AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 08-02-23

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, and I'll get that link in the chat. Thanks, Jackie. And once you click on that link, you can just go to current CD board file, CD board filings. I will do roll call attendance. Ari Fishman. Present. Pam Marianski. Present. Sally Akiki. Present. And myself, Jackie McPherson. Amanda, can you introduce any staff on the call?

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely. So very quickly, my name is Amanda Centrella. I am a planner in the Office of Community, oh my gosh, Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. And joining me as well from PDS is Danielle Evans, our senior planner. Alicia Hunt, the director of our office, probably won't be in attendance tonight. Though if you see her on a little bit later, don't be surprised. Um, and that's it for tonight.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Awesome. Thank you, Amanda. Um, and so the first item that we have on our agenda for this evening is 2 43 mystic Avenue. Um, and I believe this, this is a public meeting, so I will read the public meeting notice. The method community development board shall conduct a public hearing on July 19th. Uh, I'm not sure if I have. Pardon me, Amanda, do I have the correct meeting notice?

[Amanda Centrella]: Sorry, 243 Mystic Me. Yes. Apologies.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It was actually moved to today's meeting, so perhaps that was the mix-up.

[Amanda Centrella]: Exactly, yes. The notice is the same. The date was our original hearing date, which was continued to today.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: which was continued. And do I need to make reference to that or just gloss over the. Okay, yeah. To start over the medical community development board shall conduct a public hearing on August 2 2023. After 6pm via zoom, the remote veto conferencing relative to a petition by 243 Mystic Avenue LLC at 45 West 3rd Street, Boston Mass, 02127, to amend zoning map, City of Medford Mass, dated April 13th, 1965, as referenced in Medford's zoning ordinance chapter 94, 2.2. The amendment proposes to change the zoning district designation of the property 243 Mystic Avenue as depicted on the plan entitled site layout plan, dated June 15th, 2023, from commercial to C2 zoning district to a planned development district, which is a PDD and have, which would have new development standards for Metro zoning ordinance chapter 94, 9.23. The full materials for the amendment can be viewed in the office of planning. And again, Amanda has already shared that link with everyone. Amanda, do you actually, do you want to introduce this next, do you want to introduce who's here for this topic?

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely. Yeah. So, and I just posted in the chat sort of definition and like criteria when evaluating planned development districts, just in case anyone is interested. So that's there and the board will be using this framework for evaluating the application. And with that, I'm going to cede the floor to the applicant with the CI design team. Are you guys on and able to present?

[Jim Heffernan]: We are. We are. Can you hear us okay?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, perfect.

[Jim Heffernan]: We decided it to be in a room together would be the best option. So I'm attorney Jim Heffernan. I'm with rich may PC. I represent the proponent burden bio. We're also here with CI design and also. with Steve on our behalf. So the purpose of tonight is for the CDB to approve the PDD zoning, the zoning draft that I worked on with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, as well as the city attorney. The second part of it is to also prove the location on the zoning map for this to be part of that PDD. As part of that, we're going to give a brief summary of the project, the proponent, and then I'll go in kind of more into the detailed analysis under the zoning code, the zoning location, and the draft PDD. So with that, I'll turn it over to Doug.

[Doug Medvets]: Hi, everybody. We've had a couple of conversations. So I see a lot of familiar faces. And I know there are a couple of new people on the board. So I'll just give a brief description of who Verdant is. I'm here with my partner Khadijah Hindi. So we are a life science development company coming at development of the lab space from a scientist perspective. So both Khadijah and I are PhD chemists. We've done a lot of lab research at Harvard. And over the last 10 years, in combination with that research, we've also been doing real estate development. And so this project is meshing both of our experiences over about the last 10 to 15 years. And we think that this site is a really good location for a life science project in Medford. So excited to be here, excited to tell you a little bit more about the project and answer any questions that you might have.

[Jim Heffernan]: and then turn over CI design to go run through a brief update on the project or show you what's been shown before.

[Matthew Juros]: Okay, thanks very much, Jim. And let's see, do we have the- Go back to Zoom.

[SPEAKER_00]: Go back to Zoom, yeah. Right, there we are.

[Matthew Juros]: Share screen here.

[SPEAKER_00]: The green one at the bottom.

[Amanda Centrella]: If you guys don't mind, am I interrupting for a moment? Sure. Through the chair, I did want to just point out for the board that our office has been working with attorney Gareth Orsmond on this application. And attorney Orsmond is here and available tonight to advise the board, to answer questions, whether it be on procedures or sort of logic behind maybe different choices around the draft amendment, all of that. So I just wanted to point out that he's available here for the board's advisement as well. Sorry, I'll thank you.

[R6eVZD_7YLY_SPEAKER_00]: I am. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Happy to chime in when you ask any questions.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much, Attorney Osmond, for being here with us. One of the other things that I wanted to note for our board members is that this is the proponent will most likely present a high-level conceptual presentation. Our task is to focus on zoning, the uses and dimension at this step for the proposed parcel. It's not yet at the site review. So, um, as far as the vision and visuals and things like that, so we're, the onus is zoning. Um, I just wanted to, um, iterate that.

[Matthew Juros]: Thank you for that, Madam Chair. My name is Matthew Jarros. I'm a principal at CI Design, and I'll take us through sort of a graphic description of the proposed building. And as was mentioned earlier, we've started this process with the city last year. I think we met with the mayor. We've had for previous informal meetings with the CD board and thank you for your time and the valuable input. And so the proposal that we're here to discuss tonight is the result of all of that time and collaborations. So, you know, as Doug and Khadija mentioned, this is a life science building. And what it is, is the speculative building that focuses on small startup tenants, of which there's sort of a continuous pipeline in eastern Massachusetts. And so the site is on the corner of Harvard Street and Mystic Avenue. It's a very small and tight site, and then we intend to build up to the lot lines of our neighbor within a couple of feet to the north, and I think within 18 inches to the west. and then right up to the lot line on the sidewalk side. I'll take you through just a quick sort of orientation about the salient features of the building and sort of parts and how it functions quickly. There's a parking entrance, a vehicle entrance off of Harvard Street. We located that as far from the intersection as the site allows. So vehicles would enter in this area of the building and we've got cars can migrate over to the parking area where we've got a parking system which will allow for the parking of 18 cars. I think these are three, six bays of three up and one down and then two regular spaces for 20 total. We've got a bike room, back over on this side. And then any science building, a lab building, really has as its heart the loading dock and utility elevator. So that's sort of where we start the design. And so vehicles doing pickup and delivery would back right into this area here. That's located right next to the utility elevator and a stair. And then sort of continuing in the back of the house areas, chemical storage, mechanical rooms, and utility rooms. There's also a mechanical mezzanine above this level with mechanical equipment for the building that's not on the roof is located. So that's all sort of entering from Harvard Street as a vehicle. Pedestrians and bicyclists and folks who arrive via public transportation might choose to use the vestibule at the main corner of the The site, and there's a lobby right in that area with the passenger elevator that goes upstairs. We have 8, 8 floors total. The building, there's a reception and lobby area. egress stairs and so forth. The typical floors as we've got them laid out currently, folks will arrive usually using the passenger elevator and sort of at the front of the buildings is a glassy front as we've envisioned it. We've got to make some visions as we get the new building code enforced when this is successful as this project moves forward in the coming year. It's going to change that exterior some, but we're envisioning it to be glass currently. And behind the elevator are a series of lab benches and these could be demised in smaller spaces or in a single large space per floor. Lab buildings and facilities of this sort have several different parts that serve the lab benches and the science that's being done collecting data in the quote-unquote lab support rooms over on the left. have different types of instruments that might be used, microscopes, centrifuges, things of this nature, refrigerator farms, where different mediums and so forth are stored and prepared. We call that lab support. And a little known fact, an important part of any lab is actually a um, an office component. So every scientist student, the white coat, who's, who's doing science on a lab bench also spends an equal or greater amount of time sitting at a desk, um, doing data analysis and research and so forth. And so all of the offices is, um, located in, in, in these lower sections here, those are open cubicles as we're envisioning them, some open office area to the right and enclosed conference room to the left, uh, toilet rooms and, and, um, more building utilities and so forth at the top. And there's going to be a large amount of the floor area that's dedicated to vertical duct space and shaft space because of the large ventilation requirements for lab buildings. And so we're going to go migrate down. The exterior of the building in elevation It contains the treatment of the two facades that face Harvard Street and Mystic Ave, which we're envisioning as largely glass with a series of sort of sculptural fins that have a vertical emphasis. And the two solid walls that face our neighbors, we're envisioning would have a pretty similar type of execution with the sculpted shaped fins in front of a wall that is not going to be the glass wall but a more solid wall. This is sort of a diagrammatic look at how lab buildings lay out and how we're envisioning this one. Take note of the pretty large mechanical penthouse at the roof. This building is going to require 100% make-up air and a large velocity of exhaust air, and the equipment gets pretty large. We need to have backup power for all of it. Data collection and science is really about valuable information. running experiments requires power and so having backup power is vital for a facility like this. This building is being developed with a tenant in mind, a single tenant that that caters to startups. Part of their concept is that there would be on-site dining and studio space that is available for aggregating their their data, doing public outreach, doing funding outreach, and supporting functions of that sort. That's called the studio. And then we stack the lab floors below that. And we can see that on the lower level, there's a mechanical mezzanine storage and so forth. And these are building sections, so looking at the building vertically. And the last piece is just to place the building a little bit more discreetly on the site. So you can see Mystic Ave here in Harvard Street on the bottom. Our neighbors to the north and to the west are right there. So that's a quick overview of the building that we're proposing. I turn it back over to Tony Effernon to describe the ordinance that we're proposing. we're writing for this building.

[Jim Heffernan]: Thanks, Matt. And that was all helpful. Again, as Madam Chair pointed out, the purpose tonight is not to approve this actual project in use. This is for the approval of the PDE that we've proposed and worked on with the Office of Planning, Development, Sustainability and their attorney. You know, tonight's request for this new PDD, it's pursuant to section 94-9.2 in the Recodified Medford Zoning Ordinance. Under that ordinance, there's essentially two types of PDDs, commercial and residential. As you can see tonight, as explained by Matt, this is a commercial version of that variety. More specifically, life sciences, research and development, lab, office space use. The purpose and intent of that section 94-9.2 is to permit a new development standard for particular use for a particular site, give a little bit more specific details of what are needed for that site. And that's exactly what our ask here is tonight. we're in the commercial two zone, which allows some of these uses. Some of the dimensional requirements don't quite match. And the request, because the unique features, the site and the use, it was determined from many discussions with the Office of Development, Planning, Development and Sustainability to move and apply for the PDD. Before going to that ordinance, it's worth kind of putting it on perspective. Tonight is step three of a nine-step process. The first step of that was a pre-application review, which we did do in June. highlighting much of the project that Matt just went over. Step two was filing the PDD application, which was also completed. And once that was filed, I believe at the end of June, maybe the first part of July, the city engaged uh attorney oarsman and we uh worked together uh all of july and up until end of last week to uh prepare this draft uh pdd uh so that puts us here tonight in step three this is really the application review and public hearing for for your approval of the draft PDD and the zoning location. This will then move forward if you accept and approve for your recommendation to the city council. There are Many other public hearings planned. So you will not, this will not be the last time you see it and you're going to see a much more detailed site plan review process in accordance with the PDD and your zoning ordinance. So again, that's just to highlight approvals for the PDD and the location, and that this is going to come back around for you. On those two goals, location I think is the easiest one to hammer out. This is a 8,177 square foot parcel. It's on the corner of Mystic Avenue and Harvard Street. It's known as 243 Mystic Avenue, and it's been depicted on a survey plan, which is part of the application on file with the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and it's been presented to you before. This area transitions from commercial use to residential use. It can be developed as a buffer between a predominantly residential neighborhood on the west and a more industrial on the east. We traverse over many busy roadways. One of the busiest in the country, I-93, Mystic Avenue and Mystic Avenue Parkway. So that is our location that we're asking you to approve tonight. On the draft PDD, we're happy to run through every text and detail, and Gareth and I can go over those with you as well. This was, as already highlighted, negotiated pretty extensively over the last, really over the last three weeks proactively, and You know, I think we're at a happy compromise in place with working with both the Office of Planning, Development, Sustainability and your attorney. I do want to highlight a couple key aspects of it. It was also highlighted in Attorney Osmond's memo filed with you as well. As required by the zoning ordinance, the City Council is the special permitting granting authority. So you see that highlighted throughout. There's still a site plan review process with the CDB. So that is also in the draft PDD that may be contemporaneous with our process with the City Council so that we'll have a kind of a use and then a more of a design and site plan review process with you. The City Council City Attorney recommended I think Gareth had a great idea on this concept of a cooperation agreement in there. He explains that a little further in his memo. We're happy to talk about tonight. I just want to highlight that you know this this allows more complex issues to be hammered out with the City Council so they can approve some of these complex aspects of a project such as this. It helps a cooperative environment between the city and the developer. It is not a replacement site plan review, so it's not taking away anyone's authority or your authority out of that. So I thought that was a nice addition. It is also very common in PDDs or in other areas known other cities or communities known as a PUD. So that was a nice nice add. Another element in there is the linkage. There is a a Again, it's important part of the process, any projects, major projects in Medford require linkage fee and in here is an element of a like kind work and kind exchange of work of equal or greater value to that linkage fee. Sometimes the developer has an easier way of doing streetscape improvements, park improvements, pedestrian improvements, and things like that. It's not meant to circumvent the city regulations either, so as you'll see in the draft PDD, it still gives control to the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, which is as is in the City of Medford. uses and there's a extensive use chart there. I just want to draw out that yes there's a lot of uses in that use chart that's to mere C2 the zoning district but really the proposed use here is life science research development lab space with office and ancillary uses. The PDD already references the preliminary plan and plan submitted. So it's not like we can go off plan dramatically without having to come back and reinvent the wheel, which we have zero intention to do. So that's why I wanted to highlight kind of the use chart there. And last but not least, the dimensional chart. And again, we can go through each item, but I think Matt's summary helps tie in the dimension and why the dimensional chart is structured that way. These are directly connected to the proposed project. you know, particularly maximum height. And I just want to highlight, you know, it's not like the building itself is 160 feet. There is a substantial mechanical area and some care and attention was given to that with us and Office of Planning and with attorney between both attorneys on the correct wording on that uh that pen yeah they're showing the MEP penthouse so all the mechanicals and equipment uh will take up a significant space up there and you'll see that there is language in there about screening which is already proposed in the preliminary plan so uh care and attention was really given into that screening and height element of that um that's in conclusion that's that's what we're asking for or you know i'm asking for your approval of both the location on the zoning map and approval of this draft pdd um happy to answer any other detailed questions got the whole team here uh uh and uh we'll open the board and again uh if it hasn't been said already thank you very much for uh hearing us tonight thank you attorney heffman i i we appreciate it um

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: your detailed of the uses and you're going back and forth with, you know, just giving us, filling us the new board members in from previous meetings. Before I open it up, Amanda, I'm not sure if we should have Attorney Orzman step in here and pretty much set the stage before we get to the public comment, or should we go straight to the public comment first?

[Amanda Centrella]: Maybe I'll ask Attorney Orzman, is there anything that you want to add as far as framing for the conversation or any additional bits that you think might be helpful to kick us off?

[R6eVZD_7YLY_SPEAKER_00]: No, just to reiterate it, it was a collaborative and reiterative process, but we had a lot of majority of say in the drafting of the proposed rezoning ordinance, just to make it clear, this is very much what we had in mind. And, you know, well, I think we can hear comments, we can revise it before it goes to city council. It'll go to city council and get remanded here again or sent back here again for your actual final approval of the rezoning. But we've gone around quite a few rounds on this to really have the rezoning reflect what we want to do there.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you attorney. I think that's where we're trying to get to, um, um, without the public and the board having a reference to those iterations, uh, that you and the proponent have done. Um, I'm just not, I'm not sure at this point, um, if how to guide the, the meeting going forward, I want to make sure that we're doing right by the city as well as a proponent. Um, so I guess at this time I will request, um, if there are any comments from the city staff.

[Unidentified]: Amanda or Danielle, do you want to weigh in?

[Amanda Centrella]: I think so. I'll cede the floor to Danielle if she has anything, but I guess I'll mention that just in alignment with what's already been mentioned by Attorney Orsman and the applicant, we've had of the very iterative process drafting this draft amendment. I think a lot of what was highlighted by the applicant are pieces that were sort of hammered out between us. So the linkage language, the cooperation agreement, and making clear that that this draft or sorry, that this amendment where other parts of the underlying ordinance don't touch or conflict with what's in the amendment, those things still stand. So those processes or standards may still stand, but where there is conflict is where this amendment triumphs. So that's sort of how the overlay operates. Um, Danielle, is there anything else you would like to add?

[Danielle Evans]: No, I just want to echo that this was, um, you know, a very, you know, iterative process. Some of these concepts are new to Medford, like the cooperative agreement. We definitely, as staff, really like the idea of that because you can get all of the details hammered out rather than having a laundry list of conditions to reference. It ends up being a lot easier to keep track of conditions and enforce and monitor for compliance while it's being constructed and operating. Yeah, and just to remind everyone that the approving, well, this would be, This meeting is to agree on the language, and then if everyone is okay with it, then that is what gets sent to City Council. It immediately comes back, as Attorney Orsman said, and then it'd be approved by City Council, and then there's the whole special permit and site plan re-process, where we get into the minutia of the site plan and design. So if there's anyone from the public that has questions, very design related or other impacts, those comments will be probably more appropriate or better able to be answered at that time during the actual project is being applied for.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. And that's pretty much where I know it's a public hearing, but that's what I was trying to guide to stay at a conversation for the public and what we were opening it up for prior to opening it up. So thank you for referencing that, Daniel. But at this time, I will, I'll ask for clarifying questions to solicit from the board first before opening it up from the public. Does anyone from the board have any clarifying questions before we open it up

[Unidentified]: I can't really see my screen.

[Evangelista]: This is Sally. The main question that I'm thinking about while going through the presentation was with respect to location. And since the lab is in proximity to residential neighborhoods, will there be any health or safety risks? And if it does, how are these risks mitigated?

[Doug Medvets]: Do you want to start with that? Yeah, you go ahead. Thanks for the question. This is Doug Medvech from Verdant. There will not be any health risks. This will be a very contained building. If you noticed all the lab area was going to be contained in the center of the building. There's also a lot of regulations through the building code that will require this building to not allow any of the chemicals outside of the building. Chemical storage is very highly regulated in a building like this. And with that said, the types of science that's gonna be done in this size building and with these early stage companies is gonna be very, very basic, very early stage research. So the amount of chemical used in this building will be low. The amount of sort of higher level science research will not be done in this building. This will be very early stage, very beginning research and development company. So there should not be any real concerns around that type of question.

[Matthew Juros]: In the sort of lab regulation world, we describe that issue of public safety as in terms of biosafety levels, right, BSL. And this is a very low level. It's a BSL-2 facility. It's really going to be BSL-1 work that's done here in the vast majority of the instances with maybe some BSL-2. So we're bumping it up to that, but that's really a pretty low level.

[SPEAKER_00]: I'm Matthew O'Connell. I'm with CI Design on the design team. To expand on that, BSL-1 is your primary care physician's office. Right, so we're starting there, right? So, and both the footprint and the business model for the building, which is generally described as an incubator is bringing in single benchtop research scientists, a couple of scientists, perhaps a group. The goal of that group is to find research that is successful and then move to a larger facility. So explicitly, there is no manufacturing going on in this building. It's really just primary research at a very small scale. So that's on the way in. In terms of the way out, we have some very technical requirements that we can test and validate to do with wind, wake, and air entrainment. So those are scientific third-party validated studies and commissioning and qualifications that occur on this building and also continuous monitoring. So any waste going down the drain is intercepted before it ever gets near a public waste system. tested and monitored and likewise any air and treated and any air leaving the building is intercepted and filtered and monitored as well. So that's to the benefit of first the scientists to be selfish, protect the scientists first, but also the building occupants and especially the building neighbors. So those are all part of any typical lab building. And that's information that would be available to anybody who asked.

[Unidentified]: Thank you for the clarification.

[R6eVZD_7YLY_SPEAKER_00]: May I address the board? Yes. Just to kind of stay on message. We're not, nobody is signing off on this particular development at this meeting. We are talking about the rezoning ordinance and under the rezoning ordinance, they do still have to go for the special permit from city council, which has to make the kind of findings necessary to make sure this is a safe use as well as site plan review where this board will have the same kind of say in it. potentially the cooperation agreement, which will include any kind of mitigation needed to make sure that this is a safe use. So all of that will be more fully vetted as the process goes on.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Osmond. One of my actual questions is the intricacies of the multi-uses and all the different special permits that are needed. And I wasn't exactly sure, again, especially how you detailed the uses. And then the applicant has already tried to explain them out. But it's just, in layman's terms, it's kind of hard to capture here. So this is going to be played out later. At this point, what the board is trying to do is just to recommend it to the city council to continue this. Is that correct? So that it can be vetted out. Right.

[R6eVZD_7YLY_SPEAKER_00]: Right. I mean, on the uses, just to explain what happened. Most times you have a planned development district or PUD or something, the desired use is by right. And technically that's the case here, the way it's drafted. because under the current zoning, you'd have to go to the board of appeals to get this use permitted by a special permit. And then, you know, if you did it in the PDD, you'd have to go to the city council as well and get the PDD special permit. So we've kind of collapsed all of the primary use here into the city council's special permit and the site plan review process. Some of the other uses we kept around seem unlikely. And it would probably just be small accessory. And those would still require an actual special permit separate from the process. And then there were a lot of uses in the underlying zoning district, things like automotive repair or what have you, that, you know, if this rezoning gets adopted, those aren't going to apply because you don't want those types of uses at this kind of scale. And they're just, they're not relevant, right? So that's what we did with the uses. The life science, it's basically allowed by rights subject to the city council special permit required by the bylaw or ordinance. Some other uses are allowed by special permit and then a bunch of uses have been disallowed. That's where we are.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. I apologize if I've taken up the time from other board members that have any questions. Hearing none, I'm going to open up the public comment period. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Amanda in the comments. 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. Amanda, can you please manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails or letters?

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely. So I just put in the chat some instructions for how to connect with us. We did not receive any comments ahead of the meeting, but let me quickly check to just make sure that none have come in since then. Okay, seeing none at this time. And I'm just going to review our participants list just to make sure there are no raised hands. I'm not seeing any. Yeah, seeing no raised hands and nothing in the chat. So I think no comment at this time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. So at this point, I will close the public comment period. And I will bring it back to board deliberation.

[Unidentified]: And one last chance for the board to ask any questions of the applicant or of attorney or of the city staff or to even discuss whether or not you have enough information on what to recommend.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, well, at this point, um, hearing, uh, no further, um, responses from the board, I will ask for a motion to recommend the, um, the language as is, uh, going to the city council as opposed to continue it or anything like that. Cause that's, uh, attorney Orzman has said, this has had many iterations with the city, with, uh, the applicants attorney, as well as, um, attorney Orzman as the city staff. And so we'll let it go to its next step with the city council and, um, So I will ask for a motion to recommend to the city council.

[Unidentified]: Motion. Do I get a second? I'll second. Okay, I will do a roll call. Sorry.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman.

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Pam Mariansky. Yes. Sally Akiki. Yes.

[Unidentified]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. Is it? Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much. I didn't get everyone's name. I do know attorney Heffernan. And I apologize, I didn't get everyone else's name. I see that everyone's on one screen, but thank you for your presentation and we will see you when you come back.

[Jim Heffernan]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.

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

[Jim Heffernan]: Thank you and good night.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And thank you, Attorney Wasman.

[Unidentified]: You're welcome. Good night. Okay. So the next item,

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We have the pleasure of site plan review for 285 to 295 Middlesex Ave, H Mart. Amanda, am I not mistaken if this is a request for motion for continuance based on a quorum issue? That is correct, yes. Is the applicant in attendance or have they been informed prior to?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, they've been in or sorry, they're not in attendance. They were informed by our office prior to and so they would like to request a continuance tonight as well.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so is it to a date certain or just being tabled to the next meeting?

[Amanda Centrella]: It would be to a date certain, um, and the applicant has confirmed with me that, um, the 16th, uh, which is the next scheduled CD board hearing or meeting date, um, is amenable to them.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: August 16th. And does that need a roll call vote or does that need a vote from the board or can we just, since they're not in attendance?

[Danielle Evans]: Um, Danielle, you need to just, you can vote to continue it. The applicant doesn't have to be here to continue it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. May I please ask a motion from the board to continue the site plan review for 285 to 295 Middlesex Avenue to August 16th, 2023? Is it the 16th or the 19th? 16th. 16th. I so move. A second? Second. So roll call vote. Ari Fishman? Yes. Pam Mariansky?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sally Akiki? Yes. And myself, Jackie, I'm yes. Our next item is 100 Winchester Street Plan Development District. I will read the public notice.

[Amanda Centrella]: second. Madam chair. I guess, um, for the public notice. We advertised this hearing jointly with the hearing, um, down the line for with City Council. Um so and I forgot to point that point that out. I'm sorry. Um and so we can just focus on the I think it's the first

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So just as any other regular city board public hearing notice, okay. So the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on August 2, 2023 after 6.30 p.m. via Zoom relative to a petition by 96-202 Winchester Street LLC to amend zoning map City of Medford Mass dated April 13, 1965 as referenced in Medford Zoning Ordinance Chapter 94-2.2. The amendment proposes to change the zoning district designation of the properties 96-102 Winchester Street and 104 Winchester Street from General Residential, GR, to Zoning District and Commercial 1, C1. Zoning district to a planned development district, PDD, which would have new development standards as depicted on the plan entitled Area Plan at 100 Winchester Street, dated December 7th, 2022 from Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, 9.2.3. A link to the public hearing is to be posted on the city's website at www.medford.ma.org, no later than July 18th, 2023, in which it has been posted already. Okay, I believe I've satisfied that obligatory. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, Amanda. Okay. So attorney Jonathan Silverstein of BBHS law is available as support and counsel for the board. Um, he will assist the board and draft an amendment and make a revision. Members should feel free to ask questions. Um, uh, welcome attorney Silverstein. Thank you for being here. Um, at this time, we're going to invite the applicant, uh, for 100 Winchester street to introduce themselves and present their proposal.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Adam Barnosky, 255 State Street in Gloucester. I'm an attorney for 96-102 Winchester Street LLC, the property owner and the proposed developer. With me are the developers, Steve and Gerald Nardone, Peter Quinn, the project architect, my co-counsel Michael Barone, as well as several members of our development team. We are here relative to the new plan development district pursuant to 9.2 of the zoning ordinance. We're very excited about this proposal. It's been a long time in the development. I'd again like to thank the planning department staff, legal counsel for their efforts throughout this process. I know that the PDD process remains new for the city and we do appreciate the joint undertaking by all parties involved here. I'm going to provide the board with an overview of the property and the proposal. I'm going to limit my initial presentation to the zoning components of this application. But we do have the ability to discuss any components of the underlying project. As I mentioned, we do have the entire design team here to answer any questions the board may have. So first about the property, the proposed PDD site is located on the southern portion of Winchester Street. consists of three lots measuring just under 50,000 square feet. The two lots located at 96-102 Winchester are contiguous through lots with frontage on Winchester and Alfred Street. They've been used for many years for different uses, commercial space for offices, garaging, and outdoor vehicle storage. The lot located at 104 Winchester Street is a corner lot with frontage on Winchester and Albion. It's improved with a two-story residence that's been deemed preferably preserved by the Medford Historical Commission. our zoning district with a small portion in the C1. The properties are currently owned by 96-102 Winchester Street. The team thought this property would be a good and appropriate location for a PDD because of its size and its current use within the zoning district. It lends itself to a use that's more consistent with the residential nature of the neighborhood and in relation to the multifamily projects developed in recent years in the surrounding area. It's also worth noting that the PDD was developed with specific uses and structures in mind as such that those zoning is specific to in the process here as the board is aware that in the event this PDD is approved by this board, it will then go to the city council for for full approval. And after that, we will present to this board and city council again the underlying project. So that'll have to go through the site plan review process, as well as a special permit with the community, I'm sorry, with the city council being the special permit granting authority. So it's a long way of saying that we've been before this board a few times on this proposal, we've met with the community a few times on this proposal, and in a way, we're just getting started. So I think there's gonna be a lot of familiarity here with our team and the project. So you have a draft of the, so tonight's hearing again relates only to the approval of the PDD zoning district under section 9.2, and we're not here regarding any specific project. You do have a draft zoning amendment before you, which is listed as section 94-9.285 of the zoning ordinance. It details the proposed use and dimensional requirements under the overlay. You might recall the the uses were subject to our original discussion before this board and our original use. forward. And we took a lot of time to tailor the use table that's before you to be more in line with the intended uses for the property. Originally, we cast a wide net and just said that any uses that were allowed by right under the underlying zoning districts, either the GR or the C would be allowed here. But after some more consideration, we thought, let's just tailor this really to make sense with the project that the developers hope to present before you down the road. So the dimensional elements here are intended to blend the underlying district's requirements with certain modifications to accommodate scale without a significant disruption to the neighborhood, and to allow room to modify if needed when this underlying project goes before a more comprehensive Community Development Board review and City Council review during the special permitting process. As it's currently drafted, the PDD zoning has proposed heights in line with recent developments in the area and along Broadway, setbacks similar to existing conditions at neighboring properties, and below grade parking in excess of the underlying requirements. There are reasonable open space and lot coverage requirements for the area. In a broader context, just talking about the city zoning and kind of what a PDD is or maybe should be, this is intended to create a gradual transition between the C1 zoning district along Broadway into the general residential zoning district of the subject neighborhood. As I mentioned, while the property is located primarily in the GR, it abuts and is partially located in the C1. So the commercial district along Broadway is becoming typified by mixed use development, multifamily development and a continuation of commercial uses. So this site and the PDD fit within the broader transitioning of this area and of the city particularly in relation to the district's proximity to the GLX and Ball Square T stations. The proposed use tables and dimensional tables are relatively straightforward. They've been succinctly stated, they've been crafted and drafted along with reviews and edits by the city's legal counsel. We are happy to walk through any elements there, although I feel like they, for the most part, speak for themselves, but we're happy to walk through any elements of zoning, the map that's been proposed, or the underlying project that the board so requests.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Baranowski. Attorney Silverman, I'm not sure if you wanted to add any comments prior to the sitting.

[Silverstein]: No, Madam Chair, other than to just note that As you'll see, and as has been noted, there have been a couple minor changes to this ordinance since the last time you saw it, really just clarification amendments. And from our perspective, as with the last one, this has been an ordinance that has gone through a number of changes, been very cooperative, and I think it's ready to answer any questions you may have.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Attorney Silverstein. Are there any comments from the city staff? Amanda or Danielle, is there anything you want to add?

[Amanda Centrella]: If I may, I might just add that we obviously just saw another PDD application. This application is a couple of steps down the line. and, you know, this was described already, but in summary, at this stage, the board is responsible for reviewing the amendment as it's been drafted. And this should be, you know, before we move it to city council, it should be tidied up. If there are any kind of any pieces that, you know, the board has questions on or wants to make additions to, et cetera. And then whatever is approved here would be approved. Um if approved, um, would be, you know, recommended to City Council. And then at that point, they have their own deliberations and, you know, vote to on whether to adopt.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you for that. One of the clarifying questions that I actually have Amanda. I'm not sure if you're or turning Silverstein is in the board's position on further department review or, um, or comments from the attorney or anything like that. I'm not sure what it is outside of, if you've said this has been in, um, you know, an iterative process where, um, the board has come to agreement with the attorneys as well as the city. Exactly. What would the board be pulling out of this at this point? If there was any kind of, um, any kind of concerns, because again, this is not site plan review. So. What will we if is it out of whack with the zoning? What is it that we're looking at?

[Amanda Centrella]: I can take a stab at answering that. And Danielle or Jonathan, please feel free to either step in or correct me if I'm off base. But I think that our office feels pretty comfortable with what or very comfortable with what's been submitted to the board. As was the case with the previous application, this was a very collaborative experience. The draft went through several revisions with our office, Attorney Silverstein, and with the applicant. And so this is sort of what's emerged out of those conversations. I think that, you know, our office advises the board. But of course, at the end of the day, the board is its own entity and authority. And so if you all, you know, in reviewing found things where you were like, hmm, I don't know why this is here, or, oh, I don't love what's proposed for the dimensionals here, or these uses maybe I have concerns about. Those are things that you would all discuss tonight.

[Danielle Evans]: And if I may, to the chair, I'd also add that So while there might not be like particular findings that are before you, when, you know, staff was considering this, this development has been kind of like in the conversation, I think since before the zoning was even passed, I know that it went to, it was before the historical commission couple of years ago, maybe, or I can't keep track of time anymore, but it feels like a long time. And so, You know, we went through a comprehensive planning process and it's very apparent that our zoning districts and allowed uses dimensional standards are misaligned with the goals and vision that came out of the comprehensive planning process. But the neck before we can, you know, get what we want by updating the zoning, you know, like quarter by square by, you know, all around and across the city, we'd have to having more like individual studies and that's not like an instantaneous thing. So the planned development district is a tool that we can use when we find a use that aligns or a development that aligns with our comprehensive plan based on the use, the scale, the building types, the location, then This is a tool where we can make that project work now without variances or just having to say, okay, come back in five years when it's allowed. When in the present, we could start having some of the higher and better uses that we would have to wait for otherwise until we update the zoning for the entire city.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Daniel, for explaining that. And it just brings me back to the kind of things that I want to kind of look at here are not part of zoning. And so that's why I have to keep asking clarifying questions to make sure that I'm keeping myself on tap. Because at this point, it's like, it looks like it's well prepared with legal as well as with the city is to move forward recommended, but I'm just one board member. And so at this point, it's like, it's just, the things that I want to talk about are not, they're not, we're not there yet. So I just wanted to make sure that we were focusing on the right items going before. And saying that, I will ask if there's any other clarifying questions from the board.

[Evangelista]: Yeah, I have one if I may. Yes, Sally. Yes. So reading through the PDD zoning amendment word document, there's within the minimum parking, It says no required parking for commercial. I'm not really familiar with the streets. Is there street parking there? And will we put the strain on the street parking, especially that it's a residential, partially a residential area?

[Danielle Evans]: Can I ask a question? What would be the requirement under the current zoning for a commercial use there? Because I know that it's in proximity to transit, which has a bunch of reduced standards. I know that, I believe that the parking for at least the residential uses is compliant under the current zoning regulations, but I don't know if I've done the comparison for the commercial.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: If I may, this is Michael Brown for the applicant. I am just pulling up the parking requirements in our dimensional table. It looks like we've addressed the residential and the materials, but I do have the code immediately handy, so I will pull that up now. I believe based upon our location, because it is within the half mile, quarter mile, I believe we are exempt, but I do just want to double check that.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, Mike can confirm, but I do believe that there was an exemption for commercial and

[Evangelista]: So is there a street parking available in this area? Again, sorry, I'm not familiar with the streets.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: There is, to some extent, parking available on the street. I'm just trying to pull up the... Unfortunately, the files are slowing me down a bit. I believe we do have anticipated some drop-off in parking areas along Albion Street, but we don't expect significant car parking traffic to occur at the commercial use on the corner that's presently 104 Winchester.

[Danielle Evans]: I did find the provision that non-resident uses with 5,000 square feet or less of gross leaseable floor area are exempt from the minimum parking. So I did find that. I should have just turned the page to see that the asterisk there.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Yes, under 6.1.3.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: And if I if I may just just briefly I, you know, without trying to get into specifics of the underlying project it is it is anticipated that whatever the commercial uses, as identified, you know, by writer special permit and the use table we do anticipate that that's going to be ancillary. It's really going to be ancillary to a residential development. be more an accommodation or an accessory for the direct neighborhood. That's kind of a longer way of just saying we don't anticipate that this is going to be a commercial use that drives traffic inward but rather is an amenity for existing residents.

[Evangelista]: Thank you for the clarification.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. If there are no other board comments, I want to open it up for public comment. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature. message Amanda in the comments. 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. Amanda, can you please manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails or letters?

[Amanda Centrella]: It would be my pleasure. So I don't believe we've received any comments prior to the meeting. So I'm just going to check the email now just to make sure nothing new has come in. And as our chair stated, if there's anyone from the public who would like to provide comment, you can raise your hand. You can message in the chat and or wave on your screen if you're not sure how to do those things. I'll just take a look through. I see. OK. I see Jack's iPhone. Your hand is raised, so I'm going to unmute you. And if you could just state your name and address for the record before providing your comment.

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: Yes, thank you, Amanda. It's John Carroll from 35 Clayton Avenue. Like to first of all, thank you for your detailed response to my barrage of questions. After the last meeting, I appreciate that. I just want to clarify what I just heard around the traffic and where the commercial area isn't they don't anticipate it's going to be an issue. Does this have anything to do with the traffic impact study in the waiver that's been requested? Am I correct? And I thought I read that there was a waiver requested for not conducting a traffic impact study, or if that's what you call it, a traffic study for process.

[Amanda Centrella]: Through the chair? Yes, please, Amanda. So I believe When we get a little bit further into this PDD process, so past the zoning phase and into actually discourse about the PD special permit and the site plan review is where we would expect to see a traffic study, for example. So at this stage, we don't have that as part of the application.

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: Okay, so did I, I'm sorry, did I misunderstand the conversation then what these gentlemen were just speaking about? That has nothing to do with a traffic impact study or around, you know, that whole issue. Is that correct? What they were just referring to and in terms of not the commercial use and all of that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So yes and no. So at this stage, we're doing the actual zoning and that's what we're focusing on. But should this get recommended and moved on, then the community development board has the onus of making sure that the site, we would review that at the site plan review.

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: Okay, but there's not a prior exemption because it's not anticipated to have a certain number of commercial impact. Is that correct? There's not an automatic exemption from that happening because they don't anticipate a high impact commercial usage.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Attorney Silverstein, are you able to help us out with the language here as far as how 17 on the dimensional standards and requirements would play out later?

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: I apologize if I'm not being clear, but I'm kind of new to this process as well. So I think I'm hearing two different things, but I'm not sure.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, you're absolutely within rights and you have every right to have this question clarified. And what I was trying to get the attorney available to us to do is to better explain what it meant as captured here versus what we would be doing in the site plan review.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Madam Chair, if I may.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, please.

[L5KoM4khxVw_SPEAKER_03]: Michael Barone again for the applicant. As part of our initial preliminary submission for the PDD application we did submit a transportation impact and access study that's identified as item nine exhibit G in the folder available materials. But the issue for clarification purposes, the issue we were just discussing a little earlier dealt with the zoning codes required off street parking for commercial uses. So two slightly different yet related items, but we do have a transportation impact and access study available for review.

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate it. Very well.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you.

[aBgYkA4WX0I_SPEAKER_08]: So because this is strictly for zoning, I won't put the car before the horse and get into a lot of concerns that would come up, I guess, in phase three of the process. So I think I'm good right now.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much for your question.

[Amanda Centrella]: So I'm just taking a look to see if anyone else is raising their hand or has an interest in speaking to provide public comment. And I don't believe I see anyone, and I don't believe anyone has emailed. So I think no additional comment at this time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Amanda. So I'm going to close the public comment period at this time and ask the board for any final clarification questions prior to deliberation. Does the board want to delve into anything else regarding adjustments to the proposed use table, dimensional table outside of what has already been raised with parking? hearing no further comments or questions from the board, and based on the information that I have from the city as well as from both attorneys, I'm going to ask for a potential motion to recommend approval of the drafted PDD rezoning ordinance for 100 Winchester Street PDD to city council. Does anyone want to give a motion?

[Ari Fishman]: I so move. Second.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Okay, we will do oral call. Iris Ackman? Yes. Pam Marianski? Yes. Sally Akiki? Yes. And myself, Jackie, I'm a yes. Thank you, Attorney Baranski and Mr. Barone, Attorney Silverstein, and everyone else that has joined us. And we will see you again.

[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so the next item on the agenda is a petition from PDS the city council proposing zoning ordinance amendments. public hearing announcement?

[Amanda Centrella]: Madam chair? Yes. I apologize. I heard Ari make the motion, but I missed if someone seconded it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I thought I did hear two people second. I heard, I think I heard two people at once. I apologize. I think Sally made the motion and I believe Ari seconded it.

[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you. Sally made the motion, Ari seconded. Thank you very much.

[Unidentified]: Okay, sorry, that's the one document.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The method community development board shall conduct a public hearing on August 2 2023 after 630pm via zoom relative to a petition by city council, Vice President Isaac B. Zack Harris bears, Councilor Richard carrybo and Councilor kit columns to amend chapter 94 zoning of the revised ordinances. City of Medford, as outlined in papers 23 through 323 title proposed amendments to the Metro zoning ordinance for June, 2023 per June 6, 2023. The petition, the petition proposes corrections and clarifications for technical discrepancies. In addition to one amending the table of use and parking regulations for each motor vehicle related uses and I miscellaneous commercial uses. Two, amending language, regulating multiple principal structures on the lot. Three, amending language, allowing a second associate member for the board of appeals and four, eliminating the special permit requirement for inclusionary zone, inclusionary housing. I apologize. A link to the public hearing is to be posted on the city's website and it was posted related in July 18th.

[Unidentified]: Amanda, do you want to take it from here?

[Amanda Centrella]: Sure thing. I'm going to actually, excuse me, cede the floor to Danielle Evans, Senior Planner, to present.

[Unidentified]: Yes, thank you.

[Danielle Evans]: As you all know, and I think at least, I think only one of you, Jackie, I think you're the only one on the board that went through the recodification process. So there was the long zoning recodification that was passed in March, 2022. It was sort of a cleanup, take out some unlawful provisions, Um, you know, modernize it, add provisions that should be in there that aren't, um, but it didn't. Make too many major things. I mean, there is some low hanging fruit, like, um, the provisions for planned development districts, like as I was mentioning before, uh, you know, we are recognizing that our zoning doesn't match our visions and, you know, here's a quick fix because the next. Um, set of zoning changes will be, you know, sometime coming. Um, in addition, there were. provisions for accessory dwelling units, you know, short term rentals, just putting things in there that were, you know, as I was saying, like the low hanging fruit, but not the big stuff. Unfortunately, It was such a complicated process that I wasn't part of the rewriting. So I wasn't in all the meetings, but, you know, you change one thing and it had like a ripple effect. There was some unintended consequences that create some conflicts. So it makes it hard to, you know, implement the zoning and administer the zoning. For example, there's some conflicts and confusion around referrals. Therefore, there's different levels of special permits that have never, you know, needed a recommendation before the permitting, the special permit granting authority could vote on it, but there's language in there that says all special permits. So special permits for non-conforming like structures where you're just, you know, altering structure, which is, you know, the domain of the zoning board and very small, small potatoes things most of the time, technically those all need to come to the community development board now, but which is not, that doesn't make any sense. It's definitely an oversight and an error. So we just want to correct that to specify that which kinds of special permits go to the seating board for a recommendation. Cause as we know the, The city council is a special permit granting authority and they're not necessarily having like the background and expertise and planning and really benefit from review and a recommendation from your board. So there's lots of special permits that we definitely would want input on, but some of these like for zoning border just unnecessary. Also, there was some kind of quick fixes that we wanted to do to also comply with the 3A zoning. One of those is our inclusionary zoning provisions of our ordinance require a special permit to get your inclusionary housing, which makes no sense to me. I always thought that was weird. So one of the requirements of the 3A provisions is that multifamily be by right and only subject to site plan review. So if we have this provision in our inclusionary zoning, that's not in compliance. So right now we're having, going off topic a little bit, but an economic feasibility analysis, just so we can use our inclusionary zoning at all. Um, but we knew at least get out this, get rid of the special permit, you know, that doesn't comply. And while we have some of these quick fixes going before you, we might as well, uh, get that in there, uh, benign.

[Unidentified]: Um, let's see what else was there. Um, it's those updates.

[Danielle Evans]: Just little things like changing DHCD to EOHLC to acknowledge the new name. One of the things that happened when the zoning was recodified is, I'm guessing, I'm thinking this is what happens was the zoning was in, I mean, the definitions that were section specific were to be moved to the definition section. but that didn't happen. So they just got completely dropped. So we need to restore those, get them back in. So like all of the affordable housing definitions are not in the zoning linkage, not in the zoning, just there's lots of them. So we have to, I mean, that was a mistake. So we just need to get that in there and fix that. And One of the, so this was, you know, a collaborative process. Our office has been keeping like a laundry list of things that need to be changed. And one of the amendments was, you know, originated from city council and that was to change the table of use and parking regulations so that motor vehicle uses would be by special permit and not by right in some of the zoning districts. This adds a layer of, you know, being able to have discretionary review, um, you know, on a site by state site basis, um, for example, um, you know, the certain parts of the city that have been, um, identified in the comprehensive plan as. Um, proposed for, you know, different uses for, for housing, for, mixed use. And currently, you know, sections of like the Mystic Gap corridor are in the zone industrial. But you, so you have an industrial zone that's in several places throughout the city. So an industrial use or a motor vehicle use might be okay in an industrial zone somewhere else in the city, maybe not right on the main Mystic Gap corridor. It might be okay in a different part of that zoning district somewhere else. So we wanna be able to review projects at the more site-by-site basis to see if it's appropriate or detrimental and be able to apply the criteria for the issuance of a special permit, because there could be some real detriment to some uses that they end up in certain locations. So that is in participant that, And I did write a memo, I dropped it in today. I'm not sure if we can, I'd have to maybe check with legal counsel, but I would want to actually expand that, the amendments to the table of uses to, you know, in addition to motor vehicle uses there, there's some other, misaligned uses that we can, you know, refer to the comprehensive plan that would require like a little bit more analysis to pick those out. But for example, like warehouses, maybe the warehouse use should be by special permit and not by right, just so to have a, you know, so it's just not a straight building permit, you know, So not just motor vehicle uses, I think this could be a good opportunity to examine some of the other uses so that it's not straight by right. There's a lot of uses that are very benign that already require special permits.

[Unidentified]: You can just go through the table, like a convenience retail that needs like a special permit,

[Danielle Evans]: a car dealership doesn't, you know, it's just, it doesn't seem right.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Um, just kind of, and which one is that Danielle? I'm sorry that you're looking at right now.

[Danielle Evans]: I was just looking at the table of uses. So the first amendment in the list of, um, amendments is to amend the table of uses. And that was for the motor vehicle related uses. Um, to switch them from by right. So, a Y in the table to whichever is the SPGA. And I believe city council made themselves the SPGA. In those situations where it's a special permit for use, this would need a referral from the community development board and a recommendation.

[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle, since you were just mentioning that, I will comment that there's some question as to who should be the special permit granting authority, whether it should be the city council or the community development board. And the Councilors that I spoke to about preparing this were very amenable to the idea that it could be the community development board would be the permit granting authority rather than the city council. It makes it very political when it's the city council. but they thought that that might come better as a recommendation from the community development board, which I thought was interesting because it could seem like the city, the community development board was kind of doing a power grab, but they were basically feeling more like it would be helpful for the Councilors for whom this was not their idea to hear that It would be a would make sense for this Community Development Board to be the permit granting authority. And basically, if this board agreed with that they could make that as a recommendation back to the council, and then the council could think about it and discuss it. If we did not recommend it, it's unlikely they would change it. Hi, sorry. Obviously, this is Alicia hunt for people watching on TV sorry I wasn't on earlier. The director of planning and development is on a much needed vacation. Yeah, that's why my cameras off.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So Alicia, and for the newer board members, I remember you laid this out for us in a meeting on June 7 and pretty much one of the uses and being a special permit granting. I know that the city feels as though it's probably easier for it to go to the community development board. And I don't know the position of the rest of the board at this point, but if we can just, I guess for my own purposes, I was able to talk to Danielle and Amanda earlier. If you can just give a little bit more context of why you probably want to keep it with community development board as a special permit granting agency.

[Alicia Hunt]: So a lot of that has to do, there are a couple of reasons. One is when it's the city Councilors are all elected. And when they're the special granting authority. They are. very political in how things happen because they do have to be elected where a board is appointed. The Community Development Board is a board of people who understand planning and the aspects that go into planning and are more objective. In theory, they also understand the comprehensive plan. And one thing to think about is, yes, I am literally talking about you on the call tonight, but we're talking about ordinances. The last time ordinances were changed dramatically in Medford was 60 years ago. So we're not literally just talking about you. We are talking about who are the people, the kind of people that will be appointed to planning boards over the next 30 years. and who gets elected to city council, and sort of what their background is in their role, and they don't necessarily as city Councilors representing the community, understand the nuances of planning the interactions of different kinds of uses with each other because the old school planning, you actually separated all the uses. Today, you want more mixed use in order to have a more modern community. On the other hand, you don't necessarily want a car dealership or a car repair shop right next to where people are living. It's sort of like the old industrial. Today's industrial is way more modern and maybe you do want it mixed in, whereas you wouldn't have wanted an old shoe factory. I will say that part of the reason this is up and on the table now is because some of the city Councilors became aware and brought to my attention that there was a company that was going around trying to find places on mystic have or car dealerships and repair shops that were being priced out of Somerville and zoned out of Somerville. And there is a vision in our community development in our comprehensive plan that mystic have should be more mixed use should become walkable and more friendly. And while there are a lot of car repair places in dealerships there. That's not the vision of the future of mystic have, and they wanted to change the zoning on these items in that area immediately to put some control on it so that new businesses couldn't come in as of right while we were working on rezoning the entire area to more match our comprehensive plan. So they actually asked to rush these through. I'm not telling you you have to vote on these tonight. Danielle actually needs to do some more editing to bring things in line with what the legal advice, but that's why we're doing it this summer, and not waiting until we do a full rezoning of the whole city.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you for reading that I do know that there was a clarifying question that was asked because the way it was presented originally just for myself anyways and it sounds like maybe another board member. with the question was that it sounded like someone was trying to come in. So the way that you explained that, it's not that it was like, it sounded more like a political kind of thing where it's like, now you have these appointed members that are, um, are sort of, um, responsible for these, uh, permits case by case basis. And that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is that you want to make it that's well-formed so that we're able to get the highest and best uses for the space on Mystic Ave as opposed to. just having like a lot of parking lots and in automobiles and things like that. So I just want I just wanted to clarify that piece.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And perhaps it would be helpful for me to be very super specific. So there's actually a couple of things going on. And one is that there was somebody just trying to find new locations for these dealers coming out of Somerville. in general, and that was concerning. It is also true that Herb Chambers has bought the old Century Bank Eastern Bank location. And that actually might be a perfectly fine location for him to keep that beautiful big building there, keep everything there, add in a car dealership, there is a chance that he might move his headquarters there. And that might actually be an okay example of something because we're not just moving into another empty space we're not bringing in another one. It would in fact be his corporate headquarters at that location if he did that. But this changing this from as of right to special permit would mean that there could be some controls there could be a lot of talk about trees and stuff and how do we do it all, and making sure that the businesses that come in are correct. So I just do want to be upfront that we are aware that he, and in fact I met with him, he was looking at a couple of places in Medford, and I basically said we are not looking for two or three new car dealerships on Mystic Valley Parkway and Mystic Ave. You know, if you wanted to bring one into that Eastern Bank building, that might be something that would be a good you know he could be a good member of the community, but we are not looking for this to be the new auto mile.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, so this is like an interim step to hold over to the zoning revisions that you also mentioned it was the city was going to hire a consultant to do a redraft so that we can be better guided going forward. And I, and you said there was going to be maybe a chunk of these administrative kind of changes coming through and we should probably move. fast as possible, but what is the best way for them to be presented as Danielle's doing tonight? If we're not voting on them, are we just going over them and then we'll, I mean, I guess I should let Danielle finish talking.

[Danielle Evans]: It's just, they're not ready tonight, but I hope that I would have something for the next meeting. There was some language that, you know, to the form of some of it, that we have some questions on. We want to make sure that what is being recommended to city council has been, you know, has been reviewed by legal for forum and for content. We want to have the conversation now. And if there's anything like conceptually off that you don't like, like now's the time to mention that before we finalize the language to bring back in two weeks for a vote of whether to recommend it to city council.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. The, the process is that it went to city council, we sent it to legal for review and you have the lawyers comments in front of you. And it would be best. So this is technically the opening of the public hearing. Um, the city council also has to have a public hearing, which was advertised. It would be best if the version that was voted out of this body included all the recommendations from the lawyers. And we don't have the final drafted language for that. Right. Like, so if you look at that, you'll see that the. Some of them, the lawyer says this is appropriate as to form. And some of them, they said, here's what you need to change to make it legally correct. And we would prefer if when this board votes it to city council, you have all the legally correct stuff so that the council can see that the planning board is giving them not just the ideas, but the final language that they should vote on. And I apologize that we didn't have that for tonight we were hoping but we just had too many things to move forward to get that finished for tonight.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And I'm sorry I asked a lot of questions based on prior knowledge I don't know, Daniel if you were finished with your presentation or if you wanted to open it up to the board to ask questions.

[Danielle Evans]: So I guess I would be looking some at some direction. about what other uses would, ought to be special permits and not by right, as I think it would be good for this board to also put that forward with who should be the SPGA and which additional, uses should also be included as, you know, getting, you know, some extra review and, you know, vetting before, you know, they just get a building permit, you know, by right. So, as we were mentioning earlier this morning in our call, I think what I'm going to do is just look at a zoning map, identify which zones are in some of these quarter areas. And it's tricky because like Mystic Ave has multiple zoning districts. That's just one example.

[Unidentified]: I think it's, of course my GIS is not, Updating.

[Danielle Evans]: I just want to see what these zones are.

[Unidentified]: I have a paper map. Oh yeah, so we have like just a longnistic app we have. Let's see. There's the There's an industrial zone.

[Danielle Evans]: What is this dark blue? That's one of the, yeah, we had, there's a C2, there's apartment one, there's another little, you know, blotch of industrial zoned area. So it's one of those things where, you know, the industrial zone over maybe deep, into, you know, Riverside might be okay to have something, but maybe, you know, but not even there, like there's, you know, like the whole like Locust Street, Riverside, and Mystic Valley Parkway commercial is also an area that is envisioned to be so much more, and it's currently, you know, zoned, you know, industrial, and there's some C1, and it's just, it's a hodgepodge that the zoning districts don't align with really any natural boundaries.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Did you want us to do this as an exercise along with you or separate? I'm trying to figure out the best way to go through.

[Danielle Evans]: I guess just if I could get some direction that this is a concept that you would sign off on for me to do. Are there any particular uses? If you look at your table of uses, is there anything that jumps out at you that's like, this really shouldn't be a why, this should be a special permit? Some of it is a little subjective. I try to tie the planning decisions to planning documents as best as I can. the comprehensive plan has kind of like an overarching vision and goals that it sets for different areas, but almost all of the recommendations is like this area should be studied further to really get to the minutia of what the new zoning should be. And that's why it takes so long, but on a higher level, we know that we don't want Mystic Ave to be you know, auto body shops and we don't, you know, we don't want, you know, a new warehouse there or, you know, open air parking.

[Unidentified]: So there's this.

[Danielle Evans]: I'm still trying to like, I mean, I could take a stab at this for you guys to react to, but I guess I'm just looking for like any input that you might have that I should pay attention to.

[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, Pam talking. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you're asking, Danielle, just as somebody who's like new to this. So are you asking like in terms of like direction around what kind of uses we're looking at? Are we just looking, are we just talking about these motor vehicle uses or are you asking us to weigh in on like other uses apart from motor vehicle uses that we should be looking at?

[Danielle Evans]: Other uses, so I'm looking at what other uses beyond motor vehicle should also become special permits versus by right in some of these zoning districts. And okay.

[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: I'm just trying to get to like the page of the thing that has the tables with the uses.

[Danielle Evans]: So I'm like, I'm at very light. Yeah. So you'd have to go to the zoning ordinance, which has been updated, which is great.

[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle, maybe you want to change, share your screen, but I do want to just caution people. I agree. And I understand with what Daniel's trying to get at is, is there more than just these few that the council wanted to change? Should we throw a few more in there? But I will point out that all of their changes right now are C2. It's just Mystic Ave is what's on the table, what they've proposed to change. And they targeted the motor vehicle uses in particular. So maybe there's more than what we want to do, but I do caution you not to go so broad that it confuses everything and nothing gets passed because it's so much more than they intended to do in this pass. But it might be easier, Danielle, if you shared your screen to show it to everybody, because also the, if there are members of the public watching, which actually I realize you're not on TV tonight, is it? There's no, but this is being recorded to be shared later. Other people could not follow along. Yeah, and I'm gonna have to go soon. But I just wanted to see if there were any other questions on any of them. It is absolutely our goal to get this voted out at the next meeting. Danielle doesn't have enough time to get these changes made by them, then I'll make sure I take care of them. because we do want, the council is anxious to get these passed. And just so you're aware, the city council and I tried to hire consultant help with large scale zoning changes, and we did not get any applicants for that. And we are gonna be putting that out to bid again to hire a consultant to do basically an 18 month process. So right now changing the shapes of the map is not in question, it's just the uses. Changing the map is a much bigger issue that we could not possibly take on at this round of changes.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so basically it's just what yeses in the table should be flipped to a special permit and who should choose the SPJB. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, but like right here, can you see my cursor? Like here's Mystic Ave, like, yeah, so it is mostly like C2, but you just get off there a little bit. Then here's like industrial, like, should we care about those? Because here's an industrial zone here that is Locust Street, commercial. This was an area that was identified in the comp plan as, you know, it could be, you know, mixed-use denser, Um, you know, housing, jobs, things like that there. Um, and this also is going to be this at some point, uh, soon we'll be bringing a proposed overlay to comply with MBTA zoning in that overlay would be around the Wellington station. Um, so that would you know, make certain things by right. So like in the interim, it would be a shame if someone came in and put, you know, like in a warehouse down in one of these prime sites that, you know, could be housing. And we know that we're planning for this. So is there, should we, While they're focused on Mystic Ave and the C2s to keep Auto Body out, I should add that Herb Chambers was also looking on Mystic Parkway as well. So it's not just Mystic Ave. These main corridors are important.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So we respect to the timing of this as Alicia has already pointed out and making sure that it's not convoluted to get it pushed through city council. Assuming that all board members, including myself would have to be read. I would have to like just read the comprehensive plan again for the use table just to see what the vision is and what we want to put there for the future. I know you're well versed in what's what the city has for a vision Danielle so if you can maybe point out some high level things you mentioned earlier, something about a convenience store, it's a shame that they have to have a special permit, but something else didn't. So if you can give us some high level things that we can actually deliberate on, and not so much telling us exactly what we should be changing, but just give us a little bit more to like, just zoom in for the sake of time.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so like hopefully because this, we want it to be an expedited process. Hopefully we could get this through at the next meeting, but maybe it wouldn't be expertise communications or violation of meeting. If something pops into your head, just send me an email and then I'll incorporate it. And then once you get your meeting packet materials I'll make sure to prioritize getting this to you with an advance notice as possible so that you've seen it, digested it, and ready to say, yeah, this looks good. And you could also say that you don't wanna deal with this. You're the board. But I just thought it might be a good opportunity to just like slip a few more things in where I think are also important locations because I get emails every week from, you know, permit expediters asking about uses in certain areas. Thankfully, sometimes it's the wrong Medford and I have a little heart attack about, they wanted to, they're like, we want to put this warehouse distribution center over in, In Medford, I'm like, oh no. And then think, I was like, wrong Medford. But some of them, it's like, there's uses that are just, they look at the zoning, they're like, oh, this is a by right use, they must want this. They look at the zoning, they think, this is what we want. So that's the message that we're sending in the interim. So pump the brakes a little bit by making something a special permit. But I'll have something for you to review. It's just something for you guys to kind of like think about now. And if you have any ideas during, you know, looking at the zoning map and what uses are allowed there and where it is, knowing that we have, you know, certain zoning districts that aren't, you know, location specific, like there's multiple I zones, multiple C2 zones. we aren't outright prohibiting uses. Like I was saying, like, you know, say right here, like in the eye zone, right on Locust Street might not be a good use, might not be a good location for industrial use, but maybe it's fine tucked over here. So it just gives us the ability to make these, to make the call on a location basis rather than a floodgates are just open. And once the site is redeveloped for use, it's like that for a long time until you wait for it to turn over. So if they're buying property and developing it today, they're gonna keep it for a while.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: That's all I have. Thank you, Danielle. So it is a public meeting. So I wanna make sure that we got all of the board's questions. I still do have, I believe a couple of questions, but I guess I'll table them for when you said you're gonna sort of clean this up and, cause we can't really vote on it tonight, correct?

[Danielle Evans]: No, there's nothing to vote on tonight because you don't have a specific language that has to be updated for some of these amendments. It's just too short a turnaround to, make the changes that legal is asking. We have some questions to make sure we get the language correct. But basically it's just like the concept, the idea that just are we on it? Does everything seem to be on the right track of what is being proposed to city council? That sort of thing is this is like the discussion for like even kind of like that litmus test and

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, this seems reasonable to me.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, it definitely does. And I actually like that we have the lawyer's comments that can set us straight here. So it keeps us straight, actually. And had I known that you wanted us to do that exercise, I could have looked at the use, we could have all looked at the use table to get it done a little bit faster.

[Danielle Evans]: was something that popped into my head kind of like today, like, or maybe a couple of days, like, no, I really want to do more. It's like, should I, you know, take that on now? I'm like, yeah, I should.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: My interest is how to sort of see what the board is feeling about being the special grant authority for as presented for these changes? And I know that we don't have all members in attendance, but I guess that's one of my main questions.

[Ari Fishman]: I think that that is a big question that we should discuss as a larger group and in public. We are. Um, which I think to me means it should be for the next meeting.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It's definitely this is a public hearing now, just, uh, reiterate.

[Ari Fishman]: Yes, I know. Um. Yeah, I think my vote is that this is certainly an interesting avenue to pursue. I don't have kind of any objections to it at this moment, but I would like to have a bit more time to like go through and think about it and dive in. And I imagine that the other members of the committee, including those who aren't there today might appreciate that option as well. So next week or not next week, next meeting.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. I actually, um, I have no objections overall, but at the same time, I would definitely like to have a full board, um, and to be able to weigh in on that. Um, but at the same time, I do know that they have the option to view, um, the recordings, but in order to provide, um, feedback to the planning staff.

[Amanda Centrella]: If I may, Chair?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.

[Amanda Centrella]: So just a procedural note, because we opened the public hearing tonight, any other members who are not present tonight will have to watch this recording in order to participate. in the next meeting. So that's all just to say folks will have to see this if they want to participate. And maybe if others have thoughts about some of this, it could still be worthwhile to talk about it a bit tonight.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Definitely it's uh, thank you so much for reminding me of that. So based on the mullins statute, um any board member that's absent still gets its voting authority, but um, but at the same time they must attest to the fact that They have watched all statutory, um recordings or proceedings in order to participate so the absent members still get to participate but um I guess, who would, would the city actually give them that option to participate with tonight, or would they just know to do that, Amanda?

[Amanda Centrella]: So we'll follow up with Peter and Emily, and actually, we'll have another member joining us by next meeting named Sherrod to provide them with the recording and let them know that, you know, if they want to participate, participate and deliberate, they'll need to watch it and attest that they've seen it.

[Danielle Evans]: But in the case of Sherrod, is this a full member or is this a associate member?

[Amanda Centrella]: Good point. Full member, but you're right. They would not be able to participate because they're not yet sworn in.

[Danielle Evans]: So they can participate in the discussions, but they just can't vote. Just like Pam and Sally, you can participate and weigh in on each mark and just don't have a vote.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And have we, we've definitely confirmed that based on the Mullen statute, right? Because there was some nuances around the word absence. It says when a member is absent, they can still catch up and, you know, attest to the fact that they've read the statutorial proceedings, but absent meaning they would have had to have been an established board member at the time of, correct? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on that because It couldn't be read wrong, but even another Metro resident, my husband, he read it and said, no, no, no, that's not how it goes. So anyways, I was just trying to make sure that we got clarity on that. Okay, but because it is, we can continue to deliberate. Does any board members have any other questions before I open it up to the public? Okay, so I'm going to open public comment period. So those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature. If anyone's on or looking, message Amanda in the comments. I'm not sure that anyone's on for that. But Amanda, if 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. And in saying that, again, I don't believe we have any members of the public on, but Amanda, if you can, Um, see if there's any emails or letters that were sent out. Regarding this item.

[Amanda Centrella]: So there were no prior, no comments received prior to the meeting, and I just refreshed our inbox and there are no new comments, um, at this time. And also confirming that I'm not seeing any, um, folks in our, uh, live audience here, um, in the public currently. Um, so no comment at this time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Awesome. So procedurally, I will close the public comment period and board will go back to deliberation. And this is, uh, uh, another chance for us to discuss, um, the proposal, which, um, or hash out any questions since it's not really anything to vote on at this point. Um, if there's any adjustments or any concerns that the board may have, um, the proposed use of the use table or anything that you see that has been presented. Um, again, my, my. One of my only, cause I, I'm not, I'm a minimal to many things, but one of my questions is, um, have any other board members weigh in, but I guess they have to do their due diligence and catching up with tonight's public meeting to be able to participate in that.

[Unidentified]: I don't know if any other board members have anything to add. Oh, I'm going to stop the share. Sorry. We see each other.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay so this has to get out and because it's a public meeting it has to um I am going to say we should probably obviously continue this and it has to be a date certain correct? Yes. So August 16th will be the next meeting. So if I can have a motion to continue this topic actually not this topic but the petition from PDS and City Hall proposing zoning ordinance amendments to August 16th, 2023 Community Development Meeting.

[Unidentified]: Motion. And is there a second? Second. Yep. Second, Sally. Thank you, Sally. So for a roll call, Ari Goffman. I think you're muted, Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: My apologies. Ari Fishman now, but yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I apologize. I thought I changed it and I did it backwards. Sorry. No worries. My most sincere apologies. Again, Ari Fishman. Yes. Pam Marionski.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sally Akiki. Yes. And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm a yes. So we will continue with our next item, which Board elections. Again, in the absence of two members, I'm not sure that we are prepared for this. I don't know, Amanda, if you've received any interest for the clerk or the community preservation committee representative. I do know that Ari, you are concurrently holding over in CPA. I didn't know if we were restructuring or looking at that again.

[Ari Fishman]: We're going to see if we can convince any of the new people once they're voted on. But in the meantime, I want you to hold the post.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, hold the post. We have an empty clerk seat as it stands? Correct. Okay. Okay, so next item, approval of minutes. if I can actually have a motion to approve the minutes from 6-7-23. Actually, this is a question I have. I'm not sure, Pam and Sally, if you were in attendance or if you were even part of the board on 6-7. Amanda, are they able to vote on the minutes?

[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, this might be a Danielle question. Surprisingly, you can.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. You can vote on minutes for meetings that you were not at, because a vote on the minutes is just, we got them. Basically, that's all that matters. That's what it means is that that was the opinion that I got from them. several city solicitor, when I said I needed to abstain because I wasn't at that meeting. They're like, Nope, you can go. I'm like, really, but I don't even know what happened.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You're like, you're just you have them in your which they're voted into record, which is weird, because you can't vote statutorily on something that you can watch and pretty much be a part of by watching it, but you can vote. Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. It's meeting minutes. It's not a public hearing. I don't know. I thought it was weird, but I said, all right.

[Amanda Centrella]: And just to confirm, it's okay that Pam and Sally weren't actually on the board at this time in June. They weren't? Were not? They were not.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay.

[Amanda Centrella]: I didn't think so. And Danielle just confirming if it's okay for them to vote if they weren't on the board.

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, worst thing is that the vote is void and you need to wait next week or the next meeting.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, that was the question that I had. Not so much there, again, the nuance of the word absence, not so much that they were absent from the meeting, but that they were not even a part of the board at the time of the meeting? That's for public hearings. No, I mean, I was just meaning, can they still vote?

[Unidentified]: On the meeting minutes. Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: Meeting minutes are just like a very ministerial thing. Okay. Ideally, the minutes are accurate. We're accepting meeting minutes that are accurate. So members can rely on the other members who say that they are. It's very strange. It's very strange. I don't know why, but we could, can we pass it with two votes or should we just wait till next week?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, if you're absolutely sure that we can, we don't have to hold it over. I'm okay with vote, and I just thought maybe it's after we accepted it, and maybe Emily and Peter came back and said, oh, wait, that's not what it said. How do we rectify that? How do we go back? You could amend them, I guess. Oh, you could amend them. Okay. Well, then if there's a way forward, then I don't see what these are June minutes.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, I would, I would recommend if we and I think we're, I think we're okay to I would recommend voting tonight because there's like a so you have to record you have to vote on or approve minutes from like, I think you have three meetings basically to do that. So this would be the third meeting. So I think to kind of keep pace with that. If folks felt comfortable voting tonight, then I would recommend doing so.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. You could just vote to accept the minutes. That's what it is, accepting the minutes. We say approve, but it's just accepting.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So at this time, I'll ask for a motion to accept the minute means from 6-7-23. I so move. And a second. Second. Okay, we'll call Ari Fishman. Yes. Pam Marianski. Yes. Sally Akiki. Yes. And myself, Jackie McPherson, I'm a yes. So miscellaneous and other updates. Does the city have anything, Amanda or Daniel, do you have anything that you want to announce at this time or share?

[Amanda Centrella]: Sure. And I promise to be quick. So we will be having our next meeting on August 16th, third Wednesday of the month. And there are a couple of items on that agenda. You know, a couple of a couple of them already. So the zoning amendments will be a part of that meeting. The H Mart site plan review is planned for that night as well. And and notes here. And we're expecting that the special permit discourse on the Bank of America proposal at 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway will be that night as well. So just wanted to kind of give you guys a little teaser trailer of what to expect that evening. And other than that, we do have a new member who will be joining the board. His name, oh, I should have written it down. Give me one moment. It's Sharad. Sharad Bajracharya will be joining us. So we're excited to welcome him. And I think that's all I have. Danielle, anything else?

[Danielle Evans]: I think that's all I have right now.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I want to thank all of you for being patient with me on these PDDs because they're pretty much new to the city, and I can't get my head wrapped around the fact that we're still in the zone amendment, especially with all the legalese that's going behind it and with the absence of like a city solicitor that you can just reach out and be like, okay, what's going on and things like that. So you guys have done an amazing job at the city staff on just getting it to where it's at. So it's like, I'm just, I'm at that point myself as one board member, I'm ready to dive into the site plan. So this is, it's a little difficult. So it's even more difficult to like lead the board and what we're supposed to do. So to get to that point. So I appreciate all of your help on that again, because I felt like a fish out of water really with the PDDs again, being new at it.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And so I know I will work with all of you. So I appreciate that. And one other thing I wanted to ask, I wanted to make sure that I'm pronouncing names properly outside of getting Irie's last name proper. Pam Marianski. Am I saying it?

[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, it's super close. It's just like the name Maryam.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Maryanski. Maryanski? OK. That's how I say it. And then Sally, am I saying it proper? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. I just I don't know the last meeting I kept saying to myself like I should have asked but and so I asked. So I don't have anything.

[Danielle Evans]: We're getting your name wrong too. Has it changed?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, it's okay. Don't tell my husband that, even though he's close. I still answer to Furtado. That's who I've been for nearly 50 years. So I forget that I'm embarrassing myself at times. So that's all I have.

[Unidentified]: Do you want someone to make a motion?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, so if there's nothing else, does someone want to make a motion to adjourn?

[Unidentified]: Motion. Second. Again, no one wants to leave. I know.

[Danielle Evans]: I just want to stay all night.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman?

[Ari Fishman]: Enthusiastic, yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Pam Marianski? Yes. Sally Akiki. Yes. And Jackie McPherson. Yes. Thank you everyone and have a great night. See you on August 16th. Thank you everyone.

Paulette Van der Kloot total time: 30.54 minutes total words: 2606