AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 10-04-23

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Medford Community Development Board. I'll call the meeting to order. Let's begin with some obligatory procedural matters first. I'm going to read the public hearing notice. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the city of Medford's website. If despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting, tonight all votes from the board will be made by roll call. Please know that the project materials for all projects before the board can be viewed on the city's website at medfordma.org. You can also, you can click, from there, you can click on current seating board files. Danielle will provide the link in the chat. I'm going to do a roll call, appointments for the board. Vice chair, Emily Hedeman. Present. Peter Cowles.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman. Present. Pam Marianski. Present. Sally Akiki. Present. Sherrod watch area. And myself, Jackie mcpherson. Danielle, can you introduce any staff on the call, please?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, madam chair. Um, we have myself Daniel Evans, senior planner, Alicia hunt, who's the director of planning, development, sustainability, Amanda centrala, who is a staff planner. And then we have clams on here. Yep, clam dish is do you set or Ducette, a graduate student intern in planning, development, and sustainability.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. So our first item on the agenda for today is a special permit drive-through use. The 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, Bank of America. It was continued from 9-20-23. The applicant is applying for a special permit for a bank with drive-thru ATM at 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, which is the Wagons Plaza. The special permit grant authority is the city council, and it has been referred to the city board for the board's recommendation on the matter. The matter has been continued several times in order to redesign the site plan to satisfy planning staff and for sign off from other tenants of the shopping plaza. An overall project summary is that the existing site currently houses a surface parking lot and is bounded by commercial properties to the north, Leonard Street to the east, Locust Street to the west, and a northern access drive to Meadow Glen to the south. The proposed project will construct an approximate 5,413 square foot bank with one drive-through lane and one drive-through bypass lane. I'm going to now invite the applicant to present any updates to the proposal. Danielle, can you please introduce all members of the applicant?

[Unidentified]: Let's see.

[Danielle Evans]: Anyone here from the applicant team? Are folks able to unmute themselves? I don't see.

[Amanda Centrella]: They should have permissions to do that, yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: to unmute themselves, usually the applicant team would raise their hand.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I can confirm that we can unmute ourselves, but I am not with the applicant team.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. I'm trying to see if the names are jumping out at me. Maybe they are not here yet. Let's see. Do we want to table this and then move to the next item? Sure. Do we need to make a motion? No.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't think it's a motion to table it to the end of the meet or later in the meet and just to another date certain.

[Danielle Evans]: OK. Well, I mean, if they show up. Oh, you mean like we're not going to continue it. We're just going to see.

[Unidentified]: No, we're just moving it until later in the meeting. OK.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. We're going to go to the next item on our agenda, which is 590 Boston Ave site plan review amendment. The applicant is applying for an amendment to the previously approved site plan, special permit, and variances for the construction of a mixed use building that will contain 45 residential units and approximately 1,464 square feet of retail space with parking at grade located at the property 590 Boston Ave, Medford Mass, 02155. The original project was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in July 2021, but the design has been slightly revised. The applicant is invited to present to the board. Danielle, can you please introduce the applicant?

[Danielle Evans]: We have Peter Quinn is the architect. I believe Attorney Barone is representing the applicant team.

[SPEAKER_03]: Unmute. Good evening. Yes. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Barone, Jr. I'm an attorney with Roberto Israel Weiner with offices at 255 State Street in Boston. My office represents Anteleto Brothers, Inc., the property owner and proposed developer for this site at 590 Boston Avenue. With me tonight are Joseph Aniletto, the petitioner, Peter Quinn, the project architect, and Jack Sullivan, the project engineer. As mentioned a little earlier, prior to COVID and the recent revisions to the zoning ordinance, the applicant and his project were previously before this board, at which time the board affirmatively voted to recommend to the Board of Appeals that they approve special permit for site plan review. The Board of Appeals unanimously approved the project and requested our variances thereafter. As you may recall, this project involves a proposed mixed-use five-story building on the southeasterly corner of Boston Avenue and Harvard Street at 590 Boston Avenue. We are here this evening to request modifications to the previously reviewed site plan due to modifications made to the plans following the recent revisions to the city's zoning ordinance. First, a little bit about this property. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the property. It's currently operated as Titan Gas and Car Wash. It's been owned and operated by Petitioner Joseph Anoletto and has been run by his family for the past several decades. The premises is situated on a rectangular lot in the industrial zoning district just north of the Greenline Extension Ball Square Station. The premises is subject to an easement for the benefit of the MBTA along the Green Line extension line and another easement for the benefit of the City of Medford for maintaining a retaining wall along Harvard Street right at the underpass below the MBTA line. So, I'll provide a very quick overview of the practical changes to this project, Peter will go a little more in depth. But generally speaking, this project was reconfigured as a result of the recent revisions to the zoning ordinance. So, to that effect. We've decreased the total gross floor area. We've reduced lot coverage, we've reduced the height. We've increased the retail space, increased the number of residential units from 40 to 45 and reconfigured that allocation of studios, one bedrooms and two bedrooms. We've added two additional bike spacings, and we actually removed six parking spaces to make us now compliant with the ordinance. Of particular note, and one of the big impetuses for this project's modification is we've actually removed the below grade parking and moved the parking back up to grade. So in doing so, it's allowed us to remove several retaining walls that were along the southerly lot line, it allowed us to remove a retaining wall along the green line extension. It's also allowed us to relocate the drainage system, and it's also allowed us to reconfigure the entrance aisle permitting two way traffic and a 24 foot wide traffic aisle. So in light of these revisions, and the revisions to the zoning ordinance, we do require some modifications to our variances as well so I'm, I will briefly run through those modifications just so the boards familiar I don't want to spend too much time. Three variances that were obtained by the board of appeals back in 2021 have now been rendered moot as a result of compliance with the code and to that effect we have the rear yard is now compliant. Our parking setback to the lot line is now compliant and our off street parking is now compliant. We've also reduced Non compliance, so we have 6 variances that were granted that now will still be required, but we can say affirmatively that our non conformity is has been decreased. So, to that effect. Landscaped open space, we have decreased that variance required. Usable open space has been increased, but the variance, the relief needed has been decreased. We have decreased the noncompliance of our front yard. Our side yard along Harvard Street has been slightly decreased. Our max height has been reduced, therefore shrinking our variance there, and our lot coverage has also been reduced. Now, as a result of the modifications, we will be seeking three variances, one of which is a modification, two of which will be quote-unquote new variances. And I say quote-unquote because one was a side yard variance that was requested back in 2020, but for whatever reason, never made it onto the decision. So that will be a side yard variance. Fortunately, we are now only seeking a 1.2 foot variance. The original request was upwards of 23 and a half feet. For the parking setback, we originally needed a variance for parking setback from the lot line and did not require one for parking setback from the structure. As you may be aware, multifamily requires that parking spaces be at least 6 feet from the structure. In this case, we are seeking a variance to permit our parking spaces within six feet of the structure. Because we added some units, we also need to modify our existing variance for lot area per dwelling unit. So now I want to take a step back. And again, just for the new members of the board, really look at this project in the context of the neighborhood. So as you may be aware, the property is located at the southeast corner of Harvard and Boston Avenue. And Boston Avenue really is right in the center of the industrial zoning district that runs through the city, or at least this portion of the city. But oddly enough, that industrial zoning district also directly abuts the general residential zoning district to the west. To that effect, what we have in this corridor is no longer strictly industrial uses. Next to the railroad, we have now seen a tremendous shift to a mix of residential uses, multifamily uses, institutional uses, and even several religious establishments. This is most clear on the easterly side of Boston Avenue where our project is located, where you have Tufts University at 574 Boston Avenue, and several multifamily projects at 616 Boston Avenue and the Sphere luxury apartments at 640 Boston Avenue. Looking at that in addition to the neighboring general residential district across the street, we believe this project continues to make significant sense as you have that transition from the general residential area into this transitioning industrial zone. We believe that the Green Line extension further adds to that despite its current condition. And with that, I think I will turn it over to Peter to give a more thorough overview of the revisions to the site plan.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Peter Quinn of Peter Quinn Architects in Davis Square, Somerville. I would like to just take you through mostly the changes that were made. I think that will also explain the project well enough for those who haven't seen it before. And I will add a few comments to what Michael has already said. Let me just share my screen here, if I may. All right. So the building itself is now, hold on a minute, just having a little trouble clicking the things here. There we go. So this is the view that we're proposing for the building at the corner. The previous view here was like this, somewhat similar, you know, with a retail space that projected forward toward the sidewalk. In this case, in the previous plan, we had raised the basement roof so that we had a plinth that the building was based on, and below that was the garage. we have been able to eliminate that thing. And now we have essentially a planting area in the front that's available for trees and the like. And also the handicapped access is much easier. We just put a ramp in before we had a lift to get up there. And we've also tried to really address the corner more and have a more robust elevation on both sides of the corner. In the previous scheme, we were somewhat flat on the side, on the left side, that would be Harvard Street, and the building itself was maybe a little flatter than what we have now. We also introduced a brick base that we didn't have before. The base before was just for the plinth and then it was wood frame all the way down to the top of the plinth. This, I think, actually lightens the massing of the building somewhat and makes it kind of more visually interesting at the street run. The number of units, as Michael mentioned, is now 45. I do want to point out that the number of bedrooms in the building is exactly the same as we had before. The only difference is that we have rearranged the units such that we have more smaller units and fewer larger units. We also arranged the building so that the units stack vertically, or to save some money, rather than change as they go up through the building as the previous team had. In our layout, we have a number of amenity spaces on the ground floor. We have a large retail space at the corner, as I mentioned. And then behind that, we have a large bike room, which is easy to get into from the front door, taking a bike up a ramp. We also have access to the rear where there's parking. A little over half the parking spaces are under the building. and then the rest are out toward the retaining wall that is shared with the team at the back of the building. We have one unit on the ground floor, a nice large unit, and then we go up from there into a layout of, I think it's nine units, no, I'm sorry, 11 units per floor, a mix of studios, ones and twos, And then on the roof level, we have a roof deck and solar panels, and the roof deck has a pergola over it, making it kind of an interesting amenity space for the building, all brought in from the edges so as not to disturb neighbors. And of course, we have plenty of space for mechanical and solar arrays to be put in in the future. A couple of other things that are important to point out that are a little different. You can see over here on this far right side, there's a brick enclosure. That's where we put the transformer, so it's not really visible to pedestrians or drivers. And where we keep it out of the way before we had it in the back, and it was taking up quite a bit of real estate back there. As I mentioned, we have eliminated the basement from the original design and brought all the mechanical equipment, electrical, slipping, and so forth to the ground floor. And I believe that will contribute to our resiliency should there ever be any flooding or that kind of thing in the area, not having those sorts of things in the basement. Some of the other 3D views. We'll see, this is how we deal with the parking in the rear. and drive under. Another view here. This is a corner view away from the corner view. And the small brick structure in the front is the transformer. You can see the ramp going up to the front door. Beyond that, the commercial area. Commercial area could have a small enclosed patio area where people could set up tables outside. kind of tried to design this to be sort of a universal set of uses. It could be a workspace, it could be a cafe, anything like that. And then going up to the building a little further, this is a view looking down Boston Ave toward Ball Square. You can see there was a number of taller buildings further down. And as you, I'm sure you know, to the left, going down Harvard Street, we'll go under the bridge. And here's an aerial view, kind of give you the overall appearance of the property. With the landscaping in the front, I'll show you a little more about that landscaping in a minute, and the roof deck, which is enclosed well enough to be very private up there. This is a rear view from the tracks. Again, we continue this kind of robust articulation on the exterior for decks and underneath the balconies, all the way around the building. Almost every unit has an outdoor space. There are some studios here in this alignment that don't, but I'd say 90% of the units do have them. a couple of other things. We actually ran into a little bit of a problem with the previous design when we explored the soils more. I think something happened when they built this retaining wall for the MDTA, that it raised our water table, and it raised it fairly significantly. And that, you know, completely from a practical point of view, this also triggered our rethinking of how to do the parking. It was a happy coincidence that the city also changes parking regulations at the same time because it allowed us to go to grade levels parking, whereas we were seriously wondering whether we could proceed with the project given the water table issues that arose after the wall was built. So, happily, we're out of the water table completely. And, you know, we've seen sort of the normal construction in our biggest building. Let me just make sure I got everything covered here. As I mentioned, as was mentioned, we reduced the height of the building. We're three feet below what we were approved for. We also decreased the floor area of the building in this new scheme by 5,000 square feet. So, as I said, the units are smaller. and there may be more units, but overall the building is about 10% smaller than what it was before. So I'm going to stop there and take questions, and I'm happy to go back over any of this or add to it as you may wish. Thank you. Oh, I meant to just add the landscaping, if I could, just a second. So in the front of the building, we had very little landscaping before. This was the plan done by Verdant for us. We are now able to get a nice garden in the very front of the building with four redbuds and a lot of perennials and shrubs in this area. So that's just something that was a new feature, and it was part of our attempt to increase the landscape area and open space. Thank you. Also with me is Jack Sullivan if you have any questions that people have about the civil site plan and drainage and so forth. Back to you Madam Chair.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you for your presentation. One of the things that I need, I guess, clarity from, I'm not sure if it's from the city or from the applicant. If you can just synthesize the information, you've gone over in detail, but we're trying to see where we're at right now. We know, we understand that we no longer need a parking variance and we, and there was, we, I could see the differences in the design. But I'm trying to better understand where we stand right now in reference to compliance with the department heads comments. And, um, I guess in the variances, if the city can pretty much point that out, I know that this was approved previously in 2020 with lots of conditions, but I'm having a hard time synthesizing all the information as you're presenting. So if someone can just give us a high level, um, overview of exactly what variances that we're looking at right now and how far they are from compliance with the department heads. That would help. Have you had a chance to look at the department head comments?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Michael, you want me to answer that? Yes, if you could, Peter, thank you. Yeah, sure. Um, yeah, we haven't, we have gone through the department head, um, comments. Um, and, uh, you know, there, there have been some new regulations put in place, uh, for instance, with engineering. Um, and, uh, you know, we, we will address those. There, some of them are relative to Louisiana. I don't think Jack can, can, um, confirm what I'm about to say, which is, you know, basically we didn't see anything that we couldn't comply with. Um, the fire chief wrote a letter that had some new interpretations. Um, since we had already gotten this building approved, we didn't really change the approach that we were doing. Um, but because we have a new chief here in Medford, um, you know, I think he was looking at it for the first time. So we have a meeting scheduled with him Wednesday of next week to try to straighten this out and The other, I guess there were some other sustainability comments. I don't think we were in pretty good shape with all those. We certainly couldn't make a response on those issues. It might be difficult. There are any others.

[SPEAKER_03]: I know we did have, um, we did have a conversation. There was a. Point raised by the engineering department that I think is going to go into further conversation. Uh, the, the rounded corner. Oh, Peter, I'm sorry if you could go back to the.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I was just going to bring it up more technically. Yeah.

[SPEAKER_03]: Okay. Great. I know previously we had had a conversation about rounding off and handling the corner there as shown in the plans. And there's now conversation from the engineer that they believe it would be better perhaps for the applicant to instead actually transfer ownership to approximately 50 square feet of that corner to the city. And we are looking at what Alternatives might be available to do that because obviously to do out that 50 feet would would change a lot of our figures, it would be quite slight, but still something that would need to be discussed. And I believe per the prior recommendations, a lot of that was subject to the engineers. Reaching a satisfactory conclusion with the applicant. So we were hoping to move forward in a similar fashion with that as well. I know because of our parking concerns in the prior approval. Again, we had inadequate parking under the former regulations. There were a number of improvements that were requested for some crosswalks and pedestrian markings and automation systems. That again, I think that there was some call for some of that to remain, but I don't think it was a full request for all of it, and that was going to be a further conversation with the engineer as well.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So I would, in summary, Chair, I don't think there's anything that we came across that would put us in a new variance or any deeper into a variance than we already have. I think all the issues that are there can be resolved one way or the other.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much for your clarification. I'm going to, Ask the city if you have any comments or if you want to add anything to better help the public and the board. From your point of view. Oh, no, the city at this point. I'm sorry. Thank you.

[Danielle Evans]: The overhang that the fire chief had mentioned in this letter, was that addressed?

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's something I have to talk to him about. That overhang was there originally. And if anything, it's gotten better, more clearance. But I think he just wants me to take him through it and try to understand it. And I have all those dimensions that I can give it to him when I see him, which You know, I mean, you know, in Medford, the fire chief wants a lot of access in the backside and the sides of buildings. And that's a big struggle if you don't want, you know, a lot of asphalt around your building. But, you know, this is no different. And we've done our best to comply with that request.

[Danielle Evans]: And did you see the comments from the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion about the different treatments for signage for the handicap parking spaces. And you'll meet all of those if we have that as a submission?

[Adam Hurtubise]: With the signage, we usually go through the whole building and develop a signage matrix and engage a signage company to do all of that in a proper manner for compliance with the ADA, including wayfinding signs for, you know,

[Danielle Evans]: And there was some latches for doorways and gates.

[Unidentified]: Yep.

[Danielle Evans]: We're aware of all that.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, if you want to make that a condition, there's certainly no problem with that at all.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I believe we would be recommending carrying forward all relevant conditions from the last approval and then any new ones updated from higher engineering and DEI. That's all I have, Madam Chair.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much, Daniel. One of the questions I have for clarification, previously when this was approved, there were conditions that we would recommend with at least six units being affordable? Is that still on the table or has it been taken on?

[SPEAKER_03]: My belief, Madam Chair, is that that is ultimately up to you. I do believe because we've added five units that it may be something that needs to be reconsidered, but that is something I believe is entirely within the purview of this board. We're happy to, my apologies.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Go right ahead.

[SPEAKER_03]: We're happy to engage in whatever conversations with the city that the department would like us to and oh, I see. I'll defer to Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I believe this is subject to inclusionary zoning. And so there's a formula, it's not a negotiation, there's a set number. I would have to pull open my book to get the exact formula, but that it should comply with inclusionary zoning, 80% of AMI. I feel that Danielle, I'm vibing her that she is looking that up as I'm saying this. We're not in the same room, so I don't know that to be true, but I believe that she is in fact looking up the formula for us.

[Danielle Evans]: And the chair, when I was first reviewing this, I believe that even though there's an increase in units, that it's still rounded up to six, I believe, but I should double check that again. And also since the last round of zoning changes from last month, we clarified some provisions of our inclusionary zoning requiring that the bedrooms, that the affordable units are, you know, proportionate to the market rate ones. So, you know, percentage of, you know, ones and twos. Were there any, there's no three bedrooms on this anymore, right?

[Unidentified]: No, no threes.

[Danielle Evans]: And then that they're evenly dispersed. So, Did you say that these would be rentals or condos?

[SPEAKER_03]: I believe the plan at the moment is to have rentals, correct.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay, before you can file for, I believe it's a building permit or you should have already started on your local initiative. program application to get the units on the subsidized housing inventory. So you'll have to go through the process of, you know, an affirmative marketing plan, getting a lottery agent on board, and getting all that and getting a regulatory agreement approved from the state and the city. And so there's some lead time involved with that. So we wanna make sure that you guys get a headstart on that. So if they're rental units, we would have the units kind of picked out in the beginning, but they're floating. So say someone goes over income, you don't kick them out of the unit, the next available one would be designated as affordable. So they can move around a bit. But if they're condos, if they were to become condos, then it's a different application, a different process, and then they're fixed clearly.

[SPEAKER_03]: We'll confirm with the applicant and then be in touch with your office to coordinate all appropriate steps.

[Unidentified]: OK.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam chair, Emily has her hand up.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Yes. I'm going to go to the board now and I just want to remind the public at this point or actually inform the public at this point to please remain refrain from using the chat at this time. We're going to do a public comment period soon as we hear from the board. Emily?

[Emily Hedeman]: It's just kind of a clarifying question. The decision that the applicants are looking for this evening, are we able to decide on that prior to the additional information and adjustments that we've spoken about this evening? It sounds like we still need to nail down affordable housing. There's some department conditions that may or may not have been addressed. I understand we can condition some of these, but I just want to make sure we're kind of you know, doing right by the process and the applicant and, you know, everybody who's meeting.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. And I think that's pretty much what I was trying to get a high level bullet point of is what we hit and what we haven't just to get it synthesized so that we can know. Um, so I guess as a board, we will decide if we have enough information to continue, or if this is something that we can approve. I, I, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable at this point myself recommending with conditions. Cause I'm not sure what those conditions would be. and what they would not be, unless the city can help us with some language. But even then, we have to satisfy the affordable housing piece of it.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, the affordable housing is simple. It's 13% of the number of units. So I was just looking at your plans for a total number of units. I'll divide it by 14.

[Adam Hurtubise]: 45 divided by 13.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's your number. So you have to have three and a half units if four units must be affordable.

[Adam Hurtubise]: 13% or 45. I think that's more than that. I think it's six.

[Alicia Hunt]: We're happy to have more than that affordable.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I just gave it a little thought.

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, but by multiplying 45 units by 0.13, we end up at 5.85. So I think that keeps us at six units, which was the prior approval as well, or the prior recommendation as well.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, six units.

[Alicia Hunt]: I don't do math very well.

[Danielle Evans]: But she went to MIT, so how many, and admit to that.

[Unidentified]: Peter?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes. Peter Kals, sorry.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Jackie. Yes, I just wanted to inject my two cents into this. I mean, I'm trying to

[Peter Calves]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. And it seems that the process stuff for affordable housing is just kind of like it's going to happen anyway. So it's not really something, at least in my understanding, that we need to wait around for. It's just part of the process. It's going to happen whenever it happens. And it's just, it's not something we need to wait for that to happen. That's just going to happen.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter, that was a question posed to the city.

[Peter Calves]: I believe so. I mean, I think it's my. Yeah, I just want to make sure that because the way I was understanding it, I was trying to figure out if the. Affordable housing and some of those procedural things. We're not really things that we needed to condition on or wait around on, but they were just parts of the process that. are going to happen regardless. And we can condition on, say, department comments being met and those affordable housing procedural matters that Danielle was so helpful to list out. Those are just things that are going to happen anyway, because that's what needs to happen to rent and market affordable housing.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think Madam Chair, Danielle has her hand up, but if I am mine, typically we would list it as a in the decision, but we would say this is subject to the city's inclusionary housing or inclusionary housing ordinance and will provide six units. We also would list this is subject to linkage. and we would list this as subject to the city's solar ordinance. So it's not quite a condition of the board, but we would include it in that document so that if five, 10 years later, somebody needed to refer back to it, it would be documented somewhere clearly that that was included, but we don't state it was conditioned, we just say it's subject to. Does that answer your question?

[Peter Calves]: Yes, I mean, that's I think so it's not so much of a condition of decision. It's something that would will have to be noted in the decision, but it's not really. A decision the board is making so much as something the board is noting along with everything else.

[Danielle Evans]: For the chair, that would that would be the correct way to approach it. And yeah, in my opinion. It's a it's a condition they'll be You know, different times.

[Unidentified]: I'd cut off both of that.

[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, I just got distracted. Um. Yeah, so there'll be, you know, there'll be no, no CO will be issued until. They have all of their units. Like, their regulatory agreement is approved and they're ready to. You'd be be marketed so. That's why we asked that they get a head start. So there's no surprises because this is actually the first project that has figured our inclusionary zoning ordinance, all previous approvals of developments. It's just been, it has been a negotiated condition of one of the boards, but this one is actually, you know, codified in our ordinance, how you meet the requirements and the, including how it's distributed, how many, who it's affordable to, and that'll get listed on the SHI.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Vice Chair Hedeman?

[Emily Hedeman]: Sure. I think Peter raised a good question and I appreciate the applicant coming forward tonight and showing us these beautiful renderings you know, giving us the narrative of the changes that have happened, you know, since last, this project last appeared before the board. I'm just a little concerned that, you know, when we brought up department comments, it seemed like those may not have been viewed or, you know, addressed in a more direct fashion. So, you know, while we, you know, potentially could go through each of those conditions and address them this evening, um, you know, absent things that are required for housing, um, building code, et cetera. I'm wondering if it's a more efficient use of time, um, to request the applicant returns, um, with, you know, these conditions specifically addressed within, um, their, their project.

[SPEAKER_03]: Adam L. Santuccii, Ph.D.: : Madam chair, if I may. Adam L. Santuccii, Ph.D.: : Yes, we did receive and we did review we actually we had a meeting to discuss the the three department letters we did receive the de I letter is very, very easy for us to remedy the fire chief. Uh, letter, as we indicated, um, that the fire chief was unavailable for a meeting. As he was on vacation, so we have scheduled that meeting and the engineering letter was substantially similar. Um, I can't say exactly so I would have to defer to Jack Sullivan on that to the, to the letter we had received last time as well. So our understanding being that we would satisfy the engineering office. with those concerns moving forward, especially given that we've reduced the parking non-conform or Rendered parking compliant and also reduce the number of issues that were created by the below grade parking. But I just do want to represent that we did review the letters and we did have internal discussions on them. But I do understand where the board is coming from. I do not believe we would have had sufficient time, even to the extent we had the ability to meet with the fire chief and. have our engineer connect more thoroughly with the city engineer that we would have been able to update our plans. But we are absolutely committed to satisfying the concerns raised by each of the department heads.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_36]: And just to echo what Attorney Barone said, I'm Jack Sullivan, the project engineer. As far as the engineering memo, the only item that really we need to discuss is that corner rounding on the corner of Boston and Harvard street. Um, the sidewalk goes over that corner. Now that's why we had proposed an easement. Uh, that would be a discussion. All the other items are more bookkeeping items and we can easily address.

[Unidentified]: That's it on my end.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. And I have Stelia Kiki.

[Evangelista]: Yeah, I have two questions. The first is what measures are in place to address the traffic safety concerns coming in and out of the building, especially that the streets are busy. And then the next question is in regards to the commercial area, is there a designated drop off, pick up area? How are we dealing with it?

[SPEAKER_03]: Sure. So with the traffic situation, we do have one egress and ingress, which is shown on the on the right side of the plan. We set that as far back from the corner as possible for the purpose of allowing for adequate ingress and egress. And that is a full 24 wide drive aisle. So we do have a full two way traffic ability to pull up Check both directions. Fortunately, we are on the side where traffic is. We're not going to be crossing traffic to necessarily head into town. But. The point is well understood, and we do know that there were some requests in the engineering. letter relative to some improvements being made to crosswalks, an additional crosswalk. They also requested certain signage. Also, one thing I do want to note was that the update to our traffic study did indicate that we should have a decrease in trips if I recall correctly, but allow me to confirm that before I make that firm statement. But we did try to mitigate any traffic concerns as much as possible again by setting our ingress and egress as wide as we could in the location that we did and setting our overhang back a little closer to the building than it previously was. Now we won't be coming up a ramp, fortunately, into a blind Entrance here will have a better gauge of the, or I should say motorists will have a better gauge of traffic on the sidewalk as well as traffic in the street and have adequate time to stop as well. Pedestrians have better sightline of the vehicles. As far as the commercial space goes. I do not know if we have designated drop-off. I think our primary concern here was that we did have space both along Boston Avenue as well as Harvard Street to allow for a drop-off. But as mentioned, we do have significant bike parking and means for pedestrian and bicyclists to access the facility as well.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Barone. Are you all set, Sally or Kiki?

[Evangelista]: Yep, yeah, it's answered my question.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Peter Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to confirm going back to the discussion about the department head conditions that the applicant has received and reviewed the department conditions and with the exception partially of the rounding at the corner is prepared to comply with the department conditions just so we can get a clear statement on where the conditions and the applicants stand.

[SPEAKER_03]: I will defer to Jack on that.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_36]: Yeah. So as far as the engineering memo dated September 20th, um, we will comply with all the recommendations from the city engineer. Um, as I said, item number one on the rounding, we'll have to have some discussion on that. We'd like to give an easement. Because in that case, we don't change the overall lot area as attorney Brown stated, since some of the, uh, dimensional requirements, even though they'd be slightly adjusted, they would be adjusted. but we do want to give a right to that rounding to the city. We're hoping to do that in the form of an easement, but there'll have to be some discussion on that. But all the other items were amenable to.

[Peter Calves]: Okay, great. Thank you. Just wanted to make that clear.

[SPEAKER_03]: And Madam Chair, if I may as well back to board member Akiki's question relative to traffic in the transportation comments to the engineer letter, there is reference here that due to a change in standards for estimating trips that our traffic study did correctly estimate that trips would actually decrease compared to the prior proposal.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Barone. Board Member Sherrod Baracharia. You're on mute, Sherrod.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it was mentioned that there is a high water table at this location and you have also lowered the basement height. I'm just wondering what your mitigator water levels here and if you have made any changes to the drainage system.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, I can answer that, Chair. We have no basement. We eliminated it by doing this scheme. So we are completely out of the water table. The water table turned out to be about four feet below grade. And an original test that we have done in our early planning So it changed quite radically after the wall was built by the MBTA. So I can say that the foundation that we now have is very conventional. It's not going to be needing ballasting or waterproofing or anything like that, other than normal measures that are taken.

[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_36]: And just to piggyback on what Peter added, We are having a drainage system put in. We're going to collect the entire roof area of the building, and it'll go into a drainage infiltration field under the parking lot in the rear. We have an overall reduction of 2,500 square feet, plus or minus of impervious surfaces already on this project. So there's an overall reduction in impervious surfaces, but we're also providing the drainage system, as I noted. And we did provide a detailed stormwater report to the city engineer on our stormwater design.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I would just add, I guess it goes without saying that current use is 100%, nearly 100% impervious asphalt and building. It just drains off the site.

[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Are there any further questions from the board? Okay, I'm going to open up the public comment period. I see that there was some activity in the chat, but we're unable to use that. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message among Danielle in the comments. You can also send an email to OCD at Medford-MA.gov. Individuals may have up to two minutes to provide comments. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. Just another reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to provide comments as it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, this may be entered into the chat to alert myself and city staff. Danielle, can you please manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails or letters?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I don't believe that we received written comment on this proposed amendment. If there's anybody on the meeting right now that wishes to comment, could you use the raise hand function? Scrolling this, a lot of attendees right now, so I'm trying to scroll through and see if there's anyone that wishes to comment. Again, I did see some comments in the chat. I could, there's Patricia Berry. Visitor parking for the building, handicap parking for building, entrance and exit issues from parking area and flow into busy Boston Ave traffic with lights at corner. Ms. Barry, if you wanted to elaborate on that. You can unmute yourself. If not, I think I think that was addressed.

[SPEAKER_08]: Yes. Hi, Patricia Barry, 5 Taylor Street, Medford. I guess my concerns are having lived in Medford all my life and off of Boston Ave and do frequent this part of Boston Ave periodically. The congestion of the traffic flow between Harvard Street and Boston Ave at various times of the day can be rather heavily congested. With traffic, especially coming up from the parkway where there is already mega construction going on or planned for that area for the medical labs building to go in is also. Projected. increase of the Cummings high-rises at 200 Boston Ave with the lights at this intersection and trying to go down Boston Ave and take from Boston Ave at Tufts and taking a left into this one egress in and out of the parking lot. With the traffic lights flowing and the amount of traffic that can be there at any given point during the day, not just that heavy rush hour times. That is going to cause a huge backup in traffic flow if someone's attempting to get into their own residence at this place. That's one of the key concerns. The affordable housing you've responded to, and I guess overall traffic is more of a concern than anything else. uh, for me, um, being a resident of the Boston Ave area. How do you reflect on, you know, responding to that issue?

[SPEAKER_03]: Absolutely. And, um, we had submitted with our initial, uh, application a traffic impact study, uh, and with our most recent request for modification, an updated, uh, calculation of trip generation based upon the new proposal. And on table two on page four, which I don't know if that's readily available, I can try to share my screen if possible. But ultimately, the current gas station has significantly greater weekday and Saturday daily trips compared to the trips or the trip generation coming in and out of this facility and to that extent we see a significant decrease in morning hours, evening hours, as well as midday on Saturday to the point where per the traffic study our weekday daily with the existing gas station is estimated 722 trips and our proposed mixed use trips would be 170. On our Saturday daily, the existing Titan gas station is north of 1000 trips, whereas our proposed mixed use would be under 200. So, while we completely understand the concerns we are relying on this study. evidencing that the traffic in and out of this building will be significantly less when it's limited to 45 units as opposed to a use that relies upon regular vehicular traffic in and out of the lot for gas station and car wash purposes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: If I may add to the chair, the current layout with the car wash is basically an open curve around most of the two sides of the site so that cars can come and go in a number of locations, whereas in our case, we are limiting it to one curb cut at the far end of the site, as far away from the intersection as possible. So I think it's a great improvement actually.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I'm not sure you're waiting for more public comment.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I just want to make sure Ms. Barry was all set. I know there was another question regarding handicap accessibility that was not included in the DEI's letter. Ms. Barry, are you okay with that?

[SPEAKER_08]: Yes. How much, well, one more in regards to the parking. Is there enough substantial visitor parking allocated in the residential area? Are people expect to ride their bikes to visit people in these units or to depend upon the green line usage?

[SPEAKER_03]: So, we, we provided the amount of parking that was required by the code. And when we first approached, or first appeared before this board back in 2020, before there was the change in the code, we'd actually provided more parking that was not actually adequate for the current regulations at that time. And at that time, there were concerns among the board, and they were voiced as well at the zoning board, that even the parking that was required was going to be too much, and the amount that we provided would potentially be more than was necessary. So, with that in mind, we did rely heavily on the Green Line extension, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and then met the required amount of parking under the ordinance. whether all of those spots are used by residents or some of them are used by visitors is less so within our purview and more just us complying with what the city is requesting, as well as, as I mentioned, providing a significant amount of bicycle parking.

[SPEAKER_08]: Can someone enlighten me as to what is The standard, the city standard as to visitor per unit expectation.

[SPEAKER_03]: So, my, my understanding of the code is that it is less a visitor per unit. And parking is determined on a basis of both afforded proposed affordability units. As well as as well as proximity to. I, I. Transit, I'm sorry, mass transit. So, to that extent, those are the calculations I don't have those immediately handy in front of me to tell you exactly how we reach the number we did. but I can certainly look into that. But again, it is on a per lot basis. It's no longer, at least based upon our location, tied to visitor versus resident parking. And perhaps Ms. Evans could provide a little further detail on that. I don't know if that's why you're raising your hand, I'm sorry.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, through the chair. Yeah, our parking requirements are based on the units and the assumption is that, you know, some people may have more cars, some people may have no cars and, you know, it all kind of like balances out, but there isn't additional parking required for visitors. I don't know, will the parking be assigned to units or will there be, will you be, will it be included with the unit's rent, or will it be something that folks could, if you don't need parking, then you don't have to pay for it, or sometimes there's extra parking that's not coupled with the unit, then that could be freed up for visitors if needed.

[SPEAKER_03]: Sure, I don't believe we've gotten that far along to confirm whether we will be again I think it's also related to whether this is going to be condominiums or apartments. I think that that conversation is going to be more relevant once we understand that the project is moving forward, but we can we can. confirm or at least hypothesize how that might go. But at this time, I don't have a firm answer for you on that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Broome. You're welcome. Danielle, do you see any other public comments or Ms. Barry, are you all set?

[Danielle Evans]: I do not see any additional folks with raised hands or anything in the chat.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. I'm going to close the public comment period and come back to the board at this time to see if there's any other clarifying questions or if there's anything that you want to ask of the city or the applicant. Any members of the board. Yes, me. I sorry, I can't see. Fishman. Hi, Ari. Sorry. Go right ahead.

[Ari Fishman]: So there was a question in the chat that hadn't been followed up with that I'd like to enter as my own question. Are any of the affordable units being designated as accessible or any of the other units being built? I know that it sounds like there are a lot of details you don't know yet, but I was curious about the answer to that.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I can answer that through the chair. Yeah, so all of the units have at least the minimal requirements for clearances and adaptability that is required under the Massachusetts regulations for accessibility. Two of the units will be what they call group 2A units, which are completely fitted out for handicap accessibility. two will also be set up for hearing impaired as well. So there's quite a bit that goes into these buildings that, you know, will address that. All of the building is handicap accessible from one end to the other. There's no, there's no, no exceptions there.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think it's a, see where the board is at now for deliberations. Are you all comfortable with moving forward with the recommendation to the ZBA or are we looking to table this? I think some of the, a lot of the questions that I had was the previous conditions for myself and where they stood, but we've already heard from the applicant that they're willing to comply as necessary with all department had comments and then the process of affordability I can be handled with. So I'm confident in handling that with the city, but I want to know what other board members are feeling at this time. Go ahead, Peter. I'm sorry, Mr. Quinn, I think, are you sharing your screen? If you could stop sharing. Thank you so much.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Peter Calves]: I think having heard that the applicant is prepared to comply with the department comments, particularly the engineering and transportation comments of the memo dated 9-20, that at least I'm comfortable going ahead with that seeing that they, I mean, we will have to know in our decision that note that there's a plot that the affordability conditions that, as Director Hunt said earlier, that this will be, this will be, this will, linkage will apply to this and so on and so forth. But as long as I think we make sure we include all that condition on the department comments, which it seems the applicant is willing to do, that I would be comfortable moving this forward.

[Evangelista]: as am I. Yeah, me too, Sally.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so because we're making advisory recommendations, I guess at this point, I wanna be clear, Danielle, we are going with the previous conditions as well as a couple of new conditions, correct? If the city wants to help us get this language proper so that someone can even Peter, are you able to capture conditions?

[Peter Calves]: I'm working on that right now.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so I know that some of the original conditions, some may not be relevant, but I know we wanted to keep the traffic mitigation conditions from the previous approval, as well as the additional condition that Director Blake had added about the, sorry, I usually have more than one screen, so I'm struggling here. toggling between different tabs. So in your meeting packet, there was the previous recommendation from your board dated June 22nd, 2020, which had the additional conditions about purchase and install countdown pedestrian signals, Let's see. So yeah.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And then that the proponent at this point, number three may be mute because the proponents should work with the city engineer to provide the additional information. At this point, it's working with the city engineer as well as the fire chief. But I thought that was all encompassing with number four, which is compliance with recommendations. to the satisfaction of each department. So I want to make sure that we're fleshing out everything. Because if we're going to discuss each department head, it should be all inclusive, unless.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I think we could, yeah, probably, yeah, strike three. Because I think four is sufficient. And we can update those with the new dates.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Peter Calves]: That's what I was going to ask. I've been writing. I've been trying to put together conditions. And we would be talking about the two, that the applicant shall comply with the DEI memo dated 9-21-23, the Fire Department memo dated 9-19-23, and the Transportation Engineering memo dated 9-20-23, which are the department head comments for this most recent, in the run-up to this most recent meeting.

[Danielle Evans]: And I believe that was a combined memo from City Engineer and- Yes, Transportation and Engineering shared a memo. And then I believe Marianne O'Connor's previous memo still applies. I don't think she had any updates.

[Peter Calves]: Yes, that is what I was going to ask, just as I'm trying to capture conditions here. How do we want to term including the conditions of the previous approval of June 2020? because I presume there are still some terms of that approval that we want to carry through, even if some other things have changed.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I'm looking, this is Director Hunt, I'm looking at the previous approval. It actually listed four items. So it's pretty straightforward. The first one is the incorporation of option R3 to purchase, install, countdown, pedestrian signal heads. for the intersection of Boston Avenue and Harvard Street from the engineering divisions letter. I assume that particular item you can just carry forward exactly as it's written. And then the item number two was installation of a solar energy system in compliance with the city's solar ordinance. That is one that I would actually say goes without saying. I would actually not include that as a condition. I would list that as the list of complying with the city's ordinances including. Um, and the third one was the proponent should work with the city engineer to provide the additional information requested in his letter of June 17th. Since that that's the piece that we believe is complete, right? They, they've worked with that. We have a new, uh, engineering letter.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. And so, and that, and so instead of piecing, parsing that out to be its own item, it should be, um, all inclusive and number four for all department heads.

[Alicia Hunt]: Compliance with recommendations to the satisfaction of each department head in the letters and then listing the letters. So it's actually one of the simpler ones that we've seen with the countdown pedestrian signal head was the only thing that was called out that wasn't comply with the letters attached or with city ordinances. So then we would add into the decision and compliance with the city ordinances of linkage Uh, and sorry, inclusionary housing and the solar ordinance. Honestly, they have to comply with all city ordinances. We just feel that it's nicer to call those out so that none of them are a surprise because those are Medford specific as opposed to building code.

[Peter Calves]: Also, in terms of the countdown pedestrian signal that is included In the translation memo from 920 that's that's.

[Alicia Hunt]: So, I don't know that it needs to be called out separately. I wonder if it was as simply a. Convenience for when we are doing monitoring later. When there's something like that, that we have to check and make sure it got installed that that would be the only reason I could imagine we, we called it out separately.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so through the chair, I think at this point, it would be like any kind of like special conditions that are not already required by the ordinance. And when it gets to the zoning board where they have their decision, we will have the whole laundry list of conditions, our standard boiler plate for the different complying with the different provisions of the ordinance.

[Unidentified]: the comments.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And so as far as Gordon, that just, that also covers inclusionary housing at this point. Um, that was called out separately originally, but it should just be compliant with the city as necessary because it's mandatory and not necessarily a condition.

[Ari Fishman]: At this point, is it time for one of us to motion for a vote?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So yeah, so we're looking for a motion to recommend that the Board of Appeals approves the special permit for the site plan review for 590 Boston Ave with the following conditions. Go Peter.

[Peter Calves]: Alright, and Danielle, feel free to let me know if I left anything off. To. comply with all city ordinances, specifically inclusionary housing ordinance and the and the residential linkage to comply with all Department head comments as stated in the DEI department memo of 9-21-2023, the fire department memo of 9-19-2023, and the transportation and engineering department memos of 9-20-2023. And I believe that's all I have. unless I missed how exactly we were calling out the previous approval.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And if the city does not have anything to add on that language, we can go ahead and who wants to do the first motion?

[Danielle Evans]: Recommending approval of the amendment to the site plan review

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, that's the one key word I left out was amendment. I originally said to recommend that the Board of Appeals approves. So we're recommending that the Board of Appeals approves the amended special permit. Is that what it is?

[Danielle Evans]: Well, it's site plan review. It's not a special permit. It used to be a special permit, but it's just site plan review. They were the site plan review authority. originally, so for the amendment, just keep it with that original authority.

[Unidentified]: Okay. I so move.

[Evangelista]: Is there a second?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I second, Sally. Vice Chair Emily Hedeman?

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm just going to abstain from this one. That's all right.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter Cowles?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Ari froze up.

[Ari Fishman]: Oh, yes. Can you hear me?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. Pam Marianski? Yes. Sally Akiki? Yes. Sharad Bharacharya?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm a yes. So that carries. 6, 6, 1, the motion carries.

[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you very much. We really appreciate your time this evening.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Have a great evening.

[SPEAKER_03]: You as well.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you very much. So, our next item.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Plan development district 1 and 3 to 21 point court. This is a public hearing, and I will read accordingly. The Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on October 4th, 2023 at 6.30 PM via Zoom, remote video conferencing, relative to paper number 23-407, a petition by the Medford Housing Authority to amend zoning map, City of Medford maps dated April 13th, 1965, as referenced in the Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94-2.2. The amendment proposes to change the zoning district designation of the property one and the three to 20 Walkland Court as depicted on sheets one to six of the plans entitled ALTA slash NSPS land title survey prepared by Fuston O'Neill and dated February 6, 2022 from apartment one zoning district to plan development district, which would have new development standards per Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94-9.2.3. Danielle, do you want me to take it from here? Do you want me to keep going or do you want me to give an overview? Whatever pleases the board. I will say, just of note, a subsequent public hearing on the same matter will be held on the Medford City Council on November 14th, 2023 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall. 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Mesquite Mass, and via Zoom. A link to the public hearing will be posted no later than November 10th, 2023. Okay, Danielle, I apologize. Do you wanna give a background on the PV or I can avoid adding the process?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I'm just fighting with the tabs. Sorry for my delay. Yeah, so, To remind folks where we are in the process as we've had, you know, several PDDs coming through. So there's the three steps for the PDD. The first is the zoning drafting phase, which is what the Community Development Board did on September 6th. And the draft was presented to you all, which was developed with in conjunction with the applicant, city staff, and our legal counsel that we retained. And you all voted to submit that to the city council. And that went to them, and that starts the official statutory zoning amendment process. And then so they immediately refer it back to you all tonight. So this is the second part of it. So you would be making a recommendation on language for the amendment to go back to the city council who would vote on it, and it's on their agenda for November 14th. Although they are the ones that approve The ordinance, they can't actually act on it unless they get a recommendation from you or the 35 days 35 days will last. And if it is approved at City Council, then that doesn't actually approve the project that just approves the plan development district and then they have. period of time, I believe it's two years, to apply for a plan development special permit to actually do the project. And the special permit branding authority is city council for that. And then this would also be subject to site plan review, and that can be done concurrently or separately.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Danielle. So we have attorney Jonathan Silverstein of BBHS Law, retained by the city of Medford and is available as support and counsel for the board. He will assist the board in making any revisions to the amendment. Board members should feel free to ask questions. We now ask the applicant for Walkman Court to introduce themselves and present their proposal, mainly highlighting and pointing out the differences of what that will include of what's allowed there. um, what's there now and what will be allowed there for the PDD. Danielle, do you want to introduce, um, the applicant?

[Danielle Evans]: I believe, let's see who we have. Um, attorney Hannah Kilson is representing them. And I believe, um, we have Natalie Jansen from the Cambridge Housing Authority who is consulting, uh, for the, um, Medford Housing Authority. as well as Karsten Snow and see who else. There's a lot of them. We might want them to introduce themselves. There's our architect team, there's Gabe Ciccariello. So we have a full house here.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, if you have a presentation, you can introduce yourself as you go along. We will do that.

[Ciccariello]: Natalie you're going to all right now he's going to share the screen but good evening madam chair members of the board. I'm very nice to see you all again. My name is Gabe Chikarello I'm the director of modernization and procurement with the Medford housing authority. this evening to discuss our PDD 3 zoning amendment, which would allow for the redevelopment of Walkman Court in accordance with the City of Medford's comprehensive plan and housing production plan. But before we get into the PDD, we just have like a brief overview of our existing property and the proposed project. Danielle gave a brief introduction of who's here, but we do have a good contingent of our team here. So the Medford Housing Authority, we are the applicant. The Cambridge Housing Authority is assisting the Medford Housing Authority as our development consultant. Our council is here, Hannah Kilson from Nolan Sheen Patent. Our architectural team is here, and also our civil engineering team. So our architect is Dietz and Company Architects. And Lee Morrison is here, and Danny Garbo, and Tisha, and we also have representatives from our civil engineering team. So, we're going to go through a brief overview of Walkland Court, the PDD process, our requesting zoning amendment, and then leaving it open to questions and comments after the presentation. So currently, the overview of our walk-in development, it is currently 144 units of state-aided public housing for low-income seniors in disabled households. All units there are deeply affordable, with resident rents calculating at a maximum of 30% of their income. Walkman Court. Historically, it is our sole state development. Historically and currently has not received sufficient funding to operate, just to operate the development and address capital and physical needs. The development was built in 1963 and suffers from a few deficiencies. There's some pictures to the right of the slide. You can just see some of the typical conditions that we're dealing with at the buildings. But the main concern we have with the building for an elderly disabled development, it's the lack of accessibility features. So half of the units need to be assessed by stairs, which is not ideal for an elderly disabled population. We get a lot of recommendations or what we call reasonable accommodations for residents to move from a second floor unit down to a first floor unit. So this is a bird's eye view of the Walkling Court site, and it's a very interesting site. As you can see, there's a variety of things going on around its borders. To the west, you have commercial use with the Whole Foods and Starbucks. To the south of the site is the railroad tracks and an industrial zone which has mid-rise buildings. They're like five stories or so. And then to the south of the site, you have the amazing amenity of the Mystic River, I'm sorry, the north of the site, the Mystic River Reservation, and a couple typical Medford residential, two-family, two-story, single and two-family, two-story homes. And to the east of the site is your typical Medford residential neighborhood with single-family, two-family homes. So to the top right is just a picture coming out of Walkland Court onto Auburn Street. So it just kind of shows you what's going on as you enter or exit Walkland Court from that. There's currently two entrances to Walkland Court, one off of North Street and this one of Auburn Street. This is just showing a picture of the entrance from Auburn Street. And below is a picture from this would be kind of from the North street. There's a bridge over North street. This is kind of a picture looking down to the left. As you can see, this is a commercial or industrial mid rise buildings and you can see our. Development, this couple of our 2 story walk up garden flat buildings to the right. And again, this is just across the fence to the west of the site is the Whole Foods parking lot and the commercial space.

[Michael Ward]: So, I'm going to turn it over right now to Natalie Janssen.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I just want to just remind, as you go through, and I apologize for the interjection, is when you get to acronyms, if you can please just help the public and spell out any acronyms that may be used.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: Of course.

[Ciccariello]: Yep. Okay.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you so much for having us again. My name is Natalie Anson. I'm with the Cambridge Housing Authority. We've been working with Medford Housing Authority on the Walklake Court redevelopment. Before I pass it on to Hannah, who will go through, Hannah Kilson, who will go through the PDD amendment language in greater detail, I just wanted to talk about the project that we have at hand. So the Medford Housing Authority started the pre-development process for in January of 2020. Since then, there's been a design process to develop a site plan as well as the drawings for the different buildings. The main goals of the redevelopment are to provide high quality, accessible and deeply affordable housing to the existing residents. So it's essentially to replace and preserve the 144 existing units on site. The second goal is to increase the number of deeply affordable housing units on site. And so the Medford Housing Authority is proposing to build an additional 94 net new affordable units that would be for a total 238 units on site. As Gabe mentioned, it's an excellent location for affordable housing, given the fact that it is in very close proximity to transit, especially the new Green Line stop at Tufts, but also the future stop at the Mystic River. The other goals that we have for the site is through the redevelopment. There's a great opportunity here to improve the site's resiliency and sustainability. It will have to meet very high state and local requirements around that, as well as improve the site's connection to the surrounding neighborhood. So as Gabe mentioned, there's a lot of different uses around the site and a lot of different densities and the aerial view that you can see here shows how the various heights of the building and densities are carefully placed along the site to essentially reflect adjacencies. So the redevelopment of Wackling Court is a priority for the Medford Housing Authority, given the poor conditions on site. It's also a priority for the city of Medford. The fiscal year 2021-2025 City of Medford Housing Production Plan pinpoints Wackling Court as a place where the existing units need to be replaced. and that it's also a site where there's the potential of adding additional affordable housing, which is exactly what this project seeks to do. In addition, the 94 new deeply affordable units at Wockling would help the city of Medford meet 15% of its goal as part of its comprehensive plan to build 600 subsidized units. And I think a really important thing to remember when looking at this project is that all of the units that will be built on this site will be deeply affordable. What we mean by that is that they will all receive operating subsidy so that the tenant rent will be limited to 30% of a household's income. So this here essentially shows that aerial view, but now in site plan. So what we're looking at here is building A. It's a six-story senior mid-rise building for seniors and disabled residents. It is the one that's closest to the railroad tracks and across from it, the existing mid-rises that are located there in that industrial district. Building B is a four-story family mid-rise that will be elevator accessible. And then building C, E, and D essentially are adjacent to the surrounding residential fabric and reflect that two-story typology that you can see in that part of the hillside neighborhood. And then on the side here, you can see some renderings of the backyard space that will be a dedicated space for elderly and disabled residents. And then you can also see the family townhomes with the senior midrise in the back. So throughout the design and pre-development process, the MHA has led a very active and well-attended resident in neighborhood engagement process. There have been seven resident meetings, and as part of the last Community Development Board hearing on the planned development district, the MHA submitted 78 support letters from current residents of Walkland Court supporting the planned development district application There's also been five community meetings with neighbors of the site in order to gather feedback and to keep everyone updated on the project. In terms of notification to the neighbors for the community meetings, the MHA has received a list from the tax assessor's office of all property owners within 400 feet. of the property. That's what you're seeing here on this map in yellow. And in advance of those community meetings, they've sent out mailings to those addresses. In addition, they went further in the, you see the blue swath that's surrounded by West Street, Lyman, Ave and Boston Ave. They flyered those households to let them know of the community meetings and also posted notices on telephone poles. So if you're walking around in the neighborhood, you could be made aware of the community meetings that were all held at the community room at Walkling Court in order to ensure that people who lived around the property could easily access the community meetings. In addition to the resident and neighborhood engagement process, the Medford Housing Authority and the whole Walkling Court team has met with a variety of city departments to get feedback and incorporate that, including meeting with the fire department, the building department and the Department of Public Works. And there's also been a series of public meetings related to the Walkland Court redevelopment project as part of the Community Preservation Act funding that the Medford Housing Authority has applied for in order to support this project. So we wanted to just take a minute to talk about some of the key discussion topics that have come up in these meetings. So one of the first ones is related to density and height. So as part of the redevelopment of Waukland Court, one of the goals that the Medford Housing Authority has, and that's also included in the city of Medford housing production plan is to increase the number of affordable housing units on site. And so as part of the design, there will be the 144 existing units that are being replaced, but there would also be 94 net new units on site. All of those would be deeply affordable, and that would be expected to increase the number of residents on site by approximately 101%, and that's based on average occupancy rates of the Medford Housing Authority has for variety unit types. In terms of the height of the different buildings on site, you know, the senior mid-rise, which essentially has five stories of living space, with the first story that is dedicated entirely to covered parking for senior disabled residents, as well as extensive new community space. The family mid-rise itself is four stories. And the height here is needed because one of the key goals of the project is to provide elevator access to not just elderly disabled residents, but as well to families, that's a really rare building typology that is needed in the city. And this will essentially allow residents who have accessibility needs to age in place and stay in these properties longer. But in addition to that, the more efficient footprint coupled with the height allows for more programmable and accessible open space outside of the buildings. And then the way that the design team has been working through the addition of this density and height on site is by very carefully placing it so that different building typologies or building types, mid-rise, is next to adjacent uses that are complementary or reflect similar heights and densities. So for example, senior mid-rise isn't being placed next to the two-story residential homes along North Street and Auburn Street. That brings us to the next topic, which is the proximity to the railroad track of the senior mid-rise building. So these buildings that are currently on site were built in 1963 when both standards of construction were much lower in terms of noise, but also building materials. The current facade is being designed to meet HUD noise requirements, which are much stricter today than they were back in 1963. And we have an acoustical engineer on the design team who has provided recommendations in terms of how to detail that facade in order to meet those HUD noise requirements. That includes using high-performance windows, as well as additional insulation. So based on that, our expectation is that noise will be greatly improved from what residents currently experience today. And it's also important that as part of this redevelopment, we're providing high quality units that have central AC and that also have mechanical ventilation to ensure that people have good environmental air quality indoors. And as we just saw with the other project that came before us for the amendment to their site plan review, there are many examples of comparable buildings that are placed adjacent to railroad tracks, especially now that there's more emphasis on building transit oriented developments like Rockland Court. The other item that's been discussed at the public meetings is the addition of an access road that would cut through Walkland Court, this access road is being included to provide resident and visitor access to the new buildings on site, but it also plays a very important role in terms of ensuring emergency access. And the design team has met with the fire department to review the site plan and that new access road. And, you know, he's been very supportive of it. as we continue to develop the design, the pedestrian, the road will be designed in such a way to ensure pedestrian safety. The other two things that are related to this topic is parking has come up as a question. So the current parking on site is 0.28 parking spaces per unit. And we will be increasing that in order to essentially make sure that parking needs for the development are met on site. And this is based on usage for low-income seniors and families that MHA has as part of their portfolio. And we also had a traffic impact survey done by Niche Engineering to look at any kind of traffic impacts of the new development and they determined that no traffic mitigation measures were warranted for this project. The final issue that I'm going to bring up is related to environmental issues. So the site is built on urban fill, and as part of the pre-development, we had a phase one and a phase two environmental site assessment done. And these site assessments found a variety of different contaminants that are pretty typical to a site that is made out of urban fill. So that means that as part of this redevelopment, there will be asbestos remediation, as well as soil removal. Those will have to meet state and federal requirements. And during construction, there will be monitoring to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled. And lastly, There's no environmental impact statement that's needed for this project because the project does not meet any of the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act thresholds. They're not exceeded as part of this project. So that brings us to the overview of the PDD process. So, Walkland Court is currently designed as, or not designed, it's currently zoned as apartment one. we had four pre-application meetings with the city in the spring and in the summer to discuss the planned development district as a potential option to essentially receive zoning that would allow for the redevelopment of Watling Fork to proceed in accordance with the housing production plan and the comprehensive plan. We submitted that PDD application on August 8th, of this year, had the first Community Development Board hearing on September 6. It then went to the City Council, who then referred it back to the CDB on September 19. And throughout this process, we've been working with the city and their attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, on the PDD3 zoning amendment, which I will now pass it on to our Council, Hannah Kilson, to describe in greater detail.

[Kilson]: Hannah Kilson, BOEB, she, her, hers, and hers. in Boston at 84 State Street. I want to do an overview of the zoning amendment and respond to the opening request of us, which was to give you context against current zoning. To begin, I'd like to make the point that the purpose for the PDD-3 and PDDs in general is to give Developers, the necessary flexibility right to redevelop and in this case, the housing authority, the ability to redevelop walk in court site so that it can address the shortage of accessible and affordable housing in Medford. So, the 1st element to remark on this PDD 3 zoning amendment is the permitted uses that will be made available on the site as a result of the PDD. So, the PDD would only have residential uses. and an accessory general office uses permitted on the site. There would be no other types of uses allowed on the site. The proposed PDD provides that the following uses are permitted as of right, which are the detached single-family dwelling, the attached single-family dwelling, the detached two-family dwelling, both class A and class B multiple dwellings, and senior housing independent living facility. Currently class B multiple dwellings are not permitted in an apartment one district and nor are and all senior housing facilities require a special permit. So the this which the PDD would allow for the development of the of the site for a class B multiple dwelling, which is one which has no more than 75 feet and six stories. There would be residential uses that would be permitted by special permit, and those are noted here with dormitory fraternity and sorority houses, lodging and boarding houses, and other senior housing facilities, which are also currently in an apartment one district permitted by special permit. And then the other use, as I noted at the beginning, was that there would be accessory general office use would be permitted as of right associated with the residential use. And this permitted use would enable the management offices to be located within the multifamily dwelling for the development. So that's residential uses. I'd like to turn now to talk about the dimensional provisions in the PDD amendment, which as I noted before, really give the project the flexibility needed to build this highly needed type of housing in Medford. So the maximum number of principal structures, there would be no limit in terms of the number of principal structures permitted on the site under the PDD. but all principal structures would need to be at least 15 feet apart from one another. Currently on the site, there are nine structures on the site. There's residential buildings, a small garage, and the community center. It is my understanding that there's a recent amendment or a proposed amendment that postdates our application that is now supposed to allow for multiple buildings on in an apartment one district. But I haven't, I'm unclear on the status of that. So for the purposes of our amendment, we continue to include that provision so that we can have the multiple buildings on this site. As Natalie described in her presentation, we are through this PDD increasing the density at the site in order to allow us to achieve the objectives of creating more affordable housing. What does that look like? It looks like that our minimum lot area, though the base is 10,000 square feet, in an apartment one, it then is really calculated based on dwelling units. And we would allow for 750 square feet per dwelling unit rather than what would be generated kind of through a formula that you have in your zoning that would generate a requirement of 940. square feet per dwelling unit for development of the size that we would be proposing here, which is 238 units. The other element of density to note here is also that the maximum lot coverage, we are proposing that maximum lot coverage would be 35 percent. The design puts our lot coverage actually at 30%, which is also what is in an apartment one district. But here we've done that to just allow for some flexibility in the design. The other two pieces of density that I just want to call out to the board relates to open space. The landscaped open space would be 10% in this PDD, and it is 10% in an apartment one district. The usable open space, given the way in which we will reconfigure the development, will be 10% as well of the gross floor area. And this usable space, though lower than the 25% that is in an apartment one district actually will be as designed, more accessible, and in fact, more usable than the existing open space that's on the site. I think the other density piece, Natalie, can you go to the next slide? Because I think we should talk about height and stories. This PDD3 has two uses that we are proposing. One is multiple dwelling, class A and class B. Another use is attached single family dwellings. And so height is correlated to those uses. So for multiple dwellings, we are looking at maximum of 75 feet and six stories. And for the attached single-family dwellings, we are looking at a maximum height of 35 and three stories. In an apartment one district, where attached single-family dwellings height in stories is the same as is being proposed in this PDD. And as I mentioned before, only multiple dwelling class A's are currently permitted within an apartment one district. The front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks that are being proposed here, 15 feet on the front yard, 10 on the side yard, and 15 on the rear yard, reflect the current structure of the site as it is today. We are continuing that. In the current zoning on apartment one district, the front yard is 10 feet, the side yard is 10 feet, And the for single family, and it is 15 feet rear yard. So, somewhat similar, but this really is what is currently on the on the property and we're not making any change from what is existing currently existing there in the development. And the last 2 things to remark on is frontage on the. but could you go back Natalie to the lot configuration? So any lot on this PDD3 has to have a frontage of 35 feet, a width of 35 feet and a depth of 75 feet. And that's similar to the current requirements for attached single family dwellings. And so we're continuing that here. The last dimensional piece I think that I would note to the board, and Natalie noted it in her presentation, was just parking. The proposed parking requirements under this PDD amendment would be the same parking requirement that's imposed on affordable housing developments under the current zoning ordinance for Medford, which is one space per two units. And so we would be continuing that. Um, and in fact, the development as Natalie mentioned, we'll build more, uh, enough spaces to comply with that, uh, which is more than the existing ratio of parking on site. I think that concludes kind of my overview, um, on the zoning provisions of how the PDD would modify what currently applies to this site in order to allow us to redevelop Lockling Fort and make it both more accessible and expand its affordability.

[Unidentified]: Are there any questions? I'm happy to answer those now. Thank you so much attorney Kilson.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, when I conclude your presentation, I'm going to open it up to the city staff to add anything. Any questions from the city staff.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you madam chair, we've had many conversations with the housing authority about this, so I don't believe that we have any questions or clarifications at this time, but if there's anything we can answer for the board, we're also happy to.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. In that case, are there any questions clarifying questions from the board?

[Peter Calves]: Uh, I don't have any questions, but as I, as I noted, the last time this meeting came up as. I work for niche engineering, I will be refusing myself from this session. Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Madam chair, I've got a question.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, please go ahead.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: I saw that in the presentation, noting that the green line phase 2 being prominent in that. Uh, and that, uh, description, uh, has there been any talk or any confirmation. Between the housing authority and the MBTA regarding the extension of the line to. As shown in the diagram.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I don't know if the Housing Authority wants to address that, but I could give you an update on the Green Line extension phase two. The next step in that would be to have the state do an environmental review to determine the environmental impacts of an extension to Route 16. And that is something that our legislative delegation and a number of elected officials are working to get that environmental review funded. And that would be the next step before there would be any level of commitment to actually building it. And so, since I've been party to those conversations, I want to let you know that's where it stands. The Housing Authority couldn't have any guarantees from the state on building. Simply, we're waiting for the, we're hoping for an environmental review first.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: My, my question revolves around, like, the extension up to Medford substation right now has been built. By moving the current 2 tracks for the community rail on the other side and adding 2 more tracks. On the right side to accommodate for the green line, the green line trains. So, if we do so, and the current location, wouldn't that come much closer to. uh, where the new building is being built. And if, uh, if that is so, I see there's like 25 parking spots on the, uh, back end towards the station that might be affected as well. So that's the reason I'm, uh, having the questions here.

[Alicia Hunt]: Excellent question. That I would have to defer to the housing authority.

[Kilson]: Can I just ask a clarification? Is the question that there's the concern that the, that the, those spaces would be lost because the T would take those areas?

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, like the space required to add 2 more tracks might result in some more additional land or at least some space being given to add those 2 tracks. uh, besides the commuter rail tracks, which are there right now. So that's why I was thinking maybe it's a good idea to have some initial talks with the T about if they have any plans of where the track alignment is going to be like.

[Kilson]: I don't think to date we've had any conversations with them on that point, but thank you for putting that in front of us.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: All right, I do have a second question, if I may. Absolutely. The traffic study performed by NIST engineering seems to be during the time of COVID. I think it's October 2020, if I'm not mistaken. And the study area is about 400 square feet around the walking court area. Looking at the numbers, it seems like, uh, like they made some adjustments as well as taken 2018 as the baseline for the graphic data. Uh, like, uh. I've been through that area quite a few times and with the Greenland extension being completed now, the traffic does seem to have increased a lot. I'm not sure if that current data, the data being used is relevant at this time or not. So I just want to make sure that proper adjustments has been made in the traffic data. to reflect what is currently, uh, present at that locations.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much, actually, um, uh, Shirab for that question. Um, and that, and that second part, I think that that would be more related in site plan. And, and one of the things I want to remind the board of tonight is that the discussion is limited to amendment questions surrounding language in recommending, um, the zoning ordinance back to the city council. However, um, um, I'm going to defer to Attorney Silverstein. I just think I saw your hand up if you want to add something there.

[Silverstein]: It was up, Madam Chair, but you stole my thunder. That's exactly what I was going to say, that any questions about the specifics of the project, specific impacts, I just wanted to assure the board that there's going to be another opportunity. to the site plan review process, and then the council ultimately still has to issue a special permit. So all of those specific project impact inquiries can be addressed at that point. And as you said, this is really just about clearing the way, creating the path for the applicant to submit an application.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much attorney, so staying again, just to recap approval of the zoning doesn't necessarily approve the project. We still have to do our due diligence with the site plan review. So we will save that for then. Are you all set? Or do you have any other questions?

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I am. Thank you very much.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Are there any other questions from the board? Not at this time. Thank you, chair. So, I am going to open it up for public comment. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the comments. You can also send an email to OCD at medford-ma.gov. Individuals may have up to two minutes to provide comments. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. Please do not use the staff to provide comments as it is not a part of the public record and just so that the public understands. That's why the chat feature has been disabled so that we can capture all of your comments for public record. The first hand that I saw, well, Danielle is going to manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails and letters. But I do know that Ms. Roberta Cameron was the very first person to put her hand up. And I'll let Danielle take it from there.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, Roberta is the 1st person on the participant list for the hand up.

[Unidentified]: You're muted Roberta.

[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you very much for recognizing me, Roberta Cameron 12 North Street. I am chair of the Community Preservation Committee which provided significant funding for this project as was mentioned previously, and I'm also a neighbor of this development being located just across the street on North Street from the project site. And I wanted to reiterate comments that I provided in the past about the importance of this project for increasing accessible, comfortable housing for seniors. There is not a better alternative to be able to improve the quality of living for seniors at the walk lane court development site for those who currently live there and it will add additional housing for seniors as well as for families and for families and young adults with disabilities at the site. It is incredibly important for the city to increase its supply of affordable housing and throughout the city in every possible, every appropriate location. And this location is appropriate. As was mentioned before, there has been a significant amount of new development just in the past few years in similar proximity to the same train line in Somerville and as proposed in Medford. The standards today will provide for a better quality of life for those living near the train line than was provided in 1962 when these units were built originally. In fact, as shown in the proposed plan, although I understand that it's not cast in stone, that the permitting process will provide opportunities for refining the plans, but some of the existing units are closer to the tracks than the proposed units. So I think that this development is going to hold the Housing Authority to a higher standard. of quality of housing units than what they currently provide. And I want to see the seniors have higher quality units and I want to see more people be able to access affordable housing in my own neighborhood. than can currently live here. And I also am not concerned about the impact of a through street, although originally I had strongly preferred the idea of Not having a through street through this, through this development, but having seen alternatives considered and weighed and evaluated by the housing authority and their development team. I'm persuaded that this really is the best option and that it can be designed in a way that will. That will prioritize pedestrians walking through the site and I would. hope that the Community Development Board and the City Council will approve zoning that enables this project to move forward and will help the Housing Authority to refine the site plan so that it really prioritizes the needs of the residents on this site and the neighbors in the neighborhood. Thank you very much.

[Unidentified]: Next on the list is Kate.

[Danielle Evans]: If you want to unmute and give your full name and address.

[Kate Ryan]: My name is Kate Ryan, I live at 15 Canal Street in Medford, and I am a person who could be a potential resident of these new houses. I am multiply disabled with a progressive disease, and I am desperate for accessible housing, which does not currently exist enough of in Medford. Many of the Medford Housing Authority sites for seniors and disabled people are sadly inaccessible. And I'm really, really sorry that a lot of the neighbors don't want to have me as their neighbor, but I assure you that the people who live here and who live there and who are going to live there are just as deserving of clean, nice, new housing as anyone else, despite the fact that we may be born with broken brains or develop broken bodies over the years, or just grow old as hopefully all of you will do. I cannot express how wonderful this development would be for people with disabilities and for everyone. And the fact that we might not have as much money does not mean that we do not equally contribute to the community. And if anyone would like, by the way, to trade one of the nice shiny new units for anyone's disability, I'm sure we would all be very, very happy to.

[Unidentified]: Nobody takes me up on that. Okay, next is Chris Bennett.

[Chris Bennett]: I was trying to unmute myself, but I was not allowed to unmute myself, so I had to wait until you unmuted me. I have a couple of concerns. I was reading over the reports that I saw, and there were a couple of factors that I thought were kind of interesting. To create sustainable climate resilient buildings to last 40 plus years was kind of a mind boggling thing to me, considering the fact that The current buildings that we are looking at in Walkling Court were built, what, 70 years ago? And we're saying, okay, we're gonna build you some new buildings that will last 40 plus years, which doesn't tell me a lot. So then it brings me into the fact that we're building these massive buildings, and I've seen how walk-in court has been maintained. And I look at that as a comparison to the federal building, which is like the Riverside Ave buildings. And the stuff has been maintained for a very, very long time. So we're gonna build all of these pristine brand new buildings. And I'm looking at how are they going to be maintained? I'm looking at the fact that they're not utilizing appropriate traffic patterns and what goes on in those traffic patterns in that area. When we're talking about a through street, they actually made the major street going up by the Brooks School, you could not take a left turn there because there were so many traffic accidents. You can just look on the corner and see everything broken down. So there's just so many things I'm looking at saying, This is not an appropriate setting to put so many buildings into one area. the amount of traffic that it's going to increase. It has nothing to do with not wanting housing there as the previous person spoke about. It has nothing to do with not wanting affordable housing. It has to do with looking at it in an appropriate way to determine whether or not this in fact is going, how this is going to impact all of the surrounding area. This is a neighborhood.

[Amanda Centrella]: Sorry to interrupt, Chris. I'm just letting you know that you're at your two minutes.

[Chris Bennett]: Okay, and what about the person that was there? Well, the person that was there prior to, that was talking about, the person that was a North Street resident spoke much longer than two minutes. So I'm just stating, there's a lot of major issues and there has not been enough time for the people that are going to be impacted this directly. And I consider myself one of them, I live on Martin Street in Medford, that that's going to have a direct impact on me. I'm a walker, I walk through that area all the time. and they're not looking at all of those aspects.

[Unidentified]: Susan Gerard.

[Gerard]: I do believe, I guess to answer the previous speaker, that the traffic is being looked at. I believe they're looking at a minimal number of cars for these particular residents, but I really wanted to speak about why it's needed. I don't live in the area, so I'm not a neighbor. I'm not impacted in that way, but I used to tutor an immigrant woman who lived in in that project and she had pancreatic cancer and she could no longer get up those stairs and luckily was able to move to another senior housing they did eventually move her to another senior housing. because she was so severely disabled and the project wasn't going to work for her. She was moved to one with an elevator. But in my church, I've had a number of friends who cannot afford even the, quote, affordable rents in Medford, but were qualified for senior housing. But the waiting lists are years long, like two years long. And a couple of them were actually facing imminent homelessness. Some of them lived with us for periods of time where they eventually got public housing in other cities. They had to move out of Medford. So, I mean, there is a crying need for seriously affordable housing. And I've lived in Medford for 40 years. And to me, this is the most, the first really exciting public housing that I've seen happen that is truly affordable. So I know there are concerns about parking and traffic and all those. I do believe they're being seriously addressed. And as far as the maintenance goes, you pointed out, I think that the federal buildings are better maintained, but I think, someone will correct me, this will be partially a federal building. This will be turned over to the, in part, to the federal government, who does a better job of maintaining buildings than, alas, our state does. And someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Andrei Golosov. Hello, can you hear me?

[Goloso]: Can you hear me?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, yes.

[Goloso]: Okay, my name is Andrei Golosov from 3 North and Ave, so I live very close by. I think it's a, you know, it's a great attempt to actually to address the shortage of affordable housing. However, I kind of believe that a few things needs to be addressed. One is, of course, brought by Sharag that the traffic and other people, the traffic needs to be reassessed because it was reassessed at the pandemic time. But the main focus actually I want to bring up is that it seems to be that the current proposal actually puts elderly and disabled at the biggest disadvantage. respect to the noise from the rail track, because they're the building going to be up front. While the families without actually disabilities will live in the townhouses, you know, shielded from noise by actually those buildings. And it's, you know, kind of, that's kind of the main concern. And the, you know, many elderly people actually have problems with sleep And therefore doing things like that, you know, is not actually is a great thing. And, um, you know, why not choose a different orientation of buildings like they have right now? Um, some of them perpendicular to the rail tracks. And also the other thing is the location out where you put the more senior and the elderly, uh, people. And also, you know, you have where you have townhouses, townhouses are not the most efficient use of the land. You have two story buildings there, so why not upgrade it? Yeah, thank you for your consideration.

[Unidentified]: Paul.

[SPEAKER_23]: Good evening, everyone. My name is Paul Ferrazani. I live at 4 North Nav, which is very, very close. Some of the concerns that I'm seeing are, you know, everything that everybody's mentioned, the traffic is out of control and parking and all of that. My thing is, this is going to be great for the elderly and for the disabled. I have a son who's disabled. And I would love to see housing for those people at an affordable rate. I don't think families should be there. I think it should only be for elderly and disabled like it was started back in the 60s. I think adding more families to the area uh, is going to cause a lot of, I guess, issues. So, uh, it's just too many people. Um, we need to figure out, you know, what's the list look like for elderly and for disabled and accommodate them. Okay. Uh, I don't know what else to say about that. Uh, it's just, it's like taking 10 pounds of, you know, what, and putting it in a two pound bag. And that's what's going on need to, you know, really, really look at the numbers. And, um, I think we should focus on the elderly and the disabled.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Sorry, I'm going to scroll down here. William Navarre.

[William Navarre]: Hi there, thank you for recognizing me. 108 Medford Street. I just want to say that I support this project. We need more housing. A lot of people want to live in the city. including elderly, disabled, and yes, indeed, families. I really think that we have a lot. I don't think Medford is full. I don't think any of our neighborhoods are full. I don't think there's any reason to think that. that any amount of people coming in is 10 pounds of you-know-what. I don't think that that's a realistic, reasonable way to talk about people. I don't think that a previous commenter was even talking about any people in specific, just that there's a problem of too many people. But I walk around and I don't see that. I don't see that our sidewalks are crowded or when you go to the grocery store, you can't get inside because I just don't see that. So I don't think we're overflowing with people. And I think we have room for more of all kinds. And I think that the idea should be that eventually we accommodate more people in Medford in general, but I really like the idea that we're going to start by housing our most vulnerable members of the community. That's not where we stop. Everybody deserves housing, but it's a really great place to start, you know, by housing the disabled, The elderly, which is the focus of the project, and yes, a pretty small number of families of very modest means. That's a really good place to start to welcome more people into our community, I think. And that's what we need to do if we're gonna solve the housing crisis. We want people to be able to live near the city so they're not driving a million miles, causing traffic on our highways and creating pollution and et cetera, et cetera. So I really support this. I don't think Medford is full. I don't think we have 10 pounds of anything, a two-pound anything. So I hope that the Community Development Board reports favorably on the project or the zoning necessary to make the project allowed. Thanks.

[Danielle Evans]: Next is Mark Curtis.

[Mark Curtiss]: Thanks, Danielle. Mark Curtis, 89 Train Path Street in Medford. I mean, this is deeply needed. When I first saw the plans for the redevelopment of Auckland Court, I was really impressed by how thoughtfully designed it was, the way the buildings were placed, the scale building up away from single-family homes into the higher density for the senior buildings in the back. It's very attractive, so much more attractive than what is there now. And, you know, what's there now is it's outdated, it's in poor condition, it's not accessible as people have talked about. And it badly needs new capital, which the Housing Authority just has not been able to get for many, many years. And this is such a great opportunity. They've done a fantastic job of assembling the resources to and having the vision for a project that will not only address the needs of the current residents and improve their quality of life, but also bring some very much needed affordable family housing to Medford. You know, we've got one in five renters that pay more than 50% of their income for rent. It's not an affordable place to live. It's hard for people to find affordable apartments, and this is providing deeply affordable apartments. The zoning, we're being asked to consider tonight is what unlocks the potential to redevelop the site. And I know there was an earlier comment about the operations and maintenance and how it hasn't been well maintained. That is about the existing state funding and this is going to be funded with a lot of federal money.

[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.

[Danielle Evans]: Diane McKenney.

[McKinney]: Hi, everybody. I'm Diane McKenney. I live at Carlton Road in Tewksbury. Even though I do not live in Medford, my family has owned the lot directly adjacent to this property and is currently in a house directly in abutting this property. So I feel like I have some standing in this conversation. Um, aside from the traffic study issue, I mean, it is five years old. It's been addressed. I am not disputing the fact that that walk-in court drastically needs to be improved. It needs to be gutted. It needs to be ADA compliant. There needs to be more affordable housing in the Medford area. And in that area, my concern is with putting a six story building in that neighborhood. They're from what I understand is 1000 plus petition from the neighbors that are in that area that, you know, have some drastic concerns and they really haven't been addressed. I don't hear about any. Any other discussions about maybe scaling back on the six story building or maybe making all of the buildings like a four story so that way you can shift and still have a reasonable amount of additional units to the pool. But I just think that some of the concerns for the people that have been in these meetings, have been calling in, are just not being addressed. And as I said, not disputing the fact that this is drastically needed, we just have a problem with the size and the scale of this project. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Patricia Berry. And can you hear me. Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, thank you. Um, as I stated earlier tonight, I live on Taylor Street and method. And even though it isn't within the 400. Feet of this area, it is my area. It is walking distance. Walking distance to my residents. There are numerous things that will affect the environment that will affect the area that will impact. The quality of life for anybody in the area. Neighbors in the area are not disputing putting walk-in court as to seniors or even affordable housing. We welcome any of these people. We welcome everyone. And to impact my statement, I'm 65 and I am disabled. I don't have issue with anyone coming into the neighborhood. However, as stated earlier, there are over 1100 people who haven't had the opportunity to voice their opinions because this has been kept in such secrecy amongst those that are beyond that 400 foot area that are impacted by this. due to just the overall congestion, elderly needs being met or being able to be met. I would be interested in seeing how many times the fire department gets called into walk-in court, the police get called into walk-in court, and whether or not they will even be able to properly access that area with all the new development that's being pushed through. And the statement that was made earlier in regards to... Hi, Patricia, apologies for interrupting.

[Amanda Centrella]: Just want to let you know you're at time.

[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, fine. Conveniently for everybody, but okay, fine. Thank you. I would rather see this reviewed again to the public. And give full public notice on this.

[Danielle Evans]: I believe that is all of the. People here at the meeting, we have 1 more Kyle.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, hi, thank you. Uh, this is Kyle Joyce at 29 North street related to Diane McKinney who spoke earlier? Um, I do have a few concerns 1 again, being the height of the building just because I'm at 29, the 6 story I imagine based on the direction of the sun and where the building is located, uh, would just shade out the house. I know that's a personal issue, but it is six stories. It does seem a little excessive for this kind of neighborhood. I would request maybe a four story and then another building added onto the lot if possible. I have looked at the site, the plans, but I don't know if there's any ground left over for that. The other concern I have is the ground. I just have a hard time believing that if a coal and oil company was there previously, that there's no. Contaminants in the soil, and if they're going to be digging and doing construction for 2 or 3 years. If there is anything in that ground, whether it's asbestos or because I know they called it the dump as like a slang term. I know it wasn't a dump. Um. I'm just, you know, back then regulations were different. I'm concerned with environmental pollutants. So if we can't go over that in this meeting. could someone link either the studies done, I believe last meeting, someone said that there was a phase one EIS done. I would like to look at that documentation or any other documentation regarding pretty much anything with this development. Again, as someone who's part of that 1,000 that signed this, I'm not against people getting housing. I'm totally for it, but there are major concerns. So if people have on their own time the ability to read what has already been established, I think it would settle a lot of concerns that residents have, um. Because, you know, we're directly affected by that again. I'm completely okay with them building it. I just don't want to be breathing in stuff. That's going to kill me in 20 years. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Um, we have person.

[Danielle Evans]: A-N, Ann, if you could state your name and address.

[Anita Nagem]: Yes, my name is Anita Nagum. I live at 9 Norton Avenue, which is within the 400-foot distance from Laughlin Court. I've been to almost every community meeting, and I'm aware of only one change that was made in response to the community feedback, and that was the addition of a speed bump. Um, I am in favor of redevelopment of walking court. We certainly need. Better housing for seniors. I've been I have friends who live at walking court. I've been in some of the apartments. They need serious work. There are neighborhood concerns though, and the Medford housing authority was. and it still is, very unfamiliar with the neighborhood. When they started developing this, they didn't even know that there was a playground half a block away. They do not understand the traffic issues in the area. When Route 16 backs up, people turn onto Auburn Street and cut through to get through to Winthrop to avoid waiting in traffic. That is why virtually every street between Winthrop and North Street has been made into a one-way going east to west to prevent the cut-throughs. If you put a wider road through Walkland Court, it will be a magnet for even more traffic, and it will increase the wrong-way drivers on the other streets between North Street and Winthrop Street. and one other issue that the Medford Housing Authority does not understand. The railroad tracks have been a dividing line between the residential neighborhood and the commercial district on the other side. It is disingenuous to say that just because there's a six-story building on the other side of the tracks that it's appropriate to put one on the residential side. I have serious concerns about a six-story building. It will put shadows on

[Amanda Centrella]: Some of the buildings, the houses need apologies for interrupting, just letting you know you're at time.

[Anita Nagem]: Okay, I'm almost done. There are single story houses on that block. And the property, the owners of those properties need to be respected while this development goes on.

[Danielle Evans]: OK, I don't see any other hands raised. We did receive emails. There's another hand that just popped up. OK. Dave.

[Unidentified]: Name and address for the record, please.

[Peters]: Hi, sorry I was muted. David Peters, 17 North Street. I'm direct butter to the property. I'd like to reiterate what most people say, and the more than 1,100 people that have signed the petition. And again, we are not opposed to the redevelopment over there. We believe that the elderly and disabled need housing and that, you know, These buildings over there certainly can use update, but we are opposed to the scale of this. It causes, I can repeat what everybody else said, but I just wanted to reiterate that. I think there has been no compromise by the Medford Housing Authority. All the meetings we went to, all the proposals went in one ear and out the other. They had their design and they were going through it from the beginning. And there should be some discussion on compromise and the effects to the residents. Thank you.

[Danielle Evans]: Right, I don't see any other people looking to speak. We did receive emails and all of those up till tonight, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Alicia and Amanda, we had emails that we put into the public comment folder for the board up until I think 6.20 tonight. I have any coming, Since 6-20?

[Alicia Hunt]: Those weren't the ones that 6-20 were included and the only comments since then were actually Amanda or we had been clarifying people's name addresses for the record. And so some responses with addresses came in, but not new comments. I was trying to do a count and a summary, of all of the letters, actually I'm very close. There were a lot of them, there was one thing that was repeated several times in letters that I thought perhaps the housing authority could clarify. There seemed to be comments that this was gonna increase the population and the car, the traffic by 250 to 300%, which I'm not sure where those numbers were coming from, but did you, can we just clarify it's, Currently there's about 144 units and you're adding 94 units. That's not 200%, that's not 300%.

[Ciccariello]: I think one of the abutters was, oh yeah, go ahead Natalie, I'll let you handle that.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: I was just gonna say that. So we did see that comment going around and we do have projected occupancy for this property that's based on average occupancy rates in the Medford Housing Authority portfolio based on one bedrooms, two bedrooms for seniors, and then one, two, three bedrooms for families. So we know historically how big the households have been who have lived in those units. And so one statistic that I'd like to put out there is that for senior households in the Medford Housing Authority portfolio, 92% of all seniors live alone. So they're very small households, and that is the majority of the site is senior housing. There's 40 units of family housing, but 198 would be for seniors. So when we do the calculations based on these historical occupancy rates, what we find is that the increase of residents on site, it would increase by 101%.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. And we could, um, uh, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the letters were, uh, opposed and as a general rule, just to quickly summarize for the board, um, They had very, very similar themes, concerned about being up against the train tracks, concerned about traffic congestion, concerned about, I think I finally had somebody explain in these public comments, the concern about the cut through, which I've never quite grasped because Auburn Street and North Street allow the exact same movement that this other road would. But, And apparently people then drive the wrong ways down the runway streets. That is something that is actually very helpful for us to know that we will ask the traffic department to get better about being there in the morning to patrol that. That's a solution that we solve with our police, not by limiting the number of people who live in a neighborhood. There were also 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 letters in support, two of whom identified themselves as residents of the current Walkling Court, saying that they would very much like to have new apartments up to dated apartments accessible, etc. I feel like those are generally what was in the letters, but the board has the whole letters, all of them at their disposal and had some of the earlier ones. Most of these really apply to the site plan review concerns, in my opinion.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, we have a additional person who has not spoken yet tonight. And page Lieberman on YouTube.

[Unidentified]: Sorry, yes, my name is Matthew can you hear me.

[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Yes. Okay, sorry. My name is Matthew page Lieberman I live in 15 Canal Street. I'm extremely thankful for all the work that everybody's been doing for this. I support it completely. I think I've attended some of these meetings, been following the process. I think it's been extremely well done, and it's very good for the community. Thank you all for bringing this through, and I'm looking forward to the city really benefiting from it. Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, there's one person who has spoken before previously, and there are no new additional written comments.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Cal, please go ahead. Danielle, can you unmute Cal?

[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, madam chair. Um, just 1 quick clarification. This only came up after I was going to make another comment or question rather, um, when it comes to people driving on the. Uh, 1 way streets in the wrong direction. They don't just do that in the morning or during rush hour. Uh, they do that all day. Even 1112. A clock at night, two in the morning, I'll be taking my dog out on the weekend. They do it all the time. And one other note, there are people that drive maybe 50 miles an hour down the lower address numbers of North Street on the Whole Foods side, and they will speed over the bridge that goes towards Boston Ave. And that mainly happens at night and on the weekends. They fly down. So that just, you know, I've told the police before on the non-emergency line, but I haven't seen a speed trap. Um, but my original question was, in regards to my previous comment, um, you know, I see on the courtesy notice here from the community development board that, you know, there's the URL for the city events and the community development board under current filings. Um, could you please just tell me with everyone listening because it would be helpful. Is there a repository or a page where it has all of the documentation when it comes to the EIS and the site plan and everything else? Just so people can look at that at their own leisure.

[Alicia Hunt]: So everything that's been provided to the community development board is available through current filings. I can put a more direct link to that in here. I don't know that the housing authority has provided the environmental impact statement as part of this filing. I know that also Gabe, if you would like to speak to, I know you have some materials on the house, housing authority website, but I don't want to speak to that.

[SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Thank you, Director.

[Unidentified]: And that's it.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: I can make a note about the environmental site assessment. So we do describe them in the application, the findings. And so in the PDD application, you can find that. There is, I believe the other term that was used was an environmental impact statement, and we don't, that doesn't apply to this project where we have our phase one and phase two environmental site assessments.

[Unidentified]: Sorry, thank you so much.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I actually was going to just refer to the actual application as read last as was noted last previous meeting on where the findings were and what is being done for environmental site assessment. And at this time, if you can also just I'm going to refrain from the parking and anything else that does not deal directly with the amendment and outside of the. The actual zoning itself, but if you can just tell us a little bit more at this point. Just to reiterate what has been done. As far as environmental, not so much mediation as of yet, but what has been done as far as environmental impacts on the site. Assuming that it's not in the actual that no one has can grab it right now.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: So, um, I see that has a way Valdez has raised his hand from person. O'Neill did the phase 1 and phase 2 environmental assessment. So if we could. Let him answer this question. That would be great.

[Unidentified]: Yes, please.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: You need to unmute yourself.

[3gvhm0AovZU_SPEAKER_19]: Sorry. So, Natalie, thank you for the introduction. And like, yeah, like, like Natalie mentioned, we've done on phase one and phase two to help people understand what a phase one and phase two is like a phase one. It's kind of like more like a desktop review in which you go and you find anything that it's online about the history of the site from an environmental perspective. And depending on your findings, then you come up with an action plan of, okay, what do I do now to figure out what's really going in, what's really here based on my findings. And then you go to a phase two in which you actually put grounds on the floor and you start doing testings and borings. And for people to really understand is digging into the earth, into the soil, taking samples and testing it for any type of contaminants that were red flagged during the phase one, which is kind of the high level review. So we've done that and now we are even going further to what it is a phase three. Phase three is when now you've kind of like understood kind of, okay, this is what's on the site. And now I need to fully delineate the limits of impacted soil. As it was said before, the site, it's mostly comprised of urban fill, which it will have certain compounds. that are regulated by state agencies and federal agencies. And to make this short and to make it clear, what's going to happen here is that we are still ongoing to fully delineate the impacted soils. There is ongoing investigations right now. We are working on that right now, but we can't go into construction, until we've had agreed with the state and federal agencies that regulate these compounds and the contaminants, an action plan to clean the site. So the site is going to have to be cleaned. And by clean, I mean that any compounds that are above the threshold, that's one requirement. And number two, that are also above the historic fill threshold, it's going to have to be removed and disposed in accordance with the state and federal regulations. That means landfills or any type of special sites that will take the soils depending on the compounds that were found in there. So the site will be cleaned. So once this project is done, any type of compounds that are above the thresholds for states and federal agencies or historic urban field is gonna be removed from the site. That's a requirement. Once we find something in there, there is no turning back. Once we find something in there that is above any of these thresholds, we need to notify these agencies. And once we notify these agencies, a clock start going on. And we have now deadlines, like within this amount of time, you need to come with a plan. Within this amount of time, you need to actually take action. So that's where we are standing. Still more investigation ongoing, but we will make sure, well, as part of the process, we need to make sure that the site has been remediated by the end of the construction process.

[SPEAKER_35]: And Jose, could you talk just a little bit about, like, there's always urban fill in urban areas because the land has been disturbed. so that some of what you're seeing is not that uncharacteristic of just normal urban sites. Granted, there are some uniqueness to this site, but if you could just talk about it in kind of a broader way about how similar it is rather than dissimilar, I think that would be helpful.

[3gvhm0AovZU_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, so we have not found anything that it's not common for for these type of areas right like once you have urban feel and especially back in the days it was not regulated so you could take soil from anywhere put it in there that's it call it a day put grass so because it was not regulated um state and federal agencies are doing their best to kind of like to try to like you can't go and fully demolish a site just to clean it right it it wouldn't work who's paying for that so what the state and federal agencies are doing now is that every time a new construction is going to happen or earth is going to be disturbed they want to make sure that the remediation happens so we A good thing here is that we have not found any real contaminants on the groundwater, like below any thresholds. So that's good. So even though there's some compounds in the soil, it's not really leaching to the groundwater. So everything is staying within that buffer in between the groundwater and finished ground elevation. But going back to what Marguerite was trying to make the point is that, yes, I don't wanna get too technical into which compounds are here, because again, that will probably be a little bit harder to grasp, but there is nothing that we've seen here that kind of like, it's uncommon for this type of site. So there is no real new concerns that have come up from the additional investigations. These additional investigations is not really trying to understand what's there, it's more trying to delineate the limits so we can fully understand how much volume of soil needs to be disposed during the construction process.

[Kilson]: I would just add to that, just as a point of reference, is that for financing purposes, none of the parties that would finance the construction of this project will allow financing to go forward without updated environmental reports that explain fully the current condition, environmental condition of the site, and to the extent that there's any concentrations of contaminants on the site that require remediation under state or federal law, they will require that you have a plan for how that will be done in accordance with those requirements. so this project can advance in development in any manner that's not consistent with following environmental protocols.

[SPEAKER_35]: And I'll just add having done construction for 20 plus years in urban areas that You're always disturbing the soil, and it's really important to know what type of soil you are so that you can make certain that during the disruption of the soil, you have a plan in place to make sure that you're keeping your residents and your neighbors and your construction workers safe. But even more so, there's very strict rules around where you can dispose of it. And so all of the soil does need to be classified. And we're following all of those protocols. And we'll have a team out there to be monitoring to the extent where we're disturbing anything so that we can be certain that there is no safety or risk to the neighborhood. But it's not unique or uncommon to construction in an urban area.

[Qf7XgUqJFIM_SPEAKER_03]: And I was just going to add that we can share the phase one and phase two ESAs, Danielle and Alicia, with you. And then I don't know if maybe you could upload it as part of the PDD application and people can read those. And if they have any questions, we're happy to answer them.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much. I'm actually going to, at this time, if there's no other comments that need to be read or there's no other hands up, I'm going to close the public comment period. And at this time I will defer back to the city and just, if the city can highlight for us in a high level vote point and give us some information, give the board and the public some information about how these goals align with the city's goals, how this project aligns with the city's goals. or I can actually, Danielle, did you want me to read those out or did you wanna touch base on them to give the public a better idea?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I'm happy to speak to that. So the city adopted a housing production plan. When was that? Last year? I think we got the approval during this calendar year, I believe. That outlines several goals and strategies to increase housing production and meet our affordable housing goals, which is 10% of our housing stock is to be deed-restricted affordable. We don't need that. We're only around 7%. So that means that we're vulnerable to 40 B's and not being able to go through these processes like we are now of being intentional of where housing goes. So to make a zoning change, the amendment just needs to be rationally related to legitimate planning objectives. and going through the housing production plan. Two of the goals are to address local housing needs and meet production goals and work to meet the 40B goals and then continue to promote initiatives to address local housing needs, to promote a welcoming, diverse, intergenerational and inclusive city with an ideal mix of housing choices that offer diverse options to residents with varying needs and preferences. And one of the strategies is to support the Medford Housing Authority to rehabilitate and redevelop existing properties. And this to collaborate and support the Medford Housing Authority to redevelop and increase the units that existing properties were feasible, including Walkling Court, to create more family and senior affordable housing units with accessible and modernized housing. And also, one of the reasons why we really do need Family housing is, you know, although the housing authority has vouchers that. you know, conceivably you have a voucher and you can use it to rent an apartment, a market rate apartment in the city. But the problem is, is that there are no, there are very few apartments that they can actually use them at because they're above the fair market rent. So they can't use it there or they are faced with just blatant discrimination. Although it's, it's completely illegal to decline to rent to a tenant because they're using a section eight voucher, but it happens all the time. So we desperately need affordable housing and we need family housing in addition to senior housing. So this is in our housing production plan, reference in our comprehensive plan, and this zoning amendment aligns with those planning objectives.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Danielle. One of the things that I wanted to flesh out without going into full detail is the 40B statute. I'm not sure that the public is fully aware of what 40B and how it affects SHI, which is the state subsidized housing inventory. There's a certain percentage that every community within the state of Massachusetts has to hit. And if there's not a low to moderate income housing that's met within a community, then that community is subjected to a 40B, which is MGL chapter 40B, which is a comprehensive permit law. And that's what Danielle was referring to, where a developer can come in and take your prime space and it doesn't have to follow regulations. So this is a better way of controlling your housing when you have a housing production goals. And the city can actually speak more on that, but I did want to flesh out some of the acronyms that we were using to discuss the housing goals. Are there any other questions from the board at this time?

[Emily Hedeman]: The general comment of, you know, I'm excited to see, you know, more detailed proposals once we kind of move this zoning forward, you know, incorporating a lot of the feedback that we've heard this evening. You know, thank you to all the community members for speaking up. And I think, you know, the next phase, we'll be able to dig into more of that potentially.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I agree, Vice Chair Hedeman. As I said, it's not that we were neglecting your comments, but they're more specific to the site itself. And this is, we're trying to get the zoning done so that we can get the project to move forward. If the project moves forward, once the zoning is approved, then we can do our due diligence and making sure that it conforms to all city ordinances within. So in saying that, if there's no other, questions from the board. Again, I feel very confident that Attorney Silverstein as well as M. H. A. And the city staff has already done their, uh, their iterative processes of going back and forth. So I will ask for a motion to recommend, uh, the motion to recommend to City Council of the approval of the draft PDV three walk on court plan development district. I'll make the motion. The second motion. I second, Sammy. Roll call, Vice Chair Emily Hedeman?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman?

[Unidentified]: Sorry.

[Emily Hedeman]: They're not muted, but I'm seeing a thumbs up.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thumbs up? Okay, I can't see. Thank you. Peer Marianski? Yes. Sally Akiki? Yes. Sherrod Barachara?

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: I shall abstain from this one.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Abstain. And myself, Jackie McPherson, I'm a yes. Peter Cowles is a no.

[Alicia Hunt]: Is an abstention, not a no.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is an abstention. Yeah, two abstentions. One, I guess, recused in the same as abstention. So we have, what, five to... It's five. It carries.

[Alicia Hunt]: Five positive and two abstaining.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. Five carries. Motion carries. Thank you so much, Attorney Kelson and all others representing MHA. I appreciate you being here this evening. Thank you for your time. Much appreciated. Thank you very much.

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you so much. Remind the public that this will be at City Council on November 14th.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'm just going to circle back and see if any proponents of 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway for BOA has arrived.

[Danielle Evans]: Apparently there was a communication issue Um, they had emailed me and then I got in the car and drove for three hours and they assumed that meant that they needed to continue when I was on the assumption that it's a go unless you request a continuance and he was getting on a plane. So they want, they want to continue to the next, um, COB, Erika Vandenbrande): To the next meeting and so we'll have everything hammered out, and so I believe that when the next meeting is. COB, Erika Vandenbrande): The 18th.

[Emily Hedeman]: COB, Erika Vandenbrande): emotion motion. COB, Erika Vandenbrande): make a motion to continue without prejudice.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And to clarify, that's a motion for the special permit drive-thru use at 3850 Mississippi Valley Parkway, Bank of America, continue to 1018-23 without prejudice. Thank you, Chair. I'll second that. Vice Chair Emily Peterman?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter Kautz?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Pam Arianski? Yes. Talia Kiki? Yes. Gerard Baturia?

[3gvhm0AovZU_SPEAKER_19]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm a yes. The next item is approval of minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from eight? I believe it's eight. Let's see. I will send them. Thank you second. I'm a second the motion. Yeah, 816 just for the record vice chair and we had him in. Yes, Peter cows. Yes, Ari Fishman. Thumbs up. Okay. Oh, I see them. Pam Marionski? Yes. Sally Akiki? Yes. Chirag Bacharya?

[3gvhm0AovZU_SPEAKER_19]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. The final item before adjournment is miscellaneous updates. Does the city staff have any updates?

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm sure not that I can remember at this hour.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, thank you. All right, so before anyone else slips anything in, so we'll go right to adjournment. Do I have a motion for adjournment? I'll make the motion.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I will second.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Vice Chair Emily Hederman? Aye. Peter Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Thumbs up. And I'm sorry, I, Sally Akiki? Yes. Pam, I apologize, did I call you? Pam Malianski? Nope, I vote yes. Okay. Chirag Bhattacharya? Yes. And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm a yes. Thank you, everyone. Have a great night. Thanks, everyone. Thanks very much.

[Unidentified]: Thanks, good evening.

Paulette Van der Kloot total time: 24.24 minutes total words: 2154