total time: 1.67 minutes
total words: 111
total time: 1.95 minutes
total words: 193
[Amanda Centrella]: Great. And so I believe we have our full board for tonight.
[David Blumberg]: Great, let's go ahead and get started short agenda tonight. In with some of our obligatory announcements. First, pursuant to Chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board will be conducted via remote means. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. A reminder that materials for this meeting, and all of our meetings are available on the city's website. If you go to the website go under boards and commissions, click on community development board that's your quickest way to materials, click on current CD board filings to see what we're talking about in any given meeting. I guess we should do a roll call first and then we'll get to our first order of business. Jackie Furtado.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: Christy doubt here. Deanna Peabody. And I'm David Bloomberg, and we're pleased to welcome a new member of the board although I think he's just sort of watching and, and learning the ropes. This month but will be a full member next month and that's, that's George Fisher, George welcome aboard.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Welcome, George.
[David Blumberg]: It's great to add you to the team here. If you want to just say hello for as short or as long as you like, no pressure.
[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: Sure. My name is George Fisher. I'm working as a landscape architect and I've lived in Medford for 43 years now, three and a half years. And I'm pleased to call Medford my home and I'm excited to make it a great place to live with all of you guys and work together.
[David Blumberg]: That's great, great to have you on board and especially with your architecture background wonderful to add that to the team.
[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: Oh yeah, always happy to do more.
[David Blumberg]: Absolutely. All right, well, we only have a couple of matters on the agenda tonight. The first is an approval not required plan at 69 Horn Ave. And I understand we do have some folks here from that team who would like to present to the board this evening.
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[SPEAKER_01]: I can't get my picture up. This is Bob Ryan. I'm the executor and trustee of Joe McGurn's property. And part of his property is going to be going to charity. So I have to get all my ducks in a row to get the highest and best use of the property so that I can present that to the Attorney General's office, who actually is involved when charity becomes part of an estate. Chuck Andre has been helping me, he's a broker on the property. And we've enlisted Medford Engineering to do the survey. Because as you probably are aware, there are three parcels of land, one has a house on it currently, and two other parcels are undeveloped. But each of those parcels are slightly below the current zoning limit to build. So what we're trying to do is merge the properties together and divide them in half. so that the two lesser properties, the two properties that are slightly undersized become large enough to build on, and we can then sell the property either as one or two parcels.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, Mr. Ryan, not to cut you short there, I appreciate the intro. Can we get some visuals, whether you or someone on your team has some visuals?
[SPEAKER_01]: Your visual of me? You really don't want it, but I'm not sure how to do that.
[Amanda Centrella]: I'm happy to, I'm happy to throw up. I can throw, I can share the plan document. We can, let me take a look here.
[SPEAKER_02]: Amanda, there is, this is Chuckie Andrew from Remax in Medford Square. I can't tell who's on the air. I don't see Bob. Is Richard Mead on from Medford Engineering?
[Unidentified]: I don't see them yet. Okay.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I don't have the documents, I believe.
[SPEAKER_02]: The documents were, I submitted the documents to Amanda and you're going to put them up, right?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. Let me quickly do that. So here's the plan set that you guys provided us.
[Unidentified]: Well, it's certainly better than my picture. Bob, we're disappointed we can't see your face. Don't be.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, so if you don't mind, just sort of walk us through. We've got a couple of lots here, lot one and lot two. Do you want me to do it, Bob?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I don't have any slides. I haven't seen this.
[SPEAKER_02]: So the parcel on the right is an existing home at 69 Horn Ave, which Amanda's circling. The two lots to the left are both, Amanda, were they 2 hundreds or 3 600s? I forgot.
[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, I'd have to have to look.
[SPEAKER_02]: Right, there are two vacant lots, folks.
[SPEAKER_01]: If you look at this, the square there and the first lot with a house on it actually ends before the driveway. So if you took that square and divided it in three equal sections. That's the way the property is currently. And what we're trying to do is take the two lots to the left and leave the driveway with the house and the remaining part of the middle lot and the left-handed lot, merge them together for one lot. So we're making three lots, three equal lots into two equal lots.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: If I may, David, this is Jackie, vice chair. Before the proponent moves forward, Amanda or Alicia, if you can provide some background, I know on A&R generally, we must have enough frontage. That's what we're looking for. Cause it doesn't really necessarily require a formal review process by the planning board, but we have to make sure that there's proper frontage. Am I correct? And I'm unable to do that as presented. I just wanted to be a little bit more clear before the proponent continues.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, totally. So we're looking for at least 25 feet of frontage on a way, an acceptable way. In this case, I believe Horn Avenue is a public way. And if you take a look here, so it looks like this lot two, we have 71 feet of frontage. And then on lot one, we've got 64 feet of frontage. So the three things are, is it on a way? Is it the correct amount of frontage or meeting a minimum? And is vital access to the property possible as configured?
[Alicia Hunt]: And to be clear, you can't take a property that has a building on it and make it non-conforming. So they have to be two buildable lots and the existing property. So I didn't actually realize that the original was three lots. I assumed the way this was presented that this was one lot being subdivided into two because I didn't see original property lines drawn on this.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, there were three. three pieces of property that are all equal. And the house was built on the first one. So it's, I guess it's conforming as when it was built. And the other two pieces of property are 4770 each as far as square footage.
[David Blumberg]: All right, thank you, Amanda. I was hoping we could perhaps have it described in connection with these lots, because I think that maybe this will make the connection for all of us who are following along.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes. So please, Chuck, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that the three lots in question are this one here, which has the structure on it.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hold on. I have Metro Engineering calling in. Chuck, how are you? Okay, thank you. Method engineering is coming right on. For some reason, something got tied up. But Amanda, yes, where your pointer is, okay, that's the existing home. If you drop your pointer right up to the top there, that's it. And there are two vacant lots that have been vacant. in perpetuity to the right. So the idea is, as one of the board members said, I think it was the vice chair, obviously we wouldn't make the existing house non-conforming. So we would increase the square footage for the existing home and then have a 7,500 square foot lot with sufficient frontage and depth setbacks and sidelines on those two existing parcels. So we're basically looking to move the line over from the existing property at 69 and creating a buildable lot of 7,500 square feet in that area where Amanda's circling. And in that area, the minimum requirement for a lot is 5,000 square feet.
[David Blumberg]: Any other questions? Do you want Medford Engineering to speak to the board specifically? Mr. Chairman, he just called.
[SPEAKER_02]: He was in traffic, as everyone else was today. He just, I guess, is punching in. Amanda, do you see Richard Mean coming in from Medford Engineering?
[Amanda Centrella]: I'll let you guys know when they pop up.
[Alicia Hunt]: So does the board have other questions while we wait for them? I got a question from a member of the public that I would share, but the board should absolutely ask their questions first.
[David Blumberg]: Are there any other questions from the board? And that's kind of where I was going. I didn't want to shorten, change Medford engineering if they'd like to speak, but do we have any other questions at this point?
[Unidentified]: No.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. So Alicia, please, if we know that there's another question out there, please.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, it's one of the neighbors reached out to me and thought that there might be some wetland on the property, conservation area, and it is my understanding through zoning that that doesn't prevent the property from being subdivided. It doesn't prevent the A&R in any sense, but I thought it was a worthwhile question to raise because she thought that it might not actually be a buildable lot. um, after the subdivision, depending on if there is in fact wetland there in the space of it, is that, do you know anything about that or?
[SPEAKER_02]: Medford engineering could address that better than I, but my experience in that area and the folks that have looked at that have, have asked that question and there was no evidence of any wetlands whatsoever.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. All right. Great, thank you. And I'll convey that back to the resident. She knew that the property owner was a great environmentalist, and that he really treasured the open space there.
[SPEAKER_02]: And just so you know, I mean, the intent there is to build one single family, one nice single family house that would fit into that neighborhood.
[Unidentified]: Absent any other questions, do we have a motion?
[Amanda Centrella]: Do we make a motion for the approval not required?
[Alicia Hunt]: I do believe you have to vote on them. And in the end, you have to sign the Mylar.
[Jenny Graham]: I make a motion to approve the plan as is.
[David Blumberg]: Is there a second?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Before we move to the final vote, David, I just want to make sure, going back to what Alicia says, although the wetland will not preclude the approval for the ANR, if the lot is not buildable, will that have any kind of bearing going forward or are we able to just approve it as is?
[David Blumberg]: I think the way that at least the way I would think about it is there's a whole level I mean when, when the property owner is going to go to the city for approval to build their all of that stuff can be analyzed at that time this is really just a question of whether it is a subdivision that subject to subdivision control. So I think we have a very limited review here, and really it's just a confirmation of what is factually what it is.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: which it meets the minimum requirements of square footage. I will vote, I'll second the approval of the ANR.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent. And having a second now on the motion, we'll have a roll call vote. Jackie Furtado.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Christy Dell.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Deanna Peabody.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: And myself, I'm also a yes. Thank you very much to everyone who appeared on this matter. Appreciate it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, I appreciate your time.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you so much to the board. Just one question so I can answer to Mr. Ryan. Amanda, that will be the mile I will be signed and we can pick it up at City Hall.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, yeah, so I will circulate that around to the board members here to get all those signatures and keep you in the loop on when it's ready. And then yes, we would do the handoff.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you to the board members very much. Thank you again.
[SPEAKER_01]: Have a good evening.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, bye bye.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, friends, next item on the agenda is a set of minutes. We have three separate meeting minutes that need approval. We have January 13th of 2022, January 9th, I mean, June 9th of 2022, June 22nd of 2022. Any comments on one or more of these sets of minutes? I think I might have given him into like one, one typo kind of item to be updated but that was all I saw when I reviewed them.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't have any questions other. I mean I don't have any input, other than, are we able to approve them tonight and we have a quorum for the minutes because of fools. Andre LaRose not in attendance. And I just wanted to make sure that we had enough.
[Alicia Hunt]: So Jackie, technically you can vote on minutes, even if you weren't there. I feel that we, I find that board members often prefer not to, if they weren't there, if there's quorum, but with members leaving the board, then we end up needing to just have people who weren't there vote.
[Amanda Centrella]: okay so it's allowed it's just you know generally you might say well i don't know if they're okay but you can trust your your co-members if you want and i think luckily for us that um i mean so long as everyone is in agreement um we would have quorum with four folks out of the seven um to to vote tonight
[Jenny Graham]: So I just have a question. When I was reading the minutes for the RISE development, one of my big focuses was on making sure that there is some teeth in the agreement for them to negotiate with future tenants for the vocational school and having those basically workforce development and training opportunities. But reading back to the minutes, I didn't see that we actually made that as a condition. It was more about the community use of the commercial space on the ground floor, unless I missed that. So I don't, you know, if we didn't, we didn't, but I guess it doesn't really have anything to do with the minutes, but maybe that's something we can circle back and you can remind me how they're actually being held to that condition, or if we, what's happening with that development. Anyway, reading the minutes again just reminded me of that.
[David Blumberg]: Amanda, do you want to respond to that first? I certainly concur with Christie's observation. It didn't occur to me when I read the minutes, so I can't off the top of my head remember whether there's a bullet point in there for that point or not, but I think it's an excellent point she's raising. And I would think that it would have been included
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, I'm just looking for the copy of the recommendation to the ZBA to take a look. know, I'm not sure we in the condition that's included is more so about the programming space. So it's that the programming space be available to the public and for scheduling and hosting community groups at reasonable hours and frequency.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, that's all I saw, too. Yeah. And I know they submitted a letter before we voted to recommend approval between like the vocational school and everything but I don't know if I guess this is a topic maybe for another time but that are that a pretty important aspect of that development so it'd be nice to know how the city can have some teeth in that.
[David Blumberg]: Are there other comments? If that's the only one, maybe we want to hold the minutes for, I presume those are the two June meetings, Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: I think it's the later June 22nd is when we discussed conditions.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. My recollection was the conditions were in both of them. It was sort of like prepped up in the first one and then perhaps definitively approved or recommended in the second one.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, yeah, let me see.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I don't think we made a condition about that. It must have flipped through, I think.
[Unidentified]: I don't remember that being a condition.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, yeah, I do see some condition language in the six, nine minutes as well. So maybe we hold on both of those.
[David Blumberg]: Yeah, so if it's okay with the rest of the board, perhaps we can just table the June, the two meeting minutes from June and entertain a motion on the January minutes for approval. Would anyone be so daring?
[Unidentified]: Sounds good.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, sounds like a motion to approve the January minutes from Deanna. Is there a second?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll second. This is Jackie.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent. Let's have roll call vote then to approve the minutes, board minutes from January 13, 2022. Kristy Dowd.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Deanna Peabody.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Jackie Furtado.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm a yes as well. And we can put the other ones off until our next meeting Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sounds good.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, that sounds great. Amanda you have some updates for us no pressure but this could be the quickest meeting in the history of board. Okay, I'll keep it to a clip. Okay, so give it the give it the time it deserves. I'm only kidding.
[Amanda Centrella]: Gotcha. We've received two site plan review applications from Tufts University for student housing. They're two separate applications, but they're both kind of called co-housing or co-ho, and they both fall under the Dover Amendment. So the standards for review are going to be a little bit different than a typical site plan review, and the performance standards won't apply. So we're going to provide some more information to the board as we get closer about, you know, what is expected, but generally speaking it's it's not unfamiliar territory for you guys and it's actually a little less stringent in some ways than a traditional site plan review.
[David Blumberg]: Interesting note and I know Amanda will share the ordinance the updated ordinance with us when she distributes the materials but there's a separate little section on on Dover amendment. And, you know, whereas our regular site plan review is pretty detailed this one very very short so, but want to consult that before we ever made.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: To be clear, Dover Amendment covers the use of educational, educational uses, correct? Just like I know there's one for specifically for religious uses, like we need a lot. So yes, it's the same thing.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. So religious institutions and educational institutions fall under the Dover Amendment.
[David Blumberg]: Yes.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, so my question about this to the folks here is, we want to think a little bit about scheduling. One of the, so the week of October 10th is when we're able to start having a meeting about this. because that's after there's like an obligatory 35 day period. So for that week, I spoke with the project applicant and they said that only October 12th works, which gosh, I have to remember what day of the week that is, which I think is a Wednesday. And I know Jackie, that that is not so great for you. It is a Wednesday. Thank you. So I guess I wanted to see what other members availability was for that day. And then also look at a couple of days the following week to offer up to the applicant.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Amanda, I'm usually not available on Wednesdays. It's a little bit difficult for me going into, based on what my other commitments are, but I can probably try to move things around for that date, because it'll be easier for me to have October 12th to look at, as opposed to everything else, because this is the Baker-Polito administration's last year, and they are going, we're about to do the one-stop announcements soon, and they're trying to pack it all in in October, November. December, so I don't know when I'll be available.
[Amanda Centrella]: So I will try to shoot for October 12th if need be. Okay. Thank you, Jackie. What about others? Sorry, I heard Deanna, yes. David, yes. Christy, yes. Yes. George, what about you?
[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: October 12th works.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, great. And then I'll reach out to class and Emily as well. but potentially five folks here that might be able to make it work. So that's a good start. Okay, thank you all. Moving on. We are also likely expecting a site plan review application from the Medford Housing Authority for 121 Riverside, which is their salt install building. They're gonna be rehabbing mostly like the interior of the building. So it will remain the same footprint, but they'll kind of reutilize the space. So they're increasing the units count from about 200 to maybe 220 or so for senior and disability housing. And they are considering requesting a waiver for the traffic study. They've started having some conversations with the city and in particular Todd Blake about that. They'll submit a memo to him, and we're wondering if there would be maybe an opportunity for you all to review, because it is within the board's authority if they so choose to authorize a waiver on certain application materials. I was thinking that the next October meeting, perhaps that October 12th could be a good opportunity for that. You could hear a little bit about the project and also in theory have this memo in hand and Todd Blake's input, who's the director of traffic and transportation and kind of use that to discuss whether you feel it's appropriate. Does that sound reasonable to the board? Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: That sounds good.
[Amanda Centrella]: Great, okay. Good, and then just a couple more updates. So 100 Winchester Street, it's a 64 unit residential development, and they held a neighborhood meeting on August 29th. They are planning to submit what will probably be the first planned development district application in late September or early October. So just something that's on the horizon that I wanted to flag for you guys. Um, and we've been working in the office and also with some input from David, um, on developing, uh, plan development district approval process and outline. Um, so we'll share that with, uh, the board as a reference as we, um, kind of tighten that up and get closer to that process. And then lastly, Combined Properties is holding two neighborhood meetings next week to introduce their master plan proposal for an eight and a half acre project on Mystic Ave. So it's 278 to 326 Mystic Ave. So big space, big project. So they're having one in person. It's like an open house style on Monday, September 12th at 6 p.m. at 278 Mystic Ave, so Bank of America building. And then they're having another one over Zoom on Wednesday, September 14th at 5 p.m. And I'll send these to you guys over email as well. There's no obligation to attend, but in case there's any interest or curiosity, just wanted to let you guys know. And that's all I've got.
[David Blumberg]: Sure, Amanda. Those sound like things that won't be in October those will be later. Yes, for us.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, that sound that way. Okay, little of interest to the board things, please. One is that the city is reviewing and doing outreach on our waste services, trash, recycling, compost, et cetera. Our waste contract is up for renewal. And right now there is a survey out and it is available for, there's a residential survey, there's a business owner survey, and the residential survey is available in Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian, Creole, and Arabic, and I just put a link in the chat to the press release that has links to all of those. I encourage everybody to fill out the survey, tell us what you think about weight services, what you want, what you don't want, what do you want to see changed, this is the time to change it. And it's just helpful. We are putting that out there for businesses as well. I don't know if you wanna flip through it, because when you guys as a board look at things, you're thinking about businesses, but it's really thinking about small businesses. I mean, we're not gonna suddenly provide waste services to massive life science buildings, right? But we do provide them to a lot of our little businesses. So anyhow, I just want to let make sure you all are aware we're doing that as residents tell your friends please. The other is that as Amanda kind of jogged in my head. I might as well put on your calendars, October 15 is the harvester energy festival. It's an annual event that my office runs that the wind turbine it's noon to three, we have music. Well, it looks like we're gonna have chapters coffee, so we'll have food. That's the hardest thing to get, but there's all kinds of like exhibitors we're gonna have. I just saw that the electrical shop at the vocational school is gonna have a table. We have businesses that we work with around composting and energy aggregation and solar companies and banks show up and basically all kinds. If you know anybody you think who should be exhibiting at it, let us know. not a volunteer, a person who, sorry, it's hard to call an adult who is a resident who I'm paying to do work an intern. So she used to be a volunteer and we hired her to organize the festival this year because my intern quit in the middle of the summer and I needed somebody who could jump in in the middle of the summer. Um, so, but anyhow, just want to make sure you guys were all aware of the festival. It's a great time. Come out. Oh, and we'll have music. Did I say that you did?
[David Blumberg]: It's always worth saying twice.
[Alicia Hunt]: Matt Heaton and the, um, plays children's music. And then we have a like folksy bluegrass group called trail mix that is played. I'm going to say the last eight years. And they actually reached out to us and they're like, Hey, is the festival on, can we come play? So we'll have them again.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: Any other items, Amanda, you got everything off your agenda there.
[Alicia Hunt]: I did.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Other board members any other notes to share. Everyone looking good. Okay, excellent.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is there, you know what I feel like I should tell you this because you might, if anybody pays attention to it going on the city council agenda for this Tuesday is to create a position that doesn't exist in the city, a senior planner that would work in our office, and actually with Amanda's. uh approval that position would um support the community development board and would support the development work in the city um and so that would free up amanda to do more of the work in our office that uh the parks work in the composting and the environmental work that she's been working on so we're going to post that we're gonna um We're asking the City Council because that job doesn't actually exist, but we have a job opening that we haven't filled all year, the staff planner position. Some of you may remember that we've been looking for a staff planner, so we're going to replace the staff planner with a senior planner instead, and we took down the staff planner when we decided to go to Council for a senior planner position. in the office. And I just wanted to give you guys a heads up, because then we will very quickly post that position. And you may, if you looked at it, you'd say, Oh, my God, that sounds like what Amanda does with us. Yes, she knows that. And it would be working with this board. Right.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Well, we certainly appreciate Amanda working with us.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're also going to be posting a housing planner position and a full-time community preservation coordinator position. Those have both been part-time positions in our office and we're making them both full-time. That should happen in the next two weeks.
[David Blumberg]: That's good to know. Motion to adjourn.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll give a motion to adjourn, David.
[David Blumberg]: And second.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Mr. Christie, I'll second.
[David Blumberg]: OK, roll call to adjourn. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Jackie Furtado.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Deanna Peabody.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: And me, I am also a yes. George, we'll call you out next meeting. Great. I'm ready. Yeah, we're looking forward to it. So again, welcome aboard. It's great to see you. That's it, Amanda. That's all we have.
[Amanda Centrella]: All right. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night.
|
total time: 1.67 minutes total words: 111 |
total time: 1.95 minutes total words: 193 |
||