AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 01-15-25

[Emily Hedeman]: So good evening, everyone. Welcome to- Recording in progress. 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. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. If, despite our best efforts, we're 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 all project materials for all projects before the board this evening can be viewed on the city's website medfordma.org. Danielle will drop a, Danielle or Alicia will drop a link in the chat. Click on current CD board filings and that link will be in the chat shortly. So we're going to start with roll call attendance. Peter Calves.

[Peter Calves]: Present.

[Emily Hedeman]: Hi, Peter. Ari Fishman. Present. Hey, Ari. Sabrina Alpino. Present. What is up, Sabrina? Adam Behrens. Adam can't join us this evening. Annie Strang. Present. Hi, Annie. Ben LaValle.

[Ben Lavallee]: Present.

[Emily Hedeman]: What's up, Ben? And myself, Vice Chair Emily Hedeman. Danielle Evans, I'm sorry, I'm vice chair, but I'm also acting as chair. Our trustee chair, Jackie McPherson has moved on from the board. She's actually in Jamaica right now. So I hope she's having a really great time. And we're so thankful to her for all of her service. So I'll be acting as chair prior to board elections. So Danielle, can you please introduce any staff on the call?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Myself, Daniel Evans, Senior Planner, along with Alicia Hunt, who's the Director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and I believe that's all we have from our office tonight, unless somebody's hiding.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sal DeStefano, our Director of Economic Development, just joined.

[SPEAKER_09]: Okay. Yes, I'm here, thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great to have you here, Sal. All right, so this is, Our first item before us means that I might not be standing in his chair for much longer, but I think I'm going to serve as chair for this meeting regardless. We can talk about it later. But we are looking for nominations for board members for the roles of chair, vice chair, and clerk. I'll open that up to the board if anybody would like to nominate somebody else or nominate themselves. And Danielle is able to provide descriptions of the roles and their responsibilities if you have questions. There is also the opportunity to continue this discussion, but it would be great to have some new leadership in the new year.

[Ari Fishman]: I will just say that I cannot put myself in the running as the CDB board's representative to the CPC. I'm unfortunately at capacity. And barring anyone jumping up, it may be worth continuing because I expect tonight to be a long meeting.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you for that, Ari. And I respect the work-life balance. And thank you for being straightforward with that. I appreciate it. Peter, I see you're unmuted.

[Peter Calves]: Um, I was going to, uh, nominate, um, I was going to nominate, uh, can I do two nominations or should I do one at a time? Okay, cool. I was going to nominate. First off, I was going to nominate Emily for chair, given her proximity to the chair already. And we'll deal with that one for now.

[Emily Hedeman]: Is it a conflict of interest if I? No? OK. Are there any other nominations for chair? I do accept your nomination, Peter, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Are there any other nominations for chair? I would roundly endorse that nomination if you accept it. So do we do a roll call vote?

[Alicia Hunt]: Sure, if you prefer, Danielle, or I could run the roll call vote if that feels more appropriate.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, just so there's no perception of conflict. I don't want people to feel like I'm pressuring them. And if you say no, I fully respect that. Any members of the board as well?

[Alicia Hunt]: Sure. Are there any other nominations for chair? Seeing none. Shall we close the nominations? If there's only one nomination, I guess, actually, you can vote yes or no. So let's just do a roll call vote. And I didn't prep for this, so I'm just going to read them across the screen on my screen.

[Unidentified]: Sure.

[Alicia Hunt]: For Emily Henneman as chair, Peter Calves?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: Annie Strang? Yes. Ari Fishman? Enthusiastic, yes. Emily Hedeman. Yes. Ben Lavallee.

[Ben Lavallee]: Enthusiastic, yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sabrina Alpino. Yes. And that is all the members here this evening. Congratulations, Emily. You have been elected chair.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm going to make my mom watch this recording. All right, so that gives us some open space. We have vice chair as open. And I would actually love to nominate Peter Calves as the vice chair. He has performed diligently and effectively and respectfully as clerk for this body for the past, I believe, year and a half. And I would love to see his leadership continue as vice chair.

[Peter Calves]: Thank you. I will accept that nomination. And I will note that I was not clerked for the whole last year and a half.

[Emily Hedeman]: Your leadership had a longer impact than it was in reality.

[Peter Calves]: I'm glad to hear. I gladly accept the nomination.

[Emily Hedeman]: Are there any other nominations for vice chair? We do still have clerk available, which maybe we'll move to another meeting. just respecting the agenda this evening. All right, so seeing no other nominations for vice chair, do we need to do a motion? I forget. I already forgot. No, OK. We're going to do a yes or no vote. Annie Strang. Yes. Ben LaValle.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yes.

[Emily Hedeman]: Sabrina Alpino. Yes. Peter Calves.

[Peter Calves]: Yes.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Fishman. Enthusiastic, yes. And myself, Emily Hedeman, extra enthusiastic. Thanks for being my backup.

[SPEAKER_18]: No problem.

[Emily Hedeman]: Congratulations, Peter. Excited to have you in leadership. Before we move on, any clerk or representative interest? All right, seeing none, let's keep moving. And I do encourage members of the board to start thinking about those roles. I encourage you to reach out to Danielle or Alicia just to learn more about what it is. I was clerk, it can be a fairly light lift. It's really what you make it. So talk to Peter, he was a recently clerk. But yeah, a spot for everybody on the board to be a leader. So our next item on the agenda is A&R plan endorsement for 31 Wilson Road. Do we have representatives for the applicant that would like to present their proposal for 31 Wilson Road? Please raise your hand so we can find you. This is 31 Wilson Road.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, I think it might be Wilson Street that might have been- I'm sorry, Wilson Street. I might've had a typo, I think. Regardless if the applicant isn't here, but I did tell him that he would be first on the agenda. We can still act on this in their absence. I can bring up and explain what they're doing. That would be great. Thank you, Danielle. One moment. Or we could table this and take it at the end since they're not here.

[Emily Hedeman]: Why don't we table this and keep going? We can try to take it in between agenda items as we move forward. Okay. Okay. Great, so moving on to our next item is a continued public hearing for 401 Boston Ave. This is a site plan review for a Dover amendment use. This is a continued public hearing. The role of continued public hearings is that the applicant can present any new information. Peter, I see your hand and I want to make sure that, is this you recusing yourself? Okay. Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: Just making sure that that gets captured before we get too far into things.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. This is, I guess this is us capturing that.

[Peter Calves]: Okay, great. Cool. As usual, when this project comes up, because I work for Niche Engineering who did civil and traffic engineering work on this project and The company policy for that is to recuse yourself from anything they're working on. I will be recusing myself from this project and will not be participating in any debate under votes and will rejoin for the next item. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great. Thank you, Peter. So starting over, this is a continued public hearing. The point of this continued hearing is for the applicant to present any new information. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this new information. So I want to make sure that that's clear. New to new. And let's see. Um, so at this time, I would also like to introduce, um, the city's attorney, Robin Stein. Um, Robin, if you could, uh, provide some opening remarks to frame the questions and required findings before our community development board, um, and then also explain some limitations under the Dover amendment. I see Robin is muted.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Good evening. Sorry, I wouldn't have let me unmute myself.

[Emily Hedeman]: Your camera is also off. If you'd be comfortable turning on your camera, that would be helpful.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: My video says it's on. Hold on one second. On the screen, it says my video is on.

[SPEAKER_27]: Sometimes it's the little switch at the top. Exactly. Did that fix it?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, thank you.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: All right. I'm not sure where I am. I can't see me, but I can see you. So good enough, I guess. But before we go forward, I just want to confirm the applicants aware that they only have five members on this application this evening?

[Emily Hedeman]: Correct? Meaning five members of the board?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, because you had six present and Peter's recused.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, we still have enough. Yep. I just want to make sure they're clear on that. Okay. I see some nods. Pat?

[SPEAKER_08]: Madam Chair, if I may, Patrick Gallagher, Wilson and Storrs, and we are comfortable proceeding. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: So, obviously, I'm happy to speak to this. Did you want me to just kind of summarize the Dover amendment requirements? Or would you like me to speak to the ordinance specifically?

[Emily Hedeman]: I'd say a high level of both.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Okay, so. Underlaw Chapter 48, Section 3 contains a number of provisions and protections for different uses. Some of those we refer to as the Dover Amendment. It results from a case involving the town of Dover and it got coined that way. And those are religious, educational, child care uses. And essentially what the statute says is that zoning ordinances and zoning bylaws can't prohibit, require special permits for, and reasonably regulate the use of land or structures for educational purposes, in this case, on land that's owned or leased by a variety of different entities, one being a nonprofit educational corporation. But that you can subject those uses to reasonable regulations. So that's essentially the issue is, is the use on land that is owned or leased by a nonprofit educational corporation and ultimately is the use that they're proposing to make a bona fide educational use. Those are generally what. We look at zoning purposes. If you go into the city's zoning ordinance, consistent with that approach, there's a separate section in 94-11-8, which contains a site plan review process just for the donor amendment use. So, for example, on educational use. And in that section in 94-11-83, it lays out the scope of the site plan review. It has the board's charge, essentially. And the board's charge in this case is to make the findings, make a determination if, in fact, the proposed use is a Dover Amendment use protected under 48-3. And if so, what reasonable regulations concerning bulk, Height of structures, yard areas, lot sizes, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage can be imposed on the use and that comes straight out of the statute. And just a point of clarification on that, you know, it's not an open ended analysis of what regulations you want to apply. You start with. The base dimensional controls that would apply to the use and then the question of reasonable regulation comes into the extent that the applicant is saying we can't meet one of those requirements. You would look at determining what is reasonable to apply to them. And the way that we look at what is reasonable is. you know, if you were to apply the minimum requirements that they're saying that an applicant saying they can't meet, is that going to have a significant impact on their ability to accomplish the use compared to whatever the municipal goal that is sought to be accomplished through that regulation is and you have to weigh those against each other and really it's the applicant's responsibility to or their burden to establish to you why something shouldn't apply to them and why it's not, you know, reasonable to apply it. And that's basically the standard under both the statute and then again, under your bylaw. And I think that kind of gives you the high level, but if you have any specific questions, obviously I'm here, I can answer those as well through the chair.

[Emily Hedeman]: Do any members of the board have specific questions about Attorney Stein's overview? If I may?

[Ari Fishman]: All right, yep. Can you clarify with reasonable regulation, you said that it starts with the established code. Does that mean that we are not allowed to provide any restrictions that fall with that are more restrictive than the minimum guidelines? Is that your interpretation?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, I mean, that would hold true in zoning all the time, right? I mean, applicants are required to know what's, or applicants are entitled to know what's required of them. You come in with the base zoning. The question in Dover is, is it reasonable to apply this base zoning even, or is there relaxing that's reasonable, that's needed? So that you're not prohibiting the use through your base zoning.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Great question.

[Emily Hedeman]: All right, seeing no other questions from the board. Back to you, Attorney Stein.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I don't have anything else to add at this point. Is there anything else you wanted me to touch on? I mean, that's pretty much the way that the Dover review works.

[Emily Hedeman]: OK. I really appreciate that insight. I think that'll set a nice scene for the board's ongoing review of this issue.

[Ari Fishman]: Sorry, if I may, Attorney Stein, could you give us just a minute on your kind of professional judgment on whether this case meets the criteria. You've already explained it to the board, but I think it would be helpful to share that with the public, as I know that we've heard discussion of it in previous meetings, kind of confirming that. I mean, again, nature and the minimum requirements.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Ultimately, it's the board's decision. The board has to make that decision, but so long as a bona fide educational use is being proposed by a nonprofit organization with an educational purpose on land that's owned or leased by that educational entity, then it would be my opinion that the Dover Amendment would apply. And so it's just for the board to find the facts that fall within those categories or not.

[Emily Hedeman]: Any other questions from the board? All right, seeing none, I would like to request that the applicant presents any new information. Do we have representatives from the applicant available with any new information?

[SPEAKER_08]: Madam Chair, if I may, I think we have a brief presentation prepared. If Ross Cameron can be permitted to share his screen and then Rocco will start us off.

[Emily Hedeman]: Alicia and Danielle, are you all set? giving Rocco and Ross the permissions they need.

[Alicia Hunt]: Rocco has permission, just sorry. Who is it?

[Rocco DiRico]: It's Freddie.

[Alicia Hunt]: Freddie, thank you. Okay. Just so you know, everybody's not able to unmute themselves except that I have made Rocco, Dorico and Patrick and now Elke's been a co-host for the duration of this public hearing. Everybody else would have to be unmuted.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Alicia. I appreciate that clarification. Over to the applicant to present new information.

[Rocco DiRico]: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Ross, if you can go to slide two. Thank you. This we hope is the culmination of what has been a very thorough site plan review process. I personally have worked on dozens of projects for Tufts University across all four of our campuses in Boston, Medford, Somerville, and Grafton. And I can attest that this is the most comprehensive review that we've had of any project in my time here. We began by meeting with city officials and staff more than six months ago and had numerous meetings and conversations since then with elected officials, community partners, the building department, engineering, transportation, fire, health, and with our neighbors. This is our fourth presentation before the board dating back to last year. We also hosted three community meetings on the project.

[Emily Hedeman]: Just real quick, can you please try to focus on new information? I believe we've reviewed most of these dates before.

[Rocco DiRico]: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry for that. We will definitely speed ahead to new information. If we could go to the next slide, Ross. And I do think that there are some new. information here and that has to do with the conditions that we have, the commitments that we have agreed to. So in that regard we've had a half a dozen meetings with the MBTA and their consultants regarding new trees along Boston Avenue and have submitted our applications for that work to the MBTA in coordination with National Grid. We've committed $500,000 to the neighborhood, which we envision will be in the form of direct payments to folks that are closest to the project or otherwise directed to give it to in consultation with the community. And we've committed to making a $500,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and to establish a new shuttle service from Medford Square to the Medford-Somerville campus and provide the city with a new blue bike station. These commitments go far beyond what is required of us in the context of a site plan review under the Dover Amendment. And we are hoping that they demonstrate how much we value and care about the community and our neighbors. I'll now pass it on to Pat Gallagher.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Morocco. Madam Chair and members of the board, in terms of new information, we'd like to share with you a brief supplemental shadow study that we prepared for tonight's hearing. The focus of this is to establish, to the point raised by Attorney Stein, it's our burden to show you why we think that we are entitled to the relief that we are seeking. And one piece of that relief is from the front yard and side yard setbacks along Boston Avenue and University Avenue. And as we determined that the required setback on both would be 13 and a half feet. And at certain points, the building is coming to a setback of as little as five and a half feet from the front yard and two feet, a little more than two feet from the side yard. And so that is relief that we are seeking by virtue of being a Dover Amendment use. And what Massachusetts courts have said in determining whether it is reasonable to apply a regulation, is to ask the question of would denying or conditioning the relief appreciably advance a legitimate municipal concern? Is there a legitimate municipal concern that can be established if the relief were to be not granted or were to be conditioned? So we think the shadow studies that we've prepared and that Alcus Manfredi will present in a moment, establish that there is a very minimal impact that the setback relief causes to the additional shadow that would be created by the project. That effectively the difference between a setback compliant project and the project that we are proposing is so minimal that it makes there to be really no municipal interest in denying or in conditioning that relief. And the reason we're seeking that relief is important as well. The building has been sited in the way that it is located because we need adequate distance behind the building for fire access. And so reducing that distance between the buildings would be problematic in terms of having the fire department able to get in and have access fully around the site. So with that, I'm going to pass it over to John Martin at Alcatraz Manfredi to walk through this updated shadow study.

[SPEAKER_43]: Good evening, everyone. Most of you are familiar with the shadow studies that we have done. We're going to show you a new iteration of them tonight, which, as Pat says, makes the subtle distinction between a building that would comply with the setback requirement and the building that we propose. The summation of the orange and blue areas on the shadow studies is the proposed building. The orange is what the shadow would be if we were to pull the building back to be within the setback limits. And that leaves the blue as the increment that the shadow increases by being a little forward on Boston Avenue and a little closer to University Avenue. I'll take you through each of the four cardinal points of the year, beginning in the spring. And you see the hours starting at 9 a.m. and then noon. I will pause here just ever so briefly to show you an enlarged version. Thank you. This is the condition at 9 a.m. that little sliver of blue, that's the incremental shadow that is created by going over the required setback. So as Pat has already alluded to, this will be a very small thing that you will see through the slides that we go through. So this is nine and noon on March 21st, the spring equinox. The two panels on the left show the existing conditions today, the no build condition. The two panels on the right will always show the build condition. If we move through till 3 p.m. and 4 p.m., again, you see just a little sliver of blue where my cursor is.

[SPEAKER_18]: Can you zoom in as you did before?

[SPEAKER_43]: I can.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_43]: That's 3 p.m., and then I'll scroll down.

[Emily Hedeman]: Oh, it looks like we're in June.

[SPEAKER_43]: I scrolled too far. That's 5 p.m.

[SPEAKER_18]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_43]: I'll leave it on this setting so I can zoom in. as required. If we go to June, the sun is more vertical in the sky, so the blue is even smaller. This is 9 a.m. and noon. This is 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., and then a 7 p.m. and a 10, well, 8 p.m. projection. If I go to the fall equinox in September, it's very similar to the spring equinox. Again, 9 a.m. and noon, 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can you please zoom in on those as well?

[SPEAKER_43]: Yes, I will. This is 3 p.m. Okay. and this is 4 p.m.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_43]: And then when we go to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. I'll zoom in on 6 p.m. Again the orange is the incremental shadow proposed by the setback compliant building And the blue is the additional shadow cast by the proposed building. And then one last one. In the winter at 9 AM and then at noon, I'll zoom in on noon. You see the little blue edge. And then at 1 p.m. And I'll zoom in on that as well. There's 1 p.m. 2 p.m. and then 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. the sun has essentially set. It sets at 415 on December 21st.

[SPEAKER_18]: Don't we know it.

[SPEAKER_43]: And don't we feel it. I will turn it back over to Rocco.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[Rocco DiRico]: In closing, we wanted to thank the board for its time and consideration and to thank and recognize the administration and city staff and the neighbors who've spent. many hours reviewing and considering and discussing this project with us. We look forward to continuing the conversation and are eager to bring this project to fruition. I know that you've got a lot on your agenda tonight. And I know you're probably tired of hearing from me. So I just wanted to end with a quote from one of our neighbors that was submitted to the city. A new dorm on campus is both a great opportunity for Tufts students to experience their university years in close connection to Tufts and for the off-campus housing to be reused for working families in the South Medford and Hillside neighborhoods. As a Medford resident raising a family in South Medford neighborhood, I fully support a new dorm that opens up more housing for working families of Medford. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you to the applicant. And I do see we have a hand raised. We will open the public hearing. I do want to open it first to the board for questions and comments, and then we will get to the public. I do appreciate the public's patience. But I would like to first open it up to the board for questions and comments. Please raise your hand or unmute.

[SPEAKER_18]: Ben.

[Ben Lavallee]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the public would benefit from a little bit of commentary from the applicant around how the community commitments will be administered or managed and maybe even a little bit more detail on the nature of those commitments or those um, legally enforceable, contractual commitments, maybe just a little bit of commentary on how those things will work, the shuttle, buses, the, um, the, the, the funds, um, those kinds of things.

[Rocco DiRico]: Pat, do you want to discuss the, uh, neighborhood fund?

[SPEAKER_08]: Sure, um, if I may, Madam Chair, um.

[SPEAKER_18]: Yes, thank you.

[SPEAKER_08]: Just to take The question's in reverse, Member Lavalle. So our intention is that all of the commitments that we've made and have expressed them through a letter to the board and to the mayor, that those are commitments that would be incorporated into a decision approving our site plan application, and that in that way, they would be binding on the applicant. With respect to the $500,000 community fund that we are proposing, our intention, and again, I'd like to frame this as an intention because we intend and hope that the conversation on this will be ongoing. The intent is to establish an escrow account for those funds and to be able to make direct payments to folks who are particularly impacted by the project as a result. and to make payments directly from the escrow fund. That being said, I think the team would also like to stay open-minded, and if there are particular ideas from the community, we're open to listening to those as well if they envision a better way to approach that. But at this point, I think That's the kind of fairest and best way that we've determined. So does that answer your question?

[Ben Lavallee]: It does. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: I believe there are some legal restrictions around the city's involvement in the neighborhood fund. So there is a a line between that fund and kind of the city's mandate. So that would be a direct connection between the applicant and the community.

[SPEAKER_08]: That's correct. Thank you, Madam Chair, for clarifying that, that the city would not have any involvement, um, you know, aside from insofar as it's a condition to a site for that, that would be the extent of it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great question, Ben. Thank you for that. Annie, Ari, Sabrina, any questions or comments before we open it up to the public? All right, seeing none. And we will reopen it to the board later, yeah. So, I see some hands going up. Feel free to raise your hand if you want to get in line. But I'm now going to open the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand function or please message Danielle in the chat if you're having technical difficulties. You're also welcome to send an email to OCD at medford-ma.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. That's a legal requirement for this public hearing. And a reminder to all meeting participants, please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members. Comments are not part of the public record, and we want to make sure to do this the right way per open meeting law. However, if a participant is having audio or technical issues, you're welcome to message staff for assistance. So that's going to be Alicia and Danielle. As we've done in the past, each participant will have two minutes to speak. We will allow each participant to speak once. And if you do have additional comments, we welcome you to email them to the email address provided or engage with the city at a later date. Alicia, are you able to manage the public comment queue? I do realize that we've received a significant number of emails and letters, which are made available to all members of the board for us to review. And I thank all members of the public who have provided emails and letters. Alicia and Danielle, do you have any summary of the issues and themes for those letters?

[Alicia Hunt]: overall i i feel that we've summarized for the board the letters before um i would say in a very broad there there was not significant new information other than uh objections to whether this was a dover use um and then uh shading and height and sight lines those were the biggest concerns in all of the letters um many of the uh People who wrote letters are here this evening. Some of them already have their hands up. So why don't we let them speak? And if we feel that there was stuff that was missing, then we can bring it up. But it was a lot of reiterating what we have already heard.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great. And I appreciate all members of the public who have sent in letters. So at this time, we're opening the public hearing. I see three hands. I believe Attorney Racer was first. And Alicia, are you going to manage the two minute timer?

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, thank you for saying that. Yes. Thank you. It's built in. I am launching it.

[Emily Hedeman]: We typically let people finish their thought, but we do appreciate everybody's respect for the two-minute timer to allow all members of the public equal involvement.

[Alicia Hunt]: OK. And the order in which people raise their hands is the order that they appear on the screen. If you want, I can call them out.

[Emily Hedeman]: I can do it.

[Alicia Hunt]: OK. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Attorney Racer, are you able to unmute yourself?

[Harley Racer]: Yes, thank you. Thank you. Madam chair. Good evening. Madam chair. Congratulations and members of the board. And thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Harley racer. I'm an attorney at the Boston law firm, rich may at 176 federal street. I represent a group of Medford residents, including butters to this project. As you heard from town council, it's up to you to look at the facts here and apply them. One of the problems that we have is that we can't identify what the base zoning is because they ask, Tufts asks you to accept that we should treat this as one parcel. So these are three parcels. They're asking you to treat them as one parcel and they've not identified what relief they would need if it was treated As three different parcels and so that's one thing that I think is just a threshold problem to overcome. But when it gets to the base zoning that you're looking at, this is a point where the board has the authority to interpret and apply the definitions of the zoning ordinance. and under the definition of the zoning ordinances the plain read is that these buildings would not be a dormitory because they have gainful business in them and non-residential uses and so it moves them into the multi-use dwelling definition. The plain read suggests that this is a multi-use dwelling and under the definitions they would have height restrictions of three stories or six stories. Tufts should identify which number, this is of a multi use dwelling, and so whether it falls into the three stories or the six stories, but the board has the authority to interpret their bylaw, their ordinances in a reasonable way, and the authority to impose the reasonable regulation something that Tufts has refused to do. They've thumbed their nose at the mayor, the city council, this board, and members of the community by refusing to budge an inch. There's been a lot of back and forth, but there's been no movement on the height of the building or the setback. And they say, de minimis, de minimis, de minimis, that adds up. They've offered some money, but you can't buy sunlight. So I'd encourage the board to exercise your authority in interpreting your zoning ordinances and the reasonable regulations. Thank you. I feel like I won an award. Thank you for your time.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. I really appreciate that. And it's noted that it's representing a group of residents. So thank you for that. And maybe we pick different time for music.

[Alicia Hunt]: My apologies. No, it's OK. I forgot about that. And I am now trying to find that setting. If it goes off on the next person, I apologize. I just haven't found the setting yet. I'm working on it. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Next, in terms of public comment, I see Jeremy Martin. Jeremy, are you able to unmute yourself? No. Okay.

[Jeremy Martin]: Now I am, thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Jeremy Martin. I live at 65 Burgett Avenue, very close to the building site. Madam Chair and Director Hunt, out of respect for the board's time, several community members who have commented in the past have agreed to allow me to speak on their behalf. So respectfully, I'd ask if I could be allowed to make a slightly longer comment tonight. I just need about three minutes. I think that's appropriate.

[Emily Hedeman]: Let's start now. Please have your time, Alicia.

[Jeremy Martin]: I hope you've had, board members, I hope you've had an opportunity to read the comment letter that we submitted yesterday, reiterating the issues with the project and urging you to apply the reasonable regulations that Harley referenced to the building height and to the building setbacks. The letter is endorsed by over 120 Medford residents, the vast majority of which live in the Hillside neighborhood who will live in literally the shadow of this building. As you've heard over the last two months, the community is frustrated by this matter, by this experience, and we're sure you are too. I think we can all imagine ways that we'd wish this process had been different and better. For me, it's a squandered opportunity to do something really good in a community that would welcome it. The potential is there, But this project and this design does not live up to the moment. Despite reasonable and repeated calls, Tufts has refused to be a true partner to the community and has refused to consider alternatives or to explore a compromise that works for all. Instead, we get misrepresentation of the process and gaslighting. Frankly, we wouldn't need a neighborhood improvement fund if not for the impacts of this building. You're now being asked to consider some complex legal questions, maybe hearing different interpretations of the ordinance, or you have questions about the power you have as a board to regulate this project. I suspect many of you want to address the issues with this project and support the community, but you feel stuck. Maybe you feel that challenging Tufts is a losing proposition and not worth the risk. We want you to know that our community is energized, our resources are growing, and we will not back down from a bully at our doorstep. So if there's any doubt, any uncertainty about how to vote, please vote in a way that requires Tufts to reconsider and change their proposal. You would be doing so with the support of the mayor, the city council, and our state legislators who have all written in support of the neighborhood. Most importantly, you would do it with the support of your community as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have signed on to our letter. There's no question about whether this issue is of critical municipal concern. Dover puts the onus on Tufts to demonstrate why this project should be built without regard for their neighbors and let the courts decide this complex issue if that's what's needed. There's a very good chance they will uphold your interpretation of the zoning regulations. Harley has given you a sound legal path to regulate this as a multiple use, and you have the power under Dover to apply reasonable regulations of height, bulk, and setbacks to this project. Nothing we're asking for stops Tufts from fulfilling their mission. It just means that they and their development partners won't make as much money as they want to on this project. And that is something I think we can all agree is not protected by Dover. So again, when you're asked to vote, please do so in a way that supports the resounding community sentiment about this project. We thank you for your time, your service, and your continued consideration.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Jeremy. Really appreciate the comments. Next, we have Doug Carr, who is also involved with the Medford Historical Commission. Doug, are you able to unmute yourself?

[Doug Carr]: There we go. How's that? Can you hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Sounds great.

[Doug Carr]: Okay. As you may know, I submitted, I've been looking for a middle ground here. I've been looking for something that's a good faith compromise. I'm a huge fan of putting as much student housing as we can reasonably on this site. I think it's an excellent site, but this building is just too large. And I submitted to the chair an alternate design that tries to get Tufts the actual, the number of beds we're looking for, but takes two floors off the building. It's an incomplete design. It's more of a concept design. I'm happy to walk people through it in two minutes if you think that would be helpful, but I think what I'm looking for here is basically a pause in the process and asking the architects, Alcus Manfredi, who's a well respected architect, not only in Boston, but around the country and the world. And Tufts has done some great buildings over the years. to take a pause and see if there's a way to think outside the box, to see if there's a way to get the number of beds they're looking for, the 677, but by doing it with fewer floors and building further into the campus in wings that go back into the campus. And I've documented that, obviously, sent you that. Again, I defer to you, the chair, if you want me to walk people through it. But I think that's what I'm looking for, is to try to build a reasonable consensus, because I want Tufts to get the number of beds they need. But I also want to protect the community and 10 stories is excessive, it does the shadow studies do, I think, show quite a bit how the impact that is and I think there's a there's a little ground for willing to just pause and look back and say, is there a. a better way to think outside the box and to make this happen, not just on this one site, but a little further beyond it. Maybe with the partial taking of the Hallowell dorm that is 42 years old this year, just one idea. So I'm just looking for a pause to get ideas about It's a compromise that won't satisfy everyone or maybe anyone, but it will, I think, give a little bit and be something in the middle versus a all or nothing situation we have now that I think has been a challenge. So chair, would you like me to show the diagrams or you think that's not worth?

[Emily Hedeman]: Not at this time, but I will remind the board that those comments shared by Mr. Carr are available in our public comment folder because they're public comment. They are also available to the public. Yeah, yeah, not at this time though, but I do appreciate the insight and expertise that you've offered towards this topic.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you, appreciate it, thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: I see Elizabeth Bale. Elizabeth, are you able to unmute yourself?

[Elizabeth Bayle]: Can you hear me? I think I did. I just wanted to say I appreciate your address.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can you hear me? Yeah, can you state your address for the record?

[Elizabeth Bayle]: I can't hear you. You've got to unmute your speaker too.

[Emily Hedeman]: And Alicia, let's restart the time.

[Elizabeth Bayle]: Sorry, is this working?

[Emily Hedeman]: Elizabeth, can you hear us?

[Elizabeth Bayle]: Yes, I can hear you.

[Emily Hedeman]: You just need to state your name and address for the record.

[Elizabeth Bayle]: Okay, sorry. Elizabeth Bale, 34 Emery Street. Should be able to use this technology by now. I just want to say I appreciate that you just want to address new material but I'd just like to point out that it's been very difficult to get for for the public residents to get answers to questions and so if we can't get the answers then I don't, it's hard to let go of questions that have been asked before. So I will just try to be as quick as I can and just repeat a question that I have repeatedly asked. The president of Tufts and Rocco has responded, but not with not answering the question repeatedly. And the question is, I'm just going to read it. Why can't or won't Tufts either place this behemoth set of buildings somewhere internal to the Tufts Medford campus, such as on Professor's Row, where the temporary housing is now located, or distribute a comparable amount of new dorm space over more reasonably scaled buildings and additions in locations such as that Professor's Row area, Talbot Ave, Packard Ave, areas adjacent to Powder House Boulevard, the former hillside hardware space, and other locations that will not have the severe permanent negative impact on the neighborhood and the city that this proposed high-rise project will inflict. Several smaller scaled projects can accomplish the laudable objective to provide more on-campus housing without harming the community. And I've been unable to get a chance and answer since I learned about this project in the end of October. So I just want the board to be aware of that.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you for your comment. And I hear your frustration. We will allow the applicant to address any concerns raised by the public at the closing of this public hearing. And it's really up to them whether they address that question. But I hear your frustration. And thank you for joining the public hearing. And thank you and saying that. I appreciate it. I see another hand raised. The name is JFD8.

[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, can you hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, please state your name and address.

[SPEAKER_23]: My name is John Dillon. I live at 11 Norwood Road. And I would like for Tufts to address a baseline. What I see is a baseline problem. I suspected that their shadow studies on what is existing here are inaccurate. And I have sent, I tried to send a video, but also several photos of what Stearns Field looked like at 3 p.m. exactly on December 21st, and what I have seen, what I documented looks nothing like what Tufts is depicting in their shadow studies. Can they address that? If I can't believe the baseline figures, what else can we not believe here? Thank you very much.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate the questions. I don't see any other hands from members of the public. Alicia, Danielle, have we received any emails while we've been in the public hearing?

[Alicia Hunt]: have you written additional for this case?

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Has anybody reached out with any technical issues trying to participate?

[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair? I've been, there have been a few emails. There was one from Penny Taylor, which I added, which was actually in support of both of the matters.

[Emily Hedeman]: Sorry, just to clarify, is Penny in the meeting this evening and would like to speak?

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, no, I just checked for letters. Okay. Yeah, there was an email. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Seeing no additional public comments, we are going to close the public comment period for this meeting related to 401 Boston Ave. I would like to thank all members of the public for their comments, their thoughts, whether it was tonight, the past couple of nights that you all have been with us, emails, letters. We've read them and we hear you. So thank you so much. At this point, I would like to open it up to the board for us to ask any additional questions.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I'm sorry. Robin Stein from KP law. Can I just clarify when you say you're closing the public hearing for this? Are you closing the public hearing or you're just going back to board deliberation? Because if you close the whole public hearing, then. You can't have any further discussion with the applicant about conditions or anything. I just wanted to clarify what you meant by that.

[Emily Hedeman]: So our intention was to close the public participation aspect of the public hearing. I think this is a learning opportunity for how we conduct our meetings. Thank you, Attorney Stein. So the public hearing is still open. You're just going back to the board conversation for now. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that. And I would also like to go back to the applicant because there were some concerns raised by the public and give the applicant an opportunity to address those concerns from the public and then we will go to the board. And I just, I wanna thank everybody for their patience with me as I guide us through this meeting. Thank you.

[Rocco DiRico]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll turn it over to Pat Gallagher to answer those questions.

[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rocco. I think, so I just want to make sure that I was taking down all the questions. There was a question regarding, should this be considered a dormitory and what are the effects of that decision? I understand that Mr. Carr has submitted a plan to the board and I can comment on that. And then there was a question with respect to why this location and not another location.

[Emily Hedeman]: I also heard the validity of the shadow study. And then Attorney Racer had some questions around the zoning for the parcels that make up this proposed site.

[SPEAKER_08]: Sure. OK. So let me start responding to Attorney Racer's comments briefly. The first question that was raised relates to the existing parcels that make up the Tufts campus. And for the purposes of our application, we are treating the Tufts campus as a single zoning lot. That approach is both consistent with Massachusetts law, which treats commonly owned adjacent parcels as being merged for zoning purposes. And our approach is also consistent with an approach that the city endorsed in 1990, in the early 90s, in connection with the permitting of the Dowling Hall garage. And that's an approach of treating the campus, the core campus, as a single zoning lot. And when the question was put to the courts, the court confirmed that that was an appropriate way for the city and for TOPS to treat its campus. Because again, it's all commonly owned. It's a single campus. The court agreed that it was appropriate to treat it as a single zoning lot. We have presented the project in terms of things such as required open space, looking at the campus as a whole. And again, we think that is the correct approach, which is consistent with the city's established practice and consistent with Massachusetts law. There was also a question raised by Attorney Racer as to whether this project constitutes a dormitory. Under the zoning ordinance, a dormitory is defined as a building designed for or occupied as a residence for students or staff, owned by or under the supervision of an institution, or an educational use which is not operated as a gainful business. So there's two clauses there. This is a business, rather a building designed for or occupied as a residence for students or staff owned by or under the supervision of an institution. So we take the position that this is unequivocally a dormitory. And I would also add that it seems that the issue that's being raised here is with the ground floor retail space. We feel that the ground floor retail space enhances the project for students, for neighbors. It's something that in early conversations with the city on this project, the city requested that we incorporate retail space into the project. So we think it's really a benefit. And we do not think that that changes the determination of whether or not this is a door. So to that point, This would fall into the classification of buildings that is subject to 825 foot maximum building height, which we are below. So that's why we are not seeking relief for building. So I think those were the issues raised by Attorney Racer that I heard. And moving on to Mr. Carr's comment, I just want to be really clear that Mr. Carr is not associated with the project team. We did not ask him to prepare a sketch plan. We did review the plan that he prepared, and Rocco met with him the other day. And I want to point out to the board that the types of things that he suggested in the plan would result in 75 fewer beds in the project. It would necessitate an entire dormitory being taken offline during construction to demolish part of the dorm. It would impede buyer access to Dowling Hall. And there would be higher costs as a result and a longer construction period. When we go through the design process with our team before plans are ever submitted, there are a lot of different iterations that are looked at for any project, including this one. And early on in the design phase, some of the things that Mr. Carr suggested were looked at, and they weren't incorporated because of the reasons that I outlined. It just wouldn't be feasible for this project. So responding to the question of the validity of the shadow study, I'm not an engineer, but I will say that Alpes Manfredi is one of, if not the most preeminent architecture firm in the city. And I think we stand behind their work. They have done excellent work for us. And they've spent a great deal of time analyzing this from every angle and trying to make sure that we're presenting the most accurate information that we can. So I think that is the most that I can say as to that question that was raised. And then I think the final question was regarding the location and why this project is located here and why not in another location on campus. And I think the reason for that is that this site was identified years ago by Tufts University as being just based on the size and shape of this site as being an ideal location for housing. And we also looked at it as an opportunity to take a stretch of Boston Avenue that You know, walking down the sidewalk today and you see a hill with a parking lot on top of it and that that's an opportunity to really remake the streetscape along Boston Avenue and to do so with a housing project that satisfies a critical need to bring more students to campus and That's central to Tufts' goal as an educational institution, to have students on your campus and to have them be part of that community more so than living in the neighborhoods. So we felt that having this in this particular location gave us the best opportunity to accomplish those goals.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney Gallagher. So if there's nothing else from the applicant, I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the board. We have any additional questions. And this also kicks off deliberations. Ari, I see your hand.

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to members of the public and the applicant for all the information and comment. I would love to hear the perspective of Attorney Stein on the question of the dormitory first floor business. My understanding is that it does not change the designation, but I would like to hear that confirmed from the city's lawyers.

[Emily Hedeman]: Attorney Stein, are you able to comment on that?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Sure, so I mean, you have seen the definition that's in the city's ordinance. It doesn't indicate that it has to be, you know, 100% for residential use. I don't see, in my opinion, I think this qualifies as a dorm. I mean, obviously, if it's challenged, I can't promise what a judge will say. But in my opinion, this qualifies under a definition of a dorm.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney Stein. Any other questions or comments, Ari?

[Ari Fishman]: Thoughts, but not questions. So I'll let other members of the board speak if they have thoughts.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Ben, Annie, Sabrina, any questions before we start yapping? I do not. OK.

[Ben Lavallee]: Nor do I. Thank you for checking.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. I mean, given all the information that we have today, our authority as the board, I am comfortable saying that this is a Dover use. And looking specifically at the relief that the applicant is asking us to provide, which is the setback. It truly feels like such a minor difference. And in some cases, there is no difference in the impact of that setback. So the two questions before the board are, does this use qualify as a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment? We have our League Council saying yes. It's Tufts on land. It's going to be for Tufts students. The fact that there's a for-profit developer does not impact its protected status. And then the second question in front of us is what are reasonable regulations that should be imposed on the use. And again, the focus here is on the relief from strict adherence to the zoning ordinance. Before I said for setbacks, but it's also for parking. Given the location of parking on campus, they're not seeking relief for a number of spaces. It's just, it's going to be elsewhere. And then the front yard setbacks. So the question then becomes, is there a municipal interest in imposing these requirements? Legal counsel, staff, the information that we've received today, believe that the setback relief is warranted as that would You know, cause a substantial burden on the project. We're not just talking economic like the the fire access was something that stood out to me as something that would be an issue with the existing setback proposed. And then relief from parking location is warranted. It's a large college campus, as the neighbors know. It's not practical or necessary to site parking spaces adjacent to each building. So I think that's reasonable. And I'd be interested in hearing any opinions from the board. And I welcome differing opinions. Annie, I see you came off mute. Got any insight for us? Arianna, you said you had some thoughts. Do you feel comfortable sharing them at this time? Sure.

[Ari Fishman]: I think that many of the questions and concerns and frustrations about this project and the process that I've heard from residents continue to be true. And I don't see a legal argument where, given the responsibilities I have to uphold the current zoning, where I can vote against it. But I think all the concerns that were brought up are frankly valid, and I continue to be frustrated that Tufts has not been willing to adjust the height and shadow effects on the neighborhood. I hear folks' frustration. I think that there has been many discussions and not much change. And it is simultaneously true that I think given the legal guidance we have, I don't think I have grounds to vote against it. I'm not very happy about it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I would share a similar sentiment. And there are things that I'm excited about. And I think even some of the opponents of this plan have voiced it. Increased student housing, getting people out of the triple-deckers and making that available for families or workforce housing, that's exciting. But I agree with you. And if I were Tufts, I'd just be really mindful that, just like you're not going anywhere. Like these neighbors have been here a long time. They've established their families, their work, their friendships. It's really, really important for you all to be good neighbors as well. Yeah, I don't see a place where we as the Community Development Board acting within our mandate can be actionable. in a way to satisfy every concern. Sabrina, Ben, any thoughts?

[Ben Lavallee]: I echo what's been said already.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_17]: Um, I think everything's been said, um, just noting again, like, there's some disappointment, there are some pros, but I'm just here to listen to the broader community.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. So we do have a condition document, um, that helps to codify some of the conditions that Tufts has already discussed this evening. I'd like to open that up for discussion with the board. Danielle, are you able to pull that up for us?

[Danielle Evans]: Is this too small? Can you guys see this? I couldn't make it a little tiny. How do we make the there we go?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, we can do one page zoom in.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, it looks good.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. And this is also in the meeting folder. So members of the board can follow along. So in the absence of a clerk, I will fulfill that role tonight. So these conditions were developed. in conjunction with various city staff, the city engineer, fire chief, the health department director, the director of traffic and transportation. The Department of equity and diversity equity inclusion. So, the first several are mostly boilerplate the first just list the control plans. So these are the plan sets that are being voted on tonight. And so they, if there's any changes to these number two is the plan modifications. So, this basically says that it should be built in accordance to the plans that gives you a process for modifying. Third, that this should be recorded, the registry deeds prior since the building permit. The fourth condition, the site plan approval, including the termination of the reasonable application of dimensional parking requirements to the project is conditioned on the use of the property being for an educational use, protected and exempted from Dover Amendment. Should the property cease to be used for an educational use under the Dover Amendment, the property in the use thereof shall conform to the then application requirements of the zoning ordinance. So if this discontinued, ceased to be a Dover use, whether like Tufts sold it or something happened and it's not a Dover use anymore, then it would now not have this. They'd have to come back. They'd probably have to. I'm not sure what the process would be, but it wouldn't be legal at that point. Oh, the fifth one is requiring a construction management plan. And I guess I can just read it. Yeah, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a written construction management plan for review and approval by the building commissioner and the engineering division. Safe and ADA compliant pedestrian and cyclist access will be preserved along Boston Avenue and University Avenue during the duration of construction. A 24-7 contact line for construction related questions or concerns. will be established for the duration of construction. The contact line number will be posted in a highly visible location at the project site. So if there's anything happening and someone needs to get a hold of someone, there will be someone who will answer the phone 24-7. Tufts has said that they will do this. And then these are the following are the engineering conditions. The applicant will work with the engineering division to identify and undertake an acceptable infiltration and flow mitigation project in Medford subject to and in accordance with applicable law. So city engineer will work with them to identify what project will be done. And there's a formula associated with that. Yeah. Seven is about no saddle connections, unless they upgrade the sewer main. Prior to issuance of a CO to maintain open pedestrian access at the southeast corner of Boston Avenue, University Avenue, and adjacent to the project site along the frontage of Boston Ave, the applicant will work with the engineering division on a mutually acceptable easement and or donation of the triangular portion of the lot to the right of way. All utility crossing shall have a minimum of 18 inches separation. Basically, the city engineer is asking for a cross section that shows that this is being met. Number 10, in accordance with engineering directive number three, the applicant shall mill and repay from curb to curb the segment of Boston Ave along the entire frontage of the project prior to issuance of the full and final CO. 11. In addition to the new sidewalk along the subject property, the applicant has agreed to replace the sidewalk on the northerly side of Boston Avenue with a new concrete sidewalk built to the City of Medford standards for public roads prior to issuance of a full and final CO. Prior to issuance of a CO, the applicant will sponsor a new blue bike station on Boston Ave or another location agreed upon with the director of traffic and transportation including purchase and installation of an 11 dock station and payment of the recurring annual fees. 13 is the applicant will establish free shuttle service between Campus Center and Bedford Square. The shuttle service must commence no later than upon the issuance of all permits and approvals for the operation of the project, including lodging house licenses. 14, a dedicated ride share drop off zone that can accommodate at least four standard size cars will be provided in front of a building on Boston Avenue. 15, students living in the residence hall will not be eligible for city of Medford on street parking permits. So if a student living in this residence hall brings a car, they will not be able to get a parking permit from the city. They either need to park it on campus or find some place to garage it privately. 16, the applicant will add two new crosswalks at the intersection of Boston Avenue and University Ave, as shown on the approved plans. And then the health department conditions. During any demo construction, the applicant must remediate dust with the use of water trucks with calcium chloride. Street adjacent to the project site will be kept clean at the close of every workday. And this is where that number comes up. If neighbors see that it's not being kept clean, call the number. Let them know. 18, pre-demolition and pre-construction integrated pest management plans are a mandated requirement by the city's road and control ordinance prior to issuance of building permit. And it's about the monthly reports and all of that. So we don't want rats. 19, there shall be no permanent exterior dumpsters. All solid waste generated from the new residence halls shall be kept in fully enclosed trash and recycling rooms. And then here's a series of conditions to try to mitigate light spillage. So 20, to lessen the potential negative impacts of light spillage from the building, no common amenity spaces will be provided above the second floor. And for the avoidance of doubt, the term common amenity spaces does not include common living or kitchen space serving individual apartments. The common amenity spaces above the ground floor will be equipped with occupancy sensors that further reduce light spillage when such places spaces are not occupied. And 21, all windows in each dormitory unit will have operable blinds or shades to reduce light emittance. So every single room, bedrooms, living room, they all have operable shades so they can close them and try to keep the light inside. 22, new trees will be added to the south side of Boston Ave along the frontage, along the project site frontage subject to approval from National Grid to move the existing power lines in subject and upon receipt of all other required permits and approvals. The applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to work with the MBTA and National Grid to add new trees to the north side of Boston Ave consistent with the approved plans. The applicant will coordinate with PDS and the selection of appropriate tree species, which subject to receipt of necessary permits and approval. So prioritize providing screening of the building from the residential neighborhood on the northern side of the train tracks. And then the additional commitments that have been agreed to 24 is the $500,000 contribution to the affordable housing trust. And that would be due upon all receipt of all permits and licenses. and 25 is with regards to the $500,000 neighborhood improvement fund that'll be held in a escrow account and will be for the benefit of the residents, but the city will not be involved with this fund at all. So those are the 25 draft conditions that are for your consideration that have been reviewed by Robin Stein, who is serving as our legal counsel for this case, along with the applicant. And I will stop sharing. I can figure out how to do that.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ari does have a question, so you may want to keep that up, Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: I'm following up on some comments we received in an earlier meeting in terms of the ride share. stoppage area. I appreciate that it's been increased to four cars. I would not be surprised if there were still traffic buildup and many rideshare people just like ignoring parking regulations as they do around the entire city. Is it possible to include anything about Tufts being required to use Tufts resources to ensure that parking regulations are enforced there and don't cause some traffic and pedestrian and bike hazards. And the second thought I had reading it was in terms of light and noise. I think it seems that that's the best we're going to get in terms of existing regulations, but I remember we had discussions when there was a roof deck a few years ago, but kind of any discussion about regulations that they will place on their students that they are to be respectful of their neighbors and with an understanding that there are limits to how much we can put in here, but I think that would be appreciated by the neighborhood and seems perfectly reasonable and legal to my understanding.

[Emily Hedeman]: Alicia, Danielle, do you have any insight on how we could potentially incorporate those into the conditions? I mean, we have light spillage mitigation and screening conditions. Could we have noise mitigation? There's a certain window thickness or R value or X variable that

[Alicia Hunt]: My recommendation would be to start with the applicant and see how they feel about those and if they have any ways that they could do that. For example, the parking traffic issue, they have their own police force. I don't know what they can and cannot do, but hopefully Rocco might be able to speak to that.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'd be curious hearing from the applicant. I do want to allow Ben an opportunity to speak just in case we can combine

[Ben Lavallee]: It's unrelated, but it might be good to get my question out before Rocco takes his turn. Thank you for the time. I'd like to request that a little bit of clarification be added to condition 13. It would be good to specify whether the free shuttle service is only available to Tufts students or whether it's available to the general public or only Medford residents or just a little bit more detail on who benefits from that condition.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's a great point. Can the applicant address the three concerns raised? Noise, shuttle clientele, and on-demand delivery driver drop-off.

[Rocco DiRico]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I can address the Tough Shuttle and the ride share and parking enforcement. I'll defer to Pat on noise and anything that I may have missed. In regards to the Tough Shuttle, yes, it would be open to anybody. We don't check IDs on our shuttles. So for example, we currently run a route from campus to Davis Square, and that is free and open to the public, and that would be our same. policy with this. And the idea is, we have heard a lot, I myself, being from the Chamber of Commerce, about the desire to have more students go to Medford Square, and vice versa, for neighbors to have the opportunity to come to campus to, for example, access the Green Line. So that would be a free service that would be open to all. In terms of parking enforcement, we are allowed to enforce parking on campus, and we do do that. The rideshare locations, my understanding is that is on a public street, which is Boston Avenue, so that would be enforced by the Medford Police Department. But what I would say is that this project is located adjacent to the Tufts University police department, and they work in very close coordination with the Medford Police Department on many issues, parking and traffic being two of them. So I'll defer to Pat on anything I may have missed.

[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I might suggest on condition number 14, to Rocco's point, if we can add in language to the effect of Tufts University Police Department will cooperate with the Medford Police Department with respect to enforcement of traffic requirements in front of the- You're like a scenographer.

[Emily Hedeman]: You're doing great, Danielle. I see Ben's hand is back up. Did you have any back and forth?

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I do, and I appreciate, thanks for the time, Madam Chair, and I appreciate Rocco's response on the shuttle service. I hope it doesn't come across as unnecessarily nitpicky, but I do believe it would be in the public's interest to have a little bit of specificity around things like hours of operation is, does that only run, you know, during the sort of standard semesters when students are on campus? Is it all the time where Medford residents can benefit? If it's possible, I realize some of those details might not be sorted out just yet fully, but I do think it'd be in the public's interest to understand you know, what is offered in this condition or what is committed to.

[Emily Hedeman]: Does the applicant have any insight? And, you know, building off your point, Ben, it may benefit us to establish like minimum levels of service here. Does the applicant have any insight on

[Ben Lavallee]: Just to take 20 more seconds on this, if I may, Emily. The reason that I keep bringing it up is I view this as a real benefit to the citizens of Medford. And this is a real compelling condition that Tufts has put forward. And so I just am hoping for a little bit of additional detail because I do think that there's a public benefit here.

[Rocco DiRico]: Thank you, Ben. That's an excellent question. And yeah, it would be none of those things are finalized, but we would try to make it consistent with our Davis Square shuttle, which does operate during the academic year. It is not year round. And so, but that is always, you know, something to change as well. So I just want to, you know, make sure that I'm being, you know, totally transparent, but, um, yeah, it's, it's usually during, um, the academic year, um, that it operates. Thanks for the clarification.

[Ben Lavallee]: Thank you, Ben.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ben, would you like those specific details entered into the conditions here? I don't see a downside to it.

[Ben Lavallee]: It can't hurt. I don't want to have, you know, overkill on this.

[Emily Hedeman]: Well, at least establishing minimum conditions, you know, free shuttle service that operates.

[Ben Lavallee]: Even if there is, yeah, sorry to cut you off. No, go for it. You got it. Even if it's some wording along the lines of, you know, consistent with existing shuttle service or to be sort of like, you know, Co termed or I don't know the exact wording that's appropriate, but something saying, you know consistent with what's provided to Davis Square.

[SPEAKER_08]: Can I make a suggestion manager?

[Emily Hedeman]: Sure, and then we'll go to a board member Fishman.

[SPEAKER_08]: I would suggest just to not. be too prescriptive given that this is still being determined. If we could add something to condition 13 saying that the applicant intends to operate the shuttle service consistent with the existing Davis Square shuttle, if that would be acceptable.

[Ben Lavallee]: That seems reasonable to me. Thank you, Pat.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and then it allows for changes within the Davis Square shuttle service as well. board member Fishman.

[Ari Fishman]: I do also want to flag that I maybe saw board member Annie go off of mute. But my question was if Rocco could speak to openness to any behavioral conditions of the expectations of students and residents around light and noise impacts on the neighborhood that are not inherent in the physical structure.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I believe we still have that question hanging out there in terms of what noise. We have light mitigation, but is there noise mitigation we can also build into these conditions?

[Rocco DiRico]: Uh, thank you for that question. That's a good question. Um, yeah, so all of our students are subject to a code of conduct, which they sign and that includes things like, you know, proper behavior, um, and controlling for noise levels on campus. Um, and as I've discussed this particular location is adjacent to the Tufts University. police department. So if there is ever any noise violations or noise concerns, TPD is open 24 seven. And that's the the immediate number that neighbors can call to make sure that noise is well regulated on campus.

[Emily Hedeman]: I think going back to the more proactive noise mitigation? You know, yes, neighbors can call the hotline and, you know, march across the street, but are there conditions that we can build into this document, thinking about the materiality of windows, of walls to help mitigate noise?

[SPEAKER_08]: If I may make a suggestion, Madam Chair.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: I think the best we can probably do in that regard is to agree to a condition that Tufts will enforce its code of conduct in the same manner that it enforces its code of conduct at its existing dorms. And I would just highlight to the point of building materiality that, as we've discussed throughout the public hearing process, given the design of the building and the passive house nature of the building, it is going to be extremely well sealed. And so I think that will go a long way. to protecting noise village. But certainly, we can agree to a condition that we would enforce the student code of conduct in the same manner as Tufts existing doors.

[Emily Hedeman]: Any thoughts on that, Ari?

[Unidentified]: It's not perfect.

[Ari Fishman]: It feels like a bit of a non-answer in terms of to the same standards as present. I don't live within a block of tough students, but from what I've heard and my understanding is there are certainly regular complaints from neighbors and frustrations. So I don't know that upholding to the current standards is actually going to achieve what I'm hoping.

[Emily Hedeman]: Annie, I do want to go back to you if you had any insight. I recognize that Ari recognized you coming off mute, so I want to give you some space there. Do you have anything to add?

[Ayni Strang]: Emily, did you refer to me? I did, yes. Oh, I'm sorry. That's OK. I think that what Ari was saying, what Ben was saying, and what you were saying clearly identifies the pros and cons of the project. I personally don't see how you can enforce light mitigation on shades on students in dorm rooms. I just think it's a problem. You're looking for a unicorn to do that. But I do agree with everything that has been said. It concerns me about the shade for the neighborhood will be quite significant. I think very early in the project, that should have been taken into consideration from the beginning. and needs to be addressed in a way that's actually going to help the community.

[Emily Hedeman]: I think looking at the zoning for the parcel, the use, the height is allowable. And I hear the community's concerns in terms of the significant impact that this building will have on their exposure to sunlight. But that is not something that is under question here based on our understanding of the Community Development Board's mandate, as well as the questions in front of us, which is the Dover Amendment, parking, and setbacks.

[Ayni Strang]: The Dover Amendment, I think, is very clear, very firm, very actual. And I've seen it done in other communities with other college campuses. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: I don't think we're going to condition away the building height, nor add conditions within our jurisdiction that address the impact of the building on sunlight.

[Ayni Strang]: Totally agreed.

[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: So with that in mind, are there any other modifications to the proposed conditions? If there are not, I will be looking for And Attorney Stein, if you have any guidance for us in terms of procedure here, please feel free to jump in.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: No, I mean, I think when you're ready for a motion, somebody can make that motion. And obviously, you want to win. I mean, I know you've even articulated Certain items in the board appears to be in a consensus about at least some of those through your conversation. But I do recommend that a motion contain the basic findings or that they be articulated as part of the board's ultimate vote and decision on the 2 issues under the ordinance. And obviously that it be subject to the conditions discussed today with the changes discussed.

[Emily Hedeman]: and you know also and i'm not sure how you normally do it but maybe an authorization that you as the chair authorized to work with city staff to get the you know decision in final form and signed okay so the first motion that we'd be looking for is a motion to approve the site plan based on the findings that the use is a protected educational use under the dover amendment and that the proposed setbacks And parking locations are reasonable subject to the conditions. And we have already read the conditions aloud. We've, we've modified them. Do I have a motion from a member of the board? And I recognize that there is limited enthusiasm attached to this project because of the limitations placed on the board. With that being said, we do need to respect the applicant's right to move this project forward. We've continued this public hearing multiple times. If we agree that this project is a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment. And we also agree with the proposed setbacks and parking locations. And I don't see a world in which we continue. And then, of course, the board is welcome to vote either way, you know, if the motion is put ahead in front of us. Danielle, Alicia, I'm not sure what to do.

[Ben Lavallee]: Just a procedural thing, Emily. I think I'm technically an alternate, but because of the numbers today, I'm unclear procedurally if I can make the motion or not.

[Emily Hedeman]: Sorry, Danielle, we can't hear you. I believe you are able to, though.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I don't know what is that? I mean, Emily, I think you can make the motion. I don't see the reason why the chair can't make a motion.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. All right, so at this time, I will make a motion to approve the site plan based on the findings that the use is a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment, and that the proposed setbacks and parking locations are reasonable, subject to the conditions. I'm looking for a second.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: And you just want to add that with the board authorizing you to be able to finalize this with planning staff, get the decision finalized and filed and signed? Sure.

[Emily Hedeman]: With authorizing me to finalize based on the decision here this evening.

[Ayni Strang]: I will second that motion.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Annie. We're going to do a roll call vote. Ari Fishman.

[Ari Fishman]: I'm not happy about it. I think I will vote to abstain if that is allowed, or will that mean we don't have quorum?

[Ayni Strang]: We won't have quorum.

[Emily Hedeman]: Danielle, Alicia, do you have any insight there? I know we're low on numbers this evening.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, I think you will. As you and Sabrina missed a meeting, can you state for the record? Can you watch the missing meeting? And I will be getting you the attestation to have along with this decision. Hold on one second.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Oh, the members have to certify in writing that you've examined all the evidence. You have to do the Mullin certification before you vote. Why don't we take a recess then? Let's turn your time.

[Emily Hedeman]: This is new to me.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: So the statute says before any such vote, the member shall certify in writing that he has examined all evidence received at the missed session, which evidence shall include an audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof. Certifications shall be part of the record of the hearing. So if you haven't done that, we can take a five minute recess. You can email it in, but you are supposed to have made the certification writing before you vote.

[Alicia Hunt]: I wasn't aware that that was an issue. You just implied this, but literally, they don't have to write on a piece of paper and sign it. They can email that to Danielle.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: It says in writing, that's what it says. And emails are writing. So, I mean, as long as the applicant's comfortable with that. And just to clarify, is Ben a voting member on this one, or do you actually only have four votes this evening? Ben is an alternate.

[Danielle Evans]: An alternate, so he's an associate member votes in place of a full member when we don't have a full board president.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: So we have five of the seven, you need four for an approval. Because you are a seven member board. And this is a simple majority vote. So just to clarify, this is constituted, correct, as a seven-member board. Yes. With two associate spots for a total potentially of nine people involved, but it's a seven regular members. And a simple majority then would be four votes in the affirmative in order to grant this.

[Emily Hedeman]: So what am I supposed to email? Now, you should see that in your inbox, my attestation. And just for all members of the meeting, I would like to confirm that I watched the recording of the November 20, 2024 meeting, which was part of this process. Sabrina, are you able to confirm that you watched?

[SPEAKER_17]: I can confirm. I'm sending my email now.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Great, thank you. We'll have the writing in place and that's important.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm just gonna start the roll call over again. Attorney Stein, are we? As long as the writings have been received. Can you give us a thumbs up?

[Ayni Strang]: Am I supposed to send something as well? No. Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: Annie, you didn't miss any meetings.

[Ayni Strang]: Right. Okay. I just don't want to confuse things.

[Emily Hedeman]: I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Danielle Evans]: I received Emily's. Confirming that she watched the recording, the 11-20-24 meeting. Sabrina's is working its way through the interwebs. Here we go. Member Alpino, her email has been received, attesting that she reviewed the missing material from the November 20th, 24 meeting, and we'll be able to vote on this matter.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. So just to recap, I have made the motion. Annie seconded. We are doing a roll call vote. I'm just going to start at the top. Ari Fishman. I am abstaining. Thank you. Ben Lavallee.

[Ben Lavallee]: I'm an aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Annie Strang. Nay. Sabrina Alpino. Nay. And myself, right? Yes. Emily Hedeman, I am an I. So to summarize, we have one abstention, two in the affirmative, two in the negative. Is that correct, Danielle? Is that also what you got?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I'm going to turn it over to Attorney Stein. What do we do here?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: So, the only thing that I would recommend is that the board members voting no, you know, articulate their reasons for the record so that when you prepare a decision and that, you know, their findings, you know. In there this was obviously a vote made in the affirmative it failed um, you know, it would be helpful for the purposes of the decision to have um findings supporting the decision and again, I would just ask that you authorize Um, you know, unless you want to do it a different way that you authorize emily, uh to have the authority to work with you folks To just get the decision written up and filed Andy or sabrina if either of you would like to

[Emily Hedeman]: I see. Did you want to add something, Alicia?

[Alicia Hunt]: No, I was just going to say that we have to have reasons in the decision to deny it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. And that is what Attorney Stein has requested that Annie and Sabrina articulate to help us really, really kind of clarify this decision here.

[Alicia Hunt]: Am I able to write?

[Emily Hedeman]: I can't write a decision. I think I think Sabrina is about to talk.

[SPEAKER_17]: Am I able to retract the voting or is it just as is?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I mean, if you if somebody wants to make a motion to reconsider the vote, you can make a motion to reconsider the vote. I mean, you haven't closed out the process yet. And then the board would vote on whether or not they want to have a reconsideration of the vote and then you can revote the vote.

[Emily Hedeman]: So that may be an option. But I would like to give Annie an opportunity to provide some insight on her nay vote.

[Ayni Strang]: I thought very deeply about it because Tufts really needs the dorm space. And in my mind, it has nothing to do with Dover. I think Dover stands and totally supports how Dover was crafted, but I'm very uncomfortable about what it's going to do to the neighborhood that has been there a very long time. And I really think good fences make good neighbors. And I don't think the two parties will be able to comfortably get along. I think that from my perspective, it's extremely important to me that the community that has lived there for a long time has to be seriously taken into consideration. I have driven up there numerous times, walked around carefully, very carefully considered it right after the last meeting. And I just am having a real struggle seeing how this was going to work for the community. and I voted my conscience.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Annie. I appreciate that. So thinking specifically about the Dover Amendment, just to summarize what I'm hearing is that you are in agreement that it qualifies as a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment. However, the question of reasonable regulations, it sounds like that is where there may be some gaps. Are there specific regulations that you would like to address or propose?

[Danielle Evans]: Is it the setbacks? Because it has to be the setbacks or the parking. Or the parking.

[Emily Hedeman]: Which one? And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but our vote is very important here. We have very invested community. We also have a very eager applicant. It's totally understood.

[Ayni Strang]: I didn't, like Ari said, I didn't take this path to be uncooperative or supportive. Not at all. I really just am not comfortable with how the regulations, which I'm sure are totally fine, But I just have very strong feelings about the community that has been there a very long time and a very old city like Medford. And we just have to work out a compromise that not only supports the goals of the university, but frankly, the lives of these people who have invested in their properties and their children grew up in these neighborhoods. So I'm certainly not Solomon, and I don't know how to dissect a baby, but I just know in my conscious, I just can't go there with what's going on.

[Emily Hedeman]: And to be honest, I can't say I disagree with you. However, I keep coming back to our powers as a board, and we The reason this board works is because we apply. You know, a consistent approach to all applicants. And I don't know, but I think Alicia said it at some point, you know, it's it's it's only fair and right for the applicants to know. What is expected of them when they come before this board and. without being able to, I'm not saying you can't vocalize the reasonable regulations, but if there's any insight that you can offer in terms of reasonable regulations that you feel should be imposed on the use related to the setback in the parking.

[Ayni Strang]: Other than that, I don't have enough.

[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, could your, this might be more Alicia, Danielle, could the perspective just be she doesn't agree with the relief?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I mean, I think you've asked the right questions.

[Alicia Hunt]: We can't answer them for anyone else. Right. Could we hear from the other member who voted no because Sabrina.

[SPEAKER_17]: Hi, yeah, I totally recognize that this is under the Dover Amendment and I get that, but I think I'm on the same boat that these rules and regulations aren't really protecting the people that live here. It's almost like it's getting bullied to the point and we kind of have to accept it. I voted similarly to Annie where I just don't feel as though Again, the protections aren't there. It seems like it's easier for the developer or whoever to get the upper hand. And unfortunately, even with voting, like with my vote, it only has to be for reasonable regulations. And it can't be for because majority of the people living there don't want it. So that's where I'm at. But I would retract. I'm not trying to be difficult, but that's just how I voted in the moment.

[Emily Hedeman]: Speak to me more about this retraction. Do you really know how to do this from a procedural standpoint, Danielle or Alicia? Are you saying that?

[Danielle Evans]: I think we do vote if you want to reconsider the vote, as Attorney Stein said. Perhaps Ari. would be willing to make a vote. They went first, so usually. You can do the opposite order. Yeah. OK.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I do appreciate the pressure that voting first puts on a person. So thank you for going first, Ari, last time. So I'd like to make a motion to reconsider the vote. This is by no means pressure to change your vote. Please vote how you feel that this matter should go.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: And just to clarify, the motion to reconsider is a motion in and of itself. It's who we want to have. So yeah, just to clarify. So first, the board would say, do we even want to vote again? Then you would need a new motion on the application.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so maybe let's discuss. Do we want to vote again? I would say yes. I think that would offer clarity to the board. I think that would offer clarity to the applicant. And I think that would offer clarity to the public. But curious other thoughts, board members.

[Ari Fishman]: I'm happy to vote again. I think that it is a complex enough issue that given the additional discussion, if anyone wants to. change their opinion that is, I have no objections to having that discussion. Or not. Or continuing to vote their conscience. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Ben, Annie, Sabrina, any opinions?

[SPEAKER_17]: If we. Yes, I'd like to. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: All right, seeing overall support. I'm going to make a motion to reconsider the vote. I'll need a second.

[Ayni Strang]: I'll second that motion.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Annie. So I will go first. I, Emily Hedeman, am an aye. Annie Strang?

[Ayni Strang]: I'm an aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Ben LaValle?

[Ben Lavallee]: I'm an aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Sabrina Alpino? Aye. I'm sorry, Sabrina, you went on mute. Oh, I sorry. Thank you, Sabrina. Ari Fishman. And I will remain in abstention. Thank you, Ari. So with that, we have one abstention, one in the negative, two in the affirmative. Alicia, I see a face.

[Ben Lavallee]: I believe it's three in the affirmative. Three in the affirmative.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I thought that was the vote to reconsider. You have to vote to reconsider and then you have to- That was.

[Ari Fishman]: Oh, oh, sorry. I'm happy to, I misunderstood. I'm voting to reconsider that. I'm not abstaining on that one. Yes, I'm happy to reconsider. Okay.

[Ayni Strang]: Okay, okay, do we need to do that again?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I think we all got confused.

[Ayni Strang]: Right.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. And huge appreciation of patience for the public for the applicant. I know that this is a deeply personal issue. So please know that we're not taking this lightly. So the motion in front of us, I'm asking for a motion to reconsider the vote. I will make the motion to reconsider the vote. I'm looking for a second.

[Ayni Strang]: I will second the motion to reconsider the vote.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Annie. So we're going to do a roll call vote and the motion in front of us is to reconsider the vote. Annie String?

[Ayni Strang]: Aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ben Lavallee?

[Ayni Strang]: Aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Sabrina Alpino? Aye. Thank you. Ari Fishman? Aye. And I, myself, Emily Henneman, am also an aye in the motion to reconsider the vote. Now we need to make another motion, or do we just open it up?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I think we're supposed to be. You can, if you're ready, I mean, you can restate the original motion that's being reconsidered. I don't know that you have to say all the words again. You can just say, you know, I'm making the motion again.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm going to say all the words.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: So I am looking, oh, Ben, I see your hand. Is there something we need to discuss before we go into this?

[Ben Lavallee]: Not necessarily, but I do want to make note of the fact that Pat Gallagher has his hand raised and at least open the door to allowing Pat to speak before any re-vote.

[Emily Hedeman]: Attorney Gallagher, can you give me a one-sentence summary of what you're looking to talk about? And then we may or may not allow the comment.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a legal point on what the ordinance and the Zoning Act states.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'll allow it because I think that it's important for us to be super clear. on the issues, especially the ones that are raised by the public of which the zoning is one.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. None of us here writes the laws. But we came into this process based on what the law is when we filed our application. And when we filed our application, what the law in the city of Medford says is that a dormitory use can be constructed on this site in an apartments two district to a height of up to 125 feet. And in addition to that, this is a use protected by the Dover Amendment, which is a law that was established to protect against these types of uses being discriminated against. And I want to just, we have been through this process with everyone here and we have heard everything that has been said. And there are some things that we don't agree on, but I think we need to respect what the law says. And the law says that on this site, we are permitted to build the building that has been proposed here before the board.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney Gallagher. The board will keep that in mind as we move forward.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Can I also just, I would like to clarify, um, Just a quantum of vote on this issue, because I am looking at your site plan review ordinance under 94-11-8, which governs this particular section of the store member site plan review. 9-11-8-4. It says that the Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with General Law Chapter 48, Section 11 and reach its written decision reached by a majority vote of the Board as constituted. Um, and just to clarify, in my opinion, the ordinance does control over any, like, local rules and this is a 7 member board. So, I believe that a majority of the 7 member board, the 4 members are the vote that are needed to approve. Yes, I understand there may be a question about that. Okay. Um, but. In my opinion if there's a conflict between the ordinance and any kind of local rule or community development board rule Um, which I believe there may be a question about I think the ordinance would control because rules and regulations have to within the scope of an ordinance Okay, so in summary if If this motion was to pass meaning

[Emily Hedeman]: Confirmed educational use, per the Community Development Board, confirmed educational use, as well as relief for setbacks in parking. We would need four members of the board to vote in the affirmative, regardless of how many board members are present today.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, I mean the it says the majority vote of the board has constituted in my opinion. It's constituted as a seven member board Regardless of how many seats are filled or how many people are here? And my opinion is the ordinance itself would control The quantum of votes and just for this particular vote so seeing that I mean, I I think at that point

[Emily Hedeman]: I think the applicant got a little bit of a preview of the way the board may be leaning and the prior vote the first time we voted on the motion. Attorney Stein, do you think it makes sense to put it forth to the applicant if they would like to continue this matter or if they would like us to vote this evening? And this question is for Attorney Stein and Attorney Stein only. I'm not looking for input from just if we should pose this question.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I don't, I don't think I can answer that question. I mean, it's, um, that's. It's up to the board. If you want to make a motion, it's up to the board. If you want to hear from the applicant on that issue. Respectfully, I just don't think that's something that I can weigh in on. Okay, thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm going to look to my fellow board members here. I think it does pose the question. It does make sense to pose the question to the applicant to just confirm that they would like this motion to be evaluated this evening, but also I am not the only member of the board. So Annie, Ben, Ari, Sabrina.

[SPEAKER_18]: I know.

[Ayni Strang]: I know. I honestly don't know how to respond, Emily. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, this was something that I guess I wish we had known at the outside of the meeting. I think that would have changed things a little bit.

[Ayni Strang]: So just to be clear, from what has just been said, we really should have seven people voting. Does that mean we can't vote today with the amount?

[Emily Hedeman]: No, we can vote.

[Ayni Strang]: But you're asking if Mr. Gallagher would rather us take it?

[Alicia Hunt]: later yeah yeah so more members of the board can be here melisha i see your hand i so here's the problem there can't be more members of the board because you cannot appoint somebody in the middle of a public hearing so we're we're down a member okay jackie stepped off yeah and you cannot appoint somebody in the middle of a public hearing. So the Mullen rule doesn't work for you weren't on the board because that would, if you could just imagine you have a board and then you appoint purpose because they're going to vote a certain way in the middle. What about Adam? Would he, has he only missed this one meeting? It would only have been this one. Because the Mullen rule can only apply to one meeting.

[Emily Hedeman]: So theoretically, Adam, if full board attendance, and again, respecting that we cannot appoint an additional member, and I agree that would be a huge conflict, so don't want to do that. We could theoretically have board member barons join at the next meeting. So at this point, I do want to ask the applicant

[Alicia Hunt]: May I make a statement on behalf of the city? Totally. So I, it is not, it is not my intention to pressure people. On the other hand, the city, so if this is denied, it is reasonable to assume that Tufts would appeal as they have before. The city would have to spend resources to defend it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Alicia, I don't want you to continue this because at the same time, yes, the applicant has rights and resources, but so does the public. I understand why you are saying this. But I do not want that to continue respectfully. Thank you. Danielle.

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to raise the issue that if it's continued, we could- I can't hear you. I don't know why this- Oh, there. Now I can hear you. Now we can hear you. I don't know why my mic isn't picking me up. I just wanted to add that if we continue it, we might run into quorum issues as someone could miss them, could be absent at that meeting. I don't think we've ever had full attendance. at any of our meetings, so we can't guarantee. It is a challenge. Someone could be sick, who knows.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so keeping that in mind, I'd like to pose it to the applicant. I see Attorney Gallagher's hands. Do you have any preference? And understanding that this is not the applicant telling the board what to do, we are just trying to survey kind of the entire situation here.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand it would be our preference to continue.

[SPEAKER_18]: Okay.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Emily before the board would consider a motion and continue. Can we just clarify at this point the status of the public hearing? Um, because obviously decisions are tied to the close of the public hearing the public should be aware at this point or if you consider the public the whole public hearing closed And this is just board deliberation. You'd be continuing for continued board deliberation Or are you keeping? the hearing open for some reason and that you're going to be taking an additional public comment in the future. I just want to make sure we're really clear with everybody that's on the Zoom, what expectations would be on a continuance?

[Emily Hedeman]: So I would say the public hearing is closed and we would be looking for any additional board deliberations and to vote on a motion. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah. So I'm in favor of continuing. I know that that's not anybody's favorite answer. It's not mine. But given the update that the whole board, all seven, would have to be considered, and not just the members in attendance tonight, That being said, so late in the meeting, I'm not comfortable voting, but also interested in what the board has to say.

[Ayni Strang]: I'm open to continuing. OK. So am I. And if Jackie's no longer part of the voting group, then are we six? And is that OK?

[Emily Hedeman]: My understanding is that we're still seven.

[Ayni Strang]: We are still seven.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: I mean, it's a seven member, generally speaking in the zoning context, the boards are whatever their full membership are, right?

[Ayni Strang]: Ah, okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: And just to clarify for the board, you know, I think we all have, we all have our conscience and we all have Um, you know, what we, what we wish we could do. Um, but in order for this to be a valid decision by the board that respects the public, that respects the applicant, we do have to have a legal justification for the denial. So I'll let that sit for a second.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: And Emily, I can say as well, if you do choose to continue, we'll obviously take another look at the quantum issue and we can verify it. But as I'm just reading your ordinance today, my opinion would be a need for. But I'm happy if you're going to continue to take another look at the quantum issue.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so I'm going to put forth a motion to continue uh, 401 Boston Ave, uh, to a date certain. It looks like that will be, I know we have a meeting next week on the 22nd.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair, that is a special meeting just for the zoning. We weren't going to add it to that.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. So then the next meeting would be the 5th of February would be. We meet in the first and the third.

[Ayni Strang]: The fifth, right? The next one is the fifth, right, Danielle?

[Danielle Evans]: Let me check. Madam Chair, can we pull the board for expected attendance at that meeting? Understanding that we never have full attendance because we're people with lives, things happen, and people take vacations. I just don't want to count on just running into the same issue.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. So, Ari, expected attendance?

[Ari Fishman]: Starring unexpected circumstances, I am planning to attend. I will be there.

[Emily Hedeman]: Annie? Yes, I will attend.

[SPEAKER_17]: Ben?

[Ben Lavallee]: Planning to be there.

[SPEAKER_17]: Sabrina? This is February 5th, correct?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, I will be there.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. And do we know from Adam yet?

[Danielle Evans]: I can check and see what his status is with the Outlook invitation. If somebody gets there quicker than me, what was his response? Yeah, I'm going into it too.

[Emily Hedeman]: You and I are the only people going, Danielle.

[Danielle Evans]: Folks, please respond to these and let me know. Okay. If Sabrina's accepted it, you have accepted it.

[Ayni Strang]: Have you sent it? I haven't seen it.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I sent them all out at the end of last year for at least the next six months. I can resend it if I can figure out how to do that.

[Alicia Hunt]: But there's no reason to believe that he would accept it in the next five minutes, though.

[Danielle Evans]: No. That's not possible. No, no, no. I mean, Annie, because Annie hadn't

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, we'll deal with everything, but administrative or technical things related to the calendar at another time. But if you're if you anticipate you can attend, then we'll take that as as the response.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay, I can see my answers. I do not have anything for Ben for Adam. Okay, so we don't know if he'll be here in which case we'll be in the same situation.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so then. I'm going to pose a question to the applicant one last time. Knowing what you've, or hearing what you've heard about attendance, what's your preference?

[SPEAKER_08]: Madam Chair, we would still prefer to continue.

[Emily Hedeman]: Continue is my gut next step. So what I'm going to do here is look for a motion to continue to a date certain, which is February 5th. So I'm looking for a second on the motion to continue.

[Ayni Strang]: I'll second to continue to February 5th, Wednesday.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Annie. OK. So we're going to do a roll call vote. Ari Fishman? Aye. Annie String?

[Ayni Strang]: Aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ben LaValle? Aye. Sabrina Alpino. Aye. And myself, Emily Hedeman, is also an aye. So with that, we are continuing 401 Boston Ave. The public hearing had closed, so this is just board deliberations at the next meeting. And I wanna thank the applicant for their patience. I wanna thank the public for their patience and their advocacy. I wanna thank city staff, my fellow board members. And yeah, thank you.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Emily Hedeman]: So with that, I'm gonna propose a quick five minute bio break. So let's meet back here at, I'll say 8.03, give everybody an extra minute. And we will be hearing.

[Alicia Hunt]: The applicant for the ANR is here?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, that will be our next item.

[Ayni Strang]: Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. And thank you to the applicant for their patience. All right, we are coming back from a brief break. We are hearing our third agenda item, which is A&R plan endorsement for 31 Wilson Street. I'd like to invite the proponent to present their proposal. And I would also like to thank the proponent for their patience and support as we adjusted the agenda this evening. I see Greg Maynard has their hand raised. Greg, are you able to unmute yourself?

[SPEAKER_09]: Can you hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, I can. Thank you. And thanks again for your patience. I really appreciate it. Yep.

[SPEAKER_09]: Would you like to talk us through the project?

[Emily Hedeman]: What'd you say?

[SPEAKER_09]: It took me a little while to figure out how the hand raise thing worked. That's why I missed.

[Emily Hedeman]: They don't make these things easy, do they?

[SPEAKER_09]: No, I was raising my hand like this, not on the emoji.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Would you like to walk us through the project?

[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, it's just a three lot, so that we're looking to move the lot line and make it a two lot possible.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Are there any comments from city staff related to the ANR for 31 Wilson?

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, I am looking for my I guess I think I closed that tab. But basically, yeah, it's easier if you can see what I'm talking about.

[Unidentified]: Sure.

[Alicia Hunt]: Just bear with me while Danielle opens that. Have all the members of the board done an A&R before? Are they aware of what that means? Should I, like, do you need that background while Danielle finds it?

[Emily Hedeman]: Any members of the board want an intro from Alicia. It's the best one you're going to get if you're going to get one.

[Danielle Evans]: OK, I can say, well, basically, it's City of Medford opted into subdivision control law. And there is a aspect of it that is approval not required, commonly called A&R. So basically, if the lots meet the minimum frontage, for that zoning district are located on a right of way and have adequate, reasonable and adequate access, then the board is obligated to endorse the plan as approval not required. It's really a procedural kind of rubber stamping thing. In cities and towns that have not have opted out of subdivision control law, like our neighbors, Somerville and Watertown, other communities I worked in. These are not a thing. The planning director just signs it. Let me share. I'm terrible at this. I think... Not alone, Greg. We're all struggling. Okay. Application window. Okay. Windows. Hold on. Okay. This is the existing Um, the existing 3 lots, they're undersized, but they do meet minimum frontage. This is the existing situation and. What they are looking to do is to delete one of the lot lines and move one of the lot lines to create two conforming buildable lots that would meet the minimum frontage, which is 35 in the SF2. It fronts on Wilson Street, which is a public way, not even a private way. My opinion is that there is adequate access for these two parcels. How do I switch what I'm sharing? Can you see that now?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[Danielle Evans]: So this is what they're looking to do. As you see now, there's two lots. They're conforming with lot size, which is 5,000, which, as you know, endorsing an A&R doesn't doesn't even make any promises that it is buildable, but these actually are. So he's creating two conforming lots where there's three non-conforming lots right now. So I would recommend that you endorse the plan as submitted, and then authorize Alicia Hano, Director, to sign off on this on the MILR for the applicant to pick up. when he at his convenience.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so just to recap, the questions we need to validate are, do the lots front on a right of way? Do the lots satisfy the minimum frontage requirements? And is access to the lots provided? Does anybody have any questions in terms of the division of those lots? Wilson Street as a public way. Peter Calves has rejoined us, our resident transportation expert. We got him for that. Any questions from the board for Mr. Maynard? Just to clarify, thinking about the access, Whether the proposed building lots have practical access typically focus on the following two issues. Adequacy of the way on which the proposed lots front. So that's Wilson Street public way maintained by the city, as well as the adequacy of the access from the way to the buildable portion of the lot. And from what we're seeing from the site plans, as well as the existing structure, there appears to be no issues with creating access via new curb cut. Any questions or other discussion from the board?

[Peter Calves]: For me, I think it looks good. I think it satisfies the conditions as I see them.

[Ari Fishman]: Thanks, Peter. I don't see any issues. Happy to vote to move ahead unless anyone else has them. I agree.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. All right, so if we find the criteria is met, I'm looking for a motion to endorse the plan as approval not required. That's the ANR. And then also authorizing Alicia to endorse the plans. So I'm looking for a motion.

[Peter Calves]: So moved.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Peter. Can I have a second? Second. Thank you, Ari. So we'll do a roll call vote. Peter Calves.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Fishman. Aye. Sabrina Alpino. Aye. Annie Strang. Aye. Ben LaValle.

[Ben Lavallee]: Aye.

[Emily Hedeman]: And myself, Emily Hedeman, is an aye. So the motion passes. And yeah, I think that's it. Thank you so much, Mr. Maynard for coming before the development board, and we wish you the best of luck with your plans moving forward.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. So at this point, we are moving forward in the agenda. We are at 21 St. Clair Road. This is a site plan review for a Dover amendment use. This is a continued public hearing. Similar to the previous continued public hearing, we are looking for the applicant to present any new information. If there is a member of the applicant's team that would like to speak, see Attorney Ross, Mr. Litchfield, Tisha Gouchard,

[SPEAKER_40]: Hello, Madam Chair.

[Emily Hedeman]: Hi.

[SPEAKER_40]: Hi. Hello, everyone. Good to see you again. Yes, I do have just a couple of paragraphs to share with you. No actual presentation, if that's okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yep, that sounds great.

[SPEAKER_40]: Just kind of the net new and a summary, a basic summary. So, you know, again, my name is Mike Ross. I'm the attorney for the co-applicants, Assisi Holdings LLC, represented here by Andrew Litchfield, and Halo House Inc., represented here by Taisha Gishard. For the proposal to cite a domestic violence shelter for women and children, with educational programs and services at 21 St Clair Road. The relief we're seeking is site plan review approval for Dover amended uses pursuant to section 94-11.8 of the Medford zoning ordinance. This is the third time we are before the Community Development Board not including individual meetings with the City of Medford staff and leadership appearing before this board on November 6th, December 18th, and now tonight, January 15th. I think it's fair to say that at each step in this process, this proposal has become a better one, both for the co-applicants, but also for the community generally. Many of the changes to the project came directly from comments that we heard at these hearings, either by the board or by members of the public. That first tranche of changes had more to do with the physical building itself, such as we created a redundant accessible access point with the addition of a side ramp. In addition to the previously proposed lift on the front of the entrance for accessible access to the building, we ensured that There was additional play space created for children both inside the building and outside the building. We reduced the number of dedicated residential rooms from 37 to 34 while increasing classroom space and bathroom areas. Additional changes were also made to the programming and other amendments to the application itself. refining the description of the Halo House so that it was specific to that of a domestic violence facility use, as opposed to the broader use of homeless shelter, providing expanded curriculum information and requiring mandatory participation for all adult residents, and committing to a shuttle service that will allow residents and staff safe access to area amenities and public transportation. The applicants have continued to respond to issues as they have arisen. Specifically ahead of tonight's meeting, we have provided a copy of a signed lease agreement between the building owner and the nonprofit tenant, which is a provision that the Dover Amendment expressly calls for in the statute. And as you can see from the lease, the initial term is for five years with a five-year extension, along for a total rental period of 10 years. On behalf of the co-applicants, I'd like to thank the board and the staff for your patience and your assistance throughout this process. And I'm just gonna pause there, Madam Chair, to see if there are any questions.

[Emily Hedeman]: All right, thank you, Attorney Ross. So at this time, I would like to ask the City's Attorney, Attorney Stein, to share some insight with us related to the applicability of the Dover Amendment, as well as any specifics around the relief requested.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: So, obviously, for anyone that was here for the prior application, you've already essentially heard me share the summary, but I think it's good to do it for each application for any new people that have. Um, joined. the meeting, General Law Chapter 48, Section 3, parts of which we call the Dover Amendment, protects the use of land for bona fide educational use when that land is owned or leased by an educational nonprofit. And so the same standard that we discussed earlier, is there a bona fide educational use happening on this property? Is the operator of that use, either the owner or the lessee, and are they a nonprofit? with an educational purpose. The zoning ordinance in the section 9411 I believe has again the Dover site plan review. If you have been here all night then you just heard us have a lengthy discussion about the quantum of vote. I've opined I think that it is a four of seven vote. This board is constituted for seven members. It's pretty consistent in the land use realm that we look at the total seats on the the board when determining a majority. And so while that is something I had indicated previously, we can re-verify before you re-vote on the prior application. That's my opinion of the need tonight would be four of the five people that are. here would be needed to approve this application. I'm happy to answer any particular questions that anyone has, but I do think that the ordinance is pretty straightforward when you look at section 94-11.8.3 on the scope of the site plan review. Again, the board is charged with determining if the use is over, if it's that bona fide educational use, and the reasonable regulations that will apply to the extent that full compliance isn't possible or being asked for. So happy to answer any other questions. Certainly don't want to add to the time of the night. We'd like something.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney's time. I appreciate that. Danielle, I see your hand.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, Madam Chair, I just wanted to- Your audio is a little low. I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Emily Hedeman]: It's still very low. I'm sorry.

[Danielle Evans]: New computer. That's a little better. I just wanted to say that we have Peter Keltz, who is with us tonight, so we have six. He was just recused for the Tough Smarter. Thank you for clarifying that. So, it still is because it's for. So, if this this vote would prevail with a 4 to 2 or.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Yep, just for in the affirmative, either it's in my mind, it's a 7 member board and the file just calls for a majority. So, 4 is a majority. So.

[Emily Hedeman]: And that's no reason for anybody to vote affirmative or negative. We're just talking logistics here. So we just want to be up front with the process so that everyone is clear.

[SPEAKER_40]: I'm sure.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, Attorney Ross.

[SPEAKER_40]: I just have to be compelled to respond to that last statement. It may not be an issue, but I'm virtually certain that the number of votes that you'll need for passing a matter tonight would be three, not four. And we can go into that later if it becomes an issue. But I didn't want to stay silent because silence might appear as if I'm agreeing with what was just said previously.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great. Thank you for adding that perspective. So at this point, I'd like to open it up to the board for questions and comments. What I'm hearing is that the significant new information is related to the lease between Halo House and Assisi Holdings. I'm curious if the board has any questions, comments.

[SPEAKER_18]: Ben?

[Ben Lavallee]: Are we going to go through the conditions or is now the time to open up the conversation?

[Emily Hedeman]: We still have to open the public hearing. Okay, so I'll- The public comment, excuse me. And then we'll close the public comment period. Then we'll have time to rediscuss as a board. And then that's typically the time that we speak to conditions. But if you have some insight, I would say there's time.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I'll be super brief. I would like to have some dialogue around parking. I see the condition around no city of Medford. resident parking and just sort of hear if the applicant has any statements around that. That's a major concern that I have.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Peter?

[Peter Calves]: Like I said, I'll be very brief just trying to kind of publicly air what I remember to be the kind of collected thoughts around this project when we last left it off. I believe our last concerns were about the Dover, to confirm the Dover amendment applicability, and that was kind of the last major sticking point. So I just wanted to confirm that that was where we had stood as of our last hearing, and I will reserve any further comments left to the public hearing.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, that's my recollection as well. So if there are no other pre-comment, pre-public comment remarks from the board, I will I will now open the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand function. You're also welcome to message Danielle in the chat if you're having technical difficulties. You can also send an email to OCD at Medford-MA.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. That's a legal requirement. We may remind you if you forget. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members as that's not part of the public record and we need to abide by open meeting laws. However, if you do have technical issues, audio, raising hand, and so on, please message staff for assistance. And that is Danielle Evans and Alicia Hunt. Each participant will have two minutes to speak. We have a timer. up on screen. I see one member of the public in the queue. Attorney Racer and Alicia, are you able to do the timer? Awesome, thank you.

[Harley Racer]: Thank you, madam chair members of the board Harley racer with the law firm rich may 176 federal street in Boston. The lease changes nothing here. The threshold question. Is that is whether the applicant. is a non-profit educational institution, and it is not. The applicant is a for-profit developer, a CC LLC. They remain the applicant. They have now said that Halo House is a co-applicant, and even if that is permissible, it does not remove this out of the bar of the Dover Amendment. And they've cited no case no case whatsoever that allows a for-profit corporation to access the benefits and protections of the Dover Amendment for a for-profit use. When you get to the question of what is this proposed use of the applicant a CC, it's to develop the property and rent it for profit. This would be a non-precedented expansion of the Dover Amendment. And the only case that I found that deals with the for-profit aspect where a for-profit entity seeking the Dover Amendment protections rejects this. I cited it in a letter sent on January 8th at Sullivan v. Heritage Plantation of Sandwich. There, an LLC was applying for Dover Mement protections, and the majority member of that LLC was a for-profit corporation. The court said, this is not acceptable. And to allow this type of arrangement, just like what we have here, it would defeat the purpose of the statute and provide an easy end run around the nonprofit requirement. A CC is attempting an end run around the nonprofit requirement. They are the applicant and the lease is contingent on them getting this permit. So this kind of a circular problem that they have, and that the lease doesn't become effective unless they get this permit. They only get this permit by claiming the protections and benefits of the Dover Amendment as a for-profit corporation that's not permissible, and this would be reversed on appeal if the board goes forward with it. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney Ray, sir. Appreciate your comment and your insight. The next hand I see is a bidet. Can you please state your name and address for the record, please?

[SPEAKER_01]: Okay. Hi, my name is Abida Bhanu.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm hearing a little bit of an echo. Echo? All right, that sounds a little bit better.

[SPEAKER_01]: Better? Okay, thank you so much.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Can you rehear the timer?

[SPEAKER_01]: My name is Abida Banu. My address is 11 St. Clair Road. And I'm immediate next to 21st St. Clair. And since this project coming and talking people, we are very unhappy. And I'm having mental health issue such as high level of anxiety. I'm struggling to manage my daily task because I work from home most of the time. and it will invade my privacy. I have been living in this location peacefully, and our community members do not want our neighborhood, we have a very bad traffic issues, as you know. So please try to understand, we are very peaceful community, we want to live together, okay? Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Abita. Next for public comment, I see Emily Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Hi, Emily Lazzaro, 170 Mystic Street Extension. Thank you for taking my comment. I spoke many weeks ago, the first time you took this issue up. I just Respectfully to Attorney Racer, this is squarely a Dover amendment use. The lessee is a non-profit organization and many homeless shelters with even less educational purposes have have qualified as such, and I think this is a really exciting project. And I think you would, this would be a great asset to Medford and to the wider community. And I appreciate the time you've all spent. Thank you very much.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Emily. The next public comment we have is iPad KR.

[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_03]: Hi, this is Kelly Rasa with 35 St. Francis Street.

[Unidentified]: You just turn the volume down.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can we restart the timer? Thank you.

[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, I'm sorry for the echo.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, it's a little echoey.

[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_03]: Is it better now?

[Emily Hedeman]: It's much better, thank you.

[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_03]: Okay, great. I'm going to send an email because I'm not going to have enough time to read what I'd like to read in the two minutes. So I'd like to ask, is the letter I delivered on December 18th actually part of the permanent record? I dropped it off at City Hall. It is. I was unable to view that in the documentation on the website. The applicant is proposing 40 rooms security, 40 rooms, security staff, et cetera. Obviously this much activity will necessitate its fair share of deliveries for goods and service as well. Now the site is currently unoccupied. There are no inhabitants, no users, no residents, no students, no one is currently occupying the site. And there is a question about whether this use can safely accommodate the, this use, I'm sorry, I just lost my spot. I challenge that this property can safely handle the use as proposed. Can the applicant please answer for the board and all the public truthfully the following question. Andrew, please share with us that when you arrived to visit the neighborhood, I believe it was January 3rd, to the unoccupied, building site, you drove up by car, where did you park? You parked directly in front of the building, in fact, in the fire lane, exactly where we as neighbors have concerns about. There is no parking with this building. And the applicant actually drove up to the building, pulled his car into the fire lane in front of his property, that's true, and stood at the edge of my driveway. We are not opposed to development of this building. We're opposed to the use under the guise of Dover. More directly, have you yourself ever parked in the marked fire lane or the church parking lot? Now I want to be honest with you. Before you answer, I have security camera pictures.

[Emily Hedeman]: Your time is up, Kelly, but I really appreciate your comments. And we do have your comment from the 18th available, but I would encourage you to also email any additional comments into the city. Thank you. The next public comment we have is from Cheryl.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, can you hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, I can. Thank you, Cheryl. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, my name is Cheryl Rodriguez and I live at 281 Park Street in Medford. I feel like this application is a for-profit entity. He's put a definite end date on this of 10 years, so he's planning to use this building for something else and he's looking to exploit a loophole here. The city councilor who just spoke said this was a homeless shelter, but the applicant says that it's a domestic violence shelter, and Emily Lazzaro met with the applicant. So that is part of the confusion for the area, is that it keeps changing and fluctuating depending on what they think that we want to hear. Just like you raised with Tufts, if you do pass this, which I do not believe you should, you should ask for a closed trash room. Because we don't want rats running around here either. We would like noise spillage and light spillage to be controlled. Six foot head to head clearances. needed in shelters that are newly opening, although they give exceptions for ones that are already open, there needs to be space. These are people and they should be treated humanely. To have this many families in a 12,000 square foot building with 363 square feet per family is outrageous. The dentist project that the AG mentioned is a 50,000 57,000 square foot building for only 72 families with 790 square feet per family. This is overly large and treating people like cattle rather than human beings. I would also ask you to put a cap on the height in case they decide that they'd like a couple extra floors later. because you gave them Dover protections. So please be mindful that this is a for profit entity. And while he is intending to have a lease for five years, and with an option to renew for an additional five, they're under no obligation to do that. And if funding suddenly disappears, this will be an empty building or a for profit building. So please consider carefully as carefully at least as you consider the Tufts project this evening. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Cheryl. The next for public comment is Lisa Simonetti.

[Lisa Simonetti]: Hi, good evening, everyone. Thanks again for holding this meeting. I really appreciate it. My name is Lisa Simonetti. I am at 85 Fulton Spring Road, just a couple of streets up from the convent that will become a shelter. Cheryl stole my thunder a little bit mentioning a lot of the things that I wanted to mention very briefly. This was referred to as a homeless shelter tonight by one of our elected officials. That's a little confusing to me. Again, Dover is for nonprofit. This is a for profit landlord. And I'm going to mention something that I've mentioned twice at the prior two meetings is I am concerned about the lack of stability of funding for this domestic violence shelter. I've heard back from the lawyer. and a communication that was written to the city of Medford from myself. And I think the funding is very tenuous. And I'd like to know what's gonna happen if funding dries up for this quote unquote domestic violence shelter, what do we then progress to? I hope this is not a bait and switch because it's beginning to feel a little bit like that. I wanna believe that this is a domestic violence shelter. I wanna believe that this is a really good project for that empty building. It's just not feeling that way right now. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Lisa. Next in the public comment is Leo Lafarge.

[SPEAKER_26]: Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you. Great. So, my name is Linda Mackey and I live at 463 Felsway West. The front door of my house is on the Felsway, but we use the back door, so I'm on St. Clair Road as well. I just wanted to comment again with all my other neighbors that we're very concerned about the project. We really do feel like this is not an educational institution. We feel this is more of a shelter. It's not going to be used for classes or things like that. And I'm also a little concerned as right now with what's going on with the state. I know that there was a problem at some shelters that they had where background checks were not completed within the state recently. And there have been some questions about the Healy administration not doing everything they're supposed to. There's, you know, with background checks for the shelters basically is what I'm saying. I don't think it's a good time that we should be thinking about a shelter in the moment with what's going on with the state, and especially with the local laws being considered for changes coming up soon. So I just don't think it's the right time for this. We're concerned about the safety of our neighborhood and our children, and the children that are proposed to be in the shelter, basically. And that's it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Linda. The next in a public comment is W E. Hey, can you hear me? Yes, please state your name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_39]: Sure thing. Waleed Al-Harash, 1 St. Clair Road. So just wanted to touch on a couple things. First, appreciate the Medford attorney, Attorney Stein, coming here. I think what she said was really important when she was reading off the kind of regulations of the Dover Amendment, specifically around bona fide educational use. And with this being our third meeting, I know we've heard over and over of this project getting referred to as a homeless shelter, then DV shelter, and even Councilor, I think Lazzaro also calling it a homeless shelter. I think that's something really important for the board to keep in mind. Because I think we've seen some breadcrumbs time and time again that, you know, this is more or less kind of a circumvention of specific rules trying to push through something under the guise of an educational purpose, but essentially for a, for-profit developer. Um, I also wanted to highlight something attorney racer said that I caught as well in the new, um, documentation, which is pretty much the least that was submitted is clearly contingent on getting the Dover amendment passed. And I think that's a pretty kind of glaring example of, you know, kind of the circumvention that's being tried here for the Dover amendment. And, uh, the last piece that I want to touch on, and I'm not sure if it made it into public record was an email I sent in to the board on December 1st at 11 a.m. just regarding the parking because I know one of the members, I think it was Ben, brought it up. I'm just not sure. Did that make it into the record or not?

[Emily Hedeman]: Let me check. Danielle or Alicia, I don't know if you have... easy access, but why don't you keep talking just because we've got time.

[SPEAKER_39]: Yeah, I just wanted to bring that up because I think Ben mentioned it as a really good point. The parking here and traffic is insane. We have the church there doing frequent events. There's another community center literally 20 feet away from this proposed site that does events as well. The pictures I sent in were taken on a random Tuesday and Thursday respectively. You'll see from the pictures the parking lots jammed full, people are parked in the fire lanes, parked diagonally, etc. I think that needs to be brought into consideration as well. One last thing that I'm not sure if was talked about since the last meeting was, I don't know if there was an update on the whole public versus private way on St. Clair or not, but that's the time I got.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. And I will confirm that we have comments from you around the time of Wednesday, December 6th, as well as, I want to make sure to get the date right here, Sunday, December 1st. Those are in the old public comments. We might have new ones in the current ones. Those are the ones that I see. But I would encourage you to message Danielle or Alicia if the dates of those public comments do not align with the ones that you sent. We want to make sure to have those in and allow the board to review those. I see next for public comment is Barry Ingber. Please state your name and address for the record after you unmute.

[Barry Ingber]: I was trying to unmute, and I couldn't do it. We got you. Barry Ingber, 9 Traper Street, North Medford, just a couple blocks north of the proposed domestic violence shelter. I want to express my wholehearted support for this project, and I want to respond to a couple of the objections. that there's no guarantee of it being serving this purpose in the long run. I would encourage the Community Development Board to put that in its conditions when it approves the project. And second, all these statements about it not being a domestic violence shelter, but it being a homeless shelter, Councilor Lazzaro just used a homeless shelter as an example of a case where non-profits rent from for-profits. And she did not refer to this as a homeless shelter. The only people who have referred to this as a homeless shelter have been opponents. It is not a homeless shelter, it is a domestic violence shelter. And it is something that is sorely needed in our community, and I encourage you all to pass it. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Alicia or Danielle, have we received any emails while we've been in this period?

[Alicia Hunt]: Two, wait, let me double check my, we've been trying to upload them at the same time. This evening, I'm just, sorry. That we're in favor of supportive of a homeless shelter. There was one at seven or 630 from Jones Sear. So that was uploaded as this meeting was started. I see that one. Oh, and there was one with questions. I do not believe Kathleen Kelly spoke this evening. She emailed us a couple of questions this evening. I was just trying to summarize them. So one was what happens after the end of the lease term. Another was a concern about safety, but about the idea that it can't, that if Medford residents were placed in a domestic violence shelter where everybody knew the address, then that wouldn't be very safe for those residents. And then there was some questioning about the Dover exemption and the for-profit developers. I think that that's absolutely been articulated by other speakers this evening. Right. So yeah, that's basically it. Sorry, I was trying to read and talk at the same time.

[Emily Hedeman]: I appreciate that. And I do see another public comment. Paulette Vartabedian. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Paulette, are you able to unmute yourself? I want to make sure we get your comment in during the public comment period. But it seems like we're having some technical difficulties. So if you're listening, I would say please email the board, OCD at Medford-MA.gov. You're also welcome to send a chat to Danielle or Alicia if you're having any technical difficulties. Alicia?

[Alicia Hunt]: And there is one other person who has direct messaged me that they're having trouble raising their hand. I don't think we've heard from Lily R. Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. And I just, I see another person. So Paulette, we'll come back to you. I see participant has raised their hand. Participant, can you please state your name and address for the record, please?

[SPEAKER_03]: Arthur Crawford, Fulton Street.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm sorry, can you say that again?

[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, Arthur Crawford, Fulton Street.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Arthur.

[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Board. The applicant is attempting to manipulate the zoning bylaws by abusing the Dover Amendment. The applicant provided resume information, both written and verbally. typically focusing on the applicant would be a discriminatory act, but the applicant's claimant of Dover protections demands this board review these and any other materials related to the applicant's history, similar to reviewing any licensee or permittee application.

[Emily Hedeman]: At this time, Arthur, I'm going to have to close your comment. personal or professional history of the applicants is not under review. If you have additional comments about other topics, I encourage you to voice those. But we will not be speaking of the personal or professional history of the applicants. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_03]: The professional history of the applicant wouldn't be important though. We're reviewing the resume.

[Emily Hedeman]: No, it's not.

[SPEAKER_03]: But that's what makes the Dover amendment.

[Emily Hedeman]: So at this time, we're going in another direction, but I that is my question. But okay, we are not subject to review the personal or professional history of the applicant.

[SPEAKER_03]: All right. All right. So the applicant has never referred to the occupants in the record as students. They most consistently referred to them as residents. This is a compelling fact for the board to consider as the applicant in their own words solidifies in the record that the users of this building's primary and dominant use is for lodging, not educational use. And my follow up is simply one of the neighbors had information that asked a very compelling question to the applicant. Where do you park when the building is empty? Forget one that's full of 34 rooms and all these people and everything else. Where do you park now? Illegally.

[Emily Hedeman]: I appreciate it. Your time is up. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to Paulette Vartabedian. Paulette, are you able to unmute? All right, and Lily R., I believe, was the name that you gave, Alicia. I'm looking for that in the attendees.

[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_03]: Yes, I gently unmute.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Lily, can you unmute again and give your name and address for the record?

[SPEAKER_34]: Yeah, sorry. I'm having some technical difficulties here.

[Emily Hedeman]: We can hear you now. It's a little echoey, but we should be able to get it. Sometimes it helps if you turn down your own volume.

[SPEAKER_34]: Yes.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's what I'm learning.

[SPEAKER_34]: I'm just reiterating that the community does not want this. It's not what's best for us. We've all decided this in the neighborhood and I really hope that the board would respect that and what everyone's thinking because this is not going to be safe. There's not a real plan in place. And the words, everyone's words has been changed 100 times about what it's called, what it's going to be. And it's just not professional. It's not a plan. And we need more time. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Lily. I'm going to go back to Paulette Vartabedian. And I do see Kathy has their hand up. Kathy, are you able to unmute and say your name and address for the record, please?

[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, Kathy. I'm at 52 Russell Street and just a few blocks up from the potential domestic violence shelter. I had a couple of concerns. One of them is the abutter notification and the requirements and how that was done. And I was wondering if maybe somebody from the board can explain. I know the abutter list that was uploaded to the portal looks to be like a hundred foot abutter list from what I could see from the GIS maps. And I believe, well, my understanding is Mass General Law requires 300 foot abutter notification. And I think the city ordinance might be 400, but at very minimum, MGL is 300 foot. And the certification was dated March 12. And I think notification went out sometime middle of October, if I'm not mistaken. So that, to me, is concerning because butters can change. over a six-month time frame. So maybe not everybody was in receipt, but certainly only the 100 foot appears to be used if that's what is tied to this project. So that's a concern from a professional standpoint, because I do this all day for a living. Another concern I have is, you know, it's proposed use as a domestic violence shelter, which is, you know, a great proposal to be used for domestic violence, but everybody keeps mentioning homeless shelter. And Alicia herself just said that not more than five minutes ago. My last concern is the use of the word recidivism in the deck, the slide deck that I've seen. Recidivism and domestic violence victims I don't think those terms should be used in the same sentence ever because the definition of recidivism certainly does not fit a victim of domestic violence. Thank you, Kathy. I appreciate the comments.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: All right, Paulette, we're going to come back to you. If this doesn't work out then, as mentioned before, I would encourage you to email OCD at Medford dash ma.gov or message Danielle or Alicia either to help troubleshoot or directly with any insight on what's going on. Paulette, are you able to unmute yourself? Unfortunately, it seems like Paulette is not able to unmute, but I do see a new hand. Patricia Scappelli, are you able to unmute yourself? And please state your name and address for the record.

[Trish Schiapelli]: Patricia Ciapelli, 53 Garfield Avenue. I think it's important to note that the residents, the voters, the taxpayers, the homeowners that have made this neighborhood are against this. They have rights just as everyone else does. And we are ready to appeal this and fight this in court however we have to. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Patricia. Alicia or Danielle, any messages through the chat of any technical issues that we should address?

[Alicia Hunt]: I was just checking my personal email as well as OCD. I'm not seeing that. I have not received a message through the chat or any additional ones.

[Emily Hedeman]: OK. So at this time, we are going to close the public comment period for this meeting. I would like to hand it over to the applicant to briefly address, and I know that some of these are not new concepts, so I appreciate your willingness to continue to address these, but to address any comments from the public. So I'll hand it over to Attorney Ross at this time.

[SPEAKER_40]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll do it in the order that it transpired. And I'll start with Member Lavalle, his point on, and hopefully I'm getting this right. I think you were asking about whether or not the condition of the not allowing residents to use the permit parking program, whether or not, how we felt about that. If I got that right.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, you got that right. I think there's significant concerns around parking capacity in that neighborhood already being extremely limited. And I just don't feel that the parking situation has been addressed. Yeah, so just maybe elaborate if you don't mind.

[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, no problem. I mean, I guess I'd say a few things about parking and number one, we've heard in testimony from Tasia who's here. from her running of these other facilities that virtually no guest, or no guests, let's remove the word virtually, in her other facilities has a car that they brought with them. We've heard that repeatedly. The issue really is that limited to staff. And we've heard in testimony that staff would be limited to about three or four members at a given time. And so what we did to mitigate any concern about staff bringing cars, because we do not believe nor will we allow residents to bring cars, is that there would be a shuttle, and the shuttle would be a commitment of this project. We would agree to have it written into the Conditions for this project and that shuttle would be the way people get back and forth from the tea and then also safe trips bring people to. to like shopping areas and that kind of thing. We think that that, I would add to that, that we had Fasun O'Neill conduct a study for us. Fasun O'Neill observed that the previous use has the same technical off throw of cars as what this proposed use is. From their report, they identified no increase, no statistical, no mathematical increase to the number of cars based on their licensed engineering profession, and we presented that information to the board. I will say that the applicant has identified within several hundred feet, two parking spaces that he and she will use for if it's needed. So we are in the process of negotiating the final details on that. If I had the signed letter, I would bring it to the board. Here, I would be reluctant to bring an unsigned letter to the board on something of this nature, but I can represent to you that we believe we will have two parking spaces within several hundred feet of this facility, and so that next time the owner of this building goes to the building, he'll have a place that he could park if he needed to do so. So that's the parking piece. We can come back to it, of course. I did want to address Attorney Racer's comments, really his reliance on this case, the Sullivan case. Sullivan is not a good case for Attorney Racer. I don't know why he's relying on it so completely. Sullivan deals with a nonprofit organization that was focused on early American history on Cape Cod. They decided to create a newly formed for-profit business. The non-profit decided to create a for-profit business, which it only held a minority share of ownership within, unlike this situation where our non-profit is 100% non-profit and it's not a for-profit entity. And the purpose of this nonprofit that this for profit, that this nonprofit created was to create an amusement park style ropes course within the 100 acre campus to create more revenue sources that had zero nexus to its nonprofit use of being in this early American history educational Museum, and to compare that use to that of a domestic violence shelter and then ask the board to deny it based on that comparison, I believe is a reckless use of case law. The better case is a case called Watros versus Greater Lynn Mental Health and Retardation Association. This was a Massachusetts Supreme Court case where they unambiguously support the notion that a non-profit entity may enjoy the protections of Dover even when it is a leasing from a for-profit landlord. And in the case of Watrous, even when only a portion of the property is for the Dover protected use. The quote that they said was, if we were to construe Dover as the plaintiffs argue we should, only those non-profit educational corporations with sufficient financial resources to lease or purchase an entire property would enjoy the protection of Dover. Such a constrictive result is neither required by the straight language of the statute nor consistent with its purpose. So that's all I have to say about case law. On the other comments that came in, you know, I agree with the Barry, Mr. Ingber, that Councilor Lazzaro's comment was clearly just illustrative. In any case, our whole going from the larger shelter to the smaller, more narrow use of the domestic violence use, is a benefit. It's intended to respond to the community concerns that the shelter was too unwieldy, too undefined use. That's why we went to the more refined definition of the of the domestic violence use. We are now putting ourselves in a situation where if that use no longer ceases to exist, we are now out of compliance with our own conditions and therefore arguably would not be able to continue to operate under the Dover protections. We would have to come back to this board. Likewise, we can't just add height to this building. That was a comment that that someone else made as well. Ms. Russo talked about 40 rooms, it's not 40 rooms, it's 34 rooms. Yes, there are three flex rooms, but in terms of dedicated, so that's 37 at the absolute most, but it's 34 as in terms of dedicated rooms that are only bedrooms. In the end, she concluded saying that we are opposed to this use. That is precisely what the Dover Amendment exists for. It exists for situations like this, where neighbors nearby a use that they don't like in their neighborhood band together and try to kill something based on the fact that they don't like it. That's why Dover exists. They don't want these people in their neighborhood. That is why Dover exists. Cheryl said that, what happens after 10 years? I've already answered that question. After 10 years, we would love to renew with this user, but because it's going to be a condition of our special permit, I think someone recommended that, or of this board's, if you should pass this, it would be a condition. If we are no longer renting to this entity or this use, we are now out of compliance. We are now no longer protected. uh, and covered by the Dover Amendment. We're willing to live with that as a condition. Uh, Ms. Simonetti, uh, had, I felt, had very thoughtful comments. We appreciate that she does want to support domestic violent use in this space. use that will be in this space, domestic violence use, that is what we're going to put on the conditions of this permit. And we would then have to live up to that condition. We're required to live up to the conditions of the permit. So we appreciate that comment. Others talked about funding. We are not a state entity, we are a non-profit entity. That non-profit entity operates other businesses. Ms. Koshari could talk more about how she's able to keep her doors open despite difficult budgets in the state, but she's able to do so and she's able to now do so here again. um letter what happens after the lease again after the lease we'd have to remain in compliance we can't just somehow after the lease now rent this out for any use we want not be allowed to do that we would be in violation of the conditions of this permit lily r mentioned that she does not want this again that's why dover exists um about our notification concerns we we actually re notified uh for kathy's comment The, the entire neighborhood. A second time, just to be perfectly clear and sure that we did cover the, the. community. And again, I think Patricia Ciappelli also said, we're against this. And that's why the Dover is one other point. It was W.E. I think it's Waleed or W.E. said something about a lease permitting contingency. I'm a commercial real estate attorney. I don't think I've ever seen a lease in my life that doesn't have a permitting contingency in it for commercial transactions like this one. The whole point of a permanent contingency in a lease is that if we get rejected by this board, we don't have to now enter into a lease with Ms. Gashard's nonprofit. That is what the permanent contingency does. It's in pretty much every commercial lease that comes before boards like this. I'll pause there, Madam Chair. Hopefully I was able to answer most of those questions.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. I see board member Peter Kalb's hand is raised. Peter, do you have something you wanted to add?

[Peter Calves]: Yes, I just wanted to, as you so kindly described me as our resident transportation expert earlier, I just wanted to bring some clarity from my day job into some of Ben's comments about parking. As someone who works on a lot of land development projects, Similar in scope to this in other locations, we work a lot with what is called transportation demand management, where projects will be required to prove to boards such as this how they are going to manage the trips to and from their their site and i think the the shuttle service the shuttle service that uh attorney ross describes is is an example of that and i think and i believe that's written into uh that's written into the draft conditions as uh have already been uh uh advised by the city uh city staff and just as someone who works with these kind of uses all the time in other places professionally these kind of institutional uses things of this nature are notably very good about transportation demand management they have a very kind of firm grasp on what on what trips they're bringing it's a very it's as opposed to a standard a more standard commercial retail something like that these kind of uses have a very good handle in my experience on uh who they're bringing to the site and how they're getting there. So I think that's something that I wanted to kind of bring my experience in dealing with that, that that's something that I would not anticipate being a concern.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's really helpful insight, Peter. Thank you so much for adding that. So I'd like to open it up to additional members of the board, ask any questions, provide requests for more information. We can deliberate on the proposal, we can start talking conditions. Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you, Madam Chair and the applicant and public comments. I had a couple of questions I wanted to just make sure we have a firm grasp on. The first one is, I remember there was some discussion on whether the street is a public or private way. Can someone confirm which one it is? I don't know that it makes a huge effect on the decision, but that's something that I would like to know. And I would also like to hear Attorney Stein's opinion confirming that a nonprofit renting from a for-profit developer is okay under Dover, my understanding is that it is, but we have legal counsel and I'd love to have that confirmed as well.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can the city provide any insight regarding board members' first question about the status of St. Clair Road, probably known as, I think, Love Lane?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, can you hear me okay? I took off my headphones because they were hurting my ears. Yes, I spoke with the city engineer the other day, and he and the dpw commissioner considering it a derelict private way, meaning at some point. the neighborhood or whoever was there tried to like donate it to the city. And the city's like, we don't want it. It's not up to, you need to bring it up to the standards. You need to put in sidewalks and the curbing and all of that. And then none of that was ever done. So unless there is any evidence showing it was accepted, that was the term he used, derelict private way.

[Emily Hedeman]: Peter, did you have any insight there while we're on this issue? And just to be clear, what impact does this have either way? It's part of enforcement. It's sidewalks.

[Peter Calves]: In my understanding, the only thing that it affects is one of Director Blake's preferred conditions. Basically, it'll be he wrote it into the condition because I think at the time it was still on the shore. And it was just the kind of thing where his recommendation His recommendation for a condition would be one thing if it was a private way and one thing if it was a public way. I believe that's the only impact on the decision as it stands. It's just one of the conditions will change whether or not it's a private or public way.

[Emily Hedeman]: I believe that's someone related to the Fulton Street sidewalk.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: And then, I'm sorry, Ari, did you have a second topic there? I know one was the public-private. I feel like you had another one.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I was hoping to hear information from Attorney Stein. Thank you.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Sure, so again, when you read 48th and Lane, it talks about the youth being protected. It's the use of the property by a nonprofit for an educational purpose on land they either own or lease. So there's certainly the nonprofit can be leasing the land. And I think that the Sullivan case that Attorney Racer is relying on is procedurally different in addition to the comments that Attorney Ross had. So that case was actually a building permit appeal. It didn't involve a site plan appeal. And ultimately, it's my opinion that the operator of the use needs to be the nonprofit and they need to have education as a bona fide purpose. I personally don't see an issue with the site plan applicant being the landlord or the operator or both. I think ultimately the important thing is that when the use is being conducted on the property, the use is being conducted by the educational nonprofit, on land that they own.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm sorry, Attorney Stein. So I think this case is distinguishable. Was that just me or was that?

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Sorry, I think the situation. Okay. Oh, can you hear me now? Yes. So I think my understanding of this application is that ultimately, Halo House is going to be the sole operator of the of the business, they're it. It's not a situation where it's being operated in part by the landlord, the landlord's the landlord, and they're allowed to lease to a nonprofit, and a nonprofit can benefit from the statutory protections. So I hope that helps clarify the issue.

[Emily Hedeman]: What do you think, Ari?

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great. Peter, I see your hand is still raised. Any other questions, comments?

[Peter Calves]: Yes, I had a second comment. It was something related to one of the public comments. And it was something that is kind of a procedural matter that members of this board might be used to and might not think of that Attorney Ross brought up in his summation as well. So I just wanted to speak to the kind of, Because it's something I've seen a couple of times, both tonight and other meetings, being misunderstood. And I want to make this perfectly clear for the public that when a site plan approval is issued for this project, should it be issued, it will be issued for this use. There is not some kind of shell game where we're going to approve a domestic violence shelter and something else is going to pop up. This is approved for this use. And if someone tries to use this approval this prospective approval, sorry, to build something else that will not hold because that is not the purpose of the permit. So I just, that is my only comment. Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, well said, Peter. Yeah, if this flips into condos or Airbnbs or what have you, you're out in more technical terms, I guess. But yeah, it's very important to state that for sure. Yep, I mean, I think most of my questions and comments have been addressed. You know, we talked about parking, a lot of questions around use, you know, if not HALO, what? It has to be some form of educational or religious use. I have no doubt that this qualifies under the Dover Amendment. And then in terms of reasonable regulations, which is specifically for the parking requirements. That is the regulation that the applicant is requesting relief from. I think their plan for a shuttle service is reasonable. I think there's other conditions that we can put in there. At this point, I'd love to

[Peter Calves]: Chair Hedman, I just had a thought as I was reading through the conditions, and there's another thing I wanted to bring up regarding, because I know some people have been concerned about the condition, the residents will not be eligible for City of Medford on-street resident parking permits, and what that, to some people, implied about parking, potential parking capacity and parking demand. And I would like to say just based on previous projects I've worked on and other as part of this board and previous projects I've worked on professionally with those kind of developments, that is a kind of preventative boilerplate that goes in anything that gets tossed in as a condition for anything vaguely residential to prevent anything. And it's not to be indicative of potential for a ton of parking happening here, despite what the applicant says i would much i would on this in this regard tend towards the applicants estimates of parking knowing uh what i know yeah i agree um okay so are there any additional comments from the board and i would remind um

[Emily Hedeman]: all members or all attendees of this meeting to not use the meeting chat. That is not part of public record and is not the way to do things. So the two questions, just to like really, really kind of hammer it home, the two questions before the board, does this qualify as a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment? Legal counsel asserts that yes, it's a protected educational use. I agree with this. It's a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment as it's a non-profit educational entity leasing the property. A for-profit owner, SEC Holdings, does not impact this protected status. The second question is, what are reasonable regulations that should be imposed on the use? And the focus here is on relief from strict adherence to the zoning ordinance for parking requirements, specifically the number of spaces and modifications to the non-conforming structure. We're trying to see, is there a municipal interest in imposing these requirements? Or are there conditions that we can impose on the applicant that kind of satisfy us if they're asking for this exemption? So at this time, Danielle, would you be able to bring up the conditions document?

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Did that?

[Emily Hedeman]: A little bit, a little bigger. Okay. Would the board like to go through every condition or there are specific conditions we would like to touch on? I know we've talked about lease, we've talked about parking. um transit management i think there could potentially be some improvements to where is it there could potentially be some improvements to the traffic and transportation condition section um based on what we've talked about maybe the inclusion of specific language around a transit management uh plan i mean i think the the shuttle

[Peter Calves]: What I was referring to was the shuttle service. The shuttle service was what I was referring to.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so that's adequate.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I mean, if that's conditioned on the permit, they have to do it, so.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. Okay. And then we have condition number five, which is prior to issuance of a building permit, Halo House must provide evidence of a long-term lease. That's the five plus five. I believe, yeah, and they have already provided a lease, but we wanted to have this in the conditions as well. Right above that, Condition 4, this explicitly states that it's conditioned on the use of the property being for an educational use, protected and exempted by the Dover Amendment. Should the property cease to be used for this use, the property in the use shall conform to the then application requirements of the zoning ordinance. So they'd have to make some changes. We have some information from the engineering team plan showing that St. Clair Road is a public way. Engineering division does not have any acceptance plans. So the plans must be updated to indicate that St. Clair Road is not a public way. unless we have documentation stating otherwise.

[Peter Calves]: If we don't, I believe that was the whole derelict public way discussion.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: Or derelict private way.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. You also have condition 10, which has the applicant providing for improved pedestrian access from the site to Fulton Street. So that extends from their site all the way to Fulton Street so that patrons of the 100 bus have safe access. You have the wheelchair? Yeah, Peter?

[Peter Calves]: Yes. Not to speak for Todd, but I believe this was the included condition for it being a private way because if it was a public way, we could condition for sidewalk on St. Clair Road. But if it's a private way, can't condition that because the city doesn't control it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, and I think that condition does provide the flexibility there with other treatments considered and approved. by the Director of Traffic and Transportation? Or do you propose?

[Peter Calves]: No, that flexibility isn't there. I mean, I prefer honestly to give that flexibility to Todd to see what the conditions are.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. Yeah. Are there any other conditions that the board would like to review? Ben.

[Ben Lavallee]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I feel like a bit of a broken record on this, but I have significant concerns around, and I appreciate Peter's expertise in this area, which I certainly don't have, but the traffic, as many residents identified, the traffic in the area is awful. Parking is awful. There's a real unique lack of parking on that particular street, which it sounds like we're not even sure at this point, or I guess it's a derelict private way. It's sort of where we are right now. But the condition as worded around shuttle transportation is just very open-ended and broad, and I think making an assumption that domestic violence victims don't have automobiles, um, that there won't be a dramatic increase in ride share traffic, for example, um, by adding this many families to the neighborhood, uh, especially if there are, you know, if they're required to not have vehicles in the, in the neighborhood. I just, I personally am not comfortable with the conditions as worded that there won't be a significant degradation of a neighborhood's traffic and parking situation that's already in pretty rough shape.

[Emily Hedeman]: I hear you. So thinking about the specific relief that the applicant is asking for, it's around parking requirements. It's not around traffic. I'm trying to think of potential things we could do.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I don't know if there's a condition to... Find a way to add parking somehow.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I don't even know if we're allowed to do this because we would be... In one case, we would be getting involved in a private lease, and I think that's way beyond our scope. But I did write down the idea that potentially the lease could state that no parking is allowed by lessee's occupants, and or there is some condition to maintain off-street spaces for lessee's employees, landowner, or their representatives.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, something like that could work. I mean, I'm curious, you know, again, getting into the weeds here, but what's the definition of parking is a perpetual stream of ride share, temporary stops, is that considered parking? Right? Or is that just a traffic enforcement issue which adds additional burden to the city and our police department, potentially? And we were just told that it's not even confirmed that this is even a public way, right? So who enforces? I just, I don't know. I have major concerns around traffic parking enforcement. I realize that we need to be specific as to what conditions we would add. It's been a long meeting and I don't, I don't have anything, you know, I don't have a bright idea to resolve it right at this moment, but I'm thinking about it.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm wondering if the applicant has any, um, any reactions to. to some of these comments or any kind of potential modifications that they'd be open to. I mean, the lease stating that no parking is allowed by lessee's occupants, you know, you've said yourselves that you're starting to achieve an agreement for two off-street spaces.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm not.

[Emily Hedeman]: Could that be like an evergreen thing? If you know if those two aren't available, you find two somewhere else.

[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, I mean, I hate to put a condition. You know, you kind of put a gun to your head to invite someone to say, well, now now you really need those spaces, don't you? And then I know, you know, but I look, I wouldn't have raised it if I if I didn't believe it was absolutely going. If I didn't believe it was going to happen, I would be open to. uh, commercial reasonable efforts to identify two parking spaces within several hundred feet of the facility. I would be open to that language. I would also be open to the language you recommended, and my client is here, so stop, Andrew, if I'm saying something you disagree with. um, and, uh, Taisha. But I think I would also be okay with some language about not parking. Um, are the guests of the facility would not be allowed to park within the, would not be allowed to bring their automobiles to the facility. Um, and again, on both those points, unless there's any issue from Taisha or from Andrew to raise their hand, I think we would go along with that. And that would not give everything that, um, member Ben was raising but you know you have to I mean I'm very confident that as compared to that condominium building that's on the corner of the building that by comparison there won't be a fraction as much of as these you know ride share delivery type entities. A lot of these women from everything I've learned from Taisha is that you know they have a kitchen of commercial kitchen on site you know funds are given the state of where they are in their life right now funds are not diverted towards the resources of and if you will, it's a very, it's a much more limited budget. And so you're not gonna see that level of activity. Again, that condominium building to our right would, I would dare say, would have substantially more than what we're seeing. But I think your concerns are valid. And to that end, we would add, we would be amenable to those two additions. and they go directly to the issue of transportation. I think I appreciate, Madam Chair, your ideas on that. I think they're good.

[Emily Hedeman]: Every once in a while. What do we think, squad? I know, Peter, from a transportation perspective, do you anticipate any issues? Are these things you've seen before? Should we start wordsmithing?

[Peter Calves]: I think those two conditions, as suggested, are valid. I think they would thus be, and let me write this down, described as the applicant, or would it be the applicant or the applicant's lessees in this case?

[Emily Hedeman]: I would want to kind of future proof it so that it is, yeah, that's interesting.

[Peter Calves]: We'll put both, applicant or the applicant's lessees.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. Yes. And I wanted to specifically be towards the occupants because I'm recognizing that the employees, landowners, or their representatives would

[Peter Calves]: um be addressed and then maintain off-street spaces or make all commercially viable efforts um okay so the applicant or the applicants policies shall make all commercially viable efforts to maintain two off-streets let's say at least to make all commercially viable efforts to maintain a minimum of two two parking spaces for used by staff, landowners, or lessees. And then what was the second one about the, what's it called, the residents? Or is that already covered?

[Emily Hedeman]: Lease states that no parking is allowed by the lessee. That's my understanding. Yeah, that's 33 p.m. phrasing of it.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah. No, I believe the. We shall state that no parking, no vehicle parking, no motor vehicle parking shall be allowed by. Occupants of the lessees use. Something to that effect.

[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: And then. The one thing, the one comment I will make in terms of the ride share is it goes kind of back to what I was saying, especially as this will be, as I think that was more a concern regarding the residents as opposed to staff and employees. And that goes back to the comment I had about these kind of uses being kind of a very controlled system. kind of be arriving not kind of in the middle of nowhere, out of nowhere. There's going to be a system for that. And there will be a kind of intake process. I don't know, but there will be a ton of people just like rolling up whenever. I mean, I think that's part of what Attorney Ross alluded to with the shuttle system to take people to kind of shopping areas and commercial areas that people will be kind of that that will be organized and not haphazard, I would hope.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I mean, I don't want to make any hypotheses about the client's arrival. I mean, if they had it their way, they'd probably not be in this situation to begin with and never arrive. That's fair. But in terms of coming and going post intake, I think the shuttle addresses that.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, if I may, with all due respect, we just, we just conditioned Tufts to have dedicated spots for ride share and delivery for college students who are not allowed to have Medford resident parking and, you know, are not allowed to park on the streets, but we're not going, I realize it's a smaller scale development, but we're making assumptions about these people's behavior. that I don't think is really, like, what is the difference between a college student living in a dorm and a family who is going through a tough time and needs temporary shelter, but might have, you know, there might be people that need to get to work, right? There might be people, there might be, you know, working age minors who are living in this situation who still need to get to their job. And like, this is just a very broadly worded shuttle option. And, um, I don't, I don't know, I'm very sympathetic to the resident who is the immediate abutter. And, you know, on a derelict private way that could theoretically have a high volume of ride share, whether you call that parking or just pulling over, I don't really know how parking is defined in this case, but, you know, could be a pretty steady stream of short-term stops and pickups and drop-offs, and we have no conditions to sort of handle that situation. And it's not even clear, frankly, who would enforce it, because it's not clear that it's even a city of Medford Street.

[Emily Hedeman]: I hear what you're saying, Ben.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I'm just struggling with that issue. I'm very sympathetic to the residential concerns of the neighbors. No, totally.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I guess my question for you is, what conditions could we put in there?

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I've been struggling with that. I'm trying to figure something out because I think in an ideal world where St. Clair Road was a public way we could condition pickup drop-offs, Area on st. Clair road, but unfortunately it's not so we can't do that. Yeah.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: And it's okay. If you say, like, no condition would satisfy that that's that's totally valid, but I'm just trying to get. To see, like, is there an integrative solution that we can apply that. could start to address this concern over parking slash traffic. And I get the kind of subtle nuance between the two, because how long does a car have to sit there to be parking? But yeah, I mean, if there's not a proposal for a precondition, then you're well within your responsibilities and your rights as a board member to not to feel like there are no reasonable regulations that could be imposed to solve this issue. Thanks. Yeah. Annie, I see your hand.

[Ayni Strang]: I don't see what we could put in there, just like you were saying. It's such a, it's a tough thing to put in for a private way. And it's just going to be the facility managing coming and going. But I honestly can't see how to put a different language in.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: Hi.

[Unidentified]: Sorry. Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah. Sorry. I do think that there is a substantial difference in the particularly food delivery norms of like college students and people who are by definition experiencing a very difficult period in their life. Um, and in terms of the like financial amount of door dashing a single coffee, um, I don't, That doesn't negate the parking issue. I think that I am very open to kind of continuing towards Smith ways to kind of control the traffic, but I do think that.

[Emily Hedeman]: I just don't think we have the jurisdiction to control traffic on what we understand to be a private way. Like, that's what we're going to keep hitting that again and again. And even if it was a public way, if we apply the same logic that we applied to the tough storm, which is what, 600? How many students is it? 677. 677, so we have four spots for 677. 677 divided by four.

[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, it'd be like less than one. Yeah, it'd be like a tire.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I know we can't do that in math one-to-one, but I'm just trying to think. And again, that's assuming it's a public way, which it's not. It's a private way, unless there's documentation otherwise. So we could put conditions in that say, if St. Clair Road is designated as a public way, then we would like at least one 15-minute pickup drop-off spot. And I think that we have an applicant.

[Peter Calves]: That's probably the closest we're going to get jurisdictionally.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's the closest we're going to get, I think, at this point. And that's the same as the sidewalk condition. Yeah, it all hinges on this. And Ari, kudos to you for bringing up this question, the public-private way question. So I don't know if there's any thoughts on that. If public, then 15-minute, one 15-minute spot.

[Ben Lavallee]: Sure. That sounds good.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I don't want you to feel pressured into this, because I'm not.

[Ben Lavallee]: No, I'm not. I recognize the constraints we're dealing with.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I feel like we're going to have some laws changed after this. Oh, man. Okay. So to go back to the conditions, and Annie, I know that you were also concerned about traffic, parking. Do you have any thoughts on an additional condition? I realize I have to see if the applicant would even be open to this, but just Annie first.

[Ayni Strang]: I mean, I've driven up there, walked around the neighborhood, looked at it every which way, stood across the street.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Ayni Strang]: I just don't see what we can do about a private way.

[Emily Hedeman]: OK. If it was a public way, would you be open to this 15-minute spot?

[Ayni Strang]: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I just don't think the conditions of a student at Tufts in that kind of neighborhood compares to the neighborhood where St. Clair is. I think that's also.

[Emily Hedeman]: And regardless, we don't know the lifestyles of students anymore. I'm so removed from that.

[Ayni Strang]: It's just the traffic and on the street. It's a different style of, and it's a public way compared to a private way.

[Emily Hedeman]: Exactly. Okay, I see your hand up.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, thank you madam chair. I mean, there is a process to become. Public way, I don't know if there is any appetite for the. Property owner to, I mean, there'd be betterments. that could be assessed to bring it up to become a public way that would eliminate some of these issues. I don't know the last time a private way was. Can that be driven by a single homeowner? I mean, someone just has to pay, right? Okay. And then be accepted.

[Alicia Hunt]: All the owners have to agree.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. But why wouldn't you want that, I guess, but if you paid for

[Peter Calves]: I don't know. I don't know.

[Danielle Evans]: But there is a process and it could be looked into by the applicant if they wanted to.

[Peter Calves]: I think if we were to condition something like that, it would have to be like an applicant shall look into it. I don't think we could condition it on them doing it because that would be a process.

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, no. Yeah. No, I'm not suggesting that. But yeah. I mean, it's.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I mean, maybe down the line, I have no doubt that Halo House is going to be a fabulous neighbor. Maybe down the line, there's a block party, and everybody comes together and says, yeah, let's turn it into a public way. But for now, I would say that I'm satisfied, and I hope that other members of the board would be, by adding a condition to the traffic and transportation section to say, St. Clair Street, or I'm sorry, if St. Clair Road is a public way, then the applicant will... What word am I looking for here?

[Peter Calves]: Will establish... The wording I put in to the condition I drafted up is, if St. Clair Road is found to be a public way, the applicant shall furnish a 15-minute loading zone in front of their property. Yes.

[Emily Hedeman]: Applicant, are you open to that?

[SPEAKER_40]: Yeah, no, I think you've all done a really good job of trying to get there. So we appreciate it. And we are open to that.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm taking a negotiations class right now.

[SPEAKER_40]: So I'm doing a great job. I'm sure. But you know, we're also, you know, open to working with the street to, to, to make it I mean, by putting a sidewalk in front of our facility, we are one step closer to getting there. I just don't understand why the condo association wasn't required to put an a sidewalk in front of it's, you know, that's, that's not the topic at hand.

[Emily Hedeman]: We'll let them lie. Let them enjoy, you know, their, their, their, okay, okay. Okay. So, so Danielle, what do we need to do now?

[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, I just want to interject again, there's a hydrant in front of the building. Is that being moved? So I don't think you could

[Emily Hedeman]: Totally. Within x feet, within 15 feet, within.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, we can do within, I would say do within 50 feet.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: Within 50 feet of the frontage of the building. That's all you need to cover that variability.

[Emily Hedeman]: And just to clarify for any members of the public, that spot would not be exclusive. That spot would not be exclusive to the applicant, to the applicant's residence. That would be if that spot is installed.

[Peter Calves]: Yes. General 15-minute loading zone for whoever needs it. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. OK. We're good about that. OK. So do we, Danielle, do you have the language written there? I know, Peter, it sounds like you were drafting something up.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I'm going to share my screen again. OK. Let's see here.

[Emily Hedeman]: Looks like St. Clair needs to be up. Yeah, there you go. That is how my Aunt Claire spells it, so it's right in some circles. St. Clair Road, yeah. 15-minute loading zone within 15, yeah. That looks good to me.

[Danielle Evans]: Is it within 50 feet of the building, or is that what you wanted? Yes. What is the rule of carping by a hydrant? Is it 50 or not 50? I don't know. It's either 6 or 20.

[Peter Calves]: That's why I said 50, because I knew 50 was more. Whatever it is, I knew 50 was more.

[Emily Hedeman]: But that, I think, gives them flexibility to abide by any rules around the hydrant. and still be within a reasonable distance to the domestic violence facility.

[Peter Calves]: And Danielle, you got the other two, the first two. We could draft it up. Just want to make sure that.

[Alicia Hunt]: I have them down here.

[Emily Hedeman]: I can, all commercially viable efforts, drop that in there in 24.

[Danielle Evans]: I'll commercially buy a bouquet.

[Emily Hedeman]: I also want you to add in landowners' representatives. Or actually, let's do... Yeah. Or representatives.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, no, I mean, how I wrote this from Peter put in the chat.

[Peter Calves]: So I'm trying to how I put it was how I thought of it was landowner and lessee staff and employees. So covering representative landowners, representatives of landowner staff.

[Emily Hedeman]: I see what you're saying. So there's a comma after lessee.

[Danielle Evans]: Is it staff and employees of the lessee of both?

[Peter Calves]: Of both, of both the landowner and Lossie. That's how I was trying to include landowner representatives.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: Okay. So, um, is that finalized language? Is this finalized language?

[Danielle Evans]: I'm a big fan of the Oxford comma. Is this correct? always. Yes. Okay. Okay, let's do changes to property owner. Okay.

[Peter Calves]: Okay. Okay. Okay, I'm gonna.

[Emily Hedeman]: So I want to get some general feelings of the board. Do we feel like we're ready to vote? We've done some. I think we've done some good work to help address.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I'm ready. I'm ready to vote on this.

[Emily Hedeman]: I think I just as a reminder, please do not message members of the board individually. But yeah, it sounds like we as a board are ready to vote. So I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the site plan based on the findings that the use is a protected educational use under the Dover Amendment, and that the proposed parking relief is reasonable subject to the conditions.

[Peter Calves]: So moved.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm looking for a second. I will second it. Thank you. Thanks, Ari. So we're going to do a roll call vote. Peter coughs.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ari Fishman. Hi. Sabrina Alpino. Any string. Hi. Ben LaValle.

[Ben Lavallee]: Hi.

[Emily Hedeman]: And myself, Emily had him in is an eye.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you very much.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. And thank you to the applicant. Thank you to the members of the public. This has been a very collaborative process and we really appreciate, you know, people advocating for their community and, you know, encourage your public participation in the future. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_40]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Do we need a quick break or are we ready to go into the next item?

[Ayni Strang]: Ready to go.

[Ben Lavallee]: Power through.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. I'll just step away then because I didn't take a break last time.

[-2bR_RbuznY_SPEAKER_11]: Emily, I don't thank you for anything else tonight, so I'm going to take my leave, but good luck with the rest of your meeting. Thank you, Attorney Stein.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I'm sure we'll connect. Thank you. Appreciate it, everyone. Great, so the next item in front of us is the Definitive Subdivision Plan, Bridal Path Definitive Subdivision. This is a continued hearing. I believe we have Attorney Kathy Desmond on the request line. Would you like to present updated plans? I see you're muted. I'm going to ask to unmute.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Are you cutting the work? Okay.

[SPEAKER_17]: Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes. Okay. Terrific. Good evening chairperson, headman and board members. We do have updated plans to share with you. I can skip the introduction at this point and hand the matter over to Jack Sullivan, the project engineer. He's here as well as the developer, Ron Lopez. So let me hand it over to Jack Sullivan. And if I could share my screen, then I can put the plans up.

[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia or Danielle, are you able to handle that? Okay, great. It's all set to share. Okay. Where's my... Wait a minute. I can send Jack and unmute, but I'm not sure what his display name is. Yeah, I'm just trying to find my... I'm on with Kathleen.

[SPEAKER_36]: We're all in one room tonight.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I'm just trying to share.

[Emily Hedeman]: Oh, excuse me. Coming up.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I'm on the wrong thing though, so I've got to close the current tab. And this is going to, this is where I'm going to need a minute before the next hearing because I've now closed everything but the subdivision plan so that I head out. But here it is. It's correct now, right?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, we've seen Bridal Path Definitive Subdivision off of Franklin Avenue.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Terrific. Okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: And please be generous with your Zoom as well.

[SPEAKER_36]: All right, thank you board members for the record. My name's Jack Sullivan. I'm the project engineer. You know, we were in before in front of you a couple of weeks ago. We heard comments from city staff from the board itself in the butters and we've made updates to the to the plan set. We can go to the next. This is the existing conditions page. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the site. It's basically a 2 acre undeveloped piece of land that we're looking to construct a roadway with 8 single family homes. You can go to the next sheet. This is a lot layout plan. It's a 50 foot right away with a fully compliant cul-de-sac with 8 single family house lots. All lots conform to all aspects of zoning. Okay, on this sheet, here's some of the changes that were requested. On Franklin Avenue and Headland Way, we relocated the crosswalk to a new location that was recommended by Todd Blake. So that change has been made. Additionally, based on the fire department's comments, we increased the travel width Around the cul-de-sac, it's now 30 feet of pavement. We did that by reducing the size of the landscaped island in the middle. Those plans were given to the fire chief and our traffic engineer showed that. the turning movements of the largest fire truck could easily traverse this subdivision. So those were the major changes made. Also, from some of the public comment, there was a question where Franklin Ave is a private way, if they'd be resurfacing of Franklin Avenue. There's a shaded area we show along the frontage of our site that we're showing an overlay to be completed as part of the project. Okay, this is the two existing homes to the rear of this property that are somewhat landlocked that have a right-of-way currently through the property. This plan shows how access will remain to those homes during construction. There'll be a 12-foot wide gravel driveway so that there's always access for those two residents. We can go to the next slide. And these are just some of the standard construction details for the site. As I stated in my 1st meeting, I did have an opportunity to have a zoom meeting with the city engineer Owen. We reviewed the drainage system. He agreed with the detailed drainage stormwater report that I prepared for this subdivision. Also, with the proposed utility connections was showing an 8 inch. Waterline and an 8 inch sewer line. His only concern was where this is a dead end water main. He wanted to make sure there'd be enough water turnover, basically water usage, so that the water in the eight inch water main did not go stagnant. I provided calculations showing this will turn over daily. He was looking for at least within 72 hours. So we did, even though it's a dead end lane, we do meet that turnover requirement for the water use. I think for the sake of time, I'll turn it back over to the board for questions that you might have.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: So the way it's going to go, we're going to open it back up to the board for questions, comments. Following that, we're going to open the public comment period. Once we close the public comment period, it goes back to the board for deliberation. Just to kind of give people a preview. So with that, I'd like to open it to the board for any questions or comments that they have for the applicant. I know one of the things we had talked about at previous meetings was access between this development and the high school. I want to see if there is any progress or updates there. given that it is so incredibly close.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Would you like me to speak to that? Yes, please. So with respect to that, our position is that it's a private way and that the current owner of the property is very opposed to it for the reasons stated in his letter. There was a previous history of kids hanging about, motorcycles traversing through the area. and he is vehemently opposed to that occurring. In addition, and I've pointed this out to staff, and it's not that we don't understand the situation, it's just that we have an owner who is vehemently opposed and it's a private way. And under the subdivision rules and regulations, the rules and regulations don't allow for dedication to public way other than parks. And under the Section 81Q of 41, the regulations in effect have to provide for the taking for public use. And in this case, the only regulations are those that are related to 81U, which relate to parks. And that is in Section 6 of the regulations. I believe it's 6.4. So, I don't think that it would be a valid condition under the subdivision rules and regulations and the statute. Also, there would be a requirement, even if there were a regulation that permitted this to occur, there would be a requirement that there be some just compensation to the owners for purposes of this. And that's the other issue that we have in this. You know, it's, it would be city, I'm assuming as an easement to the city and the city would be responsible for the maintenance and whatnot, but it ends up coming out onto a private way. And as you know, with private ways, because there's been quite a discussion about it this evening, the enforcement in terms of traffic that would result or possibly could result from that pathway would fall upon the owners to enforce because the city doesn't have any right to enforce parking on a private way. And the letter of John Connors that had been presented in opposition indicated that, in fact, this had become a problem when when people were cutting through his yard, the cars were parking there. And, you know, I did speak with Ms. Graham from the building committee for the school. And I understand that they're only in the in the exploratory phase at this point in feasibility. So the question is, if the high school were to be located situated somewhere else, then what becomes with this pathway? And it becomes more of an issue because then who's really in control of it and it's not just to the school. So there's the uncertainty of that. But in addition to that, if it is seen as some kind of a second egress, Which it was kind of what I believe she thought might happen in this instance. You know, then you've got cars parking or cars traversing to drop people off to use that access way, creating again an issue where you've got a private road where there's no city enforcement available. So at this point, in terms of the subdivision, it's not a public way. And it would all fall to the owners of the subdivision to control vehicles that were there to use the path. So, you know, I think that's partly why the owners of, you know, vehemently opposed to the idea and also the applicant because there's no way to enforce what occurs in this instance. And the other thing to consider too, I think, is in terms of school use. You know, we live in New England, so there's a portion of at least five months of the year where that use of the way, I mean, who's going to maintain it in the snow? You know, you're going to, I just think that in terms of the actual season when school is in session, you're talking less than possibly half of the period of time, that that would be a pathway that would be easily traversed, you know, assuming it was a winter where we had snow, because you're going from September to June.

[Emily Hedeman]: So I think you bring up some really good points. So those are the issues surrounding. Yeah. Danielle, did you have any additional kind of feedback or insight there?

[Danielle Evans]: I just wanted to state for the record that it was a recommendation. We were never inclined to add a condition against your will. You don't want it. You know, just like we work with, we can't force you to do it. You don't want to do it. I did when I did visit the site, there was a butter who said that their kid was going to high school next year and cuts through that actual property owner's yard to get to the school and people are going to still cut through whether you have a formal path or not so. It is what it is, and I hope that there's no prohibition through the homeowner association requiring a huge fence. I notice that the fence there does have barbed wire. I don't know which side put that up, but I don't like barbed wire, and I don't know what you have.

[SPEAKER_05]: Actually, the fence that exists there is in fact, well, maybe 15 or 20 feet or more onto the property of either the Fells or the city of Medford. So it wouldn't have been property only, but not property.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And I think Mr. Connor said that he had to repair that wire because there was a hole in it. And he did so in his own comments that was in his letter. And Danielle, I was just pointing out what the statute says and what the conditions are. And I appreciate your clarifying that you would not force that. But I wanted the board to be aware that the ability to do those types of things has to be within the rules and regulations and that there has to be just compensation.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. Peter, I see you're off mute.

[Peter Calves]: Sorry, I did not mean to be. I didn't have any. My only comment at this time is I'm glad to see, first of all, the resurfacing for a piece of Franklin, and also the access to the two landlocked properties, as well as the crosswalk relocated as per Todd's recommendation. But that's my only comments based on anything at this time.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great. If there's no other board questions or comments, I will now open up the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the chat if you're having technical difficulties. Tip for the raise hand function, it may be in your React option in Zoom. But if you're having trouble, just send Danielle or Alicia a message and we'll make sure your comment is heard. You can also send an email to OCD at medford-ma.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. That is a legal requirement for this hearing and all hearings. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members as that's not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, you can message staff for assistance. And again, that is Alicia and Danielle. Each participant has two minutes to speak. And at this time, I don't see any hands. We'll give it a beat. And then we have two public comments in our folder, one from the Connors Realty Trust, which Attorney Desmond has mentioned, as well as an email from Jenny Graham to help the board members have all had an opportunity to review. Alicia or Danielle, are you seeing any chats come through with any technical difficulties? Anybody that wants to comment? Any additional emails that have come through in the inbox?

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I would say to the board that I did appreciate the conversation that I had with Ms. Graham yesterday and her bringing information to us as to what the feasibility study is and where it was.

[Emily Hedeman]: Great, I'm really glad to hear that. Okay, so seeing no public comments coming in, I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period for this meeting. That means I'm going to reopen it to the board for deliberation. And it's my understanding that some concerns are just being resolved this evening. Danielle, do you have any additional information on that?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, around like sometime this afternoon, the city engineer popped into my office and said there was a whole bunch of things that he was writing up. I'm still unclear on whether it was all resolved. I can't hear you, Danielle. Put these stupid things on again.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's so bizarre. You seem to be angry when you talk.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I'm tired and I'm annoyed and I do any technology just to verify. Can everybody hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. Yeah, and he had sent an internal email and then I wrote back. Did you tell the applicants this? Is this resolved? What what am I? I'm not sure what direction we have. Are we voting on this tonight? Sure. I think you were copied on that. Alicia, were you following along? I've just been so.

[Alicia Hunt]: There was some back and forth with Owen, our city engineer, and let me call it back up.

[Emily Hedeman]: Has the applicant seen this information? No, I'm seeing.

[Alicia Hunt]: I will say that our most recent email from Owen was at 820 tonight, saying that Kathleen and team provided water calculations in their earlier email. So what I wasn't clear was, so he had sent us a list of initial review comments, and it seemed to me that these were not, this is from five o'clock today, he sent us a list of eight things that he wanted to see rectified in the submission.

[Emily Hedeman]: Has the applicant seen that?

[Alicia Hunt]: Not as far as I'm aware. Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: It's an internal email, so we're not, He's going to forward it. Totally. I was like, can you give me something? It's frustrating with these last minute things. Then at 755, we got the construction management plan and schedule emailed from Ron Lopez, who is the developer. I haven't even looked at that. There's a lot of things coming in.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: At the last minute, so I... From both sides, is what I'm hearing.

[Alicia Hunt]: I feel like we don't feel comfortable that what City Engineer is looking for is clarified in the plans, and it's because this back and forth was so late this evening. I hate continuing cases, but I think that is my recommendation. Because this is like a bunch of things that are wrong on the plans or not in the right places or problematic. That would be preventing, you know, things like that that's in the way of where the fire trucks are supposed to go. Okay, so this is rectifiable.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Okay, that's that's definitely disappointing. So at this point,

[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could ask at this point, so that we have written for the next meeting, because we would have them after the, we did submit after the meeting, we submitted some updated information and then on the 24th, I sent over the submitted plans and I did resend them. today. But if we had the comments, we certainly would have addressed it. I just think we haven't had any written comments throughout the process. So that's part of the difficulty. I know that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Lopez met on a zoom with the city engineer. and went through items and, you know, we tried to document at that point what was covered and what we had. So, it's kind of a surprise at this point. And quite honestly, if we had known, I think we would have continued it before the meeting because then we would have, yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: And I did recommend that you not continue it. Go to the last week that we have a packed agenda, and it's unprecedented the load that planning staff and engineering staff have like we literally cannot. Like, we're working in the evening hours. It's impossible. So if we could just spread them out a little bit more, it's impossible.

[Kathleen Desmond]: But there's also timings with purchase and sale agreements and things of those nature that kind of have to keep things moving. Otherwise, deposits become jeopardy.

[Emily Hedeman]: So to respect the limitations that we have, to respect the applicant, to respect the public hearing, Can we continue with those?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I would have continued tonight so that we wouldn't have had to.

[Emily Hedeman]: No, and I appreciate that. And I also appreciate the workload that Alicia and Danielle are subject to. You guys are doing fabulous work for a city that sometimes I feel like doesn't even realize how fast it's growing. And you all are at the front line of that. So I deeply and truly appreciate that.

[Danielle Evans]: We are dramatically, dramatically understaffed. Yeah, it'd be 10 times. This should be 10 times as much. Many people.

[Emily Hedeman]: Oh, yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: On this.

[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, if we could make that motion, we would. Could we?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Daniel, it's not that I don't appreciate that. I hope you don't think that that's the case.

[Emily Hedeman]: I just know an attorney doesn't. And I didn't mean to to imply that what I'm trying to get to is like, how can we use this meeting efficiently to either share those concerns with you tonight? Or can we continue right now? And then it's

[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't know. I know that you don't want to share that internal memo, but is there anything in terms of the items or the list?

[Emily Hedeman]: I heard water, which I think was addressed through the flow that we saw, the 72-24 hour.

[Alicia Hunt]: So Madam Chair, if I might. Yeah. So part of my concern is that it says, here's my initial review of the bridal path. which says to me that even if we said to you, here's what we need, and you said, put them all in as conditions were good, that he, because it was earlier today that the engineer asked for plans to scale. And honestly, that should have been sent earlier, but he may have been on vacation for the past two weeks as well. I don't know that.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, what I'm hearing is that we're going to continue either way. My, my, and I, you know, I apologize to applicant for, um, for that, but what I'm trying to get at right now is do we spend time talking through those X number of, of, of, of feedback from the city engineer, or do we just say motion to continue to a date certain and then allow city staff, Peter.

[Peter Calves]: Just my two cents of what I'm hearing is I think we should continue to date certain because it seems that we're not going to get all of the information that the applicant needs because Owen is not on this call. Yeah, I think what we really need is for the city engineer to communicate with the with the team his his concerns or planning staff to communicate those concerns to the team and talking through who, what may have been in an email internally is not going to get anyone where they want to be tonight.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ari, what do you think? Brevity is the gift that you can give all of us.

[Ari Fishman]: I agree with Peter, I don't think there's any way we can have a full discussion given what we just found out, and it's late, and I'm not feeling great, and I definitely would make a motion to continue.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, and we do still have additional matters in front of this board. I did hear a motion from Ari, and then I heard the first second from Peter. Unless there's any kind of procedural items that we need to be aware of from city staff, I'm going to do a roll call vote. And again, I apologize to the applicant. You have our sincerest apologies for this, and we thank you for your patience and understanding. So with that, I'm going to do a roll call vote. Peter Calves, to continue to a date certain is February 5th.

[Kathleen Desmond]: yes that is that date work for applicant that is the first date that we have that would be i'm sorry i was just talking to my client with the date would be yes um and public comment at this point is officially closed i just want to confirm yes yes okay the purposes of the continuance would be for board deliberation um uh

[Emily Hedeman]: any new information related to Owens, the city engineers, feedback, and then if appropriate, a motion. Let's start again, just in case, yep. Do you have a question?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I guess the one question, can you vote on the waiver? There is the waiver issue, the waiver of the street rounding. I don't know, without the engineer's approval, if you can't do that, you probably can't, right? So it's probably going to have to wait.

[Emily Hedeman]: I don't believe we can. I think it's all inclusive at this point. All right. Yeah, but I appreciate you asking. So, at this point, um, we are voting on a motion to continue to a date. Certain February 5th, uh, Peter cobs. Hi, uh, Ari Fishman. Hi, Annie Strang. Hi, Ben LaValle. Hi, uh, Sabrina Alpino. Hi. And myself, Emily Hedeman, is an I. This matter will be continued to February 5th. Thank you to the applicant. And we will see you next month. Oh, actually, you're still on here.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. And if I could just have one moment just to upload my documents, because when I went through, I inadvertently Xed out the vital path. It'll take me two seconds. But I had those set, and then I just

[Emily Hedeman]: I guess I can start saying my spiel and then when you're ready, you can just you can share because I believe you should still have permission.

[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. Great. Thanks, Alicia. All right. So the next item before us is a new public hearing. Thank you. I'm just going to throw you on mute, Attorney Desmond. It is a new public hearing. This is a special permit for a second principal structure. This is special permit 2024-6, underscore 55, underscore Myrtle Street CDB. So this is 55 and 0 Myrtle Street Bartlett Development LLC. Again, this is a new public hearing, and the notice reads that the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on January 15, 2025. After 6.30 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to an application for special permit submitted by Bartlett Development LLC to construct a second principal structure, just a single-family dwelling, located in the SF2 zoning district at 55 and 0 Myrtle Street. The assessor's map, it's N14, parcels 44 and 43. That's Medford, Massachusetts 021-55. This proposal requires a special permit for the City of Medford Zoning Ordinance section 94-3111 and requires approval from the Community Development Board. I would like to ask Attorney Desmond to present the proposal on behalf of the applicant whenever you are ready.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you, Chairperson Hederman. Kathleen Desmond of Redding. I'm here this evening with the manager of Bartlett Development, Nelson Oliveira, and his design team, Mariana Galstead. The project before you seeks a special permit pursuant to section 3.1.1.1 of the ordinance to construct a second principal structure, specifically a single family home on the same lot as the existing single family dwelling. The subject parcel is an approximately 9,666 square foot parcel of land consisting of two assessor's parcels located in the SF-2 district. The lots cannot be subdivided as a result of the merger doctrine due to inadequate lot width which is deficient by approximately 6.1 feet. The width for each lot if you were intending to subdivide would be 50 feet and lot area which is deficient by approximately 334 square feet. The lot in each instance would need to be 5,000 square feet. The lot with the existing property is in fact over 5,000 square feet. It's 5,180 square feet. But even if you were able to cobble together, if I can share my screen, let me see. Yes, okay. If you were even able to cobble together the, are you seeing that? You are, right? The lot area, the issue then arises that the property, and if I can scale down to the plot plan here. that the existing house, if you look at this plot plan, so this is your lot here, and the existing house is almost sits squarely in the middle. So you need a seven and a half foot side yard setback, and this is 23. So even if you were to attempt to subdivide the lots, if you were able to cobble the 150 and take some from the other property adjacent to, because that's a 5,400 square foot lot, In a perfect world, if you could get that to all work out, you'd still be in a situation where you would need to demolish the existing structure. And the existing structure does have some historical significance. It has gone before the historical board. And because this was not a teardown situation, and they were raising the roof and not changing the roof line, they allowed it to go forward so they weren't changing the structure. So in that respect, even if you could request a variance, you'd still need to take some action to demolish in order to place two houses on the lot. So merger in this case really is merger because it's very difficult to subdivide the lots. As noted on the plans itself and the zoning legend, the construction of a single-family dwelling, second single-family dwelling, will meet all the other zoning requirements of the district. The plan calls for a single curb cut and a 12-foot driveway so there won't be a request for an additional curb cut which would not would have some difficulty being approved through engineering. There are two exterior parking spaces and two garage spaces, so each unit meets the two cars per unit requirement in the SF2 district. And the combined lot coverage of the existing and the proposed dwelling is only 24%. opposed to in a single family home, you could have lot coverage equal to 40%. From a neighborhood perspective, and we can show this when we go through the slides, I'm going to have the architect go through the design. The neighborhood itself, I think on Myrtle Street, there's roughly 28 houses. single family lots that are undersized, that are not 5,000 square feet. So in terms of the character of the neighborhood and the lot size, I think anyone walking down the street wouldn't notice that, in fact, the lot was somehow deficient. Again, it's only 339 square feet. So it's going to look in the neighborhood as if it is two single family homes meeting all the setback requirements. Mariana is on the call and I can have her go through the plans with you. I can share my screen again. Mariana, are you there? I think she's muted. I can see her.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Would you like to share your screen or do you want to trust me with that?

[SPEAKER_27]: I could do either. We can go through your screen. It's the same document.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, so are you gonna go through?

[SPEAKER_27]: I can go through with it. Okay, do you wanna share your screen? Certainly, give me a minute. Thanks.

[Lisa Simonetti]: I should rather I just do it.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Would you rather I just share?

[Emily Hedeman]: Does Mariana have permission to share, Danielle or Alicia?

[Alicia Hunt]: I just gave her permission.

[Emily Hedeman]: Wonderful, thank you so much.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I can share.

[SPEAKER_27]: Why don't you go ahead and share and I can talk through it.

[Lisa Simonetti]: Okay. Let me just put this up.

[SPEAKER_27]: So the first slide is just the overview of the two homes. The home to the right is the existing, and the home to the left is the proposed. And as you can see on the bottom, we have the square footages per. And right now it's labeled as 57, but that's only because of the assumption of the numbers. But it's broken down by the first floor and second floor, and the total square footage of it being 1,688 square feet. Okay, and then the second, these slides just essentially are showing the floor plan, which is three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. So the first floor would just be your living space, kitchen, half bath. And then as you go upstairs to the second floor is where you have the three bedrooms. You have the three bedrooms and then two bathrooms, one of the primary and then the secondary bath. And then the top floor, which is just the attic space, which will be just like storage. And then this is the footprint of the basement, and this again will be unfinished basement slash storage space for the home. And as we go, it's a plot plan, a site plan.

[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could explain here, Mariana. So at this point, we have eight. It meets all the setback requirements. This is eight. That's 23, as we explained before, based on where the situation of the existing is. We've also got more than 15 feet in the rear yard. Your driveway is 20 at the beginning and 17 in the back. This common drive will go back to where the garage space is. In the front of the existing front yard setback on the existing house is 11.6, but the new house will meet the requirement of 15 feet. So, in terms of the setback requirements of the structures themselves, they will meet those requirements. It's only the lot area and the width that is deficient. And the lot area only by 3%.

[SPEAKER_27]: And these are just the elevations of the homes. As you can see, the height structure is the same. Both homes will be on the same height level, which is 32 feet and 10 inches, respectively.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And that just gives you the side view of the homes. And this is the GIS map that I was discussing previously, which shows, let me see if I can pull this over, I can, which basically shows that all of these lots in here are roughly under the 4,000 square foot mark. And then here's the lot in question. This is the existing lot with the existing house, which shows on the GSI that this may actually encroach over. It's tough to say, but it's definitely on that parcel lot line. So even if you took something from here, you'd still have to deal with that structure. And then the next slide shows you on Myrtle Street how many of the houses, you know, by address and how many of those houses are under the requirement of 5,000 square feet. And like I said, I think there's approximately 28, 29 of those structures within the stretch of Myrtle Street that are less than the required lot area or $5,000. Maria, if you want to go through the renderings.

[SPEAKER_27]: Sure, and these are just the perspectives of the proposed home in the scheme of the street and also comparing to the home that's going to be there. Well, that's there, I should say. As you can see, they're pretty much identical in terms of style and roof lines, with the exception of the proposed home just being on the smaller side compared to the existing. Yes, another view. And this is just a side-by-side comparison of the two. And you can see the garage in the back for the proposed home, and then the parking, which is behind the existing home.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And then this just gives you a breakdown as to two garage spaces that the new house will have 1688 square feet, bedrooms will be three, number of bathrooms will be two, two and a half, and then the building height. So that takes you through the presentation of the units. And, you know, in terms of the standard and whether it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, at first it protects and preserves the existing single-family dwelling on the lot, which has some historical significance. Someone could, if they chose to, come in and build a house that would fill 40% lot coverage of that as a single-family dwelling. So this preserves the existing house and also creates housing. And it's consistent with the governor's request, not so much Medford in terms of the lot area, but there is a push in that housing bill that was passed to change merger effectively in some communities so that there could be more single family homes with three bedrooms that are less than 1800 square feet. So it meets that wouldn't be out of character with the neighborhood, the lot area and the width deficiencies are both de minimis, it's six feet on the width, and, you know, 300 square feet on the lot area, which revolves to like 3% of the total lot area. And with that, I'll be quiet.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. And thank you, Mariana. So at this point, I would like to open it up to the board for any questions or comments. I feel that was a very thorough presentation. I don't have any questions or comments besides it feels logical. It feels like it fits the neighborhood. And yeah, I'd be curious to hear what the rest of the board has to say. Yeah.

[Peter Calves]: It was a lot of detail for any time, particularly impressive amount of detail for 11.35 PM. I don't fall asleep till 2 now, so. But I appreciate the level of detail, and I think there's nothing I can think of immediately.

[Ayni Strang]: No, it seemed that the drawings were very clear and the direction you were going, and I have no questions.

[Emily Hedeman]: So if there's no additional comments or questions from the board, I'm going to open up the public comment period. Again, as a board, we will have opportunity for deliberation post public comment period. So I will now open the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the chat if you're having technical difficulties. You can also send an email to OCD at Medford-MA.gov. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. That is a requirement. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to message any comments to city staff or board members, as that is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or technical difficulties, you can message staff for assistance, and that is Alicia and Danielle. Each participant will have two minutes to speak. So I see one member of the public with their hand raised, Rocco's iPhone. Please state your name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_42]: Hello, can you hear me?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_42]: Oh, beautiful. Thank you. I wasn't sure it was unmuted. My name is Rocco Lombardo and we are on Gibson Street, which is behind Myrtle. And I guess the question is, are there any offsets for the garage area and presumably the parking lot that will be next to it that abuts against our property? And the second question is, what is the plan for all the trees between the two properties? Are they going to be removed? Is there going to be new trees planted? We share trees. We'd just like to understand what the plan between the two properties is going to be.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So I believe the garage is existing, and Nelson can confirm that. because I believe it shows on the existing plan that we have the site plan. Yeah, so the original site plan shows an existing garage and I believe that is staying and is that correct, Nelson? I think he needs to be unmuted or Mariana.

[SPEAKER_02]: All right, the existing garage right now And also the park, right side of the garage, we kept away from the proper line, per code. And the trees on the back, we already removed some of the trees. The trees over there, unless the neighbor wanted to remove, I'm okay to remove the other trees, but I'm okay to keep the trees in place as well. I don't need to remove those trees.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I realized this was a little bit of an unorthodox public comment.

[Unidentified]: Sorry.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's OK. It's late in the evening. But I do appreciate that you got your questions answered. But I do want to recognize that you do have more time if you would like to ask any additional questions.

[Ayni Strang]: We'd like to keep the trees, though.

[SPEAKER_42]: No, I think it would be our vote to keep the trees or as much as possible. And yeah, that's about it. So thank you all for your time.

[SPEAKER_02]: All the remaining trees of the area we intend to keep.

[SPEAKER_42]: OK, thanks.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. And thank you for joining so late. Really appreciate your participation as part of this process. I don't see any other hands. Alicia or Danielle, have you received any chat messages? Any additional emails? I'm looking through our comments folder.

[Danielle Evans]: I didn't receive any public comment on this one, to the best of my knowledge.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. So if there are no more public comments, I'm going to close the public comment period for this evening. I'd like to reopen the discussion to the board for deliberation. And just to kind of set the scene, in order to grant a special permit, we the CDB must find that any adverse effects of the project will not outweigh the beneficial impacts to the city or the neighborhood, taking into consideration the following criteria set forth in section 94-11. 0.6, 0.2 of the ordinance, or we are able to incorporate conditions of approval that, if satisfied by the applicant, will cause them to be met. And what we're taking into consideration are, right there with you, Alicia, are the social, economic, or community needs The traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. The adequacy of utilities and other public services. Compatibility with the size, scale, and design of other structures in the neighborhood. Impacts on the natural environment. And the proposal's compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. Based on my perspective, it checks every box. I am slightly inclined to see if we can put some language somewhere. to preserve those back trees. I know things sometimes get crazy during the construction process. That tree looks so beautiful. So I'd love it if we could potentially throw some language in there, preserving the trees to the south of the property. But also curious to hear any feedback or insight or comments from the rest of the board. Annie?

[Ayni Strang]: I vote to keep any tree anywhere, anytime. So if it's humanly possible, trees Medford.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and I am very excited that this does mean there'll be some more housing in Medford. It's not an insane amount of housing, but it will add to our housing stock. So I'm always people over trees, but when we can do both, why can't we? Yeah, I agree with you. Peter?

[Peter Calves]: I agree with that. And I think to continue doing my former clerk job before anyone picks it up, say a condition would be the applicant shall preserve the existing trees on the property when feasible. Something like that.

[Emily Hedeman]: And I would clarify that it's the tree to the south of the property, Gibson Street. If I'm looking at the street view, it looks like there are some trees to the left of the current structure that may need to come down. So just want to be sensitive to that. But yeah, they can preserve as many trees as possible, specifically the one in the back. That'd be great. Would the applicant be open to that? Attorney Desmond or Mr. de Oliveira?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sorry, yes, I believe that we're in agreement.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, all the tree on the left of the property already cut. The tree we need should be removed. It's been removed. All the tree there is going to remain. Include the pine. We did everything to keep the pine on the front of it, because this structure just trimmed a little bit. But I thought it's beautiful trees. I love trees as well. So we're going to keep all the remaining trees of the property. We're going to keep those.

[Emily Hedeman]: Wonderful. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_02]: OK.

[Emily Hedeman]: Ben, Sabrina, Ari, any thoughts? Sounds good.

[SPEAKER_17]: No thoughts. I agree with everyone.

[Peter Calves]: I'm going to make a motion to approve the site plan as conditioned to preserve all the trees, that the applicant shall preserve all trees on the site.

[Emily Hedeman]: We're looking for a second motion, Annie. Great. Thank you. We're going to do a roll call vote. Peter calls. Hi, Ari Fishman. Hi, Annie string. Hi, Sabrina Alpino. Hi, Ben LaValle. Hi, and I only had a man and also an eye. So the special permit is granted with conditions of approval that all existing site trees be maintained.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you and thank you for taking this matter on so late in the evening. I appreciate that all of you did this tonight because I know it's a struggle to do.

[Emily Hedeman]: Of course, we appreciate your participation in the process. And I just want to quickly check in.

[SPEAKER_28]: It looks like he has the best spot, though. Yeah, it looks like he has the best spot.

[Ben Lavallee]: I'm at a hotel room in New York on a work trip right now. It's been a long day.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Thank you, Ben. Alicia, Danielle, is there any other procedural things that we need related to the Myrtle Street I just want to make sure we don't leave anything hanging. I know sometimes I do that when it's late.

[Danielle Evans]: No, I would just appreciate if Attorney Desmond could draft a decision for me.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure.

[Danielle Evans]: That'd be great.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Typical as in the zoning decisions, Danielle, is that the format or is there something different that you would want?

[Danielle Evans]: I'm not married to my format, but I can send you some examples, yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, terrific. Yeah, okay, great. Public-private collaboration, all about it. All right, so we are getting to some final items, minutes. Do we have any minutes to review for this meeting?

[Danielle Evans]: I was not able to get them. It was, I think, two different interns at a Frankenstein together a meeting. Yeah, don't worry about it. It just needed way too much work. Yeah, no problem.

[Emily Hedeman]: And we have a special meeting next week, specifically focused on zoning. So for now, I'm going to propose that we hold on zoning updates. So what I will be looking for, and just before we do that, thank you so much for everybody. We did a great job. I'm so proud of us. It takes a lot to do this. And I know we're all giving up sleep, family time, work time. So thank you for it. But now I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second, okay, we're gonna do a roll call vote. Peter calls. Hi. Are you Fishman? I. Any string. Hi. Sabrina Alpino. All right. Bend the valley. Hi. And I, myself, Emily Hedeman, am an enthusiastic I. Thank you, everybody. Big thanks to Alicia and Danielle. We could not do this without you. So thank you so much for having us, everyone. Thanks. Have a good night.

Emily Lazzaro total time: 1.0 minutes total words: 59	Trish Schiapelli total time: 0.41 minutes total words: 28