building code implications for height. I'm not even going to pretend to know the detailed level of that. But I do know that it comes into effect as you transition heights. Elevators, other access, sprinkler, which is also for not just building height, but number of units in it. And of course, construction style. At a certain point, you can't do stick built anymore. You have to move to concrete and steel. believe that's above six but I'm not positive so don't quote me on that so certainly what you can do under zoning is sometimes constrained by the building code and vice versa and it is an it's an important thing to know if you're going to develop the property, so we've sometimes run into some surprising conflicts.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think one of them is the, I can never remember exactly the thing, but the single stairwell versus the double stairwell where, because you can't, you can basically, you can't have apartments with a cross breeze anymore because of the building code. But I think that state building code, and I don't think there's really anything.
[William Navarre]: Right, that state building code. So it's possible that could change, the zoning could outlast, you know, whatever the current building code is.
[Zac Bears]: That's possible. Yeah, totally. But no, and you know, it makes me think, The more that we're having the conversations, the more I wonder if we need to add one more step of gradient or if we need to shift everything up. And you know i'd be interested again in the discussion with the community development board Like should there be an nr4 or if we end up getting rid of nr, you know Does nr2 become nr1, you know i'm just saying if we end up getting rid of nr1 and then that down shifts But then should there be a ur1 2 and 3 and then maybe in the one you allow the single family And so it just a little bit changes the scope of what we're talking about. Um But I'm just wondering if we got the gradient a little too constrained, and either need to shift upshifted or add another step somewhere to better meet what some of the comments we're hearing.
[William Navarre]: I'll say one more thing and that is that when it comes to the restricting that just to that sort of MX type of districts, I don't think we're having any, you know, The word is eluding me, but we don't have a district that looks like a big area of MX, right? It's just like little, I don't think we have like full blocks or we have like five blocks of, you know, a two, a four by four block or something of MX. We're talking about pretty small areas. So that's, that's, you know, that means that overall the city, we don't have any big blob of where you could have more than other than. we don't have a big area, you know, you know, it's only little bits and pieces to get at.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just like I think we're going to hit this rubber is going to beat the road, especially on the Main Street, Medford Street corridor, where you do have the mixed use, but maybe it would make sense to have a you are three with an incentive zone because you might want to have four story all residential facing the main corridor. And so I think that's something we maybe want to think about too. Or maybe it's four to six. I don't know.
[Emily Innes]: Well, and just to add to that, we have gradations in the mixed use, right? There's a mix one, a mix two, a mix three. So now we have a neighborhood one, two, three, a UR one and two, a mix one, two, three. Should there be a UR three? And how do we do that? As you say, maybe what we're calling neighborhood one now. if we hear more testimony that that should become NR2, then we rejigger the districts a little bit. So yeah, I think there's absolutely options for rethinking, you know, what each one means and then where it's applied. So which is why we're here tonight.
[Zac Bears]: And maybe we don't get rid of all of NR1, a portion of NR1, but you added NR4. And that could replace this UR1 in the burgadab area, right? So maybe you would allow four, but you wouldn't allow the multiplex, and it meets more of that lot question.
[Haggerty]: Hi, guys. My name is Anne Hegarty. I live on Sagamore Park over in West Medford. We bought our house in 1996, and we love the neighborhood. It is a lot of single-family homes. Our street is the park, which is between Grove Street and Sagamore Ave. It's a small street. And the proposal is for that particular area to become an NR3. So currently, the square footage minimum is 7,000 square feet to make it a legal buildable lot. It's going to drop down to 3,000. So does that mean that if somebody has a 12,000 square foot lot, they sell their house, could a developer tear down that, break it up into four 3,000 square foot properties? So I don't know if you've driven Grove Street There's no street parking on Grove Street. So several years ago, 2015, we had all the snow, and our emergency vehicles couldn't get down Sagamore Park because people were parked on both sides going to the commuter rail. And so they put up signs, and now you have to have the permit. If residents are going to be building upwards of four units in a conversion in that area, on Grove and they don't have parking on the lot, where are they going to park?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's one of the things that we're going to do a parking discussion specifically around the parking table and how it would apply to all the new zones in May. One of the things that I am really pushing that we include is that if If you can't meet a certain parking minimum on a new construction that the units can't get parking permits for the street. So essentially, it would be to say in this new construction, and it would, you know. there's where you're gonna have one off-street parking spot per unit, and you will not have access to permit parking on the public way. And that's been effective in other communities where they've, they're essentially trying to say, you're 1,500 feet from the commuter rail. We're trying to have this be people who, either a family with a single car or a carless family, and you can't park on the public way because that's not what this structure is designed for.
[Haggerty]: But realistically, you can't control for that. And if they commute with their car, they're not going to have a problem during the week, it'll be on the weekend when they're loading up the side streets.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a, you know, I think you can control for it by parking control, right? I mean, if they're on the street, without a permit, they would be ticketed on the weekend ticket.
[Alicia Hunt]: Currently in Medford, the parking permits are six days a week. Oh, yes. Yeah, it's six days a week on our street. So what? So I'm on the traffic commission. So what I we have been learning is that in Medford, every single street that has had parking except for let's not let's set aside the green green line zone. which is brand new zone every single street that has residential permit parking has come to the traffic commission over the last 70 years and requested permit parking and put in front of them these are the hours we would like permit parking and these are the days of the week that we would like it and so there is a huge variety out there but they all limit monday through friday most of them limit saturday some of them limit sundays Um, there are, in fact, some streets right near here that only require permit parking from 8 to 8 a.m. till noon Monday through Friday. So those are very much clearly designed to prevent people from parking there and getting on the commuter rail. which is fascinating to me as a planner and environmentalist who would like people to use the commuter rail while you're away at work. We'd like them to park there and use the commuter rail. That said, we have been trying to standardize. So if a group comes in now and asks for their street to be permit parking, it is going to be six days a week, and it's going to be 24 hours during those six days. What we're hoping to do is to move more and more of the city to the zones so that you have this zone that your permit would work in the region where your house is, but not anywhere in the city, so that you could park on the side street near you or the cross street, because it's kind of all over the place right now.
[Haggerty]: Yeah. I mean, one of our book club members is a nurse, and she's had her driveway partially blocked. She can't get out because there's too many cars. right next to her driveway. So that's a concern. I don't know if there's room to shift the edges of the NR3 designation for that area versus NR2, because to me, looking at the numbers, NR3 isn't radically different in terms of the lot size requirements, the setbacks, the number of units within the building if you do a historic conversion from UR1s and UR2s. It's going to change that neighborhood potentially. And we've walked across High Street with our dog into the other neighborhood and watched many properties be sold, torn down, multi-million dollar condos built up. I'm afraid this is going to incent developers. to do just that. Medford's actually doing, I was curious, how are we doing with housing permits? And so I went on to that Massachusetts Housing Partnership website, and I compared Arlington, Malden, Melrose, Medford, and Somerville. And it's astonishing the difference for Medford. We are rock stars right now in terms of compared to them. I'm like, what more work?
[Emily Innes]: The site you're referring to is Residence City, right? Yeah. That's a very valuable site for people interested in.
[Unidentified]: And look at the other town. Yeah. Looks like it's mostly fixed. It probably is, because the community is residential.
[Emily Innes]: It's like residential density.
[Unidentified]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Haggerty]: So I'm just showing Zach the charts and the rest of the folks here the charts about some of the data related to, and it's a great site. I'm a data geek, so you guys know that.
[Emily Innes]: It's called ResiDensity, so R-E-S-I Density. And it's put out by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. a whole lot of data on there that you can see town by town. If you're interested, and you clearly are because you're here, I highly recommend it to see what they have. It's a fantastic site. They have actually won awards for the amount of information they've put out. So it's very, very useful. Thank you for bringing it up.
[Haggerty]: And compare other neighboring towns, because that's what we're looking at. If somebody can't buy in Medford, then they might buy in Arlington, or Somerville, Right now, it's expensive to buy anywhere. And I just, I'm a little afraid of losing some of the character of our immediate neighborhood. I'm sorry. Yes, yeah, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think one of the things, I think, considerations that we made when we're talking about where are the lines in West Medford is how the lines were drawn in the 60s under the last zoning. And it was, to be, I'm not to malign anyone who was involved in the process if they are still around, but it was very clear that the African American, historically African American neighborhood was put as a GR, three unit district, and the mostly white neighborhood was single family. And I think the question is, where do you draw the line now? Do you keep the line because the existing condition of the existing housing reflects that? poor decision or not?
[Haggerty]: Oh yeah, without a doubt. I totally agree with you. And that neighborhood, a lot of the people that we visit with when we're walking our dog, their kids are not able to stay. And that's unfortunate. So definitely, more is better. And just because of the dynamic of Grove Street not having on-street parking, I'm just worried about filling up our street again with cars, and then we get a big snow weekend, snow year, and emergency vehicles came.
[Zac Bears]: And I completely, I think it's like a totally, I was just raising that point to be like, when we were looking at these lines in this neighborhood, it was like, well, we can just keep the same line. But then what are we, what dynamics are we reproducing that we don't want to be reproducing? But yeah, I think there's a lot of other considerations. And I'm going to go to Emily, who probably will say what those are.
[Emily Innes]: Actually, what I was going to do is encourage you to go and talk to Paola on your way out and just show her the exact street so we can look at it. I will say that I think we've probably lost Alicia and everybody online to residency at this point. Sorry, Alicia, for calling you out. It's all I can do not to reach over myself. It's a problem when you have data geeks, right? It's like, oh, there's stuff.
[Haggerty]: My degree is in economics.
[Emily Innes]: So again, this is why we're having this conversation. We've heard from several neighborhoods around saying, hey, look, you need to look a little deeper. We want you to consider these things. I think my mind is turning a little bit on some of the other controls that we can put in. Certainly the permitting process is one of those. The idea of maybe some additional gradation of districts. Um, uh, so, you know paul and I and our our team back at the office We'll get together and talk about what we've heard tonight. Um, i'm sure she's got more to share with me as well from what she's heard Uh, and then as I said, this is the opportunity to come back and even if we can't get everything and I think one of the things that has changed by April 2nd is the ability to say to the CD board. We heard a number of things. These are what we're still considering. So you know, we appreciate everything we've heard.
[Haggerty]: Yeah well, I really appreciate what you guys I mean, I'm just thinking to through. My lot is about 8400 square feet. Um but my house is, I think 1600 square feet of 1st and 2nd house. That's my size house on a lot that's much smaller.
[Emily Innes]: But 100%, I hear what you're saying. I think one of the things that we do have to remember is that there's the other dimensional standards, right? So if you take your 3,000 square foot lot and you've put in the setbacks, you've put in the requirements for the minimum open space, the requirements for the maximum building coverage, The need to park on site, the required amount of parking required. Yeah, exactly. And so that's where as you start to build all these things out that building envelope starts to shrink a little bit. And then you've also got the height limitation in there that's really, you know, if you've got the building footprint and then the height takes you up. the height limitation is on the volume. So not every building can be built on a 3,000 square foot lot. So I think that's something to remember. It's particularly more important in some ways in the mixed use districts, where you're having to do not just residential parking, but commercial parking, that there is a, you know, all of these factors working together start to limit the size. But I hear you on the size of, you know, okay, is it a single family house? Is a single
[Haggerty]: unit house with an ADU. It would be three stories, potentially.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, if the NR3, that's right, exactly.
[Haggerty]: That's a big little house.
[Emily Innes]: It is, but then it's okay, is it... And having multiples on a lot that used to be a yard. So what we've talked about internally in our team and not just for this project but for others is starting to think about what's the ideal lot size for different types of housing or different types of buildings that's conversation that we're having now and is that like, is it. you can do a house of this size and 4000. You can do that and 20,000 square feet. You can do well, you know, there's there's also a limitation of the upper end. So so I appreciate the concerns that you're bringing forward and we'll certainly be talking about. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I think and just I wanted to make two other points. Um, one. The lot sizes and the development patterns themselves are tied into these historical dynamics and it's like, how do we have an equitable arrangement across the city, where a big chunk of the city has 3000 square foot lots. Yeah, and another chunk of the city has five to eight to 9000 square foot lots and it's like, so if we just maintain everything based on the existing lot size and condition. So I think we're trying to factor all that into somewhat of a balance. And then I think, and I'm not saying you're saying we're not.
[Haggerty]: Yeah, no, I'm not. 7,000 has been generous.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Haggerty]: Dropping it down, I think is understandable.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Haggerty]: It's less than half. Right.
[Zac Bears]: And I think one of the issues here is when we're drawing lines, one parcel's on one side of the line and one parcel's on the other side of the line, and there's gonna be disparate treatment between those two parcels, and that's where the most tension is, right? And you're close to a line, so the tension point feels a little harder than someone who's in the center of a district, where it's like everyone around me is being treated exactly the same. And that's another, I mean, Somerville got rid of that by saying triple-deckers everywhere. which I don't think is the approach that we're taking.
[Haggerty]: And you know the neighborhood well.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. I'm going to look into this data more too, because the interesting thing is on the population chart on the next page, that doesn't have the uptick. The unit has the uptick, but the population chart doesn't have the uptick. And is that then a vacancy question, or is it a decreasing average household side question, where it's the point is like, yes, we've added all these units, but because your average household size is one to two people- You're selling million dollar condos to a couple. Exactly. And so it's like we could build 10,000 units and we could build 1,000 units and have no impact, but maybe 10,000 units does. And it's actually the same amount of people living in the same place.
[Haggerty]: And so that's, I think- Because that's the thing, you can't control for who buys. Right.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, and I mean, that's the other interesting piece too, is in the developments that we're seeing come in, it's studio one and two family, and the average unit size is 800 to 900 square feet in those developments, right? That's the type of housing, so that's why most of the new build is in those five plus units buildings. So it's, yeah, it's as a fellow economics major, a fascinating set of conditions and equations. Yeah, excellent. All right, thank you guys, I appreciate it. Come on up to the mic.
[Laurie Krieger]: So this is quick, I hope. So Judith is wicked smart, so is Laurel. So the things they said about multiplexes and about retaining single families in my neighborhood, I think that would be really huge, just because it will allow for a type of development that I hope is to scale, like really to scale and meaningful. Now, we just spent six months working on this Tufts deal, right? And a lot of us have decided to, to help with the tree canopy by planting trees in our backyards and stuff. And if you change it to these larger buildings that are 50% of the lots of that, are we going to all plant trees? We die, and everybody cuts down all the trees. How do we deal with the environmental? How do we deal with this creating a united, forward-looking experience around a proper, healthy environment with trees and such?
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, that's a that's a great question and I think. So, in the in the mixed use districts what we've been doing is we've been, we've got the green score right we were requiring certain things one of the things that we might think about is if we do the multiplex and higher as site plan review that we could also consider adding the green score for the multiplex, and that requires certain. you know, there are certain measures that the, um. The development is being environmentally responsible, right? Is that the city is requiring developments of a certain size to address the environment we might consider in the residential neighborhoods, actually applying the green score to maybe a smaller size of building, not the single the But maybe one up above that we can talk about that and that might address some of those because I agree. One of the things that we heard when we started this process is great, you know, look at the comprehensive plan implement that. But there was also the climate action adaptation plan that's very important to the residents of Medford and so we need to balance that as well and I think maybe looking at the green looking at the green score, and what's applied to. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And the green score has a lot of different elements. It's a complicated equation, but essentially to maximize those environmental benefits, I just want to take two of the things. I think if we're looking at potentially a regradation of this NR1 to 3, UR1, UR2, to add a sixth grade or shift it around a little bit, Something we could also consider is, let's say that instead of UR1, we create an NR4 where you have single family by right. just for the neighborhood that you guys are in and talking about right now, since that's kind of been our reference point for it. Let's say that was NR4 instead of UR1, so maybe it's four units would be allowed, but it's still the lot size and height of the NR3 district. And I'm just hypothesizing right now. You could then say that in this new UR2, which might be in another part of the city, you could do the multiplex by special permit. So that would be site plan review with the ability to turn it down for certain reasons instead of by right. So there's some gradations within that shift where maybe we're adapting to what we're hearing and the conditions. The other thing we're talking about, and eventually it will align with this process, is we've been working with Therese Medford and the Energy and Environment Committee for many years on the tree ordinances, which it was one ordinance. It's now three ordinances. One of them is to create a tree committee. One of them is about public trees, which are under a certain set of Massachusetts general law. So that's the trees essentially under city control in the public way. And then there's a zoning piece of this process where we're looking at how to preserve and protect trees on private property, where essentially other communities around us have implemented ordinances that say if you are removing mature trees, you have to replace them and you have to mitigate that in some way, either through a placement or by paying a cost or in the new site plan, having something there. And that's even, it's on a spectrum based on the maturity of the tree, because obviously replacing a mature tree with one other tree doesn't address the canopy question in the same way.
[Unidentified]: It's been such devastation over the last many years, and we're all aching so hard to get something back in place.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so that is one of the ordinances that's a project that we're... One of our... Hey, look at Kim. Our many projects that's... Yeah, Anna Callahan is leading on that project as well. So, yes.
[Emily Innes]: Sorry, I don't see anybody else online raising their hands. I think we've had everybody here. So please, those of you who are in the room, thank you so much for being in the room. Please stop by and look at the maps on your way out. We look forward to seeing you again at the next round. Those of you who are online, thank you so much for joining us online. Really appreciate your time and attention and questions as well. So we'll be at the city board meeting on the second. So thank you all.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
|
total time: 31.56 minutes total words: 2613 |
|||