[David Blumberg]: Welcome to tonight's meeting of the community effort Community Development Board, February 1 of 2022. No, it's 2023. I'll get that's only February, want to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone to the meeting. And I'm going to read some fun obligatory messages before we get started. First, regarding the nature of the meeting, this hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2022. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included in the meeting agenda posted in the City of Medford website. If, despite our best efforts, we're unable to provide real-time access, we'll post a recording of this meeting on the City's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the nature of tonight's meeting, tonight all votes from the Board will be made by roll call. Another reminder for everyone that if you're interested in materials that are before the board, best way to find those is to go to the city's website, now new and improved website, clicking on boards and commissions. In fact, the link is even more prominent for Community Development Board. You can click through and see current filings there on our page. So we'll begin with a roll call and a shorter bench for the team tonight, but we'll start with our Vice Chair, Jackie Furtado.
[Unidentified]: Here.
[David Blumberg]: Klyce Andreasen.
[Unidentified]: Here.
[David Blumberg]: Emily Hedeman.
[Unidentified]: Here. George Fisher.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, I see George waving his hand. He is here, and I'm Dave Bloomberg, and I'm here as well. First, oh, before we go any further, we do have some city staff in attendance tonight. Amanda, could you introduce for the public our friends from the city?
[Amanda Centrella]: Sure. So myself, Amanda Cinchella, planner out of the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, director of our office, Alicia Hunt, and our senior planner, Danielle Evans are in attendance.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent, thank you. We can go to our first item on the agenda for tonight, which is an A&R plan approval not required plan at 15 Hadley Place in Medford. So Attorney Desmond, I presume, will be presenting for.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, yes.
[David Blumberg]: Welcome, how are you?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good, how are you? Amanda, do you want me to put the plan up on my screen?
[Amanda Centrella]: Sure, let me know if you have any trouble. I just gave you co-host permissions.
[Unidentified]: Can everybody see that? Yes.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, and I'm here on the owner's behalf, Frank Capone, he's the applicant. He owns both parcels, both of the existing parcels. So before you this evening is a plan that essentially seeks to reconfigure the lot lines of two parcels both owned by Mr. Capone. Parcels are situated at the corner of Hadley Place and Franklin Street, and they're both located in the apartment one district. Presently, the property known as 6 Franklin Street which is this parcel here and the old lot lines travel down here. It contains approximately 10,152 square feet of land and a two family home is situated on that parcel. The parcel is identified as lot 28 on the assessor's map, map 10, M10. The second property known as 15 Hadley Place contains approximately 9,371 square feet of land on which a single family home sits on the northernmost corner. And that parcel if you look at it under the old lot lines travels here and then this kind of long elongated portion comes out and comes back up to what the lot where the house sits. There's two parcels on that. They're both identified as lot 27 and lot 39 on the assessor's map. 27 is this long parcel and 39 is this parcel up here where the existing dwelling is situated. That contains 9,371 square feet. What Mr. Capone proposes to do is reduce the area of the Franklin Street parcel to 6,003 square feet, and this would be the contours of the outline of the parcel. That holds to the zoning requirements for two-family dwelling, increases the lot area for Hadley Place to approximately 13,520 square feet for purposes of development. Both properties have sufficient lot area, 6,003 for the single family. The requirement of frontage is 35 on the Franklin Street parcel. The actual frontage is 75.62 feet. The frontage on lot one, because of the elongated nature of the parcel is 197.59 square feet and the parcel is 13,820. The proposal is to use the existing dwelling and put an addition on and make it a multifamily unit on that lot one. So that's essentially what the proposal is. It meets the frontage and the area requirements. I don't know if the board has any questions.
[David Blumberg]: the questions from the board at this point.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I guess I'm just wondering why you're using that little sliver that goes all the way down to the corner.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, it's part of the existing parcel to lot one and it provides some portion of frontage for a multi, um, over what's existing now and the frontage, it wouldn't add anything necessarily to the frontage on, um, on the six Hadley parcel. And it also gives us the square footage. Um, it increases the lot size. So in terms of the multi, um, in, in lot coverage, it gives us some, some additional flexibility.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Is there. Is there anything planned for that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Right now, the design is still in process, but the thought at this point would be to make this existing, put two units and then add three units to what's existing for a five unit building with garages under. Where would the two units go? The two units would go in what's existing. So this would be two and then there'd be an attachment in addition to this with three additional new construction units. So they divide the existing dwelling into two units as it exists, not creating a separate building, but creating an addition and then adding three additional units to this existing building.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: So five on that top lot. Right. And then another, however many in the lot below?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, that's already an existing two family. So nothing's changing in that.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: The center lot.
[Kathleen Desmond]: This is the old lot line. So this is one, when combined it will be one lot. So there's only two lots, it's just changing the lot lines from what exists presently, which this building comes down and this is a piece of that lot with the existing single family.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so there won't be anything else built, there'll just be the addition of the three units to the top building.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Correct, to make a five unit building.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Seems like there's going to be a lot of land left over then.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Not really. And we've kind of been working with that in terms of the design. When you look at what lot coverage is. Also, you know, this is a little tricky in the way the lot is situated to begin with. There'll certainly be more than there is. you know, for a multi, you may actually have usable open space, which is, you know, something that is always difficult to find. But there should be more green space, definitely.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: So there's no plan in the future to subdivide it again and then add another building?
[Kathleen Desmond]: No. No, it would be the addition, it would be five units on that parcel, keeping this as a two, which is already in existence and occupied.
[David Blumberg]: Clyce, I don't wanna cut you off, but I see Emily's hand is raised. I'm done.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. So what I'm hearing is that we originally had two parcels, three parcels?
[Kathleen Desmond]: This is a combined parcel by deed. So this is one parcel for purposes of deed on your assessor's map, it's three parcels.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. So three parcels, two of which were effectively one because they were combined by deed and we are redoing the lines so that the existing dwelling to the north will have the adequate lot area as well as frontage to accommodate for the for the total of five units right okay so if we were not adding additional units we would not have to I guess we would have to make some change. I'm kind of in the same area of thought with you. If just roughly, if this was to read as like three, I feel like there could be another dwelling put in kind of right smack where lot one is. But that's not, I think, within our power to do.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, and this building extends, actually, the building as proposed, which is still in draft stages, which is why, I mean, we're left with 15 feet on this side, roughly. Oh, okay, interesting. 15 to 20 feet on the setback. So it's not a situation, it's gonna be a long structure with garages under so that the entrance is at the front onto Hadley. So it's not as if there's gonna be another structure here. The plan is to include three, three townhouse units, style townhouse units. Okay.
[Emily Hedeman]: That's helpful to know. Thank you, Kathleen.
[David Blumberg]: Any other comments from the board? If not, Amanda's city staff or anyone else in attendance tonight? Not that they have to. Just trying to be polite and offer the invite.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, Alicia, Danielle, do you guys have any comments you want to share?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just feel like we should remind the board that the way A&R law is written, that if they're proposing a legal shifting of the lot lines, we don't actually have any authority to tell them no. It's very weird. And in some cities, the staff approve them administratively because, like, we can't not say yes to this. I know that the one thing that you could look at, the board has once said no to an A&R, but it was around not having access, right? There was no real frontage access on that one. This one, I know we didn't look at street view, but this is flat. And in fact, that entire frontage right now is paved parking. So there is no real ability to do anything here from the board's position. I'm curious, Attorney Desmond, is the applicant planning looking to do something as of right? Or do you think that we would be seeing a future? I guess actually this board wouldn't, if you're saying five units, it wouldn't even come to CD board. It would only, if it needed relief, go to the CBA.
[Kathleen Desmond]: We're probably going to need relief as to depth based on that strange corner in the back that kind of dictates a variance requirement.
[Alicia Hunt]: Mostly I was just curious. I really thought that I had seen a proposal on this property before. I'm familiar with this property.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think we had a draft before the historical commission laid in the process as to a conceptual, but that's somewhat changed since it was before them. So it's not even been finalized. When it was actually put on the CAD file, it didn't fit within the confines of the parcel. So it kind of had to be pulled back. So we're still kind of working on the zoning piece of that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm remembering something from a couple of years ago. I don't know if maybe you weren't involved. No, I wasn't involved.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No. OK. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: On the call, I don't know if he I was just curious because I definitely remember discussing this property and parking and units and young adults living there. So, yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Can you hear me?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, we can.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I sat down with you, Alicia, a couple of years ago, I remember. But the architect, I don't think he did his homework correctly. It was a large structure, but it's totally different now that we redesigned it. And after speaking to the historical, we changed the whole design to fit the neighborhood and to fit the setbacks, except for that corner.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. I just, I knew I'd seen it and I just don't remember why I was the only one that explains why I'm the only one who remembers seeing it. Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Any other board comments or if not, we could entertain a motion to endorse this plan as approval not required.
[Emily Hedeman]: I'll make a motion to endorse.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Emily. Is there a second? I'll second. Thanks. Okay. Roll call vote. Vice chair, Jackie Furtado.
[Unidentified]: Hi.
[Unidentified]: Hi.
[David Blumberg]: And George Fisher. I see George's posted a message that he is an eye and I am an eye as well. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Before we, sorry David.
[David Blumberg]: I was just going to say we usually have minutes on our agenda but we don't have minutes to review tonight which is fine, not a problem. You want to go to some miscellaneous items Amanda?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. And one quick thing about the A&R is that I have a Mylar sheet that actually does need signatures from you all. So maybe I can coordinate over email and help us to do that. Whether it be, maybe I do like a run around one day or if folks want to stop into the office.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you. Cool.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, yeah, so just a couple quick updates. We will have a meeting on the 15th so two weeks from now, and on there, we will cover their BS site plan review for a Dover use. So, tennis courts being proposed by Tufts at one of their fields. Something that I should want to put on everyone's radar so I know I think last meeting we had heard a petition for an accessory dwelling unit for 11 Paul Road. Danielle and I were reviewing the ordinance and realized actually that in terms of procedures that that needed to have been a public hearing. So. We've contacted the applicant and figured out the path forward. We'll be re-advertising, and that'll be on the next meeting. So, you know, re-hearing that item and opening it to the public for comment. And just want to apologize for that mix-up. It wasn't immediately clear in the ordinance, but after some digging, it became so. Okay.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you. And any other items from the office for us while we're all here?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yep, so we just received today a planned development district application for 100 Winchester. It's around a proposed project that would be for a multi-unit residential site with some commercial. So we'll communicate with you guys over email in terms of materials and process for that. So just expect to see some information coming from our office on what that'll look like.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, great.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, and then last quick thing is just that we did get confirmation today from the mayor on some candidates that we had to put forward for her for one full member position and one associate member position. I haven't actually, it just came in and I haven't actually notified those folks yet. So just wanted to say, you may see some new faces at the next meeting.
[David Blumberg]: And Amanda, the full-time is going to be Andrea's successor, is that?
[Amanda Centrella]: Deanna's successor.
[David Blumberg]: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Yes. My apologies.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, yeah. So yeah, I've been in touch with Deanna a bit about that. And so, you know, she will probably be saying her goodbyes, not for any bad reason, just because she's been in holdover status, and has graciously lent us her time.
[David Blumberg]: And then the associate member is a brand new thing into the audience.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: All right, very good. I think that's all we have to do.
[Alicia Hunt]: If you don't mind, I just wanted to just give you guys a heads up too. This was something that was coming up in the office today. We were reviewing the requirements for special permits. And I just thought I'd give you all a heads up that it's always been in the ordinance that if the city council is issuing a special permit, then they need to refer it to the CD board for comment and opinion. And it got written into the new zoning that if a special permit is from the zoning board or the city council, then it needs to come to this board for for review and comment. So we've just been sort of working through what that would look like. And we think that it makes sense that it might. be sent administratively to you. So the filing would be sent as if you guys were a department head to review it as opposed to the applicant to come for another meeting. And it's not a site plan review. It's just like a letter of comment like the board did for the 40B. And the reason I mention it is because we have been operating for the last several months on the assumption that the marijuana licenses that have to go back to the ZBA for special permit wouldn't would not come to this board unless they were actually triggering site plan review. Because we have a small one going into an existing building there's no external changes occurring. It doesn't trigger any of it's under 10,000 square feet. The whole existing building is doesn't trigger site plan review at all. But it looks like it's going to need to come to this board for comments. And I just wanted to give you guys a heads up since in person since so to speak. since we were on here, since that was not something we've been anticipating. And we're not clear that it makes sense to have that everything that needs a special permit from zoning board should come to this board for comment. And we can take a look at that. I don't know if anybody else remembers that from the zoning. We didn't, like it didn't jump out at us. We're like, that's a lot of extra review for this board. And we weren't clear that it made sense. So we'll start to notice those, but in the short run, it's in the zoning and it's the law. So we'll be sending that along. There's a chance that this one might get sent to you in the next three weeks. We're not sure, or next two weeks. We're not sure we can get, the applicant's gonna get everything in that quickly, but they might. So that's why I'm bringing it up tonight, just because it might happen in the next week. The applicant had their way they would have applied today, but they didn't have all, everything they needed to apply.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, well, thanks for the heads up. Interesting twist there.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: All right. Hearing no other items. Oh, wait a minute. Amanda, do we have a hand up?
[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, nope. I was just giving you a thumbs up.
[David Blumberg]: Thumbs up. Okay. We appreciate thumbs up. Motion to adjourn could be entertained at this time. I will make that much. Oh, guys, thank you. In a second, please.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Jackie. Roll call on our motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. We'll start, as always, with Vice Chair Jackie Furtado.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Clyson Jason. Hi, Emily headman. Hi, George Fisher. Oh, there he is. Thumbs up this time. That's fine. We recognize that as well. And I'm an I. So thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff. And we'll see you on the 15th of February, 2023.